• 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.

Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best

thicc_girls_are_teh_best

Member
icerock said:
Github is and was never a problem, the information contained within it was 100% legitimate. The problem has always been, certain idiots with an agenda, using that information, mixing with their own BS and passing them as facts.

To this day, not one of them can answer about the actual CU count on Oberon. Not one, why? Because data is completely silent on shaders count. Meanwhile it provided shaders count for Arden at 3584, which meant 56CUs. All, you have is native 18WGP count for a BC compatibility/regression test. We have few, who on this very site argued it to be from Ariel iGPU profile for Oberon to be RDNA2. So which one is it? Either you cede Oberon to be RDNA1, meaning Github data can be thrown away. Or you can argue that Oberon is RDNA2, and all the testing is of RDNA1 iGPU i.e. Ariel, but then your interpretation of what is actually on Oberon made up completely from your backside and not on the basis of Github.

I've argued this for a very long time, when everyone was convinced Oberon is RDNA1. How can you be so sure about total CU count on Oberon when all you have is a regression test? How can you be so certain and box yourself with maximum limit of 36 or 40CUs, when a bigger NAVI was in existence in form of Arden in that very data itself? (We didn't know it was RDNA2 either) What exactly was stopping Sony from stepping beyond that mark?

Oh, I know, it was because PS5 iGPU was based on RDNA1. And given how power hungry they were and AMD highest performing NAVI discreet GPU tapping out at 9.7TF with 40CUs. Sony were always going to be limited by what they could design, as it would form part of the APU. (But not MS with Arden, because.... just reasons) If only I could be arsed to quote, pages and pages of this non-sense, which I had to sift through on a daily basis on these kind of threads on various places for months and months. All I had thrown in my face were Github data, and ro_game tweets.

But, now when AMD went out of their way to confirm PS5 is RDNA2, then Oberon was suddenly RDNA2 all along and their interpretation of Github data along with ro_game was wrong. I mean, you couldn't make this shit up! Anyways, if the Oberon was RDNA2 all along, it actually strengthens the argument of CU count even more. Want to one of the features of RDNA2? It is extremely power efficient, meaning it would allow AMD to put more CUs and build a bigger GPU. So, take this, we have Gonzalo an APU, housing an iGPU in form of Ariel which is based on RDNA1. So Sony, did spent $$$ to manufacture an APU on a tech/architecture which was never going into final PS5 (Killing the argument of Sony 'wasting money' on an APU they were not going to use). Hence, whenever the decision was taken of a redesign i.e. to switch from RDNA1 to RDNA2 (Ariel to Oberon, in this instance). What advantages did they take of this new RDNA2 architecture? We know they are tapping into VRS and RT, but did they also take advantage of efficiency gains to add CUs on the iGPU, or the decision was to simply clock it higher?

We DON'T know answer to any of this, Github data provides fuckall insight to this question which is what I've been preaching all along. We don't know the full makeup of Oberon, so stop boxing yourself within the confines of 36/40CUs. That restriction made sense if PS5 was using a power hungry RDNA1 architecture, but we know it doesn't. They could've clocked the GPU higher, or added more CUs and gone little wide and slower. We just don't know, anybody who is acting like they do on basis of Github data, are just chatting shit. /endrant
Click to expand...

I can't speak for others who utilize Github and the testing data as a reference point, but I'll answer what I can in your post.

-I always thought the initial testing data was doing BC testings for PS4 and Pro. This was even before I learned about the Ariel iGPU testing profile and therefore meant even well before bringing that up into discussion, I felt that testing data was only reflective of BC settings and not the full actual chip

-The 36/40 is either the full Oberon CU counts, or a count that's incomplete. It's not the fault of the data miners why that particular question can't be clearly answered; you'd have to ask Sony and AMD staff running these tests and storing the data about that.

-You are actually misinterpreting what RDNA2 actually is. RDNA2 isn't exclusively 7nm EUV. AMD's wording clouded conclusions on that but they shortly clarified after the conference that it was a nomenclature thing, so 7nm"+" can be thought of more as further improvement on the 7nm node process

-Another important thing to keep in mind is that RDNA2 does not necessarily mean "large chip" out of necessity. AMD have never stated this, not even once, and they never will. Why would they keep RDNA2 features like RT, VRS, VRR etc. off their mobile APUs, which have very low CU counts compared to these consoles? Some people have automatically made the correlation when that is just them jumping through an unnecessary hoop. It just so happens there will be chips on RDNA2 that are "big" chips, but RDNA2 features can be implemented on smaller chips as well. Otherwise, AMD have completely failed in designing a smart, scalable GPU architecture

-There's nothing inherently stopping Sony from going with a bigger chip, but that doesn't mean a bigger chip was their goal, either. I actually speculated why there's a chance they've gone with a relatively smaller chip, but there are also cost-related reasons, plus the fact Sony is very likely going to manufacture a very big chunk of units for the first fiscal quarter (I would guess at least 10 million) and then you have to weigh all of that against the size of Sony as a corporation itself and what money they have on hand (and what can be borrowed through big loans from banks or investors) to cover those costs. That alone could have led them down a path of wanting a relatively "smaller" chip.

-You're right, pretty much anyone speculating Oberon is an RDNA2 chip is doing so with information outside of Github. But for myself personally, I've been using a swell of other sources besides that in my own speculation for a long time now, and more to the point, it's not like most of the insiders really know what the PS5 is, either. If so, we could actually get some more nuanced specifications beyond simply a TF range. And when you have guys like Tommy Fischer commit reputation suicide by almost duping a mod with doctored controller photos, that just puts an extra bit of questioning on other rumors as a whole: even when pressed with proof some of these dudes may try bullshitting their way to the top because the balls are just that brass.

