PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - Post E3 2018

[goonergaz]

The overall argument you tried to make was that MS or Sony might know enough of their competitor's specs early enough to be able to adapt their own offering and guarantee a performance advantage.

Your example with MS using the PPE as a basis for Xenon is a poor example. MS might well have known some details of the technology Sony would use, but that provides no indication of overall performance and thus provides no basis for MS to change or adapt their design to guarantee a perf advantage early on.

18mnth prior to launch isn't enough to change anything either, especially when you consider that 8 months of that would have been volume production of units to stockpile inventory ready for a simultaneous worldwide launch.

Specs get locked in 2.5 to 3 years in advance, with the exception off-die factors like memory quantity and APU clockspeeds.

Click to shrink...

This is the first time I've seen that mentioned, previously it's been 2 years was the stablished understanding but even then we know things can change late on (for simple upgrades like the RAM thing) - and OOI do we know when Sony went from 2 cells to Cell + GPU? Also, worth questioning the 2-3 lock in because IBM went to MS in 2003 and X360 was released in 2005 so...yeah, 2-3 years is bit of a stretch maybe?

Maybe it was a poor example - I was just using it to show that information gets out, and sometimes very detailed and important 'secret' details get passed to competitors. I think this gen (PS4/XBO) a similar thing happened, an example, I think Sony got wind of the MS 'always on' and 'disk licence' fiasco and used that to their advantage. I also suspect Sony may have made is seem their machine was less powerful than it actually was...I seem to recall a guy I worked with being confident that XBO would be more powerful based on rumours he was reading before the real leaks started.

 

[goonergaz]

ignore

 

[Gamer17]

Plenty of sales threads on this site. What facts do you want to have? That premium products have a different type of customer? This is well known in the sales world. That X1X is doing quite well? I think that is pretty clear (have a look at previous NPD thread).

Click to shrink...

U Dodged the question .there is no back up in x selling better than pro .there is evidence it is selling higher percentage of total Xboxes compared to pro for total ps4 but that's it .

 

[BubblegumNemesis]

U Dodged the question .there is no back up in x selling better than pro .there is evidence it is selling higher percentage of total Xboxes compared to pro for total ps4 but that's it .

Click to shrink...

We are going to focus on this part? Ok fine, do it without me. Not going into console war territory here. You guys have a one track mind.

Let me rephrase then:

The X1X seems to be doing quite well, so there is a market for good hardware. And who knows, maybe the cheapo steaming console will appeal to some more casual price conscious players.​

Happy now?

 

[goonergaz]

U Dodged the question .there is no back up in x selling better than pro .there is evidence it is selling higher percentage of total Xboxes compared to pro for total ps4 but that's it .

Click to shrink...

That's (apparently) what he meant.

But even then it's hardly surprising, XBO is looking very long in the tooth these days - I mean, just look at RDR2! There's a genuine need to buy an X if you can afford it whereas with the Pro it's a 'nice to have' console. Also, there will be things like myself who bought it as a UHD player and for the odd game (again RDR2 being a good example!).

 

[SeanMN]

Of course it was simply throwing shade / FUD. They weren't ready to launch for some reason or another, what it may be will likely never be known for sure. My guess is they simply didn't start with the Scorpio until later, and had planned only a "standard" die-shrink slim from the start, which was able to launch on time.

This part of the quote in particular: "We'd looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I'd say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought--with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year--that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different. So we looked at Scorpio", and then look what appeared a year later - The same GPU as in the X1S, not even the "vega features" of the pro, just more CUs. The same Jaguar CPU. All built on the same process node as the Pro and X1S. The same GDDR5 as the PS4 / Pro (this was new to MS though, perhaps getting their operating system working on this laggy unified memory instead of lower latency DDR3 was an cause for delays). It's near identical, not something different. "Old" tech, clocked as high as it will go when combined with a very effective (and expensive) cooling solution.

Click to shrink...

The bold is completely false.

Modification and customization occurred on the 1X CPU and GPU beyond that of stock parts, and beyond what is seen in the base Xbox One or the 1S. Microsoft claims the customizations they've made have resulted in a GPU this is more capable that stock Polaris at the same TF, and judging on results of 3rd party games (such as RDR2), I wouldn't be surprised if it was also more capable than what's in the Pro.

I'd say it's likely that other engineering aspects were what caused the 1X to be released in 2017. Such as, ensuring the cooling solution and power delivery where reliable, capable, and cost effective - A lot of engineering when into these things, and they are what allow the SOC to run as well and high clocked as it does.

I see post speculating that the 1X was a year later because they were blindsided by the Pro and late to development, which I don't believe for a second.

 

[Intersect]

In fairness, the APU/SoC and RAM could be exactly the same and people would console war over the motherboard design or the power supply or something.

Click to shrink...

That was my belief given AMD moving to off the shelf chiplet designs which are also required by the DARPA project and Exa-scale. It looks like now those are going to be Zen 3 and next gen GPUs @ 5nm. Given rumors of BC needing some form of emulation we could be first generation emulation (partial/hybrid) with second generation emulation @ 5nm.

 

[Gamer17]

We are going to focus on this part? Ok fine, do it without me. Not going into console war territory here. You guys have a one track mind.

Let me rephrase then:

The X1X seems to be doing quite well, so there is a market for good hardware. And who knows, maybe the cheapo steaming console will appeal to some more casual price conscious players.​

Happy now?

Click to shrink...

Actually I would love it if x sells better than pro .so Sony takes a note for ps5 pro .I was just simply wanting to see if you had anything .but I understand what u mean .for sure it is doing great and that's a great news .

 

[RoboPlato]

I'm still expecting next gen specs to be the closest that they've ever been. Some differences, sure (mostly expecting these to manifest in RAM set up and GPU customizations) but very similar raw performance.

