Human eye can't even detect 4K on a 50" 6ft away. You need a 60"+ for that.
Not this horseshit again...
Human eye can't even detect 4K on a 50" 6ft away. You need a 60"+ for that.
More Navi:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/br4wiv/amd_navi_rumor_interview_with_sapphire_technology/
- Confirmed to release watercooled Poison Toxic for Navi. Toxic for Vega was canceled due to restricted margin.
- Navi currently has two versions, one is priced at $499 and the other is $399.
- (Assuming talking about the top version) it is stronger than 2070
- Denied the existence of socalled "Big Navi" with 5120SP
- In terms of hardware raytracing acceleration: maybe wait for AMD's next GPU architecture, although the arch is not finalized yet.
- Navi will be presented at Computex on May 27th, and the launch date is July 7th.
Hardware raytracing looking unlikely despite what some "leaks" are saying.
Can the human eye even detect more then 4k on a 50inch TV at 5 - 6ft away?
I can barely tell the difference between 1080p and 4k content, 8k seems so pointless, unless you have a 125+inch tv
What has that got to do with his question in regards to resolution? Bit pointless?
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/br1864/ps5_dev_kit_pcb_rumored_specs/
monolithic die ~22.4mm by ~14.1mm
16 Samsung K4ZAF325BM-HC18 in clamshell configuration memory vrm seems like overkill with multiple Fairchild/ON Semiconductor FDMF3170 power stages controlled by an MP2888 from MPS
3 Samsung K4AAG085WB-MCRC, 2 of those close to the NAND acting as DRAM cache (unusual 2GB DRAM per 1 TB NAND)
4 NAND packages soldered to the PCB which are TH58LJT2T24BAEG from Toshiba
PS5016-E16 from Phison
Hardware raytracing looking unlikely despite what some "leaks" are saying.
i was surprised too, but i guess, if they can show it why not?Wow that ps5 loading demo video is crazy. But I can't understand why they showing this tech so early ...
I imagine it's because they believe Microsoft won't match it. It's fairly well believed Microsoft will blow out their console first, so might as well have some of the conversation be around what it can't do.Wow that ps5 loading demo video is crazy. But I can't understand why they showing this tech so early ...
The rumor is dead no custom SSD. This is official the SSD solution inside PS5 is custom...
remember that for the fast travel they did in the wired article it took 15 seconds on the pro and still 0.8 seconds on the next gen playstation. which is like 19x the jump in speed. and this is on low speed dev kit.To be honest is that demo impressive or what we should expect as a standard? We're comparing what, a 5400RPM hard drive in the PRO to a NVMe (possible even custom) SSD in the PS5? Wouldn't that be the performance you'd expect anyway from that upgrade or am I missing something completely here.
We're talking a ~7 second reduction in loading times which is what I would have expected even using a regular SATA SSD. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Either way I'll reaffirm that its nice to see the baseline adopting this tech. I'm intrigued to see how it compares in games that take really long to load on the PS4 like battlefield 4 multiplayer for example (can take like 30 seconds from what I remember).
Do we have any numbers we can compare it to? For example a comparison between a HDD similar to the one in the PRO, a slow SATA SSD, a fast SATA SSD and an NVMe SSD. If such a comparison existed across a range of games it would be possible to make a ballpark prediction of what kind of SSD the PS5 is sporting (and possibly make more accurate predictions regarding the custom modifications, if any).remember that for the fast travel they did in the wired article it took 15 seconds on the pro and still 0.8 seconds on the next gen playstation. which is like 19x the jump in speed. and this is on low speed dev kit.
What is not reassuring is that they will still use bluray. Hell even UHD Bluray may not be enough for some next-gen games. Tbh, I hoped for some new kind of physical support to happen next-gen like HVD or something.
Do we have any numbers we can compare it to? For example a comparison between a HDD similar to the one in the PRO, a slow SATA SSD, a fast SATA SSD and an NVMe SSD. If such a comparison existed across a range of games it would be possible to make a ballpark prediction of what kind of SSD the PS5 is sporting (and possibly make more accurate predictions regarding the custom modifications, if any).
Could it be possible that Sony's hired another company to make their hardware ray-tracing component, rather than AMD, maybe Sony made one themselves in their internal R&D department?
the difference is not only in load time though, as you can see in the second demonstration in the spiderman video, once you break the speed limit on the ps4 pro the console starts to lag, get stuck, have a lot of pop in etc, but on the PS5 all of the assets load in time for the super speedy camera to render them and not be stuck at all.I'd like to see the comparison of a next gen game running off an HDD vs SSD. I'd rather pay less for a console even if it has slower load times 🤷♂️
I'd like to see the comparison of a next gen game running off an HDD vs SSD. I'd rather pay less for a console even if it has slower load times 🤷♂️
Could it be possible that Sony's hired another company to make their hardware ray-tracing component, rather than AMD, maybe Sony made one themselves in their internal R&D department?
I think that it's likely that the custom SSD solution (be it entirely hardware customisations or mostly very clever software + caches) that Sony has is something that will not be matched in the new XBox.
I believe this to be the case as Sony have now promoted this as the centre of their next-gen plans twice: the wired article was mostly about the SSD solution and now this investor relations presentation.
I think this will lead to different experiences (primarily created by Sony first-party).
I'm also still not sure that MS won't be using a Vega-derived GPU (my original speculation/guess way back).
Looking forward to next-gen now after seeing this demo.
