If the resource is accessible at a very low latency, this could be potentially useful. Generally the CPU cores have promised the lowest latency, with even Jaguar being cited as potentially going below 1ms in Sony's audio presentation.
The comparison was between RDNA2 CU and a PS4-era Sea Islands GCN CU. GCN had steady growth in features every generation even before the bump to RDNA, and RDNA2 presumably grows the footprint of RDNA.
I'm sure someone knows the cost of the RT hardware, but nothing is public.
There's been a few additions which were about preserving cache or micro-managing cache, back wih PS4 and the volatile flag, and now with the SSD loading, they talked about doing a precise cache scrubbing. Would there be an advantage with an SPU-like access which would help avoid trashing the cache? With 20GB/s I was thinking it might be useful to completely bypass the caches if it's probably a read once, write once sort of data. Or at least some control from that perspective.
I'm pretty sure almost every Microsoft Games Studio game released since KB/Mouse support was added has some sort of support. Not sure about Ori 2 or Crackdown 2. I'm actually very surprised that there seams to be no support for mice using the adaptive controller. You could easily build a keyboard using a fight stick encoder and some cherry switches, but mouse support is the real thing holding back console games, if you are going for PC style inputs.
Really? Assuming I understand it correctly, it would seem to make sense to let devs specify whether they’d like more CPU or more GPU within the console’s power budget, and it would allow for (slightly?) higher clocks than clocking to the lowest common denominator (max CPU + GPU usage). It sounds like a valid design philosophy (that maybe they’ve had to emphasize more than it’s worth just because there’s not much else to differentiate the two consoles), though it’s undermined a bit by XSX’s CPU’s min speed being higher than PS5’s max. Hard to say if it’s better or worse from a manufacturing cost POV. I’d say initial price and the first price drop will determine who got it right, but if Sony lead sales again, they might just hold price steady again (barring COVID19 reactions).
The PS4, at launch, had 50% more GPU than the Xb1. The XSX will have ballpark 30% more GPU than PS5.
Sony was killing two birds with one stone: PSVR and 4k. I would have liked more power, but I can see what they were going for, and it may have been for the best that they didn’t have to cool anything more powerful. Hopefully PS5 is much quieter.
Do we know this for sure? It seems like it would defeat the purpose of disabling a CU for yields, or at least require further modifications to at least one other CU to mimic what seems to be some Tempest-specific functionality.
Eh, it’s not like they had much to differentiate themselves from MS, hardware-wise. Sony are going into the next gen in a dominant position, so I always thought they’d wait for MS to show first. Then it’s a question of maximizing ROI. Are Sony taking so long to show their cooling solution because this was their plan all along, or are they really eating into their engineering margins for a few more MHz.
I would be pretty sure developers would rather not have to deal with variable clock speeds. If one had to choose, I would assume they would rather know up front what they were working with, and they would rather avoid having to divert power from the CPU to the GPU etc.
I'm not sure there will be a refresh this time.
I was referring to the power of the PS4 compared the PC GPUs at the time. The PS4 was quite average spec wise compared to them.
Amen to that. My brothers PS4 Pro when playing COD sounds like a jumbo jet.
Yeah it is.
I dont think they have sorted everything out just yet. They are probably still finalizing designs etc. I mean, who shows their controller off before the console?
It’s a 18% difference in theoretical compute, mitigate some of that with ps5’s faster clock and you might end up with only 10-15% difference. Not to mention the split pool of memory might get into the way of reaching maximum throughputs on the X which might further drag the difference down. The SSD might offer better visual output in specific ways too on ps5.
There could be a 15% difference anyway, depending on what you use as a baseline. 10.28 is roughly 15% less than 12.16, while 12.16 is roughly 18% more than 10.28. The real wild card with PS5 is the variable clocks, because we don't know the range. 2.23ghz is the max, and 82% of that roughly matches Series X GPU clock, so they have to stay above that to maintain any sort of advantage over series X. Also, we don't know how ray tracing is affected by frequency or CU count, so one console could have an advantage over the other. We also don't know how many ROPs each has. If they are equal, PS5 could have a pretty significant fillrate advantage. If they have roughly equal fill at max clocks, then PS5 will fall behind there when clocks drop.
Only conclusions you can draw from PS5 at this point is Sony really seems to be placing an emphasis on the SSD, backward compatibility with PS4 and next generation audio.
I totally agree that there will be little perceivable difference between the two consoles side by side. The developer will matter more than the hardware will this gen.
They are certainly pushing the SSD and 3D Audio, but the fact of them having variable clocks also shows they have tried to up the power of their console more than originally planned.