-I never questioned PS5 having hardware ray-tracing, not once. But it wasn't just Githubbers speculating about PS5 being RDNA1; many people in general were. Many were under the assumption Sony had their own RT ASIC solution either integrated into the APU as an IP block (some went as far as to bring up a team member having worked on PowerVR as Sony maybe using PowerVR RT instead of AMD's), or connected to the APU, likely with some PCIe interconnect or something to that effect. And that was mainly Sony people speculating this. Even I did for a while but once it became apparent how inefficient a separate RT ASIC would be to the design (bandwidth issue, potentially) I just accepted that PS5 would have AMD's RT in one form or another, and that's while still relating Oberon to PS5. In other words, I dropped PS5 being RDNA1 a long time ago and that was pretty much at the time Cerny clarified things and when the RT ASIC idea fell through.

-Gotta keep in mind that a lot of us were also uncertain about RDNA2's node process. I assumed both PS5 and XSX were RDNA1 because I thought they would be 7nm. In fact, given AMD's recently said 7nm+ isn't necessarily EUV but rather improvements on the 7nm process, it means almost for certain PS5 and XSX are still 7nm but with some efficiency gains (just not EUV levels). I even doubted XSX was fully RDNA2 even when Microsoft themselves mentioned RDNA2 in that Twitter post, because I assumed RDNA2 was exclusively 7nm EUV and knew that would be even costlier than regular 7nm.

So basically, I think PS5 and even XSX will still be 7nm, but be RDNA2 chips. That should be pretty clear-cut.

-I think people are overestimating RDNA2 efficiency. The 50% perf-per-watt doesn't actually mean 50% IPC over RDNA1. And we now know RDNA2 is not exclusive to EUV, and the "7nm+" is actually indicative of small improvements over the 7nm process, notable improvements but not to the level of what actual 7nm EUV brings. So if anything it suggests both PS5 and XSX are 7nm but benefit from slight efficiency improvements while not being on the EUV process.

-Wasn't the interpretation of the testing data always meant to indicate BC of PS4 and PS4 Pro? Even with that said it asks the question of why 2GHz needed to be tested for that except to perhaps ensure PS4 Pro titles could hit native 4K60 natively on the chip. Probably a question worth asking and one we'll hopefully get an answer for soon (through Sony themselves).

-So I guess that brings us back to the high clock. You ask why would they do it, well, I'm still asking that too. I have always said Github and the testing data do not represent everything in terms of PS5's performance, not even once. However, I think with clarification on what RDNA2 actually is and the fact it can be on both 7nm and 7nm EUV (and the "7nm+" was apparently more about minor improvements on the 7nm process, probably through things AMD have done themselves on the architecture pipeline side) that there might be some justification for the 2GHz clock testing on Oberon outside of acting as a free FPS stability boost for Pro-enhanced games.

What would justify that? Well, the easiest answer is that Oberon might be a 36/40CU chip after all. Or, it could be a slightly larger chip (the Dec revision adjusted the memory bus controller IIRC, upping it higher) but still getting a relatively high clock. That's why I think maybe the best answer to what PS5 actually is (for now) is to go somewhere in the middle. A 44 - 48 active CU chip on a more recent revision, pushing relatively high clocks (anything between 1800MHz and 1900MHz if 2000MHz can't be sustained) might fit that bill.

But I can't have a grounded speculation like that by simply considering one source type (insiders) as gospel and the other (pertinent & persistent testing data) as throwaway junk. Unfortunately a lot of the people who say things like "Team Github" are doing it unironically, so as to discredit anyone even partially referencing the Github stuff or any of the datamined testing data whatsoever, for any purpose at all. That type of reasoning is nothing short of insanity.

I also think it's because we really do have a group of people who are desperate for a power crown battle at any costs, unwilling to even consider the worth or validity of any source that isn't for 'their team" coming out on top in a proverbial e-penis TF pissing contest, and assume anyone and everyone who refers to anything besides insiders exclusively as being against their preferred brand or "team". The truth is you may get that with literally a very small minority of people but the vast majority of that type aren't here on these forums.

Yes it's unfortunate people with actual troll-like behavior in the past such as TimDog (and even some people here like Longdi who I hope has calmed that type of posting down) are clinging to the Github 9.2TF stuff to antagonize PS fans, but I'm not TimDog and TimDog is not representative of the majority of us who simply see it as a valuable asset in discussing the possibility of next-gen PlayStation. Hell, most of us are even doing so while still listening and giving consideration to the rumors as well, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

In the end, I ultimately agree with your end point: Github doesn't provide the full picture on PS5. It didn't provide the full picture on XSX either and barely provides anything on Lockhart (speaking of which, I'll actually take a minute here and say how funny it was to see some Xbox people try arguing the 22/24 CU APU leak that very clearly listed Microsoft in it, with a 950MHz TDP-down, was in fact not related to Lockhart. It took until DF did a video simulating a 4TF Lockhart running games at 1080p and mostly 60FPS clocks for them to accept that particular leak. However I took that leak to pretty much be Lockhart upon first seeing it and it also has me thinking Lockhart is not a "traditional" game console, but that's something for another time).

However, there're people who will take anyone merely stating simply that, and interpret it to mean "Github is useless. The testing data is useless. None of these chips are PS5 related at all", and some of them know what they're doing when they do this. So IMHO, they're just as guilty as having an agenda in dismissing Github as some people are in using Github and the testing data to antagonize Sony and PS fans (and pushing 9.2TF like it's a derogatory insult). It goes both ways on this, and as much as I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling Xbox fanboys ammunition (in needing to clarify things on the Github info and testing data from my own POV), I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling PlayStation fanboys ammunition in attacking all aspects of that info and testing data as being FUD that only folks with an agenda against Sony and PS would bother bringing up in the first place, because for the vast majority of us that is NOT the case whatsoever.

