Southern Islands wasn't ready when the dev kits went out. As an example, Cape Verde's were not available to assemble in December/January.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
Southern Islands wasn't ready when the dev kits went out. As an example, Cape Verde's were not available to assemble in December/January.
Been reading many articles on gamasutra in which devs seem to suggest there will be less of an emphasis on all out costly power next gen.
Wouldn't surprise me at all. MS ans Sony have been watching Nintendo and Apple drink their milkshakes with lower spec, profitable hardware. That must have an impact on your thinking.
Wouldn't surprise me at all. MS ans Sony have been watching Nintendo and Apple drink their milkshakes with lower spec, profitable hardware. That must have an impact on your thinking.
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
Agree 100%.
Still doesn't make sense. Why not give them a 6850 or something? There's not much reason to use something as weak as a 6670 in your dev kit unless that is your intended performance, which would be really really sad.
Yet the recommended GPU for Binary Domain PC is a HD 5850 (fresh in my mind, saw it posted on GAF yesterday)...that's like 10X Xbox, and I guarantee my Mom wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Or just look at Witcher 2 comparison video PC high versus 360...and Witcher 2 very demanding PC game...
But we're not really arguing so lets not continue
Though I do think most everything in PC world is just console stuff uprezzed, so stuff built for even a 7750/70 on console will look better than what a 6970 does with shoddy console ports.Like I said, a better way to look at it is compare it to current gen games. Look at KZ3, UC3 or Gears 3, then think what they can do with 4X-6X that power (if you are looking to a low specced next gen box.
I agree that's a good point, but Vita is bombing, terribly so. Everywhere Sony is getting hit with the message "more power doesn't matter". PS3 is supposedly more powerful than 360, only doing OK. Now Vita, PSP before that...
Now imo handheld market is nothing like console, so Vita's fail is not because it's powerful. I doubt Sony gets the distinction though.
I think it is off topic, but it dovetails, is Vita and the PSP before it are more of a software issue than the console. Sony continues to put home console content on a handheld which I think it a huge mistake. The other issue I saw from trying one (man is THAT screen AMAZING looking, totally sexy device and it feels GREAT in the hands) is the load times are horrible. We tried MNR and the load times were unbearable. I also think Sony not sticking an HDMI or providing a dock was a huge mistake.
Which comes back to home consoles: The Wii was unique in that it offered a totally unique experience (waggle) not seen elsewhere. That and their family friendly approach really made them a perfect candidate for a huge industry niche. But like the PSP I don't think it is a given to shoe horn a different model into the home console market, e.g. budget hardware. Basically it reeks of desperation and trying to further commoditize the market with the agenda to launch a new platform for the sake of launching a new platform. It is almost ironic that when in the past 5 years would pass and you saw an 8x density increase and frequencies double, triple, even quadruple resulting in fantastic performance leaps and now with a 7-8 year cycle we are seeing frequencies and core counts possibly stagnate with only architectural changes and actual launch-budgets for silicon decreasing.
Ranger, thanks for the Witcher video. Hate to say it but it is hard to justify the difference. If someone asked a normal consumer: You can play sample (a) on a $149 or even $99 console in 2013 or play sample (b) on a $299-$399 console (and whatever premiums they are asking in game price hikes, inflated peripheral costs, etc) in 2013 I am not sure the difference, which many would not see (insert huge crowd who prefers the COLORS of the Xbox version!), would motivate a purchase.
So going back to the thread intent: I am unsure of this prediction but you have to be bold at times:
(A) Sony is going to go with a cheaper console design, try to be co-launched or early (2012? early 2013?), go with a robust APU on an interposer with an advanced memory architecture. In fact I think the AMD Interposer with a Chip and Stacked memory that AMD let SA take a shot of was a sampled PS4. Sony sees how MS spun off most of their 1st parties and will move forward with a focus on software.
(B) MS is going to not miss the opportunity Sony had in 2005 and will go for the win with a more robust console. I think architecturally they will be attempting to leverage some sort of APU (I think this is why they brought on Marc Tremblay from Sun) with the CPU as well. MS won't design anything that costs more than $399.
I fear B is false, but that is what I am predicting because I think developers are telling MS that a 6670 isn't going to cut it for what next gen visuals and processing power should be. Strategically with Sony struggling fiscally and going for a more streamlined console MS sees a real opportunity to stay remotely close on costs but, unlike the inflated PS3 performance numbers, has a real chance to be heads and shoulders faster. An opportunity to be the last man standing for the console-gaming hub is too much for MS to pass over.
Which comes back to home consoles: The Wii was unique in that it offered a totally unique experience (waggle) not seen elsewhere. That and their family friendly approach really made them a perfect candidate for a huge industry niche. But like the PSP I don't think it is a given to shoe horn a different model into the home console market, e.g. budget hardware. Basically it reeks of desperation and trying to further commoditize the market with the agenda to launch a new platform for the sake of launching a new platform. It is almost ironic that when in the past 5 years would pass and you saw an 8x density increase and frequencies double, triple, even quadruple resulting in fantastic performance leaps and now with a 7-8 year cycle we are seeing frequencies and core counts possibly stagnate with only architectural changes and actual launch-budgets for silicon decreasing.
