Quantcast
Rumor:PS5 & Anaconda Scarlet GPU on par with RTX 2080, Xbox exclusives focus on Cross gen, Developer complain about Lockhart.UPDATE: Windows Central said Xbox Anaconda target 12 teraflop

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Rumor:PS5 & Anaconda Scarlet GPU on par with RTX 2080, Xbox exclusives focus on Cross gen, Developer complain about Lockhart.UPDATE: Windows Central said Xbox Anaconda target 12 teraflop

What do you think

I am excited for next gen 22 61.11%
 
I cannot wait to play next gen consoles 4 11.11%
 
I need to find another th... 2 5.56%
 
I worried about next gen 8 22.22%
 
Total:36
setsunatenshi said:
HollyGamer said:

Again , we still don't know, but next year all RX 5700 price will go down due to new GPU from AMD (RDNA 2)  and Nvidia RX 3000 series. And Many insider beside Jason also confirmed this, plus with all the PS5 APU Gonzalo benchmark that has similar score to RTX 2080. 

Sony and Microsoft already confirmed that PS5 and Scarlet will have dedicated ray tracing which is not available with RX 5700 XT. So PS5 and Scarlet Anaconda will have better GPU then RX 5700 XT or similar with it. 

please stop comparing a console APU to any dedicated GPU, especially not to the top end one from a different architecture / company. it's completely meaningless and only invites discredit to other valuable information that could actually generate a good discussion.

also benchmarks without mature enough drivers aren't good performance indicators, not to mention I haven't seen any actual game benchmarks done in the gonzalo apu. would be great if you could link those if they do exist

Why not, because both are using the same GPU design and and will targeted for the same multiplatform games. I am not saying we can compare orange to orange, but we can at least make some general assessment or easy close comparison in terms of real life result based on the data that have been gathered. 



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:
mjk45 said:

I'm not sure what your point is with such a ludicrous statement, you know as well as I do what scalability of modern engines means. 

 " Scalability " and " modern engines " is a vague words and terms and need more explanation. How far games can be scalable,and how far you can consider as modern?  

 the thread speaks for what we are talking about. so it should be self explanatory what the context for those terms are, I'm not going to argue semantics.

I have said my piece on the matter and have no more to add to this thread. 



mjk45 said:
HollyGamer said:

 " Scalability " and " modern engines " is a vague words and terms and need more explanation. How far games can be scalable,and how far you can consider as modern?  

 the thread speaks for what we are talking about. so it should be self explanatory what the context for those terms are, I'm not going to argue semantics.

I have said my piece on the matter and have no more to add to this thread. 

The thread it self explanatory and easy to understand, but your statement is the one will make people confuse and make a lot of debate , especially if you won't elaborate. My first quote to your comment is just simple example of what might come to you. 



JEMC said:

Next gen consoles will have hardware capable of ray tracing, so their GPUs will likely be based on AMD's next gen architecture, not the actual. That's not to say that they'll be as powerful as a 2080, of course, there are a lot of reasons why that isn't realistic (cost and heat are the obvious ones), but we have to keep that in mind.

Todays AMD Radeon GPU's are capable of Ray Tracing.
They just don't have dedicated Ray Tracing cores to handle the task, that is likely the differentiator for next gen verses AMDs current hardware offerings.

Trumpstyle said:

Dude, you can't just move facts around. The Radeon 5500 is a mid-range card ($200), it's on 7nm and loses to radeon 580. How much $/perf you actually believe Nvidias 7nm cards will improve? I'm not expecting much.

The Radeon RX 590/580/480/5500 are all mid-range cards.
The 5500 should drop to lower price points than Polaris though in the long run due to the smaller chip size.

nVidia has a ton of room to move on 7nm, I wouldn't discount them yet.

HollyGamer said:

Probably you are correct.  The total optimization of the CPU and GPU tandem on APU plus better RAM, as well using low level API on consoles will have similar result with PC games running on RTX 2080 using Windows PC. So the GPU probably on the level between 2070 to 2080. 

What optimizations specifically?

PC gets optimizations too.
In short, the 8th gen consoles really aren't doing anything that I wouldn't expect from the PC equivalent hardware.
I.E. Xbox One X is around the same as a Radeon RX 580/590 in terms of image quality.

ManUtdFan said:
It's strongly rumored the so-called dedicated ray tracing doesn't take much performance hit on the GPU. If so good news.

But if not the case it would be annoying if much GPU horsepower went on ray tracing. It's Toy Story quality at best, looks too sterile to be photorealistic. Path tracing is a big step up. But requires huge performance. 4k/60 fps should be mandatory.

