So about the whole "Scorpio will cost $599-$799" thing......

Why are you involved in this topic?

My speculation is based on historical with old GCN version 1.1 R9-390X with similar TFLOPS and effective memory bandwidth.

@ronvalencia: Why did you respond to my post with irrelevant information?

The only irrelevant post is your post. For example, Your post is about ronvalencia instead of Scorpio.

@ronvalencia: You responded to my post on speculation vs facts by posting more speculation as facts. Your response was irrelevant to the discussion yet you saw a need to post the usual nonsense. Take the time to know what you are responding to before wasting your usual spam chart /YouTube nonsense.

Polaris 10's process maturity is identical PS4 Pro. While there is a few functional difference between Polaris 10 and PS4 Pro, but AMD's worst working chip yield process maturity are similar. PS4 Pro's follows Polaris 2.5X perf/watt guidelines. RX-470D is the closest PC SKU to PS4 Pro. Name another PC SKU closest to PS4 Pro's IGP.

XBO's GPU IP recycles from R7-360 Bonaire Pro with 853Mhz clock speed with GCN version 1.1. Your claims 7770 = XBO is less accurate since there's a closer PC SKU with XBO's IGP design.

The only child is you.

This topic is speculation. Again, why are you involved in this topic?

My speculation is based on historical with old GCN version 1.1 R9-390X with similar TFLOPS and effective memory bandwidth.

If you talk about "facts", Your absolute "it's got 102 GB/s higher memory bandwidth, it can transfer this data 46% faster" is wrong since the E3 statement is "more than 320 GB/s". I can also nitpick.

@ronvalencia: You responded to my post not understanding what was being discussed. You continue to respond in that manner. You should take the time to understand the context to the post you are responding to. Your response to my post still is irrelevant. Speculation is not fact and cannot be pass of as facts. It's that simple.

Again, this topic is speculation. You are changing the nature for this topic. Your post on this speculative topic is irrelevant.

If you talk about "facts", your absolute "it's got 102 GB/s higher memory bandwidth, it can transfer this data 46% faster" is wrong since the E3 statement is "more than 320 GB/s". I can also nitpick.

This topic is about the best speculation. We all know the basic parameters for Scorpio, except you missed "more than 320 GB/s".

You are demonstrating that you lack comprehension. I don't know how to break this down any further but I will try again because you may have missed it.

Speculation is NOT facts and should not be passed of as FACTS.

Do you understand that concept? Do understand that the issue is not the speculation? Or are you going to continue to ignore the initial point; like your initial response to my post and make an irrelevant response?

But I look forward to one of your nonsensical side tracks. :)

A side note "102 GB/s higher memory bandwidth means it can transfer this data 46% faster than the Pro" is not my quote but someone else's. But you don't take the time to read so I can understand why you would repeat that error multiple times.

Again you are comparing performance so when it is RX470 vs PS4 Pro is a match some how,even that the RX470 doesn't have 36CU like the pro,but when i compare the 7770 vs the xbox one which are close in performance some how is not..

Come on man don't be such a hypocrite..

Yeah more than 320GB/s 321GB/s how is that.?

When you see MS say more than 320,but don't say more than 325GB/s is clear that what it is over 320Gb/s is not even worth mentioning,you don't say more than 320GB/s if your bandwidth is 330 or 325 is simple taking away on something which you want to look as good as possible,and knowing MS and how sad their claims about bandwidth have being for 2 generations in a row first 278Gb/s with the 360,and then 204GB's with the xbox one i would take a wait and see approach on that claim.

By MS the xbox 360 almost had a bandwidth as fast as Scorpio and faster than the Pro in 2005.

Is 93 fu**ing watts is not going into scorpio unless water down like a Jaguar and that defeat the whole purpose of getting Rysen in the first place,46% improvements over a FX8XXX a water down version should be even lower.

And i already posted my links stating 2018 for semi custom,straight from AMD.

Oh and is $349 dollars even the freaking 4 core one is higher priced than an i3 and many FX as well so yeah i don't see how at $399.

You should stop again you are setting your self for an ownage and you will be quoted once scorpio price is announce.

Again, this topic is speculation and you are changing this topic's purpose. Using your so-called facts to stop a speculation thread is not an argument and it's irrelevant for this topic. This is simple to understand.

After all of that,you are unable to grasp the simple concept

Speculation is NOT facts and should not be passed of as FACTS.

Do not equate Jagaur's cut-down design to Raven Ridge's mobile RYZEN design. AMD's mobile/embedded RYZEN has to compete with Intel Skylake mobiles/ embedded.

