Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [2018]

[anexanhume]

How are you getting a 1.4x IPC improvement? From what I can find it's at least 2.5x.

Initial estimates were 40% over BD/excavator. I’ve never seen a Jaguar comparison, but this is the most conservative I could make it (on top of the conservative clock gains).

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1114...or-under-330-preorder-today-on-sale-march-2nd

I also realistically expect a 3-4x factor, workload dependent.

Edit. Here’s a good source:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1059...art-2-extracting-instructionlevel-parallelism

Let’s say that’s 50% IPC over Jaguar. Add another 5% for Zen+, then another 15% for Zen 2. 1.8x sound fair?

Edit: well well well...
Problem:
https://wccftech.com/sony-ps4-effective-bandwidth-140-gbs-disproportionate-cpu-gpu-scaling/

Solution:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/da/d9/c0/c66d57cd90d787/US20180239722A1.pdf

A patent related to allowing efficient memory sharing that also prioritizes latency sensitive CPU operations. It also includes dynamic per-module clocking based on bandwidth needs.

 

[shiznit]

At least 2.5x over Jaguar going by Cinebench scores.

 

[anexanhume]

At least 2.5x over Jaguar going by Cinebench scores.

Yes, but is that representative of gaming workloads? That’s single-thread results?

 

[chris1515]

Yes, but is that representative of gaming workloads? That’s single-thread results?

https://www.maxon.net/fr/produits/cinebench/

don't know if it s valuable

 

[see colon]

Lol I think more than 10%of games are 60fps but we don't have a lot for sure. Most recently I can't believe Valkyria chronicles 4 is 30fps given the remaster is 60 and they share an engine.

And definitely, TVs with native 120hz panels are safely in the 1000 dollars plus range right now.

Valkyria Chronicles 4 is a perfect example of the stagnation of framerate holding us back, then. What I'm advocating for is 60 being the basement. It should be the lower end target, and 100+ should be as common as true 4k is on XBX or Pro is right now. Some games aren't going to hit it, but some will, and they will be great.

Also, 4K TVs were $1000 a couple years ago also, but you can get one for $500 or less today. 120hz TVs aren't going to be $1000 in 2020.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/461162/average-selling-price-of-4k-tv-worldwide/

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Valkyria Chronicles 4 is a perfect example of the stagnation of framerate holding us back, then. What I'm advocating for is 60 being the basement.

This argument is old and fruitless.
On a TV/Monitor, devs are the only ones who decide if they want 30, 60 or more FPS. You could have a 100 TFLOPs console and you'd still get 30 FPS titles because the dev decided he wanted some very demanding effects (like #gasp# raytraced shadows and reflections) for his particular game.
The only situation where a minimum framerate is "mandated" is for VR because otherwise people would get motion sickness. And even then we're seeing various reprojection techniques allowing a minimum of 45 FPS.

Other than that, you can hope for devs and hardware makers to adopt variable refresh rate that will put sub-60 FPS games working between 25 and 59 FPS.


Mandatory 60 FPS won't happen because it makes zero sense for many genres where visual fidelity is preferred.

 

[Mihailjones]

Valkyria Chronicles 4 is a perfect example of the stagnation of framerate holding us back, then. What I'm advocating for is 60 being the basement. It should be the lower end target, and 100+ should be as common as true 4k is on XBX or Pro is right now. Some games aren't going to hit it, but some will, and they will be great.

Also, 4K TVs were $1000 a couple years ago also, but you can get one for $500 or less today. 120hz TVs aren't going to be $1000 in 2020.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/461162/average-selling-price-of-4k-tv-worldwide/

I disagree.

It is usually/always PC gamers that want 100+ fps, but is is kind of silly and bad idea om console world.

Yes, it is probably smoother, but does majority of console gamers care? No.

PC is for those that cant play with 30/60 fps, and so it should be.

It would be epic waste of resources&power to aim stupidly high fps with no need. 60fps is enough for 90% of games and gamers.

With "infinite" amount of power, then why not.

Now it would be either great graphics or bad graphics with 100+ fps because some people cant adapt to lower speeds.

Yes, normal gamer will adapt even to stable 30fps and enjoys the game, so if someone cant adapt to that, they should not try to change the system(and make make consoles cost +900€) and just enjoy their higher rates on pc = both gangs are happy.

 

[vipa899]

PC is for those that cant play with 30/60 fps, and so it should be.

