-
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.
- Status
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
I bet Mark Cerny took more aspects into account while designing any console then you could ever think of.
Some people have nerves.
This guy is making this shit for years. He worked on the most sophisticated consoles for years. But I bet some random forum user knows more than an industry veteran.
Same with all those people that are hating against Elons engineering efforts. Lots of people that have no fucking idea and can hardly think 2 steps ahead but try to discredit his ambitions and successes.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah I understand that, but what I meant was that the post I was replying to was implying that it would almost always run at 10.2TF and be used 100% of the time. Which means it would result in very minor gains, unless the GPU won't actually constantly run at 100% highest clock. Besides that you still have the gains for the CPU of course.
I basically think he is wrong, and the GPU's of this generation don't need to run at 100% highest clock all the time, which is why Cerny put Smartshift in the PS5 in the first place...
Last edited by a moderator:
B_Boss
Member
Cerny’s tweets? Last I checked he isn’t really active on Twitter, at least publicly
?
FALCON_KICK
Member
I bet Mark Cerny took more aspects into account while designing any console then you could ever think of.
Some people have nerves.
This guy is making this shit for years. He worked on the most sophisticated consoles for years. But I bet some random forum user knows more than an industry veteran.
Same with all those people that are hating against Elons engineering efforts. Lots of people that have no fucking idea and can hardly think 2 steps ahead but try to discredit his ambitions and successes.
Dont take my post as console warring. I am just basing my argument on the rumor I read that Japanese side of Sony doesn't want more memory bandwidth and are content with 14 GBPS instead of 16 GBPS, it could potentially affect Mark Cerny's vision with PS5.
Last edited:
DRAM helps with writes.
It's useless for reads (especially gaming reads).
You have a much faster RAM connected to the APU.
FS stuff is in main RAM in XBSX, it seems (which makes sense).
geordiemp
Member
Cerny’s tweets? Last I checked he isn’t really active on Twitter, at least publicly
Meant tim
Hawking Radiation
Member
They're lining up to get owned one after the other. It's hilarious.Your numbers are funny and made me laugh. No offense, I like using that GIF I apologise for my rudeness.
Anyway, most people still dont get it so another go ....
What about a 24 GBs SSD LQD 4500 , that will smoke ps5 right ? .. Latency, abstration layers in Dx12 all say hello.
Tim sweeny again having some fun :
Faithless83
Banned
I think people need to stop trying to downplay the PS5 at this point. This is getting ridiculous. LOL
FeiRR
Banned
Last edited:
BadBreathOfTheWild
Banned
DRAM is also used for mapping, and a local cache of DRAM for that is much faster than keeping that in system RAM.
DRAM improves random read performance.
Last edited:
Hawking Radiation
Member
Hawking Radiation
Member
Why would you want to ignore that account.
That post reads like it was written by a drunk.
Its hilarious. I hope he posts more.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
BGs
Industry Professional
Cerny has merged PS4 and PS3. The good thing about both. Not the bad.
PS5 is "friendly". More than PS4. All this "new" technology works automatically without your realizing it. The tools already take care of it. You do not have to worry about how to manage the data. It is done "only".
The only thing that changes in the face of the developer is the way of working some aspects in content generation, and it changes for the better, not for the worse. So it is not bad either.
That is why Epic said that it was necessary for PC to adopt this new architecture for the future, one way or another it is necessary.
I know that it was said recently that the creation costs would be higher than in the last generation, of course, but without this new architecture the costs would be higher than those that "could" be ("could" because nobody forces you to work in that way). way, it is only an option, although it would not be very smart to have a technology that allows you to do more in less time and therefore less money and not use it).
And regarding "why" ... because it was absolutely necessary to prevent the costs of creating a video game from reaching unsustainable levels in the future. In addition, in this way better results are achieved in less time. The visual difference between one and the other will not be limited by the machines themselves but by the love of the developers and their budgets. But as I have said many times, we are reaching some quality points where it is difficult to distinguish between 15 million polygons and 17 million, YOU will not notice the difference (Digital Foundry yes, always).
And I will ask you a question.
If you could make "fake" 4K look the same as native 4K, why would you have to waste power and energy using native 4K? The only logical answer you could give is "because I have paid for a 4K TV and I want my investment to be used."
To which I would ask you another question.
If technology allowed you not to be able to distinguish between 4K and "fake" 4K, would you prefer native 4K with less detail and fewer frames per second? Or would you prefer "fake" 4K with more detail and more frames per second?
These are questions that perhaps a user does not stop to think (perhaps), but that a developer must ask himself many times.
