-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Next-gen PS5 and next Xbox speculation launch thread |OT5| - It's in RDNA
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
Yes but we have more and more Open world game and the biggest one GTA will use the SSD for crazy density and fast car. I can't imagine the cities in the next AC, HZD or the new Fable or using a flying machine in HZD...
Yes! The SSD revolution will one of the biggest revolutions in the last 20 years!
They already got big discounts with current gen consoles so no reason to think anything would be different with upcoming gen. But ssd prices now are still slightly higher than hdd were in 2012/2013.
This depends on the capacities and prices of whatever NAND chips they'll use. If you can get a 1TB as a one chip at a minor price increase over a smaller capacity chip then yeah, sure, going with a smaller one wouldn't make much sense. Chances are though that going for an SSD of 1 TB or more will mean more than one chip needed and this will essentially mean X the price for each additional chip.
And adding an SATA interface for HDD is peanuts really.
A game which has cached all the needed data will launch momentarily. In fact, you will still need this cache even in case of a big SSD only system because a game will have to unpack its data on a first launch anyway and this unpacked data will have to be stored somewhere to be able to use it on consequtive launches without unpacking.
So technically you will still have some loading / data unpacking screen at first launch no matter where this game is stored.
An HDD is an incompressible cost of 35 dollars, after you need to add a 256 GB NAND Flash, a second CPU for NAND Flash management, a hardware decompressor, a custom controller. This is too much... I don't expect more than a 1TB SSD...
Data don't need to be unpacked at first launch of the game after the game install or you speak of the game install?
After the Wired article, the Spidey GDC talk and the fact that Cerny was consulting for Insomniac during its dev... I just can't see them going SSD+HDD for PS5. I can't see them doing anything other than removal of HDD from the equation.
From the things MS has mentioned In various places, I get the impression that they will go the SSD + HDD route though.
From the things MS has mentioned In various places, I get the impression that they will go the SSD + HDD route though.
Even an installed game stores data in packed formats. Or would you prefer for every game to take up around twice as much storage space as right now instead of waiting a bit on a game's first launch? It's possible that they'll be able to somewhat get around this with clever s/w design of course but it will still be there. It's not an issue now as console loading is mostly limited by storage speed and unpacking can be done faster than reading but it will be with a very fast SSD.
$35 for an HDD will most certainly be less than an additional flash chip of the same capacity.
I'm betting they'll both be irreplaceable (hopefully).
How much depends on what part of the uncanny valley curve you're on. Without knowing what rendering techniques will be common practice on the next gen, it is plausible that some graphical features (especially those related to lighting) could require such a big step up in order to make a noticeable difference that halving the framerate may not give you enough headroom to dramatically improve how a game looks.
Again the hardware decompressor is here for this, they talk about it because they need it to be able to unpack data very fast during streaming from the SSD... CPU is too slow for it and it would take too much GPU Power for streaming. For loading on Xbox Scarlett side, the solution is to unpack the data with GPU compute and stream uncompress data. On Sony side, it is to use some hardware decompressor for loading AND streaming data...
Well, we'll see I guess. I'm all for a big SSD only even though it will be sad to loose the storage upgrade ability.
Problem is the oleds are too big for my house. If it was 43-50" it would be perfect so 43" for my room and 50" for the living room.
I expect to be able to use an external HDD or SSD for storage purpose...
Hopefully. The guarantee of high speed SSD for both platforms and no HDD component would be a great baseline for next gen.
30 FPS has never been an issue, 30 FPS doesn't stop games from being the best reviewed games of all time.
With HDMI 2.1 implementing QFT, (Quick Frame Transfer), ALLM (Auto Low Latency Mode), and VRR (Variable Refresh Rates), Frame Rates below 60 will be more acceptable than ever, and even now they're extremely acceptable when locked and the frame times are consistent
This sums up well why PC Gamers hate low frame rates so much, it's just not implemented as well on PC
Thus far we've concentrated on console gaming, but in the PC space things are somewhat more complicated. Developers are no longer working for fixed platforms - instead the player chooses their own hardware and adjusts quality settings to suit a particular configuration. By extension, the number of potential bottlenecks increases tenfold, making it impossible for developers to optimise as thoroughly. The obvious solution for those looking for a slick 60fps experience is simply to load up on the most powerful hardware available - but as we discovered this week with Watch Dogs' awkward PC issues, even that isn't always a viable option.
