The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[DuckThor Evil]

Just hoping that "next-gen" consoles will be able to offer much better visuals than just "Frostbite 2" PC Ultra visuals.

Although it, for whatever reason, appears to require quite a lot of hardware power to render games like "Battlefield 3" and "Need for Speed: The Run" with fully maxed out visuals at 1080p60 on PC, they do not necessarily have a "next-gen" feel to them, not even with fully maxed out visuals on PC at 1080p60, don't you think?

Current consoles are holding back PC-versions. Even now that some of the newest PC-games have decent DX11 support, it remains that the games are designed to run on a much lower base configuration. You can crank up computationally expensive effects to make even very powerful PCs struggle, but the performance penalty from those effects imo is far bigger than the bonus in eye candy we receive.

Once the next gen consoles arrive, the base configuration goes up and I believe we'll get much better looking games with more complex geometry etc. Add in the bonuses of closed box and bigger game development budgets and we have a situation where the next gen console visuals should be satisfactory.
Current high end PCs will also run way prettier graphics after the next gen of consoles arrive.

 

[almighty]

Just hoping that "next-gen" consoles will be able to offer much better visuals than just "Frostbite 2" PC Ultra visuals.

Although it, for whatever reason, appears to require quite a lot of hardware power to render games like "Battlefield 3" and "Need for Speed: The Run" with fully maxed out visuals at 1080p60 on PC, they do not necessarily appear to have a "next-gen" feel to them, not even with fully maxed out visuals on PC at 1080p60, don't you think?

You're not getting getting it are you despite me telling you multiple times.

Taking NFS: The Run as an example,

Consoles run the game at 1280x720 @ 30fps

Now to a PC version,

1920x1080 @ 30fps requires ~2x the processing power

1920x1080 @ 60fps requires another ~2x jump in processing power.

So going from 1280x720 @ 30fps to 1920x1080 @ 60 is a 4x jump in rendering requirements and performance.

And that's before you start adding in extra effects, higher quality assets and anti-aliasing and texture filtering.

You can say that a PC rendering The Run at 1920x1080 @ 60fps with 4xMSAA & 16AF is having to do 5-6x times the rendering work then a console running the game at 1280x720 @ 30fps.

360 and PS3 would of shown a much much bigger leap in graphics over X-box and PS2 if they didn't have to render in the 'HD era', that is where a lot of there power was wasted and why the jump at times seemed so small. The extra power the next generation consoles have will more then likely be consumed by natively rendering at 1920x1080.

 

[user542745831]

Not even considering the visuals that are shown off in the video over there for example:

http://www.crydev.net/newspage.php?news=96177

to necessarily have a "next-gen" feel to them .

Not kidding...

There just has to be (much) more than just that ?

 

[tunafish]

You would already be satisfied if "next-gen" consoles would be able to manage BF3 PC Ultra visuals at 1920x1080 and 30fps ?

No. It's not a question of what I want. I'd really like to have 10TFlops of performance with gobs of really fast ram behind a wide bus. It's just that that is not actually something that can be sold to people. Just because I want a flying car does not mean I expect to get one.

The primary constrait on the next gen hardware is power dissipation. The question very much is "how much gpu/cpu power can you stuff into 200W". The answer is "not anywhere near as much as is in high-end gaming PCs." And that's a sad fact of life. Luckily, consoles have other ways to compensate -- namely, there will be much less driver/os overhead, and optimization is easier and pays off better when you a are working against a single spec.

Don't you think that would then be more like PS3.5 / Xbox 540 rather than PS4 / Xbox 720 (or whatever they are going to be called) ?

No. As I said, the real difference between Xenos and 7770 would be roughly similar to the difference between Xenos and XGPU. Do you thing xbox360 should have been called xbox 1.5?

And, as I said, I actually expect somewhat more than 7770. Just not ridiculous builds.

 

[user542745831]

It's not a question of what I want.

But you are (one of) the consumer(s)?

It's just that that is not actually something that can be sold to people.

Why not ?

Just because I want a flying car does not mean I expect to get one.

In 2013, a gaming console equipped with a GPU in the ballpark of a GTX 680 would at least be a little bit more realistic than flying production cars would be in 2013, wouldn't it ?

 

[Arwin]

Especially when one of them don't require new traffic laws.

 

[almighty]

But you are (one of) the consumer(s)?



Why not ?