Not just that, also for those that want freedom with their software and the highest settings possible, native 4k or higher (some games like REZ remake in 8k or higher is possible), control inputs... can go on.
Im both a console and pc gamer, for the exclusives you must go console, Playstation at that, since there are all the exclusives basicly. Thats mainly cause ive no choice really, if i could play HZD in native 4k/60+fps with perhaps even higher settings and mods, i would.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

I disagree.

It is usually/always PC gamers that want 100+ fps, but is is kind of silly and bad idea om console world.

Yes, it is probably smoother, but does majority of console gamers care? No.

PC is for those that cant play with 30/60 fps, and so it should be.

It would be epic waste of resources&power to aim stupidly high fps with no need. 60fps is enough for 90% of games and gamers.

With "infinite" amount of power, then why not.

Now it would be either great graphics or bad graphics with 100+ fps because some people cant adapt to lower speeds.

Yes, normal gamer will adapt even to stable 30fps and enjoys the game, so if someone cant adapt to that, they should not try to change the system(and make make consoles cost +900€) and just enjoy their higher rates on pc = both gangs are happy.

Agreed and hell I can still adapt to 20fps on N64 (zelda, diddy kong racing wave race etc.) as long as the tv input lag is as low as possible.

Frankly I don't buy it that people can't stand 30fps whatsoever, it has got to be in their heads a lot of the time. Then again, 30fps is worse on a monitor when you're so up close to it but i'm exclusively a console gamer so. That's another reason why I don't game on PC hardly, monitors just don't hold a candle to TV's in terms of anything but input lag, and you inherently need higher framerates when you're so close.

What I will say is for certain genres i've stopped buying games if they're 30fps, mainly racers and first person shooters. Which is fine by me since the best ones like doom and titanfall 2 are 60fps anyway ;p

 

[vipa899]

Then again, 30fps is worse on a monitor when you're so up close to it but i'm exclusively a console gamer so. That's another reason why I don't game on PC hardly, monitors just don't hold a candle to TV's in terms of anything but input lag, and you inherently need higher framerates when you're so close.

I PC and console game on the same TV. Some people play their console on a monitor and pc on tv. Most people i know have their pc to their tv anyways. Even on a TV one can notice the difference between 30 and 60fps games.
Just a side note, being exclusively a gamer to a certain platform only limits yourself to experiences, one can own both and enjoy both worlds.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

I PC and console game on the same TV. Some people play their console on a monitor and pc on tv. Most people i know have their pc to their tv anyways. Even on a TV one can notice the difference between 30 and 60fps games.
Just a side note, being exclusively a gamer to a certain platform only limits yourself to experiences, one can own both and enjoy both worlds.

I wouldn't say I never game on PC, and I do have a capable enough machine. I wouldn't spit in the direction of the console versions of witcher 3 or kingdom come, the former just feels awful at 30fps it kinda has that fable chug going on.

But, the vast majority of games that I care about are on console, and I want ease of use, highest compatibility, a good and simple user experience when playing on TV (it's not the same) and physical games. I don't avoid PC because I don't have the know how, but its greatest strength, that being versatility is also its weakness.

 

[see colon]

I disagree.

It is usually/always PC gamers that want 100+ fps, but is is kind of silly and bad idea om console world.

Yes, it is probably smoother, but does majority of console gamers care? No.

I used to feel the same way until I experienced it. 15-20 FPS used to be enough for me when playing star fox on SNES. 30ish used to be enough for me for most of the PSX/Saturn/N64 generation, even when playing on PC. I had a voodoo1 when quake 2 came out and it averaged in the high 20s in that game. But as time went on and hardware got better, so did the framerates. The dreamcast launched with games that were contemporaneously beautiful and pretty much every launch title had a 60 FPS target, and that continued through most of it's short life cycle. I don't have any stats to back this up, because I don't think any real studies have been done on it, but I think we've regressed in framerate since then. 60 should be the baseline. 100+ should be an option next gen.

This argument is old and fruitless.

I'm old but I have fruit.

 

[turkey]

I am not convinced you would get much benefit on a console at 100fps.

When movement is tied to a mouse and you have such precision control I can see how it will feel better. Your hand is constantly moving during motion so every subtle speed change is then shown.

On analogue sticks on a pad I just don't think you have the input precision to then feel the increase. You hit full lock and don't move your hand, the speed of game motion does not alter.

I am sure some pc pad player will correct me ;/

Reducing the inherent game engine lag I would think would be a better use of development time and then hardware resources for all gamers.

 

[London Geezer]

This talk of anything above 60fps is one of those absurd 'wishes' that PC guys think is the Way It's Meant To Be Played. But of course, it's completely irrelevant to even discuss on consoles, for many, many years.

