| CrazyGPU said: I can´t see them achieving a gen leap in fidelity in 3 years with today hardware on console power envelope at 400-500 |
That's your problem. You are only thinking about the next console generation with todays hardware rather than the hardware we will have in a few years time.
| CrazyGPU said: Again Teraflops are not exact, if AMD changes radically its architecture or Sony goes for Nvidia , the number of Tf will change, but I need something to relatively compare. |
Teraflops are not exact? Hows about... Teraflops are useless unless you actually have an understanding of what they represent.
| CrazyGPU said: Yes, this gen is about teraflops and graphic res. Exactly as you said, people take that number and run with it. Its how Microsoft and Sony are fighting the marketing war. They don´t speak much about bandwith, geometry throughput, pixel filtering, texel filtering and the bottleneck of the involved CPU. That´s how they market the world how capable their console are, Tflops. It doesn´t mean its the only thing that matters, but its how they show their products. The first thing Ms said about One X was that it was a 6 Tf machine. They try to win user´s mind as Intel did with GHz 2 decades ago. |
And you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
| CrazyGPU said: Its math. If you want to output 2 millon pixels on screen you need 2 teraflops at a fixed quality(means without changing anything else, just resolution). Then if you need to output 8 millon you need 4 times that, at the same fixed quality. And that considering other stuff like say bandwith doesn´t become a bottleneck. If it does you need to balance that too. Of course if you want to implement better AA, shading, lighting, rays, etc, you would need even more power, which would mean even more flops for calculations. Im not being extremely precise, PS4 is not 2 teraflops, its 1.84, and you get just a little more than 2 millon pixels on screen, but the idea is the same, as when someone says 1000 MB of ram is 1 GB and thats close to 1024, the right number. |
It's not math. You are asserting a logical fallacy by using two different constructs and forcing a relationship with one another.
Until you can tell me how exactly single precision floating point relates to resolution, then your argument is completely baseless... Because the Playstation 2 operates at 6.2Gflops.
The Playstation 4 is 1840 gflops. Aka. A 296x increase.
The Playstation 2 typically rendered at 307,200 pixels, whilst the Playstation 4 is pushing 2,073,600 pixels. Aka. A 6.75x increase.
Ergo. Flops has no relation to rendered resolution.
| CrazyGPU said: Yes, resolution is up to the developer, but how Microsoft marketed the XBOX one X for example? As a 4k native console. |
How Microsoft marketed the console is ultimately irrelevant.
If anyone thought that a console launching in 2017 with mid-range PC hardware was going to do native 4k across the board... Well. They were idiots.
| CrazyGPU said: The PS5 will have to run most games at 4k (Im not talking about minecraft or tetris at 8k here), even though some may run at 2k checkboard, but that will be the exeption, not the rule, like now with the ps4 pro. Some games run at 4k checkboard and some other a little more than 1080p. I think that Sony should make a machine capable of running most games at native 4k 30 fps to diferentiate from PS4 pro and take advantage of new TVs. Companies use graphics as a hook now, and its a better hooK than showing better CPU or RAM. |
The Playstation 5 doesn't have to do anything. Sony will leverage the best bang-for-buck mid-range hardware for it's next generation console, if it's capable of native 4k, it is capable of native 4k. If it's not, it's not. It's really that simple.
But it most certainly is up to the Developer if they wish to fully leverage that capability.
| CrazyGPU said: It´s not useless, but It´s not accurate either. For example, if the PS5 is a 1 teraflop machine, it won´t be able to calculate fast enough for 4k resolution. |
Sure.
| CrazyGPU said: Geforce GTX 1070 has close to 7 teraflops but its architecture is fast enough to be compared to an AMD RADEON VEGA 56 with 10.5 teraflops. |
And do you have an understanding of why that is the case?
A jump from 7 to 10.5 Teraflops is a difference of 3.5 Terfalops. More than two Xbox One's combined, that's not just a small divide right there.
| CrazyGPU said: That means that a 10 teraflop console without CPU bottlenecks can be able to run 4k 30 fps at high quality with today games. |
The base Xbox One/Playstation 4 can technically do 4k 30fps with visuals dialed back as they both support HDMI 1.4.
| CrazyGPU said: If they change AMD for Nvidia, 7 teraflops would be enough for 4k 30 fps if architecture doesn´t change, but BC would be more difficult I guess. |
Wouldn't provide next gen fidelity.
nVidia isn't going to happen. Period. Why? Because a single chip solution is cheaper.
| CrazyGPU said: And again, bandwith and the rest of the graphic pipeline should be balanced or it will have a bottleneck. It will take more than the usual 6 years to have a processor with the flops an all the rest necessary to achieve 8k and that’s without increasing the quality of AAA games. |
It is impossible to remove bottlenecks.
A bottleneck can also change depending on the game/scene being rendered and so on.
| CrazyGPU said: Again, it doesn´t matter if its 12 or 10 or 7nm. |
Actually it does.
| CrazyGPU said: We are getting close to molecular size of transistors. |
And that's fine, the great thing about chip design is that they are working around it to various degrees.
| CrazyGPU said: There are no many shrinks left and each of them are harder and more expensive. |
Ironically... NAND/DRAM has side stepped this issue for the time being, you should look at what they are doing.
Some NAND manufacturers even started producing their NAND at 55nm rather than say... 14nm. And the chips were smaller and offered more capacity.
| CrazyGPU said: Moore Law is slower nowadays. |
Moores Law isn't a real law, it was an observance.
| CrazyGPU said: It´s not year 2000 where you have a new graphic card architecture every year. |
Even in the year 2000 ATI/nVidia weren't rolling out new GPU architectures every year, they were doing significant, albeit iterative updates.
I mean the Radeon 8500 is based on the foundations of the Radeon 7500.
The Radeon 9700's design thanks to ArtX laid the foundations for the x800 and x1900 series.
| CrazyGPU said: They need new materials, they are studying silicon replacement, they are getting near molecular size, they have more quantum mecanic problems, machinery in fabrics are becoming exponentially expensive. They should get arround it but it will take more time than ever to make a justifiable PS6. |
Or. If you can't go smaller... You go with bigger geometry sizes and you go taller like NAND/DRAM.
AMD took note of how die shrinks are starting to stall out... And took advantage of that with Ryzen. So instead of making one giant monolithic chip to rule them all... They took smaller chips that are cheaper to manufacture and stitched them together... And because the chips are smaller, they get more workable chips per wafer.
What you are stating isn't intrinsically wrong, but there are tons of ways to get around the problem that manufacturers are looking at.
| CrazyGPU said: Why shouldn´t? what would people justify buying a PS6 at the same resolution? |
Better graphics?
| CrazyGPU said: If your answer is ultra quality graphics at 4k |
Better performance?
| CrazyGPU said: Thats one of the reasons why I think PS5 wil have the longest lifecicle. That doesn´t mean that sony can´t lauch PS5 pro, PS5 ultra, and PS5 ultimate, upgrading the cash making machinery before PS6 hehehe. |
I think in general we will see more iterative console releases that leverages the typical PC cadence of hardware improvements.
I.E. The Playstation 4 Pro/Xbox One X.
Will that extend the console cycle? I have no idea, we don't have a precedent yet... So lets wait and see what this Console generation gives us first before asserting hypothetical's.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
