Next Gen GPU architecture GCN, RDNA, Navi 10/20 (PS5 Navi Hybrid, Xbox Navi Pure) *spawn*

Didn’t both consoles come with some version of True audio which accelerated audio workloads and alleviated 10-15% of cpu usage?

I remember AMD ditched dedicated silicon and moved audio acceleration to the gpu and released true audio next as a gpgpu solution that offered accelerated ray casting for audio.

So what? AMD offers some new version of true audio as audio chip again?

 

Depends on what definition of TrueAudio one has. Both consoles had similar audio DSPs in terms of hardware. Movement towards dedicated audio processing might well be an optimisation. Yes, you could do it on GPU, but you use proportionally less silicon if you use DSPs designed for it. On consoles, these will be used, whereas on PC...ha ha ha! Nothing proprietary ever gets adopted. Unless the IHV can support a feature transparently through drivers, it's a dead idea if it's isn't a DX feature that your rival also supports.

 

Unfortunately even on consoles things don't necessarily find wide adoption. Very few games use the motion sensors in the PS4 controller, for instance. Likely due to many players not finding them pleasant to use (I've heard more complaints when games implement them than praise usually, although one game I can't remember the name of used them very well).

Hopefully we'll see wider adoption of hardware accelerated positional audio. I guess it'll mostly come down to whether most consumers notice it and how much it costs to implement. With game companies having tight budgets, will they see it as worth the additional cost to implement good 3D audio? I'm sure the first party developers will make use of it, at least.

Regards,
SB

 

It'll come down to whether all platforms can support ______. Or at least 2 out of 3. *cough*

 

I think MS and Sony have also to stay differentiated on HW level to not give ANY impression of triying build up some commercial cartel... Also Sony needs PS4 to be forward compatible not only PS5 to be backwards compatible. So in my opinion Sony going with Navi10 and MS with Navi20 later is quite possible....

 

I doubt hardware similarities are at all a concern. As long as the ecosystems are different, they're competing rivals. But what would happen if they did join forces though? Let's say there's only XStation 5 next-gen. What's to stop that happening? What trade commission would take what actions to stop that (and in the process kill the generation and force consumers to have to pick between platforms)?

Why? That's never been a concern before.

 

I like HBRU but he has always strange theories

 

Why to be forward compatible for ps4 (as much as possible of course) ? The 100 million consoles around are a GOOD argument I think... Also the gap between generation is getting narrower.... So this is going to be much more rasonable than before.

Also they did it alredy for ps4-pro (and MS for one-s and one-x).....

European authorities for free concurrence are quite rigid... if Sony and Ms have the same machine (or almost) maybe Google with his new Stadia or even Nintendo can complain and someone can listen to the complains....

Same ecosyste not. But Sony is going run on MS servers (and software) the future online gaming platform... A bit like Mercedes using Ferrari Power Units ..

 

? Why? PS2 had millions of units but wasn't FC and didn't run PS3 games. Why would Sony want PS4 to run PS5 games? Why would gamers?? You don't want next-gen games being limited to last-gen hardware.

They were mid-gen refreshes, not new machines. PS4Pro is a PS4, and BC and FC don't enter into it.

Complain about what?? What would happen? Why is them having similar HW a problem for anyone?

Which isn't any problem at all. There are even cars from different manufacturers that are identical other than body design. No-one complains about that. Or even rebadged hardware. Why couldn't MS sell a rebadged PS5 with their own OS?

 

CPU alone would make forward compatibility impossible for any game that truly made use of them.
SS storage would also make certain games impossible unless your willing to go back to the days of going through a door and waiting 15secs.
Graphics can scale, but it will be missing some features that will be in next gen GPUs that it wouldn't be able to brute force either.

So basically you would be porting games, although the porting would be simpler due to same api's, but a very compromised experience.

 

I think there is a big difference in designing for PS4 and then have a upport friendly PS5 or not.... The opposite (downport) would not happen for long time IMHO.

Of course there are not technical problems in using same hardware and same network BUT this can be seen as some sort of hidden cartel and some concurrence authority may think this is not good....

