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

True, but will be still too expensive to put a 2080 in a console in one year



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
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".




Simple answer, Developer are worried  games will be made using Lockhart as standar more so using Xbox One as baseline. Scaling game design is impossible especially if the  CPU is not even the same. Lockhart to Anaconda probably can, but Jaguar to Ryzen 3 . LOL 



HollyGamer said:
vivster said:

Don't forget that those consoles won't come out for another year. By that time a 2070 will be midrange. Not hard to believe that consoles will be around that power.

Agree, next year even 3060 will be as powerful as RTX2080 . The jump from 12 nm to 7 nm+ is big on performance for Nvidia. PS4 back at the time are equal to GTX 660, which is a mid tier GPU back in 2013. 

I doubt very much that a 3060 will be on par with a 2080. As I said a 2070 is the most likely performance level. We're still talking about APUs here and I'd be very impressed if a PS5 comes even close to a 2080.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
HollyGamer said:

Agree, next year even 3060 will be as powerful as RTX2080 . The jump from 12 nm to 7 nm+ is big on performance for Nvidia. PS4 back at the time are equal to GTX 660, which is a mid tier GPU back in 2013. 

I doubt very much that a 3060 will be on par with a 2080. As I said a 2070 is the most likely performance level. We're still talking about APUs here and I'd be very impressed if a PS5 comes even close to a 2080.

For PS5 GPU  i bet it's probably between 2070 to 2080 ish (2070 super at best/ RX 5700 Xt).  For overall performance will probably better due to the APU paired with Ryzen 3700 which will be crazy if future  games utilize it the benefit of that CPU. Remember all this times since 2013 games coming to PC and consoles are all build using Jaguar CPU based as baseline, Next year games will be based on Ryzen 3700. 



I will continue to support Sonys strategy. MS strategy is about as far from what i want as possible. If Sony adapt it, I'll move to Nintendo as my primary. Since they're actually releasing good stuff that I like for once.



Around the Network

I'd be happy if PS5 + Scarlett are on par with RTX 2080.

But the Xbox One X was also rumored to be on par with the GTX 1080 and it turned out to be on par with GTX1060/RX480/RX580 for most games (of course with exceptions in both directions).



think-man said:
I will continue to support Sonys strategy. MS strategy is about as far from what i want as possible. If Sony adapt it, I'll move to Nintendo as my primary. Since they're actually releasing good stuff that I like for once.

I really have a hard time understanding this mindset. What is the difference between Sony and Microsoft's strategy? Looking through everything they offer, they are almost identical.

Both companies are offering at least a 1080p console and a 4K console. Both companies are offering games Via Physical, Digital, and Subscription. Both companies are offering access to games via the cloud or remote play to your personal hardware. Both companies offer a pay walled online service, delivering online multiplayer, bundled games, and cloud storage. Both companies are investing heavily into 1st party development, and exclusive IP. 

The only differences I see are, Microsoft is bringing their games natively to PC, allowing you to access your library in more places, while Sony is pushing into the VR space and offering a new spin on games. 

I don't understand where this major divergence between the two is. Going forward, both companies will be offering multiple revisions throughout the platform life cycle, both companies will continue to expand their subscription and cloud services, and both companies will continue to invest in new exclusive IP. 

Help me understand what Microsoft is doing that Sony is not also doing, or started doing well before Microsoft.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

crissindahouse said:
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.

No they don't.  They have a baseline of what they are aiming for.  They just give you options to turn certain effects off and lower the resolution so you can attempt to get it to run on lower spec machines.  They aren't testing all of these out.  If your PC doesn't run it well, they aren't going in to make specific changes to get it to work, you just need to update your HW.  On the Lockhart, they will have to do extensive testing on it to getting it running 1440p/30fps/60fps on a system that has a much weaker GPU and significantly less RAM.  Sure, you probably will get games that drop into the 20fps range and have variable resolutions, but MS isn't going to be happy if this consistently happens, or the games are dropping into the teens on fps and 720p for the resolution.  That will turn gamers off from getting this "next-gen" system.