There will be a performance hit though. - Whenever there is a sharing of resources (I.E. Bandwidth, Caches etc'.) there is a hit to performance due to contention on the hardware, no two ways about it.
The goal is to make the corresponding hit to performance, justify the increase in fidelity.

mjk45 said:

Years of PC development with its myriad different configurations, means modern game engines are designed with scalability at the forefront, so having multiple SKU is today not the hindrance it would have been in past generations, this means having just one version has lost the importance it once had.

This.

HollyGamer said:

 " Scalability " and " modern engines " is a vague words and terms and need more explanation. How far games can be scalable,and how far you can consider as modern?  

Engines are significantly scalable.
Turn off Screen-space ambient occlusion, tessellation, scale back particle density and quality, reduce shadow map resolution, scale back texture filtering, mip levels and anti-aliasing, resolution and framerates and you can take a game that would run on the Xbox One X... And drop it onto the Switch which is 10x less performant, if not more.

Take Frostbite for instance, the same engine we are using today (Frostbite 3.0) looks absolutely stunning with Ray Tracing and all the bells and whistles on a high-end PC, but that same engine has the capability to scale down not only to the Xbox One without Ray Tracing, but also the Xbox 360, it will look like ass, but it can be done.

Engines like Unreal, Frostbite, Unity, CryEngine, idTech, NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation Engine have all proven their scalability, not just across multiple hardware generations, but having chunks of their rendering pipeline enhanced/rewritten to introduce new effects on current hardware too.





--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:

Todays AMD Radeon GPU's are capable of Ray Tracing.
They just don't have dedicated Ray Tracing cores to handle the task, that is likely the differentiator for next gen verses AMDs current hardware offerings.

Not as much as RT capable if it compared to GPU with  dedicated RT cores.  

Pemalite said:

What optimizations specifically?

PC gets optimizations too.
In short, the 8th gen consoles really aren't doing anything that I wouldn't expect from the PC equivalent hardware.
I.E. Xbox One X is around the same as a Radeon RX 580/590 in terms of image quality.

is there any equivalent of jaguar on PC? Consoles are build to run at  lower spec and lower clock speed to match mainstream setup on PC
 so it can have affordable price on the long run. Optimization is actually is a thing to maximize consoles system . Lower level API is exist even Vulcan  exist to imitate consoles level optimization.  You will not find a PC spec in 2013 to 2015  that can run games on par with 7850 but with tdp 200 watt and small form factor with less heat on 399 price point. 

Yes you can built similar spec or even better, but witch small form factor, less tdp, less heat, noise, lower price point. Is imposible 

Pemalite said:

Engines are significantly scalable.
Turn off Screen-space ambient occlusion, tessellation, scale back particle density and quality, reduce shadow map resolution, scale back texture filtering, mip levels and anti-aliasing, resolution and framerates and you can take a game that would run on the Xbox One X... And drop it onto the Switch which is 10x less performant, if not more.

Take Frostbite for instance, the same engine we are using today (Frostbite 3.0) looks absolutely stunning with Ray Tracing and all the bells and whistles on a high-end PC, but that same engine has the capability to scale down not only to the Xbox One without Ray Tracing, but also the Xbox 360, it will look like ass, but it can be done.

Engines like Unreal, Frostbite, Unity, CryEngine, idTech, NetImmerse/Gamebryo/Creation Engine have all proven their scalability, not just across multiple hardware generations, but having chunks of their rendering pipeline enhanced/rewritten to introduce new effects on current hardware too.

So why developer are not  making Battlefield One on Xbox 360 and PS3? Or using Frostbite on Switch for their latest Fifa games, instead they are using old engines from PS3/360 era.  

When we talking about game design is not just about graphic but physic, AI, load time, game design. 

Last edited by HollyGamer - on 06 December 2019

Around the Network
HollyGamer said:

Not as much as RT capable if it compared to GPU with  dedicated RT cores.  

Didn't I essentially say that?

HollyGamer said:

is there any equivalent of jaguar on PC? Consoles are build to run at  lower spec and lower clock speed to match mainstream setup on PC
 so it can have affordable price on the long run.

The CPU's on PC obliterate what the consoles have, no doubt, even the shittest, slowest CPU's today that only have 2~ CPU cores, 4~ threads will beat the 8-core Jaguar hands down.

In saying that a Quad-Core PC CPU from the 7th gen era can also beat Jaguar.

But we are talking Graphics here anyway...

