PS5 Specs

[SteveGrabowski0]

14 hours ago, moderategamer said:

There's a very strong possibility it will have PS4 compatibility as the architectures will be the same, they're all basically pc's now 

Sony will probably still sell the games as "PS4 Classics" though. They'd much rather have you buy your old games again than have XBox style backwards compatibility. It's why I'm hoping Microsoft buys EA and PUBG and makes them XBox/Windows exclusives to put some pressure on Sony to force them to add things like free BC or perhaps making PS Plus and XBox Games Pass type service. 

[moderategamer]

1 minute ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Sony will probably still sell the games as "PS4 Classics" though. They'd much rather have you buy your old games again than have XBox style backwards compatibility. It's why I'm hoping Microsoft buys EA and PUBG and makes them XBox/Windows exclusives to put some pressure on Sony to force them to add things like free BC or perhaps making PS Plus and XBox Games Pass type service. 

Ha you're probably right there Sony does like to make money. I would hate it if Microsoft bought EA, Pretty much the only game I play is Battlefield. If they did buy EA they would probably acquire Dice in the purchase and then Battlefield would be as good as dead. 

[Noctua_Boy]

15 hours ago, 48Hz said:

Ryzen APU with Vega. Probably a lot more memory (16GB minimum, no HBM or HBM2). Storage will most likely be 5.6k RPM laptop drives still, most likely 1TB or 2TB.

 

Even if Zen+ is out, it's much cheaper to sell older parts.

The sad thing is , you are probably right. Im reminiscent of the era when consoles would have the brand new tech out of the box , like when the saturn/psx/n64  had 3d graphics way before it was popular on PCs or when the x360 had the 1st GPU with unified shaders etc....

We all know they were losing money on the hardware side and made it up on the software end. The xbox 360 and PS3 were pretty much the last consoles to use that strategy.

Now , They are selling it a slight  profit , but we all saw what happened , the hardware was pretty modest and within 2 to 3 years was already showing signs of age , enter ps4 pro and xbox one x.

 I was hopping for :

 

• Zen CPU( any zen core would be a massive improvement over the current Jaguar)
• New Radeon architecture(not GNC) - i believe this would give the console longer longevity.
• 16GB of HBM3 ( low cost solution set to be released around 2019 , it should come closer to GDDR5 in price)
• 1TB hybrid Hard Drive (best bang for the buck , xbox one x already uses it)

 

The HBM3 Memory would be key to save energy and space inside the console. Nice compact design , tons of bandwidth.

 

 

 

 

[Noctua_Boy]

8 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Whoelse is willing and able to make a high performance CPU and GPU Design for anyone with the money for it??

There is no Alternative to AMD...

 

My Guess would be an 8core Ryzen with somewhat around 2,5GHz (+/- 0,5GHz) and something around 2560 Vega Shader...

If they use HBM2 or not is a good question. Depends on the Price for 16GiB...

 

And you can also assume a 1TB 2,5" Drive for the Basic Model...

 

The only question remaining is if they will still put an optical drive inside or not...

Its entirely possible that they go back to Flashcards (although they were Masked ROMs at the time meaning hardwired in production, though Sony never used ROM Cartridges ever for a stationary console)...

 

 

Although this is very unlikely to happen , Intel is working on their own discrete graphics and just launched an "APU" style chip with HMB Memory (using radeon gpus).

Nvidia collaborated with Nintendo for the swtich.

 Ryzen 2+ will be 7nm , i wouldn't be surprised if it clocks all the way to 4GHZ. (dev choice)

hbm 2 costs a lot however HBM3 is meant as a cost effective solution and makes sense in a console to keep the design compact and save energy.

Unless internet gets faster and/or games get more compact i dont see them ditching the Blu Ray discs anytime soon. You can dump up to 128gb of data on a disc for a few cents , versus dollars for a 64gb flash card.

Some games are pushing over 50gb already. (blame 4k assets)

Flash cards Make sense in the switch because the games are smaller and its a portable console.

