• 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.

Opinion PS5 focus is high performance, not high power. Are people underestimating the value of the approach?

Goliathy

Member
Mar 18, 2020
438
1,399
340
No one said MS is not focusing on high performance.....Some people are just saying Sony has developed a more efficient and less "bottlenecky way" of doing just that......Smarter engineering vs Bruteforce engineering.....
how is it not a bottleneck that gpu and cpu have variable frequency and never can run BOTH at full speed?They should have a LOCKED frequency, and not like this:



That’s not smart. That’s just a pathetic attempt to make the huge Gap between series x and ps5 a little smaller, so that - ON PAPER - Sony can say that sometimes they console is double digit tflops(UP TO). That’s not a smart design. It’s stupid and makes it hard to optimize since a dev will have a hard time figuring out when and how the cpu and gpu clocks actually perform since they are VARIABLE and not locked.
 

CJY

Banned
Jan 8, 2016
2,563
5,614
725
If OP is the case, why so many Playstation fans in the prediction predicted 13TFlops, even 14T, 15T?
It's because none of us are system architects and lots of people have/built PCs and just simply used to working within that model, even though everyone has been told for years and years that TFlops don't tell the whole story, nobody had another frame of reference or mental model of how to perceive a console's strength so everybody from both side was fixated on a single number.

Mark Cerny is a genius and he has schooled us all in a new paradigm and a different way of looking at consoles. He is probably smarter and more knowledgeable about these things than 99% of this board combined, working alongside some of the top engineers in the industry. When he says something, people of all stripes and colours should sit and listen.

At the end of the day, the XSX using the PC model of open-ended design. It's why the console looks like a PC tower and it's similar in concept to what Apple did with their 2013 Mac Pro - "The trashcan Mac". It can work and will work well as a console but nobody can deny it's a PC.

What Cerny has done is he has shifted the paradigm of X86 architecture back into pure console design, an enclosed system tailored and customised to maximising the specification of the system and refining the hell out of each component and wringing every bit of speed out of its silicon.

I know Xbox guys are going to say MS is doing the same thing, and to that I would say: "I don't dislike you, I just feel sorry for you, for you simply don't understand".
 

Mr.Allan

Neo Member
Oct 13, 2019
44
36
120
Sony will win this next generation no matter what. Maybe here or other gaming related forums peaople would seem to care about the resolution difference but that doesn't sell the console after all. Xbox one didn't lose to ps4 bcos less power but higher price point/no japanese games. I may be biased but I like my pc japanese games like Nioh (timed console ex, I know) but NOONE paid anyone to release Nioh on PC and they choose not to release it on xbox
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

TBiddy

Member
Mar 16, 2015
3,415
2,575
650
Denmark
It isn't, you just aren't reading it correctly.
I used another quote to further backup what it means.

It was deduced because Mark Cerny said as much.
The SSD is only part of the solution.

Here read this again.
So you present a quote in the OP that is all about the SSD and the bottlenecks around it. You backtrack on it and starts explaining to me that the streaming part in the OG quote referred to the GPU, not the SSD. That must mean you think the GPU is 100 times faster than in the PS4... we both know that is bollocks, so why you started down on that path is beyond me.

Let me just run you through it:

The original quote from your OP:

For PlayStation 5 our goal was not just that the SSD itself be a hundred times faster. It was that game loads and streaming would be a hundred times faster so every single potential bottleneck needed to be addressed and there are a lot of them.
I trust we agree that is from your OP.

Then later on, you start babbling about that the "streaming" part of the quote isn't about the SSD, but is actually about the GPU:

Streaming refers to what displays on screen which is a task performed by the GPU.
And now you want me to "read it again"? Mark Cerny is obviously explaining that it's not enough that only the SSD is a hundred times faster. The loading and the streaming time must also be a hundred times faster. Of course that is referring to the SSD. What else would it be about? The GPU? :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

Jonsoncao

Member
Dec 10, 2006
3,488
316
1,270
Irvine, CA
It's because none of us are system architects and lots of people have/built PCs and just simply used to working within that model, even though everyone has been told for years and years that TFlops don't tell the whole story, nobody had another frame of reference or mental model of how to perceive a console's strength so everybody from both side was fixated on a single number.

Mark Cerny is a genius and he has schooled us all in a new paradigm and a different way of looking at consoles. He is probably smarter and more knowledgeable about these things than 99% of this board combined, working alongside some of the top engineers in the industry. When he says something, people of all stripes and colours should sit and listen.

At the end of the day, the XSX using the PC model of open-ended design. It's why the console looks like a PC tower and it's similar in concept to what Apple did with their 2013 Mac Pro - "The trashcan Mac". It can work and will work well as a console but nobody can deny it's a PC.

