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

Forums - Gaming - Would you buy a 9th or a 9.5th gen console???

 

Which one?

Generation 9 37 59.68%
 
Generation 9.5 25 40.32%
 
Total:62
mochachino on 31 March 2015

What OP is talking about is fowards compatibility and yes, I'm all for it. Release consoles like smart phones for all I care. Just so long as I don't have to upgrade before 5 year. If my 2014 ps4 plays the same games as the 2017 model, albeit it worse, I'm fine with that.

 

Caveat being that prices for older models should also drop siginificantly annually like phones. 



Around the Network
HoloDust on 31 March 2015
sergiodaly said:
HoloDust said:

This is the way I see it - with estimated 8x jump in next gen (to about 15TFLOPS in today's AMD FLOPS), no sane develeoper will spend most of their performance pool to jump to native 4k and render 4x more pixels than in 1080p, if they can spend half of that on anamorphic 4k and spend the rest on better visuals or performance.

People seem to keep forgetting that PS4 to PS3 is some 8x -10x (depending on who you ask), and jump was only 2.25x in resolution, unlike 4x that is needed for native 4k...believing that devs would sacrifice visual quality for resolution in future with performance jump of similar 8x-10x is a bit...naive, to say at least.

PC with less than half that power can run today's games in 4k ultra high setting in 30fps. Game development is evolving and new technics are in store for when the power allow it, that's for sure, but i think is feasible if they can go for a higher price in the console and the jump can be more than 8 times. Also, i think ps4 is less than 8 times more powerful than ps3, but the improvements in architecture give the idea of much more, and with that games like infamous ss has 1080p with +30fps, thats 2.25 more resolution, around 1.5x framerate, texture quality, lighting, etc etc etc. The last of us did double the pixels and framerate.  Keeping this rate of improvement for the hw, and game development, yeah, in four years a 400 dollars console will not hit the 4k mark. But a 700 one might. That is the whole point of this thread. Which one would you buy if in the same platform, same games, but this power difference and price, the cheap that would produce (like you say) sub 4k (probably 2k, like i say in the op) games or the more expensive one with 4k.

Lets just assume this is possible. Futurology is not the purpose here. But was nice to talk specs with you ;)

Yeah, fair enough. Though I don't think price premium for stronger model would be even that much...PS4 is currently $400, if there would be PS4+ with ~ 3TFLOPS GPU and double the clock rate for CPU, I don't see it costing more than $550, since you would pay even less than that difference in retail for similar bump in GPU/CPU for PC.



Eddie_Raja on 31 March 2015

Idk I am a PC gamer so that is my primary gaming device and I usually like it being ~2x stronger than my console so I can play all multiplat games at a higher framerate with slightly higher settings than consoles.

Even so, if next gen it meant I could play games like Bloodborne 3 and TLoU3 in 4K 60 FPS instead of 1800p @ 30 FPS then yeah it would be worth the extra money imo.



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]

Eddie_Raja on 31 March 2015
HoloDust said:
I really doubt any console will be aiming at native 4K, let alone 4k@60fps.

What people tend to conveniently forget is that 720p to 1080p is 2.25x when it comes to pixels, and from 1080p to 4k UHD is 4x.

Unless some miracle happens with fab processes in the near future, I think best we can hope for is another 8-10x performance jump in the next gen, and that will most likely mean enough juice for anamorphic UHD (1920x2160), since IMO, that would make much more sense than 16:9 1440p or 1620p.


4K will be the same standard 1080p is today in 3 years, just wait.  Hell the $250 R9 290 can already do 4K alright at 30 FPS, and its replacement is supposed to be 70% stronger THIS YEAR.



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]

HoloDust on 31 March 2015
Eddie_Raja said:
HoloDust said:
I really doubt any console will be aiming at native 4K, let alone 4k@60fps.

What people tend to conveniently forget is that 720p to 1080p is 2.25x when it comes to pixels, and from 1080p to 4k UHD is 4x.