I just simply talk about what I observe, and I try to observe from multiple sources, and be fair in doing so to see where they can meet in the middle and agree upon. However, I can't help if one of those source types has data on its side that I can look at, check up on/research, verify on my own (in terms of following any coding the producers of the chips the data comes from would follow), and itself has been very consistent. And I can't help if that comes off to some people as me "choosing" one side over another when that isn't me doing so out of some emotional need or negative bias towards a preference. And I honestly think most of the other people who regard the Github info and testing data with at least some weight would feel similar.
 
Last edited:
Gavin Stevens

Gavin Stevens

Formerly 'o'dium'
So, what’s going on peoples? What was that all about?

b9Lf0pN.gif
 
TherapistGaymer

TherapistGaymer

Banned
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
I can't speak for others who utilize Github and the testing data as a reference point, but I'll answer what I can in your post.

-I always thought the initial testing data was doing BC testings for PS4 and Pro. This was even before I learned about the Ariel iGPU testing profile and therefore meant even well before bringing that up into discussion, I felt that testing data was only reflective of BC settings and not the full actual chip

-The 36/40 is either the full Oberon CU counts, or a count that's incomplete. It's not the fault of the data miners why that particular question can't be clearly answered; you'd have to ask Sony and AMD staff running these tests and storing the data about that.

-You are actually misinterpreting what RDNA2 actually is. RDNA2 isn't exclusively 7nm EUV. AMD's wording clouded conclusions on that but they shortly clarified after the conference that it was a nomenclature thing, so 7nm"+" can be thought of more as further improvement on the 7nm node process

-Another important thing to keep in mind is that RDNA2 does not necessarily mean "large chip" out of necessity. AMD have never stated this, not even once, and they never will. Why would they keep RDNA2 features like RT, VRS, VRR etc. off their mobile APUs, which have very low CU counts compared to these consoles? Some people have automatically made the correlation when that is just them jumping through an unnecessary hoop. It just so happens there will be chips on RDNA2 that are "big" chips, but RDNA2 features can be implemented on smaller chips as well. Otherwise, AMD have completely failed in designing a smart, scalable GPU architecture

-There's nothing inherently stopping Sony from going with a bigger chip, but that doesn't mean a bigger chip was their goal, either. I actually speculated why there's a chance they've gone with a relatively smaller chip, but there are also cost-related reasons, plus the fact Sony is very likely going to manufacture a very big chunk of units for the first fiscal quarter (I would guess at least 10 million) and then you have to weigh all of that against the size of Sony as a corporation itself and what money they have on hand (and what can be borrowed through big loans from banks or investors) to cover those costs. That alone could have led them down a path of wanting a relatively "smaller" chip.

-You're right, pretty much anyone speculating Oberon is an RDNA2 chip is doing so with information outside of Github. But for myself personally, I've been using a swell of other sources besides that in my own speculation for a long time now, and more to the point, it's not like most of the insiders really know what the PS5 is, either. If so, we could actually get some more nuanced specifications beyond simply a TF range. And when you have guys like Tommy Fischer commit reputation suicide by almost duping a mod with doctored controller photos, that just puts an extra bit of questioning on other rumors as a whole: even when pressed with proof some of these dudes may try bullshitting their way to the top because the balls are just that brass.

-I never questioned PS5 having hardware ray-tracing, not once. But it wasn't just Githubbers speculating about PS5 being RDNA1; many people in general were. Many were under the assumption Sony had their own RT ASIC solution either integrated into the APU as an IP block (some went as far as to bring up a team member having worked on PowerVR as Sony maybe using PowerVR RT instead of AMD's), or connected to the APU, likely with some PCIe interconnect or something to that effect. And that was mainly Sony people speculating this. Even I did for a while but once it became apparent how inefficient a separate RT ASIC would be to the design (bandwidth issue, potentially) I just accepted that PS5 would have AMD's RT in one form or another, and that's while still relating Oberon to PS5. In other words, I dropped PS5 being RDNA1 a long time ago and that was pretty much at the time Cerny clarified things and when the RT ASIC idea fell through.

-Gotta keep in mind that a lot of us were also uncertain about RDNA2's node process. I assumed both PS5 and XSX were RDNA1 because I thought they would be 7nm. In fact, given AMD's recently said 7nm+ isn't necessarily EUV but rather improvements on the 7nm process, it means almost for certain PS5 and XSX are still 7nm but with some efficiency gains (just not EUV levels). I even doubted XSX was fully RDNA2 even when Microsoft themselves mentioned RDNA2 in that Twitter post, because I assumed RDNA2 was exclusively 7nm EUV and knew that would be even costlier than regular 7nm.

So basically, I think PS5 and even XSX will still be 7nm, but be RDNA2 chips. That should be pretty clear-cut.

-I think people are overestimating RDNA2 efficiency. The 50% perf-per-watt doesn't actually mean 50% IPC over RDNA1. And we now know RDNA2 is not exclusive to EUV, and the "7nm+" is actually indicative of small improvements over the 7nm process, notable improvements but not to the level of what actual 7nm EUV brings. So if anything it suggests both PS5 and XSX are 7nm but benefit from slight efficiency improvements while not being on the EUV process.

-Wasn't the interpretation of the testing data always meant to indicate BC of PS4 and PS4 Pro? Even with that said it asks the question of why 2GHz needed to be tested for that except to perhaps ensure PS4 Pro titles could hit native 4K60 natively on the chip. Probably a question worth asking and one we'll hopefully get an answer for soon (through Sony themselves).

-So I guess that brings us back to the high clock. You ask why would they do it, well, I'm still asking that too. I have always said Github and the testing data do not represent everything in terms of PS5's performance, not even once. However, I think with clarification on what RDNA2 actually is and the fact it can be on both 7nm and 7nm EUV (and the "7nm+" was apparently more about minor improvements on the 7nm process, probably through things AMD have done themselves on the architecture pipeline side) that there might be some justification for the 2GHz clock testing on Oberon outside of acting as a free FPS stability boost for Pro-enhanced games.

