NX Gamer: PS5 Full Spec Analysis | A new generation is Born

[McFly]

Cerny said a couple, not 2. Also, we dont know if power will need to drop by only 10%. I think Cerny's statement that reaching a locked 2 ghz seemed impossible may give us some insight in to what clocks will actually be during gpu heavy games.

Click to shrink...

Yes with the old strategy of locking the clocks. That is why Nvidia and AMD do not lock their clocks anymore to a single clock, they let the workload and thermal decide the clock. Sony is only letting the workload decide the clock. Meaning it does not matter where the PS5 is, the experience will be predictable and consistent.

 

[icecold1983]

Yes but you will rarely tax a system that much. You may have cases where you are heavily working the GPU and lightly working the the CPU. So then the CPU will downclock so the GPU can continue to go full bore. This is an advantage but really only when it comes to getting the most power out of a set dollar budget. This is a cost and power saving method.

Click to shrink...

Not true. As primarily a PC gamer ive been monitoring and experimenting with clocks for years. But youre right about it being a cost saving measure to advantage sony.

Yes with the old strategy of locking the clocks. That is why Nvidia and AMD do not lock their clocks anymore to a single clock, they let the workload and thermal decide the clock. Sony is only letting the workload decide the clock. Meaning it does not matter where the PS5 is, the experience will be predictable and consistent.

Click to shrink...

Stop and think about what you are saying. They couldnt get a locked 2ghz clock but by simply allowing the chip to clock even higher they can now hold 2.2 ghz nearly all the time? Oh and when power or thermal limited on an nvidia gpu, the clocks are anything but predictable and consistent.

Edit - the reason nvidia started with boost clocks is to look better in benchmarks

 

[Bunzy]

So makes the GPU L2 acceses even more fast. That added to the 2,23 Ghz speed of the caches will keept the GPU very efficient. The pity is the RAM wasnt 510 GB/s.

Click to shrink...

I'm hoping they up it last min,

I feel like the rumor of ram price me issues might of led Sony to go with the lower bandwidth to save a little money.

 

[Chettlar]

Cerny said a couple, not 2. Also, we dont know if power will need to drop by only 10%. I think Cerny's statement that reaching a locked 2 ghz seemed impossible may give us some insight in to what clocks will actually be during gpu heavy games.

Click to shrink...

lmao what

 

[McFly]

Stop and think about what you are saying. They couldnt get a locked 2ghz clock but by simply allowing the chip to clock even higher they can now hold 2.2 ghz nearly all the time?

Click to shrink...

JFK you are not thinking critically at all. They pushed the GPU to that clock and designed their cooling solution to be able to sustain that clock. But there is no need to be running at that clock constantly so they let whatever workload the GPU is doing determine what clock it is running at. They didn't just arbitrarily decide we are going to lock the clock that high at 2.23GHz and slap whatever cooling solution on it. RDNA clocks really high up to 2GHz and (TBP) power draw is roughly at 250W. RDNA 2 has improved upon that by about 50% according to AMD, along with a more mature 7nm fabrication process. That is literally the simplest explanation.

 

[icecold1983]

JFK you are not thinking critically at all. They pushed the GPU to that clock and designed their cooling solution to be able to sustain that clock. But there is no need to be running at that clock constantly so they let whatever workload the GPU is doing determine what clock it is running at. They didn't just arbitrarily decide we are going to lock the clock that high at 2.23GHz and slap whatever cooling solution on it. RDNA clocks really high up to 2GHz and (TBP) power draw is roughly at 250W. RDNA 2 has improved upon that by about 50% according to AMD, along with a more mature 7nm fabrication process. That is literally the simplest explanation.

Click to shrink...

I think they clocked up to what they needed to crack 10 tflops for marketing purposes. You are the one not thinking critically. nothing about sonys presentation adds up with any degree of logic. time will show when the console releases and we start getting information on sustained clocks.

 

[McFly]

I think they clocked up to what they needed to crack 10 tflops for marketing purposes. You are the one not thinking critically. nothing about sonys presentation adds up with any degree of logic. time will show when the console releases and we start getting information on sustained clocks.

Click to shrink...

Herein lies your problem. That's a you problem and not based on reality. Every evidence leading up to this point says otherwise. First PS5 leak GPU was clocked at 1GHz, second leak GPU clock shot up to 2GHz (everyone thought impossible in a console). According to Cerny they were having issues with locking at that frequency so they went with a different design approach which was the final release specs. Every evidence points to them wanting to run at very high frequency and they have patent for their cooling solution to handle that.

