Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by gigaxtreme1, Mar 24, 2019.
The whole 4 GB of DDR4 plus 20 GB of GDDR6 is a bone-headed prediction.
2TB platter drive incoming
The PS5 would cost 1000$ if this leak is true.
So it is fake.
The PS Triple was $600 bucks, news not really. ps5 could be all of this for $600 or less it's ryzen.
They don't exist in a vacuum. Sony will still have to compete with other consoles, and if going completely digital suddenly makes it prohibitively expensive to purchase games because there's no alternative to the PS Store, then they'll essentially price their customers out of the market. Great way to sell your competitors' consoles/software if you bend over your own customers like that.
8gb minimum, 16gb is very likely. They will likely push for 4k resolutions so you would have to have at least 16gb memory to make that happen. AMD would like to continue to sell these gpu chips and they will likely keep that contract. I doubt nVidia will ever make a big enough play for graphics chips for a console.
I would be fine with a digital only PS5, but many people use their consoles as a media center, so it would be crazy not to include a UHD Blu Ray player.
It would also put GameStop out of biz, so I'm not sure they would want to do that.
I didn't say anywhere that it should be the "stardard setup". I said that would be my ideal console. The last console I bought a physical game for was PS3. I have no interest in buying used games, selling my games, or having to keep track of discs. I realize that digital console games generally cost more than their PC counterparts, and keep a high price tag longer than physical discs. But it's not at is bargains cannot be had. Both Sony and Microsoft do hold digital sales, sometimes pretty good ones if your patient. Furthermore, third parties do sell digital console keys that also often compete with Steam (I don't count shady grey-market keys). GMG sells Sony keys. Most major retailers... Amazon, Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Gamestop sell digital copies, each of which often have their own sales or purchase incentives.
Truthfully it flabbergasts me that console gamers are so steadfast in their need for an optical drive. On PC, most of us gave them up 10 years ago, and the world didn't end. People bitch that inferior consoles hold back what PC's are capable of, but then also bitch when consoles try to adopt some of the ideas that make PCs superior. I stand by it, I'd much rather see a sleeker, cooler, more reliable game system that isn't held back by decades old technology.
That's complete horseshit on the GPU and the ram. This is GDDR6, so you don't need the 384-bit kludge powering the One x, let-alone the 320-bits that this rumor would entail.
Navi is expected to replace Vega 56, so you can power it with a 256-bit bus (same bandwidth as the RTX 2080), which should be fine with 16GB dedicated ram. 20GB requires 320-bits, or two more memory chips, raising build costs over the PS4 Pro.
Even with only Vega 56-level performance, it will be over twice the speed of the Pro (up to 4x if you can use FP16). That will be no slouch at 4k 30 fps medium, or 1440p 60 fps high , for complex games, and 4k 60 would be painless for simper games.
The only accurate part is the dedicated DDR4 OS ram is the same as PS4 Pro, but will probably only be 2GB. And Zen 2 is a given - now that the chiplets are 8-core. So you can just mass-produce for now at 7nm in a single package (3 chips, CPU + custom mem controller + GPU), then combined into a single chip once the next process node ships.
The 20gig of gddr6 (VRAM) and only 4 of ddr4 for OS is a bit odd but the radeon VII does have 16gig dedicated so maybe not too far out of reach.
The only odd part of that is the 20 gig as it would mean a 320 bit bus which would be a little weird. The 20 gig gddr6 would be for both vram and ram for gaming with the separate 4 gig of ddr4 for background stuff just like the current Pro has 8 gig of gddr5 for vram and ram for gaming and separate 1 gig of ddr3 for background stuff.
I highly doubt SSD of any kind will be present, unless they want to price the thing at $600+.
maybe the consoles will finally have some sort of ssd caching built in.
that'd be an upgrade over a spinner.
I seriously doubt the 14.2 teraflops myself. Hell even the 2080TI is slightly above 13. If it is true this thing is going to be super expensive.
Considering the One X has an 8 Core CPU, 12GB of ram and a RX580 equivalent for $299 on sale, I can see this being a real thing. (Yes, it is an older 8 Core CPU but, the newer Ryzen are inexpensive, as it is.)
Not really any news here. it's been clear for about 2years that next-gen ps/xbox was gonna have an 8 core 16 thread ryzen based processor. and yeah that gpu must be for the pro version.
Yeah, that's true. But, the way games are headed, I don't see games staying under 100-150 gigs per each one in the near future. Already seeing a few in my PS4 lineup that cost this much. 2 TB just doesn't cut it anymore, even for a somewhat casual console gamer.
For everyone saying no way to the gpu
the ps3 GPU at launch was faster/as fast as the fastest available PC gpu.
The ati gpu in the 360 was also very strong.
I think the real debate is as to whether navi can pump 14 Tflop.
