Physiognomonics
Member
They need to deactivate one WGP (2CUs) by SE for yields. They wouldn't deactivate one whole SE, that's crazy and totally not needed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS5 Pro devkits arrive at third-party studios, Sony expects Pro specs to leak
- Thread starter Bernoulli
- Start date
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Nonsense. It costs $100 more for more than a 2x performance boost. That's how you are supposed to look at it if we are doing this scientifically. And if you want to be anal about it, you look at the price difference between GPUs that are giving you just a 30% performance boost.
Now if you think that boost with regards to the PS Pro is "worth it" or not? That's subjective and not factual. And as such, is not something you should say as if its some sort of standing fact.
I simply cannot understand a world where it is perfectly OK to have low, mid, high, and ultra ranges for both CPUs and GPUs with radically different prices between them, but when a console does the slightest inkling of something that has been a tech industry standard for over 4 decades now, its somehow held to different standards.
As far as I am concerned, anyone doing that is either obtuse or pushing an agenda.
I believe the only things that needs to leak as far as its concerned already has. And as with all leaks, its grossly open to interpretation and lacks just enough information to be misleading.
It could be more significant that built into the PS5 SDK and documentation, developers may have been encouraged to take advantage of scalable APIs from day one. Hence why nearly everything has a quality and performance mode and uses Dynamic scaltion features. That way, they won't even have to "build" a pro patch of their game come the release of the PS5pro. The game should just scale taking advantage of the better hardware. There is a developer who has already spoken to this, just can't remember who it was. But it made the rounds on this forum some time ago.
Yes they do. And what he said is nonsense, as the 7700XT is literal proof that such a config can exist.
If having more than one SE, then they all have to have an identical WG count. So if you disable a WG on SE1, you must do the same in SE2....etc.
The 7800XT and 7700XT are basically the "same" GPU. Both have 3 SEs with 10 WGs each in them (so 20CU in each SE). The difference is that the 7800XT has nothing disabled (60CU) and the 7700XT has 1 WG disabled in each SE (54CU). That is proof that such a config exist. There are other differences with regard to their MCDs, but that has nothing to do with us.
If anything, the config he is suggesting is the one that doesn't exist in any shape, form, or capacity. Unless we start looking at something like the XSX GPU which uses 14WGs/SE. Vs the 10WGs/SE Sony has used for the PS4, PS4pro, PS5 and now supposedly the PS5pro.
As such, these are the possible PS5pro combinations, listed from most to least likely and assuming a GPU clock of 2400Mhz.
- 3SE, 54CU of 60CU enabled - 16.5TF (basically the 7700XT, and is in line with sony "adding" an SE to the Pro console, same thing they did with the PS4pro and maintains their 20CU/SE architecture)
- 2SE, 56CU of 60CU enabled - 17.2TF (this maintains the current, PS4pro/PS5 layout, but is increasing SE - CU count from 20/SE to 30/SE)
- 2SE, 60CU of 64CU enabled - 18.4TF (this doesn't exist in any way but the XSX is proof such "customizations" are possible)
- 3SE, 60CU of 66CU enabled - 18.4TF (neither does this one, and this is the most wasteful of the bunch, as you are making an all-around more complex GPU that will have identical power with the one above)
The last two, while possible, are least likely. And will definitely be the biggest GPUs too. This is why my PS5pro projections are between 16.5TF - 17.5TF. I will be pleasantly surprised if its any of the latter two configs, Highly unlikely though.
edit:
Oh, and if you want to feel better about the TF numbers, do what Nvidia and AMD does now and just multiply that by 2 and claim VOPD (dual issue compute). That should give you, 33TF, 34.4TF and 36.8TF respectively.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Audiophile
Member
That makes me think, I'm surprised Sony haven't done a similar thing with console hardware and PS Plus. "PlayStation Contracts" ..direct from Sony.
Bit of napkin maths and adding a small premium, plus using predicted hardware retail prices of $349, $399 & $599 for each system (I expect the base systems will drop in price a little after Pro launches).
