Pemalite said:
JRPGfan said:
Permalite this is reguarding the "12 tflop" number of rumored Xbox One X / Playstation 5, vs a Geforce 2080.
|
Obviously.
JRPGfan said:
1) yes, kinda.
|
No. It certainly is.
JRPGfan said:
2) this isnt relevant to the debate. Right now, its Geforece 2080ti Tflops vs Future Console Tflops. I just pointed out RDNA 1 is ~equal to nvidia (perf to flops).
|
You brought up the point first, if it's irrelevant, why mention it in the first place?
Why not make an Apples to Apples comparison of Future GPU vs Future Console?
RDNA is only able to be competitive with nVidia (nVidia still has a big advantage don't forget), due to the fact it's on 7nm and nVidia is on 12nm.
JRPGfan said:
3) this isnt relevant to the debate. Right now, we re not debateing how much or to what degree ray-traceing will be shown in upcomeing games.
|
You are debating about Teraflops in the context of performance, so Ray Tracing performance is most certainly relevant.
JRPGfan said:
4) yes, next gen PC graphics cards, will once again be far ahead.
|
And they are coming before Next-Gen consoles.
JRPGfan said:
---> However the orginal point Archangel came out with, was that Consoles will be drastically weaker than a Geforce 2080 ti.
(because of $$$-tag says so)
|
Just wait until the hardware drops before making any assertions maybe?
JRPGfan said:
My logic says, it wont be.
Consoles if their 12 Tflop should be close to current Geforce 2080ti's.
GCN -> RDNA 1 -> RDNA 2, should be enough to make that happend.
|
Flops are irrelevant.
goopy20 said:
I'm not sure it will take years. Sony's exclusives should already make pretty good use of the ps5 from the start, and this gen we already had games like Batman AK, Witcher 3, Dying Light, AC Unity etc pretty early on. Most of those games had a minimum requirement of a GTX660 (which is in current gen) and some recommended a GTX770.
The average gaming pc caught up quickly with the ps4/Xone because there were a ton of budget options available that offered console like performance on pc. There were cards like the GTX750Ti, the $80 AMD 260X and the $199 GTX960/970 pissed all over current gen consoles. Next gen it looks like we won't have those kind of budget options, though. At least not for a while.
|
They are exclusives. They aren't going to be ported to PC, making that point redundant.
A few games like Batman, Dying Light, Assassins Creed most certainly did require beefier hardware... However, all those games were still operational on a Radeon 7850, just less performant, which required a scaling back of visuals.
Such discrepancies will always happen when it comes to ports... The base Xbox One for example with one of the Assassins Creed games ran better than the Playstation 4 version... That didn't happen because the Xbox One has better hardware, far from it. Just the Port wasn't optimal.
One thing we need to keep in mind about minimum requirements is... They are a guideline only.
You most certainly can run on hardware inferior/different to the specifications listed, higher requirements are often listed than necessary to reduce the amount of support requests saving on costs.
I am not aware of any 8th generation title that cannot be run on a Radeon 7850 and a Core 2 Quad CPU... Low Res Gamer has even built up a following in running games on antiquated hardware.
In saying that... It is interesting you listed the GTX 660... That is roughly equivalent to a Radeon 7850 anyway.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/783?vs=778
|
