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
twintail said:
Nate4Drake said:
I'm still wondering if Sony will go with a single SKU or like MS, with 2 SKUs. If I should place a bet, I would say Sony will go "easy" with only one SKU, but very powerful, in the $449 price range. It will have BC and a stronger line-up than PS4 at Launch.


They will go one. It's easier for both Sony and the consumer. Sony doesn't need the low end cause they have the ps4

 

I'm wondering if Sony will go down the 2 SKU path by simply making the Blu ray drive optional.  The rumors of a disc-less version of the next XBOX continue to swirl, and of course the Switch has proven (again) that a physical media drive may not be a deal breaker for consumers anyway.

So, how about a $399 PS5 SKU*without* a Bluray drive and a $449 PS5 SKU with an HD Bluray installed?

And here's where it could get interesting:

Manufacture the PS5 with a plug-in drive bay in the front so the base console hardware performance and features are identical. The only difference is that the $399 SKU will have a plastic bezel covering the drive bay but the $449 SKU will have the HD Bluray drive pre-installed.  Sony could then sell the "pluggable" HD Bluray drive as a user-upgradable part for  $99. The customer would just remove the bezel and slide the drive into the front of the unit to make it identical to the $449 SKU.

Pros:  Sony can cram more RAM, etc. into the disc-less SKU and still bring it in at $399. 

They can still offer an HD Bluray "deluxe" SKU for $449 without losing (as much) on each unit sold.

Consumers actually have a choice to buy the cheaper model now and then decide to add an HD Bluray drive later via simple plug-in upgrade.

Sony can make a higher profit on sales of the standalone Blu ray drive upgrade by selling it at $99 (vs. getting it for $50 if you buy the "deluxe" SKU day 1)

Cons:  Two different SKU's to package and ship (note that manufacturing cost should be nearly identical because the only difference is one has the drive installed already)

Last edited by ratchet426 - on 03 March 2019

Around the Network
ratchet426 said:
twintail said:

They will go one. It's easier for both Sony and the consumer. Sony doesn't need the low end cause they have the ps4

 

I'm wondering if Sony will go down the 2 SKU path by simply making the Blu ray drive optional.  The rumors of a disc-less version of the next XBOX continue to swirl, and of course the Switch has proven (again) that a physical media drive may not be a deal breaker for consumers anyway.

So, how about a $399 PS5 SKU*without* a Bluray drive and a $449 PS5 SKU with an HD Bluray installed?

And here's where it could get interesting:

Manufacture the PS5 with a plug-in drive bay in the front so the base console hardware performance and features are identical. The only difference is that the $399 SKU will have a plastic bezel covering the drive bay but the $449 SKU will have the HD Bluray drive pre-installed.  Sony could then sell the "pluggable" HD Bluray drive as a user-upgradable part for  $99. The customer would just remove the bezel and slide the drive into the front of the unit to make it identical to the $449 SKU.

Pros:  Sony can cram more RAM, etc. into the disc-less SKU and still bring it in at $399. 

They can still offer an HD Bluray "deluxe" SKU for $449 without losing (as much) on each unit sold.

Consumers actually have a choice to buy the cheaper model now and then decide to add an HD Bluray drive later via simple plug-in upgrade.

Sony can make a higher profit on sales of the standalone Blu ray drive upgrade by selling it at $99 (vs. getting it for $50 if you buy the "deluxe" SKU day 1)

Cons:  Two different SKU's to package and ship (note that manufacturing cost should be nearly identical because the only difference is one has the drive installed already)

Just my two cents, and I think it could work.

 Not everyone has internet, and many people don’t have enough bandwidth to download 50-80GB per game. The current generation of games is huge. Not everyone can afford to download a game and its patches, there are still internet providers who have bandwidth caps, so you can imagine the situation in less wealthy countries; so they would go with the SKU with disks, while the others with enough bandwidth have 2 options.

The second "issue" I can spot is this :  if you go with a SKU that has no disc, then why would "GameStop" sell those consoles ? The whole market is around selling the games for profit. Anyway, we would have the other SKU with discs...so it shouldn't be a big deal, apart from further promoting the model with the discs.   

