Don't know where to post this so here it goes
Don't know where to post this so here it goes
I just now saw that thread, sorry.
I dont know if i agree. I think native 4k 30 fps with good AA looks better than even DLSS quality let alone performance which is way softer in comparison.
I like DLSS but its no substitute for native 4k rendering. In motion or while standing still.
If taken literally (which we shouldn't) but to keep things simple. It means, For game X.
- PS5 fidelity mode, 4K@30fps = PS5pro fidelity mode, 4K@44fps.
- PS5 performance mode, 1080p@60fps = PS5pro performance mode, 1080p@87fps.
But thats a very basic way of describing it. But that should give you a general idea. So what a PS5pro would do?
- PS5pro Fidelity mode, 1296p-1440p + PSSR>4K@60fps (should get you something that looks close to, similar or even better than the base PS5 fidelity mode)
- PS5pro performance mode, 720p-900p + PSSR>1440p@80fps+/unlocked.
It varies from game to game, but one thing for certain is that you are getting a better-performing game overall that doesn't have to make the kinda cuts they currently do to get 60fps modes running.
Isnt that supposed to be the other way around? Will look good or even better in still shots, but in motion artifacts may start becoming apparent. Unless you are talking about in motion as in having higher framerates.
For real???1440p(native rest)@60 FPS using PSSR to upscale to 1800p/4K will most likely look better than Fidelity Mode 1800p@30 FPS.
How much hate do you think Sony would receive if after the launch of the PS5 Pro they replaced the current PS5 Amateur with a new 36 CU RDNA3.5 model compatible with PSSR and marginal improvements in RT for the same price?
Personally, I'd like to see this in 2025, but it might hurt some people's feelings. If it were significantly smaller and cost $400 with a disk drive included it would be great.
Do you happen to know in which way(s) specifically?CUs have being re-designed for it according to Kepler.
No. Just Kepler's tweet that the whole SA has being re-architectured to account for the added CUs. Like you said they likely added some cache. I wouldn't worry about that. And the 2 SE setup has plenty of advantages: smaller APU, faster clocks, cheaper, compatibility with PS4/PS5 engines so it'll be actually be more efficient for PS5 games etc.Do you happen to know in which way(s) specifically?
I would imagine the new double rate fp 32 capable CUs with enhanced RT thoughtput would be even hungrier for inner GPU bandwidth. 15 CUs per Shader Array fighting for 128 Kbs of L1 cache would be a bloodbath compared to PS5's 9 CUs.The efficiency loss in real world compute thoughput could be significant not to mention additional pressure from "128" ROPs. Then there is the side of the pure rasterization throughput which is tide to the number of prim units and rasterizers which are in turn tied to mumber of shader engines of course...
One way to remediate (at least to some degree) could be to increase GPU L1 cache to 256 Kbs per array like high end RDNA3 parts, but i don't know how practical it is considering APU die area and/or price implications.
In the end i can't say that i have the utmost enthusiasm for PS5 PRO for it being a mid generation upgrade but in the same i still hope it is a 3 SE/54 CUs setup. I really dislike inefficient and wasteful designs.
If this thing has 2 SE, it's a possibility it's still the same RDNA1 but will have upgraded RT, dual-issue the old SIMD32 and add AI Accelerators.No. Just Kepler's tweet that the whole SA has being re-architectured to account for the added CUs. Like you said they likely added some cache. I wouldn't worry about that. And the 2 SE setup has plenty of advantages: smaller APU, faster clocks, cheaper, compatibility with PS4/PS5 engines so it'll be actually be more efficient for PS5 games etc.
Like PS5 5700XT GPU that was very efficient for games, this will be the prototype of the first RDNA4 GPU. It will be efficient for gaming + RT loads. I really wouldn't worry.
Well, there are multiple aspects to consider like you said. You seem to be on the optimistic side, all good.No. Just Kepler's tweet that the whole SA has being re-architectured to account for the added CUs. Like you said they likely added some cache. I wouldn't worry about that. And the 2 SE setup has plenty of advantages: smaller APU, faster clocks, cheaper, compatibility with PS4/PS5 engines so it'll be actually be more efficient for PS5 games etc.
