Since Zen and Polaris are on GF, presumably Raven Ridge as well... I believe they incur massive porting costs and time to move to TSMC this time round.1, Sony have used TSMC for all PS4 chips I think (and PS3 before it?) Would they risk switching?
Since Zen and Polaris are on GF, presumably Raven Ridge as well... I believe they incur massive porting costs and time to move to TSMC this time round.1, Sony have used TSMC for all PS4 chips I think (and PS3 before it?) Would they risk switching?
Since Zen and Polaris are on GF, presumably Raven Ridge as well... I believe they incur massive porting costs and time to move to TSMC this time round.
In the Q&A section of their 2017 Financial Analyst Day, AMD CEO Lisa Su answered an enquiry from a Deutsche-bank questioner regarding the company's aggressive 7 nm plan for their roadmap, on which AMD seems to be balancing its process shrinkage outlook for the foreseeable future. AMD will be developing their next Zen architecture revisions on 7 nm, alongside a push for 7 nm on their next-generation (or is that next-next generation?) Navi architecture. This means al of AMD's products, consumer, enterprise, and graphics, will be eventually built on this node. This is particularly interesting considering AMD's position with GLOBALFOUNDRIES, with which AMD has already had many amendments to their Wafer Supply Agreement, a remain of AMD's silicon production division spin-off, the latest of which runs from 2016 to 2020.
As it is, AMD has to pay GLOBALFOUNDRIES for its wafer orders that go to other silicon producers (in this case, TSMC), in a quarterly basis since the beginning of 2017, based on the volume of certain wafers purchased from another wafer foundry. In addition, AMD has annual wafer purchase targets from 2016 through the end of 2020, fixed wafer prices for 2016, and a framework for yearly wafer pricing in this amendment, so the company is still bleeding money to GLOBALFOUNDRIES. However, AMD is making the correct decision in this instance, I'd wager, considering GLOBALFOUNDRIES' known difficulties in delivering their process nodes absent of quirks.
They're actually leveraging all the power available in such a 'low-end' setup. I think it's pretty indicative of how woefully under-utilised PCs are that this low power solution delivers what it does.
This looks accurate. 1080p looks extremely blurry on 4K TV after playing at 1440p or checkerboard 4K. The Witcher 3 is literally unplayable for me now after playing Horizon Zero Dawn. Waiting for that Pro patch.
You'll be waiting a while as I don't think there will be a TW3 pro patch![]()
PS5 playing PS4Pro games? Hahaha... that would require way too much goodwill on the part of Sony.
PS5 playing PS4Pro games? Hahaha... that would require way too much goodwill on the part of Sony.
No, and I don't want PS4 holding back anything.
No, and I don't want PS4 holding back anything.
Uncharted 4 is one of them.
ND games on the PS3 used the SPUs for AI pathfinding.
Not allowing backwards compatibility would be huge mistake on their part. They are fortunate to be in control of the first generation where digital game sales have become a major part of the console business. Keeping people locked into that ecosystem should be a priority.
Not to single you out, but I think language like this is reductionist and unhelpful to people's expectations for BC in PS5.
It's not about Sony "allowing" or "not allowing" BC, it's about whether or not it is technically feasible. Whatever the PS5 is in terms of hardware, the feasibility of BC will be dictated by their ability to write an emulator that can adequately abstract and run all PS4 games at full speed. It's not a trivial task, even with an x86 and GCN* based CPU and GPU in PS5.
Emulation through "per instruction" interpretation is a pipe-dream, so Sony's emulation programmers will have to get creative in order to get an adequate emulation solution working at a good enough performance level, and even then it will be unlikely to work perfectly on all PS4 games.
I'm sure BC is important to Sony for the PS5's launch. However, I think it would be helpful for gamers to temper their expectations. It may not even be ready by launch at all.
Not to single you out, but I think language like this is reductionist and unhelpful to people's expectations for BC in PS5.
It's not about Sony "allowing" or "not allowing" BC, it's about whether or not it is technically feasible. Whatever the PS5 is in terms of hardware, the feasibility of BC will be dictated by their ability to write an emulator that can adequately abstract and run all PS4 games at full speed. It's not a trivial task, even with an x86 and GCN* based CPU and GPU in PS5.
Emulation through "per instruction" interpretation is a pipe-dream, so Sony's emulation programmers will have to get creative in order to get an adequate emulation solution working at a good enough performance level, and even then it will be unlikely to work perfectly on all PS4 games.
I'm sure BC is important to Sony for the PS5's launch. However, I think it would be helpful for gamers to temper their expectations. It may not even be ready by launch at all.
Matt said BC is not a concern so I'm not worried about it, but if didn't happen for some reason that would be the end of me buying digital games on PSN except for maybe some exclusives.
