portable PS4 with the new ryzen APU.... shudder.. even if they did that, i cant imagine how loud it will sound
Predict: Next gen console tech (9th iteration and 10th iteration edition) [2014 - 2017]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
- Status
My litmus test for mobile is NSW. And that has some of the best perf/watt there is and if you look at where it is graphically today, it's a far ways from what PS4 is capable of.
Hard to see PS4 being shrunk enough would enable it to compete.
We have a 14/16nm PS4 already, the PS4 Slim. And that console needs ~80-90W for the whole system. So 60-80W for the APU is not that far away.
Btw, the Ryzen that we speek of has a power window from 9-25W. On 9W it will be downclocked to something you don't wanna see in a console. Event on full 25W the GPU shouldn't be that good, just because of the clock-rates. It may boost here and there, but it is no efficiency wonder.
You also forget the wider memory-interface, the GDDR5 RAM and so on.
Than you would need a display (because it should be mobile) so you APU can't even use the whole 9W for itself.
As I wrote before, a portable PS4 will not be realizeable, not even with 7nm without making drastic changes to the architecture. And than you loose the compatibility.
I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I read this when looking at HDDs, they seem to matter more to standard OS/application work then games. I'm not sure games care too much about caching.
https://www.pcmech.com/article/what-is-hard-drive-cache-and-what-does-it-do/
HDD cache is volatile yet small - the worst of both worlds! There's a significant difference in implementation and results between an HDD with 512 MBs cache, a 32 GBs pool of 'slow' RAM, and an SSD. I'm not even sure a 512 MB cache on the HDD would be particularly useful as the data access patterns probably don't fit it well. Common sense suggests if it'd speed things up, manufacturers would be providing HDDs with large caches and notable performance gains. Instead we have hybrids for that with 8+ GBs flash. Developer controllable storage (with an OS level auto-pilot cacheing mode) would be the options for 3rd tier storage, either SSD or RAM pool.
You are comparing peak power of whole machine ~70W comprising of:
- APU + fan + 8 GB of GDDR5 + HDD + Bluray drive + ARM + 256MB DDR3 + rest of components on board + what is lost by the internal power supply inefficiency VS optimistic estimated consumption of only one APU.
86W with disc spinning is the max power consumption realized in one game, generally the max is ~63w. For reference PS4 consumes 47W on the front end with online on. The max for the APU only should be way lower than ~70w.
This is indeed much more akin to what i imagined in the first place.
i predict, 9h and 10th will have touch sensitive buttons on the console itself and then will be replaced with normal push button in the subsequent models.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I wouldn't say generally the max is ~63 watts when it was only 1 game.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/playstation-4 (comparing CUH-2000 to CUH-1000)
TW3 - 88.9W
Paragon - 85W
PES 2017 - 81W
Paragon is digital only, so no disk spinning there. Unsurprising that Rocket League doesn't consume much power as it isn't a demanding game.
Regards,
SB
I'd expect the DRAM on mechanical HDDs to be used to optimistically prefetch blocks from the same track as the current request, and to buffer writes to see if multiple writes hit the same track, - cutting down on seeks.
You're absolutely right, that beyond these buffer requirements, adding more DRAM would just add cost, not performance
Edit/Addendum: The DRAM on SSDs is used for the same purpose; Aggregating writes and prefetch reads.
Cheers
Last edited:
One additional purpose for the DRAM on many SSDs is to hold the translation table between logical and physical blocks, which can be dynamically remapped for purposes such as wear-leveling or garbage collection. Cheaper SSDs might have cut out the DRAM, although performance suffered.
Power loss can have varying levels of impact, depending on the level of investment in extra hardware or performance cost. It doesn't seem like typical HDDs run the risk of total disk loss a cheaper SSD might, although they can share the same risk of losing data not committed to permanent storage. I'm curious if the console makers would cut costs on any flash storage, or if the risk of bricking a console means some of those "pro" features would be included.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
My expectations for 2019-2020 :
Rx Vega 56 (or equivalent) downclocked to 1Ghz @ 7nm process
Ryzen 7 1700, 3-3.2ghz @ 7nm (or Zen 2 at lower clocks with similar results due to higher ipc)
24GBs GDDR6
500GB HDD (low amount of space but would keep costs down, swap in own HDD as needed)
128GB SSD for cache
Rx Vega 56 (or equivalent) downclocked to 1Ghz @ 7nm process
Ryzen 7 1700, 3-3.2ghz @ 7nm (or Zen 2 at lower clocks with similar results due to higher ipc)
24GBs GDDR6
500GB HDD (low amount of space but would keep costs down, swap in own HDD as needed)
128GB SSD for cache
I think by the time a next-gen console comes around you are gonna need 2TB as the standard. Remember with a 2TB drive you are probably only going to get ~1.6TB of free space. Looking at some of the sizes of X1X games...next gen games will probably be ~150GB. Which means a 2TB drive is only going to hold about ~10 games.
I think Scorpio really pushed the bar hard. Well, in a broader sense its iterative consoles.
It's going to be fairly difficult to make substantial leap anytime soon, especially in the area of costly RAM where people are getting carried away.
I dont expect to see 24 GB of GDDR6 be affordable for a long time. The king $750 1080ti graphics card is only 11 GB. Additionally the gfx card race seems to have slowed. I remember when my brother bought a GTX 780 when it was near the top, it got left behind quickly. He bought a 1080 Ti a few months ago, it's still on top for the forseeable future unlike that 780.
People throwing around 24-32GB GDDR RAM, that's gonna be super costly. 16GB seems like a more realistic short term goal.
At these specs the next gen will have to be $500 minimum. Which is probably OK I guess.
It's going to be fairly difficult to make substantial leap anytime soon, especially in the area of costly RAM where people are getting carried away.
I dont expect to see 24 GB of GDDR6 be affordable for a long time. The king $750 1080ti graphics card is only 11 GB. Additionally the gfx card race seems to have slowed. I remember when my brother bought a GTX 780 when it was near the top, it got left behind quickly. He bought a 1080 Ti a few months ago, it's still on top for the forseeable future unlike that 780.
People throwing around 24-32GB GDDR RAM, that's gonna be super costly. 16GB seems like a more realistic short term goal.
At these specs the next gen will have to be $500 minimum. Which is probably OK I guess.
Demand outpacing supply in DRAM (and Flash for that matter) won't let up anytime soon. 8GB is currently $80. Nobody designing a console now is going to bet on a DRAM glut in two to three years time. Designing your console for 24GB only to have to use $200 of a $400 BOM budget on the DRAM would be crazy.
My guess is either 12 or 16GB. with 9 to 12GB available for games. DRAM usage is tied to resolution of graphical assets which again are dependent on screen resolution. I don't see TV sets going past 4K for at least another decade and we already have fairly capable 4K consoles in PS4Pro and Scorpio.
Future games will deliver richer worlds, which demand higher fidelity assets, but at the same time I expect more advanced techniques for texture handling to cut down on capacity requirements.
Cheers
My guess is either 12 or 16GB. with 9 to 12GB available for games. DRAM usage is tied to resolution of graphical assets which again are dependent on screen resolution. I don't see TV sets going past 4K for at least another decade and we already have fairly capable 4K consoles in PS4Pro and Scorpio.
Future games will deliver richer worlds, which demand higher fidelity assets, but at the same time I expect more advanced techniques for texture handling to cut down on capacity requirements.
Cheers
Ram is relatively cheap, the scaling continually shows a downward trend in price per GB. HDD prices have somewhat stagnated, worst part is having faster access to your information.
Many X1X owners are reporting that X1X loads much faster than XBO. So we need to look at more than just size of the disk, we also need to take a look at what they did to improve the transfer speeds.
- Status