Poll: How many cores/threads are you expecting for PS5/XB2 (CPU)?

My vote is on 8 moderately clocked cores, or 4 higher clocked cores with SMT.

I’m making an assumption based on a very weak understanding of programming that backwards compatibility might be easier if the new system can handle the same amount of threads as the old one.

@scatteh316: If they follow one x water vapor cooling they might get away with 8 core 8 thread of fast cpu.

If cpu is ryzen 8 core 8 thread then we might see a new generation of 60fps target in most games.

That and navy gpu (I assume if released in 2021 november next gen consoles will have a pretty good gpu)

More cores isn't isn't going to make a difference if it's still poor per-core specs. It's not about the number of cores but doing more with them. And really 8 is enough for a dedicated gaming system that doesn't multitask as much as a PC does. A significant increase in clock speed and IPC is what's really needed to push those cores and deliver on the performance gains.

A single CCX module with 8 Ryzen cores from 7 nm Ryzen era. Ryzen 7-3xxx and Ryzen 5-3xxx would have two CCX modules.

Some of hyper-threads can handle OS workloads while the main threads handles game workloads.

@pcmasterrace69: Yeah, cuz 2.3GHz is blazing fast... Not to mention the X is super loud at times.

TDP and cooling is going to keep the next gen CPUs right around 2.5GHz. This is one of the biggest reasons why 2020 is too soon. We still won’t get a balanced console if dev kits are gonna be going out in the next 6-12 months. Next gen is gonna be the weakest leap we’ve ever seen hardware take since the creation of the home console.

PS2 (year 2000) to PS3 (year 2006) is a large leap

Radeon R200 (year 2001, DX8) to PS3's GeForce 7 based RSX (year 2006, DX9c based), the leap is less.

Minus PS4 Pro and XBX, PS4's 1.8 TFLOPS GPU to Vega 64's 13.1 TFLOPS GPU is 7.12X times

Assuming the next one is at least Zen, Zen from Jaguar have a good IPC improvement right? I doubt we're just getting just 1 gen above Jaguar which seems to be Puma/Mullins.

As far as number of cores having no difference, doesn't that depend mostly on programming like some games take advantage of more cores and others don't in PC games?

I assume that if next gen has 12 or 16 cores, it just raises the standard across consoles and pc to use more cores and probably to the advantage of AMD's marketing and trend of pushing more and more CPU covers that supposedly even got Intel riled up thus quickly pumping the Coffee Lake platform "immaturely" to the market.

If anyone here has more knowledge about this, why have we started to branch to more and more cores but lesser speed and not Crysis 1's developer gamble of fewer cores and higher clockspeeds (Digital Foundry Crysis 1 Analysis reference)?

If the crypto trend continues? Us PC gamers will be disappointed too...

If the Crypto trend continues, wouldn't we get flooded by cheap Vegas and 10 series which could be on par with next gen pc gpus? Then again, I'm guessing used cards aren't very popular specially if used for mining.

Lol “us”

good one

Being honest........any half decent CPU will be enough as CPU isn't as important as it used to be.

See still will be insane...my 1060 6gb of 2016 and over 2 years old costs today in greece same as it was back when i bought it....

firstly upgrade your graphic card for gtx 1180 & cpu i7 8700 non k..etc

I'm also a little confused, isn't AI moving more into the GPU or is that different from AI in games? Perhaps I'm mistaking AI for machine learning.

Anyway from what I know (non expert) game console trends (30 FPS; graphics pushed to limits) might seem to benefit more on a far more GPU skewed APU for the meat of the presentation like graphics, shadows, lighting, number of polygons/objects and even GPU based physics and assuming we get something reasonable even like low-med speed Zens.

Without any real basis, I even think if we new "ratio" of PS5 APUs having more performance skewed to the CPU and less that of the GPU, somewhow, developers will use the extra CPU resources for graphics and still mostly target 30 fps.

https://wccftech.com/nvidia-oem-partner-300k-gpu-inventory-issues-next-gen-geforce-delay/

Jup, they will focus on a piss poor ryzen for 30 fps and then push everything towards the GPU they could possible spare.

