I think they were referring to current gen consoles, not next gen. I wonder if they'll aim for 4K/60 on next gen.Good news from CD PR about Cyberpunk & consoles:
Cyberpunk 2077 will look just as good on PS5 and Project Scarlett as most PCs
I think they were referring to current gen consoles, not next gen. I wonder if they'll aim for 4K/60 on next gen.Good news from CD PR about Cyberpunk & consoles:
Cyberpunk 2077 will look just as good on PS5 and Project Scarlett as most PCs
we don't know graphics score of gonzaloeven the graphics score?
lol. i bet it will look like shit on current gen consoles though.
Good news from CD PR about Cyberpunk & consoles:
Cyberpunk 2077 will look just as good on PS5 and Project Scarlett as most PCs
Funny how that works :DI still think it is pretty funny how things instantly settled down the moment he said that lol.
You had folk who have never posted in these threads show up once that 'PS5 is stronger' thing started making rounds. Matt says he feels Next Box will be stronger? They gone. ⚰
lol. i bet it will look like shit on current gen consoles though.
So Gonzalo is probably based on 5700xt but that CPU is 4.4 GHz and not 3.2.Closest i can find is this one at 1.89 ghz.
Overall 21k.
Graphics 25k.
Timespy scores arent as great.
Graphics scores only:
5700XT - 9.6
2070 Super - 10.3
2080 - 12.2
Haha exactlyFinding it hard to believe that no one has taken a ryzen 7 CPU, downclocked it to 3.2Ghz or even 3Ghz, pair it to a 5700/5700XT and run that fire strike test.
I'm looking at you DF. Do this for us instead of giving us comparison videos of hoe journey runs on PC
eh. i dont trust them at all. they completely changed the renderer for witcher 3 after the initial showing. the first gameplay footage of cyberpunk looks way too good to be true. i refuse to believe that can be done on current gen consoles. it will be downgraded to hell and back.Well yeah,i thought the same about RDR2 and in the end i was pleasantly surprised.
CDPR is not R*,of course,but i'll give them the benefit of the doubt.I hope they learned a lot from Witcher 3 experience.
So Gonzalo is probably based on 5700xt but that CPU is 4.4 GHz and not 3.2.
this only bodes well for gonzolo though. if the overall score of gonzolo was over 20k with a 3.2 ghz CPU that means the gpu is at least just as strong as the 5700 XT or much more stronger than that.
Haha exactly, Dictator DF check firestirke 1080p general score with ryzen 7 3700x downclocked to 3.2ghz with 5700 and 5700xtFinding it hard to believe that no one has taken a ryzen 7 CPU, downclocked it to 3.2Ghz or even 3Ghz, pair it to a 5700/5700XT and run that fire strike test.
I'm looking at you DF. Do this for us instead of giving us comparison videos of hoe journey runs on PC
I meant something similar to NVIDIA's solution in the RTX series, a small part of the CU is designed to handle RT and most of the CU is the usual rasterization machine that we are used to seeing. Every CU has some part which is dedicated to RT, just like NVIDIA's SM:
Yea to me it looks like what ever Gonzalo is , it's minimum 5700xt level or stronger and let's not forget those Gonzalo results are for engineering samples.final versions most probably will improve even furthereh. i dont trust them at all. they completely changed the renderer for witcher 3 after the initial showing. the first gameplay footage of cyberpunk looks way too good to be true. i refuse to believe that can be done on current gen consoles. it will be downgraded to hell and back.
what will be interesting to see is if they will also downgrade the pc version like they did with witcher 3 by changing the renderer for the pc version as well. with next gen consoles coming out, i hope they keep the pc version looking as good as last year's footage and aim to port that version to the ps5 and x2.
this only bodes well for gonzolo though. if the overall score of gonzolo was over 20k with a 3.2 ghz CPU that means the gpu is at least just as strong as the 5700 XT or much more stronger than that.
These are most likely my final predictions for the PS5 until the official reveal (PSX 2019):
Price: $499
GPU: 9-13 RDNA TFLOPS
CPU: 8-core 16 Threaded Zen 2 (3.2 GHz)
RAM: 24 GB (20 GB usable for devs) of unknown type or speed
SSD: 1 TB with 5 GB/s+ write speeds
Edit: I'll continue to add different smaller hardware features.
Closest i can find is this one at 1.89 ghz.
