Lysandros
Member
Is it possible that PS5 has slightly more TMUs than 160 as a customization?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS5 Die Shot has been revealed
- Thread starter LivingD3AD
- Start date
DemonCleaner
Member
Oh I know your graph like the back of my hand, Ive posted it so many times lol.
The higher power consumption is what I was referring to. Your graph showed 220w for just 2.15 Ghz 5700xt. That wouldve been almost 250w for a 2.23 ghz GPU just for the GPU die. So to me, whatever arch or node improvements allowed AMD to reduce that level of power consumption are in the PS5 GPU. I am not well versed in GPU die speculation enough to tell you what those improvements are, but they arent node improvements since AMD said they are not using 7nm+ for RDNA 2.0 chips.
The PS5 seems to be outperforming the 5700xt despite its lower CU count due to its higher tflops/clocks. So I wouldnt be surprised if its firestrike score is somewhere in the 28k-30k region despite 4 fewer CUs.
yeah don't get me wrong. i was in no way trying to say that consoles are RDNA 1 because of their power profile. i pretty much disproven that with my gonzalo analysis thread. PS5 would have been well north of 300W on the wall if that was the case.
what i was trying to say: infinity cache is saving lots and lots of power by preventing data to be moved around unnecessarily. so aquivalent rdna2 GPUs should be even more power efficient than the consoles.
the fact PS5 is even hitting this clockspeeds must mean that there had to be a massive pipeline rework compared to rdna 1.
xsx is fitting the rdna 1 power profile better, but is still more efficient compared what you could expect from a comparable wide rdna 1 aquivalent.
First of all, hi! and thanks for all the explanations and the time you dedicate to make the technology clearer to non-experts. So to understand better you believe that the difference between CU RDNA1 and RDNA2 would be negligible?
And as a last question (if you are not bored) do you think that the increase in clocks is mainly due to the jump of node or more to improve architecture?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
this is absolutely absurd. Dont be a discussion Nazi. The discussion is literally based around tweets of people much smarter than us talking about RDNA 1.5 or RDNA 1.xx i.e., what is custom RDNA and what is FULL, and banning people for engaging in that discussion is very era like.
So whats next? Should we start banning users for posting these tweets? Or should we just ban the users who extrapolate on the tweets? Should we ban the discussion of what custom means? By that logic, we should ban all discussion of the PS5 GPU since we all know its super custom compared to any other RDNA 2.0 GPU out there. Lets ban everyone who brings up the I/O capabilities of the PS5 since thats also custom.
3liteDragon
Member
This is the part I don't get, how are the Series X CUs RDNA 1 instead of 2? The reason Cerny gave for PS5's CUs being RDNA 2 was because of the SIZE of the CUs (as in like increased transistor count for each CU instead of the physical size of the CU on the die itself), so because the Series X APU is based on the 7nm node but with lower GPU clocks (compared to PS5), aren't the CUs still RDNA 2?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
the xsx CUs have hardware level support for ray tracing built into the TMUs. They are bound to be bigger and closer to RDNA 2.0 CUs than RDNA 1.0 CUs. If the XSX CUs were RDNA 1 CUs, they would not have support for hardware accelerated ray tracing.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Ah I see. I wonder if the PS5 Pro will go with a smaller cache like Xbox One's 32MB ESRAM. I always assumed that the extra transistors on the RAM wouldve drastically increased the power consumption.
kyliethicc
Member
I doubt it. We have the die shot. If they had added more TMUs, they'd be visible on the die.
Pretty sure all the consoles & AMD GPUs just have 4 TMUs per CU.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
Cerny compared the increased with GCN.... (PS5 vs PS4).
Ray-tracking is only on TMUs.
CU and TMU are different silicon parts.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Well neither system is RDNA1. And there's plenty of evidence from official sources that disprove that. It's fine to discuss how they customized their RDNA2 GPUs but it's another to say that either of them is RDNA1 with official sources saying the opposite. If your fine with the RDNA1 claims then your also fine with the 8TF and brute forcing claims. Neither which is true btw.