Jaguar, Puma and Mullins are all K16 CPU core designs

Current Ryzen for both 14 nm (Summit Ridge) and 12 nm (Pinnacle Ridge) SKUs has K17 CPU core design.

Sup ron. What's the K16/17 exactly? Btw any estimates on how much ipc improvements from jaguars to early zens (1600, 1700x, etc.)? I assume it's at least twice as good per Ghz.

AMD's K series refers to basic CPU design group. Jaguar/Puma/Mullins are specific implementation and refinements on the basic K16 CPU design.

8 cores/ 8 threads faster speed should be doable. :P

Thanks. So Zen is a completely new design with the 17.

Any ideas about how much ipc improvements the 1st gen ryzens have over something like the entire K16 or are there barely any and AMD just boosted clocks.

You can rule out any fast cores, it won't make sense due to yields and temperatures. Medium is where we will end up. I think 8 cores with 16 threads is the best we can hope for. There is a fair chance we get 6 cores/12 threads because it will be an 8 core 16 thread processor but for yields they will make one core/2 threads redundant and 1 core 2 threads for background tasks.

Considering highly threaded apps are not a reality yet and with 6 cores/12 threads being quite capable for a console and with cost considerations in mind, not to mention they need a very powerful GPU, that's where it will be.

There's going to be a lot of threads on the PS5. PS4 is the leading console, so I imagine the core audience will be here.

I'd be expecting a full mid tier Ryzen 7nm CPU with a GPU as a separate die linked via infinity fabric.

Obviously the thing will still need to be <150watts max so it does not need expensive cooling and PSU. Considering the original Ryzen you could have 3.2ghz 8 core 16 thread CPU at 65watts TDP doing the same with 7nm should be half that or less considering they are making the CPU more efficient architecture wise and process wise (they are moving from Samsungs low power 14nm process which was never suited for desktop CPUs).

So they are free to add a GPU die with up to 110watts of power, considering the jump to 7nm on that, if a vega56 is 210watts, then you can halve that again, so something that a bit faster than that can be put on there with ease.

I would consider that to be the minimum specs for the next console, unless AMD do not make anything new the next 2 years.

Maybe they no longer have to limit the watts to just 150 but only because I am guessing the Pro and X are past that and below $ 500. Then again, lower power and consumption could likely still make something cheaper.

MS already said that next gen they want to aim for higher frame rates, so I expect at least 32 cores, since playing anything less than 120fps makes you blind. From Sony I'm expecting something like 2 cores since we all know cinema is at 24fps.

Consoles need to chase IPC, not cores.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/13R6CleKlVFaUw/giphy.gif

They might gamble for a little bit of both. Can't find exact figures yet but Zen supposedly has better IPC than jaguars already. Not only that, I think we won't get anything lower than 2.3 Ghz (1X CPU speed) mostly due to marketing but who knows.

Really don't see the need to care or speculate this anyway, same for any other compontent, the result is always the same... mid-high on release, then drops off... in comes generation x.5 to refresh.

AFAIK, last gen was more on low mid, in an arbitrary value of lowest, low, mid, high, highest.

This is mostly for fun; different strokes; I do like some junkfood here and there.

@j2zon2591: Zen really is a step up to the bobcat/piledriver/bulldozer BS that AMD released last gen, but it is a relatively new CPU architecture, and there are even some rough edges on the ones that's released on PC. Granted, they're great, but the RAM problems/incompatabilities plus some voltage problems could be a problem for developing the CPU for the next gen consoles.

Either way, if the consoles get an improved IPC over more cores, it would be better for even the PC since games will push the hardware even further graphically and technically.

Shouldn't there be way less of a variable with consoles RAM since Sony and AMD don't have to factor a lot of configurations.

Yeah, regardless what happens, next gen will leverage the market leader of focus in terms of 3D graphics. It seems most devs move to the beat of consoles in consolidating final improved products. Other hardware will probably get higher framerates, sharper shadows, etc. but baseline seem mostly stem from console pushes but that could be incidental.

