Quantcast
PS5 Coming at the End of 2020 According to Analyst: High-Spec Hardware for Under $500

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Coming at the End of 2020 According to Analyst: High-Spec Hardware for Under $500

Price, SKUs, specs ?

Only Base Model, $399, 9-10TF GPU, 16GB RAM 18 27.27%
 
Only Base Model, $449, 10-12TF GPU, 16GB RAM 10 15.15%
 
Only Base Model, $499, 12-14TF GPU, 24GB RAM 17 25.76%
 
Base Model $399 and PREMIUM $499 specs Ans3 10 15.15%
 
Base Mod $399 / PREM $549, >14TF 24GB RAM 5 7.58%
 
Base Mod $449 / PREM $599, the absolute Elite 6 9.09%
 
Total:66
DonFerrari said:
CGI-Quality said:

It's not just a simple matter of selling it at a loss, it would be massive and not worth it (remember, we're just talking RAM). You can't just throw any amount in a system and call it a day. 

24GB is tough enough to predict. Forget about 32. It isn't going to happen and there's no point in preparing for it.

Understood.

I expect Mark Cerny do a similar job on PS5 and have everything balanced that all parts complement, so if it can't do more is not because of CPU/GPU/RAM alone but all together.

If from your expectation of the system going from 16 to 24 is already a lot and 32 is pointless I see very little reason to doubt.

Oh, don't misunderstand me, though. I certainly expect excellent, beefy machines (for the time)! I also totally understand you guys' excitement (new consoles on the horizon leaves a good feeling for a gamer like very few things). I'm really trying to just help y'all keep expectations in check, because I have a tad of extended knowledge in the field and don't want to see hopes crushed simply because they expected too much. 

So, I think the PS5 will launch with at least 16GB of RAM, a customized and powerful Navi GPU, at least a 2TB HDD, and Zen 2. Y'all will see how that will fair in the hands of devs like Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog, and Santa Monica. Trust me, you'll forget that there isn't 32GB of G6 in the system. ;)



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
DonFerrari said:

Understood.

I expect Mark Cerny do a similar job on PS5 and have everything balanced that all parts complement, so if it can't do more is not because of CPU/GPU/RAM alone but all together.

If from your expectation of the system going from 16 to 24 is already a lot and 32 is pointless I see very little reason to doubt.

Oh, don't misunderstand me, though. I certainly expect excellent, beefy machines (for the time)! I also totally understand you guys' excitement (new consoles on the horizon leaves a good feeling for a gamer like very few things). I'm really trying to just help y'all keep expectations in check, because I have a tad of extended knowledge in the field and don't want to see hopes crushed simply because they expected too much. 

So, I think the PS5 will launch with at least 16GB of RAM, a customized and powerful Navi GPU, at least a 2TB HDD, and Zen 2. Y'all will see how that will fair in the hands of devs like Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog, and Santa Monica. Trust me, you'll forget that there isn't 32GB of G6 in the system. ;)

Don't worry, I never understood your post as bath of cold water (or rain on the parade to use the american equivalent).

I know the system you are expecting is quite good and balanced and what is feasible on the budget expected. I was just curious if 32 didn't make sense on technical side as well as monetary. If 16GB isn't a bottleneck for what you think of APU then there would be no need to expect more.

Also it certainly is better to be surprised with better than expected than be let down on excessive expectations. I still remember people thinking Switch would had equivalent PS4 HW but on the go because of a lot of rumors saying it. Switch is good and have hit the mark on price/portability/power (sure could be better on battery or lower on price or any other request that would change the balance to fits person particular wishe, but on package it do fine).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
CGI-Quality said:
I'm REALLY trying to help the select few of you avoid preparing for something that isn't going to happen. You will not see a 32GB console, no matter how many times you use your keyboard to type: "32GB........... it's happening.........!". It isn't. At one point, I would have said no way to 24 too, but that's a more likely scenario (though that will be the ceiling, not the floor). You just aren't realistically factoring in affordability vs cost (Sony will be particular about this) and it is going to come back and bite these types of predictions hard. I could see a 24GB PS5 Pro/Xbox equivalent (probably not at launch), but that's it.

Best to be safe (16GB G6, for example) then to go in with an overprediction and then claim 'disappointment' later. I've seen it time, and time, and time again!

