Predict: Next gen console tech (10th generation edition) [2028+]

[Frenetic Pony]

Why is that necessary? Board costs skyrocket with more chips?

Power usage, mobile is obviously highly power limited, and you need at least PS5/XSX CPU performance in a mobile chip while having that use as little power as possible.

Maybe after the release of the PS5pro (does it really exist?) model, in December they will introduce an excellent technology as they talked about. If you really want the best console, you can use chiplet design and separate CPU and GPU.

Heterogenous chiplet designers onto the same package is still entirely theoretical, and Sony/MS need to start designing these consoles now. Relying on some future where all these IHVs could even hypothetically get along isn't a good bet to make.

 

[Globalisateur]

Maybe after the release of the PS5pro (does it really exist?) model, in December they will introduce an excellent technology as they talked about. If you really want the best console, you can use chiplet design and separate CPU and GPU.

What does it have to do with new graphics tech? CPU + GPU was too expensive I believe and this is why they stopped doing it? And by doing 300mm² APUs I don't think they need a chiplet design, yet.

 

[Nesh]

XSX already has exclusive hardware "AI tech" compared to PS5, how their studios are using it? More first party games actually use machine learning inference on PS5 than on XSX (using mostly FP16). Similar thing for DLSS. DLSS is mostly a software problem. DLSS exists because NVidia put a big amount of ressource (and intelligence) on developing the software. FSR sucks because compared to Intel or Nvidia, AMD sucks at software.

A big tech leap won't be enough if software and APIs are lagging behind the competition.

I wonder if this is a problem of patenting, making it difficult for another company to develop a solution without infringing it, and causing trouble to themselves

 

[Tkumpathenurpahl]

I think AMD's lesser software is just the consequence of their more open approach. It generates less profit than Nvidia's closed approach and will therefore always receive less funding and will somewhat lag behind.

Gotta take the rough with the smooth¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[cheapchips]

I think AMD's lesser software is just the consequence of their more open approach. It generates less profit than Nvidia's closed approach and will therefore always receive less funding and will somewhat lag behind.

Gotta take the rough with the smooth¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If MS or Sony go with another vendor then they've not done themselves any favours with that lack of investment.

 

[Khalid]

If MS or Sony go with another vendor then they've not done themselves any favours with that lack of investment.

Can they go Nvidia and still maintain BC?

 

[cheapchips]

Can they go Nvidia and still maintain BC?

With MS's improbable back compatibility successes of the past, and VM set up with Series, it feels like they can choose whatever vender they like.

With Sony, I'm not really sure. If they were able to switch to Nvidia, PS3 back compatibility is more interesting than PS4/5 anyway...

 

[Seanspeed]

Original Xbox was Nvidia, while the 360 was ATI and that had a level of backwards compatibility. But it was very inconsistent and plagued with performance and stability issues, while some games simply wouldn't work at all.

Then Microsoft obviously managed a level of backwards compatibility for XB1 and Series consoles to play ATI-based 360 games, and this was better, but still imperfect.

So it's definitely in the realm of plausible. Or at least, Microsoft could likely figure it out if they really wanted. But 'compatibility' is also a Microsoft strength in general. They've got mountains of experience with this. Even if it's not perfect, just achieving it at all would be an impressive success.

As cheapchips says above, it's much less clear whether Sony could do the same thing.

Still, I'm not confident at all that Nvidia would offer the kind of pricing that would make Sony/Microsoft happy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So it's definitely in the realm of plausible. Or at least, Microsoft could likely figure it out if they really wanted. But 'compatibility' is also a Microsoft strength in general. They've got mountains of experience with this. Even if it's not perfect, just achieving it at all would be an impressive success.

Would it drive GP adoption, or make the next-gen console more appealing? I doubt it. I expect the people who'd be that interested would already be using emulation on PC where you also emulate other hardwares.

 

[Seanspeed]

Would it drive GP adoption, or make the next-gen console more appealing? I doubt it. I expect the people who'd be that interested would already be using emulation on PC where you also emulate other hardwares.

I think it would be more of a 'if we dont have it, people will be quite mad' kind of situation. Doesn't matter how much people would genuinely use it. It's just gonna be expected.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ah, I thought I was responding to a different thread. Yeah, for a future XB BC is expected and that might hamper MS's hardware choices. Would they be willing to sacrifice that BC heritage, one of XB's strongest USPs, for a clean-slate hardware option?

 

[cheapchips]

Ah, i thought I was responding to a different thread. Yeah, for a future XB BC is expected and that might hamper MS's hardware choices. Would they be willing to sacrifice that BC heritage, one of XB's strongest USPs, for a clean-slate hardware option?

I'm slightly fixated on how MS had the One onwards running games on a virtual machine. 360 back compatibility is also a VM, running within a VM, like some virtual machine Inception. So long as their new hardware runs the Series VM in a performant way, then current and prior gen BC titles come across.