Ranger, thanks for the Witcher video. Hate to say it but it is hard to justify the difference. If someone asked a normal consumer: You can play sample (a) on a $149 or even $99 console in 2013 or play sample (b) on a $299-$399 console (and whatever premiums they are asking in game price hikes, inflated peripheral costs, etc) in 2013 I am not sure the difference, which many would not see (insert huge crowd who prefers the COLORS of the Xbox version!), would motivate a purchase.
So going back to the thread intent: I am unsure of this prediction but you have to be bold at times:
(A) Sony is going to go with a cheaper console design, try to be co-launched or early (2012? early 2013?), go with a robust APU on an interposer with an advanced memory architecture. In fact I think the AMD Interposer with a Chip and Stacked memory that AMD let SA take a shot of was a sampled PS4. Sony sees how MS spun off most of their 1st parties and will move forward with a focus on software.
(B) MS is going to not miss the opportunity Sony had in 2005 and will go for the win with a more robust console. I think architecturally they will be attempting to leverage some sort of APU (I think this is why they brought on Marc Tremblay from Sun) with the CPU as well. MS won't design anything that costs more than $399.
I fear B is false, but that is what I am predicting because I think developers are telling MS that a 6670 isn't going to cut it for what next gen visuals and processing power should be. Strategically with Sony struggling fiscally and going for a more streamlined console MS sees a real opportunity to stay remotely close on costs but, unlike the inflated PS3 performance numbers, has a real chance to be heads and shoulders faster. An opportunity to be the last man standing for the console-gaming hub is too much for MS to pass over.
This guy does a pretty good job at showing the difference between Highest and lowest setting on.
I've been been watching his vid every once in while for may be six months now.
It's pretty obvious are so fined tuned for 7 years old console that the difference can be minimal between high end and low end setting. There are also lot of details that are lost due to compression still it gives a picture of the situation on.
But at this point I'm convince that even half a TFLOPS deficit in one system vs another won't prevent the lesser system to run the same game and do the same stuff as the more powerful set-up.
The difference may touch to not that obvious stuff (better lightning, shadowing) which in the heat of action...
Actually a significant gap in CPU power actually migh prove more problematic than in between the GPU.
This gen required a lot of efforts to tell system a part. And people were especially regarding as one system had been touted way more powerful.
Depending on the PR line next gen it could not be the most sensible subject. It could be about the while environment, fee or free and overall online policies, inputs methods, the Os, etc.. and always critical the price.
People got mental this gen about comparing the ps360 because they were so close. if the difference had been a bit more obvious it would had turned into a non subjet way earlier. And the focus would have been elsewhere.
EDIT
I also believe the limitation of the display which are a non subject are taming the difference.
Constrast is not that good, high luminosity for display not that high. Then there are color, thing are compute in fp10 or more quiet often and ended in RGB.
It's a bit like a guy that would have a great guitar set-up, tube amps etc. and then record in numeric with shitty analogic/numeric convertor, with weak dynamic range, low sampling rate, etc.
That's a bit the situation, thing are somehow tamed down by the average display.
I've been been watching his vid every once in while for may be six months now.
It's pretty obvious are so fined tuned for 7 years old console that the difference can be minimal between high end and low end setting. There are also lot of details that are lost due to compression still it gives a picture of the situation on.
But at this point I'm convince that even half a TFLOPS deficit in one system vs another won't prevent the lesser system to run the same game and do the same stuff as the more powerful set-up.
The difference may touch to not that obvious stuff (better lightning, shadowing) which in the heat of action...
Actually a significant gap in CPU power actually migh prove more problematic than in between the GPU.
This gen required a lot of efforts to tell system a part. And people were especially regarding as one system had been touted way more powerful.
Depending on the PR line next gen it could not be the most sensible subject. It could be about the while environment, fee or free and overall online policies, inputs methods, the Os, etc.. and always critical the price.
People got mental this gen about comparing the ps360 because they were so close. if the difference had been a bit more obvious it would had turned into a non subjet way earlier. And the focus would have been elsewhere.
EDIT
I also believe the limitation of the display which are a non subject are taming the difference.
Constrast is not that good, high luminosity for display not that high. Then there are color, thing are compute in fp10 or more quiet often and ended in RGB.
It's a bit like a guy that would have a great guitar set-up, tube amps etc. and then record in numeric with shitty analogic/numeric convertor, with weak dynamic range, low sampling rate, etc.
That's a bit the situation, thing are somehow tamed down by the average display.
Last edited by a moderator:
The recommended specs are almost totally irrelevant to this point. They're based on higher resolution, higher framerates and tweaked graphics which may not be all that noticeable (e.g. higher res shadow maps, FP16 HDR) but suck down a lot more power. No-ones saying that enhanced PC graphics which go above the console baseline aren't horribly inefficient in many cases, but that's just a coding problem, nothing to do with hardware capability. If someone sat down and coded the Witcher 2 or Binary Domain (never actually heard of it) specifically for the 5850 as a baseline, even on PC, I guarantee your mum would be able to tell the difference and an optimised console version wouldn't come close.
