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

Forums - Sony Discussion - What do yo think will be the hardware specifications of PS5 if it arrives arround 2019-2020?

Captain_Tom on 01 December 2014
SvennoJ said:
Captain_Tom said:
 

-PS4 has no trouble with 1080p when utilized properly.  The sad truth is some developers are lazy, and/or aim for stupid goals. (This is a debate in itself).

-8x a 7870 would be roughly equal to two 295X2's.  One 295X2 easily runs any game out now in 4K so I find it hard to beleive that something twice as strong as that would have much trouble even with the more demanding games of the future.  I didn't say it would max out every game, but high-Ultra settings is almost gaurunteed given what we know (Which  is all we can speculate on now anyways).

-There may be some upscaling, but it will be from 1800p if anything.

-People forget that 8GB of RAM is far more than enough now.  16GB should still be plenty for the future, and HBM is more expensive than GDDR5.  But who knows what the future will hold.

-I don't see the point in 16 cores.  Games are just now starting to use 6-8 cores and quad cores are still 90% the standard.  Fewer, faster cores would be easier to program and allow for higher framerates.  People forget that the CPU's in todays consoles are not AT ALL weak, but they are not fast enough to easily do 60 FPS.  They can handle a lot of data at one, but they cannot move it very fastly.

Developers will still be the same next gen. I wouldn't call them lazy, but pre occupied with effects, screenshots and multiplatform engines. And sure the early games this gen should run fine in 4K, but will the optimized games at the end of this gen + another lick of new paint still manage that. Real time ray tracing is still a goal to be achieved, that definitely won't be running in 4K on next consoles.

I wouldn't call 32GB unlikely. a 4K OS, handling 4K video, likely more snap mode, possibly dvr functionality, picture in picture options will definitely grow in footprint again. 4x the pixels, also means 4x the memory needed for all effects, screenbuffers, textures. Plus a bit of extra memory can help with streaming data. 32GB ram with cheap HDD seems more likely to me than 16GB with an SSD drive.

Faster CPUs would be nice, yet why exactly did they go with 8 1.6ghz cores this gen instead of a 3.2ghz quad core? Maybe because of heat, power consumption, price? If so, wouldn't that be the same next gen, 16 slower cores vs 8 fast cores?

Anyway I hope you're right, would love some 4K console gaming next gen.

-The thing is 4K isn't as big of a deal as one would initially think.  If a gpu's architecture is optimized correctly for a given resolution it can make a big difference.  For instance the 290X is only ~30% stronger than the 7970 in 1080p, but in 4K it becomes 50%+ at times and even matches the 980.  The 390X is going to use HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus and it is only the first gen of HBM.  Plus AA really won't be needed anymore so that will help quite a bit.

-I did say 16-32GB of RAM so I think it could be somewhere in-between.  I believe 16GB would be enough to skimp by a little better than the PS3 did, and 32GB is far more than enough just like the PS4.

-Remember SSD's are expensive now, but their prices are changing rapidly.  2 years ago a 1TB SSD was $4000, a year ago it was $1000, and now it is under $500.  They really might be at current HDD prices by 2019.

-They went with an 8-core at 1.6GHz because they had no other choice.  AMD is the only vendor who can provide both a decent GPU and CPU in one package.  The bulldozer family was a complete failure to the point that clock-for-clock the Jaguar cores in the PS4 are just as fast as the big desktop processors AMD is currently trying to get rid of.  Then consider that 2xjaguar clusters only use 40-50w and the 1.6GHz models are dirt cheap and have a respectable amount of horsepower behind them.  If used correctly a 1.6GHz 8-core is just as fast as a 3.2GHz quad-core, and better at lower framerates with lots of data onscreen.  What gaming devices tend to push as much crap as possible at the expense of a lower framerate? -> Consoles.

 

Now you could make my same argument for why they would go with 16 cores instead of 8 faster ones, but things change a little.  Utilizing 6-cores in a game as been done for a long time since the 360 and PS3 used 6-cores for gaming anyways (2-cores in the PS4 are used for background tasks).  However 16 has never been utilized that well in gaming so far.  Also by the time the PS5 comes out AMD's low-power cpu's should be ~3-4GHz (The newer ones are already at 2.4).  I am just assuming Sony will continue to use the same types of products, and in 5 years I don't think many things will even be buyable below 3GHz lol.



Around the Network
iTechHeads on 01 December 2014

Too early to tell. Its pointless to even guess right now as technology used in the PS4 may not even be invented yet.
A safe bet would be 4K + 60FPS.



Augen on 01 December 2014

Why would 1440P be next step? Are there 1440P televisions? 1440P content?

Seems to me either plateau at 1080P (most likely) or big jump to 4K (less likely).



Kirin_gaming on 01 December 2014

Captain_Tom said:

 -The thing is 4K isn't as big of a deal as one would initially think.  If a gpu's architecture is optimized correctly for a given resolution it can make a big difference.  For instance the 290X is only ~30% stronger than the 7970 in 1080p, but in 4K it becomes 50%+ at times and even matches the 980.  The 390X is going to use HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus and it is only the first gen of HBM.  Plus AA really won't be needed anymore so that will help quite a bit.