Large L3 cache is useful for large desktop apps and nearly pointless for most PC games since most are design with Jaguar's cache storage limits.

FinFET 6.5 core Jaguar at 2.1 Ghz will bottleneck HIS RX-480 OC level solution and it's already has problems with PS4 Pro's RX-470D level GPU. Scorpio was designed to be PC VR compliant.

Mobile Steamroller quad core at 2.x Ghz bottlenecks 7970M (slightly faster than PS4 GPU) that enables 8870M with Intel Ivybridge quad core 2.4 Ghz to beat it in most PC games. With Steamroller type module, two threads share two 128 bit FMA SIMD resources, hence inferior to dual Jaguar with two threads equivalent. Steamroller type CPUs relies on very high clock speed and 8 core version +3Ghz would need >80 watts.

AMD is careful with leaking information on Scorpio as MS did not reveal 8 core CPU solution.

http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-summit-ridge-prices-details-leaked/

RYZEN SR3 (i7 quad core at similar clock speed) starts at $200 retail price around Q1 2017. Sciopio's release date is expected to be Q4 2017 and at the boundary for RYZEN semi-custom.

SR3 is the same silicon as SR7 with four CPU cores disabled ie. bills of materials are the same with SR3 to SR7. The difference is profit margin.

http://digiworthy.com/2016/10/10/phil-spencer-xbox-scorpio-not-use-amd-jaguar/

Phil Spenser removed Jaguar as the candidate CPU IP for Scorpio.

Xbox One half gen jump would have been PS4 Pro level.

About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We’d looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I’d say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought–with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year–that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different.

So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on

This topic is about best speculation. This is a simple concept. Thanks for changing the topic's purpose.

Phil Spenser already stated GTX 980 like solution (hence R9-390X class) and removed Jaguar IP.

Any speculation with Jaguar for Scorpio has been debunk.

Please stop man... Trying to imply that a cut down version will work just as the full version is a fu**ing joke,is defeat the whole purpose of having a stronger CPU,how could AMD sell you a full ryzen CPU if their cut down version works just as well.?

Stop with the VR PC compliant shit i already proved how Quantum Break on PC fu**ing needs a i5 minimum to run,when on console it runs on a freaking Jaguar,QB is a DX12 game it should run fine on lower spec CPU that is the purpose of DX12 you fool better CPU utilization so how the fu** can you explain requiring a i5 minimum.? Over blown requirements,so stop with the whole VR crap we all know it is over blown specs requirements.

Oh bullshit a 8 core Ryzen is $349 cheapest,the 4 core costing the same but with 4 core less mean shit as AMD will not sell you a 8 core Ryzen for the Price of a 4 core one,the ones using 4 cores are bad chips that didn't have all 8 core or 6 at least working that is how yields really work,you make 8 cores,every chip with 8 cost more,then 6 cost less and 4 cost way less,but all those 6 and 4 cores are 8 core chips that did not came out fully working,so amd adjust price accordingly.

Fact is Ryzen in 8 core flavor is $349 dollar and freaking 93 watts is not going to end on Scorpio,a 4 core water down version probably,since Ryzen is dual threaded 4 cores 8 threads seem about right,other wise expect a water down Ryzen similar to what the Jaguar is to the FX.

What Phil is saying there is pure bullshit,because they were fu**ing late,as simple as that,the Pro is not the best MS could do this year,no fu**ing way there are more powerful components than what scorpio will have for years now,a 6TF GPU will not even be mid range by next year,GPU's are past 6TF for a few years now,and good CPU are there to by the way and anything would work better than the Jaguar inside both consoles.

MS was late and is the reason they are releasing 1 year late and is the reason the PS4 will beat scorpio ass,1 year head start is more deadly than more power.

Link to where Phil stated that the Jaguar is remove because what you quote there doesn't say that.

Faster speed hell or even a FX could be in the picture and not necessary Ryzen.

Wrong. Phil wanted a faster solution which is something different from PS4 Pro in both CPU and GPU.

http://digiworthy.com/2016/10/10/phil-spencer-xbox-scorpio-not-use-amd-jaguar/

Phil Spenser removed Jaguar as the candidate CPU IP for Scorpio.

Xbox One half gen jump would have been PS4 Pro level.

About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We’d looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I’d say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought–with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year–that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different.

So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on

Streamroller X4 at 3.1 Ghz rivaled by Jaguar X4 at 2.0 Ghz.

You have failed to factor the following

1. Streamroller's dual core/dual threads shares a common FPU units which doesn't occur on dual Jaguar setup.

2. Streamroller X4 at 3.1 Ghz power consumption.

Microsoft treats AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver/Streamroller module as a single CPU with hyper-thread.

