Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@JJ2 the 6 Slow are still faster than the Pro's and the same bandwidth as the X - although it is also GDDR6 (not 5 like the X). The OS does need RAM as it too has assets, sounds etc. All the icons for the menu's for example are 'assets', your background and any game covers are all artwork that would be moved to RAM and used as needed. If you have 100 games and 20 backgrounds for example, the games displayed and the background would need to be moved to RAM so they can be streamed in for the OS to display.

The actual OS itself doesn't sit in RAM - it would be running like a game does albeit on a part of the system and some of the system is not available to devs - 1 core of the CPU for example. That part of the system is not available for Devs at all.

On the PS4, you have 8core Jaguar and 8GB of RAM BUT 3GB of that RAM and at least 1 core of the CPU that are not available to devs. The Series X has 12GB of RAM but 2.5GB is not available to Devs - it has 9.5GB for gaming and that 9.5GB is as fast as the 3.5GB of 'slower' memory on the Series X. That 3.5GB is 50% faster than the RAM in the Pro for example which was faster than the PS4 which was a lot faster than the XB1 - its not slow at all....

@JJ2 @BAMozzy It’s important to note that the Xbox series X RAM presents to developers as unified. The developer won’t tell the system which pool of RAM to use. When RAM usage exceeds 10 GB lowest priority tasks will be sent to be 3.5 GB of slow RAM. Practically I don’t see the splitting having a negative impact.

@Ryall I didn't know that about the Series X - i have seen speculation that Devs can allocate certain tasks - like Audio files for example as they don't need that high a bandwidth - to the slower section if necessary. The way MS described the 10GB as GPU Optimal Memory with the 6GB as standard, it seemed like they were indicating that they could allocate certain tasks to certain Memory. Of course it still presents as 'unified' in that its not 'split' like the PS3's was. Its not like they have one block of 10GB and another block of just 3.5GB - its still 13.5GB of RAM.

There is a difference between Unified and Split - the PS3 had two separate, split blocks that could not 'overflow' into the other. It had 2 x 256k whilst the Xbox had 512k of RAM - both equate to the same amount but the Xbox was not split. Unified just means that all 13.5GB available can be used in a single block but whether or not Devs can choose to allocate certain aspects to the 'lower' speed RAM rather than say Audio occupying some of the Optimum RAM and taking up room that would be better placed there or whether that is 'automatically' handled by the internal hardware, I don't know. Its the difference between devs choosing to put certain files in certain areas of RAM or letting the internal hardware decide which files are better suited to that block of memory. I know some devs can choose which cores do what when it comes to CPU usage - Core 1 (or 0 as its more often displayed as) for draw calls - the most intensive workload for the CPU and often its a single core of the CPU that gets overloaded and causes the bottle neck whilst the other cores may only be operating at 40-50%.

All unified means is that there isn't a 'distinct' split that has to be managed - ie up to 10GB has to be allocated here and just 3.5GB allocated there and all 13.5GB 'for example' of game data could be used as a single block but in terms of optimising that Data flow, it would make sense if Developers have the option to ensure that the Data that doesn't need to be streamed in at the highest rate isn't in the Optimum RAM or more importantly, the data that is better suited to the optimum, isn't sat in the Standard RAM. Again though, I don't know if that would be handled by Hardware - the hardware itself deciding where the data ought to go - or whether the devs themselves can choose whether certain data goes to standard whilst the rest goes to Optimum. It makes sense to me that devs are given that choice to be able to optimise their game but it could equally be handled by internal hardware.

I don't see it being a negative either - not all data needs that high a speed/bandwidth - certainly not Audio. The only point I was trying to make is that 3.5GB is not as fast, maybe doesn't need too be as fast, but still as fast as the Series X which was 50% faster than the Pro's (which had 5.5GB of RAM for gamers - just 2GB more than this block of RAM). When I talk about 'Blocks', I refer more to the that area of RAM - not that its is completely separate and has to be managed as 'split' RAM. It just makes sense that devs have the option - if needed/wanted, to ensure that the lowest priority or aspects that don't need that speed, can be pushed to that area of the RAM leaving the highest speed RAM for the data that needs it most. At some point, the allocation of Data will need to be optimised - whether that's at a system level - ie the console deciding that certain data ought to be held in standard RAM, or its a choice given to developers to decide - if the data exceeds 10GB of course. Its sub-optimal to just dump data into RAM when you have two different speeds. If you have 13.5GB of data, you don't want the lowest priority or data that doesn't need that bandwidth in the Optimal memory so somewhere in the chain, it has to be decided where that Data should be held. You can't wait until the game is 'streaming' it in and then find that some files are held in standard and then try to move the lowest priority out of Optimal to move the files needed faster...

Maybe Devs can mark the data as lower priority so if necessary, it will be sent to the standard RAM by the internal hardware or maybe the internal hardware will look for certain file types (like .wav or .jpg) and know where best to send that data meaning that devs don't need to worry about that - its handled at a hardware level. You are correct though in that it is a unified block of 13.5GB - not a block of 10GB and 3.5GB that are completely split and separate.

So in Cerny deep dive he said 36 CU RDNA2 is 58CU for PS4. So I counted its 16+ TFlop on the old architecture. Did I get it right?
So people are complaining that's 'weak' . Jesus haha The world gone mad

I hope PS5 games will be supported by Limited Run Games / Strictly Limited Games / eastsoftasia / any publisher from digital to physical. Some indie games are hidden gems for me.

