That was the interview with the XSX architects and that description was their description of the ML enhancements you talk about. There has been no Tao of additional parallel HW, not even the slightest AMD RDNA related patent, that support your scenario beyond a “Why not? How do you know? Maybe it is there who’s to say” argument.
Not to talk about the irony of talking about fanboy goggles and another wall of text to try to claim yet another secret trump card to make the case for XSX to win in all scenarios... now it is secret extra HW which is there because it must else Sony has a win there where we cannot magically close the gap or hand wave it away.
So you know every bit of RDNA2's standardized specifications now? I mean, you've gone patent-hunting assumedly, by these remarks. So you must know everything standardized to the RDNA2 spec. How about sharing that with the legions of other people here and abroad who are still unknowing of what those particular features are?
Ah, you can't? Why? Wait, no never mind don't answer that I've had enough of a chuckle as-is.
You can probably guess what I'd say next given your posting history with this type of stuff and your own admission of bias. I don't hide behind walls of text, I simply know enough things and have enough fun speculating to put those thoughts to words, that's all. You're fantasizing these instances where I have somehow pulled trump cards for one platform out of thin air to give it an advantage when I'm literally doing the same thing many did when it came to looking at the GPU specs and things like TFs: the paper specs don't tell you everything.
Now though it's apparently an affront because it's being used to be cautiously optimistic yet critical of certain performance claims for PS5 even though I have done the same quite a bit with different parts of XSX's architecture such as the memory pool "split" RAM, SSD I/O (never claimed any optimizations would make it equal or better than PS5's, but being an unbiased gamer who'd like for both systems to be within reach of each other on this to the benefit of the
3rd party developers is what drives that outlook in me), and I've definitely been a bit of a debbie-downer with regards Lockhart (but not for the outdated (and demonstrably false) talking points some others are; mine have been around the logistics of manufacturing as related to cost and the ratio split between it and XSX, and how that could impact supply by misreading demand).
So that's a hard miss from me, bud
You took that 10x multiplier remark far too literally, it's not a claim. The entire point I was making is that we don't know and we need proper testing to see just how much effect the difference between the PS5 and XSX SSD could have on something like VRAM. The point was that we can't put a number on it so saying that they can both do it is silly.
Hey you're the one who gave a ridiculous figure in the first place. We're trying to discuss the technical merits of these consoles in reasonable ways so you throwing a super-suspect figure around and having no method to try backing it is going to make some of us curious, that's all.
We can't put a number on it, yes, but we can make some rational guesses based on what has been provided and by looking at similar implementations in other fields, even historical ones, and using some critical analysis. Having a somewhat rich understanding of how most of this tech works (and its role in relation to other components in an overall architecture) also helps go a long way.
There's no point to this if you are misreading what I say this badly. IN GENERAL we are seeing developers saying that the PS5 storage architecture is more impressive than that of the SX and that it's paired with an SSD that's just faster. You are free to have a hunch that most developers speaking on it are uninformed, paid or biased but the point is that we have more reason to believe that the PS5 SSD is far above that of the XSX than we have to believe that they are near the same level. Why are basing their speculation around what's most likely to be true?
In general we are seeing what gets put out by those in the media who have a certain angle in terms of narrative or messaging they want to convey. Both Sony and MS butter up the media/press for desired coverage of their platforms and products, but Sony has a bit of a recent history of doing this in rather more notable form across multiple divisions, even with media platforms they own themselves. I didn't want to bring that aspect of the coverage up but it's a hidden truth that doesn't get discussed too much, some for obvious reasons.
Anyway aside from that it's just like what myself and others speculated would happen; you will have some developers preferring one platform and others preferring the other platform. However, it helps to take a look at what connections those making these kind of claims have to the platform they favor because there is always
some aspect of business and backend gaming politics to this type of thing. There's always a bit of embellishment for the sake of generating good PR, that goes for both Microsoft
and Sony,
AND developers who are speaking in favor for their platforms.
Again you're taking otherwise rationale points of contention on my part and exaggerating them into speculative claims that were never stated or hinted at. We go by the paper specs and we can see which system has the more robust SSD I/O system. However it shouldn't be controversial to state that paper specs don't mean everything (and we don't even have all the SSD I/O hardware specs for either system yet), and that the system in this area that looks weaker on paper may punch above its weight in practice, as that's already an afforded optimistic assumption with the PS5's GPU.
You guys trying to twist that into implying XvA customizations/optimizations will suddenly make it leapfrog Sony's SSD I/O are being so disingenuous it makes my smarmy smile hurt.
I'm not sure some of you here can actually be serious.
Do you really think Sony and Cerny would build a whole console around the idea that you could use fewer CUs with more clock more efficiently, some of whom would even think it would be more expensive than the competition if they could have had the same thing as the XSeX? for less cost?
I think if the PS5 with its underlying technology also had 12 TF's, we would also hear completely different things from the developers.
Exciting times are ahead^^
You can only work with what your financing allows, and that comes down to what the big wigs decide. From the outset that limited them to a 36 CU design, though there was at least talks of a 48 CU design going by the hypothetical example Cerny mentioned (I mean there's not much other reason to use 48 CU GPU as your hypothetical).
PS4 and PS4 Pro BC also limited their GPU design to 36 CUs though, again, if they were considering a 48 CU design they maybe could've gone for a larger chip if the corporate heads decided it were worth the cost.
What you're asking here is no different than something trying to ask why they'd go with 14 Gbps GDDR6 chips instead of 16 Gbps GDDR6 or even HBM2 because, hey, "the vision must be realized!". The truth is, financial and economic realities ALWAYS take the cake in deciding what way system designs go for mass-market products like game consoles; there's only so low you can go with bulk pricing at the millions, only so much you can lose on BOM relative MSRP until you've screwed yourself over for the long-term etc.
I'm sure Cerny could've developed a quantum processor system with 32 GB HBM2E and 20 TF of power if he were designing the system for a very specific market segment, but that wouldn't sit well with the top brass at the company signing off on these budgets and R&D resources. That'd be like some high-level arcade machine 'ish. Sony aren't making modern-day arcade boards.
www.eurogamer.net
www.unrealengine.com
killatopak
I've been trying to find this thread on that site but so far no luck. Can you pm a link good brother?
www.neogaf.com