Overall 21k.
Graphics 25k.
Timespy scores arent as great.
Graphics scores only:
5700XT - 9.6
2070 Super - 10.3
2080 - 12.2
this would fit with MS talking about their SSD as virtual ram while cerny is talking about the SSD as a means of eliminating loading and streaming assets as fast as possible.
basically MS are planning to use the SSD as an actual additional ram which they write to a lot, while the SSD based off sony's patents will mostly read data very fast.
wonder what will developers favor more.
i do fear that writing to the SSD that much might increase the likelyhood of a SSD fault.
The french gamesite I follow (gamekult) clearly state that the e3 demo 2019 doesn't match the e3 demo 2018. He thinks the 2018 version was a vertical slice.I heard relation of person that watched new gamplay after e3 2019 of Cyberpunk. Graphic is ok but it's not new quality at all(there are better looking games), is curentgen title so will look ok on ps4 and xone.
Outside of taking a massive loss, I don't see how Sony could possibly sell the PS5 for $400.
Interesting way to look at itPage files suck as a rule. Even if on an SSD. Bragging about needing virtual RAM in Scarlett is a bizarre flex for MS. It suggests to me they expect the PS5 to have more RAM. Devs will absolutely prefer greater read speed. You don't need to resort to virtual RAM when you can load data on demand more efficiently.
It's not bizarre. It's a diversion. Hey our SSD is not a relatively slow PC SSD (compared to fully custom PS5 SSD with x GB of dedicated cache + custom file system ) : it's a "custom" SSD. Custom, like PS5 custom SSD.Page files suck as a rule. Even if on an SSD. Bragging about needing virtual RAM in Scarlett is a bizarre flex for MS. It suggests to me they expect the PS5 to have more RAM. Devs will absolutely prefer greater read speed. You don't need to resort to virtual RAM when you can load data on demand more efficiently.
I am curious if AMD's lag reduction will get increased focus on consoles. With this feature, VRR, QFT, ALLM, 240 Hz and esports all being buzzwords, this area may see some increased focus too. I don't think I've ever seen PS4 compared to XB1 lag.
This seems more impressive than I would've thought. Is there much chance of AMD's Content Aware Sharpening appearing in the consoles? Possibly even an enhanced version tailored to specific games?
I asked ths before and you conveniently ignored it so I wil ask it again.I agree ,if they kept late 2019 launch there is no way they could avoid 499 price with Zen2+Navi 10+SSD+GDDR6.
But we are talking now about late 2020 launch and that is a different story,none of the tech in PS5 will be new by then-next year this time AMD will have Zen3,Navi 20 or whatever,price of SSD and memory will go down,so i think 399 price (with some smallish 50-100 loss) will be possible.
hehehe...I am curious if AMD's lag reduction will get increased focus on consoles. With this feature, VRR, QFT, ALLM, 240 Hz and esports all being buzzwords, this area may see some increased focus too. I don't think I've ever seen PS4 compared to XB1 lag.
Maybe they delayed it for 7nm EUV.I asked ths before and you conveniently ignored it so I wil ask it again.
Has it occurred to you that waiting till 2020 was the only way they could get to sell a system like what the PS5 is shaping out to be for $499?
Has it crossed your mind that $499 is what they get when they give the current gen a year extra so prices can go down a bit more on next-gen components?
I asked ths before and you conveniently ignored it so I wil ask it again.
Has it occurred to you that waiting till 2020 was the only way they could get to sell a system like what the PS5 is shaping out to be for $499?
Has it crossed your mind that $499 is what they get when they give the current gen a year extra so prices can go down a bit more on next-gen components?
Exactly .ryzen 3700 x(8 core 16thread) down clocked to 3.2ghz and 5700xt clocked at 1.8ghz and let's do the fire strike for total score.at the same time let's see what's the power draw of this configuration
Maybe they delayed it for 7nm EUV.
Spinning bird kick redeemed.
I asked ths before and you conveniently ignored it so I wil ask it again.
Has it occurred to you that waiting till 2020 was the only way they could get to sell a system like what the PS5 is shaping out to be for $499?
Has it crossed your mind that $499 is what they get when they give the current gen a year extra so prices can go down a bit more on next-gen components
wasnt there a theory going around that the actual SSD would be smaller than 1TB and an actual HDD would be used for storing game data?
