That's why i intentionally aimed down to midrange hardware. I'm going on the assumption that Sony want to repeat the PS4's success and go for functionality and efficiency both power/wattage and cost wise above just putting powerful components in the box.
8tflops right now is far beyond what is necessary to run something like Infiltrator in an actual game in real time(which ran on a 680 mind you in the tech demo version)
I think that is still quite a jump and largely satisfactory for GPU power.
Also, not every game is gonna be 4k compatible, i don't even think many will be outside of smaller less demanding titles or PS4 remasters. We have to remember that we are piling on next gen rendering in addition to 4 times the pixels unnecessarily, which is probably going to eat up a lot of the GPU time alone just rendering at that res. I'd take 1080p with great IQ again and far better visuals myself.
But the ability to scale everything to 4k in the menus is a must.
What you say about 4-5 power increase also is puzzling to me. Are you not taking into account the HBM? The bandwidth and RAM alone will give a huge boost, and the CPU, if they do get Zen working how we'd hope, will be a beast monster compared to Jaguar.
There's far more to the power of the overall console than just the GPU, as we are abundantly made clear this gen
PS5 with a Pascal GPU inside it would be a beast.
PS5 with a Pascal GPU inside it would be a beast.
Also, regarding claims of power savings and performance increases, everyone exaggerates or selectively picks data. If it was 40% more powerful than Fury X while using 40% of the power (60% reduction as you say) that would be the largest increase in perf / watt since probably the 1990s. We will see what it winds up actually being.
2016 tech in a next-gen console, I hope not for the sake of progress.
As you could imagine, the person you quoted severely butchered what AMD is saying. It's 60% power reduction at the same performance. And there's little to no chance of AMD seeing this big of a leap in performance again by the time the next gen consoles come out.
The 980ti is like 7TFlops (the specs ITT called for 10) and sips 250w alone. Maxwell is a pretty power efficient architecture. The timeframe being discussed is 2 years away, the timing is wrong for a GPU that powerful at an affordable price.
If Inuhanyou is onto something, which I think he is, sub Fury X is the graphics power level were looking at. 2015 PC Enthusiast end power in 2018/2019. I'd be more concerned with that, rather than architectural stuff.
P.S. 84w is 60% of 140w, but you reduce 140 by 40% to get 86. So it's a 40% reduction in power draw.
i-7 level zen CPU, 16GB HBM at 756GB/s and 8TLOP AMD GPU packed into a 14(or maybe even 10?) nm process APU is my final verdict for the PS5. The CPU is gonna be a huge revelation compared to the Jaguar
The PS4, the more powerful of the two similar APUs, had a GPU equivalent to roughly a GTX 660-670. This was the mid range chip that came out like 18 months before the PS4. The 680 was more powerful, the 780 was way more powerful, the Titan was way more powerful and also had 6GB of GDDR5 memory.
The PS5 matching 2015 top of the line hardware (in terms of power, not necessarily architecture) in 2018 would be broadly similar to the PS4 matching top of the line hardware from the 500 generation - which would not be tooo far from the same ballpark, excepting, again, architectural improvements and exra VRAM. There are other wrinkles though, there is now a super high cost "prosumer" tier of video cards whereas in the 500-600 generations there was not.
Mmmm, a GTX 580/+. So architectural bumps are that important, I guess. Sounds like were on a similar wavelink, anywho. I still think that 4k will be "the thing", and Fury X + architectural improvements does not bode well for that power ballpark. That screams 4k30fps with frame drops, bad AF, and post AA/no AA to me. Like a repeat of this gen at a higher resolution, unless devs start designing console games again and not PC doownports (read: more Tearaway, less Ubioft/EA AAA).
Should be good chance.Any chances Pascal drops before June?
Should be good chance.
S/A speculated that Nvidia is way ahead of the non-Intel pack after they debut the PX2.
Considering the cards compared on the slides say 86w vs 140w, they're probably comparing to the 960-970 in the Nvidia range, meaning we're talking essentially mid range GPU (in terms of power draw) from previous gen vs low-mid range AMD upcoming gen. Probably an example selected to be most favorable to them, as high end cards are by no means guaranteed to scale that efficiency fully up to the 200-250w realm.
So do we see HBM being used in NX?
The 20-30$ it might cost to go from 24/32GB of HBM2 ram up to something truly absurd like 64GB (and honestly, that sounds more a couple hundred dollars to me) would be much better spent putting in a large Solid State hard drive. Right now the biggest bottle neck on the current crop of systems is both a lack of storage space and the lack of high speed access within existing storage.
4k 30fps is very doable on Fury X. 4k 60hz is problematic for high end games.