 I have never thought about it for PS5 though, but it could technically work I think.



”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:
ratchet426 said:

 

I'm wondering if Sony will go down the 2 SKU path by simply making the Blu ray drive optional.  The rumors of a disc-less version of the next XBOX continue to swirl, and of course the Switch has proven (again) that a physical media drive may not be a deal breaker for consumers anyway.

So, how about a $399 PS5 SKU*without* a Bluray drive and a $449 PS5 SKU with an HD Bluray installed?

And here's where it could get interesting:

Manufacture the PS5 with a plug-in drive bay in the front so the base console hardware performance and features are identical. The only difference is that the $399 SKU will have a plastic bezel covering the drive bay but the $449 SKU will have the HD Bluray drive pre-installed.  Sony could then sell the "pluggable" HD Bluray drive as a user-upgradable part for  $99. The customer would just remove the bezel and slide the drive into the front of the unit to make it identical to the $449 SKU.

Pros:  Sony can cram more RAM, etc. into the disc-less SKU and still bring it in at $399. 

They can still offer an HD Bluray "deluxe" SKU for $449 without losing (as much) on each unit sold.

Consumers actually have a choice to buy the cheaper model now and then decide to add an HD Bluray drive later via simple plug-in upgrade.

Sony can make a higher profit on sales of the standalone Blu ray drive upgrade by selling it at $99 (vs. getting it for $50 if you buy the "deluxe" SKU day 1)

Cons:  Two different SKU's to package and ship (note that manufacturing cost should be nearly identical because the only difference is one has the drive installed already)

Just my two cents, and I think it could work.

 Not everyone has internet, and many people don’t have enough bandwidth to download 50-80GB per game. The current generation of games is huge. Not everyone can afford to download a game and its patches, there are still internet providers who have bandwidth caps, so you can imagine the situation in less wealthy countries; so they would go with the SKU with disks, while the others with enough bandwidth have 2 options.

The second "issue" I can spot is this :  if you go with a SKU that has no disc, then why would "GameStop" sell those consoles ? The whole market is around selling the games for profit. Anyway, we would have the other SKU with discs...so it shouldn't be a big deal, apart from further promoting the model with the discs.   

 I have never thought about it for PS5 though, but it could technically work I think.

Having a discless version really makes no sense, though.  How much would Sony be realistically paying for the drive?  $15.  $20, maybe.  They'd be better off not dividing the market, which could lead to some confusion with the general consumer, as well as dividing the means of production, and eat that cost and come out with an all-in-one SKU for ~$399.



CrazyGPU said:
Despite texture compression, geometry culling , new Rasterization tecniques, voxels and so on, I don´t see the next gen being game changing.

It's techniques like those which allows nVidia GPU's to have 50% or more performance for the same amount of flops... And there is still more to come.

It will allow us to do more with less hardware is all I am getting at... It will mean that we don't need 512GB/s of bandwidth as we can achieve similar results with something like 384GB/s of bandwidth.

And Voxels?

CrazyGPU said:

Raw numbers are an indicator, not an exact comparator, but still, considering all this tecniques we are still away from old days jumps and the feeling people will have even with the same amount of improvement will be lower because we are at a much better image quality level than we were in the old days.

They are an indicator, but they aren't accurate, the issue is most people just see the black and white numbers and run with it instead of actually taking a deeper look for a proper comparison.

BraLoD said:

Thanks.

I've been looking and it seems chroma subsampling won't make me lose any quality from 4:4:4 to 4:2:2 (whick should allow 4K60FPS with HDR on, using 2.0 full bandwidth) except for some very minor text edges.

My advice... And this is the advice I have given myself for the last several decades is... Buy the best you can afford today, there is always something better around the corner, so don't waste your time waiting, life is to short.



Pemalite said:
CrazyGPU said:
Despite texture compression, geometry culling , new Rasterization tecniques, voxels and so on, I don´t see the next gen being game changing.

It's techniques like those which allows nVidia GPU's to have 50% or more performance for the same amount of flops... And there is still more to come.

It will allow us to do more with less hardware is all I am getting at... It will mean that we don't need 512GB/s of bandwidth as we can achieve similar results with something like 384GB/s of bandwidth.