 

 

 

[Noctua_Boy]

7 hours ago, MrTiC said:

4K60fps MIN performance with SSD based storage a la memory cards ( basically a hot swap SSD system )

At around 599-699 euro 

 Anything over $399 is a hard sale on the console business. Said some people pay up $800+ a year to have a shinny new phone , so why not pay the same for a console that will last you for  years? iM Playing devils advocate on this one.

 

 

[Noctua_Boy]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Sony will probably still sell the games as "PS4 Classics" though. They'd much rather have you buy your old games again than have XBox style backwards compatibility. It's why I'm hoping Microsoft buys EA and PUBG and makes them XBox/Windows exclusives to put some pressure on Sony to force them to add things like free BC or perhaps making PS Plus and XBox Games Pass type service. 

Sony is not going to let Microsoft make a silly advert inserting a xbox one game inside an xbox "two" and plays straight out of the box.  (they will do that believe me)

Its X86 architecture after all.

 

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

17 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

Although this is very unlikely to happen , Intel is working on their own discrete graphics and just launched an "APU" style chip with HMB Memory (using radeon gpus).

They put a not (yet?) released VEGA GPU on a package with 1 slice of HBM.

And Intel Graphics so far are utter garbage. Bad drivers, need about double the DIE Size for the same performance. 

Just look at how the new Ryzen mobile with VEGA Graphics performs against the Intels...

 

17 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

Nvidia collaborated with Nintendo for the swtich.

Nintendo bought an off the shelves chip from nVidia.

 

17 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

 Ryzen 2+ will be 7nm , i wouldn't be surprised if it clocks all the way to 4GHZ.

Higher clockrates = less efficiency.

And right now we are talking about 1.6GHz Cores that are less performant right now.

Upgrading to a normal ryzen with moderate clockspeeds (to keep the TDP Low) already would be a huge improvement...

 

With everything you do, you have to think about thermals and Power Budget. YOu don't want to do another 350W console. That's just silly.

 

17 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

hbm 2 costs a lot however HBM3 is meant as a cost effective solution and makes sense in a console to keep the design compact and save energy.

HBM2 doesn't cost that much.

What's expensive is the Interposer stuff.

 

And its more energy efficient due to shorter traces that only need to be on package wich means you could increase the clock speeds of the Chip a bit.

And also makes the PCB Design much simpler...

17 minutes ago, Noctua_Boy said:

Unless internet gets faster and/or games get more compact i dont see them ditching the Blu Ray discs anytime soon. You can dump up to 128gb of data on a disc for a few cents , versus dollars for a 64gb flash card.

Just look at the Size of the drive and how much space it consumes in a  modern console.

 

The worst examples are Wii Mini and WiiU. Both are designed around the drive (more or less)...

[Noctua_Boy]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

They put a not (yet?) released VEGA GPU on a package with 1 slice of HBM.

And Intel Graphics so far are utter garbage. Bad drivers, need about double the DIE Size for the same performance. 

Just look at how the new Ryzen mobile with VEGA Graphics performs against the Intels...

 

Nintendo bought an off the shelves chip from nVidia.

 

Higher clockrates = less efficiency.

And right now we are talking about 1.6GHz Cores that are less performant right now.

Upgrading to a normal ryzen with moderate clockspeeds (to keep the TDP Low) already would be a huge improvement...

 

With everything you do, you have to think about thermals and Power Budget. YOu don't want to do another 350W console. That's just silly.

 

HBM2 doesn't cost that much.

What's expensive is the Interposer stuff.

 

And its more energy efficient due to shorter traces that only need to be on package wich means you could increase the clock speeds of the Chip a bit.

And also makes the PCB Design much simpler...

Just look at the Size of the drive and how much space it consumes in a  modern console.

 

The worst examples are Wii Mini and WiiU. Both are designed around the drive (more or less)...

Intel hired Raja Koduri (ex Radeon) to lead the way into making a brand new GPU architecture.