This is why devs, not just gamers, are complaining about this.  They feel it's going to hold back their games and/or cause them to put more resources into getting those games running on Lockhart.



KBG29 said:
think-man said:
I will continue to support Sonys strategy. MS strategy is about as far from what i want as possible. If Sony adapt it, I'll move to Nintendo as my primary. Since they're actually releasing good stuff that I like for once.

I really have a hard time understanding this mindset. What is the difference between Sony and Microsoft's strategy? Looking through everything they offer, they are almost identical.

Both companies are offering at least a 1080p console and a 4K console. Both companies are offering games Via Physical, Digital, and Subscription. Both companies are offering access to games via the cloud or remote play to your personal hardware. Both companies offer a pay walled online service, delivering online multiplayer, bundled games, and cloud storage. Both companies are investing heavily into 1st party development, and exclusive IP. 

The only differences I see are, Microsoft is bringing their games natively to PC, allowing you to access your library in more places, while Sony is pushing into the VR space and offering a new spin on games. 

I don't understand where this major divergence between the two is. Going forward, both companies will be offering multiple revisions throughout the platform life cycle, both companies will continue to expand their subscription and cloud services, and both companies will continue to invest in new exclusive IP. 

Help me understand what Microsoft is doing that Sony is not also doing, or started doing well before Microsoft.

Almost identical?  Have you not been paying attention?  Sony has been focusing on high quality exclusives, and it has been paying off in millions upon millions in sales, both HW and SW.  MS output has been lacking in both quantity and quality for the past 3 years.  Spending years on games, only for them to turn out mediocre at best.  And no, just buying up studios doesn't help how MS oversees those studios.  Sony obviously has a bigger focus on pushing HW, with a streaming option there if you want to take advantage of it.  MS, on the other hand, is more focused on streaming.  Sure, they are coming out with HW, but that isn't their main focus. They made that clear when they said the new studios were mostly about getting more content on GamePass/xCloud, and by putting all of their games going forward onto PC.

In my eyes, MS is not fully embracing next-gen HW.  Most likely because they think they are still not going to beat Sony, and it doesn't matter as they turn the focus to GamePass/xCloud.  Their launch games aren't going to be exclusive to Scarlett, pushing the system to its fullest, instead they are using XBO as the base.  And even after their devs move away from this gen, they still have to develop for a much weaker system in the Lockhart.

And VR might not seem like much, but it shows that MS isn't into taking risks, unless that risk has already proven itself by being wildly profitable for another company.  This is actually their MO when it comes to branching out into other markets.  Sony does take risks, and gamers appreciate that.  They may not always work out, but sometimes they do.  Right now, VR is obviously profiting them, but probably not by a lot.  It's something that may start out niche, but could play a big role next gen as the tech matures and becomes much cheaper.  Or it could stay niche.  Either way, Sony is there and MS is not.  And if it does start to blow up, MS will just be late to the party, once again.



DonFerrari said:
KBG29 said:

A Lockhart version would not be a last gen version. Lockhart if real, would be using the same CPU and GPU architecture as all Scarlett gen consoles. Microsoft will be supplying development tools that ensure that there is no effort required to get a game developed for the Scarlett family to run on all Scarlett devices. A one person team will not have an issues making a game for the entire Scarlett platform.  

Supporting 3 different Scarlett devices is not going to be a major effort. Supporting 20 different Scarlett devices wouldn't be a major effort. 

This is not the 90's or 00's anymore. Hardware and Development Tools have changed in the last two decades. Every aspect of the pipeline is being optimized for scalability. These console platforms, are even more optimized for scalability, because they have been built with it in mind, and they run a very specific set of Hardware and Software. 

Sony hinted that Pro was a "Test Case"", and the thinking behind it was "a platform lifecycle, we should be able to change the hardware itself and try to incorporate advancements in technology".