 

[anexanhume]

That was my belief given AMD moving to off the shelf chiplet designs which are also required by the DARPA project and Exa-scale. It looks like now those are going to be Zen 3 and next gen GPUs @ 5nm. Given rumors of BC needing some form of emulation we could be first generation emulation (partial/hybrid) with second generation emulation @ 5nm.

Click to shrink...

I don't think 5nm will be a HPC node based on current advertised estimates. The transistor density increases more than the power reduction, meaning you'd dissipate more per unit area at the same clocks, which is untenable for a high power design. Of course, they can always produce a variant for HPC, but 3nm/GAAFET may be the next major node after 7nm+.

 

[Gamer17]

I'm still expecting next gen specs to be the closest that they've ever been. Some differences, sure (mostly expecting these to manifest in RAM set up and GPU customizations) but very similar raw performance.

Click to shrink...

If they are released at the sametime around same price then yes .they will be within 10% of each other which means not much in real life games.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I am talking % of consoles sold ofc, you can't compare XBox vs PS4 in absolute terms. Does that even have to be mentioned any more?????

Click to shrink...

Claiming the XB1X is selling better than the pro on the basis of % of total consoles sold is a bit misleading.

It's more correct to say that the XB1X is more popular among xbox buyers than the Pro among PS4 buyers, but it's just not true to claim the XB1X is selling better than the Pro.

Your basis doesn't fit your claim. If you're refering to statistics you will expected to ensure you're using precise language to ensure that people understand what you're trying to convey.

 

[Intersect]

I think they will phase out PS4 Pro and just sell standard PS4 and PS5.

Click to shrink...

They will probably sell a PS5 with a 2013 sized GPU clocked higher to about 4 TF and a 10TF+ PS5. The PS5 design will be more than the GPU. Included will be HDMI 2.1, GDDR6 (remember the micron GDDR6 slide says GDDR5 will be phased out) and AMD's VM DRM; this will allow 4K and 8K DRM for media which will include up to 4K 3D. Otherwise the PS4 won't be able to display commercial media above 1080P.

So same as PS5 memory controller and I/O chiplet with CPU and GPU supporting AMD's VM

 

[gremlinz1982]

The pricing structure of the supply contracts between Sony and AMD and MS and AMD are going to be closely guarded confidential information. Neither Sony nor MS will know what AMD is charging the other and so AMD can agree pricing that fits the deal they intend to make with each party.

It's thus extremely likely that the customer ordering more chips will pay less. That's precisely how economies of scale work and Sony/MS will both be cogniscent of this and will expect this to be the case.

MS can't be pissed at their supplier for charging Sony less when Sony is ordering X million more chips than they are. That's just not a rational thing to suggest.

Click to shrink...

If you think that Microsoft do not have an issue with pricing, then you need look no further than the hard time they had with Nvidia. Microsoft and Sony both need products that are competitively priced and that allow them to become profitable in the shortest time possible.

Microsoft and Sony are both businesses to begin with first and foremost, and Sony also got a raw deal considering what RSX was priced at compared to Xenos and the tech that that GPU packed.

That's odd, since based on some launch-era articles I just looked up, the Xbox One APU cost more than the PS4's despite being weaker. Is this true, and if so, why is that? Was the eSRAM on the chip or something?

Click to shrink...

It was more expensive by about $10. I have no way of knowing why that would have been the case.

 

[gofreak]

Of course it was simply throwing shade / FUD. They weren't ready to launch for some reason or another, what it may be will likely never be known for sure. My guess is they simply didn't start with the Scorpio until later, and had planned only a "standard" die-shrink slim from the start, which was able to launch on time.

This part of the quote in particular: "We'd looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I'd say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought--with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year--that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different. So we looked at Scorpio", and then look what appeared a year later - The same GPU as in the X1S, not even the "vega features" of the pro, just more CUs. The same Jaguar CPU. All built on the same process node as the Pro and X1S. The same GDDR5 as the PS4 / Pro (this was new to MS though, perhaps getting their operating system working on this laggy unified memory instead of lower latency DDR3 was an cause for delays). It's near identical, not something different. "Old" tech, clocked as high as it will go when combined with a very effective (and expensive) cooling solution.

Click to shrink...

I'm not entirely convinced there wasn't a economics factor here, that they could have made the same box a year earlier at the same price if they had just started on design-work earlier.

For example, the manufacturing process being used in Pro and X1 was delayed into 2016, Pro was a relatively early user on that process. I've little doubt yields continued to improve through 2016 and into 2017 - in other words, that both Pro and X1 were cheaper to make in 2017 than in 2016. With that, and the extra GDDR5, the X may not have been feasible in 2016 within the margin MS needed. With the clocks they wanted, the design they were using to pack more onto the die, the yields might not have been there yet in 2016.

I do think that, absolutely, the extra $100 per unit at retail for X is a big factor in what it could offer vs the Pro, but timing may have been a factor on the economic side also.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

This is the first time I've seen that mentioned, previously it's been 2 years was the stablished understanding but even then we know things can change late on (for simple upgrades like the RAM thing) - and OOI do we know when Sony went from 2 cells to Cell + GPU? Also, worth questioning the 2-3 lock in because IBM went to MS in 2003 and X360 was released in 2005 so...yeah, 2-3 years is bit of a stretch maybe?

Maybe it was a poor example - I was just using it to show that information gets out, and sometimes very detailed and important 'secret' details get passed to competitors. I think this gen (PS4/XBO) a similar thing happened, an example, I think Sony got wind of the MS 'always on' and 'disk licence' fiasco and used that to their advantage. I also suspect Sony may have made is seem their machine was less powerful than it actually was...I seem to recall a guy I worked with being confident that XBO would be more powerful based on rumours he was reading before the real leaks started.

Click to shrink...

Yeah maybe 2-3 years lock-in is a bit of an overestimate these days, with very much off the shelf parts, but 2 years at the minimum is probably about right.

