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 8 27.59%
 
Only Base Model, $449, 10-12TF GPU, 16GB RAM 4 13.79%
 
Only Base Model, $499, 12-14TF GPU, 24GB RAM 7 24.14%
 
Base Model $399 and PREMIUM $499 specs Ans3 6 20.69%
 
Base Mod $399 / PREM $549, >14TF 24GB RAM 1 3.45%
 
Base Mod $449 / PREM $599, the absolute Elite 3 10.34%
 
Total:29

While were on the topic the successor to the Switch will have 64 GB of VRAM! It will be called Nintendo 64!!!!!!!!!!!



NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, PS2, GBA, GameCube, Wii, PS3,
Wii -U, PS4, Switch, and PC. 

Around the Network

As far as price goes, my bets are on that the PS5 will be $450. (The Pro's base price will go down to $350 some time this year)



CGI-Quality said:

Even if the X is selling more than the S, the point was it doesn’t change the view of affordability. It is also selling far less than the cheaper PS4. Don’t think that isn’t being noted.

As far as “20GB would be a very weird number”, we have 11GB graphics cards. 20 would hardly be any weirder than that. I know, power of two, but we've already defied that.

Doesn't really matter about powers of 2 conformity... Which has typically been AMD's memo, not nVidia's.
Each chip is usually connected via a 32bit memory bus... Memory transactions tend to be parallel.

But 20GB would mean a 320-bit memory bus... (If we assume it's using 10x 2GB chips) Which is actually less than the Xbox One X. (12x 1GB chips @ 32bit = 384bit bus - 12GB total.)

Still hedging my bets on 16GB though for a base console on a 256-bit bus, it offers the best bang for buck and keeps complexity down... The Xbox One X was a "premium" console after-all, which had more memory chips, wider memory bus, more PCB layers and a really (surprisingly) good power delivery system to power it all, none of that comes cheap.

And 16GB is actually a fairly chunky amount of memory anyway, developers can do allot within that amount of space if they leverage various technologies.
At the end of the day... Microsoft and Sony need to weigh up the Pro's and Con's of additional 4-8GB of DRAM... Or less Ram and more CPU/GPU performance... And I think the GPU is going to be at the forefront considering how stagnated AMD has been on that front... So they will likely push that envelope.. It's also the biggest sell. - People tend to be focused on GPU flops over anything the CPU or Ram does.

We should also expect the OS memory consumption to increase as well... A 4k User Interface isn't exactly going to be light on DRAM, which is why the Xbox One X's User Interface still operates at 1080P.

Last edited by Pemalite - 4 days ago

TranceformerFX said:
You guys expecting next gen consoles to have 32 GB's of RAM are going to be REALLY disappointed... Those kind of expectations aren't even remotely realistic...

It'll be 16 GB's and there won't be anything wrong with that. Why? Because I'm willing to bet 90% of the people expecting 32 GB RAM don't even have 4K HDR TV's.....

Agreed, if they can dedicate 16GB of RAM that would be plenty.

Its also worth considering 5GB of RAM for games has actually been sufficient this gen and games generally have good or great textures. Memory usage on PC games is still around 8GB recommended. So adding 32GB is a waste, put those resources elsewhere.



Recently Completed
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood
for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Random_Matt said: 
Odyssey looks average, played at 4k X1X, Outside of main character everything looked good at best. HZD obliterates it visually.

I haven't spent enough time with HZD to really judge it, but the world in that game doesn't feel as big or populated as AC:Odyssey.

When it comes to assets and character models though, I agree Sony does put greater attention to detail than others.



Recently Completed
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood
for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
CGI-Quality said:

~snip

Doesn't really matter about powers of 2 conformity... Which has typically been AMD's memo, not nVidia's.
Each chip is usually connected via a 32bit memory bus... Memory transactions tend to be parallel.

But 20GB would mean a 320-bit memory bus... (If we assume it's using 10x 2GB chips) Which is actually less than the Xbox One X. (12x 1GB chips @ 32bit = 384bit bus - 12GB total.)

Still hedging my bets on 16GB though for a base console on a 256-bit bus, it offers the best bang for buck and keeps complexity down... The Xbox One X was a "premium" console after-all, which had more memory chips, wider memory bus, more PCB layers and a really (surprisingly) good power delivery system to power it all, none of that comes cheap.

And 16GB is actually a fairly chunky amount of memory anyway, developers can do allot within that amount of space if they leverage various technologies.
At the end of the day... Microsoft and Sony need to weigh up the Pro's and Con's of additional 4-8GB of DRAM... Or less Ram and more CPU/GPU performance... And I think the GPU is going to be at the forefront considering how stagnated AMD has been on that front... So they will likely push that envelope.. It's also the biggest sell. - People tend to be focused on GPU flops over anything the CPU or Ram does.

We should also expect the OS memory consumption to increase as well... A 4k User Interface isn't exactly going to be light on DRAM, which is why the Xbox One X's User Interface still operates at 1080P.

 Yeah, if I were them, I wouldn't get my hopes up for more than 16GB. It's plenty and no PC title even uses that much.



