What the actual difference will be then needs to be seen obviously. He only stated that it can make a world difference not that it will be. And still it is only about the RAM power consumption he was talking about not the entire system.
-
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 |OT6| - Mostly Fan Noise and Hot Air
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
What the actual difference will be then needs to be seen obviously. He only stated that it can make a world difference not that it will be. And still it is only about the RAM power consumption he was talking about not the entire system.
I am pretty sure we are noticing bigger differences due to BW in most PS4pro and X1X games.
I can bet that if xox had 4.2tf the difference between two consoles would be much smaller.
You are simply throwing numbers.
What is the difference between the base consoles? It is RAM type and how that decision plays out on CU count with the base PS4 having 18 while the Xbox having 12.
What is the biggest difference between the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X? Nothing apart from more RAM volume and 36CU to 40CU respectively.
On the base console, Microsoft upped clocks while on the mid gen refresh their console runs way higher clocks.
I just find it odd that Sony would go for a smaller chip, couple that to a more expensive RAM type and then make the difference in clock speeds.
Well, if you think about the compute power differences they do not at all line up with the resolution differences we tend to see.
We have heard from developers directly saying to us working around the lack of bandwidth feeding the GPU in the pro is frustrating and that is where it bottleneck lies.
Yep doesn't make sense but there is hbm fetish team here ;)
Not deny it, but statement in df article that tf numbers doesn't matter now and puting xox as an example was rather bizzare.
I was just talking about that a difference in "Watts" can make a big difference in performance. More watts within the same architecture is caused by things like you explained in your post. Don't know what's wrong with my "throwing of numbers".
It wouldn't surprise me if you have your own therapist next to you in the office. :D
Just throwing numbers around is simplistic. However, the Xbox One X has also showed us that one can have a higher CU count and clock higher.
That does not bode well with the thought process that the primary way of getting higher clocks is by going for a less power hungry RAM type.
I agree, I just didn't want to go there in my post :)
I don't care much about the 750ti vs PS4 argument, I've only given the 750ti as an example because that was DF's GPU of choice when they tried to make a PC that mimics the PS4 so it was the first thing that popped in my head. I could have and maybe should have said R7 260X (or R7 270) which was a 1.97TF GCN 2.0 card for 139$ that came out a few months before the PS4. But unfortunately from that point, the conversation digressed towards a 750ti VS PS4 argument.
Also Apotheon, P.T, AC black flag, Batman: The Telltale Series, Dead Island, Dragon Quest Builders, God Eater Resurrection, Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Shadow Complex, Trivial Pursuit Live!, Tembo the Badass Elephant, Slender: The Arrival, Grow Home and other games had problems in boost mode.
Last edited:
Kinda already happened for PSP.
That's what the parappa remaster is emulated PSP at 4k
For what it's worth, the 750Ti started falling significantly behind the PS4 by the end of 2015. 2016 was the year when last gen was left behind completely with almost every AAA game being current gen only with the exception of sports games like Fifa. It's reasonable to say the i3/750Ti combo was competitive against the PS4 because engines were not yet properly optimized to the strengths of current gen consoles.
Rise of the Tomb Raider was one of the first examples where this comparison became void with even the base XB1 version pulling ahead
Another haptics/vibration patent - again, cast more in a VR controller context, but clearly DS5 is borrowing some of the same tech.
This patent talks about using a per-trigger vibration actuator along with a 'force presenting device' (i.e. the adaptive/programmable resistance Sony has confirmed). I'm not sure it's confirmed the DS5 will have vibrators per trigger also, but I suppose it's a possibility.
This patent talks about using a per-trigger vibration actuator along with a 'force presenting device' (i.e. the adaptive/programmable resistance Sony has confirmed). I'm not sure it's confirmed the DS5 will have vibrators per trigger also, but I suppose it's a possibility.
Keep in mind that "8K 120fps" will not be a thing as even HDMI 2.1 cannot handle that. What they mean is that they could do one or the other (8K at 60fps or 4K at 120fps).
