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 26.87%
 
Only Base Model, $449, 10-12TF GPU, 16GB RAM 10 14.93%
 
Only Base Model, $499, 12-14TF GPU, 24GB RAM 18 26.87%
 
Base Model $399 and PREMIUM $499 specs Ans3 10 14.93%
 
Base Mod $399 / PREM $549, >14TF 24GB RAM 5 7.46%
 
Base Mod $449 / PREM $599, the absolute Elite 6 8.96%
 
Total:67
DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

No man, you really didn't got it. If you have a system that is balanced to that GPU of let's say 12TF in PS5 case and 16TF for Anaconda, if you just cut back GPU to 4 TF and keep all the rest the same to have only the GPU being weaker you are making all rest excessive to the GPU you have.

Ok, I'm gonna answer these points then likely leave it at that as I've been in a back and forth with you before and it just turns into an endless game of incoherent rambling and point dodging...  

I'm not saying it is impossible to have 4TF and 16TF balanced SKUs, I'm saying that for both to be balanced it won't be just GPU that is 4x weaker. And sorry to burst your bubble, but the weaker system will always hold out the rest, so don't get surprised when Sony 1st parties look much better than most games even on Anaconda, plus having much more going on because they don't have to go for the same ceiling. Even now you would have a hard time finding much games on X1X prettier than SM and GoW running on Pro.

1st up, even if the we say that the components outside of the GPU of Lockhart are relatively overpowered (which I don't think needs to be the case), then that bodes well for the 'ceiling' as the rest of the specs can match Anaconda. What you're essentially saying is that you cannot have 2 setups targeting 2 different resolutions, with the same CPU be balanced. That's just plain wrong....

Switch isn't 4x weaker than X1, sorry to tell you that.

So you agreed that Marketing will tell whatever they can get away without accusing of lie, thanks. And a lot of people do believe on the marketing, if they didn't no one would put that much money on marketing.

Not sure what your point is here - you say the manufacturers have to hit a certain spec to allow them to market that message but at the same time agree that marketing can be BS, which would therefore not require the manufacturer to hit certain specs but instead make shit up. Overall I believe that Switch will be weaker in relation to XB1 / PS4 than Lockhart to Anaconda but even if they're about the same my point stands - they got Doom & Wolfenstein running at reduced resolution which wouldn't be possible if your 'ceiling' analogy held true.

How am I agreeing to your point? Some people can be either big or small amount. Some people find a good deal on what most would say is terrible.

Your head is turning over because you are adamant in believing people won't see as much better proposition to be 3x stronger at only 100 USD more, only 25% outpowered but 100 USD less. That is a very good position for Sony to put themselves in. You said people don't see the difference, and I showed you that even if they don't (your argument, not mine) still 20% of PS4 sales were Pro while perhaps 50% of Xbox were X. That is plenty of people that buy even if there isn't much perceived difference.

It's not 3 times stronger - continued misrepresentation on your part - what is it with this obsession to boil down a console to only one of it's components? And I said that the average gamer wouldn't appreciate the difference, how is that statement in any way at odds with a minority buying PS4 Pro? And do you have a source on 50% of XB1 sales being the X - seems way too high to me.

You wanting to fit a word to a definition you want, doesn't change reality. PS3 at 600 had a lot of people lining up to buy it, X1 at 500 and very bad review had record sales before failing down. Also, non-enthusiast would prefer to just buy the game on what they already have than pay 299 to play the same game on a new system. If they aren't enthusiast about how much it would improve why would they be there buying system on launch, this doesn't make much sense.

As I said before, some people have cash to spend and want the new version of their console to play the new versions of their favourite games. You can be excited about the PS5 & XB2 without caring much about the technical nuances. There are plenty of iPhone users who buy the latest model without caring about what's actually going on under the hood.

So you accept MS won't win, so not sure why you are defending this as a good model. If 4TF is 299, 12TF 399 (PS5) and 16TF is 499 it is pretty obvious from where it comes that for only 100 more you get 3x the experience and on the next 100 more you only get 33% improvement, so the middle machine gets a much easier selling.

You have a very binary understanding of a very complex space. At the end of each gen there isn't a referee who holds up the glove of the guy with most hardware sales and declares a winner. They're businesses with different models and targets. MS doesn't have to sell more units than Sony to move their business forward, their focus is on their online service reaching as many devices as possible (see plans on PC & Switch). Them offering a lower-priced, entry-level system fits this plan perfectly as it promises to sell more systems (and thus subscriptions) than a premium-only model. 

