Probably… but it would be great if RDNA2 was actually a huge leap in performance and they had something comparable to the old 9700 Pro.
There is no LCD on the planet which competes with OLED on response time.
I doubt AMD releases another 400$ tier GPU before years end with how recently they released the 5700 series. If they release anything i think it will be a higher end model.
Not really unprecedented, just not something we're used to seeing lately.
AMD doesnt have the resources to release many GPUs these days. Lisa Su said big navi was coming to PC this year. So if they decide not to release that i can see you being right. It can only be 1 or the other IMO. With corona its possible we dont get a new GPU at all this year from either side. Have to consider that we dont know the ramifications of it.
if covid19 does affect things, I suspect them to just go for a paper launch and release whatever they can produce, meaning shortages. but I don't think AMD can risk leaving Nvidia to their own devices
If they get sticker shock from the console, why would they spend over twice as much for comparable PC?
Consoles being budget territory is a relatively new thing, though, when you look back and consider inflation. Even $599 would still be relatively cheap by that metric. $599 today is the equivalent of around $450 in 2006 when the PS3 launched. Conversely, for the next consoles to match the actual cost of the PS3 in 2006 they would need to cost $770 in 2020 dollars.
I agree about prices in the 90s, and last gen new consoles launched already weak compared to budget PC builds. But it's not really the same this time. Consumers will see a $599 or possibly even $499 console that competes with, and in some ways may even surpass PCs that cost well over $1000 dollars.
I do love it when game requirements go up and they stop running at high frame rates unless I spend a lot of money on new hardware.
That's because it always does. And every time, these consoles are gonna do some CRAZY SHIT THAT CANNOT BE FATHOMED BY PCs, that will then be matched and surpassed within months of release, if not upon release.
This is all that really matters to me as a primarily PC only gamer. We need more affordable high end parts, pricing is out of control particularly with GPUs.
We don't know what will be available at launch, but this is still nothing like last gen because it's launching with a full fat desktop CPU running at desktop speeds as opposed to having a failed mobile architecture in it running at low clocks. The GPU runs at high settings equivalent to 2080 performance on a quick slapdash port without optimizations. It has 1TB NVME SSD.
They can say a lot of stuff, you know.
It may have less or it may have more. The point is that on PC when you're not using the resources for background tasks they are readily available for games. On a console something which you're not even using is still consuming the resources allocated to it, because it's a fixed standardized platform.
I've said what changes.
They seem to be getting 2.0-2.5x compression ratios (2.4GB/s drive, 4.8GB/s with compression, and 6.0GB/s peak).
The console has a single core dedicated to running the OS, and the OS itself will be doing far less in the background than a general-purpose operating system will be.
I can't see why you think that "improve the scheduler" is a better solution than giving the game exclusive access to the cores. That's essentially the best-case scenario of what an improved scheduler could achieve.
You can create profiles in process lasso. Go crazy and open everything that is not a game(and maybe not game launchers), Set everything to the core affinity, priority and IO priority you want and then restart and repeat to get stragglers. Using core 0-x for the OS works best because you cant get every process off core0 as some are hidden, but the game cant use that core at all anymore to get better frame times, so I put the OS+Misc on the last core so I can have the game use every core.
There is waste when you cut off full cores to the game when you can just tell the CPU to do those things when its convenient for the game.
Well yes, that is true. I meant that it's going to be the best option as far as game performance is concerned - you can't beat having exclusive access to the cores it's running on.
Because a game doesn't need "exclusive access" to the cores on PC. It needs the OS to allocate the fastest cores for its processes and account for CCX/intracore/offcore latency differences if at all possible.
Yep. Hell, it's already dusted by my current machine — nevermind what I plan to build within the next few months.
You're right - it is important for a scheduler to account for that.
I think you're way off with your idea that there is "hardly anything running" on a typical PC.
If nothing is running in the background then none of your resources are being wasted by giving the game exclusive access to cores - because they weren't being used in the first place.
No, it wasn't. Any approach which is based on hard reservation of resources will fail on PC.
