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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS5 Coming at the End of 2020 According to Analyst: High-Spec Hardware for Under $500

 

Price, SKUs, specs ?

Only Base Model, $399, 9-10TF GPU, 16GB RAM 24 30.00%
 
Only Base Model, $449, 10-12TF GPU, 16GB RAM 13 16.25%
 
Only Base Model, $499, 12-14TF GPU, 24GB RAM 21 26.25%
 
Base Model $399 and PREMIUM $499 specs Ans3 10 12.50%
 
Base Mod $399 / PREM $549, >14TF 24GB RAM 5 6.25%
 
Base Mod $449 / PREM $599, the absolute Elite 7 8.75%
 
Total:80
Kerotan said:
konnichiwa said:
Honestly I would not be surprised if they release two consoles with one being 599 with higher specs. You have a market for people who want to spend more for a 'Beefy console'

What's the point. The ps4 Pro sold big numbers despite being weaker then the X. It's just a waste of power that most devs won't take advantage of because they need to facilitate the lowest common denominator. 

This point should be stressed more, and it was a big question I wanted to ask the ones who have better understanding than me on the topic : Scalability.  

 Let's take XBox One base model and XBox One X as examples.    The biggest difference between the two is the GPU and Ram. The CPUs are quiet similar, not a big difference, apart from some optimizations and clock speed.   So what do we have in the end ?  The "core" of the game is the same, they play "exactly" the same(mechanics), also physics, AI, animations, system collision are the same.  The graphics, IQ and frame rate on the other hand see the biggest jump from the base model to X model, almost night and day.  So, basicly,   when 2 SKUs have similar CPU performance and dramatic differences in GPU and memory speed, Scalability is mostly in the graphics/IQ/frame rate department right ? Now, what if 2 SKUs have also a dramatic difference in CPU performance? How scalability can work in areas such as physics, animations, system collision, interactions with the environment, AI and game-play mechanics ? How much more complex is "scalability" in those areas ?  Can this be taken into account by the developers, is it feasible, or too complex and costy for the majority of developers ?

 In few words, it is a waste to have 2 SKUs with dramatic differences in CPU/GPU and RAM, or Devs might really take advantage of the more powerful SKU with the right development Kit and advanced scalability ?

 Any thoughts ?

 



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
taus90 said:

So u r saying an SoC equivalent to 7850 paired with Jaquar CPU technically an APU clocked at 1.6 is on par with PS4? .. and again 7950 paired with a mobile Jaquar CPU clocked at 1.6 will run Battlefield 5, High Setting, at 60fps?

Well, there's no 8-core Jaguar, but what you can do is take a Bulldozer chip like the FX-8100 and clock it down a bit. An FX-8100@2.5Ghz plus a 7950 would roughly be able to do the same numbers as a PS4 with the same settings despite not being that much more powerful


Jaguar was AMDs old low power CPU architecture and were one of the first APUs to come with integrated GCN graphics. Even a down clocked FX 8100 is too powerful in comparison to Jaguar based mobile CPU, Jaguar 8 core is no where near to a Bulldozer 8 cores designed for high performance desktop @1.6.  At best a laptop with 7850m specs is a far better comparison and its no where near what PS4 does with same specd APU. 



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Random_Matt said:
Hardly call 1080 levels of performance high end, but fair enough.

1080 (non-Ti) is also about what I expect them to reach with Navi GPU technology. We don't know very much about them yet, but I doubt more than 40% increase over the GPU in the One X will be feasible without overheating the small console cases.

Oh I know, I discussed this with someone, and who ever thinks the grunt will be better than around that level has their heads in the clouds. We already know it's Navi 10 Lite, a 150W TDP chip, consoles will be lucky to have Vega 56 performance. Navi = Vega with 20-30% lower TDP with higher frequencies, I would say 8TF at best in PS5. Next gen will not be a giant leap, expect more mid gen upgrades.



Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
Shiken said:

I think releaseing GoT, Death Stranding, and TLoU2 as a cross gen release set (seeing how they have already been announced for PS4) and Horizon 2 as a PS5 exclusive at launch would pretty much destroy the competition.  A teaser of the next God of War would for PS5 would help drive hype as well.

 

Sony is in a very good spot as far as software line up goes IMO.  If they play their cards right, it could blow PS4 sales out of the water.