I'm just asking the admins opinion on this. If they are fine with it then I'll just accept their decision.
Also I would prefer you not to use Nazi with me. I know it's just a saying but I have a sentimental attachment to that word. Not because I am a nazi but because I almost didn't exist because of them. Let's leave it at that.
Last edited:
3liteDragon
Member
But what makes the SX's CUs RDNA 1 instead of 2 compared to the PS5's?
Last edited:
Lysandros
Member
I see, thanks.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
The question isnt which system is RDNA 1, the question is which system is full RDNA 2.0 and the answer from me and pretty much everyone in this thread and the tweets we are linking to is that neither is fully RDNA 2.0.
The Locuza tweet mentioning how he thinks its closer to RDNA 1.8 was curious to me which is why I created that table of known RDNA 2.0 features to see if the XSX or PS5 came closer to RDNA 1.8 or RDNA 2.0. Neither did. I dont know why you think thats a crime that needs Bill of Rights brought in to determine if its constitutional.
Last edited:
DemonCleaner
Member
in computer science there is a key metric is pJ per bit per mm
as in energy required to move information a certain distance.
energetically it's always cheaper to let information sit in one place. that comes with disadvantages like die area requirement and rising latency for caches as they grow in size (that's why you have different cache levels). chipmakers have to pic their poison.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
If the CUs are RDNA2 which there is evidence to prove that they are. The only reason why they went with a lower clock speed is probably because they wanted fixed clocks. Either that or it was because of yield issues.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
hmmm... .I thought the CUs were made up of Shader Processors, Texture Mapping Units and ROPs.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't think it's wrong to discuss how custom the RDNA2 GPUs are. But I think it's wrong that some people are saying that they are RDNA1 GPUs when it's confirmed from official sources that they are not.
It's kind of like if I said the PS5 is using a GCN GPU with Jaguar Cores.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I think that's wrong as well. But you are taking issues with a post of mine that literally said this.
This clearly shows that I think both consoles are using RDNA 2.0 features. You are asking the mods to look at something that does not exist.
DemonCleaner
Member
man you people all have to watch the locuza video again.
his point was that there are no clear rdna 1 / 2 boardes but iterations of different feature sets of the specific GPU components. even the advancement of those iterations is not always reflected correctly by their version number.
his point was that there are no clear rdna 1 / 2 boardes but iterations of different feature sets of the specific GPU components. even the advancement of those iterations is not always reflected correctly by their version number.
Last edited:
The thing is that rdna x.x mean nothing expecially if we are talking about customized gpu's. We can endlessly discuss nomenclature without ever coming to an end. But there is only one way to figure out which one comes closest to being full rdna2. The features
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't know I've seen people claim that the PS5 is RDNA1 when it isn't. I know both are a combination of the two but that doesn't make it correct to say that one system is RDNA1 while the other is RDNA2. It gets really irritating to see the same misinformation spread over and over again.
MasterCornholio
Member
And that's where we have an issue. Because Microsoft uses their own nomenclature for those features but the competition can also have them in their system. It's kind of difficult to determine which features the PS5 has and which ones are equivalent to what Xbox has.
ethomaz
Banned
IMO clocks is the best evidence for now.
ethomaz
Banned
CUs are CUs and indeed have the Shader Processors inside... liked to them there are TMUs and cache... they are close each other but AMD pics shows they are different units.
ROPs are usually in the center of the GPU... it is called Render Backend in AMD chips... it is close to the GE, Command processor, etc.
It is a bit far way from the CUs and TMUs.
Last edited:
ethomaz
Banned
There are more talk if you guys wants to read... I showed the clocks of RX 6800 and RX 5700.
We need more evidences yet (that is why I use guess but seems like nobody take that).
I will check the difference between silicons if I had time today.... I'm a bit late with my work hehe.
You mean the number of CUs per Shader Array? It is the same between RDNA and RDNA2.
