You forgot to add you own both xbone and ps4 and that you have no reasons to be biased.
- Status
Good. That means they didn't skimp on their tech. Lmao. We complain about wanting smaller consoles but the trade off is weaker CPUs etc. this makes sense as the first iteration just as the XSX is large as well. We are in for a good generation.
Damn,it's big! 😮
I do own both, but I do prefer Xbox.
Does not make my point invalid.
Ohh we finally have a side view. I'm gonna update my mockup lol
Damn,it's big! 😮
Looks good top down. The lone PS logo in the corner is 👌
Damn,it's big! 😮
limitations. Everything ever made has a limitation. Not necessarily a flaw. Two different things.
RROD was a flaw. Going with separate pools of RAM in the PS3 was a flaw. Using DDR3 in the XB1 was a flaw.
With these upcoming next gen consoles, I can't think of a single thing that is a flaw about them, I can see limitations, but not something that I feel is "wrong" about any of the choices they have made. These are both very well-made pieces of tech.
Well... if when they launch we start seeing system failure for one reason or the other then I would revise what I just said now.
Sure it does - but the flaws are not a product of people's beliefs on internet, no matter how widely held they are.
Was a straight on side shot shown in the reveal presentation at all? Would've done well to quell the alien space ship talk if people saw it's just a white box if they turn in sideways.
Damn,it's big! 😮
Damn,it's big! 😮
That thing would look smaller beside me, so i'm good.
LMAO!!!!!!
Damn,it's big! 😮
This waste leak that was to be if that show was postponed by as much as 2 weeks lol. As we said, sony had to show it or not stuff like this would start making the rounds.
I hope they leak the hell out of it. So should have known better than to still be drip-feeding info on the hardware if its in mass production already.
It would be funny if our first glimpse of the backs from leaks like these.
Assuming this is actually a leak these guys posing with the thing for a pic seem very comfortable.
Do we know the height of these guys? I mean no offense, but the size is really relative here.
Damn,it's big! 😮
I don't know. XSX had the weird ram split that could lead to bad bottlenecks on certain effects. Devs are going to have to manage how often they hit that slow ram.
Of course you do.
Were you referencing the twitter conspiracy about RT not being related to clock speed and XSX having a 44% advantage because someone simply counted the CUs btw? The stuff that was literally, LITERALLY just made up nonsense?
This is pure conjecture. You have nothing to back this up as some flaw. And you clearly don't understand how the clocks work.
Sony leaking their own console a week after reveal. They're not doing it right.
Looks like Sony employees either testing assembly, seems they are wearing vests with Sony branding.
variable clocks aren't like pc variable clocks. They're a way of making more use out of the headroom available rather than fixing at a lower baseline. If you've been following the thread thereare some excellent explanations and some hopefully thread marked.
can you share the AMD RT documentation as I don't recall it being made public and actually AMD haven't shown much in detail about it yet. I'd be particularly interested in the let that explains why it doesn't scale with both CUs and frequency like regular ALU operations which is what your comment implies
lower bandwidth is true but hopefully careful use of efficiencies like compression may help. But RT is also memory bandwidth hungry so it might be an issue. But then the BW/TF is about the same as XSX so maybe they'll have similar issues
But it would still end up with an overall average higher than what the PS5 has.
Nice! Might i suggest adding something for scale?
Looking at the guy in the picture, the console looks to have some heft as well, doesn't it? The way he leans away from it like that.
I think shoes might be a better give away or estimating the guys watch for scale. I think those guys are wearing at least a size 8 shoe.
And me making a huge guess and eye balling it it looks like the system is 20 x 10 in size.
about as long as Sony's 1st blu ray player. But narrower.
Naaaa man... no way its 20" tall.
14" - 15" at worst.
Again, this is one of those areas that sony could have just released a simple blog post for, with dimensions and pictures of everything. But nooooooo.... they've got us counting bananas and shoe sizes.
38cm x 24cm x 10cm I think, just eyeballed from the USB/disc drive comparison pic we have and the renders we got.
Actually I did create a comparison in some older thread, lemme see if I can find it. Weight is gonna be 5 kilos or more I guess :P
I have the dimensions at: 344.4 x 87 x 162 mm. The depth is calculated through a different picture and is possibly wrong.
I calculated it with the usb ports, 27.7 x 7.25 x 13.5 usb ports
I think this is the right size.
15 in x 9in x 4in (converting for our terrible freedom units)
you may be right Pheonix
Now they're saying the photo could be fake? lol. Sony should just come out with the official dimension already!
That would would be far far better than what we are doing now lol. I also don't understand why they aren't just giving the numbers like they did before. So weird
I know driving me nuts. I just saw someone else say that. Honestly I think it's between 13-15 inches (33- 38 cm) long and 7-9 inches (17-23 cm) wide and 4 inches (10cm) high.
lol
Yeah, for the PS5 we need concrete confirmation. Good to hear anyway. To me, Sony just doesn't go into detail about every lil thing.
