bhunachicken
Member
Are we settled on the type of memory? GDDR6 or HBM?
I think AMD lean towards HBM, don't they?
I think AMD lean towards HBM, don't they?
Are we settled on the type of memory? GDDR6 or HBM?
I think AMD lean towards HBM, don't they?
I'm going with 12 or 13 and idk why,12 huh?![]()
Sony job ad declares PS5 as the "world's fastest console"
![]()
![]()
Sony Interactive Entertainment PlayStation
PlayStation isn’t just the Best Place to Play —it’s also the Best Place to Work. We’ve thrilled gamers since 1994, when we launched the original PlayStation. Today, we’re recognized as a global leader in interactive and digital entertainment. The PlayStation brand falls under Sony Interactive...boards.greenhouse.io
My bad, how many of this babys are usually made before the final OEM version? ThanksEngineering sample, not a dev kit.
"... our next generation CLOUD infrastructure." _ and once again the Shakespearean code namesSony job ad declares PS5 as the "world's fastest console"
![]()
![]()
Sony Interactive Entertainment PlayStation
PlayStation isn’t just the Best Place to Play —it’s also the Best Place to Work. We’ve thrilled gamers since 1994, when we launched the original PlayStation. Today, we’re recognized as a global leader in interactive and digital entertainment. The PlayStation brand falls under Sony Interactive...boards.greenhouse.io
Cloud infrastructure?
So really they're just referring to Microsoft's Azure platform...![]()
Gotta go fast!Sony job ad declares PS5 as the "world's fastest console"
![]()
![]()
Sony Interactive Entertainment PlayStation
PlayStation isn’t just the Best Place to Play —it’s also the Best Place to Work. We’ve thrilled gamers since 1994, when we launched the original PlayStation. Today, we’re recognized as a global leader in interactive and digital entertainment. The PlayStation brand falls under Sony Interactive...boards.greenhouse.io
GDDR6 for sure.Are we settled on the type of memory? GDDR6 or HBM?
I think AMD lean towards HBM, don't they?
I don't believe this.I'm in the dedicated OS RAM camp. Probably cheaper for them to have a 4GB DDR4 side piece and thus get away with "only" 16GB of GDDR6 to run the games.
Either way, seems like the solid state will be bussed such that it will be available as a 2nd tier RAM cache to mitigate limitations years down the road. In fact, if they do forego a dedicated OS chip that will be their excuse why. "12GB is plenty, we have 64GB as SSD RAM cache!"
Nope.Crazy that we pretty much had the final specs for the PS4/X1 seventeen months away from launch, aside from the RAM sizes
![]()
Latest reliable Orbis and Durango specs
Disclaimer: Everything isn't final, but the general range of these system are more or less set in stone. Durango: AMD CPU, 6-8 cores Ram 3-4 GB AMD GPU Total processing power 1-1.2 teraflops Note: I've heard of 8GB ram from reliable people on this form, but a certain, well...www.neogaf.com
GDDR6, unless a miracle happens (HBM3/organic interposer for lower costs).Are we settled on the type of memory? GDDR6 or HBM?
I think AMD lean towards HBM, don't they?
When do we expect the switch to Azure to happen?They currently use AWS.
Cloud infrastructure?
So really they're just referring to Microsoft's Azure platform...![]()
They currently use AWS.
NAND chips are much slower than DRAM ones. They cannot replace DRAM.
When Nintendo promoted power.Remember the N64 ^^
![]()
Can always download more RAM.16GB GDDR6 seems likely. 2gb of that plus virtual ram from SSD for OS.
Dunno if true, but Microsoft have being change the way they talk about Scarlet, so..."World's fastest console"?
Does this mean Sony are privy to the final specs of Xbox Scarlett and know the PS5 is the lesser of the machines this gen? If PS5 was the most powerful, they'd've said that. However, they've chosen to say fastest. So, do they know that the PS5 has a higher clock speed, but not much else?
I think it's just about load speeds."World's fastest console"?
Does this mean Sony are privy to the final specs of Xbox Scarlett and know the PS5 is the lesser of the machines this gen? If PS5 was the most powerful, they'd've said that. However, they've chosen to say fastest. So, do they know that the PS5 has a higher clock speed, but not much else?
Please show me how.Can always download more RAM.
"World's fastest console"?
Does this mean Sony are privy to the final specs of Xbox Scarlett and know the PS5 is the lesser of the machines this gen? If PS5 was the most powerful, they'd've said that. However, they've chosen to say fastest. So, do they know that the PS5 has a higher clock speed, but not much else?