What Cerny has done is he has shifted the paradigm of X86 architecture back into pure console design, an enclosed system tailored and customised to maximising the specification of the system and refining the hell out of each component and wringing every bit of speed out of its silicon.

I know Xbox guys are going to say MS is doing the same thing, and to that I would say: "I don't dislike you, I just feel sorry for you, for you simply don't understand".
That's true. Humans are indeed slaves of their cognitive abilities, and blindly worshipping terms they cannot comprehend.

In the end, the laws of physics and mathematics of this current universe stand and laugh at inept humankind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJY

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
So you present a quote in the OP that is all about the SSD and the bottlenecks around it. You backtrack on it and starts explaining to me that the streaming part in the OG quote referred to the GPU, not the SSD. That must mean you think the GPU is 100 times faster than in the PS4... we both know that is bollocks, so why you started down on that path is beyond me.

Let me just run you through it:

The original quote from your OP:



I trust we agree that is from your OP.

Then later on, you start babbling about that the "streaming" part of the quote isn't about the SSD, but is actually about the GPU:



And now you want me to "read it again"? Mark Cerny is obviously explaining that it's not enough that only the SSD is a hundred times faster. The loading and the streaming time must also be a hundred times faster. Of course that is referring to the SSD. What else would it be about? The GPU? :messenger_tears_of_joy:
No again, reading comprehension.
The quote in the OP isn't about the SSD, how many times do I have to state this?

The quote even gives an example of saving resources on the CPU.
Do you consider the CPU and SSD to be the same?
I didn't state 100x was the GPU either, it is a conglomerative number which is inclusive of all hardware it uses to display content on the screen, CPU, GPU, RAM everything.
 
Last edited:

Deto

Banned
Dec 6, 2016
270
683
480
how is it not a bottleneck that gpu and cpu have variable frequency and never can run BOTH at full speed?They should have a LOCKED frequency, and not like this:



That’s not smart. That’s just a pathetic attempt to make the huge Gap between series x and ps5 a little smaller, so that - ON PAPER - Sony can say that sometimes they console is double digit tflops(UP TO). That’s not a smart design. It’s stupid and makes it hard to optimize since a dev will have a hard time figuring out when and how the cpu and gpu clocks actually perform since they are VARIABLE and not locked.

source?
 
Last edited:

XOMTOR

Member
Feb 11, 2011
1,339
7
675
Canada
As someone whose last console was the PS3, I hope the PS5 isn't too esoteric in its architecture. If you catch what I'm sayin'....
 

Rightisright

Banned
Sep 18, 2007
1,169
1,777
1,325
Dear or dear, its real simple. The only reason Sony went with such high clocks wasnt because they had a cunning plan to dominate the next gen power ladder and high clocks were the answer, its.because they got caught short with a 36cu GPU and clocks were the only option to try and close the gap with XSX.
That's it.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
Dear or dear, its real simple. The only reason Sony went with such high clocks wasnt because they had a cunning plan to dominate the next gen power ladder and high clocks were the answer, its.because they got caught short with a 36cu GPU and clocks were the only option to try and close the gap with XSX.
That's it.
Or they saw more gains going for less CU's + additional custom hardware while trying to keep towards the $499-$599 price tag.
Which is exactly what Mark Cerny states here -

It doesn't mean that we as sony simply incorporated the pc part into our console this continuous improvement in AMD technology means it's dangerous to rely on teraflops as an absolute indicator of performance and CU count should be avoided as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

hyperbertha

Member
Nov 24, 2018
679
1,649
385
Dear or dear, its real simple. The only reason Sony went with such high clocks wasnt because they had a cunning plan to dominate the next gen power ladder and high clocks were the answer, its.because they got caught short with a 36cu GPU and clocks were the only option to try and close the gap with XSX.
That's it.
You have no idea how hardware design works.
 

David Ricardo

Member
Sep 25, 2008
1,351
909
985
Gijon, Spain
Or they saw more gains going for less CU's + additional custom hardware while trying to keep towards the $499-$599 price tag.
Which is exactly what Mark Cerny states here -
They did it probably to save 30$ per console. They gave away 20% of their performance for 7% of their BOM. Not very smart in my opinion.

Imagine all of this optimization + 3d audio + superfast SSD in a 52 CU console. That would have been killer.

According to Sony's own calculations, launch year buyers spend on average 1,600$ during the lifetime of the console. They would have made those 30$ back in the blink of an eye.
 
Last edited:

Rightisright

Banned
Sep 18, 2007
1,169
1,777
1,325
Or they saw more gains going for less CU's + additional custom hardware while trying to keep towards the $499-$599 price tag.
Which is exactly what Mark Cerny states here -
Unfortunately, the extra cost of the SSD Sony employed will more than cover the 20% bigger die size of the XSX GPU. It may cost more. The price for a top of the range SSD, thats actually slower than the PS5s SSD is like $300 or more.
And as it stands, the XSX has far more efficiencies built in such as VRS etc.
 