 

[QPlayer]

If it is true that they are entering the handheld market, then it is obvious to use the Series S APU with a smaller process and a dedicated upscaling chip, which can, for example, scale a 600p render resolution to 1200p in good quality, so you can also play on a TV. They can copy the Switch.

 

[dobwal]

If MS or Sony go with another vendor then they've not done themselves any favours with that lack of investment.

I doubt if they need to go look for another vendor. Consoles are so integral to the success of AMD GPU business that I doubt any other vendor could offer enough to warrant AMD giving up those contracts. MS and Sony probably have first class access, pricing and influence when it comes to AMD hardware which I doubt Nvidia would be willing to provide.

 

[dobwal]

If it is true that they are entering the handheld market, then it is obvious to use the Series S APU with a smaller process and a dedicated upscaling chip, which can, for example, scale a 600p render resolution to 1200p in good quality, so you can also play on a TV. They can copy the Switch.

It seems that's a discussion we haven't had in over a decade. Consoles used to come with dedicated hardware scalers. Is that still true? Do consoles leave it the TV to support 8K resolution on 8K sets?

 

[Frenetic Pony]

I doubt if they need to go look for another vendor. Consoles are so integral to the success of AMD GPU business that I doubt any other vendor could offer enough to warrant AMD giving up those contracts. MS and Sony probably have first class access, pricing and influence when it comes to AMD hardware which I doubt Nvidia would be willing to provide.

AMD is the one with the custom APU, CPU, and GPU design division. Nvidia's custom division is brand new and appears to only be for AI. MS and Sony get to go and directly influence the next AMD GPUs to be exactly what they want, and no one else offers that.

For example, if they're after very high performance mobile there's a new outfit offering DRAM with through silicon vias that can by hybrid bonded to a logic chip on top. If Sony really wanted they could go to AMD, have them work with this company to make a GDDR variant, and skip a lot of power usage and latency by just attaching DRAM nigh natively to the APU.

 

[function]

If it is true that they are entering the handheld market, then it is obvious to use the Series S APU with a smaller process and a dedicated upscaling chip, which can, for example, scale a 600p render resolution to 1200p in good quality, so you can also play on a TV. They can copy the Switch.

Unfortunately the Series S APU would likely never make it in a handheld format - it's too power hungry. Series S wasn't made with scaling to 10 ~ 20W mind.

The "never throttle" clocks are too high and GDDR6 would seem to be killers for starters.

A newer, back compat console using a newer, more power efficient architecture and a different memory arrangement might be a goer though.

 

[arandomguy]

It seems that's a discussion we haven't had in over a decade. Consoles used to come with dedicated hardware scalers. Is that still true? Do consoles leave it the TV to support 8K resolution on 8K sets?

Given that I believe the output resolution is set console side I'd assume it's handled there? I believe there was a big deal when the PS5 finally added 1440p output support for instance.

 

[Mitchings]

I wonder if chiplets will be a necessity for PS6 to even be cost-viable at this point..

If they're gunning for 2028 I could see something like a Zen6/7 CPU Complex paired with either 2 54/60CU GPU chiplets or even 3 36/40CU GPU chiplets (RDNA6?). All connected on AMD's Infinity Fanout Links.

Another advantage is they could mix nodes if the fab space isn't available. For eg. the CPU Complex could be on N3P while the GPU Chiplets could be on N2P, or visa versa.

Plus, moving forward it'll leave more wriggle room for economically optimal pairings on minor refreshes as well as slims/pros etc. Rather than having to go all in on one node there'll be a variety of middle ground options.

 

[Globalisateur]

Original Xbox was Nvidia, while the 360 was ATI and that had a level of backwards compatibility. But it was very inconsistent and plagued with performance and stability issues, while some games simply wouldn't work at all.

Then Microsoft obviously managed a level of backwards compatibility for XB1 and Series consoles to play ATI-based 360 games, and this was better, but still imperfect.

So it's definitely in the realm of plausible. Or at least, Microsoft could likely figure it out if they really wanted. But 'compatibility' is also a Microsoft strength in general. They've got mountains of experience with this. Even if it's not perfect, just achieving it at all would be an impressive success.

As cheapchips says above, it's much less clear whether Sony could do the same thing.

Still, I'm not confident at all that Nvidia would offer the kind of pricing that would make Sony/Microsoft happy.

Possible, but I doubt Sony would allow their BC to be so inconsistent and buggy. We know even when using AMD after PS4 they still needed to do tons of hardware modifications (according to Cerny) and tests to make PS4 BC possible on PS5. But most importantly they'd need an AMD CPU, so is a AMD CPU + Nvidia GPU combo with a cheaper APU even possible? Legally and technically?

I think it would be much easier / cheaper for Sony to simply co-design (or order if you will) with AMD what improvements they need in their next GPU. We know Cerny was really serious about their commitment to accelerate the RT pipeline for PS5. I don't think it's hard to guess what they (Sony and/or AMD) will do for PS5 Pro and then PS6: copy what's working so well for Nvidia like RT or DLSS.