Proof? I don't see an comfrimations of the PS-Neo specs. Nor anything that link to this. That is a pretty big claim you have going on with no evidence to back it up.


If this is true. Then this is the PS5, not a mid-cycle upgrade. It's a bigger jump than the PS3-PS4 was.

In terms of % of performance increase... wasnt the jump from PS3 -> PS4 like x10 in most area's?

This will just be a x2.3 or so increase (if it ends up being 1.84 -> 5.5 teraflop)

Proof? I don't see an comfrimations of the PS-Neo specs. Nor anything that link to this. That is a pretty big claim you have going on with no evidence to back it up.


If this is true. Then this is the PS5, not a mid-cycle upgrade. It's a bigger jump than the PS3-PS4 was.

AAA 3rd party support, the Scorpio won't have trouble getting. However, the Scorpio is not going to solve Microsoft's struggles with indies and Japanese 3rd party games, especially the latter. Quadrupling the amount of terraflops isn't going to convince Japanese developers to make games for the Scorpio, especially when most of their games aren't that graphic intensive. Psycho Pass: Mandatory Happiness, for example, was a timed exclusive in Japan and yet it's being localized for only the PS4, PSV, and PC. Kingdom Hearts 2.8 is exclusive to the PS4 despite KHIII coming out on both the PS4 and XB1. The additional terraflops are also not going to erase Microsoft's very high mininum print order requirement which allegedly led to the cancellation of the physical XB1 version of Shovel Knight.

So while the huge power increase is pretty awesome, it doesn't solve the XB1's biggest problems. The console's struggles were more attributed to software than hardware.

Yeah I'd much prefer 1440p upscaled or just native and 60FPS than 4k and 30FPS.  

Plus pretty much any open world game should be able to pull off 1080p 60FPS at a minimum. 

Hardware like this did exist. Aka. Radeon 7950/7970.

Remember, console manufacturers aren't buying GPU's off the shelf like gamers so pricing for them is different, they aren't spending cash on expensive copper vapor chamber coolers with giant blowers.
They aren't including gigabytes worth of extra Ram.
They aren't including complex dedicated and over-engineered power delivery systems.
They don't need the dedicated PCB.

They just buy the chip itself, which is included in a single chip to keep costs low.
Then they also buy in bulk so they get a farther discount.

Besides, even if the cost was a little more expensive, console manufacturers typically ate the cost initially.

Not exactly.

There is substantual benefit to rendering a game at 4k and downscaling it to a 1080P television, keep in mind, games are not movies.

In-fact, some games on consoles have already been doing something similar (Just not this extreme) where they have rendered higher than their native resolution and then downscaled it, as this actually how some forms of Anti-Aliasing works.

All PS4 titles as they are today, if they aren't updated... Will run exactly the same as they do now even on the new machine.
All new Titles will also run on the regular PS4, just with some concessions.

Unforuntately, the entire console didn't receive a 4x increase, there isn't a 4x increase in Ram or memory bandwidth or CPU performance or HDD/Blu-ray speed, so it's a little more complicated than that.

You won't have your current 1080P games running at 4k.

Simpler titles should have no problems running at 4k resolution though, for more demanding titles Quad-High Definition (Aka 1440P/2560x1440) should be more than feasible, it's actually the resolution the PC GPU will be targeted at. At 1440P you will see some benefit over 1080P even at 4k.

No. The reason why this has never happened is because of cost and power consumption.
AMD is actually working on an APU though with 200-300w of power consumption which should be able to beat a PS4, it's not going to be cheap though.

As for bandwidth... DDR4 and DDR3 memory can offer more bandwidth than GDDR5, it all comes down to the implementation.

Clock speed X (bits per clock/8).

Thus 4166mhz DDR4 on a 512bit bus would provide 266GB/s a second of bandwidth, that's more than the PS4 or the PS4 Neo. Go figure.
But such a thing won't happen, 512bit bus would require far to many PCB layers and routing that on a motherboard would be a nightmare.
But on a 256bit bus you would have a very respectible 133GB/s.
Modern GPU's are also more bandwidth efficient, employing a myriad of technology's to conserve bandwidth.

AMD has also used a technology known as "Side Port" once before. - It is where the motherboard manufacturer includes dedicated memory for the GPU on the motherboard in conjunction with System Ram allowing the integrated GPU to access both.
Intel does something similar with eDRAM/L4 cache.

Dedicated PCI-E is here to stay, it's used for more than just Graphics.

I think you might have your hopes set a little high there in regards to 4k.

You don't need Zen to upgrade the CPU, Jaguar's successors already exist, namely Puma and Puma+. - They are more efficient, faster and cheaper thanks to a better densely packed design.

That's just it though, they are only rumors.
I'm hoping for Puma+. They are fully backwards compatible with Jaguar... Still slow, just a little less slow.

Direct X 12 isn't happening on Non-Microsoft platforms.
Even then Sony and Microsoft have low-level API's which are faster than Direct X 12 anyway.

AMD already has a giant APU heading to the PC, it's not using Puma+.

HBM2 is likely not to happen, mostly because of costs, consoles are cost sensitive devices, you can't expect the, to have the best of everything.
Not only that, but these consoles aren't targeting insane resolutions so such bandwidth would be a waste.

