Next gen PS5, close to 2080 level

Verge said:
I don't doubt the technology exists, isn't the radeon VII almost 14tflops?

I'm suggesting the consumer appetite for a giant box with loud fans to disperse the amount of heat it creates.
Click to expand...

From what I am seeing, you are straight up suggesting that it will be impossible for the new consoles to be significantly faster, which would be near 2080 levels of performance. If you assessment were to be correct, we would simply still be using PS2 and original XBox, since it would not be able to be better than that.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Haven't had a console released yet that wasn't several generations behind in performance, and these won't be any different.

Graphics are still going to look like kiddie toys next to a real system, and they're still going to be pumping out those lovely lower framerates ;).
Click to expand...

Except that you have no idea what you are saying, from what I am seeing. Nothing kiddie about the graphics of the One X and the framerates are far from lower, as least in the way you are inferring them to be.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Well, rdna doesn't have RT.. AMD stated consoles will have it, so... It's at least going to be a more advanced rdna if you don't want to call it 2... Unless by support RT they are planning to implement with shaders or software (like Pascal I guess).
Click to expand...

Well we know its a chiplet part. So the navi GPU will be on the same pacakge as the ryzen 2 8 core. Chiplet.

No stopping AMD from adding a more then 2 chiplets. I mean they won't use a package the size of a threadripper/epyc or anything. but I don't think 4 chips would be crazy. (the controller, one Ryzen, One Navi, One physics/RT co processor) That would give console developers everything they need for physx like math in games that don't need ray tracing, ray calculation for games with... and who knows perhaps some developers will come up with some other novel uses we haven't thought of for that type of co processor.
 
ManofGod said:
Except that you have no idea what you are saying, from what I am seeing. Nothing kiddie about the graphics of the One X and the framerates are far from lower, as least in the way you are inferring them to be.
Click to expand...

Console games are locked to 30fps or 60fps, depending on the game. Having consistent framerates helps keep it from feeling sluggish.

Majority of HDTV's are 60fps, some used to be 30fps, but even those with framerate doublers still only show 30 or 24 frames per second, as that it the fps that the incoming video is presented to it at (for TV, bluray content - primary function of a TV). They might 'refresh' at 60 or 120 but that is so that there is less ghosting, used in conjunction with a faster lighting element (that charges up and then fades more quickly - this helps reduce ghosting but needs to be refreshed at 60 or 120hz to keep them lit 100% of the time that they need to be lit). Whether or not a tv that refreshes faster can take a higher fps input, I don't know, haven't bothered to research it. I just want no ghosting on my TV when watching action movies.

So, consoles do not need the same graphics horsepower as a PC does, therefore expecting the next console to have 2080 performance is unlikely as well as un-needed. Maybe they will try to shift to higher fps gaming, but nothing I have ever heard (yet) suggests this. It would be pointless without the average home having a TV capable of reproducing those framerates... You aren't expecting the typical $600 65" 4k TV to do this are you? Isn't the price/size disparity obvious when compared to PC displays? PC displays are much faster... and if you buy an el cheapo pc monitor, its probably using a small tv panel.. 60Hz max.

4k is the only driver for a console to have more graphics horsepower. And chances are, most games will render at a reduced resolution and then use resolution scaling to output a 4k 30 or 60fps signal.
 
ManofGod said:
From what I am seeing, you are straight up suggesting that it will be impossible for the new consoles to be significantly faster, which would be near 2080 levels of performance. If you assessment were to be correct, we would simply still be using PS2 and original XBox, since it would not be able to be better than that.
Click to expand...

Can you read?

my post:

Will be way to big and too hot to run 2080 levels. Dumb rumor, won't be true.
Click to expand...

jesus christ, stop putting words in my mouth.
 
GoodBoy said:
Console games are locked to 30fps or 60fps, depending on the game. Having consistent framerates helps keep it from feeling sluggish.

Majority of HDTV's are 60fps, some used to be 30fps, but even those with framerate doublers still only show 30 or 24 frames per second, as that it the fps that the incoming video is presented to it at (for TV, bluray content - primary function of a TV). They might 'refresh' at 60 or 120 but that is so that there is less ghosting, used in conjunction with a faster lighting element (that charges up and then fades more quickly - this helps reduce ghosting but needs to be refreshed at 60 or 120hz to keep them lit 100% of the time that they need to be lit). Whether or not a tv that refreshes faster can take a higher fps input, I don't know, haven't bothered to research it. I just want no ghosting on my TV when watching action movies.

