Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Jan 26, 2019.
"The XBOX" that's popular now.
With the focus on 4k, and huge textures, that would be a good reason to put in flash storage. If the cost allowed it.
Hmmm I'd have said go with a 2TB SSHD with 64GB of cache or 32GB optane.
but will they have hdmi 2.1 built in ?
Was thinking exactly this. A 2TB HDD with smaller SSD caching (32 or 64GB cache chip makes sense).
4k textures / assets are going to fill 1TB fast for most console gamers (people who game primarily on console).
Game install size increases dramatically every generation. My base (launch) PS4 installs are getting to the ~100GB mark pretty often.
I can only imagine next gen size with native 4k support. It has been stated that Sony and MS want to hit 4k native without upscaling (im sure the resolution will still be dynamic to keep FPS stready)
and cannot see pure NAND as a viable option to keep the console $500 and under.
Ray-tracing @ 60 fps and higher--what a joke... It's so "easy" to do that when nVidia partially ray-traces the 5-10 pixels per frame inside a normal rasterized special effect, inside a frame with millions of pixels, and turns on the tensor cores and actually uses them, that the frame-rate of its most expensive card is cut in half. There's a reason why your $.8k-1.3k GPU with "ray tracing" *cough* doesn't include a real-time demo in the product box showing you just what your RTX product can do on your system, eh? Instead, you get a 2d videoclip, compiled from the output of 4 Volta systems over a period of days, systems that cost $6k ($1500 EA.) That's the "demo" you get--and that's all you get--and it's not a "demo" of the RTX GPUs at all. If AMD implements "ray tracing" of the kind that nVidia is attempting to do, it most likely will come from utilizing a couple of cpu cores in software instead of trying to do it on the GPU. At any rate, atm "ray tracing" is strictly a marketing gimmick designed to entice people who know nothing about ray-tracing at all. IMO, with an RTX GPU, the only way to make it's "ray tracing" look good is to make your comparative rasterized frame look worse than it has to, deliberately. But, this will become evident soon enough.
8c/16t cpu is absolutely knocking it out the park. That's going to bring in a tremendous increase in game world complexity. Coming from an 8 core jaguar that's true night and day.
Well, it's not releasing today, it will release maybe next year, in that case, I guess the specs for that price aren't that impossible?
Still, when the PS4/Pro/OneX was realeases, GDDR5 had been out for a while. It is expected, but there is no guarantee that prices for GDDR6 will go down. Hell, prices could go up as far as we know.
Notice that they said only a few aspects of this are true. I am betting on 16GB (256 bit) of unified GDDR5x or a prefered 12GB (384 bit) of GDDR5X with 8 GB of system memory.
Well, you could fine a 1TB NVMe SSD for around $130 now so I guess this is finally feasible in a console. If they really can get these specs in a $500 budget, that would be pretty legit and it may finally have a chance at delivering 4K or good quality 2K visuals. I guess we shall see. It's common to see all the big specs at first but then when a final product is out, it's hardly half that though I think this time these specs are possible on a $500 console.
Just imagine if you had two of them, and you acquired some pr0n discs to play on them.
You could then watch XXX on your 2x Xbox One X 2.
Been playing on a Switch a lot the past couple years, just now getting back into PC. My old 240GB SSD isn't big enough to hold todays games, so I install them to a 1 TB spinner. It. Is. So. Slow. It takes me longer to reload into a new game than I survive in CoD:Blackout. While Switch is quicker n' shit swapping in and out of screens and maps in games.
Noway do the next Xbox and Playstation ship with anything less than 500GB NVMe drives.
Well, there was some rumors that the next gen systems would move back to flash carts. Flash storage is heading towards .06 to .08 per GB. That would be under 5 bucks for a 64GB cart. At that price, it would probably be cheaper than UHD disc which can be $10-15 a piece.
That said, if they do move back to cart, they could get away with no local storage at all.
you also have to factor in the cost of that cart x the total amount of games in the end internal storage is cheaper
How did I end up here?
I think Microsoft will save some money by making the optical drive an optional accessory. Whether these savings will be passed onto the buyer or be put to use elsewhere is anyone's guess.
The cheapest 1 TB NVMe drives cost $150 on NewEgg, that would indeed not leave a whole lot for the rest of the components. However if by 2020 the price of flash memory will have fallen by half it would be within reach.
Problem is that both flash and RAM markets are very volatile, and Intel's current 10 nm CPU problems are among the reasons why prices are dropping currently. If Intel regains production capacity by 2020, things could end up much different.
I think you need still a way to install game updates somewhere. How are you going to do it with no local storage? Reserving extra space on the flash cartridge for that would increase costs.
Also, last I've read is that Blu-Ray cost is closer to $2 a piece + console tax.
The thing is when you get a call from the likes of Microsoft saying "We want to buy 1 million of..." the price drops considerably.
Why are we creating news stories from unverified Reddit users?
I was saying in another thread that with Resident Evil 2 I just completely filled the 6TB external drive on my Xbox One.
Yes you do. Games take around 50gb nowadays. Games like RDR2 take 100gb.
Final Fantasy XV with all the DLC is now 200GB on consoles. Black Ops IIII is 100GB on consoles now, for crying out loud.
its probably a no name or average to slow nvme as nvme so its not super fast but faster then standard ssd.
Yeah, that's true. I was assuming they would move to UHD (Ultra HD) Blu Ray disc which hold a lot more data but also cost more.
Does anyone actually know the real-world game leading difference between SATA and m.2 with nvme?* Basically nothing. Console users are not running Crystal Benchmark or transferring massive amounts of data around for media use.
Increasing the cost of the system so it can have NVME makes this feel especially fake.
UHD Blu-ray discs only cost like $0.20 more than a standard Blu-ray when talking about bulk wholesale. And this is only at volumes of 10,000. I don't know what the difference would be at 10x that volume or more.
"SATA with nvme"
I could see going NVMe as a space saving feature. It could end up being soldered right to the PCB couldn't it?
They'd get their money back at assembly 10 fold.
At this point, it would make a lot of sense. Games would be backwards compatible with the One X and even the One S, which was really forward thinking.
Hopefully the new console would hit 4k at 60fps or something lower with higher textures while the same game hits 30 fps on the X at similar resolution and 30 fps on the One S at 1080p and below. Original One owners could still have the download option.
Just go with SATA M.2 instead of NVMe: the same size, slower but not noticeably so, and cheaper.
My predictions are that they have an m.2 NVMe compatible slot that ships with a 1TB SATA3 type drive or something comparable in cost.
Both consoles are going to allow USB-C external hard drives so storage shouldn’t be an issue.
The key take away is that (at least for PS5) the NVMe drive will be user upgradable hopefully.
1.8Ghz Ryzen 8C/16T (3Ghz Boost)
Navi 10 TF GPU
16GB GDDR6 (shared)
1TB m.2 SATA3 (compatible with NVMe)
Xbox 2 X
Navi 12 TF
Xbox 2 Starter
Navi 8 TF
Everything else in the same ballpark.
That’s what it looks like to me anyway. I’d love to see them have a NVMe 970 Evo level drive in there as the base configuration or 32GB of ram but let’s be honest with our selves.
This is not ReserERA where everyone is saying 32-64GB of HBM and 14TF GPUs with 1TB NVMe drives.
Those listed specs look feasible at the rumored price points.
Again a 2TB 2'5" with a Optane type 32GB cache setup.
Yeah, some sort of hybrid storage makes the most sense given the size of game installs, which are only going to increase.
And MS and Sony will be selling millions and millions of units, so saving a few bucks by opting for cheaper storage makes a huge amount of financial sense.
1.) External nvme? seems like a engineering nightmare.
2.) Why use USB C instead of gen 2 type A for external storage?
3.) Why would you assume PS5 will be less powerful?
4.) Xbox 2 starter is already rumored to be 4 TF. Less gpu power than the OneX but most likely a better CPU so it 2k 60 fps instead of 4k 30 fps.
5.) 32 GB of Ram that will do nothing but increase the cost if the console. Seriously??
1) I never said external NVMe.
2) That works too
3) Because I am? We have heard nothing of Sony releasing multiple consoles and have heard a lot of MS releasing 2 SKUs outside the Sony 399.99 price point. They might have the more powerful unit.
4) ok great
5) 16GB shared
I believe you missed the fact that it was all an armchair prediction and you took the last part as my prediction when it was a rub of ResetERA posters. Please read the post in it’s entirety as 2 of your 5 responses was completely off.
Not ReserERA, whatever the hell that means, but 32 GB ram on the wish list is still rather silly to say it nicely.
I think if MS is positioning the Xbox One X equivalent to be the 'high end' model, I could see them pricing it higher than the base PS5 to include higher specs. But, who knows if Sony launches with multiple SKUs and has a PS5 Pro-like product at launch.
Sure, I’d also love to see a GTX 2080 Ti/i9-9900k level SoC in there for 399.99 too.
I think we are on the exact same page, you’re just taking everything literally. 32GB is not happening and neither is a 970 EVO level drive.
I honestly feel like MS is trying the multi SKU approach and Sony is going to do the 3yr Pro cycle tbh. MS might do it too but Sony probably doesn’t want to veer too far off what worked this generation.
They might actually have an NVME SSD. The new QLC designs are significantly cheaper, and they will have the whole "economies of scale" thing working in their favor.
Well the PS4 was definately more powerful the the One and One S if I recall.
The PS4 Pro was a poor value strictly from a hardware perspective. It had 50% less vram and significantly lower gpu performance. To make matters worse, it didn't even have 4k Bluray. Hell, the One S has a 4k drive. What is up with that?? Sony originally pushed for Bluray in the first place.
UHD is the video standard. The discs are standard blu-ray discs. There is no cost difference.