Intrinsic said:
EricHiggin said:
What about before the PS3 to PS4 transition? What about PS2 to PS3 or PS1 to PS2? Could PS4 have been more powerful? Could they have launched at a $499 price point? Could PS4 have been given a larger case and better cooling? Were PS and MS begging AMD to find time to work with them and not price gouge them? It's not as simple as what can be done in terms of just hardware.
|
Yes, its not as simple as what can be done with just hardware. But since we are all making educated guesses here, thats the best way to go about it. The begging thing and price gouging thing aren't quantifiable.
As for launch prices, we ca also make very informed guesses at what to expect with a $400/$500 box.
|
No they are guesses as well, and any company who's doing better now than they were before, especially because they have the best overall product available in their market, isn't likely to make such a good deal this time around. It still may be a good deal based on the options available, but to assume PS5 parts are sold to PS at the same rates as PS4, is being pretty darn optimistic.
Informed based on what we can typically assume, but do we go by humbled 2013 PS or the world is our's 2006 PS? Do we assume selling at cost remains the name of the game, with MS looking stronger and stronger behind the scenes, and PS burying money since their vaults are full, or do we assume another PS3, or maybe in between? What will the new PS management decide? PS4 is still $299 and Pro is still $399. How would a streaming console from MS or PS effect the dedicated hardware in terms of specs and price? I see way more questions that need to be answered to get a strongly informed idea of what might be coming next gen, and when exactly?
Intrinsic said:
| EricHiggin said:
With Nvidia and their RTX line, what are the odds AMD has no idea that was in the works, and isn't aiming for something similar? Didn't Cerny mention ray tracing being the holy grail or something like that? What if they try to partially implement that and use a fair amount of resources to push that, instead of everything else they could? Would that also fit under next gen? We all know they like their buzz words. 4k, HDR, so why not ray tracing?
Another question would be how much more powerful than 4.2TF or 6TF is really needed to make a worthwhile jump, in comparison to previous gens? If 4.2TF was worthwhile after just 3 years, why assume they would jump to 14TF after another 3? 10TF would be another 2.3X jump.
|
Thats actually what I meant by "next gen architecture". There would be no doubt modifications or additions to what makes up each compute unit in the GPU. But those modifications wouldn'gt need to come at the cost of raw old school GPU power. For example, even though the CUs in the PS4 to PS4pro GPUs doubled from 20 to 40, half of the CUs in the PS4pro are noticeably bigger than other half.
Lol.... this thing again. Every gen we look at graphics and people say we dont need much for the next gen or that this is as good as its gonna get then boom.... we see horizon or GOW and minds are blown. Anyways, all going from 1.8TF to 4.2TF did just after 3 years was just bump up the resolution. You really don,t think the only dfference between PS4 and PS5 games will be higher a rez do you?
|
RTX has separate hardware features for ray tracing, and those take up space that could be filled with the typical old skool GPU power. AMD may have their own approach, but it will likely take up some die space regardless.
People were also saying the PS4 APU was weak overall in terms of it's specs (not for an APU specifically though) and many of them have been fairly surprised and impressed by what the devs have been able to do with that 'weak' APU. Now if PS wants to really make some more leaps instead of upgrades, they will likely need more than just 10TF next gen, but do they want to make that large of a leap? I myself don't believe they called the Pro a "mid gen upgrade/refresh" by accident.
Intrinsic said:
| EricHiggin said:
High yields is quite important for a cheaper high volume product like a console. The larger and more complex, the worse the yields. Making sure the fab can fill the demand that product will have is also as important, whether it be yields or capacity. That last thing PS wants is a PS5 flying off shelves, with people constantly complaining they can't get one. If you forecast 10 million sales, but will only be able to produce 5 million due to the fab, that's a pretty big problem. There are other ways, but the CPU/GPU/APU are the prime factor. It's no coincidence that Pro and slim came out when they shrunk from 28nm to 16nm. Will PS celebrate their 25th anniversary?
|
This is not how yeilds work. As funny as it may sound, it can only impact price not volume.
|
|
If your yields are better, you will end up with more usable dies, which lowers the price per die, per wafer. If your yields are poor, you end up with less usable dies, which raises the cost per die, per wafer. That would mean if they didn't have enough volume due to poor yields, they would either need to install more production lines and eat the cost, or tell PS they couldn't make enough to fill the forecasted orders, so use another higher yield process instead. The companies don't swap all fabs at once to the new node. As the new node yields and orders increase, they install more and increase production to offer a higher volume of cheaper product.