Forget the current Intel HD chips , they are after GTX 1060 GPU performance , so that they can Include this on Laptops and cut off Nvidia/AMD from the deal. (Think Apple Pro Laptops/IMacs , midrange gaming laptops , low end APU sales , etc...).

Also GPU are playing a role on other frontiers such as  deep learning , they obviously want to jump in the bandwagon.

The Current VEGA+INTEL+HBM Solution already matches a GTX 1050 discrete card , its a good sign.

 

Yes Nintendo bought NVdia's shelf hardware , but  its not like they cant do it like AMD. If the money was right im pretty sure both Intel and Nvidia would get on the custom console chip business again. Al trough the the original xbox had pretty much off the shelf parts with litle mods , same with the rsx for the PS3 , they had to allocate resources at some point for that.

Both are leaders on their sectors , my guess is that the money was not worth it them moving resources over this time around.

AMD on the other side is the underdog with a lot to prove , it does help that they already had APU's on the market and been talking about the concept since 2009.

 

Zen 2+ will be built on 7nm , my guess is that it will have a considerable lower TDP at 4ghz than the current Zen. I didnt say that 4Ghz is a must , i was simply contemplating how far they could push this on a dynamic basis on a console.

Im very aware that typically 250w TDP is the sweet spot for this machines.

Zen(ONE) has over 40% IPC gain over the current consoles. Devs would be happy because this Is a constant source of complains.

 Belive it or not  the current console cpus are actually weaker than the last gen. (although easier to program)

You are absolutely right , even  at 1.6ghz a ZEN cpu running would be miles ahead of anything Jaguar has to offer.

 

Im probably not as informed as you on the underlings of what makes up the cost of HBM2 integration , however its considerate enough that is not mainstream yet. (classic manufacturing scaling cost dilemma).

I read an article on arstecnica about companies  working to reduce the cost on the upcoming HBM3. Here it is hbm3-details-price-bandwidth

 

Would be sweet to have 64GB flash card games , pop it in and you are ready to go.(just like the good old days). That would bring the convineince factor back to the consoles. Nowadays its easier to download a game from steam instead of waiting for a massive slow disc to transfer data to slow laptop grade Hard drive , lets not forget the out of the box necessary updates.

Yes i said it , PC are more convenient than consoles. In a way PCs are the new consoles. LOL With the added benefit of free online multiplay and 120fps(on older titles).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nedkely]

Since Sony is one of the HSA founder along with AMD, they will probably implement a fully supported HSA chip, along with that 3d vram technology samsung is inventing. 

 

It will exceed the todays 1080ti in games, simply because HSA chips are clear superior to the homonogeus systems we have in PC now.

Second gen ryzen is the sight of that. 

[skywake]

I honestly don't think it'll be as simple as the PS5 being to the PS4 what the PS4 was to the PS3. IMO trends in tech and gaming mean that they can't just make a PS5 that's the same thing but higher spec especially if they're going to call it "PS5". If that's all they're doing they should just adopt the Apple model, as they kinda already have, and release hardware revisions with improved spec that have full compatibility. Which might be the route they go.

 

At the same time there are a few things which have been happening over the last ten years that are changing what makes sense. For optical media, if they're still going physical media, games aren't getting bigger faster than the rate that cartridges are. There are BDXL disks that are ~100GB which a PS5 could use as a step up from the 50GB disks currently used for games. But a console like the Switch has 32GB cartridges and that sort of ROM chip is only going to get cheaper. If they went back to cartridges they'd be able to make a quieter and smaller console that loads games quicker. By the time a PS5 would likely launch, and we're at least a couple of years away, the price advantage of optical media will shrink so it might not make much sense anymore.

 

Then there's the fact that higher spec hardware doesn't have as much of an impact as it used to. We're currently in the transition to 4K and there are GPUs on the market that can already handle the hardest to run games at 4K with decent framerates. It also seems unlikely that video resolutions above 4K will become the standard given the limitations of human vision. At the same time we're increasingly seeing component manufacturers push for lower power consumption more than they're pushing for more horsepower. 

