The only reason to argue about the clocks is just console warring. I think we're probably looking at single digit changes in the worst case, and other than curiosity about how it works I don't think it'll matter.
Playstation 5 [PS5] [Release November 12 2020]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
The only reason to argue about the clocks is just console warring. I think we're probably looking at single digit changes in the worst case, and other than curiosity about how it works I don't think it'll matter.
If PS5 performs like how the RDNA 1 cards perform it blows a hole in Cerny's theory of higher clocks...
One thing I don't really get is you want the cpu and the gpu to run at 100% when they're working. You want full utilization for better performance or better graphics. In the mobile world you also want to do your work at 100% so the cpu, gpu can race to a lower power state. I'll have to read through what Cerny said in detail again later, but I'd like to see more of his thoughts on low power programming, because it sounds at odds with what is typically the ideal, which is push the cpu to 100% for as short a time as possible to race to sleep.
AbsoluteBeginner
Regular
So basically :
XSX - capped by frequency. Everything will run at max frequency, less power intensive activities will will use much less power, while power intense activities will use more power.
PS5 - capped by power. Everything within power budget, meaning activities not breaking TDP barrier, will run at 2.2GHz. Once power intense acitivities are ran on GPU, in case it breaks TDP, chip downclocks.
Not sure where the limit is for PS5, we wont know until we see games, and even then we might not know the difference between 3-5%.
XSX - capped by frequency. Everything will run at max frequency, less power intensive activities will will use much less power, while power intense activities will use more power.
PS5 - capped by power. Everything within power budget, meaning activities not breaking TDP barrier, will run at 2.2GHz. Once power intense acitivities are ran on GPU, in case it breaks TDP, chip downclocks.
Not sure where the limit is for PS5, we wont know until we see games, and even then we might not know the difference between 3-5%.
I can see why some games would want higher clocks over higher CU count some of the time, maybe it doesn't do enough to fill out more CUs but can use the extra performance that clocks give. I mean if a dev wants to run a very graphically simple game at 120FPS, they might be able to max out CPU and GPU frequency without maxing out on load. I guess it's nice to have the option but I don't see it being the normal. 10% drop in frequency for a 27% drop in power is very significant. If the base power consumption is 180W at 2ghz, that means at 2.23, it would be almost 250W.
ehhh =p
Perhaps it's just me, but this sounds like selling the idea that dreams come true.
Do more operations per cycle using less power - somehow. I mean these exists, hence why we have computer science as a field; but these don't come nearly fast enough.
There is a trade-off for operations per cycle and how quick your cycles are.
Correct me if wrong but:
Reading this sounds to actually encourage less multi-core usage if you write it in this way. Because to keep clocks up, the other cores need to give away their power to fewer cores to keep the clock rate up.
Last edited:
If they listed such a number, forum warriors would be running around say, "PS5 is only x GHz with rare boosts to higher!!!11!" It's not a number that neds to be understood to understand the PS5 architecture and how it uses power. It's about utilisation.
I understand where you're coming from, but it's a perspective skewed by historical representation, and trying to avoid that simplification as Cerny is doing isn't lying. It's about workload, not clocks. If the devs find the workload is being impeded because the GPU isn't clocking as high as it can, then we have a problem, but that'll only manifest in real workloads. At this point, Cerny can only talk about the design and the intentions and the expectations.
We really do need to move on from numbers. Pixel counting framebuffers is misleading because games are made of lots of buffers of different resolutions. Flops don't tell you utilisation. Clocks don't tell you efficiency of work per clock. Bandwidths don't tell you how well the data is getting to the processor's L1 caches. Proper technical discussion should move on from wanting to fill in consumer facing specs sheets. That should be obvious actually since PS2's era. All those specs were meaningless in understanding what's on the screen and how machines compare.
I blinked and now I'm at the circus.
anexanhume
Veteran
I don’t see how that ends well for them. It will get latched onto as the “real clock.” That, or he’ll say a realistic number and a case will come out to disprove it and he’ll get labeled as dishonest.
Yup. Their best division over the past years, by far, was EU and ran by Ryan. Now he's in charge of everything, replaced a ton of marketing staff, and it's like they forgot how communication and marketing works.
