starsmine

So confirmed? YouTubers destroying companies
 
 

yes there is is research about those cycles. No, not a single one of those disputes the current climate crisis. and all that research is valid. HOWEVER

The papers on global warming have been solid and have been solid and consistent since the 70s. There have been no papers that dispute the facts that has been peer reviewed. No this is not a Dogma issue, no this is not a p-hacking issue, no this is not a reproducibility issue. There is no problem with the quality of the papers on global warming. We are not past the point of minimizing damage, because that point even in a hundred years, is always NOW.  The consensus has always been strong on this point. 

The best time to plant a tree was yesterday, the second best time is today. This is the mentality you need to have, yes yesterday was a better time to address the issue, that does not, and has never meant you don't address it today, the second best time. 

you are confusing energy usage with efficiency

Efficiency is watts to solve a problem. 
ARM is NOT more efficient then x86 overall, it only is at sub 5W, but saying that also muddies the waters

If you have a server pulling 1500W to do a petaflop of math
a 1.5W microcomputer has to do more then a teraflop of math to be considered more efficient. If its only doing sub 1 teraflop, the 1500W server is MORE efficient. 

So yes you see Nvidia keep upping the wattage every generation with their server parts, but its doing MORE math. a 1.5x increase of power for a 2.25x increase in math performance is worth it. And cooling has gotten more efficient, and better at using water with new data center practices. 

 
  
All risc chips do µops now as well, 
CISC and RISC chips (other then like one oddball arm core that uses a microwatt that is placed inside HDMI repeaters) are all Out of Order execution, and are superscalar. 

CISC just has well... more instructions, aka the more complicated front end. and thats is the main reason it struggles to compete at sub 1 watt because you cant simplify that. x86 has always done µops even back with the 8086. 
ADD AL, Memory location. 
Is two uops, and was an ASM command on the 8086. 

Its just arm makes me go

LDR R0, Memory location
ADD R1, R1, R0

But ARM I can also do

LDMIA {R0,R3} 
and thats like 8 uops if I had to guess. 

People put to much stock in the RISC/CISC debate. 

Every new version of ARM adds more instructions, "complicating" the front end more, its just far more selective then x86. But that also makes it... so it cant do task accelerated. like there are media decode commands for x86 that make it ASIC like for those kinds of tasks. AKA more efficient then ARM. 

 
  
I would argue you have that backwards, x86 is a master at many things, just not at being generalized. 
The MORE specific the task, the better x86 is then arm. until you get to the point where you want an ASIC. 

ARM generally only has generalized instructions that you have to chain together to do your specific task which is less efficient. 

They were ancient Egyptian farmers.

What the hell are we even talking about here? I feel like someone lost the plot. 

They were ancient Egyptian farmers.

What the hell are we even talking about here? I feel like someone lost the plot. 

huh?

you are confusing energy usage with efficiency

Efficiency is watts to solve a problem. 
ARM is NOT more efficient then x86 overall, it only is at sub 5W, but saying that also muddies the waters

If you have a server pulling 1500W to do a petaflop of math
a 1.5W microcomputer has to do more then a teraflop of math to be considered more efficient. If its only doing sub 1 teraflop, the 1500W server is MORE efficient. 

So yes you see Nvidia keep upping the wattage every generation with their server parts, but its doing MORE math. a 1.5x increase of power for a 2.25x increase in math performance is worth it. And cooling has gotten more efficient, and better at using water with new data center practices. 

 
  
All risc chips do µops now as well, 
CISC and RISC chips (other then like one oddball arm core that uses a microwatt that is placed inside HDMI repeaters) are all Out of Order execution, and are superscalar. 

CISC just has well... more instructions, aka the more complicated front end. and thats is the main reason it struggles to compete at sub 1 watt because you cant simplify that. x86 has always done µops even back with the 8086. 
ADD AL, Memory location. 
Is two uops, and was an ASM command on the 8086. 

Its just arm makes me go

LDR R0, Memory location
ADD R1, R1, R0

But ARM I can also do

LDMIA {R0,R3} 
and thats like 8 uops if I had to guess. 

People put to much stock in the RISC/CISC debate. 

Every new version of ARM adds more instructions, "complicating" the front end more, its just far more selective then x86. But that also makes it... so it cant do task accelerated. like there are media decode commands for x86 that make it ASIC like for those kinds of tasks. AKA more efficient then ARM. 

 
  
I would argue you have that backwards, x86 is a master at many things, just not at being generalized. 
The MORE specific the task, the better x86 is then arm. until you get to the point where you want an ASIC. 

ARM generally only has generalized instructions that you have to chain together to do your specific task which is less efficient. 

They were ancient Egyptian farmers.

What the hell are we even talking about here? I feel like someone lost the plot. 