AI pathfinding is pretty much a given, since it's an AI task that can run on a GPU. Self-driving cars also do the same (they don't use weak ARM CPUs to run the pathfinding algorithm).Jason mentions that they do "some" of their AI work on the GPU. Without any more specifics it's impossible to know how significant or not their GPU AI processing is.
No one said that all AI tasks can be offloaded to a GPU.The point I was arguing against was that significantly more GPU flops next-gen would mean anything to the level of complexity and sophistication of next-gen AI systems. From a conceptual point of view, AI has always been a set of workloads that are fundamentally better suited to a CPU than a GPU. I recognize the advances in GPGPU have shifted this balance somewhat, but I'm skeptical that an game can port all of it's AI code onto the GPU entirely. I'm not sure GPGPU is there yet.
SPUs are analogous to SIMD units in a GPU. Where's the disagreement here?(Also: the SPUs aren't a GPU -- they're more analogous to SIMD units on a CPU, e.g. AVX)
AI has always been a set of workloads that are fundamentally better suited to a CPU than a GPU.
AI pathfinding is pretty much a given, since it's an AI task that can run on a GPU. Self-driving cars also do the same (they don't use weak ARM CPUs to run the pathfinding algorithm).
No one said that all AI tasks can be offloaded to a GPU.
SPUs are analogous to SIMD units in a GPU. Where's the disagreement here?
The current way of doing these workloads has been better suited for CPUs. We've spent untold amounts of code hours trying to find ways to optimize tree searches, for instance, to be run efficiently in a serialized fashion because "this is the way it is done", even though it's been shown that you can achieve faster results by parallelizing and avoiding data dependencies by going with simple almost-naïve traversal.
GPU AI will require a paradigm shift, but will pay-off because serialized computing is dead-end tech.
It depends on what most gamers want.Sure, if the end goal is merely sticking with game AI as it exists today, I'm sure more clever folks than I will find ways to convert these algorithms to more efficient GPU code. But then I thought the goal was for much more complex AI behaviors than we have today.
It depends on what most gamers want.
If you want human-like, challenging AI, you can already find that in Competitive MP games.
Would gamers want human-like AI in Single-player games as well or would it result in aggravation/ragequits/broken controllers?
CPUs have progressed a lot since the 2000s and yet AI seems to be stuck in the past. I'd argue it's not a technology barrier that keeps us away from that goal, but more of a deliberate effort on devs' part to make video games more easy/accessible to the masses.
Not to single you out, but I think language like this is reductionist and unhelpful to people's expectations for BC in PS5.
It's not about Sony "allowing" or "not allowing" BC, it's about whether or not it is technically feasible. Whatever the PS5 is in terms of hardware, the feasibility of BC will be dictated by their ability to write an emulator that can adequately abstract and run all PS4 games at full speed. It's not a trivial task, even with an x86 and GCN* based CPU and GPU in PS5.
Emulation through "per instruction" interpretation is a pipe-dream, so Sony's emulation programmers will have to get creative in order to get an adequate emulation solution working at a good enough performance level, and even then it will be unlikely to work perfectly on all PS4 games.
I'm sure BC is important to Sony for the PS5's launch. However, I think it would be helpful for gamers to temper their expectations. It may not even be ready by launch at all.
As far as I know, no single platform holder has EVER supported emulation-based BC at launch. So even if BC is technically feasible with PS5, I'm not personally expecting it to be available right out of the gate.
CPU. GPU emulation of the ps2 was harder but Sony had an emulator for both by that point but compatibility was low so they abandoned it until much later.The PS3's backwards compatibility was both hardware and software based at European launch, since the EU model lacked one of the PS2 chips. I don't remember which exactly, possibly the GPU?
Would emulation even be required if we're talking the same architecture going from PS4 to PS5? This is assuming Sony keeps the same OS backend for PS5. Or would the CPU differences be just significant enough for something to have to be emulated?
Trico's AI is quite "annoying" for some people, because just like a real animal, he's very "unpredictable" and this makes the game more challenging than what they expect it to be. People rarely ask for realism in video games.Human-like AI behaviors aren't just about difficulty and making enemies in game more challenging.
It can be about making non-enemy AI more life-like. A great example of this is TLG, where Trico just seems to create the impression of a real tangible animal, through a clever combination of his AI, animation and sound design. I'm sure Tricos AI is probably rather rudimentary in practice, but it achieves a level of convincing lifelike animal behavior that I've personally never seen in a game before.
It can also, be about having NPCs behaviors that are more persistent, where their reactions and behaviors in relation to the player and their circumstances evolves over time as they learn, adapt and grow within the gameworld. Again, this doesn't need to mean more challenge for the player, it can simply mean more convincing behaviors, e.g. enemies with their own individuality. fears, preferences etc.