And it's hilarious that you frame gaming from 1080 to 4K as '3x the experience' - I think you should be less concerned about others being misled by marketing and look closer to home. It's just such a nonsense comment.

Also, you've just made this price / spec comparison up. Who's to say that Anaconda & PS5 won't be identical performance & price - meaning that MS will match up with Sony but offer a value model in addition...?

If you don't get the problem perhaps you better analyse better your argument before keeping at them. PS4Pro and X1X plays the same games as PS4 and X1 so they couldn't call it PS5 and X2, also it wouldn't be a proper gen jump nor would it be timed away enough to justify a new gen.

As is your habit, you're missing my point. I wasn't suggesting that they literally relabel the current consoles... (come on - really?) What I was suggesting is that if everything is just going to be boiled down to 1080 & 4K then why should Sony or MS bother trying to push the boat out spec wise? What I'm trying to highlight is your comically simplistic framing of a console's perceived value being a reflection of it's output resolution.



Around the Network

First of all, can we please stop this 16TF nonsense?
Vega64 is a 7nm chip. It is expensive as hell. It burns 300Watt. It isn't even close to 16TF. Thinking of designing a 16TF vega64 is simply impossible, end of story.
Anybody who thinks they will get a 16TF console should go see a doctor, seriously.

Secondly, the "Two XBox models" - I don't see that. Unless Microsoft is willing to lose a shitton of money on hardware. Having two SoCs means double the development costs (and designing a 7nm chip is NOT cheap). It also means taking care of two supply chains, not just one. again, very expensive.

My guess is we'll see something like a 54CU 1200-1400MHz console, no more.



drkohler said:

First of all, can we please stop this 16TF nonsense?
Vega64 is a 7nm chip. It is expensive as hell. It burns 300Watt. It isn't even close to 16TF. Thinking of designing a 16TF vega64 is simply impossible, end of story.
Anybody who thinks they will get a 16TF console should go see a doctor, seriously.

Vega 64 is not 7nm. It is 14nm. (Which is based on 20nm BEOL.)

Vega 64's 295w TDP doesn't mean that is what it actually consumes... TDP isn't a denominator that describes power consumption, but rather the "Thermal Design Power".
You will need to look at the actual power consumption charts for an accurate representation of power consumption.

I mean, Vega 56 is 210w and Fury X is 275w.
Yet in certain gaming benchmarks, Fury X is consuming as much power as Vega 56.

Yet in others it consumes significantly more power than Vega 64.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review/19

Don't get me wrong though, people focus on "flops" is getting rather tiresome, flops isn't an accurate gauge of a systems complete capabilities.

drkohler said:

Secondly, the "Two XBox models" - I don't see that. Unless Microsoft is willing to lose a shitton of money on hardware.

People are basing this idea on the leaks.
Also Microsoft stated it was working on more than 1 console at last years E3.

drkohler said:

Having two SoCs means double the development costs (and designing a 7nm chip is NOT cheap). It also means taking care of two supply chains, not just one. again, very expensive.

Or. One console is using a die-harvested SoC and not a separately designed one.

drkohler said:

My guess is we'll see something like a 54CU 1200-1400MHz console, no more.

64CU tends to be the limit of Graphics Core Next right now, Navi isn't likely to deviate from that as it's not high-end hardware and Vega 2 certainly didn't.
And there are good reasons for sticking to that limit (or below). Whilst Graphics Core Next is proficient at compute it has a ton of bottlenecks that holds it back in gaming... Plus it doesn't implement newer, more modern technologies that has typically given nVidia the edge.

7nm should allow for an increase in clockrates though, Vega 7 is boosting to 1750mhz for instance, although consoles won't push that high for various reasons. (Cooling, power etc'.)




It´s just silly to think that people will base their choise in hardware comparison alone. With many people, games will be the most important factor of choise. Other factor will be friends in the network (this factor is huge compared to last gen). So no mater how many teraflops or bandwith, Sony is having the edge by far, at least if we consider sales worldwide. Maybe in USA things are more even. Also if the hardware difference is 4k with 8 Teraflops compared to 4k with 12 teraflops, It won´t be enough to win if you don´t have a good library of games. Xbox ONE X has 6 teraflops against 4.2, and still, 2013 machines with 1.84 and 1.4 are selling more units. I only hope, for a personal taste in quality graphics and fps, that the PS5 has more than 10 Teraflops with enough bandwith.