 

[Dekim]

I think it is totally fair to question whether going fast and narrow instead of slow and wide was the right design decision. What I don't think is reasonable to say is that Sony desperately upped the clocks at the last minute to get double digit TF for marketing reasons. That seems way too cynical and terrible engineering for a console Cerny said he wanted to run quietly. And everything I've read from people more technically minded than me tells me how Sony got these high clocks isn't something they could just slap together at the last moment. It had to be something that was intentional from a design point of view from the beginning or close to the beginning.

 

[icecold1983]

Herein lies your problem. That's a you problem and not based on reality. Every evidence leading up to this point says otherwise. First PS5 leak GPU was clocked at 1GHz, second leak GPU clock shut up to 2GHz. According to Cerny they were having issues with locking at the frequency so they went with a different design approach which was the final release specs. Every evidence points to them wanting to run at very high frequency and they have patent for their cooling solution to handle that.

Click to shrink...

What evidence would that be? The first "leak" was an engineering sample and is meaningless as they were never going to run at 1 ghz. If they are having issues even locking at 2 ghz what do you expect the actual sustained clocks to be? Lets assume by a couple Cerny did mean 2. 2% of 2.23 ghz is 45 mhz. That brings the clock down to 2.185 ghz which is well above the 2ghz clock they cant sustain. How do you envision this scenario playing out

 

[McFly]

What evidence would that be? The first "leak" was an engineering sample and is meaningless as they were never going to run at 1 ghz. If they are having issues even locking at 2 ghz what do you expect the actual sustained clocks to be? Lets assume by a couple Cerny did mean 2. 2% of 2.23 ghz is 45 mhz. That brings the clock down to 2.185 ghz which is well above the 2ghz clock they cant sustain. How do you envision this scenario playing out

Click to shrink...

Exactly as they say it will because they have years of experience designing processors for various domains and applications. Have years of experience programming for various processors in different domains and applications. They create the API and set the parameter by which programmers and developers interact with their hardware, they can guarantee a certain experience within a threshold. You cannot, you have an intuition that they are trying to score marketing brownie points because "10TF". I think these people are smart and worked for years to get to this point.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I think people are worrying over nothing. AMD Smartshift is specifically designed to do what PS5 is aiming for, so a small amount of downclocking / upclocking here or there should be unnoticeable to us.

Games don't max out GPU's and CPU's 100% of the time anyway, so allowing the system to allocate power, depending on the load, is a clever way to make the system efficient and give the CPU or GPU a power boost when needed.

So you might see the Series X brute force performance, while PS5 does the same job more efficiently instead.

 

[revben]

I think people are worrying over nothing. AMD Smartshift is specifically designed to do what PS5 is aiming for, so a small amount of downclocking / upclocking here or there should be unnoticeable to us.

Games don't max out GPU's and CPU's 100% of the time anyway, so allowing the system to allocate power, depending on the load, is a clever way to make the system efficient and give the CPU or GPU a power boost when needed.

So you might see the Series X brute force performance, while PS5 does the same job more efficiently instead.

Click to shrink...

Why do people say XSX is brute force... Variable Rate Shading, Velocity Architecture, Mesh Shaders, Raytracing hardware, Sampler Feedback Streaming, Project Acoustic (3-D auto chip)
,

 

[Pheonix]

Why is this exciting? What benefit does this bring the consumer over a more powerful console that will be running at its max achievable performance 100% of the time?

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry but that's a somewhat ignorant thing to say...

Because the XSX has a TF advantage doesn't mean its better designed or its design philosophy (which is the same that has been used for the last 2 decades plus) is the best thing to do.

The only reason you or anyone else is saying stuff like that is simply because of that TF number. Which is really just based on the XSX having a bigger chip. If sony went with just 44CU as opposed to 36CU but applied this same design to it, they would be beating XSX 52CU 12TF GPU with a smaller (and cheaper) 44CU 12.5TF GPU.

But what benefit does this have to the consumer? My hope is the price. $399 PS5 vs $499 XSX and this becomes a very different conversation. At that point, we start talking about if that 17% TF difference is worth $100 more.

 

[Deleted member 22750]

I'm sorry but that's a somewhat ignorant thing to say...

Because the XSX has a TF advantage doesn't mean its better designed or its design philosophy (which is the same that has been used for the last 2 decades plus) is the best thing to do.

The only reason you or anyone else is saying stuff like that is simply because of that TF number. Which is really just based on the XSX having a bigger chip. If sony went with just 44CU as opposed to 36CU but applied this same design to it, they would be beating XSX 52CU 12TF GPU with a smaller (and cheaper) 44CU 12.5TF GPU.