You can't compare the old vs new.
For one, the newer GPU can do more work per Teraflop, it's more efficient.

Secondly... Bandwidth of 192GB/s vs 218GB/s can't be compared as the new console gains a plethora of bandwidth saving technologu's such as Colour compression, which could give it upwards of 50GB/s or more in bandwidth savings (Basing that from PC observations).

Not entirely accurate.
Starting with Pascal nVidia implemented Unified Memory, can't forget unified virtual addressing either.
Intel and AMD have done similar things with their IGP's/APU's.

The Playstation 3 didn't manage the Last of Us levels of imagery because of hardware optimization.
It managed it because all the details like lighting and shadowing were baked into things like the textures, same thing went for Halo 4.
They also used simple geometry and then used various tricks to make it seem more complex than they really were.
Allot of the expensive effects (Like Full dynamic HDR lighting.) were also abandoned mid-generation, which when freed up allowed for a dozen simpler effects which created a more pleasing image overall.

As the generation progressed more and more effects stopped being dynamic... And then once the new generation started, everything went back to being dynamic and you can tell by playing them.

Unfortunately AMD has the x86 license to worry about when designing APU's, so Sony isn't allowed to get intimate with the chips, they can only petition ideas.
There would be cross-licensing deals anyway though.

Dedicated hardware will always be faster mostly because... You are limited in the amount of transisters and thus the chip size you can have at any given price point.
If you start eroding away at parts of the GPU in order to fit a CPU, Chipset and other Logic... Well, you are missing out on potential performance, it's one of the reasons why the Xbox One's chip, despite being almost the same size as the PS4's chip, is much slower, Microsoft used a chunk of their chip budget for memory.

If you were to take a Polaris 10 GPU and compare it to the PS4's APU, sure, they might have similar performance in graphics tasks, but the PS4's APU will be more expensive to manufacture.
Plus the PS4's CPU is extremely horrible anyway.

I see perma... other aspects probably won't go up 4x as you said, cost would be too high. Any chance of the extra power offseting cpu and the 1440p going up to 60fps on the 1080p30fps (or 45 capped at 30) or it's much more likely that we get other graphic usage instead of frames?

i dont see that being the case.... ony way anything offsets cpu is if the dev moves some cpu based tasks over to the GPU. But ad long as the work is on the cpu, only way u can go up to 60fps from 30fps is if you hsve a CPU that is teice as powerful. 

Better explanation if the PS4s CPU is being maxed on a game running at 1080p@30fps, then the only way to rn that game at 1080p@60fps on the neo is if the neos CPU is capabale of teoce the performance than whats in the base PS4. 

We can get more stable framerates thanks to the GPU and lots of eye candy, but as long as the CPU is in a 33ms pipeline.... all you get is 30fps

i dont see that being the case.... ony way anything offsets cpu is if the dev moves some cpu based tasks over to the GPU. But ad long as the work is on the cpu, only way u can go up to 60fps from 30fps is if you hsve a CPU that is teice as powerful. 

Better explanation if the PS4s CPU is being maxed on a game running at 1080p@30fps, then the only way to rn that game at 1080p@60fps on the neo is if the neos CPU is capabale of teoce the performance than whats in the base PS4. 

We can get more stable framerates thanks to the GPU and lots of eye candy, but as long as the CPU is in a 33ms pipeline.... all you get is 30fps

i'm not following, what do you mean by the only way to get from 30 to 60 fps is by having a twice as powerful CPU?

so let's say (to simplify the argument) that I'm playing battlefield 4 on PC with processor X and a GTX 670 getting about 60 fps on average in high quality.

if i want to double the fps count to 120 i should:

a) get processor Y with double the frequency of processor X, but keep the same gfx card

b) get a gtx 970 and keep the same processor X

Which one of these scenarios do you think will double your FPS?

edit: just to help out, here's a reference benchmark for the same gfx card testing the fps output with different CPUs

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1291

That is why I asked if it's possible to offset enough from CPU to GPU, not if one or another dev will do it, because I'm pretty certain that if it's possible the likes of Naughty Dog would do it. (and I put that perhaps it would be in 45 capped). The devs will always have to choose on what to improve and maximize and on what to concede, I'm aware of that.

In terms of % of performance increase... wasnt the jump from PS3 -> PS4 like x10 in most area's?

This will just be a x2.3 or so increase (if it ends up being 1.84 -> 5.5 teraflop)

Permalite :

We where talking about APUs (igpu) and memory bandwidth.

You replied to me about DDR4 potentially being faster than GDDR5.

I assumed you where talking about system memory on motherboards for CPUs (cuz you know APUs and iGPUs).

I know graphics cards can use higher bus widths.

Im saying thats not  gonna happend for normal consumer cpus, until we start useing Hybrid memory cubes.

When that does happend, a large portion of the discrete gpu market will go away.

I see perma... other aspects probably won't go up 4x as you said, cost would be too high. Any chance of the extra power offseting cpu and the 1440p going up to 60fps on the 1080p30fps (or 45 capped at 30) or it's much more likely that we get other graphic usage instead of frames?