
PlayStation 5: the specs and the tech - ericzawo
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-playstation-5-specs-and-tech-that-deliver-sonys-next-gen-vision
======
mdasen
I'm not a big gamer, but at this point it seems like Microsoft and Sony are
just selling the same hardware. There are very minor differences, but I
remember when N64 was such a vastly different experience from the PlayStation.
Even the original Xbox was differentiated - it had a hard drive and an Intel
Pentium III and Nvidia graphics. Now, they're basically identical hardware.
Maybe the PS5 will load games a little faster and maybe the Xbox Series X will
have a little more power, but there's nothing radically different.

In a lot of ways, it feels like I should be able to buy one and then just buy
a license to play games designed for the other system. Why should I buy
(basically) the same processor, same RAM, same graphics, etc. twice?

N64 and PS1 could do very different things and the consoles felt very
different and led to very different games. With XSX and PS5, I'd rather throw
Sony some money so I can play PS5 games on an Xbox Series X (or Microsoft to
play XSX games on the PS5) than create a lot of e-waste buying an
undifferentiated platform twice.

Am I missing something about the consoles (other than the whole
business/market aspect)?

~~~
klodolph
Just to inject a bit of history.

The previous eras of consoles had a design complexity that made it hard for
developers to get anything done or tap the potential of the hardware. This
mostly includes the fifth through seventh generation of video game consoles,
so PS1-PS3 era, roughly 1993-2010.

The “radically different” architectures are sure a bit more exciting, but as a
developer it’s gonna take a few years to really figure out how to use these
different architectures to a reasonable semblance of their full potential. The
Atari Jaguar had this crazy bus with a 68000 plus two custom CPUs on it, and
to unlock the full potential you have to reduce bus contention which means
paying attention to what data is local to the SRAM available to each
processor. Maybe you need to rearchitect your game to really unlock the
potential of the Jaguar. Fast-forward to 2006 and the PlayStation 3 has this
fancy new Cell processor where… guess what… you need to pay attention to what
data is on the local SRAM for each core and it was a nightmare to figure out
how to really use that.

Honestly, I think that console manufacturers were in danger of getting
strangled by game developers if they kept up these radical architectures.

Exclusivity, on the other hand, is a key tool in Sony, Microsoft, and
Nintendo’s arsenal. Good luck prying that away from them.

~~~
mdasen
I definitely concur that the radically different architectures weren't good
for developer productivity. There was a lot of crazy going on.

I guess it just seems like we're now wasting money on duplicate consoles. It
feels like it would be better if Sony and Microsoft created a "standard" for
manufacturers to build to. Zen 2 3.5GHz with a specified level of Radeon
graphics and 16GB of RAM (with a bit more specifics). You could still have
exclusives to your platform - Microsoft has DirectX, Xbox Live, and other
exclusive software features. Developers would still want access to a platform
for their games.

Don't they usually lose money on the actual hardware?

Nintendo is doing a slightly different thing with the Switch, but the
PS4/XBONE and PS5/XBX it seems like they're just making people pay twice for
the same hardware just because they've locked up some exclusives.

What's the business model there? 1) Lose lots of money selling a console; 2)
We'll pay to develop first-party games that we'll sell to fewer people because
they're exclusive; 3) We'll pay third-parties to make their games exclusive to
our platform (as compensation for the lost sales due to exclusivity); 4)
charge huge licensing fees for access to the platform for non-exclusive
developers.

It just seems like there are a lot of money-losing (and consumer-happiness-
losing) steps to get to #4. That's a lot of loss to society just to get to #4.

I guess the reason why they can charge such high prices for licensing is that
developers know that consumers will likely only purchase one system. If people
had access to both systems on a single box, then developers could negotiate
them against each other. Now, developers can't negotiate them against each
other unless they want to lose out on a lot of potential customers.

~~~
ATsch
This is basically what the "steam machine" model was. Standardized controller,
hardware specifications, OS, available from multiple vendors. It was
unfortunately a bit of a flop.

~~~
badsectoracula
Not really, Steam Machines were just a PCs running Linux at a time when Linux
was in a far worse state for gaming than they are now (and almost all of Steam
Machines produced either had weak Intel-based graphics or AMD GPUs when their
drivers were still woefully broken). There was never any standard for hardware
or even controller and most machines were overpriced, ugly, huge or all of
that.

