Sunday, June 9th 2019

Sony PlayStation 5 Promises 4K 120Hz Gaming

Sony has finalized the design and specification of its PlayStation 5 entertainment system. Unlike buzzwords Microsoft threw around like "8K capable" for its "Project Scarlett" console, Sony has a slightly different design goal: 4K UHD at 120 Hz, guaranteed. The most notable absentee at E3 2019, Sony is designing the PlayStation 5 to leverage the latest hardware to guarantee 120 frames per second on your 4K display. Much like "Project Scarlett," the SoC at the heart of the PlayStation 5 is a semi-custom chip co-designed by AMD and Sony.

This unnamed SoC reportedly features an 8-core/16-thread CPU based on AMD's latest "Zen 2" microarchitecture, which is a massive leap from the 8 low-power "Jaguar" cores pulling the PS4 Pro. The GPU will implement AMD's new RDNA architecture. The SoC will use GDDR6 memory, shared between the CPU and GPU. Much like "Project Scarlett," the PS5 will include an NVMe SSD as standard equipment, and the operating system will use a portion of it as virtual memory. There will also be dedicated hardware for 3D positional audio. Sony also confirmed full backwards compatibility with PS4 titles.
Sources: The Verge, CNet
Add your own comment

95 Comments on Sony PlayStation 5 Promises 4K 120Hz Gaming

#26
king of swag187
Darmok N Jalad
I think you may have some CPU specs mixed up. The PS4 had the faster hardware at launch, and then the Pro/X models scaled above 2.0 GHz, with the X having the edge. The PS4 Pro’s GPU was around that of the RX480 in specs, but with lower clocks.

I still don’t know how they will get that much out of a console, as desktops struggle with this with more power and financial budget. I know there is the usual fixed hardware advantage, but still. Anyway, I guess MS and Sony have to shoot for these to help others sell TVs. Why else would someone replace a perfectly good UHD TV?
The CPU specs are correct, the PS4 just has a GPU a tier above the Xbox One, making up for the difference in GHZ. The Pro is ~2.1, while the X is ~2.3. The Pro has a RX 480 tier, while the X has a unlocked RX 580 with 50% more memory bandwidth.
I agree, getting so much out of so little is impressive.
Posted on Reply
#27
Mussels
Moderprator
ToxicTaZ
Everyone is so 4K Gimmicky right now yet there is no such thing as 4K gaming basically fake hype.

I myself own 2080 NVlink setup and I tell you I can't run 4K properly by no means and it's much faster than Raeon 7 yet some how Navi 10/12 Architecture witch is slower than Radeon 7 is going to run 4K/120fps lol not without dropping graphics down from Ultra to Low settings and most likely Upscaling 2K to 4K tricks as they did with last generation consoles (Upscaling 720p to 1080p) the average consumers don't have a clue what game companies are doing.

You can have your 4K Low Graphics settings gaming.... I'll keep my 3K Ultra Graphics mode @90+fps...... Ultra mode or nothing!!
I dont care about your bragging, but the high res and refresh rates are for 2D playback support such as youtube.
Posted on Reply
#28
Prima.Vera
Mussels
..., but the high res and refresh rates are for 2D playback support such as youtube.
All videos on the tubes are at max 4K@60Fps. And 4K-10bit-HDR can be played even by a stupid phone not to mention a dedicated console.
Posted on Reply
#29
medi01
btarunr
Sony has a slightly different design goal: 4K UHD at 120 Hz, guaranteed
Sony never said or implied that.

ToxicTaZ
it's much faster than Raeon 7
It's faster, but not by much.

ToxicTaZ
yet some how Navi 10/12 Architecture witch is slower than Radeon 7 is going to run 4K/120fps
There are games in which VII handily beats 2080.
That is how console hardware utilization works, vs PC.

Posted on Reply
#30
Mussels
Moderprator
Prima.Vera
All videos on the tubes are at max 4K@60Fps
and these consoles are designed for the next 5+ years, for future tech
Posted on Reply
#31
RoutedScripter
@btarunr For the sake of technical-semantic accuracy because we are on such a site, the "virtual memory" could be changed to "additional memory" or something.