Besides cost what reason would you put for no 32GB?

Is it based on what you expect of CPU/GPU used not needing more than 24GB then it just being waste?

Because if just cost, it can be sold for a loss if that would really make the system better like trading some of the envelope in other stuff to put more RAM. Also it could happen just like it did with PS4, that at this moment they have 16GB on the project, but in 2 years the price of RAM shifts considerably and they can double it without over expending.

First off its that games don't even need that kinda RAM to run. Especially when the target next gen is 4K gaming.

Secondly its that a console doesn't need that much RAM. Especially when its OS can sit comfortably within 4GB.

Then you have to also consider the cost. The difference between having 16GB of GDDR6 and having 32GB is literally double. And 16GB will likely cost them around $70 - $100. They are not going to do that when it will even cost them less to throw in 4GB of LPDDR4 RAM in there for the OS than it would cost them to et another 4GB of GDDR6 

And in all this we are just talking RAM. They are not spending $140 - $200 on RAM alone. That money would be better spent (if at all) n a better APU and better cooling. And the reason they have 16GB on the project now is not because its affordable now, its because they are hoping its affordable by 2020.



Intrinsic said:
DonFerrari said:

Besides cost what reason would you put for no 32GB?

Is it based on what you expect of CPU/GPU used not needing more than 24GB then it just being waste?

Because if just cost, it can be sold for a loss if that would really make the system better like trading some of the envelope in other stuff to put more RAM. Also it could happen just like it did with PS4, that at this moment they have 16GB on the project, but in 2 years the price of RAM shifts considerably and they can double it without over expending.

First off its that games don't even need that kinda RAM to run. Especially when the target next gen is 4K gaming.

Secondly its that a console doesn't need that much RAM. Especially when its OS can sit comfortably within 4GB.

Then you have to also consider the cost. The difference between having 16GB of GDDR6 and having 32GB is literally double. And 16GB will likely cost them around $70 - $100. They are not going to do that when it will even cost them less to throw in 4GB of LPDDR4 RAM in there for the OS than it would cost them to et another 4GB of GDDR6 

And in all this we are just talking RAM. They are not spending $140 - $200 on RAM alone. That money would be better spent (if at all) n a better APU and better cooling. And the reason they have 16GB on the project now is not because its affordable now, its because they are hoping its affordable by 2020.

We know that doesn't matter how much RAM we give devs they will manage to fill it =p

But I can understand that for what is expected of the HW 16 is enough (as long as they either keep OS under 4, or just give it a dedicated pool, I also liked the idea of some nand memory for the OS as well, something cheap and fit).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

We know that doesn't matter how much RAM we give devs they will manage to fill it =p

But I can understand that for what is expected of the HW 16 is enough (as long as they either keep OS under 4, or just give it a dedicated pool, I also liked the idea of some nand memory for the OS as well, something cheap and fit).

Oh thats true... devs will no doubt find a way to use all that but yh, the consoles don't need that.

You can also rest easy on the dedicated pool for OS RAM. I am also sure its happening being that its already happening with the PS4pro. Sony added 1GB of DDR3 RAM in the PS4pro exclusive for the OS freeing up 1GB of GDDR5 RAM. Half of that goes to games allowing 5.5GB of RAM available to devs and half is reserved as OS VRAM allowing the OS be rendered in 4k. So all Cerny has t do is pretty much continue what he is already doing.  



Intrinsic said:
DonFerrari said:

We know that doesn't matter how much RAM we give devs they will manage to fill it =p

But I can understand that for what is expected of the HW 16 is enough (as long as they either keep OS under 4, or just give it a dedicated pool, I also liked the idea of some nand memory for the OS as well, something cheap and fit).

Oh thats true... devs will no doubt find a way to use all that but yh, the consoles don't need that.

You can also rest easy on the dedicated pool for OS RAM. I am also sure its happening being that its already happening with the PS4pro. Sony added 1GB of DDR3 RAM in the PS4pro exclusive for the OS freeing up 1GB of GDDR5 RAM. Half of that goes to games allowing 5.5GB of RAM available to devs and half is reserved as OS VRAM allowing the OS be rendered in 4k. So all Cerny has t do is pretty much continue what he is already doing.  

