I honestly never bought that from the beginning, the ones that did came out dissapointed i think. No matter how you do it, everything still has to be rendered finally by the gpu, no matter how fast you feed it. It's what DF told in one of their videos (think it was the halo infinite video).
It was time for SSD's anyways, they should have been there in the 2013 consoles i think.
I am curious what is the performance Target for Series S.
MS is discontinuing One X which is probably due to Series S. Price of series S is probably targeting around as much as One X which could be the reason of discontinuation.
It might probably be at around 9 TF.
I am curious what is the performance Target for Series S.
MS is discontinuing One X which is probably due to Series S. Price of series S is probably targeting around as much as One X which could be the reason of discontinuation.
It might probably be at around 9 TF.
I am curious what is the performance Target for Series S.
MS is discontinuing One X which is probably due to Series S. Price of series S is probably targeting around as much as One X which could be the reason of discontinuation.
All the rumors put it around 1/3rd the GPU [4.x TF] with identical CPU and SSD as Series X, with similar ratio of memory bandwidth to GPU units, and aiming for 1/4th the resolution [1080p - 1280p].
If you factor in same speed SSD but using smaller sized textures and other assets, the Series S is actually going to load them faster than Series X.
Oh, and of course you have to factor in IPC and GNC Flops != RDNA 2 Flops etc.
All the rumors put it around 1/3rd the GPU [4.x TF] with identical CPU and SSD as Series X, with similar ratio of memory bandwidth to GPU units, and aiming for 1/4th the resolution [1080p - 1280p].
If you factor in same speed SSD but using smaller sized textures and other assets, the Series S is actually going to load them faster than Series X.
Oh, and of course you have to factor in IPC and GNC Flops != RDNA 2 Flops etc.
I honestly never bought that from the beginning, the ones that did came out dissapointed i think. No matter how you do it, everything still has to be rendered finally by the gpu, no matter how fast you feed it. It's what DF told in one of their videos (think it was the halo infinite video).
It was time for SSD's anyways, they should have been there in the 2013 consoles i think.
I think SSDs in 2013 would have been maybe 120GB max in size to be remotely affordable (my first SSD around then was a 120 GB MLC drive) and they were quite a bit more expensive than 500GB 5400 rpm drives. So that would have meant having both at that time, and that would have been very challenging from a BOM perspective. Even if the SSD was very small (say 32GB) and just used as a kind of scratch pad like the OG Xbox's HDD partitions.
(There's lot of weirdness about the OG Xbox - it's a fascinating machine!)
I think the PS5 SSD is as good as Cerny says it is, but it's definitely not what parts of "the internet" are saying it is. It doesn't make the GPU any more capable, and it doesn't mean it can render any more unique detail in a given frame. It just means you can change more of that data per frame, or in a given period of time, than anyone else can at the moment. And a really important question is "how much do you need to, and under what circumstances?" And it's a pretty complex question.
In terms of Lockhart, the biggest things it will bring are SSD, CPU, and GPU featureset. And right now there's a lot of pretty partisan talk about how the PS5 SSD is the biggest thing next gen. And maybe it is. But if it is, and Lockhart has a low price and "Velocity Architecture" ... how can Lockhart be some kind of pointless device? It's supposed to have a similar SSD arrangement to the XSX, but even if MS opt for slightly slower flash chips for it (bit silly as they'd have to have a separate external drive) it's still going to be compare very favourably to PS5 and XSX SSDs. At 1080p or even 1440p, pulling texture pages from the SSD with a similar LOD bias it'd be pretty damn fast, perhaps faster than anything else.
And it has a CPU as fast as the PS5 and XSX. And it probably has the same featureset. So why the double standard from the conservatives and the haters? Like I said, I'm still on a 1080 level monitor, but I wouldn't want to be stuck on a Jaguar CPU and mechanical drives for the next few years. It's bollocks.
All the rumors put it around 1/3rd the GPU [4.x TF] with identical CPU and SSD as Series X, with similar ratio of memory bandwidth to GPU units, and aiming for 1/4th the resolution [1080p - 1280p].
If you factor in same speed SSD but using smaller sized textures and other assets, the Series S is actually going to load them faster than Series X.
Oh, and of course you have to factor in IPC and GNC Flops != RDNA 2 Flops etc.
And if that 7.5GB "useable" ram means 10 GB total GDDR6, that's a minimum of a 160-bit bus (excepting clamshell, which no-one seems to be using atm). Which even with slowed down 14 Gbps ram would mean, like, what? 280 GB/s?
So even in terms of bandwidth this thing is likely to be well provisioned. Even if the CPU eats 50 or 60 GB/s of effective GPU bandwidth. Lockhart could very well be a great system for people happy to game in the 1440p~1080p range for a lower cost of entry.
Oh yeah it definitely was! Probably the last time other than the 360 that a console had a better GPU than anything else on the market (though Geforce 4 soon exceeded it!). I swapped the HDD on mine out for a high density 7200 rpm drive and installed full disks to it (my own games, it's okay!). Absolute banger of a machine. Can't get rid of it till something else can play Rallisport Challenge 2. With the right custom soundtrack that game was transcendental.
Yes, im not blaming Cerny either, he never claimed anything like the SSD will upp the render-ante.
Cerny is the real deal. Not saying he's better than MS or Nvidia or AMD hardware folks, but he loves games and wants to make hardware that allows people to make better games. As do many others. He's just one of the most public so he gets both more credit and more abuse than he should. But he's never sought credit for anything he wasn't responsible for, and I've never seen him talk shit about anyone else.
If only all us normals could take a lesson from that.
smaller boxes means fewer shipping costs, better yeild, smaller packaging etc. The costs go all the way down the chain aside from just BOM.
Removal of Kinect for XBO not only removed a piece of hardware, it allowed htem to cut the box size in half, combined with moving the PSU back into the console unit enabled them to save more costs and more space, which means they dropped the packaging costs etc. All of it together is what let them get down $100+. Comparatively to the PS4 box at launch, which was thinner and had really cheap packaging; MS was getting spanked.
Are you sure? As I remember it, the Xbox One with Kinetic cost $500, and after all the hoohaa and MS removed the Kinetic, the Xbox One was $400 while people wanting to buy the kinetic would then pay $100(or was it $150). Nothing to do with smaller packaging and saving more costs and space. It cost the same whether you bought with Kinetic or without.
Are you sure? As I remember it, the Xbox One with Kinetic cost $500, and after all the hoohaa and MS removed the Kinetic, the Xbox One was $400 while people wanting to buy the kinetic would then pay $100(or was it $150). Nothing to do with smaller packaging and saving more costs and space. It cost the same whether you bought with Kinetic or without.
but 1S went even further than $100 down in costs though.
Packaging adds up. XBO is 2x the size of 1S box. Nearly. That means in a single container which has fixed shipping costs, you gotta ship 2 containers to get the same numbers in retail stores as 1. Not to mention the stores can't stock as many either. Packaging costs can be pretty high as well.
OG XBO was a very high end packaging, the type of stuff that everyone appreciated while opening it, but would have appreciated paying less for at the same time.
It's a fraction of the material in XBO. If you could lose the controller as well, that would be massive space savings. Just thinking out loud. You'd cut a huge amount off the box size.
but 1S went even further than $100 down in costs though.
Packaging adds up. XBO is 2x the size of 1S box. Nearly. That means in a single container which has fixed shipping costs, you gotta ship 2 containers to get the same numbers in retail stores as 1. Not to mention the stores can't stock as many either. Packaging costs can be pretty high as well.
OG XBO was a very high end packaging, the type of stuff that everyone appreciated while opening it, but would have appreciated paying less for at the same time.
It's a fraction of the material in XBO. If you could lose the controller as well, that would be massive space savings. Just thinking out loud. You'd cut a huge amount off the box size.
But the S version on came out a few years later of the original lauch didn't it? Of course it would be cheaper. We saw the same with the competitors console too and that didn't even have extra packaging, shipping costs etc.
From what I understand, the savings actually came from the tech getting cheaper to produce e.g. the APU was cheaper, the general parts would be cheaper too as would all the costs involved.
But the original which you were aluding to, didn't get a cost cut after they dropped Kinetic which you seemed to say as I understood it.
Also the reason Xbox released the S version was because they were getting spanked left, right and center by the competition. They had to release a cheaper version to get sales. At least that's how I remember it. They also released the Xbox One X as the most powerful console and that still didn't help much come the end of the generation because there were no exclusives to take advantage of the consoles power(not that it needed it as third party showed that the console was better). The games however lacked compared to the games coming out from the competition.
It's what lead MS to buy a boat load of developers to create content for the Xbox.
But the S version on came out a few years later of the original lauch didn't it? Of course it would be cheaper. We saw the same with the competitors console too and that didn't even have extra packaging, shipping costs etc.
From what I understand, the savings actually came from the tech getting cheaper to produce e.g. the APU was cheaper, the general parts would be cheaper too as would all the costs involved.
But the original which you were aluding to, didn't get a cost cut after they dropped Kinetic which you seemed to say as I understood it.
Also the reason Xbox released the S version was because they were getting spanked left, right and center by the competition. They had to release a cheaper version to get sales. At least that's how I remember it. They also released the Xbox One X as the most powerful console and that still didn't help much come the end of the generation because there were no exclusives to take advantage of the consoles power(not that it needed it as third party showed that the console was better). The games however lacked compared to the games coming out from the competition.
i worked my way up retail to be in a high up position for a few chain stores. I can tell you that packaging size matters as does the speed of turn over. As they said to you the iphone packaging costs $7. In the original xbox one box how many iphone boxs do you think will fit in that space ? 2 dozen perhaps ?
Apple ,MS , Sony and other companies spend millions designing packaging to be a small as possible. Just look at the design changes of how cell phones were packaged and sold or consoles for that matter. Weight is also another big issue in terms of cost. It may not sound like a big deal but if you can save $1 over 10m units well you saved 10m dollars.
You can see this with MS. How much do you think having a nice white box with graphics on it costs them vs a brown box ? MS ships surfaces in a nice box for retail because for a customer the experiance is buying a high end device. They sell the same devices to businesses in a brown box because it will go to the it team that quickly takes them out and programs them for staff. If there wasn't money to be saved they wouldn't bother to do so.
i worked my way up retail to be in a high up position for a few chain stores. I can tell you that packaging size matters as does the speed of turn over. As they said to you the iphone packaging costs $7. In the original xbox one box how many iphone boxs do you think will fit in that space ? 2 dozen perhaps ?
Apple ,MS , Sony and other companies spend millions designing packaging to be a small as possible. Just look at the design changes of how cell phones were packaged and sold or consoles for that matter. Weight is also another big issue in terms of cost. It may not sound like a big deal but if you can save $1 over 10m units well you saved 10m dollars.
You can see this with MS. How much do you think having a nice white box with graphics on it costs them vs a brown box ? MS ships surfaces in a nice box for retail because for a customer the experiance is buying a high end device. They sell the same devices to businesses in a brown box because it will go to the it team that quickly takes them out and programs them for staff. If there wasn't money to be saved they wouldn't bother to do so.
I remember arguing something similar when XSX was revealed as being so big - about how much everything costs to store and then there's shipment costs and materials...these costs are real and in addition to BoM (well, box materials are a part of BoM but those costs are minimal).
But the S version on came out a few years later of the original lauch didn't it? Of course it would be cheaper. We saw the same with the competitors console too and that didn't even have extra packaging, shipping costs etc.
From what I understand, the savings actually came from the tech getting cheaper to produce e.g. the APU was cheaper, the general parts would be cheaper too as would all the costs involved.
But the original which you were aluding to, didn't get a cost cut after they dropped Kinetic which you seemed to say as I understood it.
Indeed, MS removed the optical port to save $1 per console, and they removed the pack in microphone for Xbox units as a testament to distance they are willing to go to, to save costs.
If your packaging + shipping is nearing $15-20 per unit, over 100M units, you've paid out nearly $1.5-2B in shipping + packaging; the costs definitely will find their way back to the consumer in some method.
I do agree that the majority of the costs are likely to be saved by BOM, but shipping + packaging costs should not be ignored. The consoles being flat make for positioning a controller difficult in a box. Thus the extra added space. If either manufacturer could remove the controller, or shape the box/console such that there is no additional empty space to accommodate for a controller; those savings can either be recouped as margin. The only console I think can do this is Xbox Series X, as the wide berth of the shape would allow them to lay the controller on top of the console in packaging. All others have tried to go as slim profile as possible and they place the controller to the side of the console and have an empty space below it to hold random items - a luxury of shipping/packaging costs, for a $7-$10 dollar controller.