Microsoft disagrees with AMD's "8 core" definition for FX-8350 i.e. note Cores count = 4.

Intel i7-4770K's Cores count = 4

Try again clown.

DX12 only solves CPU side factors NOT GPU's memory bandwidth. Your "i already proved how Quantum Break on PC fu**ing needs a i5 minimum" is a red herring to Cape Vedre's inability to match XBO's ESRAM memory bandwidth.

Quantum Break was designed exploit XBO's very high memory bandwidth.

Quantum Break DX11 runs fine on Intel Core i3-4170 with GTX 970.

My laptop with ‎Intel Core i7-3635QM at 2.4 GHz base clock with 3.4 Ghz Turbo + Radeon HD 8870M OC/R9-M270 OC has 2GB GDDR5-5000 78 GB/s VRAM, 850 Mhz GPU core clock and 10 CU.

Try again clown.

As usual you cannot comprehend. Lets reflect on your conversation intervention.

I was in a disagreement with Dynamitecop with regards to his speculation being passed of as facts or stating that its a known fact when it was actually speculation.

You decided to jump in and further speculate when the issue WAS NOT about just speculating but stating things are factual when they are not.

You then decided to quote Dynamitecop and state that I made the statement because you lack the ability to comprehend and just wanted to argue even though you don't know what the hell the discussion was about.

In spite of all of this you are still unable to grasp that the discussion that you decided to jump in with your rubbish spamlike post is not about "no speculation is allowed in this thread" but in fact it was about claiming something is factual when its not and that these "facts" are just speculation.

So, I hope someday you will learn that when you decide squeeze yourself into an existing discussion between two people that you would take the time to know the context of the discussion instead of perpetually making an ass of yourself. :)

Again, this topic's purpose is speculation by nature. Scorpio's basic parameters are well known and this topic's discussion is about the best speculation.

Your disagreements with Dynamitecop changes this topic's speculative nature. Your attempts to shutdown this topic's discussion is flawed and would not work i.e. you are not the moderator.

Your focus on ronvalencia is another irrelevant, rubbish and spam like post.

You are wrong and running strong. You are even deviating from the point and creating new an alternate to what actual transpired. There was no attempts to shutdown this topic. You are the first in the entire thread to mention anything of that nature. I know its hard for you to admit that you were wrong but you were. And again non of this relates to the discussion that Dynamitecop and I was having; which was on topic BTW, because you still don't want to accept that you were wrong in your flawed assumption. Keep fighting the good fight.

The only wrong POV is you. This topic is speculative by nature.

Your argument about "facts" are not arguments in this topic. You haven't got the "facts" correct anyway.

Try again clown.

It's not PS4 Pro's Jaguar CPU setup. YOU ARE WRONG.

http://digiworthy.com/2016/10/10/phil-spencer-xbox-scorpio-not-use-amd-jaguar/

Phil Spenser removed Jaguar as the candidate CPU IP for Scorpio.

Xbox One half gen jump would have been PS4 Pro level.

About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We’d looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I’d say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought–with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year–that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different.

So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on

LMAO. You factually do not know what the CPU is going to be. No amount of speculating would change that fact. No amount of quoting would change the fact that it has not been disclosed and you don't know.

Speculation != fact. You can try as hard as you like to change this reality but it wouldn't change anything.

Its hilarious that now you have gone on left field and just try to find something to argue and you are still wrong.

Phil Spenser removed PS4 Pro 's Jaguar CPU setup which is the FinFET Jaguar version after Puma. You are wrong.

Again, this topic is speculative. Your "speculation != fact" assertion is irrelevant.

@Pedro said:

@ronvalencia said:

It's not PS4 Pro's Jaguar CPU setup. YOU ARE WRONG.

http://digiworthy.com/2016/10/10/phil-spencer-xbox-scorpio-not-use-amd-jaguar/

Phil Spenser removed Jaguar as the candidate CPU IP for Scorpio.

Xbox One half gen jump would have been PS4 Pro level.

About two and a half years ago we started to look at a hardware refresh that we might want to do, which in the end led to the Xbox One S and Scorpio in terms of designs. We’d looked at doing something that was higher performance this year, and I’d say the [PS4] Pro is about what we thought–with the GPU, CPU, memory that was here this year–that you could go do, and we decided that we wanted to do something different.

So we looked at Scorpio and 4K and what I thought was a bigger step in terms of performance. It was something that we wanted to focus on

LMAO. You factually do not know what the CPU is going to be. No amount of speculating would change that fact. No amount of quoting would change the fact that it has not been disclosed and you don't know.

