| JEMC said: Next gen consoles will have hardware capable of ray tracing, so their GPUs will likely be based on AMD's next gen architecture, not the actual. That's not to say that they'll be as powerful as a 2080, of course, there are a lot of reasons why that isn't realistic (cost and heat are the obvious ones), but we have to keep that in mind. |
Todays AMD Radeon GPU's are capable of Ray Tracing.
They just don't have dedicated Ray Tracing cores to handle the task, that is likely the differentiator for next gen verses AMDs current hardware offerings.
| Trumpstyle said: Dude, you can't just move facts around. The Radeon 5500 is a mid-range card ($200), it's on 7nm and loses to radeon 580. How much $/perf you actually believe Nvidias 7nm cards will improve? I'm not expecting much. |
The Radeon RX 590/580/480/5500 are all mid-range cards.
The 5500 should drop to lower price points than Polaris though in the long run due to the smaller chip size.
nVidia has a ton of room to move on 7nm, I wouldn't discount them yet.
| HollyGamer said: Probably you are correct. The total optimization of the CPU and GPU tandem on APU plus better RAM, as well using low level API on consoles will have similar result with PC games running on RTX 2080 using Windows PC. So the GPU probably on the level between 2070 to 2080. |
What optimizations specifically?
PC gets optimizations too.
In short, the 8th gen consoles really aren't doing anything that I wouldn't expect from the PC equivalent hardware.
I.E. Xbox One X is around the same as a Radeon RX 580/590 in terms of image quality.
| ManUtdFan said: It's strongly rumored the so-called dedicated ray tracing doesn't take much performance hit on the GPU. If so good news. But if not the case it would be annoying if much GPU horsepower went on ray tracing. It's Toy Story quality at best, looks too sterile to be photorealistic. Path tracing is a big step up. But requires huge performance. 4k/60 fps should be mandatory. |
There will be a performance hit though. - Whenever there is a sharing of resources (I.E. Bandwidth, Caches etc'.) there is a hit to performance due to contention on the hardware, no two ways about it.
The goal is to make the corresponding hit to performance, justify the increase in fidelity.
| mjk45 said: Years of PC development with its myriad different configurations, means modern game engines are designed with scalability at the forefront, so having multiple SKU is today not the hindrance it would have been in past generations, this means having just one version has lost the importance it once had. |
This.
| HollyGamer said: " Scalability " and " modern engines " is a vague words and terms and need more explanation. How far games can be scalable,and how far you can consider as modern? |
Engines are significantly scalable.
Turn off Screen-space ambient occlusion, tessellation, scale back particle density and quality, reduce shadow map resolution, scale back texture filtering, mip levels and anti-aliasing, resolution and framerates and you can take a game that would run on the Xbox One X... And drop it onto the Switch which is 10x less performant, if not more.
Take Frostbite for instance, the same engine we are using today (Frostbite 3.0) looks absolutely stunning with Ray Tracing and all the bells and whistles on a high-end PC, but that same engine has the capability to scale down not only to the Xbox One without Ray Tracing, but also the Xbox 360, it will look like ass, but it can be done.
Engines like Unreal, Frostbite, Unity, CryEngine, idTech, NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation Engine have all proven their scalability, not just across multiple hardware generations, but having chunks of their rendering pipeline enhanced/rewritten to introduce new effects on current hardware too.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