HollyGamer said:

Optimization is actually is a thing to maximize consoles system . Lower level API is exist even Vulcan  exist to imitate consoles level optimization.  You will not find a PC spec in 2013 to 2015  that can run games on par with 7850 but with tdp 200 watt and small form factor with less heat on 399 price point. 

Introducing TDP, Form Fact, Heat, Price is shifting the goal post which is a logical fallacy, that isn't what the original argument entailed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Lower level API's exist on PC as well. PC also gets OS optimizations via windows updates.
For example, Microsoft last year rolled out a patch which increased performance for spectre affected machines.
https://www.howtogeek.com/406724/new-spectre-busting-update-speeds-up-windows-10-pcs/

GPU drivers are constantly being optimized which can result in performance increases... For example, here it's a claimed 18%.
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-says-its-latest-gpu-driver-bumps-performance-up-to-18-in-modern-warfare/


Games get updated to also increase performance.
https://wccftech.com/darksiders-iii-pc-patch-performance/

As for the Radeon 7850 specifically... In non-VRAM limited games, it will still handle every competently ported PS4 multiplat game just fine at 1080P, 30fps.
Sometimes you can take a hit to that resolution and increase visual effects past what the PS4 was capable of.

I.E. The Radeon 7850 can do Battlefield 5, Medium Quality at a full-fat 1080P, 50fps.


The Playstation 4 for instance will often hit 40fps and sometimes hit a low 1280x720 resolution... But it spends most of it's time between that and 1080P rather than 1080P all the time.


Considering that the Radeon 7850 released in March 2012 and the Playstation 4 launched in November 2013... Which means the Radeon 7850 is 1 year, 8 months older than the Playstation 4. It does bloody well.

HollyGamer said:

So why developer are not  making Battlefield One on Xbox 360 and PS3? Or using Frostbite on Switch for their latest Fifa games, instead they are using old engines from PS3/360 era.  

The userbase for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have moved on.
The last Frostbite/Battlefield game on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 dropped in 2015 with Hardline, 4 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Hardline

The Switch can handle more modern engines like Unreal Engine 4, but it's probably more economical for developers to port older engines over instead.
That is something individual studios decide... Because at the end of the day, the Switch has a graphics hardware feature set that is compatible with the Playstation 4 and Xbox One and even in a couple of areas, exceed the ageing Graphics Core Next designs.

EA also historically hasn't given Nintendo much support in the modern era either.

HollyGamer said:

When we talking about game design is not just about graphic but physic, AI, load time, game design. 

And more.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

 
Pemalite said:

Didn't I essentially say that?

You did say something, but you implied that PS5 and scarlet will not using dedicated cores and will just be an regular RX 5700 GPU

Pemalite said:

The CPU's on PC obliterate what the consoles have, no doubt, even the shittest, slowest CPU's today that only have 2~ CPU cores, 4~ threads will beat the 8-core Jaguar hands down.

In saying that a Quad-Core PC CPU from the 7th gen era can also beat Jaguar.

But we are talking Graphics here anyway...

Well consoles is not about just graphic and performance,  but about, price, power, tdp, form factor accessibility, immediacy, and ecosystem.  You argument is correct if we are discussing "  can PC run better games than consoles ", but to run the same thing on the smaller form factor, lower TDP, affordable price less TDP, small heat temperature, in close ecosystem is just impossible.

Is just like comparing a home made food to a fast food food

Pemalite said:

Introducing TDP, Form Fact, Heat, Price is shifting the goal post which is a logical fallacy, that isn't what the original argument entailed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Lower level API's exist on PC as well. PC also gets OS optimizations via windows updates.
For example, Microsoft last year rolled out a patch which increased performance for spectre affected machines.
https://www.howtogeek.com/406724/new-spectre-busting-update-speeds-up-windows-10-pcs/

GPU drivers are constantly being optimized which can result in performance increases... For example, here it's a claimed 18%.
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-says-its-latest-gpu-driver-bumps-performance-up-to-18-in-modern-warfare/

Games get updated to also increase performance.
https://wccftech.com/darksiders-iii-pc-patch-performance/

As for the Radeon 7850 specifically... In non-VRAM limited games, it will still handle every competently ported PS4 multiplat game just fine at 1080P, 30fps.
Sometimes you can take a hit to that resolution and increase visual effects past what the PS4 was capable of.

I.E. The Radeon 7850 can do Battlefield 5, Medium Quality at a full-fat 1080P, 50fps.

Considering that the Radeon 7850 released in March 2012 and the Playstation 4 launched in November 2013... Which means the Radeon 7850 is 1 year, 8 months older than the Playstation 4. It does bloody well.

