Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Shifty Geezer]

It's actually a significant consideration. We've all been thinking if GPGPU, but we don't yet have any examples of GPU-centric workloads, do we? So how much GPGPU is possible before the GPU starts to become inefficient?

I imagine that's an unanswerable question, and hardware design will just marry a decent CPU with a decent GPU and cross finger.

 

[Brimstone]

The big advantage to 4k would be split screen like in a first person shooter. Have a few buddies over and play online together.

Imagine a 80" 4k TV.
Imagine four 720p player windows that fit into that space.

Render four seperate player windows at 480p and upscale each to 720p.


4k seems really usefull to me, but obviously not eveyone will have 4k TV.

 

[IllusionistK]

I don't know guys... I feel AMD has shot themselves in the foot with Tahiti's compute capabilities because it has made a GPU that's relatively too power hungry to go into a console where there aren't any benefits. I really don't see GPGPU taking off in consoles where the CPU is infinitely more flexible and cheaper to work with.

For that reason, Kepler's per watt performance has really change my outlook on next gen consoles and what brand of GPU they will ship with.

Of course, I'm speaking in terms of high-end offerings. If Sony decides to go with GK104 and Microsoft decides to go with Pitcairn, I see them relinquishing sales to Sony.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't know guys... I feel AMD has shot themselves in the foot with Tahiti's compute capabilities because it has made a GPU that's relatively too power hungry to go into a console where there aren't any benefits. I really don't see GPGPU taking off in consoles where the CPU is infinitely more flexible and cheaper to work with.

For that reason, Kepler's per watt performance has really change my outlook on next gen consoles and what brand of GPU they will ship with.

Of course, I'm speaking in terms of high-end offerings. If Sony decides to go with GK104 and Microsoft decides to go with Pitcairn, I see them relinquishing sales to Sony.

Huh? Kepler's average per watt performance isn't dissimilar from Tahiti when you examine them closely, you talk like there's a huge gulf in their performance. Pitcairn is better performance per watt over kepler, by at least as much as kepler is better than tahiti (I'd actually say Kepler beats tahiti by around 5% and pitcairn beats kepler by 30% and tahiti pro actually edges kepler often in this metric, but that can vary by where you're looking). And in a closed console environment that compute power might not be wasted. Not that I expect any of the above to appear as is in a next gen console.

 

[-tkf-]

4k if the hardware supports it would lend itself to a distinct few types of very stylish games, flower, journey, stardust etc.. Imagine Sony and Microsoft demoing next gen on a 4k cinema projector

 

[AlphaWolf]

4k next gen will be at most as important as 1080p was to the ps2.

 

[wco81]

What's the highest resolution anyone's got the latest games, like BF3, running at? What sort of resources is it taking? As ever (there's a whole thread on this), 4k isn't going to happen, so isn't a target. The companies will just put in the business-derived choice of hardware hitting the performance enveleope they want, and rendering resolution will like be up to the devs. I doubt even 1080p will be mandated. 720p was dropped as a mandate this gen, and some of the best selling games were sub-720p proving it's an artificial requirement to impose.

Sony may want to tout 4K capability as they push for a new upgrade cycle to help their TV business.

They have a Blu Ray player which will apparently upscale to 4K so they must be planning to release 4K TVs in the near future.

 

[MrFox]

Sony already has a high-end 4K projector coming out, there's a 56" 4k 3D TVs.
JVC has a projector coming out too (it's fake 4k, but still).
RED announced a high-end 4k 3D projector.
LG and Samsung have 4K TV announced.
Toshiba showed 4K glass-free TVs.
Sharp has a 4K prototype shown to the public.

I think it's all or mostly launching in 2012.
It's absolutely impossible that the PS4 doesn't support 4K playback. Games is another question, because HDMI 1.4 supports 4K only at 30p. Might be as rare as today's 1080p games

 

[wco81]

I've heard talk about an HDMI 2.0 standard too.

If not, could DP or Thunderbolt be used for the display interconnects?

 

[steviep]

I don't know guys... I feel AMD has shot themselves in the foot with Tahiti's compute capabilities because it has made a GPU that's relatively too power hungry to go into a console where there aren't any benefits. I really don't see GPGPU taking off in consoles where the CPU is infinitely more flexible and cheaper to work with.

For that reason, Kepler's per watt performance has really change my outlook on next gen consoles and what brand of GPU they will ship with.

Of course, I'm speaking in terms of high-end offerings. If Sony decides to go with GK104 and Microsoft decides to go with Pitcairn, I see them relinquishing sales to Sony.

All of the consoles are going to have AMD GPUs of varying levels.

 

[Proelite]

Pastebin post from back in December.

http://pastebin.com/j4jVaUv0

So much bull in that article, i7 level cpu?. PS4 without harddrive?

Interesting enough, he got the code names right.

 

[liolio]

New PS4 rumor stolen from GAF:





http://kotaku.com/5896996/the-next-playstation-is-called-orbis-sources-say-here-are-the-details

IMO whoever made the claim that games will be capable of 4096x2160 resolution was smoking something.

OR simply dumbly quote eyefinity capability with understanding in the slighest what he was speaking about

With a 2013 launch date I would happily discard all the talk from Charlie about interposer, crazy big chip, etc.

A kaveri + is what we are looking at.

EDIT
And the BS about it ie speaking really high resolution, etc /usual shit screams to me that the rumors is legit.
EDIT
With Kaveri being basically a quad core two module cpu stuck to a cap verde pro (8CU) I can definitely understand the need to pimp things up... It's already working it seems...