I won't argue that info. won't get out, rather that enough info. to understand performance of a competitor's console is highly unlikely to be known until such a time as it becomes too late in the console development schedule to make any significant changes.

The most you can expect 18mnths out is likely a minor clockspeed bump like the XB1 had.

The bold is completely false.

Modification and customization occurred on the 1X CPU and GPU beyond that of stock parts, and beyond what is seen in the base Xbox One or the 1S. Microsoft claims the customizations they've made have resulted in a GPU this is more capable that stock Polaris at the same TF, and judging on results of 3rd party games (such as RDR2), I wouldn't be surprised if it was also more capable than what's in the Pro.

I'd say it's likely that other engineering aspects were what caused the 1X to be released in 2017. Such as, ensuring the cooling solution and power delivery where reliable, capable, and cost effective - A lot of engineering when into these things, and they are what allow the SOC to run as well and high clocked as it does.

I see post speculating that the 1X was a year later because they were blindsided by the Pro and late to development, which I don't believe for a second.

Click to shrink...

Nebulous claims of "customisations" are always fun to see people fawn over, when no specific information on what those customisations are is given at all.

The vapour chamber cooling solution is functionally no different to the use of heat pipes in the PS4. It'a part of the console assembly and will be rated for whatever thermal rating of the APU that comes of the production line is.

Outside of the Hovis method for profiling individual APUs there's very little out of the ordinary in the XB1X's manufacturing or assembly that would have necessitated a longer lead time on product launch, i.e. up to a year.

It's very possible they simply started designing it later than Sony did with the Pro

 

[Dave.]

The bold is completely false.

Modification and customization occurred on the 1X CPU and GPU beyond that of stock parts, and beyond what is seen in the base Xbox One or the 1S. Microsoft claims the customizations they've made have resulted in a GPU this is more capable that stock Polaris at the same TF, and judging on results of 3rd party games (such as RDR2), I wouldn't be surprised if it was also more capable than what's in the Pro.

I'd say it's likely that other engineering aspects were what caused the 1X to be released in 2017. Such as, ensuring the cooling solution and power delivery where reliable, capable, and cost effective - A lot of engineering when into these things, and they are what allow the SOC to run as well and high clocked as it does.

I see post speculating that the 1X was a year later because they were blindsided by the Pro and late to development, which I don't believe for a second.

Click to shrink...

You linked basically a pre-release article with info provided by MS PR department being regurgitated by Richard, complete with "Custom x86 cores which they don't even call Jaguars any more" and other such twaddle.

Perhaps have a read of their later article when Digital Foundry were able to look for themselves at actual hardware: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-ps4-pro-and-xbox-one-x-processors-compared

some choice quotes:

However, looking at the two processors side-by-side, it's fascinating to see just how similar they are.

Click to shrink...

Architecturally similar CPU clusters occupy the same space and area (though Xbox One X does double up on cache)

Click to shrink...

Each individual CU on the Pro is around 15 per cent larger than the Scorpio equivalent, perhaps down to Microsoft retaining the existing 'Southern Islands' technology while Sony opts for a more modern CU design with new instructions.

Click to shrink...

Innovation in the Xbox One X's design involved pushing its silicon to much higher clocks speeds: Pro's 911MHz GPU compares with X's 1172MHz, a 28.6 per cent increase. This was achieved via Microsoft's Hovis Methold - pairing the voltage requirements of the chip with the mainboard - and a much bigger investment in cooling.

Click to shrink...

 

[BubblegumNemesis]

MS can't be pissed at their supplier for charging Sony less when Sony is ordering X million more chips than they are. That's just not a rational thing to suggest.

Click to shrink...

TBH MS orders a lot of other things from AMD. Surface, Azure,...

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

TBH MS orders a lot of other things from AMD. Surface, Azure,...

Click to shrink...

That will have no bearing on AMDs pricing structure of contracts with non-MS customers.

It will only impact the price MS gets. That's it.

 

[Kyoufu]

TBH MS orders a lot of other things from AMD. Surface, Azure,...

Click to shrink...

What does AMD provide for Surface products?

 

[Alandring]

Ok let's say they bring a pro at beginning .in 3 years they can do a much more powerful pro due to process node.so you want them to stick with that relatively weak pro or discounite that pro and make another pro ?

U have to look at future as well and not the moment u launch .in 2022 /23 they can make a much more powerful pro .

Click to shrink...

I see this subject differently :
Early 2021 : PlayStation 5 (400$) and PlayStation 5 Pro (550/600$).
2024/2025 : PlayStation 5 (250$), PlayStation 5 Pro (400$) and the launch of a PlayStation 5 Ultra (550/600$).
2028/2029 : PlayStation 5 (150$ for a year, then discontinued), PlayStation 5 Pro (250$), PlayStation 5 Ultra (400$) and PlayStation Omega (550/600$). Since this date, new games won't run on PlayStation 5, but will continue to run on PlayStation 5 Pro/PlayStation 5 Ultra/PlayStation Omega.
2032/2033 : PlayStation 5 Pro (150$ for a year, then discontinued), PlayStation 5 Ultra (250$), PlayStation Omega (400$) and PlayStation Omega ++ (550/600$). Since this date, new games won't run on PlayStation 5 Pro, but will continue to run on PlayStation 5 Ultra/PlayStation Omega/PlayStation Omega +.
Etc.

Nvidia havn't only the 1050 and the 1080. They have also 1060, 1070 and some others products. I don't see any problem with three or four PlayStation at the same time, if the price is really different.

BC could be key here, imagine if PS5 came out next year with BC at $500 - you could easily sell/trade your PS4 for $150 towards it meaning a net cost of just $350.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I don't know how many people sold their old console. I never did it (a friend gives me 50$ for my PlayStation 2 and all my games, but I never asked for that).

And if Sony will obviously try to keep PlayStation 4 owners, they will try to attract new customers as well.

