• 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.

DF: The Touryst PS5 - The First 8K 60fps Console Game

Loxus

Member
So RX 5700XT (which is quite similar to PS5) has 64 ROPs without any disabled units then, correct?
PS5 has 72 ROPs.


While the 5700 has 64 ROPs


And look how different the CUs and TUMs are.


Just because the PS5 has the same layout, don't mean it's an 5700. It means that layout works.

The disabled ROPs is just a guess done by whoever did the annotation.
 
Last edited:

onQ123

Member
I know for the Z/Stencil ROPs number, but if honestly the division by two of these ROPs is going to be a limiting factor, do you really think AMD would have applied this change on their latest big GPUs ? I mean, the 6900XT has the same total Z/Stencil ROPs compared to the 5700XT (256 for each)....
From what I remember, having too much Z/Stencil ROPs compared to the number of triangle that has been rasterized is useless. The Z/Stencil operation/test is done to reject pixels and avoid useless calculation at shader level etc... The ROPs unit are very limited by your memory bandwidth, and Z/Stencil operations are the worst (Z compression has helped but more use to help the AA tool such as MSAA etc...).
I think AMD has done the choice to reduce the number of Z/stencil ROPS per RB unit in the RX6xxx gpu and in the XsX simply because it's not the bottleneck that will appear in first in your pipeline to generate your frame.
That GPU has 128 Color ROPS & infinity cache
 

Boglin

Member
PS5 has 72 ROPs.


While the 5700 has 64 ROPs


And look how different the CUs and TUMs are.


Just because the PS5 has the same layout, don't mean it's an 5700. It means that layout works.

The disabled ROPs is just a guess done by whoever did the annotation.
I do actually think the additional ROPs on the PS5 are for redundancy.

They take twice the die space compared to the new design on the XSX so that's twice the chances of being hit by a manufacturing defect.
 

onQ123

Member
I do actually think the additional ROPs on the PS5 are for redundancy.

They take twice the die space compared to the new design on the XSX so that's twice the chances of being hit by a manufacturing defect.
But PS4 Pro had 16 RBEs that all worked why would they add 2 more just to shut them off this time around? Like they actively went out of there way to get 72 ROPS on this GPU
 
I do actually think the additional ROPs on the PS5 are for redundancy.

They take twice the die space compared to the new design on the XSX so that's twice the chances of being hit by a manufacturing defect.
Twice more for yields? Are you insane? That would be way too much. There are 72 Rops units, 8 of them are allegedly for yields. That's enough. They need at least 64 ROPs for Pro compatibility. And from the old SDK leak we precisely know Pro has fully working 64 ROPs (using the old and full RDNA1 design).
 

Boglin

Member
Twice more for yields? Are you insane? That would be way too much. There are 72 Rops units, 8 of them are allegedly for yields. That's enough. They need at least 64 ROPs for Pro compatibility. And from the old SDK leak we precisely know Pro has fully working 64 ROPs (using the old and full RDNA1 design).
Not insane but I think I wasn't clear. There are 2 additional RB units for a total of 18 instead of 16.

The 16 RB units on the PS5 take twice the die space of the 8 RB+ units on the XSX.

There is twice the likelihood of one of the RB units on the PS5 to be hit by a defect so maybe they added 2 extra for redundancy.
 
Last edited:

Loxus

Member
Not insane but I think I wasn't clear. There are 2 additional RB units for a total of 18 instead of 16.

The 16 RB units on the PS5 take twice the die space of the 8 RB+ units on the XSX.

There is twice the likelihood of one of the RB units on the PS5 to be hit by a defect so maybe they added 2 extra for redundancy.
But since when was ROPs a yield concern. Only CUs are disabled for yields.
 

Boglin

Member
But PS4 Pro had 16 RBEs that all worked why would they add 2 more just to shut them off this time around? Like they actively went out of there way to get 72 ROPS on this GPU
I really don't know and they very well could have added them for the extra processing. It's strange though because the rest of the industry is moving towards software rendering. Maybe Sony's ICE team found a need for the additional hardware for their upcoming game engines.
 

