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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Bet: Which next-gen console will be more powerful?

         

** Betting is CLOSED - all winnings have been paid out by trunkswd **

 

Which next-gen console will be more powerful

PS5 4 $3,092.90 16.00%
 
Series X 21 $14,981.51 84.00%
 
 
Totals: 25 $18,074.41  
Game closed: 03/15/2020
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

This is a whole 'nother kettle of fish that's a bit off topic, but I wouldn't call the Switch a full generation behind PS4/Xbone, as it outperfoms last gen by quite a bit and its actually more modern hardware than PS4/Xbone. Probably a conversation for another thread though haha.

Switch isn't a gen behind (it is quite weaker but that is a different thing), but people calling it 9th gen are even more wrong. Also I don't remember features or capabilities (besides portability) on Switch that can't be one on the PS4 and X1.

The newer features Switch supports are stuff like 3rd Gen Delta Colour Compression as a result of it being a chip from 2015 rather than 2012/2013. It's still significantly less powerful than PS4/Xbone due to being much smaller and having to run on a fraction as much electricity though, but the newer features make it more efficient.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 20 March 2020

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Switch isn't a gen behind (it is quite weaker but that is a different thing), but people calling it 9th gen are even more wrong. Also I don't remember features or capabilities (besides portability) on Switch that can't be one on the PS4 and X1.

The newer features Switch supports are stuff like 3d Gen Delta Colour Compression as a result of it being a chip from 2015 rather than 2012/2013. It's still significantly less powerful than PS4/Xbone due to being much smaller and having to run on a fraction as much electricity though, but the newer features make it more efficient.

Even more efficient if we were looking only at performance per watt.



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."

Otter said:

Where are people getting the $100 difference between the PS5 and SX?

Is a 20% difference in GPU $100?
What about the PS5 200% difference in SSD speed?
Or the HD rumble, touchpad, prorammable triggers and gyro in the controllers?

I feel like they will be similarly priced.

36CU's vs 52CU's means around a 35% difference in physical GPU size. If both are APU's and both are near identical other than the GPU, then PS5 APU's will be considerably cheaper because they will end up having many more dies per wafer manufactured. The next question would be due to PS5's much higher GPU clocks, how many good dies can't hit those clocks and have to be discarded? SNY would still have a cost advantage on PS5's APU, but how much exactly compared to XBSX? Hard to say right now without solid details. Until more is known about the hardware for each, it's going to be tough to nail down costs. What exactly PS5's more customized hardware costs them, what we know about the controller as you've said, and anything we don't know yet, all will make a difference. Right now based on what we know, I think we're looking at $0-$100 price difference, and that would probably require a subsidy of some amount, the bigger the difference.



EricHiggin said:
Otter said:

Where are people getting the $100 difference between the PS5 and SX?

Is a 20% difference in GPU $100?
What about the PS5 200% difference in SSD speed?
Or the HD rumble, touchpad, prorammable triggers and gyro in the controllers?

I feel like they will be similarly priced.

36CU's vs 52CU's means around a 35% difference in physical GPU size. If both are APU's and both are near identical other than the GPU, then PS5 APU's will be considerably cheaper because they will end up having many more dies per wafer manufactured. The next question would be due to PS5's much higher GPU clocks, how many good dies can't hit those clocks and have to be discarded? SNY would still have a cost advantage on PS5's APU, but how much exactly compared to XBSX? Hard to say right now without solid details. Until more is known about the hardware for each, it's going to be tough to nail down costs. What exactly PS5's more customized hardware costs them, what we know about the controller as you've said, and anything we don't know yet, all will make a difference. Right now based on what we know, I think we're looking at $0-$100 price difference, and that would probably require a subsidy of some amount, the bigger the difference.

Not to forget that the more CUs and bigger size more impact in the die reliability even more when being this big there is few redundancy to cut out and increase usable chips. I still think if the approach Sony took wasn't sensibly cheaper the choice would have been dumb and wouldn't make sense since it was very obvious they were pushing the frequency way higher than most would expect.



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."

trunkswd said:
curl-6 said:

Another power war this reminds me of; PS2 vs Xbox/Gamecube.

Despite the latter two being more capable overall, (though to be fair to it, PS2 still producing some impressive looking games in its own right) defenders argued for years that it's Emotion Engine was some superpowered secret sauce that could overcome the superior tech of its rivals.

Don't forget the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive and its "blast processing". If I recall correctly the Genesis / Mega Drive had a better CPU than the SNES, but the SNES was more powerful in every other way. 

Xbox and GameCube were a fair amount more powerful than the PS2. I remember Sony saying the Emotion Engine would give the console Shrek like graphics. 

That's why I'm wary. Aside from PS2 games looking like "Shrek" and "Toy Story", they also said it would take a decade for PC gaming to catch up to the PS2. They had people believing that the PlayStation 2 would be some kind of cheap supercomputer that terrorists would buy and launch nuclear missiles! I'm not exaggerating. They said PS2 games would be like entering the Matrix. (Ken Kutaragi was insane!) 

After so many examples like this, I'm just waiting to see what the PS5 and Xbox SX are actually going to do. Hype only leads to disappointment.



Around the Network
d21lewis said:
trunkswd said:

Don't forget the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive and its "blast processing". If I recall correctly the Genesis / Mega Drive had a better CPU than the SNES, but the SNES was more powerful in every other way. 

Xbox and GameCube were a fair amount more powerful than the PS2. I remember Sony saying the Emotion Engine would give the console Shrek like graphics. 

That's why I'm wary. Aside from PS2 games looking like "Shrek" and "Toy Story", they also said it would take a decade for PC gaming to catch up to the PS2. They had people believing that the PlayStation 2 would be some kind of cheap supercomputer that terrorists would buy and launch nuclear missiles! I'm not exaggerating. They said PS2 games would be like entering the Matrix. (Ken Kutaragi was insane!) 

After so many examples like this, I'm just waiting to see what the PS5 and Xbox SX are actually going to do. Hype only leads to disappointment.

As silly as that is if I'm not wrong Irak or the likes bought PS2 and PS3 to put on their weapons due to being banned from buying weaponry level stuff.



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 said:
d21lewis said:

That's why I'm wary. Aside from PS2 games looking like "Shrek" and "Toy Story", they also said it would take a decade for PC gaming to catch up to the PS2. They had people believing that the PlayStation 2 would be some kind of cheap supercomputer that terrorists would buy and launch nuclear missiles! I'm not exaggerating. They said PS2 games would be like entering the Matrix. (Ken Kutaragi was insane!) 

After so many examples like this, I'm just waiting to see what the PS5 and Xbox SX are actually going to do. Hype only leads to disappointment.

As silly as that is if I'm not wrong Irak or the likes bought PS2 and PS3 to put on their weapons due to being banned from buying weaponry level stuff.

I don't know about the PS3 but I vaguely remember the news story from back in the day and I think they tried to limit the console over there at first before finally realizing that the PS2 couldn't actually do that.



d21lewis said:
DonFerrari said:

As silly as that is if I'm not wrong Irak or the likes bought PS2 and PS3 to put on their weapons due to being banned from buying weaponry level stuff.

I don't know about the PS3 but I vaguely remember the news story from back in the day and I think they tried to limit the console over there at first before finally realizing that the PS2 couldn't actually do that.

I don't remember if it was universities or where, but PS3 was also bought to make supercomputers.



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."

d21lewis said:
trunkswd said:

Don't forget the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive and its "blast processing". If I recall correctly the Genesis / Mega Drive had a better CPU than the SNES, but the SNES was more powerful in every other way. 

Xbox and GameCube were a fair amount more powerful than the PS2. I remember Sony saying the Emotion Engine would give the console Shrek like graphics. 

That's why I'm wary. Aside from PS2 games looking like "Shrek" and "Toy Story", they also said it would take a decade for PC gaming to catch up to the PS2. They had people believing that the PlayStation 2 would be some kind of cheap supercomputer that terrorists would buy and launch nuclear missiles! I'm not exaggerating. They said PS2 games would be like entering the Matrix. (Ken Kutaragi was insane!) 

After so many examples like this, I'm just waiting to see what the PS5 and Xbox SX are actually going to do. Hype only leads to disappointment.

Yeah it's always good to be wary of pre-release promises of a console's power. PS3 and PS2 are probably the most egregious examples, but I'm sure if you look you can find plenty of other cases of companies over-promising on what their hardware can do.

Tech demos should also be taken with a huge grain of salt; even if they are indeed running on the hardware, its easy to make something look great within the limitations of a scripted demo where you don't have to worry about AI, a free camera, or any of the other trappings of an actual working game.



curl-6 said:
d21lewis said:

That's why I'm wary. Aside from PS2 games looking like "Shrek" and "Toy Story", they also said it would take a decade for PC gaming to catch up to the PS2. They had people believing that the PlayStation 2 would be some kind of cheap supercomputer that terrorists would buy and launch nuclear missiles! I'm not exaggerating. They said PS2 games would be like entering the Matrix. (Ken Kutaragi was insane!) 

After so many examples like this, I'm just waiting to see what the PS5 and Xbox SX are actually going to do. Hype only leads to disappointment.

Yeah it's always good to be wary of pre-release promises of a console's power. PS3 and PS2 are probably the most egregious examples, but I'm sure if you look you can find plenty of other cases of companies over-promising on what their hardware can do.

Tech demos should also be taken with a huge grain of salt; even if they are indeed running on the hardware, its easy to make something look great within the limitations of a scripted demo where you don't have to worry about AI, a free camera, or any of the other trappings of an actual working game.

There are probably some people still waiting on that tech demo of Zelda.



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."