But what benefit does this have to the consumer? My hope is the price. $399 PS5 vs $499 XSX and this becomes a very different conversation. At that point, we start talking about if that 17% TF difference is worth $100 more.

Click to shrink...

To be perfectly fair and UNBIASED.....You called someone ignorant and shouldn't have.

Its always smarter to design a system that is cooler, has more CU's, and doesn't demand throttling. Why would you want your system running hot? Its better design.

Let the developers make the games and we should all just try and be happy a new generation is upon us.

 

[icecold1983]

I'm sorry but that's a somewhat ignorant thing to say...

Because the XSX has a TF advantage doesn't mean its better designed or its design philosophy (which is the same that has been used for the last 2 decades plus) is the best thing to do.

The only reason you or anyone else is saying stuff like that is simply because of that TF number. Which is really just based on the XSX having a bigger chip. If sony went with just 44CU as opposed to 36CU but applied this same design to it, they would be beating XSX 52CU 12TF GPU with a smaller (and cheaper) 44CU 12.5TF GPU.

But what benefit does this have to the consumer? My hope is the price. $399 PS5 vs $499 XSX and this becomes a very different conversation. At that point, we start talking about if that 17% TF difference is worth $100 more.

Click to shrink...

Well yes, when architectures are identical, the one with more compute power performs better. This isnt even debatable.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

Why do people say XSX is brute force... Variable Rate Shading, Velocity Architecture, Mesh Shaders, Raytracing hardware, Sampler Feedback Streaming, Project Acoustic (3-D auto chip)
,

Click to shrink...

You know why they say that, because it doesn't fit their narrative. People are quick to regurgitate DF/others ps5 spec data that their is far more than TF and numbers when it comes to these custom designed chips, but fail to realize the XSX is in the same boat.

 

[Detective]

I'm sorry but that's a somewhat ignorant thing to say...

Because the XSX has a TF advantage doesn't mean its better designed or its design philosophy (which is the same that has been used for the last 2 decades plus) is the best thing to do.

The only reason you or anyone else is saying stuff like that is simply because of that TF number. Which is really just based on the XSX having a bigger chip. If sony went with just 44CU as opposed to 36CU but applied this same design to it, they would be beating XSX 52CU 12TF GPU with a smaller (and cheaper) 44CU 12.5TF GPU.

But what benefit does this have to the consumer? My hope is the price. $399 PS5 vs $499 XSX and this becomes a very different conversation. At that point, we start talking about if that 17% TF difference is worth $100 more.

Click to shrink...

 

[Niks]

But what benefit does this have to the consumer? My hope is the price. $399 PS5 vs $499 XSX and this becomes a very different conversation. At that point, we start talking about if that 17% TF difference is worth $100 more.

Click to shrink...

This.
Sony can talk all it wants, the fact is the XSX is the more powerful console and MS is going to milk that for all that its worth (as they should).
Im sure the PS5 is a fantastic machine no doubt, but its going to be harder to sell if the price is similar to XBX.

*Not that I think PS5 is going to have too much trouble selling worldwide mind you.

 

[UraMallas]

I think they are going to be the same price. That super-custom SSD and cooling system ain't gonna be cheap. Plus, I think in this situation, with MS coming out clearly ahead on power, this is the exact thing they have been pushing for since they started designing it and it hinges on price-parity at the top with a Lockhart coming in at least $150 less. So, if MS decides to eat cost at any time in their 20 years of console gaming, I think this is the time they go for it hard.

 

[Niks]

double post

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Why do people say XSX is brute force... Variable Rate Shading, Velocity Architecture, Mesh Shaders, Raytracing hardware, Sampler Feedback Streaming, Project Acoustic (3-D auto chip),

Click to shrink...

Not saying the way X is doing things is bad, just different to PS5.

The X has locked clocks and can power though tasks, even when the system isn't being pushed to the max. It easily gets the job done but is less efficient with it's power usage, running full speed all the time, even when not needed, while PS5 is more efficient by changing CPU / GPU speeds as needed to get the task done.

 

[Pheonix]

To be perfectly fair and UNBIASED.....You called someone ignorant and shouldn't have.

Its always smarter to design a system that is cooler, has more CU's, and doesn't demand throttling. Why would you want your system running hot? Its better design.

Let the developers make the games and we should all just try and be happy a new generation is upon us.

Click to shrink...

Technically.. I didn't call him ignorant. I said what he said was an ignorant thing to say. And what he is doing is being ignorant. Everything he is saying based on his very limited knowledge and information on what sony did or chose to do or how they are doing it.

