Shangounchained
Banned
My God it doesn't matter how fast your ram is it doesn't matter how fast the ssd is, data stays on memory a single frame in any game today isn't above 8gb doesn't matter if the GPU is 1 million GB/s, it's still 8gb assetts
Supposed PS5 specs from random Beyond3D member (Silly but this is also how the 1st Wii U specs was leaked)
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
TLZ
Banned
Did they say 54 CU? I can't access that forum for some reason.look like this might have been closer to the truth than we thought
The clockspeed has been changing so some devs seen it at it's lower clock speed & said 8TF then devs seen it at 1.8GHz & said it was close to 13TF but now it's clocking up to 2Ghz & coming in a 14TF
54 x 64 x 2 x 1210 = 8.36TF
54 x 64 x 2 x 1830 = 12.64TF
54 x 64 x 2 x 2060 = 14.23 TF
No I used 54 CUs mixed with the different leaked clock speeds to match the rumored TF numbers that we have heard from different places.
we know that 3 different clock speeds have been used in the different dev kits
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
No dude. PS3 and 360 both had 512MB total RAM. PC games at that point had RAM requirements well beyond that. Most games in 2005 had at minimum a 1GB requirement and many were pushed to 4GB by the time the PS4 came out.
Shangounchained
Banned
Pc games where all ports of 360 and PS3 and needed the extra ram for resolutions and small tweaks and mostly at the end of the 360 lifecycle, similar to today where one X has 12gb, you can see the gtx 2080 has 8gb because no game today uses above that and this is all to do with consoles,
Shangounchained
Banned
and remember there's system ram on pc and video ram usually games where 256- 512mb on vram pc and 1-2 GB system ram was required
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
It does matter and that is why they invented data assets streaming and virtual texturing and such: the data the GPU can work on depends on essentially how much data you can swap in and out in say 10 ms or less for a 60 FPS game... roughly double that and then some for a 30 FPS one.
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
You don't get it doesn't matter what tricks you apply if your memory is 20gb that's all you can carry doesn't matter how you load and unload that's a different discussion, memory speed simply helps you load that data quickly whether it's 120 or 30 FPS the assetts on screen can't go above your memory capacity
Negotiator
Banned
Do you think Navi was a last-minute addition?
Sony Closely Associated with AMD "Navi" Development
AMD monetizes its GPU IP not just with discrete graphics cards and integrated graphics in its PC processors, but also by selling semi-custom SoCs for most modern game consoles, such as the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, with some of the newer 4K UHD-capable models such as the PlayStation 4 Pro and...
Report: AMD Built Navi for Sony PS5, Delayed Vega to Do It - ExtremeTech
AMD's Vega development process may have been more troubled than we realized, with resources also pulled to finish Navi -- a chip Sony may have specifically commissioned for the PlayStation 5.
www.extremetech.com
They know AMD's roadmaps years ahead.
20GB DRAM means they're going to fill it in 5 secs max (4GB/s custom PCIe 4.0/NVMe SSD).
If they had used an HDD, then yeah, 20GB wouldn't be enough. You'd probably need more for caching purposes.
I'd argue PS5 reminds me of old-school arcade boards in a sense, where you had a low amount of RAM and ultra-fast storage (ROM chips).
54 seems like a good fit for BC reasons (3 x 18 CUs), assuming they can pull off 2 GHz.
Do you expect 8K assets or what?
I wouldn't mind 32GB, but I'm a bit jaded this gen with devs abusing the 8GB pool to make open-world collectathons (some of them are good, but not every game needs to be a massive open world).
Shangounchained
Banned
I don't expect 8k assets what I don't need is PS4 assets in 4k and that's what's going to happen, for me a next gen leap is always characterized by memory capacity and that's the naked truth, I need to see more polygons more volumetric simulations more stuff on screen, simply put it memory defines console generations infact what we where supposed to get was 128gb ram but judging from ram prices and trade war and what not still 20gb is shit and this is the biggest reason neither Sony or Microsoft want to talk about memory they simply divert the discussion to ssd load times. 32-64gb is the required leap to meDo you think Navi was a last-minute addition?