Yep.  Cerny already made a step forward with PS4 PRO, so it sounds natural they will continue with that on PS5.   From the "leak" : Memory: 24GB - 20GB GDDR6 at 880Gb/s - 4GB DDR4 reserved for OS; is this kind of solution too costy ?  If you ask me, 20GB GDDR6 at 880Gb/s would be fantastic for gaming, and considering the life cycle has been lengthened lately.   Could be feasible ?  



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Nate4Drake said:
Intrinsic said:

Oh thats true... devs will no doubt find a way to use all that but yh, the consoles don't need that.

You can also rest easy on the dedicated pool for OS RAM. I am also sure its happening being that its already happening with the PS4pro. Sony added 1GB of DDR3 RAM in the PS4pro exclusive for the OS freeing up 1GB of GDDR5 RAM. Half of that goes to games allowing 5.5GB of RAM available to devs and half is reserved as OS VRAM allowing the OS be rendered in 4k. So all Cerny has t do is pretty much continue what he is already doing.  

Yep.  Cerny already made a step forward with PS4 PRO, so it sounds natural they will continue with that on PS5.   From the "leak" : Memory: 24GB - 20GB GDDR6 at 880Gb/s - 4GB DDR4 reserved for OS; is this kind of solution too costy ?  If you ask me, 20GB GDDR6 at 880Gb/s would be fantastic for gaming, and considering the life cycle has been lengthened lately.   Could be feasible ?  

I must say I'm a bit puzzled with that 880GB/s - it seems as if someone took 11Gbps GDDR5X with 640-bit bus width and came to that number.

EDIT: There's another possibility - Micron demonstrated back in June that 16Gbps GDDR6 can be pushed to 20Gbps with slight voltage overclock. So 11x 2GB modules on 352-bit bus would give 880GB/s...but that sounds even more out there.

Last edited by HoloDust - on 15 February 2019

lansingone said:

I agree. I think after XB1 they'll be playing every aspect of this launch safe.

I do think that unlike the start of this gen, the hardware inside will be slightly different, because AMD seems more inclined to make custom chips than before. If those previous leaks are to believed, I expect PS5 to have a Navi GPU with whatever additions Sony needed, and MS will have a pretty much equally powerful Vega based GPU. 

Why can't Microsoft leverage Navi as well?

DonFerrari said:

Understood your point, but it seemed to high of a jump. I get really flustered with how inneficient it seems to have an OS that seems very close to what we have had for the last 20 years but it needing so much resources to do it.

It also frightens me that they may increase it a lot for next gen again and gaming functions lose space.

I think a good ballpark is 3-4GB for the OS next gen, there really isn't an appropriate reason why that should blow out... Except for a push for 4k, but I think better memory caching is the answer for that.

CGI-Quality said:
I'm REALLY trying to help the select few of you avoid preparing for something that isn't going to happen. You will not see a 32GB console, no matter how many times you use your keyboard to type: "32GB........... it's happening.........!". It isn't. At one point, I would have said no way to 24 too, but that's a more likely scenario (though that will be the ceiling, not the floor). You just aren't realistically factoring in affordability vs cost (Sony will be particular about this) and it is going to come back and bite these types of predictions hard. I could see a 24GB PS5 Pro/Xbox equivalent (probably not at launch), but that's it.

Best to be safe (16GB G6, for example) then to go in with an overprediction and then claim 'disappointment' later. I've seen it time, and time, and time again!

Precisely. As time goes on... 24GB seems to be the upper limit that I am willing to bet on.
It would mean a 384-bit memory bus though, so probably not the ideal configuration for a base-console that is supposed to hit $200 price points late in it's life.

Nate4Drake said:

Yep.  Cerny already made a step forward with PS4 PRO, so it sounds natural they will continue with that on PS5.   From the "leak" : Memory: 24GB - 20GB GDDR6 at 880Gb/s - 4GB DDR4 reserved for OS; is this kind of solution too costy ?  If you ask me, 20GB GDDR6 at 880Gb/s would be fantastic for gaming, and considering the life cycle has been lengthened lately.   Could be feasible ?  

24GB on a 384bit memory with 16Gbps chips is probably around the 768GB/s of bandwidth mark.
16GB on a 256bit bus will hit the 512GB/s mark... Which isn't actually a bad amount for 4k gaming.