PS5 Digital:
- 18 Month Plan
- w/ PS Plus Essential : $26.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Extra : $30.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Premium : $32.99 /mth
- 36 Month Plan
- w/ PS Plus Essential : $17.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Extra : $21.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Premium : $23.99 /mth
+ $2.49 /mth for PS5 Protection Plan
+ Free Digital Game
+ Optional Up Front Payment of 5-to-50% to reduce monthly cost.
PS5 Disc Edition:
- 18 Month Plan
- w/ PS Plus Essential : $29.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Extra : $34.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Premium : $37.99 /mth
- 36 Month Plan
- w/ PS Plus Essential : $19.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Extra : $24.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Premium : $26.99 /mth
+ $2.99 /mth for PS5 Protection Plan
+ Free Disc-Based Game
+ Optional Up Front Payment of 5-to-50% to reduce monthly cost.
PS5 Pro:- 24 Month Plan
- w/ PS Plus Extra : $36.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Premium : $38.99 /mth
- 36 Month Plan
- w/ PS Plus Extra : $29.99 /mth
- w/ PS Plus Premium : $31.99 /mth
+ $3.99 /mth for PS5 Pro Protection Plan
+ Free Disc-Based Game
+ Optional Up Front Payment of 5-to-50% to reduce monthly cost.
+ 5% Off All Accessories Bought Up Front
Add PSVR2 for $12.99 /mth on 18 Month Plans, $18.99 /mth on 24 Month Plans, or $24.99 /mth on 36 Month Plans.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
The thing about these "plans" is that it requires a completely different kinda model. You basically still need an entity that will be willing to "write off" each PS5 console sold. Eg. When you buy an iPhone on a plan, apple gets the standing value of their phone at say a wholesale price from the phone carrier who is doing that plan. The phone carrier is writing off that sale.
Sony simply cannot afford to do that on their own, especially being that they are the ones making both the product (PS5) and the service (PS+).
We can do this with math... say it cost sony $400 to make a PS5. And they ship out 20M of those in a year. Thats a yearly BOM of $8B. Now lets say everyone bought those consoles using such a plan, and lets say their plan price is an average $30/month. You are not just hoping that the consumer honors their plan, but even if every single one of them does, over 12 months, you have made only $360 out of your $400 BOM. This means you have not even broken even on the hardware itself, much less the value add of the service tied to that plan.
And come the following year, you make another 20M consoles.... Its just not practical. and is one of those things that "only' MS can do. It probably helps that in a year they aren't really selling anything close to 5M units on such a plan.
Pelta88
Member
Yet here you are checking on a product that doesn't exist
I just find it fascinating that people are willing to discuss specs, parameters, and capabilities of a machine that doesn't exist beyond a figment of our collective imaginations.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Maybe its not as imaginary as many think.
I trust some of the people I talk to even more than people like Tom Henderson or Kepler and those guys are usually spot on, especially Tom for PS hardware
DJ12
Member
Pelta88
Member
I 'trust' you more than these guys pushing whatever for the YT algo. So if you're saying it's real, I'm willing to put a smidgen of faith in maybe/perhaps. But that's more based on you being hilarious as a member of gaf than anything else.
DJ12
Member
You'll get to know it exists, details I think not.
Devs and higher-ups get the details, what's a qa nerd going to get other than a controller
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Horseganador
Member
It is normal that Sony tries with all its might to avoid leaks of hardware that will not be released for 9-10 months, but come on... realistically you can already know where the specs will go, zen2 at about 4Ghz, 60cu between 16 -18 Tflops and 16 gigabytes of ram with almost 600Gb of bandwidth at $599.
Bry0
Member
Internal QA at big studios does a lot more than you evidently realize. Many enthusiasts just like you.
Last edited:
I recall that we didn't have any details about the PS4 Pro until April 2016. So you could have made a case in February 2016 that there was no Pro model.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I like your numbers
Pelta88
Member
Your recollection isn't accurate. We had details once the dev kits were in the hands of the devs.
