Bollocks. Mark Cerny focused on I/O and high-speed storage in regard to designing the PlayStation 5 from the very beginning of the design process, because he designed the PlayStation 5 based on in-person talks with game developers about what they wanted in the PlayStation 5.
You guys are spreading FUD. Stop.
Did you not literally read the part of my quote where I posited it as a question?
This whole thing about FUD or non-FUD is paranoia. If a rumor is being presented, I give it the benefit of the doubt. Even then there are maybe parts I can't believe, like the mention of no ML in this particular rumor. I don't track how these rumors start, just work with what's presented and try speculating from there.
But if you aren't blind you also notice I never fully back any of these rumors either. Still question aspects of them and look at both sides to it all in terms of the actual relevant points a rumor or speculation that's tech-related brings up. You're free to ignore that and try lying about me spreading FUD but you'd be extremely ignorant when searching my posts in this thread show I've been discussing what this stuff
could mean,
if true, and in what
ways it may be true and other ways it may
not be.
Jumping to "you're just spreading FUD" shows you don't pay attention very well.
So it's all FUD and fake photoshopped tweet and you see the usual suspects acting like a it's "gotcha" moment. One even said love seeing the meltdown yikes! If you are that gullible eh
SleepDoctor
, I have a bridge to sell you
Is there any proof of this aside from supposed doctoring of the original tweet? I took it this is the guy the Gavins Blur dev was referring to as having talked in private, right? If the tweets were private would they not show up differently? Sorry I don't keep up with Twitter shenanigans or really Twitter anything outside of stuff that gets linked to threads around here or other gaming forums I lurk.
That said even if this guy actually said what's been quoted here, outside of probably the no ML part I don't think most of it is necessarily controversial. It'd just align with it being "custom RDNA2", which I figured is what we all thought both systems would be: custom RDNA2. That could also mean some RDNA1 features which we already know PS5 at least has with Primitive Shaders.
The only thing that's been in contention is the weight of RDNA1 to RDNA2 features in the systems. These latest tweets regarding PS5 would seem to weight some parts of it a bit more to RDNA1 as a base but still having more or less all of the big RDNA2 features like RT, and most likely equivalents to things like VRS just maybe implemented differently in the graphics pipeline?
There is no such thing as "RDNA 2 features". Its a framework that has power efficiency and other performance benefits as a foundation and a malleable set of features. For example, if AMD liked the cache scrubbers from the PS5 GPU or the Tempest Engine stuff, they may be included in future RDNA 2 cards. If a feature like ML is missing from a card, that doesn't mean its not RDNA 2.
That's my point. Its fair to say that PS5 GPU is missing features, but you cant say its not RDNA 2.
I'm not using "features" literally; I know it's a framework that has a set of defined standards which can be customized for implementation into GPU designs as AMD, Microsoft, and Sony see fit. And also, that there are some aspects to the framework which were influenced by things Sony and Microsoft brought to the table via working with AMD engineers on their own respective next-gen design teams, that AMD might see fit to establish as standard features in the PC GPUs of RDNA2 and/or RDNA3.
Likewise there might be RDNA1, RDNA2, and/or RDNA3 (and perhaps even CDNA2 or CDNA3) features that AMD themselves have established in the roadmap of their own volition that Sony and Microsoft have pulled into the design of their next-gen GPUs. An example of that being with PS5 and its Primitive Shaders, Primitive Shaders being present on RDNA1 GPUs. Even in these cases though, Sony and Microsoft will have most likely made customizations to these to better fit their design goals.
I've never said PS5 is not RDNA2; if anything all I've said is that it is not full RDNA2 as in the entire standard/generic feature set of the RDNA2 framework we'll see on PC. Which is not only 100% accurate, but also applies to the Series systems. However I think when it comes to PS5 some people have only taken this to mean RDNA2 and maybe some RDNA3 while shunning anything RDNA1 being present because of assumed inferiority. In fact that's still happening, but I touched on earlier how in some cases it may've been a necessity for Sony (such as the Primitive Shaders), but that doesn't mean they haven't done tuning of those elements.
Being perfectly fair, any suggestion that PS5 has somewhat more weight of RDNA1 framework elements to it compared to the Series systems is a valid observation. That doesn't suddenly mean it's on old DUV process node or has the power profile of RDNA1 chips, or lacks equivalents to most RDNA2 features that may not be present on their system (again, Primitive Shaders being an equivalent for Mesh Shaders, and Sony most likely tuning the Primitive Shaders to be more compatible with Mesh Shader implementation). People need to stop reacting like that's being insinuated.