Technically the same can be said of nearly everyone here, but the difference is that we are not basically here calling sony liars and claiming that they did all this to get double-digit TF numbers for PR sake. We are not ignoring the possibility of a cheaper console to the consumer is that it would have a smaller chip nor are we totally dismissing the engineering ingenuity sony has applied to meet their target.

At this point, until we see the cooling solution, and see that the console runs cool and doesn't sound like a jet engine, until some dev speaks up and say the PS5 never hits these peak clocks, or until we see a different software that shows the PS5 is lagging heavily behind the XSX to something that is quantifiable more than an 18% performance difference. Then the leat we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt and not be here pushing this narrative that sony is somehow lying and just make claims or PR's sake.

Well yes, when architectures are identical, the one with more compute power performs better. This isnt even debatable.

Click to shrink...

And no one is r has debated that. Even at a 10.3TF the PS5 still obviously is the weaker console. No one is debating that. The issue here... and all this talk, is that you are basically saying sony is lying and their nominal clocks would b more like 2Ghz or less, ignoring everything to the contrary all based on nothing but your whim.

I mean its ok to doubt it even, but one would think that it would be just wise to not pass your theory as some sort of fact that everyone else is too dumb to see until you at least have more information to back it other than its different.

Like I have my own theory, I believe that in most cases the CPU can get downclocked to as much as 3.2Ghz if the GPU needs more power to remain at its 2.3Ghz clock. And my reasoning for that is that I don't believe most games would task the CPU to the point where it needs to be run at peak clocks. You don't see me telling anyone that disputes that theory that they are clueless and falling for sony lies do you?

 

[Manmademan]

This.
Sony can talk all it wants, the fact is the XSX is the more powerful console and MS is going to milk that for all that its worth (as they should).
Im sure the PS5 is a fantastic machine no doubt, but its going to be harder to sell if the price is similar to XBX.

*Not that I think PS5 is going to have too much trouble selling worldwide mind you.

Click to shrink...

Maybe I'm just old, but this has never actually been the case.

The SNES and Genesis had similar pricing stateside through the 16 bit era. Despite the weaker system, Sega had no problem beating the pants off of the SNES here, largely because of SEGA sports.

The PS1 had similar pricing to the Saturn and N64. Completely obliterated both worldwide. This is to say nothing of also-rans like the Jaguar, 3D0, CDi, etc.

The PS2 was substantially more expensive than the DC, moderately more expensive than the gamecube (if I'm remembering correctly) despite being a much weaker system, and cheaper than the OG Xbox. None of those systems ever got within a mile of it.

The PS3 launched at a price point that was laughably more expensive than the 360 and the Wii. Tied the one system, ended up 10m units behind the other.

The PS4 had a $100 advantage over the XBO...for about 6 months. They hit price parity in May of 2014. The PS4 still continued to steamroll the XBO regardless and currently has more than a 2-1 advantage over it.

Ecosystem and third party support seem to matter a lot more than launch price point or power do. If the XsX and PS5 launch at similar price points, Sony is running away with it again.

 

[G_Zero]

Not true. As primarily a PC gamer ive been monitoring and experimenting with clocks for years. But youre right about it being a cost saving measure to advantage sony.

Click to shrink...

PC parts thermal throttle. The PS5 won't. It's not really comparable.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I doubt these consoles will come out at the same price. And I think a look at history shows that MS is happy enough putting out a more expensive console, when they have a more affordable option. Given the stratified model with high / low spec, I expect that is what MS planned from the beginning. The whole Phil quote of competing on price and power, fits in with the two model approach they seem to be going for. The absolute minimum the XSX will cost will be 499, but it could be more expensive. If they don't release them concurrently, I kind of doubt that though. As for the PS5, i think they designed there system to retail at low price target than XSX from the beginning, and this would be in keeping with Sony's approach post PS3. Maybe they didn't manage to meet their cost envelope, but I would bet they will be more willing to take a hit to sell at cheaper than the XSX. I don't think MS needs to sell at the same price since they have a stratified model, nor will they be willing to take a big hit. That is not the way MS does things.

 

[Thatguy]

I think they are going to be the same price. That super-custom SSD and cooling system ain't gonna be cheap. Plus, I think in this situation, with MS coming out clearly ahead on power, this is the exact thing they have been pushing for since they started designing it and it hinges on price-parity at the top with a Lockhart coming in at least $150 less. So, if MS decides to eat cost at any time in their 20 years of console gaming, I think this is the time they go for it hard.

Click to shrink...

