Your basing everything of the TF number which even for a GPU isn't the correct thing to do.
Sort of. Less than 6TF is sort of entry level in the PC space right now. And we are talking about AMD parts here. It isn't like they have some insane track record of efficiency where they magically pull out higher performance per flop every time they release a new generation of graphics card. In fact, I'd say their performance has been much more aligned per flop than nVidia, who have been achieving a little more per flop each generation. So yeah, I'm basing a lot of this on the TF number, but we are talking about a company with a known history. There is a consistency here that says if AMD releases a GPU with 5.5-6 TF, it's going to perform like a R9 290X, RX 480, or RX580. Which, sort of all perform the same at most resolutions, even though they were released between 2013 and 2017, and the 290X is GCN2 while the 580 is GCN4.
Gamers Nexus did an article revisting the 290X earlier this year.
You can when running in BC mode as your comparing like for like operation.
When running games coded for next gen you can't.
There's things that we know/expect navi to be able to do which Polaris can't, which I did list some before and they will make a big graphical difference.
We don't know that because we don't know much about Navi, except that it's still based on GCN. What we know about GCN is that it has performed pretty consistently per FLOP. Now, if there's some specail ray tracing hardware, well that's a different story. Actually, thinking about the RTX launch where ray tracing halved or quartered the frame rate and some people claimed to barely see a difference... Maybe the story is different but worse. I guess I'm not sure what special features you know that Navi has that are going to be such a game changer.
The benefit of using TF number is to see where the next gen sits in comparison to each other. All using base navi arch.
I could've left of the TF numbers and said Anaconda is 2.x * Lockhart rendering at over 3* the resolution. Then maybe it wouldn't be such a concern.
Well if you read my posts you'll note that I said a less than 6TF Xbox vs a 10TF PS5 would be terrible.
You also mention same amount of memory, the difference is that you can stream and replace more and higher quality textures. The actual use of the memory is different.
That's why I also don't think 24GB in Anaconda/PS5 is a good use of the budget.
You will get all that from Lockhart but at a lower resolution, you can't get that from 1X even at lower resolution as the rest of the system is not capable of it even at lower framerates.
Why can't 1X stream textures? Yeah, the drive's slower but if we are talking about lower frame rates, you have more time. Also, why 12GBs? Part of the reason why One X has 12GB is to achieve the bandwidth MS needed. The 256 bit bus on Xbox one is really a collection of smaller bus that connect directly to clusters of memory. They increased the memory by 50% to increase the bus width by 50% while making the switch the GDDR5. 12GB is kind of an odd number, and I'd expect next gen to either feature a 256 bit bus with 16GB at higher frequencies, or a 512bit bus and 16GB with a smaller frequency bump.
If we are assuming that the graphics chip is going to be 15% more efficient than X so lets just drop the FLOPS to match, why not do the same with the memory? Is it's going to be more efficient, why not just drop back down to 8 and let the special sauce bring you back up to par?