In 2013, a gaming console equipped with a GPU in the ballpark of a GTX 680 would at least be a little bit more realistic than flying production cars would be in 2013, wouldn't it ?

Yet again NO because of the power consumption and heat

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why not ?

It will cost too much money to be financially viable. Or lose too much money.

where do you get this idea that a console can be as good as a high-end PC? That's outmoded thinking. The PC has accelerated away in terms of power and the consoles cannot compete. It's a ridiculous notion to look to console to provide that level of performance within what we consider a normal box. But agree or not, there's no point repeating this same old discussion again. You want better GPUs and we've all heard that now. It might happen or it might not. People should stick to talking about thermals and costs and die sizes in making these predictions, and determining if XB3 or PS4 will have something akin to a GTX 680 based on considered factors, irrespective of what anyone here wants to see in a console.

 

[user542745831]

It will cost too much money to be financially viable.

And what would you consider to be "too much"?

Besides, just came across this:

http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/g...ive_leap_in_next-gen_console_performance.html

[...]

"If you're talking about the console you plug into the wall at home, I think that needs to be a really big jump," said Rein talking to VideoGamer.com at Develop about next-gen hardware.

"I think it needs to be a really good justifiable, 'Oh my gosh, look what you can do now that you couldn't do before'. And to do that at a reasonable price it just takes time.

"It's going to come out whenever it comes out," he continued, "and again, the whole do it right versus right now thing, I'd much rather get a massive leap in performance and capabilities than get something today."

[...]

 

[Rangers]

I think in the end user54356$%$@#%^$ is right as to what SHOULD happen. A GTX 680 console really should NOT be somehow considered unreasonable (it's a svelte 294mm die after all), and I have no doubt that if any manufacturer had the balls to deliver it they would dominate the market. There is absolutely no doubt, the excitement over such a console and the undisputed fact that it would deliver the best versions of every game over the weaker competition would reign. Further, it could be delivered at 399 I think.

However none of them fundamentally understand the core games market. So of course Shifty is right as to what actually WILL happen. Microsoft will play with themselves while thinking Kinect is amazing, etc.

 

[Arwin]

I think it is also crucial to understand that you don't need a physical 680 in a console to be able to reach the same level of performance as a 680 can currently offer a PC game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And what would you consider to be "too much"?

What do you think the price for "10TFlops of performance with gobs of really fast ram behind a wide bus." would be?

 

[user542745831]

I think in the end user54356$%$@#%^$ is right as to what SHOULD happen. A GTX 680 console really should NOT be somehow considered unreasonable (it's a svelte 294mm die after all), and I have no doubt that if any manufacturer had the balls to deliver it they would dominate the market. There is absolutely no doubt, the excitement over such a console and the undisputed fact that it would deliver the best versions of every game over the weaker competition would reign. Further, it could be delivered at 399 I think.

Finally someone admitting it .

However none of them fundamentally understand the core games market. So of course Shifty is right as to what actually WILL happen. Microsoft will play with themselves while thinking Kinect is amazing, etc.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Actually in the design of a next-gen system it really mostly boils down to a question of cost.

Power consumption is closely coupled to heat generation, and therefore the engineering challenge of dissapating that heat in such a small box.

Heat dissappation in a box as small as a console can be done reasonably well. And 200W can be dissappated quite easily through a clever use of heat pipes and a reasonably sized and well designed heat sink/fan assembly. It isn't trivial, but ultimately it will come down to being a function of cost, as the cooling solution materials and elements can themselves be relatively expensive, and can by other factors like adding extra weight, construction complexity etc, have a knock on effect on other costs associated with console manufacture and distribution.

200W can get us a rather beefy system TBH. It just depends on the pricing targets Sony/MS choose, and how much other stuff they might throw in the box that would add to the system's total power consumption.

We'd be lucky to get a 200W system. I for one doubt we'd get as much as that however.

 

[user542745831]

Don't take it personal, but:

I think it is also crucial to understand that you don't need a physical 680 in a console to be able to reach the same level of performance as a 680 can currently offer a PC game.

Why would you even consider anything below the physical performance/specs of a GTX 680 to be satisfying for a "next-gen" console at all?

What if the upcoming "next-gen" consoles are really going to be out no earlier than late 2013 and are going to have a life cycle of another five to ten years for example?