121fps achieved confirmed.I think it's just about load speeds.
Everything points to PS5 winning the power battle yet again next gen.
Please show me how.
Personally, I think Sony needs the performance crown more than MS, even if it's just a single-digit percent difference (same APU, higher clocks due to innovative cooling).
Sony is a PS-focused company these days, while MS is Azure-focused. A PS5 failure would be disastrous for Sony, while XBOX is more of a side project for MS.
The more successful the PS5 is, the more profitable it will be for Azure and thus for MS. Sounds win-win to me.
I'm really curious if they both have the same CU count. And if Sony really has gone for rediculous high clock speeds.
If they have both gone for 40 active cu's and Sony is clocking at 2000mhz that gives 10.24tflops.
If scarlett is 40 active cu's as well and they clocked at a more reasonable 1700mhz that gives them 8.7tf
If this is true ms should be able to upclock but I doubt they will be able to clock more then 10%, which would give them 9.5tf.
Unless one of them has more active cu's I don't see how the power difference can be more then 1tflop.
Well, I'm not talking about 40-50% difference in the GPU department, since that would require wholly different APUs.I don't think so, the xbox console is still at the core of there gaming business and thus they will want the best possible success for it,
Neither company will want to be less powerful because its negative PR that sticks.
However if the difference is very small (10% or less) it not to bad for them.
Well, I'm not talking about 40-50% difference in the GPU department, since that would require wholly different APUs.
I also don't think they're going to abandon XBOX, but that doesn't mean they want PS5 to fail. The Azure partnership changed the dynamics quite a bit.
Maybe MS doesn't care if the PS5 is 5-10% faster, we don't know what they've been discussing behind the scenes. One way or another, they're going to make money, that's for sure.
If the "preferred situation" for them is to have a common APU and exploit economies of scale (single tape-out, book a large amount of 7nm EUV wafers beforehand), then it's highly unlikely to expect bigger differences.I doubt either is to fussed over 5-10%, it won't be the preferred situation though.
If the "preferred situation" for them is to have a common APU and exploit economies of scale (single tape-out, book a large amount of 7nm EUV wafers beforehand), then it's highly unlikely to expect bigger differences.
Sony job ad declares PS5 as the "world's fastest console"
![]()
![]()
Sony Interactive Entertainment PlayStation
PlayStation isn’t just the Best Place to Play —it’s also the Best Place to Work. We’ve thrilled gamers since 1994, when we launched the original PlayStation. Today, we’re recognized as a global leader in interactive and digital entertainment. The PlayStation brand falls under Sony Interactive...boards.greenhouse.io
I don't believe this.
NAND chips are much slower than DRAM ones. They cannot replace DRAM.
Sony job ad declares PS5 as the "world's fastest console"
![]()
![]()
Sony Interactive Entertainment PlayStation
PlayStation isn’t just the Best Place to Play —it’s also the Best Place to Work. We’ve thrilled gamers since 1994, when we launched the original PlayStation. Today, we’re recognized as a global leader in interactive and digital entertainment. The PlayStation brand falls under Sony Interactive...boards.greenhouse.io
Good points.It's not even just that; regular NAND chips aren't even byte-addressable for writes, which is a requirement for random-access memories. Nor are they byte-addressable for reads (granted, DRAM isn't either since access is virtualized), and have to be erased at the block level (something DRAM and NOR don't have to resort to).
What that user's might be referring to though is persistent memory 3D NAND. Not the Optane stuff available as fast storage, but the DRAM-like 3D NAND Intel's selling now for server workstations. The prices are really high for that market and you wouldn't be getting anywhere near 64GB's worth if it works out to about $6 or even $4 per GB, but it would essentially act as a larger, slower pool of DRAM with all of its advantages plus being non-volatile.
The question is, would it be worth a given price at a given amount, or just better to go with more RAM? You'd lose the permanent storage but the RAM these systems use would be so much faster anyway (and with way better/smaller latencies; current persistent memory Optane has latencies of around 350 ns) that it wouldn't matter much to just have a slightly larger pool of GDDR6 and a large internal regular NAND storage device (that could be replaceable) and get all of that for the budget you'd throw to persistent 3D NAND in these consoles.
3D NAND would only make sense if they could get it in a size of 64GB or greater and at around $1 per GB or cheaper; since you can't even get QLC NAND that cheap (not just referring to public wholesaler rates; not even private clients can get it at those prices), there's no way in hell Intel or Micron are going to sell Sony and Microsoft 3D NAND at a price per GB cheaper than what it costs them to manufacture.