Like PS5 5700XT GPU that was very efficient for games, this will be the prototype of the first RDNA4 GPU. It will be efficient for gaming + RT loads. I really wouldn't worry.
It's more like the 5700XT uses the PS5 layout, as the PS5 was developed before it.Well, there are multiple aspects to consider like you said. You seem to be on the optimistic side, all good.
I can't say that i quite agree on PS5 having a RDNA1 GPU/RX 5700XT in it though, just to note.The layout is similar, but there are differences.
It's more like the 5700XT uses the PS5 layout, as the PS5 was developed before it.
PS5 GFX: 1000/1001 (without RT)
5700XT GFX: 1010
Then it was revised to GFX: 1013/1014 (with RT)
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Despite all the changes. In my opinion, RDNA2 is just a refresh.I see, thanks. PS5 we have is GFX 1013/14 then not GFX 1000/1001. So GFX 1000≠GFX 1010≠GFX 1013/14. Nothing contradicting PS5' "Custom RDNA2 based architecture" from Cerny's Road to PS5 presentation right?..
If I'm reading right,all the stuff in RDNA2 existed in 1 except RT and basically wasn't enabled to the same degree as RDNA2.If this thing has 2 SE, it's a possibility it's still the same RDNA1 but will have upgraded RT, dual-issue the old SIMD32 and add AI Accelerators.
Using the same core architecture and then just adding 12 more WGPs maybe the route Sony takes.
BC could play a role in the same way for the GPU as the CPU.
I find it crazy that jumping two gens in GPU architecture doesn't break BC and isn't considered a different console generation but it's a problem for the CPU.
I would think so, with the only difference being that RPM did its thing for fp8 workloads and Dual issue is attempting to do it for fp32 workloads. And likely with better support for it on the compiler side of things.I going to look into,but wonder if the dual- issue of RDNA3 is an evolution of raping packed math.
Comparing PC side, geometry (rasterizer/prim units) blocks and ROPs are all different architecturally between RDNA1 and RDNA2. And the CUs (RT intersection engines), +infinity cache. I personally think the differences are noticeable and important enough.If I'm reading right,all the stuff in RDNA2 existed in 1 except RT and basically wasn't enabled to the same degree as RDNA2.
I going to look into,but wonder if the dual- issue of RDNA3 is an evolution of raping packed math.
Most stuff matched RDNA 1.1, except for VRS, RT and Infinity Cache. RDNA 1 has some features missing from 1.1 as well.If I'm reading right,all the stuff in RDNA2 existed in 1 except RT and basically wasn't enabled to the same degree as RDNA2.
Exactly, if anything the Shader Engines/SA should be redesigned to be beefier (Caches, ROPs, Geometry processors, rasterizers etc) to support more CU units that also happen to be more complex.Do you happen to know in which way(s) specifically?
I would imagine the new double rate fp 32 capable CUs with enhanced RT thoughtput would be even hungrier for inner GPU bandwidth. 15 CUs per Shader Array fighting for 128 Kbs of L1 cache would be a bloodbath compared to PS5's 9 CUs.The efficiency loss in real world compute thoughput could be significant not to mention additional pressure from "128" ROPs. Then there is the side of the pure rasterization throughput which is tide to the number of prim units and rasterizers which are in turn tied to mumber of shader engines of course...
One way to remediate (at least to some degree) could be to increase GPU L1 cache to 256 Kbs per array like high end RDNA3 parts, but i don't know how practical it is considering APU die area and/or price implications.
In the end i can't say that i have the utmost enthusiasm for PS5 PRO for it being a mid generation upgrade but in the same i still hope it is a 3 SE/54 CUs setup. I really dislike inefficient and wasteful designs.
