• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Sony Reveals PS5 Hardware: RDNA2 Raytracing, 16 GB GDDR6, 6 GB/s SSD, 2304 GPU Cores

16GB GDDR6 ram, whats the current market price on that? GPU, CPU, psu, controllers, SSD size? etc.

Random guess $550 US$ at least


GPU and CPU is one chip, it's an APU. No RAM, only the GDDR6 chips and large SSD.

But I agree, Sony needs healthy profit margins because it's not sustainable to sell at a loss all the time. They have other struggling divisions, too.

PS4 was much inferior technologically, so yes, it was quite normal to be cheaper.
 
It's hard to get too excited about consoles that won't hit the market until the end of the year, but good to see both ray tracing and VRS are a thang in all our futures.
 
Anyone know when Nintendo will complete the trifecta of trash that will hobble games for the next decade?

On PC, a SATA SSD is faster in gaming than a PCIe NVMe SSD.

wat
 

1584571478490.png


 
To expand storage you can use regular m2-nvme-ssd's.

It's about the farthest thing from a regular m2. You'll need some currently non-existent gen 4 ssd that's faster than the internal drive and it will have to sustain that performance. Gen 4 drives have been terrible at sustained performance so far. I doubt the new wave of gen 4 controllers will be any better at that.
 
But, will the PS5 have Knack 3? All this hardware and no Knack 3?!
 
Same, yet so different. It's strange that Sony has put so much importance on storage and the SSD, while having what appears to be a much weaker GPU, compared to Microsoft. I guess it's possible that Sony's API (Vulcan?) is more efficient than DirectX, so they don't need as much raw GPU power?
DirectX12 and Vulkan are practically identical, PlayStations have used their own Gnm, which is equally low level as the other two. I'm guessing Sony considers latency and loading times an important part of the gaming experience, at least more than Microsoft does.
 
Sony going with variable clocks at least from my point of view means developers can't depend on those max clocks in all scenarios whether that be power draw or someone sitting in a 30c room vs a 20c room.

it adds a variable to development that doesn't exist on the other console.
Oh, I see. Cerny said temperature won't be a factor to the variable frequency, only workloads, so different ambient temperatures will get the same performance. And he didn't expect them to drop by much, in any case.

Eurogamer said:
It's really important to clarify the PlayStation 5's use of variable frequencies. It's called 'boost' but it should not be compared with similarly named technologies found in smartphones, or even PC components like CPUs and GPUs. There, peak performance is tied directly to thermal headroom, so in higher temperature environments, gaming frame-rates can be lower - sometimes a lot lower. This is entirely at odds with expectations from a console, where we expect all machines to deliver the exact same performance. To be abundantly clear from the outset, PlayStation 5 is not boosting clocks in this way. According to Sony, all PS5 consoles process the same workloads with the same performance level in any environment, no matter what the ambient temperature may be.

So how does boost work in this case? Put simply, the PlayStation 5 is given a set power budget tied to the thermal limits of the cooling assembly. "It's a completely different paradigm," says Cerny. "Rather than running at constant frequency and letting the power vary based on the workload, we run at essentially constant power and let the frequency vary based on the workload."
 
Well Here comes RDNA RT to PC...
 
Bah!

Bah!

Apple style SSDs are evil douche moves.
 
RTX 2080 is now the lowest level of performance @ cheap prices from here on out. I wouldn't buy any graphics card today that doesn't exceed that performance with RT capability. Facts.
 
Funny thing is, AMD had 3D audio a LONG time ago... kicker is, hardly NOBODY EVER USED IT!

It was called AMD TrueAudio. From back in 2013!

Then the newer one was called TrueAudio Next.

A new version of TrueAudio, TrueAudio Next, was released with the AMD Radeon 400 series GPUs. TrueAudio Next utilizes the GPU to simulate audio physics.
 
Same here PS5 regardless for me... I personally just like the route at a hardware level Microsoft took. At the end of the day only one of them plays Playstation exclusives so that will be my choice.


Sony going with variable clocks at least from my point of view means developers can't depend on those max clocks in all scenarios whether that be power draw or someone sitting in a 30c room vs a 20c room.

it adds a variable to development that doesn't exist on the other console.

the variable clock also means we are open to stuttering and screen tearing. one benefit consoles have over PC is that everything is a smooth solid experience, until now anyway. I'm leaning towards not buying any console and just getting a rtx 3080 ti and going balls to the wall PC
 
16GB GDDR6 ram, whats the current market price on that? GPU, CPU, psu, controllers, SSD size? etc.

Random guess $550 US$ at least
Sony can't sell this at anything below $500 (or just a cent under that) unless they're willing to take massive losses on the BOM. The SSD itself is top of the line & will cost a pretty penny,
 
The big difference is 36cu PS5 vs 52cu on the Series X.
 
You can't know this. Xbox has 10 GB VRAM + 6 GB system RAM, while normal PCs go ****today**** with 16 GB system RAM and 8 GB VRAM.
It will be particularly interesting to see these consoles in 3-4 years when the games will become more demanding for hardware resources.

12 vs 10.3 is not much of a difference, especially when you have a locked FPS at 60 or so.
do you really believe the PS5 gpu running at 2.23ghz core clock. I don't believe it. PS5 actual 9TF. I'm buying an XSX.
 
Sony can't sell this at anything below $500 (or just a cent under that) unless they're willing to take massive losses on the BOM. The SSD itself is top of the line & will cost a pretty penny,
Since it's a "custom SSD", Sony can always replace it with something cheaper. As long as it offers the same interface and performance - no one is going to complain.
And it's still almost a year until these consoles hit the shelves.

The expensive 7nm CPU/GPU is what really pushes the price up - and the impact is and will remain larger in the Xbox.
 
So Xbox is faster. Maybe Sony is making room for PS5 Pro at some point? Never underestimate the marketing :)
 
It is a certainty, expect 5, 3nm shrinks every 2 -3 years, PS5 pro, slim, and up to 4608 enabled of 5120 total. PS6 in 2027.
 
do you really believe the PS5 gpu running at 2.23ghz core clock. I don't believe it. PS5 actual 9TF. I'm buying an XSX.
Yes, because lying to everyone and them being found out about during early reviews would be a great idea. /s
 
I wonder why sony choosen for a 825GB model SSD while MS has a 1TB model. Is it perhaps due to overprovisioning and sony wanting to have the SSD a longer life then Microsoft wants?

Many of the tech details are just AMD IP. A Zen+ chip with a RDNA2 feature set GPU. Nothing special.

But it's good for AMD in this as well; its bound to sell millions of consoles with their hardware inside of it. The whole gaming ecosystem will be based upon AMD hardware.
 
Back
Top