They could, but I would say the same thing
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - Post E3 2018
- Thread starter Phoenix Splash
- Start date
They could, but I would say the same thing
Console APU chips aren't binned at all.
The cost to Sony is for the silicon wafer (with the yield determining the price per APU die) so trying to argue about which part of the APU is more expensive is meaningless.
go read up on chiplets. amd is moving the direction of mix and matching difrent parts of chips.
BRiT over at B3D brought up this very informative post as to why the Xbox One X doesn't include a SSD. So, it wasn't only a cost issue - the performance wouldn't have been there.
Xbox Software Engineer Post
Xbox Software Engineer Post
Interesting! I think most would have assumed that cost is the major driving factor, but I wouldn't have guessed that performance would factor in so heavily.
Ok. Same core count too?
Do you think they can get away with marketing it towards 1080p when it will be more powerful than 1X? Or will it do 4K all the same as the $500 model? Xbox can't exactly take the 4K aspect away can they? I mean, if the 1X specs work for 4K now, they can't exactly take that 4K gaming away.
my guess it will do upscaling/checkerboard, but they will be very clear that if you want the best 4k experience, get the $500 box. they will clearly push the lower spec box for 1080p.
they also know which box your using, so it wouldnt shock me if they let players download 1080p assets if using the low spec box.
The job listing is for a single position but if you read through this thread it's almost as if Sony wrote that they're developing a streaming device in stone somewhere. Enthusiasm is good but we're bordering on the embellishment especially when you consider it's a single position available.
This "close" to launch they'd need to hire an entire division to make the speculation in this thread remotely achievable.
I'm well aware of AMD's research into chiplets and their benefits, I'm just pretty sure that next-gen won't be using a chiplet-based designed.
Also, you said "APU", which implies a monolithic single piece of silicon.
in this context I am using it in to mean a packaged cpu+gpu in a single chip.
Chip is imprecise in this context because it can conflate die with package. Similarly APU is imprecise because it lacks the same distinguishing between die and package level. At the die level, it's clearly not an APU if it has discrete CPU and GPU chiplets.
That being said, next gen console SoC/SoPs not being monolithic is not a foregone conclusion.
Ok.
Seems like it would be confusing to consumers imo. The marketing would be "buy this $300 machine it's a new gen with better 4K than even the Xbox One X! Or buy this other $500 machine for even better 4K gaming."
I wonder how well this will do if there isn't a strict 1080/4K cut off between models like PS4 and PS4 Pro.
You have to admit the hire and name of the group they are joining is pretty telling stuff. Sony might not be going the same route as MS, but they are most definitely interested in it.
I mean we live in a world of smartphones and pcs. I think most consumers understand the concept of teired performance.
No doubt.
But the narrative that's sprung up because of a singular job listing is kinda weird to me. Especially since we know what it takes to create new divisions and new devices. When you take into account the timeline launch window of next gen.
In this scenario, the lower-end box would only do "better 4K than Xbox One X" for Xbox One titles. We're assuming that next-gen titles would be demanding enough to require a switch to 1080p based on the hardware. So it'd be more like "play your old titles in 4K, and play new games in upscaled 4K"
So then games can't be designed to only target the full, no compromises 4K $500 model?
Like I know games and engines are scaleable and devs are used to this. im Just wrapping my head around what this means.
weird thing about this is demanding can devs make the 1080p version. if we take the high end guess for the $500 gpu being 14tfps. 14tfps at 4k=3.5 tfps at 1080p, so in effect the gpu in 1080p mode in the 300 box, will be more powerful than the 4k box.
True but I don't know if that guarantees they'll welcome this at launch. Maybe they do idk.
Anecdotally, aren't smartphone sales slowing or not growing? Seems like people are upgrading at a slower rate than before. Especially with Apple making iOS 12 still working on 5-6 year old phones like the 5S.
Tiered upgrades are understood with smartphones but it seems like with slowing sales that consumers are less impressed with all the options they have. What I'm trying to say is just because the consumer understands it doesn't mean they like it or will buy into it for consoles. Most people who chose console gaming over PC do so for the simplicity.
Idk if this attitude would carry over to a two console launch strategy tho and like I said, it's anecdotal
Honestly, I think Sony's first party devs are the only ones who really get to design games from the ground up with just console hardware in mind. Microsoft's push for Play Anywhere means that all their first party games are releasing on PC as well. Even Anaconda won't technically have the "best" version of any first party games in that respect.
I still think a PS5 with a 12 TFlop GPU would result in developers making more impressive games than on Xbox, where the high-end version has a 14 TFlop GPU and the lowend version has a 6-8 TF GPU (even with nearly identical Zen2 CPUs) and even considering the difference between native 4K and 1080p. Not every single next-gen game on PS5 and Anaconda will be native 4K anyway. What about games pushing a shitload of geometry for greater complexity, and global illumination? Just graphics in general. So many people even here on ResetEra seem to equate resolution with actual graphics.
Even though we have these rumors of Lockhart and Anaconda, does not mean Microsoft is absolutely going to release Lockhart. Until there's some overwhelmingly credible leak, short of an official announcement from Microsoft, it's all up in the air, 2 years out from the expected release.
