Forums - Gaming Discussion - Eurogamer: PS5 and Xbox Series X Spec Leak.

Pemalite said:
shikamaru317 said:

Radeon 7 is last gen tech, GCN, Graphics Core Next. 5700XT and the next-gen consoles are using RDNA, not GCN. 5700 XT was not designed as a replacement for the Radeon 7, it was designed to sit one performance bracket down from the Radeon 7, it is only 10 tflop to the Radeon 7’s 13 tflop, that is the only reason why it is performing under the Radeon 7, and even then it still comes very close to Radeon 7 in some games like The Division 2 and Forza Horizon 4, which you can see in the pics I just linked. You can safely assume that when AMD releases a 13 tflop RDNA card, likely later this year, that it will beat the Radeon 7 by a decent margin, because RDNA is definitely a step up from GCN in terms of real world vs flops performance. 

50% weaker than 2080ti? I hardly think so, 12 tflop of RDNA should fall around 2080 tier in performance, and that is on PC. Console games get extra optimization compared PC games.Taking into account console optimization, multiplat games on XSX should perform about the same as they do on a PC running a 2080ti. Even this rumored 9.2 tflop PS5 would likely come within 25% of a 2080ti PC taking into account console optimization.

RDNA via Navi on the PC is a hybrid GPU design that sits between RDNA 2 and Graphics Core Next, it still retains the full Graphics Core Next instruction set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDNA_(microarchitecture)

Trumpstyle said:

If you use 4 Memory controllers it only gives 448GB/s bandwidth, it's to low for 12TF GPU. Or Microsoft do you as you suggest, 5 memory controllers for 560GB/s memory speed with 20GB Vram, but instead mix 1GB and 2GB sticks for total 16GB Vram and save themself a lot of money. I think you agree with that.

Might have more memory controllers. You simply don't know anything yet... So would be good if you can stop asserting something as fact before you have all your ducks in a row.

Trumpstyle said:

It doesn't matter what speed they have, they will load games in 2 seconds no matter what. What matters is, will Lockhart sell with no Disc-player? Is the price of Xbox series X to high compared to PS5? I think microsoft must launch that console at $450 to compete with PS5.

Xbox consoles at 1.5GB/s speed?

PS5 at 2.5GB/s speed?

We don't even have the consoles on the market, there are no benchmarks, we don't even know how fast the SSD is.

But just because it has an SSD, doesn't mean there won't be a load time... There are games that use procedural generation which require very little in regards to transfers from storage to system memory, but require a ton of processing time to generate assets. (No Mans Land is an example.)

Consoles like the Switch are all solid state, still have load times.

Again, 2 seconds is a bold claim, you should stop asserting something as fact when you don't have all your ducks in a row, this is why there are people out in the world who believe sunscreen causes cancer, vaccines cause autism, there is no climate change, the world is flat... And more, because they assert something as fact without having all the details/evidence.

Trumpstyle said:

Looks like you know a lot about this stuff, Sony/Microsoft are supposed to use optimized NVMe to reduce loading much faster than what is possible on PC.

What is so optimized about it? Please. Fill us in.

DonFerrari said:

Considering RT on the consoles will be a designated part of the HW, not using RT will probably just make that part unused instead of working in something else.

About the gfx x resolution, they will have to find the balance to have the best IQ overall.

There is the potential to use the Ray Tracing cores for non-Ray Tracing tasks, it depends on how flexible AMD makes those cores.

Potentially though if the Ray Tracing cores are going unused, AMD could then repurpose that TDP and drive up clockrates to the rest of the chip... Either way, that is just hypothesizing, we will need to wait and see of course.

I may be wrong but no matter how flexible it is, usually if something is designed for one purpose all other use will be less optimal. So I don't think it will be anywhere near that we will get games tossing out RT to use those cores (that probably won't run up the processing capability of what the other parts of the GPU) to do other stuff a little better.

For me seems more like a situation of the X360 vs PS3, that they got the "free AA solution" because of the differences of the GPU, and instead of using that power to something else that would give they more headaches they just used a good AA standard for most games.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
goopy20 said:

So what if GOW had a bunch of spin offs? Fact remains that people haven't lost interested in the GOW because Sony hasn't over exposed the franchise and they successfully turned the game in a fresh direction on the ps4. Generally speaking though, Sony isn't afraid to let successful franchises die and gives developers the creative freedom to try new things. I mean, do you honestly believe there would be a TLOU if MS owned Naughty Dog? I'm pretty sure we would have had 6 Uncharted games by now if that was the case. 

You're trying to have it both ways.

Those are not spin offs, those three GoW games youre ignoring are GoW games that add to the story and use the same lead character.

