Maximilian Kolbe
Member
Sure it's a rumor, but it is not tales from the ass type.
EDIT: particularly considering the Neo was just acknowledged by AH
If Scorpio coming fall 2017 i don't see it will use Polaris.
Sure it's a rumor, but it is not tales from the ass type.
EDIT: particularly considering the Neo was just acknowledged by AH
not really. the argument is largely that it was inevitable that the industry would be headed in this direction, given all the other electronic devices doing the same thing it was only a matter of time for video game consoles to do it too.
i don't agree with that but it is what it is.
They both use Polaris. The same chip that is on the 480 card releasing. Gies decided to cling to the max clock Flop performance on that current chip of 6TF. The 480 is a higher clocked Polaris (making it 5.5TF) than the earlier rumored spec leak of Neo.
After testing more, getting thermals in tune, there is nothing stopping Sony from upping the clocks speeds of the earlier than 480 clocks of 911mhz, and matching the speeds needed to produce similar Flops as MSFT's rumored goals.
Remembered, MSFT increased clocks to what they safely felt their chip could bare shortly before launch on the XBO.
Specs are not final until it ships. And even then, can always be adjusted in firmware after, like they did with the PSP.
Well, if it is the same Polaris chip in the 480, like people have discovered with some detective work, then yeah. As it is much easier than a whole new APU design obviously. But that is no longer what is going on here.
The difference between the 480 and the Neo chip is the clock speeds that translates the Flops (4.2 for Neo, 5.5 for 480).
Remember, XBO also upped the clocks to their comfort zone shortly before launch.
Polaris clocks can be pushed much further than the 'min spec' that was leaked about Neo well before the 480 final spec release.
I don't know of any either, but that doesn't mean to me that it's necessary for consoles to do it.Yea, I can't think of any other major consumer electronic that doesn't have a tiered model system.
Almost everything sold these days has at least a base model and a premium model.
Consoles are finally adapting to the times and offering such basic options for consumers.
Problem is, i can't see how they suddenly up from 911mhz to 1200mhz without any issue.
The fact that i can't see Xbox Scorpio have a 1200mhz GPU too even it's 5.5-6TF, it's more likely they will use something better GPU with underclocked speed.
I don't know of any either, but that doesn't mean to me that it's necessary for consoles to do it.
i don't see where the risk is in hard resets, especially given how successful the consoles have been.Polaris...
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-480-clock-speeds/
It is when Sony as well as other console makers and even big publishers are saying hard resets are becoming too risky. Meaning, swallow the pill now, or expect heavy contraction and gaming to change in a much less disable way than we are used to if not.
I would choose the former over the latter, since a premium unit is optional and UC4, DOOM, etc., have proven everything will be okay on Vanilla.
i don't see where the risk is in hard resets, especially given how successful the consoles have been.
I have mixed feelings.
An upgrade like this means Sony and Microsoft admit that they made a mistake at the start of the generation.
i thought they've been making a profit off of hardware all throughout this gen. new hardware more often means more r&d costs often.With r&d costs very few hardware is profitable. Most never likely profit. Perhaps incremental upgrades will soften that blow
At PS4 launch, Sony needed 1 full priced game purchase + 1 month PSN subscription to break even per box.i thought they've been making a profit off of hardware all throughout this gen. new hardware more often means more r&d costs often.
At PS4 launch, Sony needed 1 full priced game purchase + 1 month PSN subscription to break even per box.
i thought they've been making a profit off of hardware all throughout this gen. new hardware more often means more r&d costs often.
I doubt it. They made some minor design cuts, but cost per silicon has not dropped and price competition forced the box to sometimes 299.but i thought very soon after that they were at least breaking even and then profiting with each console sold.
