Yeah it does seem like aiming for the high end CPU/GPU combo is king this time, Gen 8 was more about getting a truck load of GDDR5 for PS4 & Kinect for Xbox.
-
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.
(Rumor) WindowsCentral: Xbox Series X Specs
- Thread starter DukeBlueBall
- Start date
Yah i think that is their plan as well. Im secretly hoping that they can get a extra 4Gb of ram in there by fall 2020.
Yeah, that doesn't seem right considering the X has 12gb. Granted, that's overall.
Yeah, I'd also like to see more RAM than that if they're serious about 4K+ resolutions. I know it's just over twice as much as current gen base consoles, but 4K is also four times the resolution and RAM is really important for higher resolutions. 8K would be sixteen times... Crossing my fingers for 16GB guaranteed for games minimum.
The CPU and GPU are amazing if those are legit though. 3.6ghz must be single core turbo, right? That's so high for console standards, and would still be amazing if that's single core turbo speed.
The CPU and GPU are amazing if those are legit though. 3.6ghz must be single core turbo, right? That's so high for console standards, and would still be amazing if that's single core turbo speed.
haha yeah I'm sure a few things COULD but I don't expect to see much
It's possible Sony has some custom SSD that has great read speeds but compromises write speeds, which you don't really need to be as good on a console, that would be affordable too.
You may find this video intriguing (skip to 3:05):
Caveats are CPU frequency and how data is perhaps structured for PC and console ports. That said, there may be notable differences (not as big of a delta between SSD and HDD, however) between SSD on SATA III and NVMe on PCIE 3 and 4 (if that is what MS are planning instead of soldering the chips, their dedicated DRAM and memory controller directly on to MoBo) depending on the size of files to be loaded and how they are segmented.
The differences between 2GB/s and 3 or 4GB/s (theoretical) read speeds, however, may not yield as significant differences (again, it depends on how much needs to be flushed and loaded) as SSD and NVMe.
All in all, MS are in great place with that kind of read speed.
Im surprised MHW loads that fast with Denuvo. Which is almost going to guarantee a console loading advantage next gen.
Oh shit! I completely forgot about the burdensome Denuvo. Yea, I absolutely concur.
Nah. You gotta get a PC monitor for that. One with HDMI and audio ports.
What TV?
There are two things to consider here.
1. Retail prices of components are determined by a variety of factors, including the available competition. Simply put, current prices are set based on what companies think they can get away with today. Once new consoles hit, Nvidia, Intel and AMD will adjust prices accordingly because it is in their best interests for people to keep buying GPUs and CPUs instead of locking themselves to a non-upgradable console ecosystem.
2. We are still roughly one year away from the launch of these consoles. New PC hardware will launch in the next year that will be more powerful than what exists today. By the same time next year the $300 CPU and $300+ GPU may be valued at $200 each or less.
Yup, especially #2.
2700X costed about 330€ a year ago. Today, it costs almost half of that (~170€). With the launch of Zen 3 CPUs next year I expect current Zen 2 CPUs to have a similar drop in price.
The Competition between CPU's is going to be insane in 2020, Icelake having $99 i3's with HT, making them as good or better than $300-400 i7's from recent years & AMD moving their 8 Core CPU's to mid range, meaning their 6c/12t CPU's are going to be quite affordable even on a budget.
GPU's though....
Got mine 4k 120hz TV for £750 Black Friday, although it's not affordable, but I just splashed out.
Exactly. Judging the value of devices set to launch one year from now based on today's prices is going to inevitably produce inaccurate results.
Ah ok that makes sense now. That TV actually has a 60hz refresh rate. They say 120hz because of CMI which is that weird soap opera looking post process effect.
Yeah, it's a shitty thing all TV manufacturers do. I'm suprised it's allowed. My Samsung was the same way.
Using current gen games as a guide to how much RAM is needed in next gen consoles with next gen games doesn't make much sense to me. We make this mistake every generation and use current convention.
I concede that it was never going to be a 16x increase like before, nor an 8x, but I'd argue 4x (32GB) would have been ideal. Given cost, bus width vs die size and advances in tech such as SSDs and compression<>decompression I'd say 24GB is reasonable; with 16GB being a bare minimum if it is very fast and is all dedicated to games/primary software applications with an additional pool of ~4GB for the OS.
SSDs will help, but only so much, there's still a vast performance gulf between them and DRAM, even if ReRAM were used. Also, we're ~6mths from production, ~12mths from release and RAM prices have come down considerably.
It's not just about graphics, but scope; and if there is only 13GB available for games it may not explicitly 'bottleneck', but I suspect it will limit the scope and design of next gen games. We may still get beautiful graphics like Hellblade II, but do you not want to see vast interactive, living, breathing worlds too?
I concede that it was never going to be a 16x increase like before, nor an 8x, but I'd argue 4x (32GB) would have been ideal. Given cost, bus width vs die size and advances in tech such as SSDs and compression<>decompression I'd say 24GB is reasonable; with 16GB being a bare minimum if it is very fast and is all dedicated to games/primary software applications with an additional pool of ~4GB for the OS.
SSDs will help, but only so much, there's still a vast performance gulf between them and DRAM, even if ReRAM were used. Also, we're ~6mths from production, ~12mths from release and RAM prices have come down considerably.
It's not just about graphics, but scope; and if there is only 13GB available for games it may not explicitly 'bottleneck', but I suspect it will limit the scope and design of next gen games. We may still get beautiful graphics like Hellblade II, but do you not want to see vast interactive, living, breathing worlds too?
Ah yes, I forgot about that, Sony did claim that. If they end up having that and perhaps even more RAM too, who knows what other unexpected things they might have. We know that Phil said they aim to be the leader in power and performance, but key word here is aim. It's possible they don't yet know what Sony is doing.
Of course we're only guessing here, it's all we can do.