Funny how you talk about others not being able to read, but the blog post was referring to VRR being enabled in a future firmware update. VRR, which has absolutely nothing to do with VRS.
i think MS will more have to use it to compensate where they could lack down the road https://gamerant.com/microsoft-xbox-cloud-gaming-experimental-tech-machine-learning/
They will have less IC, but not no IC.
and to see how the ps5 own version of the rdna2 mesh shader perform compared to the amd one.(for the sake of god they aim to do the same things!)
Yes, of course.Great XSX and PS5 are both RDNA2, both Sony and MS officially stated that the two GPU’s are “specialised configurations of RDNA2” / customised RDNA2 (actual quote from one of these tweets from James “SFS = 2-3x better than <unspecified baseline>” Stanard, and also what Sony and Mark “Pretty Cool, Right? Lend me your ears” Cerny also stated).
Case closed?
I am not saying you said that, really trying to stop going in circles on this please, I am old I can only go in loops so much in a week
.
Got to respect him for having some mighty balls to confront the console maker heads on.
all we have to know about ps5 geometry engine was on road to ps5 :
* this is where people loose the thread and think it's about geometry engine when it's about primitive shader simple usage (or simple programmatic control example if you prefer). this is also the point where youtuber can make click bait speculation video. those speculation are laughtable to me because they talk about fixed function advantage when the feature is about overriding/replacing/not using them.
Everything that runs on a GPU in a modern console is effectively hardware accelerated, and the future of graphics is to move further and further away from fixed path features that confine the developer solutions. VRS in a fixed path feature has to offer whole multiplier number performance benefits over any evolving solution (deferred or async, etc?) to warrant restricting graphics programmers further. Which it almost certainly doesn't, and won't even match the saving already being made by the PS5 GE before the data is passed to those pipelines.
Very simple, to save space, if they don't feel like needing it.
or perhaps the hw vrs needed more time to finalize and will go past sony targeted launch timings.
Possible, but size of the die, is always massive concern.
Exactly. Just goes to show why companies trademarks some random tech with a fancy name. People crave everything with a (tm) behind it;-)
He added one more piece.
I can understand why many people want to know what technology is in the console of their choice. But this discussion of whether Series X is now more RDNA2 than the Playstation 5 or vice versa is slowly becoming absurd and ridiculous, simply because both companies have designed their consoles the way they need them. And to do this, they built on AMD's existing technology. This is communicated by Microsoft, Sony and also AMD. In this respect, we are simply should concentrating, at least in this thread, on the PS5 die. Obviously there is still a lot that is not easily understandable or unclear.
Eh... Just a thought - did you read his LinkedIn profile?
I keep seeing this discussion about a supposed “clock” spec for RDNA2... where is it?
He added one more piece.
Well at least you got a definitive answer ....
?????
I asked him three times why parts of the silicon are non RDNA2... he said the three times the SoC have parts that are Zen2 totally unrelated to the question.
Locuza
and others aren't doing a spectacular job, but many things will be guesses.
Admittedly I haven’t had my second cup of coffee yet and haven’t read the full thread on Twitter... but since you’re here... what exactly was your question to him that he “dodged”?
Exactly - based on Mr. Stanard‘s role/position at MS - I’m fairly certain that he actually knows a bit more about what is or isn’t on the SoC.Again:
I would be more conservative with the analyses being made on 9 Mpix photographs to interpret the lower level customizations that Sony or Microsoft applied in >12B chips.
Some things will be noticeable if there photos of previous chips with similar architectures to compare against, like approximate cache sizes, how many PHYs, number of WGPs and their redundancy, etc. Others will not be noticeable, because one pixel equates to over 1K transistors and the photo isn't perfectly focused.
That's not to say that
The talk was about GPU silicon not the whole SoC.
He said parts of the silicon are not RDNA2, because not all silicon is the GPU. The CPU isn't RDNA2, it's Zen2.
That is not correct from what the GPU die shot and drivers showed.... that is the main point why I asked.But he says it's 100% RDNA2.
We need to get this clarified because it would be pretty interesting if so (although I am not sure how big the difference would be). Need to double check the HotChips presentation... that seems like an odd implementation of RDNA2 RT.