Does this mean I think the PS5 will be more like the Switch than the PS4? Well maybe, maybe not. But whatever it is I don't think it'll blow away whatever PC hardware is out at the time. I don't think it'll be using optical disks anymore for games, it'll either be download only or cartridges. And I think if it's not a hybrid like the Switch it'll at least be something more along the lines of the form factor of a large Intel NUC than a small HTPC case.

[Monkey Dust]

Now they are just PCs at heart, I'm going to guess that both the PS5 and the XBox whatever will just be more powerful version of what they are now. AMD APU, as AMD is still the only company who can combine x86 and a powerful GPU on one chip, necessary for consoles compact form factor. Optical drives will stick around because disks are still a very cheap way of distributing, and storing, large amounts of data. SSDs probably won't appear across the range, but possibly available as an option.

 

Freesync support could be the big thing with the next generation, and lead to Freesync over HDMI TVs. The next gen consoles will likely struggle with 4K, especially if they are released within the next couple of years, so Freesync could really help compensate for that. I suspect that many games won't natively run at 4K though.

 

Mouse and keyboard support from launch would be good for certain games, and lead to better interfaces for some PC ports. Also being able to control the console from your phone when it is on media centre duties would be useful too.

   

[skywake]

13 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Optical drives will stick around because disks are still a very cheap way of distributing, and storing, large amounts of data.   

Well optical media is inferior to cartridges in every way except the $/GB. I'd note that during the N64 days when cartridges had their last stand (outside of portables) you paid tens of dollars more for N64 games that were an order of magnitude smaller than a CD. It's not at parity and it never will be but we're now at the point where a Switch cartridge is cheap enough that they are about the same price as equivalent PS4/XBOne releases and they're ~16GB cartridges, ~1/3rd of the size of a 50GB BluRay. If size, performance and noise matter at all and digital distribution doesn't take over entirely I think the days of optical media for games are numbered.

 

Same deal with HDDs vs SSDs in consoles. Looking at the internet archive when the PS4 launched a 1TB 2.5" HDD was about 20% more expensive than it is now. If that. But SSDs have effectively halved in price. They're still about 4x more expensive per GB but they're certainly catching up, especially in that form factor. Given the drop in prices and how much of an impact an SSD has on general performance I'd be really surprised if the next generation of consoles don't have SSDs. If not entirely at least as a boot drive and smart cache for the most commonly loaded games/assets.

[Monkey Dust]

Just now, skywake said:

Well optical media is inferior to cartridges in every way except the $/GB. I'd note that during the N64 days when cartridges had their last stand (outside of portables) you paid tens of dollars more for N64 games that were an order of magnitude smaller than a CD. It's not at parity and it never will be but we're now at the point where a Switch cartridge is cheap enough that they are about the same price as equivalent PS4/XBOne releases and they're ~16GB cartridges, ~1/3rd of the size of a 50GB BluRay. If size, performance and noise matter at all and digital distribution doesn't take over entirely I think the days of optical media for games are numbered.

 

Same deal with HDDs vs SSDs in consoles. Looking at the internet archive when the PS4 launched a 1TB 2.5" HDD was about 20% more expensive than it is now. If that. But SSDs have effectively halved in price. They're still about 4x more expensive per GB but they're certainly catching up, especially in that form factor. Given the drop in prices and how much of an impact an SSD has on general performance I'd be really surprised if the next generation of consoles don't have SSDs. If not entirely at least as a boot drive and smart cache for the most commonly loaded games/assets.

I take your points, but I think we are close enough to the next gen for optical media and HDDs to hang on this time. Consoles are very aggressively priced for their performance, economies have to be made somewhere. The PS7 generation could well go cartridge and SSD, but I think both are too expensive this time around.