Unless some miracle happens with fab processes in the near future, I think best we can hope for is another 8-10x performance jump in the next gen, and that will most likely mean enough juice for anamorphic UHD (1920x2160), since IMO, that would make much more sense than 16:9 1440p or 1620p.


4K will be the same standard 1080p is today in 3 years, just wait.  Hell the $250 R9 290 can already do 4K alright at 30 FPS, and its replacement is supposed to be 70% stronger THIS YEAR.


@4K both 290X and 980 can barely keep 30fps in Crysis 3 on High, FC4 or DA:I on Ultra...4K will be PC standard, that's for sure, for $400 console I honestly doubt it, that would be he biggest jump between 2 generations in pixel count there ever was, which would require massive GPU jump as well...and I don't see GPUs advancing as much as they were before.



Around the Network
sergiodaly on 31 March 2015
HoloDust said:
sergiodaly said:
HoloDust said:

This is the way I see it - with estimated 8x jump in next gen (to about 15TFLOPS in today's AMD FLOPS), no sane develeoper will spend most of their performance pool to jump to native 4k and render 4x more pixels than in 1080p, if they can spend half of that on anamorphic 4k and spend the rest on better visuals or performance.

People seem to keep forgetting that PS4 to PS3 is some 8x -10x (depending on who you ask), and jump was only 2.25x in resolution, unlike 4x that is needed for native 4k...believing that devs would sacrifice visual quality for resolution in future with performance jump of similar 8x-10x is a bit...naive, to say at least.

PC with less than half that power can run today's games in 4k ultra high setting in 30fps. Game development is evolving and new technics are in store for when the power allow it, that's for sure, but i think is feasible if they can go for a higher price in the console and the jump can be more than 8 times. Also, i think ps4 is less than 8 times more powerful than ps3, but the improvements in architecture give the idea of much more, and with that games like infamous ss has 1080p with +30fps, thats 2.25 more resolution, around 1.5x framerate, texture quality, lighting, etc etc etc. The last of us did double the pixels and framerate.  Keeping this rate of improvement for the hw, and game development, yeah, in four years a 400 dollars console will not hit the 4k mark. But a 700 one might. That is the whole point of this thread. Which one would you buy if in the same platform, same games, but this power difference and price, the cheap that would produce (like you say) sub 4k (probably 2k, like i say in the op) games or the more expensive one with 4k.

Lets just assume this is possible. Futurology is not the purpose here. But was nice to talk specs with you ;)

Yeah, fair enough. Though I don't think price premium for stronger model would be even that much...PS4 is currently $400, if there would be PS4+ with ~ 3TFLOPS GPU and double the clock rate for CPU, I don't see it costing more than $550, since you would pay even less than that difference in retail for similar bump in GPU/CPU for PC.

Premium ps5 would also have more memory, more storage in ssd, etc. It should improve almost every thing versus the regular one. That is why aimed it above ps3 launch model. This way people would really show where their stand on this matter. 

I'm really surprised, asking regular people on the street i know for sure that the regular version would win, but here, where just the passionate hang around, surprised the regular also wins.

 

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Eddie_Raja on 31 March 2015
HoloDust said:
Eddie_Raja said:


4K will be the same standard 1080p is today in 3 years, just wait.  Hell the $250 R9 290 can already do 4K alright at 30 FPS, and its replacement is supposed to be 70% stronger THIS YEAR.


@4K both 290X and 980 can barely keep 30fps in Crysis 3 on High, FC4 or DA:I on Ultra...4K will be PC standard, that's for sure, for $400 console I honestly doubt it, that would be he biggest jump between 2 generations in pixel count there ever was, which would require massive GPU jump as well...and I don't see GPUs advancing as much as they were before.


30 FPS on high is good enough imo considering you chose one of the hardest to run games of all time.  You are ignoring the fact that games like BF4 and DA:I run fine at 30 FPS and mostly Ultra.  So consider this:

-AMD's next-gen GPU's are looking to be 70% stronger than their predecessors while still being on 28nm.  

