Quantcast
PS5 Confirmed Backward Compatibility

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Confirmed Backward Compatibility

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Trumpstyle said:

We had 3 new rumors from Jason Schreier, french leak and Brad sams since I made my prediction in the same thread, here's my updated one.

Xbox two (Lockhart)
CPU: Zen2 8 cores, 16 threads, 2,4 ghz
GPU: Navi 4TF
Memory: 12GB Gddr6 Ram, 192-bit bus, 336 GB/s Bandwidth
Storage: 1TB NVMe drive (Will be disc-less)
Launch: Fall 2020 250-300$

Xbox two+ (Anaconda)
CPU: Zen2 8 cores, 16 threads, 2,8 ghz
GPU: Navi 12TF, 80CU with 1200 Mhz clock
Memory: 16GB Gddr6 Ram, 256-bit bus, 448 GB/s Bandwidth
Storage: 1TB NVMe drive
Launch: Fall 2020 400$

Playstation 5
CPU: Zen2 8 cores, 16 threads, 2,8 ghz
GPU: Navi 12TF, 80CU with 1200 Mhz clock
Memory: 16GB Gddr6 Ram, 256-bit bus, 448 GB/s Bandwidth
Storage: 1TB NVMe drive
Launch: Spring 2020 400$

Basically I don't think Microsoft is doing a premium console anymore based on information from the French leak and Brad sams, it will be a cheap 1080p Disc-less console for 250-300$ and a mainstream console for 400$. PS5 and Xbox two+ (anaconda) will probably be identical in spec.

400$ might sounds cheap but here's my build:

Soc/Apu = 100$
Memory = 70$
Nvme drive = 50$
Rest = 150$
Total = 370$

Prices are based on speculation.

Even at 7nm, a chip with 8 CPU cores, 80 Compute Units and all the caches will be gargantuan, with about 500 mm2 at the very least. 100$ per chip wouldn't even be enough to pay TSMC for the wafers, let alone make any profit for AMD. You can at least double the price for that just to make it covering the costs.

Also, just a 50$ NVME drive? If you really expect PS5 to be SSD only, then that's certainly not nearly enough. 80$ would be a better fit right now when buying in bulk.

As you can see, 400$ for your build are impossible, put at least another 100$ on top of it.

Finally, An Xbox 2 model being considerably less powerful than the One X doesn't make sense at all to me. I think it would at least match the One X in GPU performance, with the better CPU and possibly more RAM making the difference between the two.

No. Just no. So much wrong here.



Around the Network

SSD as standard is a good thing, open world games have been limited by HDD for sometime now.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

Finally, An Xbox 2 model being considerably less powerful than the One X doesn't make sense at all to me. I think it would at least match the One X in GPU performance, with the better CPU and possibly more RAM making the difference between the two.

I agree in general, but at the moment, I can see two reasons why they might do this, if they are doing it.

First, there's a price point they want to hit for whatever reason, and there's certain hardware that's basically necessary across both models, so the GPU TF performance must suffer for the lower end model to hit that price.

Second, if MS feels XB1X owners may feel burned by a base next gen unit that matches or exceeds theirs, by making it weaker it takes the sting away. Now that still leaves everybody else wondering WTF, but as long as the price is right and it has a worthy audience, it doesn't matter all that much.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

V-r0cK said:
Will this be the end of remasters that are only 1 gen apart?? lol

If indeed this is true then honestly this is great news as my backlog is taking awhile to complete but would love to move forward as well.

Remasters a gen apart are fine. One of my favorite releases this gen has been Halo:MCC. The jump to 1080p or even 4K with 60 fps is awesome, the definitive experience. The original games struggled to maintain 30 fps and much lower resolution.

Furthermore, a generation can be like 7 years. So sometimes there is still a big gap between a remaster. Maybe a decade, I mean we're just getting Halo Reach on X1.

This doesn't end any need or desire for remasters though. Because some games might be capped at 30 fps, locked at a low resolution (a bigger problem for native BC), or use low quality assets. A remaster can either swap out the visual assets entirely like Gears of War Ultimate, while some remasters might just improve frame rate, resolution and use higher quality assets that may have been exclusive to PC.

Sometimes a game on my backlog might just switch to the remaster. Which is great if the remaster is ultimately the superior experience and I can use my newer hardware.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - 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)

I'll be excited about BC when PS3 backwards compatibility is announced.

PSNow is awful and a joke. I want real PS3 titles on my current gen console.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network

It's been a while since I've been this hyped for a PS console before it came out. Backward compatibility and the disc drive sealed the deal.



EricHiggin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Finally, An Xbox 2 model being considerably less powerful than the One X doesn't make sense at all to me. I think it would at least match the One X in GPU performance, with the better CPU and possibly more RAM making the difference between the two.

I agree in general, but at the moment, I can see two reasons why they might do this, if they are doing it.

First, there's a price point they want to hit for whatever reason, and there's certain hardware that's basically necessary across both models, so the GPU TF performance must suffer for the lower end model to hit that price.

