Why we should get next gen in 2018

[Scott_Arm]

I can strongly see myself considering a new PC when Occulus Rift is out because I don't think the consoles will be an ideal place to play VR games. I don't think the GPUs are good enough to handle the resolution and framerates you'll want for a really good VR experience. Now, if they were to do a short-cycle release for a new console, I might consider that instead.

 

[sebbbi]

last gen was also recycled pc hardware (gpu at least). but at least. it was neck and neck if not better than pc when they came out.

PS3 had a modified Geforce 7800 GTX (with half the ROPs) and was launched in November 2006. Geforce 8800 GTX was launched also in November 2006, and it was much faster than 7800 GTX and had a better feature set (CUDA for GPU compute, DirectX 10 support including improved floating point rendering support, integer ops, geometry shaders, etc).

I agree that the old console processors were quite unique and sported very high peak FLOPS numbers. Marketing teams surely must have loved that. But in reality the IPC was horrible, and a bog standard 2005 era PC with dual core AMD Athlon was already faster in running generic code. With specifically architected code the consoles achieved quite high real life numbers in some algorithms... However November 2006 is also remembered from Intel's Core 2 Quad launch. Q6600 was better than the console CPUs in every single way. It had a whopping 8 MB of L2 cache (8x more than Xbox 360) and was running any code you could throw at it very efficiently. Obviously that CPU alone cost more than a whole console, but the price dropped to $266 already in 2007.

Obviously at the time of Core 2 Quad launch most PC games were will single threaded. It has taken much longer than anticipated to get PC games designed to fully utilize a quad core CPU (the situation isn't perfect even today). And same is true for Geforce 8800. Only a few games depend heavily on GPU compute. Software changes always take more time than anticipated. Next gen consoles will again push both of these things forward (GPU compute, efficient CPU multithreading), but the change is not going to happen overnight.

I don't think the situation is much different from the last generation launch. Games will still continue to be designed for consoles in mind and specifically optimized for that hardware. Average gamer will again have around 2x more powerful gaming PC, and that PC will again run the game similarly than the consoles (as the game isn't specifically optimized for that exact PC configuration). Hardcore gamers will again play the same games at higher resolution (this time 2560x1440) or at 60 fps (if the game is originally 30 fps) on their 1000$+ desktop PCs.

Also it's worth noticing that laptops are now much more popular than desktops, meaning that the average gamer actually has a slightly less capable hardware compared to consoles. For the console developers it is actually more important to implement graphics reductions (options) for PC instead of the other way around. All the best selling PC games run well on average laptops (WoW, LoL, Diablo, etc).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

A good part of that is existing 4K TV sets are pretty much shit when compared to the better/best Plasma 1080p sets.

I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that the difference would be perceptible on a 4K plasma, if such a thing existed?

I've seen some truly cruddy images on plasma displays, especially when being fed from a PC.

 

[Xbat]

It all comes down to the amount of computing power you can fit in about 150 wats of power at the time your machine launches. I think Sony did quite well with the Ps4, now its all about the software.

 

[eastmen]

It all comes down to the amount of computing power you can fit in about 150 wats of power at the time your machine launches. I think Sony did quite well with the Ps4, now its all about the software.

Out-dated hardware is quite well ? When sony launched with a 1.8tf gpu amd already launched a 5tflop one.

Early next year we will see 20nm gpu's hit and again a huge increase in performance and to be quite frank I don't think any gpu from 2014 will run competent vr .

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Out-dated hardware is quite well ? When sony launched with a 1.8tf gpu amd already launched a 5tflop one.

Yeah. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if they'd gone with a 1.2ft GPU?

 

[-tkf-]

Out-dated hardware is quite well ?

In a small cool package with 8GB GDDR5 at a low price point.. yes they did well. WIthout the PS4 and XBOX One we would be stuck with PC games based on PS3/360, machines with 512MB ram and DVD as storage. It's the Consoles that pays for the party on the PC, it's NOT the other way around. PC gaming without Consoles economic force would be an interesting history.

Imho there is a few things that could force Sony/MS to launch new consoles with more power.

VR of course, but that would take someone else creating a VR system with a cheap console like box, maybe the PC could be a real competitor, i would like that, i just doubt it's going to happen.
Both Microsoft and Sony doesn't really have to care about the possibility of better VR than what they offer, as long as they are the ones that can do it the easiest and "best gaming" way".

4K gaining ground quicker than expected along with even bigger screens could cool the interest in "low res" consoles. Personally i am more interested in 8K, i have seen it a few times and it's incredible, with the right sized TV it's really special.

New competition.. we could need some, Apple, Google, Amazon, Activision, Take 2...

 

[eastmen]

Yeah. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if they'd gone with a 1.2ft GPU?

The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 is much smaller than 1.8 and 5.0 .

I'm certain MS will launch in 2018 or so with a box aimed at VR

 

[Pixel]

In a small cool package with 8GB GDDR5 at a low price point.. yes they did well. WIthout the PS4 and XBOX One we would be stuck with PC games based on PS3/360, machines with 512MB ram and DVD as storage. It's the Consoles that pays for the party on the PC, it's NOT the other way around. PC gaming without Consoles economic force would be an interesting history.

Imho there is a few things that could force Sony/MS to launch new consoles with more power.

VR of course, but that would take someone else creating a VR system with a cheap console like box, maybe the PC could be a real competitor, i would like that, i just doubt it's going to happen.
Both Microsoft and Sony doesn't really have to care about the possibility of better VR than what they offer, as long as they are the ones that can do it the easiest and "best gaming" way".

4K gaining ground quicker than expected along with even bigger screens could cool the interest in "low res" consoles. Personally i am more interested in 8K, i have seen it a few times and it's incredible, with the right sized TV it's really special.

New competition.. we could need some, Apple, Google, Amazon, Activision, Take 2...

I think resolution is good enough for couch gamers/consoles. We are not talking about people sitting with their eyes a foot from an 4k/8k computer monitor. We are talking about consoles so we are talking except in rare circumstances about meters away distance. 8k/4k gaming would be pointless for console gamers since they'd need 100inch tvs or rear projectors for 4k, and even larger for 8k. And much of the improvements in performance would go towards reaching that resolution and I certainly am not satisfied with the image quality per pixel at current levels.

I certainly would not like if image quality per pixel only slightly improved from what it is now when 2019 rolls around just because there was a goal of making console games render at 4k or more.

 

[eastmen]

In a small cool package with 8GB GDDR5 at a low price point.. yes they did well. WIthout the PS4 and XBOX One we would be stuck with PC games based on PS3/360, machines with 512MB ram and DVD as storage. It's the Consoles that pays for the party on the PC, it's NOT the other way around. PC gaming without Consoles economic force would be an interesting history.

Really because as we see from both consoles this generation they are just mini pc's and last generation the graphics were provided by AMD and Nvida both of which exist because of pc gaming.

Imho there is a few things that could force Sony/MS to launch new consoles with more power.

VR of course, but that would take someone else creating a VR system with a cheap console like box, maybe the PC could be a real competitor, i would like that, i just doubt it's going to happen.
Both Microsoft and Sony doesn't really have to care about the possibility of better VR than what they offer, as long as they are the ones that can do it the easiest and "best gaming" way".

Have you been sleeping ? Oculus / Facebook along with Samsung are creating a real Competitor. I've used the galaxy vr unit and it is really nice. Yes right now its expensive but by the galaxy note 6 and galaxy s7 it will be cheap. You'll have generations of phones to play with.

That union of company's could easily release a small box even smaller than the wii u that uses one of Samsung's Arm SOCs and provide us with VR on par or greater than what either of the current consoles can provide.

4K gaining ground quicker than expected along with even bigger screens could cool the interest in "low res" consoles. Personally i am more interested in 8K, i have seen it a few times and it's incredible, with the right sized TV it's really special.

New competition.. we could need some, Apple, Google, Amazon, Activision, Take 2...

Vizio announced 4k tvs last CES that were to be 50 inches for 1k and 70 inches for 2.5k I'm not sure if they released yet but when they do we will see 4k drop to mass market prices.

8k will be nice. But I don't expect it to be affordable until 2020ish.


Like I said , I think its VR that will be big and neither of the current consoles will provide a compelling experience for VR . Last generation was very long going what 8 years for MS and 7 for sony ? But we had nothing new Tech wise. HD tv was already out when the last gen started. But VR hasn't even started yet. 2015 we will see the hype levels of VR and both ms and sony will try to cash in on it. But ultimately its whoever launches first next gen that may get the fruits of the VR revolution

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 is much smaller than 1.8 and 5.0 .

The difference between 1.2 and 5.0 is bigger than 1.8 and 5.0. But comparing the capabilities of a £300 console to top-end GPUs is a trite argument.

I'm certain MS will launch in 2018 or so with a box aimed at VR

I'm certain Sony will launch in 2018 as well. I'm also certain that next time round, backwards compatibility will be a breeze for Sony.

Have you been sleeping ? Oculus / Facebook along with Samsung are creating a real Competitor. I've used the galaxy vr unit and it is really nice. Yes right now its expensive but by the galaxy note 6 and galaxy s7 it will be cheap. You'll have generations of phones to play with.

From where I sit, Samsung seem more interested in offering VR as what they see as a USP for their mobile devices, which are sliding in popularity. They've not said, or hinted, that they are interested in using the technology for any other devices. Personally I'd be skeptical about investing in any progressive Samsung platform for the long term. When it comes to support, the vast majority of their products fall ingot he fire-and-forget category. I'd want to see them establish a track record for support first. They could start with properly supporting Android updates on their high-end phones.

 

[Sonic]

Out-dated hardware is quite well ? When sony launched with a 1.8tf gpu amd already launched a 5tflop one.

Early next year we will see 20nm gpu's hit and again a huge increase in performance and to be quite frank I don't think any gpu from 2014 will run competent vr .

Not everyone has an unlimited amount of funds like you do to constantly upgrade the 30 or so PC's you have lying around the house. Also not everybody places value in things the way you do. The value others will place in the machine will largely come from the gaming experiences they can have on it, and it's a simple $400 machine that produces good results. It's good value not to have to spend $500 on a new graphics card every three weeks.

 

[BRiT]

I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that the difference would be perceptible on a 4K plasma, if such a thing existed?

I've seen some truly cruddy images on plasma displays, especially when being fed from a PC.

I'm saying that nearly all the 4K sets out there today are rubbish. Just like today there is a substantial quality difference between the low-end bargain discount 1080p sets and the top-end high-quality 1080p sets (which all happen to be plasma).

If the top-end 4K sets aren't up to par with the top-end 1080p sets, then the vizio and other shit sets really have no chance at being comparable.

From this thread here, even looking at the current high-end 4K sets, they pale in comparison to the 1080p plasma sets: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=64755

Over the holidays I picked up the 65inch Sony 4K set that doesn't come with speakers and has active 3D vs passive. I have no need for either. My goals were simple. PQ benefits over my calibrated Pioneer Kuro 151.

The Sony set: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/65-clas...9066831831&skuId=1912267&st=sony 4k&cp=1&lp=3

Once motion is introduced the effects of 4K start to diminish rapidly. By the time you're dealing with fast paced action or games, the Pioneer actually seems to preserve the quality better. This set is simply not able to keep up with fast motion while preserving resolution quality.

My recommendation for now would be to wait for the 2nd gen of 4k displays. What good is a bump in resolution if you lose most of it when things start moving on the screen?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm saying that nearly all the 4K sets out there today are rubbish. Just like today there is a substantial quality difference between the low-end bargain discount 1080p sets and the top-end high-quality 1080p sets (which all happen to be plasma).