 

[user542745831]

Games is another question, because HDMI 1.4 supports 4K only at 30p.

http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=101

• 3840x2160 24Hz/25Hz/30Hz
• 4096x2160 24Hz

 

[Kaotik]

IIRC there has been talk about Blu-rays moving to 2160p in "near future", so it could just indicate that the console would be capable of delivering just that. Games being different thing alltogether

edit: is the 2160p24 with 3GHz HDMI or "regular HDMI 1.4"?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony may want to tout 4K capability as they push for a new upgrade cycle to help their TV business.

They have a Blu Ray player which will apparently upscale to 4K so they must be planning to release 4K TVs in the near future.

It's still immaterial. Supporting 4k just means being able to output it. The hardware isn't going to be specifically targeted at 4k any more than off-the-shelf GPU targets a specific resolution. 4k output is a given as it costs very little to add, and then the platform will be future-proofed for displays. Maybe some games will render 4k, especially 2D games, in the same way 1080p was targeted this gen. Maybe some games will upscale, and maybe many more will output 1080p and let the TV upscale. It makes no difference to the next-gen console tech though.

 

[patsu]

I'll take split screen (dual view point) 1080p 3D. That should be about 4K load ? [size=-2]60fps ?[/size]

 

[Rangers]

The ability to display 4k can be met by supporting HDMI 1.4 and not putting any hard limits in the scaling or rendering ability of console below that limit.
HD content could be scaled, and the GPU could be capable of rendering at that high a resolution (with no requirement that it ever be used extensively or be all that performant doing so).

Exactly. No way 4K is going to be used in games (unless you want your visuals to lack compared to competition).

I think it's safe assumption 4K output will be supported, just like 1080P is on current consoles even though most games are 720P.

If you look at one of Kotakus links to a random internet post of the first mention of Orbis, you'll see the alleged specs are allegedly significantly lower than Xbox3 (for example, 2GB of RAM=Orbis, 4GB of RAM=XB3). So in that sense, you're not going to have the kind of power surplus to be using wild resolutions.

It kind of makes me put Epic's power pushing in a new light. It suddenly makes sense as Epic's attempt to push Sony to boost their baseline so as not to limit multiplats. Not saying that is what is going on, but it would make sense. Particularly if PS4 is slated currently for 2GB while XB3 for 4GB, one can see very specifically Epic not being happy with that 2GB baseline.

My sense would be if PS4 is really say, half the RAM of XB3, Epic neednt worry, the market would likely consolidate around XB3 (especially assuming they both launch the same year), and PS4 will have little market presence. Power is really all that matters in core videogaming, and everybody knows it.

 

[Rangers]

I don't know guys... I feel AMD has shot themselves in the foot with Tahiti's compute capabilities because it has made a GPU that's relatively too power hungry to go into a console where there aren't any benefits. I really don't see GPGPU taking off in consoles where the CPU is infinitely more flexible and cheaper to work with.

For that reason, Kepler's per watt performance has really change my outlook on next gen consoles and what brand of GPU they will ship with.

Of course, I'm speaking in terms of high-end offerings. If Sony decides to go with GK104 and Microsoft decides to go with Pitcairn, I see them relinquishing sales to Sony.

Yeah, Kepler would be the better console GPU for sure it seems. Pretty odd how Sony jumped ship at exactly the wrong time. Prior to Kepler AMD was the markedly superior choice imo.

A major point of Kepler is less compute focus more gaming focus, which obviously suits consoles to a tee.

I dont think MS would go with Nvidia. You never know though, would be wild.

 

[steviep]

Exactly. No way 4K is going to be used in games (unless you want your visuals to lack compared to competition).

I think it's safe assumption 4K output will be supported, just like 1080P is on current consoles even though most games are 720P.

If you look at one of Kotakus links to a random internet post of the first mention of Orbis, you'll see the alleged specs are allegedly significantly lower than Xbox3 (for example, 2GB of RAM=Orbis, 4GB of RAM=XB3). So in that sense, you're not going to have the kind of power surplus to be using wild resolutions.

It kind of makes me put Epic's power pushing in a new light. It suddenly makes sense as Epic's attempt to push Sony to boost their baseline so as not to limit multiplats. Not saying that is what is going on, but it would make sense.

My sense would be if PS4 is really say, half the RAM of XB3, Epic neednt worry, the market would likely consolidate around XB3 (especially assuming they both launch the same year), and PS4 will have little market presence. Power is really all that matters in core videogaming, and everybody knows it.

Those pastebin specs aren't accurate... lol. Intentional obfuscation there, despite being correct in areas. Though I wouldn't expect you to pick up on it considering that it mentions that the Xbox is "double" the PS4 (lol 32 bit vs 64 bit... as if AMD makes 32-bit-only CPUs).

The notion that power is all that really matters in consoles is a laughable notion, regardless.

 

[Rangers]

Southern Islands GPU in PS4 would be pretty awesome.

It depends which one.

Though I guess, the very lowest SI available is a nice step up on current consoles, too be sure.

Also, AMD should be slated for a SI refresh around late 2k12/early 2k13, and then a architecture overhaul late 2k13/early 2k14. I'm not sure SI should be cheered all that much, or would even be locked down. Then again, at some set performance level, it doesn't matter too much what GPU is in the kits and what it precisely ships with.