Rightisright

Banned
Sep 18, 2007
1,169
1,777
1,325
You have no idea how hardware design works.
Lol, such an amazing reply. Tell me what area the PS5 GPU will exceed the XSX GPU? Not in % terms, but in what area will it put out more as a unit than the XSX? We know that pixel fill rates increase with clocks, but even with the extra clock of the PS5, the XSX puts out a higher pixel fill rate.
So, please enlighten this forum on where we have it so wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoloKingRobert

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
They did it probably to save 30$ per console. They gave away 20% of their performance for 7% of their BOM. Not very smart in my opinion.

Imagine all of this optimization + 3d audio + superfast SSD in a 52 CU console. That would have been killer.

According to Sony's own calculations, launch year buyers spend on average 1,600$ during the lifetime of the console. They would have made those 30$ back in the blink of an eye.
Not if Mark is to be believed.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
Unfortunately, the extra cost of the SSD Sony employed will more than cover the 20% bigger die size of the XSX GPU. It may cost more. The price for a top of the range SSD, thats actually slower than the PS5s SSD is like $300 or more.
And as it stands, the XSX has far more efficiencies built in such as VRS etc.
We'll have to wait and see on that one.
So far devs (third party included) have been praising PS5 over XSX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1 and Deto

Beelzebubs

Member
Nov 25, 2012
1,752
74
550
Feel free to correct me as I'm just spitballing here and not exactly an expert on how this stuff works. But with the increased SSD speed would that not mean less items needed to be drawn/cached.

Presumably with faster call times on textures etc it would be unnecessary to have as much stuff going on in the background. I'm going off the logic that increasing FOV in a game increases the amount needed to be rendered therefore slowing performance. If you didn't need to render as much in the background to have a buffer due to getting the data faster would that not increase performance?

I'm going off something I read ages ago about Horizon: Zero Dawn only needing to render what was directly in front (with a bit extra behind for when you start to change camera angle). It's called Occlusion Culling I believe.

Here's an example of it. Note it is still drawing information to the sides of the camera. I don't know if that's a GPU/CPU issue or a HDD related one but I assume it's HDD due to the need to rapidly call textures.

 
Last edited:

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
Feel free to correct me as I'm just spitballing here and quite naive on how this stuff works. But with the increased SSD speed would that not mean less items needed to be drawn/cached.

Presumably with faster call times on textures etc it would be unnecessary to have as much stuff going on in the background. I'm going off the logic that increasing FOV in a game increases the amount needed to be rendered therefore slowing performance. If you didn't need to render as much in the background to have a buffer due to getting the data faster would that not increase performance?
Yep and if Mark is correct he's removed all the bottlenecks of displaying the content too. So for example in an open world (or any game) simply turning around the SSD is fast enough to push it and the GPU is fast enough to draw it as you go so nothing needs to remain held in memory, gpu, cpu etc. It should all just work on the fly.. which frankly sounds crazy tech wise.

This is why they're claiming no load times because there are no load requirements, everything is drawn as you move.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

Beelzebubs

Member
Nov 25, 2012
1,752
74
550
Doesn't high power give you higher performance? Lol.
Depends on how the power is used. I don't want to compare apples to oranges but you could have 2 cars built with the same horsepower/torque but one car could use a steel body, the other using carbon fibre. Which do you think would be faster?

I have no stake in this as I'm a PC gamer I just think there's some really interesting conversations going on.
 
Last edited:

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
Doesn't high power give you higher performance? Lol.
It does but if you have to load more in then you ultimately get your performance cut rather quickly.
Take this video for example -


On XSX it takes 7 seconds to load the world.
If the game were on PS5 it would be instant because it doesn't need to load the world, it loads only what is in front of you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SynTha1

FeldMonster

Member
Nov 17, 2018
346
330
250
There's a large difference between removing bottlenecks and removing ALL bottlenecks.
By definition of a "bottleneck", it is literally impossible to remove all bottlenecks in a system, any system, whether it is a console, business management, or a supply chain.
 

FeldMonster

Member
Nov 17, 2018
346
330
250
They did it probably to save 30$ per console. They gave away 20% of their performance for 7% of their BOM. Not very smart in my opinion.

Imagine all of this optimization + 3d audio + superfast SSD in a 52 CU console. That would have been killer.

According to Sony's own calculations, launch year buyers spend on average 1,600$ during the lifetime of the console. They would have made those 30$ back in the blink of an eye.
$1,600 per launch year buyer is an interesting data point. I am curious how I personally compare. I'd be curious to know how much are the mean and median values. (Hypothetically of course, I don't expect anyone here to know).
 
