PS3 vs PS5 in numbers

[WhoDecidedThat]

Metric	PS3	PS5	Comparison
Launch date	11 November, 2006	12 November, 2020	14 years apart
Texture Fill Rate (in GTexel/sec)	13.2	321.6	1 PS5 = 24x PS3
Pixel Fill Rate (in GPixel/sec)	4.4	142.9	1 PS5 = 32x PS3
Shader Ops (in GFLOPs/sec)	251.2	10,290	1 PS5 = 41x PS3
RAM Bandwidth (in GB/sec)	20.8 (GPU) + 20.8 (CPU)	448 (Shared)	1 PS5 = 11x PS3
Storage Bandwidth (in MB/sec)	33 MB/sec (extrapolated from PS4)	5500 MB/sec	1 PS5 = 160x PS3
RAM Capacity	256 MB CPU + 256 MB GPU	16,384 MB shared	1 PS5 = 32x PS3
Storage Capacity	20 GB (at launch)	825 GB	1 PS5 = 41x PS3

RAM bandwidth sees the least improvement and storage bandwidth sees the biggest improvement. Overall, the PS5 seems to be about 30 times more powerful than the PS3.

 

[ixi]

Where is ps1, ps2, ps4 as well?

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

Where is ps1, ps2, ps4 as well?

Metric	PS3	PS4	PS5
Launch date	11 November, 2006	15 November, 2013 (7 years after PS3)	12 November, 2020 (14 years after PS3)
Texture Fill Rate (in GTexel/sec)	13.2	57.6 (4.3x PS3)	321.6 (5.6x PS4, 24x PS3)
Pixel Fill Rate (in GPixel/sec)	4.4	25.6 (5.8x PS3)	142.9 (5.6x PS4, 32x PS3)
Shader Ops (in GFLOPs/sec)	251.2	1843 (7.3x PS3)	10,290 (5.6x PS4, 41x PS3)
RAM Bandwidth (in GB/sec)	20.8 (GPU) + 20.8 (CPU)	176 (Shared) (4.2x PS3)	448 (Shared) (2.5x PS4, 11x PS3)
Storage Bandwidth (in MB/sec)	Unknown	33 MBps average / 100 MBps peak	5500 MBps (160x PS4 on average)
RAM Capacity	256 MB CPU + 256 MB GPU	8,192 MB shared (16x PS3)	16,384 MB shared (2x PS4, 32x PS3)
Storage Capacity	20 GB	500 GB (25x PS3)	825 GB (1.65x PS4, 41x PS3)

PS1 and PS2 data is a bit weird because they didn't have programmable GPUs.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Surprising PS5 doesn't come with more HD space.. considering how lazy developers have become about saving space

 

[ixi]

PS1 and PS2 data is a bit weird because they didn't have programmable GPUs.

My man, you deserve now glass full with beer!

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

considering how lazy developers have become about saving space

Texture sizes have ballooned these past years too. It is not completely their fault. Think about it. Texture fill rate is up 20+ times, shader throughput is up 40+ times and RAM sizes are up 30+ times. And yet frame rate has remained stable. Because texture sizes have gone up significantly, geometric/lighting complexity has gone up significantly. The video games which are made with TLC these days look ridiculously pretty. All that comes at a cost. Just like 4K movies are so much bigger than their HD counterparts, the pretty 4K games of today are much bigger than their older counterparts.

Sony understands this. That is why they built a dedicated very, very fast file decompressor into their console. It can take 5.5 GB/sec compressed game data and output 22 GB/sec uncompressed game data.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Texture sizes have ballooned these past years too. It is not completely their fault. Think about it. Texture fill rate is up 20+ times, shader throughput is up 40+ times and RAM sizes are up 30+ times. And yet frame rate has remained stable. Because texture sizes have gone up significantly, geometric/lighting complexity has gone up significantly. The video games which are made with TLC these days look ridiculously pretty. All that comes at a cost. Just like 4K movies are so much bigger than their HD counterparts, the pretty 4K games of today are much bigger than their older counterparts.

Sony understands this. That is why they built a dedicated very, very fast file decompressor into their console. It can take 5.5 GB/sec compressed game data and output 22 GB/sec uncompressed game data.

Framerates are stable on consoles because the frames are locked.

 

[Metroid]

And so far we have not seen a game that utilizes 50% of the PS5 hardware capability, more like 30% so far.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

And so far we have not seen a game that utilizes 50% of the PS5 hardware capability, more like 30% so far.

Dude, optimization is different from hardware utilization.

 

[QuietBob]

@blanarahul Great job with that chart!

Now let's look at CPU specifications gen-to-gen:

	PS3​	PS4​	PS4 Pro​	PS5​
name	Cell Broadband Engine	Liverpool	Neo	Oberon
year of release	2006	2013	2016	2020
developers	IBM, Sony, Toshiba	AMD, Sony	AMD, Sony	AMD, Sony
ISA	PowerPC	x86-64	x86-64	x86-64
microarchitecture	Cell Broadband Engine Architecture	custom AMD Jaguar/Kabini APU	custom AMD Jaguar/Kabini APU	custom AMD Zen 2 APU
node	90, 65, 45 nm	28 nm	16 nm	7 nm
core config	1x Power Processor Element (PPE) main CPU 7x Synergistic Processor Element (SPE) co-processor	2 clusters 4 cores / cluster	2 clusters 4 cores / cluster	2 core complexes (CCX) 4 cores / CCX
cores / threads	8 / 9	8 / 8	8 / 8	8 / 16
clock speed	3.2 GHz	1.6 GHz	2.13 GHz	3.5 GHz
L1 cache	PPE: 64 KB SPE: 256 KB scratchpad / core	64 KB / core	64 KB / core	64 KB / core
L2 cache	PPE: 512 KB	2 MB shared / cluster	2 MB shared / cluster	512 KB / core
L3 cache	-	-	-	4 MB shared / CCX
max theoretical performance (single precision/FP32)	204.8 GFLOPS	102.4 GFLOPS	134.4 GFLOPS	448.0 GFLOPS

Comparing different architectures isn't exactly accurate, but that Cell CPU sure packed some punch for its time.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

@blanarahul Great job with that chart!

Thanks gentleperson!

Now let's look at CPU specifications gen-to-gen:

I didn't realise earlier but Sony really went to town with the clock speeds from PS4 to the PS5. 1.6 GHz to 3.5 GHz for the CPU (120% increase!) and 800 MHz to 2230 MHz for the GPU (180% increase!!).

 

[Ruru]

I doubt that 55MB/s storage bandwith on PS3. Maybe the slow laptop original HDD is that slow, but IIRC it's up to 150MB/s (SATA1.0) and at least I see some benefit using a SSD on a PS3.

Interesting thread otherwise.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

I doubt that 55MB/s storage bandwith on PS3.

Watch from 5:49. Mark Cerny is the Head of PlayStation Hardware Development by the way so he knows more about this than I do. He explains in detail why hard drives are slower than you would expect. The gist of it is that Hard Drives lose speed when data is fragmented. In their data analysis they found that they lose around 66% of a Hard Drive's Maximum Theoretical Performance with real life fragmented data.

Assuming a 100 MB/sec Hard Drive. You are left only with 33 MB/sec raw read speed for real life data. With the compression they used in PS4 (which results in 33% reduction in size on average), the effective read speed for Hard Drive is 33 MB/sec / 0.66 = 50 MB/sec.

In comparison, the number for PS5 is 5.5 GB/sec raw read speed and 8-9 GB/sec effective for compressed data. So if comparing apples to apples, it is PS4's 50 MB/sec vs PS5's 8-9 GB/sec. More than 160 times faster.

Those maniacs at Sony are really proud of the storage solution of the PS5 because its speed is unrivalled in the entire consumer market and it shows when Mark is talking about it.

 

[Chomiq]

Surprising PS5 doesn't come with more HD space.. considering how lazy developers have become about saving space

It's not about not saving space but saving cpu time that would be used to decompress textures.

 

[seth1911]

With the Background of 196MB RAM ( about 60MB is for the OS) and 256MB for the GPU.
The Games are looking really good on the PS3.


But since the PS4 and the switch on x86, games look really really bad for 5 GB ( rest is for the Sys),
PS5 16GB and a really fast SSD, no comment

 

[ShiBDiB]

It's not about not saving space but saving cpu time that would be used to decompress textures.

Eh it's getting to the point where you can only fit 2 or 3 games on a system

 

[Vayra86]

Thanks gentleperson!


I didn't realise earlier but Sony really went to town with the clock speeds from PS4 to the PS5. 1.6 GHz to 3.5 GHz for the CPU (120% increase!) and 800 MHz to 2230 MHz for the GPU (180% increase!!).

I think its more a case of the PS4 being notoriously weak in every possible way, and most certainly in the CPU department. The issues with both PS4 and X1 were mostly related to weak CPUs. Sub 25 FPS framerates are common, even today.

And then Cell... theoretically so powerful, but in practice totally worthless in terms of raw performance. It wasn't fast, but it could multitask somewhat. Even so, despite those big numbers, anytime you pressed the PS button you had a major latency hit on your 'OS' which consisted of no more than two crossbars with a handful of icons. It was also not uncommon to get the extremely typical hang of a CPU that is pegged at 100% in some place, only to 'unhang' itself moments later, with a big stutter surrounding it. Also, I think of all consoles I had, the PS3 was the one crashing most frequently in games.

Watch from 5:49. Mark Cerny is the Head of PlayStation Hardware Development by the way so he knows more about this than I do. He explains in detail why hard drives are slower than you would expect. The gist of it is that Hard Drives lose speed when data is fragmented. In their data analysis they found that they lose around 66% of a Hard Drive's Maximum Theoretical Performance with real life fragmented data.

Assuming a 100 MB/sec Hard Drive. You are left only with 33 MB/sec raw read speed for real life data. With the compression they used in PS4 (which results in 33% reduction in size on average), the effective read speed for Hard Drive is 33 MB/sec / 0.66 = 50 MB/sec.

In comparison, the number for PS5 is 5.5 GB/sec raw read speed and 8-9 GB/sec effective for compressed data. So if comparing apples to apples, it is PS4's 50 MB/sec vs PS5's 8-9 GB/sec. More than 160 times faster.

Those maniacs at Sony are really proud of the storage solution of the PS5 because its speed is unrivalled in the entire consumer market and it shows when Mark is talking about it.

Sony has always tried to sell their console on a 'killer feature' or some mindblowing tech solution they produced. PS3: Cell and how it would enable a true multimedia home/server box, PS4: integration of services and connectivity (really just trying to be social media friendly) and 'we have faster hardware'; PS5: storage.

And the funny thing is, even for all its failures, these stories all worked to sell consoles and keep leading. Because there is no question Sony's leading, and pushing the console further into gaming territory than the Xbox ever will. I think Microsoft's ideas suffer from the weight of Windows, they always want to be careful not to cannibalize their position in x86; and also, MS is not a hardware but a software company. That also echoes in every hardware release they do: they screw it up. Every. Single. Time. And right now, MS is focusing again on the wrong stuff: not the hardware and the games you could run on it, but rather all sorts of cloud based bullshit nobody's really looking for. Historically, Sony's doing what it always did. Make games and carve out markets. They're into cars now, too

 

[QuietBob]

With the compression they used in PS4 (which results in 33% reduction in size on average), the effective read speed for Hard Drive is 33 MB/sec / 0.66 = 50 MB/sec.

They used a number of different HDD models from Samsung and HGST in the PS4. Still, they all shared very similar specs on paper. Around 45 MB/s minimum transfer rate, 80 MB/s average and 105 MB/s maximum.

Of course these numbers represent "best case" scenario: linear read with a large file occupying continuous unfragmented space. As you pointed out, real life use would lead to huge file fragmentation and so the transfers would be much lower. But I'm pretty sure the loading times were limited by the CPU's ST performance much more than by the medium itself.

I haven't seen the video you posted yet, nor have I heard of the PS4 using data compression. That would add additional processing overhead for the already sub-par Jaguar core, whenever data is accessed.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

I haven't seen the video you posted yet, nor have I heard of the PS4 using data compression. That would add additional processing overhead for the already sub-par Jaguar core, whenever data is accessed.

That would explain why game size ballooned for the pervious generation. Maybe they saw CPU time lost in decompression as the bigger loss compared to larger (and thus slower to access) game size.

 

[londiste]

I think its more a case of the PS4 being notoriously weak in every possible way, and most certainly in the CPU department. The issues with both PS4 and X1 were mostly related to weak CPUs. Sub 25 FPS framerates are common, even today.

Especially when it comes to framerates, GPU was also weak. This was the only console generation where GPU was match for last generation midrange GPU in PC world - 7850-ish (a little lower but close enough) performance in Nov 2013. 7850 is from early 2012 and late summer 2013 had brought Radeon 200-series GPUs with PS4 pretty much matching R7 260X

Consoles usually start with a GPU derived from high-end stuff from the generation before release.

 

[Ruru]

With the Background of 196MB RAM ( about 60MB is for the OS) and 256MB for the GPU.
The Games are looking really good on the PS3.

Agree. Been playing Final Fantasy XIII on PS3 recently (though I have it on Steam too) and even though it's an older game, it does look awesome. And the framerate stays smooth 99% of the time.

Sony has always tried to sell their console on a 'killer feature' or some mindblowing tech solution they produced. PS3: Cell and how it would enable a true multimedia home/server box, PS4: integration of services and connectivity (really just trying to be social media friendly) and 'we have faster hardware'; PS5: storage.

For me, the killer feature of PS2 was the ability to use it as a DVD player as independent DVD players were almost as expensive as PS2 when it was launched. The same goes for using PS3 as a blu-ray player (and it serves that thing for me as well even this day).

Especially when it comes to framerates, GPU was also weak. This was the only console generation where GPU was match for last generation midrange GPU in PC world - 7850-ish (a little lower but close enough) performance in Nov 2013. 7850 is from early 2012 and late summer 2013 had brought Radeon 200-series GPUs with PS4 pretty much matching R7 260X

Consoles usually start with a GPU derived from high-end stuff from the generation before release.

Truly agree here. PS3 had practically a cut-down 7800 GTX where X360 had kind of a modified X1900 GPU. But that's where optimization comes into play, PS3/X360 and PS4/XBOne have some truly great looking games where running those games with their PC counterpart GPUs would be practically impossible.