What would justify that? Well, the easiest answer is that Oberon might be a 36/40CU chip after all. Or, it could be a slightly larger chip (the Dec revision adjusted the memory bus controller IIRC, upping it higher) but still getting a relatively high clock. That's why I think maybe the best answer to what PS5 actually is (for now) is to go somewhere in the middle. A 44 - 48 active CU chip on a more recent revision, pushing relatively high clocks (anything between 1800MHz and 1900MHz if 2000MHz can't be sustained) might fit that bill.

But I can't have a grounded speculation like that by simply considering one source type (insiders) as gospel and the other (pertinent & persistent testing data) as throwaway junk. Unfortunately a lot of the people who say things like "Team Github" are doing it unironically, so as to discredit anyone even partially referencing the Github stuff or any of the datamined testing data whatsoever, for any purpose at all. That type of reasoning is nothing short of insanity.

I also think it's because we really do have a group of people who are desperate for a power crown battle at any costs, unwilling to even consider the worth or validity of any source that isn't for 'their team" coming out on top in a proverbial e-penis TF pissing contest, and assume anyone and everyone who refers to anything besides insiders exclusively as being against their preferred brand or "team". The truth is you may get that with literally a very small minority of people but the vast majority of that type aren't here on these forums.

Yes it's unfortunate people with actual troll-like behavior in the past such as TimDog (and even some people here like Longdi who I hope has calmed that type of posting down) are clinging to the Github 9.2TF stuff to antagonize PS fans, but I'm not TimDog and TimDog is not representative of the majority of us who simply see it as a valuable asset in discussing the possibility of next-gen PlayStation. Hell, most of us are even doing so while still listening and giving consideration to the rumors as well, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

In the end, I ultimately agree with your end point: Github doesn't provide the full picture on PS5. It didn't provide the full picture on XSX either and barely provides anything on Lockhart (speaking of which, I'll actually take a minute here and say how funny it was to see some Xbox people try arguing the 22/24 CU APU leak that very clearly listed Microsoft in it, with a 950MHz TDP-down, was in fact not related to Lockhart. It took until DF did a video simulating a 4TF Lockhart running games at 1080p and mostly 60FPS clocks for them to accept that particular leak. However I took that leak to pretty much be Lockhart upon first seeing it and it also has me thinking Lockhart is not a "traditional" game console, but that's something for another time).

However, there're people who will take anyone merely stating simply that, and interpret it to mean "Github is useless. The testing data is useless. None of these chips are PS5 related at all", and some of them know what they're doing when they do this. So IMHO, they're just as guilty as having an agenda in dismissing Github as some people are in using Github and the testing data to antagonize Sony and PS fans (and pushing 9.2TF like it's a derogatory insult). It goes both ways on this, and as much as I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling Xbox fanboys ammunition (in needing to clarify things on the Github info and testing data from my own POV), I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling PlayStation fanboys ammunition in attacking all aspects of that info and testing data as being FUD that only folks with an agenda against Sony and PS would bother bringing up in the first place, because for the vast majority of us that is NOT the case whatsoever.

I just simply talk about what I observe, and I try to observe from multiple sources, and be fair in doing so to see where they can meet in the middle and agree upon. However, I can't help if one of those source types has data on its side that I can look at, check up on/research, verify on my own (in terms of following any coding the producers of the chips the data comes from would follow), and itself has been very consistent. And I can't help if that comes off to some people as me "choosing" one side over another when that isn't me doing so out of some emotional need or negative bias towards a preference. And I honestly think most of the other people who regard the Github info and testing data with at least some weight would feel similar.
Click to expand...
This is how you neogaf! This is speculation. This is not trolling, wow - a breath of fresh air. I don't believe in 9.2 for final but understand your thoughts in your post. Lord why can't some members be more like you.
 
devilNprada

devilNprada

Member
Batiman said:
You know people are getting it around the world in summer right? Tom Hanks?
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to be spreading in the hot equatorial climates. There have not been major outbreaks in the southern hemisphere.
Experts believe, like influenza it survives longer in cold weather.

Edit: on another note they are shutting the port of Los Angeles, the port will get way behind but should be caught up by this summer. Them union guys love that OT.
 
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best

thicc_girls_are_teh_best

Member
devilNprada said:
Doesn't seem to be spreading in the hot equatorial climates. There have not been major outbreaks in the southern hemisphere.
Experts believe, like influenza it survives longer in cold weather.

Edit: on another note they are shutting the port of Los Angeles, the port will get way behind but should be caught up by this summer. Them union guys love that OT.
Click to expand...

Seems to be the case. Especially in desert locations it seems to not do well there thankfully. Unfortunately the solution isn't as simple as intentional desertification (which would just be wiping out one type of bad with another anyway).

TherapistGaymer TherapistGaymer I also don't think it'll be 9.2TF, and still have an optimistic outlook for a higher TF count. But I don't think PS5's success or failure hinges on a higher TF count, either, and I'd be perfectly satisfied with that level of power combined with all the other powerful features and Sony's 1st party on that type of system, especially if it's priced around $399/$450.

Given how much it costs to manufacture systems, plus the volumes Sony will likely shoot for and the fact they actually have to continue relatively large-scale manufacture of PS4 and PS4 Pro for at least another 6-12 months after PS5's release adding onto fiscal quarterly budgets, and knowing what their market cap is at and what money they likely have to run with versus the profit range they probably want to shoot for with the ecosystem in the first year, it's things like that why I don't honestly entertain some of the ridiculously high TF speculations (a lot of which just feel like fans who want it to beat XSX's specs) especially considering it's going to still have the RAM, SSD, controller and other things adding into total costs.

Unfortunately some people will take that as a personal attack no matter what :/
 
Last edited:
Batiman

Batiman

Banned
devilNprada said:
Doesn't seem to be spreading in the hot equatorial climates. There have not been major outbreaks in the southern hemisphere.
Experts believe, like influenza it survives longer in cold weather.

