Pemalite said:
CrazyGPU said:
PS3 had a graphic card with arround 0,24 Mflops compared to 1,84 Tf of PS4´s one.
|
Playstation 3 didn't have 0.24 Mflops. (Aka. MegaFlops, step down from GigaFlops.)
It was 192Gflop or 192,000 Mflops.
CrazyGPU said:
I think it was, probably the most important factor was going from 512 MB (256 VRAM) to 8 GB for textures.
|
Playstation 3's split memory pool meant using all the 512MB/256MB for VRAM wasn't going to happen, memory transactions sadly cost when shuffling data between memory pools.
Not only that, but the Playstation 3's OS was consuming 120MB-95MB-50MB across both pools... Meaning you had 392MB-417-462MB for the actual games themselves. (Sony reduced their footprint as time went on.)
The Playstation 4 by comparison might have an 8GB GDDR5 memory pool, but not all of that is available for games either.
3.5GB-3GB was reserved by the OS meaning you had 4.5GB-5GB available for the games themselves.
You also had a 256MB DDR3 pool for background duties on top of that.
If we get next-gen consoles with a 16GB pool and similar OS memory usage, then we would have 13GB available for games, which is more than a doubling in available memory for the games themselves.
CrazyGPU said:
The thing is we reached a level of good textures and good poligon count, and even if we are going to get better it won´t feel like older generation jumps in graphics.
|
People say the same thing every console generation... I remember users on this very site stating that they are "fine" with the textures current day games run with. I scoffed at the idea of course.
Going from a high-end PC game to a console game, the differences in texture resolution and polygon count can actually be rather startling... There is still a ton of room for improvement I am afraid.
CrazyGPU said:
CPU will be a different animal.
going from Jaguar cores to Ryzen cores will be masive and will allow massive worlds, better AI, better physics, and better FPS. That will be the jump to be wainting for. No doubt about it. The experience will improve a lot.
|
We already have massive worlds, the limiter on that front tends to be memory, but there are ways to work around that, developers got really clever last console generation to that end by implementing techniques like impostering.
In short, Open-World has been a massive buzzword this generation, I don't see that trend stopping next console generation.
But A.I, Physics and General simulation quality should see a marked improvement next gen, the worlds should seem more "alive" with the ability to have heavier levels of scripting.
The upgrade to Ryzen should provide a 6-10x increase in performance... Maybe more depending on the instructions developers end up leveraging and the CPU itself in question, probably one of the largest jumps in CPU capability in a very long time.
CrazyGPU said:
Ray tracing may be implemented here or there but we still need another 10 years to get global ray tracing graphics the way it should be.
It would be fun though, I´m eager for the new gen to come up. Good CPU with 4k it´s something that I´ve been waiting for , even if RT is not ready for prime time. But it´s not a matter of hardware alone, maybe developers find ways to get better graphics with the same hardware next gen too.
|
7th gen games were startling to dabble in ray tracing, especially in engines that used deferred rendering.
Ray Tracing is one of those technologies that is going to ramp up and become more significant over time, not just be thrown in your face all at once.
|
I ment 0.24 Tf, but I should have put 230 Gigaflops, So the correct number would have been 0.23 Tf. Source: https://www.gamespot.com/gallery/console-gpu-power-compared-ranking-systems-by-flop/2900-1334/7/
Wikipedia on the other side gives your number, 0.192 Teraflops.
Lets take your number. 1.84 / 0.192 is 9,6 times. Next jump should be to 17.6 Tf to be equal. Not going to happen.
you favor my conclusion even more with your numbers here.
It doesn´t matter the exact numbers though.
let´s take memory.
you said arround 417 MB or 0.42 (approximating here) GB vs 4.5 GB for games. 11 times more memory. 88 GB of RAM would be the same jump. We don´t need that amount of ram now of course, but It´s clear that the jump will be much lower next gen. Arround double like you say.
Bandwith... 22,4 GB/s to 176 GB/s. close to 8 times more bandwith. We are not going to get to 1400 GB/s of bandwith so the jump will be much lower too.
In 2007 I was playing Crysis with my DX10 high end PC and consoles were a joke in texture quality. All washy and blurry. Now a PS4 or Xbox are still worse than my PC in ultra settings (GF 1070 2k monitor) but consoles are much closer than they used to be.
So clearly, graphically we are going to have an improvement but it will be much lower than old jumps, and Im not even considering the jump from PS1 to PS2 or PS2 to PS3.
Graphics will be better but nothing to write home about compared to XBOX one X or PS4 pro specially. Not a Dream Ray tracing machine with 20 tf, 32 GB of ram and 1 TB of bandwith like Ken Kutaragui would like at 600 USS that no one would buy.
Im not saying graphics are fine, Im just saying that the jump in graphics won´t make people go woooow.
On the other side, CPU specs and capability will be the force that will make next gen something good. More games with FPS at 60 , AI, Simulation, Objects in maps,etc. For many people that would be a game changer.
That´s my opinion, I hope I´m wrong and PS5 will become a incredible graphic beast that shows graphics on a whole new level.
The way I see it, There is more difference when you see cars from Gran Turismo 1 to Gran Turismo Sport, than between Gran turismo Sport, to real world cars, the woow feeling is getting smaller and smaller.