Its the fault of the naysayers.
Its like sony says they have tires on a car but because they didn't specify they are round people start saying they are square.
VR, RT, VRR are known to be part of RDNA2. So why they wouldn't be part of the PS5 is beyond me.
Ever since the initial tech PS5 deep dive I've been looking for rather close comparisons between graphics cards with a similar gap in compute units, memory bandwidth and clocks, preferably on the same architecture and while this latest one is imperfect and possibly not very applicable to PS5 and XSX, it may be the closest "match" I've seen so far. What I want to know is why Sony chose higher clocks vs more CUs since every single GPU architecture out there scales with CUs instead of clocks. Meaning a lower clocked GPU with more CUs always beats a higher clocked GPU with less CUs on the same architecture (see 2070 Max-Q vs. 2070 Max-Q Super to a shocking degree).
Basically I'm looking for a real life example that makes the decision viable and that hasn't happened so far. I want to say that despite that fact that I drop the name of the XSX a bunch I don't want to make that the centerpiece or the point of this post, I just want to get into Cerny's head when it comes to the decision to roll with 36 CUs and crazy high clocks and I need a more grounded and traditional Danny Glover to compare this Mel Gibson of a console to. This is about approaches and the decisions that led to them not necessarily about a power difference.
Well anyway, the comparison is:
The 16'' MacBook Pro 5500m 8GB vs the 16'' MacBook Pro 5600m 8GB
Ways in which the comparison works:
- same architecture (RDNA1)
- same thermal envelope for both GPUs and both GPUs also have the same 50 TDP limit
- CPU performance doesn't get in the way since it's an additional GPU option for the existing MacBook Pro and the CPU options are the same
- similar CU difference compared to PS5 vs XSX (24 vs 40)
- similar clock difference compared to PS5 vs XSX (1300 Mhz vs 1035 Mhz)
Ways in which the comparison doesn't work:
- HBM2 memory on the 5600m makes a huge difference and RDNA 1 scales extremely well with increased memory bandwith which distorts the comparison as there isn't such a big difference in memory bandwidth between PS5 and XSX
- this isn't RDNA 2 and RDNA 2 might scale better with increased clocks than with more CUs, since this is the direct predecessor of RDNA 2 on the same 7nm process it might still be as good as it gets right now
- games aren't specifically made to take advantage of the increased clocks vs more natural scaling in the PC space with more CUs
Basically I'm looking for a real life example that makes the decision viable and that hasn't happened so far. I want to say that despite that fact that I drop the name of the XSX a bunch I don't want to make that the centerpiece or the point of this post, I just want to get into Cerny's head when it comes to the decision to roll with 36 CUs and crazy high clocks and I need a more grounded and traditional Danny Glover to compare this Mel Gibson of a console to. This is about approaches and the decisions that led to them not necessarily about a power difference.
Well anyway, the comparison is:
The 16'' MacBook Pro 5500m 8GB vs the 16'' MacBook Pro 5600m 8GB
Ways in which the comparison works:
- same architecture (RDNA1)
- same thermal envelope for both GPUs and both GPUs also have the same 50 TDP limit
- CPU performance doesn't get in the way since it's an additional GPU option for the existing MacBook Pro and the CPU options are the same
- similar CU difference compared to PS5 vs XSX (24 vs 40)
- similar clock difference compared to PS5 vs XSX (1300 Mhz vs 1035 Mhz)
Ways in which the comparison doesn't work:
- HBM2 memory on the 5600m makes a huge difference and RDNA 1 scales extremely well with increased memory bandwith which distorts the comparison as there isn't such a big difference in memory bandwidth between PS5 and XSX
- this isn't RDNA 2 and RDNA 2 might scale better with increased clocks than with more CUs, since this is the direct predecessor of RDNA 2 on the same 7nm process it might still be as good as it gets right now
- games aren't specifically made to take advantage of the increased clocks vs more natural scaling in the PC space with more CUs
Your off the shelf GPU isn't designed to clock much higher than its stock frequencies.
Sony didn't just take a 36CU GPU and clock it to thy kingdom come. The chip would have been specifically designed t scale properly it's targeted locks.
If you takes normal GPU, and clock it stupidly high, throttling would likely be your the biggest impairment to performance.
This is true and it's also what makes comparisons so difficult. There are lots of fast and narrow vs slow and wide comparisons out there for RDNA 1 and Turing cards but I don't think any of them go for the same approach as PS5. I guess I'll just have to accept that we'll have to wait for launch to get a good idea about the pay off for this approach.
I'm not sure what you're expecting to see here at launch.
The XSX and PS5 specs are so close that software abstraction is just as likely to result in resultant graphical/performance differences in real games as the hardware is.
- Status