I thought they were sent out in April 2016. When were they actually sent out then?
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Pelta88
Member
Gamers got wind of the pro way before then. I'm not exact with the date but again, once it hit the devs it was common knowledge.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Gamers caught wind of this pro much earlier than these latest rumors as well.
Some have known about target specs for about 2 years now but for some reason Sony shelfed the pro, likely a cost factor at the time.
It was early in 2022 when I first mentioned it was coming.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
So you don't care about image quality. Then, no, the PS4 Pro wasn't very useful for you.
(Switch games look TERRIBLE on a large 4K screen, except maybe those that manage 1080p. They still don't look good though.)
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
Tbh I can't see me buying this unless I see a massive difference in visuals and it needs to be more than a simple frame rate upgrade, I want those early UE5 PS5 demo visuals, talking off, you give us the Matrix city one where's the tomb raider one ffs!!
I tend to buy all the Sony hardware including the last Pro, and both VR headsets, skipping that handheld tbf and with the boy having his own PS5 there's no incentive to kick mine down to him and me upgrade like I did with the original PS4/Pro and I just can't see the coming out with something that'll be that massive a leap, hell I can't even see how people can justify the 4090 when the visual leap isn't all that bar those 1 or 2 games having said that cyberpunk is not worth a £2000 video card
I tend to buy all the Sony hardware including the last Pro, and both VR headsets, skipping that handheld tbf and with the boy having his own PS5 there's no incentive to kick mine down to him and me upgrade like I did with the original PS4/Pro and I just can't see the coming out with something that'll be that massive a leap, hell I can't even see how people can justify the 4090 when the visual leap isn't all that bar those 1 or 2 games having said that cyberpunk is not worth a £2000 video card
Audiophile
Member
Rather than just do ~2x the raw pixels I'd hope to see moderate resolution bumps paired with better RT, shadow resolution, alpha/DoF resolution/accuracy (these latter two really stick out in a lot of otherwise great looking games, usually around hair, particles and fences).
Say your game is doing 1440p on PS5, I'd take 1620-1800p on Pro with higher res RT and perhaps an extra bounce or more assets in the BVH structure (plus I suspect quality increases may be compounded if they can run better denoising). Also, if there is some sort of superior ML-acceleration going on then the quality of upscaling/aa should hopefully be better.
I expect most third party stuff will just be res and framerates though.
Of course, I'm still holding out hope for a CPU bump good enough to take us to 60fps or at least into the 48fps+ VRR window. But, with the talk of Zen 2 I'm likely to be disappointed unless they go balls to the wall on clockspeed and double the cache back up. That said, unless it's a first person title I'll likely take a 40fps mode with a major visual upgrade over 60fps with similar visuals.
Say your game is doing 1440p on PS5, I'd take 1620-1800p on Pro with higher res RT and perhaps an extra bounce or more assets in the BVH structure (plus I suspect quality increases may be compounded if they can run better denoising). Also, if there is some sort of superior ML-acceleration going on then the quality of upscaling/aa should hopefully be better.
I expect most third party stuff will just be res and framerates though.
Of course, I'm still holding out hope for a CPU bump good enough to take us to 60fps or at least into the 48fps+ VRR window. But, with the talk of Zen 2 I'm likely to be disappointed unless they go balls to the wall on clockspeed and double the cache back up. That said, unless it's a first person title I'll likely take a 40fps mode with a major visual upgrade over 60fps with similar visuals.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
I'm just not hyperbolic enough to hang with the likes of you.
Imtjnotu
Member
I feel like a goal for them would be to run UE5 at 60fps with lumen and nanite on... Res will probably be around 1080-1440.
Id rather have a machine that could do that.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Nintendo Switch games are made with low quality assets (low quality textures and models). A game like this will look even worse in 4K, as the higher resolution not only allows you to see more detail, but also exposes more imperfections (low poly character models for example).
-Low poly character models in the distance are much more noticeable at 4K.
-LOD transitions in the distance is also much more noticeable.