2TB would be a good place to start, assuming you can add your own drive if you need more.
Okay fair enough impossible is too harsh a word maybe they could be hiding their best stuff for when PS5 shows up
I will buy it day one if my PS4 games and progress carry over.
Yeah I don't see this rumor playing out.
PS3 was pricey up front, largely due to that large custom CPU, and that nearly sank them for that generation. They ended up stripping out everything and the kitchen sink to get the price down. They did finally make a comeback, but only because that generation of consoles lived for so long it was able to get out from under that horrible launch. And if you want an example other than Sony - Microsoft turned around and did the same thing with XB1.
Having a GPU more powerful than a R7 would be great.... but I don't see that happening inside the thermal constraints of a console, or within the price constraints of what most households will pay for a console.
Sure you can say Navi and 7nm and everything will be better than Vega on R7... but hey, R7 is already on 7nm... and as great as Navi will be, it won't magically make the same performance at 1/4 the TDP needed to fit inside a console (Sure the GPU alone isn't 1/4, but remember you also have to squeeze a CPU in the console box as well).
So yeah, I would say that technically those specs could be hit... the console would be the size of a mid-tower case or it would sound like a screaming banshee... and it would cost a lot. But thinking about all the practicalities and "expectations" that households have for consoles: that it will fit under their TV on a media shelf, that it will blend in with their HT setup, that it will cost around $400 +/- ... you add all of those unofficial requirements in there, and no, this rumor just won't happen in 2020/21.
Going to chime in here that with Vega 64 you could get it under 175 watts at load with 90 to 95% of stock performance by tweaking voltages and clocks.
The problem with Vega was that it takes a ton of power for the clocks to scale to where they currently are. Going to assume Vega vii is the same.
Polaris was this was as well and was very competitive in terms of power/performance at lower frequencies but once frequencies bumped up power consumption sky rockets.
If they fix this with Navi I'm sure it can get in the power envelope needed. Ryzen is also very power efficient as it is, 7nm ryzen will be even more so.
People saying $700 is fine nowadays are fools. It would be DoA at that point. All MS would have to do is coming at a $500 or less price point and would win the generation. Spec mean very little to the console gamer. Just look at history. Typically the cheapest console won the generation.
Even the 2080Ti right now .. that hits the TFlop number in the rumor, but does it at 250W TDP. Sure, scale that down to 7nm and you'll cut that significantly, but a console ~total~ TDP needs to be around 250... CPU, graphics, RAM, auxiliaries, everything. I just don't see it as a plausible rumor for 2020/21. Maybe 2022 or beyond, given another generation of iteration/improvements.
I have zero faith that AMD graphics will hit nVIdia levels of efficiency one generation removed from today. I do expect it will improve... just not that much.
Definitely not. If you've followed the history of Sony and saw what happened with the Playstation 3 then you could see that Sony will never go that high ever again. They are in the lead and stayed in the lead this gen because they gave gamers exactly what they wanted which Microsoft shit all over when they announced their Xbox One. So without a doubt the console will be pricey but not $700 pricey. If I had to guess right now I would say we will be in the ballpark of $500. I would say even $400 if Sony decides to release a all-digital version of the PS5 along with the full model. $500 was the starting price of the 20GB PS4 when it launched and even that today is super expensive for a console, but we could very well see that $500 price-tag if the bump in performance is as substantial as the leak suggests.
This guy gets it. Exactly what I said. Sony stayed ahead because they dropped the price $100 compared to Microsoft at launch, and didn't shit on their customers with bullshit they didn't need or want.
Definitely don't think and will be hitting 2080ti performance. AMD tflop numbers don't seem to correlates to nvidias too well. 2070 or 80 though? I think it's plausible. Guess we will have to wait and see.
They've said everything going forward will be backwards compatible. One of the benefits of going X86 as opposed to a PowerPC architecture like the previous generations.
I'm not nearly as concerned about the specs as I am Sony bringing back some sort of backwards compatibility to the console again. With it being on x86 architecture like the current gen PS4 and the news a few months ago of them working on emulation of all previous consoles, there's no reason whatsoever why it shouldn't be at least BC with the current PS4 games and also the PS1 games since the PS3 never even lost PS1 emulation unlike it did with PS2 BC a couple years into its life cycle.
I'm a big Sony fan because of their amazing exclusive games this generation (they're why I haven't been much into PC gaming the last few years), so I'm probably going to buy the PS5 regardless, but Sony's greed with taking away BC and pushing their lackluster PS Now service is pretty annoying. Esp. since I've bought most of my PS4 games on the PSN store, so it would be much more convenient if I could just download whatevery PS4 games onto the PS5 as well to play and if they can improve performance or IQ at all on them as well like the Pro does (boost mode and super sampling), even better.