Can't be cheap. Analysts peg cost of designing chips for new process at 9 figures.Well I'm no expert but I think slapping a new GPU in the box shouldn't cost too much with r&d.
right, maybe the cost won't be that much higher but what i'm saying is it's still a higher cost nonetheless, instead of continuing to process the same hardware that's been selling extremely well for 2 years. it's a new, extra cost. so if profit is the excuse, then new costs make that nonsensical because it'd be adding to problem, not solving it. the way i see it anyway.Well I'm no expert but I think slapping a new GPU in the box shouldn't cost too much with r&d . Also r&d costs for like ps3 were pegged as huge and Xbox hardware has never been profitable as far as the data has indicated that I've seen . They make it back on software, subs
half a year after the console released it was profitableI doubt it. They made some minor design cuts, but cost per silicon has not dropped and price competition forced the box to sometimes 299.
i don't see where the risk is in hard resets, especially given how successful the consoles have been.
i don't see where the risk is in hard resets, especially given how successful the consoles have been.
Because developers have to retool for each architecture chèvre each gen.
I doubt it. They made some minor design cuts, but cost per silicon has not dropped and price competition forced the box to sometimes 299.
Can't be cheap. Analysts peg cost of designing chips for new process at 9 figures.
I doubt it. They made some minor design cuts, but cost per silicon has not dropped and price competition forced the box to sometimes 299.
Can't be cheap. Analysts peg cost of designing chips for new process at 9 figures.
but i thought very soon after that they were at least breaking even and then profiting with each console sold.
I have mixed feelings.
An upgrade like this means Sony and Microsoft admit that they made a mistake at the start of the generation.
I was really hoping I would be going out Tuesday morning to pre order a brand new PlayStation console
I find it insane to bother talking about anything else at an e3 press conference when there is a brand new console hiding in the background
That link has no info about per SKU margins.half a year after the console released it was profitable
http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/23/5744344/ps4-already-profitable-for-sony-ceo-says
i hope it gets delayed to match scorpios specs.
Sounds like some smart folks in here that might be able to answer this question for me!
On Podcast Beyond, Goldfarb had the idea that in order to not turn off the people who already bought a PS4, Sony might release an accessory that would be compatible with the current PS4 and upgrade it to Neo levels of power.
Is that even possible??
I have mixed feelings.
An upgrade like this means Sony and Microsoft admit that they made a mistake at the start of the generation.
i don't see where the risk is in hard resets, especially given how successful the consoles have been.
Understandable but my hype for E3 is going down. Not that there were a lot to begin with.
They commented in making a more powerful box before sony did.
Same thoughts here. It was the best thing about console gaming, you bought one box which would give you the optimal gaming experience for 5 years or so, with better performing and looking games coming out over time.I don't know of any either, but that doesn't mean to me that it's necessary for consoles to do it.
Sony changed plans after MS was going higher end on next version of console then?
not really. the argument is largely that it was inevitable that the industry would be headed in this direction, given all the other electronic devices doing the same thing it was only a matter of time for video game consoles to do it too.
i don't agree with that but it is what it is.
Yup I like this scenario.Upgrade the CPU and bump up the clock on the GPU. Why? It's a high-end product, a luxury. If you were in the market for a $399 NEO, you're more than likely still in the market for a beefier $499 NEO. If anything, this would generate more revenue and sales for Sony.
$499 neo
$299 slim
It's a win-win-win scenario.. Everybody is happy. Reveal it in the next week or month. Keepin' the Sony hype train going...
AND ALL PEOPLE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS NEO? Why?
Same thoughts here. It was the best thing about console gaming, you bought one box which would give you the optimal gaming experience for 5 years or so, with better performing and looking games coming out over time.
If new consoles comes out yearly, or whatever the new plan is, then it'll become very expensive to be the top of the game on that platform, many of us will settle with the lowend model just to save money and instead of better performing and looking games as the time goes by we'll likely see worse looking and perfoming games instead since it'll always be a better speced platform around, we'll essentially always be in the lowend cross-gen territory.
But this is another discussion I guess. I'm taking the wait and see approach to the whole thing, as of now my console hardware money goes to NX.
So you would rather last gen drag on another 3 years or pay $800 for your launch PS4/Xbox One?
Polaris...
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-480-clock-speeds/
It is when Sony as well as other console makers and even big publishers are saying hard resets are becoming too risky. Meaning, swallow the pill now, or expect heavy contraction and gaming to change in a much less disable way than we are used to if not.
I would choose the former over the latter, since a premium unit is optional and UC4, DOOM, etc., have proven everything will be okay on Vanilla.