But I wouldn't be surprised if it's lower than even that... Not even RTX is using 16Gbps chips yet AFAIK... No way is 880GB/s happening with GDDR6 right now though.

I think bandwidth will remain conservative... And a higher emphasis on GPU efficiency to extract more out of it... Ironically, Vega has a ton of features that aren't functional that would have helped on the bandwidth front too... So I expect them to be working with Navi and newer architectures.



Pemalite said:
lansingone said:

I agree. I think after XB1 they'll be playing every aspect of this launch safe.

I do think that unlike the start of this gen, the hardware inside will be slightly different, because AMD seems more inclined to make custom chips than before. If those previous leaks are to believed, I expect PS5 to have a Navi GPU with whatever additions Sony needed, and MS will have a pretty much equally powerful Vega based GPU. 

Why can't Microsoft leverage Navi as well?

It was just working with a what if scenario. As I said, it's under the assumption that the previous leaks about Navi being designed as a PS5 chip were true. I feel it would follow the same roadmap as when AMD made the RX pro for Apple. Sure other polaris mobile chips were sold to other OEMs based on that design, but Apple got it first.

I'm not trying to say it's definite, i'm just saying that according to that information, and based on the closeness Sony were rumored to be working with AMD, even though Sony wouldn't have exclusive rights to Navi in a console, It would probably mean it would be exclusive until it ships. That reality would be disaster for MS, because they'd essentially have to wait for PS5 to launch, just to start ordering the final design.

So, my assumption was If all of that was true, I would think MS would use an already available Vega and launch sooner.



Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
Trumpstyle said:

Here's my spec prediction for next-gen consoles:

Xbox two
CPU: Zen2 8 cores, 16 threads, 2,4 ghz
GPU: Navi 5TF, 30CU with 1300 Mhz clock, 570 radeon performance
Memory: 8GB Gddr5 Ram, 256-bit bus, 256 GB/s Bandwidth
Storage: 1TB NVMe drive
Launch: Fall 2020 300$

Xbox two+
CPU: Zen2 8 cores, 16 threads, 3,2 ghz
GPU: Navi 11,5TF, 60CU with 1500 Mhz clock, slightly above vega 64 performance
Memory: 16GB Gddr6 Ram, 256-bit bus, 448 GB/s Bandwidth
Storage: 1TB NVMe drive
Launch: Fall 2020 500$

Playstation 5
CPU: Zen2 8 cores, 16 threads, 2,8 ghz
GPU: Navi 9TF, 56CU with 1200-1300 Mhz clock, Vega 56 performance
Memory: 12GB Gddr6 Ram, 192-bit bus, 336 GB/s Bandwidth
Storage: 1TB NVMe or SSD drive
Launch: Spring 2020 400$

So far we seen CGI-Q make predictions and I got a pretty good idea of Pemalites prediction based on his comments here and previous ones, I hope others will make some predictions so we can see who wins. After GDC 2019 we will likely get a better clue what we can expect from next-gen consoles and hopefully leaks shortly after.

Is an SSD really a possibility?  Seems like something that most consumers wouldn't care as much about or give that much better performance considering the cost involved?  Considering how much more the box would cost to produce they would really be taking a hit either in the performance of more important parts for graphics or be taking a hit in price.  Over millions of units it saves a lot while really not sacrificing much performance.  Also isn't that the same amount of RAM as the XboxX (better type I know) while this machine is supposed to last through 2026 at least?  I know it's $100 cheaper than the X currently but that still would be short sighted to me.  I recall Sony doubling the RAM in PS4 shortly before they announced it from 4 to 8 and that was a huge increase over PS3

An SSD will make the OS faster and more responsive, load times in games will improve. But the main point with a SSD is to allow game developers create new gaming experiences which would otherwise not be possible with a slow mechanical drive.

About the price for NVMe or SSD drive, right now on newegg a 2TB laptop mechanical drive is 85$ (they will not go for desktop mechanical drive because of heat, vibrations and future slim version), a 1TB SSD is 103$ (cheapest one) and 1TB NVMe drive is 135$ (intel 660p). As you can see the prices are pretty close, but flash storage is predicted to fall between 20-50% this year. And so I believe 1TB flash storage will be cheaper than 2TB mechanical drive by end of this year. But if the price is to high for 1TB flash storage Microsoft and Sony will sacrifice Vram to make it affordable which I have in my speculation.