Virtual does not mean pagefile. All memory is virtual, because the applications see only virtual memory, they don't talk directly to RAM physically, only the kernel does or some parts of it.
"Virtual" is a software abstraction term, not a descriptor of the source of the memory. It comes from the term "Virtual Address Space" and that's the index of the pagetable, it's a group of addresses, it's not memory, nor it is necessairly RAM or Disk.

This is very commonly misused term, the windows memory model is one of the most weirdes things ever IMO, their terminology is very very specific and a world of it's own and does not mean what you think it does. The whole idea of them calling RAM physical has also helped this confusion, both disk and RAM are phyical devices and memory gets written on it.

What is infact virtual is something else also called "reserve" AFAIK, where the application reserves memory in the virtual address space that it doesn't immediately need nor use, it may never use it, but it takes that memory away so it appears as if it's used to the end-user and other applications, the OS then manages this to possibly cull this away if another process desperately requires memory, not sure how well is that being done, anyway, the way memory works, all those individual numbers all estimates, if you count all the memory from all working processes together it will not show the number correctly, it's just one weird thing really, memory management has always been such a pain in the ass to understand as an end-user and enthusiasts alike, complicated, but the question is, does it really need to be that complicated, and do the designers of it really know if they're using a proper method or they use 20 year old methods souped up a bit ?

Infact it's microsofts own people misused it, the GUI and PR but mostly various tech news sites used it wrongly, and there's parts of GUI still to this day using wrong terminology, for example the term for Commit Charge in DXDIAG is "Pagefile" ... which is completely wrong.

However I know this is not Windows and it's PS4, however it's still x86-64, I still don't believe the games on it will run in kernel-mode and access the memory physically, even if they did, they wouldn't make another pagetable and call the memory on storage device as "virtual", only if they basically redefine what "virtual" means for them, that could be a possibility, but we should really discern between these contexts then or else it's just all confused.

The term for storage-assisted memory in Windows is ... I actually forgot about it, if there is any generalized one at all, but they referr to memory on disk as "paged out memory" or "paged out to disk"
Posted on Reply
#32
ToxicTaZ
medi01
Sony never said or implied that.


It's faster, but not by much.


There are games in which VII handily beats 2080.
That is how console hardware utilization works, vs PC.


The title of this thread is "Sony PlayStation 5 Promises 4K 120Hz Gaming"

I responded respectively as there is no 4K gaming. You responded as showing me some old AMD PR hype slide like its a fact. Consoles are always under dogs, you can talk all day about an AMD APU some how going to out hardware dedicated graphics card that's not going to happen.

Just keep in mind that AMD is two years behind Nvidia in Graphics. Radeon 7 is 1080Ti performance and two years old.

Nothing special about PS5 that's using under dog Navi architecture. So stop dreaming about true 4K Gaming nonsept your planning on buying a RTX Titan NVlink setup if you're looking for "Sony PlayStation 5 Promises 4K 120Hz Gaming"
Posted on Reply
#33
medi01
ToxicTaZ
I responded respectively as there is no 4K gaming.
That's exactly what PS4 Pro is doing, with two 7850/7870's inside.

I started my post with "Sony never said that".
Let me repeat it: Sony has NEVER SAID next gen games will target 8k at 120Hz.


ToxicTaZ
You responded as showing me some old AMD PR hype slide...
No, I have called out a game in which even "slower" AMD GPU's beat "faster" nvidia GPUs, that is how games created to consoles behave.
That's why you can have stunning graphic running on (slower) 7870:



You and the point:
`

ToxicTaZ
Just keep in mind that AMD is two years behind Nvidia in Graphics.
That's a nonsensical statement bordering idiocity.
AMD doesn't compete in $1300 cards, not having anything that even remotely resembles 754mm2 GPU chips.
It doesn't have to either.

2080 is where sensible with a stretch market ends, and there is where you have AMD presence.