To me, it makes better sense to have a $500 Anaconda and a $150 streaming box packed with an Xbox controller. When you also consider there's going to be a discless Xbox One S and perhaps a cheaper normal Xbox One S (to say nothing about a possible cheaper revision of Scorpio/X1X) then Lockhart makes even less sense IMO.
Even though we have these rumors of Lockhart and Anaconda, does not mean Microsoft is absolutely going to release Lockhart. Until there's some overwhelmingly credible leak, short of an official announcement from Microsoft, it's all up in the air, 2 years out from the expected release.
To me, it makes better sense to have a $500 Anaconda and a $150 streaming box packed with an Xbox controller. When you also consider there's going to be a discless Xbox One S and perhaps a cheaper normal Xbox One S (to say nothing about a possible cheaper revision of Scorpio/X1X) then Lockhart makes even less sense IMO.
Last edited:
this is a side thing, but I can see next gen last a very long time. we are kinda at the end of rasterized graphics, and its going to be a long time before point tracing/raytracing hardware is ready. I can see a 15+ year cycle now that the cpu wont be trash. even on pc intel is just slaping more cores on it, and while amd may catch intel in single thread performce, they are doing the same.
With Lockhart rumored to be more powerful than the 1X, I think it makes little to no sense to keep that SKU on the market. I think we'll have Anaconda, Lockhart, and two flavors of One S as the legacy platform. I think it's pretty telling that there's no talk of a One X redesign or discless model, and Anthem hardware for XCloud targets One S performance.
I would agree with you when it comes to the streaming box, but I'm starting to get the feeling that Microsoft might scrap that idea again. To me it'd make more sense to put XCloud on phones, tablets, computers, and regular Xbox hardware than it would to make a dedicated streaming device.
I do agree that PS5 first party games will have a good chance of looking more impressive though. It's just going to be a natural result of the devs really being able to take advantage of the hardware.
OP
OP
What if "next gen" games will continue to being developed on this gen's technology but at higher resolutions? The cost of making AAA games today is... a lot. I'm no dev or anything, but wouldn't the cost of making those kind of games exponentially increase again? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we even had AAAA titles now, haha. Not even talking about how bigger AAA titles/franchises entries seem to have taken more time to develop during this generation.
Yeah I feel like it we've been through this before. There were all sorts of rumors of a discless 360 back in the day too or a $99 Apple TV style Xbox set top box too around 2012-13. I'm sure they were prototypes but didn't come out obviously
I agree. I think it would be best to go with a $500 next gen console and pair it with a $100-$200 streaming option. They'll get more money from subs since that will be the only option for those consumers. Maybe keep Xbox One S (or rumored E model next year) around for a bit too.
I don't know if they will or wont. I have the same thought for them.
I think sellling a PlayStation or Xbox streaming box is stupid unless it can beat out Chromecast on price. It's not going to sell at $150 like Apple TV. Just make an app.
the only way i see two SKUs happening at the start of a generation is if PlayStation and Xbox decided that backwards compatibility eliminated the need to continue selling the old consoles. Which is what you all expect and just not what I was expecting. In which case, I agree that would be a possible scenario where multiple SKUs are sold.
Indeed.Especially since future beyond 7nm seems very murky (and expensive) right now.
Zen2 will be fine CPU,Navi probably good enough GPU and with 16GB+ memory we are in for a long ride...
yup we will be stuck at 7nm until someone figures out how to fab using graphite insted of silicon. though if that happend, its a totaly new ball game.
Resolution scales pretty linearly with performance if you're being GPU bottlenecked. That makes sense btw because if you only need to render half the pixels then you obviously only need half the power. It doesn't really matter what is being rendered. There's a 4x difference in pixels between 4k & 1080p so it doesn't even matter if games won't be native 4k on the high end consoles, there's plenty of room to reduce the resolution. A console with half the power would do much better than 1080p if the games were native 4k on the more powerful consoles.
The Switch already shows that it isn't that hard to to scale games down. Even ARK got scaled down. Sure, the results were horrible but then again it's a 1080p Pro game. Multiplat engines need to be scalable anyway because of PC.
assuming no cpu bottlenecks, which shouldnt happen on a zen2 cpu anyways, how likely is it devs offer a 1080p/60fps mode, and the base scarlet defults to it, given its guna have double the gpu power per pixel than the 4k boxes will.
I agree with quoted post. We already knew Sony was interested and were still expanding PSNow and its capabilities.
Current fab roadmaps go down to 3nm, and there's another transistor topology change to GAAFET that will give us a similar boost as to when we transitioned from planar to FinFET. Similarly, 3D packaging, MRAM, and other ancillary enhancements will give silicon a little more runway before we have to transition to other semiconductors, nanomaterials, and quantum devices.
Yep, and then all next-gen Xbox games can target the Anaconda hardware, use the most geometry, the most impressive lighting model possible, etc. Because even if the streaming device is doing 1080p, the actual graphics won't be compromised. Future streaming models could even stream games at 4K, or not, the main point is, developers can take full advantage of the high-end spec, where the GPU is at least equal to if not more powerful than the PS5, even if the difference is marginal, which would not be the case with the lower-end Lockhart.