Is not shifting goal post, you were asking about Equivalent hardware. TDP, and form factor, heat and price is PART OF THE HARDWARE SPEC 

comparing GPU will involve all the the things above. Is not about moving goal post is about you cannot answer your own argument. and play victim :) 

I did not said PC don't have optimization, is just PC run games with bloated driver that and full of unnecessary programs to run games on many configuration. While console run games to just run at intended spec. The scale of driver and optimization are different. You cannot hand picked and optimized every PC games by developer, every games are automated optimize using general consensus, you need to do it yourself on PC graphic option, even some games ahs exclusives affect running on consoles.

You will not find any GPU on PC  that can switch resolution between 900p and 720p in Battlefield 1 automatically , this just shows Developer optimize the consoles by them self. On PC you either do it yourself or let the available option decide it.   

Consoles optimization is a bit special then PC. 

Pemalite said:

The user base for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have moved on.
The last Frostbite/Battlefield game on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 dropped in 2015 with Hardline, 4 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Hardline

The Switch can handle more modern engines like Unreal Engine 4, but it's probably more economical for developers to port older engines over instead.
That is something individual studios decide... Because at the end of the day, the Switch has a graphics hardware feature set that is compatible with the Playstation 4 and Xbox One and even in a couple of areas, exceed the ageing Graphics Core Next designs.

EA also historically hasn't given Nintendo much support in the modern era either.

So you are saying gamers will not move on to Xbox Scarlet and stick to Xbox One ? And also battleField 4 engine using different Frostbite from Battlefield 5 and One right ? 

It's not just about Switch , PS3 and Xbox 360 has compatibility hardware with PS4 and xbox One. Isn't you just used Battlefield 4/hardline as example? So it's not the hardware able or not . It's about developing times, resourch, sacrifice on future games design that hindered by limitation hardware spec.

If you are saying it's not economical then there is no purpose of scalability, if the engines are not economical then it's not scalable. 

Pemalite said:

And more.

Then scalability is not a simple word that can be thrown whatever you like.

And also Talking about games design you cannot simply  upscale games design. You can tho downscale graphic but upscale game design ?  no chance.

Last edited by HollyGamer - on 06 December 2019

HollyGamer said:

You didn't say, but you implied that PS5 and scarlet will not using dedicated cores and will just be an RX 5700 GPU

No I didn't.

HollyGamer said:

Well consoles is not about just graphic and performance,  but about, price, power, tdp, form factor accessibility, immediacy, and ecosystem.  You argument is correct if we are discussing "  can PC run better games than consoles ", but to run the same thing on the smaller form factor, lower TDP, affordable price less TDP, small heat temperature, in close ecosystem is just impossible.

GPU's are not just about graphics and performance either, but they are about price, power, tdp, form fator and accesibility, immediacy and ecosystem.

Hence why they have a "Lineup" usually derived from a common feature set.

HollyGamer said:

Is not shifting goal post, you were asking about Equivalent hardware. TDP, and form factor, heat and price is PART OF THE HARDWARE SPEC 

Equivalent GPU hardware to the Playstation 4 is the Radeon 7850/7870.

HollyGamer said:

comparing GPU will involve all the the things above. Is not about moving goal post is about you cannot answer your own argument. and play victim :) 

False. That is what you wish to involve.

HollyGamer said:

I did not said PC don't have optimization, is just PC run games with bloated driver that and full of unnecessary programs to run games on many configuration. While console run games to just run at intended spec. The scale of driver and optimization are different. You cannot hand picked and optimized every PC games by developer, every games are automated optimize using general consensus, you need to do it yourself on PC graphic option, even some games ahs exclusives affect running on consoles.

Consoles use the same drivers as PC. Consoles are PC's. Consoles even use the same Operating Systems and API's as PC.

No. You do not need to "Hand pick settings" on PC. - Allot of PC games automatically pick settings based on your hardware configuration, from there you are more than welcomed to make additional changes.

Ironically, some console games are now going down a similar path and introducing toggles for graphics settings like film grain, motion blur and performance/graphics modes.

HollyGamer said:

You will not find any GPU on PC  that can switch resolution between 900p and 720p in Battlefield 1 automatically , this just shows Developer optimize the consoles by them self. On PC you either do it yourself or let the available option decide it.   

What makes you think you need a dynamic resolution? And even with a dynamic resolution the consoles still aren't maintaining 60fps.

I kinda' provided the evidence for that?

HollyGamer said:

Consoles optimization is a bit special then PC. 

You are missing the point entirely.

