Nope, cannot find it, maybe I'm imagining things.
But did re-listen to the whole "power/frequency" talk. And it seems like Cerny is very direct about where the boost comes from: do not use AVX on CPU and you will be fine.
Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Nope, cannot find it, maybe I'm imagining things.
But did re-listen to the whole "power/frequency" talk. And it seems like Cerny is very direct about where the boost comes from: do not use AVX on CPU and you will be fine.
He never said that.
A normal TDP would need margins for AVX every cycle, which they don't need because of the statistical occurence of AVX. That doesn't mean using AVX is a problem.
Last edited:
It is worse than a 3700 for sure, i would assume more like a 1700/2600 like perf.
Assume that's because of the low clocks? Also, do you have any idea's if for the PS5, when its running at the max clock of 3.5ghz, if that is with or without SMT?
I belive Alex (Dictator) gave that information.
I wonder if SMT might also cause this when tuned and running full tilt.
Microsoft drop clocks with SMT enabled so must be possible to push it quite hard, especially with the level of control and single target optimisation console developers undertake.
Is till have no idea why people are so fixated on CPU performance.
Current gen it was too slow to run the branchy game code, I can understand that.
But these CPUs seem pretty fine for that task.
I believe DF indicated priorities for how the system will move power accordingly. That means developers can for example bias towards GPU or cpu, or balanced. Cerny indicated it would be deterministic so that the performance would be the same across all PlayStations regardless of their environments and heat etc.
The new CPUs are only rated as 4x more powerful. You lose half that moving to 60fps. Now you only have 2x left for game code and other things.
It’s what I’m waiting for. we have data on how high clocks on silicon give back diminishing returns on additional performance. The GPU is clocked very high. So leads me to believe it needs more power.
anexanhume
Veteran
Why do you say that? The clocks are pretty much the same as a base 3700. Less L3?
With the audio section being equivalent power of the entire cpu, and the decompression engine bigger than that, there's a big improvement in what remains available, and at least 3 times the effective cpu power than just the zen cores. We have also some geometry processing possibly moved entirely to the gpu which wasn't always the case this gen.
I don't know... I'm really happy so far.
I'm not sure that pushing pre-built command buffers around should be that compute intensive. Why?
I’m still deciding if I should get a PS5 coupled with upgrading my PC. It’s just a lot of decisions to be made
Not really, 3700x clocks 4400mhz boost, and systains 3600mhz on all of it's cores, that and maybe L3 cache too.
It depends, he means that the higher the FPS, the more the CPU is going to have to work. 60fps stresses CPU's quite alot more then 30.
Because feeding commands to the GPU should be a non issue this generation. I’m not concerned about draw calls. I want to see new game design paradigms happen not more of the same that we have this gen
Cool. Waiting for that too.
But so far it was pretty disappointing.
CPUs need to go from game development.
anexanhume
Veteran
That's my point. The all-core clock is competitive with 3700.
The boost clock to 4400mhz can't be discarded. The 3.8Ghz comes closer though.
He's arguing that the 3500 on the PS5 is boost so should be compared to 4400, I think.
anexanhume
Veteran
Any game worth its salt is going to spread its workload across at least four cores, so I don't see a ton of value in comparing to single-core boost speeds.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 7537
- Games Industry
- Sticky