Àbsolutely. SInce it isn't the same architecture. x86 is the CPU instruction set architecture. We're talking about the micro architecture. For illustrative purposes, consider that the Jaguar, an intel Pentium 4 and a Core i7 4770k are all x86, but have completely different microarchitectures, so wouldn't just run the same CPU code out of the box without any changes to the abstraction layers that afford this on PC.
The GPU will be possibly be an even more significant change, going from GCN(3?) based cores to the Navi architecture. How much, we don't know yet, as we don't know anything about Navi.
So what changes so much on a console that it keeps breaking BC (PS4+ generation)?
Because CPU, GPU, memory types etc etc all keep evolving/changing over time on PC yet it all works.
So what changes so much on a console that it keeps breaking BC (PS4+ generation)?
Because CPU, GPU, memory types etc etc all keep evolving/changing over time on PC yet it all works.
PS Now is not a backwards compatibility solution, it is a separate service.BC could be achieved via PS Now - maybe that's why they started releasing PS4 games there recently.
PC sticks to one architecture (X86 and derivatives),
Would emulation even be required if we're talking the same architecture going from PS4 to PS5? This is assuming Sony keeps the same OS backend for PS5. Or would the CPU differences be just significant enough for something to have to be emulated?
So what changes so much on a console that it keeps breaking BC (PS4+ generation)?
Because CPU, GPU, memory types etc etc all keep evolving/changing over time on PC yet it all works.
Would emulation even be required if we're talking the same architecture going from PS4 to PS5? This is assuming Sony keeps the same OS backend for PS5. Or would the CPU differences be just significant enough for something to have to be emulated?
Regarding OS, Sony doesn't have their own operating system and BSD worked out well for them I think, so I don't see them switching anytime soon.
IIRC PS4 was shipped with a version of FreeBSD 7.0, current version is 11.xx while the numbering doesn't say much it is an OS that keeps evolving.
Regarding OS, Sony doesn't have their own operating system and BSD worked out well for them I think, so I don't see them switching anytime soon.
IIRC PS4 was shipped with a version of FreeBSD 7.0, current version is 11.xx while the numbering doesn't say much it is an OS that keeps evolving.
That's what I wanted to clear up. And I think this is the reason Cerny originally gave in that DF piece for why they didn't do boost mode for the PS4 Pro out of the gate -- they let PS4 developers code a lot of games in a way extremely specific to the original PS4's setup. So specific that relatively slight changes to hardware like this can still mess up some games. Still, I think what everyone in the thread is suggesting is that getting PS4 games working on PS5 isn't going to be as massive an undertaking as say, getting PS3 games to run on other machines.
Any way you look at it, this is a stark contrast to what Microsoft is doing by having everything developed on a unified OS and development environment. Even if the next Xbox model after the Xbox One X uses a new CPU and drastically different GPU, you can be sure Microsoft is going to try to get the Xbox library so far working on it.
PS5 playing PS4Pro games? Hahaha... that would require way too much goodwill on the part of Sony.
BC could be achieved via PS Now - maybe that's why they started releasing PS4 games there recently.
PS Now is not a backwards compatibility solution, it is a separate service.
Using PS Now for BC is a seriously flawed idea. The network requirements are problematic and running the server farm (actually multiple server farms, because the physical distance to any console running the game has to be kept reasonable) and actually running the game requires the equivalent of a console per user.
There is no business case for PS Now based BC.
It's not Sony's BC solution. Sony's BC solution on the PS4 is not to have BC, choosing to sell some games on their PS2 repacks and remasters instead. They make more money this way.Clearly, this isn't true because PS Now is currently the BC solution for PS4 to play PS3 games.
If it's better AI that you want than you have to accept the always online model because the cloud is the answer to better AI.
PS Now is already an effective BC solution for PS4 and soon PS5.
It's not Sony's BC solution. Sony's BC solution on the PS4 is not to have BC, choosing to sell some games on their PS2 repacks and remasters instead. They make more money this way.
PS Now is more Sony trying new business models but it's a long term investment and an effort to transition their games to a service model. Eventually Sony hopes they can make it cost-effective and popular enough that it would be THE way to play PS Games.
Is it really? I actually bought a used PS3 recently precisely because the games catalogue available on PS Now is missing a ton of exclusives and major last-gen titles:
Metal Gear Solid series (all releases)
Call of Duty series (all releases)
Gran Turismo series (all releases)
Yakuza series (all releases)
Mass Effect series (all releases)
Fallout series (all releases)
Final Fantasy (all releases)
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Hitman: Absolution
NieR
Catherine
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Not to mention you don't even get the benefit that BC on XO does of more stable framerates. Add in the subscription cost, latency that varies by connection, and non-permanent system, it's very disappointing as a replacement for other BC solutions.
Like, having RDR, Uncharted, InFamous, and Killzone 1-3 on there isn't bad, but it is not an acceptable solution for what anyone would actually use BC for (regardless of the frequency with which BC is used more broadly).