With 5700 XT beating 2070, that is AT LEAST where you roughly can get as far as actual console graphic fidelity goes, NOT IN RAW PERFORMANCE TERMS.
Posted on Reply
#34
enxo218
it shall be made possible with cloud based ai synergised on blockchain technology...
Posted on Reply
#35
danbert2000
Darmok N Jalad
I think you may have some CPU specs mixed up. The PS4 had the faster hardware at launch, and then the Pro/X models scaled above 2.0 GHz, with the X having the edge. The PS4 Pro’s GPU was around that of the RX480 in specs, but with lower clocks.

I still don’t know how they will get that much out of a console, as desktops struggle with this with more power and financial budget. I know there is the usual fixed hardware advantage, but still. Anyway, I guess MS and Sony have to shoot for these to help others sell TVs. Why else would someone replace a perfectly good UHD TV?
The PS4 had faster RAM and more GPU stream processors, but the Xbox One did, in fact, have the faster CPU. They pushed it up to 1.75 GHz late in development to try to make up some of the difference after it came out that the PS4 was going to have the better GPU.
Posted on Reply
#36
rvalencia
medi01
That's exactly what PS4 Pro is doing, with two 7850/7870's inside.

I started my post with "Sony never said that".
Let me repeat it: Sony has NEVER SAID next gen games will target 8k at 120Hz.



No, I have called out a game in which even "slower" AMD GPU's beat "faster" nvidia GPUs, that is how games created to consoles behave.
That's why you can have stunning graphic running on (slower) 7870:



You and the point:`


That's a nonsensical statement bordering idiocity.
AMD doesn't compete in $1300 cards, not having anything that even remotely resembles 754mm2 GPU chips.
It doesn't have to either.

2080 is where sensible with a stretch market ends, and there is where you have AMD presence.

With 5700 XT beating 2070, that is AT LEAST where you roughly can get as far as actual console graphic fidelity goes, NOT IN RAW PERFORMANCE TERMS.
Try Unreal Engine 4 based games which AMD's benchmarks has avoided.

5700 XT is only riving TU106 chip not TU104.
Posted on Reply
#37
medi01
rvalencia
Try Unreal Engine 4 based games which AMD's benchmarks has avoided.
Following which broken logic should I take WORST CASE to figure out what the BEST CASE for consoles is?
Posted on Reply
#38
jabbadap
It's probably just the same setting as Xbox ones have, support for 120Hz output. Current generation Playstations does not support such a output settings at all, which makes ms have one special option over Sony's console.
Posted on Reply
#39
ToxicTaZ
rvalencia
Try Unreal Engine 4 based games which AMD's benchmarks has avoided.

5700 XT is only riving TU106 chip not TU104.
You're 100% right!

Navi 10 is vs TU106

AMD playing catch up for an decade ever since Nvidia released xx80Ti/Titan series AMD has been Graphics Watts Monster in GPUs.

TU104 smokes All Navi 10 and 95% of Vega 20....

As for TU102 lol zero competition

medi01
That's exactly what PS4 Pro is doing, with two 7850/7870's inside.

I started my post with "Sony never said that".
Let me repeat it: Sony has NEVER SAID next gen games will target 8k at 120Hz.



No, I have called out a game in which even "slower" AMD GPU's beat "faster" nvidia GPUs, that is how games created to consoles behave.
That's why you can have stunning graphic running on (slower) 7870:



You and the point:
`


That's a nonsensical statement bordering idiocity.
AMD doesn't compete in $1300 cards, not having anything that even remotely resembles 754mm2 GPU chips.
It doesn't have to either.

2080 is where sensible with a stretch market ends, and there is where you have AMD presence.

With 5700 XT beating 2070, that is AT LEAST where you roughly can get as far as actual console graphic fidelity goes, NOT IN RAW PERFORMANCE TERMS.
You have Zero points as Consoles can't compete with PC Nvidia hardware. Consoles are horrible! All locked in low Graphics settings but hay your running PS5 4K 120Hz right lol

If you think PS4 Pro Graphics was stunning you have no idea about graphics. Low Graphics settings are horrible.

PS5 is no different. Sony is about making money so they put the cheapest Graphics in and sell you Graphics PR hype.... (4K 120Hz Gaming)

4K Gaming is a mith for now.

