If the difference between 1.7GHZ and 2.1GHZ is an extra 5fps
No idea, but that would be a rather large gap, it probably hovers around 2Ghz when things get crunchy in there, 1.7ghz seems too low.
Come to think of it he can't tell you an exact number, because this number actually depends on the workload.
What strikes me as strange is that he/they never tested actual workloads on that machine? They must have gotten some tests done on what an ideal or non-ideal situation is for the boosts?
Anyway, at the very least it's probably clear that we won't hear our PS5s run like jet engines unless we clog the vents up or put the machine in an oven.
Depends on the console/cooling design, which we haven't seen yet. Sony seem to have invested more in the cooling this time (forced or not), so things should be better.
I mean if a dev wants to run a very graphically simple game at 120FPS
You most likely want higher CPU clocks then, the XSX's 3.8ghz mode seems perfect for something like that.
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 understand what you mean, but during that era we had totally different hardware (PS2/GC/XB), now they are basically the same, one narrow, one wide. But the architecture is the same for the most.
They could, probably using the same tech (smartshift), but then they couldnt say 'we gurantee consistent performance' in their unveil video with DF. They could have boasted with something like 13.5TF in ideal situations, but i think their performance lead was enough.
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.
That's the thing, we have no idea what games to expect. The PS2 gave me the best console library ever, expected the next PS to equal atleast that, then the PS3 happened. PS4 did better then PS3. Now we have to see with PS5, but exclusivity is not as much a thing as say the PS2 era. More and more land on PC too. I would wait and see what happens this holiday. That's generally the best thing, wait and see what happens
Remember how MS specified fixed clocks a day or 2 before sony mentioned variable clocks?
They where sure aware of Sony having variable clocks, and knew they had the advantage there, and used it as PR. In the same vein they boasted about VRS.
Benchmarks of games reveal that there is no game that uses 100% of CPU and GPU at the same time
I don't think the downclock can only happen when both are maxed though, a GPU, in special at such high clocks, draws much and much more then the CPU. At non-ideal workloads (describes it best i think?), the CPU might be downclocked to give the GPU more power to maintain the max performance target of 2.23ghz.