-Textures will also look less sharp when stretched to much higher resolutions.
I can emulate Nintendo Switch games on PC at 4K, but the textures look streatched, and LOD transitions are very distracting because 4K allows you to see everything clearly when objects are rendered far away amd that's when developers like to switch to extremely simple LOD, for example car model at the distance can look like a simple roctangle just with textures. IMO 720p-1080p (docked mode) is more than enough for "Switch" games.
Lower resolution image can look absolutely amazing on a 4K TV when properly upscaled, but unfortunately most people just let their TV do the upscaling part, so the image quality looks terrible compared to the native image. TV will either blurry pixels (bilinear filtering) resulting in a very blurry image, or you will get very sharp but extremely pixelated image (nearest neighbour upscaling). Both methods look like crap because standard upscaling makes pixels look like big squares, and that's not how pixels look on a native resolution display to our eyes. When the sub-pixels start to glow, our eyes perceive the shape of that glow as round, and the pixels blend together perfectly, which isn't the case when your eyes see □ square-shaped pixels.
Emulating a subpixel mask within upscaled / enlarged pixels is the only way to solve this problem. Unfortunately 4K is not enough to perfectly emulate a 720p resolution display, so you do lose effective resolution, but I think nintendo switch games still look a lot better with subpixel mask emulation (compared to standard upscaling to 4K). Even if there is a loss of resolution, at least the image will not be blurry/pixellated.
I have had a 4K TV since 2017 and even 1080p games on this TV looked like crap to me. The image was either too soft or too pixellated and I never liked that look. When I however started using subpixel masks on top of integer upscaling I have realized that I can game even at extremely low resolutions like 480i/p (PS2 games) and still perceive such low resolution as something good looking on my 55'inch 4K TV, because my mind started improving that low resolution image. Our imagination is extremely powerful. Take this picture, for example. It's made up of very few pills (resolution of 25x30 "pixels"), but our minds can still guess who the person in the picture is.
People who played old games (for example PSX games in the 90s) often say they always thought those games looked more realistic compared to what they can see now when they emulate the same games at 4K. The reason for this is that they were playing at low resolutions with no upscaling, so their imagination was actively working trying to interpret how missing details should look like.. That's why people were so impresseved even with PSX graphics, because people used their imagination to play these old games.
Metal Slug is a good example. When I was young, I was EXTREMELY impressed with the graphics of this game, but when I played the same game on the emulators many years later the graphics looked like crap to me and not the way I remembered it. Now I know standard upscaling was to blame, but lets look at this comparison.
Standard Upscaling (Square pixels)
Now add a CRT phosphor mask to give the pixels a rounded appearance, and suddenly I can understand why I was so impressed back in the 90's. I recommend to open these images in a new tab and view them at 1:1, otherwise the subpixel mask will not align correctly and create a moiré pattern.
Dino Crisis 2
Normal upscaling (square pixels)
PC version running at 1440p + AI upscaled backgrounds
PSX version again, but with CRT phosphor mask shader on top of that:
The same mask but with bezels
Dylan's character model looks like a doll in the PC version at high resolution, while in the 240p resolution he looks more like a human. Even the AI upscaled PC version look worse to me than what my mind can make from this low-res 240p image.
Today I was playing CMR3 on the PCSX2 emulator and even at 512x412 the image look sharp and detailed on my PC monitor thanks to CRT phosphor mask which made big square pixels in this game look round and pleasing to look at.
I wanted to show with these comparisons that 1440p resolution on modern consoles inst the real problem, because even much lower resolution can look amazing to human eyes when a TV can display the image without square pixels (without upscaling). People who bought 4K TVs because of the 4K marketing now have to upscale most of their games, and that's why they're not happy with the image quality, because they are looking at soft or pixelated image despite gaming at very high resolution (I can still remember the days when I had to buy the most expensive GPU on the market just to be able to run every game at 1440p). Another problem that affects image quality is TAA, so now you have a blurred image because of upscaling, and the developers blur the image further with TAA, so the image starts to look like a painting, because fine details are blurred because of upscaling and TAA . IMHO games at 1080p + MSAA look a lot sharper and more detailed to my eyes on my old 1080p GT60 plasma than 1440p + TAA vaseline galore upscaled to 4K on a modern 4K TV. Lets hope that PS5 Pro / XSX X consoles will finally run games at 4K native, because at such high resolution even TAA starts to look good (especially with good amount of sharpering mask).