Kratos can be milked because he's essentially a super hero, a god or whatever. He killed Greek gods, I guess he fights Norse gods now, eventually he will smash up pyramids and punch Jesus.

Nathan Drake can't be used the same so Uncharted kinda has to go away unless they want to make more prequels or a game about grandpa Drake. The world on its own is not interesting.

Market of HH and Console are different. So really for more that there are 9 GoW games, we have 5 console and 4 HH you don't need the HH games to understand the console. So for most people there wasn't saturation from GoW by the time the reboot came.

But yes, for my taste they could have used a different protagonist for GoW and even a new name, but the type of game itself I really like.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

setsunatenshi said:
Latest from Komachi, apparently one of the SOCs had 3 more significant revisions since leak, that's potentially giant news and seems to confirm other rumors that Sony had made substantial changes recently.
As long as it's still related to Oberon (which likely is), then the old specs are completely non representative of the final hardware.
I'm a lot more hopeful now, but let's see.

Yep.

PS5 releasing 30% weaker for one year earlier release makes sense, on the same month of XSX it doesn't.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Mr Puggsly said:
goopy20 said:

It doesn't really matter how many GOW spin offs there were. Look at the whole history of the Xbox brand you tell me how many successful AAA IP's MS managed to come up with? It's basically Halo, Forza, Gears and maybe Fable. Except for Gears, all those games game out on the OG Xbox. Now compare that to the AAA ip's that have come and gone on Sony's platform, and you tell me who has historically been doing a way better job? Like I said, either MS lacks the creativity or they just don't want to take risks.

You're right about Uncharted, though. It's a flagship title for Sony but the story came to an end and they decided to put it to rest and move on. Gears and Halo's story has came to an end 3 games ago. But even when the original developers moved away from those franchises MS decided to put half of their 1st party studios into keeping those franchises alive.  

Again, those GoW titles you call spin offs are not spin offs. They are simply GoW games.

I agree Sony has done a great job making new IPs, it comes partly out necessity though. They needed to make new IPs because their old ones weren't that interesting anymore. What bugs me is Sony keeps making story driven 3rd person adventure games and I find that kinda boring. But its successful so I can't argue with them beating that horse.

Bungie moved away from Halo because they didn't own it. They simply created a Halo clone with RPG elements.

Something you may find interesting is Epic was actually working on Gears 4 before MS purchased the IP. Not only were they working on it, but many of the ideas were used in the game Coalition created. Taking that into consideration its possible Epic would have done something with Gears if MS did not buy it. However, I don't think Epic has really made a single player or story driven game in years.

When it comes to Halo and Gears, there are tons of stories they could do just in those worlds. Uncharted can't really do that though, those games are about Nathan Drake. GoW can't do that either, because nobody cares about that world beyond Kratos. Games like Halo, Gears and Fable don't have to rely on the same protagonist per se.

MS bought the rights of Gears because Epic wanted to focus on other projects. 3 Years later, Epic launched Fortnite, one of the most popular games of all time with 250m players and billions of yearly revenue. While MS made 2 lack luster Gears games with a 82 metacritic score that sold 20 times less of what Gears 3 did.   

There's no arguing taste, of course, and I did enjoy Halo and Gears. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to see something different from MS's first party studios. I mean the next gen is about to start and MS still has only Halo, Forza and Gears to persuade people to buy their console instead of Sony's. What's worse is that both Halo and Gears are seeing a downwards trend in sales and review scores. While Sony has been hitting home runs with new ip's, both in critical acclaim and sales, for years. 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 06 January 2020

I'll myself go with the most powerful console, I'm a sucker for graphics but I prefer the PS5 with sony exclusives but who knows ms could surprise us with something new.



Around the Network
setsunatenshi said:
Latest from Komachi, apparently one of the SOCs had 3 more significant revisions since leak, that's potentially giant news and seems to confirm other rumors that Sony had made substantial changes recently.
As long as it's still related to Oberon (which likely is), then the old specs are completely non representative of the final hardware.
I'm a lot more hopeful now, but let's see.

It might be a good downclock, like it happened with the PS3's RSX, for all we know ¯|_(ツ)_/¯ I mean, it necessarily has to do with clocks this late in the game. Or maybe disabled parts of the chip, if you're really feeling it's your lucky day to bet.

(Some rumors once circulated about the PS4 doubling its RAM because 2 gb chips were suddenly available in 2013 and yadda yadda but these have been dismissed since).



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:
setsunatenshi said:
Latest from Komachi, apparently one of the SOCs had 3 more significant revisions since leak, that's potentially giant news and seems to confirm other rumors that Sony had made substantial changes recently.
As long as it's still related to Oberon (which likely is), then the old specs are completely non representative of the final hardware.
I'm a lot more hopeful now, but let's see.

