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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS reveal of ballpark of Scarlett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1499&v=Y6rceRip3X4

It's in there somewhere.



Around the Network
Zoombael said:
SvennoJ said:
For reference, the xbox one x is about 4.5x the xbox one, so a smaller 'jump' than the mid gen refresh....

Jumping Jesus, if the X1X is four(.5) times the X1, does that mean Xarlet is 8(.5)× X1?

Well...that doesnt sound like a lot

Well I've just debunked that the whole console is 4 times more powerful in total, but still you math is off.

Just using teraflops as an example here.

X1 = 1.31 teraflops
1.31 teraflops *4.5 = 5.9 teraflops (X1X has 6 teraflops)
6 teraflops *4 = 24 teraflops

compared to:

1.31 teraflops *8.5 =11.14 teraflops


However:
24 teraflops / 1.31 teraflops = 18.32
or much simpler:
4*4.5 = 18
That means that Scarlett would be 18 times more powerful than Xbox One IF the numbers were true.





DonFerrari said:
We know that in console war every piece part can and will be used for marketing and also for comparison between consoles even if the impact in the end is close to nill.

I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it though, I find it frustrating rather than constructive.

DonFerrari said:
I would be pretty disappointed if we didn't get a significant jump over this gen, even more on the case of Pro that basically just got a pixel count jump (yes I know there are some other minute differences) so for me we are counting about a 10x jump against a base PS4 if Sony cut clean from this gen (BC but no FC) with games improvements to justify it.

I mean if we start talking AVX alone... Then Zen 2 is in another league entirely and would pummel Jaguar without blinking an eye.

But it all comes down to those pesky clockrates... Zen 2 has multi-threading to keep the pipeline busy, it's got a wider core, more clocks, more caches, improved branch prediction, you name it... All the modern bells and whistles.
Only way it would be only 4x more powerful than Jaguar is if the clocks were extremely conservative... And I mean extremely conservative.

DonFerrari said:
Considering the garbage tier Jaguar is (nough for this gen when respecting its limits) 4x is very mild upgrade.

Indeed! I pegged the 8-core Jaguars to be around the rough equivalent of an older dual-core Core i3 in terms of total performance...
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2125?vs=2358

There are some instances where a modern Zen+ is able to leverage it's newer instructions and decimate a Core i3. Other-times the increase is fairly moderate.

But in a console we can probably assume that developers will try to leverage the CPU to it's fullest extent, so it should be more than just a 4x increase, especially once we start talking AVX or SIMD in general.



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

Barozi said:
Zoombael said:

Jumping Jesus, if the X1X is four(.5) times the X1, does that mean Xarlet is 8(.5)× X1?

Well...that doesnt sound like a lot

Well I've just debunked that the whole console is 4 times more powerful in total, but still you math is off.

Just using teraflops as an example here.

X1 = 1.31 teraflops
1.31 teraflops *4.5 = 5.9 teraflops (X1X has 6 teraflops)
6 teraflops *4 = 24 teraflops

compared to:

1.31 teraflops *8.5 =11.14 teraflops


However:
24 teraflops / 1.31 teraflops = 18.32
or much simpler:
4*4.5 = 18
That means that Scarlett would be 18 times more powerful than Xbox One IF the numbers were true.



Yeah it can't be 4x the gpu power, Titan RTX is 16 teraflops.

Just looking at the GPU flops


Scarlet in 2020 will be ?

Titan X was 6.7 tflops in August 2016, somehow MS managed to get 6 tflops in the xbox one X for release end of 2017 for $499
1.5x faster than the RTX in a console in 1.5 years is out of the question. But 2x the XBox One X is very do-able, 2x the CPU, 2 + 2 = 4.




Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:
We know that in console war every piece part can and will be used for marketing and also for comparison between consoles even if the impact in the end is close to nill.

I know. Doesn't mean I have to like it though, I find it frustrating rather than constructive.