Last edited:
Perrott
Member
All Holiday 2016 games (and also certain titles released in prior years) received full PS4 Pro support at the console's launch on November 10th. Horizon: Zero Dawn released over the course of the launch window, in February 2017, was a flagship PS4 Pro release in terms of how much advantage it took from the system's power.
According to Tom Henderson, select third-party studios have their PS5 Pro devkits since end of last year and PS Studios since even earlier in 2023.
I wouldn't waste any second worrying about games like Death Stranding 2, Grand Theft Auto VI or even Holiday 2024 games such as Assassin's Creed Red or Star Wars Outlaws not taking full advantage of PS5 Pro's enhanced capabilities.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Nintendo Switch games are made with low quality assets (low quality textures and models). A game like this will look even worse in 4K, as the higher resolution not only allows you to see more detail, but also exposes more imperfections (low poly character models for example), making it much easier to see the imperfections that would normally be hidden in a lower resolution:
-Low poly character models in the distance are much more noticeable at 4K.
-LOD transitions in the distance is also much more noticeable.
-Textures will also look less sharp when stretched to much higher resolutions.
I can emulate Switch games on PC at 4K, but the textures look streatched, and LOD transitions are very distracting because 4K allows you to see everything clearly when objects are rendered far away. IMO 720p-1080p (docked mode) is more than enough for "Switch" games
Lower resolution image can look absolutely amazing on a 4K TV when properly upscaled, but unfortunately most people just let their TV do the upscaling part, so the image quality looks terrible compared to the native image. TV will either blurry pixels (bilinear filtering) resulting in a very blurry image, or you will get very sharp but extremely pixelated image (nearest neighbour upscaling). Both methods look like crap because standard upscaling makes pixels look like big squares, and that's not how pixels look on a native resolution display to our eyes. When the sub-pixels start to glow, our eyes perceive the shape of that glow as round, and the pixels blend together perfectly, which isn't the case when your eyes see □ square-shaped pixels.
Emulating a subpixel mask within upscaled / enlarged pixels is the only way to solve this problem. Unfortunately 4K is not enough to perfectly emulate a 720p resolution display, so you do lose effective resolution, but I think nintendo switch gamesthe results still look a lot better compared to standard upscaling, because 720p looks really bad when upscaled normally to 4K.
I have had a 4K TV since 2017 and even 1080p games on this TV looked like crap to me. The image was either too soft or too pixellated and I never liked that look. When I however started using subpixel masks on top of integer upscaling I have realized that I can game even at extremely low resolutions like 480i/p (PS2 games) and still perceive such low resolution as something good looking on my 55'inch 4K TV, because my mind started improving that low resolution image. Our imagination is extremely powerful. Take this picture, for example. It's made up of very few pills, but our minds can still guess who the person in the picture is.
People who played old games (for example PSX games in the 90s) often say they always thought those games looked more realistic compared to what they can see now when they emulate the same games at 4K. The reason for this is that they were playing at low resolutions with no upscaling, so their imagination was actively working trying to interpret how missing details should look like.. That's why people were so impresseved even with PSX graphics, because people used their imagination to play these old games.
Metal Slug is a good example. When I was young, I was EXTREMELY impressed with the graphics of this game, but when I played the same game on the emulators many years later the graphics looked like crap to me and not the way I remembered it. Now I know standard upscaling was to blame, but lets look at this comparison.
Standard Upscaling (Square pixels)
Now add a CRT phosphor mask to give the pixels a rounded appearance, and suddenly I can understand why I was so impressed back in the 90's. I recommend to open these images in a new tab and view them at 1:1, otherwise the subpixel mask will not align correctly and create a moiré pattern.