So, consoles do not need the same graphics horsepower as a PC does, therefore expecting the next console to have 2080 performance is unlikely as well as un-needed. Maybe they will try to shift to higher fps gaming, but nothing I have ever heard (yet) suggests this. It would be pointless without the average home having a TV capable of reproducing those framerates... You aren't expecting the typical $600 65" 4k TV to do this are you? Isn't the price/size disparity obvious when compared to PC displays? PC displays are much faster... and if you buy an el cheapo pc monitor, its probably using a small tv panel.. 60Hz max.

4k is the only driver for a console to have more graphics horsepower. And chances are, most games will render at a reduced resolution and then use resolution scaling to output a 4k 30 or 60fps signal.
Click to expand...
They stopped from locking games forever ago... Unless they got back into it. Why on Earth would xbone support freesync if frame rate was limited and synced with vsync, that would make 0 sense. This hasn't been the case since like ps1 and maybe a couple of early ps2 games.
 
Smoked Brisket said:
If it costs what a 2080 costs today, that would be around 600 dollars. That doesnt sound like good news for consoles considering the previous gen was half that.
Click to expand...

Wrong, PS4 came out at 400$ & XB1 at 500$

Edit:mind you at 500$ the xb1 still sold decently when accounting how much weaker it was vs the competition. Both at 500$ would do decently in this new gen given enough power.
 
Last edited:
Revdarian said:
Wrong, PS4 came out at 400$ & XB1 at 500$

Edit:mind you at 500$ the xb1 still sold decently when accounting how much weaker it was vs the competition. Both at 500$ would do decently in this new gen given enough power.
Click to expand...

True about the price. Most of that was attributed to Kinect though, which was mandatory bundle for a while. Microsoft also had a lot of negative press about DRM before launch (which they retracted - something about even discs requiring online activation or something, I can't exactly recall). It was also panned as being lower performing than PS4 (although it wasn't by a lot, it was mostly just additional ammo for detractors).

So how much of Xbox 1's initial sales were because of a higher price, or lower performance, or the negative attitude, I couldn't say.

These aren't from initial sales, but it's cumulative, so you can see that Xbox had a really rough launch.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/436094/switch-vs-ps4-vs-xbox-one-global-lifetime-salesjanuary-2019/

The tables were flipped 180' for the previous generation, when Xbox 360 had nearly a year head start on PS3, and PS3 tried to brand as the "premium" console with a much higher price tag. How much of that is because of first-to-market advantage, and how much due to price, again, I couldn't say.

But both generations do tend to point to a higher priced console not doing as well.

And then there's Nintendo, which seems to do pretty well at lower price points. Not consistently well, but much better than you would expect given disparity in power/capability and often limited developer support.
 
Last edited:
I am going to disagree, I am geting older but I clearly remember xbox 1 for 299 at bestbuy then dropping to 199 at xmas, ps4 maybe a bit more expensive but matching the price almost immediately. Maybe stores were selling them at lower markups in the states? Regardless no way I am paying even 400 for a console, that is just me. I bought a used ps2 years ago just to play final fantasy 10(50 BUCKS) and a used ps3 for 99 to use as a streamer/dvd player.
 
Ready4Dis said:
They stopped from locking games forever ago... Unless they got back into it.
Click to expand...

They target 60Fps, and scale the resolution between 720 and 1080 to maintain it.
Both PS4 and Xbox One have dynamic resolution scaling and target 60 fps while the resolution ranges from 720p to 1080p on both consoles. The Xbox One mostly moves between 900p and 720p though, while the PS4 manages to keep the 1080p more often.
Click to expand...

Ready4Dis said:
Why on Earth would xbone support freesync if frame rate was limited and synced with vsync, that would make 0 sense..
Click to expand...

Someone wants to game on it with a PC display??
 
Some outside olive
The Xbone Scorpio has actually better GPU than PS4, and quite capable to do 4k.
1298574546091.jpg
 
I like the PS, but the never again sony in me won't let me pull that trigger. I hope the xbox lands in the same category.
 
KarsusTG said:
I like the PS, but the never again sony in me won't let me pull that trigger. I hope the xbox lands in the same category.
Click to expand...
but xbone is spying on you hard. They don't care about anything. (one reason why ps4 sold much better than xbone)
 
cyklondx said:
but xbone is spying on you hard. They don't care about anything. (one reason why ps4 sold much better than xbone)
Click to expand...

Ya, but I have a microsoft account already, I don't see them getting much more out of me in the 5 or so hours a week I play diablo 3 on the xbox lol.

Also, you are kidding yourself if you think Sony isn't also. Lets not kid ourselves, Microsoft is surely a general in this Malevolence army, but Sony is at least a colonel.
 
KarsusTG said:
Ya, but I have a microsoft account already, I don't see them getting much more out of me in the 5 or so hours a week I play diablo 3 on the xbox lol.

Also, you are kidding yourself if you think Sony isn't also. Lets not kid ourselves, Microsoft is surely a general in this Malevolence army, but Sony is at least a colonel.
Click to expand...

The only reason there is a perceived difference here, is because for the longest time Microsoft made you buy the camera with the always-on microphone, and threatened to require it be attached to the console to work.

Sony just sold it as an optional add-on. Microsoft eventually relented and dropped it from the bundle, but it took a year or more of really bad sales and PR.

It turned into a "big deal" for the longest time. I don't doubt both companies are milking user accounts and consumer data for all it's worth.
 
Ready4Dis said:
They stopped from locking games forever ago... Unless they got back into it. Why on Earth would xbone support freesync if frame rate was limited and synced with vsync, that would make 0 sense. This hasn't been the case since like ps1 and maybe a couple of early ps2 games.
Click to expand...

Its on a game-by-game basis. Some are locked to 30 or 60, others are left uncapped. In some cases the base (Non-Pro and non-X) versions are locked while the "higher end" console versions are left unlocked. In cases where Pro and X versions allow you to select quality levels one option will have the FPS locked and the other will leave it uncapped. Something to remember is that these framerate locks are basically a cap. A game that is locked to 30 will run at a maximum of 30fps with developers, ideally, doing their best to keep the game around that cap at all times. Same with games locked at 60. The fps can still vary heavily from scene to scene.
 
KarsusTG said:
Ya, but I have a microsoft account already, I don't see them getting much more out of me in the 5 or so hours a week I play diablo 3 on the xbox lol.

Also, you are kidding yourself if you think Sony isn't also. Lets not kid ourselves, Microsoft is surely a general in this Malevolence army, but Sony is at least a colonel.
Click to expand...
nuuuu, don't you agree with that sht. use Talos 2 power.
 
GoodBoy said:
They target 60Fps, and scale the resolution between 720 and 1080 to maintain it.




Someone wants to game on it with a PC display??
Click to expand...
No, I mean if the frame was literally locked in the game @60fps or 30fps... You wouldn't need freesync whether you used a regular monitor or tv... It would line up with vsync perfectly and make absolutely no difference. If there is no frame rate lock and the game can run at other speeds, then freesync would make sense.
 
odditory said:
That's what he, she, and/or they said.
Click to expand...

sabrewolf732 said:
Very 2019 of you
Click to expand...

Oooh! How about a new multi-purpose, all-encompassing pronoun that can be used to include all genders and people who are betwixt gender status: s/he/it

That's good, right? Pronounced just like it's spelled!


P.S. And now I'm surely going to hell, I can feel them coming to burn my male empathy card. How does a man reconcile his desire for sympathy, kindness and equality with his desire to say stupid shit?

P.P.S. Ah, hypocrisy. It's like a cheap wine, great for drinking when you can't convince anyone you aren't drunk already.

P.P.P.S. This thread will probably die now. They usually do when I barge in to say something stupid and off-topic. Which is like another level of hypocrisy.
 
Brian_B said:
True about the price. Most of that was attributed to Kinect though, which was mandatory bundle for a while. Microsoft also had a lot of negative press about DRM before launch (which they retracted - something about even discs requiring online activation or something, I can't exactly recall). It was also panned as being lower performing than PS4 (although it wasn't by a lot, it was mostly just additional ammo for detractors).

So how much of Xbox 1's initial sales were because of a higher price, or lower performance, or the negative attitude, I couldn't say.

These aren't from initial sales, but it's cumulative, so you can see that Xbox had a really rough launch.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/436094/switch-vs-ps4-vs-xbox-one-global-lifetime-salesjanuary-2019/

The tables were flipped 180' for the previous generation, when Xbox 360 had nearly a year head start on PS3, and PS3 tried to brand as the "premium" console with a much higher price tag. How much of that is because of first-to-market advantage, and how much due to price, again, I couldn't say.

But both generations do tend to point to a higher priced console not doing as well.

And then there's Nintendo, which seems to do pretty well at lower price points. Not consistently well, but much better than you would expect given disparity in power/capability and often limited developer support.
Click to expand...

I know about the sales, I was only answering the fella that did a very wrong claim about console prices.
 
Whatever they do I hope it includes a massive overkill cooler on it. I just fired up God of War and my PS4 Pro sounded like it was about to taxi down the runway. And a quick google search shows that is the norm for this and some other games.
 
as far as I'm concerned, can't wait for the PS5 to be released even if it's only GTX 1070 level. I sold my EVGA GTX 1060 6GB 2 weeks ago. The PC games released the past 2 years have been anything but good and/or fun to play and the Mass Effect and Metro Series games have grown ... old. I never used a PS before so looking forward to Horizon Dawn and many other titles I never played.
 
Honestly I'm skeptical of 2080 levels of performance happening, but if it does it will simply mean that PC gamers will have far more powerful options to choose from at that point, which is all I really care about.

PC gaming will continue to push higher res and higher FPS, but gamers looking to play at 60 FPS on their HDTVs should have some nice options.
 
Aix. said:
Honestly I'm skeptical of 2080 levels of performance happening, but if it does it will simply mean that PC gamers will have far more powerful options to choose from at that point, which is all I really care about.

PC gaming will continue to push higher res and higher FPS, but gamers looking to play at 60 FPS on their HDTVs should have some nice options.
Click to expand...
I'm skeptical too, just thought it was interesting. Even if it's 'only' 2070 (super?), That's still pretty powerful for a console, especially since it doesn't have to compete with other apps and multiple hardware configs. Typically you can get a bit more out of a console vs. PC with all things equal due to a single target. Of course, in the real world, of will always get faster graphics cards as the lifespan of the console is much longer.
 
Aix. said:
Honestly I'm skeptical of 2080 levels of performance happening, but if it does it will simply mean that PC gamers will have far more powerful options to choose from at that point, which is all I really care about.

PC gaming will continue to push higher res and higher FPS, but gamers looking to play at 60 FPS on their HDTVs should have some nice options.
Click to expand...

Just like we have come light years in the last 3 years going from the GTX 1080ti to the RTX 2080...

Only a die hard from the PCMR would point out PC gamers have far better options over a $400-$500 console simply by buying a $1000 gpu.

tenor.gif
 
Nightfire said:
Just like we have come light years in the last 3 years going from the GTX 1080ti to the RTX 2080...

Only a die hard from the PCMR would point out PC gamers have far better options over a $400-$500 console simply by buying a $1000 gpu.
Click to expand...

If Nvidia and AMD do not have far better standalone options for PC gamers to purchase then something has gone horribly awry - not only for us but for them as well.

So what's your point? If they've somehow made 2080 levels of performance "standard" for a console, dealt with any heat/noise issues that might present, AND made it cheap/efficient enough to sell the whole console for $400-$500 then why would the outlook for standalone products not be equally bright? If you're trying to shame me with your "PCMR" label you're on the wrong website, pal.
 
Aix. said:
If Nvidia and AMD do not have far better standalone options for PC gamers to purchase then something has gone horribly awry - not only for us but for them as well.

So what's your point? If they've somehow made 2080 levels of performance "standard" for a console, dealt with any heat/noise issues that might present, AND made it cheap/efficient enough to sell the whole console for $400-$500 then why would the outlook for standalone products not be equally bright? If you're trying to shame me with your "PCMR" label you're on the wrong website, pal.
Click to expand...

