- 14,430
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
PlayStation 5 Rumors Latest: Console Reveal Within the Next Six Weeks
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 442 comments
- 39,015 views
- 390
- Germany
@zzz_pt
Here are the quotes & the source.
Depending on how Microsoft is doing the cross gen games, the game could have a level design which has HDD in mind. This doesn't mean we won't see other benefits of an SSD, though. Load times and draw distances (depending on the GPU, too) can be vastly improved.
Here are the quotes & the source.
https://www.mcvuk.com/business-news...studios-matt-booty-on-the-future-of-xbox/amp/
Devs developing for an SSD instead of an HDD can change the level design for example. Before next gen all games were made with the slow HDD in mind and developers had to create small paths or elevator scenes to hide load times of the HDD. This will change with SSD on both consoles. Obviously PS5 has an advantage here with the much higher bandwith.
Depending on how Microsoft is doing the cross gen games, the game could have a level design which has HDD in mind. This doesn't mean we won't see other benefits of an SSD, though. Load times and draw distances (depending on the GPU, too) can be vastly improved.
Last edited:
- 8,704
- 105
- Uruguay
The game still has to be made with the base console in mind, even with other developers making the port.
- 982
There aren't that many porting studios left. And the game design still has to accommodate HDD. A SSD game is impossible to be played on HDD, such as Star Citizen.
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
Exactly my point. And that's why it looks the faster SSD on the PS5 will allow for new game design liberties to be pushed further than ever before (and maybe pushed further than what we'll see on the XBSX).
Only time will tell. I'm way more curious to see new ways of designing worlds and how we can e exprience games than I am in more performance (frames per second, resolution or faster load times).
That's cool. I like French fries as well.Since I'm a little bored (aren't we all?) I figured why not try and explain some stuff...that no one else is going to understand or care to remember.
If you have even a passing interest in any of this techno mumbo jumbo, you may have wondered "How are Teraflops calculated?" and maybe "Where are people getting the number of Stream Processors when neither company has explicitly revealed anything other than the number of Compute Units?"
Let's start with the latter question since it'll lead into answering the former. It's actually real simple how that's done. So RDNA uses an inner infrastructure called a Shader Engine, and each engine (up to 8 of them) has multiple Compute Unit clusters (also up to 8). With me so far? So let's illustrate that using my super professional skills.
To make it crystal clear, I'm in no way claiming this to be accurate, just that it's what I know based on how RDNA works.
Xbox Series X layout would look something like this:
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
So, the Series X features 8 Shader Engines, each with 7 Compute Unit clusters (works with 7 SEs and 8 CU clusters as well, but I figured this was cleaner). What's 8 x 7? 56. But, wait, the Series X features 52 CUs and not 56! Ah, that's where disabling comes in. Disable four of the clusters (doesn't matter where for the sake of the diagram) and you end up with — you guessed — 52.
Which would now look like this:
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU -CU-CU-CU-CU
Within each Compute Unit is up to 64 Stream Processors, and taking that into account we wind up with 3,136 SPs per the 7 full clusters (64 x 49) and 3,328 SPs in total when adding in the additional 192 SPs from the cut down eighth engine. With that in mind, take that 3,328 and multiply it by the GPU clock frequency, 1825 MHz in this case, and multiply that by 2 (since the GPU is doing both vertex and pixel shader operations per clock cycle) and you end up with the peak figure of 12.14 TFLOPs.
The same holds true for the PlayStation 5, whose diagram would look something like this:
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
SE > CU - CU - CU - CU - CU - CU
To shortcut the hell out of this: 6 SEs multiplied by 6 CUs comes out to 36 total CUs. Multiply that number by 64 SPs per, and you come out with 2,304 SPs in total. 2304 x 2230 x 2 is 10.3 TFLOPs (rounded up; the exact number is 10.27). I expect everyone that doesn't already have an interest in this to have glossy eyes and drool coming out of the mouths.
Nah, seriously, I have no idea what you posted, but it is cool many of the members here, do take time to explain the technobabble. 👍
- 8,704
The "game" aspects of any game likely to emerge in the next few years on any platform will not at all have any limitation in respect of hardware, no. What everyone seems to be talking about is visual density.
Design your asset scheme around that and the problem goes away.
Yes, the impact will be different - that's what you're paying the price for a new console for. And anyone seeing the difference between their pauper spec game and what it could do if unleashed on the newer hardware, will likely find a way to that newer hardware eventually. At least, statistically speaking.
