News AMD 4700S CPU Reviewed: Defective PS5 Chips Find New Life

[Admin]

We put AMD's 4700S Desktop Kit, which has a defective Sony Playstation 5 Chip on board, to the test in a full gamut of game and application benchmarks.

AMD 4700S CPU Reviewed: Defective PS5 Chips Find New Life : Read more

 

[NightHawkRMX]

What a waste...

It would be good if it wasn't gimped soo badly. PCIe 2.0 X4? Good grief, that would have been bad in 2010, let alone 2021.

Also why didn't they just use AM4 mounting spacing? The chip is the same size as an AM4 package. If they were going to making it proprietary spacing, they could have at least tried to give it a sufficient HSF.

 

[Historical Fidelity]

Also why didn't they just use AM4 mounting spacing? The chip is the same size as an AM4 package. If they were going to making it proprietary spacing, they could have at least tried to give it a sufficient HSF.

Because this is a PS5 chip and motherboard combo that didn’t make the cut. The proprietary spacing is Sony’s for their cooling solution. Everything about this is AMD doing the minimum possible to make this a sellable product instead of it going to the landfill.

 

[spongiemaster]

Everything about this is AMD doing the minimum possible to make this a sellable product instead of it going to the landfill.

It's going to end up in a landfill at some point anyway. This about making money, not some misguided attempt to save the environment.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Just about everything will go in a landfill at some point.

This will give some use to a chip that would otherwise be thrown away immediately.

But I doubt it will sell well.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

The problem too is there's really no such thing as a -basic- discrete GPU these days that would go well with this system. Not so long ago there were cards like the GT 1030 for $75 or less that could really make sense of this kit, but at $450 for the kit alone there's no way this makes sense at all, especially with the lack of connectivity.

 

[BillyBuerger]

The hack of a cooling solution here seems odd. Given the throttling that's happening, it obviously needs something more. And given the space around the CPU for the memory, there's a lot of room for a good sized chuck of aluminum that could have done a much better job and maybe could have avoided the throttling. Not sure how much that would help in the performance but it couldn't hurt. It would be fun to try to make some custom heat sink for that thing with a 120mm fan blowing down on it. There's room for that. But given the price and the other issues, it's not really worth it.

 

[-Fran-]

Hm... I wonder how much left of Sony's proprietary stuff is left in that system/board... I wonder if the emulator peeps would like to have a closer look at this system.

Other than that, no surprises on the performance side.

Regards.

 

[escksu]

The memory bandwidth is extremely low for GDDR6, looks like the CPU has just 64bit memory channel.

 

[Historical Fidelity]

It's going to end up in a landfill at some point anyway. This about making money, not some misguided attempt to save the environment.

That’s literally what I said, AMD pays to manufacture these chips at TSMC so if they don’t meet the PS5 specs then it’s money down the drain since Sony won’t buy it, so AMD does the minimum possible to make it sellable so they don’t eat the manufacturing cost and throw it in a landfill. Never did I say they were thinking of the environment in my comment

 

[JWNoctis]

The memory bandwidth is extremely low for GDDR6, looks like the CPU has just 64bit memory channel.

Most of that silicon is not merely dark, but dead. It stands to reason that some of those memory controllers might be dead from the start as well, or they would have made it into a PS5.

Or maybe what we are seeing here is Infinity Fabric - or whatever they chose to implement - bottleneck on the CPU part of the chip.

Does anyone have any otherwise memory bandwidth-bound and CPU-demanding workload? Serving video streams with live transcoding and/or over TLS, perhaps? Does this thing work without a graphic card?

Too niche and not my niche, but hopefully useful to some.

 

[watzupken]

I feel in the first place, there is nothing interesting about this system. If there is anything interesting, it would be to see if the GPU on the SOC can be salvaged, and not completely disabled in this case. For that kind of money, I rather buy a RX 5600G that is so much more worth it.

