CPUs won't bottleneck the junk GPUs they use in consoles. They're going to cheap out on both, as usual. It's the only way to keep costs down on consoles.
Another noob comment...... You act as if they've always done that...
This is the norm. High end hardware is too cost prohibitive for console manufacturers. The gap between high and low end has expanded significantly since 2005/2006 when the 360/PS3 came out. Consoles will have to settle for low/mid end GPUs and CPUs from now on.
The PS4/X1 and Pro/X all launched with junk hardware, at $500, while being sold at a loss. You're dreaming if you think it gets better from here.
No no no...... you said 'as usual' - that implies they've always done it....... so please elaborate.........As this generation is the only time it's happened.
@Johnny-n-Roger: you need to check your facts. PC is my preferred platform, but consoles have fairly consistently released with very competitive hardware - the PS4/X1 release was probably one of the worst comparison points. The OG Xbox, for example, fell in between a GeForce 3 and GF3 Ti500 in specifications. This was a very compelling package at that time.
*edit* it's also been historically VERY challenging to directly compare the hardware on consoles vs PCs. The systems often had extremely customized hardware making raw numbers like ram frequency poor indicators of the effective capabilities of the systems when properly coded for by a developer. This generation and the OG XBox and X360 were the easiest ones to make comparisons like you want to make.
PC gaming was less widespread during previous console generations, and PC hardware was comparatively weaker as a result. This allowed consoles to be more competitive. Innovation in the PC hardware space has increased dramatically over the past 15 years, making high-end PC hardware too expensive to use in consoles.
History shows that whatever console has the best games will win(in sales). Sony's only screw up in the 4-5 consoles I can think of was overpricing the PS3 at launch(too many added features). They found the sweet spot at $399. The specs you listed are way higher than needed for any game we'll see next gen. And if they feel the need for more power, they'll do a mid-gen upgrade. But I think that's a one and done thing. Better to just update the system every 5-6 years, but with full BC. I think MS will ride the X for a while and maybe release an Xtreme X model(or some lame name) at least 4 years down the road. It'll basically be a PC, but simplified for those that want the console experience. If that doesn't happen, I see Xbox becoming just a service like gamefly.
To be fair, the OG Xbox probably doesn't support my argument at all, except that it's CPU was very under powered. Generally speaking, however, these console CPUs have hardly been competitive with PC CPUs. The PS2 was extremely underwhelming from a hardware perspective, and the GCN was mid tier when it was released. Dreamcast? Mid-tier.
Edit: As far as comparing PC to console technology prior to the 6th gen, there's no fair numbers comparison, but you can compare overall quality of visuals to a low tier PC.
That's completely false. Games like Shenmu and Virtua Fighter had no equivalent on the PC. Indiana Jones ported to the N64 had better graphics than the PC version. At the time, games released on consoles were visually on par with the same games on PC at their highest preset(except maybe resolution).
On second look, I'm not being entirely fair. Historically it would take the PC 6-12 months to overtake console performance and typically by a wide margin. Consoles were always extremely limited by their resolution though.
I paid $259 for a RX 480 8GB(slightly slower RX 580, same exact chipset) in 2016. That link is to cards from Newegg, not a 3rd-party reseller, and they are $420-450.
GTX 1070 is going for ~$700.
Both represent a 63% jump in MSRP from different manufacturers. Trust me, this pricing is not coincidental, and people are paying it.
On second look, I'm not being entirely fair. Historically it would take the PC 6-12 months to overtake console performance and typically by a wide margin. Consoles were always extremely limited by their resolution though.
Historically, consoles have always held up pretty well compared to PC's. That changed with the 7th generation and I don't believe it's gonna go back to what it once was. In the mid 90's to early 2000's. NVIDIA and Intel weren't the giants they had now. Console manufacturers had deep pockets and could get custom made hardware at a price PC's couldn't possibly hope to get. Nowadays it's highly standardized and consoles use parts that aren't too different from the ones found in stores.
It isn't that consoles slowed down, it's simply that PC made huge leaps. For instance, discrete gaming GPU's weren't really a big thing until the mid to late 90's with the advent of 3Dfx.
Neither console will use ancient GDDR5 and will use GDDR6/HBM3, also 16 tflops is not going to happen next year.
PS5/Xbox Next
CPU: 6core/12 thread @3Ghz
GPU: 10-12tflops, 16GB GDDR6@750gb/s
2TB 7200rpm HDD
8GB DDR4 system memory
4K Blu-ray drive
$499
good deal if you ask me. it would certainly be capable of 4K60, but i hope most games go for a dynamic resolution while pushing in game graphics and physics, there's nothing wrong with 1800p with solid AA being dynamically scaled up to 2160p.
@appariti0n: most games don't utilze more than 4-6 cores, besides it's not just about core count. my phone has 8 cores so does the PS4/Xbox, that doesn't mean those 8 cores are any where near a Ryzen 1700 with it's 8 cores. Its a games console not a video editing game developing machine 6 cores with hyper-threading will be more than enough.
It will be a Ryzen APU more than likely... Still not enough to compete with modern i5's and never will be because they need low powered CPU's to keep the temps and prices down.
Frankly, so long as PlayStation keeps delivering great games I'm fine if current gen lasts another 5 years without a successor. Aside from some slightly better resolution or frame rate, what will we really see for improvement? The idea of massive graphic leaps between gens is gone; at least at an affordable price.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf: we have reached the limit on apu's. AMD's brand new apu is about on par with the base PS4, both next gen consoles will use dedicated parts.
@phbz: Why most modern pc's get on just fine with just 8GB of ram. Remember they are just running a console UI, not a full blown version of windows, they're not content creation machines they play the creations.
@davillain-: So what amount do you think is acceptable? The PS4 Pro uses 3.5GB of ram for it's OS and runs just fine to me and its a 4K UI as well. 4.5gb more of much better DDR4 won't be enough? At some point we have to realize cost here.
The CPU parts of the APU will be used they wont use the GPU's on the current APU's. They can use the 4c/8t Ryzen 2200 with a Vega GPU with a higher compute unit count maybe around 40 with 2560 SP's is more than likely going to be the power area of the next consoles... Slower than the Vega 56 but stronger than the Polaris chips in the Pro and X1.
@davillain-: So what amount do you think is acceptable? The PS4 Pro uses 3.5GB of ram for it's OS and runs just fine to me and its a 4K UI as well. 4.5gb more of much better DDR4 won't be enough? At some point we have to realize cost here.
I don't think it will have DDR4 RAM. The entire system will use GDDR6 and probably about 20GB of it total.
@phbz: Ram may be a proble, but as far as gpu and cpu's Nvidia and AMD set the msrp which hasn't changes. Only retailers like newegg and third party companies ie MSI, Saphire, Asus make the extraordinary markup on these parts due to mining. Just look at pre built systems right now, compared to the individual parts an entire system featuring a gtx 1080 from cyberpower pc looks like a steal now.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf: they wont use something that weaker than the Vega 56, in fact they won't use Vega at all because it isn't efficient and consumes too much power.
@Johnny-n-Roger: I guess that's possible, however we have no idea if GDDR6 is suitable for an OS, typically non graphics memory has been better for an OS but I guess the PS4 has managed alright with GDDR5.
@nfamouslegend: I don't know. If prices continue high for a long time I don't see how it won't affect everything. I mean, if there's high demand why wont suppliers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie and just let final sellers take all the profit? But I might be missing something.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf: we have reached the limit on apu's. AMD's brand new apu is about on par with the base PS4, both next gen consoles will use dedicated parts.
Are we just ignoring that AMD never bothered producing a desktop equivalent of the semi-custom APU designs they did for Sony and MS? The dev kits have the full 44CU version of the X1X APU. That's like 6.5TFLOPS and you're saying APUs are tapped out at PS4 levels?
@Grey_Eyed_Elf: they wont use something that weaker than the Vega 56, in fact they won't use Vega at all because it isn't efficient and consumes too much power.
I don't think you understand the industry and how it works.
They are not going to use stock parts off the shelf, if they do use Vega witch they will it will be a revised version of vega. As for them not using anything weaker than Vega 56?
... But it will have better power draw?...
Sorry love it doesn't work that way.
If you look at the release periods of the last 3 consoles and the horsepower with PC equivalents for them 5 years is the time period it takes for the industry to provide a lower power GPU that is 3-4 times as powerful... Unfortunately due to the fact that the pro exists and X1X the 5 year gap has been skewed.
You will get a console more powerful than the PS4/X1 but they will not be 2-3x more powerful than the Pro/x1x their is no hardware available if you include a 2 year cycle it takes to create a new console which is meant to be here by 2020.
Also Vega 11 will replace the current Polaris chips that are in the premium consoles and Vega 20 will replace the 56/64 parts which will offer better efficiency... Vega 11 will more than likely be the next GPU's in the coming consoles which will probably have a range of 20-40 compute units and the top tier will out perform the RX 580's.
There is no magic card out there that will be better than Vega 56 and run on console power draw's and cost cheap to manufacture for a 2020 release for a $400 console.
For a PC that CPU is trash. Because PCs are used for more than gaming. Having a 4 core/8 thread CPU in 2018 and thinking you have a high end system is laughable.
And WTF makes you think he uses his CPU for other things than gaming? The 7700K is a good gaming CPU.
You called it quote "garbage" and a "piece of crap". On what planet is a CPU meant for gaming and good enough for "way over 60fps" a piece of crap?
Also lol at your question. 4K/60fps with a 500$ budget. I'd target 1080p/60fps instead. 500$ doesn't even get me the GPU for 4K/60fps.
It's not even Garbage if he was multitasking.
I run a full Virtual Lab, play any game I want, while watching a 4k show, and have an active anti virus... and well ANYTHING open with 0 degraded performance on a friggin 6700k... at it's stock 4 GHZ.
I agree that ~12TFLOPS in 2020 is a good target for a $399 console. I'm not super savvy on the chip making process, but doing something like Sony did with the PS4 Pro(doubled/mirrored PS4 GPU from 18CU to 36CU), seems to make sense for MS. Maybe they could "mirror" a X1X in the same way, add some bells and whistles, and call it macaroni at $399.
7nm Vega is slated for 2018/19, with 7nm Navi in 2019, and "Next-gen" in 2020. AMD always delays and flakes.
---
I disagree with this thread. Next-gen needs way more CPU power. The visual disparity between a 12TF GPU and a 16TF GPU will be minuscule at best because of diminishing returns from increased resolution, paired with acceptable results from CBR and upscaling at higher resolutions.
Even PC has become "consolized", with games being built around the slow CPUs in the X1 and PS4 base units. You don't see a Crysis/Red Faction hybrid with destructible everything and physics you'd expect from a 2018 experience because of this.
@Grey_Eyed_Elf: they wont use something that weaker than the Vega 56, in fact they won't use Vega at all because it isn't efficient and consumes too much power.
I don't think you understand the industry and how it works.
They are not going to use stock parts off the shelf, if they do use Vega witch they will it will be a revised version of vega. As for them not using anything weaker than Vega 56?
... But it will have better power draw?...
Sorry love it doesn't work that way.
If you look at the release periods of the last 3 consoles and the horsepower with PC equivalents for them 5 years is the time period it takes for the industry to provide a lower power GPU that is 3-4 times as powerful... Unfortunately due to the fact that the pro exists and X1X the 5 year gap has been skewed.
You will get a console more powerful than the PS4/X1 but they will not be 2-3x more powerful than the Pro/x1x their is no hardware available if you include a 2 year cycle it takes to create a new console which is meant to be here by 2020.
Also Vega 11 will replace the current Polaris chips that are in the premium consoles and Vega 20 will replace the 56/64 parts which will offer better efficiency... Vega 11 will more than likely be the next GPU's in the coming consoles which will probably have a range of 20-40 compute units and the top tier will out perform the RX 580's.
There is no magic card out there that will be better than Vega 56 and run on console power draw's and cost cheap to manufacture for a 2020 release for a $400 console.
@gamecubepad: Well its all "speculation" in the industry BUT the industry is very much open and predictable in terms of how its run.
The PS4 had a 1.6TFLOP count and the Pro had a 4.2TFLOP count with a 3 year gap and a $399 release price... and the GPU's used where already in the PC retail space when both consoles where released.
Now the gap between the Pro and the next gen won't be 5 years, meaning that if they were to release in 2019-2020 mass production would have to start by the end of Q4 2018 meaning they would need a GPU that would be power efficient and already in production by that time so there is no GPU that we know off in either Nvidia or AMD's pipeline that would give us anything close to 12 TFLOPS.
Ryzen is a lot more powerful than PS4/X1 chips so a Ryzen based APU with a Vega 11 chip with 40+ compute Units would produce 7- 8Tflops, the CPU would alleviate the current bottleneck and the extra GPU power would give true Native 4K gaming and they could keep the price at $400.
12 TFLOPS or more is just not going to happen, maybe in another 2-3 graphics card generation we would have mid-tier cards with that much power and efficiency but nothing on the horizon is on that level.
Ryzen 7 APU 4c/8t 2.8Ghz Mobile chip
Vega 11 40+ Compute Unites 7-8 TFLOPS
8-12GB HBM2
1TB SSHD/HDD
That is pretty much what is to be expected unless they go with GDDR6/Nvidia.
Why is everyone expecting a $399 console? I'd much rather pay the $100 extra for a more premium system. $499 is not an astronomical amount for a system that will last years.
Why is everyone expecting a $399 console? I'd much rather pay the $100 extra for a more premium system. $499 is not an astronomical amount for a system that will last years.
$500 consoles don't sell... The PS3 struggled till it released the Slim and introduced a price drop and the X1X is struggling right now.
We don't really know, but based on the $400 price the power will not be drastically better than the X1X maybe double the TFLOPS count at best if they decided to go higher then who knows but then they will be hit with power draw and heat issues so who knows.
Either way Vega 11 will more than likely be the chip they will go for unless Navi hits mass production before the manufacturing starts for new consoles but that is highly unlikely.
Why is everyone expecting a $399 console? I'd much rather pay the $100 extra for a more premium system. $499 is not an astronomical amount for a system that will last years.
$500 consoles don't sell... The PS3 struggled till it released the Slim and introduced a price drop and the X1X is struggling right now.
We don't really know, but based on the $400 price the power will not be drastically better than the X1X maybe double the TFLOPS count at best if they decided to go higher then who knows but then they will be hit with power draw and heat issues so who knows.
Either way Vega 11 will more than likely be the chip they will go for unless Navi hits mass production before the manufacturing starts for new consoles but that is highly unlikely.
I don't see why it couldn't be a Navi chip and will easily break 13TFLOPs. We should see Navi before Q3 2019 and a refresh in a 2020 along side consoles.
12 TFLOPS or more is just not going to happen, maybe in another 2-3 graphics card generation we would have mid-tier cards with that much power and efficiency but nothing on the horizon is on that level.
I disagree. There's no reason why high end performance can not become "mid-tier" in 2 and a half years. A mid-tier GPU in 2 years will be more powerful than a vega 64
The mobile Ryzen chips have 4c/8t. More cores won't help... That's the mistake they made with the current hardware:
At 4K more cores and better IPC makes no difference past 4 cores
At 60FPS targets more cores make little to no difference past 4c/8t and IPC makes a bigger difference
It would be far better for GAMING that they go with a 4c/8t chip at 2.8Ghz rather than a 8c/16t chip that is at 2.2Ghz.
Ryzen 7 mobile chips are on par with mobile i7 chips have a 15w TDP and the desktop 8c chips are at 65w and they Ryzen 2 chips are just 12nm chips Zen chips with a slight boost in core clock but the same core count which is undoubtably what the mobile variants will be... Just more efficient which is a good thing since they can opperate at higher clocks with the same power and heat draw so a console with a 2.8Ghz chip will be achievable.
At the power draw targets mobile chips run at adding more cores would be a unnecessary sacrifice with no benefit what so ever, 4c/8t with a higher frequency would be DRASTICALLY better than running a 8c/16t chip with a significantly lower core clock in order to hit the power target.
In the desktop market its not noticeable because all chips run at 3Ghz or higher so the extra cores are just a bonus but when you cut the destop chips down to 2 or 2.5GHz that's when you start to notice huge performance drops and when dropping from 8 to 4 cores means you get a extra 500Mhz in core clock?...
Imagine what the image below would look like if they dropped it down to 2.GHz, either way at those frequincies even a extra 200Mhz increase can make or break CPU heavy areas in games and a good example is PS4 v Pro in the Witcher 3 the extra frequencies helped a lot.
Frequencies past 4Ghz for most CPU architectures make little difference on the majority of games and core counts past 4 make even less. its why Ryzen 5 and i5's are popular among gamers and why we overclock.
Consoles need to ditch the extra cores and get higher frequencies with better cooling.
Of course PC can have both more cores and higher frequencies but consoles have price and power draw and heat to worry about so would you really sacrifice 500Mhz or more for a extra number of cores that make no difference to gaming what so ever?
Why is everyone expecting a $399 console? I'd much rather pay the $100 extra for a more premium system. $499 is not an astronomical amount for a system that will last years.
$500 consoles don't sell... The PS3 struggled till it released the Slim and introduced a price drop and the X1X is struggling right now.
We don't really know, but based on the $400 price the power will not be drastically better than the X1X maybe double the TFLOPS count at best if they decided to go higher then who knows but then they will be hit with power draw and heat issues so who knows.
Either way Vega 11 will more than likely be the chip they will go for unless Navi hits mass production before the manufacturing starts for new consoles but that is highly unlikely.
I don't see why it couldn't be a Navi chip and will easily break 13TFLOPs. We should see Navi before Q3 2019 and a refresh in a 2020 along side consoles.
Navi's main feature of using multiple slices of graphics silicon inside one package with a fast interconnect bus does not mean it will reach 13TFLOPS staying within a 150w TDP limit. Navi is still based on GCN so its performance will be on par with VEGA. Even with 7nm an 13 TFLOP Navi would have around a 150w TDP.
Between price points, cooling, power and size limits.... too many unknowns with what these companies will be aiming for and what risks their willing to take.
12 TFLOPS or more is just not going to happen, maybe in another 2-3 graphics card generation we would have mid-tier cards with that much power and efficiency but nothing on the horizon is on that level.
I disagree. There's no reason why high end performance can not become "mid-tier" in 2 and a half years. A mid-tier GPU in 2 years will be more powerful than a vega 64
If they are going to stay under 150w TDP, Even with 7nm your not going to get a more than 13 TFLOP GPU.
12 TFLOPS or more is just not going to happen, maybe in another 2-3 graphics card generation we would have mid-tier cards with that much power and efficiency but nothing on the horizon is on that level.
I disagree. There's no reason why high end performance can not become "mid-tier" in 2 and a half years. A mid-tier GPU in 2 years will be more powerful than a vega 64
No one saying it isn't.
That statement is based on the fact that current rumours are a 2019 console release meaning 2018 will be the manufacturing period of the consoles, and Navi wouldn't no be out by then. The last two console iterations both Sony and Microsoft have been using chips that were already in circulation and mass production and they just got a higher optimised version which is why everything is pointing towards Vega 11 since it will be here by summer which will mean that if manufacturing starts by the end of the year they will have the units needed for consoles, Navi would still be in development stages with at best development prototypes.
I don't see why it couldn't be a Navi chip and will easily break 13TFLOPs. We should see Navi before Q3 2019 and a refresh in a 2020 along side consoles.
Navi will break 13TFLOPS but not the mid tier Navi cards, they will sit around the 7-8Tflop area.
Nvidia:
GTX 970 = 3.9 TFLOPS - 2014
GTX 1070 = 6.5TFLOPS - 2016
AMD:
R9 Fury = 7.1 TFLOPS = 2015
Vega 56 = 10.5 TFLOPS = 2017
Current consoles
PS4Pro = 4.2 TFLOPS
X1X = 6 TFLOPS
2 year gap between them and the coming consoles?... 13TFLOPs not happening, the power draw and road maps for coming mid tier GPU's just do not align.
You will be looking at a 7-8 TFLOPS Vega 11 chip without a shadow of doubt, you can quote me on that.
The mobile Ryzen chips have 4c/8t. More cores won't help... That's the mistake they made with the current hardware:
At 4K more cores and better IPC makes no difference past 4 cores
At 60FPS targets more cores make little to no difference past 4c/8t and IPC makes a bigger difference
It would be far better for GAMING that they go with a 4c/8t chip at 2.8Ghz rather than a 8c/16t chip that is at 2.2Ghz.
Ryzen 7 mobile chips are on par with mobile i7 chips have a 15w TDP and the desktop 8c chips are at 65w and they Ryzen 2 chips are just 12nm chips Zen chips with a slight boost in core clock but the same core count which is undoubtably what the mobile variants will be... Just more efficient which is a good thing since they can opperate at higher clocks with the same power and heat draw so a console with a 2.8Ghz chip will be achievable.
At the power draw targets mobile chips run at adding more cores would be a unnecessary sacrifice with no benefit what so ever, 4c/8t with a higher frequency would be DRASTICALLY better than running a 8c/16t chip with a significantly lower core clock in order to hit the power target.
In the desktop market its not noticeable because all chips run at 3Ghz or higher so the extra cores are just a bonus but when you cut the destop chips down to 2 or 2.5GHz that's when you start to notice huge performance drops and when dropping from 8 to 4 cores means you get a extra 500Mhz in core clock?...
Imagine what the image below would look like if they dropped it down to 2.GHz, either way at those frequincies even a extra 200Mhz increase can make or break CPU heavy areas in games and a good example is PS4 v Pro in the Witcher 3 the extra frequencies helped a lot.
Frequencies past 4Ghz for most CPU architectures make little difference on the majority of games and core counts past 4 make even less. its why Ryzen 5 and i5's are popular among gamers and why we overclock.
Consoles need to ditch the extra cores and get higher frequencies with better cooling.
Of course PC can have both more cores and higher frequencies but consoles have price and power draw and heat to worry about so would you really sacrifice 500Mhz or more for a extra number of cores that make no difference to gaming what so ever?
More cores make a difference if games are builded for it and that's exactly what happens with consoles, not so much with PC.
So that's isn't completely right what you mention here.
Sony and microsoft did right with going for a 8 core cpu over a 4 core one. The 500 mhz increase on that 4 core cpu would not be more beneficial then what the more cores would bring towards the table for a console.
The console would even be more slower then what you currently got.
However porting would probably be a lot more easier, and games that do not tend to bother with optimizing for the cpu architecture of consoles would run a lot better. But performance specially for first party would be lower and any dev that does cater towards the hardware.
People need to remember that consoles are not PC's
On PC however that wouldn't automatically be the case, because PC devs will only build a game for one architecture most likely and simple ignore everything else. which currently is a 4/8 core solution or still use 2 core solution in games like black desert online.
This is why i see almost no need in buying into 6 core cpu's currently on pc's much as a threadripper or even more cores, because it will not ever be used in any capable level for what they where builded for.
I far rather get a 5ghz 4/8 core currently, then 32/64 4ghz cpu for PC gaming.
6 over 4 core could make sense however if the core architecture is faster even if the applications or games don't use the extra cores. u still profit from it. so there is that also.
So you are right on the PC part, but console part not so much.
Just assuming it will be an evolution of this gen. Having 8-cores like PS4/XB1 will be convenient for remasters and rehashes.
If this thing is $399, it's gonna have like a $120 budget for it's APU.
the processing power of Ryzen dwarfs the jaguar based cpu's in these consoles. A 3.1ghz quad core Ryzen with SMT( 8threads) will allow more than 3x the performance per clock while keeping the ability to handle those games.
Log in to comment