PS5 Die Shot has been revealed
- Thread starter LivingD3AD
- Start date
mitchman
Gold Member
The "new OLED tech" here is actually a new panel from LG Display, Panasonic doesn't make their own OLED panels.A good FALD/LED does HDR better than OLED with a significantly higher peak brightness and sometimes higher color gamut.
C9 is well below 1000 nits and like other OLED's suffers from ABL which makes it not able hold it's already low peak brightness(in comparison)for long.
However
New OLED tech from Panasonic is supposed to reach up to 1000 nits with special cooling.
Loxus
Member
So, in all fairness.
PS5 37 during cutscene.
Series X 32 during cutscene.
XBSX is just made to look better with higher res.
At the beginning of the graph the RX 5700 and XBSX drop frames, while PS5 hold strong.
I could never understand the Hitman 3 arguments,
both console give and take and have pluses and minuses.
Seems thread not done
FatKingBallman
Banned
PS5 37 during cutscene.
Series X 32 during cutscene.
Oh, i knew that. But od course i've talked about fps during gameplay
One thing's for sure...they are dissecting the shit out this die shot, lmao.
I hope everyone keeps up the good work.
Physiognomonics
Member
PS5 37 during cutscene.
Series X 32 during cutscene.
Just look how big (66.6ms, 2 repeated frames) and similar those frame-times are between PS5, PC and XSX (and almost identical between PC in blue and XSX). That's not caused by a GPU bottleneck. That's definitely caused by I/O hiccups (as defined by DF themselves in their Control comparison).
PS5 (green) and PC (blue):
XSX:
Also you'll notice how they carefully avoid to directly compare XSX against PC (or PS5), they give only this one screenshot for the XSX (while we have the previous seconds on PC vs PS5). Because they only want to show the framerate of XSX during I/O related drops (as those drops will be similar against PC and PS5).
The whole comparison (this frame) is totally pointless. They are benchmarking the GPU (so they say) using I/O related framerate drops. It's dishonest.
Because we have pure GPU related drops of XSX vs PS5 and during the more representative gameplay. That's 39fps at 2160p for XSX vs 60fps at 1800p for PS5. PS5 is winning here.
Last edited:
TheContact
Member
kinda wish the consoles had some form of DLSS. I wonder if amd ever does their own version if they'll show up in the "pro" models
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Last edited:
geordiemp
Member
You missed the Control benchmark after your meltdown absence, where again the GPU gap was proven beyond doubt.
When a PS5 game runs at higher settings with a 44% resolution advantage come back to me.
You keep holding onto your PS4 games will load in one second, PS5 has Infinity Cache, PS5 has special big L3 cache, PS5 secret sauce will be revealed at AMD RDNA2 reveal along with other unproven tripe.
Talking of laughs you gave all everyone could handle when you demanded proof of people owning a console before they were allowed to talk about it, even suggesting people owning a PS5 should be mod verified before they could comment
Meltdown, you really need a day job, some people are busy and dont war on GAF everyday, Get a life. I have work to do.
Ps4 games can load in 1 second if compiled to do so, you are confusing load time with other things like contacting servers and all the other rubbish last gen games did .
I said ps5 at most would have room for 8 MB of extra cache at most. Try reading what I type, If you think that means I claimed infinity cache, then you really are not smart.
I never said Ps5 has a combined L3 cache CPU, that was the fake you tubers. Try to at least make sense in what you type. I also dnever subscribed to why Ps5 works better in alot of games was the CPU, so whatever.
Ps5 does not have secret sauce, we know what it has Vertices compression as per Naughty dog and Cerny, Cache scrubbers and high frequency. Most dont understand what that entails, so maybe its secret to you.
The Naught dog paper clearly tells you why you get bottlenecks with large shader arrays, it lists them. If you believe that is made up, then you are just being Riky.
If you think a mod needs a link to Cerny and Naughty dog published material ? I have no idea what you are blabbing about as you simply dont understand anything technical thats clear. You cannot folow any discussion, its like speaking to a child and you wonder why I cant be bothered with GAF. Its pathetic.
Last edited:
Riky
$MSFT
ToTTenTranz
Banned
32MB max extra for Infinity Cache, 8MB max for extra CPU L3.
I think you're confusing the caches.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
FWIW this might've been in reference to Vega architecture, not RDNA. Some of Sony's earlier designs for PS5 used Vega GPUs as sit-ins until RDNA silicon was ready. Even if pontificating the significance of this further, the impact of more Dual CUs in the SA as questioned in these patents could've been more RDNA 1-specific; several efficiency changes in the design of the architecture have come with RDNA 2.Its the Naught dog and Cerny patent on explaining limitations of caches in CU and the solution- you can google it, which is a custom CU solution as the hardware and order of processing is very much changed. Also parameters are stored differently.