Dino Crisis 2
Normal upscaling (square pixels)
PC version running at 1440p + AI upscaled backgrounds
PSX version again, but with CRT phosphor mask shader on top of that:
The same mask but with bezels
Dylan's character model looks like a doll in the PC version at high resolution, while in the 240p resolution he looks more like a human. Even the AI upscaled PC version look worse to me than what my mind can make from this low-res 240p image. No wonder people back then were so impressed with PSX graphics.
Today I was playing CMR3 on the PCSX2 emulator and even at 512x412 the image look sharp and detailed on my PC monitor thanks to CRT phosphor mask.
I wrote such a long post because I wanted to show that 1440p resolution on modern consoles inst the real problem, because even much lower resolution can look amazing to human eyes when a TV can display the image without square pixels (without upscaling). People who bought 4K TVs because of the 4K marketing now have to upscale most of their games and that's the only reason why they arnt happy with the image quality, because upscaling ruins image quality. I'm afraid it's impossible to emulate a 1440p subpixel mask on a 4K TV, so people can't really improve the picture quality on their 4K TVs without loosing resolution that much (4K display can only emulate subpixel mask up to around 576p, so not even 720p games will look as it should). To solve this problem now people have to either buy a new TV / monitor with much lower resolution (The 1440p on my old GT60 1080p plasma TV looks a lot sharper and better to my eyes than it does on my 4K LCD), or wait for PS5 Pro / XSX X and hope these consoles will finally run games at 4K native, because only without upscaling people can be really happy with the image quality.
That's quite a post. But yes, of course the low resolution of Switch games isn't the only reason they look bad on a modern TV.
King Dazzar
Member
Well, it does in our hearts and minds man....
playsaves3
Member
Well that’s the thing we are hoping it’s a 2x boost but the fear based on one of the leaks is it’s only a 50% boost it will be smooth sailing if it really is 2x
Rocco Schiavone
Member
So we can asume that the PS5 pro can run GTAVI with 60fps or not?? If the answer Is no I'm gonne upgrade my gaming PC instead.
Unless Sony does the smart thing and upgrades zen2 making a balanced pro-gen console, I'm afraid 60fps is out of the question for the pro. Gta6 is almost assuredly targeting 30fps and is going to be very CPU intensive, a 20 percent clock speed boost to the CPU is not going to get you a 2x boost in fps. Zen4c is such an obvious solution but....welp zen2 is our destiny.
Last edited:
Kazekage1981
Member
Can someone speculate (or if they havent already done so) to the sony patent on raytracing and how it can be implemented into their ps5pro console?
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
So 4nm is the latest rumour but still no real confirmation of an NPU. Shame it's not state of the art 3nm.
Last edited:
Loxus
Member
Imo, that patent reads like a software patent.
Sony patents method for “significant improvement of ray tracing speed”
In Cerny's method, the RTU hardware is specially designed to efficiently traverse so-called acceleration structures in a 3D environment, going through a stack of bounding volumes to identify points where a virtual light ray intersects with an object. Those intersections are then sent to a shader program running on the GPU, which determines whether the object is opaque (a "hit" for the ray-tracing algorithm) or transparent (i.e., the intersection can be ignored).
In the case of a hit, the GPU can then send that information back to the RTU, which can "shorten the ray, as there is no point testing past the location of the intersection of the ray with [the opaque object]." That saves processing time that would be wasted calculating further "hits" for objects that are occluded by a closer object.
Crucially, these RTU functions "can be asynchronous with respect to the shader program." That means the GPU can perform other functions as it waits for the RTU to send back any intersections it finds between light rays and in-game objects.
Handling these basics functions in the RTU (which "may include hardware circuitry" specially designed for this traversal) "may result in a significant improvement of ray tracing speed," the patent says, "as the shader program is only performing hit testing. It is not performing acceleration structure traversal or managing the corresponding stack."