Edit: on another note they are shutting the port of Los Angeles, the port will get way behind but should be caught up by this summer. Them union guys love that OT.
Click to expand...
I was really thinking and hoping the same myself. It’s just hard to tell what the hell is gonna happen anymore
 
Joey.

Joey.

Member
I'm holding off on marking out for a console until I know what the PS5 is all about.

Right now I'm really liking the new Xbox Series X, Game Pass, new Halo, etc. All their new studios seem interesting. This current gen, I had both Xbox One & PS4...to be honest I used my Xbox more believe it or not.

But...imagine PS5 is 13 Tflops..and overall more powerful than the Xbox. How dumb would Xbox look lol...that's why I feel like Xbox knows what the PS5 is that's why they went ahead and announced their console and stressed the power and tflops. and in the past said that Xbox will never be underpowered and overpriced again. If PS5 is stronger...I'm team PS5. I guess we all have to continue to suffer and wait. Sony is really making this tough for all of us.

Don't want to make this a console war...just wanted to point out how dumb Xbox would look in my opinion lol.
 
Last edited:
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
I can't speak for others who utilize Github and the testing data as a reference point, but I'll answer what I can in your post.

-I always thought the initial testing data was doing BC testings for PS4 and Pro. This was even before I learned about the Ariel iGPU testing profile and therefore meant even well before bringing that up into discussion, I felt that testing data was only reflective of BC settings and not the full actual chip

-The 36/40 is either the full Oberon CU counts, or a count that's incomplete. It's not the fault of the data miners why that particular question can't be clearly answered; you'd have to ask Sony and AMD staff running these tests and storing the data about that.

-You are actually misinterpreting what RDNA2 actually is. RDNA2 isn't exclusively 7nm EUV. AMD's wording clouded conclusions on that but they shortly clarified after the conference that it was a nomenclature thing, so 7nm"+" can be thought of more as further improvement on the 7nm node process

-Another important thing to keep in mind is that RDNA2 does not necessarily mean "large chip" out of necessity. AMD have never stated this, not even once, and they never will. Why would they keep RDNA2 features like RT, VRS, VRR etc. off their mobile APUs, which have very low CU counts compared to these consoles? Some people have automatically made the correlation when that is just them jumping through an unnecessary hoop. It just so happens there will be chips on RDNA2 that are "big" chips, but RDNA2 features can be implemented on smaller chips as well. Otherwise, AMD have completely failed in designing a smart, scalable GPU architecture

-There's nothing inherently stopping Sony from going with a bigger chip, but that doesn't mean a bigger chip was their goal, either. I actually speculated why there's a chance they've gone with a relatively smaller chip, but there are also cost-related reasons, plus the fact Sony is very likely going to manufacture a very big chunk of units for the first fiscal quarter (I would guess at least 10 million) and then you have to weigh all of that against the size of Sony as a corporation itself and what money they have on hand (and what can be borrowed through big loans from banks or investors) to cover those costs. That alone could have led them down a path of wanting a relatively "smaller" chip.

-You're right, pretty much anyone speculating Oberon is an RDNA2 chip is doing so with information outside of Github. But for myself personally, I've been using a swell of other sources besides that in my own speculation for a long time now, and more to the point, it's not like most of the insiders really know what the PS5 is, either. If so, we could actually get some more nuanced specifications beyond simply a TF range. And when you have guys like Tommy Fischer commit reputation suicide by almost duping a mod with doctored controller photos, that just puts an extra bit of questioning on other rumors as a whole: even when pressed with proof some of these dudes may try bullshitting their way to the top because the balls are just that brass.

-I never questioned PS5 having hardware ray-tracing, not once. But it wasn't just Githubbers speculating about PS5 being RDNA1; many people in general were. Many were under the assumption Sony had their own RT ASIC solution either integrated into the APU as an IP block (some went as far as to bring up a team member having worked on PowerVR as Sony maybe using PowerVR RT instead of AMD's), or connected to the APU, likely with some PCIe interconnect or something to that effect. And that was mainly Sony people speculating this. Even I did for a while but once it became apparent how inefficient a separate RT ASIC would be to the design (bandwidth issue, potentially) I just accepted that PS5 would have AMD's RT in one form or another, and that's while still relating Oberon to PS5. In other words, I dropped PS5 being RDNA1 a long time ago and that was pretty much at the time Cerny clarified things and when the RT ASIC idea fell through.

-Gotta keep in mind that a lot of us were also uncertain about RDNA2's node process. I assumed both PS5 and XSX were RDNA1 because I thought they would be 7nm. In fact, given AMD's recently said 7nm+ isn't necessarily EUV but rather improvements on the 7nm process, it means almost for certain PS5 and XSX are still 7nm but with some efficiency gains (just not EUV levels). I even doubted XSX was fully RDNA2 even when Microsoft themselves mentioned RDNA2 in that Twitter post, because I assumed RDNA2 was exclusively 7nm EUV and knew that would be even costlier than regular 7nm.

So basically, I think PS5 and even XSX will still be 7nm, but be RDNA2 chips. That should be pretty clear-cut.

-I think people are overestimating RDNA2 efficiency. The 50% perf-per-watt doesn't actually mean 50% IPC over RDNA1. And we now know RDNA2 is not exclusive to EUV, and the "7nm+" is actually indicative of small improvements over the 7nm process, notable improvements but not to the level of what actual 7nm EUV brings. So if anything it suggests both PS5 and XSX are 7nm but benefit from slight efficiency improvements while not being on the EUV process.

-Wasn't the interpretation of the testing data always meant to indicate BC of PS4 and PS4 Pro? Even with that said it asks the question of why 2GHz needed to be tested for that except to perhaps ensure PS4 Pro titles could hit native 4K60 natively on the chip. Probably a question worth asking and one we'll hopefully get an answer for soon (through Sony themselves).