PS "Super Turing" is coming August

Can you say 2070 Super (TU104) best GPU of the year! Radeon 7 performance at a super low price.
Posted on Reply
#40
king of swag187
Consoles aren't horrible, graphically yes, but they serve a purpose and to try and detract from that is silly.
As for these rumors floating around of "4K 120HZ" wouldn't bet on it in anything other than displaying that, the Xbox One S can ouput 4K and 1080P 120HZ, but does it come close to playing games in either setting? No
Posted on Reply
#41
medi01
What PS4 is doing with slower than 7870 inside:



Sony's exclusives on PS5 will be jaw dropping, even for those, who wasted thousands of bucks on a PC.

ToxicTaZ
AMD playing catch up for an decade
Fury X beat 980Ti at 4k back then, is beating also at 1440p now.
Posted on Reply
#42
ToxicTaZ
medi01
What PS4 is doing with slower than 7870 inside:



Sony's exclusives on PS5 will be jaw dropping, even for those, who wasted thousands of bucks on a PC.


Fury X beat 980Ti at 4k back then, is beating also at 1440p now.
Lol
980Ti hands down is faster than Watts Monster Fury and 390X in1440p

Sony Exclusive is like Nintendo Exclusive.... Every time Nintendo needs money throw out a new Mario Brothers Zelda or Metroid game. Sony needs money so out comes new God of War and so so on.

Consoles are not cheap enough your PS5 Games are expensive.

I was a huge Sony fan back in the day PS1, PS2, PS3 then it got to expensive in watered down games. I owned 30-40 games @$60. Each for each console over 10 years.

PC you get top games cheaper... Steam...sales...Uplay...Origin...Epic...GOG...BATTLE.NET etc etc all have major sales and don't forget about Greenman gaming super cheap games. Yes you pay more for PC but hay you can upgrade it... Where you're Consoles are thrown to the garbage.

I not saying consoles are bad but great for kids that don't have money to buy or knowledge to build a great RIG.
Posted on Reply
#43
Darmok N Jalad
ToxicTaZ
Lol
980Ti hands down is faster than Watts Monster Fury and 390X in1440p

Sony Exclusive is like Nintendo Exclusive.... Every time Nintendo needs money throw out a new Mario Brothers Zelda or Metroid game. Sony needs money so out comes new God of War and so so on.

Consoles are not cheap enough your PS5 Games are expensive.

I was a huge Sony fan back in the day PS1, PS2, PS3 then it got to expensive in watered down games. I owned 30-40 games @$60. Each for each console over 10 years.

PC you get top games cheaper... Steam...sales...Uplay...Origin...Epic...GOG...BATTLE.NET etc etc all have major sales and don't forget about Greenman gaming super cheap games. Yes you pay more for PC but hay you can upgrade it... Where you're Consoles are thrown to the garbage.

I not saying consoles are bad but great for kids that don't have money to buy or knowledge to build a great RIG.
I haven’t paid $60 for a console game in a long time. Sure, if you want a new release right when it comes out, you will pay top dollar, but many games on the consoles can be purchased digitally for considerable discounts after they’ve been out a while. Like Steam, you just have to watch the sales. I usually pay less than $25 for a title.

And let’s not say consoles are for kiddies and poor people. I’m not a kid and I can afford a gaming rig. It’s just not how I want to spend my time and money, but I won’t criticize PC gamers who feel otherwise.
Posted on Reply
#44
medi01
ToxicTaZ
than Watts Monster Fury
Watts monster eh?
How many watt's it is, in terms of % of 980Ti, on enlightened one?


ToxicTaZ
Consoles are not cheap...
They are, but it's not what we are discussing here.
Posted on Reply
#45
Valantar
ToxicTaZ
Lol
980Ti hands down is faster than Watts Monster Fury and 390X in1440p

Sony Exclusive is like Nintendo Exclusive.... Every time Nintendo needs money throw out a new Mario Brothers Zelda or Metroid game. Sony needs money so out comes new God of War and so so on.

Consoles are not cheap enough your PS5 Games are expensive.