The Wii U was a totally separate generation. Im confused on bringing that one up. 

ps4 pro and XboneX did just fine as products. I don't think anyone found those to be a disappointment, from consumers to the manufacturers.
 
 
xbox series S was a mistake from the very beginning, it was a poor trap and only had the performance of the previous generation of consoles. Many of the purchasers only bought it because the X was sold out. Supporting the PS5 pro/Xbox series X/PC is great... now you want the devs to demake the game for the xbox series S which has minimal market share, just to be allowed to release on series X? thats a piss take. Switch at least has market share. 

What game on the ps2 was 480p 60fps? literally none, the console was not capable of that for games. It was 480i. aka it only drew half the frame at a time. 
 
the ps5 almost never does 4k 60fps. 
It can run video at that, but not most video games. 

The big selling point for the ps5 pro is going to be the rdna4 RT cores, so more robust RT/the ability to run the games quality mode in 4k60 which was usually 1440p 30fps

Saying the ps5 can do 4k60 is like saying the 360/ps3 can do 1080p 60... Which is true. but also you can count on your hands the games that did that.

not that I have looked into this one. But you absolutely can confirm specs before an official announcement. 

huh?

Purely compatibility reasons. yes, zen4 can run everything zen 2 can, but not at the same timings for all commands. Its supposed to be a ps5 still, not a ps6. Compatablilty when making a pro version of a console is the number one priority. 

IMO the only thing I personally want out of the ps5 pro is HDR10+ and Dolby HDR support. 

 
  
there is a user accessable m.2 slot that you can put in more storage. It has no proprietary lock like the xbox has. 

The Wii U was a totally separate generation. Im confused on bringing that one up. 

ps4 pro and XboneX did just fine as products. I don't think anyone found those to be a disappointment, from consumers to the manufacturers.
 
 
xbox series S was a mistake from the very beginning, it was a poor trap and only had the performance of the previous generation of consoles. Many of the purchasers only bought it because the X was sold out. Supporting the PS5 pro/Xbox series X/PC is great... now you want the devs to demake the game for the xbox series S which has minimal market share, just to be allowed to release on series X? thats a piss take. Switch at least has market share. 

the logic does not apply, its not a new gen, the market share is on the PS5/Xbox series X/PC still. No one wants to make an exclusive for hardware with such small market share and expects to make a profitable game.  
 
Neither PS4pro, xbonex, nor other times this has happened like with the DSi have devs decided that they will not want to support the regular versions. The new versions allow the home user to play the same games at higher resolutions at more stable frame rates. 

Purely compatibility reasons. yes, zen4 can run everything zen 2 can, but not at the same timings for all commands. Its supposed to be a ps5 still, not a ps6. Compatablilty when making a pro version of a console is the number one priority. 

IMO the only thing I personally want out of the ps5 pro is HDR10+ and Dolby HDR support. 

 
  
there is a user accessable m.2 slot that you can put in more storage. It has no proprietary lock like the xbox has. 

Purely compatibility reasons. yes, zen4 can run everything zen 2 can, but not at the same timings for all commands. Its supposed to be a ps5 still, not a ps6. Compatablilty when making a pro version of a console is the number one priority. 

IMO the only thing I personally want out of the ps5 pro is HDR10+ and Dolby HDR support. 

 
  
there is a user accessable m.2 slot that you can put in more storage. It has no proprietary lock like the xbox has. 

Purely compatibility reasons. yes, zen4 can run everything zen 2 can, but not at the same timings for all commands. Its supposed to be a ps5 still, not a ps6. Compatablilty when making a pro version of a console is the number one priority. 

IMO the only thing I personally want out of the ps5 pro is HDR10+ and Dolby HDR support. 

 
  
there is a user accessable m.2 slot that you can put in more storage. It has no proprietary lock like the xbox has. 

you are confusing energy usage with efficiency

Efficiency is watts to solve a problem. 
ARM is NOT more efficient then x86 overall, it only is at sub 5W, but saying that also muddies the waters

If you have a server pulling 1500W to do a petaflop of math
a 1.5W microcomputer has to do more then a teraflop of math to be considered more efficient. If its only doing sub 1 teraflop, the 1500W server is MORE efficient. 

So yes you see Nvidia keep upping the wattage every generation with their server parts, but its doing MORE math. a 1.5x increase of power for a 2.25x increase in math performance is worth it. And cooling has gotten more efficient, and better at using water with new data center practices. 

 
  
All risc chips do µops now as well, 
CISC and RISC chips (other then like one oddball arm core that uses a microwatt that is placed inside HDMI repeaters) are all Out of Order execution, and are superscalar. 

CISC just has well... more instructions, aka the more complicated front end. and thats is the main reason it struggles to compete at sub 1 watt because you cant simplify that. x86 has always done µops even back with the 8086. 
ADD AL, Memory location. 
Is two uops, and was an ASM command on the 8086. 

Its just arm makes me go

LDR R0, Memory location
ADD R1, R1, R0

But ARM I can also do

LDMIA {R0,R3} 
and thats like 8 uops if I had to guess. 

People put to much stock in the RISC/CISC debate. 

Every new version of ARM adds more instructions, "complicating" the front end more, its just far more selective then x86. But that also makes it... so it cant do task accelerated. like there are media decode commands for x86 that make it ASIC like for those kinds of tasks. AKA more efficient then ARM. 