Sony Closely Associated with AMD "Navi" Development
AMD monetizes its GPU IP not just with discrete graphics cards and integrated graphics in its PC processors, but also by selling semi-custom SoCs for most modern game consoles, such as the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, with some of the newer 4K UHD-capable models such as the PlayStation 4 Pro and...www.techpowerup.com
Report: AMD Built Navi for Sony PS5, Delayed Vega to Do It - ExtremeTech
AMD's Vega development process may have been more troubled than we realized, with resources also pulled to finish Navi -- a chip Sony may have specifically commissioned for the PlayStation 5.
They know AMD's roadmaps years ahead.
20GB DRAM means they're going to fill it in 5 secs max (4GB/s custom PCIe 4.0/NVMe SSD).
If they had used an HDD, then yeah, 20GB wouldn't be enough. You'd probably need more for caching purposes.
I'd argue PS5 reminds me of old-school arcade boards in a sense, where you had a low amount of RAM and ultra-fast storage (ROM chips).
54 seems like a good fit for BC reasons (3 x 18 CUs), assuming they can pull off 2 GHz.
Do you expect 8K assets or what?
I wouldn't mind 32GB, but I'm a bit jaded this gen with devs abusing the 8GB pool to make open-world collectathons (some of them are good, but not every game needs to be a massive open world).
Shangounchained
Banned
That 20gb will be the curse of the generation similar to PS3 and 360 where they had powerfull CPUs but mediocre memory capacityDo you think Navi was a last-minute addition?
Sony Closely Associated with AMD "Navi" Development
AMD monetizes its GPU IP not just with discrete graphics cards and integrated graphics in its PC processors, but also by selling semi-custom SoCs for most modern game consoles, such as the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, with some of the newer 4K UHD-capable models such as the PlayStation 4 Pro and...Report: AMD Built Navi for Sony PS5, Delayed Vega to Do It - ExtremeTech
AMD's Vega development process may have been more troubled than we realized, with resources also pulled to finish Navi -- a chip Sony may have specifically commissioned for the PlayStation 5.
They know AMD's roadmaps years ahead.
20GB DRAM means they're going to fill it in 5 secs max (4GB/s custom PCIe 4.0/NVMe SSD).
If they had used an HDD, then yeah, 20GB wouldn't be enough. You'd probably need more for caching purposes.
I'd argue PS5 reminds me of old-school arcade boards in a sense, where you had a low amount of RAM and ultra-fast storage (ROM chips).
54 seems like a good fit for BC reasons (3 x 18 CUs), assuming they can pull off 2 GHz.
Do you expect 8K assets or what?
I wouldn't mind 32GB, but I'm a bit jaded this gen with devs abusing the 8GB pool to make open-world collectathons (some of them are good, but not every game needs to be a massive open world).
Negotiator
Banned
What is that supposed to mean? Did you get PS3 assets in 1080p on PS4? You're going to get both cross-gen and next-gen games, just don't expect much day 1. True next-gen games are usually released mid-gen and afterwards.
Your statement makes zero sense, considering the fact we're not getting 12GB like XB1X (current-gen games with 4K assets). New assets are being created from scratch usually.
Yeah, you're going to get all that stuff.
Who said we were going to get 128GB? And with what kind of storage medium? BDXL maxes out at 100-128GB. Do you envision 500GB optical discs to feed a 128GB DRAM pool? Let alone SSD storage, since all games require a mandatory install.
32GB is the max we can expect with GDDR6, 64GB is not feasible without HBM3.
I suggest to drop the Kool-Aid.
Powerful CPUs? No. Powerful vector processors? Yes (since GPGPU compute wasn't widespread back then).
For me 7th gen was excellent memory-wise, because it forced devs to make beautiful linear games that you could finish in 10-12 hours max.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The concept of a 20 GB data window applies even there... if you can move data over from the much larger disk to RAM (yes, purging or overwriting some of it in the process, hence streaming buffers concepts). With a fast enough disk I/O RAM becomes your CPU L4 cache, that is all.
Are we there yet? Maybe not, but that is a different story.
Reason why I was quoting framerate is because the higher the framerate the less time you have to swap data in.
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
we didn't get PS3 assets on PS4 because PS4 has 8gigs and PS3 had 512mb that's the simplest reason and the reason I said we should have got 128gb is because of this, PS1 had 2mb, ps2 32mb, PS3 512mb, PS4 8gb this is a common console generational memory gap it had always been 16x so 16 X 8gb = 128gb but for alot of reasons mostly economical we won't get that, they won't fool me with how quick Spiderman traverses the city I need to see next gen assets and ram of all things in computer graphics especially realtime is more important than all that other crapWhat is that supposed to mean? Did you get PS3 assets in 1080p on PS4? You're going to get both cross-gen and next-gen games, just don't expect much day 1. True next-gen games are usually released mid-gen and afterwards.