If the PS5 is indeed backward compatible with additional enhancements to game visuals? You might be right. People may tend to either be price conscious or want the best version available with little room for middle ground. If backward compatibility doesn't emerge, however, it's a whole different story.

Click to shrink...

I think backward compatibility for next gen is sure.

you won't get any significant improvement with just a higher price. maximum of a 40~50% performance, meaning, not enough for 60fps, not enough for a signficant resolution increase. the best you will get is higher graphics settings, however that is harder for developers to implement.

Click to shrink...

I think a lot of people would agree to pay more even for just 10/20% more performance.

 

[gremlinz1982]

You linked basically a pre-release article with info provided by MS PR department being regurgitated by Richard, complete with "Custom x86 cores which they don't even call Jaguars any more" and other such twaddle.

Perhaps have a read of their later article when Digital Foundry were able to look for themselves at actual hardware: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-ps4-pro-and-xbox-one-x-processors-compared

some choice quotes:

Click to shrink...

So there's an argument here that a good proportion of the difference between the two consoles is derived from aspects of the spec outside of the processor itself - more memory and innovation in cooling and power management. However, we should remember that die shots of the silicon can only reveal the basic fundamental building blocks of each design. Of course, there's a degree of commonality in fact that both are semi-custom AMD designs, but you won't see the GPU customisations Microsoft carried out, nor will you see the custom hardware checkerboarding support built into PS4 Pro's processor. It'll also be challenging to see that the Pro features 64 ROPs, up against Xbox One X's 32.

Click to shrink...

This is also a quote from the same link

Also, the Hovis Method is a custom solution that allows Microsoft to have far better clocks than would have been possible. Having a better cooling solution would also allow them to get more from pretty much mainly a similar product.

It is not as if you can wake up and just clock things higher on a console. There are limits these companies work under.

In essence, you have taken an article trying to compare what the SOC's look like as opposed to the custom solutions that allow them to run as they do. The Hovis method named after Xbox engineer Bill Hovis and what it allowed them to achieve. The customizations do not end there, it was what they did with DX integration at chip level too

 

[goonergaz]

Honestly, I don't know how many people sold their old console. I never did it (a friend gives me 50$ for my PlayStation 2 and all my games, but I never asked for that).

And if Sony will obviously try to keep PlayStation 4 owners, they will try to attract new customers as well.

Click to shrink...

It's all relative, when PS3 came out the PS2 was pretty worthless whereas PS4 (likely) won't be. Anyway, it's just the option, if needed. Personally I have a PS4 and a Pro - when PS5 comes out I'll likely replace the PS4 - that will help fund the PS5. I don't need to sell it, but why would I have ~£100 lying around doing nothing more than depreciating?

 

[jroc74]

Can you expect 32 GB RAM in the next Playstation and Xbox? Or is 16 GB more likely?

Both consoles should support external HDDs from Day 1 because games will get even bigger in the future. But I don't think that Microsoft and Sony will increase the size of the internal HDDs, 1 TB as with PS4 Pro and X1X is my guess.

Support of 100-GB-Blu-rays is also a must.

Click to shrink...

I hope 1TB is the default internal size. And I hope Sony still allows easily replaceable internal hard drives. That's something MS might need to do next gen.

Out of all the wish list things Sony finally did, I'm shocked external hard drive support for running and installing games was done so fast.

 

[SeanMN]

Nebulous claims of "customisations" are always fun to see people fawn over, when no specific information on what those customisations are is given at all.

Click to shrink...

Pro has 3 customizations to differentiate it from a stock part. Yet I seen many posts proclaiming it to be heavy customized future tech.

It's very possible they simply started designing it later than Sony did with the Pro

Click to shrink...

I agree that is possible. But it's also possible that MS, according to their plan, always intended a 2017 launch.

You linked basically a pre-release article with info provided by MS PR department being regurgitated by Richard, complete with "Custom x86 cores which they don't even call Jaguars any more" and other such twaddle.

Perhaps have a read of their later article when Digital Foundry were able to look for themselves at actual hardware: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-ps4-pro-and-xbox-one-x-processors-compared

some choice quotes:

Click to shrink...

I've read all the DF articles. Including the DF article about the PS4 Pro upon release, which isn't much different to the Scorpio DF article I linked. I'd rather take information from Sony or MS on their products than speculation without facts.

Engineers say they've done customizations to the CPU and GPU on the 1X, beyond 1S or polaris - I believe that they did. And you're trying to argue, without any facts or evidence (other than die shots), that MS is lying? You deride Richard in your first paragraph, then use his work as evidence to support your claim in your second paragraph.

The CUs on the 1X are 15% smaller, yet clock higher, and result in a system that often pushes resolution far greater than what would be expected based on the difference in TFs. That's the customization that matters, the kind that results in games looking and performing better.

The only thing I'm trying to prove is that the 1X has customizations to the GPU and CPU beyond Polaris or a 1S. A point which, for whatever reason, I see a lot of people claiming otherwise with absolutely no facts or evidence to back up those claims.

 

[jroc74]

That's (apparently) what he meant.

But even then it's hardly surprising, XBO is looking very long in the tooth these days - I mean, just look at RDR2! There's a genuine need to buy an X if you can afford it whereas with the Pro it's a 'nice to have' console. Also, there will be things like myself who bought it as a UHD player and for the odd game (again RDR2 being a good example!).

Click to shrink...

Yeah, in a nutshell if you are in one of the ecosystems and want to stay, PS4 is easier to tolerate if you care about power, specs. In order from worse to best:

One S, PS4, Pro, One X.

This is also basically in order by price too from cheapest to most expensive.

If you have a One S or og XBO...It's a lil extra something to think about. Switch or add another platform, or spend $499 to get the best console out right now. Not factoring in deals or selling your current console, just the base price.

 

[Ozorov]

I hope 1TB is the default internal size. And I hope Sony still allows easily replaceable internal hard drives. That's something MS might need to do next gen.