Maybe a simple bandwidth test in a menu somewhere is enough - then you can retrofit an SSD to your old console to eke it out.
What is this, fashion? Any studio can port a game! They still get paid
And, as above, you turn the asset detail and density right down and load more into RAM "permanently" and make it like every other "streaming" space game (e.g. Elite - no, the 1984 original).
Will the "gameplay" experience be hamstrung by the hardware limitation? The potential is there, but not with good design (which granted is a big ask of any short-sighted developer or "consumer" alike).
All the more reason to use a good developer, not just any pre-determined "port-only grade" backstreet hacks.
- 982
What is this, fashion? Any studio can port a game! They still get paid
No its game dev. Something that requires a competent pipeline and experience to be done successfully, especially in down porting cases. The industry just doesn't work the way you think it does.
Asset detail, LOD is only going to help so much. It's not going to compensate for games that need a whole order of magnitude of more data stream (hence being SSD exclusive) and games that have their design built around that.
If I want to make a city with every building and room populated, with no SSD then I either need loading screens for each chunk, a lot of copy and paste or small moving speed.
SSD is what will allow for more innovative and creative design rather than the limitations of HDD.
- 8,704
Any studio can port a game. Regardless of what you think I think I know, if you can't demonstrate otherwise, there is little point in posturing.
Anything that reduces the data streaming load will help. That means fewer numbers per object, and / or fewer objects. How that is achieved is a matter of in depth systems design according to the hardware in question, and the core of any good port.
We've had streaming engines for pretty much as long as we've had game engines, so the order of magnitude change will be felt hardest in the content production side of things. They will have a hard time making enough meaningful content to justify the extra bandwidth, at first.
If gameplay is truly to be held as some kind of cardinal goal (lol) in the transition, then devs will find a way to make the visuals play second fiddle accordingly.
- 982
Repeating the same line does not make it any more true lol
It's hilarious that you throw out a wildly incorrect statement and then ask me for evidence to refute yet can't provide a single shred of evidence for your own claim.
It's a meaningless statement to anyone who knows about the game industry. Studios that are fully into game dev do not focus on porting third party games. There are studios renowned to being port houses, viable solutions to porting third party games, and who rarely if ever develop their own game. This has been a thing since the SNES days. Here are some well known port houses:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixxes_Software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_Button_(company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluepoint_Games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber_Interactive
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/QLOC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlitWorks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Galaxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tose_(company)#Nintendo_3DS
Reduced textures reduce file size is on the order of 0-0.5. SSD from HDD is 100 times quicker, an order of 2. Your vague statements are completely irrelevant to the actual numbers.
We've never had an order of magnitude jump data streaming on this level in gaming consoles ever (even PC as PC games are made for the lowest spec as well).
- 8,704
We have had step changes in content storage and access speeds in the past. The beginning of the CD era springs to mind, with its glorious full screen art, FMVs and actual recorded sound samples. Good times. Once they got to grips with it all, I mean - there was plenty of meaningless "bloat" at first.
Besides, you offer no "proof" that a studio who doesn't just do ports can't also do ports. I admit I have very little experience of programming and asset production, although I am keenly interested in systems and algorithms in general. But it's pretty clear to me that if you can program and make art, you can port a game, regardless of whether you believe it to be "beneath" you in some way.
And the status quo of fashionable porting houses is irrelevant anyway, there are always new studios wanting to cut their teeth and get established, and porting is one of the classic routes into the "big time" - if that's what you want to do.
The fact of the matter, as it stands, is that the games will have to be made to run on different hardware. But there's no limitation as to how that is approached. There is nothing that states that first party devs have to make all versions of a game for all hardware targets. There is nothing that states MS can't facilitate a new industry of porting using its own SDKs to bridge the gap it has deliberately created. There is nothing that states the games have to be functionally the same, in terms of features, never mind overall appearance - there is much (much!!) precedence for this, particularly if you look far enough back in the annals of porting yore when hardware was much more differentiated than it is today. "Step change" or no.
- 390
- Germany
I think SSD can change how games are designed, because of the insane speed difference between an HDD & SSD. For example Horizon Zero Dawn doesn't have an ability to fly, because the HDD was the bottleneck there.
Many Games also had tunnels, slow walking scenes and so on, since they needed to make sure the data can be streamed.
But i agree with you that the the production side can't be ignored. We won't see 100x more diverse worlds, because the SSD is about 100x faster. Budgets can't be ignored in this discussion.
