Yea you can definitely talk about GPU architecture.
Do you think there will be a mid gen refresh console from Sony and Microsoft?
- Thread starter invictis
- Start date
Not just GPU architecture, but GPU products and everything, too. Where do I talk about that here?
Like if you mean just on the topic of it, it’s still closed. But some of these side topics can still discuss them. The main goal is to stop the constant vendor warring. People need to be able to speak to the GPU products without needing to get into A vs B
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Late in coming back to the thread, but...
The biggest thing that the midgen consoles (PS4-P and XBO-X) brought to us was improved performance and developers offering both a quality mode and a performance mode, allowing people that prefered gameplay over prettier pixels to finally have that again on console while people that prefered prettier pixels over gameplay still got to choose that.
I know increased resolution, better textures, etc. were also some of the things that Sony and MS were going for, but the performance modes, IMO, had the largest impact on most of the actual buyers of the consoles.
The only real thing I can think of that a new mid-gen console could bring to the table to really shake things up this generation would be greatly increased RT performance, but I don't think GPUs and especially AMD GPUs are quite there yet. The 4090 is getting close, so maybe in another generation or two, I'd consider it actually good. But the hardware that would be cost effective (both in terms of silicon size and electrical power used) isn't likely to console friendly for a bit.
Regards,
SB
I get it, but if the plan to 'stop any vendor warring' is to just completely close the GPU forums forever, then that's pretty dang lousy and punishes everybody else who just genuinely wants to talk about this stuff honestly. Mods could easily just deal with individuals who are repeat offenders.
I've only recently (last few days) noticed that this is no longer the console forum! It's now the gaming forum, and includes PC stuff:
"Beyond3D's most popular forum, dedicated to discussion of PC and Console technology, games and industry."
When the 'eck did that happen??
Anyway, given the increasingly interrelated nature or consoles and PC that would seem to make sense. So long as it's gaming related talk, perhaps it would be okay to discuss GPUs?
The vast gulf in RT performance between consoles and the market dominating Nvidia lineup seems like it could become a pretty big deal in terms of where software and rendering are going. In terms of upcoming console hardware, looking at AMD and Nvidia cards and comparing them directly seems like it could give us some insights into how things might shake out. PC GPU chatter here seems to have slowly increased over the years and in many ways that's been a good thing.
I think the general feel here on this one, is whether people are using the data points for discussion and just using the information directly, and whether people are weaponizing data points and using it confrontationally.
There's a subtle difference between the two.
The prior is about recognizing strengths, and most people tend to recognize the strengths of Nvidia and don't give any credit to what AMD is doing in it's own positive way. I think there is something to be said with AMD's products even if they are outperformed by Nvidia, especially on Nvidia based measurements, but they are on a path that is different and so they will reach their objectives sooner in some areas, and have fallen behind on the areas that Nvidia is prioritizing.
And imo, being able to recognize that difference is priority will also mean a delta in performance is where people should be standing at, other than just plain benchmarking.
In particular for me
a) Rasterization performance per dollar is very good on the latest 7900XTX variants of cards
b) Ray tracing has finally caught up to 2XXX levels
c) They have boatloads of VRAM which is going to lead to a fairly long life if VRAM limits continue to increase in size, at least from a rasterization perspective, it will keep up, and it will provide a better RT experience than consoles all the way through to 2028 without a doubt.
d) They are on the cusp of bringing the price down further with it's manufacturing process, something absolutely necessary in this high priced GPU market
This is a reasonable representation of AMD products, and if this isn't the level of maturity of the discussion, then I suspect those comparison threads will continue to be locked up or culled.
I think it's reasonable to do comparisons, but if one must critique, as usual, we must critique a product on what it is trying to achieve, and not what it was not designed to achieve.
AMD cards were not designed to AI/ML & RT processing monsters, yet that continues to be the mainline of discussion against AMD on this forum. It's like asking a frog to swim faster than a fish. That hasn't been their priority yet, and if it has, then I'd like to see where AMD is marketing their cards as the cutting edge on AI/ML reconstruction and Ray Tracing. They may compete in the same markets, but I think for some time now, it's clear they have differing priorities and target audiences.
As an Nvidia owner, and previously a data scientist as occupation, I love what Nvidia is doing. But I also love what AMD is doing. If one's only desire is to ensure all those consoles games played on PC are better than what consoles can offer (much better) than AMD has an ideal card with the 7900XTX. If you want the latest in cutting edge ray tracing graphics, you will also need the latest in AI/ML for it to be playable; then you'd need Nvidia.
But we just don't see that type of mutual respect and acceptance happening on this forum. People fighting that you need RT, and people saying you don't need RT.
When there is a spectrum - some games don't need RT, and at the same time we need RT, we are going to RT, and if consoles can make it to a pure RT lighted world, then why are we shitting on AMD cards because they'll be able to perform better than the consoles. And if we want to keep pushing on RT power, then we need to go to NVidia. But taking that argument to an extreme like saying, no games are taking advantage of my RT hardware therefore DX12, consoles, and AMD should die, is pretty reductionist view of things. Fighting over these things makes little sense. We all have different demands of our hardware and how much we are willing to pay for it, we need to come to respect that from each other. Patience will show how long these new technologies will take to integrate. Some people are just extremely impatient.
The reality is, and people should stop to recognize this, is that some people will keep buying the latest technology no matter what, and they will never be satisfied and no developer will ever make any game that will be ever able to satisfy their customers who keep buying the best and then overclocking it.. etc. If developers push it too far and games perform poorly, they get angry. If they push it too low, they get angry because their hardware isn't being utilized, there's rarely ever a balance point here with
Last edited:
DavidGraham
Veteran
We should also keep in mind that this is no regular forum, it's a technology driven one, it attracts the crowd interested in discussing cutting edge tech and visuals, so the discussions will be biased towards that in particular.
