Jump to content
IGNORED

Need PS5Pro/XSXX. Underpowered consoles. Raytracing


Meat
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think, some of you, need to have a watch of this.

 

 

 

It is Gamers nexus review of the AMD 6900XT, this, is AMD's MOST powerful GPU...

 

Now, the bits in question, skip to the RT  bits, and have a look at the comparisons with the Nvidia 2060 with DLSS...The 6900XT just about beats it...AMD's MOST powerful GPU, just beats nvidias entry level RT card with RT turned on, when it has DLSS enabled. 

 

And frankly, THAT, is the difference maker. never mind, that nvidia has actual hardware designed to run it, its becasue they designed the hardware to run in conjunction with DLSS.

 

The consoles  could literally  put the most powerful piece of silicon AMD make inside the console, and it would still fall short of the experience seemingly being wanted. Because AMD simply do not make the hardware needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 5R7 said:

I think, some of you, need to have a watch of this.

 

 

 

It is Gamers nexus review of the AMD 6900XT, this, is AMD's MOST powerful GPU...

 

Now, the bits in question, skip to the RT  bits, and have a look at the comparisons with the Nvidia 2060 with DLSS...The 6900XT just about beats it...AMD's MOST powerful GPU, just beats nvidias entry level RT card with RT turned on, when it has DLSS enabled. 

 

And frankly, THAT, is the difference maker. never mind, that nvidia has actual hardware designed to run it, its becasue they designed the hardware to run in conjunction with DLSS.

 

The consoles  could literally  put the most powerful piece of silicon AMD make inside the console, and it would still fall short of the experience seemingly being wanted. Because AMD simply do not make the hardware needed.

Talking about PC tech in a console thread on rllmuk is...

 

no-nope.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, 5R7 said:

I think, some of you, need to have a watch of this.

 

 

 

It is Gamers nexus review of the AMD 6900XT, this, is AMD's MOST powerful GPU...

 

Now, the bits in question, skip to the RT  bits, and have a look at the comparisons with the Nvidia 2060 with DLSS...The 6900XT just about beats it...AMD's MOST powerful GPU, just beats nvidias entry level RT card with RT turned on, when it has DLSS enabled. 

 

And frankly, THAT, is the difference maker. never mind, that nvidia has actual hardware designed to run it, its becasue they designed the hardware to run in conjunction with DLSS.

 

The consoles  could literally  put the most powerful piece of silicon AMD make inside the console, and it would still fall short of the experience seemingly being wanted. Because AMD simply do not make the hardware needed.

This is why Switch Pro will be more powerful than PS5 and XBOX Series X, combined. Out later this year apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mushashi said:

 

The underlying basis for every single performance leap in consoles is something called Moore's Law, named after the co-founder of Intel. This has allowed faster, more powerful hardware without also having to up the price massively every time.

 

Some may disagree, but Moore's Law has been dying for years now so the only way you're going to get a mid-gen refresh with 2X or better performance anytime soon is to pay up for it and very few people want to do that and consoles are a volume business, otherwise they don't bother.

 

Also AMD will need to completely redesign their technology to enable them to make something which has competitive RT and accelerated "magic" AI upscaling in hardware.

 

The size of the upcoming Intel Arc chip which is claimed to match Nvidia is significantly bigger than the AMD equivalent so any AMD redesign to get similar performance will also likely have to balloon up in size and cost.

 

 

I think this needs underlining because it's quite a subtle issue and not very widely appreciated. The silicon industry is as devoted as ever to halving the size of transistors every 18 months. Therefore you can have a chip which of the same form factor and energy usage, but twice as many transistors and therefore twice the performance; or you can make the same chip, and it would take up half the space and use half the energy. It used to be that you could do this in return for a one-off research and development investment, so it cost you the same amount to make a wafer full of chips, but now there are twice as many on there.

 

However the size reduction now often requires the invention of entirely new and much more elaborate fabrication process, producing transistors with new, expensive structures and materials. That increased cost for the process eats up a lot of the discount you get from fitting more chips on the wafer. It's no longer a given that you'll have a significantly faster machine at a given price point and physical size and energy demands, or that a given device will quickly get cheaper.

 

This is the entire reason Series S exists.

 

Quote

Goossen is essentially suggesting that leveraging these nodes for cheaper consoles may not be an option, which poses a difficult problem for the Xbox team going into the future with the intention of delivering even more powerful hardware. Processor performance is tied closely to transistor count - but if the cost per transistor is not reducing, a new chip with more logic will cost a lot more to make, even if it's actually smaller than today's processors. For the new consoles, a smaller, slimmer machine is a possibility - but the actual cost of making it won't change that much.

 

"And so that was another one of the reasons why we felt that we really had to do Series S at the beginning because we had to design for the future. For the first time, we had to have the entry-level console at the beginning. Previous generations were kind of easy because at the beginning of the generation, you make something really expensive - put as much silicon and as much performance as you could into it - then you would just ride the cost reduction curves down to mass market prices. That's not there anymore," Goossen explains.

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-xbox-series-s-big-interview

 

Regarding the question in the topic, I don't think that we really need console game performance to chase peak PC performance enjoyed by only a minority of PC users. Not any more than it did in the past, and especially not in an environment where the highest-performance PC hardware is being so heavily siphoned away in to crypto farming. The typical PC user's machine is still in the ballpark of performance of the current consoles, especially in terms of ray tracing, and until that changes, they're fine. If I remember from Cerny's interviews, when Tim Sweeney et al. were begging for faster CPUs and high-performance SSDs, they also explicitly told him not to bother with ray tracing: that it was a nice-to-have but not something expected to play a significant role in the next decade of PC games.

 

Edit - Of course there's an ML gap for AMD, and that's a genuine issue. Machine learning is the biggest performance growth area at the moment. If AMD ever does come out with decent hardware for tensor calculations, that will be the basis for the eventual refresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Alex W. said:

However the size reduction now often requires the invention of entirely new and much more elaborate fabrication process, producing transistors with new, expensive structures and materials. That increased cost for the process eats up a lot of the discount you get from fitting more chips on the wafer. It's no longer a given that you'll have a significantly faster machine at a given price point and physical size and energy demands, or that a given device will quickly get cheaper.

 

There is also a little known counterpart to Moore's Law, called Rock's law which observed that the cost of building the fabrication plants to make these ever more advanced chips goes up massively over time too.


You're now looking at well over $10 Billion to make a single cutting edge fab, somebody has to pay for that.


Part of the reason console power leaps seem to be slowing is because they effectively are, what with Moore's Law slowing down significantly and other costs increasing, I'm not holding my breath for the projected mobile-like hardware updates era some people thought we were going to be entering off the back of the release of the mid-gen refreshes last gen. The progress of making meaningful performance jumps without the associated increase in costs is getting ever slower and harder to do, so you either get used to longer hardware cycles or get used to paying more.

 

Using the PS4/PS4P/PS5 as a realworld example, all 3 have similar sized chips, and it has taken Sony ~7 years to get a 5-6X raw TFLOP increase (even if that metric is mildly suspect in practice, it'll do for this), and over that time the launch price of the console has gone up $100.

 

If Moore's Law was still in full effect, they should have been able to cram in well over 10X the raw TFLOPs as transistor density used to double every 2 years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.