Are you disappointed with next-gen consoles for 2020? [XBSX, PS5]

It's called Xbox All Access.

 

Things are looking more disappointing as each day passes by, from both camps.

 

For you, perhaps. The majority seem really happy with the rumoured CPU/GPU advances and solid state drives ending unbearable load times.

 

A console price and performance is more marketing and vision. The marketing team has to sell the product and justify its price. If everyone wants to be stuck on a price point for the next 20 years we’re going to see next to nada improvements and the console will die before the PC ( how ironic would that be). It will be squashed by handheld, high end computers and tablets.

This might be the first gen that l may not buy a console. We shall see.

the ps3 was expensive but the biggest problem was it fell victim to its complexity not its price point, And it took ages to get to see its true potential.

 

12 TF of the newest AMD tech is a stunningly powerful GPU, should decimate a 2080Ti. The RX 570 in my box, 5.1 old TF, that still runs most current games at ~high at 30 FPS 1440P, Leverage it with an ultra fast SSD for $500, 16 threads of (granted not full fat) Zen 2 at 3.5+ ghz, it's gonna be amazing, provided anything utilizes it. Wow.

Edit: Decimate may be a strong word. Should be competitive though.

 

That's the XSX though. PS5 at 9TF will be packing less raw power then a mid-range 5700XT. Offcourse RT and VRS then. Also the CPU is rather low clocked compared to AMD's ryzen 3800x. And if the rumors are true, 16GB ram isn't much but maybe expected, as the SSD is replacing the RAM, if we can believe our insiders here.

 

What do you mean downlocked Cpu? The sweeepspot for the Zen2 is at minimum 3Ghz , under this its underpowered. Most rumors says 3,2 - 3,6 Ghz . Not that 1,6 or 2,1 Ghz again...

 

Yes around 3.5ghz is what i mean, which is lower clocked then a 3800X variant.

 

I don't suppose you have the clocks/power curve handy? I'm very behind on things, but I'm wondering about the nature of the benchmarks under sustained loads. Couple that with the general expectation of up to 16 threads being loaded.

For starters, I'd be curious to look at the highest end mobile SKU.

 

Agree. Not sure what people are expecting from hardware in the $400-600 range. Its not that difficult these days to figure out what level of performance you can get within that budget. If you were to build a PC with a $600 budget using all new parts, it would get you in the ball park of what you can expect from the PS5/X. Expecting a $2000 gaming PC to magically become a PS5 just isn't going to happen. If the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro had never been a thing, I think a lot of people would have been extatic over these new consoles, but the mid gen upgrades took a bit of wind out of their sails.

 

Only 8 MB really?? So how Sony solve the Latency troubles ? So the rumor is false or Ps5 is really a weak and nothing special System.

 

8mb cache is literally unplayable. Hope Xsx has at least 128mb.

 

Latency goes down with a smaller cache.

 

Does it? L1 is very small and fast, but L2 and L3 are usually big to avoid the massive latency penalties when you have to hit main RAM. Even GDDR6 is incredibly slow compared to L3. Well designed algorithms should be designed around minimizing cache misses, but the smaller you make the cache the harder it is to accomplish that goal.

 

anexanhume means latency of the cache. 8MB cache will be faster when accessed than 32 MBs cache, but of course slower on a cache miss. Given the workload the consoles will be doing, I imagine 32 MBs cache only gets a slightly higher hit rate than 8 MBs while costing a lot more, so 8 MBs woudl be the overall more economical solution.

 

Then again, if the console uses unified memory for CPU and GPU, then the CPU not blocking the memory bus with requests benefits CPU and GPU performance both. Which would make the pendulum swing back towards larger last level cache again. It would seem to be a pretty tricky cost versus performance trade off. It would be easy to say "just make L3 bigger" but in a cost constrained system, that would always be at the expense of something else. AMD is in a better position to make that trade off than anyone else, so in all likelyhood they will end up at a reasonable compromise.

 

4x the L3 only gets slightly higher hit rate?
That should depend a lot on the workload..

And then the severity of missing the L3 will also depend on how fast is the system memory and how much competition there is for accessing it (e.g. an iGPU).

 

Hence why I wrote "Given the workload the consoles will be doing, "

 

But aren't we expecting for the more capable CPU to be able to adopt different types of workloads that wouldn't be worth trying on the Jaguar cores or even the older in-order cores?

 

Yes we should.
But because software should run also on old consoles the benefits will be relative, specially in the begining of the generation....