More so since the mention of using the SSD as "virtual ram" instead of just noting larger storage?
IDK why i can see bullet points where it shows off the size of the SSD and speed and then an additional option of how much Hard Drive space is available, like 1tb or 2tb.
So like 15-16 Vega FLOPS?Yea to me it looks like what ever Gonzalo is , it's minimum 5700xt level or stronger and let's not forget those Gonzalo results are for engineering samples.final versions most probably will improve even further
Haha well Vega is kinda garbage for gaming to be honest so it doesn't mean much .I m hoping Sony and MS hit double digits for Navi TF(10 Navi TF at the minimum)
Unless I completely misunderstand how these things work:
1, 7nm EUV would mean a brand new design
2, Would be impossible to achieve in 1 additional year
Wouldn't this suggest that Sony were planning a $600+ BOM system to sell for $500? I seriously doubt that.
Ya all these performance multipliers and different architectures are confusing me. I'm still hoping for around 2080 level performance. That would probably be huge jump from the PS4/XB1 GPU's anyway.Haha well Vega is kinda garbage for gaming to be honest so it doesn't mean much .I m hoping Sony and MS hit double digits for Navi TF(10 Navi TF at the minimum)
Or better oc 5700 to 1800mhz
That might be why they delayed from 2019 to 2020? Maybe, if the rumor is in fact true.
I'm suggesting Sony would never have even been designing the console to that high a cost in the first place.
Also the design and price target decisions would've been made back in 2015/16 when work on next-gen started as I'm sure Albert has explained previously?
I feel we fall between 2070 and 2080. I LL be pleasantly surprised if we hit above 2080 as that's a 800$ gpu releasing this yearYa all these performance multipliers and different architectures are confusing me. I'm still hoping for around 2080 level performance. That would probably be huge jump from the PS4/XB1 GPU's anyway.
Sure, but peopel were saying that the Navi had a lot of problems and that might be why they delayed or they just had soo much sucess with the ps4 that they decided to delayed the ps5 because of that.
So say it's in between a 2070 and a 2080 (non-super) do you think it would an 8-10x (similar to PS3-PS4) increase over the base PS4? I still don't know how to calculate GPU power that well.I feel we fall between 2070 and 2080. I LL be pleasantly surprised if we hit above 2080 as that's a 800$ gpu releasing this year
No, more like 7 to 7.5 time base PS4 not around 9 or 10. But just look what naughty dog is doing with last of us part 2 on 1.8 TF machine as base. Now imagine what they would do with a cpu 400% stonger and gpu about 7.5 time as powerful mixed with ultra fats SSD and 20 gb of ram for games . They will melt our eyes heheSo say it's in between a 2070 and a 2080 (non-super) do you think it would an 8-10x (similar to PS3-PS4) increase over the base PS4? I still don't know how to calculate GPU power that well.
it would seem they did do a redesign.Unless I completely misunderstand how these things work:
1, 7nm EUV would mean a brand new design
2, Would be impossible to achieve in 1 additional year
I'm suggesting Sony would never have even been designing the console to that high a cost in the first place.
Also the design and price target decisions would've been made back in 2015/16 when work on next-gen started as I'm sure Albert has explained previously?
better to just look at Polaris flops to do a much more accurate comparison to current gen and mid gen GPUs.
Ya, it's gonna be crazy. I was just asking because each generation the leap in GPU power gets smaller. I was hoping that maybe this gen could break that trend.No, more like 7 to 7.5 time base PS4 not around 9 or 10. But just look what naughty dog is doing with last of us part 2 on 1.8 TF machine as base. Now imagine what they would do with a cpu 400% stonger and gpu about 7.5 time as powerful mixed with ultra fats SSD and 20 gb of ram for games . They will melt our eyes hehe
It's better because it can be unified and transparent for all storage sources, external or internal (or even network maybe?)But then an SSD data cache will require data copied between the two storage devices by definition... so how is that any better?
So if it's big SSD it's basically that and no external option at all?
Doesn't the difference in architecture matter when comparing performance to older cards as well? Each PlayStation generation had a different architecture for each GPU.better to just look at Polaris flops to do a much more accurate comparison to current gen and mid gen GPUs.
Navi seems to be 40% more efficient than Polaris per flop. So 10 tflops Navi is 14 tflops Polaris or ~2.5x X1X and ~3.5x Pro.