-So I guess that brings us back to the high clock. You ask why would they do it, well, I'm still asking that too. I have always said Github and the testing data do not represent everything in terms of PS5's performance, not even once. However, I think with clarification on what RDNA2 actually is and the fact it can be on both 7nm and 7nm EUV (and the "7nm+" was apparently more about minor improvements on the 7nm process, probably through things AMD have done themselves on the architecture pipeline side) that there might be some justification for the 2GHz clock testing on Oberon outside of acting as a free FPS stability boost for Pro-enhanced games.

What would justify that? Well, the easiest answer is that Oberon might be a 36/40CU chip after all. Or, it could be a slightly larger chip (the Dec revision adjusted the memory bus controller IIRC, upping it higher) but still getting a relatively high clock. That's why I think maybe the best answer to what PS5 actually is (for now) is to go somewhere in the middle. A 44 - 48 active CU chip on a more recent revision, pushing relatively high clocks (anything between 1800MHz and 1900MHz if 2000MHz can't be sustained) might fit that bill.

But I can't have a grounded speculation like that by simply considering one source type (insiders) as gospel and the other (pertinent & persistent testing data) as throwaway junk. Unfortunately a lot of the people who say things like "Team Github" are doing it unironically, so as to discredit anyone even partially referencing the Github stuff or any of the datamined testing data whatsoever, for any purpose at all. That type of reasoning is nothing short of insanity.

I also think it's because we really do have a group of people who are desperate for a power crown battle at any costs, unwilling to even consider the worth or validity of any source that isn't for 'their team" coming out on top in a proverbial e-penis TF pissing contest, and assume anyone and everyone who refers to anything besides insiders exclusively as being against their preferred brand or "team". The truth is you may get that with literally a very small minority of people but the vast majority of that type aren't here on these forums.

Yes it's unfortunate people with actual troll-like behavior in the past such as TimDog (and even some people here like Longdi who I hope has calmed that type of posting down) are clinging to the Github 9.2TF stuff to antagonize PS fans, but I'm not TimDog and TimDog is not representative of the majority of us who simply see it as a valuable asset in discussing the possibility of next-gen PlayStation. Hell, most of us are even doing so while still listening and giving consideration to the rumors as well, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

In the end, I ultimately agree with your end point: Github doesn't provide the full picture on PS5. It didn't provide the full picture on XSX either and barely provides anything on Lockhart (speaking of which, I'll actually take a minute here and say how funny it was to see some Xbox people try arguing the 22/24 CU APU leak that very clearly listed Microsoft in it, with a 950MHz TDP-down, was in fact not related to Lockhart. It took until DF did a video simulating a 4TF Lockhart running games at 1080p and mostly 60FPS clocks for them to accept that particular leak. However I took that leak to pretty much be Lockhart upon first seeing it and it also has me thinking Lockhart is not a "traditional" game console, but that's something for another time).

However, there're people who will take anyone merely stating simply that, and interpret it to mean "Github is useless. The testing data is useless. None of these chips are PS5 related at all", and some of them know what they're doing when they do this. So IMHO, they're just as guilty as having an agenda in dismissing Github as some people are in using Github and the testing data to antagonize Sony and PS fans (and pushing 9.2TF like it's a derogatory insult). It goes both ways on this, and as much as I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling Xbox fanboys ammunition (in needing to clarify things on the Github info and testing data from my own POV), I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling PlayStation fanboys ammunition in attacking all aspects of that info and testing data as being FUD that only folks with an agenda against Sony and PS would bother bringing up in the first place, because for the vast majority of us that is NOT the case whatsoever.

I just simply talk about what I observe, and I try to observe from multiple sources, and be fair in doing so to see where they can meet in the middle and agree upon. However, I can't help if one of those source types has data on its side that I can look at, check up on/research, verify on my own (in terms of following any coding the producers of the chips the data comes from would follow), and itself has been very consistent. And I can't help if that comes off to some people as me "choosing" one side over another when that isn't me doing so out of some emotional need or negative bias towards a preference. And I honestly think most of the other people who regard the Github info and testing data with at least some weight would feel similar.
Click to expand...
Some bits to add...

- All Oberon test in GitHub are regression tests for Ariel... that means they are making sure everything that worked in Ariel works in Oberon... it is weird but there is no Oberon profile tests leaked.

- Sony doesn’t produce the chips... TSMC does it by AMD request, Sony only buy them from AMD.

- 7nm EUV is included in AMD 7nm.... so everything is possible here.

- What makes find weird with AMD probably not using the 7nm EUV is the fact they said 50 perf. per watt. AMD already have a big hint when they moved from GCN 7nm to RDNA 7nm so they already had 50% increase in the same node. They want more 50% that continuing in the same DUV? That means 75% due architecture improvements only? I don’t buy that... nVidia did the miracle Maxwell without using a new node they got 30% increase in perf. per watt.
So I can only see that 50% increase over RDNA with a more efficient node and that why they didn’t discard 7nm EUV... they just said everything is 7nm for them DUV or EUV.

I maybe forget something to add but my 10 months old son wake up ;)
 
Last edited:
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
devilNprada said:
Summer is right around the corner.
Click to expand...
Weird here is Summer like all south hemisphere.
Confirmed cases here are multiplying each day after the first people come from travels from others countries with the virus.

At least 10 countries in South America are like Brasil with Conavirus confirmed cases.

BTW the count in Latin American (it didn’t count all South American countries) up to 13/03 was 5 deaths and 340 confirmed cases.
 
Last edited:
EGOMON

EGOMON

Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
I can't speak for others who utilize Github and the testing data as a reference point, but I'll answer what I can in your post.

