![how to get oberon system how to get oberon system](http://www.8dnls.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/What-is-OBERON-SYSTEM-12.jpg)
That's still higher than PS5's memory bandwidth (448 GB/s), especially if CPU and audio usage is taken into account ( which would bring PS5's GPU bandwidth closer to 383 GB/s assuming CPU usage and Tempest Audio usage), but Series X has to confine its GPU data to a 10 GB pool.
#How to get oberon system Pc
However, that's probably a more extreme scenario, since most CPUs of Series X equivalent on PC use about 50 GB/s of DDR4 bandwidth IIRC, but the audio could potentially use another 20 GB/s on top of that (if it's around what PS5 offers with Tempest Engine), so typical GPU bandwidth on Series X is probably around 490 GB/s in most cases. So effective bandwidth in that scenario is actually closer to 560 GB/s *. So, if for a given percentage of frame time in a second (let's say 15%) the CPU & audio are using the GDDR6, then that's 15% of a second where the Series X memory is running at 336 GB/s, not 560 GB/s. Series X does make up for that in a way with larger GDDR6 memory bandwidth but you also need to remember this is shared between GPU (560 GB/s) and CPU/audio(336 GB/s). So that is one of the downsides of having lower GPU clocks.
![how to get oberon system how to get oberon system](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UAFEP8oLWK0/maxresdefault.jpg)
That means a game would need to regularly make 8 more CUs active on Series X to match the same throughput for texture/texel fillrate on PS5. In Series X's case you'd need 44 CUs regularly saturated with work on their TMUs (4 each) to match the texture/texel fillrate of PS5 (321.2 Gtexels/S). However, those things are still determined in some way by clock speeds and are also bound to what saturation levels are being loaded to the CUs across the GPU. Texture fillrate is trickier because those are bound by CUs in RDNA2 so technically speaking the more CUs active the higher Texture and texel fillrate (and due to how RDNA 2 is designed, BVH traversal intersection rates) would be. Whether or not this is enough to beat the XSX I dont know, but I'm pretty sure the difference between the two will be so small, that absolutely no one will be able to tell during normal gameplay and only on zoomed in freeze frames, which is way this discussion is pointless for anyone who is not deeply interested in the exact technical details and only wants to shout out tera flop numbers as if those mean anything.Ĭlick to expand.TFs are only important for coding scenarios that are compute-driven, which isn't as important for games as it would be for say mining, or raw data processing on servers.Ĭertain things like pixel fillrate, geometry culling and triangle rasterization rate are not bound to the CUs explicitly, so the design with higher clocks tends to win out in those cases, which happens to be PS5. Switching the power between CPU and GPU allows Sony to reach these high GPU frequencies to begin with and allowed them to save some silicon, since they can now operate closer to the maximum possible Teraflop. They are basically getting more out of the same design, that otherwise might only be able to run a few hundred Mhz lower with a constant frequency.īoth CPU and GPU running at a fixed frequencies does not improve performance, it only wastes power and creates heat. The variable frequency is the whole reason the PS GPU can run this fast. Its not to lower frequency because the system is running hot, its to upclock the system beyond what would otherwise be possible with a chip like this. Thats the whole point of variable frequency. In that moment the gpu can clock down and allow some power to go to the CPU, so that the cpu is faster and give its finished calculations to the gpu and vice versa.
#How to get oberon system code
No system is ever going to hit its theoretical max performance with any sane code in a game, but with this feature they try to use the gpu and cpu closer to their maximal possible performance because often you dont need both to run at maximum frequency, because the gpu is still waiting for the cpu to do its things. The point of the variable clock is to more often come close to the theoretical max performance. I thought we had this figured out last year.