DonFerrari said:
I would be pretty disappointed if we didn't get a significant jump over this gen, even more on the case of Pro that basically just got a pixel count jump (yes I know there are some other minute differences) so for me we are counting about a 10x jump against a base PS4 if Sony cut clean from this gen (BC but no FC) with games improvements to justify it.

I mean if we start talking AVX alone... Then Zen 2 is in another league entirely and would pummel Jaguar without blinking an eye.

But it all comes down to those pesky clockrates... Zen 2 has multi-threading to keep the pipeline busy, it's got a wider core, more clocks, more caches, improved branch prediction, you name it... All the modern bells and whistles.
Only way it would be only 4x more powerful than Jaguar is if the clocks were extremely conservative... And I mean extremely conservative.

DonFerrari said:
Considering the garbage tier Jaguar is (nough for this gen when respecting its limits) 4x is very mild upgrade.

Indeed! I pegged the 8-core Jaguars to be around the rough equivalent of an older dual-core Core i3 in terms of total performance...
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2125?vs=2358

There are some instances where a modern Zen+ is able to leverage it's newer instructions and decimate a Core i3. Other-times the increase is fairly moderate.

But in a console we can probably assume that developers will try to leverage the CPU to it's fullest extent, so it should be more than just a 4x increase, especially once we start talking AVX or SIMD in general.

I have to admit that being no specialist I get very impressed with what they were able to do this gen on potato CPUs on consoles. And even without knowing the end numbers and how strong the next-gen will be against PCs (probably between middle and upper tier, closer to middle) the print screens and works CGI have brought in his next gen threads are trully breath taking and if PS5 and XB4 are able to bring those over I'll be very happy.



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
SvennoJ said:
Barozi said:

Well I've just debunked that the whole console is 4 times more powerful in total, but still you math is off.

Just using teraflops as an example here.

X1 = 1.31 teraflops
1.31 teraflops *4.5 = 5.9 teraflops (X1X has 6 teraflops)
6 teraflops *4 = 24 teraflops

compared to:

1.31 teraflops *8.5 =11.14 teraflops


However:
24 teraflops / 1.31 teraflops = 18.32
or much simpler:
4*4.5 = 18
That means that Scarlett would be 18 times more powerful than Xbox One IF the numbers were true.



Yeah it can't be 4x the gpu power, Titan RTX is 16 teraflops.

Just looking at the GPU flops


Scarlet in 2020 will be ?

Titan X was 6.7 tflops in August 2016, somehow MS managed to get 6 tflops in the xbox one X for release end of 2017 for $499
1.5x faster than the RTX in a console in 1.5 years is out of the question. But 2x the XBox One X is very do-able, 2x the CPU, 2 + 2 = 4.


And I had someone like couple months ago tell me Dreamcast was much stronger than PS2 but Sony incentivized piracy so killed it and GameCube.



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."

trasharmdsister12 said:

All in all, the ratio specs MS listed off in their promo video mean little. And did anyone else notice the flub about "the SSD working with the Solid State Disk drive" from the one guy? That was cringey. 

To me it sounded a bit like they said "SSE working with the Solid State Drive", but I don't know what the SSE would be if that were the case.



SvennoJ said:
Barozi said:

Well I've just debunked that the whole console is 4 times more powerful in total, but still you math is off.

Just using teraflops as an example here.

X1 = 1.31 teraflops
1.31 teraflops *4.5 = 5.9 teraflops (X1X has 6 teraflops)
6 teraflops *4 = 24 teraflops

compared to:

1.31 teraflops *8.5 =11.14 teraflops


However:
24 teraflops / 1.31 teraflops = 18.32
or much simpler:
4*4.5 = 18
That means that Scarlett would be 18 times more powerful than Xbox One IF the numbers were true.



Yeah it can't be 4x the gpu power, Titan RTX is 16 teraflops.

Just looking at the GPU flops


Scarlet in 2020 will be ?

Titan X was 6.7 tflops in August 2016, somehow MS managed to get 6 tflops in the xbox one X for release end of 2017 for $499
1.5x faster than the RTX in a console in 1.5 years is out of the question. But 2x the XBox One X is very do-able, 2x the CPU, 2 + 2 = 4.


Flops doesn't tell us how powerful the hardware is. It's always been inaccurate, people need to stop using it.

The Nintendo Switch is also not 1 Teraflop...
256 functional units * 2x instructions per clock * Clock
Unocked @307Mhz = 157Gflop.
Docked @768Mhz = 393Glop

Wii was 14.1Gflop not 12.

Please don't spread false information.

DonFerrari said:

I have to admit that being no specialist I get very impressed with what they were able to do this gen on potato CPUs on consoles. And even without knowing the end numbers and how strong the next-gen will be against PCs (probably between middle and upper tier, closer to middle) the print screens and works CGI have brought in his next gen threads are trully breath taking and if PS5 and XB4 are able to bring those over I'll be very happy.

Same here. At the end of the day though, Jaguar was a marginally superior CPU over Cell or Xenon... And developers leveraged those chips pretty extensively during the 7th gen.

In saying that, things like particles, physics and so on got shifted from the CPU and done on the GPU in many games this generation, I would assume that next-gen developers might shift some of those load back onto the CPU thanks to the extra resources available.

As for where the Xbox 4 and Playstation 5 sit relative to the PC in terms of CPU capability... That's easy. It's strictly mid-range.
2-4 cores are low-end parts these days.
6-8 cores are mid-range...
And 12-16 cores fill out the high-end...
And 18-64 cores being enthusiast levels.

All thanks to the core wars that AMD brought to the industry.




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

The reason why flops isn't a good comparison measure is because there's a lot of different factors that go into how well a GPU/CPU is performing.  

You could have two CPU's, one that has multiplication as a single FLOP, and another that has multiplication set up as multiple additions instead.  If both CPUs are  capable of multiplying two numbers in one second, one CPU would do the multiplication as 16 FLOPs, and the other would do it as 1 FLOP.  It's doing the exact same work, but the way that the cycles for the operations are split up is different, so they could get counted differently.  

One GPU could be faster than another GPU with certain operations and slower with some others.  Even if two GPUs were pretty similar, they could still be breaking down what a FLOP is differently.  

That's a bit of a silly example, but I think it's a reasonable ELI5 example that I don't think is horribly misleading.  



soooooo......

the original xbox gives us the base name Xbox... the 360 gives us the circle or ring, the current sales of the X1 give the name death and now the Scarlett gives us the colour Red.... Over 4 Generations Microsoft have stealth trolled everyone by naming or designing their projects as the Xbox red ring of death!

Sorry for my 4am brain popping this out but it made me chuckle, honestly would think MS should avoid any mentions of red colours with the xbox brand after the 360s notorious hardware failure light setup.

As for using an SSD as Virtual ram.... honestly, that's a f'ing PC page file and it has existed in the PC space for 20+ years and it was used in the original xbox as that system used the hdd as a cache for textures as well, there's no way these machines are gonna be coming out with 2TB of SSD space and not costing over 500e because if they were that cost then PC gamers would buy the console and rip out the ssd to install in their PC and just bin the stripped console.

If they're talking about 4/8k games then the file sizes for games with those type textures will be in excess of 100GB per game, anything less than 2TB of storage on the consoles is going to hamper usability after a handful of titles are installed.

edit - Just in case anyone feels that my "Death" comment regarding the sales of the X1 brand right now is a troll or a subjective dig at the console I would ask you to look at the weekly sales of the machine and think to yourself at the point where a weekly sales of an xbox system which is being outsold by the Nintendo Switch in the US market by 2:1 is anything other than dead or effectively dead. I would challenge the machine as being objectively dead in the water in terms of sales standing against its 2 rival platforms.

Last edited by Ganoncrotch - on 14 June 2019

Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive