Mixed Information on Consoles or How I learned to loathe PR *spin off*

[AlNom]

You can get into the nitty gritty low-level stuff, but to most developers the general architectural setup is going to look mostly the same - twin jaguar quads, quad-shader engine, GCN2, 5GB+ GDDR5. The rest of the HW blocks are rather superficial differences, and the specifics of CU count, bus width and clock speeds just mark them differently on a rather similar performance scale.

Developers will still need to take care with CPU threads & L2, shader-tex ratio, shared bandwidth penalties and so on.

 

[function]

You can get into the nitty gritty low-level stuff, but to most developers the general architectural setup is going to look mostly the same - twin jaguar quads, quad-shader engine, GCN2, 5GB+ GDDR5. The rest of the HW blocks are rather superficial differences, and the specifics of CU count, bus width and clock speeds just mark them differently on a rather similar performance scale.

Honestly didn't know PS4 had a quad shader engine, thought that was just PS4Pro and X1X.

 

[AlNom]

Honestly didn't know PS4 had a quad shader engine, thought that was just PS4Pro and X1X.

Ah........ well 4Pro has quad shader engine, but otherwise it's just 2 vs PS4. Still, that's not a crazy difference since the rest is the same arch. It'll just be a different performance profile, effectively.

 

[iroboto]

Yes I've seen the DF videos. Do the improvements really look that exciting considering the high cost of upgrading? I think this is where some of the disappointment is coming from. You're paying next gen hardware prices for jazzed up current gen games.(I'm talking about both mid gen console upgrades here, not just Xbox. It just unfortunately costs more.)
You're right, a developer could develop, for example, a cutting edge, realistic lighting engine to make use of that 6TF, but is it financially viable to develop two engines, one for Xbox, PS4 & PSPro and another for X1X with all the support and art asset problems associated with this? Will more games be sold? I don't think so.
I think they'll sell just as many copies using the same engine with resolution reconstruction and the setting turned up.

For the first wave of games? Yea I think people would agree with it yes. I think so at least.

When you compare the cutting edge ie HZD, Assassin's Creed Origins, GTS, and F7 looking at their 4K implementations, it's pretty spectacular difference from their respective base systems.

3 years from now as we near next gen, it's only going go to improve further; and that's obvious because next gen is going to be all about 4K anyway. They've effectively gotten a running head start of 3-4 years coding for next generation if you think about it. So yes, as time goes on developers will be increasing their focus on mid-generation platforms as that helps them transition to next gen. Continually trying to milk more performance out of the base system doesn't make a lot of sense when the majority of next gen techniques are made for:

a) 4K
b) HDR
c) requires more horsepower
d) reconstruction techniques because it's harder to spot artefacts at higher resolutions

When we talk about checkerboarding, FP16 and anything else, these are the techniques that are going to move forward for next gen, and these are the technologies in mid-gen today. So as time goes on yea, this is going to be obvious incentive for both platform owners to upgrade, especially if you have a 4K set with HDR.

More so if next gen exclusives show up on the mid-gen refreshes. (too bad we don't know this answer just yet) At least you're benefitting for 6-8 years of service ideally.

From my viewpoint we are entering inevitability. 4K HDR is the future of gaming or VR. Both of which are accomplished by these mid-gen refreshes and cannot be accomplished by the base models.

next gen, yes they will have better implementations of 4K HDR or VR, but that's not to say the mid-gen refreshes can't pull it off.

When I look at the feature set of the graphics cards, there is nothing in next gen that cannot be accomplished this gen. this gen will just have significantly less power. But the feature set is the same.

I can look right now and the only difference between teh latest video card and this gen is DX12.1+ hardware based features and Rapid Packed Math. Maybe procedural textures hardware for SM6.

So aside from a handful of features that are designed to be flagged for (if has feature run code, else run other code) I don't think we're really talking about 2 completely separate engines here at least not from a coding point of view.

But if you're talking about basing an entire game around say, GPU side dispatch as sebbbi mentions earlier, when you offload that much from CPU to GPU, your'e going to want all your platforms to support it before you commit to it. So far, only Xbox platforms can pull it off with state changes that we know of, so I don't see anyone outside of Xbox exclusives to use it.

But next gen, yea I expect everyone to have that feature. PC will be harder I think. Not sure what's going to be happening in there if consoles move to that style of dispatch.

 

[iroboto]

It's not being cynical. It's evaluating the product in the here and now. Like getting a PS4 Camera in 2014 and being disappointed because it's not very good (based on your subjective expectations) regardless of what it may or may not be used as in future. Or even more, buying a PSEye for PS3 having seen everything that could happen based on Sony's PR video, pretty much none of which ever materialised.

Maybe XB1X will get exclusives and super-duper advances in engines that focus on its 6 TF regardless of the other consoles. Maybe it won't. What we do know right now is that it's getting the same games as the other machines with improved visuals (slightly or lots depending on the subjective valuations of the players) and we know that MS didn't promise anything more than that and we know some people love the machine and some don't. All the counter-arguments don't make any sense to me because they're trying to make more or less of the situation than it actually is, which is very prosaic.

I think this is a fair statement. We should always compare what it is today, as opposed to it's potential. Mainly because we don't know what's unknown, so lets not buy on dreams.

However if we are speaking to the value proposition of say 4Pro and X1X both will need to make their own separate cases. In isolation, we're seeing improved performance for PSVR, and 4K + HDR, frame rate improvements for non patched games, maxed resolution for non patched games.

For X1X we're seeing across the board improvements for all non X1X enhanced games to have 16xAF, some special editions for BC titles to go at higher resolutions like 4K, non patched games get to now run at maximum resolution, and patched games look super great.

Those are the current value propositions and that's already enough for people to buy on, I feel like people who are disappointed *cough* got their consoles for free.

 

[AzBat]

If you look at the improvements for the updated games for the mid-gen systems that are outside of the resolution increases & can't be excited for future games that will have more time in development, then that to me exudes cyncism. But what do I know? I'm just a glass half-full kind of guy. Not going to let you guys piss in my Cheerios.

Tommy McClain

 

[scently]

I think this article will help with the discussions here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...hief-says-future-games-could-run-exclusively/

Basically there is the possibility that the 1X will get exclusive software in the future. I think MS is waiting and watching to see how the market evolves.

Btw, the article was posted just aday before 1X launched.

 

[Recop]

So you're saying if PS5 is more powerful than Xbox One X, Microsoft simply can't release a more powerful version of Xbox One X that is also more powerful than PS5?

Then you mean a real next gen console ? So, what's your point ? I though MS wasn't in that scheme anymore ?

MS absolutely have to do this to change the idea of what a "generation" is.

1) And those games still look outdated.

2) Who cares about the original Xbox ? I mean, it's a great feature... but what you said could already work with the 360 alone.

If it's so obvious and so much to be expected, how about you point out the improvements to PS3 and PS2 BC that the Pro brought about?

It's obvious that it will do better what the XB1 already does... as simple as that... especially at 500$.

If X1X exists beyond X1, then it's not just a hi-rez X1 option.

And if the Pro survives to the PS4 ? What's your definition then ? I thought it was mainly hardware based...

I thought you were saying that such change is impossible. Now you're saying that it's already happened, because of Sony...?

It is impossible other than what we've already seen : base console, console+, next generation and so on.

And you still need to explain how this change is better for MS... this phenomenon started this gen, so nobody cares about the 360. And this is why the Pro can run PS4 games. People will get angry only if they pay for a console every 4 years that is unable to run the games of the console they paid 4 years ago.

New phones and graphics cards might come out every year, but not everyone replaces them every year.

1) Not the same market, once again. A phone is a necessity that aims the whole population. If a children is old enough, he will get his phone because he needs it. You don't necessarily need the last phone, but in the whole population, there will always be people that need a phone for a real reason. And once again, i don't even talk about phone operators that give to consumers several special offers that you don't see in the console market. Apples and oranges comparison, really...

2) You don't sell your GPU 500$ unless you aim a niche market. Actually a really bad argument.

I don't expect anything. But I think a new console when the technology and market opportunity converge would be great, so long as the vendor has MS's approach to game catalogues and BC, and not the approach that Sony have so far demonstrated they wish to provide.

Once again, nobody cares about the original Xbox and the 360... it could be a problem if the PS5 is not compatible to PS4 games. Why ? Because upgraded consoles started this generation.

 

[Recop]

As I tried to explain, there's far more that differentiates X1 and PS4 than just having a single pool of Dram.

Those differences are ridiculous... if the Pro had the same specs than the X, you won't see any differences in third party games. Let's be serious...

 

[function]

Then you mean a real next gen console ? So, what's your point ? I though MS wasn't in that scheme anymore ?

You're again trying to enforce an arbitrary idea of generations. This new idea can't get through to you. It reforms with every sentence you read and write.

1) And those games still look outdated.

2) Who cares about the original Xbox ? I mean, it's a great feature... but what you said could already work with the 360 alone.

Steam sells lots of games that look "outdated" every day.

And no, it wouldn't work with the 360 as the 360 didn't have the power and the hardware modifications and the multi-year BC development base to make it happen.

You're saying things but they are, empirically, a load of shit.

It's obvious that it will do better what the XB1 already does... as simple as that... especially at 500$.

You're saying that after the fact, after we know that MS have had hundreds of people working on something for years. It's obvious to you in retrospect that MS would do something massively beyond anything Sony have ever ever attempted ... because.

And so it should be disregarded.

That's bullshit.

And if the Pro survives to the PS4 ? What's your definition then ? I thought it was mainly hardware based...

... what?

It is impossible other than what we've already seen : base console, console+, next generation and so on.

And you still need to explain how this change is better for MS... this phenomenon started this gen, so nobody cares about the 360. And this is why the Pro can run PS4 games. People will get angry only if they pay for a console every 4 years that is unable to run the games of the console they paid 4 years ago.

... wat.

1) Not the same market, once again. A phone is a necessity that aims the whole population. If a children is old enough, he will get his phone because he needs it. You don't necessarily need the last phone, but in the whole population, there will always be people that need a phone for a real reason. And once again, i don't even talk about phone operators that give to consumers several special offers that you don't see in the console market. Apples and oranges comparison, really...

There have been people buying PS4 and X1 since 2013, and yet ... weirdly ... they're still selling in record numbers more than two years after that.

2) You don't sell your GPU 500$ unless you aim a niche market. Actually a really bad argument.

There are $500 GPUs selling constantly. Fuck it, there are $1000 GPUs on sale and there have been for the last few years. Every year a new one. And over time the performance envelope they have targeted always moves towards the mainstream.

Have you any idea how well 3~6 TF PC GPU's have been selling, even with current software?

Once again, nobody cares about the original Xbox and the 360... it could be a problem if the PS5 is not compatible to PS4 games. Why ? Because upgraded consoles started this generation.

.... wat? And no. WiiU was a faster GC. So no, you're wrong. The only thing new this generation is MS's approach to BC.

Those differences are ridiculous... if the Pro had the same specs than the X, you won't see any differences in third party games. Let's be serious...

That's not what your argument was. Stop wriggling round like an eel stranded on a beach.

 

[Recop]

And no, it wouldn't work with the 360 as the 360 didn't have the power and the hardware modifications and the multi-year BC development base to make it happen.

You didn't understand my point. Why do they need BC with the original Xbox console to blur the line between generations ? It doesn't make any sense. BC with the 360 is already enough.

If Sony tries to do the same thing than MS, will they need to have compatibility with the PS1 ? Otherwise people won't call it true BC ? Let's be serious... once again...

I don't even understand why you brought the original Xbox in this discussion...

It's obvious to you in retrospect that MS would do something massively beyond anything Sony have ever ever attempted ... because.

I don't care about Sony... but you can say Sony in every sentence if you want...

My point is simple : you sell an upgraded console at 500$, so it's expected that it will do everything better than the base console that cost a much lower price.

... what?

English isn't my native language. A bit sad, because i would end this discussion so easily otherwise...

I meant : if the Pro exists beyond the PS4, then what's your point ? What's your definition of a console that doesn't enter in any know category ? I thought that your definition was mainly based on their technical specs...

So, your definition doesn't repose on anything and is completely contingent...

... wat.

You said : "I thought you were saying that such change is impossible."

But it already exists : PS4, Pro, PS5. And you won't see another scheme. Each time, we will see the same thing : new base console, mid-gen refresh, next gen and so on.

Obviously, if they continue to do what happened this gen. Otherwise, they will return to the same old method : new console, next gen and so on.

There have been people buying PS4 and X1 since 2013, and yet ... weirdly ... they're still selling in record numbers more than two years after that.

Is this a joke ? What about the Pro and the X ?

Also, i don't care how many consoles they can sell... the console market will never be as big as the phone market... i mean 1+1=2...

Are you aware that in many countries people don't even care about consoles ? : India, Indonesia, etc.

The phone market is a true worldwide market and in each country, it aims the whole population : this is why the console market will never completely follow the phone market. The demand isn't high enough...

There are $500 GPUs selling constantly.

Blablabla... : https://www.cinemablend.com/games/S...-Have-Weaker-PCs-Than-PS4-Xbox-One-58833.html

It's an old survey, certainly not completely accurate, but it gives you the real trend... sorry...

Also, Ferrari are selling constantly too... it's still a niche market. The opposite of a niche market is something that can be adopted by the whole population.

And no. WiiU was a faster GC. So no, you're wrong.

I don't care... it was a console with a completely new concept and the Wii came 5 years after the GC. And the Wii U came 6 years after the Wii. Do you really think the next MS console will come 6 years after the X ?

Here is the reality : you don't know what Sony will do with the PS5. You said yourself that BC made sense with the X. So you admit yourself that this generation is specific...

That's not what your argument was. Stop wriggling round like an eel stranded on a beach.

And ? You were wrong on this point too... the X is basically a PS4 with higher specs and DrJay24 was right.

 

[bunge]

So, if the consoles are 100% backward and forward compatible, they’re the same generation.

Isn’t that about right?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you look at the improvements for the updated games for the mid-gen systems that are outside of the resolution increases & can't be excited for future games that will have more time in development, then that to me exudes cyncism. But what do I know? I'm just a glass half-full kind of guy. Not going to let you guys piss in my Cheerios.

Optimist - my glass is half full
Pessimist - my glass if half empty
Me (good day) - I have half a glass of orange juice
Me (bad day) - what the hell is this I'm drinking??

 

[Deleted member 11852]

You're again trying to enforce an arbitrary idea of generations. This new idea can't get through to you. It reforms with every sentence you read and write.

I think this will be a mental hurdle for a lot of people. For decades we've been used to consoles releasing every 4-8 years and in that timespan technology raced forward so that each new generation has introduced new features that clearly set that generation apart from the previous generation; markedly superior processors, larger ROMs, bigger worlds, more colours, stereo sound, hardware sprites, multiple screen panes, higher resolutions, bit blitters and scalers, 3D, optical media, surround sound, vertex shaders, pixel shaders, online, HDDs.

But now we're seeing technology progress more slowly and the improvements every 4-5 years are less pronounced because we're hitting walls of diminishing returns for graphics and graphics is where consoles have so visibly progressed. I think people expecting PS5 to be an order of magnitude (or even half) more powerful than PS4 are going to be sorely disappointed from a pure numbers angle and even greater disappointed about the lack of improvement over Pro.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's defined a console generation ultimately is the massive improvement in the games and what we see on screen. You can put games from different generations side-by-side and see the improvements and easily be able to attribute any game to any generation. We are still at a point where there can be a graphical leap (haven't achieved photo realism yet) and it may yet happen that we'll have PS5-gen titles (PS5, XBN) that look head and shoulders above PS4/XB1, just as we may have XB1X titles in the future that won't run on XB1.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

We are still at a point where there can be a graphical leap (haven't achieved photo realism yet) and it may yet happen that we'll have PS5-gen titles (PS5, XBN) that look head and shoulders above PS4/XB1, just as we may have XB1X titles in the future that won't run on XB1.

Oh there are plenty of places to go in terms of improved graphics fidelity, but it's not on the technological horizon so isn't going to happen for PS5 unless Sony have some amazing tech up their sleaze that can obliterate a Titan X (a $1,000, 11Tf, 250w GPU) in terms of visuals on a console budget with console power profiles.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

 

[iroboto]

So, if the consoles are 100% backward and forward compatible, they’re the same generation.

Isn’t that about right?

Depends on how you define it I think.

Xbox does BC but requires downloads of VM files of the game to work. It’s not quite running native code. It runs though, performing the game at a performance level higher than the Original intended platform. It’s not native technically speaking.

The same concept applies forward wouldn’t be as well.

But if you’re looking to simplify... it would be model after PC which is generationless.

 

[dobwal]

LOL.

Hypothetically speaking, if Sony or MS ever goes to a two tier hardware release (A $300 base model and a $500 high end model with 2X TFs and 50% more RAM), I wonder how many here would eschew the high end model because they would be disappointed that the high end model would never get exclusives and would always be held back by the base model?

At the start (policies and marketing may change later) mid gen consoles are just a higher tiered hardware where delayed launches allow more performance at more economical price points.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

So, if the consoles are 100% backward and forward compatible, they’re the same generation. Isn’t that about right?

By that logic, PlayStation 2 was the same generation as the original PlayStation and Wii was the same generation as GameCube. There is no set in stone definition for console generations, wikipedia is the most common source and they categorise depending on when a console is released. Technology or functionality don't factor in.

These generations are universally accepted so its as good as it gets until somebody comes up with something better.

 

[MrSpiggott]

Test

Oh there are plenty of places to go in terms of improved graphics fidelity, but it's not on the technological horizon so isn't going to happen for PS5 unless Sony have some amazing tech up their sleaze that can obliterate a Titan X (a $1,000, 11Tf, 250w GPU) in terms of visuals on a console budget with console power profiles.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

The beauty of a new console generation is that you get a hardware fresh start. Minimum specs shoot up. A new generation Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft console may suddenly have the prospect of running large open world, complex 100% compute, no rasterizer, engines because you know every new console can run it.

No pc developer is developing games for a Titan X. They're developing game engines around mid range GPUs and then if your lucky enough to have a Titan, turn all the settings up to 11.
So do console manufacturers need to worry about exceeding the specifications of GPUs like the TitanX?
I don't think so. They just need to exceed the specifications of mid range GPUs of the time to allow generational shifts in software.