                                                                                                                                            

DonFerrari said:
BraLoD said:

I'm not found of bets either.

It just doesn't make sense to keep on 400 when they can push without a single problem nowdays.

They are there to make money, with 500 they are able to do more/lose less, and they'll definitely go that way, same for MS.

Regardless of XBX being an upgrade, the fact its selling better than the XBO for that price shows the market already fully accept it. Also does the surge of smartphones prices as I mentioned.

Long gone are the days of PS3 $599 disaster reveal, nowdays $499 for a very wanted piece of tech is nothing.

There is not a single reason for they to keep on 399, unless they want to REALLY bleed money to screw MS, which they don't need at all.

Anyway, want to make a bet without consequences then?

Whoever is right just need to come to the other to say he was right.

As much as I would love to have the most Sony could pump on a 599 console, Market really is much bigger and viable at 399.

599 would be too much of a jump, enough to put some considerably amount of people away.

499 in the other hand is the sweet spot nowdays, they can do the most and still stay in a price range people are proven to be comfortable with.

In my eyes there is no single reason for the PS5 to not make full use of this instead of sticking with 399.

They tried to juice more power for the same price with the Pro and it didn't work all that well as going for 499 did for MS's XBX.

Also, the way the PS4 was able to mantain most of its price like no PS did before and was still able to keep it selling for record numbers is very telling, people are paying more already, and there will be a decent gap between the Pro and the PS5 price, as it'll be a complete different level of performance and technological prowess.

499 is a given, 399 is for a future Slim model.



BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

As much as I would love to have the most Sony could pump on a 599 console, Market really is much bigger and viable at 399.

599 would be too much of a jump, enough to put some considerably amount of people away.

499 in the other hand is the sweet spot nowdays, they can do the most and still stay in a price range people are proven to be comfortable with.

In my eyes there is no single reason for the PS5 to not make full use of this instead of sticking with 399.

They tried to juice more power for the same price with the Pro and it didn't work all that well as going for 499 did for MS's XBX.

Also, the way the PS4 was able to mantain most of its price like no PS did before and was still able to keep it selling for record numbers is very telling, people are paying more already, and there will be a decent gap between the Pro and the PS5 price, as it'll be a complete different level of performance and technological prowess.

499 is a given, 399 is for a future Slim model.

It is sweet spot based on anecdotes. X1 launched for 499 and after the first couple months it died out until the price cut and removal of peripheral. For a economy like USA 599 is little money, still the price to market that will have the sales starting high is 399 as proved through time. Would PS5 sell a lot at 499? Maybe, and only if Xbox is similar priced or much worse. And I doubt both. So if Sony put it at 499, they will have to cut price to fast, because only enthusiast will rush to buy it like that. They may enter another PS3 situation.

As much as we like to mock PS3 launching for 599, there was a 499 model as well, and it also had slow start.



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 said:
TranceformerFX said:
You guys expecting next gen consoles to have 32 GB's of RAM are going to be REALLY disappointed... Those kind of expectations aren't even remotely realistic...

It'll be 16 GB's and there won't be anything wrong with that. Why? Because I'm willing to bet 90% of the people expecting 32 GB RAM don't even have 4K HDR TV's.....

Agreed, if they can dedicate 16GB of RAM that would be plenty.

Its also worth considering 5GB of RAM for games has actually been sufficient this gen and games generally have good or great textures. Memory usage on PC games is still around 8GB recommended. So adding 32GB is a waste, put those resources elsewhere.

Yeah. I'm betting 8GB will be dedicated for video games, and the other 8GB will be dedicated to the Operating System/Console features. Which will be great news for developers and users alike.

I'm also hoping that the PS5 controllers support USB-C ports/quick charging, external hard drive support right out the gate, and consistent "true" HDR output to ALL compatible TV's. (none of that boosted contrast or washed out flat colors bullshit)

Last edited by TranceformerFX - 4 days ago

TranceformerFX said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Agreed, if they can dedicate 16GB of RAM that would be plenty.

Its also worth considering 5GB of RAM for games has actually been sufficient this gen and games generally have good or great textures. Memory usage on PC games is still around 8GB recommended. So adding 32GB is a waste, put those resources elsewhere.

Yeah. I'm betting 8GB will be dedicated for video games, and the other 8GB will be dedicated to the Operating System/Console features. Which will be great news for developers and users alike.

I'm also hoping that the PS5 controllers support USB-C ports/quick charging, external hard drive support right out the gate, and consistent "true" HDR output to ALL compatible TV's. (none of that boosted contrast or washed out flat colors bullshit)

the bad colors is totally fault of the developers. The systems are totally compatible with HDR (at least I know PS4 even base is) with small extra cost on processing.

And I would really be displeased if they put half their RAM for OS. For me I would have 0 issue with they using the 16GB for gaming and no OS at all =p ... but since we need to have OS so either 16GB for games and a 4GB for RAM (different memories and prices for what each needs), or 12+4 on a single type of RAM total 16GB.



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