Boglin

Member
But since when was ROPs a yield concern. Only CUs are disabled for yields.
That would be decided on a case by case basis and it affects overall chip cost. If a defective RB unit made the whole chip unusable for Sony then it's possible they deemed it necessary to have redundancy. Perhaps Microsoft would have made the same decision if their RB units took a similar amount of area.

My conjecture is based on a scenario where Sony only needs 64 ROPs but has 72 instead. Yields would be the reason for additional RB units rather than going for additional cache or something else.

They very well could need 72 ROPs though and I'm not trying to say anything definitive. I'm only trying to discuss possibilities.
 

Boglin

Member
I hope I'm not coming across as saying there would be no reason for the additional hardware.

My argument is simply why I think the units could be for redundancy. I'm very open to being wrong in this case and I hope more information comes out.
 
While both machines have the same number of color ROPs, PS5 has twice more Depth / stencil ROPs than XSX. PS5 ROPs take almost twice more space on the APU than XSX ROPs.

Locuza wondered if that would bring some benefits in some games. Well I think we have found one of those games with The Touryst. A game heavily limited by pixel throughput performing almost twice better on a machine having almost twice more ROPs?




I don't think that means what you think it does dude. That surely has nothing to do with it. PS5's ROPs do indeed take twice as much space on PS5's chip because the PS5's ROPs are the older, less capable ones compared to the ones in RDNA 2 and Series X. Series X needed half as much space and total number of render backends because each of the new RB+ are better than the old ones. This is how Series X supports hardware Tier 2 VRS and PS5 does not. It literally takes two PS5 RB to accomplish what a single RB+ in Series X can. As to that speculation on Depth/Stencil, it's purely speculation. I don't think AMD would have gone and made their newer ROPs or Render Backend design inferior to their old one, and clearly it isn't.




"In the Navi 21 chip, they've been given a much needed update and each ROP partition now handles 8 pixels per cycle in 32-bit color, and 4 pixels in 64-bit."


"Once again, AMD hasn’t provided many details on what has changed with the RDNA 2 RBs (RB+). What we do know is that the throughput has been doubled and fine-tuned for VRS and other optimizations that come with DX12 Ultimate.

Each RB+ can process 8 32-bit pixels, a 2x increase compared to RDNA 1 and 1.1. This is primarily the result of the doubled 32bpp color rate. The new multi-precision RBs are also supplied to the shader engine at twice the rate, primarily improving the performance with mixed-precision workloads such as VRS
."

PS5 uses the ROP design found in RDNA 1st gen chips like the RX 5700XT and RX 5700 with 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

PS5 has 72 of these Color ROPs in total, with 8 of them disabled, which is how it has its 64 ROPs. 4 divided by 64 gets you 16. PS5 has 16 Render Backends, each containing 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

Xbox contains just 8 of the more advanced RB+ I really don't think they're worse than the ones found in RDNA 1. How do we know that just as the ROP counts doubled per RB, that other work hasn't taken place to enhance them further compared to RDNA 1 RBs? Clearly they support Tier 2 VRS and beyond, so they're obviously not like they use to be. So PS5 literally has twice the space dedicated to ROPs on their chip because it quite literally has double the number of Render Backends compared to Series X. 16 to 8.

 

Lysandros

Member
PS5 has 72 ROPs.


While the 5700 has 64 ROPs


And look how different the CUs and TUMs are.


Just because the PS5 has the same layout, don't mean it's an 5700. It means that layout works.

The disabled ROPs is just a guess done by whoever did the annotation.
I think i know that pretty well at this point, i am aware of the architectural differences. I meant 'broadly similar' as to CU number, L2 cache amount etc. I was genuinely curious if RX 5700XT had any disabled ROPs, thanks for the reply and confirmation. 👍
 
But PS4 Pro had 16 RBEs that all worked why would they add 2 more just to shut them off this time around? Like they actively went out of there way to get 72 ROPS on this GPU

Don't forget that there is not only the problem of pure physical defect, but also the "performances" problem for example. You can have your unit alive, but due to process/matching, not reaching the needed frequency for example etc...
The ROPs placement in this layout for the PS5 compared to the RX5700 is less effective because not grouped for example.
 

onQ123

Member
I don't think that means what you think it does dude. That surely has nothing to do with it. PS5's ROPs do indeed take twice as much space on PS5's chip because the PS5's ROPs are the older, less capable ones compared to the ones in RDNA 2 and Series X. Series X needed half as much space and total number of render backends because each of the new RB+ are better than the old ones. This is how Series X supports hardware Tier 2 VRS and PS5 does not. It literally takes two PS5 RB to accomplish what a single RB+ in Series X can. As to that speculation on Depth/Stencil, it's purely speculation. I don't think AMD would have gone and made their newer ROPs or Render Backend design inferior to their old one, and clearly it isn't.




