The power consumption on the 64-Watercooled, oh dear.

I'm sure people said the same about 8GB in 2009. It's still 4 years until 2021 and GPUs are already at 8GB which still seems cramped. 32GB will likely mean 8GB reserved for OS, 8GB for game logic and 16GB for textures and rendering. More memory will be very much needed if the consoles don't come with ssds. Caching ahead will be essential to keep speeds up. Procedural generation is gaining popularity which avoids a lot of loading from disk, yet needs plenty of memory to store it all temporarily.

One of the high end cards in 2009 was the Radeon HD 4870 X2, 2GB ram, 2.4Tf. PS4 came out with 8GB ram, 1.84tf.  Although that was basically a sli configuration, single card was 1.2tf. I don't what speed the ps5 will come down too, yet I'm pretty confident it will have 32GB ram at least.

Tagging for later

I wonder if we'll actually see APUs next gen or rather AMD Epyc/Threadripper style interconnected (CPU/GPU) modules, which each make much better use of a waver and hence can provide the processing power for a much better price. The difficulty here lies in the bandwith of the interconnection, which has to be potent enough to operate the construct like a single chip.

The number of times you jump in power isn't as important as what you are getting inside that jump.  The PS2 was theorectically 30x-40x the power of the PS1, with 12x the RAM.  The PS3 was theorectically ~40x the power as the PS2, with ~14x the RAM.

Now, as we look at the jump to PS4, we can see what I'm saying kick in.  If Sony were to keep the same thing going, the PS4 would have had to be 7.2-9.6 Tflops, something that would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a $399 box in 2013 (or even now, for that matter.)  What we did get was a theorectical jump of ~7.5x, and an extra 1.6 Tflops of power.  The PS2 was a jump of ~6 Gflops and the PS3 was a jump of about 230 Gflops.  BTW, we did see RAM increase stay on par with the previous gens, so there is that.

If the PS5 was to keep the same jump as previous gens, compared to the PS4's actual numbers, we would be looking at a jump to 55+ Tflops, with 96+ GB of RAM.  Now, who seriously thinks that is going to happen?  No one who is sane.  We are going to be getting a jump in power more in line with the jump from PS3 to PS4, with a big decrease in the jump in RAM.  16GB is very realistic, with 32GB being the top realistic pick on a wishlist.

Is there a reason you keep saying Navi is coming in 2018?  It is being reported now that it is coming out in 2019, which is the year I expect the PS5, or at least its announcement.  If somehow it does hit 2018, it'll be very late 2018 and in very limited quantities.  2018 is when they are going to be focusing on the Vega 20 (which is being made in 7nm 14nm+, so maybe that will be better for the PS5), or whatever that will be called, now, and the Vega 64 Pro Duo.  And since Vega was delayed, what makes you think Navi won't be?  I guess keep the hope alive.

And why wouldn't Ryzen happen exactly?  AMD's newer APUs coming in 2018 will be based on it, so why wouldn't Sony be using it in 1-2 years after that in their next console?  What else would they use?  And no, MS didn't time it just right.  The Ryzen had just come out and was expensive, so it was obvious MS wasn't going to be using it.  MS, if anything, timed it too late for their console.  While Jaguar cores seem outdated, they seem even more outdated in a $500 2017 console.  If they were going to continue using them, they should have launched with the Pro.  Of course, I doubt they had the same mid-gen plans as Sony, but they had to answer them with something.  Really, they should have just rode out the gen and used Ryzen in their next console.  As it is now, the XBX isn't going to do much and Sony can just answer with a console that makes it look weak in a couple of years.

Manufacturing costs always lower over time, even if not greatly after the first year or two.  Of course, at first, a lot of the cost is the manufacturer trying to make up for R&D costs.  AMD is not going to ignore those costs for Sony or MS, either.

Not going to happen.  Both MS and Sony have had problems with Nvidia over the pricing of their chips in the past.  It's the reason they went AMD this gen, with MS actually switching last gen.  I think they'll be sticking with AMD for quite some time.  We'll have to wait and see if Nintendo has the same problems with them as the other two did.  Plus, I'm sure after the huge success of the PS4, Sony is going to want to convince gamers to stick with them.  It'll be easier to do that with a B/C PS5, which will be much easier sticking with AMD's tech.

So here is the benchmark provided by AMD for RX Vega. Remember that since this is a benchmark provided by AMD themselves, is this more or less the best case scenario at least for BF1:



So how does that compare to the current GPUs that are on the market? Meh...

Remember that Pascal with the 1080 came out last year in May and Vega hardly caught up although granted Vega might see some more improvements through drivers but 20fps difference at 1080p is kinda :T

Here are the benchmarks for 1440p and 4k which shows similar results vs the 1080:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_1_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,7.html

And the 1080 does cost $500 too. The other thing is that Nvidia did announce Volta this year, just not the gaming versions yet but either ways, Amd is behind and they really need to do something to their GPUs to make them have a come back. Cause if Volta gaming releases next year and you can get 1080Ti level performance for $350-$400... Amd would be a generationsh behind Nvidia.

Waiting for Raven Ridge APUs, with Zen CPU and Vega GPU cores.

Lowest TDP is 210W, so the mainstream market (100-180W) is still waiting.

That won't happen. Console manufacturers learned from the Xbox 360 and PS3 that cooling two hot chips in one motherboard is expensive, inefficient and bond to cause problems. That's why they went with APUs for both the PS4 and the XboxOne and its iterations.

And that single chip strategy can't work with a mix of AMD and Nvidia parts because AMD can only make x86 CPUs because of a licensing deal with Intel that forbids them from selling or lending their x86 tech to others. This is why MSoft and Sony buy their APUs directly from AMD itself instead of going to TSMC or another semiconductor company with the chip design and contract them to make the parts. And you can bet everything you have that Nvidia won't let their GPU designs fall in AMD hands.

So the result is either going back to the two hot chips on a single board that both SOny and MSoft left behind for good, an all AMD APU, or an ARM powered SoC from Nvidia (because they can't make x86 chips), and from those three options, the first one seems to be the less likely of the lot.

OT: Vega is too power hungry and arrives a year later than it should. Hopefully, now that Ryzen has been cimpleted and launched, AMD can give more resources to the RTG and make Vega 2 or Navi a more competing product.

Neh, maybe. It's odd for AMD to release a "conservative" benchmark at a time where they really need to show people that Vega was worth the wait. What I am wondering is whether or not it is actually conservative or did AMD gimp Fury X to make Vega look better. Ik that sounds pretty conspiracy but it's really odd if they went for conservative.