Not doubt there are some crap 4K LCDs, just as there are crap 1080p LCD TVs and crap plasma TVs. But it's odd that so few plasma appear on AV enthusiast site's best buy lists, which does seem to contradict your well research and articulately-argued position. Here's avforums and What HiFi but there other sites who's lists are similarly light (or completely) lacking plasma sets.

From this thread here, even looking at the current high-end 4K sets, they pale in comparison to the 1080p plasma sets

Just to be clear, you're taking the opinion of a single forum member giving their view of a year-old TV as representative of the state of 4K TVs available now? Sure, why not

 

[Pixel]

Would you rather have Watch_Dogs III render at 4k with slightly improve visuals to the current console version or would you rather see watchdogs render at 1080p with average npcs having the detail and shading complexity of helmetless Marius from Ryse, including subsurface scattering and where the environment is has image quality along these lines:

I think 4k targetting consoles would be a huge mistake

 

[Nisaaru]

I'm saying that nearly all the 4K sets out there today are rubbish. Just like today there is a substantial quality difference between the low-end bargain discount 1080p sets and the top-end high-quality 1080p sets (which all happen to be plasma).

If the top-end 4K sets aren't up to par with the top-end 1080p sets, then the vizio and other shit sets really have no chance at being comparable.

I'm not sure if you've realized but Panasonic and also Samsung(this summer) dropped their Plasma production.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

AFAIK there's basically two screen techs now. LCD and OLED. OLED cost a frickin' fortune, so we're stuck with LCD and more and more pixels.

Oh, and what exactly is this thread about anyway? 4k discussion has its own thread somewhere, and I'm sure 'when next-gen consoles should release' has been discussed elsewhere too. Seems like old conversation being started unnecessarily by a noob.

 

[BRiT]

I'm not sure if you've realized but Panasonic and also Samsung(this summer) dropped their Plasma production.

I fully realize that and it makes me sad, just as I fully realize that LCD does not offer the picture quality of Plasma. Those who want quality over quantity are now stuck in a waiting pattern until OLED panels hits wider adoption

 

[-tkf-]

Really because as we see from both consoles this generation they are just mini pc's and last generation the graphics were provided by AMD and Nvida both of which exist because of pc gaming.

Yes, really, because the CPU/GPU coming from the PC world has little to nothing to do with the amount of money that is made from console games. Consoles drive the big titles, consoles bring in the big cash. You know the numbers, it isn´t a surprise.

Have you been sleeping ?

Yep, and quite good, thanks for asking! Being friendly around here is sadly not that common, usually there is to much of small stupid snide remarks.

Oculus / Facebook along with Samsung are creating a real Competitor. I've used the galaxy vr unit and it is really nice. Yes right now its expensive but by the galaxy note 6 and galaxy s7 it will be cheap. You'll have generations of phones to play with.

That union of company's could easily release a small box even smaller than the wii u that uses one of Samsung's Arm SOCs and provide us with VR on par or greater than what either of the current consoles can provide.

A VR solution based on Android driven by Phones is a competition to Sony/MS? Or a Samsung console player with VR? Where is the PC in all this?

Imho, it would be really special if Samsung was able to create competitive console and take on MS and Sony. Should it be VR only?

The only real chance is on the PC, the general hardware is pretty weak though, 60% of steam users have 4GB ram, graphic cards with 1GB is sadly widespread and the GPU´s doesn´t look very strong either.
So a VR solution that can compete with the PS4 would lose most players instantly, or do what the PC solution usually do, dial everything down until it runs.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I fully realize that and it makes me sad, just as I fully realize that LCD does not offer the picture quality of Plasma. Those who want quality over quantity are now stuck in a waiting pattern until OLED panels hits wider adoption

I don't know about where you live but I can buy a LG, Samsung or Sony OLED TV today and have it delivered tomorrow. Sony also make OLED monitors.