"In the Navi 21 chip, they've been given a much needed update and each ROP partition now handles 8 pixels per cycle in 32-bit color, and 4 pixels in 64-bit."


"Once again, AMD hasn’t provided many details on what has changed with the RDNA 2 RBs (RB+). What we do know is that the throughput has been doubled and fine-tuned for VRS and other optimizations that come with DX12 Ultimate.

Each RB+ can process 8 32-bit pixels, a 2x increase compared to RDNA 1 and 1.1. This is primarily the result of the doubled 32bpp color rate. The new multi-precision RBs are also supplied to the shader engine at twice the rate, primarily improving the performance with mixed-precision workloads such as VRS
."

PS5 uses the ROP design found in RDNA 1st gen chips like the RX 5700XT and RX 5700 with 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

PS5 has 72 of these Color ROPs in total, with 8 of them disabled, which is how it has its 64 ROPs. 4 divided by 64 gets you 16. PS5 has 16 Render Backends, each containing 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

Xbox contains just 8 of the more advanced RB+ I really don't think they're worse than the ones found in RDNA 1. How do we know that just as the ROP counts doubled per RB, that other work hasn't taken place to enhance them further compared to RDNA 1 RBs? Clearly they support Tier 2 VRS and beyond, so they're obviously not like they use to be. So PS5 literally has twice the space dedicated to ROPs on their chip because it quite literally has double the number of Render Backends compared to Series X. 16 to 8.

Yet we are in a thread about a 8K PS5 game that was 6K on XBOX Series X.
 
Designing the GPU to add more ROPs just so you can disable them for yields sounds so wrong, especially when the PS5 die is design to be as small as it can be.

Not to mention the PS4 pro and 5700 didn't add more ROPs yields.

So you have access to the yield number Sony/AMD had with the PS4 pro? You don't think they could have done this change to improve a problem they have seen with the PS4 pro at this level???
Other thing, you compare a GPU that was sold at the same/higher price that the complete PS4 pro.... The margin is basically not the same, and you can more easily absorb the yield reduction (and use the deffect ones for "smaller" GPU version).
 
Last edited:

Boglin

Member
As to that speculation on Depth/Stencil, it's purely speculation. I don't think AMD would have gone and made their newer ROPs or Render Backend design inferior to their old one, and clearly it isn't.
You're misunderstanding. The speculation in this thread isn't suggesting at all that AMD downgraded their z/stencil capability in their new render backend. The new RB in the XSX has the same z/stencil performance as the old RB in the PS5 but the difference is that the PS5 has twice the number of units.

These consoles are built upon compromises and Microsoft decided it wasn't worth spending more money or giving up performance in another area for better z/stencil capability. That doesn't mean more capability is useless though.

Perhaps it's just like what onQ123 said and this will decidedly help with VR and 8k resolutions. Those are 2 things that I think Microsoft isn't overly concerned with but Sony could be.

Regardless of any speculation, the PS5 is capable of 2.5x more z/stencil operations because it has twice the number of units and they operate at a higher frequency. It's not fair to discount this advantage just because Microsoft doesn't have it.
 
Last edited:

scalman

Member
still stupid pc ppl come here to compare console specs to their pc specs ..... i mean learn something at least first then talk
 

Loxus

Member
I don't think that means what you think it does dude. That surely has nothing to do with it. PS5's ROPs do indeed take twice as much space on PS5's chip because the PS5's ROPs are the older, less capable ones compared to the ones in RDNA 2 and Series X. Series X needed half as much space and total number of render backends because each of the new RB+ are better than the old ones. This is how Series X supports hardware Tier 2 VRS and PS5 does not. It literally takes two PS5 RB to accomplish what a single RB+ in Series X can. As to that speculation on Depth/Stencil, it's purely speculation. I don't think AMD would have gone and made their newer ROPs or Render Backend design inferior to their old one, and clearly it isn't.




