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

[AbsoluteBeginner]

Then you're in luck, since 9.2TF of RDNA will outperform 12TF of GCN in everything but compute.

I'd prefer 12 RDNA TF's, personally. Heck, I'd prefer 20. But the GitHub leaks are the most credible we've seen so far, and point to a console that can slap about a Vega 64.

I watched some GPU tests the other day and 7.9TF 5700 was on average ~10% better performer then Vega 64. So I think something like XT with more BW would be therbouts with Radeon 7, let alone Vega 64.

 

[ultragpu]

Then you're in luck, since 9.2TF of RDNA will outperform 12TF of GCN in everything but compute.

I'd prefer 12 RDNA TF's, personally. Heck, I'd prefer 20. But the GitHub leaks are the most credible we've seen so far, and point to a console that can slap about a Vega 64.

I truly hope the games will blow me away visually and they better charge us $399 at those specs.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

I truly hope the games will blow me away visually and they better charge us $399 at those specs.

I'm sure there'll be plenty to please our eyes. There'll be occasional games like God of War and Red Dead Redemption 2, which are the cream of the crop. There'll also be games with substantially lower budgets and teams, who will now have the requisite power overhead to brute force techniques that will elevate current generation asset quality. Think Quake with ray tracing, but to less of an extreme.

As for price, if the PS5 is 9.2TF whilst the XSX is 12TF, I'll expect an appropriate price differential.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/760091/

This one aged like milk.

You can write all the convincing arguments for parity that you want, but things are already set in stone, and I am confident that MS has found a winning strategy for next generation that isn't focused around achieving exact parity with their competitor power wise.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

This one aged like milk.

Leave @milk out of this.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As for price, if the PS5 is 9.2TF whilst the XSX is 12TF, I'll expect an appropriate price differential.

Nice in theory, but if it that worked in practice then Xbox One would have been cheaper than PS4. The same way Microsoft attributed value to Kinect, Sony may attribute value (and therefore) cost to any aspect of PS5 that they feel XSX does not offer. That may be a faster and/or larger solid state storage solution.

Ultimately, Sony will charge what they think as idiot day-one adopters will pay. And they'd be stupid not too.

 

[Proelite]

This one aged like milk.

You're right. Knowing the specs 1.5 years in advance was easy. Predicting who will win was harder.

Hence I abstained from making a single prediction of sales and reception this time!

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Nice in theory, but if it that worked in practice then Xbox One would have been cheaper than PS4. The same way Microsoft attributed value to Kinect, Sony may attribute value (and therefore) cost to any aspect of PS5 that they feel XSX does not offer. That may be a faster and/or larger solid state storage solution.

Ultimately, Sony will charge what they think as idiot day-one adopters will pay. And they'd be stupid not too.

True, but it depends on what they're flogging. If we're looking at consoles which compare like the PS4Pro to the X1X, I think Sony will struggle to make a GPU deficit appear as some sort of added value.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

True, but it depends on what they're flogging. If we're looking at consoles which compare like the PS4Pro to the X1X, I think Sony will struggle to make a GPU deficit appear as some sort of added value.

They won't focus on any GPU deficit, they'll focus on what (if anything) PS5 does better. The only thing that Sony have really trumpteted is the SSD. Now if this really does virtually eliminate loading times, e.g. from button press to game is 2-3 seconds, that would be huge. That's better than PC. They can charge for that if XSX is loading games in 20 seconds. I can't see haptic feedback controllers or 3D audio setting the world on fire because the actual impact is really down to individual devs to support and implement - just like DualShock 4's touchscreen which in most games is just the map button!

 

[N2O]

I truly hope the games will blow me away visually and they better charge us $399 at those specs.

One thing i'm not sure is can 9.2TF PS5/12TF XSX end up really $399/$499.
Or it's actually $499/$599.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Aye, if the PS5 has some sort of significant superiority - such as the SSD - I have no doubt they'll do their best to make the console buying public care; enough to translate to dat dollar.

But I also wouldn't be surprised if the difference in storage solutions isn't enormous enough for the public to care - 0 seconds Vs 2 seconds, for example, probably won't sway many people - whilst the rest of the hardware is comparable to PS4Pro Vs X1X. If it's that kind of comparison, I expect a price differential. Either that, or for Sony to establish a pattern of losing their minds after every even numbered PlayStation.

 

[ultragpu]

One thing i'm not sure is can 9.2TF PS5/12TF XSX end up really $399/$499.
Or it's actually $499/$599.

Aye, if the PS5 has some sort of significant superiority - such as the SSD - I have no doubt they'll do their best to make the console buying public care; enough to translate to dat dollar.

But I also wouldn't be surprised if the difference in storage solutions isn't enormous enough for the public to care - 0 seconds Vs 2 seconds, for example, probably won't sway many people - whilst the rest of the hardware is comparable to PS4Pro Vs X1X. If it's that kind of comparison, I expect a price differential. Either that, or for Sony to establish a pattern of losing their minds after every even numbered PlayStation.

