PS5 Pro *spawn

[Globalisateur]

People shouldn't forget the PS4 pro launched at the existing PS4 price point and still only accounted for, at best, 1 out of every 5 consoles sold. I think it's likely that number was actually significantly less by the end of its lifecycle. This will be launching at a higher price point than the existing PS5.

From the moment they released PS4 Pro, 1 out 4 consoles sold were Pro (and at the end Pro were almost always in short supply in many areas). They could sell 1 out of 3 this time, only if they produce enough of them (which I don't expect). I am expecting they'll always be in short supply because they'll aim for say 1/4 but the market will want like 1/3.

 

[techuse]

From the moment they released PS4 Pro, 1 out 4 consoles sold were Pro (and at the end Pro were almost always in short supply in many areas). They could sell 1 out of 3 this time, only if they produce enough of them (which I don't expect). I am expecting they'll always be in short supply because they'll aim for say 1/4 but the market will want like 1/3.

Not long after its launch, they announced 20% of consoles sold were the Pro. Thats 1/5. That they never mentioned Pro sales again leads me to believe they declined. There would be no reason for them to be in short supply other than a lack of production due to low demand.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Relative to what we’re seeing on the screen. Besides we know how Zen 2 performs in windows and therefore have a point of reference for what to expect from the consoles.

Didn't Sony have AMD remove some of the FPU/SIMD capability that was incorporated onto Zen 2?

 

[XboxKING]

Zen 2 is a relatively low IPC core by modern standards, I would say. Add to that the low frequency, reduced caches, and higher latencies of graphics DRAM, and I would expect it to be at least 2 to 3 times slower in SPEC2K6 compared to modern PC CPUs

“the low frequency, reduced caches, and higher latencies of graphics DRAM”
Those could very well be to ensure the games run more stable on console with no or little shader compilation stutter or other bug that severely limit performance

Even intel is lowering their CPU performance to make sure they actually run games correctly and not crash:

Intel details fixes for crashing 13th- and 14th-gen CPUs as BIOS updates roll out

This microcode fix can’t be rolled out in a regular software update.

arstechnica.com

 

[XboxKING]

Has someone been enjoying a drink tonight?

All the pcs on this entire forum combined cannot run GTA6 in 2025, no matter the number of jigaflop or drams

PS5 that released back in 2020 however can, and PS5 Pro can run it even better.

 

[GhostofWar]

“the low frequency, reduced caches, and higher latencies of graphics DRAM”
Those could very well be to ensure the games run more stable on console with no or little shader compilation stutter or other bug that severely limit performance

Even intel is lowering their CPU performance to make sure they actually run games correctly and not crash:

Intel details fixes for crashing 13th- and 14th-gen CPUs as BIOS updates roll out

This microcode fix can’t be rolled out in a regular software update.

arstechnica.com

That's not why consoles don't get shader stutter..........

 

[pjbliverpool]

All the pcs on this entire forum combined cannot run GTA6 in 2025, no matter the number of jigaflop or drams

PS5 that released back in 2020 however can, and PS5 Pro can run it even better.

Cool. So you're saying you value being able to play GTA6 a little earlier via PlayStation more than you value the PC's larger gaming library (including the Microsoft exclusives, and emulated Nintendo games that you'll never be able to play on the PS), higher performance and better graphics across the board, and ultimately getting what will be the best version of GTA6. That's obviously your call.... it was just a really weird way of saying it.

“the low frequency, reduced caches, and higher latencies of graphics DRAM”
Those could very well be to ensure the games run more stable on console with no or little shader compilation stutter or other bug that severely limit performance

Good lord, no.

 

[trinibwoy]

Didn't Sony have AMD remove some of the FPU/SIMD capability that was incorporated onto Zen 2?

They did.

The Nerfed FPU in PS5’s Zen 2 Cores

Fritzchens Fritz’s awesome die photos revealed that the Playstation 5’s Zen 2 cores spend less die area on their FPUs than their desktop cousins. Thanks to Brutus, I got to take a close…

chipsandcheese.com

“Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, games relied on the CPU to render graphics and a better FPU could lead to better gaming performance. But no modern game does that, so a quad pipe FPU is overkill.

A dual pipe FPU makes a lot of sense for the PS5, which is meant only for gaming. The PS5’s CPU will never have to handle the wide range of workloads that desktop and server Zen 2 cores are expected to. A smaller FPU can save power and area without delivering noticeably different performance, and is a great fit for the PS5.“

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That reasoning is backwards. As a fixed hardware target, consoles will use everything they have available. If there's more FPU? Devs will use it. Only makes sense to reduce FPU capacity if feeding them would be a problem.