Out of all the wish list things Sony finally did, I'm shocked external hard drive support for running and installing games was done so fast.

Click to shrink...

Should be minimum 1 TB default

 

[anexanhume]

Should be minimum 1 TB default

Click to shrink...

I would think so. You can't buy less than 1TB at retail, and this gen did higher than last gen's highest at launch (500GB vs. 320GB, IIRC).

 

[StraightToHell]

I hope 1TB is the default internal size. And I hope Sony still allows easily replaceable internal hard drives. That's something MS might need to do next gen.

Out of all the wish list things Sony finally did, I'm shocked external hard drive support for running and installing games was done so fast.

Click to shrink...

1TB doesn't feel enough if we're getting 75+gb installs from day 1. 2TB would be ideal. & I would also expect there to be a minimum upgrade to full SATA III speeds and 7200rpm HD, and I hope for some kind of SSD cache to help load times, because there's going to be a lot more memory by default.

 

[anexanhume]

1TB doesn't feel enough if we're getting 75+gb installs from day 1. 2TB would be ideal. & I would also expect there to be a minimum upgrade to full SATA III speeds and 7200rpm HD, and I hope for some kind of SSD cache to help load times, because there's going to be a lot more memory by default.

Click to shrink...

The dream would be SATA III and M.2, both user replaceable.

 

[FSavage]

I've been slowly digesting the info we got from AMD last week and I think people are overlooking the significance of the new chiplet design philosophy that AMD showed of, and how it affects Sony's overall strategy going forward. Speaking out of my ass here, but I may go as far as the chiplet design may be one of the things coming out of Sony's and AMD's rumored collaboration.

Let's look at the 'big picture' of the chiplet design through Sony's eyes: the most important thing is scalability. I.e.:

PS4 Super Slim - 7nm Zen 2 CPU, 7nm Single Chiplet Navi GPU, both downclocked to match PS4's current power. Smaller form factor, much less heat and whisper quiet. Maybe even PS4 Pro power levels at lower manufacturing cost (will get to that later)

PS5 - 7nm Zen 2 CPU, 7nm Multi-Chiplet Navi GPU, both clocked much higher than above.

PS Now 2.0 server racks - same as PS5. (If the rumors of PS3 emulation are true, this will even replace current PS3 server racks being used for PS Now streaming).
​

Sony's rumored heavy investment in AMD R&D comes to light with this (if it's true). With this kind of scale, Sony could secure a very nice long term contract with AMD. Much lower priced chips at an eye-watering volume. The success of this design will benefit both Sony and AMD greatly.

Now there's still a ton that we don't know about how this could work, like how IF will affect latency between chiplets, etc.. this could a reason for a PS5 delay from 2019 to 2020. Too many moving parts, they have to get everything right from the get go, both in hardware and software; APIs, drivers, etc need to work perfectly from the start. Any delay in these parts would delay the whole.

Anyways, would love to hear what people more well versed in hardware than me think about this, lol.

 

[Ozorov]

I wonder if we'll see some next-gen games at Game awards. Sounds like it.

 

[Dant21]

The dream would be SATA III and M.2, both user replaceable.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, if we get an SSD in either new console by default, it will almost certainly be either M.2 or soldered to the mainboard with support only for external HDDs besides that. 2.5" drive bays take up a good bit of volume that could be used for cooling or just left out for a smaller console.

 

[anexanhume]

Honestly, if we get an SSD in either new console by default, it will almost certainly be either M.2 or soldered to the mainboard with support only for external HDDs besides that. 2.5" drive bays take up a good bit of volume that could be used for cooling or just left out for a smaller console.

Click to shrink...

SSD aren't cheap enough to be the sole solution, and requiring an external HDD is untenable, so we'll be stuck with disk drives for at least one more gen.

The reason I want the M.2 replaceable is write fatigue.

I've been slowly digesting the info we got from AMD last week and I think people are overlooking the significance of the new chiplet design philosophy that AMD showed of, and how it affects Sony's overall strategy going forward. Speaking out of my ass here, but I may go as far as the chiplet design may be one of the things coming out of Sony's and AMD's rumored collaboration.

Let's look at the 'big picture' of the chiplet design through Sony's eyes: the most important thing is scalability. I.e.:

PS4 Super Slim - 7nm Zen 2 CPU, 7nm Single Chiplet Navi GPU, both downclocked to match PS4's current power. Smaller form factor, much less heat and whisper quiet. Maybe even PS4 Pro power levels at lower manufacturing cost (will get to that later)

PS5 - 7nm Zen 2 CPU, 7nm Multi-Chiplet Navi GPU, both clocked much higher than above.

PS Now 2.0 server racks - same as PS5. (If the rumors of PS3 emulation are true, this will even replace current PS3 server racks being used for PS Now streaming).
​

Sony's rumored heavy investment in AMD R&D comes to light with this (if it's true). With this kind of scale, Sony could secure a very nice long term contract with AMD. Much lower priced chips at an eye-watering volume. The success of this design will benefit both Sony and AMD greatly.

Now there's still a ton that we don't know about how this could work, like how IF will affect latency between chiplets, etc.. this could a reason for a PS5 delay from 2019 to 2020. Too many moving parts, they have to get everything right from the get go, both in hardware and software; APIs, drivers, etc need to work perfectly from the start. Any delay in these parts would delay the whole.

Anyways, would love to hear what people more well versed in hardware than me think about this, lol.

Click to shrink...

AMD was on the chiplet path regardless of Sony. It's how you add cores to a single socket without huge, impractical die.

PS4 super slim has no reason to exist in the configuration you mention. I think it will be a 7nm normal PS4 part with a 128 bit GDDR6 interface at twice the speed of the GDDR5 memory in PS4.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Pro has 3 customizations to differentiate it from a stock part. Yet I seen many posts proclaiming it to be heavy customized future tech.

Click to shrink...

