And that number is shrinking, which is why we are getting these mid gen consoles in the first place.For the 5 trillionth time. Some people (60 million+) actually prefer consoles over pc's for gaming.
And that number is shrinking, which is why we are getting these mid gen consoles in the first place.For the 5 trillionth time. Some people (60 million+) actually prefer consoles over pc's for gaming.
And that number is shrinking, which is why we are getting these mid gen consoles in the first place.
If the GPU can do more of the rendering work, that frees up more CPU for other stuff.that sounds like a good plan on paper, to save budget on the CPU side, but what about CPU limited games?
Whatever the future holds, PS4Pro and Scorpio have to run the same games the same way. They won't be asked to provide a better AI experience so the CPU won't need to be much better. The next Elder Scrolls game will target XB1 CPU power for simulating the world and Scorpio will run the same simulation, just a bit faster with a better framerate as a result probably.Plus I think AI along with VR/AR and raytracing, is the future, and AI still works better on CPUs
Interesting neither exactly reach 7gbps. The sony dev docs are saying "at least" 218GB/s and MS also said "at least" 320GB/s. So the exact clock is a late decision in the design, which is something that doesn't happen with other memory interfaces where the clock is exactly the parts specs.Might be the same bin (7Gbps)?
218GB/s on 256-bit bus -> 6.8GT/s
320GB/s on 384-bitches bus -> 6.67GT/s
edit:
Hynix has 3 parts at the moment,
R4C (4GHz) - 8Gbps - 1.55V
R0C (3GHz) - 7/6Gbps - 1.5V/1.35V
T2C (2.5GHz) - 6/5Gbps - 1.5/1.35V
Presumably, the 1.5V there are overvolted/clocked. For whatever reason, they don't list the R2C in the catalogue, but either way, the above bandwidths are in the R0C bin.
Sony's PlayStation 4 Pro (launching in November) and Microsoft's Xbox One Scorpio (launching late next year) are giving the pixel-counters out there a new, 4K-sized battlefield to fight over. Now, Microsoft is drawing a line in the sand in that developing battle, with Microsoft Studios Publishing General Manager Shannon Loftis telling USA Today that "any games we're making that we're launching in the Scorpio time frame, we're making sure they can natively render at 4K."
The word "natively" is important there, because there has been a lot of wiggle room when it comes to talking about what constitutes a truly "4K" game these days. For instance, according to developers Ars has talked to, many if not most games designed for the PS4 Pro will be rendered with an internal framebuffer that's larger than that for a 1080p game, but significantly smaller than the full 3840×2160 pixels on a 4K screen (the exact resolution for any PS4 Pro game will depend largely on how the developer prioritizes the frame rate and the level of detail in the scene). While the PS4 Pro can and does output a full 4K signal, it seems that only games with exceedingly simple graphics will be able to render at that resolution natively.
Sony says the PS4 Pro's internal rendering pipeline and some proprietary upscaling techniques will improve lower resolution base signals to take fuller advantage of a 4K display. But no amount of upscaling can fill in those missing 4K pixels as well as hardware (and a game engine) that natively generates images at full 4K resolution—or so the argument goes.
With Scorpio, however, Microsoft seems to be arguing that every first-party game at launch will be able to generate and render nearly 8.3 million pixels (four times as many as a 1080p game) at an acceptable frame rate (i.e., at least 30 times a second). That would be quite an achievement. As we noted back at E3, it currently takes pricey, high-end PC graphics cards like the Nvidia GTX 1080 or the AMD R9 Fury X—cards that run $300 or much higher—to "barely scrape by" with a native 4K, 30fps game. And those PC cards seem to have significantly more raw power than what is being claimed by Microsoft—9 and 8.4 teraflops, respectively, vs. a claimed 6 teraflops for Scorpio (and 4.2 teraflops for the PS4 Pro).
Might be the same bin (7Gbps)?
218GB/s on 256-bit bus -> 6.8GT/s
320GB/s on 384-bitches bus -> 6.67GT/s
edit:
Hynix has 3 parts at the moment,
R4C (4GHz) - 8Gbps - 1.55V
R0C (3GHz) - 7/6Gbps - 1.5V/1.35V
T2C (2.5GHz) - 6/5Gbps - 1.5/1.35V
Presumably, the 1.5V there are overvolted/clocked. For whatever reason, they don't list the R2C in the catalogue, but either way, the above bandwidths are in the R0C bin.
Interesting neither exactly reach 7gbps. The sony dev docs are saying "at least" 218GB/s and MS also said "at least" 320GB/s. So the exact clock is a late decision in the design, which is something that doesn't happen with other memory interfaces where the clock is exactly the parts specs.
I was thinking since the SoC is not binned at all, any of the clocks can cause the yield to drop. Maybe it's based on the yield of the memory controller, which would drop as more channels are added (that would explain why 384bits here have a slightly lower clock than the 256bit), or maybe it's the motherboard design which is difficult at these frequencies. Not sure this difference could be for clamshell, it doesn't look like it's enough.
The 470 is clocked at 6.6, while the 480 gets the max clock. This really looks like it's related to the chip yield, not the memory parts. Otherwise the 470 would at least reach 7 since it's using 7gbps memory parts.
MS are shooting themselves in the foot then, at least regards what devs can do. As Sebbbi says, why render native 4K when reconstruction gives you prettier visuals? As a marketing gimmick it might work, but it could also mean Scorpio throwing away much of its advantage in pretties.
If I were MS or Sony, and I could save a chunk on memory costs (a big part of the BOM) by taking 7 gHz rejects and clocking them a few percent lower, I would.
I was thinking about the marketing aspect, and in the end probably could say, we are going to render/output the best graphics at 1080p and 4k. And just leave out the word native. Clear message, and in no way limiting what first parties can do.MS are shooting themselves in the foot then, at least regards what devs can do. As Sebbbi says, why render native 4K when reconstruction gives you prettier visuals? As a marketing gimmick it might work, but it could also mean Scorpio throwing away much of its advantage in pretties.
They'll be compared against Sony 1st party offerings, tragically, but also 3rd party games on Scorpio. And if these look better than MS's first party because they eschew native rendering for reconstruction, MS will just look a bit stupid - either by first party not being as pretty as third party, or back-tracking on this statement.As they won't be appearing on PS4P, I don't suppose they'll have to worry about direct comparisons.
So which one would you rather "play"?With dynamic resolution, any game is native 4K when looking at the ground.
Checkerboard is native 4K when you don't move.
More or less reinforces the original message from MS post e3. I recall earlier discussions about messaging and MS wanted very clearly to define it as Xbox gaming at 4K or Xbox gaming.MS are shooting themselves in the foot then, at least regards what devs can do. As Sebbbi says, why render native 4K when reconstruction gives you prettier visuals? As a marketing gimmick it might work, but it could also mean Scorpio throwing away much of its advantage in pretties.
And that number is shrinking, which is why we are getting these mid gen consoles in the first place.
MS are shooting themselves in the foot then, at least regards what devs can do. As Sebbbi says, why render native 4K when reconstruction gives you prettier visuals? As a marketing gimmick it might work, but it could also mean Scorpio throwing away much of its advantage in pretties.