Speculation != fact. You can try as hard as you like to change this reality but it wouldn't change anything.

Its hilarious that now you have gone on left field and just try to find something to argue and you are still wrong.

No one but MS knows what the Scorpio CPU will be but the rumors have pointed at some type of Zen solution. This of course is just a rumor but Phil Spencer pretty much told everyone it WON'T be a Jaguar based CPU. It could be a custom MS CPU like the ones MS have been developing for their servers or something else altogether. The only thing that is certain is that MS did not like Jaguar's Performance. If a 2.1 GHZ Jaguar CPU is bottlenecking a 4.2 TF GPU than there definitely isn't a Jaguar solution for a 6TF GPU. MS will try to eliminate all the bottlenecks.

Maybe I am wrong. Call me a fanboy. I don't care. I own a PS,PS2, PS3 and a PS4. I also own a Xbox, XBOX 360 and a Xbox One.

With that said. I will say that I was extremely disappointed in the specs of the PS4 Pro. I also feel Sony lied to us since the PS4 pro struggles to run any game in 4k and maintain 30FPS. Only games that game out years ago and are not GPU intense can come close to 4k. Most are just 1400p upscale. Plus it really hurt Sony but completely ignoring PS4 fans and neglecting to implement a UHD drive.

As for Microsoft, I have my doubts they still use 6Tflops of GPU power. Not only that I also doubt they can truly improve its CPU. Microsoft has a lot to prove. I will wait for the official specs before I choose my 4k gaming system or in PS4 Pro case a upscaled to 4k system. I will say if this Scorpio console is $599 I won't even consider it.

But I want true 4k gaming. I'm talking full 4k st 60fps.

Didn't Philip Spencer himself say that the scorpio was aimed as a premium product?.. WTF kind of sense would it make saying that but still have it at $399? IMO we are probably going to see upwards to $600 or more.. Especially when they are shooting for 4k, something that even $650 video cards like the 1080 can't do and still maintain 60fps on very many games.... To me they should have stuck to 1080p and shot for 60fps + ultra/high settings in all their games.. Currently every multiplat that is released does a mixture of medium settings at 1080 or 900p at sub 60fps levels.. Witcher 3 for instance can only pull like mid 30's in fps on medium settings on the PS4..

I've actually seen $499 thrown around a lot across the web and SW, but the title only mentions $599-$799.

For baseline models, $399 is higher than $299 XBO S.

Scorpio's estimate from R9-390X results.

The graphics details from the above benchmarks are higher than XBO's graphics detail settings.

@VERTIGO47 said:

@dynamitecop said:

They're latched onto Phil Spencer saying that the console is a "premium product" and completely ignored everything else he's said relevant to expected pricing. They have come to these price conclusions not because that's what it's likely to launch at, but rather because that is what they want it to launch at because they're scared of it.

They want it to fail in any way possible so they've delusionally convinced themselves that it has to be priced out of the market and competition to feel better about the reality that it's coming.

Spot on

No sir, your impeccable use of Kevin Arnold is what's spot on.

AMD is pushing for FreeSync over HDMI standards body, hence reduce the need for 4K/60 fps. https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/235781-amd-hints-freesync-capable-tvs-might-come-to-market-boost-ps4-and-xbox-one-graphics

Both PS4 Pro and Xbox S/Scorpio are Trojan horses for AMD to push for standards direction.

@ronvalencia: that to me just screams excuses. I had to listen about this cloud processing that is going to turn the Xbox One into a NASA super computer. Point is, we were promised 4k gaming on the PS4 Pro. It's not even close unless the game is from PS3/360 days.

I doubt if 6Tflops is enough for Xbox to bring us "True 4k Gaming" like they are claiming.

I'm just saying if Microsoft wants my money $599 won't do. I would CONSIDER $499. But it better deliver on it promise or I will buy the Pro which might be $359 by next year.

Crackdown 3 is an example of cloud based Intel Xeon Haswell-E class CPUs generating destruction physics for XBO's local GPU to render i.e. this is an example of AMD Jaguar being crap relative to high end PC CPUs.

Xbox Scorpio's GPU and memory bandwidth (factoring Polaris 10's memory controller efficiency + delta memory compression from physical 320 GB/s memory bandwidth) is similar to R9-390X OC solution.

Any high end GPUs can be slowdown with bloated NVIDIA Gameworks that doesn't deliver substantial visual quality increase. Unlikely Xbox platform would get NVIDIA's stupid tessellation overdraw BS.

Most PC's max graphics details are bloated which doesn't deliver substantial visual quality increase over high/very high detail settings.

Again, Scorpio's estimate from R9-390X results.