Your statement makes zero sense, considering the fact we're not getting 12GB like XB1X (current-gen games with 4K assets). New assets are being created from scratch usually.
Yeah, you're going to get all that stuff.
Who said we were going to get 128GB? And with what kind of storage medium? BDXL maxes out at 100-128GB. Do you envision 500GB optical discs to feed a 128GB DRAM pool? Let alone SSD storage, since all games require a mandatory install.
32GB is the max we can expect with GDDR6, 64GB is not feasible without HBM3.
I suggest to drop the Kool-Aid.
Powerful CPUs? No. Powerful vector processors? Yes (since GPGPU compute wasn't widespread back then).
For me 7th gen was excellent memory-wise, because it forced devs to make beautiful linear games that you could finish in 10-12 hours max.
Negotiator
Banned
Are you saying that 20-24GB is not enough to accommodate next-gen games with 4K assets?
PS1: CD-ROM
PS2: DVD-ROM
PS3: BD-ROM 50GB
PS4: BD-ROM 50GB
Where's your new optical medium on PS4?
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
Optical medium is not my concern my concern is getting a next gen console with next gen quality and worthy, 20gb isn't enough to produce a deserving leap sure it's enough for some change but not a significant graphical change, I suggest they should atleast wait till 2021-23 and release a proper ps5 other than rushing a midiocre console not even worthy to be called ps5 and there's still life left on the PS4 so I see no point.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I'm not sure if you know what you're saying.
Shangounchained
Banned
Then don't bother
Tenaciousmo
Member
I mean , I currently have 16GB of ram in my pc and the only thing that uses it all is HECKIN CHROME
Badlucktroll
Member
I bet it will have some system where it has 2tb HDD for storage and 512 Flash for the game being played. When you start a game it squirts into the flash storage.
Last edited:
Negotiator
Banned
Cerny talked about instant loading, not caching.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.001
Gamers know what SONY can do and these are terrific looking specs.
Shangounchained
Banned
Your getting your perception according to the current games you play of course 20gb is more than enough for PS4 games but nowhere near enough for next gen games
Badlucktroll
Member
So its gonna be a powerful rig? is that the consensus?
LordOfChaos
Member
look like this might have been closer to the truth than we thought
The clockspeed has been changing so some devs seen it at it's lower clock speed & said 8TF then devs seen it at 1.8GHz & said it was close to 13TF but now it's clocking up to 2Ghz & coming in a 14TF
54 x 64 x 2 x 1210 = 8.36TF
54 x 64 x 2 x 1830 = 12.64TF
54 x 64 x 2 x 2060 = 14.23 TF
PS1: MIPS R3000A-compatible 32-bit RISC MIPS R3051 with 5 KB L1 cache, running at 33.8688 MHz.
PS2: MIPS III R5900-based Emotion Engine, clocked at 294.912 MHz (299 MHz on newer versions), with 128-bit SIMD
Going from Jaguar to Zen 2 is going to be moist with no doubt about it, but I have a very hard time taking anyone claiming the largest CPU jump in PS history seriously. Just over 2x IPC, 2x clock speeds, 2x SIMD width, non-vector we'd probably be looking 5-6x, and in vector terms I'd point to the Cell over the 6.2Gflop PS2 vector engine.
One thing that comes up in a lot of rumors is the 3.2GHz as a boost clock...Makes me wonder what the average game clock is with the GPU fully engaged, and what scenarios that "boost" comes in under.
Last edited:
Negotiator
Banned
I think it's because of the rise of PC gaming & DF. Lots of ignorance, unfortunately.
How many people know that PPE was a narrow (dual-issue) uarch? Jaguar is also narrow, but OoO.
The PS1 CPU was something between 386 and 486 performance-wise (GTE was its saving grace), while PCs had Pentium CPUs back then. GTE was easily matched by MMX variants (integer SIMD 64-bit for matrix transformation).