Sony might eat cost too to come in under no matter what. Both companies have a big war chest. It will be interesting to see how the prices come in and if there will be any reactionary changes shortly after. The price reveal last gen was a huge hype swing for Sony, possibly determining the whole gen. I think Xbox knows not to repeat that so they will be more careful this time. Someone has to blink though....

 

[Pheonix]

Maybe I'm just old, but this has never actually been the case.

The SNES and Genesis had similar pricing stateside through the 16 bit era. Despite the weaker system, Sega had no problem beating the pants off of the SNES here, largely because of SEGA sports.

The PS1 had similar pricing to the Saturn and N64. Completely obliterated both worldwide. This is to say nothing of also-rans like the Jaguar, 3D0, CDi, etc.

The PS2 was substantially more expensive than the DC, moderately more expensive than the gamecube (if I'm remembering correctly) despite being a much weaker system, and cheaper than the OG Xbox. None of those systems ever got within a mile of it.

The PS3 launched at a price point that was laughably more expensive than the 360 and the Wii. Tied the one system, ended up 10m units behind the other.

The PS4 had a $100 advantage over the XBO...for about 6 months. They hit price parity in May of 2014. The PS4 still continued to steamroll the XBO regardless and currently has more than a 2-1 advantage over it.

Ecosystem and third party support seem to matter a lot more than launch price point or power do. If the XsX and PS5 launch at similar price points, Sony is running away with it again.

Click to shrink...

PS1 did CD right, also released over a year before the N64. Saturn was DOA because it came out less than a year or so after ther supposedly last big push (sega SC). Sega were really just all over the place

Yes PS2 was more expensive, it was also more powerful and was at the time the world's cheapest DVD player. Also came out like a year before the GC and Xbox. And dropped its price when those two released.

The PS5 would still outsell the XSX worldwide even if its at the same price. That's just a given. But it would be danger close in territories like NA and UK. While in the grand scheme of things ts still a win for sony, its a loss if they are conceding market share like that in certain territories. coming in at $100 below XSX changes all that.

I believe the only reason MS has sai nothing about Lockhart is because they are hoping sony release at the same price as them. Sony launching at $499 with MS gives MS like a year before a lockhart console would be needed and probably even cheaper to make too. If sony announces $399 today, expect a Lockhart announcement the following week lol.

 

[TitanicFall]

Sony might eat cost too to come in under no matter what. Both companies have a big war chest. It will be interesting to see how the prices come in and if there will be any reactionary changes shortly after. The price reveal last gen was a huge hype swing for Sony, possibly determining the whole gen. I think Xbox knows not to repeat that so they will be more careful this time. Someone has to blink though....

Click to shrink...

Yeah but if MS has a two console approach they may just say pick whatever one works within your budget. If they eat much of the cost and most people are Gamepass subscribers they won't make enough back in game sales to offset that loss anytime soon. Could be like Xbox 1 where they made basically no money on it for the entire gen. If I recall, Xbox One X wasn't profitable either.

 

[Edgar]

PC parts thermal throttle. The PS5 won't. It's not really comparable.

Click to shrink...

Tell me more

 

[rokkerkory]

I fully expect MS to price XsX within $0-$50 of the PS5. They promised not to be out of power of price. So far so good.

 

[UraMallas]

If rumors are true that the BOM are within $50, MS is going to go for it, imo. They are going for price parity.

 

[Manmademan]

PS1 did CD right, also released over a year before the N64. Saturn was DOA because it came out less than a year or so after ther supposedly last big push (sega SC). Sega were really just all over the place

Click to shrink...

Might want to check your timelines a bit. Sega CD was 1992 in the US. The Saturn didn't hit stateside until 1995. That was 3 full years after the sega-cd, not 1. (edit: unless you meant the 32x by "sega SC." that thing was never viewed as anything more than a niche add on stateside.) The Saturn and the PS1 were pretty comparable systems (outside of launch software). Sega just got their asses handed to them by Sony's third party lineup and initial pricing.

Yes PS2 was more expensive, it was also more powerful and was at the time the world's cheapest DVD player. Also came out like a year before the GC and Xbox. And dropped its price when those two released.

Click to shrink...

It was "the world's cheapest DVD player" in japan only for about 6 months. There were cheaper DVD players on shelves by the time it hit the US. Yes, I'm positive about this, I was selling electronics for a living at the time. It hit a year before the GC and Xbox, but both of those systems were a lot stronger than the PS2 was, and one of them was cheaper- the GC hit $99 in 2003. The PS2 didn't hit a $99 MSRP until *2009*.