I think what will happen is:
XBox -> more TFs or more compute - leading to better visuals or better framerates on 3rd-party / cross-platform games
PS -> fewer TFs/compute, stupidly fast ram (I'm guessing now 32GB) - leading to different games entirely enabled by this custom solution
Honestly, I don't buy that AMD MS is using components from the GPU after Navi that AMD has not even named it.
Yeah that's why I'm more interested in seeing other games which really took a long time to load.But of course it's possible this example was cherry picked for dramatic impact. And of course this isn't an A:B test, the CPU and memory speed differs too. But taking it as a raw bench of load time speed up, it is possibly better than might be expected I guess.
This goes back to a discussion that was had before. Will 3rd party developers really design their games to fully take advantage of this? I can't see them alienating the millions of PC gamers who will still be using HDDs. I expect faster loading times across the board and less pop-in, which is what you'd expect anyway from an upgrade to an SSD.Sure the loading speed was impressive. But that's not what this is about. Just the ridiculous difference in traversal speed should show what a game changer this is. We can't even imagine what devs will come up with.
SSDs are not some dark magic.
If the Next Xbox has a fast drive (even 1gb/s), dont expect "different games only existing thanks to the secret sauce of the SSD from Sony".
"Plan to expand through organic growth or acquisitions"
Interesting...please tell us more Jim!
This been posted here yet? That loading time comparison video of the PS5 vs the Pro got released online
I looked back at the Wired article and they actually compared PS5 with PS4 Pro.Did anyone notice the difference from the Wired article? In Wired they compared the PS5 with the PS4, now it's compared to the Pro.
Wired:
PS4 - 15 seconds
PS5 - less than 0.8 seconds
New demonstration:
PS4 Pro - 8.1 seconds
PS5 - 0.84 seconds
The Pro has faster memory and CPU so loading times had improved but I wonder why did the PS5 slow down from less than 0.8 seconds to 0.84 seconds. In addition, seeing the reduction in loading time from the PS4 to the Pro, from 15 seconds to 8.1 seconds, makes me wonder how fast could the PS5 do this fast travel without an SSD considering it has at least x4 more powerful CPU and much faster memory and IO. Obviously a lot slower than with an SSD but still it seems like the SSD is giving them ~4-5 times faster loading times, not 19 times like the original article claimed.
Does anyone here have a PS4 or PS4 Pro with a copy of Spider-man and is willing to do a fast travel test? Does the game even have fast travel?
It was dash line,no ? meaning they will not talk about price nowSo, it seems like the hbm rumor finally got a contradiction.
In the ir presentation you can see the ps4 wont lower its MSRP this fy, which means no super slim. In the hbm leak it was said that sony will release later this year a 199$ ps4 super slim on 7nm.
Did anyone notice the difference from the Wired article? In Wired they compared the PS5 with the PS4, now it's compared to the Pro.
Wired:
PS4 - 15 seconds
PS5 - less than 0.8 seconds
New demonstration:
PS4 Pro - 8.1 seconds
PS5 - 0.84 seconds
The Pro has faster memory and CPU so loading times had improved but I wonder why did the PS5 slow down from less than 0.8 seconds to 0.84 seconds. In addition, seeing the reduction in loading time from the PS4 to the Pro, from 15 seconds to 8.1 seconds, makes me wonder how fast could the PS5 do this fast travel without an SSD considering it has at least x4 more powerful CPU and much faster memory and IO. Obviously a lot slower than with an SSD but still it seems like the SSD is giving them ~4-5 times faster loading times, not 19 times like the original article claimed.
Does anyone here have a PS4 or PS4 Pro with a copy of Spider-man and is willing to do a fast travel test? Does the game even have fast travel?
What about that slide saying "$199 promotional pricing"?So, it seems like the hbm rumor finally got a contradiction.
In the ir presentation you can see the ps4 wont lower its MSRP this fy, which means no super slim. In the hbm leak it was said that sony will release later this year a 199$ ps4 super slim on 7nm.
On the dot of 2019 it is still on 299$ the question is if the dash line after 2019 dot means the duration of this fiscal year or the next i guess.It was dash line,no ? meaning they will not talk about price now
Its 2018 sale, not an official msrp price drop in 2019
It's weird because the writer mentions PS4 Pro, but Cerny appears to talk about the original PS4, as interpreted by the writer.I looked back at the Wired article and they actually compared PS5 with PS4 Pro.
On the original PS4, the camera moves at about the speed Spidey hits while web-slinging. "No matter how powered up you get as Spider-Man, you can never go any faster than this," Cerny says, "because that's simply how fast we can get the data off the hard drive."
It was dash line,no ? meaning they will not talk about price now
Look at how the price goes down on the 2016 dot to 299, yea i am pretty sure it confirms no msrp drop in 2019On the dot of 2019 it is still on 299$ the question is if the dash line after 2019 dot means the duration of this fiscal year or the next i guess.
Its 2018 sale, not an official msrp price drop in 2019
Yeah, you are right, it is 0.8 seconds. My bad.The wired article said '0.8 seconds' (less than one second, not less than 0.8), which sounds like a rounding of the same figure here.
The comparison with the base PS4 in the Wired article was fair - the PS4 represents the base bandwidth devs have to work with. Insomniac discussed at GDC how the base PS4, plus the variety of HDD and user upgraded HDDs limited their IO bandwidth budget and the fundamental knock ons that had for game design. So comparing to the base PS4 seems OK to me given that it is the fundamental limiter for PS4 games, and this will be the new baseline for PS5.