 
  
I would argue you have that backwards, x86 is a master at many things, just not at being generalized. 
The MORE specific the task, the better x86 is then arm. until you get to the point where you want an ASIC. 

ARM generally only has generalized instructions that you have to chain together to do your specific task which is less efficient. 

Purely compatibility reasons. yes, zen4 can run everything zen 2 can, but not at the same timings for all commands. Its supposed to be a ps5 still, not a ps6. Compatablilty when making a pro version of a console is the number one priority. 

IMO the only thing I personally want out of the ps5 pro is HDR10+ and Dolby HDR support. 

 
  
there is a user accessable m.2 slot that you can put in more storage. It has no proprietary lock like the xbox has. 

you are confusing energy usage with efficiency

Efficiency is watts to solve a problem. 
ARM is NOT more efficient then x86 overall, it only is at sub 5W, but saying that also muddies the waters

If you have a server pulling 1500W to do a petaflop of math
a 1.5W microcomputer has to do more then a teraflop of math to be considered more efficient. If its only doing sub 1 teraflop, the 1500W server is MORE efficient. 

So yes you see Nvidia keep upping the wattage every generation with their server parts, but its doing MORE math. a 1.5x increase of power for a 2.25x increase in math performance is worth it. And cooling has gotten more efficient, and better at using water with new data center practices. 

 
  
All risc chips do µops now as well, 
CISC and RISC chips (other then like one oddball arm core that uses a microwatt that is placed inside HDMI repeaters) are all Out of Order execution, and are superscalar. 

CISC just has well... more instructions, aka the more complicated front end. and thats is the main reason it struggles to compete at sub 1 watt because you cant simplify that. x86 has always done µops even back with the 8086. 
ADD AL, Memory location. 
Is two uops, and was an ASM command on the 8086. 

Its just arm makes me go

LDR R0, Memory location
ADD R1, R1, R0

But ARM I can also do

LDMIA {R0,R3} 
and thats like 8 uops if I had to guess. 

People put to much stock in the RISC/CISC debate. 

Every new version of ARM adds more instructions, "complicating" the front end more, its just far more selective then x86. But that also makes it... so it cant do task accelerated. like there are media decode commands for x86 that make it ASIC like for those kinds of tasks. AKA more efficient then ARM. 

 
  
I would argue you have that backwards, x86 is a master at many things, just not at being generalized. 
The MORE specific the task, the better x86 is then arm. until you get to the point where you want an ASIC. 

ARM generally only has generalized instructions that you have to chain together to do your specific task which is less efficient. 

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

Or even uncomfortable. Like every time I go to a place heated up to 25ºC in winter, when we're all coming from the streets with warm clothes, and then find it cool down to 17ºC in the summer, when people arrive in shorts...

If anything we need more air conditioning systems, in the form of reversible heat pumps. A cold climate air source heat pump is 3 to 5 times more efficient than resistive electric heating. Even high efficiency condensing gas furnaces are less efficient than a heat pump running off electricity generated by that same fuel in a power plant.
 
Those roll-around portable air conditioners and window units at the big-box store are bronze age tech in comparison.

you are confusing energy usage with efficiency

Efficiency is watts to solve a problem. 
ARM is NOT more efficient then x86 overall, it only is at sub 5W, but saying that also muddies the waters

If you have a server pulling 1500W to do a petaflop of math
a 1.5W microcomputer has to do more then a teraflop of math to be considered more efficient. If its only doing sub 1 teraflop, the 1500W server is MORE efficient. 

So yes you see Nvidia keep upping the wattage every generation with their server parts, but its doing MORE math. a 1.5x increase of power for a 2.25x increase in math performance is worth it. And cooling has gotten more efficient, and better at using water with new data center practices. 

 
  
All risc chips do µops now as well, 
CISC and RISC chips (other then like one oddball arm core that uses a microwatt that is placed inside HDMI repeaters) are all Out of Order execution, and are superscalar. 

CISC just has well... more instructions, aka the more complicated front end. and thats is the main reason it struggles to compete at sub 1 watt because you cant simplify that. x86 has always done µops even back with the 8086. 
ADD AL, Memory location. 
Is two uops, and was an ASM command on the 8086. 

Its just arm makes me go

LDR R0, Memory location
ADD R1, R1, R0

But ARM I can also do

LDMIA {R0,R3} 
and thats like 8 uops if I had to guess. 

People put to much stock in the RISC/CISC debate. 

Every new version of ARM adds more instructions, "complicating" the front end more, its just far more selective then x86. But that also makes it... so it cant do task accelerated. like there are media decode commands for x86 that make it ASIC like for those kinds of tasks. AKA more efficient then ARM. 

 
  
I would argue you have that backwards, x86 is a master at many things, just not at being generalized. 
The MORE specific the task, the better x86 is then arm. until you get to the point where you want an ASIC. 

ARM generally only has generalized instructions that you have to chain together to do your specific task which is less efficient.