It might be a good downclock, like it happened with the PS3's RSX, for all we know ¯|_(ツ)_/¯ I mean, it necessarily has to do with clocks this late in the game. Or maybe disabled parts of the chip, if you're really feeling it's your lucky day to bet.

(Some rumors once circulated about the PS4 doubling its RAM because 2 gb chips were suddenly available in 2013 and yadda yadda but these have been dismissed since).

My guess, and pure speculation here, downclock the GPU and increased CU count.

2GHz always seemed way too high to me for a home console, but let's see. the important part is that it's an open game right now, and the other rumors of some form of hardware parity with xsx (with slight edge to one of them) are now perfectly compatible with the old leak.



goopy20 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Again, those GoW titles you call spin offs are not spin offs. They are simply GoW games.

I agree Sony has done a great job making new IPs, it comes partly out necessity though. They needed to make new IPs because their old ones weren't that interesting anymore. What bugs me is Sony keeps making story driven 3rd person adventure games and I find that kinda boring. But its successful so I can't argue with them beating that horse.

Bungie moved away from Halo because they didn't own it. They simply created a Halo clone with RPG elements.

Something you may find interesting is Epic was actually working on Gears 4 before MS purchased the IP. Not only were they working on it, but many of the ideas were used in the game Coalition created. Taking that into consideration its possible Epic would have done something with Gears if MS did not buy it. However, I don't think Epic has really made a single player or story driven game in years.

When it comes to Halo and Gears, there are tons of stories they could do just in those worlds. Uncharted can't really do that though, those games are about Nathan Drake. GoW can't do that either, because nobody cares about that world beyond Kratos. Games like Halo, Gears and Fable don't have to rely on the same protagonist per se.

MS bought the rights of Gears because Epic wanted to focus on other projects. 3 Years later, Epic launched Fortnite, one of the most popular games of all time with 250m players and billions of yearly revenue. While MS made 2 lack luster Gears games with a 82 metacritic score that sold 20 times less of what Gears 3 did.   

There's no arguing taste, of course, and I did enjoy Halo and Gears. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to see something different from MS's first party studios. I mean the next gen is about to start and MS still has only Halo, Forza and Gears to persuade people to buy their console instead of Sony's. What's worse is that both Halo and Gears are seeing a downwards trend in sales and review scores. While Sony has been hitting home runs with new ip's, both in critical acclaim and sales, for years. 

Right, Epic made a fortune with Fortnite. Does that mean Epic can only work on a single project at once? Epic also sold Gears well before Fortnite became a success. At that point they were working on multiple projects, not just Fortnite.

Okay, you're saying a bunch of nonsense now. On Metacritic Gears Ultimate got a 82, Gears 4 got a 84 and Gear 5 got a 84. All respectable scores for products that don't necessarily appeal to critics. Fortnite on PS4 had 78 when it launched.

Gears 4 or 5 didn't sell as much as Gears 3, but does that mean they're failures? Absolutely not. Your assumption of "sold 20 times less than Gears 3" is incorrect.

Are we now pretending mega popular IPs are now the only incentive to buying a console? They have the IPs you mentioned, Hellblade 2 was announced, Outer Worlds sequel may be exclusive, Obsidian and Rare showed new IPs and its safe to assume other new IPs will come. Then you have the biggest reason people buy Playstation and Xbox consoles, multiplat games like Fortnite.

MS claimed Gears 5 sold great, but I'm sure you'll be skeptical about that. Meanwhile Halo Infinite could be a great success. I don't think these IPs will break records, but they seem to do well.

What is this about anyway? Are you under the impression I am trying to have a console war debate? Grow up, I'm just looking at the facts as a consumer that enjoys both really.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

NavyNut said:
I'll myself go with the most powerful console, I'm a sucker for graphics but I prefer the PS5 with sony exclusives but who knows ms could surprise us with something new.

If we end up with PS5 at 9TF and Series X at 12 TF, I feel like its gonna be another Pro and X situation.

Games that are about equal on both but better resolution on Series X.

I don't really expect a game on Series X that will blow away PS5 in a significant way, unless you really appreciate higher resolutions. If the Lockhart model does exist that would likely outsell the Series X as well.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

NavyNut said:
I'll myself go with the most powerful console, I'm a sucker for graphics but I prefer the PS5 with sony exclusives but who knows ms could surprise us with something new.

I'm a sucker for graphics as well, and you get it from the better use of the HW.

So even though X1X is more powerful than PS4Pro, the exclusives of Sony use the power of PS4Pro better than the exclusives of MS. So PS4Pro really met my needs.

And considering you can have the best version of both 3rd party games and MS ones on PC, upgrade your PC to play next gen games XSX will receive until there is a reason to buy PS5 for its exclusives.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994