"In the Navi 21 chip, they've been given a much needed update and each ROP partition now handles 8 pixels per cycle in 32-bit color, and 4 pixels in 64-bit."


"Once again, AMD hasn’t provided many details on what has changed with the RDNA 2 RBs (RB+). What we do know is that the throughput has been doubled and fine-tuned for VRS and other optimizations that come with DX12 Ultimate.

Each RB+ can process 8 32-bit pixels, a 2x increase compared to RDNA 1 and 1.1. This is primarily the result of the doubled 32bpp color rate. The new multi-precision RBs are also supplied to the shader engine at twice the rate, primarily improving the performance with mixed-precision workloads such as VRS
."

PS5 uses the ROP design found in RDNA 1st gen chips like the RX 5700XT and RX 5700 with 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

PS5 has 72 of these Color ROPs in total, with 8 of them disabled, which is how it has its 64 ROPs. 4 divided by 64 gets you 16. PS5 has 16 Render Backends, each containing 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

Xbox contains just 8 of the more advanced RB+ I really don't think they're worse than the ones found in RDNA 1. How do we know that just as the ROP counts doubled per RB, that other work hasn't taken place to enhance them further compared to RDNA 1 RBs? Clearly they support Tier 2 VRS and beyond, so they're obviously not like they use to be. So PS5 literally has twice the space dedicated to ROPs on their chip because it quite literally has double the number of Render Backends compared to Series X. 16 to 8.

You are correct, the PS5 doesn't have VRS. It has it's own equivalent, which is handle by the Geometry Engine.

So it doesn't need those RB+. Just like it doesn't need Infinity Cache

What you don't understand, is the Geometry Engine also has control over Pixels.

Same way Cerny repurpose a CU for the Tempest Engine, he did the same for the Geometry Engine.

We’ve already seen patents for Foveated Rendering (here is one) for the PS5 and which is used for the eye-tracking of PSVR2, and this seemingly leverages the GE of the console. It specifically mentions in the patents the varying resolution of the images based upon a users gaze.


This is more advanced than VRS Tier 2 and doing what VRS does is child's play for the Geometry Engine.

Edit:
About the 72 ROPs.
The 1080TI has 88 ROPs, so ROPs doesn't always have to be divided equally.

And 3080 TI has 112 ROPs.
 
Last edited:
About the 72 ROPs.
The 1080TI has 88 ROPs, so ROPs doesn't always have to be divided equally.

And 3080 TI has 112 ROPs.

The 1080 ti is based on GP102 die used by the titan x Pascal GPU which has all 96 ROPs (and 2 SM desactivated), they desactivated 8 ROPs for the 1080 ti (not more SM) + reduced the memory interface.
The 3080 ti is based on 3090 die which has 128 ROPs, here it's 16 desactivated.
The 1080ti could show that some GP102 had deffect at ROPs level and why the 1080 ti differ only at this level compared to the titan x Pascal.
 
According to DF who speak to developers the GE is just a cutdown version of Mesh Shaders, we haven't seen any games with support for hardware assisted VRS and id said it didn't support it. I would guess they know.
Source please. And we have seen a few games with VRS now on XSX. Result: all of them (that could be compared with PS5) are blurrier than the PS5 versions. VRS is great for PR, but it's actually an image quality failure as games actually look higher resolution on PS5.
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
Source please. And we have seen a few games with VRS now on XSX. Result: all of them (that could be compared with PS5) are blurrier than the PS5 versions. VRS is great for PR, but it's actually an image quality failure as games actually look higher resolution on PS5.
It's slightly blurrier on 400% zoomed in screenshots. Good luck noticing a difference while playing the game. VRS has to be well implemented though.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
Source please. And we have seen a few games with VRS now on XSX. Result: all of them (that could be compared with PS5) are blurrier than the PS5 versions. VRS is great for PR, but it's actually an image quality failure as games actually look higher resolution on PS5.