I could see this coming gen being an 8 year cycle, but not 15+ years (2035!) By 2028, I think we'll have Scarlett's successor and PS6 and they'll both be capable of some very impressive hybrid Ray+Raster rendering. This will be a full decade after Nvidia first introduced RTX Raytracing on very high-end graphics cards, this year. I'm sure AMD will have their own PC raytracing solution sometime during the early-to-mid 2020s, which will trickle down to next-next gen consoles in the late 2020s. I'm even assuming that mid-gen upgraded Scarlett/Anaconda and PS5 Pro around 2024 or so, would probably not have raytracing hardware.
15 years is an absolute eternity and I believe we'll have next-next gen consoles before the end of the 2020s.
Last edited:
keep in context that nvidia version, on thair best chp, can barly hold 30+fps at 1080p. I am not sure you can do both on the same chip if you wanted to do it at 4k.
I am just amazed at how fast the narrative changed from "If only Sony stop forcing PS5 to be $399, we could have actual proper next gen consoles" to "low power consoles are fine, everything will scale up and no game would be compromised".
Is it just me, or does that makes no sense to other people too?
And all the talks about how Sony would just do what MS does... This argument had been around for two generations now. I have no idea what anyone think Sony would change their plans.
I can understand the wish for a more expensive console, that had been consistent for months on this thread. But now the new support for a near 1X level machine is mind boggling to me. That is a whiplash I can't get round.
Is it just me, or does that makes no sense to other people too?
And all the talks about how Sony would just do what MS does... This argument had been around for two generations now. I have no idea what anyone think Sony would change their plans.
I can understand the wish for a more expensive console, that had been consistent for months on this thread. But now the new support for a near 1X level machine is mind boggling to me. That is a whiplash I can't get round.
it 100% depends on what they chose to cut costs on. a lower spec gpu v higher spec one is just a funcation of pure scaling. that doesnt apply to cpus though.
I don't understand why am open position on streaming isn't credible?
They already have a streaming service. It looks like this position is more about leading the content delivery method for their multiple services across PSN including Now, Vue, etc. Which would then be related to both PlayStation, PC, and any device that works with PS Services. This position could be looking to expand that to devices beyond PlayStation as well
I think with the spread of 5G that the ability to stream 1080p (maybe even 4K, given the type of bandwith 5G affords) games to mobile devices will be a VERY real possibility. We'll be seeing first gen 5G mobile devices in 2019, so the tech should be pretty widespread by late 2020.
While I don't have any numbers myself, numerous reports I've read about 5G indicate it'll also have virtually limitless amounts of data, so it could wind up being a pretty incredible experience.
So why is it that a $399 PS5 is weak because it is too cheap, but a $299 Xbox machine isn't weak?
Is it just the usual "Microsoft has better engineers" argument again?
target of the michine. a 299 6tfp box for 1080p is very good, as in 1080p/60 good. a 399 ps5 that is 10tfps, and trying to do 4k, not so much.
There is a strange narrative going around that Sony need to do whatever MS is doing, as if MS is somehow leading the industry. I have no idea where that line of thought spawned from, but it had been around for a long time.
The only thing that Sony copied MS was paid online. I will give them that.
But nothing else was copied.
But the strange idea that "everything MS does is right, so Sony better follow suit" is almost as strange as "Sony need to make a hybrid console because Nintendo".
To be honest, sometimes i think ERA is legally insane.
I mean you have people in here genuinely believing that Phil Spencer's comment saying "Xbox will always be the most powerful console blah blah" is genuinely true and that Sony doesn't have access to the exact same technology. The X1X is not that far removed from the Pro. It comes down to balancing power and cost so that they don't end up with another PS3 situation. If the rumors are true, then both MS and Sony are going to be playing on the same ballpark so I can't imagine Xbox having some 360 secret sauce again tha makes it somehow that much more powerful than the PS5.
Who's saying that? Are the same people making both claims? If so point them out. Era isn't one entity.
Noone is better than Cerny though
I agree with you regarding the $299 SKU. It would be a huge mistake to have your base/main console so underpowered.
It has to be bollocks
again resolution scales linearly. a 6tfp at 1080p, is more powerful than a 14tfp at 4k.
Newsweek.com has picked up on all the next gen console rumor-buzz.
https://www.newsweek.com/xbox-next-new-anaconda-release-date-ps5-lockhart-2020-console-wars-1263787
Last paragraph from the article.
https://www.newsweek.com/xbox-next-new-anaconda-release-date-ps5-lockhart-2020-console-wars-1263787
Last paragraph from the article.
How can you guarantee that without knowing the differences, if any, between the two Scarlett SKUs in terms of CPU frequencies, memory bandwidth, cache latencies, SDK abstraction, or any one of a million other microarchitecture details that could bottleneck overall game performance.
Your continued suggestion of the relation of linear performance scaling to frame buffer resolution in this thread is wholly unrealistic and is making me want to tear my hair out. Please stop.