A far more valuable comparison is to look at how cross platform games perform on the PC at the same settings as the console version. So bump the res down to sub 720p, bump the graphics settings down from ultra to medium, knock your control panel quality settings down to low/medium, make your target framerate in the 35fps region. Now take a look at how a modern (modern because older architectures lose both driver and developer support) PC architecture that has roughly double the power of the consoles (i.e. entry level) fairs in cross platform games. Or for a very rough ballbark example of the above scenario, just go and look at some Llano benchmarks. You'll find at roughly double the power if has no problem playing cross platform games at console settings and often exceeding console levels of performance. If consoles were 3x as efficient that simply wouldn't be possible.
But not at medium quality and 720p with a 35fps performance target.
Yes I agree games designed with that kind of power as a baseline will look much better than what's available on PC today even given the PC's greater maximum capabilities. But a PC of 8x-12x the power of current consoles (roughly 6970 level) should have no problem running those visuals. It's not going to take 12x-18x to do so (680+ level).
Of course, the above is just theoretical since I expect the next console to be sporting at least 10x the power of current gen consoles, even the latest rumors suggest that big a jump. So we may be looking at PC's with 20x the performance over current gen consoles to match them, or in other words, 680 level performance might not cut it later in those consoles life. Although in the early years it should be fine since it usually takes consoles a while to attain that 2x performance advantage due to developer learning curve.
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
They are having exactly the same problem that Nintendo had with 3DS, there is not a single game that right now compels me to buy a VITA. Without software, the hardware is useless.
Assuming an external box contains the essentials of PS3, Cell+RSX+RAM, then very little for the IO. If the external box uses the internal RAM of PS4, you'd need anything up to ~50 GBs. No connection I know of can do that, meaning it'd need a proprietary connector, or could see a revised BC module years later when an external port is fast enough. Perhaps Cell and RSX could be a single chip solution with XDR, and the PS4 VRAM used as PS3 RAM, over PCIe 2 or LightPeak++ or whatever exists providing 20 GB/s. Although by then I'm sure PS3 BC will be irrelevant.
HT 3.1 can do 25.6GB/s per direction, so 51GB/s aggregate, and at probably better efficiencies than the existing links. Using *detachable* connectors that already exist, up to 1m away. Practically owned by AMD, and already in production. I'd fully expect that a 32-bit HT 3.1 link between cell+rsx and the main ram would have higher achievable throughput and lower latency than the existing solution.
As a downside, it would take a lot of pins. Perhaps BC only in the first, non-shrunk version that can spare the 128 data pins?
Well, sony's patent for their BC module is CPU+GPU+RAM, it's reasonable to expect that's what they'll do. Adding an uber 50GB/s port would waste a lot of silicon and expensive connectors on the console itself. I would think BC's cost has to be in the module, not in the console.
I didn't know about HTX until just looking it up. That sounds like it could work, if it doesn't add latency. Then it'd be matter of pricing HTX support in PS4 against RAM support in the BC addon. But if we're entertaining such ideas, how's about a modular console where users can buy a performance expansion? The basic PS4 is lowish-spec and cheap. An optional upgrade allows BC, while another allows greater performance. You could supply the BC module in the first two years, and then when it becomes less important, provide the upgrade module.
We have first rumbling about x720 CPU, taken from my post in x720 rumor thread [ http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1634804&postcount=159 ]
http://sillegamer.com/2012/04/06/xbox-720-devkit-specs-detailed-includes-16-core-processor/
Rumor number "over 9000", provided by latest issue of Xbox World magazine:
- 16 "core" IMB CPU [most likely quadcore Power7 with 16threads ]
- Radeon 7xxx series GPU [no mention of dual setup]
- Bluray drive
- Kinec taking up to four "cores"
- they are expecting PS4 to be even more powerfull [nothing concrete]
- 3rd party devs will maybe reveal some nextgen games on this year's E3
http://sillegamer.com/2012/04/06/xbox-720-devkit-specs-detailed-includes-16-core-processor/
Rumor number "over 9000", provided by latest issue of Xbox World magazine:
- 16 "core" IMB CPU [most likely quadcore Power7 with 16threads ]
- Radeon 7xxx series GPU [no mention of dual setup]
- Bluray drive
- Kinec taking up to four "cores"
- they are expecting PS4 to be even more powerfull [nothing concrete]
- 3rd party devs will maybe reveal some nextgen games on this year's E3
all of them just old news,like they expecting PS4 is more powerful(i remember i saw that in Jan or Feb)
yeah and no way it's 16cores
If it's really 16 cores, an A2 derivative is back in the game...
If it's true that devs decided to present their next gen game even if ps4 and 720 are a no show at E3, maybe they plan a march 2013 release and try to hold on the secrecy until the last minute. That'd leave little room for devs to present their games and build up hype. Hence the reaction.
If it's true that devs decided to present their next gen game even if ps4 and 720 are a no show at E3, maybe they plan a march 2013 release and try to hold on the secrecy until the last minute. That'd leave little room for devs to present their games and build up hype. Hence the reaction.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