Also don't worry, PS5 might be more expensive, it's just my opinion. It is not a confirmation (I think I said it before). And that price difference does not have to be substantial compared to the competition. It could be just as costly as it is cheaper. I'm also not an expert in putting a price on things. Because also one thing is the cost to the user and another is the cost to the manufacturer that has been agreed, and if you agree with the manufacturer a number of units you can get cheaper prices (I think I understand, I can be wrong), especially if you have participated actively in creating that hardware for which a second company will benefit in the future (AMD). Therefore, the price is an absolute unknown. I think it could be the more expensive of the two, but it is just that, a belief. And just because PS5 can be more expensive doesn't mean XSX is cheap. One may be 599 and the other 549. But we return to the same, personal speculation.
I hope I have clarified any questions.
Bo_Hazem
, I have a conversation pending with you.
Last edited:
zaitsu
Banned
I've done reaserach in past couple of months and i really believe in PS5 being better system overall. Is this true ? I think only time would tell. But still i can justify my purchase with DualSense being more revolutionary pad than XSX/XO one.Cerny has merged PS4 and PS3. The good thing about both. Not the bad.
PS5 is "friendly". More than PS4. All this "new" technology works automatically without your realizing it. The tools already take care of it. You do not have to worry about how to manage the data. It is done "only".
The only thing that changes in the face of the developer is the way of working some aspects in content generation, and it changes for the better, not for the worse. So it is not bad either.
That is why Epic said that it was necessary for PC to adopt this new architecture for the future, one way or another it is necessary.
I know that it was said recently that the creation costs would be higher than in the last generation, of course, but without this new architecture the costs would be higher than those that "could" be ("could" because nobody forces you to work in that way). way, it is only an option, although it would not be very smart to have a technology that allows you to do more in less time and therefore less money and not use it).
And regarding "why" ... because it was absolutely necessary to prevent the costs of creating a video game from reaching unsustainable levels in the future. In addition, in this way better results are achieved in less time. The visual difference between one and the other will not be limited by the machines themselves but by the love of the developers and their budgets. But as I have said many times, we are reaching some quality points where it is difficult to distinguish between 15 million polygons and 17 million, YOU will not notice the difference (Digital Foundry yes, always).
And I will ask you a question.
If you could make "fake" 4K look the same as native 4K, why would you have to waste power and energy using native 4K? The only logical answer you could give is "because I have paid for a 4K TV and I want my investment to be used."
To which I would ask you another question.
If technology allowed you not to be able to distinguish between 4K and "fake" 4K, would you prefer native 4K with less detail and fewer frames per second? Or would you prefer "fake" 4K with more detail and more frames per second?
These are questions that perhaps a user does not stop to think (perhaps), but that a developer must ask himself many times.
Also don't worry, PS5 might be more expensive, it's just my opinion. It is not a confirmation (I think I said it before). And that price difference does not have to be substantial compared to the competition. It could be just as costly as it is cheaper. I'm also not an expert in putting a price on things. Because also one thing is the cost to the user and another is the cost to the manufacturer that has been agreed, and if you agree with the manufacturer a number of units you can get cheaper prices (I think I understand, I can be wrong), especially if you have participated actively in creating that hardware for which a second company will benefit in the future (AMD). Therefore, the price is an absolute unknown. I think it could be the more expensive of the two, but it is just that, a belief. And just because PS5 can be more expensive doesn't mean XSX is cheap. One may be 599 and the other 549. But we return to the same, personal speculation.
I hope I have clarified any questions.
Faithless83
Banned
Cerny has merged PS4 and PS3. The good thing about both. Not the bad.
PS5 is "friendly". More than PS4. All this "new" technology works automatically without your realizing it. The tools already take care of it. You do not have to worry about how to manage the data. It is done "only".
The only thing that changes in the face of the developer is the way of working some aspects in content generation, and it changes for the better, not for the worse. So it is not bad either.
That is why Epic said that it was necessary for PC to adopt this new architecture for the future, one way or another it is necessary.
I know that it was said recently that the creation costs would be higher than in the last generation, of course, but without this new architecture the costs would be higher than those that "could" be ("could" because nobody forces you to work in that way). way, it is only an option, although it would not be very smart to have a technology that allows you to do more in less time and therefore less money and not use it).
And regarding "why" ... because it was absolutely necessary to prevent the costs of creating a video game from reaching unsustainable levels in the future. In addition, in this way better results are achieved in less time. The visual difference between one and the other will not be limited by the machines themselves but by the love of the developers and their budgets. But as I have said many times, we are reaching some quality points where it is difficult to distinguish between 15 million polygons and 17 million, YOU will not notice the difference (Digital Foundry yes, always).