The thing with the ROPs is a big chunk of their potential (fill rate) would be wasted with either designs with the shared 576 GB/s of RAM bandwidth reminiscent of the PS4 PRO situation. Even with PS5 i consider the 448 GB/s pool to be systems' weakest link. Now add in 33 Tflops of highly theoretical compute peak to the picture, to make even decent use of this potential you would need additional bandwidth. I am really curious about plausible consumption improvements, otherwise the bandwidth isn't quite there to make optimal use of this GPU. May be a pool of infinity cache but this can be problematic as to APU die area. I mean if this 45% figure is accurate, the system doesn't exactly scream efficency.Exactly, if anything the Shader Engines/SA should be redesigned to be beefier (Caches, ROPs, Geometry processors etc) to support more CU units that also happen to be more complex.
They talked about improvement of memory bandwidth on top of faster GDDR6. I'd say RDNA3.5 - 4 is probably more efficient in that area. Besides it shows more Tflops would be useless with that memory bandwdith. This is one of the error they did with PS4 Pro.The thing with the ROPs is a big chunk of their potential (fill rate) would be wasted with either designs with the shared 576 GB/s of RAM bandwidth reminiscent of the PS4 PRO situation. Even with PS5 i consider the 448 GB/s pool to be systems' weakest link. Now add in 33 Tflops of highly theoretical compute peak to the picture, to make even decent use of this potential you would need additional bandwidth. I am really curious about plausible consumption improvements, otherwise the bandwidth isn't quite there to make optimal use of this GPU. May be a pool of infinity cache but this can be problematic as to APU die area. I mean if this 45% figure is accurate, the system doesn't exactly scream efficency.
I agree wholeheartedly that the focus should be maximising per component efficiency instead of inflating theoretical ceilings. Yes, they did quite a few mistakes with PS4 PRO's design and i would not like to see them repeated on PS5 PRO by turning their back to efficiency focused PS5. That is why i am curious about the details of architectural gains to see if they are up to task adress the points mentioned above in the matter of real world performance.They talked about improvement of memory bandwidth on top of faster GDDR6. I'd say RDNA3.5 - 4 is probably more efficient in that area. Besides it shows more Tflops would be useless with that memory bandwdith. This is one of the error they did with PS4 Pro.
While reading up on the differences between the PS4 and PS4 Pro GPU.
TechPowerUp has the PS4 Pro's GPU architecture as GCN 2.0. Same a PS4 GPU.
![]()
I thought the PS4 Pro's GPU architecture was GCN 4.0?
Yes PS4 PRO is based on Polaris which is GCN 4 with some Vega features which is GCN 5. They also have the ROP number and pixel fillrate figures wrong by the way, PS4 PRO had 64 ROPs, not 32.While reading up on the differences between the PS4 and PS4 Pro GPU.
TechPowerUp has the PS4 Pro's GPU architecture as GCN 2.0. Same a PS4 GPU.
![]()
I thought the PS4 Pro's GPU architecture was GCN 4.0?
Whoever runs the site didn't correct the amount of ROPs the Pro has as it still lost the amount as 32. Curse you Lysandro,JK.While reading up on the differences between the PS4 and PS4 Pro GPU.
TechPowerUp has the PS4 Pro's GPU architecture as GCN 2.0. Same a PS4 GPU.
![]()
I thought the PS4 Pro's GPU architecture was GCN 4.0?
Well, they got the name correct at least, that is 'PS4 PRO GPU' indeed.Whoever runs the site didn't correct the amount of ROPs the Pro has as it still lost the amount as 32. Curse you Lysandro,JK.![]()
Is that above video in 4K HDR? It might be worth watching again to see the HDR demos properly. Otherwise, bum.
With the soon-to-be-announced PS5 Pro expected to hit shelves later this year, Insider Gaming has learned of the developer requirements that need to be met to have the ‘PS5 Pro Enhanced’ label. Internally, this is currently called the ‘Trinity Enhanced’ label, but for the sake of SEO, we’ll be referring to it as ‘PS5 Pro Enhanced’ moving forward.
The ‘Enhanced’ label first made its introduction into the PlayStation ecosystem following the release of the PlayStation 4 Pro, which meant that the game utilized the Pro console’s improved hardware to offer improved frame rates and resolutions. For the PS5 Pro PlayStation wants games to offer a PS5 Pro-exclusive graphics mode that will combine:
- PSSR to upscale resolution to 4K
- A constant 60FPS
- Add or increase ray tracing effects
According to documents sent to Insider Gaming, this is possible because of faster RAM (28% faster) and a faster GPU that is 67% larger than the standard console (45% faster) – You can read more PS5 Pro specs here. Playstation says these combined make the Pro 45% faster than the standard PlayStation 5 and can provide twice the rendering speed of the standard console.