What's that got to do with the alleged "customisations" on XB1X that MS refuses to provide any actual details on?

Fact is we don't have any idea how meaningful their list of customisations are nor how extensive. So it's a bit presumptuous to start claiming things about the perf. impact of such customisations or their impact on the console's launch date when you can't even detail a single one to explain what MS did.

 

[FSavage]

AMD was on the chiplet path regardless of Sony. It's how you add cores to a single socket without huge, impractical die.

PS4 super slim has no reason to exist in the configuration you mention. I think it will be a 7nm normal PS4 part with a 128 bit GDDR6 interface at twice the speed of the GDDR5 memory in PS4.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I agree that Sony helping with the chiplet design doesn't make sense after thinking about it lol.

As for the second part, wouldn't it make more sense to use the new configuration instead of trying to shrink the old one in the long run? Why not take advantage of economy of scale and use the new chips instead of trying to shrink the old one and create two production lines at TSMC for overall similar products? This isn't a PS3 situation where the chips are too different to go this route.. the new chips will have to be able be backward compatible with at least PS4 games by definition.

You would most likely have more knowledge on how fabrication works, so let me know if I'm off the mark, but would going this route increase overall yield per wafer? Specially for the GPU. Chips that aren't adequate for PS5 could be used for PS4 by shutting down CUs and lowering the clocks, no?

 

[anexanhume]

Yeah I agree that Sony helping with the chiplet design doesn't make sense after thinking about it lol.

As for the second part, wouldn't it make more sense to use the new configuration instead of trying to shrink the old one in the long run? Why not take advantage of economy of scale and use the new chips instead of trying to shrink the old one and create two production lines at TSMC for overall similar products? This isn't a PS3 situation where the chips are too different to go this route.. the new chips will have to be able be backward compatible with at least PS4 games by definition.

You would most likely have more knowledge on how fabrication works, so let me know if I'm off the mark, but would going this route increase overall yield per wafer? Specially for the GPU. Chips that aren't adequate for PS5 could be used for PS4 by shutting down CUs and lowering the clocks, no?

Click to shrink...

As good as the compatibility is, there's still likely to be issues with perfect PS4 game operation, plus there will be an efficiency overhead. A shrink PS4 chip is going to achieve the same result in less power, guaranteed. That makes the whole design easier and the power supply cheaper.

 

[jroc74]

1TB doesn't feel enough if we're getting 75+gb installs from day 1. 2TB would be ideal. & I would also expect there to be a minimum upgrade to full SATA III speeds and 7200rpm HD, and I hope for some kind of SSD cache to help load times, because there's going to be a lot more memory by default.

Click to shrink...

I agree.

When I first got the PS4, 500GB became too small real quick, lol.

Just being realistic. Either console coming with 2TB as default might be a wow moment.

 

[FSavage]

As good as the compatibility is, there's still likely to be issues with perfect PS4 game operation, plus there will be an efficiency overhead. A shrink PS4 chip is going to achieve the same result in less power, guaranteed. That makes the whole design easier and the power supply cheaper.

Click to shrink...

Ahh got you. Yeah that makes sense. I was thinking more along the line of using the new chips for the PS4 to leverage a lower price for new long term contracts with AMD.

 

[SeanMN]

What's that got to do with the alleged "customisations" on XB1X that MS refuses to provide any actual details on?

Fact is we don't have any idea how meaningful their list of customisations are nor how extensive. So it's a bit presumptuous to start claiming things about the perf. impact of such customisations or their impact on the console's launch date when you can't even detail a single one to explain what MS did.

Click to shrink...

Alleged customizations? MS has publicly stated there has been customizations (why is this so hard to believe?) - this is a fact. Nothing alleged about it. If you have actual proof otherwise, let's see it. Does the lack of specificity invalidate their existence? Why would MS's engineers lie about the work they've done? There's a number of reasons why this information would not be shared in detail, including not wanting to provide your competitors with valuable information.

I make no claims about the impact of MS's customizations, other than what MS has stated, which is that the 1X GPU exceeds the stock PC part from AMD. I was pointing out that the 1X often has resolution differences (vs Pro) in games which exceeds what would be expected based on the differences in GPU power (such as 2x higher resolution in RDR2), then speculating that that *could* be attributed to their customizaitons (as well as other aspects of the system). I also make no claims to know the reasons for a 2017 launch date, only speculation. If you have actual evidence as to why they choose to launch in 2017, please provided it.

Too often I see speculation being touted as fact, and an inability to distinguish between the two. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had discussions in this forum with people claiming the 1X is a stock part, or has no customizations. I don't understand why this notion has propagated so much with no evidence to support the claim. I think this is important because inaccurate information about today's hardware leads to less realistic speculation about future hardware.

 

[gremlinz1982]

What's that got to do with the alleged "customisations" on XB1X that MS refuses to provide any actual details on?

Fact is we don't have any idea how meaningful their list of customisations are nor how extensive. So it's a bit presumptuous to start claiming things about the perf. impact of such customisations or their impact on the console's launch date when you can't even detail a single one to explain what MS did.

Click to shrink...

In this debate, one thing gets lost.

"What we did was to take PIX captures from all of our top developers... By hand we went through them and then extrapolated what the work involved would be for that game to support a 4K render resolution," says Andrew Goossen, Technical Fellow, Graphics. "Now we had a model for all of our top-selling Xbox One games where we could tweak the configuration for the number of CUs, the clock, the memory bandwidth, the number of render back-ends, the number of shader engines, the cache size. We could tweak our design and figure out what was the most optimal configuration. It was incredibly valuable for us to be able to make those trade-offs, because ultimately these Xbox One titles are the ones that we... wanted to get up to 4K."

Click to shrink...

Remarkably, all of this happened years ago, before any hardware was fabricated. The knowledge gained from profiling Xbox One titles also allowed for more intricate customisations to the AMD hardware.

