| sc94597 said: In that case I agree. The resolutions next generation will be similar to the 7th generation. 720p/sub-hd upscaled to 1080p vs. 1080p/1440p/1600p upscaled to 4k and they'll be marketed as ultra-hd consoles. CPU's are mattering much less with each generation, so other than removing the bottleneck on GPU choice, I can't really see more CPU power translating into faster games in general (although there are specific exceptions.) The extra cores benefit multi-tasking more than anything else. The next XB/PS should likely have cards capable of 8-12 Tflops if they want to maintain moderate power usage, medium form-factors, and cheap prices and they are to release in 2018/2019. We can generally predict how much power/energy usage GPU's will have and from there - their raw performance. Prices are more iffy, as they depend on other factors, but usually it is energy which is the limitation more than price (even though they are proportional.) Assuming more raw power being used in geometry (hinted by DX12's features) and other graphical features, it makes sense that they won't boost the image quality too much. Especially since the effects of increasing image quality are misicule relative to these other features. So yeah, 1600p rendered resolution, and maybe less with good AA should be what the next consoles will do. We should expect next-gen consoles to do stuff like SE's demo, but obviously to a lesser degree as they are using 4 Titans in the video, and demos always look better than in-game (8-12 Tflops vs. ~20 Tflops)
|
I agree as well. I think Sony is very likely to be the first to start trotting the 4k/Ultra HD name everywhere. They've already pre-maturely did it with some blu-ray movies. I can't claim I tried them on a 4k TV so I really can't say if it is native or upscaled. Sometimes it's so negligible that the difference is almost moot. Sharp already has an 8K TV back in 2012 http://www.cnet.com/news/sharp-shows-8k-resolution-prototype-tv/ and now Samsung and LG are just catching up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9STBsPHIEPA. As far as TV's go 4k will likely be short lived. A while back I've head rumors that they already have 16k and 32k prototypes but we will never see any software even capable of using those screens in a long time. TV resolutions are being pushed at an accelerating rate and in a very impressive time frame. For me 4k requires one screen, Eyefinity 3 display monitors are simply 3 monitors running at 1080p each. In addition the 2 side screens often render extra side view stuff that in many games have very little action going on. Some games it's a huge increase in action and requires a huge boost of power . However this is not "true" 4k like some people like to trout. The DPI (Pixel Density) simply isn't there, yes the graphic cards are working very hard to do so and correct me if I am wrong here but I believe a higher DPI at native 4k requires significant increased power usage than 3 monitors at 1080p. At least from my understanding and experience this seems to be the case, in addition DPI is far more impressive and my kind of thing that resolution. Yes I love my big screens but DPI blows my mind away but that is my personal preference. It will be interesting to see how much faster and further we will be able to push GPU's and yes even CPU's in the next few years than we have in the past 5 years. I realise it may be less likely than our hopes but I think it'll be an interesting thing to keep our eyes on. Many say that we won't need an increase of RAM and CPU's are becoming irrelevant thanks to GPGPU's but I whole heartily disagree with these statements. I think as we push more polygons the factor of scale and especially and I cannot state this enough, A.I. will be the most important factor in the future. I found that gen 6 actually had the best improvements of A.I. and I have found very few games other than Uncharted and the Last of Us that has impressed us with A.I. as much as Resident Evil 4. Sure 5 had some great A.I. as well but I can't say as much for the other games past that. 6 was incredibly scripted to the point it wasn't even funny. Yes the formers were scripted as well but in a very different sense that made them react through various different script changes based on the players actions. I look forward to Uncharted 4 and what that may bring to the table. I think the real push for A.I. and creating more of a "Watson" scenario and less of our basic scripting scenario will be the challenge and major factor in generations to come.
I am curious to see how much of a dieshrink that a Titan X can have by 2017-2018. To be honest if we look at the cost reductions of cards in the past, it may be possible to have it dropped to a $200 price point or cheaper. For a console maker buying millions of these chips the cost will be significantly lowed by bulk. Maybe $80-120 per chip isn't exactly out of reach if we are lucky. This is theoretical of course but we may be able to achieve that and we may even be able to achieve something slightly better than the Titan X, not a tock but just a small tick. I would argue that until this generation a lot of the consoles were impressive even to a PC gamer for the first year they launched before PC skyrocked on it's 1-2 year interval. I remember gen 7 feeling this way for a lot of people and gen 6 to a lesser extent. I remember the PS2 ports running far better on PC but some of the Game Cube/Xbox multiplat ports were debateable early on. Then again back then the Jedi Knight games literally blew EVERYTHING out of the waters. Damn, when Outcast came out on PC, I've never seen such good particle effects, lighting and reflections, special effects and even the A.I. and Polygon count were impressive for it's time. So on the contrary I may be exaggerating a little bit when I say 6th and 7th gen seemed like they were close to PC standards on launch. This generation I cannot say that at all, in fact if anything they are closer to laptops in terms of specs. The Jaguar APU is literally a laptop and even potentially a mobile capable chip............. -_-