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, skywake said:

Same deal with HDDs vs SSDs in consoles. Looking at the internet archive when the PS4 launched a 1TB 2.5" HDD was about 20% more expensive than it is now. If that. But SSDs have effectively halved in price. They're still about 4x more expensive per GB but they're certainly catching up, especially in that form factor. Given the drop in prices and how much of an impact an SSD has on general performance I'd be really surprised if the next generation of consoles don't have SSDs. If not entirely at least as a boot drive and smart cache for the most commonly loaded games/assets.

An SSD in next gen consoles that aren't too far off in time is a ridiculous idea, as consoles are extremely price elastic. SSDs are more like six times the price per GB when you compare a 1TB SSD vs a 1TB HDD on pcpartpicker, and a 1TB SSD should really be viewed as a 910GB SSD since you need 9% of the space for overprovisioning. So it's really more like 6.5x the price per GB for SSD over HDD. Who in his right mind wants a console with an SSD more expensive than the cpu+gpu?

[skywake]

7 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

An SSD in next gen consoles that aren't too far off in time is a ridiculous idea, as consoles are extremely price elastic. SSDs are more like six times the price per GB when you compare a 1TB SSD vs a 1TB HDD on pcpartpicker, and a 1TB SSD should really be viewed as a 910GB SSD since you need 9% of the space for overprovisioning. So it's really more like 6.5x the price per GB for SSD over HDD. Who in his right mind wants a console with an SSD more expensive than the cpu+gpu?

I didn't say 1TB and I'm not talking about 2018 prices....

[SteveGrabowski0]

14 minutes ago, skywake said:

I didn't say 1TB and I'm not talking about 2018 prices....

They have steadily gone up in price over the last two years and 1TB is the new standard for consoles in the days of 100GB games. It would be stupid for Sony or Microsoft to jack up the prices on their consoles just to add SSDs, as they're nowhere close to HDDs on cost per GB and aren't catching up at all yet. If you want an SSD in your console you're free to go buy one and install it in a PS4. Nobody wants to go back to $600 consoles.

[skywake]

11 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

They have steadily gone up in price over the last two years and 1TB is the new standard for consoles in the days of 100GB games. It would be stupid for Sony or Microsoft to jack up the prices on their consoles just to add SSDs, as they're nowhere close to HDDs on cost per GB and aren't catching up at all yet. If you want an SSD in your console you're free to go buy one and install it in a PS4. Nobody wants to go back to $600 consoles.

Again, we're talking at least 2020 and probably closer to 2022 so I wouldn't make guesses based on today's prices. And even if being entirely SSD based doesn't make sense at that point it, and it might not, it will make sense to put the OS and commonly used apps on one. So one way or another I think they'll have an SSD of some kind in their next console. Every year it makes less sense that they haven't gone down that road yet.

 

Lastly I don't think they're using 1TB HDDs now because of the size of games. They're using 1TB HDDs because 500GB HDDs aren't much cheaper because there's a price floor for HDDs where there isn't for SSDs. At retail pricing a similar spec SSD that's twice as big costs about 1.5x as much regardless of capacity. For HDDs at the lowest capacities a HDD that's twice as big pretty much costs the same. Currently for 2.5" drives 500GB is that price floor, soon 1TB drives will be there.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 hours ago, skywake said:

Again, we're talking at least 2020 and probably closer to 2022 so I wouldn't make guesses based on today's prices. And even if being entirely SSD based doesn't make sense at that point it, and it might not, it will make sense to put the OS and commonly used apps on one. So one way or another I think they'll have an SSD of some kind in their next console. Every year it makes less sense that they haven't gone down that road yet.

 

Lastly I don't think they're using 1TB HDDs now because of the size of games. They're using 1TB HDDs because 500GB HDDs aren't much cheaper because there's a price floor for HDDs where there isn't for SSDs. At retail pricing a similar spec SSD that's twice as big costs about 1.5x as much regardless of capacity. For HDDs at the lowest capacities a HDD that's twice as big pretty much costs the same. Currently for 2.5" drives 500GB is that price floor, soon 1TB drives will be there.