The PS5 would still outsell the XSX worldwide even if its at the same price. That's just a given. But it would be danger close in territories like NA and UK. While in the grand scheme of things ts still a win for sony, its a loss if they are conceding market share like that in certain territories. coming in at $100 below XSX changes all that.

Click to shrink...

Not really. Sony sells something like 2/3rds of PS4 units outside of the US. Conceding a few percentage points or millions of units to the XsX in NA/UK doesn't make a difference. Test the math yourself. And from what we know, the PS5 isn't going to come in more expensive- only the same price or cheaper. Given vendor lock in, few existing consumers of the PS4 are going to jump ship to a new ecosystem.

believe the only reason MS has sai nothing about Lockhart is because they are hoping sony release at the same price as them. Sony launching at $499 with MS gives MS like a year before a lockhart console would be needed and probably even cheaper to make too. If sony announces $399 today, expect a Lockhart announcement the following week lol.

Click to shrink...

I've alluded to this before, but putting out lockhart at launch doesn't make sense, and would be staggeringly stupid from a business perspective.

1.) Microsoft's ability to manufacture units is extremely limited, just as Sony's is. They're limited to cranking out 10-15 million units of consoles in the first year whether they are XsX or Lockhart.

2.) Launch buyers aren't price sensitive, and microsoft has a decent built in audience of gamers locked into their ecosystem. If they manufacture 10-15 million units of JUST XsX they will all sell out.

3.) Combining #1 and #2, if they do a simultaneous launch of the XsX and Lockhart this year, they're going to have a lot of people who are looking for XsX *unable to find one* because MS dedicated resources to producing Lockharts, and vice versa. The amount of units they can make is once again a fixed number, as are the amount of consoles the retail supply chain can accommodate. Sony on the other hand is *only* making PS5s and all of those will sell out. Every system that goes out the door will be the premium unit. Who are gamers and retailers going to be happier with? Sony? or Xbox?

 

[icecold1983]

Not saying the way X is doing things is bad, just different to PS5.

The X has locked clocks and can power though tasks, even when the system isn't being pushed to the max. It easily gets the job done but is less efficient with it's power usage, running full speed all the time, even when not needed, while PS5 is more efficient by changing CPU / GPU speeds as needed to get the task done.

Click to shrink...

What are the respective power draws of each system?

And no one is r has debated that. Even at a 10.3TF the PS5 still obviously is the weaker console. No one is debating that. The issue here... and all this talk, is that you are basically saying sony is lying and their nominal clocks would b more like 2Ghz or less, ignoring everything to the contrary all based on nothing but your whim.

I mean its ok to doubt it even, but one would think that it would be just wise to not pass your theory as some sort of fact that everyone else is too dumb to see until you at least have more information to back it other than its different.

Like I have my own theory, I believe that in most cases the CPU can get downclocked to as much as 3.2Ghz if the GPU needs more power to remain at its 2.3Ghz clock. And my reasoning for that is that I don't believe most games would task the CPU to the point where it needs to be run at peak clocks. You don't see me telling anyone that disputes that theory that they are clueless and falling for sony lies do you?

Click to shrink...

People are denying that. People are debating with me which approach is better. its almost comical.

 

[Sonicfan059]

I think they are going to be the same price. That super-custom SSD and cooling system ain't gonna be cheap. Plus, I think in this situation, with MS coming out clearly ahead on power, this is the exact thing they have been pushing for since they started designing it and it hinges on price-parity at the top with a Lockhart coming in at least $150 less. So, if MS decides to eat cost at any time in their 20 years of console gaming, I think this is the time they go for it hard.

Click to shrink...

Same could be said of Sony. Lol this is just baseless speculation.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

What are the respective power draws of each system?

Click to shrink...

Not actually seen the power draw on each system, has that even been announced on the spec sheets ?

I can imagine it won't be a massive difference between the two but in theory the PS5 could draw less if it drops power usage to downclock components when it needs to, rather than running at full speed 100% of the time.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

that's a somewhat ignorant thing to say...

Click to shrink...

its design philosophy (which is the same that has been used for the last 2 decades plus)

Click to shrink...

Oof. Maybe you should educate yourself about the XSX.

 

[UraMallas]

Same could be said of Sony. Lol this is just baseless speculation.

Click to shrink...

I mean, their BOM is within spitting distance if rumors are to be believed. Of course it's baseless speculation! I am no insider.

 

[icecold1983]

Not actually seen the power draw on each system, has that even been announced on the spec sheets ?

I can imagine it won't be a massive difference between the two but in theory the PS5 could draw less if it drops power usage to downclock components when it needs to, rather than running at full speed 100% of the time.