Last edited:
longdi
Banned
So we can see SX is a bit more advanced design because MS took bit longer to finish it. Makes perfect sense.
DJ12
Member
Seems like it matters a lot to you actually.
alabtrosMyster
Member
The cut down FPU aspect is interesting, despite the console warring going on around the topic, what was the trade-off for this sacrifice? Is there any downside in the context of a console?
Even if Sony made the right choice, it only shows they either considered different options to optimize the cost/performance of their machine... So far it seems like it works, anything about "future secret GPU boost/cloud/dx12u/second GPU/tools" is pure speculation, has been seen before, etc. Could happen, but it could be on either side.
Lysandros
Member
As i said in my discussion with Locuza my post was a bit rushed due to misunderstanding. To my knowledge the whole FPU sitation seems to be fuzzy for now, all we know for sure is that it looks to be (slightly) smaller compared PC/XSX. The precise nature of the tweaking remains unknown. I personally don't think it's something that will affect performance to a noticeable degree if at all. Maybe his future posts will cast some more light on the matter.
Last edited:
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Is he legit?
ErRor88
Member
@LeviathanGamer2? I think so, he's not a fanboy and presents the tech.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Very well, thank you
Locuza
Member
If you exclude the TMUs, the re-pipelining and other physical design optimizations then there isn't a huge difference between RDNA1 and RDNA2 Compute Units.
However that's not how reality works and how the PS5 or Xbox Series X are build.
The increase in clock speeds relative to RDNA1 GPUs comes from a lot of design work.
Each circuit design has a limit how fast it can work.
For example If you have 100 building blocks and 99 would achieve 2GHz but one only 1 GHz, then the whole design would need to run at 1GHz if all of them have to live under one clock domain.
As an architect you would look at this 1 block and try to expand that clock limit by re-designing the cuircuty.
There are multiple options to improve the clock speed with different compromises.
Beyond the "simple" clock speed increase the efficiency of the whole design was improved by a large factor.
Both the Xbox Series and PS5 are obviously leveraging a lot if not all of that RDNA2 work.
Because otherwise both would consume much more power and even the Xbox Series wouldn't run at 1.825GHz.
The 5700XT runs at similar clock rates under games but AMD can bin the best chips to run at higher frequency, there is also the 5700 which is slower.
For console you can't bin the chips after different classes, all of them have to hit 1.825GHz which is why console designs are usually less agressively clocked than top stack SKUs for desktop or mobile products.
Since the Xbox Series X is already running at 1.825GHz, showcases RDNA2 level of energy efficiency and includes the new Render Backend design, which was also optimized for higher clock rates, you can expect that the silicon can also achieve well over 2GHz, which wouldn't be possible under RDNA1 GPUs.
If you go by AMDs definition, CUs include the "Shader Processors and Texture Mapping Units" but not the ROPs.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
So technically whatever ray tracing hardware AMD has included would be in the CUs?If you go by AMDs definition, CUs include the "Shader Processors and Texture Mapping Units" but not the ROPs.
are in the tmu's so I think yes
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
I would be wary of the interpretations on low-level changes of a 12-15 billion transistor chip that are being made using a 9 million pixel photo.
MasterCornholio
Member
If you exclude the TMUs, the re-pipelining and other physical design optimizations then there isn't a huge difference between RDNA1 and RDNA2 Compute Units.
However that's not how reality works and how the PS5 or Xbox Series X are build.
The increase in clock speeds relative to RDNA1 GPUs comes from a lot of design work.
Each circuit design has a limit how fast it can work.
For example If you have 100 building blocks and 99 would achieve 2GHz but one only 1 GHz, then the whole design would need to run at 1GHz if all of them have to live under one clock domain.
As an architect you would look at this 1 block and try to expand that clock limit by re-designing the cuircuty.
There are multiple options to improve the clock speed with different compromises.
Beyond the "simple" clock speed increase the efficiency of the whole design was improved by a large factor.
Both the Xbox Series and PS5 are obviously leveraging a lot if not all of that RDNA2 work.