The levels of Not Going To Happen on this one is off the charts. Move on, we have better things to worry about. Such as, I don't know, actually getting 60fps as a base first?

Honestly, I know we're just discussing and speculating, but some of these tangents are so bloody useless and take up so much space, it's frustrating.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

This talk of anything abouve 60fps is one of those absurd 'wishes' that PC guys think is the Way It's Meant To Be Played. But of course, it's completely useless to even discuss on consoles, for many, many years.

The levels of Not Going To Happen on this one is off the charts. Move on, we have better things to worry about. Such as, I don't know, actually getting 60fps as a base first?

Honestly, I know we're just discussing and speculating, but some of these tangents are so bloody useless and take up so much space, it's frustrating.

I could see some games taking advantage of >75Hz, particularly super fast racing games like Wipeout or fighting games like Street Fighter.

Regardless, apart from VR, resolution and framerate should always be flexible based on the type of game a developer wants to make.

 

[milk]

This talk of anything above 60fps is one of those absurd 'wishes' that PC guys think is the Way It's Meant To Be Played. But of course, it's completely irrelevant to even discuss on consoles, for many, many years.

The levels of Not Going To Happen on this one is off the charts. Move on, we have better things to worry about. Such as, I don't know, actually getting 60fps as a base first?

Honestly, I know we're just discussing and speculating, but some of these tangents are so bloody useless and take up so much space, it's frustrating.

While generally, you are right, I think many simpler games today could benefit of higher refresh. 2D and 2.5D games, games with abstract gfx like SUPER HOT for example, etc. It's sure not a vital feature, but if compatibility with higher refresh was reasonably easy to have, I don't see why not, even if rarely taken advantage of.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I am not convinced you would get much benefit on a console at 100fps.

When movement is tied to a mouse and you have such precision control I can see how it will feel better. Your hand is constantly moving during motion so every subtle speed change is then shown.

On analogue sticks on a pad I just don't think you have the input precision to then feel the increase. You hit full lock and don't move your hand, the speed of game motion does not alter.

I am sure some pc pad player will correct me ;/

Reducing the inherent game engine lag I would think would be a better use of development time and then hardware resources for all gamers.

Higher FPS is better regardless of input type. However, using a controller is part of what makes console games feel smoother at a lower FPS, along with the proper frame pacing and tailored optimization. I recently played through Advanced Warfare on the ancient Xbox 360, and it was quite a pleasant experience just sitting back in a chair, with a high FPS and very good console controls. I did miss the precision afforded by a mouse though. On some games like GTAV, the overall default control mapping is actually better on mouse and keyboard compared to the 360 pad as well. Much easier to look around precisely while driving.

Really depends on the kind of experience you desire, hence why I'm definetly a PC person where I can use whatever the hell I want. But I certainly appreciate some of the aspects of console gaming.

 

[see colon]

This talk of anything above 60fps is one of those absurd 'wishes' that PC guys think is the Way It's Meant To Be Played. But of course, it's completely irrelevant to even discuss on consoles, for many, many years.

The levels of Not Going To Happen on this one is off the charts. Move on, we have better things to worry about. Such as, I don't know, actually getting 60fps as a base first?

Honestly, I know we're just discussing and speculating, but some of these tangents are so bloody useless and take up so much space, it's frustrating.

What I'm advocating for is having 120hz as an option. Sort of like 720p on original xbox. So just like almost every game was 480p on OG xbox, so should almost every game be 60fps on Scarlet/PS5, with some games hitting 120 or at least 75hz.

 

[phoenix_chipset]

75 and 144 hz are Pc centric refreshes. Well 75hz monitors don't even exist anymore do they? Tv's are either 60 or 120hz with various optional interpolation methods for faking anything higher.

You'll only get multiples of 30fps on console and for good reason. If ultra high refresh rates are your thing just stick with PC.

 

[milk]

75 and 144 hz are Pc centric refreshes. Well 75hz monitors don't even exist anymore do they? Tv's are either 60 or 120hz with various optional interpolation methods for faking anything higher.

You'll only get multiples of 30fps on console and for good reason. If ultra high refresh rates are your thing just stick with PC.

Well, if VRR becomes a thing than things like 24, 40, 48, 50, 72, 75Hz, all become possible on monitors with VRR support, no?
I have wondered if running Cuphead at 72fps (24x3) would make animations look visibly smoother since they were built in 24fps in homage to 1920's cinema, but as the game refreshes at 60fps, some animation frames have uneven persistence on screen. Something surely very subtle, but God knows if it's not somewhat noticeable, even if just slightly so.