Yeah, this is a fair distinction to make.
Absolutely, I agree on all these points. And it's definitely worth pointing out that consoles will end up being the primary drivers of the software we get, and in that respect AMD cards will be well ahead of Series X and PS5, and so with the right choices wrt settings they will do very very well for PC gamers who choose team red.
This is were I see things a little differently. I think it's fair to look at what something was not designed to do well, if that is an important element of what people are buying the product for. It's even more relevant when looking at architectural elements of consoles, which will largely define what games are for years and years.
In looking at potential choices for new consoles, I think what they are designed to do well is a fundamental part of the discussion. I think that Zen 2 + RDNA 1.x ~ 2 turned out to be a fantastic choice this generation with no realistic option being remotely as attractive. At some point RT and MLAA has to climb higher up the priorities list though (IMO) and so that's one reason why I find RT performance such an interesting thing to look at in reviews.
I agree completely. I'm still on an RX 570 8GB btw, which has really proved to be a solid card that I'm rather fond of so I'm rooting for AMD. I can still see however that people spending $1000+ on a GPU are likely to want to run at high quality settings that may involve heavy RT and require some form of DLSS like feature to keep quality high and frame rates high.
I almost feel like RDNA3 would be better placed targetting a more mainstream audience at a small die size / lower price, where its fantastic rasterisation performance and perf/$$ might be more attractive than Nvidia RT performance that isn't truly satisfying at high settings.
As for the future I think Sony and MS should dip into their coffers, which have been enriched for years by AMD's great and cost effective console technology, and help fund development of RDNA 5/6/7+ technology that can bring a transformative jump next gen. Getting chips for minimal cost is all very well, until you push your vendor of choice out of a competitive position and pay a far greater price in the long run.
Agreed.
What moderators are looking for is maturity within the community to have respect for what things are, not what things aren’t.
It’s true the future is Ray tracing and AI and ML techniques. It’s also true that we are hitting a wall in price performance, we are hitting a wall in silicon costs.
Eventually both will need yo do what the other has done, nvidias price points can’t stay high forever as an eventual ceiling will hit and AMD will eventually have to redirect their attention to extract more efficiency out of their silicon.
AMD and Nvidias relationship to the industry is important. Nvidia continues yo push the graphical barriers but AMD continues to make it affordable yo do so: ie the Consoles.
Both are needed for graphics yo move forward, lest we go back to the day of older consoles were generations were lasting significantly longer because of exotic hardware costs.
Conspiracy theory: Cerny's comments to the CMA might lend credence to the existence of the PS5 Pro.
Now it could be that he was talking about whatever AMD is currently working on that could be used in the PS6, but it could also mean that not only are they gearing up for the PS5 Pro but are also planning on leveraging the GPU that will be in that console in the cloud. The current PS5 GPU won't cut it, but whatever would be going into the Pro at this point would.
Now it could be that he was talking about whatever AMD is currently working on that could be used in the PS6, but it could also mean that not only are they gearing up for the PS5 Pro but are also planning on leveraging the GPU that will be in that console in the cloud. The current PS5 GPU won't cut it, but whatever would be going into the Pro at this point would.
Or that those statements came from Nvidia.. and have nothing to do with Cerny or AMD...
When Nvidia released the 30 series their Geforce Now streaming service could provide better than native console latency in some games. Digital Foundry did an article on it.
Now their new 40 series GPUs are capable of even more.. with lower latency:
NVIDIA Brings RTX 4080 to GeForce NOW
NVIDIA today announced GeForce NOW™ is going beyond fast, delivering GeForce RTX™ 4080-class gaming to billions of devices — available exclusively in the new, high-performance Ultimate membership tier.
nvidianews.nvidia.com
Last edited:
GhostofWar
Regular
After rereading the paragraph you replied to after reading your post I think your take is much more logical. It also reads like whoever it is has the service running now and not something on the horizon.
Cerny did make the comment according to the latest DF Direct, but there's no real reason to think it's specifically related to an unannounced upcoming console. Sony simply wheeled out their "tech guy" to make an argument in court that would sound techncially convincing for their case. And it worked!
Cerny spoke in court? Probably doesn't matter what he said - that calm, authoritative voice won them over. 
No he didn't. I believe the folks at DF fell for the misconception created by this reporter at Kotaku and ran with by PS fanboys.. Cerny is not mentioned in that document.
I could see Sony release a PS5 Pro honestly. It may just simply be the case that they look at the sales of PS5 and think they can put out a PS5 Pro for more money and people will buy it.
Not sure about Microsoft. They sort of made the two tier decision at the beginning of the gen that would make adding another tier complicated now.
Not sure about Microsoft. They sort of made the two tier decision at the beginning of the gen that would make adding another tier complicated now.
I wonder which will boost sales more : PS5 slim or PS5 pro.
PS5 slim would probably make it more attractive for wider audience that are more sensitive to pricing. Thus maybe lower games bought per console.
PS5 pro on the other hand would make it more attractive to "hard-core" gamers that are probably spend more on games than normal people.
Current PS5 owners also may double dip. Like how some people got Xbox series x (or a high end pc) and series s.
PS5 slim would probably make it more attractive for wider audience that are more sensitive to pricing. Thus maybe lower games bought per console.
PS5 pro on the other hand would make it more attractive to "hard-core" gamers that are probably spend more on games than normal people.
Current PS5 owners also may double dip. Like how some people got Xbox series x (or a high end pc) and series s.
I don't think it's an either or. I think a PS5 slim is coming regardless.
I just think it's likely that a PS5 Pro is coming as well. Put it this way: a pricey PS5 Pro would have a lot more sales potential than VR 2 imo....
Similar threads