It's because with portable and productivity devices (or IoT), the dominant power is the quiescent current (the amount of power when everything is powered but idling) and the power management have extremely low idling modes to counter this, so it does something for a few ms, then it shuts down almost completely for a second until the user clicks something, or an email is received, etc.... Also with low power devices there isn't as much of an exponential relationship with clocks.
With the high power used here, any reduction of quiescent current is dwarfed by the exponential (cubic!) power at the top of the frequency curve. And there isn't much opportunities to power down, if any.
So if you have a task for the frame which is using the max clock at 3.5, filled with AVX256 instructions, but it finishes within 80% of the time allowed before the next frame, you end up wasting a massive amount of power compared to running it at 3.0 for the 100% time allowed. There is zero difference in cpu performance between the two, but the former is consuming a LOT more energy, since power use is cubic, while the time slice is linear versus frequency.
So that means an additional chunk of watts "for free" which the GPU might have used at that particular point in the pipeline. Hence "squeezing every last drop". It's minimizing the possibilities of the GPU clocking down from 2.23, but the CPU would normally stay at the same effective performance as if it was always locked at 3.5. The power hungry device here is much more the GPU than the CPU, if there's any drop of frequency, it's the GPU that provides the most gain. It's just logical the CPU never drops unless it can do so for free.
The required real time profiling is no different from trying to predict a resolution downscale or LoD to keep the frame rate consistent, but it's doing the reverse. Estimate if the operation will finish much earlier than the next frame cycle, and lower the clock proportionately, with some safety margin?
Last edited:
From a marketing perspective, yea it doesn't. It's okay he doesn't mention it.
anexanhume
Veteran
It ultimately doesn’t matter if we understand. It’s important the developers do. The games will drive consumer sentiment and adoption.
And why should he? Has any system architect every in the history of computing laid out all the worst cases for their system in regard contention, seek times, cache misses, controller occupancy, etc? When was the last time nVidia said, "are GPUs can do this much work, but realistically you only get 40% of that give or take"? When was the last time a DRAM manufacturer selling PC DDR modules to the consumer said, "we can do this much bandwidth, but given CPU random accesses you'll be lucky to get half that"?
Every spec is the paper-level maths describing the best possible outcome which is never, ever achieved. You then have devs try to get higher utilisation from the systems and get as close to that theoretical 100% maximum as possible. That's the way it's always been; why should this time be any different?
I can agree with that but that discussion is non-technical and held here.
Riddlewire
Regular
Looking forward to future DF video...
"Kill-A-Watt Shootout! All Consoles tested. Does PS5 take the crown?"
"Kill-A-Watt Shootout! All Consoles tested. Does PS5 take the crown?"
Every chip announces both its base and boost clock. CPUs and GPUs.
That's all i'm saying. I get why he didn't announce it, I'm not going to harp on this anymore because I see it as a marketing bit.
You don't want to be in a position where teh competition announces a number in which its worst and bast case scenario is the same number
And your best and worst case scenarios are both much lower and lower than it.
I get that. You're right it's about the games. I don't think any of this has any effect on whether people will buy a playstation either. I'm starting to lean towards getting one myself as I eye PC parts here, as well as my move back to m+kb. But the purchase is coming down to the games.
I just think from a technical point of view, I think as much as he tries to reassure us that the clock is generally not going to be all that variable, I think there are clearly cases where it can be heavily variable. Which is normal, but could result in some challenges for developers to handle hitching etc.
Developers are more likely to build tolerances in their code than they are to optimize for power. And by tolerances, they would look to build code that would not drop the clock speeds on either.
I agree, and completely understand why they would be hesitant to share that number. I think it would be less of an "issue" were it relatively higher vs the competition rather than lower. And I also appreciate where you're coming from in terms of utilization. However, historically, all those theoretical measures you've been describing as not important have an excellent track record of predicting relative performance. Any developer optimization to improve utilization usually benefits all platforms fairly equally. So similar percentages of relative wholes are valid comparisons. And all the "secret sauce" type features, have historically not proven to be particularly influential in real life performance comparisons.
Things like resolution and frame-rate differences are a direct result of those performance capabilities. And 3rd party software shipping across all platforms has been the most visible byproduct, as I'm sure it will be again. But from a purely technical point of view, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what sort of physical constraints they encountered with their solution and how that's manifested in the design. It's like telling a car guy, this is a really fast car, but it's not important for you to understand the nuts and bolt of how it achieves that speed or what it's limits are.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 7537
- Games Industry
- Sticky