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

Forums - Gaming - Ex-Naughty Dog Dev Explains Why PS4/XB1 Will Never Achieve CGI Visuals, 4K Will Take Two Generations

Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 17 May 2015

Makes sense to me



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Around the Network
vivster on 17 May 2015

Playstation 7 in development confirmed!



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

bunchanumbers on 17 May 2015

It makes me wonder. How much did they spend to develop The Order? Graphically its the most intensive game on console. Well among them. Look at the sacrifices and downgrades made to make it happen. I'm thinking that graphics like that are not a factor anymore. Things like frame rate and general fidelity should be bigger issues than cgi quality graphics. The order wasn't a runaway success. But that won't kill the AAA model. Big 3rd party franchises will need to flop hard to kill it.



teigaga on 17 May 2015

1:00-5:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clakekAHQx0
Put it in context of a more linear game, specified hardware and I think its a sure thing we'll have CGI quality next gen if GTX Titan X (3x PS4?) is the lower end of what we can expect from PS5/X10



chapset on 17 May 2015

Non sense with the cloud this will be achieve by January 2016 the latest.



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Around the Network
walsufnir on 17 May 2015

But people said the order is already life cg? So who is wrong here, a person from the industry or random guys on the internet?



haxxiy on 17 May 2015
shikamaru317 said:

3x PS4 isn't exactly equivalent to Titan X, because PS4 uses an AMD graphics chipset. AMD gflops do not equal Nividia gflops for whatever reason. For instance the 5600 gflops AMD R9 290x is siginifcantly weaker than the 6100 gflops Titan X, it's closer to the 4600 gflops GTX 980. Assuming that Sony and Microsoft go with AMD APU solutions again next-gen to cut costs, and assuming a 5-6 year generation, I believe that PS5 and Xbox 4 will fall somewhere between 5000 and 6000 gflops when they release in 2018-2019, so roughly equivalent to an R9 290x.

Graphics like this recent Witcher 3 launch cinematic will simply be impossible on consoles next-gen imo, even at 1080p, let alone 1440p or 4k. However, PS5 and Xbox 4 might just be able to achieve the visuals of 2010-2011 CGI trailers in real-time, for instance the visual of the SWTOR cinematics. 

A 2019 release will probably mean 10nm on both TSMC and GlobalFoundries. That's a 8x improvement over the 28nm AMD's currently stuck on. Of course, power consumption might not improve that much, specially since it's AMD we're talking about, or we might be sticking with 14nm Finfets for as long as we were on 28nm. Still, R9 290X levels seem too low since Nvidia manages about the same performance with their 145W GTX 970 - somewhat close already to the 110W TDP of the Radeon HD 7850 in the PS4. Personally I'd envision a 6x power consumption improvement for AMD, and roughly a 11.4 TFLOPS GPU for a PS4 equivalent by 2019.



 

 

 

 

 

Dusk on 17 May 2015
Guitarguy said:
Does anyone else see console gaming imploding simply due to the immense cost of keeping up with advancing technology? Hell companies like Konami have pretty much abandoned consoles for mobile because the games don't have to cost 50 million to make and we are seein developers leaving AAA studios more often now. Maybe HD did kill gaming....


Yes. I have made a few posts that allude to this same idealism. I'm more than happy with the graphics of today, but far too many push for the extreme on the graphic spectrum and it's just far too costly. If we, the consumers, could just be happy with what we have to a point, encourage new art styles instead of realism it could be much healthier for the industry as a whole. I don't care about a game with amazing graphics, but I do care about a great game. I would prefer they put more money into the game to make it better, bug free, try new ideas, possibly give new styles of play or whatever,but to constantly push graphics espcially with where we are now, seems fruitless.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

haxxiy on 17 May 2015

 

shikamaru317 said:

11.4 teraflops sounds way too high for PS5/XB4 imo. PS4 was roughly equivalent to a $150 GPU when it released in 2013. 5-6 years earlier, a $150 GPU had somewhere around 500-600 gflops if I remember correctly. So that shows about a 3 to 3.6x improvement in mid range graphics in 5-6 years. 3 times the PS4's 1800 gflops comes out to about 5400 gflops, 3.6 times PS4's 1800 gflops comes out to about 6400 gflops. I think that's the range we're looking at for PS5 and Xbox 4, 5400-6400 gflops, and that's AMD gflops, not Nvidia gflops. I'd like to think that PS5 and Xbox 4 will be more powerful than that in 2018-2019, but I just don't think it'll be possible to top that for $400-500 without selling their consoles at a loss.

The HD 7850 released for $250 at the beginning of 2012.... wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that in 2018 AMD manages to release a 10 nm series whose $250 card gives more than 6 TFLOPS, for a console release later on 2019? The R9 290x is already sub-$250 and packs 4 TFLOPS. And like I said, the only way I see your scenario happening is if we are stuck on 14 nm for a time an yields are bad enough to push prices up, like it happened to 28 nm when the PS4 and XOne were being designed. This, and Sony and MS taking the risk of releasing a console with few noticeable graphic improvements due to diminishing costs.

80 nm to 28 nm improved power consumption from 2.5 GFLOPS/W to  20 GFLOPS/W. Am I too optimistic to expect maybe 75% of that 8x improvement going from 28nm to 10nm, which is the same distance as 80 to 28nm? I'll admit that maybe I am... though in my defense, the strongest argument might be really what Sony and Microsoft are willing to release. I used to think this generation might be shorter because of underpowered consoles, and a lack of competition, but now I think the opposite might happen, solely on the grounds of diminishing returns and slower GPU cycles.

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

BMaker11 on 17 May 2015

Here's the problem:

Since the 3D era in gaming began, we've been trying to reach CGI level graphics.....but we keep changing the standard. We want CGI quality graphics on consoles to be on par with the actual CGI quality of that console's time. As in, PS4 is out in 2015? Well, then we want 2015 CGI quality graphics on PS4.

That's never going to happen. The technology of CGI in film is far beyond what the contemporary hardware of a console could ever achieve. But, remember when the big deal was "Toy Story like graphics", when it came to the PS2's release? Are we not beyond Toy Story (1) graphics now? 

To get mad and say that consoles won't achieve CGI graphics is a self delusion, because you keep changing what "CGI graphics" means. What The Hulk looks like in Age of Ultron will not be achieved on current consoles. Maybe it will be on the PS5 and Xbox Next, but then "CGI graphics" will get another bump in expectations because of advancing CGI technology, and the AoU Hulk graphics on PS5/Xbox Next won't be "good enough". 

You can't set a standard, not have that standard met, complain, and then when that standard is met, you move the standard to something greater, and then complain again.