Click to shrink...

So then what are you basing your claim of ps5 being more efficient on?

All processors for generations now have clocked down when utilization is low, this is nothing new or specific to ps5. And furthermore, lower clocked chips with more units tend to produce less power and are easier to cool. They just cost more to the manufacturer.

 

[Mubrik_]

What are the respective power draws of each system?



People are denying that. People are debating with me which approach is better. its almost comical.

Click to shrink...

Because it is an actual interesting discussion?

Do you think you know more about game development than Cerny to design something better?

Or do you not understand for the 201th time that it's been explained that the frequency varies based on workload which the devs are in almost total control of. The workload. Hence it's deterministic nature hence why people are excited especially the devs who'll be working on the damn thing.

No slight to the XSX, it is absolutely the more powerful machine but that's not the discussion being had here.

 

[UraMallas]

Do you think you know more about game development than Cerny to design something better?

Click to shrink...

If I'm reading their posts right, they are saying Cerny is blowing smoke because he has designed the inferior console when it comes to power and people online are buying it. Not that they have a better understanding of how to design a console than the lead architect of the PS4 and PS5.

 

[revben]

Not saying the way X is doing things is bad, just different to PS5.

The X has locked clocks and can power though tasks, even when the system isn't being pushed to the max. It easily gets the job done but is less efficient with it's power usage, running full speed all the time, even when not needed, while PS5 is more efficient by changing CPU / GPU speeds as needed to get the task done.

Click to shrink...

Huh?

 

[Mubrik_]

If I'm reading their posts right, they are saying Cerny is blowing smoke because he has designed the inferior console when it comes to power and people online are buying it. Not that they have a better understanding of how to design a console than the lead architect of the PS4 and PS5.

Click to shrink...

Is the XSX more powerful than the ps5? Absolutely.

Does that invalidate his design approach? Absolutely not.

The way he approached the design is different from the usual, it's not completely proven yet but from what he has detailed the design is genius, the developers are not casting doubt about it hell some have even publicly posted how excited they are about it and if some of the posters countering the design stop to actually understand it before posting maybe we'd be having more fruitful discussions about what the thermal solution might be (as Cerny was quite impressed with it) and how it's implemented or how this design can be implemented going forward if they have to add more CU's how will cooling be done e.t.c

E: shit, I thought I was still in the ps design thread.

 

[Crayon]

I think they are going to be the same price. That super-custom SSD and cooling system ain't gonna be cheap. Plus, I think in this situation, with MS coming out clearly ahead on power, this is the exact thing they have been pushing for since they started designing it and it hinges on price-parity at the top with a Lockhart coming in at least $150 less. So, if MS decides to eat cost at any time in their 20 years of console gaming, I think this is the time they go for it hard.

Click to shrink...

The ssd itself isnt super custom. And I believe the whole point of the power limiting hijinx is so that the cooling and power system can be cheaper.

 

[Lady Gaia]

Well yes, when architectures are identical, the one with more compute power performs better. This isnt even debatable.

Click to shrink...

Of course it is. 20CUs @ 1GHz vs. 40CUs @ 500MHz. The two have identical "compute power." Are you willing to bet that they'd perform identically in practice? Hint: they wouldn't, as the fast and narrow solution would show some non-trivial advantages. It would also be cheaper to make. And harder to cool. Not to mention the impact of different memory latency and bandwidth, API design, or other variables outside the GPU architecture. It's never as simple as many here would like to believe.

Engineering is and always has been a matter of compromises, not a trivial exercise whose ideal outcome is easy to predict or decide upon.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

So then what are you basing your claim of ps5 being more efficient on?

All processors for generations now have clocked down when utilization is low, this is nothing new or specific to ps5. And furthermore, lower clocked chips with more units tend to produce less power and are easier to cool. They just cost more to the manufacturer.

Click to shrink...

Like I said in my other post, only a theory, just like a lot of other people are guessing about stuff right now.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Is the XSX more powerful than the ps5? Absolutely.

Does that invalidate his design approach? Absolutely not.

The way he approached the design is different from the usual, it's not completely proven yet but from what he has detailed the design is genius, the developers are not casting doubt about it hell some have even publicly posted how excited they are about it and if some of the posters countering the design stop to actually understand it before posting maybe we'd be having more fruitful discussions about what the thermal solution might be (as Cerny was quite impressed with it) and how it's implemented or how this design can be implemented going forward if they have to add more CU's how will cooling be done e.t.c

Click to shrink...