And I will ask you a question.
If you could make "fake" 4K look the same as native 4K, why would you have to waste power and energy using native 4K? The only logical answer you could give is "because I have paid for a 4K TV and I want my investment to be used."
To which I would ask you another question.
If technology allowed you not to be able to distinguish between 4K and "fake" 4K, would you prefer native 4K with less detail and fewer frames per second? Or would you prefer "fake" 4K with more detail and more frames per second?
These are questions that perhaps a user does not stop to think (perhaps), but that a developer must ask himself many times.
Also don't worry, PS5 might be more expensive, it's just my opinion. It is not a confirmation (I think I said it before). And that price difference does not have to be substantial compared to the competition. It could be just as costly as it is cheaper. I'm also not an expert in putting a price on things. Because also one thing is the cost to the user and another is the cost to the manufacturer that has been agreed, and if you agree with the manufacturer a number of units you can get cheaper prices (I think I understand, I can be wrong), especially if you have participated actively in creating that hardware for which a second company will benefit in the future (AMD). Therefore, the price is an absolute unknown. I think it could be the more expensive of the two, but it is just that, a belief. And just because PS5 can be more expensive doesn't mean XSX is cheap. One may be 599 and the other 549. But we return to the same, personal speculation.
I hope I have clarified any questions.
Great clarification. I believe we are going to have performance x quality modes in most games now. Let the player decide would be the best scenario IMHO.
I would take fake 4k anyday.
Shmunter
Member
Truth to powerCerny has merged PS4 and PS3. The good thing about both. Not the bad.
PS5 is "friendly". More than PS4. All this "new" technology works automatically without your realizing it. The tools already take care of it. You do not have to worry about how to manage the data. It is done "only".
The only thing that changes in the face of the developer is the way of working some aspects in content generation, and it changes for the better, not for the worse. So it is not bad either.
That is why Epic said that it was necessary for PC to adopt this new architecture for the future, one way or another it is necessary.
I know that it was said recently that the creation costs would be higher than in the last generation, of course, but without this new architecture the costs would be higher than those that "could" be ("could" because nobody forces you to work in that way). way, it is only an option, although it would not be very smart to have a technology that allows you to do more in less time and therefore less money and not use it).
And regarding "why" ... because it was absolutely necessary to prevent the costs of creating a video game from reaching unsustainable levels in the future. In addition, in this way better results are achieved in less time. The visual difference between one and the other will not be limited by the machines themselves but by the love of the developers and their budgets. But as I have said many times, we are reaching some quality points where it is difficult to distinguish between 15 million polygons and 17 million, YOU will not notice the difference (Digital Foundry yes, always).
And I will ask you a question.
If you could make "fake" 4K look the same as native 4K, why would you have to waste power and energy using native 4K? The only logical answer you could give is "because I have paid for a 4K TV and I want my investment to be used."
To which I would ask you another question.
If technology allowed you not to be able to distinguish between 4K and "fake" 4K, would you prefer native 4K with less detail and fewer frames per second? Or would you prefer "fake" 4K with more detail and more frames per second?
These are questions that perhaps a user does not stop to think (perhaps), but that a developer must ask himself many times.
Also don't worry, PS5 might be more expensive, it's just my opinion. It is not a confirmation (I think I said it before). And that price difference does not have to be substantial compared to the competition. It could be just as costly as it is cheaper. I'm also not an expert in putting a price on things. Because also one thing is the cost to the user and another is the cost to the manufacturer that has been agreed, and if you agree with the manufacturer a number of units you can get cheaper prices (I think I understand, I can be wrong), especially if you have participated actively in creating that hardware for which a second company will benefit in the future (AMD). Therefore, the price is an absolute unknown. I think it could be the more expensive of the two, but it is just that, a belief. And just because PS5 can be more expensive doesn't mean XSX is cheap. One may be 599 and the other 549. But we return to the same, personal speculation.
I hope I have clarified any questions.
FranXico
Member
The PS5 SSD is using an SRAM instead of DRAM, if I understood correctly.I'm not sure, is it the sacrificed DRAM-less stunt they went for that added more seek time than needed? Meaning it's probably 2.4GB/s but more latency due to data seek?geordiemp
If so, I can't understand why would they go for DRAM-less.
BadBreathOfTheWild
Banned
Easier to create means more high quality games hitting the platform much quicker, and/or games taking the same amount of time to develop as before but now with far more attention to detail and features.
More love being poured into a game, and less roadblocks and headaches to sap developer time. Less reasons to put more ambitious ideas on hold or out of project scope if you spend more time creating rather than problem solving.
A console’s success is defined by its cost and the frequency of quality games coming out for it.
A console’s success isn’t defined by how well it could theoretically work, or how it stacks up on paper.
That goes for both consoles and the areas they are each strong.
Let’s see if Sony’s focussing on developers an fast IO pays off over the coming years.
Let’s see if Microsoft’s refocussing on hardware power and investment in first-party studios pays off over those same years.
It’s all always about the games.
More love being poured into a game, and less roadblocks and headaches to sap developer time. Less reasons to put more ambitious ideas on hold or out of project scope if you spend more time creating rather than problem solving.
A console’s success is defined by its cost and the frequency of quality games coming out for it.
A console’s success isn’t defined by how well it could theoretically work, or how it stacks up on paper.
That goes for both consoles and the areas they are each strong.
Let’s see if Sony’s focussing on developers an fast IO pays off over the coming years.
Let’s see if Microsoft’s refocussing on hardware power and investment in first-party studios pays off over those same years.
It’s all always about the games.
Shmunter
Member
Yes, XsX is a great console, but PS5 is the game changer. Sony, Cerney and the devs involved have gone above and beyond this gen.
DrDamn
Member
I think you are confusing two different things here. Accepting that the quote from Zeroprey is from the Epic guy is fine, I think there is enough evidence to support that. He isn't saying the same thing you are suggesting though. You say Sony told Epic to make the demo non-interactive, specifically the flying section. The point in the quote about interactivity applies to the use of the whole demo at GDC. He states Epic wanted it to be playable but Sony thought it was too early for people to be messing with PS5 devkits. That's the part Sony have control over - use of their devkits. So as there wasn't a need to have it fully playable in time for GDC *Epic* made the decision to make the flying section on rails - that choice had the benefits of less work for them, *they* didn't "have flying controls implemented", *they* "didn't have time to art" that section up fully, "so it was easier to put it on rails".
Sony's control was in use of their devkits, this made Epic's job easier as they didn't have time to do everything anyway. It was not Sony's choice to make the flying section unplayable, it was Epic's given the time constraints they were under and the fact they couldn't let people play it yet anyway.
zaitsu
Banned
Yeah, but still. When I'm on fence which console i prefer the other day im just launching TLOU2 gameplay. And after that everything is pretty clear for me. Until something similar comes from MS i don't care about xbox [ i never liked halo,forza and gears was fun for me only first 3 times]. I know some people hate sony games, but only multiplatform games that worked for me the same way sony exclusives did, are RDR2, witcher 3 .
Last edited:
zaitsu
Banned
It's fanmade i guess.it was uploaded and later deleted by Playstation. or is it?
BadBreathOfTheWild
Banned
SSD DRAM is used by the flash controller to map the logical location of data (where the CPU etc thinks something is stored) with where the controller has actually put it based on wear rates.
The SRAM in PS5’s IO complex is separated from the flash controller by a PCIe bus, and is not the best place for that.
The system GDDR6 memory is also separated by the same bus AND GDDR memory isn’t as efficient at small lookups like this. It’s tuned towards big bandwidth rather than latency. That’s why PC memory still uses DDR for system memory, while using GDDR for graphics memory.
Consoles make a compromise on GDDR6 because it’s mostly throwing around big chunks of data, and the fact it’s unified more than makes up for it.
How modern DRAMless SSDs stack up on random reads:
11-Drive DRAMless SSD Round Up
What would happen if your SSD had amnesia? We examine several DRAMless SSDs that are currently shipping and two reference designs with next-generation memory.
www.tomshardware.com
Flash memory isn’t laid out like HDD memory. The controller is what decides what is physically stored where. The system and OS is unaware of flash memory usage and degradation. It has to go through this lookup layer.
BadBreathOfTheWild
Banned
it was uploaded and later deleted by Playstation. or is it?
It’s fan made. It was already posted to /r/PS5 and the original was found. It was never uploaded by PlayStation.
how exactly though? XSX as an SSD, too. And XSX is also very easy to develop for, especially with DX Ultimate 12:
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/...-ultimate-api-release-xbox-series-x-pc-gaming
BGs
Industry Professional
Whatever the best hardware in general, I think that the best way to buy a console is to do it taking into account which are the games you want to play and who you want to play them with (in case you have local or online multiplayer).
And I believe - based on specs and raw numbers - that the XSX is the better system overall. It makes it very easy for developers, since it offers sustained performance, it's does not use any variable frequencies or anything, which is great.
And regarding DualSense, that's the thing: Are Devs really going to use all those features, especially multiplatform devs? I mean, how often has the Touchpad on the DS4 been used by multiplatform devs? Not many times, so I guess it will be the same with DualSense, so all those "revolutionary" features might be totally wasted.