Which would make sense with AMD RT patent with the implementation of the Traversal Engine.
GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNIT TRAVERSAL ENGINE
Also, I don’t think there is much an NPU would be needed for outside of OS and background tasks.
RDNA4 AI capabilities are more than enough for game related tasks.
Examining AMD’s RDNA 4 Changes in LLVM
Better Tensors
AI hype is real these days. Machine learning involves a lot of matrix multiplies, and people have found that inference can be done with lower precision data types while maintaining acceptable accuracy. GPUs have jumped on the hype train with specialized matrix multiplication instructions. RDNA 3’s WMMA (Wave Matrix Multiply Accumulate) use a matrix stored in registers across a wave, much like Nvidia’s equivalent instructions.RDNA 4 carries these instructions forward with improvements to efficiency, and adds instructions to support 8-bit floating point formats. AMD has also added an instruction where B is a 16×32 matrix with INT4 elements instead of 16×16 as in other instructions.
Machine learning has been trending towards lower precision data types to make more efficient use of memory capacity and bandwidth. RDNA 4’s support for FP8 and BF8 shows AMD doesn’t want to be left out as new data formats are introduced.
Sparsity
Moving to lower precision data formats is one way to scale matrix multiplication performance beyond what process node and memory bandwidth improvements alone would allow. Specialized handling for sparse matrices is another way to dramatically improve performance. Matrices with a lot of zero elements are known as sparse matrices. Multiplying sparse matrices can involve a lot less math because any multiplication involving zero can be skipped. Storage and bandwidth consumption can be reduced too because the matrix can be stored in a compressed format.RDNA 4 introduces new SWMMAC (Sparse Wave Matrix Multiply Accumulate) instructions to take advantage of sparsity. SWMMAC similarly does a C += A * B operation, but A is a sparse matrix stored in half of B’s size. A sparsity index is passed as a fourth parameter to help interpret A as a full size matrix. My interpretation of this is that the dimensions in the instruction mnemonic refer to stored matrix sizes. Thus a 16x16x32 SWMMAC instruction actually multiplies a 32×16 sparse matrix with a 16×32 dense one, producing a 32×32 result.
Last edited:
Kazekage1981
Member
i think sony's goal is to get more out of less, and put enough to tip the scale or pass the threshold of graphical improvements. From my understanding:
PS4Pro: 4K graphics at 30-60fps (not really 4k, checkerboarding)
PS5Pro: 4K graphics with raytracing at 60fps (not quite 4K but close + raytracing without tanking FPS)
Lastly, no word on any SSD performance improvements? The entire PS5 reveal was mostly about SSD?!!
PS4Pro: 4K graphics at 30-60fps (not really 4k, checkerboarding)
PS5Pro: 4K graphics with raytracing at 60fps (not quite 4K but close + raytracing without tanking FPS)
Lastly, no word on any SSD performance improvements? The entire PS5 reveal was mostly about SSD?!!
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
YeulEmeralda
Member
As long as they keep using AMD ray tracing on console is doomed.
Roronoa Zoro
Gold Member
Now put Kaz in as Batman "Here"
Why should we hear any word? The SSD interface was designed to last the whole generation and with possible console refresh in mind. It is literally over engineered. In addition there are enough games where the difference to the half as fast Xbox interface is only marginal. In the end, both fulfill their purpose and are super performant.
A PS5 Pro will aim to get the maximum out of a power budget for less than 300 watts. As an APU, this is about a 7700 XT or a 6800 XT. The basic architecture will not change for compatibility reasons, there may be a few updates and a refresh, but nothing more. Anyone expecting a doubling of performance, as with the PS4 generation also believes in Santa Claus. 50% at absolute very best, more to expect 20-30%. Won't be a "Pro" in the way many expect. Hardware accelatered upscaling could be the most meaningful aspect for mid gen refresh.
playsaves3
Member
If it’s zen 2 it’s gonna be 499 those same specs but zen 5 make more sense for 599
playsaves3
Member
Zen 5*