So, developer will have an bottleneck less to worry about with SSD. But I don't think every game will change the gameplay a lot. Some games probably want those slow walking tunnel scenes to increase the excitement when finally uncover an secret city in uncharted.
- 8,704
Indeed.
All I will say further is that we had flying games before SSDs. If your game must contain flying, you find the technical workaround to prevent it looking bad or at least from having an obvious gameplay impact.
And in any case, what really is "flying" except an issue of scale as it pertains to content detail and quantity? The same problem exists at other scales, so the challenge, really, is to find a solution that works over a large range of scales. Or perhaps multiple solutions for different occasions
All I will say further is that we had flying games before SSDs. If your game must contain flying, you find the technical workaround to prevent it looking bad or at least from having an obvious gameplay impact.
And in any case, what really is "flying" except an issue of scale as it pertains to content detail and quantity? The same problem exists at other scales, so the challenge, really, is to find a solution that works over a large range of scales. Or perhaps multiple solutions for different occasions
- 982
A step change is not the same as an order of magnitude change. It's again simple maths. Look at the transfer speed differences.
My proof is the fact that for over 30 years porting studios have existed that exclusively handle business by making ports. Most dev studios do no port third party or even other first party games. This is 30 years of evidence.
Meanwhile you have provided absolutely nothing on your assertion that any studio will port games from others.
You are completely wrong. These are not new studios, most of them are 10+ years old and some are even 20 years old.
I'm sorry but you are simply throwing statements hoping that they stick or are accurate to game development. If my actual game design (AI models, point of view, character speed, physics) requires a certain data transfer then one has to fundamentally change the gameplay systems to work on slower hardware. These aren't just graphical parameters. If it's multiplayer how can I have two agents that are running the game at different speeds? If its singleplayer how much of my vision is still withheld by making such fundamental game changes, is it still even the same game with the same feel?
Different hardware layouts can be worked around via software abstractions. Actual physical limits cannot be worked around with software, so no.
We can already see a massive difference in player speed and level sizes from PS4 gen assets. Asset fidelity will only increase next gen. The only solution is to design your game completely around the SSD if you want no compromise. Anything else is compromised.
- 390
- Germany
Are we now talking about the jump from HDD to SSD or SSD vs SSD?
Because the latter can be overcome with smart level design (using the same assets) or lowering the asset quality at first. Would result in more pop in.
With these techniques bandwidth can be saved, because you can either fill RAM with more data (because the quality is lower) or don't need as much bandwith, because the assets (the same tree used several times for example) will remain in RAM and don't need to be pulled from SSD again.
Yes, there are drawbacks, but not from an gameplay perspective. By the way, for AI, physics, ... an CPU&GPU still matters more and any data you can throw at the CPU&GPU needs to be dealt with.
Finding an workaround only gets you so far, when the jump between HDD and SSD is so significant these days.
As you said flying already exists in games, but these games sacrifice details at the ground and don't have an very high travel speed. Just like racing games don't have track/level detail as good as an top Shooter or RPG.
At the end of the day it worked, just like slow transitions like elevator or loading screen worked. But developers had to put a lot of thought into designing levels. This is about to change with SSD and it'll open up new possibilities.
Examples:
- Going from space to an station on an planet without loading.
- Flashbacks rendered in real time without loading, depending on your choices in an conversation
- increased speed while maintaining good graphics
- teleportation to an different area as an gameplay element.
Some of the stuff could be done before in a way. Like the flashbacks for example, but you wouldn't be able to interact as an player.
This is a new possibility just like teleportation. After all having an annoying 30 sec loading screen everytime you port to an different point is annoying. Even more so, if this is an fighting skill.
Those possibilities sound interesting imo and i am excited, but obviously the rest of the hardware needs to be up to the task. But still having an SSD in there will help developer massively and consumers will benefit, too.
Last edited:
- 1,788
- Mtl
I wonder what's the processing efficiency of the ps5 rdna2 cpu compared to the ps4 jaguar cpu.
All saw is it's twice the clock and twice something else and claiming it's 4 times the processing.
But isn't there design efficiency like for the gpu tf that makes it comparatively higher?
Just doesn't seem all that much considering the jag cpu was really weak when ps4 came out.
I'm thinking of physics which i guess run on the cpu, or will they be able to use the gpu for that?
Physics are pretty intensive if you want no easily noticed restrictions it seems.
I wish they added physics dedicated hardware too which could be 100 times more efficient maybe.