-I did say 16-32GB of RAM so I think it could be somewhere in-between.  I believe 16GB would be enough to skimp by a little better than the PS3 did, and 32GB is far more than enough just like the PS4.

-Remember SSD's are expensive now, but their prices are changing rapidly.  2 years ago a 1TB SSD was $4000, a year ago it was $1000, and now it is under $500.  They really might be at current HDD prices by 2019.

-They went with an 8-core at 1.6GHz because they had no other choice.  AMD is the only vendor who can provide both a decent GPU and CPU in one package.  The bulldozer family was a complete failure to the point that clock-for-clock the Jaguar cores in the PS4 are just as fast as the big desktop processors AMD is currently trying to get rid of.  Then consider that 2xjaguar clusters only use 40-50w and the 1.6GHz models are dirt cheap and have a respectable amount of horsepower behind them.  If used correctly a 1.6GHz 8-core is just as fast as a 3.2GHz quad-core, and better at lower framerates with lots of data onscreen.  What gaming devices tend to push as much crap as possible at the expense of a lower framerate? -> Consoles.

 

Now you could make my same argument for why they would go with 16 cores instead of 8 faster ones, but things change a little.  Utilizing 6-cores in a game as been done for a long time since the 360 and PS3 used 6-cores for gaming anyways (2-cores in the PS4 are used for background tasks).  However 16 has never been utilized that well in gaming so far.  Also by the time the PS5 comes out AMD's low-power cpu's should be ~3-4GHz (The newer ones are already at 2.4).  I am just assuming Sony will continue to use the same types of products, and in 5 years I don't think many things will even be buyable below 3GHz lol.

This is actually true but, we have to remember that the 4k we have today won't be the same 5 years later,it'll actually be much more harder to run.I think it is very unlikely we are going to see the PS5 running native 4k since I believe we aren't gonna see a middle range card capable of runnign 4k at 60fps in the next 5 years,consoles have to be cost effective,so I don't think they would put a middle-high range card inside the console.

We would probably see the console running at 1440p possibly even 1600p upscaled to 4k,the PS3 has many games with upscaled resolutions, and the same will probably happen this gen(already happening a lot for XB1) I don't think anything will stop them from doing the same next gen.

As for AA you would be surprised how many jaggies you can find at 4k,they are minor ones but noticeable nonetheless,I try to use at least x2 MSAA but is too tasking at that resolution, so I have to settle for SMAA.5760x2160 is the sweet spot where jaggies cannot be noticed anymore.



Captain_Tom on 01 December 2014
Kirin_gaming said:

Captain_Tom said:

 -The thing is 4K isn't as big of a deal as one would initially think.  If a gpu's architecture is optimized correctly for a given resolution it can make a big difference.  For instance the 290X is only ~30% stronger than the 7970 in 1080p, but in 4K it becomes 50%+ at times and even matches the 980.  The 390X is going to use HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus and it is only the first gen of HBM.  Plus AA really won't be needed anymore so that will help quite a bit.

This is actually true but, we have to remember that the 4k we have today won't be the same 5 years later,it'll actually be much more harder to run.I think it is very unlikely we are going to see the PS5 running native 4k since I believe we aren't gonna see a middle range card capable of runnign 4k at 60fps in the next 5 years,consoles have to be cost effective,so I don't think they would put a middle-high range card inside the console.


We are just going to have to disagree on that.  5 years is a very long time.



Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 01 December 2014
Augen said:
Why would 1440P be next step? Are there 1440P televisions? 1440P content?

Seems to me either plateau at 1080P (most likely) or big jump to 4K (less likely).


1440p is 4 x 720p's resolution.  It is fairly common in products now and will probably be around for a good  while.   However it is a stopgap for those who couldn't wait for 4K in general.



CrazyGPU on 01 December 2014

What if they take advantage of x86 compatibility and make a console that can be upgraded like a computer, so it doesnt get old so quickly and doesnt get too far away with high end PCs? It can run a game at different resolutions depending on the hardware it has or the upgrade made.



generic-user-1 on 01 December 2014

or maybe a arm structure?



CrazyGPU on 01 December 2014
generic-user-1 said:
or maybe a arm structure?


IF they go to ARM they will loose compatibility again, they made great sells mantaining compatibility between PS1 and PS2. If they keep it this time, and considering how the PS4 is selling and the base it can make, then PS5 can be a hell of a seller too. I dont think they will take compatibility out.



generic-user-1 on 01 December 2014
CrazyGPU said:
generic-user-1 said:
or maybe a arm structure?


IF they go to ARM they will loose compatibility again, they made great sells mantaining compatibility between PS1 and PS2. If they keep it this time, and considering how the PS4 is selling and the base it can make, then PS5 can be a hell of a seller too. I dont think they will take compatibility out.


its all about costs.  we dont know the structure of the market in 5 years, if mobile games are realy growning fast, we could see a switch to arm based gaming.(and it would make a ps5 tab possible, nobody cares if a tab costs 7 or 800$ as long it is cool)