Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [2018]

[vipa899]

Because the sales of Pro and X demonstrably evidence a mass market for more powerful hardware?

Sony's three best selling consoles are primarily, affordable and game focussed. Microsoft's best selling console was affordable and game focussed. These are not the only factors that matter but they do seem quite important for a game console

Exaclty what i was thinking too, the worlds most successfull console is the PS2, that thing launched at $299, had nice price-drops quickly too. Even at that 'low price'/relative weak hardware, it managed to impress graphically, people will never forget MGS2, tekken tag, GoW, GT3, just to name a few. Not only did it impress graphically but games wise i feel no other console has ever topped the PS2's library. It was in production for 13 years.

Dont know why some want all out on powa, massive tflops and ram whatever, but if theres one thing i have learned over the years, here on B3D too, is that its Software that makes a platform, much less so the hardware. Personally think the PS4 is too expensive both now and at launch, a cheaper price will reach out to a bigger audience, a bigger audience means more software sales and thus better games.
Atleast the PS4 was in the right direction after the PS3, maybe PS5 will be like PS2?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dont know why some want all out on powa, massive tflops and ram whatever

The main reason is because of the power delta between generations. Whether you consider PS2 'middle of the road' or bleeding edge, it was a massive advance on PS1 in every way, making possible better games. We're facing a future where the next console potentially isn't massively advanced on the previous, meaning the games will be mostly the same, just in higher fidelity, making a next-gen machine kinda pointless. Hence a desire for a significant power-house to once again set a new performance benchmark for devs to be able to use to create new software.

 

[vipa899]

We're facing a future where the next console potentially isn't massively advanced on the previous, meaning the games will be mostly the same, just in higher fidelity, making a next-gen machine kinda pointless. Hence a desire for a significant power-house to once again set a new performance benchmark for devs to be able to use to create new software.

I understand that, but arent we seeing the same thing in general, even the pc space? I mean, have there really been great advances from say a i7 3770 to a 8700k? Or from a 980ti to a 1080TI, the differences arent that massive anymore. I dont think the 1180 thats soon to be revealed will be so much ahead of a 1080Ti either. Cant be that much different for the consoles.

 

[dten]

I wouldn't get my hopes up for a 14 TF console in 2020 or even 2021. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment when specs are revealed. The visual difference from 10 to 14 TF probably won't be that big topping at 4K anyway.

 

[temesgen]

I really hope all the processing power of next generation machines isn't used exclusively for 4k. If so those of us with 1080p TV's arguably can make a case for sticking with current hardware a bit longer. At least until the TV gets replaced.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wouldn't get my hopes up for a 14 TF console in 2020 or even 2021. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment when specs are revealed. The visual difference from 10 to 14 TF probably won't be that big topping at 4K anyway.

Imagine what 4 TFs of compute not used for drawing graphics could achieve though? Fluid simulations and all sorts. If used in the right places, I don't think the impact would be as diminishing as some believe.

 

[goonergaz]

And neither are remotely close to outselling Slim and S. So uhhh.. yeah.

Because they lack exclusive reasons to own other than for those who must own the latest and best.

You're kind of missing the point.

I agree power isn't everything, it's just one factor. But with the fact the biggest selling games are 3rd party then we might actually see next gen where power plays a bigger part.

I'm not saying it will for sure, especially if BC is in for both consoles.

 

[goonergaz]

Imagine what 4 TFs of compute not used for drawing graphics could achieve though? Fluid simulations and all sorts. If used in the right places, I don't think the impact would be as diminishing as some believe.

Yes, more effects etc. TBH I'd be happy with checkerboarding and effort put into other areas than pixels (which is causing dimishing returns IMO)

 

[Lalaland]

I think hoping for PS1 -> PS2 (or PS2 -> PS3) style jumps in quality is missing how low a bar the initial comparison point is and that any improvements now are well into the law of diminishing returns by improving quality rather than offering basic implementations like those early gens did (e.g. "we have shadows now" versus "we have high detail subtle soft shadows"). I've noticed lately when I discuss "obvious CGI" with friends after a film that they often can't see it, that the subtle failings in shadowing, reflectivity, or looking like a soulless shambling ghoul (hi "de-aging" effects) simply aren't apparent to them and in games I've spent years hating how most games in the console space think AF is waste of time while I wince at the ground turning into a dull smear barely two steps ahead of my avatar. For the mass consumer space I'm not sure the in game benefits of an additional $100 on the pricetag will be obvious enough in a mass media campaign for a company to make the bet that being the more powerful and more expensive console in the market will be rewarded.

Also I'll second the motion to focus less on the # of pixels pushed and instead focus on the quality of those pixels (makes 8x AF a cert req )

 

[Xbat]

For the mass consumer space I'm not sure the in game benefits of an additional $100 on the pricetag will be obvious enough in a mass media campaign for a company to make the bet that being the more powerful and more expensive console in the market will be rewarded.

I agree but because of social media and the impact it has on the "sheeple" that It just takes a few to start a narrative that definitely has an effect in this day and age.

 

[ultragpu]

Because the sales of Pro and X demonstrably evidence a mass market for more powerful hardware?

Sony's three best selling consoles are primarily, affordable and game focussed. Microsoft's best selling console was affordable and game focussed. These are not the only factors that matter but they do seem quite important for a game console

Totally unfair comparison, most people already bought their base consoles so the incentive to upgrade to a marginal power boost is not nearly as strong. Affordability is also relative to the current climate including dollar inflation, tech limitation or additional features, so $499 in 2020 is probably equal to $399 in 2013. Lastly everyone including their grandma in the competition camp knows you need to be game focused to be successful and then some, so what makes you special anymore now? Everybody improves, you can't stagnate, always push the envelop in all fronts. Being the most powerful might not mean much if you're lacking in all other areas but will be if you equalized or come very close to.

 

[Sigfried1977]

An effect for sure. But also one which seems way more pronounced than it really is thanks to the bubble we're in. At least that's what I think. After all, the PS4 didn't just leave the Xbox in the dust because some 30% GPU power differential. I'd argue MS's poor, ever-shifting messenging was a way bigger factor here. Sony capitalized on that and continuously kept on widening the gap by pumping out one exclusive critical darling after the other.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Has anyone actually got market research on what people want? Seems the best thing to go by. A quick Google throws up this, but with no detail on the questions, it's kinda vague...

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insigh...on-gamers-have-previously-owned-consoles.html

 

[Magnum_Force]

I think what we are seeing is the effect of the mid gen refreshes, particularly the PS4 Pro, come into play.

Notice how most of the promo's for the upcoming graphics showcases of TLOU2, Ghost of Tsushima and Death Stranding have been on the PS4 Pro, where the usual graphical compromises of reduced resolution, etc are no longer coming into play except on the base consoles.

Previously the "HD" remakes of these types of games were the domain of the next gen machine, but the mid gen refreshes have already stole that thunder.

I think we all would be looking forward to a circa 10TF machine a lot more if we were all stuck with the original consoles with compromised image quality.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I'm assuming "better resolution" and "faster processing power" means better/faster compared to the last generation. Not better compared to the competition.

 

[Lalaland]

Has anyone actually got market research on what people want? Seems the best thing to go by. A quick Google throws up this, but with no detail on the questions, it's kinda vague...

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insigh...on-gamers-have-previously-owned-consoles.html

Had a dig using the key word "intent" (it seems this the word future purchasing surveys use) and there were a few bits and bobs but nothing truly useful, it seems as if this data is only available in paid for surveys, such as the "Gamebyte" survey by Interpret.la seems like it may address some of this as they did a press release around PS4/XB1 intent prior to launch.

...Sony capitalized on that and continuously kept on widening the gap by pumping out one exclusive critical darling after the other.

I'd argue that at least for the first year Sony was very light on the exclusives and instead relied on being "the best place to play" with 3rd party titles. As much as Dead Rising and other elements of the XB1 exclusive launch line up did not appeal to me it was still better than Sonys line up of another Killzone and TLoU remastered. I along with most of my mates had the Sleeping Dogs PS4 launch model ordered until that was cancelled and only reluctantly picked up the KZ edition instead.

The XB1 launch was a mess all the way down from the confused Always Online messaging, poor support for it's USP outside of the US (did it ever work properly with 50hz PAL content?), and the final nail being both more expensive and weaker technically. Even if it had offered better hardware than the PS4 for the launch price of $499 I still think it would have struggled with all the other unforced errors MS imposed on that thing.​

 

[Deleted member 13524]

This time, it's more difficult to see any short term cost reduction.

Besides TSMC adopting 5nm as early as 2020 (probably only for apple & qualcomm SoCs that year), which will bring a 45% reduction in area per transistor, and solid state storage having been steadily going down in price-per-GB?

 

[anexanhume]

Besides TSMC adopting 5nm as early as 2020 (probably only for apple & qualcomm SoCs that year), which will bring a 45% reduction in area per transistor, and solid state storage having been steadily going down in price-per-GB?

5nm won’t be cost competitive for a few years, and it’s not being touted as a bread and butter node like 7nm is.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Besides TSMC adopting 5nm as early as 2020 (probably only for apple & qualcomm SoCs that year), which will bring a 45% reduction in area per transistor, and solid state storage having been steadily going down in price-per-GB?

Solid State price reductions would probably mean higher base storage capacity than lower price. Given something like a 250 GB drive, I expect that'd increase to 320/500, rather than see the console price drop. And any price improvement on solid-state will be proportional to how much it's used anyway. If next-gen features a small cache alongside an HDD, price reduction there will be pretty minimal.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

5nm won’t be cost competitive for a few years, and it’s not being touted as a bread and butter node like 7nm is.

All the reports I'm seeing suggest the opposite. The process brings a small performance/power advantage over 7FF+ (even more so a mature 7FF+), but the 45% area reduction should make it cost competitive for larger SoCs.

Solid State price reductions would probably mean higher base storage capacity than lower price.

I think that would be true for SATA SSDs, but not for NVMe SSDs if they're used for cache in an Optane/StoreMI fashion.