So of course they flopped.

Steam Machines _should_ have used standardized hardware (even if it was in
terms of "levels" like "entry level" or "high end level"), software and
peripherals the developers could rely on and Valve _should_ have made sure
that the hardware actually fit their respective levels.

But Valve never did that and while they still slowly update SteamOS, they have
been long sidetracked by VR so there are low chances for them trying a second
time.

~~~
mjevans
They'd have been better off defining a standard with something vaguely like a
year, or pinned against a console generation as a reference point.

~~~
badsectoracula
That could help some but IMO the most important part would be to have stable
drivers and standardized hardware. What sort of hardware that would be and
when they'd updated it isn't that important (though i disagree about the year
part - updates should be much less frequent than yearly, otherwise it defeats
the purpose of having standardized anything as a year is too short of time
span).

------
leppr
Shorter load times is an attractive argument, but it doesn't matter when the
#1 issue with current-gen consoles is how unoptimized most games are. The
traditional argument to game consoles was that it was cheaper and allowed
developers to make the most out of known hardware configurations.

As things are now, flagship games on the PS4/Xbox One struggle to stay at
30FPS, frequently dropping to 20FPS or less, without the option to reduce
graphics quality or resolution PC gamers have. All the while the low power
Nintendo Switch is a joy to game on because most games are specifically
optimized for it.

~~~
look_lookatme
Yeah it's brutal. Even loading the Playstation Store takes wayyy too long on
my original PS4. It's like it's doing an npm install every time I want to
spend money...

~~~
lmilcin
I play Crash Team Racing Nitro Fueled with my kids. I have calculated that you
can spend only about 3/4 of the time actually playing the game if you don't
play the same map every time, 1/4 is necessarily wasted looking at various
loading screens. Pretty disappointing for a relatively simple game.

------
libertine
> The only problem is that PC technology is significantly behind PS5. It'll
> take some time for the newer, PCIe 4.0-based drives with the bandwidth
> required to match Sony's spec to hit the market.

This is what stands out for me (I know this quote is a bit dramatic but bare
with me): for a long time consoles have lagged behind PC technology - in the
sense that PC was always the early adopter and spread out before consoles.

I'll dare to say that the last console that achieved this was probably the
PS3.

The PS4 was a bit of a turn off for a lot of people spec wise.

So it's good to see they're using these platforms to push the early adoption
of new standards.

Also, good for Sony to let standard NVMEs be used, and not some proprietary
form factor that adds no value, and has no benefit to the consumer. That's one
of the reasons some of their consoles lost traction - proprietary storage
media.

~~~
LeoTinnitus
What? Ps3 and ps4s used 2.5 in form factor drives. They didn't need to be
proprietary.

~~~
p1necone
I remember swapping my PS3 drive for a faster 1TB laptop drive, such a good
upgrade. Likewise for sticking an SSD in a PS4, although I never got around to
doing that.

~~~
LeoTinnitus
When did you do that? If you said you did that in the late 00's I would call
you nuts haha!

~~~
p1necone
It was pretty late in the lifecycle, probably around ps4 launch time.

I'm one of those weird people that spends more time playing games on consoles
from past generations than I do newer stuff.

------
Mobius01
I’m a layman, so I’d like someone from the community to elaborate on Sony’s
approach of constant power to the CPU/GPU while the clocks are variable. My
interpretation is that the silicon will downclock based on load - if it is
only running the UI dashboard, it will slow down appropriately; if running an
intensive software title, it will clock up to theoretical max frequency.

~~~
tracer4201
I’d like to understand what’s the benefit of this opposed to running at a
fixed clock speed?

My guess is it has something to do with cost savings (cheaper to manufacture
silicon that has to perform “better” some of the time as opposed to all of the
time).

~~~
sumofi
You can't do that with a console. All of them have to hit the min specs.

You can allow one game to use more gpu while reducing cpu and vise versa.

Just imagine a cpu heavy rts vs a graphic intense rpg

------
mstaoru
I'm not from the industry, but from the outside, it looks to me as if the
actual graphics quality these days is more about the studio art budget than
clever tricks with hardware. Further improvement - to my eye - brings
diminishing returns.

In this context, converging hardware with multiple compatible frameworks on
top looks like a logical choice.