I was a huge Sony fan back in the day PS1, PS2, PS3 then it got to expensive in watered down games. I owned 30-40 games @$60. Each for each console over 10 years.

PC you get top games cheaper... Steam...sales...Uplay...Origin...Epic...GOG...BATTLE.NET etc etc all have major sales and don't forget about Greenman gaming super cheap games. Yes you pay more for PC but hay you can upgrade it... Where you're Consoles are thrown to the garbage.

I not saying consoles are bad but great for kids that don't have money to buy or knowledge to build a great RIG.
You're a bit too categorical in your statements here. The 980Ti is generally faster than the Fury X, but not by much, and they're about tied at higher resolutions.

Second, there's no denying the stunning visual quality some console developers manage to squeeze out of relatively underpowered hardware. God of War, mentioned above, looks fantastic even on my base PS4. Sure, games run on my PC can look a good deal better and run at higher resolutions - but it also has a ~6x more powerful GPU and much more powerful CPU. Its cumulative hardware cost is also easily 3-4x what I paid for my PS4. I also tend to buy console games on sale, and rebates can be very significant.

There's no denying that the PC as a gaming platform is generally superior overall (in terms of overall power, openness, flexibility, upgradeability, availability of games), but it also has significant drawbacks (higher requirements for user competency, more expensive, more difficult to fit into a home). Consoles have some significant strengths even if they overall are more limited and less powerful than PCs, and preferring one platform really shouldn't lead ot an outright dismissal of others - that's just silly. PC gaming would never be where it is today if it wasn't for consoles recruiting gamers in the first place.

medi01
Watts monster eh?
How many watt's it is, in terms of % of 980Ti, on enlightened one?
Hey, man, calm down, it's obviously crazy inefficient given that it consumed a grand total of 25W (or 10%) more than the 980 Ti. I mean, that's totally unacceptable. You'd probably have to buy a new PSU with that kind of difference :rolleyes:

/s
Posted on Reply
#46
rvalencia
medi01
What PS4 is doing with slower than 7870 inside:

Sony's exclusives on PS5 will be jaw dropping, even for those, who wasted thousands of bucks on a PC.

Fury X beat 980Ti at 4k back then, is beating also at 1440p now.
1. There's nothing special with single object focus.
2. GTX 980 TI beats Fury X on Unreal Engine 4.

I have MSI 980 Ti Gaming X against R9 Fury X. MSI 980 Ti Gaming X (factory OC performance level similar to GTX 1070, rivals RX Vega 56) beats Fury X.
Posted on Reply
#47
Valantar
rvalencia
1. There's nothing special with single object focus.
2. GTX 980 TI beats Fury X on Unreal Engine 4.

I have MSI 980 Ti Gaming X against R9 Fury X. MSI 980 Ti Gaming X (factory OC performance level similar to GTX 1070, rivals RX Vega 56) beats Fury X.
1: I don't think single object focus is the point, but rather the overall graphical quality of the game. There's no way you'd reach those quality levels at that resolution on a similarly-specced PC.
2: UE generally favors Nvidia (slightly), but the 980Ti is overall slightly faster than the Fury X except for 4k and AMD-favoring use cases. That being said, they're very, very close except for 1080p. OC is something else - you can argue that Nvidia had the advantage due to better OC capability, but OC performance still isn't stock performance, and the vast majority of GPU owners never OC.
Posted on Reply
#48
medi01
rvalencia
1. There's nothing special with single object focus.
2. GTX 980 TI beats Fury X on Unreal Engine 4.
1. Almost nothing special if we ignore 7870 in PS4 beating <insert whatever card you want on PC> in graphic fidelity in Sony exclusives
2. The sun is hot, water is wet. The Moon weights more than me.
Posted on Reply
#49
jabbadap
Bifff consoles and their crappy upscaled graphics. Next you say you love DLSS on it's all glory, or are you some double standard guy that it's OK on consoles but when PC game does that it's next to blasphemy.
Posted on Reply
#50
medi01
jabbadap
DLSS on it's all glory
No thanks, you can keep that piece of crap to yourself.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment