Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Arwin]

The power use seems modest enough. This pdf is material from Samsung, and a year old. It won't get worse from 2010 on out, and 4,3 W is hardly cause for concern. I've seen similar material from Elpida.

AMD seemed to have early issues adjusting voltages for GDDR5, but it would appear to be a thing of the past for some time now.

Ok, because back then I read some figures about the regular 5570 and the GDDR5 version of the 5570 having a very big difference in W usage (can't find it now). But there are probably clock differences as well.

 

[AlNom]

Too expensive. Maybe 8 initially, reduce to 4?

16 chips is also not a little amount of space to allocate on the mainboard.

Ok, because back then I read some figures about the regular 5570 and the GDDR5 version of the 5570 having a very big difference in W usage (can't find it now). But there are probably clock differences as well.

This one? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5550-radeon-hd-5570-gddr5,2704-14.html

To summarize (system power, obviously):

5570 GDDR5 512MB
Idle = 152W
Load = 206W

5570 DDR3 1GB
Idle = 147W
Load = 187W

---

5550 GDDR5 512MB
Idle = 152W
Load = 206W

5550 DDR3 512MB
Idle = 151W
Load = 191W

---

5550 core clock 550MHz, DDR3 clock 800Mhz (they overclocked the DDR3 be in line with AMD reference), GDDR5 clock 1000MHz.

1GB DDR3 = 8x128M chips
512MB GDDR5 = 4x128M chips

The difference between 5570 and 5550 is one SM (80SPs, 4 texels per clock)

---

So anyways, 15-20W is not insignificant... In this case it does mean more than double the bandwidth albeit half the amount of RAM too.

 

[wco81]

Reason to retain PPC core would be BC?

Or does it offer bang for the buck compared to other archs?

 

[Blazkowicz]

maybe the power use differences above are due to better performance? you remove a bottleneck, get better framerates and more computations are done. thusly more watt usage.

 

[Brimstone]

Too expensive. Maybe 8 initially, reduce to 4?

The PowerPC + ATI GPU die with 4 memory chips on each side (top, left side, right side, and bottom).

Then a shrink with 2 memory chips on each side. It would be a fairly clean layout.


I might be mistaken but the early PS3 board layouts which had 4 Rambus memory chips and 4 GDDR-3 (along with the PS3 backwards compatible chips).

 

[AlNom]

maybe the power use differences above are due to better performance? you remove a bottleneck, get better framerates and more computations are done. thusly more watt usage.

Possibly. It's no simple task to measure, that's for sure... It'll depend on the software being utilized at load.

There's already a significant performance difference between 5550 and 5570 with GDDR5, but if we look at the power consumptions between the two cards, they didn't appear to change despite the difference in shaders and TMUs.

 

[AlNom]

I might be mistaken but the early PS3 board layouts which had 4 Rambus memory chips and 4 GDDR-3 (along with the PS3 backwards compatible chips).

I'm not sure I see how this helps your case for 16 chips to be used...

 

[tunafish]

Reason to retain PPC core would be BC?

Or does it offer bang for the buck compared to other archs?

When it comes to synthesizable high-end cores, PPC has historically been the only game in town, and the people who would make the chips have considerable expertise with them and IBM:s design decisions.

This coming cycle, it might well be that the newest ARM cortex A15 or AMD's solutions would actually be competitive (at least on paper), but that's still in the future.

Note that "PPC core" really isn't telling much. There are very many very diverse "PPC cores" in existence, from in-order very low performance to complex OoOE supercomputer-grade stuff. I was personally quite disappointed with the processors the console makers went with last gen. Hopefully this time they pick up something that's at least not in-order.

 

[Heinrich4]

The PowerPC + ATI GPU die with 4 memory chips on each side (top, left side, right side, and bottom).

Then a shrink with 2 memory chips on each side. It would be a fairly clean layout.


I might be mistaken but the early PS3 board layouts which had 4 Rambus memory chips and 4 GDDR-3 (along with the PS3 backwards compatible chips).

Agreed,and only for information ps3 launch uses 10 DRAM chips counting rambus for ps2 BC...and space EE+GS add imense south bridge chip controller its almost something like "12 DRAM chips" or more...thats a very large PCB and thinking ps4 launch with ps3 sizes and certainly not necessarily same BOM(unless sony put HVD like a "new blu-ray" costs...) : maybe XDR2 with 12 or even 16 DRAM with tiny 30nm shrinks could not be impossible after all (my early opinion going oposite way until i see ps3 60GB MoBo).

http://www.ps3devwiki.com/index.php?title=File:COK-001_TOP.JPG

http://www.ps3devwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

 

[RDK]

Agreed,and only for information ps3 launch uses 10 DRAM chips counting rambus for ps2 BC...and space EE+GS add imense south bridge chip controller its almost something like "12 DRAM chips" or more...thats a very large PCB and thinking ps4 launch with ps3 sizes and certainly not necessarily same BOM(unless sony put HVD like a "new blu-ray" costs...) : maybe XDR2 with 12 or even 16 DRAM with tiny 30nm shrinks could not be impossible after all (my early opinion going oposite way until i see ps3 60GB MoBo).

http://www.ps3devwiki.com/index.php?title=File:COK-001_TOP.JPG

http://www.ps3devwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

i see 8x GDDR3 and 4xXDR which is 12 and not 10

with PS2 rambus 14

 

[Heinrich4]

i see 8x GDDR3 and 4xXDR which is 12 and not 10

with PS2 rambus 14

You're absolutely right,its 14 chips....and picture shows EE + GS and a south bridge give us possibility PS4 with the same dimensions ps3 could be more than enough to fit 16 DRAMs(30nm ?) XDR2/8GB and 1TB/sec bandwidth.

 

[Persistantthug]

It's pretty obvious that the guys who are calling out 2GB - 4GB for a next gen console that won't even be out for 2 years, and probably 3 years, are shooting well below the mark.

Why even upgrade if that's all that's gonna be upgraded to?
Might as well stick with what we've got now.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's pretty obvious that the guys who are calling out 2GB - 4GB for a next gen console that won't even be out for 2 years, and probably 3 years, are shooting well below the mark.

4GB is very reasonable, all things considered. Those expecting more aren't addressing the cost issues. I'm not saying more won't happen, but 4GB is a well reasoned posit, and 2GB a very pessimistic but plausible evaluation.

Why even upgrade if that's all that's gonna be upgraded to?
Might as well stick with what we've got now.

That's just being silly. 2GBs just this generation, with no improvement in processing power, would provide significant visual improvements.

 

[V3]

You're absolutely right,its 14 chips....and picture shows EE + GS and a south bridge give us possibility PS4 with the same dimensions ps3 could be more than enough to fit 16 DRAMs(30nm ?) XDR2/8GB and 1TB/sec bandwidth.

That 1TB/sec initiative would be XDR3. What would you do with 1TB/s of bandwidth ?

Unless Sony makes a 256 upgraded SPUs Cell and bolts lots of texture units in it, 1TB/s bandwidth would probably require a very large chip, like 500 mm2 large to consume it.

 

[function]

It's pretty obvious that the guys who are calling out 2GB - 4GB for a next gen console that won't even be out for 2 years, and probably 3 years, are shooting well below the mark.

Why even upgrade if that's all that's gonna be upgraded to?
Might as well stick with what we've got now.

Having upgraded from a 512 MB 7900 GTX (urgh) through to a 1GB 560 TI, I have no difficulty in thinking that upgrading from a 512 MB system up to 2 or 4 GB system could be worthwhile.

 

[Persistantthug]

4GB is very reasonable, all things considered. Those expecting more aren't addressing the cost issues. I'm not saying more won't happen, but 4GB is a well reasoned posit, and 2GB a very pessimistic but plausible evaluation.

That's just being silly. 2GBs just this generation, with no improvement in processing power, would provide significant visual improvements.

Corsair 1600Mhz ram, 4Gigs at FRY'S ELECTRONICS is $29.99....8GB for $49.99.... 16GB is $99.99


So I ask you....What cost?
We're talkin about 2013 and 2014 here.
What cost?

 

[function]

Corsair 1600Mhz ram, 4Gigs at FRY'S ELECTRONICS is $29.99....8GB for $49.99.... 16GB is $99.99


So I ask you....What cost?
We're talkin about 2013 and 2014 here.
What cost?

Read the last few pages of the thread.

 

[Kaotik]

Corsair 1600Mhz ram, 4Gigs at FRY'S ELECTRONICS is $29.99....8GB for $49.99.... 16GB is $99.99


So I ask you....What cost?
We're talkin about 2013 and 2014 here.
What cost?

The standard RAM we use on our systems won't do, we for 4GB, we'd need 256bit membus which brings the costs up like a rocket compared to 128bit

 

[AlNom]

Corsair 1600Mhz ram, 4Gigs at FRY'S ELECTRONICS is $29.99....8GB for $49.99.... 16GB is $99.99


So I ask you....What cost?
We're talkin about 2013 and 2014 here.
What cost?

Huh? 7-25% of a console cost (for a $399 machine) should be considered just for RAM (not even the BOM for them either), not to mention slow RAM that can be anywhere from 16-48 chips and be utilizing a DIMM format rather than lower latency tracing on the motherboard for the next 10 years?

 

[Heinrich4]

That 1TB/sec initiative would be XDR3. What would you do with 1TB/s of bandwidth ?

Unless Sony makes a 256 upgraded SPUs Cell and bolts lots of texture units in it, 1TB/s bandwidth would probably require a very large chip, like 500 mm2 large to consume it.

I see here* maybe they still trying to reach but who knows in 2013 or 2014.


* Posted by Brimstone

" The Rambus signaling technology operates at 16gbps, and it is envisioned that a single memory controller could connect to 16 DRAMs, with each DRAM providing 4 bytes of data per cycle (1TB/s = 16gbps * 4B * 16 DRAMs). To reach the 1TB/s target, Rambus is relying on three key techniques to increase bandwidth: 32X data rates, full speed command and addressing, and a differential memory architecture. "


http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT120307033606

Latest version Terabyte Initiative video,they reach 20gbps!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7loaBA2t4

256 SPUs...(im joking here ok?) humm very interesting for cgpu or New Visualizer gpu,but 500mm2^ indeed its very huge for closed box console unless they going to ps3 sizes for one year until next shrink like 60GB to 40GB model (less than 10 months in ps3 ).