If you own a game that has consistent performance issues on your PC, there is an option: the same 30fps cap that many developers build into their console titles. While many PC gamers may consider this sacrilege, the advantages are numerous, not least in that it offers somewhat less powerful hardware an opportunity to play the latest games with high quality settings, while still maintaining a consistent level of performance.
Unfortunately, out of the box, it doesn't always work out as planned and some users may have found themselves wondering why a PC game running at 30fps simply doesn't look as fluid and consistent as a console game operating at the same rate. It's not the difference between mouse and gamepad control, though mouse-look can exacerbate a lower frame-rate - it's more than likely to be a consistency issue. Locking frame-rates at 30fps on the PC is a sketchy business that simply doesn't always work as one might expect, mostly because very few games actually have frame-rate limiters built-in. Of those that do, many do not pace the delivery of frames correctly, introducing judder and eliminating the point of having them in the first place. Once again, Need for Speed Rivals - this time in its PC incarnation - is a good example of this.
With HDMI 2.1 implementing QFT, (Quick Frame Transfer), ALLM (Auto Low Latency Mode), and VRR (Variable Refresh Rates), Frame Rates below 60 will be more acceptable than ever, and even now they're extremely acceptable when locked and the frame times are consistent
This sums up well why PC Gamers hate low frame rates so much, it's just not implemented as well on PC
Thus far we've concentrated on console gaming, but in the PC space things are somewhat more complicated. Developers are no longer working for fixed platforms - instead the player chooses their own hardware and adjusts quality settings to suit a particular configuration. By extension, the number of potential bottlenecks increases tenfold, making it impossible for developers to optimise as thoroughly. The obvious solution for those looking for a slick 60fps experience is simply to load up on the most powerful hardware available - but as we discovered this week with Watch Dogs' awkward PC issues, even that isn't always a viable option.
If you own a game that has consistent performance issues on your PC, there is an option: the same 30fps cap that many developers build into their console titles. While many PC gamers may consider this sacrilege, the advantages are numerous, not least in that it offers somewhat less powerful hardware an opportunity to play the latest games with high quality settings, while still maintaining a consistent level of performance.
Unfortunately, out of the box, it doesn't always work out as planned and some users may have found themselves wondering why a PC game running at 30fps simply doesn't look as fluid and consistent as a console game operating at the same rate. It's not the difference between mouse and gamepad control, though mouse-look can exacerbate a lower frame-rate - it's more than likely to be a consistency issue. Locking frame-rates at 30fps on the PC is a sketchy business that simply doesn't always work as one might expect, mostly because very few games actually have frame-rate limiters built-in. Of those that do, many do not pace the delivery of frames correctly, introducing judder and eliminating the point of having them in the first place. Once again, Need for Speed Rivals - this time in its PC incarnation - is a good example of this.
Errr... what you're saying here is true... but no it's not what I was saying.
All I'm saying is that next gen consoles will sell a certain volume which would dictate the discount received. By adding the Volume of sales the Current Gen will have as well, it may translate to enough of a discount to ditch the HDD in the current gen and at the same time get a better deal for next gen.
Wouldn't be as convenient as just swapping in a bigger HDD in PS4/Pro.
External is def more convenient from a user perspective. It's plug and play... it just looks a bit more messy under your TV.
1TB SSD is enough even if files get a little bigger .
We hardcore gamers by load of games per year but average person is 3 to 4 .
Plus they don't keep games on the system long unless they playing it .
IMO space is not really problem when can just use a external even if you have copy it back .
We hardcore gamers by load of games per year but average person is 3 to 4 .
Plus they don't keep games on the system long unless they playing it .
IMO space is not really problem when can just use a external even if you have copy it back .
If Sony are serious about 'no loading times' then there won't be any HDD. Only SSD, min 2TB, probably soldered to the PCB to reduce costs.
Maybe later they'll add the possibility of external HDD to archive games and saves. But people won't be able to play their games from the HDD, the game will have to be fully transfered back on the SSD before being able to be played.
Maybe later they'll add the possibility of external HDD to archive games and saves. But people won't be able to play their games from the HDD, the game will have to be fully transfered back on the SSD before being able to be played.