That's not the main purpose of RAM in PC controllers.
But okay.
I don't see it in the Sony SSD patent. Care to elaborate where did you find that?
Nothing is efficient for small lookups. That's why both consoles use pretty big lookups >64K (compared to 4K in PCs).
Even PC RAM disks are pretty inefficient for 4K random reads.
Irrelevant for consoles and game workloads.
PC-only solution. Sony SSD patent says that even game will be aware of the GC and wear rewrites on the controller level (through the File Archive API).
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
XsX is great too, but it’s #2 with a reasonable gap. I”m speculating here, but XsX cpu will be taxed where PS5 will be free, assets will be compromised, sound.
Devs will still get excellent results on XsX, and often comparable. But it’s going to take significantly more dev effort to bridge the gap.
Md Ray
Member
I don't know if they're related but they both have a charming smile.
FeiRR
Banned
Your FUD is very cheap.
MasterCornholio
Member
MasterCornholio
Member
BadBreathOfTheWild
Banned
Didn’t say it was. You said DRAM has no effect on read performance, that is demonstrably not true.
First of all it’s naive to assume patents amount to implemented technology.
Second of all it’s no secret that the SRAM is in the IO Complex on the main SoC, and the SSD’s flash controller sits outside of that connected by 4 lanes of PCIe 4.0. It was part of the Road to PS5 sermon.
Yes and efficiency in this case is latency. Dedicated DRAM near the flash controller is better than shared system ram over a shared PCIe link.
Not irrelevant for consoles and game workloads. The entire point of moving to SSD is not needing contiguous blocks of redundant data, and only pulling out of storage exactly what you need for a given frame.
Patents aren’t indicative of implemented technology. There’s huge incentive to get away from DRAM in controllers as its expensive and volatile and energy consuming. It’s an active area of research.
A user application being aware of flash wear doesn’t mean it will be handled there. The entire philosophy Cerny is going for is that developers don’t need to be aware of how any of it actually works or what’s going on.
That game developers will start making decisions on flash layout and remapping where data is physically stored on PS5 is stupid.
DaGwaphics
Member
The bigger question is how often do first-party devs unitize the trackpad in a credible way?
Couldn't help myself.
In all seriousness, the announced features of the dualsence sound great, and the best is probably still yet to come.
Honestly, just don't sweat the details, compare games on the systems by the end results, in motion, during gameplay (not 400% freezeframe shots).
BadBreathOfTheWild
Banned
I like the idea of a track pad, but any 1:1 input device with perceptible latency feels like cack. There are games that use it for panning maps and things around, but if your thumbs are already on the sticks it's just easier to use them.
The DS4 touchpad for me has mostly been used as one giant button to bring up a map/inventory. It just doesn't feel like its in a conveniently accessible place. It's interesting they've stuck with it on DualSense.
The DS4 touchpad for me has mostly been used as one giant button to bring up a map/inventory. It just doesn't feel like its in a conveniently accessible place. It's interesting they've stuck with it on DualSense.
It has no effect when you have a close DRAM to GPU and CPU.
SRAM is in the controller. You cannot connect flash directly to PCIe and have 6 channels.
I think you underestimate the design that went into the I/O block.
I haven't found anything in Road to Ps5 that contradicts the SSD patent (coherency engine and GPU scrubbers are not there though, i.e. it's was more things in the final product, not less)
How does it matter? The data still needs to get to main RAM anyway.
Over the PCIe link.
SRAM in PS5 used to find blocks in FS-related tasks.
In PC you cannot implement it, because PC needs to support all the variety of every OS filesystem.
That's why in Road to PS5 there is "instantaneous" on the seek time.
SRAM is used to seek the blocks and it as fast as it can get.
In XBSX case you seek in the main ram, which is still as close as it gets to the seek initiator: CPU or GPU.
64K is a pretty small block, guess what, data is stored in 64K/128K blocks in flash typically (even in PC SSDs).
Going to 4K is a problem, not an advantage.
And it's one of the problems why PC SSDs are so slow.
All relevant to PC-only.
Consoles do not have these inherent PC-architecture flaws.
They do not need to support any legacy filesystems and old OSes.
ATA interfaces and other bullcrap.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Does anyone know what spec/ratings the 12 individual NAND chips in PS5 need to be to reach the 5.5GB/s speed and what spec chips do the 4-8 channel PC NVMe drive have?
Should be virtually the same.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Thanks. Do you know what the specs are? I'm trying to figure out if the chips are a rather standard/low-end affair that have been fitted to SSD/NVMe's for a few years or brand new and high-end (expensive).
- Status