CrazyGPU said:

It´s just silly to think that people will base their choise in hardware comparison alone. With many people, games will be the most important factor of choise. Other factor will be friends in the network (this factor is huge compared to last gen). So no mater how many teraflops or bandwith, Sony is having the edge by far, at least if we consider sales worldwide. Maybe in USA things are more even. Also if the hardware difference is 4k with 8 Teraflops compared to 4k with 12 teraflops, It won´t be enough to win if you don´t have a good library of games. Xbox ONE X has 6 teraflops against 4.2, and still, 2013 machines with 1.84 and 1.4 are selling more units. I only hope, for a personal taste in quality graphics and fps, that the PS5 has more than 10 Teraflops with enough bandwith.

I totally agree - there are many influences at play when someone is choosing a new console. Hardware is but one. I just don't get this opinion of some that MS giving the consumer meaningful options within their skus is a bad thing. MS need to differentiate themselves and a value-sku would be one way to do that. Their great value subscription model is another. Output from a host of newly acquired studios is another. Will it be enough to improve on their showing this gen - they're giving themselves a good chance!



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:
CrazyGPU said:

It´s just silly to think that people will base their choise in hardware comparison alone. With many people, games will be the most important factor of choise. Other factor will be friends in the network (this factor is huge compared to last gen). So no mater how many teraflops or bandwith, Sony is having the edge by far, at least if we consider sales worldwide. Maybe in USA things are more even. Also if the hardware difference is 4k with 8 Teraflops compared to 4k with 12 teraflops, It won´t be enough to win if you don´t have a good library of games. Xbox ONE X has 6 teraflops against 4.2, and still, 2013 machines with 1.84 and 1.4 are selling more units. I only hope, for a personal taste in quality graphics and fps, that the PS5 has more than 10 Teraflops with enough bandwith.

I totally agree - there are many influences at play when someone is choosing a new console. Hardware is but one. I just don't get this opinion of some that MS giving the consumer meaningful options within their skus is a bad thing. MS need to differentiate themselves and a value-sku would be one way to do that. Their great value subscription model is another. Output from a host of newly acquired studios is another. Will it be enough to improve on their showing this gen - they're giving themselves a good chance!

That is because the good way to differentiate yourself is by your library of exclusives not by making a very weak baseline that will hold out your other model.

Biggerboat1 said:
DonFerrari said:

No man, you really didn't got it. If you have a system that is balanced to that GPU of let's say 12TF in PS5 case and 16TF for Anaconda, if you just cut back GPU to 4 TF and keep all the rest the same to have only the GPU being weaker you are making all rest excessive to the GPU you have.

Ok, I'm gonna answer these points then likely leave it at that as I've been in a back and forth with you before and it just turns into an endless game of incoherent rambling and point dodging...  

I'm not saying it is impossible to have 4TF and 16TF balanced SKUs, I'm saying that for both to be balanced it won't be just GPU that is 4x weaker. And sorry to burst your bubble, but the weaker system will always hold out the rest, so don't get surprised when Sony 1st parties look much better than most games even on Anaconda, plus having much more going on because they don't have to go for the same ceiling. Even now you would have a hard time finding much games on X1X prettier than SM and GoW running on Pro.

1st up, even if the we say that the components outside of the GPU of Lockhart are relatively overpowered (which I don't think needs to be the case), then that bodes well for the 'ceiling' as the rest of the specs can match Anaconda. What you're essentially saying is that you cannot have 2 setups targeting 2 different resolutions, with the same CPU be balanced. That's just plain wrong....

Switch isn't 4x weaker than X1, sorry to tell you that.

So you agreed that Marketing will tell whatever they can get away without accusing of lie, thanks. And a lot of people do believe on the marketing, if they didn't no one would put that much money on marketing.

Not sure what your point is here - you say the manufacturers have to hit a certain spec to allow them to market that message but at the same time agree that marketing can be BS, which would therefore not require the manufacturer to hit certain specs but instead make shit up. Overall I believe that Switch will be weaker in relation to XB1 / PS4 than Lockhart to Anaconda but even if they're about the same my point stands - they got Doom & Wolfenstein running at reduced resolution which wouldn't be possible if your 'ceiling' analogy held true.

