12-15 IIRCSo out of curiosity, what is your expectation for next gen console hw?
I read some articles about 7nm being called 10nm by Intel. Is that rubbish ?
12-15 IIRCSo out of curiosity, what is your expectation for next gen console hw?
The smallest feature size as an indication of the node performance is getting crazy. There seems to be that much of a difference where intel 10nm is similar to others 7nm.12-15 IIRC
I read some articles about 7nm being called 10nm by Intel. Is that rubbish ?
So out of curiosity, what is your expectation for next gen console hw?
I thought you already knew?
You were picking a fight with a strawman.I was mistaken and I was curious to know what the size of my mistake was. After all the topic is next gen hw and what's the point to post into thread if it's not related to next gen hw?
Intel's 10nm is roughly following its cadence, which is improving transistor and interconnect density in step with each of its nodes.12-15 IIRC
I read some articles about 7nm being called 10nm by Intel. Is that rubbish ?
And if so, if PS5 is hitting 160W-180W max, how much tflops at 7nm can we reasonably expect ?
180W on 7nm should give you at least 7000 horsepower.
I hope they'll launch the same year, because it's going to be as epic as 2013.Its the consensus that PS5 will be the next console released, but is it beyond MS to release the next Xbox before PS5?
I mean 2 mid gen upgrade = 1 next gen jump?
Sony launching the Pro a year earlier was a very weird move.
I bet Sony could launch 6TF machine in 2016 too. PS4 Pro even has features X does not. It's a matter of price. They clearly intended to price it $399. Even after year X is $100 more expensive.The pressure to launch earlier is on the challenger, but it's a double edge sword since launching later allows better hardware specs. Sony launching the Pro a year earlier was a very weird move.
I think you've mixed it up a bit, IIRC Intel's 10nm is about similar size as competitors 7nm. The reality is that all those numbers are pure marketing these days and Intel just pretties up their numbers less than the competitionI read some articles about 7nm being called 10nm by Intel. Is that rubbish ?
Yes of course they could only double the GPU because of hardware BC.Really? I think they tried to force to board to their advantage, while they had the upper hand.
I mean, we are all giving MS well deserved credit for their BC/FC with the XBX. If Sony were to make the a big jump like MS did, they might not have been able to run PS4 software as is. And I assume that Sony does not have similar capability in the BC/FC department at the moment. And if that is the case, they might have ended up releasing a PS4P+ that might have had interop issues with PS4 software.
All of this is pure speculation of course. But I do wonder how Sony can counter MS and their BC solution. And even more puzzled if the BC capability actually does matter.
Another question does the XBX BC stuff work for indie titles also?
Darn, I think I should have split this into different thread..... lazy
//Edit : Added question about correct thread.
Yes of course they could only double the GPU because of hardware BC.
But they could have used a better cooling solution, a more efficient PSU, overclocked the CPU / GPU a bit more (Microsoft did) and used a faster memory. But that would have meant 500$ instead of 400$.
The big surprise is why Microsoft launched one year later...
I don't follow.But still allow their hardware-level compatibility which seems to be more important to Sony than MS.
Suppose the Pro was clocked like the X, it would be about 5.5TF which was sony's second choice. They said it was lowered to 4.2 because of costs.