Cost of console in general is correlated to die size and production yields (based on die size, power consumption/heat) , the key to this 7nm,

hell 16nm was disruptive enough to not be ignored that it prompted the very existence of the PS4P/XB1X.

Going from 16nm to 7nm is two generational leap (16nm/14nm to 12nm/10nm to 7nm/6nm).

What we currently know: https://i.redditmedia.com/Cw8VChXEvk7hL9oqPZ_eI22alAWePDXIPyHB3_9rA3w.png?s=4ab376b1f72799e6f540357cc78098ed

8-core 16-threaded Ryzen CPU is around 213mm^2 @ 14nm 8-core Ryzen at 2.9 Ghz draws 30W of power at full load under a Raytracing benchmark @ 14nm (Zen is a very power efficient beast).

Apply a node shrinkage from 14nm to 7nm is about 3-4 times the transistor density. A rough hand estimation of a Zen2 (which is a tweaked Zen at 7nm) should put it around 74 mm^2 to 53mm^2 (or even smaller with circuit optimizations (cutting-out unnecessary components in the die).

On the otherhand power consumption of a Zen2 core @ 2.9 Ghz should be about 8-10W of power draw due to node shrinkages.

............

Now what we know about Vega64: Die size is 464 mm^2 @ 14nm with a power draw of 240W @~1156 Mhz (~10 TFLOPS FP32) Applying a die shrinkage to 7nm should put it around ~157 mm^2 to 116 mm^2, with a power draw of 80W to 60W.

On the other hand a GDDR6 RAM/MEM-Controller should have double the RAM due to double the transistor density.

An MCM/APU layout of a hypothetical PS5/XB2 with 8 Zen2 Cores and a 64 CU Vega/Navi GPU @ 7nm would put it around a net dize size of around 231 mm^2 to 169 mm^2 with a power consumption of around 90W to 68W respectively.

To put that into perspective:

8-core with SMT Zen2@2.9 Ghz + Vega/Navi64@1156mhz(10 TFLOPs) @ 7nm: 169 mm^2 -231 mm^2 with a 68W-90W power draw

8-core with SMT Zen2@2.9 Ghz + 2x-Vega/Navi64@1156mhz (20 TFLOPs) @ 7nm: 285 mm^2 - 388 mm^2 with a 128W-170W power draw

PS4 APU @ 28nm: 348 mm^2 with a 137W power draw

XBO APU @ 28nm: 364 mm^2 with a 107W power draw

PS4Pro APU @ 16nm: 321 mm^2 with a 155W power draw

XB1X APU @ 16nm: 360 mm^2 with a 172W power draw

PS4-PS4P Price: $399 XBO-XB1X Price:$499

With optimization in circuit layout and clock speeds, the die size/yields and power efficiency can even be better.......

Conclusion: a PS5/Xbox-2 with ~15-20 TFLOPs GPU with 2.9 Ghz 8 Zen2 Cores with SMT on a 16GB GDDR6 is within reason due to the 7nm being a very disruptive technology intrinsically speaking.....

Cool. Where did that graph come from?

I'm a little confused but does that graph mean that a 16 core 2.4 Ghz Zen would possibly consume only below 30 watts?

@j2zon2591:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/698fwc/did_a_bit_of_math_on_ryzen_power_consumption/

this was done using a Ryzen 1700X (8-Core 16 Threaded Zen1) running Ray-tracing benchmark using a Monte-Carlo algorithm (probability calculations) that saturates the entire CPU pipeline.

possibly though I'd wager around 2.2 Ghz for safer bet, the issue with lot's of Zen cores would die size and cutting down single-core perf.

power consumption scaling is quadratic, and Zen is built around a shorter pipeline and lower clocks (for optimum perf/watt),

power-consumption/heat and die yields become problematic when one hits around 3.4 Ghz-4.0 Ghz (Desktop PC levels), and the heat densities being 2 to 5 times greater due to electrical leakage.