Aug 28, 2019
2,203
4,039
510
www.instagram.com
We'll have to wait and see on that one.
So far devs (third party included) have been praising PS5 over XSX.
And the names of those devs and their affiliations?

No major 3rd party devs who have good development and publishing relationships on both platforms would risk damaging a relationship with Microsoft just to do good publicity for Sony, or vice-versa. So these devs are mainly 1st-party studios. or small indie 3rd-party guys like Jonathan Blow.

There's really no other, more realistic way to take those statements at this time, especially this soon after the PS5 reveal.

It does but if you have to load more in then you ultimately get your performance cut rather quickly.
Take this video for example -


On XSX it takes 7 seconds to load the world.
If the game were on PS5 it would be instant because it doesn't need to load the world, it loads only what is in front of you.
Don't think you realize how badly this comment defeats your own intent. The other way to read it is: PS5 is unable to load the whole world fast enough, so it has to resort to loading only the parts right in front of you instead.

Think that through for a moment....
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Feb 22, 2017
2,584
1,754
605
I think people are overestimating it.

We have seen in the PC space that higher clocks dont make up for raw compute advantages.

I have a good idea what is going to happen,

The xsx will have the better framerate, resolution or effects in 3rd party games.

Xsx and PS5 exclusives will drop jaws.
Sony fanboys will claim the sony exclusives look better because of the PS5s ssd, but it will be down to the art style and talent of the dev.
Using exclusives as a metric for hardware performance is retarded because theres no way to compare them.
 

quickwhips

Gold Member
Jan 26, 2009
6,939
1,518
1,205
38
I don't really give a shit because both SSD's and their subsystems will undoubtedly execute the same level of workloads extremely proficiently. Microsoft clearly put more money into their system, there's a reason their drive is the speed it is, there's a reason for their specific compression methods, there's a reason they decided on a wider bus and higher memory bandwidth.

They have a much wider array of tangible knowledge at their disposal to make the decisions they are.
I think the ps5 is going to cost about the same as the xbox series x even with the performance gap. I cant wait to find out as i think that part will be interesting.
 

Hendrick's

Member
Jan 7, 2014
5,888
6,299
745
It does but if you have to load more in then you ultimately get your performance cut rather quickly.
Take this video for example -


On XSX it takes 7 seconds to load the world.
If the game were on PS5 it would be instant because it doesn't need to load the world, it loads only what is in front of you.
No it wouldn't, because the game wasn't designed to work that way.
 

David Ricardo

Member
Sep 25, 2008
1,351
909
985
Gijon, Spain
$1,600 per launch year buyer is an interesting data point. I am curious how I personally compare. I'd be curious to know how much are the mean and median values. (Hypothetically of course, I don't expect anyone here to know).
What I remember spending
2 controllers 100$
PS4 Pro 400$
7 years PS+ around 300$
RDR2 + Witcher= 110$
Project cars 60$
Knack 15$
Uncharted 4 30$
NMS 65$
PSVR 300$
And much more
Yeah, I think I spent 1,600+ in these 7 years.
 

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
2,460
3,445
620
Czech Republic
It does but if you have to load more in then you ultimately get your performance cut rather quickly.
Take this video for example -


On XSX it takes 7 seconds to load the world.
If the game were on PS5 it would be instant because it doesn't need to load the world, it loads only what is in front of you.
Except it has to off-load, compress and store the game, while load another one. If that is slow, I don't know what is it.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
11,316
13,490
1,075
No it wouldn't, because the game wasn't designed to work that way.
If I'm understanding right it doesn't need to be as the bottlenecks to process the loading has been removed.
Therefore software shouldn't need to be changed.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Feb 22, 2017
2,584
1,754
605
SSD is the new cloud.
I thinks its uses are real , real time cloud gaming did not work.
But i get the comparison.

I think the level of difference the PS5 SSD will make compared to the XSXs will be non existent.

If you look at the type of visuals of hellblade 2 demo, so what if the ps5 can have better textures for rocks, it really would be such large diminishing returns, things like lighting, effects and polycount are going to make a bigger difference.

Its a bit like

Imagine a console with a 10tflop GPU and 2tb @2tb/s Ram

Vs

A 20tflop gpu with 16gb @ 500gb/s

While the first console would have virtually unlimited memory the cpu still needs to draw everything and the GPU needs to render it. Which is why the argument that an a faster ssd will make a vast difference does not make sense.

Another example is what if the N64 had 1gb carts with 500mb/s speed?
While games would have larger environments and better textures, the gpu and cpu would be huge bottlenecks, the games would look better then N64 games but not as good as Dreamcast.