No man, right now you can get a 1TB NVMe SSD on Amazon for $99. If Sony or MS are going for a similar type SSD it would cost them less than $50 in 2020 cause that price will drop significantly between now and then.
But they aren't even doing that, they are just building an SSD directly onto their PCB. Which will cost them even less than buying an SSD outright. When its all said and done, they wouldn't be spending more than $35-$40 on an SSD that allows them easily grow it in size as the generation progresses and allows for an all around simpler design and application.
You really think any kinda SSD and 2TB HDD combo will cost less than $35-$40?
In what world is buying a HDD, taking out your existing HDD, putting in another one, transferring all your files (preferably from an external HDD) and reinstalling your firmware more convenient than just plugging in an HDD via USB cable and calling it a day?
It won't be plug'n'play on a system which requires each game to be ran off it's internal SSD.
If the 350mm2 die will now cost 40% more on 7nm then we are looking at a $140 chip which should give us the same 40 CU RX 5700XT chip. Since the Scarlett die seems to be even bigger, it's possible that it will cost even more than $140.
That leaves only $60 for
- an additional 40-60 mm2 assuming both Sony and MS are going for the same size die.
- better cooling solution than whatever the PS4 had
- any price difference b/w the SSD and the $37 HDD in the PS4
- any price difference b/w the UHD and the $28 bluray drive in the PS4
Keeping in mind that the BOM for the PS4 was $381 and Xbox One was $471, so it stands to reason that they will want to come under $499 again. If they can get the UHD for the same price and an SSD for $50, they should have $50 for a big cooler and a bigger die with higher clockspeeds. I am sticking with my 56 CU prediction.
That leaves only $60 for
- an additional 40-60 mm2 assuming both Sony and MS are going for the same size die.
- better cooling solution than whatever the PS4 had
- any price difference b/w the SSD and the $37 HDD in the PS4
- any price difference b/w the UHD and the $28 bluray drive in the PS4
Keeping in mind that the BOM for the PS4 was $381 and Xbox One was $471, so it stands to reason that they will want to come under $499 again. If they can get the UHD for the same price and an SSD for $50, they should have $50 for a big cooler and a bigger die with higher clockspeeds. I am sticking with my 56 CU prediction.
Surely you don't expect the user to be the one to manually copy the data across?
The OS will do it, even if a reasonably short initial load is required.
The biggest concern is not the GPU power but the memory increase. Between each PlayStation the jump was 16x increase, this time it won't happen. We would be lucky to have 3x.
Are you saying devs need 16x the memory they have now?
I don't know but for photogrammetry at native 4K with very advanced shaders and details, all to be loaded in a big scene like open world, they need more than just 3x memory increase. iam still chuckling whenever I see suggestions of 16 GB or 18 GB VRAM. Both Sony and Microsoft know that this will never be enough for next-gen barely enough to run current-gen in 4K.
It won't be less than 24 GB for both regardless of the type of memory.
16GB or 18GB will work for next gen just find .
Yes more is better but it won't be a problem .
The heretic unity tech demo and the unreal rebirth open world demo are both using cards with 8gb vram. One looks straight up cgi. The other looks photorealistic.
There are dozens of unreal engine demos out there both open world and indoir areas that look photorealistic.
The unity open world mega city demo is also running on 8gb cards.
This demo is running on a 2080ti which is a 11gb card. Native 4k. Highest settings.
You just said it: "tech demos" and not games and they ran in 1440p and and 1080p iirc. For a "next-gen" + "game" + in "4K", you need more than that in terms of memory and everyone knows that, otherwise the whole enxt-gen concept will obsolete. everyone throwing very low numbers in this thread and deem some specs not possible but just a year after the release of next-gen (with specs that that will surpass those who had low expectations like many here) every dev will be yelling that next-gen hardware wouldn't be enough for their vsisions and plans just like every gen.
The more the better but moslty the wiser. That is why having more is being more realistic than having lower and both companies know that.
Devs complain every gen but it's not always about the same thing .
Last gen it was Ram , this gen it was the CPU and it seem HDD .
Having less than 24GB of ram won't make the concept of next gen obsolete that is crazy talk .
Next gen we are looking at very balance systems and ram won't be a bottle neck even at 16GB.
Next gen games will blow away current gen even with 16GB of ram .