Doom Eternal was better on Xbox because Tier 2 VRS is imperceptible during gameplay and meant the DRS wasn't used as much, all comparisons said the PS5 version looked blurrier. Even the developer said he wished all consoles supported it.

That's the only 3rd party game that uses Tier 2 VRS, all others use the last gen software version, also confirmed by DF.
 

skit_data

Member
Source please. And we have seen a few games with VRS now on XSX. Result: all of them (that could be compared with PS5) are blurrier than the PS5 versions. VRS is great for PR, but it's actually an image quality failure as games actually look higher resolution on PS5.
I saw that specific DF direct and they are talking about differences between Primitive Shaders and Mesh Shaders, nothing about the Geometry Engine as a whole.


1:03:58 in
 
Last edited:

dcmk7

Member
You are correct, the PS5 doesn't have VRS. It has it's own equivalent, which is handle by the Geometry Engine.

So it doesn't need those RB+. Just like it doesn't need Infinity Cache

What you don't understand, is the Geometry Engine also has control over Pixels.

Same way Cerny repurpose a CU for the Tempest Engine, he did the same for the Geometry Engine.

We’ve already seen patents for Foveated Rendering (here is one) for the PS5 and which is used for the eye-tracking of PSVR2, and this seemingly leverages the GE of the console. It specifically mentions in the patents the varying resolution of the images based upon a users gaze.


This is more advanced than VRS Tier 2 and doing what VRS does is child's play for the Geometry Engine.

Edit:
About the 72 ROPs.
The 1080TI has 88 ROPs, so ROPs doesn't always have to be divided equally.

And 3080 TI has 112 ROPs.
Really impressive tech going on there.
 

dcmk7

Member
I saw that specific DF direct and they are talking about differences between Primitive Shaders and Mesh Shaders, nothing about the Geometry Engine as a whole.
Let's see if he has a source.. but if he can't then it does seem like he was just spreading misinformation / fan war bait.

edit: references Doom Eternal, an MS studio game, well after they publicly mentioned all Bethesda games released on other platforms will be 'first, better or best' on Xbox.
 
Last edited:

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
I saw that specific DF direct and they are talking about differences between Primitive Shaders and Mesh Shaders, nothing about the Geometry Engine as a whole.


1:03:58 in

That's the second one, I've quoted what Alex said before in a previous episode so you can search for it here.
 

skit_data

Member
Let's see if he has a source.. but if he can't then it does seem like he was just spreading misinformation / fan war bait.
AFAIK there is very little information on the makeup and various capabilities of the Geometry Engine in the PS5 outside of guesses. The only things we have are Cernys pretty few words on the subject in Road to PS5 and people that are convinced its exactly the same as the ones found in RDNA 1/2 cards, despite Cernys emphasis on ”it doesn’t mean that we at Sony simply incorporated the PC part into our console”.

I don’t think its some secret sauce or something, it probably has similar abilities to a large extent. I find it strange that Sony and MS simultaneously developing a console each with AMD would lead to one having ”a cut down version” of the other. Slightly different, sure but one has to remember that Sony as a hardware company probably keeps all these things pretty close to the chest, hence there’s barely any info and the ”info” that is out there are mostly conjectures.
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
edit: references Doom Eternal, an MS studio game, well after they publicly mentioned all Bethesda games released on other platforms will be 'first, better or best' on Xbox.
Look at you, implying that the devs have sabotaged the PS5 version on purpose, when they specifically said that they would've used VRS on all platforms if it were available on all platforms 🤭
 

skit_data

Member
Look at you, implying that the devs have sabotaged the PS5 version on purpose, when they specifically said that they would've used VRS on all platforms if it were available on all platforms 🤭
IDK, MLB The Show ran better on PS5 for no obvious reason. I think its entirely possible for hw-manufacturers to make sure it runs better on their platform.
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
IDK, MLB The Show ran better on PS5 for no obvious reason. I think its entirely possible for hw-manufacturers to make sure it runs better on their platform.
Again, the devs specifically said they would've used VRS on PS5 if it were available. They also made sure that the loading times on PS5 are optimal, that's why the game loads twice as fast on PS5 compared to XSX. The accusation is nonsense.
 

dcmk7

Member
Look at you, implying that the devs have sabotaged the PS5 version on purpose, when they specifically said that they would've used VRS on all platforms if it were available on all platforms 🤭
Your constant need to war is tiresome and super transparent, I don't quite get why you keep instigating still.

