shikamaru317 said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Yep, although, even when AC is next-gen only I still have my doubts about how good it'll look at that point (say AC Valhalla vs AC in 3-4 years).
|
Well, each generation does seem to offer smaller upgrades than the last. Technological improvements seem to be slowing, and on top of that the closer you get to realism, the smaller improvements look. I think over the last 7 years we've seen barely over a 2x improvement in gaming performance on CPU's, at least on Intel CPU's. AMD has had bigger CPU gains, but that is because they were farther behind to start with. PC GPU gains over the last 7 years have been more impressive, about 4 or 5x I think. But overall improvements have been smaller than they have been in the past.
That being said, I am fairly impressed by the leaps we're seeing on Series X vs XB1/PS4. I think we're looking at like a 4X CPU improvement and probably 7x GPU improvement over PS4, even bigger compared to XB1. MS clearly went all out on Series X. I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by true next-gen graphics, at least if that Hellblade 2 trailer was any indication of what to expect.
|
4x is a fairly low-ball when you start talking AVX instructions on the CPU side.
People often forget that Jaguar was AMD's absolutely worst CPU at a time when all of AMD's CPU's were entirely garbage.
I mean on a core-to-core basis a Ryzen 3rd gen is a good 30% faster than Ryzen 1st gen... Which in turn was roughly double that of Vishera... And Vishera absolutely stomped Jaguar.
But that is in traditional workloads, you start throwing workloads that adheres to Ryzens instruction set (And we must assume we will being a console environment...) then the differential starts to increase.
In retrospect, this is probably one of the largest CPU jumps in console gaming for a very long time, however... It's still only a mid-range CPU rather than a high-end one, but far far far better than the low-end budget crap that was Jaguar.