 

[XboxKING]

Cool. So you're saying you value being able to play GTA6 a little earlier via PlayStation more than you value the PC's larger gaming library (including the Microsoft exclusives, and emulated Nintendo games that you'll never be able to play on the PS), higher performance and better graphics across the board, and ultimately getting what will be the best version of GTA6. That's obviously your call.... it was just a really weird way of saying it.



Good lord, no.

I am merely saying that PC offers 0 value if my gaming objective is to enjoy GTA6 in 2025. PS5 pro allows me and others to enjoy it more which is why it will exist. Unless there is no difference with Series X and PS5 amateur

 

[XboxKING]

That reasoning is backwards. As a fixed hardware target, consoles will use everything they have available. If there's more FPU? Devs will use it. Only makes sense to reduce FPU capacity if feeding them would be a problem.

Not really as they sell 50+ million consoles so they are not going to waste transistors if leaving parts out allows more graphics parts to exist to the chip or the entire chip to run a run a higher frequency

I was once told that x86 is slow because you can still run 16 bit code. I was like: how is that if my windows cannot even run an old 32bit battlefield game

 

[Dictator]

I was once told that x86 is slow because you can still run 16 bit code.

I do not think x86 is slow, nor would that be the reason why it would be or anything. Also windows not running an old 32bit game typically has to do with dependencies or OS changes that have nothing to do with addressable space or bit depth.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not really as they sell 50+ million consoles so they are not going to waste transistors if leaving parts out allows more graphics parts to exist to the chip or the entire chip to run a run a higher frequency

That's a different argument to the one quoted from the article. The article says too much FP won't be used for gaming. In reality there's no such thing as too much of a resource in consoles and it'll all be used. Wanting to balance workloads and hardware to support those is a different argument.

I was once told that x86 is slow because you can still run 16 bit code.

No. Slow compared to what? Being able to run 16 bit code (if that's even true) doesn't slow down the ability to process 32 and 64 bit code. It'd just provide a path in the 64 bit pipeline to process only 16 bits.

 

[XboxKING]

That's a different argument to the one quoted from the article. The article says too much FP won't be used for gaming. In reality there's no such thing as too much of a resource in consoles and it'll all be used. Wanting to balance workloads and hardware to support those is a different argument.

No. Slow compared to what? Being able to run 16 bit code (if that's even true) doesn't slow down the ability to process 32 and 64 bit code. It'd just provide a path in the 64 bit pipeline to process only 16 bits.

It is wasted silicon and thus makes it slower compared to using the transistors for useful stuff

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It is wasted silicon and thus makes it slower compared to using the transistors for useful stuff

The article, and the point to which I was responding, said the CPU used to need lots of FPU power to do T&L calculations. Now these are not done on the CPU, there is no need for high FPU power on CPU. This argument is wrong.

A dual pipe FPU makes a lot of sense for the PS5, which is meant only for gaming.

Being a gaming console doesn't decrease the need for maths capabilities.

That says nothing at all about 'wasted silicon' in terms of transistors that could be budgeted more effectively. More FPU on the CPU might well be inefficient versus spending that budget on GPU flops. However, that does not mean that more FPU on the CPU would go unused, as the article suggests. Any resource in a console gets used; that's the benefit of being a closed arch with bespoke tools.

 

[homerdog]

No. Slow compared to what? Being able to run 16 bit code (if that's even true) doesn't slow down the ability to process 32 and 64 bit code. It'd just provide a path in the 64 bit pipeline to process only 16 bits.

I know we're talking about the instruction set, but in practice modern computers cannot run 16 bit applications without emulation. 64bit Windows (and probably other modern operating systems) cannot run 16 bit programs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I had to go look it up

Windows 3.1 on a i9 9900K

 

[homerdog]

I had to go look it up

The CPUs can do it which is very cool. You just can't run 16bit applications in a 64bit OS.

 

[Cappuccino]

“the low frequency, reduced caches, and higher latencies of graphics DRAM”
Those could very well be to ensure the games run more stable on console with no or little shader compilation stutter or other bug that severely limit performance

Even intel is lowering their CPU performance to make sure they actually run games correctly and not crash:

Intel details fixes for crashing 13th- and 14th-gen CPUs as BIOS updates roll out

This microcode fix can’t be rolled out in a regular software update.

arstechnica.com

I don’t think you understand how shaders work, and I also don’t think you understand what Intel is doing here.

 

[trinibwoy]

Any resource in a console gets used; that's the benefit of being a closed arch with bespoke tools.

That’s great in theory but that’s certainly not guaranteed these days. Unfortunately the state of modern games doesn’t inspire confidence in the ability of devs to wring every ounce of performance out of these machines. Also shouldn’t we assume that Sony knows what devs want and need? If devs had a use for more FPU power it should be in the console spec.