The quote I referenced, is well documentated and was said about all Bethesda games releasing on other systems post-acquisition. Which does includes the Doom Eternal update.

If someone is going to give an opinion on which console has better VRS, than maybe they shouldn't be using a game which is owned by a platform holder for many obvious reasons - one being based the quote I used.
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
Your constant need to war is tiresome and super transparent, I don't quite get why you keep instigating still.

The quote I referenced, is well documentated and was said about all Bethesda games releasing on other systems post-acquisition. Which does includes the Doom Eternal update.

If someone is going to give an opinion on which console has better VRS, than maybe they shouldn't be using a game which is owned by a platform holder for many obvious reasons - one being based the quote I used.
I'm not surprised you're doubling down, despite evidence to the contrary. It's the burden of the console warrior.
 
Doom Eternal was better on Xbox because Tier 2 VRS is imperceptible during gameplay and meant the DRS wasn't used as much, all comparisons said the PS5 version looked blurrier. Even the developer said he wished all consoles supported it.

That's the only 3rd party game that uses Tier 2 VRS, all others use the last gen software version, also confirmed by DF.
What did you see and compare?
Let's take a look at the Youtube image and the actual image.
You don't need to zoom in 400% to notice the difference.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
What did you see and compare?
Let's take a look at the Youtube image and the actual image.
You don't need to zoom in 400% to notice the difference.

"Next up, there's the 120Hz mode, which works best on HDMI 2.1 displays, allowing for the game's full resolution to successfully resolve at full frame-rate. This looks to offer something akin to the last-gen Doom Eternal experience at twice the performance level. Xbox Series X operates at a dynamic 1800p, while PlayStation 5 tops out at 1584p - and it is visibly blurrier."

Eurogamer.
 
This thread just keeps morphing every other page into a different discussion :messenger_grinning_sweat: Now it seems that which console is best at making your games look worse without you noticing is the topic of the hour. Keep going, eventually might end up going full circle back to the original topic
 

Bernd Lauert

Gold Member
"Next up, there's the 120Hz mode, which works best on HDMI 2.1 displays, allowing for the game's full resolution to successfully resolve at full frame-rate. This looks to offer something akin to the last-gen Doom Eternal experience at twice the performance level. Xbox Series X operates at a dynamic 1800p, while PlayStation 5 tops out at 1584p - and it is visibly blurrier."

Eurogamer.
Why would you trust Eurogamer when you can cherry pick screencaps from a Youtube channel with literally 10 subscribers?
 

Md Ray

Member
I don't think that means what you think it does dude. That surely has nothing to do with it. PS5's ROPs do indeed take twice as much space on PS5's chip because the PS5's ROPs are the older, less capable ones compared to the ones in RDNA 2 and Series X. Series X needed half as much space and total number of render backends because each of the new RB+ are better than the old ones. This is how Series X supports hardware Tier 2 VRS and PS5 does not. It literally takes two PS5 RB to accomplish what a single RB+ in Series X can. As to that speculation on Depth/Stencil, it's purely speculation. I don't think AMD would have gone and made their newer ROPs or Render Backend design inferior to their old one, and clearly it isn't.




"In the Navi 21 chip, they've been given a much needed update and each ROP partition now handles 8 pixels per cycle in 32-bit color, and 4 pixels in 64-bit."


"Once again, AMD hasn’t provided many details on what has changed with the RDNA 2 RBs (RB+). What we do know is that the throughput has been doubled and fine-tuned for VRS and other optimizations that come with DX12 Ultimate.

Each RB+ can process 8 32-bit pixels, a 2x increase compared to RDNA 1 and 1.1. This is primarily the result of the doubled 32bpp color rate. The new multi-precision RBs are also supplied to the shader engine at twice the rate, primarily improving the performance with mixed-precision workloads such as VRS
."