Do you really wanna do your "next-gen" gaming on a, what only can be considered "lousy" HD 6870/6950 (as rumored in the other thread) in the year 2013, let alone 2014, 2015 and so on ?

Anything below the physical performance/specs of a GTX 680 would be disappointing, wouldn't it?

Also, as already asked before: does anyone here actually consider that "Elemental" UE4 demo shown on a GTX 680 to be THAT impressive looking, let alone ground-breaking? It does not appear to be looking THAT impressive, don't you think?

So why would you be satisfied with anything less than a GTX 680 for "next-gen" ?

One can only hope that nobody who actually is dealing with the hardware design (manufacturers/developers) of those upcoming "next-gen" consoles is reading all the posts here which appear to suggest users would be okay with anything less than the physical performance/specs of a GTX 680 because they fear it could be too expensive and "too powerful" (or whatever) .

And if they are reading those posts, one can only hope they are ignoring them...

 

[Prophecy2k]

Company execs involved in these decisions likely don't read internet forums like these. And even if they did, they wouldn't base their business decisions off the opinions of a handful of anonymous folks on B3D.

They have rigourous marketing, focuss testing and market research for that. And thos will give them a much better and more informed idea about what the masses expect from a next-gen console. Moreso they have an overall business vision, which also isn't influence by us.

So crying indignation because people are having a discussion about what is a realistic expectation for a next-gen console, as opposed to what is pie-in-the-sky fantasy, which also totally ignores critical factors like cost and such, is more than just a little naive.

You can dream all you like for a GTX680 in your next-gen console, but it's unlikely to happen unless any of the companies feel they have a reason to go all out, taking deep and aggressive losses just to get a leg-up over their competitors in terms of market share (which isn't guaranteed, as the weaker console will be invariably the cheaper console, and sale price is a huge factor).

 

[user542745831]

Company execs involved in these decisions likely don't read internet forums like these. And even if they did, they wouldn't base their business decisions off the opinions of a handful of anonymous folks on B3D.

They have rigourous marketing, focuss testing and market research for that. And thos will give them a much better and more informed idea about what the masses expect from a next-gen console. Moreso they have an overall business vision, which also isn't influence by us.

So crying indignation because people are having a discussion about what is a realistic expectation for a next-gen console, as opposed to what is pie-in-the-sky fantasy, which also totally ignores critical factors like cost and such, is more than just a little naive.

You can dream all you like for a GTX680 in your next-gen console, but it's unlikely to happen unless any of the companies feel they have a reason to go all out, taking deep and aggressive losses just to get a leg-up over their competitors in terms of market share (which isn't guaranteed, as the weaker console will be invariably the cheaper console, and sale price is a huge factor).

You almost talk like a "next-gen" console equipped with a GPU in the ballpark of a GTX 680 would automatically make that console a "shelf warmer"?

Have you ever considered what "Rangers" wrote a few posts above:

and I have no doubt that if any manufacturer had the balls to deliver it they would dominate the market. There is absolutely no doubt, the excitement over such a console and the undisputed fact that it would deliver the best versions of every game over the weaker competition would reign. Further, it could be delivered at 399 I think.

?

Also:

It's already sad enough that "RSX" for example apparently wasn't based on G80 but still has to last for more than six years...

So please do not let such a "catastrophe" happen again...

 

[steviep]

What Rangers said isn't the view of the mass market at large. It is the view of someone who believes that chips win sales wars, instead of the true answer (compelling mass-market software/ecosystem).

 

[TheChefO]

What Rangers said isn't the view of the mass market at large. It is the view of someone who believes that chips win sales wars, instead of the true answer (compelling mass-market software/ecosystem).

Correct.

Now how do you get mass market software that is compelling enough to drop $400 on for the hardware and $60 for the software?

ps3/xb360 have been well established. That level of performance expectation is well entrenched.

It will take something substantially ABOVE that established performance level in order to address the "compelling" aspect of your argument.

Else, the point of a nextgen box is moot as the majority sit on their old boxes...
Or worse (for MS/Sony), they tire of the same old, and buy a WiiU.



The smart move for MS/Sony is to use the baseline of watt & die budget which was established in 2005 and carry that on to 2013 while applying the lessons learned of reliability (RRoD) and media standards (BRD) which were to blame for bloated costs, not die size and TDP.

 

[ninelven]

So please do not let such a "catastrophe" happen again...

Are you prepared to wait until Winter of 2014 or Spring of 2015 for the console to launch?