I have provided the evidence that all platforms get "Optimizations". Consoles aren't the exception.

Stop ignoring the evidence I have provided.

HollyGamer said:

So you are saying gamers will not move on to Xbox Scarlet and stick to Xbox One ? And also battleField 4 engine using different Frostbite from Battlefield 5 and One right ? 

How did you come to that false conclusion? Those aren't my words.

Umm. Battlefield 4 is using Frostbite 3. Same engine as Battlefield 5 and Battlefield 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostbite_(game_engine)

HollyGamer said:

It's not just about Switch , PS3 and Xbox 360 has compatibility hardware with PS4 and xbox One. Isn't you just used Battlefield 4/hardline as example? So it's not the hardware able or not . It's about developing times, resourch, sacrifice on future games design that hindered by limitation hardware spec.

I think you are misconstruing my statements to be something they are not.

I have provided evidence for most of my points, I suggest you go read/watch them.

HollyGamer said:

If you are saying it's not economical then there is no purpose of scalability, if the engines are not economical then it's not scalable. 

Again. You are misconstruing my statements to be something they are not.

It's not economical because there isn't a playerbase that is buying enough copies to make it financially feasible, hence why Battlefield: Hardline was the last Battlefield game on 7th gen hardware.

It's not that current games can't scale downwards, it's just not worth the extra work for a declining player base.
The fact that Frostbite powered games were still being released on 7th gen hardware years after 8th gen hardware launched is a testament to that fact.

HollyGamer said:
Then scalability is not a simple word that can be thrown whatever you like.

Which is why I provided evidence for my claims.

HollyGamer said:
And also Talking about games design you cannot simply  upscale games design. You can tho downscale graphic but upscale game design ?  no chance.

You will need to be more specific about "Upscale games design".






--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

shikamaru317 said:
thismeintiel said:
Lockhart is a big mistake. When we get 2 years in and MS is still trying to force devs to make last gen versions of games, even smaller teams who don't have resources to, I think you will see some dropping support.

Agreed. Hopefully they either abandon the project soon, or increase the specs to maybe 7 tflop and only slightly less RAM than Anaconda. If they bump it up to 7 tflop and only like 2 GB less RAM than Anaconda it should be powerful enough to meet the 1440p target that MS set for developers on Lockhart, with no other graphical downgrades compared to the Anaconda version. Will be alot easier for developers if all they have to downgrade is the resolution, too much work if they have to downgrade more than resolution to get a game to run on Lockhart.

Ideally though, they should drop Lockhart entirely, and just release a discless version of Anaconda, and subsidize it in order to hit an attractive price point that is $100 less than the disc drive Anaconda. They can make back what they lose on the subsidized console with the higher profit margin on digital game sales. 

Another reason why Lockhart is a terrible idea: if we get mid-gen upgrade consoles, which Sony is already hinting at for PS5, developers will have to support 3 different Xbox consoles with different specs; Lockhart, Anaconda, and whatever the codename for the mid-gen upgrade console will be. Devs will absoutely hate having to support 3 different Xbox's with different specs. Just release a discless Anaconda instead of Lockhart Microsoft.

Yea, I don't see how they are going to get 1440p out of the Lockhart, with a much weaker GPU and "significantly less" RAM, unless there is an incredible amount of scaling down in almost every aspect of the game.  My guess, though, is that they want to at least hit 1440p because 1080p will seem like last gen.  And with MS forcing them to make games on it, they will most likely use it as the base for development and then just add some bells and whistles on it for the Anaconda. 

That has a big drawback, though, because it will end up being like the PS4/XBO vs Pro/X.  What I mean by this is that for the most part, the games are the same, usually just higher res overall, with maybe better textures and a couple of added effects.  There usually isn't an increase in things like geometry.  Now, if a game could be made only for the X and Pro, the graphics could be pushed even harder.  Of course, when it is mid-gen HW, it's obvious why they shouldn't do that.

This also brings up the problem that MS is worried about having their launch games play on XBO/X, as well, which could create the same problem.  There is no way they are going to be able optimize their games to run at their fullest on all 4 consoles.  On the other hand, Sony is going to be showing what next gen has to offer, because they are focusing on pushing the HW out of the gate with PS5 exclusives not having to run on PS4.

Now, people can talk about scalability all they want, but those lower/higher quality assets and lower/higher poly models don't just create themselves.  Obviously it's a bigger deal than they want to admit if devs are complaining to Jason Screier about it.



I like the idea how it will be such a problem with Lockhart while you will be able to play the same games on 536 different PC configurations and no dev will tell you how it's so much work to develop for all these configs.