Something else to think about is that one leak said it was a 4K at 60fps kind of monster
and it's going to play all PS4 games
now take a 1080p 30fps PS4 game & take it to 4K 60fps using simple math
that would be 4X the resolution & 2X the frame rate
PS4 1.84TF x 4 x 2 = 14.72 TF
14TF would give them a good base for PS4/PS5 games that scale from 1080P 30fps on PS4 to 4K 60fps on PS5
Then you have the 1080P 60fps games that could go from 1080P 60fps on PS4 to Checkerboard/Temporal 8K 60fps or 4K 120fps
I'm very calculated lol
and it's going to play all PS4 games
now take a 1080p 30fps PS4 game & take it to 4K 60fps using simple math
that would be 4X the resolution & 2X the frame rate
PS4 1.84TF x 4 x 2 = 14.72 TF
14TF would give them a good base for PS4/PS5 games that scale from 1080P 30fps on PS4 to 4K 60fps on PS5
Then you have the 1080P 60fps games that could go from 1080P 60fps on PS4 to Checkerboard/Temporal 8K 60fps or 4K 120fps
I'm very calculated lol
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What is that supposed to mean? Did you get PS3 assets in 1080p on PS4? You're going to get both cross-gen and next-gen games, just don't expect much day 1. True next-gen games are usually released mid-gen and afterwards.
Your statement makes zero sense, considering the fact we're not getting 12GB like XB1X (current-gen games with 4K assets). New assets are being created from scratch usually.
Yeah, you're going to get all that stuff.
Who said we were going to get 128GB? And with what kind of storage medium? BDXL maxes out at 100-128GB. Do you envision 500GB optical discs to feed a 128GB DRAM pool? Let alone SSD storage, since all games require a mandatory install.
32GB is the max we can expect with GDDR6, 64GB is not feasible without HBM3.
I suggest to drop the Kool-Aid.
Powerful CPUs? No. Powerful vector processors? Yes (since GPGPU compute wasn't widespread back then).
For me 7th gen was excellent memory-wise, because it forced devs to make beautiful linear games that you could finish in 10-12 hours max.
If he only knew the texture assets for the uniforms on the PS3 for MLB The Show were 3840x3840 resolution. Then obviously scaled down based on the internal game resolution.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
You have to also remember the RDNA 1.25-1.40 efficiency gain over GCN. So 11-13TF range on RDNA would be in that GCN window as well.
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
You can do all the mathematics and figures all the mambo Jambo but 20gb is still 20gb no matter how many tricks u put into it the fucking memory is still 20gb and that's all it can hold whether you turn the universe upside down and 20gb is shit, they are fooling you, they couldn't get more ram on those machines and made all of you chat about SSD and load times and whatnot, and knowing by now that games already look good, they know 20gb is enough to add a little glint on those games to keep you quiet, so wake up and smell the coffee 20gb is shit for a ps5 maybe for a PS4 pro 2
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Shangounchained
Banned
That 20gb on a ps5 nonsense is like a sheep in wolf skin or a Prius in a Ferrari body kit!
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Nah it isn't that bad lol.
The speed matters a lot my friend. Think of running a game at 60fps, you have a 16ms time frame. In that time budget you need to update animations, npcs, and all visual element. The amount you can move to ram in that window at 1TB/s is around 16Gb of assets, around 880GB/s or 14GB. That's before you factor in latency. In other words the larger the memory the faster it needs to be for high framerate. Memory bandwidth is important for framerate. That being said you dont have to have a new buffer every frame. You can keep some very large assets on disk and call on those when you need them, but disk is still way slower and the ssd rumored on ps4 is about 800MB for a 16ms frame budget (that is almost an additional gig, you could run ps3 games from the ssd alone!)
So yeah it matters, for most games that will push the boundary and for system balance. Just a lesson for you my friend, don't be stupid.
Negotiator
Banned
24GB 384-bit > 32GB 256-bit
Now if they could give us 32GB 512-bit that would be a gamechanger...
Now if they could give us 32GB 512-bit that would be a gamechanger...
stop comparing it to pc parts will ya ? consoles where allways ahead of its specs , but main thing is , if they show TLOU 2 and say ok you need PS5 to get this and that from game , thats it , $599 i dont care hoere i go, i mean how much new phones costy these days ? ne console will for many years , not 4-6 years , even more . so its nothing consider.
alabtrosMyster
Member
199.99 pesos in Mexico! If they forego the 24GB and pick only the slower clock, who knows how it may cost if Sony picks the 24gb/14tf config, maybe 299.99 Mexican pesos.
Shangounchained
Banned
"It isn't that bad" is the phrase Sony would love everybody to say!
Understand the fucking problem, it doesn't matter how fast the thing is even if the ssds bandwidth is 1000 gb/s or memory, if the ram is 20gb that's the amount of assets you can see at a frame, you can have a gtx 2080 with 8gb and that's all you'll see you'll only get faster frame rates and resolution but the assets are still 8gb doesn't matter if you have a blackbelt in jiu-jitsu, it's simply going to be a fast 8gb, you can see on the Spiderman demo they could traverse faster and the assets will be loaded faster but it's still 8gb assets that's it n it's all there is, there is no secret sauce or magic of some sort!
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
You are really not grasping the issue and at the same time are becoming more and more rude to others trying to explain what the issue is to you.
Main RAM is just a pool of memory, just like any other in the system. Nothing magical about it: just like you do not measure the amount of assets GPU can render by its internal buffer and caches, you do not take main RAM or VRAM in a system with split memory pools as the single limit,
Take PS2 for example: the system could not load texture directly from when rendering polygons and its graphics engine's 4 MB of eDRAM had to save some space for front, back, and depth buffers amongst the other things... do you think PS2 could only apply ~2 MB worth of texture data per frame? No, because as the system was rendering data with the textures already loaded it was deleting some now unused and streaming in new ones. Again, data streaming made possible by the speed of the bus between the next layer of memory down. Same principle applies to current GPU's and the data available to them.
What does not allow say PS4 to use more than 8 GB of textures per frame is speed mainly (first bottleneck you hit anyways): you need to stream data from the HDD into RAM in chunks (very slow) and then read each chunk of data from RAM into the GPU and use it to render on screen... rinse and repeat until you have transferred and used all the texture data.
Assuming a very high bandwidth between SSD and main RAM, your however many GB of main RAM become a cache for the CPU and GPU thus representing a small sliding window of the data you need to render the scene in the frame: rendering then becomes limited by how fast you can "move" such window, aka read data from it, consume it, and read new one (on the GPU's side).
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
Your talking gibberish, where still back to the point, you can't stream data that isn't in memory, forget uploading and downloading whatever is on screen is what is on memory whether you delete some and update some what you see is whatever the ram can hold, you can't cheat maths, numbers don't lie. 20gb is 20gb
Shangounchained
Banned
As
As I said before memory speed is good for updating data like in the Spiderman ps5 demo you can move quickly around the city as it's loading the new assets quicker but doesn't change the fact that every single frame is below or equal to 8gb
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Do you even read what people post? Starting to think you are intentionally trolling at this point.
Memory read speed is just part of the chain, the speed you fill it from the next layer down in the memory hierarchy at is also important.
Assuming the CPU and GPU are fast enough, read bandwidth from main RAM to GPU or CPU is high enough, and you have a suitably fast connection between SSD and RAM... what is stopping you from reading 4 GB of data into RAM and render those assets, load an additional 4 GB of data into RAM and render those assets, then load an additional 4 GB of data and render those assets, etc...? If that can be done in less than say 12 ms, then we are not breaking even the time budget allocated to each frame even at 60 FPS.
Do you think all GPU's can only fire a single render call per frame?
The "Load data into RAM from disk —> GPU reads assets from RAM and renders with them" step can be repeated multiple times per frame, depending on a variety of factors as it was being said earlier.
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
If memory speed was more important we'll still have 2mb of ram with 1million GB/s
The CPU doesn't hold memory it simply uses the data held on ram in realtime, you can test it yourself try playing a game on pc that requires 5gb of vram on the fastest 2gb GPU you can get and all you'll see is missing assets
Negotiator
Banned
I'm afraid you don't understand what made possible the Spiderman PS5 demo.
It's the combination of Zen 2 & ultra-fast NVMe SSD, not RAM speed.
And no, a single frame is nowhere near 8GB. What kind of nonsense is this? 1920 x 1080 x 24-bit = do the math.
Shangounchained
Banned
As I said it's all memory speeds, it's a fast ssd, that's what made Spiderman demo quick
Shangounchained
Banned
as you can see below that's shadow of the tomb raider
And Forza horizon in 4k both games use -8gb of vram, you can't go above that on a 8gb system it's maths even if you don't like it you can lie to yourself as u want but reality is cruel.
Shangounchained
Banned
That's one