1080p blows up very well to 4k (pixel doubling) so I could see a dichotomy between 4k 30hz and 1080p 60hz with some better AA depending on the developer. I don't think Sony or anyone else will be mandating 4k although it may indeed be an attraction. But yeah it would be an issue if the draw was "It's graphically moderately better than PS4, but with great image quality!" and you would want more than that if you were pushing 4k in a big way.
Going by that we can easily expect 64 GB Ram in next gen consoles.
I'd have to agree on an improvement in storage for next gen. Loading times are really long now, and with HBM and the overall increase in asset quality/size coming, along with the prevalence of DD, we need a a better/faster storage solution. This gen, we should've had a hybrid solid state/HDD solution at the minimum tbh. SATA II was also super cheap-ass move.
500GB SSD should be a minimum for next gen.
LOL, no way are we going to see that happen unless you want the consoles to possibly be more expensive than $400.
16 GB's is what we can expect at the very least.
I've seen this before.... Hmmmmm Where have I seen this? Oh, that's right, in every "next gen specs speculations"
I remember "PFFF 8gb? That's impossible, unless you want the PS4 to be another flop at 599USD. We'll get a 2gb PS4, that's reasonable" Look where we are now.
Give me that magic ball of yours that predicts the price of memory in a few years, please.As ThoseDeafMutes said earlier, we barely got 8 GB's of GDDR5 RAM inside of the PS4. If the prices of 8 GB's of that RAM weren't lowered at that last minute, we would've been stuck with only 4 GB's inside of the system.
LOL, no way are we going to see that happen unless you want the consoles to possibly be more expensive than $400.
16 GB's is what we can expect at the very least.
Next gen RAM was mostly at least 8x current gen RAM.
Xbox 64 MB
Xbox 360 512 MB
Xbox One 8 GB
PS1 2 MB + 1 MB
PS2 32 MB + 4 MB
PS3 512 MB
PS4 8 GB
Nintendo 64 4 MB
Gamecube 40 MB
Wii 88 MB
WiiU 2 GB
Going by that we can easily expect 64 GB Ram in next gen consoles.
Is HBM a clear improvement for discrete CPUs? Is there any Intel or AMD roadmap indicating any use of HBM for discrete (=not APUs) desktop CPUs?
I dunno. I think a split memory pool maybe on the table for next gen. 8-16GBHBM plus 32+ GB RAM of DDR3/4. Effectively consoles end up looking even more PC-like.
This is kind of a speculation thread.Give me that magic ball of yours that predicts the price of memory in a few years, please.
Indeed if the cycle is 2 years away i would say 16GB to 24GB with a max of 32GB with a set pool for OS/appsYou have to remember that PS4's memory is system+video. 64GB may be a stretch, but 32GB is a certainty.
Give me that magic ball of yours that predicts the price of memory in a few years, please.
The PS4, the more powerful of the two similar APUs, had a GPU equivalent to roughly a GTX 660-670. This was the mid range chip that came out like 18 months before the PS4. The 680 was more powerful, the 780 was way more powerful, the Titan was way more powerful and also had 6GB of GDDR5 memory.
The PS5 matching 2015 top of the line hardware (in terms of power, not necessarily architecture) in 2018 would be broadly similar to the PS4 matching top of the line hardware from the 500 generation - which would not be tooo far from the same ballpark, excepting, again, architectural improvements and exra VRAM. There are other wrinkles though, there is now a super high cost "prosumer" tier of video cards whereas in the 500-600 generations there was not.
...
But if PS5 is coming out in 2018 as part of a 5 year cycle, we're not going to wind up with the same kind of jump in power.
....
I think that'd be pretty good - 980/980ti would give you games at 4K/30 (30fps never going away on consoles), which would fit the likely 4K focus for Sony at least. Although 4K adoption will be still very low throughout the generation, that might mean 1080p/60 with AA for the rest of us plebs which would be good.
And a 980ti would probably be enough to drive a PSVR2 with a 4K screen and foveated rendering?
I remember when people were predicting a huge 2GB for PS4/ONE back in 2012... Funny days.
Next gen will be quite something with something like HBM2...
Does that work for you?Can anyone post an alternative download for the spec? I'm on mobile.
The PS4 has too much wind its sails for Sony to release a PS5 in 2018, and they are releasing PSVR for the platform, they'd want not want take away the spotlight from their PS4 as their flagship product.
Both console manufacturers will want to go until 2019 with harvest years now that they've got some sort of installation base up and going with the new consoles. The 5 year cycle talk is insane, that means that they'd have run at a loss for 18 months to two years, and only had 3 profitable years.
What loss for 18 months or two years? This generation they did not ship subsidised monstrosities, they were somewhere close to breaking even on hardware sales from the start. Do you have fiscal statements that the divisions were unprofitable for 2 years after console launch?