The PS5 supports 256 bit instructions and these use a lot of power. I wonder whether they’ll be less used now as they cause the the CPU and GPU to down clock than they would’ve been if they had increased by power consumption.

@Ryall
Definitely, I think power is constantly monitored and frequencies depend on it right? That's why they can target an efficient cooling system. (I think?)
Amusingly a lot of insecure people try to downplay the ps5 and question what Cerny said whereas it the only info we have. So why question it ?
I watched Brad Sam's video recently and that's embarrassing, especially the comments.

@JJ2 Basically he was saying that with the technology used in the PS4 Pro, they would need a much bigger GPU to match what the GPU in the PS5 is capable of delivering. The 'size' (as in number of CU's) is only part of the equation when it comes to the TF. It's calculated using FP32 but if they used the smaller FP16, essentially doubling the amount of instruction the GPU could do, the PS4 Pro would be a 8.4TF console - it can accept FP16, unlike the XB1X which can only handle FP32 operations

Flops are Floating Point operations per second so the frequency, how many times it cycles per second is important. An Identical GPU, same number of CU's/Shaders, running at 2Ghzwould have double the TF as one running at 1Ghz because it has double the amount of cycles. Its like a printing press that prints out a 20 sheets a second, if you speed that up to print 40 sheets a second, it doubles the amount of work it can do per second. Another way of course would be to add a 2nd machine so you have 2 machines both printing out 20 sheets a second to give you the same 40 sheets per second rate.

With modern GPU's, the pipeline is much more efficient and less lag between components so the overall effect is that they don't need as many 'Flops' to achieve the same results as older machines. They aren't waiting for micro-seconds for the instructions for the instructions to be sent to the GPU or waiting for certain operations to be carried out before the next instruction can be carried out so you get more work done. Of course we are seeing a much bigger increase in the GPU's too.

In a recent DF video, they were looking at RDNA1 and the 'rumoured' Project Lockhart Xbox. At face value, it sounds 'weak' compared to the Pro and X with just 4TF (with the Pro at 4.2 and X at 6TF) but RDNA1 in a PC at 4.2 TF was delivering comparable performance to the X. RDNA 2 is more efficient again so would offer an improved performance on top of RDNA1. What that means is that at ~10TF, the PS5's RDNA2 GPU would give more than 2.5x the performance of the 6TF X and probably close to 4x the performance of the PS4 Pro despite the TF rating seemingly much closer. According to the numbers, the PS5 isn't 2x the X or more than 2.5x the Pro...

I think that's what Mark Cerny was alluding to - that you would need a massive GPU if they used the same GCN Architecture that the Pro used in the PS5 and that would need to be at least 16TF's to deliver the same performance...

@Webhead I find that hard to believe considering the guy reposting this works for windows central so already there's bias there. It also goes against the general feeling among the devs who seem to be more excited by PS5 then XsX. It just seems like someone trying to find a negative reason for Sony not showing games yet.

@WebHead sounds sketchy. That's not the general talk from devs from what we know so far and he works for Windows Central, or the source does more like, so I'm very doubtful. And that sentence about the tower and copying MS isn't even coherent. They are worried about being accused of copying MS so they need to redesign the PS5 to look more like the XSX trash can, COUGH COUGH, I mean tower. I've reread that a few times and every time I read it sounds like they're worried about copying so they're making it look more like the competition, so copy more to avoid being accused of copying.... sounds right doesn't it? No, that sounds fake. It feels like it's just trying to bash. Heck, I haven't heard any of the so-called rumors from people in the know, they's allegedly been going on for months.

@WebHead And here's another quote from the source after he got called out for having a history of PS doom tweets.
"Hate to break it to you, that still does hold true on console engagement and is known. It's not that PS was ever doomed, but it is a more casual console than the Xbox at this point. That is pretty well known."
Hahahaha no. Just because it outsold the Xbox more than 2 to 1 doesn't make it more casual.
Yeah, it's a load of nothing.

@WebHead
Seems to me a lot of people are just being insecure. If theres really a heat problem, the form and making it a tower wouldn't fix it. Sounds like people who dont understand what Cerny said and talking about heating problem.
I dont believe it for a second

@WebHead Whilst it is clear that the PS5 will not be able to run everything at maximum frequency the whole time. Sony is aware of this and therefore the PS5 is unlikely to have issues with overheating. Apparently the PS5 development kits allow you to choose what you want down clock right at the start and then developers are targeting fix performances. Apparently in almost all cases they choose to down clock the CPU and run the graphics at maximum frequency.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-playst...

Sony have made different choices from Microsoft. But at this stage it’s difficult to say which will result in the better console. I’m fairly certain both will reliably work as intended.

Idk too much negative news lately.

I hope sony lets you back up PS5 games on an external HDD and then when you want to play you can transfer it to the SSD. Im not paying $300+ for storage.

@WebHead Yeah think have have already said current external drives will be supported, just to play most PS5 games it will need to be o the internal PS5 SSD.

I dont know about you guys, but I absolutely love the DualSense. I hope the console has the same look and futurist style. Some people will hate, I dont care haha
It's a gaming console, not a mini PC 😀

@JJ2 it has grown on me for sure.

and a white console at launch would be awsome,usually those only become available later on in it's life span.

My Pro’s white and it looks a lot better than the black. The material means it doesn’t get dirty either.