How am I agreeing to your point? Some people can be either big or small amount. Some people find a good deal on what most would say is terrible.

Your head is turning over because you are adamant in believing people won't see as much better proposition to be 3x stronger at only 100 USD more, only 25% outpowered but 100 USD less. That is a very good position for Sony to put themselves in. You said people don't see the difference, and I showed you that even if they don't (your argument, not mine) still 20% of PS4 sales were Pro while perhaps 50% of Xbox were X. That is plenty of people that buy even if there isn't much perceived difference.

It's not 3 times stronger - continued misrepresentation on your part - what is it with this obsession to boil down a console to only one of it's components? And I said that the average gamer wouldn't appreciate the difference, how is that statement in any way at odds with a minority buying PS4 Pro? And do you have a source on 50% of XB1 sales being the X - seems way too high to me.

You wanting to fit a word to a definition you want, doesn't change reality. PS3 at 600 had a lot of people lining up to buy it, X1 at 500 and very bad review had record sales before failing down. Also, non-enthusiast would prefer to just buy the game on what they already have than pay 299 to play the same game on a new system. If they aren't enthusiast about how much it would improve why would they be there buying system on launch, this doesn't make much sense.

As I said before, some people have cash to spend and want the new version of their console to play the new versions of their favourite games. You can be excited about the PS5 & XB2 without caring much about the technical nuances. There are plenty of iPhone users who buy the latest model without caring about what's actually going on under the hood.

So you accept MS won't win, so not sure why you are defending this as a good model. If 4TF is 299, 12TF 399 (PS5) and 16TF is 499 it is pretty obvious from where it comes that for only 100 more you get 3x the experience and on the next 100 more you only get 33% improvement, so the middle machine gets a much easier selling.

You have a very binary understanding of a very complex space. At the end of each gen there isn't a referee who holds up the glove of the guy with most hardware sales and declares a winner. They're businesses with different models and targets. MS doesn't have to sell more units than Sony to move their business forward, their focus is on their online service reaching as many devices as possible (see plans on PC & Switch). Them offering a lower-priced, entry-level system fits this plan perfectly as it promises to sell more systems (and thus subscriptions) than a premium-only model. 

And it's hilarious that you frame gaming from 1080 to 4K as '3x the experience' - I think you should be less concerned about others being misled by marketing and look closer to home. It's just such a nonsense comment.

Also, you've just made this price / spec comparison up. Who's to say that Anaconda & PS5 won't be identical performance & price - meaning that MS will match up with Sony but offer a value model in addition...?

If you don't get the problem perhaps you better analyse better your argument before keeping at them. PS4Pro and X1X plays the same games as PS4 and X1 so they couldn't call it PS5 and X2, also it wouldn't be a proper gen jump nor would it be timed away enough to justify a new gen.

As is your habit, you're missing my point. I wasn't suggesting that they literally relabel the current consoles... (come on - really?) What I was suggesting is that if everything is just going to be boiled down to 1080 & 4K then why should Sony or MS bother trying to push the boat out spec wise? What I'm trying to highlight is your comically simplistic framing of a console's perceived value being a reflection of it's output resolution.

Sorry won't reply to you, you start claiming dodging point and not reading your points you won't be a good person to argument with, so if you want to claim win and that MS strategy will do wonders, be my guest.



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:
Biggerboat1 said:

I totally agree - there are many influences at play when someone is choosing a new console. Hardware is but one. I just don't get this opinion of some that MS giving the consumer meaningful options within their skus is a bad thing. MS need to differentiate themselves and a value-sku would be one way to do that. Their great value subscription model is another. Output from a host of newly acquired studios is another. Will it be enough to improve on their showing this gen - they're giving themselves a good chance!

1) That is because the good way to differentiate yourself is by your library of exclusives not by making a very weak baseline that will hold out your other model.

Biggerboat1 said:

2) Sorry won't reply to you, you start claiming dodging point and not reading your points you won't be a good person to argument with, so if you want to claim win and that MS strategy will do wonders, be my guest.

1) There's more than 1 way to differentiate yourself - again, binary thinking. You have also failed to prove that a weaker GPU running games at reduced resolutions (and if necessary lower frame-rate) would result in significant restrictions overall to developers.

