Because maybe, just maybe, it lacks context? And this is what Digital Foundry have said, it just lacks context, we still do not know if it is for PS5 or maybe a test of something or something else entirely.
2000 MHz in a console doesn't make at all, and we have Matt and Kleegamefan (who both have the specs sheets right now as we speak) outright denying those Oberon leaks, I mean I get your point, but do not really assume it is a 100% CONFIRMED REAL RESULTS FOR PS5!! Because it doesn't make sense and we have many other reports that state otherwise, actual reports which are coming from people who saw this 9.2 TF and saw the real specs that they have and said that the Oberon leaks do not match the PS5, they have more info than us here who are discussing this on the forums. Why do we have to deny them EVEN THOUGH they have much more info than us?
I don't think it's 100% confirmed PS5 specs either, but there were some people outright denying it had ANYTHING to do with PS5 even though regression tests had clocks at exactly the GPU clock rates of PS4 and PS4 Pro. Whether plans changed or not I don't know (I would assume they did, just not as far as there's a new chip, because there hasn't been any proof of a new chip yet), but it's pretty clear chose chips have at least
some connection with PS5.
They'd get laughed out of a profession for using such data as github leak - it lacks completeness, context is unknown and all one can do with this data is to make random guesses. That is quite unprofessional in science world.
It's only consistent because some people wants to beleive that it's consistent. It's not, first of all framework of testing (what, why and how) is unknown. Even link between Ariel/Oberon and PS5 is just a hypothesis. Second - based on this data some people do a conclusions that are not provable. There too much of cuting corners in justifications, a lot of deductions done on "it looks similar to" basis (that is not scientific), and the whole structure of conclusion becomes quite unreliable after just a few question of "what if this looks like means another thing?"
C'mon, the dataminers aren't
that stupid; they've got criteria established to draw some conclusions how these chips could or could not be related to consoles otherwise they'd be going around saying every uncovered benchmark is related to a console. They aren't doing that.
There are parts of the codenames that literally act as code and shorthand to a consistent scheme AMD uses. There are dates and a timeline for when the GPUs are being tested, that can create a pattern. There are actual numbers in the testing generated from benchmarks against popular 3D testing programs.
Of course it's not 100%, that's why we can't 100% say for certain what exactly's what. But that doesn't mean the benchmarks should be completely disregarded; they deserve at least as much weight for consideration as what insiders are saying IMHO. For myself personally, I regard the benchmarks higher, because I'm the type who likes having some tangible(ish) stuff that isn't just other people's words, no matter how much a may give them credit. And I have acknowledged the insiders (the main ones, anyway) are likely correct on some things and have been correct on other smaller things that got confirmed like a few days after they put out their hints.
I'll close by saying this: back in 2012 and 2013, don't you all remember how Xbox people were trying to dismiss the XBO benchmarks that were getting leaked? They were swearing up and down that they weren't accurate, especially in light of PS4's benchmarks? Welp, we saw how that turned out. I'm not saying it's 100% likely going to play out the same way here, but if there's a precedent and a pattern of things playing out, I'm not gonna ignore previous times where it happened. Even before that, when benchmarks and spec leaks for PS3 and 360 began leaking out, the final retail systems more or less fit right in line with those, too.
So at least in terms of the basic "big" specs, I'm seeing a same pattern and unless more reliable/credible data come outs to verify the existence of certain things that point to otherwise, I'm mainly gonna go with what the benchmarks and spec leaks are saying, because for at least two previous gens we've seen how the actual systems more or less fit those earlier benchmarks and spec leaks. I think things like the 360's memory doubling or PS4 getting 8GB GDDR5 have distorted people's perceptions as to how big a shift actual final console specs tend to get from earlier leaks. Usually, the memory is the one "big" spec component (besides CPU and GPU clocks, and storage) that can be notably adjusted very late into console development prior to release.
This late into the cycle (these console are going to be launching this year), anything suggesting a different APU spec for PS5 (be it a completely different GPU chip, or a smaller chip suggesting a chiplet system, etc.), I think we'd have unconvered some evidence of their existence by now. The fact we haven't (unless such a chip has been uncovered that I somehow missed?) says a lot to me, in how I approach this stuff. I'm just trying to be a realist here; yeah I'm optimistic for some other things too regarding all this PS5 "spec drama" (I've even suggested some possibilities for how insiders could be sourcing their spec estimates with what benchmarks we've actually uncovered so far, too! Though I played devil's advocate with those suggestions), but I can't ignore what's staring me in my face.
TL;DR: IMO the benchmarks are still the most accurate depiction of PS5's "big" specs we have to date, unless future benchmarks uncover to point to something else (if they haven't already). I put stock in most of the insiders and acknowledge certain other things they say are either true or probable, but question their wording on PS5 specs because we're really late into this and no data's come out to back up their claims. I'm 100% open to having that data be uncovered but until it does, for me it's Data > Rumors on this specific issue.
So if only evidence about aliens is grainy home video, we must take it as truth? Retarded logic.
Anyone can upload shit on internet = 0% proof
You think AMD would just sit around and let people "defame" them by posting fake benchmarks consistently, without issuing a C&D? I mean, fake benchmarks would've been countered by "real" benchmarks by now, I'd think.
en.wikipedia.org
t.co
i so would love to have the history repeat itself! God please!!