No, it wasn't. The GPU launched in the PS3 was an old 7800 GTX castrated by 128-bit bus. The performance was lower than a 7900 GS, which was a $200 part. At a time when you could buy a x1950 XT for less than a PS3 launch system.
The GPU in the 360 was more powerful, but not by much. That was mainly due to the dedicated edram. The x1800XL was faster, and available the same exact year.
The PS4 had the same problems: old 7850-level performance, which were matched by the GTX 750 Ti launched two months later, a $150 bus-powered video card.
Gone are the days of when ATI was strong enough to design multiple GPUs at-once. It's too damn expensive.
The reason Navi can't push past the vii is because every rumor site on the planet says it is targeting Vega 56 performance-level, so they can power it with inexpensive 256-bit GDDR6. You can't lower the price of Vega 56 below $350 right now because the memroy is too expensive, and Navi is aiming to replace Polaris at $250 with Vega 56 performance, so you need the same 256-bit memory bus to power it.
You can bet your ass Navi will launch at Vega 56 performance-level, and the PS5 will launch with similar or slower GPU performance. It's still over twice as powerful as the PS4 Pro.
20Gb of GDDR6? In a console that's not a ton of money? Right. These seem like wish list specs by someone who doesn't understand engineering to a price point.
20GB's of GDDR6?!
Does it also have ocean front property is Arizona? (sings song).
Even so, 20GB's seems a bit odd.
I'm not sure why anyone would be too concerned about which GPU they put in these next-gen consoles.. if you just look at what devs are able to pull off on current consoles, some of the IQ is still easily comparable to current PC games, albeit only at 30-60 FPS and with less AA and other effects, but still it's amazing at what kind of fidelity they're still able to push out of 6+ year old architecture still. I'm still pretty impressed when I go back to play some of the PS4 exclusives like Horizon: ZD, Detroit: Become Human, God of War, Uncharted 4, etc. I just wonder if they're going to be able to utilize any form Ray Tracing in next gen consoles.. I'd say so if the Crytech engine is able to pull it off on existing (non-RTX) hardware.
Now the CPU, that's where the current gen consoles are severely bottle-necked since the Jaguar architecture was made more for power efficiency than for performance and I've seen devs cite them to be the exact reason some games can't consistently hit 60 FPS on the Pro/X consoles on some titles and thus have to make due with either a locked 30 FPS (my preference) or unlocked frame rate and inconsistent performance (stuttering).
Yes, it will have an 8 Core Zen 2 Processor
Yes, it will have a Navi based GPU with Raytracing capabilities
No it will not run games at 4K at 60fps - 30 if were lucky.
Other than that, we don't know.
After googling you are correct, the 7800gtx launched in 2005 and the ps3 released in 2006. For some reason I remember reading about the rsx in the ps3 and being upset it was faster than my high end (at the time and for my budget) 6800gt. Still damn near flagship performance which we did not see with the ps4.
It wasn't much faster than your 6800 GT . You know how castrated the 6600 GT was on 128-bit DDR3? Well then, imagine a 7800 GTX on the same crappy memory bus.
They had to cut corners on every single advanced setting just to get anywhere near peak fillrate in most games. Forget MSAA, and fancy pixel shaders, or high-res textures.
That's why games that didn't use Cell to do pixel shading looked worse than on the 360, and why MSAA was a lot less common on the platform.
They cut the memory bandwidth because 8 chips of GDDR3 were still ungodly expensive in 2006, but they had to make a custom chip with a few new instructions hacked-in to work around this. If they hadn't added the bus control instructions, performance would have been the same as your 6800 GT.
I could have sworn the PS4 had some type of USB conversion going on the SATA 3 interface making it slower. If it was full fledged SATA 3 we would see increased loading times unless the CPU is bottlenecking.
You might be right on the original PS4 with the USB-to-SATA-II conversion (not really sure on that one) but on the PS4 Pro, the CPU is very much holding back the SSD on SATA-III; it is still an improvement, but not night-and-day like we see in laptops and desktops with more powerful CPUs.
I remember upgrading netbooks a while back from 5400RPM HDDs to SSDs, and there was zero difference in performance and load times because the single/dual-core Atom CPUs were such an extreme bottleneck; in fact, the only improvement that was noticed was disk-based benchmarks that were placing the load solely on the drive itself and not on the CPU, then an improvement was noticed.
I was actually going to comment on that very thing earlier in the thread with everyone wanting M.2 NVMe-based SSDs, but an 8-core Ryzen is more than enough to keep up with that.
That was definitely part of the price, but the major chunk of it was the Blu-ray drive at the time; at the PS3's launch in 2006, Blu-ray drives (read-only) were around $400+.
It could end up with a hybrid drive using SSD for the cache. Surprisingly the latency is low and transfer speeds are pretty high, compared to a standard hard drive