Now we have good folks here at Vgchartz, resetera and beyond3D almost everyone think next-gen will have 2TB mechanical drive, and some think it will come with some flash storage. But the simple fact is a 12GB Vram + Flash storage will obliterate a 16GB Vram + mechanical drive setup and with Amd:s High-bandwidth cache technology it will 3x obliterate the mechanical setup.

The reason for this is with Flash storage you get better usage from the Vram then a slow storage solution with high Vram as you always need to buffer a lot of asset ahead of time and this will just get worse in next-gen if we go mechanical drive again.

So we can pretty much be 100% certain next-gen will go with 1TB flash storage.

Intrinsic said:

Here's mine

PS5
CPU Zen2 8 cores 16 threads@ 3.2Ghz
GPU Navi 11.9TF, 72CU@1300Mhz
RAM 16GB GDDR6, 256 Bitbus, 512GB/s Bandwidth + 4GB LPDDR4 
STORAGE 240GB embedded Nand Flash Primary drive + 2TB HDD secondary
PRICE $399


XBOX 
CPU Zen2 8 cores 16 threads@ 3.5Ghz
GPU Navi 13.1TF, 72CU@1425Mhz
RAM 16GB GDDR6, 256 Bitbus, 512GB/s Bandwidth + 4GB LPDDR4 
STORAGE 240GB embedded Nand Flash Primary drive + 2TB HDD secondary
PRICE $399

XBOX Lite
CPU Zen2 8 cores 16 threads@ 3Ghz
GPU Navi 7.1TF, 56CU@1000Mhz
RAM 12GB GDDR6, 192 Bitbus, 384GB/s Bandwidth + 4GB LPDDR4 
STORAGE 120GB embedded Nand Flash Primary drive + 1TB HDD secondary
PRICE $299

 

Thats my take on things. First off I believe Navi is going to break that 64CU limitation and thus we end up with GPUs with twice the CU count in the PS4pro. There is more on this but thats a long story.

As for the Xbox I think everyone hearing multiple skus is getting it wrong. MS doesnt have to make something that is way more powerful than the PS5 they just have to make something that is marginally more powerful and thus they can scream most powerful console in the world like they want to. More importantly there is no way they start next gen having a console that is $100 more expensive than the PS5. They will wat to come in at the same price while being a touch more powerful. Especially if that $100 more only gets them 2TF extra..... no one sees HDD, and 2TF more compared to a 10/12TF box will be very hard to spot.

MS real trump card will be in also making a cheaper sku. Think of it as a 1080p/1440p console. Everyone seems to think MS is gonna come in high, I think they will come in low as having a console that is $100 cheaper than the PS5 will be way more impactful in NA (their strongest market) than any other strategy. And even in EU. 

With these specs even at $399 I expect sony and MS to be taking a slight loss per console sold. Around $40-$100 loss. And this is something else people seem not to consider. Sony will be willing to take a loss on their hardware, they are not stupid and probably will know more abut what MS is doing than anyone else..... and more s they can afford to. Makes n sense conceding performance t such an extent where there is a noticable difference between the two consoles. Furthermore, if the XB+ is similarly priced then it would be similarly specced or better specced but taking a bigger loss 

Dude this is what pretty much everyone is predicting :) but I think is just to optimistic if Microsoft and Sony goes for this kind of setup.

I would slightly lower the clock speed for the Cpus, remove the LPDDR ram and lower the TF numbers. I think this would be more reasonable. And if Sony and Microsoft goes for a hybrid storage solution I expect it to be 1TB mechanical drive + 64-124 GB of flash storage. I just don't see any reason to go for 240 GB flash storage unless for high speed.

Also I don't think we can expect Sony or Microsoft to take heavy losses on the next-gen consoles, moores law is simply dead, hardware components just don't fall in price as it used to. It's just to risky to take big losses out of the gate as they risk enduring those losses for a very long time.

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 16 February 2019

"Donald Trump is the greatest president that god has ever created" - Trumpstyle

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!