2) I'm a fine person to argue with if the other person involved is making coherent points and isn't intent on (consciously or otherwise) misrepresenting my points. Most recent example is "if you want to claim that MS strategy will do wonders" - where have I said anything that equates to that? You are saying that 2 skus are a bad idea, I'm saying that they're not - simple.

Anyway, probably best we leave it there - hopefully MS takes this approach, executes it well and the figures will show who is ultimately correct.



DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I totally agree - there are many influences at play when someone is choosing a new console. Hardware is but one. I just don't get this opinion of some that MS giving the consumer meaningful options within their skus is a bad thing. MS need to differentiate themselves and a value-sku would be one way to do that. Their great value subscription model is another. Output from a host of newly acquired studios is another. Will it be enough to improve on their showing this gen - they're giving themselves a good chance!

That is because the good way to differentiate yourself is by your library of exclusives not by making a very weak baseline that will hold out your other model.

Biggerboat1 said:

Sorry won't reply to you, you start claiming dodging point and not reading your points you won't be a good person to argument with, so if you want to claim win and that MS strategy will do wonders, be my guest.

I think it’s more about beating Sony on price for the mass market and beating Sony on power for the hardcore.  Now is there gonna be a difference worth noting for a console that is having its little brother and PS5 programmed for?  I don’t think so but hey they can advertise most powerful and lowest price and not explicitly state (except maybe by a little disclaimer on the bottom of the screen) that they’re talking about two different consoles 



I am Iron Man

I will get the priciest sku at launch



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
DonFerrari said:

That is because the good way to differentiate yourself is by your library of exclusives not by making a very weak baseline that will hold out your other model.

Sorry won't reply to you, you start claiming dodging point and not reading your points you won't be a good person to argument with, so if you want to claim win and that MS strategy will do wonders, be my guest.

I think it’s more about beating Sony on price for the mass market and beating Sony on power for the hardcore.  Now is there gonna be a difference worth noting for a console that is having its little brother and PS5 programmed for?  I don’t think so but hey they can advertise most powerful and lowest price and not explicitly state (except maybe by a little disclaimer on the bottom of the screen) that they’re talking about two different consoles 

MS must do a very good presentation, and use all the weapons they have to come back competitive like it was back in the 360 generation.   2 SKUs, one for the mass market, and the other for hardcores could be a way to be more competitive from Day One, and be very insidious if the cheapest SKU is much more cheap than a much more powerful PS5, and Anaconda slighty more expensive, otherwise most gamers would still choose PS5, if the gap in power is not very significant.   DonFerrari  rised some good points though, talking about the weakest hardware holding down "Anaconda"; can scalability solve this completely ? My understanding in such a topic suggests that the more the difference in power is high between SKUs, the more the weakest one could hold down the Elite SKU.   Now let's assume the rumor is true, and we have one SKU with a 4TF GPU, and the other with a 12 TF GPU.   As DonFerrari already said, no way the other components will be the same.  The weakest SKU will have a weaker CPU too, as it doesn't need that level of power to "feed" a much less competitive GPU, the total amount of RAM will be probably reduced, and sure much less memory bandwidth.  

  So let's talk about developing games on several SKUs, two from MS and one from Sony.   This is not helping at all, and the complexity of scalability will increase if you wanna try to push every single SKU. The reality is, most 3rd party developers will never waste much resources and money to do it, and the main differences will be in resolutions/frame-rate, draw distance and effects; the weakest SKU will hold down all the others.      1st party developers, on the other hand, can do more, but having one SKU with a GPU 3X more powerful, together with a faster CPU and RAM compared to the other, they must develop anyway with the lowest common denominator in mind, and have to give gamers the same core experience; this is a limiting factor.   Sony, on the other hand(if it's true they will release only one SKU), can make its exclusive games shining, taking full advantage of all the resources available in the way they want, without bothering about the weakest and less capable hardware.

 So, what consumers(those not loyal and tied to any Company) will choose on Day One ?  A very cheap SKU from MS, but massively underpowered considering it is a Next Gen System, and compared to PS5, which will have probably a very competitive price ?    Or Anaconda, very expensive and more powerful than PS5 ?  Or PS5, great hardware at a competitive price ?     It depends.  I'm not sure which is the best strategy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing new, but I found interesting watching it, about BC with all playstation system, and some translations from the Japanese text.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ocHJKrIXZU



”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.