PS5 uses the ROP design found in RDNA 1st gen chips like the RX 5700XT and RX 5700 with 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

PS5 has 72 of these Color ROPs in total, with 8 of them disabled, which is how it has its 64 ROPs. 4 divided by 64 gets you 16. PS5 has 16 Render Backends, each containing 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

Xbox contains just 8 of the more advanced RB+ I really don't think they're worse than the ones found in RDNA 1. How do we know that just as the ROP counts doubled per RB, that other work hasn't taken place to enhance them further compared to RDNA 1 RBs? Clearly they support Tier 2 VRS and beyond, so they're obviously not like they use to be. So PS5 literally has twice the space dedicated to ROPs on their chip because it quite literally has double the number of Render Backends compared to Series X. 16 to 8.

Dance Chicken GIF by happydog
 
I don't think that means what you think it does dude. That surely has nothing to do with it. PS5's ROPs do indeed take twice as much space on PS5's chip because the PS5's ROPs are the older, less capable ones compared to the ones in RDNA 2 and Series X. Series X needed half as much space and total number of render backends because each of the new RB+ are better than the old ones. This is how Series X supports hardware Tier 2 VRS and PS5 does not. It literally takes two PS5 RB to accomplish what a single RB+ in Series X can. As to that speculation on Depth/Stencil, it's purely speculation. I don't think AMD would have gone and made their newer ROPs or Render Backend design inferior to their old one, and clearly it isn't.




"In the Navi 21 chip, they've been given a much needed update and each ROP partition now handles 8 pixels per cycle in 32-bit color, and 4 pixels in 64-bit."


"Once again, AMD hasn’t provided many details on what has changed with the RDNA 2 RBs (RB+). What we do know is that the throughput has been doubled and fine-tuned for VRS and other optimizations that come with DX12 Ultimate.

Each RB+ can process 8 32-bit pixels, a 2x increase compared to RDNA 1 and 1.1. This is primarily the result of the doubled 32bpp color rate. The new multi-precision RBs are also supplied to the shader engine at twice the rate, primarily improving the performance with mixed-precision workloads such as VRS
."

PS5 uses the ROP design found in RDNA 1st gen chips like the RX 5700XT and RX 5700 with 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

PS5 has 72 of these Color ROPs in total, with 8 of them disabled, which is how it has its 64 ROPs. 4 divided by 64 gets you 16. PS5 has 16 Render Backends, each containing 4 Color ROPs + 16 Depth ROPs.

Xbox contains just 8 of the more advanced RB+ I really don't think they're worse than the ones found in RDNA 1. How do we know that just as the ROP counts doubled per RB, that other work hasn't taken place to enhance them further compared to RDNA 1 RBs? Clearly they support Tier 2 VRS and beyond, so they're obviously not like they use to be. So PS5 literally has twice the space dedicated to ROPs on their chip because it quite literally has double the number of Render Backends compared to Series X. 16 to 8.



You really have to stop. Most people are getting annoyed with your wall of text that boils down to nothing more than lies and petty console warring.
 

Arioco

Member
You seem to implying his promise to Xbox gamers shouldn't be taken seriously.

You don't seem be able to answer whether all the other platforms, being developed on, get the same resources and time as Xbox.

When high level guys at MS want Xbox games to be first or the best. It wouldn't make much sense to spend as much time / resources on a competitors version.

Which was my original point. Nothing like your claim of 'sabotage'.


I honestly think PS5 version got the time and resources it neened. I mean, it looks amazing, an absolutely gorgeous game and it runs like a dream. After all it was an Xbox platform that was left without one of the modes that PS5 and Series X did get. Id has done a wonderful job. And to top it all it was a free upgrade.


On the other hand I'm not much of a fan of VRS. It was supposed to help keep a higher rez/performance at the expense of degrading certain parts of the image that the user wouldn't notice. But you sure will notice. And I'm not talking specifically about DOOM Eternal, but every single game that implements VRS I've seen so far, it's kind of a mix bag. Hopefully we'll see better implementations in the future. Does anyone know if the PC version supports VRS? If it provides such a large number of benefits it definitely should, there are a lot of compatible GPUs out there, right?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom