PS5's Power Saver Probably Isn't Tied to a Next-Gen Handheld, But It's Intriguing All the Same

This seems like a lot of effort if its just for a power saving mode that nobody is likely to ever use. I still feel it is linked to that rumoured handheld, isn't it meant to have a docked mode? These could be profiles for that, with further cuts for its handheld profiles

I know electricity bills r high but Jesus if ur worried that much buy a handheld

The only people who I've ever seen argue that this power saving mode was in preparation of the handhelds launch was PS writers. 😂

I do appreciate that those same PS writers have talked about the PS5 power consumption. I try to always turn it off rather than put it in rest mode now, and I never use it for streaming or DVDs, though I will throw in the occasional Blu-ray, don't think I've ever held a 4k disc in my hands, so I know the PS5 is a power hog, and I try to mitigate my energy usage, but I never saw this energy saving mode as handheld related. 🤷‍♂️

I started wondering this when it looked like both base and Pro were targeting 100W.

I worked it out recently, and the saving in energy from a cost point of view (UK), was so little this mode just doesn't seem worthwhile. You are talking about 3p an hour saving.

If it 'works' with a big power drawing device, then maybe it can work with a Handheld too.

Handheld PC's tend to offer 'customised' power settings - you can turn up the power or reduce it - depending on whether you want more gaming performance at the cost of Battery life or extend your playing time.

Of course with connected device that's always plugged into a mains supply, reducing the power consumption is arguably unnecessary - unless you are trying to cut your Carbon Footprint and/or Electrical consumption down.

A Power save mode could do things like reduce the resolution or frame rate caps on a Handheld too - maybe going from 25-30w down to 15w, like switching from Performance or Turbo to Silent mode on a Handheld PC.

@Rich33 but 3p an hour can build up quickly if you game regularly. I've played over 100hrs in a week before, and 3p an hour difference would be over £3 extra just on gaming use. 1000hrs is £30 difference in cost. Over a 5hr gaming session 15p difference doesn't seem significant - but game 5hrs a day every day for a year and that's an additional £55 on just electricity which if you pay the bills maybe 'significant'...

This seems made to pander to everyone but gamers. Nobody is using this.

Given that the handheld might be 1-2 years away it might sense and there is probably and option to include a chip that can force the needed performance by a lower power consumption. Who now’s.
On the stationary console this most likely won’t get used by many players.

@BAMozzy who's gaming 5 hours a day though??

@Deljo This sort of website populated almost exclusively by gaming enthusiasts probably isn't the best place to ask that.

@BAMozzy If you put one pound away every day you'll have £365 in a year (im no chairman of the Bank of England but hey) 😄

If is not for a handheld then that's allot of time and resources wasted on something that literaly no one will use. Without exaggeration I don't see a single person in this planet with a PS5 willingly making the games look and play worse just to save a little power 🤷

I definitely do not think it’s a good idea for them to pursue a full fledge handheld. If I’m going to play a PlayStation game in all its graphical glory, I want to do it on my big ‘ol beautiful TV, not on a dinky screen.

@Deljo I do most days - if not more. I often have over 2000hrs a year across various games and gaming devices. Some games I play 'daily' for a couple of hours or more end up with over a 1k hrs a yr just on 1 game. Let alone 50-60hrs on completing some Single Player games and all side Quests.

I completed H:ZD to Platinum in 5 days, GoW (2018) to Platinum in 4days - easily playing more than 10hrs a day. Destiny 1 I had over 2.5k hrs in over the few years before D2 released.

@Jrs1 very true, and if you opt to use some power saving mode that maybe saves you about 3p an hour, your Electric bill will be lower and therefore not have to spend as much out on Bills every month/quarter...

All I was saying is that how a 'little' saving - whether its pence per hour or £1 per day in a savings account, how that adds up over time. Many people also don't think about the 'ongoing' costs of playing games on a Console - especially if you enjoy Social gaming.

Essential tier Subs don't seem that 'outrageous' in cost - if you buy months worth in bulk, but £10 a month (if you pay monthly) is an additional £120 a year or £600 over 5yrs. So your PS5 that cost say £500 in 2020 and 5yrs worth of Essential to play online is (up to) £1100 before you consider £70 games or the Electricity/ISP costs.

It just seems that your 'disposible' income is disappearing on Bills/ongoing costs (like Sub fees) leaving you less to actually spend on 'Games' and if Sony (or anyone else) provides 'cheaper' ways to game but still give access to the SAME library, some may well take that option. It maybe a 'small' saving but that along with other 'small' savings (not buying the most expensive Brands of food or cutting down on Socialising and dining out, choosing to stay at home instead of vactioning away etc) all add up and can make a significant difference annually.

Of course some gamers won't compromise - even though they bought a Console which does 'Compromise' on Graphics/Performance compared to the latest tech in PC's - the Compromise being that it still offers arguably the 'best' performance for its 'upfront' cost (as its subsidised by Subs and a Single Storefront) but don't expect Native 4k/120 and full path traced RT. They just won't compromise for a 'small' power saving regardless.

Is this perhaps about cloud streaming? While energy saving costs are small for 1 PS5 running for a few hours a day, if you change that to a big data centre with lots of PS5 consoles running 24/7 the savings add up fast.

Considering Sony cut costs by doing things like reducing the internal storage in the newest PS5 model, I could see Sony having cloud streaming run in Power Saver mode in the future.

@BAMozzy
I get your point, and I had thought about cumulative costs over a period for people who play a lot of games, before I posted.

My thought on this is that (using your example) 5hrs a day average is very much enthusiast territory, with gaming being your primary hobby - in which case saving just £55 per year just seems disproportionate with the compromise in your main hobby. I am the bill payer so to speak, so I know £55 does not get you much these days.

There's only 2 areas I could see this being useful. The first being if you need to save every penny, but are out of work for whatever reason (redundancy, illness, etc), so also have a lot of free time. The second being if you have multiple kids, all who like to play games - I'm not suggesting you let any child play close to 5hrs avrg a day, but it could still add up.

I'm not intrested in a new handheld, Portal is a great machine and all I need.

@Rich33 It is cumulative and if your bills are rising say £50 a year but your salary is not, then trying to cut back on your energy usage without impacting too much on your 'leisure time' - ie you don't have to cut down on your gaming time or pay the increase in your Bills.

It lets you play 'longer' for the same cost essentially or as bills go up, you can save some money without necessarily cutting back on the hours you spend gaming.

If you are out of work, then chances are, as your Bills go up but your 'income' is limited, you don't want to cut your gaming time and be less occupied d/more bored, then whatever 'money' you have to live on each month isn't going to cover the increase in those bills. So either you cut down gaming time or switch to energy saving to try and keep your bills down.

I myself, as a bill-payer too for ALL my household needs/usage, would be unlikely to choose to play on a low power mode - unless it suits me more than just saving a few pence per hour at most. With my Handheld, dropping from Turbo to Performance or even down to Silent - especially in Battery mode is something I do and will use to extend Battery life. I'm willing to sacrifice 1080p or 60fps for 720p or 30fps for double or more the playtime.

I also always think its better to offer a choice because it may suit someone and their situation, if its beneficial for consumers, even if they 'choose' to use more Energy for higher Graphical Settings/frame rates, then why not offer that choice. I'll game at 15w quite happily on a Handheld - even if it can be boosted to 35w for 'better' graphics/frame rates because I'd rather game for 4-5 hrs on battery rather than just an hour or so...

@BAMozzy
I'm not into handheld gaming, but if I was then, yes, I could see the advantages of more time per charge.

1 odd thing to consider here, given the resources they have put towards this project.

The Pro is significantly more power efficient, presumably due to the main chip being 4nm instead of 6/7nm - in testing it uses only just above 10% extra power. DF found it was approx 220 base, 245 Pro, when both were as maxed out as they could realistically achieve. DF were expecting over 300W given the upgrade they were seeing.

Yet, even now, Sony haven't moved to a 4nm chip for new model base PS5s - that would get a power saving, maybe not as much as this 'low power mode', true - but without any compromising.

@Rich33 I believe they are on 5nm now and 4nm is barely anymore efficient - its not like dropping from 90nm to 45nm as they did with the PS3 and PS3 slim - that's also why we aren't seeing price drops because the die space saving is 'negligible' too and require much of the same cooling etc

It doesn't make sense to move to a more costly manufacturing process to save a fraction of die space that won't see you save 'money' elsewhere by reducing the size significantly - its probably cheaper to stick with the 5nm.

Its also about cost, if they move to 4nm and the console goes 'up' again that sends a message when they can say they are trying what they can to keep their gaming platform 'affordable' and offering a 'Low Power Consumption' mode may help persuade some to buy thinking it will save them 'money' over time.

I've never upgraded because the 'new' hardware saves about 20-30w/h, I only upgrade if the 'new' hardware offers something 'more', like a big size difference or upgrade in Graphical (and/or Frame rate) performance. Each to their own of course...

Anyway - all I was saying is that its better to offer choice and for some, playing on Low Power, even on a mains powered device, maybe beneficial to extend their play-time OR reduce their bills a bit - rather than quit or reduce hours as bills increase. For others, the compromise may not be worth the financial saving or their financial status allows them not to worry about their own power consumption...

@BAMozzy
I'm not saying people would upgrade for the power efficiency - I upgraded to Pro because of the superior framerates/graphics.
I'm just saying that it proves, if Sony were wholly in on power efficiency, that they have a working 4nm option instead of the 6nm for base (unless they changed it on last revision), and that it can't be that much more expensive or they would have kept to 6nm for Pro.

@Rich33 Not necessarily as the Pro is still expensive for 'little' more in the way of hardware specs and don't forget, Sony are saving money by not including a Disc Drive and all the extra plastics, weight etc that adds to the cost (inc Shipping).

Its probably not worth the extra cost of producing that chip for a 5yr old console when it also doesn't really offer any 'benefit' to the consumer - other than a small reduction in power consumption - but Sony have to raise the price again to cover for the extra 'expence' of 4nm production. I bet that 4nm is expensive and in high demand for a LOT of tech based products.

Reducing the power consumption by a small amount is no incentive for Sony or Consumers - especially not if it bumps up the price of the Hardware and doesn't run games any differently to previous versions.

Giving people a 'Choice' by offering a 'Low Power' mode that significantly reduces the power consumption but also affects the way a game runs is giving Consumers a choice on the Hardware they already have (or will buy in the future), that's already on the market and has been for 5yrs. People won't 'upgrade' to another PS5 just because it uses less power than their Original PS5, but plays games exactly the same as their current PS5. But they may use a low power mode.

Of course the 'next' Playstation will likely be built on the 4nm process if that's the most efficient and cost effective process at the time. It will be as 'energy' efficient as they can make it, but maybe offer a Low Power mode as well in case some people would prefer to either save money on their electric bill or play for more hours at the same cost. Without a Low Power mode option, you have NO choice to lower the power for cheaper or longer gaming times.

The point is, this offers a Consumer choice to choose whether to run the console at 'full' power (regardless of whether its a bit higher/lower in consumption than other Consoles ) or actively choose to play on lower power modes. If they made a slightly more efficient PS5, it still doesn't offer consumers a 'choice' to reduce the power consumption 'further' like this method does.

@JJtheTexan
Yeah - I'm pretty sure my maths is correct.
I get some of the arguments for the choice (eg Out of work / multiple kids), but it seems a massive compromise for very little saving - particularly when you compare it to heating or cooling (ie air con) running prices.

Maybe I'm biased - I want as good framerates / graphics as I can get - but I can't imagine the take up will be anything but miniscule.