I don't think so at all. When the 8GB GDDR5 was announced for PS4, everyone was amazed and thought this ws an overkill feature, I just said Sony did the right thing, nothing more. It was just proven that wasn't enough so soon especially that 3 GB were dedicated to OS and only 5 GB were used for games (graphical and even for sound design too and other applications). That was no way enough for the later games especially that some games started having higher textures and further display. The PS4 Pro was almost a mess in that regard and only 500 MB of GDDR5 was freed for games so many games suffered of not using the highest textures even on it (except some games of course).
The 12 GDDR5 of the X B O X was good enough for mid-gen refresh that allowed 4K textures on games and even native 4K for others but couldn't allow both or the highest settings in all "current-gen games". A meagre addition of 4GB or even 6GB won't be enough for next-gen like I mentioned
My optimal suggestion would be 24 GB of VRAM + 4GB for OS (GDDR6 + DDR4). My realistic exectations is 24 GB total (20 GB GDDR6 + 4 GB DDR4 for OS) and this will mostly happen. I can see the first suggestion happening on PS5 at least (acording to many leaks if hey are rtue).
rebirth demo is 4k. heretic demo was 1440p. and the megacity demo is running at native 4k on some guy's pc.
and while everyone knows you need more RAM, everyone is also telling you that you dont need that much more.
16gb of vram will be 2x as much as current high end pc gpus have, and as i showed above, 8gb seems to be enough for these extremely next gen looking tech demos.
The megacity tech demo has nothing that screams next-gen for me (like for example The heretic demo), it looks just like a tech demo and not a game, and you can see the sides are empty because it is just a tech demo and even with such GPU, there is a horrendous clipping. That is why more VRAM is needed which is a given things to run full next-gen games in 4K.
Not a single console manufacturer is insane or suicidal enough to go with such low amount of memory, not even 18 GB let alone 16 GB which is kinda very ridiculous, even if 16 GB will be full VRAM allocated to games completely (meaning the the system has a little more memory for OS).
Sorry, but such expectations aren't just very low but completely not logical or even realistic.
This won't happen anyway and you will see in the near future.
No one thought 8GB was over kill .
In fact people and devs were asking for that amount .
Thing is you have to look at these system as a whole the SSD will help with less ram .
Also it will be more than 4GB or 6GB extra since people saying 16GB not counting the OS in that and devs currently using 5GB .
In fact the OS might used less RAM because of the SSD.
we will see i guess.
i think 16-18 gb should be enough for games. they will have 4gb ddr4 for the OS. no point in having fast GDDR6 RAM for the OS.
I seriously hope that 18 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, dedicated to games, is the least we get. With 4GB slower RAM for the OS.
16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus would be ridiculous, not only the amount, but the leap in bandwidth wouldn't be much over Xbox One X's 384-bit GDDR6, especially when you consider the next-gen console CPUs will need significantly more bandwidth than the Jaguar CPUs in all current consoles.
16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus would be ridiculous, not only the amount, but the leap in bandwidth wouldn't be much over Xbox One X's 384-bit GDDR6, especially when you consider the next-gen console CPUs will need significantly more bandwidth than the Jaguar CPUs in all current consoles.
How much bandwidth would that be? I think bandwidth is going to be key next-gen
16GB GDDR6 ( Game ) + 8GB DDR4 ( 4GB OS / 4GB SSD ) is top tier.
But i doubt.
Probably 12GB for game and 4GB for OS.
But i doubt.
Probably 12GB for game and 4GB for OS.
56 CU at 1,800 MHz?If the 350mm2 die will now cost 40% more on 7nm then we are looking at a $140 chip which should give us the same 40 CU RX 5700XT chip. Since the Scarlett die seems to be even bigger, it's possible that it will cost even more than $140.
That leaves only $60 for
- an additional 40-60 mm2 assuming both Sony and MS are going for the same size die.
- better cooling solution than whatever the PS4 had
- any price difference b/w the SSD and the $37 HDD in the PS4
- any price difference b/w the UHD and the $28 bluray drive in the PS4
Keeping in mind that the BOM for the PS4 was $381 and Xbox One was $471, so it stands to reason that they will want to come under $499 again. If they can get the UHD for the same price and an SSD for $50, they should have $50 for a big cooler and a bigger die with higher clockspeeds. I am sticking with my 56 CU prediction.
That's what they say every generation. I still haven't jumped on the whole "diminishing returns" train yet.
- Status