I remember arguing something similar when XSX was revealed as being so big - about how much everything costs to store and then there's shipment costs and materials...these costs are real and in addition to BoM (well, box materials are a part of BoM but those costs are minimal).
PC GPUs and CPUs support a number of parallel contemporary products, as do phones, tvs, cars, hi-fis, bicycles, plane tickets, almost everything else you can buy and, to a limited extent, games consoles (going back to the PS3/360, and even more so with the mid-gen twins).
The idea that new consoles are only attractive to early adopters and "enthusiasts" (as if wealth == enthusiasm) is circular logic IMO. Just because price has traditionally been a barrier for new consoles doesn't mean that price must always be a barrier, especially given how changes in hardware and software have made it more practical than ever to support two similar but different parallel units.
And lets face it, the fact that someone might not be able to justify dropping $499 (or more) on a console at launch doesn't mean that the Jaguar CPUs and mechanical HDDs from 2013 are now any less shit for them than for anyone else. Does anyone really think a kid who doesn't have rich parents, or a dude struggling to afford his flat or car payments, can't see a 45 second loading screen, doesn't get that's he's waiting 30 seconds when he "fast travels", doesn't notice pop in when starting State of Decay, or wouldn't rather play a driving game at 60 fps instead of 30.
Series S will be a hell of a lot better than any current gen console, especially compared to the base units that make up the vast majority of the market. PS4 and X1 are actually pretty shitty compared, as you'd expect after 7 years. It's even a generational leap beyond the $399 X1X in terms of storage, CPU and GPU feature set. We're all supposed to be impressed by the PS5 SSD (any why not, it's very fast), and we keep hearing from developers that SSD and CPU are the real next gen game changers. How has that changed just because we're talking about a lower cost machine?
I still game on a 1080p level monitor. You think I'd still want to be with a Jaguar CPU and a 5400 rpm laptop drive? Fuck. That.
If customers actually know how good the Series S is (MS's communication has been terrible so far) I think many would jump on a $249~299 model right now instead of hanging onto creaking, decrepit systems for another 3 years so the price of the "big" machine can come down.*
*By which point it's actually less advanced relative to the state of the art than the S was at launch, and it still only has basically the same SSD and CPU that you could have had years ago. Well done for waiting, you.
Yeah I game at a desk on a 1080p monitor and thought about whether I would get Lockhart but I actually think what matters more when it comes to resolution/detail perception is distance-from-screen. I think if you are gaming 15 feet away from a TV a lower resolution would be less perceptible where as if you are gaming on a desk a couple feet away from the display a difference in resolution would be most perceptible.
If anything the increase in resolution from XSX might actually be worth it for me.
Of course but you don't focus on just one area. For instance Nintendo at one point stopped selling chargers with the 3ds plus or whatever it was. Yes they saved money by simply not paying for the charger. But they were also able to create a smaller lighter package. How many revisions did sony go through of different systems to remove ports that would cost them a few dollars at most ? They did this because over millions of units it adds up
I remember arguing something similar when XSX was revealed as being so big - about how much everything costs to store and then there's shipment costs and materials...these costs are real and in addition to BoM (well, box materials are a part of BoM but those costs are minimal).
I argue this everything we talk about physical discs for retail. People think Target and Walmart will be upset if they can't make $5 off a game. My argument is that they make more off controllers and cables and accessories than the games. When you factor in that a digital game can either be a plastic card with a game code or just a gift card and you can fit a dozen in the space of one ps4 game and then also factor in the decrease of security measures its a huge win for retail stores.
I'm old but I worked for Gamestop while they were buying Funcoland so I've seen the back room of both those companies and I worked for EB games before they were bought by gamestop. The backrooms are the size of a small walk in closet. They have a limited space of how many consoles they can fit back there and often times at holidays you can't even make it to the bathroom and sometimes there is stuff in the bathroom. So if gamestop can fit double the amount of your consoles as your competitor in the same space gamestop will perfer your console. Thats because gamestop will move more of them and make more money.
)