And Voxels?

CrazyGPU said:

Raw numbers are an indicator, not an exact comparator, but still, considering all this tecniques we are still away from old days jumps and the feeling people will have even with the same amount of improvement will be lower because we are at a much better image quality level than we were in the old days.

They are an indicator, but they aren't accurate, the issue is most people just see the black and white numbers and run with it instead of actually taking a deeper look for a proper comparison.


Talking about Graphics here, 

You don´t do an exact comparison either. You don´t know if the tecniques are going to save 20% of bandwith, 40% or only 10%. You don´t know  how AMD will implement it inside the new hardware. So you don´t know if the compresion of an uncompressed 512GB/s stream of data can be compressed to 480, 384, or 256 GB/s of data. So even if you take those tecniques into account you are inacurate too. It´s like comparing Nvidia Teraflops to AMD Teraflops. Teraflops can be the same amount, but the Nvidia implementation makes use of those teoretical maximum teraflops much better than AMD in practise now, so you can´t compare different architectures and be accurate. But as you don´t have anything else for a proper comparison, you have to go with something. So we compare with what we have , teraflops, GB/s, and so on. And the comparison is better if we compare similar architectures of the same brand.

with your numbers, near 0.2 Teraflops PS3 vs a little more than 1.8 Tf PS4 is 9 times more. No way the PS5 will have 9 times the teraflops of PS4. 

Also considering tecniques or not, the jump from standar ps4, 176GB/s to let say 512 GB/s, equivalent to 800 GB/s uncompressed, just to put a number, is far smaller than going from 22,4 GB/s of PS3 to 176 GB/s of PS4. And there is no way a PS5 will have 8 times more bandwith to feed the processor. 

So,  the two things that are  really important to improve performance and have a balanced graphic architecture, the calculation (teraflops) and the feeding for that calculation (cache, memory bandwith, theorical or with tecniques), will improve less than they did before, and the improvement will feel less important than before too even if it were the same. 

Software is not going to solve that. PS4 performance was always similar to a Radeon HD 7850-7870 on PC and no exclusive programming changed the graphics capability of the console. And if it did for you, it never became a Geforce GTX 1060 because of that.

With a 10-12 Teraflops PS5 machine, we would have a 5,4-6,5 improvement in theoretical Teraflops

and with 800 GB/s of uncompressed bandwith (if you consider that the ps4 did not compress anything) the improvement will be 4,5 times.

So again, you will have 4k, 30 fps. 60 in some games. With PS4 graphics and a little more when devs get used to it, but nothing to write home about. 

A great CPU, Hard Disk, or anything else is not going to change that. It´s not going to be the Ray tracing beast with new lighting and geometry many of us would wish for.



Around the Network

You don’t need raytracing to have substantially better looking games than current ones and geometry will see a sizeable upgrade. I know firsthand that the ‘nothing to write home about’ talk is bollocks.

The PS5 and next Xbox should (and will) have notably better looking games than any current gen console can muster. Won’t need some massive crazy hardware over what’s currently available for that. 



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:

You don’t need raytracing to have substantially better looking games than current ones and geometry will see a sizeable upgrade. I know firsthand that the ‘nothing to write home about’ talk is bollocks.

The PS5 and next Xbox should (and will) have notably better looking games than any current gen console can muster. Won’t need some massive crazy hardware over what’s currently available for that. 

I´m not saying games are not going to look better, they will of course, what I say is that my opinion is that is not going to be revolutionary. It will be an evolutionary step from what we have now.



CrazyGPU said:
Pemalite said:

It's techniques like those which allows nVidia GPU's to have 50% or more performance for the same amount of flops... And there is still more to come.

It will allow us to do more with less hardware is all I am getting at... It will mean that we don't need 512GB/s of bandwidth as we can achieve similar results with something like 384GB/s of bandwidth.

And Voxels?

They are an indicator, but they aren't accurate, the issue is most people just see the black and white numbers and run with it instead of actually taking a deeper look for a proper comparison.