This is precisely what I already heard. I assume that's why, while there are some games where the X has more than double the resolution, there are others where it only offers 40% more and little else (or even having lower performance) - some games are bandwidth-starved and some aren't. I've wondered before what some games would be like on the Pro if it had the same RAM setup as the X, but no other changes.
If we want to be fair, much more powerful GCN cards fell behind consoles in games like Rise of The Tomb Raider:
I mean, an R7 360 (1.6TF GCN 2.0) is more powerful than the One and it falls to a single-digit FPS in ROTTR. You can't really compare 1:1 a console GPU and PC performance because of all the optimization consoles versions get. If PS5 will have a 5700XT as a GPU, you can be sure that 4 years from now the PS5 will kick a PC with the 5700XT ass.
(I can't believe I'm being pulled into that 750ti VS PS4 argument again :D)
Again, for like the 4th time, if anyone has problems with the 750ti, let's just talk about the 260X (139$ on Aug 2013, 115W TBP) or 270 (179$ on Nov 2013, 150W TBP) instead, cards no one can argue that they aren't more powerful than the PS4's GPU.
Last edited:
Hmm, didn't know that, thought HDMI 2.1 offered both 8K and 120fps at the same time, cheers for the clear up.
Oh you can, but not with uncompressed data. You need to use VESA Display Stream Compression. From the norm :
"Q: What type of compression is supported?
A: The specification incorporates VESA DSC 1.2a link compression, which is a visually lossless compression scheme. VESA DSC 1.2a also can be used to obtain higher resolutions than 8K60/4:2:0/10-bit color, such as 8K60 RGB, 8K120 and even 10K120. VESA DSC 1.2a also supports 4Kp50/60 with the benefit of enabling operation at much lower link rates."
Yep, I am not sure there is a chip on the planet who can uncompressed a 10K image every 0,0083 second.
As both consoles will have a tf number very similar, as many journalists already know for a fact since E3, they are starting to change the power narrative from tflops to immersion. Both Microsoft and Sony are doing the same. It's all about the immersion now.
They better start their messaging now to prepare their audience for next gen, even it it's awkward indeed to apply that to XBX after all the superlatives about the "6 tflops beast" they repeated during all those years.
Well, remember that was for their devkit only which are produced in relatively small quantities. We don't know what's going to be in the final box because they'll need to build million of those.
I saw some weird derailing shit here, you are very welcome to do it.
It does, you can do 10k @ 120Hz with the 48Gbps offered by HDMI 2.1 devices supporting the full bandwidth using DSC (Display Stream Compression). But don't believe me, believe https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/tv/tests/inputs/hdmi-2-1:
"HDMI 2.1 significantly increases the maximum bandwidth capability of HDMI up to 48Gbps, and even more when compression is used. This allows HDMI to transmit resolutions as high as 10k @ 120Hz. "
Hey, now, not dragging you into PS4 vs 750 Ti argument. I was tired of that back in 2015 :P
Who said anything about starting with ne design then switching to another? All I am and have been saying is that if they are using HBM then its a decision the made along time ago, and it will be because they can make it work. All I have been doing since then is discussing ways with which that ould work or not work. And up until now I have been having this discussion with you in god faith, it's not like I am an HBM evangelist or some shit, couldn't care less which RAM solution they use as long as it works. I am just taking the Pro HBM stance and making a case for it so I can hear, find out or learn why such an option will be impossible. If at all it is.
You with this nonsense again... Did I kill your dog or something?
I am not even talking about the power difference of the overall system, I am talking about the power difference of HBM3 vs GDDR6. And saying that in a console the power saved from using one RAM solution over the other could be used or channeled into something else in the system. like "SAY FOR EXAMPLE" Allow you clock a GPU up from 1.8Ghz to 2Ghz.
If you must know I also threw around some silly discrete CPU and GPU claim too based on the rumored smaller chip thingy. Since you seem to pick on everything I say you must have missed that one.
You must have also missed all the times I said the whole small chip thing doesn't make any sense.