Console differentiation is more about exclusivity contracts these days.

------
tumidpandora
I’m hyped, the PS5 sounds incredible.

The SSD is twice as fast as the XB SX and the 3D audio chip is huge. The
design is fascinating and it includes a ton of propriety tech. Sony’s devs
will have a field day with this.

Watch how 1st party games blow Microsoft out the box at 10.3 teraflops.

Ppl spouting that 12 teraflops from the SX will steamroll Sony’s 10.3 are
fools. Teraflops is a vastly overstated term purposely popularized by
Microsoft. It isn’t the sole determining factor for performance, nor are all
teraflops necessarily created equal.

PS5 is going to be the premier console next gen with the best games and….VR

------
jrobn
Consoles are now branded PCs with DRM lock-in. Makes way more sense to buy a
PC.

~~~
snvzz
I'd go further and say they're expensive, very cost-inefficient PCs locked
with DRM into only playing licensed games.

PC Hardware is cheaper. PC games are also cheaper. And games are seldom
console exclusives anymore. When they are, they're not for long.

There's no value to be found in consoles anymore. They exploit the tech
ignorance of the riffraff.

~~~
Keverw
Why expensive? seems like a Xbox One S is a few hundred bucks 299 I see on the
site. The One X seems 100 more.

Could you buy or even build a comparable gaming PC for that much? Not really
to up with all the hardware stuff... so curious. Guess you’d need to pick a
case, motherboard and then find similar specs if comparing and compatible
hardware combination.

Then I thought consoles were some what subsidized since they also get a cut of
game sales. Plus targeting the same hardware sounds like a way to be
consistent.

~~~
snvzz
>Why expensive? seems like a Xbox One S is a few hundred bucks 299 I see on
the site. The One X seems 100 more.

Do look up release prices. These consoles are old now.

And keep in mind they're not proper computers: They can only run a selection
of programs, which are mostly games. Usefulness-wise, they aren't even
comparable.

~~~
Keverw
Yeah. I know a new one is out now but still selling the older models... but I
kinda like Microsoft's approach. since even the original Xbox One can still
run new releases from my understanding. Instead of each new console requiring
all new games and OS.

------
gentleman11
The CPU in these machines is better than the one in my desktop. Hard to guess
what kind of GPU equivalent it will have, but from a cost POV, these new
consoles seem too good to be true. It completely changes my assumptions about
what sort of graphics the game I am working on can output on consoles
(although, the vast majority of pc owners will have weaker hardware; unusual!)

I sold custom gaming pcs very briefly, these components aren’t free!

~~~
grecy
I believe Microsoft were selling the current XBox at a loss, and making it up
in game and services sales.

------
ldng
Interesting, did AMD just sold the same RDNA 2 GPU to both Sony and Microsoft
?

~~~
mciancia
There are some differences, like different clocks, number of CUs and memory
bus, so looks like both were customized to some extent

------
jansan
Remember that PS2 required a military export license because it could be used
as a missile guidance device? I quote: "Parts of the machine resemble a small
supercomputer". Isn't that funny as hell from today's point of view? Here is a
link to that story: [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-2000-apr-17-fi-20482...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-2000-apr-17-fi-20482-story.html)

~~~
favorited
And a few years later, there were several PS3 supercomputer clusters. The US
Air Force built a supercomputer out of PS3 nodes, and it was the 33rd largest
in the world!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster)

------
bsaul
The bits about hrtf made me smile : this technology is at least 25 years old.
That’s how every single 3D audio over headphone has been done since the
beginning.

------
overeater
I wish they would differentiate on connectivity. Like usb-c ports for video
and power delivery, Bluetooth 5.0, WiFi 6, usb-c rechargeable controllers,
etc.

------
person_of_color
Is it x86?

~~~
Synaesthesia
Yes. AMD Zen 2

------
maerF0x0
> PlayStation 5 VS PlayStation 4

The proper comparison would have been against the PS4 Pro

~~~
jasondclinton
The PS4 Pro GPU is literally just exactly 2x of the GCN that shipped in the
original PS4 with scan line interleaving enabled to split the load across the
two GPU's.

~~~
HenryKissinger
ELI5?

~~~
andai
The screen is cut into slices, one row of pixels at a time, and then dealt
between two GPUs like a pack of cards.