Because otherwise both would consume much more power and even the Xbox Series wouldn't run at 1.825GHz.
The 5700XT runs at similar clock rates under games but AMD can bin the best chips to run at higher frequency, there is also the 5700 which is slower.
For console you can't bin the chips after different classes, all of them have to hit 1.825GHz which is why console designs are usually less agressively clocked than top stack SKUs for desktop or mobile products.
Since the Xbox Series X is already running at 1.825GHz, showcases RDNA2 level of energy efficiency and includes the new Render Backend design, which was also optimized for higher clock rates, you can expect that the silicon can also achieve well over 2GHz, which wouldn't be possible under RDNA1 GPUs.
If you go by AMDs definition, CUs include the "Shader Processors and Texture Mapping Units" but not the ROPs.
Very interesting.
I would appreciate your opinion on something if you don't mind.
So it seems pretty obvious that Sony could have selected the features that they wanted for their GPU. But why make the decision not include dedicated hardware for SFS, VRS and Mesh Shaders?
Just seems a bit odd that Sony wouldn't have those features unless they could substitute them for something else.
Like always very very interesting ...thanksIf you exclude the TMUs, the re-pipelining and other physical design optimizations then there isn't a huge difference between RDNA1 and RDNA2 Compute Units.
However that's not how reality works and how the PS5 or Xbox Series X are build.
The increase in clock speeds relative to RDNA1 GPUs comes from a lot of design work.
Each circuit design has a limit how fast it can work.
For example If you have 100 building blocks and 99 would achieve 2GHz but one only 1 GHz, then the whole design would need to run at 1GHz if all of them have to live under one clock domain.
As an architect you would look at this 1 block and try to expand that clock limit by re-designing the cuircuty.
There are multiple options to improve the clock speed with different compromises.
Beyond the "simple" clock speed increase the efficiency of the whole design was improved by a large factor.
Both the Xbox Series and PS5 are obviously leveraging a lot if not all of that RDNA2 work.
Because otherwise both would consume much more power and even the Xbox Series wouldn't run at 1.825GHz.
The 5700XT runs at similar clock rates under games but AMD can bin the best chips to run at higher frequency, there is also the 5700 which is slower.
For console you can't bin the chips after different classes, all of them have to hit 1.825GHz which is why console designs are usually less agressively clocked than top stack SKUs for desktop or mobile products.
Since the Xbox Series X is already running at 1.825GHz, showcases RDNA2 level of energy efficiency and includes the new Render Backend design, which was also optimized for higher clock rates, you can expect that the silicon can also achieve well over 2GHz, which wouldn't be possible under RDNA1 GPUs.
If you go by AMDs definition, CUs include the "Shader Processors and Texture Mapping Units" but not the ROPs.
and (i promise is the last question!!) about the ML you think that there will be diffence between the two console (on hw level)?
I'm asking because i think that this could be bigger than the lack of something like VRS
Last edited:
DemonCleaner
Member
it's inside the texture units which are part of the CUs. but what does that matter?
this has been known since the AMD RT patent for much over a year ago.
but i like to stress that this is not the same as the "amd is doing ray tracing in shaders" moronic trope certain imbeciles have been pushing here for ages. functionally the ray accelerators are doing the same parts of the RT pipeline as in nvidia GPUs. i think in turing and ampere the RT cores are also directly associated with the TMUs, but
Locuza
might correct me on that.
Last edited:
Physiognomonics
Member
I think we'll need some others experts opinion of why GE and TMUs seem bigger on PS5. Those people on that twitter thread don't seem to be interested into that matter and seem focused on the downgraded FPU, missing VRS and anything RDNA1 on PS5.
The most interesting aspect of PS5 is the Geometry engine (why is it bigger?), tempest engine and cache scrubbers.
Last edited:
Doncabesa
Member
The truth of the matter is that both PS5 and the X|S are well made and outside of a passing interest in how they were made none of this really matters. It is going to be a great generation all around.
prinz_valium
Member
Yeah in general that's seems to be correct.