 

Up port as you call it is just cross gen development, which will be done by enhancing PS4 games on PS5.

Down porting, personally I don't see the point with the effort it will entail.
Only a few games will get a previous gen port after the cross over period when a game is designed from ground up for PS5.

 

I agree Jay... Sony's interest is in having a looong transition...

Then about concurrence: same hw, same network, very similar prices, many games that runnon both (and cost almost the same).... I'm sure Sony and Ms are both considering this. So HW differentiation is something valuable....

 

That would be BC, not FC. FC means taking games made for PS5. BC means PS5 playing games made for PS4. You want PS5 to play PS5 games, and devs to port cross-gen the same way they always have done, or design for PS4 gen and just rely on BC on PS5.

Why? What's the problem? What organisations will complain and what will there reasons be?

Why?? As long as Sony keep the customers, there's no issue. In fact, the faster the transition, the less they need worry about supporting PS4 with updates and whatnot. I can't see any reason to want to drag a generation on once a new one is released. Unless you can sell machines at a budget price like PS2.

 

Do you think there are so many people (100 millions) wanting to dismiss a quite well working PS4 to spend money and get a PS5 ? Sony's success in this gen of course pushes towards any strategy to prolong ps4 lifes as long as possible and that means let new games arrive... I think in the beg PS5 will just render 60 fps where PS4-pro render 30 fps (and ps4 maybe 900p) and BIG THING have much faster loading time. This is the target IMHO.

 

Yes. It's significantly better. Same reason people replace their perfectly adequate mobiles with better ones after a few years, or upgrade their TV to a better one after a few years. What makes PS4 unique in people not wanting a better option, unlike every other console and CE product?

Well if that's all PS5 offers than no-one will want to upgrade, but that's not at all what PS5 is. It's a new console, same as every other PS iteration; vastly superior and offering a much improved gaming experience.

You also don't need FC to enable that. Those games can be PS4 games ran on BC, or just ported. FC would mean every game on PS5, even released in 2025, would run on PS4, which no-one would want.

 

Yes of course. Not perfect FC... In that case it would be called ps4-pro2 ... I mean the direction Sony wants things moving -in my opinion- looks this....

 

Forward compatibility could be always be offered through streaming. Given that both MS and Sony have made hefty bets on streaming as an attempt on making it a viable part of their ecosystem. Offering FC through streaming would be an another added incentive to encourage the user base to support the service. Plus it doesn’t require convincing devs to make additional investments in supporting a dying system.

 

Your only thinking about graphics which is the easiest thing to scale.
Game my not look good but you could scale it down.
Storage isn't just slightly faster loading, it's the equivalent of going from running a game from disc to being able to develop knowing it's from a HDD. You can make design decisions around it. Games just wouldn't work streaming from optical disc.
But even if your willing to compromise that.

The CPU isn't just making games run at either 30 or 60fps and driving resolutions.
It's everything else the CPU does that you just wouldn't be able to scale down the way you can graphics.
Very simple example, walking down a street with 50 intelligent npc's, compared to 5 dumb npc's. This would make it a very different game, and harder to design around.

 

While you have a point that CPU load can't necessarily be scaled with the same ease as GPU load, I think you overstate it. Forward compatibility only applies when new games are developed. So rather than having 50 people milling about, they would in the case of previous gen hardware detected, only have 20. This has been done time and again, and it works - these kinds of characters are only environmental fillers anyway.

What I'm trying to say is that at the time of development of of future generation titles, the previous generation hardware are known and well defined targets - cutting to get acceptable performance on a fixed target hardware is doable and frequently done. It is more work than just reducing resolution and removing a costly rendering step, but in the greater scheme of things of total development, marketing and distribution costs for a game, the effort required is really modest compared to the market you can reach, and the customer goodwill you generate. And our current stationary consoles really invite this, compared to other such projects we see in the industry such as porting Wii-U games to 3DS (!!!) where the overall architectures and capabilities are much further apart. And if developers know in advance that forward compatibility is a requirement, their job is way easier than if they have to do a retroactive hack job.