Yeah God of War, Spidey 2, and others should definitely be saved for post launch.  Sony should aim to have a big exclusive every quarter.  If they release in November like they probably will then they should have one big exclusive to go with it.  Then something in March, then something in June, then something in September, then something November again.  Just keep it scheduled.  I don't like when they roll 2 in real close like GoW and Detroit kinda did.  One ends up overshadowing the other.  If they release in September like I would want then just move em all back 2 months from what I said.  A nice steady pace

GoW and Detroit are for very different demographics, just see the 3x (or more) sales difference between them. Sure a lot of us bought the 2 and could have a little more spacing between them, but that isn't a big issue. Although on launch it is good to have space.



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."

Random_Matt said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

1080 (non-Ti) is also about what I expect them to reach with Navi GPU technology. We don't know very much about them yet, but I doubt more than 40% increase over the GPU in the One X will be feasible without overheating the small console cases.

Oh I know, I discussed this with someone, and who ever thinks the grunt will be better than around that level has their heads in the clouds. We already know it's Navi 10 Lite, a 150W TDP chip, consoles will be lucky to have Vega 56 performance. Navi = Vega with 20-30% lower TDP with higher frequencies, I would say 8TF at best in PS5. Next gen will not be a giant leap, expect more mid gen upgrades.

Next gen with power near X1X is kinda pointless.



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."

Around the Network
Nate4Drake said:
Kerotan said:

What's the point. The ps4 Pro sold big numbers despite being weaker then the X. It's just a waste of power that most devs won't take advantage of because they need to facilitate the lowest common denominator. 

This point should be stressed more, and it was a big question I wanted to ask the ones who have better understanding than me on the topic : Scalability.  

 Let's take XBox One base model and XBox One X as examples.    The biggest difference between the two is the GPU and Ram. The CPUs are quiet similar, not a big difference, apart from some optimizations and clock speed.   So what do we have in the end ?  The "core" of the game is the same, they play "exactly" the same(mechanics), also physics, AI, animations, system collision are the same.  The graphics, IQ and frame rate on the other hand see the biggest jump from the base model to X model, almost night and day.  So, basicly,   when 2 SKUs have similar CPU performance and dramatic differences in GPU and memory speed, Scalability is mostly in the graphics/IQ/frame rate department right ? Now, what if 2 SKUs have also a dramatic difference in CPU performance? How scalability can work in areas such as physics, animations, system collision, interactions with the environment, AI and game-play mechanics ? How much more complex is "scalability" in those areas ?  Can this be taken into account by the developers, is it feasible, or too complex and costy for the majority of developers ?

 In few words, it is a waste to have 2 SKUs with dramatic differences in CPU/GPU and RAM, or Devs might really take advantage of the more powerful SKU with the right development Kit and advanced scalability ?

 Any thoughts ?

 

Generally speaking, in PC games you usually have around 3x diifference in GPU workload between lowest and highest settings at the same resolution - at least it used to be like that, i haven't been doing that sort of test for quite a while.



taus90 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Well, there's no 8-core Jaguar, but what you can do is take a Bulldozer chip like the FX-8100 and clock it down a bit. An FX-8100@2.5Ghz plus a 7950 would roughly be able to do the same numbers as a PS4 with the same settings despite not being that much more powerful


Jaguar was AMDs old low power CPU architecture and were one of the first APUs to come with integrated GCN graphics. Even a down clocked FX 8100 is too powerful in comparison to Jaguar based mobile CPU, Jaguar 8 core is no where near to a Bulldozer 8 cores designed for high performance desktop @1.6.  At best a laptop with 7850m specs is a far better comparison and its no where near what PS4 does with same specd APU. 

That's because the 7850M ain't a lower clocked 7850, but a much lower clocked 7770 (by over 200Mhz lower), thus only having half the CU and much less clock speed. So no wonder this chip can't even come near what a PS4 can do. It also only consumes 40W, while the GPU part in the PS4 APU should easily consume 3 times as much.

Oh, and Bulldozer is clock for clock actually really just faster than the Jaguar in Integer operations, as the FPU has to be shared between 2 cores. And games make massive use of the FPU, thus relativising the advantage in gaming for the Bulldozer. This is also the reason why it's performance was so bad compared to Intel in every single gaming bench. AMD banked upon GPU getting more GPGPU usage and thus take over most need for an FPU in the CPU and upon further parallelisation of threads (later FX were also expected to increase the core count, but AMD scrapped those plans when this didn't happen and concentrated on the APUs). I could have given a lower clock speed, though, something between 2 and 2.5Ghz for instance - but that wouldn't have changed much.

With all that said, both Perm and I came with about 50% more powerful hardware, as consoles can take more out of given hardware - but that was much more true in the past than it is nowadays

DonFerrari said: 
Random_Matt said: 

Oh I know, I discussed this with someone, and who ever thinks the grunt will be better than around that level has their heads in the clouds. We already know it's Navi 10 Lite, a 150W TDP chip, consoles will be lucky to have Vega 56 performance. Navi = Vega with 20-30% lower TDP with higher frequencies, I would say 8TF at best in PS5. Next gen will not be a giant leap, expect more mid gen upgrades.

Next gen with power near X1X is kinda pointless.

Visually, the games will not look much better on next gen hardware compared to the mid-gen upgrades. That's not just due to the small gap in performance, but also diminishing returns; the more performance you have, the more performance you need to spend for a discernible difference. However, bigger RAM will go a quite some way here, as it allows for much better textures.

On the other hand, a Ryzen based CPU part will run circles around the old Jaguar CPU part, which means less code needs to be taken over by the GPU to run at an acceptable speed (which is why early this gen everything was just 30FPS; the CPU just couldn't give more), thus having more ressources for itself.

But I agree with the sentiment, and I'm sure you're not gonna be alone with that. I already predicted about 2 years ago that the next gen will have a slow start due to this, as there's simply not enough time to get enough visual distance between themselves and the Pro/X mid-gen upgrade consoles. As a result, I fear both Sony and Microsoft possibly shot themselves in the foot with the upgrades, as they are leeching sales from their still unreleased successors. Or do you think anybody who bought a Pro/X now will buy a PS5/Xbox next anytime soon? Probably not too many, even moreso with Gamestop faltering, making trade-in potentially much more difficult by that time.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 08 February 2019

taus90 said:

So u r saying an SoC equivalent to 7850 paired with Jaquar CPU technically an APU clocked at 1.6 is on par with PS4? .. and again 7950 paired with a mobile Jaquar CPU clocked at 1.6 will run Battlefield 5, High Setting, at 60fps?

I didn't mention anything about an APU or CPU.
But even a shitty AMD FX 6300 could probably do it.

Fact is... On the GPU side of the equation, you do not need twice the GPU performance to match a PS4.

taus90 said:

Jaguar was AMDs old low power CPU architecture and were one of the first APUs to come with integrated GCN graphics. Even a down clocked FX 8100 is too powerful in comparison to Jaguar based mobile CPU, Jaguar 8 core is no where near to a Bulldozer 8 cores designed for high performance desktop @1.6.  At best a laptop with 7850m specs is a far better comparison and its no where near what PS4 does with same specd APU. 

From my own comparison's donkeys years ago on this very forum (With evidence mind you, feel free to do a search for it...) the 8x 1.6ghz Jaguar Cores fell roughly in-line with a Dual-Core Core i3 Haswell running at 3ghz in total relative performance if all threads are leveraged.

At the moment though, not even my Xbox One X is doing graphics that my old Radeon RX 580 can't do... Let alone twice as good, so my point still stands... And I can compare them side by side!

...And at the end of the day, the PC gets optimizations as well, AMD and nVidia are constantly releasing new drivers which boosts performance... Microsoft is constantly releasing OS patches... And we now have more efficient API's (Vulkan and Direct X 12) which erodes the real-world performance differentials between console's low-level API's and the PC.

The Radeon 7850M is not a desktop Radeon 7850M.



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

DonFerrari said:
Random_Matt said:

Oh I know, I discussed this with someone, and who ever thinks the grunt will be better than around that level has their heads in the clouds. We already know it's Navi 10 Lite, a 150W TDP chip, consoles will be lucky to have Vega 56 performance. Navi = Vega with 20-30% lower TDP with higher frequencies, I would say 8TF at best in PS5. Next gen will not be a giant leap, expect more mid gen upgrades.

Next gen with power near X1X is kinda pointless.

I agree.   I'm confident the combination CPU/GPU/RAM of Anaconda and PS5 will be a significant jump over X and PRO.



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

zorg1000 said:
"According to Yasuda-san’s prediction, the new hardware will be a high-spec console priced at less than $500. Multiple AAA titles will also accompany its launch and support sales."

That's about the safest prediction I've ever seen.

Lol, exactly. And there's really only two hard dates for a realistic launch. Late 2019 or 2020. So, you got a 50/50 shot there.

Yasuda-san should change his name to Captain Obvious.