"We also leveraged the fact that we understand the AMD architecture really, really well now and how well it does on our games," continues Goossen, "so we were able to go through and examine a lot of the internal queues and buffers and caches and FIFOs that make up this very deep pipeline that, if you can find the right areas that are causing bottlenecks, for very small area [on the processor] we could increase those sizes and get effective wins."

Click to shrink...

This is for those who debate that Microsoft may have seen what Sony was doing before they tweaked their design, or the Microsoft have no customizations to speak of. They may not have been explained in detail, but we have to believe that they know what they came up with more than anyone not conversant with the hardware.

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

I agree.

When I first got the PS4, 500GB became too small real quick, lol.

Just being realistic. Either console coming with 2TB as default might be a wow moment.

Click to shrink...

2TB will feel like 1TB today and 500Gb soon after since games will be on 100GB UHD discs. Games are getting bigger and bigger

 

[SharpX68K]

I saw this posted on Beyond3D forums, in the thread titled:
"Impact of nVidia Turing RayTracing enhanced GPUs on next-gen consoles"

If all you need is one good planar reflection, rasterization will probably be a performance win, even on RT accelerated hardware. Maybe even 2 or 3 different planes (with well optimized reflection culling and etc) will still be more efficient brute-forced with extra cameras, as hitman is doing. RT becomes a win when you have "infinitely many" arbitrary reflection directions.

Click to shrink...

Still, hardware RT accelerates the Ray traversal and intersection test. Once it hits a surface, it has still got to be shaded, and shading it's not free. You reflection samples will be competing with your "primary rays" samples (the traditional rasterized main camera view of the scene) for shading time. So don't expect full quality/full res there. Even recursive inter reflections aren't very likely, at least not without a sensible limit. That demo by that Soviet game was misleading in how it trivialized those costs.

Click to shrink...

Planar reflections on consumer hardware are as old a dinosaurs...

22 years ago: Valley of Ra demo on 3dfx Voodoo 1:

Click to shrink...

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...gpus-on-next-gen-consoles-spawn.60878/page-26

 

[VX1]

2TB will feel like 1TB today and 500Gb soon after since games will be on 100GB UHD discs. Games are getting bigger and bigger

Click to shrink...

They will have to cut some corners here and there if they want to stick to $399 price.I bet they will just put 1TB in PS5 that Pro/1TB Slim has now inside.
I am sure external HD will work from day 1 and we will be able to just plug in our external drives in PS5 and keep all our stuff on it when we upgrade from PS4 to PS5.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Alleged customizations? MS has publicly stated there has been customizations (why is this so hard to believe?) - this is a fact. Nothing alleged about it. If you have actual proof otherwise, let's see it. Does the lack of specificity invalidate their existence? Why would MS's engineers lie about the work they've done? There's a number of reasons why this information would not be shared in detail, including not wanting to provide your competitors with valuable information.

I make no claims about the impact of MS's customizations, other than what MS has stated, which is that the 1X GPU exceeds the stock PC part from AMD. I was pointing out that the 1X often has resolution differences (vs Pro) in games which exceeds what would be expected based on the differences in GPU power (such as 2x higher resolution in RDR2), then speculating that that *could* be attributed to their customizaitons (as well as other aspects of the system). I also make no claims to know the reasons for a 2017 launch date, only speculation. If you have actual evidence as to why they choose to launch in 2017, please provided it.

Too often I see speculation being touted as fact, and an inability to distinguish between the two. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had discussions in this forum with people claiming the 1X is a stock part, or has no customizations. I don't understand why this notion has propagated so much with no evidence to support the claim. I think this is important because inaccurate information about today's hardware leads to less realistic speculation about future hardware.

Click to shrink...

The XB1X customisations can easily be as meaningful as many of the touted customisations they claimed to have made to the original XB1 APU, which were in fact just renamed blocks on the die whose function was essentially the same as stock functional blocks on the standard AMD reference design.

It's not about whether MS's XB1X APU customisations exist or not, rather a question of whether they're meaningful or just minor tweaks necessitated by the selected memory subsystem and CPU in an APU design. The fact is no one can tell you how meaningful their customisations are unless MS explicitly explains them, which they're intentionally neglected to do... and for a reason.

MS's claim about XB1X outperforming a stock AMD part can be as much a function of the reduced software overhead as anything to do with the hardware. I just don't trust claims that intentionally provide no technical details. It makes it obvious that there's something to hide or things in reality aren't exactly like how they're being presented.

Either way, this is getting grossly off topic. Let's just agree to disagree and move back to the topic at hand.

 

[gremlinz1982]

The XB1X customisations can easily be as meaningful as many of the touted customisations they claimed to have made to the original XB1 APU, which were in fact just renamed blocks on the die whose function was essentially the same as stock functional blocks on the standard AMD reference design.

It's not about whether MS's XB1X APU customisations exist or not, rather a question of whether they're meaningful or just minor tweaks necessitated by the selected memory subsystem and CPU in an APU design. The fact is no one can tell you how meaningful their customisations are unless MS explicitly explains them, which they're intentionally neglected to do... and for a reason.

MS's claim about XB1X outperforming a stock AMD part can be as much a function of the reduced software overhead as anything to do with the hardware. I just don't trust claims that intentionally provide no technical details. It makes it obvious that there's something to hide or things in reality aren't exactly like how they're being presented.

Either way, this is getting grossly off topic. Let's just agree to disagree and move back to the topic at hand.

Click to shrink...

Honest question here. What are the chances that some of the changes Microsoft made are just some of the building blocks to what they want to do in their next console and as such would not want to see them implemented on a rival console? They are after all going to the same vendor.

Secondly, Microsoft says that they have made gains because of those customizations. These are seen on each and every multiplatform game that releases, so why would anyone argue different for the sake of it with no evidence to prove otherwise?

This is a debate I have seen online in various other discussion groups and it always ends when someone is asked whether they know more about the XB1X than the company that built it. Not only built it, but built it around data that they got from their teams, and built around that. How many consoles are designed like this?