Im sure the cpu will be used alot already for newgen.
All saw is it's twice the clock and twice something else and claiming it's 4 times the processing.
But isn't there design efficiency like for the gpu tf that makes it comparatively higher?
Just doesn't seem all that much considering the jag cpu was really weak when ps4 came out.
I'm thinking of physics which i guess run on the cpu, or will they be able to use the gpu for that?
Physics are pretty intensive if you want no easily noticed restrictions it seems.
I wish they added physics dedicated hardware too which could be 100 times more efficient maybe.
Im sure the cpu will be used alot already for newgen.
- 3,570
- Armenia
- Kannon33r
Its top tier consumer CPU available. With zen 3 available it, most likely, will become mid level CPU. Jaguar is an i3 competitor, while Zen 8/16 is an i9 competitor.
- 939
- Zürich
Rumours have emerged in the past 24-48 hours, based on comments from somebody very close to the industry that the PS5 in its current design form is having serious thermal issues, with serious meaning fail inducing issues.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7160...-should-be-solved-in-final-console/index.html
As stated in these reports, if this is true then it goes a long way to explaining why we haven't actually seen the console yet, and moreover why we haven't seen any gameplay examples. It's also been suggested that as a result of this that Sony may well delay the release of the console until next year.
Of course nothing is actually substantiated here, so I guess you can take it with a pinch of salt.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7160...-should-be-solved-in-final-console/index.html
As stated in these reports, if this is true then it goes a long way to explaining why we haven't actually seen the console yet, and moreover why we haven't seen any gameplay examples. It's also been suggested that as a result of this that Sony may well delay the release of the console until next year.
Of course nothing is actually substantiated here, so I guess you can take it with a pinch of salt.
- 86,534
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
This doesn't seem realistic, given Cerny's comments in the deep dive. In essence, the console is designed to run at a constant power rate and thus at a constant thermal output, which allows for a known level of cooling.
He did state that the PS3 and PS4 were designed with a worst-case guess in mind, which the dried out paste and helicopter fans proved to be inadequate, and that for PS5 they had designed a very clever cooling system that would be revealed in the near future.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,515
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
There will be a breakdown of the system next. Officially. Since only Sony and anyone manufacturing it for them would know. Developers don't have sales versions only development versions which are not at all like sales versions. Cerny made it quite clear that cooling with a jet engine was a fail and won't happen again.
- 939
- Zürich
Oh boy. in my time in IT and dealing with hardware I've some across a number of "very clever cooling systems". On paper they looked brilliant, but outside the lab and in real world practice they often totally failed to deliver, mostly causing unplanned power-offs, and in some cases destroying certain components that died from "heat leakage", by that I mean the the cooling system more or less worked for the parts that that the system was designed for, but failed to take into account other components that failed not due to the heat that was generated by themselves, but by the heat that was generated by the cooled parts.
My betting is that if there are thermal issues then they're likely to be related to this trick PCIe NVMe SSD that Sony are using, rather than the SOC.
- 86,534
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Right, but you're talking about a closed box system where all parts are of a fixed, known specification.
Taking variable power requirements out of the equation, the PS5 should be completely predictable - to Sony - for how much heat it generates.
This is a component Sony has known about, and known the specifications of, for two or more years. And, it would appear, it has built itself.
Given Sony's focus on making the PS5 not **** at cooling like the PS4 and PS3 were, it seems incredibly unlikely that the PS5 is having cooling issues - especially from its own bits.
- 1,788
- Mtl
I dont get what's all the talk of heat issues and unbearable noise from ps4?
The ps4 i have is almost silent and i never noticed heat issues, touch wood..now i worry just to say it and it will start whew.
Maybe because mine was a newer revision perhaps, i bought the newest model number when i got it around almost 3years after launch. I forget the number.
@Jtheripper -- Same here; I'm glad I got a Slim model PS4, I guess, because I have zero complaints even in a house full of malamute fur.
I could probably just as well wait for a revised model of the PS5, too. The likes of GT7 or PCARS3 are probably a ways off yet, and they'll probably be in better shape months after release given the way PS/XB games go with the "launch now and fix it later" mentality. I'll have things to play on Switch in the meantime.
I could probably just as well wait for a revised model of the PS5, too. The likes of GT7 or PCARS3 are probably a ways off yet, and they'll probably be in better shape months after release given the way PS/XB games go with the "launch now and fix it later" mentality. I'll have things to play on Switch in the meantime.
Similar threads