-I always thought the initial testing data was doing BC testings for PS4 and Pro. This was even before I learned about the Ariel iGPU testing profile and therefore meant even well before bringing that up into discussion, I felt that testing data was only reflective of BC settings and not the full actual chip

-The 36/40 is either the full Oberon CU counts, or a count that's incomplete. It's not the fault of the data miners why that particular question can't be clearly answered; you'd have to ask Sony and AMD staff running these tests and storing the data about that.

-You are actually misinterpreting what RDNA2 actually is. RDNA2 isn't exclusively 7nm EUV. AMD's wording clouded conclusions on that but they shortly clarified after the conference that it was a nomenclature thing, so 7nm"+" can be thought of more as further improvement on the 7nm node process

-Another important thing to keep in mind is that RDNA2 does not necessarily mean "large chip" out of necessity. AMD have never stated this, not even once, and they never will. Why would they keep RDNA2 features like RT, VRS, VRR etc. off their mobile APUs, which have very low CU counts compared to these consoles? Some people have automatically made the correlation when that is just them jumping through an unnecessary hoop. It just so happens there will be chips on RDNA2 that are "big" chips, but RDNA2 features can be implemented on smaller chips as well. Otherwise, AMD have completely failed in designing a smart, scalable GPU architecture

-There's nothing inherently stopping Sony from going with a bigger chip, but that doesn't mean a bigger chip was their goal, either. I actually speculated why there's a chance they've gone with a relatively smaller chip, but there are also cost-related reasons, plus the fact Sony is very likely going to manufacture a very big chunk of units for the first fiscal quarter (I would guess at least 10 million) and then you have to weigh all of that against the size of Sony as a corporation itself and what money they have on hand (and what can be borrowed through big loans from banks or investors) to cover those costs. That alone could have led them down a path of wanting a relatively "smaller" chip.

-You're right, pretty much anyone speculating Oberon is an RDNA2 chip is doing so with information outside of Github. But for myself personally, I've been using a swell of other sources besides that in my own speculation for a long time now, and more to the point, it's not like most of the insiders really know what the PS5 is, either. If so, we could actually get some more nuanced specifications beyond simply a TF range. And when you have guys like Tommy Fischer commit reputation suicide by almost duping a mod with doctored controller photos, that just puts an extra bit of questioning on other rumors as a whole: even when pressed with proof some of these dudes may try bullshitting their way to the top because the balls are just that brass.

-I never questioned PS5 having hardware ray-tracing, not once. But it wasn't just Githubbers speculating about PS5 being RDNA1; many people in general were. Many were under the assumption Sony had their own RT ASIC solution either integrated into the APU as an IP block (some went as far as to bring up a team member having worked on PowerVR as Sony maybe using PowerVR RT instead of AMD's), or connected to the APU, likely with some PCIe interconnect or something to that effect. And that was mainly Sony people speculating this. Even I did for a while but once it became apparent how inefficient a separate RT ASIC would be to the design (bandwidth issue, potentially) I just accepted that PS5 would have AMD's RT in one form or another, and that's while still relating Oberon to PS5. In other words, I dropped PS5 being RDNA1 a long time ago and that was pretty much at the time Cerny clarified things and when the RT ASIC idea fell through.

-Gotta keep in mind that a lot of us were also uncertain about RDNA2's node process. I assumed both PS5 and XSX were RDNA1 because I thought they would be 7nm. In fact, given AMD's recently said 7nm+ isn't necessarily EUV but rather improvements on the 7nm process, it means almost for certain PS5 and XSX are still 7nm but with some efficiency gains (just not EUV levels). I even doubted XSX was fully RDNA2 even when Microsoft themselves mentioned RDNA2 in that Twitter post, because I assumed RDNA2 was exclusively 7nm EUV and knew that would be even costlier than regular 7nm.

So basically, I think PS5 and even XSX will still be 7nm, but be RDNA2 chips. That should be pretty clear-cut.

-I think people are overestimating RDNA2 efficiency. The 50% perf-per-watt doesn't actually mean 50% IPC over RDNA1. And we now know RDNA2 is not exclusive to EUV, and the "7nm+" is actually indicative of small improvements over the 7nm process, notable improvements but not to the level of what actual 7nm EUV brings. So if anything it suggests both PS5 and XSX are 7nm but benefit from slight efficiency improvements while not being on the EUV process.

-Wasn't the interpretation of the testing data always meant to indicate BC of PS4 and PS4 Pro? Even with that said it asks the question of why 2GHz needed to be tested for that except to perhaps ensure PS4 Pro titles could hit native 4K60 natively on the chip. Probably a question worth asking and one we'll hopefully get an answer for soon (through Sony themselves).

-So I guess that brings us back to the high clock. You ask why would they do it, well, I'm still asking that too. I have always said Github and the testing data do not represent everything in terms of PS5's performance, not even once. However, I think with clarification on what RDNA2 actually is and the fact it can be on both 7nm and 7nm EUV (and the "7nm+" was apparently more about minor improvements on the 7nm process, probably through things AMD have done themselves on the architecture pipeline side) that there might be some justification for the 2GHz clock testing on Oberon outside of acting as a free FPS stability boost for Pro-enhanced games.

What would justify that? Well, the easiest answer is that Oberon might be a 36/40CU chip after all. Or, it could be a slightly larger chip (the Dec revision adjusted the memory bus controller IIRC, upping it higher) but still getting a relatively high clock. That's why I think maybe the best answer to what PS5 actually is (for now) is to go somewhere in the middle. A 44 - 48 active CU chip on a more recent revision, pushing relatively high clocks (anything between 1800MHz and 1900MHz if 2000MHz can't be sustained) might fit that bill.

But I can't have a grounded speculation like that by simply considering one source type (insiders) as gospel and the other (pertinent & persistent testing data) as throwaway junk. Unfortunately a lot of the people who say things like "Team Github" are doing it unironically, so as to discredit anyone even partially referencing the Github stuff or any of the datamined testing data whatsoever, for any purpose at all. That type of reasoning is nothing short of insanity.

