Baseless Next Generation Rumors with no Technical Merits [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea...I dont see this happening. Anything over 9TF for me is eyebrow raising. My prediction for best performing console would be 44CUs @1.6GHz - ~9TF

Zen2 at 3.2-3.5GHz would take around 30W, so GPU max should be around 150W. Add gobs of GDDR6 and you are already above 200W which would be absolute max IMO.

To make comparison, RX580 is 185W card that can be found in Xbox One X, with 4CUs more and downlocked core clocks. If they where to push new new consoles a bit further then last gen, I would expect something between 5700 and 5700XT, with clocks between base and game clocks and 4CUs more.
 
Last edited:
It's a bummer Navi turned out to be not as efficient as we hoped but I guess a bunch of gimmicks like SSD and Raytracing are making up for the value proposition somewhat. If 7nm+ EUV can't help us to push things further then I'm seriously thinking about just waiting for the mid gen upgrade.
 
What do you mean 'gimmicks'?
As in relative to the main proportion of graphics advancement for a new gen. Taking 4k into account also. The power is just not there to fully utilize RT at a high enough res, SSD loads faster and more seamless sure but hardly affecting the level of next gen graphics to be pushed like a super powerful GPU could.
 
Well, firstly it's wrong to call them gimmicks if they're not there to push graphics. SSD is about providing a better experience overall, not making up for a TF deficit. Consoles aren't just about pretty visuals but the entire experience of playing games. But even then, faster streaming also means better graphics in various ways. Potentially more variety of content. Certainly less pop-in artefacts. Imagine this gen being just optical drive based, having to stream assets from that. HDDs being an order of magnitude faster allows for much better graphics, and SSDs are an order of magnitude faster than HDDs, so are no more a gimmick than an HDD is.

Likewise, RT could potential provide a better visual upgrade than a few more TFs could, depending on what we get. It's silly how many people are willing to pass judgement on the next-gen hardware without seeing at all what they're doing!
 
Yea...I dont see this happening. Anything over 9TF for me is eyebrow raising. My prediction for best performing console would be 44CUs @1.6GHz - ~9TF

Zen2 at 3.2-3.5GHz would take around 30W, so GPU max should be around 150W. Add gobs of GDDR6 and you are already above 200W which would be absolute max IMO.

To make comparison, RX580 is 185W card that can be found in Xbox One X, with 4CUs more and downlocked core clocks. If they where to push new new consoles a bit further then last gen, I would expect something between 5700 and 5700XT, with clocks between base and game clocks and 4CUs more.

You can abandon these results of 2019 Navi (RDNA1). RDNA1 Navi's power consumption is unsuitable for consoles. Since the two companies are very ambitious I think they will move to 2020 Navi (7nm+ & RDNA2) for much better power efficiency.
 
Has there been any rumors on cpu customization? Wondering if RT/Other features could be done in a slightly suprising way as extension to cpu instead of gpu.
 
I think the SSD will make much, much more of an impact in next gen game design and evolution than any “gimmicks” like bloody RT. Or whatever the number of TFlops is.
Since every cross-platform games should consider the lowest denominator, that is, 500MB/s common SDD or even 200MB/s mechanical HDD, these games can't target their games for super fast SSD (> 3GB/s). Only exclusive games such as SONY's games can fully benefit from super fast SSD in the game design.
 
Since every cross-platform games should consider the lowest denominator, that is, 500MB/s common SDD or even 200MB/s mechanical HDD, these games can't target their games for super fast SSD (> 3GB/s).

So your thought is console games are hamstrung by PC hardware? The SSDs on consoles should be way more than your 500 MB/s, and using at least 2-lane PCI-Express NVMEs which provides 4 GB/s bandwidth. My guess is both use 4-lane PCI-Express 4 with NVME, which provides 8 GB/s bandwidth.
 
He means by design. Cross-plat games will be designed to use 500 MB/s tops and all that performance of the consoles SSDs will sit unused except in exclusives.
 
So according to latest DF video, according to AMD, Navi XT is 14% faster then 13.4TF Vega. Would be really surprised if that was true, as this is 40% increase over Vega flop v flop. He is also saying single digit TF is number from what he is hearing and that obviously shouldnt surprise anyone here.

 
*workloads descended from the heavens


...or telePorted from hell? :eek:

--------------


It will be curious in the context of consoles where some devs have optimized heavily for GCN utilization (and perhaps some engines on PC that have pushed towards DX12/Vulkan).
 
Don't think of it as 40% more flop for flop. Flops are just a peak metric. Think of it as 40% more efficient in workloads the GPU is supposed to do, whether it uses Flops or Bogomips to accomplish that.
Of course, I agree, but as TF is most used metric, its suitable to use TF vs TF so that people understand IPC improvement and dont have meltdowns when we get single digit TF chips in these consoles.

I can already see "WTF only 8/9TF???thats not even 2x PS4Pro :runaway::runaway::runaway:"

Btw if what Richard is saying is true, about 14% advantage of Navi XT over 13.7TF Vega, this would point at ~8TF card being comparable to exactly 12.9TF GCN card. Now, where have I heard that number before ;)
 
I can understand the 'boring' comments somewhere. Faster loading/streaming and limited RT are what the next gen consoles are about, instead of the massive jumps from previous generations thanks to diminishing returns.
 
Bus width doesn't matter one jot. It's bandwidth, latency, and amount only that matter (and latency not that much). 1 TB/s on an 8 bit bus to 16 GBs RAM is a good solution. A 2560 bit 1 TB/s bus to a titchy 32 MB scratchpad would be rubbish. A 512 bit bus to 8 GB RAM would be a fail.

Oh, of course cost matters, which is the limiting factor. But PS2 having a 2560 bit bus is utterly meaningless.

The PS2 needed that 2560 bit wide bus to handle all the different emotions from the engine...
 
Since every cross-platform games should consider the lowest denominator, that is, 500MB/s common SDD or even 200MB/s mechanical HDD, these games can't target their games for super fast SSD (> 3GB/s). Only exclusive games such as SONY's games can fully benefit from super fast SSD in the game design.

That’s like saying games are being held back by PC hardware that uses DDR3/4 based VRAM.

The baseline specs of games aren’t based on the lowest specs supported. Consoles serve as the baseline due to the fact they represent a large part of the userbase and generates the majority of revenue for AAA games.

Publishers that used low level PC hardware as baseline specs would get their asses handed to them by pubs who pushed consoles as hard as they could.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top