PS4 Pro was a proof of concept, and from what Sony is hinting at, they liked what they saw. To me it sounds like they are ready to go all the way with this thinking with PS5, and we will be seeing yearly PS5 updates, and possibly have PS5 Base and Premium level models as well. 

With the way AMD has laid out Zen and RDNA, and Sony talking about changing hardware during the life cycle, to incorperate advanced technology. It would not be in the least bit surprising to see them bring out new hardware with Zen3 and RDNA2, and again with Zen4 and RDNA3, and so on and so forth, with PS6 arriving when AMD and its parteners nail down full generational transitions to the successors of Zen and RDNA.

The industry is changing. As time progresses everything changes. It is not something to be scared of. There will always be fear mongering with anything new. Don't get caught up in the hyperbole. 

Baselines will always exist and the lower the baseline you have to develop for (there is talks about MS wanting next gen games to keep running on base X1) the lower the quality you can achieve on the upper line because it still have to work on the base one.

Also don't pretend that you have almost no work to make the game work on all versions.

Even PS4Pro that is only twice as powerful than base PS4 the option of IQ or FPS is still additional effort compared to only develop the base game.

MS will no doubt make the dev tools as friendly as possible if this is the case. They apparently focused heavily on the software and dev tools for XB1X, so there's no reason to believe they won't go beyond that to get games running on both next gen consoles as easy as possible. That of course doesn't mean it will be a simple as making one version and having it work perfect on both, but for the average dev, it won't be a big deal overall. Unless all they care about is profits, and how many devs like that make great games you want to play anyway?

As for PS4 to Pro. Did the devs know Pro was coming? If they had an idea, did they take it serious, or was it just up in the air in a manner that they very well assumed it wasn't going to happen, and didn't really plan ahead? Why waste time on scalability, if you don't know or think you're going to need it? Now that devs know a mid gen upgrade is likely, and maybe PS will even be straight up and tell them it'll likely be based on a Zen 6 CPU and RDNA 5.0 GPU, etc, they can be more prepared in advance, so there's less headaches down the road.

As for the smaller devs, well, they may have to put a little more work in for both consoles, or maybe they can focus solely on Xcloud streaming. As long as the game works on the Xcloud server hardware, it should work on every XB console right?

Xxain said:
Just to think they're people on this site that think MS is going to make major comeback in the console space. XBOX game pass is their primary game service and that will be on everything and they loooooove that idea. Google opend the door to games as service and MS just ran through it. The console is just to shut people until they're trained.

Lockhart and Anaconda would cover at least a few possibilities. It may help them to succeed in the fact that if they can have the cheapest next gen console, as well as the most powerful, they will likely pick up more sales then they would otherwise. More than a few casuals will be swayed if Lockhart is $100 cheaper than PS5. There are also going to be those people who simply want to know they have the best hardware, and won't know, or care, that the games may be playing worse than they would on the single PS5 SKU. They will buy Anaconda, whether it's the same price as PS5, or $100 more.

Lockhart also covers MS butt if Anaconda doesn't do what they want and need it to do, like the XB1X. If PS5 runs away with the high end, then with the MS focus on digital and cloud streaming, they might as well focus on Lockhart and not even bother with a mid gen upgrade. MS could just save the mid gen input costs and put them towards subsidizing Lockhart and getting it as cheap as possible asap. They would certainly sell a worthy amount of consoles that way. Imagine a next gen 1080p/60 casual console that plays the majority of next gen games, yet costs just $249 after a couple years, while PS5 is at $399. Lockhart would sell more than enough units in a situation like that. Meanwhile, MS, like you mentioned, is doing everything they can to get their users to pay for Live and Game Pass.

I wouldn't be surprised if MS focuses more on Nin's hardware choices than SNY's. All you have to do is look at how the last 5 or 6 years have played out, and then take into consideration the Wii and Switch. Why with the clear MS focus on digital services, should they try to compete with SNY in terms of power going forward? Why not be the Switch of the home console market? Cheap next gen hardware that plays the games reasonable enough, with plenty left over for online subscriptions.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 07 December 2019

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.