I also think it's because we really do have a group of people who are desperate for a power crown battle at any costs, unwilling to even consider the worth or validity of any source that isn't for 'their team" coming out on top in a proverbial e-penis TF pissing contest, and assume anyone and everyone who refers to anything besides insiders exclusively as being against their preferred brand or "team". The truth is you may get that with literally a very small minority of people but the vast majority of that type aren't here on these forums.

Yes it's unfortunate people with actual troll-like behavior in the past such as TimDog (and even some people here like Longdi who I hope has calmed that type of posting down) are clinging to the Github 9.2TF stuff to antagonize PS fans, but I'm not TimDog and TimDog is not representative of the majority of us who simply see it as a valuable asset in discussing the possibility of next-gen PlayStation. Hell, most of us are even doing so while still listening and giving consideration to the rumors as well, it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

In the end, I ultimately agree with your end point: Github doesn't provide the full picture on PS5. It didn't provide the full picture on XSX either and barely provides anything on Lockhart (speaking of which, I'll actually take a minute here and say how funny it was to see some Xbox people try arguing the 22/24 CU APU leak that very clearly listed Microsoft in it, with a 950MHz TDP-down, was in fact not related to Lockhart. It took until DF did a video simulating a 4TF Lockhart running games at 1080p and mostly 60FPS clocks for them to accept that particular leak. However I took that leak to pretty much be Lockhart upon first seeing it and it also has me thinking Lockhart is not a "traditional" game console, but that's something for another time).

However, there're people who will take anyone merely stating simply that, and interpret it to mean "Github is useless. The testing data is useless. None of these chips are PS5 related at all", and some of them know what they're doing when they do this. So IMHO, they're just as guilty as having an agenda in dismissing Github as some people are in using Github and the testing data to antagonize Sony and PS fans (and pushing 9.2TF like it's a derogatory insult). It goes both ways on this, and as much as I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling Xbox fanboys ammunition (in needing to clarify things on the Github info and testing data from my own POV), I don't want to give the fanatical, trolling PlayStation fanboys ammunition in attacking all aspects of that info and testing data as being FUD that only folks with an agenda against Sony and PS would bother bringing up in the first place, because for the vast majority of us that is NOT the case whatsoever.

I just simply talk about what I observe, and I try to observe from multiple sources, and be fair in doing so to see where they can meet in the middle and agree upon. However, I can't help if one of those source types has data on its side that I can look at, check up on/research, verify on my own (in terms of following any coding the producers of the chips the data comes from would follow), and itself has been very consistent. And I can't help if that comes off to some people as me "choosing" one side over another when that isn't me doing so out of some emotional need or negative bias towards a preference. And I honestly think most of the other people who regard the Github info and testing data with at least some weight would feel similar.
Click to expand...
Thicc_wall_of_text_is_teh_best
 
Last edited:
Bo_Hazem

Bo_Hazem

Banned
FeiRR said:
Yes, very much. Texture decompression takes a lot of compute. Shifting it to a specialized chip will be a huge win. But if devs say both consoles are close, Microsoft must have something similar.

Sony has a lot of experience in high-capacity memory storage. The problem is the price of such solutions. For example, a 512 GB AXSM memory card costs $2500. Even if you consider the high profit margin they add to professional products, this is still about a level of magnitude too expensive. And those cards are 'just' 2.4 GB/s. Their fastest media are up to 10 GB/s from what I see but I don't even know how much they are.
Click to expand...

Sony Memory cards? Nostalgic feelings?

147827.jpg
 
Lunatic_Gamer

Lunatic_Gamer

Member
wccftech.com

PS5, Xbox Series X or Both May Be Delayed Due to COVID-19, Says DFC

PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X or even both could be delayed due to supply chain issues caused by the coronavirus, according to DFC.
wccftech.com wccftech.com

With all due respect, FuCk China! I have a few Chinese friends and they all agree this situation is a shit show, mostly created by their irresponsible communist government. If they had asked the world for help as soon as the epidemic started things probably wouldn’t be as bad as they are. Goddamn bat and pangolin eaters.
 
Last edited:
H

Hatsuma

Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
I actually do a LOT of writing and it's just something out of habit. But really I'm just passionate about console tech especially next-gen related and I write a lot about stuff I have a passion for.
Click to expand...

I adore writing as well, so I understand the sentiment, and try to read through your posts thoroughly. I am not that tech savvy, so I can't fully digest it. However, I can interpret the passion from your long ass posts. It is legit.
 
Lunatic_Gamer

Lunatic_Gamer

Member
“We see that the [Xbox] Series X will have almost double the performance output, which will be a huge benefit for larger scale AAA games,” they said. “And for smaller games, it will allow faster loading times, faster streaming, better AI, and, of course, 60 FPS and 4K much more often.”

gamingbolt.com

Xbox Series X’s Zen 2 CPU Will Double Its Performance Output – 3D Realms

3D Realms' Frederik Schreiber and Scott Miller expect to see
gamingbolt.com gamingbolt.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I asked ChatGPT to build a PC thats equivalent to the PS5 Pro, this was it's response
Analysis 2 3 4
150
15K
Kupfer replied
Xbox console gamers, would you like the next console to be a pc/console hybrid?
2
94
4K
SteadyEvo replied
PS5 Pro Reveal Reaction - Tech, Specs, Games, Price - A DF Direct Special
2 3
130
9K
Salty Pickle replied
AMD RDNA 5 To Be A Completely New GPU Architecture From The Ground Up, RDNA 4 Mostly Fixes RDNA 3 Issues & Improves Ray Tracing
News Rumor Hardware 2 3
139
11K
Zathalus replied
Was 8 CPU cores enough for 9th gen consoles? Strix Halo, the prefect console.
Opinion Analysis 2
62
6K
Tertullian replied
Top Bottom