Wrong website? Nah, I think most people here have thicker skin than that.

As other have pointed out, 2080 performance does not mean 2080 raw power. Consoles have a tendency to do more with less.

Claiming the future console owners will have 'nice' 60 fps options on HD is sort of arrogant as it is mainly the Jaguar cpu that holds back even current consoles from doing better.

It's pretty clear that PC owners will NOT have far better options at a remotely similar price point when the new consoles come out, same as when the One X was released. If that hurts your feelings, then sorry for you.
 
Snowdog said:
So you are creating a dumb meme cartoon that complains that people don't personally own PC's that are more powerful, than currently imaginary PS5?
Click to expand...

Nope, he just has a good sense of humor and is able to laugh at himself and everyone else. :D :) Edit: Oh, and personally, I do not care if the PS5 or XBox Two will be faster than my PC or not, since I will buy the XBox Two, anyways. :)
 
game consoles... like mario right? arent those for small children? i dont know, in our home the television is reserved for movies and children/food are not allowed into the den.
 
Nightfire said:
Wrong website? Nah, I think most people here have thicker skin than that.

As other have pointed out, 2080 performance does not mean 2080 raw power. Consoles have a tendency to do more with less.

Claiming the future console owners will have 'nice' 60 fps options on HD is sort of arrogant as it is mainly the Jaguar cpu that holds back even current consoles from doing better.

It's pretty clear that PC owners will NOT have far better options at a remotely similar price point when the new consoles come out, same as when the One X was released. If that hurts your feelings, then sorry for you.
Click to expand...

I never commented about GPU price points on PC so I'm not sure why you are attempting to argue that point. Did you take offense that I surmised that PC would continue to push both FPS and resolution with even better hardware? If 2080 performance becomes the new standard console experience then PC performance will be much higher. The fact that this has been the trend over the past 20+ years of PC and console hardware makes this something of a foregone conclusion.

The vast majority of console owners likely play on 60Hz 1080p HDTVs, and a smaller percentage will have 4K. Even if everyone had 4K HDTVs, have you seen the 2080 reviews? I would definitely describe that as "nice options for 60 FPS." That's just a statement based on available data - if you took it as arrogance that's on you. Meanwhile, PC will be pushing high Hz displays, 2K/4K+ resolutions, VR, RT, etc., and will require more horsepower to do it.
 
Snowdog said:
So you are creating a dumb meme cartoon that complains that people don't personally own PC's that are more powerful, than currently imaginary PS5?
Click to expand...

Dude, let it go.

Just because it's not released doesn't mean it's imaginary. Was the mid engine Corvette imaginary 6 months ago? Do you think Sony and AMD just sit down and whip out a console in a week? Bet you they've been working with AMD regarding Ryzen in console for longer than ANY version of Ryzen has been available for retail.

I laughed my ass off at that comic. For the longest time I was the angry person. Now I know how stupid that was and I can see the humor. I'm someone who's main rig is still using a 2500k.
 
Verge said:
Can you read?

my post:



jesus christ, stop putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

He isn't.

You said the rumor it might be approaching 2080 levels of performance because to do so would mean it would be too big or too hot or too loud, etc.

Implicit in that statement is that you can't fit increased performance in the same volume without it overheating or being a screaming banshee.

By that logic, squeezing in ps4 pro performance in a smaller, quieter package than the original fat ps3 should have been impossible.

Shit changes, and options are available that aren't in a standards complaint PC expansion card space. If they wanted to, with a half inch expansion to declensions, they could include basically the cooling surface area of 3 noctuah NH-L9I coolers plus heat piping. That's not an insignificant amount of cooling, and with the right parts sourcing, moving a whole bunch of air over it quietly shouldn't be a big deal. If it has no optical drive, that becomes even easier.
 
Comixbooks said:


PS5 Dev kit images sure the PS5 won't look like this at all but interesting.
Click to expand...


Idk but I hate videos like this. The unit is a DEVKIT... and what are you going to do for the entirety of a video? There is literally nothing to say b/c you don't know any details, no rumors, nothing confirmed... like you could Google "PS5 Devkit" and you'll see this image all over.

Where are all these people that need to watch videos and other peoples' opinions about literally everything that gets mentioned online?

/rant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top