This is the thing, as cool as a fast SSD might be it's still relatively trivial compared to the meat of the matter aka the GPU, the latter is what determines the overall performance of the console. It's almost as if Sony got their priority wrong for investing in the same amount of money but yielding negligible result. A couple of seconds of load time vs 3 TFs of raw compute power, I hope it does not come down to this. Of course that's assuming if Github is the bullet.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

This is the thing, as cool as a fast SSD might be it's still relatively trivial compared to the meat of the matter aka the GPU, the latter is what determines the overall performance of the console. It's almost as if Sony got their priority wrong for investing in the same amount of money but yielding negligible result. A couple of seconds of load time vs 3 TFs of raw compute power, I hope it does not come down to this. Of course that's assuming if Github is the bullet.

A couple of seconds in difference for load-time? No, but 5% or 10% (20x or 10x ) load time compared to all other options. Yes. I'd trade a 25-33% raw teraflops GPU advantage for that. GPU teraflops for the masses is well in the realm of diminishing returns. If you are so utterly focussed on teraflops, why on earth are you even gaming on a console compared to a PC?

Pretty games near-instantly vs. very pretty games slowly? I'm in camp fast. We know what SSD can (and can't) do from putting every configuration of SSD (and RAM) into already-ridiculously powerful PCs.

 

[N2O]

If rumors are true, it will be pretty games near-instantly vs. very pretty games almost near-instantly though.
I mean i won't call 3 seconds of loading is slow even it's comparing to 1 second of loading.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If rumors are true, it will be pretty games near-instantly vs. very pretty games almost near-instantly though. I mean i won't call 3 seconds of loading is slow even it's comparing to 1 second of loading.

Ditto. And that's why I've shifted to expressing the different in terms of percentages. If XSX is faster than current gen but still way slower than PS5, that's a competitive advantage for PS5.

Mary Cerny is my age. We're both nearer to death than our launch dates. Waiting 50 seconds for Bloodborne to reload after fucking up makes you realise how much life you're wasting before the eternal darkness arrives! I completely understand any focus on making better use of that time!

 

[PSman1700]

If you are so utterly focussed on teraflops, why on earth are you even gaming on a console compared to a PC?

Some might want that extra settings, from medium/high to Ultra, or native 4k vs other solutions, more fps or a more stable experience. Most probably don't care about graphics but for the people that do, XSX might be it, or a PC.

Pretty games near-instantly vs. very pretty games slowly? I'm in camp fast. We know what SSD can (and can't) do from putting every configuration of SSD (and RAM) into already-ridiculously powerful PCs.

We can't know, except for SC where the differences are rather large. We know when we have next-generational games appearing.

 

[ultragpu]

A couple of seconds in difference for load-time? No, but 5% or 10% (20x or 10x ) load time compared to all other options. Yes. I'd trade a 25-33% raw teraflops GPU advantage for that. GPU teraflops for the masses is well in the realm of diminishing returns. If you are so utterly focussed on teraflops, why on earth are you even gaming on a console compared to a PC?

Pretty games near-instantly vs. very pretty games slowly? I'm in camp fast. We know what SSD can (and can't) do from putting every configuration of SSD (and RAM) into already-ridiculously powerful PCs.

We're most likely talking about 2-3GB/s of the X vs 4-6GB/s of PS5 in SSD speed which in turn should be about 2 seconds worth of difference if the PS5 loads near instantly. How in the world can you not endure that 2 seconds of waiting time ? Meanwhile no matter how fast I load the game, pixel is still sharper, better, more complex on the XsX. I don't know what other people think but personally I prefer a much more balanced machine.

 

[KirkSi]

If you are so utterly focussed on teraflops, why on earth are you even gaming on a console compared to a PC?

As a console only gamer I personally concentrate on the TFs as we get fixed hardware for a generation. If you start out weak at the beginning of a generation it’s only going to get worse as PCs push WAY beyond where your console is. Consoles used to catch up to PCs at the start of a new generation (or get close at least) but those days are over. PCs start out ahead and only get further ahead with time. If a console starts out with low compute then you’re stuck with it for an entire generation (unless we get mid-gen refreshes as we did this time).

If TFs mean so much why not game on PC? I really don’t want to. I like the simplicity of a console. I like that everyone’s using a controller. I like the lack of hackers using aim bots and wall hacks. TFs aren’t everything, but for a new console they are important as that’s what the console is going to be for it’s entire life.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

We're most likely talking about 2-3GB/s of the X vs 4-6GB/s of PS5 in SSD speed which in turn should be about 2 seconds worth of difference if the PS5 loads near instantly.

Raw bandwidth =/= latency, random I/O seek time or the ability of any given game to use that data.

Again, it's why putting a raid array of SSDs into a PC does not eliminate Windows load times. Sony are not claiming to just have slotted in a fast SSD, whay Mark Cerny said was "the raw read speed is important, but so are the details of the I/O mechanisms and the software stack that we put on top of them".

Compared to a HDD, a SSD addresses just one the three architectural issues that impacts loading times.

 

[Tkumpathenurple]

Mary Cerny is my age. We're both nearer to death than our launch dates. Waiting 50 seconds for Bloodborne to reload after fucking up makes you realise how much life you're wasting before the eternal darkness arrives! I completely understand any focus on making better use of that time!

Now that you put it like that, I really hope that's the angle they choose to advertise. Maybe hire a make a wish kid so they can still target the younger end.