PlayStation goes on to continue that games may also be given the ‘PS5 Pro Enhanced’ label if they offer any of the following enhancements:
- Increased target resolution for titles that run a fixed resolution on the standard console
- Increased target maximum resolution for titles that run at variable resolution on the standard console
- Increased target frame rate for titles that target a fixed frame rate on the standard console
- Inclusion of PS5 Pro Raytracing effects
Wait, 45% because it's the average of 28% faster memory and 67% faster Tflops (using single issue)? They really don't know how faster it really is, do they?![]()
EXCLUSIVE - PS5 Pro Enhanced Requirements Detailed
Insider Gaming has learned of the developer requirements that need to be met to have the 'PS5 Pro Enhanced' label.insider-gaming.com
For high-demanding games like GTA 6, tech expert and Digital Foundry founder Richard Leadbetter has said that people shouldn’t expect GTA 6 to run at 60FPS on the PS5 Pro. Leadbetter’s analysis is primarily based on the Pro’s CPU
Wait, 45% because it's the average of 28% faster memory and 67% faster Tflops (using single issue)? They really don't know how faster it really is, do they?
Why is this here? and again, this is wrong. Pro CPU won't dictate if the game runs at 60fps. What are they afraid at?
Won’t get announced till SeptemberI wish they announced it very soon.
Where does this come from?Playstation says these combined make the Pro 45% faster than the standard PlayStation 5 and can provide twice the rendering speed of the standard console.
This part has me confused, because earlier he said this.
- Rendering 45% faster than PS5
So how can it have twice the rendering speed and have 45% faster rendering at the same time?
From two of Tom Henderson's PS5 Pro articles.Where does this come from?
That explains it.PS5 and XSX often caused frame drops due to bandwidth limitations when using a lot of alpha effects.
The synergistic effect of PS5Pro's efficient access and 28% increase in bandwidth + 45% faster GPU speed may result in (up to) twice the frame rate.
PS5 shares 448GB/s of memory bandwidth between the CPU, GPU, and Tempest 3D Audio Engine(can use over 20GB/s).![]()
It certainly explains parts of it. Alpha effects are heavily dependent on the ROPs which scale with clock speed. Not sure how many ROPs the Pro will have (I hear 96?) that’s a 50% increase over the base model already. In scenes under heavy strain from alpha effects, the Pro could have a much larger advantage than 45%.That explains it.
I honestly think some of these specs seem slightly off it makes more sense for the figure to be the 67% faster I frequently heard maybe the 45% is an absolute worst case scenarioIt certainly explains parts of it. Alpha effects are heavily dependent on the ROPs which scale with clock speed. Not sure how many ROPs the Pro will have (I hear 96?) that’s a 50% increase over the base model already. In scenes under heavy strain from alpha effects, the Pro could have a much larger advantage than 45%.
I remember the PS2 being a monster at this in games like MGS2 or Jak & Daxter. But the bandwidth the PS2 vram had was frankenstein (and textures resolution was usually quite bad due to low amount of it). Overall it was not a good design and Dreamcast / Xbox had a better hardware balance.PS5 and XSX often caused frame drops due to bandwidth limitations when using a lot of alpha effects.
The synergistic effect of PS5Pro's efficient access and 28% increase in bandwidth + 45% faster GPU speed may result in (up to) twice the frame rate.
PS5 shares 448GB/s of memory bandwidth between the CPU, GPU, and Tempest 3D Audio Engine(can use over 20GB/s).![]()
I think by 45% faster rendering, they don’t mean 45% better fps overall. They’re speaking to developers so 45% faster rendering really means that. It’s not 45% better performance or frame rate.I honestly think some of these specs seem slightly off it makes more sense for the figure to be the 67% faster I frequently heard maybe the 45% is an absolute worst case scenario