-AMD's follow-up in 2016 will be on 14nm and have 2nd gen HBM delivering 1 TB/s of bandwidth whice is tripple what the best GPU's deliver now.  We have been stuck on 28nm for over 3 years now.  When AMD transitioned from 40nm to 28nm performance doubled!  The same will happen from 28 to 14 (If not more).

So what I am saying is that within 1.5 years we will have GPU's 3x stronger than what we have now.  The PS5 will likely launch in 2018/19 so that gives Sony another couple generations of graphics advancements to work with.  It may even be on 10nm by then.  That will easily be enough to get an 8-10x perfromance boost just like the PS3 to PS4, and with 10x the performance you can easily run 4x the resolution with more eye candy turned on.



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]

SuaveSocialist on 31 March 2015

In this scenario, I wouldn't get either. Gen 9.5 would offer a technological advantage to those playing against Gen 9.0 in multiplayer without any reliable way to balance them out. An obvious solution would be to separate the multiplayer environments, but that inevitably makes it harder to find matches to begin with and shortens the online longevity. Might as well just go all-in and make it Gen 10.



HoloDust on 31 March 2015
Eddie_Raja said:
HoloDust said:


@4K both 290X and 980 can barely keep 30fps in Crysis 3 on High, FC4 or DA:I on Ultra...4K will be PC standard, that's for sure, for $400 console I honestly doubt it, that would be he biggest jump between 2 generations in pixel count there ever was, which would require massive GPU jump as well...and I don't see GPUs advancing as much as they were before.


30 FPS on high is good enough imo considering you chose one of the hardest to run games of all time.  You are ignoring the fact that games like BF4 and DA:I run fine at 30 FPS and mostly Ultra.  So consider this:

-AMD's next-gen GPU's are looking to be 70% stronger than their predecessors while still being on 28nm.  

-AMD's follow-up in 2016 will be on 14nm and have 2nd gen HBM delivering 1 TB/s of bandwidth whice is tripple what the best GPU's deliver now.  We have been stuck on 28nm for over 3 years now.  When AMD transitioned from 40nm to 28nm performance doubled!  The same will happen from 28 to 14 (If not more).

So what I am saying is that within 1.5 years we will have GPU's 3x stronger than what we have now.  The PS5 will likely launch in 2018/19 so that gives Sony another couple generations of graphics advancements to work with.  It may even be on 10nm by then.  That will easily be enough to get an 8-10x perfromance boost just like the PS3 to PS4, and with 10x the performance you can easily run 4x the resolution with more eye candy turned on.

You got it wrong, I'm expecting 8-10x performance boost as well, just as with this gen, that's pretty much what most people expect.

What I'm not expecting is that devs will use ~ 1.75x more of their total GPU budget compared to this gen just to make the games run at native 4k, and sacrifice visuals for that. Keeping things at anamorphic 4k, or even temporal 4k (similar to MP in Killzone) is, IMO, more reasonable solution for resolution bump, while keeping rest of the performance boost (same as with this gen) for improved visuals.

If jump in next gen is more like 14x, then native 4k is given, but that's higly unlikely to happen.



sergiodaly on 31 March 2015
SuaveSocialist said:
In this scenario, I wouldn't get either. Gen 9.5 would offer a technological advantage to those playing against Gen 9.0 in multiplayer without any reliable way to balance them out. An obvious solution would be to separate the multiplayer environments, but that inevitably makes it harder to find matches to begin with and shortens the online longevity. Might as well just go all-in and make it Gen 10.

? PC gamers play today with a larger difference between the low end and the high end, and they do just fine. Netcode today gives a help to slow connections all the time and me in my optic fiber fast connection get the shaft many times and you don't see me crying. Netcode could balance that for sure, it's not rocket science. Ps4 gamers will have a chance this gen to play Street Fighter V with PC gamers, fighting games are way more sensitive to milliseconds reactions between winning and loosing than the FPS the majority plays today, so that argument is out the window. 

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4