The way Sony has talked about their SSD being this almighty fastest SSD ever makes me think Optane might be what they are using. But the price makes no sense, it would be way too expensive. I think it depends on the rest of the architecture. Personally I think we're going to see a 128gb SSD as a fast cache. Maybe even as small as a 64gb SSD. That would be enough space to hold most full games (but only one game). SSD prices are way too high no matter what the technology to have the only storage be SSD. There must be a traditional HDD as well for mass storage. Most people now have an external HDD to hold their content making probably around the 3TB mark the average amount of space a PS4 user has. There is no way we could go back to 1TB of storage with no means of expanding it.Good points.
I think QLC NAND is a given, probably 4 chips for a total of 1TB. No HDD/hybrid storage, pure SSD connected straight to the APU (HDD/Blu-Ray has to go through the southbridge).
The only problem with QLC is that it's not very durable (100-1000 writes max). If it's soldered, that could easily become problematic. I'd prefer a M.2 slot solution, unless custom/soldered means much higher speeds.
Of course what's even more problematic is using a hybrid HDD/SSD solution with a small SSD as a cache... do people seriously not understand what that means for the SSD durability?
Not really.The way Sony has talked about their SSD being this almighty fastest SSD ever makes me think Optane might be what they are using. But the price makes no sense, it would be way too expensive. I think it depends on the rest of the architecture. Personally I think we're going to see a 128gb SSD as a fast cache. Maybe even as small as a 64gb SSD. That would be enough space to hold most full games (but only one game). SSD prices are way too high no matter what the technology to have the only storage be SSD. There must be a traditional HDD as well for mass storage. Most people now have an external HDD to hold their content making probably around the 3TB mark the average amount of space a PS4 user has. There is no way we could go back to 1TB of storage with no means of expanding it.
And don't forget it has to power Psvr2Personally, I think Sony needs the performance crown more than MS, even if it's just a single-digit percent difference (same APU, higher clocks due to innovative cooling).
Sony is a PS-focused company these days, while MS is Azure-focused. A PS5 failure would be disastrous for Sony, while XBOX is more of a side project for MS.
The more successful the PS5 is, the more profitable it will be for Azure and thus for MS. Sounds win-win to me.
Good points.
I think QLC NAND is a given, probably 4 chips for a total of 1TB. No HDD/hybrid storage, pure SSD connected straight to the APU (HDD/Blu-Ray has to go through the southbridge).
The only problem with QLC is that it's not very durable (100-1000 writes max). If it's soldered, that could easily become problematic. I'd prefer a M.2 slot solution, unless custom/soldered means much higher speeds.
Of course what's even more problematic is using a hybrid HDD/SSD solution with a small SSD as a cache... do people seriously not understand what that means for the SSD durability?
The mass market (FIFA, Fortnite et al) will stick to PS4 (Super) Slim for a while. What makes you think they're willing to spend $400?I dunno, we might be willing to pay the extra money but will the mass market? the difference between sales numbers for a $500 vs. a $400 console could be quite large...
True, but that wouldn't be as fast as they have been talking. But could be what they actually use. I still believe there has to be an HDD in the system for mass storage.Not really.
You can buy 1TB NVMe SSD (Intel 660p) for only $100 right now. That's a retail price, not wholesale.
SSD prices are dropping fast, so I wouldn't be surprised if it costs $50-60 next year:
Prices of SSDs and RAM will crash in 2019, Gartner predicts
Minor relief is in sight next year, when prices of memory and NAND flash will start to gradually decline. But prices will plummet big time in 2019, said Jon Erensen, research director for semiconductors at Gartner.www.pcworld.com
An SSD cache is gonna be disastrous. Trust me, you don't want that if you even remotely care about longevity.
True, but that wouldn't be as fast as they have been talking. But could be what they actually use. I still believe there has to be an HDD in the system for mass storage.
An external USB3 HDD will be able to run BC games (PS4 and maybe even PS1/2/3) just fine, no need for an SSD.External drives will act as cold storage I think. You will be able to store games on them bit wont run games off of them. To play the game it will have to be loaded onto the ssd. I think the ssd will keep your last 5 or 6 games laoded on it then seamlessly swap with the connected external drive as needed.
Exactly what I was getting at with my comments. I'll hate that I can't just install a really large drive inside though. Just a cleaner setup than an external drive.External drives will act as cold storage I think. You will be able to store games on them bit wont run games off of them. To play the game it will have to be loaded onto the ssd. I think the ssd will keep your last 5 or 6 games laoded on it then seamlessly swap with the connected external drive as needed.