Second, if MS feels XB1X owners may feel burned by a base next gen unit that matches or exceeds theirs, by making it weaker it takes the sting away. Now that still leaves everybody else wondering WTF, but as long as the price is right and it has a worthy audience, it doesn't matter all that much.

A 4TFLOP Navi GPU in the base "1080p" machine is a massive red flag imo. The problem with a base model less or equal than 1/3rd  the power of the PS5, is that native 4k is still not guaranteed to be standard next gen, just as PS3 was tauted a 1080p machine but rarely hit above 720p and 10+ years later a system magnitudes more power (X1) is still not hitting that 1080p target on a frequent basis. X1X in particular is setting false standards in this regards, with the Pro & X1X developers have nothing else to do but bump the resolution and tinker the FPS. They're not going to invest the time to exploit the hardware on an individual asset basis. When building games from the ground up for next gen machines however, they'll take a far more dynamic approach to how they utilise the GPU and I'm sure we'll see many games sacrifice Native 4k for far more impressive VFX, textures, lighting and overall aesthetics. Things which everyone will benefit from regardless of whether they have a 4k TV or not. And most gamers still do not have 4k tvs and even when they do upscaling techniques will offer a close to 4k picture without being as much of hardware drain.

So what happens when a game is built to run at 1440p on PS5 and has to be scaled down to a GPU 1/3rd its capacity. The entry level Xbox will be more a 720p-900p console than anything and even then I could see developers botching visuals even further. In the digital foundry age, I think that will MS lots of harm. Worse case scenario is that it actually dictates how developers approach development knowing that they've got such a weak GPU to cater for. Or going by how poor recent base Xbox One games perform I think they'll just stop optimizing for the Anaconda and call it a day once they've reached a passable framerate and resolution.



Otter said:
EricHiggin said:

I agree in general, but at the moment, I can see two reasons why they might do this, if they are doing it.

First, there's a price point they want to hit for whatever reason, and there's certain hardware that's basically necessary across both models, so the GPU TF performance must suffer for the lower end model to hit that price.

Second, if MS feels XB1X owners may feel burned by a base next gen unit that matches or exceeds theirs, by making it weaker it takes the sting away. Now that still leaves everybody else wondering WTF, but as long as the price is right and it has a worthy audience, it doesn't matter all that much.

A 4TFLOP Navi GPU in the base "1080p" machine is a massive red flag imo. The problem with a base model less or equal than 1/3rd  the power of the PS5, is that native 4k is still not guaranteed to be standard next gen, just as PS3 was tauted a 1080p machine but rarely hit above 720p and 10+ years later a system magnitudes more power (X1) is still not hitting that 1080p target on a frequent basis. X1X in particular is setting false standards in this regards, with the Pro & X1X developers have nothing else to do but bump the resolution and tinker the FPS. They're not going to invest the time to exploit the hardware on an individual asset basis. When building games from the ground up for next gen machines however, they'll take a far more dynamic approach to how they utilise the GPU and I'm sure we'll see many games sacrifice Native 4k for far more impressive VFX, textures, lighting and overall aesthetics. Things which everyone will benefit from regardless of whether they have a 4k TV or not. And most gamers still do not have 4k tvs and even when they do upscaling techniques will offer a close to 4k picture without being as much of hardware drain.

So what happens when a game is built to run at 1440p on PS5 and has to be scaled down to a GPU 1/3rd its capacity. The entry level Xbox will be more a 720p-900p console than anything and even then I could see developers botching visuals even further. In the digital foundry age, I think that will MS lots of harm. Worse case scenario is that it actually dictates how developers approach development knowing that they've got such a weak GPU to cater for. Or going by how poor recent base Xbox One games perform I think they'll just stop optimizing for the Anaconda and call it a day once they've reached a passable framerate and resolution.

Additionally it is discless system. If it is true then we will have to options:

1. It is huge success sales wise. The gaming will stuck in 1080p era for another 10 years. Only Sony  and PC exclussive games will push the bundries.

2. Third parties will produce 2 different versions of the same game which mean a waste of resources and conffusin about what version is the real one (and there difference between versions will only gaet bigger as the devlopment on new consoles will mature.

3. It fails. 

Anyway i hope the backslah about the new only digital console will kill the DUMB, SHORT SGHTED, GREEDY,   IDEA.



Werix357 said:

SSD as standard is a good thing, open world games have been limited by HDD for sometime now.

I call bullshit on that. We see games loading faster and streaming data better on Xbox One X even without a SSD. We even see 360 content benefit significantly from BC like faster loading and less texture pop in issues.

SSDs certainly help load times, mostly in open world games as well. But when open world games are actually running its CPUs, GPUs and RAM that matter.

With that said we're likely gonna be stuck with 1TB SSD, but I guess they determined its fine for the average consumer.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - 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)

I must be one of the few that doesn't care about a console having BC. I don't have enough time to play all of the games from this gen, let alone most older games.