By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:
Lafiel said:

dev kits being more capable than the actual console is normal, as devs needs a healthy overhead for analytics programs, debugging software etc etc

at E3 there were contradictory statements what "4x more powerful" means, Phil afaik said this was based on CPU performance, Matt Booty said it was a combination of several factors like CPU,GPU,SSD and RAM

The SSD is like a 60-70x increase in bandwidth... And just as impressive on the latency reductions too.

CPU performance should be a no-brainer. 8x-10x depending on the clockrates of the Zen 2 8-core chip and the instructions/workload.

GPU is probably around double the performance of the Xbox One X at most, significantly more once we start talking Ray Tracing.

Memory bandwidth we are probably looking at 50% to double the bandwidth of the Xbox One X, depending how wide they take the bus... But it is likely to be closer to 50%.

It's the storage and CPU that we will see the largest leap with, no doubt about it.

HollyGamer said:

10 teraflop is achievable on the current size and power tdp for APU. Because it will just slightly more 44 cu or 48 cu to achieve 10 teraflop. The problem is when it will targeted above 48 CU (56 to 52), because it size will be more than 420 mm^ .

The problem are we still don't know what manufacturing process Sony and Microsoft will use for their APU. Will it be 7nm or 7nm+, also the final APU chip size for both. I bet if they are willing to lose money on early release year, they can easily achieve 10 to 11. 

At the current progress actually RX 5700 Xt already slightly more powerful or on par with RTX 2070 on benchmark , the final chip for PS5 according to leak  are close to RTX 2080 in firestrikes benchmark. I can see 2070 are hit the mark, now i wish they can push more to at least more closer to RTX 2080. So by the end of 2020 PS5 will compete with RTX 3070 and not with mainstream GPU RTX 3060. unlike PS4 that competed with GTX 660 (Nvidia mainstream GPU )when PS4 was released in 2013. 

Flops is unimportant, always has. In saying that... AMD's fastest clock on a GPU is the Navi-based 5700XT with it's 1680mhz base clock. You would need 48 CU's at 1680Mhz to break that 10 Teraflop barrier. (Number of CU's * Shaders * 2 Instructions * Clockspeed)

7nm is what they will be using, it's what is ramping up now... They will be months building up chip inventory before the consoles launch, so they need to use what is feasible right now... And that is 7nm.

The GPU side of the equation, the faster the better. Hopefully the next-gen consoles can beat the 4-year old (by that point) Geforce 1080 upon release... But one thing we need to keep in mind is that... Even though the next-gen consoles are based on the PC's Navi GPU, they have a plethora of enhancements which means they are not directly comparable in benchmarks.

vivster said:

But an RX5700 wouldn't put the PS5 in the range of a 2070, which was my point. Add to that the additional possible chips and their super duper SSD it's easy to see that we won't get 2070 levels of performance on a $400 price point.

I wish Sony would just put out an expensive version that has the hardware cranked up and costs $500 or more but I'm not holding my breath. The thing is, even with a 2070 doing 4k60fps is a very tough ask. I believe lots of people are expecting to see 4k60 across the board and they're gonna be very disappointed.

The Geforce 2070 is pretty much upper-mid range in performance now... And by 2020 will definitely be a mid-range part with a Geforce 3060 likely being it's equal.
Shows how far back AMD is currently in the GPU space... But at-least they are smashing it out in the CPU space.

I don't expect a $400 USD price point though, I think $500 is the likely target.

DonFerrari said:

Well I do remember The Cloud Power. And I wouldn't put it besides MS to spin the truth. But until we can be certain I'll give the benefit of doubt and expect a system that is roughly 4x better than X1X, or about 16x better than X1, which was a reasonable jump gen-to gen (a little above usual 8-10x)

I think every console manufacturer is kinda' guilty about "spinning" the truth of their platforms capabilities to some degree or another.

Even doubling the Xbox One X's GPU capabilities is still an impressive task though... One thing we need to keep in mind is that games released for the Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox One X are not utilizing the hardware from the bottom-up, games are still very much designed with the base Xbox One and PlayStation 4 consoles in mind... The next-gen hardware won't have that problem once we are fully transitioned into the 9th gen, so games should look significantly better than the hardware leap relative to the mid-gen refresh consoles would otherwise imply.

HollyGamer said:

Well Cerny already talk no loading times and Ray tracing including sound ray tracing 4K 60fps, 8k , and 120 fps . Also secret sauce will be more important jargon this time , but i believe console vendor will just compare directly to their previous console. For us hardcore and enthusiast the hype will be coming from comparison from gaming news and site like Digital Foundry and gaming forum. Actually it's a lot easy to hype console in these day and age using social media and Internet , unlike past generation. 

Ray Traced sound is not a new thing. I hope that isn't a buzz word that people cling to entering next-gen without an actual understanding of it's ramifications. Haha

Sony is likely piggybacking off AMD's True-Audio though, so the Xbox should have the same capability.

Yes certainly we would have better graphics if games were focused on X1X and Pro instead of the base model.

And my fear for MS is that they keep X1X "current" as the new base model (which would be a double issue as it have more expensive solutions so they wouldn't win much on price) and limit what they can achieve on Scarlet, which also can be a problem on the rumor that Anaconda (or whatever is the name of each version) would be a 1080p version of Scarlet for same game and rest of performance about equal.

Also that reply to HollyGamer and ManUtdFan (you buying a 1080p won't make devs decide you should be the focus =p). Pro and X1X had the options for performance or graphics because they were just "scale" adjustment for baseline, so they made that baseline version and took the simple approach of offer just higher FPS or pixel for the games. But when they milk all for PS5 you won't have choices.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."