The important part is if you understand the paper, it explains clearly bottlenecks in the shader array - and goes along way to highlight why 14 CU does not always perform better than 10 CU in SOME but not all work loads (try explaing that toRiky , good luck).
The maintaining of the paremeter vertices clearly states it is beneficial in post processing efficiency (less work).
Now, the next arguement is does it exist in ps5 - well most likely, we have seen evidence of ps5 performance on post processing and some work loads that match well with this.
Or its magic, Does not matter either way, performance is there, this together with cache scrubbers and whatever GE optimisation exists matches well performance that we see on ps5.
Most of the ps5 unexpected performance such as vertices patent, GE and cache scrubbers you wont see in a die shot, as most are just looking for repeated patterns of metalisation to identify die functions..
None of this also necessarily negates any potential customizations for optimization Microsoft may've done with their setup that are at the CU level and therefore wouldn't even have been covered in a presentation or visible in die x-rays. I would think being such a big and well-funded company, designing an APU that's a fit for both their gaming and Azure blades (and designing a companion system with a CU setup more "normalized"), would have been aware of issues this patent touched on and taken them into consideration, making some lower-level adjustments as best as able to mitigate issues raised here.
Last edited:
prinz_valium
Member
Oh boi. External Storage will be limited, because it has to be accessed at the same 4 PCIe lanes as internal storage.
Won't matter for games, as you only play one game, but other tasks will be affected.
Xbox Series has 2 lanes for internal and 2 lanes for external.
Won't matter for games, as you only play one game, but other tasks will be affected.
Xbox Series has 2 lanes for internal and 2 lanes for external.
ethomaz
Banned
Only when the two drivers are in use it will be affected....
In any case 4 lanes for two drivers is overkill.
Last edited:
Elog
Member
Two different design targets: XSX wanted to reduce load times. PS5 wants to reduce load times AND use the SSD storage as a slow RAM pool for dynamic high resolution texture loading into VRAM. How different it will be in the end? We will see - but that is why the design choices are different here.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
skit_data
Member
ethomaz
Banned
Well you can't split game data... you need to have the full game data in one of the SSDs.
Outside that I have no ideia.
Said that Cerny already explained that both SSDs pass thought the same I/O controller so it was expected to be like that using the same PCI-E bus.
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
Yeah, i figured. So i guess it impacts pretty much nothing except having to choose between two install destinations? "Ohboi"
Lysandros
Member
No no no... We all know for sure that Sony cut down the FPU width to 128-bit, because PS5 couldn't possibly handle 256-bit native instructions due to heat. Even Cerny said it so in Road to PS5... Besides even if they removed anything else this will surely result in reduced FPU performance in games...
Last edited:
Red_Driver85
Member
Lol, you didn't even understand what is shown here. And here it is shown that the custom flash controller is the only flash controller through which the entire streaming system will work.
ethomaz
Banned
That way it guarantee that even if the game is on expanded it will run without storage limitations.
Last edited:
Red_Driver85
Member
Exactly.
Zathalus
Member
Anyone recall the patent by Sony and Cerny showing a unified L3 CPU cache? Which is clearly not in the PS5. Assuming anything about the PS5 based on what patents have been filed seems silly. There is zero confirmation about what made it in and what did not. Or what was looked at but decided against.
Physiognomonics
Member
PS5 has no Unified L3 cache like it's done on Zen 3. But they could have greatly reduced inter CCX latencies, even without such a unified cache. We know the high latencies of inter CCX accesses was a concern for them on PS4 (as they talked about that in a presentation), so I won't be surprised if they worked on some way to reduce those latencies particularly when we see the CCXs are not that far away from each others and directly linked by the infinite fabric.
Last edited:
Just curious, what other task you do on gaming console if not play games on it?
Zathalus
Member
That's not what the patent said and showed. It was clearly for a unified L3 CPU cache.
Companies log patents for things all the time, it doesn't mean that they all get used or implemented.
My point is that using a patent as proof of something being implemented in the PS5 is basically worthless. You can use it as speculation, but there is zero guarantee it has been implemented at all.
Physiognomonics
Member
What is a "unified L3 cache"? If CCX1 can access the CCX2 cache and work using that cache then you have a unified L3 cache. By that definition even PS4 has a unified L3 cache. Patent always deal using very general descriptions in order to fit with many cases.
Zathalus
Member
US9892024B2 - Backward compatibility testing of software in a mode that disrupts timing - Google Patents
A device may be run in a timing testing mode in which the device is configured to disrupt timing of processing that takes place on the one or more processors while running an application with the one or more processors. The application may be tested for errors while the device is running in the...
patents.google.com
Block diagram of shared cache, you will note that the L2 caches are separate. This is cleary meant to demonstrate a unified cache architecture like Zen 3. This was not implemented in the PS5 in this form. Who knows why, maybe the cost wasn't worth it?
Once again, a patent is proof of nothing. You cannot assume that because a patent exists that it is being used.
Red_Driver85
Member
A patent does not always 100% describe all the details, but mainly the principle itself. This patent describes exactly what is done in PS4 Pro and PS5 - Graphics processing enhancement by tracking object and/or primitive identifiers - Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (freepatentsonline.com)
ethomaz
Banned
The L3 is similar to Zen3 L3 but the L2 is not.
L2 in that patent is shared between all cores in the CCX (similar to L3 in Zen2) while in AMD CPUs it is per core.
So it is basically a CPU with Zen2 L3 as L2 and Zen3 L3 as L3.
If you ask me it is more like Intel handle caches than AMD.
But you are right PS5 is 100% not using that patent.
Last edited:
j^aws
Member
Yep, I found that patent and posted it on Era. What about it? Who confirmed in a speculation thread that it was confirmed to be in PS5?
Zathalus
Member
My point is simply that a patent is proof of nothing. No more, no less.
j^aws
Member
Well, that is as insightful as water is wet.
Epic Sax CEO
Banned
I also can't understand how he came to that conclusion, and what are those "other tasks" that will be bottlenecked.
Zathalus
Member
Yet if you had actually bothered to read the recent comments in the thread regarding patents, you would see what I am referring to. Some posters are using patents to explain certain PS5 rendering features, I was just commenting on the fact that the patents by themselves are proof of nothing.
I was thinking this too.
j^aws
Member
Since I found the patent, I've seen nothing new discussed. Who was arguing patents as facts?
Last edited:
Zathalus
Member
Below:
PS5 Die Shot has been revealed
I had to buy a TV anyway as my 1080p Panny plasma died, so it made sense to get a HDMI 2.1 set with the new consoles coming out. In your case it's good reason, I agree. But I have a perfectly good 4k display, that works well. If my console didn't have a stable framerate I would have a bad...
j^aws
Member
The poster says "well most likely"... How is that a statement of fact?Below:
PS5 Die Shot has been revealed
I had to buy a TV anyway as my 1080p Panny plasma died, so it made sense to get a HDMI 2.1 set with the new consoles coming out. In your case it's good reason, I agree. But I have a perfectly good 4k display, that works well. If my console didn't have a stable framerate I would have a bad...www.neogaf.com
Zathalus
Member
Posters post history, repeatedly using patents to explain how the PS5 is different and superior to the XSX. Then it gets picked up and banded around the forum as some sort of proof. The same occurred with the shared L3 cache, quite a number of people here were convinced it was a fact.
So I simply pointed out in this thread that a patent is not proof in of itself.
Or for that matter, a patent might not even be correct in the information it is putting forth.
Basically, it's fun to speculate with patents, but more often then not they just get used to try and score console wars points.
Last edited:
j^aws
Member
Yeah, that is good advice. However, your link didn't show a patent as proof - just speculation, as being likely. Big difference.
Shelookdlvl18
Banned
Stop. You keep using the word "fact", such as "statement of fact". I can't see that he said that. If you're going to nail him down to something as trivial as that specific wording, then practice what you preach and show me where he said that certain people were saying that patent was used in the PS5 as a statement of fact.
He said they were using the patents to explain certain PS5 rendering features.... Which is exactly what happened in the link he posted. Furthermore, that posters only alternative to that patent following that "well most likely" quote you threw up, was that it was accomplished using "magic".
Sheesh, like how big of a prick you gonna be over something so trivial? Especially when the only result will be your embarrassment.
Last edited:
j^aws
Member
I didn't make the claim. He can make his own argument.
Last edited:
Loxus
Member
Why no one pays attention to the Great Cerny PS5 Scriptures.
"They connect through the custom I/O unit just like our SSD does."
"So they can take full advantage of the decompression I/O coprocessors and all the other features I was talking about."
"Here's the catch though that commercial drive has to be at least as fast as ours. Games that rely on the speed of our SSD need to work flawlessly with M.2 drive."
By going through the custom I/O unit, it act's as addition storage, so no limited external storage.
Only thing that's needed, is that the external storage has the same speed as the PS5's SSD for games.
blueisdumb tried to say the same thing, but this guy had a good take on it as well.
And this guy.
Last edited:
Red_Driver85
Member
I read his tweets and ... I wish I hadn't. If you are interested in technical details, so be interested in them, and do not make crazy fantasies out of your ass, and even in such quantity. Shameful.