The graphics details from the above benchmarks are higher than XBO's graphics detail settings.

There's a high probability Scorpio's Rise of Tomb Raider wouldn't need PS4 Pro's checkerboard render.

http://en.yibada.com/articles/182451/20161231/amd-ryzen-amd-ryzen-price-specs-ryzen-processor-amd-cpu.htm

RYZEN SR3's estimated price is $149. RYZEN SR3 is similar to Intel Core i7-47x0 type CPU.

5 Ghz turbo speed version seems to be the premium RYZEN SR7 Black Edition.

@ronvalencia: I could care less about use of benchmarks. This Scorpio might not even have 6Tflops of GPU. It could be a estimate. Either way. I have my doubts Scorpio can do 4k when the PS4 pro struggles to do 30FPS at 1440p.

If you dismissed PC benchmarks that has similar basic parameters as Scorpio's GPU TFLOPS and effective memory bandwidth, then your arguments don't have a leg stand on.

PS4 Pro's 4.2 TFLOPS FP32 falls into Polaris's 2.5X perf/watt i.e. 2.5X x PS4's 1.84 TFLOPS = 4.6 TFLOPS.

PS4 Pro's 4.2 TFLOPS is 2.3X over PS4's 1.84 TFLOPS is within AMD's Polaris 2.5X perf/watt road map.

Both worst working chip RX-470D (4.5 TFLOPS, Global Foundry's 14 nm FinFET) SKU and PS4 Pro (4.2 TFLOPS, TSMC's 16 nm FinFET) is within AMD's Polaris 2.5X perf/watt road map.

Scorpio's 6 TFLOPS falls within Vega's 4X perf/watt e.g. PS4's 1.84 TFLOPS x 4 = 7.36 TFLOPS.

Polaris 10's GPU size is about 232 mm^2.

Scorpio's APU size is 362 mm^2 which can easily contain Polaris 10 size GPU.

The main reason for PS4 Pro for 4K problem is effective memory bandwidth.

Using AMD's memory bus width guide. Notice 256 bit has 1440p, hence PS4 Pro's result.

Read http://gamingbolt.com/ps4-pro-bandwidth-is-potential-bottleneck-for-4k-but-a-thought-through-tradeoff-little-nightmares-dev

Mervik noted that, “The bandwidth is a potential issue, especially when running 4K,

Improved 3.1X perf/watts with later Polaris 10 SKU i.e. 5.8 TFLOPS / PS4's 1.84 TFLOPS = 3.1X. Vega has 4X perf/watt.

Scorpio has 384 bit memory bus with "more than 320 GB/s memory bandwidth" without being constrained by tiny 32 MB storage.

As for RX-480, any overclock editions will be bounded by effective memory bandwidth.

For reference RX-480

((((256 bit x 8000Mhz) / 8) / 1024) x Polaris's 77.6 percent memory bandwidth efficiency) x Polaris's compression booster 1.36X = 263.84 GB/s

--

Scorpio's "more than 320 GB/s memory bandwidth" claim.

((((384 bit x GDDR5-6900 Mhz) / 8) / 1024) x Polaris's 77.6 percent memory bandwidth efficiency) x Polaris's compression booster 1.36X = 341 .34 GB/s

PS;

((384 bit x GDDR5-6900 Mhz) / 8) / 1024) = 323 GB/s physical memory bandwidth.

((384 bit x GDDR5-7000 Mhz) / 8) / 1024) = 328 GB/s physical memory bandwidth.

Comparison.

The memory bandwidth gap between Fury X and R9-290 = 1.266X (random textures)

With Fury X, it's memory compression is inferior to NVIDIA's Maxwell.

The FLOPS gap between Fury X and R9-290 = 1.48X

The frame rate gap between R9-290X and Fury X is 1.19X.

Random texture memory bandwidth gap's 1.266X factor is closer to frame rate gap's 1.19X.FLOPS gap between R9-290X (5.8 TFLOPS)and Fury X (8.6 TFLOPS) plays very little part with frame rate gap.

With 980 Ti (5.63 TFLOPS), it's superior memory compression enables it to match Fury X's results.

Conclusion: When there's enough FLOPS for a particular workload, effective memory bandwidth is better prediction method for higher grade GPUs.

-------------------

Example of near brain dead Xbox One ports running PC GPUs.

Frame rate difference between 980 Ti and R9-290X is 1.31X with Forza 6 Apex

Effective memory bandwidth between 980 Ti and R9-290X is 1.38X

Forza 6 Apex is another example for effective memory bandwidth influencing the frame rate result.

Your arguments doesn't have any source documentation.

lol. SW. You are hilarious..