 

[modiz]

okay so this may be unrelated but here goes:
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/965774940/
this is for a graphic designer for events.

We are an in-house integrated Design Studio for Sony PlayStation® that specializes in marketing our Hardware, Software, Service offerings and Trade-Show Events. We are seeking a Mid-level Designer to work on our Events Design team where we produce a wide variety of collateral, large print graphics, event invitations, apparel design and digital assets for trade-show events. The ideal candidate is someone who can work within stylistic restraints and is a good problem solver who understands how to design for both print and web with excellent conceptual layout and design skills. This position will develop creative assets for the US, Canada, Europe and Latin America regions, working closely with our Design Managers, marketing department, and project managers.

Click to shrink...

look how this specifically mentions hardware as the first thing there. This contract does not mention a time period however.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

In this debate, one thing gets lost.

This is for those who debate that Microsoft may have seen what Sony was doing before they tweaked their design, or the Microsoft have no customizations to speak of. They may not have been explained in detail, but we have to believe that they know what they came up with more than anyone not conversant with the hardware.

Click to shrink...

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here... MS know what MS did?... well... sure they do...

Secondly, Microsoft says that they have made gains because of those customizations. These are seen on each and every multiplatform game that releases, so why would anyone argue different for the sake of it with no evidence to prove otherwise?

Click to shrink...

There's also no evidence to show these claims here. An APU of the exact same spec and memory subsystem design as the XB1X but without MS's customisations, doesn't exist. So there's not real way of benchmarking the performance against a similar spec void of the customisations.

Games are complex beats and different parts of different games can be bottlenecked by different aspects of the same hardware. The only thing you can meaningfully claim about XB1X vs. a stock AMD GPU of a similar spec. is that XB1X will outperform it running the same game at similar graphics settings... but then we expect it to because its on a console without the heavy software overhead PC graphics APIs.

We can also see how well the XB1X runs games better than the pro. That's about it.

Anyway, again this line of discussion is way off-topic. So let's try to get back on-topic shall we.

 

[gremlinz1982]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here... MS know what MS did?... well... sure they do...



There's also no evidence to show these claims here. An APU of the exact same spec and memory subsystem design as the XB1X but without MS's customisations, doesn't exist. So there's not real way of benchmarking the performance against a similar spec void of the customisations.

Games are complex beats and different parts of different games can be bottlenecked by different aspects of the same hardware. The only thing you can meaningfully claim about XB1X vs. a stock AMD GPU of a similar spec. is that XB1X will outperform it running the same game at similar graphics settings... but then we expect it to because its on a console without the heavy software overhead PC graphics APIs.

We can also see how well the XB1X runs games better than the pro. That's about it.

Anyway, again this line of discussion is way off-topic. So let's try to get back on-topic shall we.

Click to shrink...

The point I was trying to make to you that you missed in all of this was that ->>>we know of what Sony's customizations were because it was Sony that told us what they were. There is no way of you knowing what they are, what they do and to what degree they accomplish what they set out to do without Sony or a developer that programs games on the platform telling you so.

We know of what Microsoft did because Microsoft chose to share with us what they did. There is no way of knowing what changes they effected, how those changes were beneficial and to what degree because we do not have the tools to dig into all of that.

Going by your assessment, there is no APU devoid of PS4 pro customizations does not exist. So you would be deferring to Mark Cerny and Eurogamer just as you would Eurogamer and the Xbox team they interviewed to try and make some sense of what was done.

In short, you and a few others are debating from a point of total ignorance without any evidence to back anything you have said against what console designers have said. It is a waste of time and the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

It is --->>> I choose to agree with this with no evidence of my own, and choose to ignore this having no evidence. Crazy, right?

 

[Aokiji]

so much to unpack just form 2.5 new pages....

I think we might go back to them not releasing in the same year. It doesn't really make sense for MS to release a new console within three years of the X1X, but I could see the PS5 releasing as soon as March 2020. I think Xbox 'Two' would release the following Spring.

Click to shrink...

a year gap for MS is the equivalent of waving the white flag.Make that two flags if it;s also more expensive like people think. MS is in no position to allow Sony an entire year headstart on the next generation. People need to look at their business logistics and explain why they think that would make any sense whatsoever.

I have my doubts either is on that kind of footing given the business risks involved in either 'being late' or being more expensive or less profitable.

Click to shrink...

like dude. people really think one of them is going to cede the entire first year of the next generation to the other? there's a reason why they both launched simultaneously this time. they both have experience being late to the party and all the headache that comes with that.

I think MS will go for 499$

Click to shrink...

not unless they think the PS5 will be $499. They aren;t going into the generation priced $100 more again. I know people on this forum will have you thinking the Pro/X determine the sway of the general populace but they don't at all. The majority will chose the cheaper console.

Yeah, I think PlayStation 5 will launch at 399$. But they can launch at the same time a PlayStation 5 Pro at 499$, 549$ or 599$ for people who wants a more expansive console.

Click to shrink...

What about the Pro console did you guys not understand? If it launches at the same time as the regular model, that defeats the entire purpose of it. Do you then think they will launch a Super Pro later? The mid-gen refresh accomplishes 3 things
1. it builds upon tech advancement that enhances the standard console motherboard, without altering it to the point of a new gen. by utilizing tech advancements that have since debuted.
2. it stands to extend the generation
3. it helps them stave off PC migration.
all of this is rendered useless if it launched with the standard console. not to mention multiple SKUs where youre offering two completely different systems essentially is a one way ticket to confusing the market

2TB will feel like 1TB today and 500Gb soon after since games will be on 100GB UHD discs. Games are getting bigger and bigger

Click to shrink...

2TB SSHD/HDD are cheap enough for consumers where a platform would get them at an even better price. I'd put my eggs in the basket of 2TB being the standard for next gen. they already have 2TB models now.