(P=V^2/R P=power consumption, V=voltage R=resistance of circuit)

this doesnt take into account 7nm tho. in 2020 consoles will be based off of 7nm and not the current 14-12nm heat and power consumption

@stereointegrity:

That was just to show how "power-efficient" the Zen1 on an "leaky/inefficient" 14nm GF was when tuned for lower/"optimum" clocks,

now 7nm TSMC would 3-4 times more efficient/smaller in terms of power consumption/die sizes which will improve yields and clocks

PS: 2019 = 7nm , TSMC, 2020 = 7nm+ TSMC(being 20-30% more efficient in power-consumption/die sizes compared to 7nm

https://wccftech.com/tsmc-details-7nm-manufacturing-process-euv/)

Thanks could you help me around a bit?

Is this the die or die size of an APU?

It's said in the wiki that the PS4 is a 28nm. Does the 14nm mean you could cram 4 times inside the PS4's 28nm die? I'm not even sure if I am using the word "die" correctly.

Well, don't know about cores but I'm expecting 20M+ threads by cows/lems hyping teh power of their consoles and then when it fail to hit the performance targets Sony/MS lied about they will pretend they never hyped it as a PC killer.

Depends on if they go for affordable or powerful. I think they may do 4 core 8 threads with a decent gpu on the same chip. I dont think a console needs 16 threads most games wont take advantage of it and it pushes up TDP a lot. games take advantage of single threaded performance more if they have a 8 core cpu and a gpu on the same chip they will have to cut corners somewhere which most likely means low clock speeds.

@j2zon2591: that is just the die of the APU, 14nm in theory means you can cram 4 times more assuming all parts of the die is 14nm,

but that also depends of what kind if hardware logic (things like SRAM,ALUs,etc scale nicely albeit takes up a part of the die, but things like hardware blocks/memory-controllers/other-logics/etc not so much, and take up the majority of the chip and may not scale 1:1).

@j2zon2591 said:

@Uruz7laevatein said:

@stereointegrity:

That was just to show how "power-efficient" the Zen1 on an "leaky/inefficient" 14nm GF was when tuned for lower/"optimum" clocks,

now 7nm TSMC would 3-4 times more efficient/smaller in terms of power consumption/die sizes which will improve yields and clocks

PS: 2019 = 7nm , TSMC, 2020 = 7nm+ TSMC(being 20-30% more efficient in power-consumption/die sizes compared to 7nm

https://wccftech.com/tsmc-details-7nm-manufacturing-process-euv/)

Thanks could you help me around a bit?

Is this the die or die size of an APU?

It's said in the wiki that the PS4 is a 28nm. Does the 14nm mean you could cram 4 times inside the PS4's 28nm die? I'm not even sure if I am using the word "die" correctly.

No, twice the density i.e. 2X only not 4X.

PS4 Pro used slightly larger 16 nm. PS4's 20 CU evolved into PS4 Pro's 36 CU (unknown reserved CUs)

No they need to chase IPS.

@ronvalencia: it's not unknown, base model has 20cu's 2 disabled, pro has 40 and 4 disabled, literally 2nd stack next to the old one

64 500 Mhz cores.,

@scatteh316: Increasing IPC will increase IPS, so...

Ryzen 2 CPU 8C/16T @ 2.3 Ghz

IPC is a pointless metric and is often use by fanboys who don't really understand CPU's.

Simply saying....IPC.....IPC...IPC.... is stupid without knowing clock speeds and core count.

If Sony chose to go with a CPU with 10 cores, moderately clocked with an average IPC it would and could still deliverer better IPS then a 6-8 core with better IPC and clock speed.

And increasing IPC requires the most amount of work as it require changing the inner workings of the CPU which for cost reason won't be worth while......so the other way to increase IPS which is to increase core count and clock speed is a much easier, cheaper and viable option.

As I said when I corrected you, they don't need to focus on IPC, they need to focus on IPS and what is the best IPC/Core/Clock speed ratio for a price/power/thermal point of view.

@scatteh316: If the next CPUs for these consoles are Zen or at least like zen, then yeah, the IPC will increase too.

Though I agree, it's more cost efficient if the consoles were manufactured with increased IPS in mind.

What's IPS? I thought it was a joke about monitors.

So basically what you're saying is that IPC is irrelevant in comparison to whatever they can produce, even if low IPC, at a superior cost to performance ratio in the end? I guess that makes sense.