I'm expecting more like 2020. I bet we see the next gen not too long after 7nm since that would give the ability for a big generational jump from OG P4/XB1 while being able to hit a $400 price point. Then they could actually have 4k/30 consoles. I don't see the point of wasting money on a small SSD like you would on a computer. No one cares about launching Photoshop or Chrome quickly on their console. The only reason to have an SSD in your console is to launch games more quickly, and then you're talking about 1TB minimum.

[KazuMae]

Seriously.. sony should start backwards compatibility. PS4 is not even at the end of its life yet.. People who bought PS4 PRO are gonna be so pissed if PS5 released too soon.

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, KazuMae said:

Seriously.. sony should start backwards compatibility. PS4 is not even at the end of its life yet.. People who bought PS4 PRO are gonna be so pissed if PS5 released too soon.

Sony wants you to subscribe to Playstation Now, so don't hold your breath for BC in the PS5. The only thing that could force Sony's hand on putting BC in is if Switch starts dominating the generation. But with so many PS4 already sold I can't see that happening. People are going to still be buying PS4 games like crazy as long as this gen goes.

[Stefan Payne]

7 hours ago, KazuMae said:

Seriously.. sony should start backwards compatibility. PS4 is not even at the end of its life yet.. People who bought PS4 PRO are gonna be so pissed if PS5 released too soon.

Now it is possible.
Back in the day it didn't really made sense as you could get better options from different architectures.

And Sony _DID_ backwards compatibility for PS2 and PS3!

Just not for the 4 because there weren't many people interested in that...

 

Now you only have two architectures to worry about: x86 and Acorn Risc Machine...

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

Now it is possible.
Back in the day it didn't really made sense as you could get better options from different architectures.

And Sony _DID_ backwards compatibility for PS2 and PS3!

Just not for the 4 because there weren't many people interested in that...

 

Now you only have two architectures to worry about: x86 and Acorn Risc Machine...

The PS4's cpu isn't powerful enough to emulate the Cell, and Sony only did BC for the first two models of PS3.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

The PS4's cpu isn't powerful enough to emulate the Cell, and Sony only did BC for the first two models of PS3.

Yes but there is theoption to recompile those pieces of software so that they run on PS4 without emulation.

Microsoft did that with XBox360 things to XBone.

 

BUT: Both use AMD graphics.

Sony PS3 used nVidia...

[skywake]

19 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I don't see the point of wasting money on a small SSD like you would on a computer. No one cares about launching Photoshop or Chrome quickly on their console. The only reason to have an SSD in your console is to launch games more quickly, and then you're talking about 1TB minimum.

They might not care about Chrome but they do care about how long it takes to boot the console and how long it takes to install system updates. Also I see no reason why they couldn't have a 128-256GB SSD and intelligently store data on the SSD which is more sensitive to slow read/write performance. I mean they already get people who buy the disk to install a large chunk of the game onto the HDD for the same reason. Why not add another tier of even faster storage to the mix?

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, skywake said:

They might not care about Chrome but they do care about how long it takes to boot the console and how long it takes to install system updates. Also I see no reason why they couldn't have a 128-256GB SSD and intelligently store data on the SSD which is more sensitive to slow read/write performance. I mean they already get people who buy the disk to install a large chunk of the game onto the HDD for the same reason. Why not add another tier of even faster storage to the mix?

Boot times are fine on the PS4. People aren't going to want to pay $100 extra for such a useless feature. System update times are a function of network speed first and cpu second, so an SSD is a waste there too. I get PC gamers are hung up on SSDs because they're not very concerned with price to performance, but Sony's and Microsoft's target markets are extremely concerned with price. The reason to not add another tier of faster storage is it's not free. It's expensive as hell. It doesn't do much to improve the gaming experience either unless you go big with 1TB or more so you can install your games to it. Consoles aren't PCs and the SSD upgrade is even less compelling on them than it is on PC. But if you really want it Sony lets you install an SSD to replace the HDD, so if you want to blow $260 on storage you're free to.