 

[JWNoctis]

I feel in the first place, there is nothing interesting about this system. If there is anything interesting, it would be to see if the GPU on the SOC can be salvaged, and not completely disabled in this case. For that kind of money, I rather buy a RX 5600G that is so much more worth it.

Wouldn't surprise me, if that is specifically prohibited in the contracts between AMD, TSMC, and Sony. Can't have others producing not-PS5's with basically the same hardware.

But yes, a mobile/SFF platform with very powerful iGPU - Or should it be GPU with integrated CPU - and GDDR6 memory would have been interesting.

 

[Joseph_138]

I feel in the first place, there is nothing interesting about this system. If there is anything interesting, it would be to see if the GPU on the SOC can be salvaged, and not completely disabled in this case. For that kind of money, I rather buy a RX 5600G that is so much more worth it.

If it was salvageable, they wouldn't be selling them the way that they are. They usually laser cut bad components from GPU dies, to create new SKU's, so this is probably no different. You won't be able to access the GPU cores at all.

 

[-Fran-]

If it was salvageable, they wouldn't be selling them the way that they are. They usually laser cut bad components from GPU dies, to create new SKU's, so this is probably no different. You won't be able to access the GPU cores at all.

More than that, if this thing had the iGPU enabled, with that bandwidth, they could make their own APUs irrelevant if you want a cheap gaming machine. Also, they may not be DX12 compliant anyway, so I'm sure getting drivers for them would also be too expensive.

Regards.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

More than that, if this thing had the iGPU enabled, with that bandwidth, they could make their own APUs irrelevant if you want a cheap gaming machine. Also, they may not be DX12 compliant anyway, so I'm sure getting drivers for them would also be too expensive.

A $450 modest GPU + weak CPU locked down rig where you can only upgrade the storage isn't really going to kill off AMD's APU market. It would have been cool to be able to test this chip with the GPU still enabled, in Windows, but then we'd have all sorts of driver stuff to deal with, and very likely the GPU wasn't working properly in the first place. Of course, I doubt the entire GPU was bad, so AMD could have potentially harvested a 24-30 CU chip. But that may not be allowed based on Sony contracts. Most likely, the PS5 requires 36 CUs and anything that can't reach that level has to be sold with the GPU disabled. But there's no reason the GPU wouldn't be DX12 compliant with the right drivers, as it's still just RDNA2.

 

[-Fran-]

A $450 modest GPU + weak CPU locked down rig where you can only upgrade the storage isn't really going to kill off AMD's APU market. It would have been cool to be able to test this chip with the GPU still enabled, in Windows, but then we'd have all sorts of driver stuff to deal with, and very likely the GPU wasn't working properly in the first place. Of course, I doubt the entire GPU was bad, so AMD could have potentially harvested a 24-30 CU chip. But that may not be allowed based on Sony contracts. Most likely, the PS5 requires 36 CUs and anything that can't reach that level has to be sold with the GPU disabled. But there's no reason the GPU wouldn't be DX12 compliant with the right drivers, as it's still just RDNA2.

I'd be willing to say it would. APUs are not really meant to be standalone CPUs, so CPU performance there is kind of moot (or way less important) and for 99% of games you can play on an APU, the iGPU is the bottleneck anyway, so having a lesser CPU with a much stronger GPU will let you get a huge boost in FPS regardless; like you would with a mid-tier GPU and the APU/CPU. It would not kill the whole market, but it would definitely put a huge question mark to the APUs viability as cheap gaming machines compared to this with the iGPU.

Also, it may not be upgradable, but it does come with 16GB as an option, no? That's plenty for such a system anyway. You can think of it as a laptop with fused RAM or something. And then you free the PCIe for... something... This would make the perfect HTPC, definitely. It's like an APU with HBM, no?

And as for the "it's still just RDNA2". I am not sure that's a good statement to make. I have no idea what specifics Sony wanted in the GPU outside of what AMD designed and offered, but I doubt it's simple to make them DirectX compliant (or Vulkan). In other words, like I said, the investment they'd need to do with the driver modifications would make this product moot. Or even less of a good idea. It already is a bad idea as presented, but oh welp. With the iGPU at least it would've been interesting to tinker with.

Regards.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Hm... I wonder how much left of Sony's proprietary stuff is left in that system/board... I wonder if the emulator peeps would like to have a closer look at this system.

Probably none, because that secret sauce is independent of the APU.

And as for the "it's still just RDNA2". I am not sure that's a good statement to make. I have no idea what specifics Sony wanted in the GPU outside of what AMD designed and offered, but I doubt it's simple to make them DirectX compliant (or Vulkan). In other words, like I said, the investment they'd need to do with the driver modifications would make this product moot. Or even less of a good idea. It already is a bad idea as presented, but oh welp. With the iGPU at least it would've been interesting to tinker with.

I think the fact that they have a DirectX 12 benchmark proves that the iGPU is DirectX 12 compliant. To me it doesn't make any sense that AMD wouldn't give Sony the same RDNA2 that Microsoft and everyone else got. And I would also argue that you would have radically change how the GPU is designed to make it not compliant with DirectX 12 or Vulkan.

 

[zodiacfml]

hard to tell why you skipped testing the stock product and straight looked into searching its limits. this could have been an an interesting build, a cheap eight core monster with a gpu as only as good as an igpu.
can you test this again with the stock config and compare it with an apple M1 mini with 16GB? while I will most certainly buy the Apple paying just $100 more, it would still be interesting to see the difference

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

I'd be willing to say it would. APUs are not really meant to be standalone CPUs, so CPU performance there is kind of moot (or way less important) and for 99% of games you can play on an APU, the iGPU is the bottleneck anyway, so having a lesser CPU with a much stronger GPU will let you get a huge boost in FPS regardless; like you would with a mid-tier GPU and the APU/CPU. It would not kill the whole market, but it would definitely put a huge question mark to the APUs viability as cheap gaming machines compared to this with the iGPU.

Also, it may not be upgradable, but it does come with 16GB as an option, no? That's plenty for such a system anyway. You can think of it as a laptop with fused RAM or something. And then you free the PCIe for... something... This would make the perfect HTPC, definitely. It's like an APU with HBM, no?

And as for the "it's still just RDNA2". I am not sure that's a good statement to make. I have no idea what specifics Sony wanted in the GPU outside of what AMD designed and offered, but I doubt it's simple to make them DirectX compliant (or Vulkan). In other words, like I said, the investment they'd need to do with the driver modifications would make this product moot. Or even less of a good idea. It already is a bad idea as presented, but oh welp. With the iGPU at least it would've been interesting to tinker with.

The irony is that AMD (or at least, its partners) are charging $450 for basically a PS5 without storage or a graphics card. Just the storage alone in a PS5 would be worth at least $100, probably more considering it's fast PCIe Gen4 stuff. But the GPU would be worth at least $350, probably quite a bit more in today's market. And that's why this would never have threatened the traditional APU market where the entire PC (including storage) goes for $500. If this were a fully enabled chip, it would probably end up selling for more than the PS5. Sort of like the NUCs that cost an arm and a leg, just because they're small.

I seriously doubt there's anything particularly special in regards to the GPU or CPU in the PlayStation 5, though. Sony has some special sauce in the storage subsystem, but I'd wager the GPU and CPU are 99.99% the same as Zen 2 and RDNA2, the only real difference being the 36 CUs configuration with 16GB of built-in GDDR6.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

hard to tell why you skipped testing the stock product and straight looked into searching its limits. this could have been an an interesting build, a cheap eight core monster with a gpu as only as good as an igpu.
can you test this again with the stock config and compare it with an apple M1 mini with 16GB? while I will most certainly buy the Apple paying just $100 more, it would still be interesting to see the difference

I'm not sure what you're talking about here -- did you post in the wrong thread?

 

[-Fran-]

I think the fact that they have a DirectX 12 benchmark proves that the iGPU is DirectX 12 compliant. To me it doesn't make any sense that AMD wouldn't give Sony the same RDNA2 that Microsoft and everyone else got. And I would also argue that you would have radically change how the GPU is designed to make it not compliant with DirectX 12 or Vulkan.

That's the whole point of "custom" though. I don't believe Sony went with an "off the shelve" RDNA2 GPU uArch.

But yeah, these are just assumptions and yours (and Jarred's) are as good as mine here. Point is, I would have liked to see the iGPU enabled regardless.

Also, what benchmark? I doubt Sony can run a DX12 benchmark in their OS?

Regards.

 

[-Fran-]

The irony is that AMD (or at least, its partners) are charging $450 for basically a PS5 without storage or a graphics card. Just the storage alone in a PS5 would be worth at least $100, probably more considering it's fast PCIe Gen4 stuff. But the GPU would be worth at least $350, probably quite a bit more in today's market. And that's why this would never have threatened the traditional APU market where the entire PC (including storage) goes for $500. If this were a fully enabled chip, it would probably end up selling for more than the PS5. Sort of like the NUCs that cost an arm and a leg, just because they're small.

Don't forget the PS5 is still being subsidized. I wonder for how much longer it'll be, though.

In any case, I didn't say this was a good bargain xD

I seriously doubt there's anything particularly special in regards to the GPU or CPU in the PlayStation 5, though. Sony has some special sauce in the storage subsystem, but I'd wager the GPU and CPU are 99.99% the same as Zen 2 and RDNA2, the only real difference being the 36 CUs configuration with 16GB of built-in GDDR6.

I don't think they didn't add anything on their own. It could be like they did with the Cell or the PS2 CPUs, where they didn't really use all the capabilities until the very last games and by then the capabilities weren't that much more than no capabilities at all.

In any case, like I said before, I'd rather see how the iGPU performs than not in that thing.

Regards.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Because this is a PS5 chip and motherboard combo that didn’t make the cut. The proprietary spacing is Sony’s for their cooling solution. Everything about this is AMD doing the minimum possible to make this a sellable product instead of it going to the landfill.

This 4700S motherboard doesn't really look anything like the PS5 mobo though.

 

[hotaru.hino]

That's the whole point of "custom" though. I don't believe Sony went with an "off the shelve" RDNA2 GPU uArch.

But yeah, these are just assumptions and yours (and Jarred's) are as good as mine here. Point is, I would have liked to see the iGPU enabled regardless.

To be pedantic, it's not "custom", but "semi-custom." This implies AMD is only letting customers choose some things, but not everything, like making modifications to the microarchitecture which would be costly.

Also, what benchmark? I doubt Sony can run a DX12 benchmark in their OS?

The benchmarks on the Tom's Hardware article? If it wasn't DirectX 12 compliant, Time Spy wouldn't run.

In any case, if the GPU isn't DX12 compliant, then it's not DX11 complaint either. DX11 GPUs meet the minimum hardware compliance for DX12, evidenced that DX12 supports DX11 feature levels. So again, it makes zero sense to me why AMD would make a GPU that is in no way DX12 compliant, nor would it make sense for Sony to tell AMD to remove hardware features that wouldn't even make it even DX11 compliant. I'm also assuming the same for OGL 4.0 and Vulkan since it wouldn't make sense for either of those to have a disparity in hardware requirements to their closest DirectX competitor.

I don't think they didn't add anything on their own. It could be like they did with the Cell or the PS2 CPUs, where they didn't really use all the capabilities until the very last games and by then the capabilities weren't that much more than no capabilities at all.

I'm pretty sure there were several game studios using either of the two consoles' CPU capabilities as they were intended to be used well before the EOL of the console.