For Sony it all depends on the price of the console . If the PS5 and XSX launch at the same price and they have similar manufacturing costs then I think Cerny's approach will be a low key failure. Much like the XB1's architecture was compared to the PS4 (even after MS removed Kinect).

edit - That said, the power difference between the PS5 and XSX is smaller than XB1 vs PS4.

 

[RingRang]

Not saying the way X is doing things is bad, just different to PS5.

The X has locked clocks and can power though tasks, even when the system isn't being pushed to the max. It easily gets the job done but is less efficient with it's power usage, running full speed all the time, even when not needed, while PS5 is more efficient by changing CPU / GPU speeds as needed to get the task done.

Click to shrink...

Can someone more informed than me weigh in on this topic?

Because my understanding from watching years of Digital Foundry videos is that consoles use less power when playing less demanding games. So no console is running at "full speed" when playing a non demanding game. This is why my PS4 Pro is quiet while playing indie games.

 

[Mubrik_]

For Sony it all depends on the price of the console . If the PS5 and XSX launch at the same price and they have similar manufacturing costs then I think Cerny's approach will be a low key failure. Much like the XB1's architecture was compared to the PS4 (even after MS removed Kinect).

Click to shrink...

Very good point.

I do think Sony will have to come in at a lower PP not due to the XSX even but Lockhart.
They wouldn't want to compete only in the high tier segment of the market also we've seen they've taken steps to reduce costs on
1. 825 SSD they could have gone 1.6TB
2. The ram
3. They also have a smaller APU die
4. We've heard that they are trying to undercut MS, I honestly don't think they'll come at the same PP I think the debate should be by how much are they willing to cut

It's why even upon the massive wave of news saying the ps5 is underpowered (which it is), I'm very supportive of current marketing strategy as they've essentially put the lowest part of the console out here already, early days.
By the time marketing picks up and we see games and a competitive price, all this talk of TF will be under the bridge for most buyers.

 

[Dave.]

Two things to keep in mind. 1, when the word "fixed &power usage" is used, that's referring to the high cap. It doesn't mean it's drawing full power all the time. Usually consoles don't have a cap at all. That's why they call it fixed.

2, throttling is not being done in reaction to heat, or anything that's already happened. Right when the processor has some instructions that would heat it up, the clocks get pulled to prevent that according to some predetermined map or something. The whole point is that the clocks won't get pulled down in any unpredictable way.

Edit: re: 'exciting': it's actually not that exciting in the end. It's a novel way to save money on your cooler and power supply. I don't think it's anything that's going to make a difference in your games. Just your pocketbook.

Click to shrink...

It should be exiting, and if it isn't then I feel you are missing something about the design. It is neither a way to skimp on your cooler or PSU. Well, it could be, but we can clearly see through comparison to the competition that it is not being used in that manner.

That point being, since you are able to downclock exactly at the moment of extreme demand (and therefore avoid said extreme), you can run the silicon in general MUCH faster than otherwise.

The Xbox Series X, while a wider more powerful chip in total, does not feature this innovation. Therefore, it must account for the possibility a dev might program a HZD map in to one of it's games. MS engineers therefore choose 1.85GHz as the GPU speed cap. Any more, and it might crash when a HZD map happens.

Since the PS5 GPU can downclock to 1850MHz* whenever a HZD map is on the screen, it is therefore able to run at the absurd clock speed of 2.23GHz when playing the actual game part of HZD. This is the exiting development!

*This is simplified, apparently it doesn't even need to drop this much - but it should make the example clear.


As a side note, it should be blindingly obvious to everyone with a PS4 Pro that these downclock areas are not "the critical moments of the game" at all. They are the HZD map, Speaking to Nioh's blacksmith, Speaking to the dwarves at their forge in GoW, Speaking to Zavala or other characters in Destiny 2, waiting in a lobby for MW: Warzone. The exact opposite of "critical moments". This is when the PS4 Pro fan goes to warp speed.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Can someone more informed than me weigh in on this topic?

Because my understanding from watching years of Digital Foundry videos is that consoles use less power when playing less demanding games. So no console is running at "full speed" when playing a non demanding game. This is why my PS4 Pro is quiet while playing indie games.

Click to shrink...

Locked clocks don't mean a game will max out the CPU and GPU all the time, but it might need more power to keep running stable at those clocks. Like when you overclock a PC CPU and it needs certain voltage to run stable.

PS5's Smartshift tech redirects power from CPU to GPU as the load requires, making the system efficient with it's power usage and clock speeds. If a game isn't needing a lot of CPU power at a certain time, it can feed more power to the GPU or vise versa. That's the idea anyway.