Yeah I know, 1.8ghz to 2ghz for sure is not world difference ;) btw increase in power consumption would be bigger as it doesn't scale well on such high clocks
Last edited:
Updated predictions:
8c/16t Zen 2 @ 2.8GHz
44 active CUs @ 1.85 GHz = 10.4 TF
16GB GDDR6 (14GBs available to devs) @ 17 Gbps on a 256-bit memory bus - 544GB/s bus speed
$499
8c/16t Zen 2 @ 2.8GHz
44 active CUs @ 1.85 GHz = 10.4 TF
16GB GDDR6 (14GBs available to devs) @ 17 Gbps on a 256-bit memory bus - 544GB/s bus speed
$499
Mine:
8c/16t Zen 2 @ 3.2GHz
11 TF
20GB GDDR6 (16GBs available to devs)
$499
Does the fact that we don't know anything about the Ray Tracing implementation leave the possibility open? If the RT cores sit outside of the CUs, then to get the most out of them it might be better to have a higher clocked GPU, so the RT cores get more cycles in. Wouldn't that be a reason to have fewer but higher clocked CUs?
I think that's a pretty good prediction for the PS5 but I would have given the CPU a few more hundred Mhz. I also think that 40CU at 2Ghz will be better than 44CU at 1.85Ghz but it will probably cost more regarding power consumption and heat.
I expect something around gamer17's CPU and RAM (320bit @ 14gbps = 560GB/s i think)
And bittheway's GPU.
Flute is 256-bit, if you believe in the Flute leak, you can't have a 320-bit bus :)
Just considering these numbers... Next gen is gonna be a hell of a trip
I am sure the Pro memory bandwidth hurts some games but come on man, RDR2 isnt rendering at native 4k just because of the extra bandwidth. From DF's own DF analysis of 60 fps games, the extra bandwidth mostly comes into play for 60 fps and games targeting native 4k. i tholught guys said that the 4kcb and native 4k both render the full 8 million pixels and the pro's bandwidth can handle that for 30 fps games like rdr2 and yet the difference is massive anyway.
I'm sure the big titles will get patches for that, but the rest? Not at all.
Frame rate bump for games allowing unlock frame rate. Without a patch, I expect nothing more than that.
PS5 is silicon locked for almost a year now and the memory controllers are part of the silicon so I doubt that's subject to change but maybe someone here knows the process of chip development better than me and can tell us if there is such a thing as a console sample 16 months before release having a different memory setup.
Maybe, depends on if Sony is willing to lose money or wants to make money day 1 :)
But honestly, I'm having a hard time estimating considering we don't know for how much Sony will be buying the GDDR, how much they are going to spend on the APU VS the PS4 and how expensive is having an SSD VS the PS4's 37$ HDD, etc. It seems like we are all guessing here, who knows what the BOM is on such a console?
I don't think that will happen without a patch. MS is using its API wrapper in order to run old games which allows them to play with their profile which still requires them to do some QA in order to have them run in different settings. Sony, on the other hand, is trying to match the hardware to run them as is, I'm not sure they are going to allow this out of the box without some kind of patch. But I guess we will have to wait and see.
My expectations from the PS5 BC are to run PS4/Pro games as is and if I turn on boost mode, if the game has something dynamic in it (uncapped FPS, dynamic resolution, hiccups, etc.), then the PS5 will run it at the best case scenario possible at all times.
We don't have any official info, so best guess is looking at how it is handled on the Pro.
Pro is actually a pretty good comparison because it seems like they are trying to do the same thing on PS5.
Yes, by Mark Cerny in the April Wired article and now again in Famitsu a few days ago. this is a terrible Google Translate version of what Famitsu had said:
To me, it sounds like they are saying "We got most of the PS4 covered and we are trying to iron out some stuff to get all of the PS4 library working". Anyone here reads Japanese and can try and give us the "spirit" of this paragraph?
I am not sure what you are saying ?
Some games are more bandwidth bound than others and especially the higher they up the resolution, of course.
still have some problems
- Status