-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
[MLiD] XBOX Magnus RDNA 5 Finalized
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- News Rumor Hardware
Would be simply interesting to see it play out. Like, how much could MS actually benefit from it? Etc.Why would it be?
demigod
Member
My man
DenchDeckard
thinking we will go from PS2 to Xbox 360 graphics again with low pricepoint.
DenchDeckard
thinking we will go from PS2 to Xbox 360 graphics again with low pricepoint.
Kazekage1981
Member
Even if Magnus has more RAM, and 40% better than PS6 on paper, I think with all this overhead and OS bloat, it will most likely be 10%-15% better. But the real question is better in what? Shouldnt the major change in architecture produce exceptional visual fidelity to the point of diminishing returns or will it regress to more shitty DF videos on: Magnus having more grass and shrubs in certain areas, shadow details being better when character is walking, less pixelated grass blades and flowers. I mean like come on!
LLC just means last-level cache. So even if you believe XSX has no L3 then L2 becomes its "LLC".
digital_ghost
I am a closet furry. Don't you judge me.
Does that mean the next Generation of XBox is slightly more powerful than a Nintendo Switch 2
MCH2024
Member
Yea yea. I missed up the acronyms. The point still stands. PS5 / XSX have the same 2SE/4SA despite xbox stuffing an extra 16CU into it.
yea yea. Doesn't change my point. I already edited it in.
Ramiro_Rodriguez
Member
Not much, with a msrp around 1200 $, with the prices of the Game Pass tiers and since every MS game is and will be a multiplattform-title.
MisterXDTV
Member
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
… which does not help since the front-end is the same and running at a lower clockspeed.
Shogmaster
Member
36GB safely $1200. 48GB will be close but over.
MisterXDTV
Member
It's poetic in a way
MS pivots to PC just as that market is crashing
They always have the perfect strategy until they don't
MS pivots to PC just as that market is crashing
They always have the perfect strategy until they don't
PaintTinJr
Member
What point? You didn't address the more realistic simplified bandwidth compromises on the XsX - from the two memory pool contention - I explained and just doubled down on info that misrepresents the XsX memory balancing act when trying to use a unified 12GB with the GPU.
Let's put some depth into the simple theoretical exercise of a unified 12GB for the XsX GPU.
Off the bat we'll look at CPU bandwidth.
40GB/s is in the ballpark from the Road to PS5, so we'll use that for both systems.
on PS5 that's a simple unified deduction,
448GB/s - 40GB/s = 408GB/s for a 12GB VRAM pool for use with the GPU.
On XsX we have 10GB/s at 560GB/s and 6GBs at 336GB/s but the CPU 40GB/s is from 336GB/s where both bandwidths share unified processing time so 40/336 = ~12% instantly means the 560GBs is depleted to use just 88% of the time (~494GB/s) before we start looking at the 2GB of VRAM on the CPU memory side.
If we say a typical game sticking with 10GBs of VRAM averagely uses (494/10) 49.4GB/s per GB for argument sake - omitting all inefficiencies for this example. But as we are now moving up to 12GB that distribution no longer holds, so first of all we need to work out how much longer the GPU processing will take to complete a CPU memory bottlenecked task on the 2GB compared to a GPU memory bottlenecked task on 2GBs of the 10GBs. Which should be merely dividing 560/336, giving us a ratio of x 1.66 (5/3rds).
To then workout how much of that remaining 88% of the processing time is needed for 2GB at 336GB/s versus the 10GBs at 560GBs - to give each GB equally processing capacity we need to scale the 2GBs by the 5/3rds and treat it as (10/3) 3.3GBs vs 10GBs, effectively normalizing the bandwidths for both pools.
That way you get A) = 3.3/13.3 x 0.88 and B) = 10/13.3 x 0.88 to get
A) (10/3) /(40/3) x0.88 = (30/120) x 0.88 = (1/4) x 0.88 = 0.22
B) 10/(40/3) x 0.88 = (30/40) x 0.88 = (3/4) x 0.88 = 0.66
so then we get in total for the CPU memory (0.12 + A) x 336 = (0.12 + 0. 22) x 336 = 114.24 GB/s
+
the GPU side 0.66 x 560 = 369.6 GB/s
= 483.84 GB/s
which in these idealised circumstances is already a lot closer to the unified 448GB/s of the PS5 bandwidth and in real terms the 22%(0.22) percent of the 336GBs isn't 114.24GBs for the GPU, because it is wasteful by a factor of 5/3rds meaning in real bandwidth terms to the GPU it is actually 44.35GBs, which when added back to the 66% (0.66) 369.6 GB/s produces a GPU total effective bandwidth of ~414GB/s versus the PS5's 408GB/s.
The major missing piece here is that this is all idealised for the XsX memory use, without the big efficiency losses of copying between the pools with redundant data that are necessary, the need for a second garbage collector/memory defragger for the slower pool taking further bandwidth time, and the small percentage memory controller efficiency loss for switching modes/pools, even if assuming all of those solutions are perfect too despite the greater complexity.
Realistically the XsX using 10GBs for VRAM probably matches the PS5 for real-time GPU bandwidth, and at 12GBs in real game code is probably (90% of that 414GB number via complexity) around the 370GB/s - obviously still ignoring that all these figures will be actually lower scaled equivalents of their theoretical maximums used here.
Last edited:
Fess
Member
Yes DF will do PC vs PS videos, same as they already do.
I don't think they will have specific Xbox vs PS videos anymore, it's more likely that they'll do Steam Machine vs Xbox videos since that's the same product segment.
MCH2024
Member
Good write up. It's quite informative/interesting.
What you're essentially saying is that because the CPU accesses the memory bus at a lower rate, the effective bandwidth use of the CPU is higher. Thus my estimate of 504 GB/s for the extreme highly unlikely scenario (12/12.5GB to GPU) isn't accurate and that it should be ~477 GB/s. Or specifically, 40 * 560 / 336 =66.667. 26.7 GB/s wasted by CPU.
imo the scenario is so rare it's borderline irrelevant (a scenario where dGPU uses than 12/12.5GB). However I will engage since you put a decent amount of effort.
First, the 40 GB/s bandwidth for the CPU is on the high end.
Not a single game over 20 GB/s. Most below 10 GB/s for CPU. A game where CPU uses 500 MBs total will not have the CPU use 40 GB/s or even 20 GB/s. But lets be safe and say 20 GB/s
In other-words, CPU uses 20 * 560 / 336 = 33.3 GB/s
Instead of a 504 GB/s effective memory BW as I said. It's 504 - (33.3-20) = 491 GB/s once you account for CPU's accesses being slower.
This is an interesting technical discussion. However, this isn't a useful one. XSX having a slightly lesser memory bw lead over PS5 under extreme conditions doesn't explain WHY PS5 is beating it. This is why I was getting irritated.
The actual story of why XSX is losing is the weaker front end. And it's being buried while we discuss precisely how much faster is XSX's memory bandwidth.
And it's the relevant conversation since magnus has a 26-31% stronger backend and 33% stronger front end at the same clock. And magnus is expected to clock higher, has more than double the L2 cache and has a wider unified memory bus.
This is what I meant by saying that PS6 Can't compete and that Magnus is basically a PS6 Pro. Sony tied last gen because MSFT fumbled. Xbox haven't repeated XSX's mistakes.
Last edited:
PropellerEar
Member
It's ~3:1 for PS5.
It will be >9:1 for PS6.
They just don't need to compete, Xbox is dead.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Tied? In what universe do you call it a tie?
meech
Member
Maybe they will sell it boundled with a long term( 2 years) gamepass premium subscription.