News PlayStation 5 Pro specifications thoroughly explained, 'FLOPflation' debunked by PS5 system architect Mark Cerny

[Admin]

Mark Cerny has given a deep dive on PlayStation 5 Pro's hardware and corrected some leakers' claims.

PlayStation 5 Pro specifications thoroughly explained, 'FLOPflation' debunked by PS5 system architect Mark Cerny : Read more

 

[Sluggotg]

I wonder how many games will actually be created to support the new features on the PS5 Pro? I do the vast majority of gaming on my PCs or retro computers/consoles. But I do buy all the new consoles when they come out. I was probably a sucker to buy this one. I already have the original PS5.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

I wonder how many games will actually be created to support the new features on the PS5 Pro? I do the vast majority of gaming on my PCs or retro computers/consoles. But I do buy all the new consoles when they come out. I was probably a sucker to buy this one. I already have the original PS5.

A small list compared to the total PS5 list of games. The main problems with the PS5 Pro is that it's 4 years too late. Sony is usually its own worse enemy either with pricing or strategy. They admitted that the PS5 is at its end of life cycle. The PS5 Pro still had not released.

All the so-called benefits of the PS5 Pro are nit picky where you probably won't notice them while playing a game. The PS6 when it's released in 2-3 years time will probably be a bigger leap.

I'm tired of hearing and reading that you still have to pick and choose graphics settings on the Pro. I want to play a PlayStation game with all the bells and whistles in native 4K and at minimum, 60FPS. I don't want shortcuts and compromises. I want it all. The PS5 Pro still requires compromises. I'd rather wait and buy the PS6, which will probably still require compromises for native 4K @ 60FPS.

 

[magbarn]

After seeing how quickly my PS4 Pro went obsolete and that most games weren't that different taught me to never buy a "Pro" Sony console again

 

[purposelycryptic]

A small list compared to the total PS5 list of games. The main problems with the PS5 Pro is that it's 4 years too late. Sony is usually its own worse enemy either with pricing or strategy. They admitted that the PS5 is at its end of life cycle. The PS5 Pro still had not released.

All the so-called benefits of the PS5 Pro are nit picky where you probably won't notice them while playing a game. The PS6 when it's released in 2-3 years time will probably be a bigger leap.

I'm tired of hearing and reading that you still have to pick and choose graphics settings on the Pro. I want to play a PlayStation game with all the bells and whistles in native 4K and at minimum, 60FPS. I don't want shortcuts and compromises. I want it all. The PS5 Pro still requires compromises. I'd rather wait and buy the PS6, which will probably still require compromises for native 4K @ 60FPS.

They stated that the PS5 has entered the "latter stage of its life-cycle", not that it is at the end of its life-cycle. That's a big difference. Games are still seeing PS4 versions fairly regularly, which restricts developers of those titles pretty harshly, and the number of games that actually push the PS5 to its limits is still quite low as a result.

Especially with the release of the PS5 Pro, many projections are for up to 4 years until the PS6 comes around, and longer until there are games that actually take proper advantage of the hardware, since there are few benefits to making a console launch exclusive, with the smallest possible user base.

That still isn't enough time to warrant buying a PS5 Pro for me, especially with that price tag, but they might get some of the PS4 holdouts to finally jump ship, as fewer games have been getting PS4 versions lately. 'Id rather just get a second PS5 with an early firmware version off eBay to mess around with homebrew and CFW (and finally be able to locally back up my saves!).

There will always be compromises with consoles, though - if you want the best of the best, you need a gaming PC, and be willing to upgrade your hardware regularly, as the goalposts are always moving.

 

[purposelycryptic]

I wonder how many games will actually be created to support the new features on the PS5 Pro? I do the vast majority of gaming on my PCs or retro computers/consoles. But I do buy all the new consoles when they come out. I was probably a sucker to buy this one. I already have the original PS5.

Keep your non-pro PS5 offline and auto-update disabled, and maybe in a few years, you'll be able to run homebrew/CFW on it. That's what I did with my PS4 when I got my PS5, at least, and it's been a lot of fun to mess around with.

That way it won't be a total loss. Or you could just sell it, I suppose, but that would be kind of boring.

 

[thestryker]

PS5 Pro generally seems to be a reaction to how use the PS5. I believe Sony stated 75% of users picked performance modes over visuals. The PS5 Pro mostly just allows you to hit those same performance modes, but with better visuals while doing it. It can also offer more consistent frame times to games that aren't necessarily PS5 Pro optimized.

I understand why someone would get a PS5 Pro despite the poor pricing, but if I was in the Playstation ecosystem I don't think I'd touch it if I already had a PS5.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

They stated that the PS5 has entered the "latter stage of its life-cycle", not that it is at the end of its life-cycle. That's a big difference.

For me that means the same thing, that they are beginning to concentrate on its successor and the PS5 platform is now in their rearview mirror. I see NO reason to re-up on their newly released, outgoing console.

 

[bit_user]

I wonder how many games will actually be created to support the new features on the PS5 Pro?

If I were way into VR or really wanted better upscaling to 4k, then maybe I'd upgrade. Otherwise, the value proposition just seems to weak.

I was probably a sucker to buy this one.

It lost the disc drive. That's another reason I don't like it. Especially for their premium offering, it should have all the goodies!

I was also worried they might drop PS4-compatibility, at some point, like how the PS3 first dropped PS1 and then PS2 hardware compatibility. I still have a 1st gen PS3 that I got for that reason and I wanted to make sure I got a PS5 before they potentially did the same thing of removing GCN backward-compatibility from the GPU, which I thought might happen in the PS5 Pro.

After seeing how quickly my PS4 Pro went obsolete and that most games weren't that different taught me to never buy a "Pro" Sony console again

As an upgrade from the corresponding non-Pro generation, it's absolutely a rip-off. However, if it were priced at least $100 less and you didn't already have a PS5, then I think it'd be compelling.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

After seeing how quickly my PS4 Pro went obsolete and that most games weren't that different taught me to never buy a "Pro" Sony console again

I also bought a PS4 Pro after buying a launch PS4. I regretted that decision because the games looked basically the same and few games took advantage of the extra performance and the PS4 Pro was released 3 years after the PS4.

 

[bit_user]

They admitted that the PS5 is at its end of life cycle.

At the end? No, it should be 2027 before the PS6 launches. That's in keeping with their prior launches and it's consistent with where it seems they're at in the PS6 hardware development process.

Granted, the PS5 Pro really should've launched more like a year ago and/or shouldn't be as expensive. Especially without the disc drive.

I want to play a PlayStation game with all the bells and whistles in native 4K and at minimum, 60FPS. I don't want shortcuts and compromises. I want it all.

Pfft. Good luck with that. Big GPU performance requires a lot of silicon and that makes it expensive. Even though I feel like the Pro is a rip-off for what it brings to the table, I still don't see you getting native 4k 60 fps at a sub-$1k price point.

I'd rather wait and buy the PS6, which will probably still require compromises for native 4K @ 60FPS.

Yup. Most games will probably render at 1440p and upscale to 4k. That's my guess. Especially if they involve ray tracing.

 

[Mcnoobler]

So many people expecting native 4k with a Playstation console is hilarious. Once you have the very best of PC, I think your perspective changes on how difficult and expensive it really is for native 4k. Someone even mentioned native 4k with ray tracing. The bar is set way too high for cheap hardware. In many peoples minds, $500-$700 on a console should be able to beat a 3-4k PC gaming system. I get it though, its entitlement. Greatest things at the cheapest costs sounds like a perfect world.

PS6 won't be anywhere close to native 4k either except for maybe older titles that you already played. The cycle is the same for all hardware, yet people are largely unfamiliar with these cycles that have occured the same way for decades.

 

[txfeinbergs]

The PS5 Pro is doing excellent for me with the PSVR2 despite only a few VR games being updated to take "advantage" of it. The real advantage is no frame rate dips or slow texture load in compared to running a PSVR2 on a regular PS5, and for VR where you are staring directly at the screen, that makes a big difference.

 

[emike09]

What if some console manufacturer used the hardware and software ecosystem of Nvidia. Expensive, yes, but what then? Could still use an AMD CPU. Or Intel... I jest. I love the competition.

 

[thestryker]

Pfft. Good luck with that. Big GPU performance requires a lot of silicon and that makes it expensive. Even though I feel like the Pro is a rip-off for what it brings to the table, I still don't see you getting native 4k 60 fps at a sub-$1k price point.

I think a lot of people don't grasp how big the increase in pixels is for 4k. One of my pet peeves is people saying some variation of "1440p ultrawide is close to 4k" when it's just not.

Yup. Most games will probably render at 1440p and upscale to 4k. That's my guess. Especially if they involve ray tracing.

There has been an increase in games that can already do that with the PS5 Pro, but I think you're still right that this will become somewhat of a baseline. I'm betting the CPU is starting to be an issue with regards to frame pacing and minimums for some titles. I was surprised to see how much the ADL quad cores (and even Zen 3 non-X3D though to a lesser extent) were starting to fall behind in newer titles. Some of this of course is due to more threading, but back at launch they were almost universally faster than anything Zen 2.

Spoiler: HUB Gaming CPU Test Average

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mE4YEm2L-g

 

[bit_user]

What if some console manufacturer used the hardware and software ecosystem of Nvidia. Expensive, yes, but what then?

Like the Nintendo Switch?

Also, the PS3 had a Nvidia GPU, as did the original XBox.

 

[bit_user]

I think a lot of people don't grasp how big the increase in pixels is for 4k. One of my pet peeves is people saying some variation of "1440p ultrawide is close to 4k" when it's just not.

4.95 vs. 8.29 MPix - 59.7% as many. Regular 2560x1440 has 44.4% as many pixels. So, for 1440p, you're talking roughly 45% to 60% of 4k.

At a reasonable distance, I barely notice the pixels in a 27" 1440p monitor. For me, a 32" 4k monitor is already more pixels than I can really use. At a distance of like 24 to 30 inches from my face, a 4k monitor would probably have to be about 38" for me to feel the extra resolution was justified. Because I sit about 10 feet from my TV, 4k resolution is pointless for a TV of any size I would remotely consider (basically, up to 65"). The main value I see in modern 4k TVs are the expanded color gamut of Rec. 2020 and features like HDR and VRR.

My main beef with the base PS5's upscaling is that it's just not very good. I think it emphasizes aliasing in the input image. It's not terribly noticeable, but it's worse than if I view the same game on a native 1080p panel.

 

[thestryker]

My main beef with the base PS5's upscaling is that it's just not very good. I think it emphasizes aliasing in the input image. It's not terribly noticeable, but it's worse than if I view the same game on a native 1080p panel.

Whenever I read Digital Foundry technical pieces I'm always amazed at the minimum resolutions. I think Alan Wake 2 was in the 8xxp range for 60fps performance and 12xxp for 30fps quality. I want to say the highest minimum resolution I've seen them mention is 1800p.

I don't really play games on my Series X, but if I did I'd probably set the resolution to 1080p and see if the TV scaler provided better image quality. It wouldn't surprise me if it was better as most decent 4k TVs seem to have good scalers when it comes to 1080p and higher.

edit: I was just thinking about FSR scaling so I looked it up for 4k and this would certainly explain a bit:
Quality = 1440p
Balanced = 1270p
Performance = 1080p
Ultra Performance = 720p

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Pfft. Good luck with that. Big GPU performance requires a lot of silicon and that makes it expensive. Even though I feel like the Pro is a rip-off for what it brings to the table, I still don't see you getting native 4k 60 fps at a sub-$1k price point.

That was meant to be a cynical comment on my part. I don't expect any console to do native 4K at 60FPS in the foreseeable future. If I want native 4K @ 60FPS with lots of bells and whistles, i'll fork up the money for an RTX 5090 when they get released.

 

[emike09]

Like the Nintendo Switch?

Also, the PS3 had a Nvidia GPU, as did the original XBox.

Yep, like the Switch! I've personally never owned a switch, but devs have dome amazing things with that hardware. Nvidia has grown massively since the Tegra X1 was integrated in 2015. Excited to see what the Switch 2 does! Though I'll still probably not but one. I don't have a need for a portable gaming rig, and when I want to game, I want to do so on something big. Same story for the PS3 amd OG Xbox. Been a long time since those releases and so much has changed since then.

 

[bit_user]

Nvidia has grown massively since the Tegra X1 was integrated in 2015. Excited to see what the Switch 2 does!

Yes, they've gotten better, but their SoCs are still very stingy with GPU performance. For most of their AI horsepower, they have a purpose-built DLA (Deep Learning Accelerator) block.

No doubt Switch 2 is going to be better, but I still don't expect it to be in the same ballpark as Sony and Microsoft's big consoles, even with them now being 4 years old. I expect it could definitely contend with Steam Deck, however.

I don't have a need for a portable gaming rig, and when I want to game, I want to do so on something big.

Yeah, I wouldn't want a handheld console, either. As a kid, I once borrowed a gameboy to take on a family vacation with a 1 day drive each way. So, I can definitely see the appeal. However, without a need for a handheld gaming machine, I wouldn't want to be restricted to the reduced processing power of one.

 

[bit_user]

Okay, so I finally watched the actual video and here are some key takeaways I didn't get from the article:

1. The reason for the FLOPS discrepancy is that they stuck with basically RDNA2, which they did because moving to RDNA3 would've introduced a binary incompatibility, requiring shader recompilation for all the existing PS5 games! The article does reference this, but I wasn't aware of the fundamental issue that RDNA3 is not binary compatible with RDNA2.
2. The hardware stack handling was key to addressing the "divergence" problem in ray-tracing and sounds like it accounts for more of the RT speedup than the BVH8 support.
3. Instead of integrating a distinct NPU, they opted to enhance the GPU to handle the computation necessary for PSSR upscaling, which is Sony's equivalent of DLSS and not a simple rebrand of AMD's FSR or similar technologies. These enhancements were specified by Sony and implemented for them by AMD - not simply borrowing from RDNA4 or whatever. This implementation involved adding 44 new instructions to the GPU, it sounds like many of which are capable of using address calculations for accessing the WGPs' internal vector register files.
4. The 300 TOPS spec is specifically referring to a 3x3 convolution operation on 8-bit data, which is implemented in a single instruction.
5. Playstation games apparently prefer to dynamically drop their native resolution over reducing framerate, so PSSR focuses a lot on handling dynamic input resolutions, not really on dynamic frame rates.
6. The video ends with an announcement of a deeper partnership (Project Amethyst) to develop a more streamlined architecture for the sort of AI relevant both to Sony's graphics & more general use cases. Developments (at least in AI models) will be available for use by both companies.

Point 1 raises significant questions about what they're going to do in PS6, especially because I have difficulty imagining PS6 launching without support for at least the entire PS5 library.

P.S. I just have to say it: doesn't Mark Cerny have an uncanny resemblance to Dana Carvey? Mark even sounds a bit like some of Dana's impressions!

 

[Heat_Fan89]

Yes, they've gotten better, but their SoCs are still very stingy with GPU performance. For most of their AI horsepower, they have a purpose-built DLA (Deep Learning Accelerator) block.

No doubt Switch 2 is going to be better, but I still don't expect it to be in the same ballpark as Sony and Microsoft's big consoles, even with them now being 4 years old. I expect it could definitely contend with Steam Deck, however.


Yeah, I wouldn't want a handheld console, either. As a kid, I once borrowed a gameboy to take on a family vacation with a 1 day drive each way. So, I can definitely see the appeal. However, without a need for a handheld gaming machine, I wouldn't want to be restricted to the reduced processing power of one.

One of the main reasons to own any Nintendo console is to play games made by Nintendo. My Nintendo Switch is 99.999% in docked mode.

Nintendo is known for squeezing blood from a turnip. They have pulled off some incredible stuff on hardware that was probably less powerful than the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

I'm still very surprised if true they are doubling down on a similar design as the Switch. They usually do something totally different each generation.

Nintendo is to gaming what Miles Davis was to Jazz. They are never satisfied with the past and always want to try something new. So the Switch 2 will certainly be a different approach for Nintendo

 

[spongiemaster]

For me that means the same thing, that they are beginning to concentrate on its successor and the PS5 platform is now in their rearview mirror. I see NO reason to re-up on their newly released, outgoing console.

It isn't the same thing. Sony designates lifespan stages solely by sales volume. It does not give any indication of support cycle. For Sony, the latter stage of its life cycle means that sales of the console have begun to decline. That doesn't mean the console is about to get replaced. Unlike early in the life cycle, Sony should be making money on each console sale instead of losing money, and with a huge installer base, software sales, where the real money is made, should still be going very strong. Latter stage of the life cycle is where Sony makes the most profits from its console.

If you want a way to estimate the expected life left in a console you need to look at AMD's GPU roadmap. If we being realistic, it's not looking good right now. PS5 Pro has the same feature set as RDNA4 which hasn't even been released yet on the PC side. The absolute soonest we would see a PS6 would be RDNA5. Based on how poor performance uplift is expected going from RDNA2 to RDNA4, RDNA5 is not going to be fast enough to warrant a PS6. Even RDNA6 is not likely to give experience altering performance uplift from the the current PS5 Pro. With current GPU generations stretching to 2.5 years, we're looking at 5 years until RDNA6. That's about the minimum time frame we're looking at for a PS6.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

It isn't the same thing. Sony designates lifespan stages solely by sales volume. It does not give any indication of support cycle. For Sony, the latter stage of its life cycle means that sales of the console have begun to decline. That doesn't mean the console is about to get replaced. Unlike early in the life cycle, Sony should be making money on each console sale instead of losing money, and with a huge installer base, software sales, where the real money is made, should still be going very strong. Latter stage of the life cycle is where Sony makes the most profits from its console.

If you want a way to estimate the expected life left in a console you need to look at AMD's GPU roadmap. If we being realistic, it's not looking good right now. PS5 Pro has the same feature set as RDNA4 which hasn't even been released yet on the PC side. The absolute soonest we would see a PS6 would be RDNA5. Based on how poor performance uplift is expected going from RDNA2 to RDNA4, RDNA5 is not going to be fast enough to warrant a PS6. Even RDNA6 is not likely to give experience altering performance uplift from the the current PS5 Pro. With current GPU generations stretching to 2.5 years, we're looking at 5 years until RDNA6. That's about the minimum time frame we're looking at for a PS6

It may not be the same for you but to me it tells me Sony has moved forward with the PlayStation 6 so I see it one as the same. Any benefits the PS5 Pro offers gamers is a side thought. No reason for me to re-up paying $700 + plus disc drive + stand. I've seen this playbook play out with the PS4 Pro.