Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

Seems Unity likely hasn't received Scarlett dev kits yet if Sebbi has to work with MS PR from E3.

 

Or he's using the public numbers and internally knows exactly the ratio, which is probably about 4x. Unity and Epic will be among the first to get dev-kits to get their engines ready for other devs creating games with them.

 

There are no interview where Spencer claim the gpu is 4x faster. The only PR we have is a rather misleading unveiling saying the console "have 4x more compute power" which was later precised in a single Spencer interview, he said it's only about the cpu.

Because messaging remains quite difficult for them.

 

This.

Anyone believing a 4x increase in GPU compute over X's Scorpio engine (6TF) is being quite delusional. We're talking 24TF in Vega/Polaris terms or 17-18TF in Navi metrics. Either way, we're not getting those types of percentages (flops) from any next-generation system. Something between 10-11TF would be reasonable for $499 boxes.

 

The problem with that is Sebbbi is saying 120 Hz is readily doable next-gen, and he's not daft enough to take a silly PR statement at face value. To recap...

AngeloPesce : "I don't think you'll see 120hz anything."
Sebbbi : "Xbox One X runs Overwatch already at 60 fps at 4K. 4x faster GPU + 8 core Zen 2 would easily achieve 120 fps."

If he knows the next XBox is nothing like that powerful, why encourage expectations of 120 Hz games? Why not just not reply? Or does he not have access to hardware and genuinely believes the PR statement and is expecting an 18 TF GPU?

No explanation really scans.

 

And we already have TDP numbers for navi on 7nm so anything more is going into the crazy wattage territory.

I'll be super happy if it ends up a 10TF Navi. In practice it would be 2x scorpio or 3x ps4pro. It fits with the expected 2x to 3x more memory bandwidth from gddr6.

The only surprises left would be the clocks and the ray tracing hardware, or some dramatic development in temporal reprojection, upscaling, etc... Which might give a convincing higher apparent resolution and frame rate than the amount underlying data generated per frame. We already have that, but the more you push the frame rate, the more similarities there is between frames.

 

On a console...really would be a surprise.

 

LowSysReq eSport/F2P games on gen8 [Rocket League, Overwatch, Warframe...] will probably be first to take advantage of 4K120 modes on gen9.

With some visual tweaks [reduced shadows & postprocessing], many good optimized AAA games from gen8 could go well over 100fps on ~1080Ti level of GPU [Doom, Destiny 2, CODs, Battlefields].

And that's without taking in consideration resolution & temporal upscaling that will help with sub-4K rendering.

If devs want to support it, there will be 4K120 [native/non-native] games. And for TV screens with VRR, devs don't even need to hit 120fps. They can hard-limit the game at lets say 100fps and leave it to TV to display it at perfect cadence. Battle(Non)Sense talked about this on YT, that 144 VRR PC gamers always to find framerate that their configuration can always deliver, and then cap the game at that framerate to get perfect frame cadence [lets say 110).

 

If Sebbi was legitimately talking about 4x GPU compute over X's GPU... then we're talking about an APU with dual GPU chiplet design (which would be monolithic). Or a discrete GPU design with more CUs and high clocks on reaching something like 18TF. Either way, wattage/TDP and pricing would be staggering within the game console space. I just don't see this happening...

 

Is Sebbbi commenting that 120Hz is doable based on the technical standards of current XB1/PS4 games today, or is factoring in the inevitable increase in polygons, textures and shader complexity for games? That in itself is difficult to predict as there is such a chasm in technical demands based on game design, engine and art. Games with art like Borderlines or Dishonoured looks like shoe-ins at higher frame rates even with technical advances but can we expect The Division 3, Assassin's Creed uhh.. 8?, Destiny 3, and The Last of Us 2 to run at 120Hz?

Sebbbi! Speak! Put us out of your misery!

 

The obvious reference point being there that if devs wanted to support 60 fps on every previous generation, they could, but oh so often they didn't. The interest in HFR over eye-candy will likely be niche. Maybe for eSports titles as you say. But I don't see why next-gen will yield a significant number of 120 Hz games when half that framerate isn't even a basic standard.

 

He's saying its doable because of all the 60fps games on the original X360 and PS3. Now even more 60fps are on current gen. Read the entire Twitter thread for the context that is needed. I dont think any of us here would consider there being sizable number of 60fps games on PS360 generation.

 

According to Liabe Brave: Base PS4 already has at least 5 games running at 120fps
Pro has at least 7 of those.

Example: Polybius, Playroom, Trackmania turbo (on Pro)

I think Fortnite, Overwatch and Call of duty (probably not Battlefield) will have a 120fps mode on nextgen and those modes will probably be used in e-sports.

 

The current-gen games that support 120fps are all PSVR games.

There's no PS4 game that supports 120 FPS to be displayed on a TV AFAIK.
But the PS5 might have those. since the HDMI 2.1 4K TVs might come with 120Hz panels. At least the new LG C9 OLED TVs with HDMI 2.1 (is there any other TV with full compliance on the new standard?) support 120Hz 4K.

Considering how the games on the PC are getting about twice the performance on 1440p that they get on 4K, Sebbi's statement of prefering to use 1440p + temporal reconstruction over 2160p makes sense to provide detail + reduced lag + better motion perception.
I'd even bet that on a HDMI 2.1 TV that supports VRR you don't really need to hit 120Hz for a temporal reconstruction that makes a very discernible difference to 4K.
If they just send 1440p + temporal upscale at 90 FPS which should be well within range for most HDMI 2.1 TVs, I'll bet most people wouldn't notice any difference to 90 FPS rendered at 4K. Perhaps not even at 75 FPS.

 

Maybe taken into account the efficiency of HW accelerated RT?

 

I wish they would just stay on 1080p and 30/60fps.

Instead of wasting specs for 4k(useless for most, unless your tv is GIGANTIC and/or sitting ams lenght away) or 120fps which is even more useless for consoles, excluding VR.

Or, give us 1080/60 mode with higher details for every game and it would be fine.

 

I hope more do what Sebbbi is pushing for, 1440p native with High Render rates to make temporal reconstruction extremely nice for any higher resolutions.

 

1080p even with Über amounts of AA sampling can't visually compare with the clarity 4K offers with high frequency details, long draw distance details, and a higher pixel density suitable for cleaner / more distinguishable shaders and textures.

That being said, CBR should be a great middle-ground towards higher resolutions and more stable (or higher) framerates.

 

Yes for sure.

 

I see people repeating all the claim from AMDs marketing that Navi has 25% more performance per clock than their 14nm GPUs. Many are even mistakenly saying it's 50% more. Are there any reviews that tested this? Can someone please link?