Talking about Graphics here, 

You don´t do an exact comparison either. You don´t know if the tecniques are going to save 20% of bandwith, 40% or only 10%. You don´t know  how AMD will implement it inside the new hardware. So you don´t know if the compresion of an uncompressed 512GB/s stream of data can be compressed to 480, 384, or 256 GB/s of data. So even if you take those tecniques into account you are inacurate too. It´s like comparing Nvidia Teraflops to AMD Teraflops. Teraflops can be the same amount, but the Nvidia implementation makes use of those teoretical maximum teraflops much better than AMD in practise now, so you can´t compare different architectures and be accurate. But as you don´t have anything else for a proper comparison, you have to go with something. So we compare with what we have , teraflops, GB/s, and so on. And the comparison is better if we compare similar architectures of the same brand.

with your numbers, near 0.2 Teraflops PS3 vs a little more than 1.8 Tf PS4 is 9 times more. No way the PS5 will have 9 times the teraflops of PS4. 

Also considering tecniques or not, the jump from standar ps4, 176GB/s to let say 512 GB/s, equivalent to 800 GB/s uncompressed, just to put a number, is far smaller than going from 22,4 GB/s of PS3 to 176 GB/s of PS4. And there is no way a PS5 will have 8 times more bandwith to feed the processor. 

So,  the two things that are  really important to improve performance and have a balanced graphic architecture, the calculation (teraflops) and the feeding for that calculation (cache, memory bandwith, theorical or with tecniques), will improve less than they did before, and the improvement will feel less important than before too even if it were the same. 

Software is not going to solve that. PS4 performance was always similar to a Radeon HD 7850-7870 on PC and no exclusive programming changed the graphics capability of the console. And if it did for you, it never became a Geforce GTX 1060 because of that.

With a 10-12 Teraflops PS5 machine, we would have a 5,4-6,5 improvement in theoretical Teraflops

and with 800 GB/s of uncompressed bandwith (if you consider that the ps4 did not compress anything) the improvement will be 4,5 times.

So again, you will have 4k, 30 fps. 60 in some games. With PS4 graphics and a little more when devs get used to it, but nothing to write home about. 

A great CPU, Hard Disk, or anything else is not going to change that. It´s not going to be the Ray tracing beast with new lighting and geometry many of us would wish for.

“To err is human, to persist in error is diabolical.”

 All the discussion is about balance, efficiency and how much can be done to save bandwidth to make more with less.  Sony and AMD are working hard on this, you can place a bet on it;  we cannot speak about how much more efficient the architecture will be in all the different scenario, we need to wait for the final hardware and let the ones with considerable knowledge to explain to us about any interesting details, the new features of the CPU and GPU and the overall architecture.



”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.

CGI-Quality said:
Trumpstyle said:

Hehe it was just a example, I could've used Far cry 5 or Wolfenstein 2 but BF2 is probably the game most gamers believe is the best looking game. I have seen your screenshots of Metro Exodus and looked at youtube videos at that game, it probably beats BF2.

Metro exodus at extreme settings is where I believe next-gen games will land. But the real question is can Metro Exodus beat the CURRENT king of graphics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wliXa2FQ6xU

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S5SCMNUY-k&t=

It's very very close, looks like Metro has a small minor edge but I don't like to judge games intill I played them. But I don't play on PC anymore.

Crysis 3 isn’t even in the same Universe. Last Light beat it in 2013. Exodus doesn’t even look in its outdated direction.

You seems very certain and I agree metro exodus does indeed look better. Looked at some more screenshot and youtube videos. But I think you're exaggerating how much better it looks.

Crysis 3

 

 

Metro Exodus

Which one has Ray-tracing above

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 04 March 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!!

Trumpstyle said:
CGI-Quality said:

Crysis 3 isn’t even in the same Universe. Last Light beat it in 2013. Exodus doesn’t even look in its outdated direction.

You seems very certain and I agree metro exodus does indeed look better. Looked at some more screenshot and youtube videos. But I think you're exaggerating how much better it looks.

Crysis 3

- pics

Metro Exodus

Which one has Ray-tracing above

Choosing that terribly compressed YouTube shot does nothing to help you and those Crysis 3 shots...... The plastic, horribly outdated character models are just laughable next to the best character models of this era. It's time to get off the Crysis 3 train.