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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Your hopes for a PS5 Pro etc next gen?

Pemalite on 08 January 2019
Kerotan said:

We're reaching a point where graphically we are satisfied so gens should become longer. I could honestly keep playing games of the level of this gen for another 5 years. 

...Speak for yourself!

Cobretti2 said:

Game Cards is what I would like to see,  words I commented on this News article here:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/435175/cradle-games-director-ps5-and-next-xbox-wont-be-discless-might-use-cartridges/

It is a pipe dream but look at the benefits. Games will be 50GB-300GB in size with some of the bloody patches they release.

It is certainly a pipedream. Price is the issue.
ROM/NAND doesn't exactly grow on Tree's...

Otter said:

-2TFLOP HDD

Since when do Hard drives process single precision floating point?

DonFerrari said:

I don't even care to locked 30fps, much less 60fps. Don't even bother with 120fps, totally not worth... would be better keep 30fps and 4x the IQ and effects, but don't think they would be able to justify Pro on it.

Have you tried 120fps? The improvement over 30fps is certainly game changing.

If you play any competitive shooter, you want 120fps on a 120hz display, you will have an advantage.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
I'd say it all depends on how strong the 7nm process and Navi are.

If the gap between Navi and Vega at same power consumption isn't very big, then I fear a mid-gen upgrade will be necessary as the next gen would then be only barely over Pro/X visually, thus potentially not giving much incentive for those who have a mid-gen upgrade console to buy another console just yet. It would need a bigger upgrade to get enough of a gap for that, and that one might only be commercially possible (meaning cheap and lessened consumption enough to become viable for a console) later down the road.

In other words, we'll have to wait until we get some specs about the next gen and then we can assume if or if not.

Navi may end up being a replacement for Polaris rather than Vega... And will likely bring Vega 64-levels of performance and price points down to 150w TDP's where Polaris sits now... Which is what next-gen consoles are likely to adopt. (As they use mid-range hardware, not high-end for the GPU's.)

Besides. Navi is just an iterative update to Graphics Core Next, don't expect anything truly "next gen" until AMD releases it's next-gen architecture.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
EricHiggin on 08 January 2019

PS5 Pro being a 4k/60 disc based home console at $499. (possible)

PS5 being a hybrid with a boost dock for 1080p/60 at $349. (reaching)

PS Now digital only streaming device at $199. (unlikely)

All available on launch day.



DonFerrari on 08 January 2019
Pemalite said:
Kerotan said:

We're reaching a point where graphically we are satisfied so gens should become longer. I could honestly keep playing games of the level of this gen for another 5 years. 

...Speak for yourself!

Cobretti2 said:

Game Cards is what I would like to see,  words I commented on this News article here:

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/435175/cradle-games-director-ps5-and-next-xbox-wont-be-discless-might-use-cartridges/

It is a pipe dream but look at the benefits. Games will be 50GB-300GB in size with some of the bloody patches they release.

It is certainly a pipedream. Price is the issue.
ROM/NAND doesn't exactly grow on Tree's...

Otter said:

-2TFLOP HDD

Since when do Hard drives process single precision floating point?

DonFerrari said:

I don't even care to locked 30fps, much less 60fps. Don't even bother with 120fps, totally not worth... would be better keep 30fps and 4x the IQ and effects, but don't think they would be able to justify Pro on it.

Have you tried 120fps? The improvement over 30fps is certainly game changing.

If you play any competitive shooter, you want 120fps on a 120hz display, you will have an advantage.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
I'd say it all depends on how strong the 7nm process and Navi are.

If the gap between Navi and Vega at same power consumption isn't very big, then I fear a mid-gen upgrade will be necessary as the next gen would then be only barely over Pro/X visually, thus potentially not giving much incentive for those who have a mid-gen upgrade console to buy another console just yet. It would need a bigger upgrade to get enough of a gap for that, and that one might only be commercially possible (meaning cheap and lessened consumption enough to become viable for a console) later down the road.

In other words, we'll have to wait until we get some specs about the next gen and then we can assume if or if not.

Navi may end up being a replacement for Polaris rather than Vega... And will likely bring Vega 64-levels of performance and price points down to 150w TDP's where Polaris sits now... Which is what next-gen consoles are likely to adopt. (As they use mid-range hardware, not high-end for the GPU's.)

Besides. Navi is just an iterative update to Graphics Core Next, don't expect anything truly "next gen" until AMD releases it's next-gen architecture.

Last shooter I played "for real" was CS 1.6, all other FPS I either don't do MP or just play the minimum (if it is low) for my platinum in series I like.

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

vivster on 08 January 2019

I want one at launch and then every year a new one.



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

Chazore on 08 January 2019
DonFerrari said:

Last shooter I played "for real" was CS 1.6, all other FPS I either don't do MP or just play the minimum (if it is low) for my platinum in series I like.

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.

Why is it desirable, only by a "small" number of PC gamers?.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
Pemalite on 08 January 2019
DonFerrari said:

Last shooter I played "for real" was CS 1.6, all other FPS I either don't do MP or just play the minimum (if it is low) for my platinum in series I like.

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying 120fps is coming to consoles anytime soon, it really isn't in any meaningful way, the primary display consoles use are Televisions, which generally are 60hz panels anyway. (Or use some kind of frame interpolation to fake higher rates. It's nasty.)

60fps though I think should be the minimum anyway, games just feel and looker smoother to play when they have the proper frame pacing.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

potato_hamster on 08 January 2019
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Last shooter I played "for real" was CS 1.6, all other FPS I either don't do MP or just play the minimum (if it is low) for my platinum in series I like.

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying 120fps is coming to consoles anytime soon, it really isn't in any meaningful way, the primary display consoles use are Televisions, which generally are 60hz panels anyway. (Or use some kind of frame interpolation to fake higher rates. It's nasty.)

60fps though I think should be the minimum anyway, games just feel and looker smoother to play when they have the proper frame pacing.

Pemalite is right. Most HDTVs  (Even 4K) only actually support 60Hz refresh rates. It makes no sense to support a feature that the vast majority of the user base won't be able to use without buying a higher end TV.



DonFerrari on 09 January 2019
Chazore said:
DonFerrari said:

Last shooter I played "for real" was CS 1.6, all other FPS I either don't do MP or just play the minimum (if it is low) for my platinum in series I like.

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.

Why is it desirable, only by a "small" number of PC gamers?.

Because most people, by that basically all console gamers and even most PC gamers themselves don't play on 120fps setting due to how taxing it is for the system.

Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

Last shooter I played "for real" was CS 1.6, all other FPS I either don't do MP or just play the minimum (if it is low) for my platinum in series I like.

So really even 60fps is pointless for me outside of Gran Turismo and fighting games. I can understand it being desirable by a small group of PC gamer, but considering console gaming have always put more of the budget on graphics and aiming 30 fps (outside of e-sport games and the like) I don't think anyone will really aim 120fps next-gen. Perhaps we may start to care about 60fps in more genres (I doubt) but before we do it, 120fps is outside of question.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying 120fps is coming to consoles anytime soon, it really isn't in any meaningful way, the primary display consoles use are Televisions, which generally are 60hz panels anyway. (Or use some kind of frame interpolation to fake higher rates. It's nasty.)

60fps though I think should be the minimum anyway, games just feel and looker smoother to play when they have the proper frame pacing.

Than so those 240Hz TVs were lying to me? Damnnnnn.

We both know that only if they have the "pro" version with more CPU they will have a more standard 60fps on consoles. Base console will mostly keep focusing 30fps and giving all else to graphic. So far Sony and MS have show that they prefer to have the graphic "twice as good" than twice the framerate.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 09 January 2019
John2290 said:
EricHiggin said:
PS5 Pro being a 4k/60 disc based home console at $499. (possible)

PS5 being a hybrid with a boost dock for 1080p/60 at $349. (reaching)

PS Now digital only streaming device at $199. (unlikely)

All available on launch day.

I'd be disappointed if PS5 proper wasn't aiming for 4k, 60fps at €400 from launch with exceptions at 4k, 30/45fps being the third party games. 4k is a given but I think with deep learning tech and a need for 120fps for VR, 60 fps should easily attained if they have invested correctly in the VR tech. So lets hope the ps5 is a VR machine.

I like and have VR, but not sure the 3M sales will make they give extra attention to VR on PS5 HW. certainly the better CPU we expect may give "indie level" and VR cartoonish graphics 120fps on good graphic output. And considering one side pretty cartoon versus other side ugly realistic (due to basically 4x more processing) I would take the first, but I believe we will have pristine and better than PS360 level of graphic on 120 fps VR games next gen for PS5.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Chazore on 09 January 2019
DonFerrari said:

Because most people, by that basically all console gamers and even most PC gamers themselves don't play on 120fps setting due to how taxing it is for the system.

Considering how there are games from the PS2 era that ran at 60fps, I dunno man. There are also plenty of PC gamers out there running at 60, rather than hundreds of millions running at 30/sub 30fps (which feels like a baseless claim to ever make, unless you include 10-15 old granny computers used for facebook games, in which case you shouldn't even begin to include those non gamers). 

 

Also, not all games are taxing to run past 60fps either.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"