-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Next-gen PS5 and next Xbox speculation launch thread - MY ANACONDA DON'T WANT NONE
- Thread starter Phoenix Splash
- Start date
- Status
There is a very good change they think that they can't beat Sony's offer and messaging at the same price point, so essentially they create two options outside of the $399 price tag. Maybe, they realised they need to diverge somehow this time and that Sony has probably locked the mainstream console market already so they'll focus on streaming and high end console gaming.
I cannot even imagine what Days Gone 2 gonna look like on PS5! this is mind-blowing visual on 1.84tflops machine!
It really does look mind blowingly good, especially considering it was developed by a studio of 100 developers in unreal engine 4.
And making things easy for developers. More power means it's easier to get acceptable performance in the end.
I get the difference between Pro and Xbx, the same games look sharper on X because of the higher resolution/4K native aspect. But what would be the difference if both next gen consoles can hit 4K native resolution with 30 or 60 fps? They would be both ''clear''. So what would be the point of more TF/Power?
I never said anything about RTX cores being used for BVH building, rather I explicitly said something quite different. Async Compute is used for it in Metro Exodus and Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and in Metro Exodus, I attributed a scene with heavier/more complex accelleration structures (skinned characters are done per frame and are pretty complex) as running worse on Pascal due to a more limited async capability. It is a guess though based upon my conversation with Metro devs, not like I opened up a profiler for that scene.
Async compute is tough business though, it can negatively effect performance at times on any GPU regardless how compute focused it is.
The reason why I mentioned it at all is because ray tracing is not just the RT core (even though that is an amazing thing which brings the overall ms in RT go way down), something I really wanted to stress. Denoising, BVH build, or any custom work before and after the RT core have their own (often high) expenses, that fit some archtiectures better than others.
Last edited:
You aren't getting native 4k games next gen. Maybe some sports Titles and other smaller games here and there but most devs will use the gpu resources to push fancy visuals, not pixels.
Imagine you can have 200 enemies on screen at once but you settle for 100 to get native 4k. No dev in their right mind would do that.
You will get checkerboard 4k and you eill take it.
What?
200 or 100 enemies? Who cares? 100 enemies is more than enough. I expected that new consoles would be able to hit 4K native.
But lets say they both can hit native 4K. Where would be the extra power difference visible?
Number of NPCs and pixel count aren't entwined.
And the big flaw in your logic is that X already pushes native 4K in a lot of games that aren't just FIFA.
I have been talking about this BOM thing for a while now. And I mostly agree with you, I just see it a little differently.
I believe once AMD gave them an idea o what Navi + ryzen will be like they both made a decision on what kinda APU to go with. Like some ballpark approximation. Everything else would have been a moving target that got honed in as the R&D cycle progresses over the years. Do you use GDR6? HBM? SSD? Embedded SSD....etc. Somewhere in all that from seeing what is possible at any given BOM price point, you can pretty much approximate what your competition can do if they are coming in at any given price point simply based on what you can do at those prices too.
Its like walking into an auto store, first off you have the case on display, and then you have the custom parts on display to tune the cars. You can tell what the most powerful car you can make is and what it will cost.
Then I believe they will both gauge what the other person is more likely going to do.
The important thing though is that they are also both limited. There is only likely to be a huge disparity in performance if one decides to as you point out to make a $399 box with the intention to break even while the other goes for a $600 box with the intention to sell it for $499 and bit a $100 loss. I just don't see that happening though. Both Sony/MS will know only too well the benefits and demise of a 40%-50% power gap
After the X 4k will be the standard on most title at least on Anaconda ..i think it will be the same on PS5 after all that ps4pro vs X DF comparation
I think that the process begins with the price. They choose 400$ or 500$ or 600$ BOM and build the best and most balanced machine they can within that budget for the years to come.
Regarding budget, I'm not so sure that a 400$ break even and a 500$ + 100$ lose is that unimaginable. We have to remember that both Sony and Microsoft build their consoles in a vacuum if we are talking about target price of course. Microsoft really wants to be the most powerful console around and in order to do that, without knowing what Sony is doing, they have to go all out. A 499$ console is a gamble, but if they have a cheaper SKU then it's probably fine. 100$ lose isn't that crazy, the 360 lost a lot more and the PS3 over twice that. If they want to be 100% sure that they have the most powerful console and they had to plan it years ago without knowing what are Sony's plans, I'm not sure that 499$ with 600$ BOM is that far fetched.
Last edited:
I guess it would be things like draw distance, foliage, SSAO, shadows and other graphical effects. If they both stick to 4k, it's probably the above differences and the framerate that will split them.
Hopefully they system are fairly close, so it's down to games and services to do the work, not fanboys arguing over a few more P.
You do realize that every game built to run on PC (ever) is designed to use a split pool of RAM right?
I agree that they start the conversation with the price, but I also believe that that has to be some sort of soft target. Simply because there are things they can't predict 3 to 4 years before a machine is made. Like 3 years ago would they have been able to predict SSD pricing falling as much as it has? Or exactly what kinda architectural improvements AMD "will"make in the APU? Or if 16Gb GDDR6 chips will be available or not, or if it would be better to go with HBM2/3 instead and how?
Then when things start becoming clear, say around 2018... two years after they started "working on the next gen console", at this point they will have a very clear idea (still an idea cause still not everything is written in stone) of what they "can or can't" do. More importantly, that also means they have an idea of what their competition can or can't do too. I think that's when hard choices are really made. Eg. Ok, we can have a ryzen cpu + 40CU/48CU/56CU/60CU GPU. Based on projected yields this will cost use $100/$125/$150/$200 respectively. We can end up with ~8TF/10TF/12TF/14TF systems respectively..... ok, so we don't want to go for the most expensive, but we know MS could and probably will. So we have to be at a place where even if they do go for the most expensive there wouldn't be that much of a difference. So they settle on a $150 APU.
That's just an example of what I mean and the same decisions are made with regards to storage and RAM. Basically, these companies don't operate in a vacuum.... and what is possible to their rivals (unless completely unknown; like the GDDR5 thing with the PS4) goes a long way to inform the choices of the other.
Last edited:
Biggest visual differentiator next-gen will be the asset creation pipeline. Studios that best make use of procedural/AI-assisted creation tools, that have the best content-authoring-focused toolset, that employ external development with most efficiency will be the ones with games with the biggest visual impact.
Last edited:
Native 4K is just a fast and easy way to dump GPU power. It certainly isn't the best way to use that GPU power. Reconstructed 4K with either 60fps or better graphics quality will always look better than native 4K/30fps, so hopefully that's what we get.
Seems like a big flaw in your logic too though. The X pushes 4K because it's basically taking Xbox One games and pushing them to the max. These new systems are going to be pushing more everything, ray tracing being one of the new hotnesses, and there may have to be a compromise somewhere (less effects, less framerate, less resolution). I don't think native 4K is guaranteed across the board. Dynamic resolution will still be a thing for sure.
eh. its an example of what extra gpu resources can give you. if you dont like it, how about fully destructible environments? or more detailed cars and characters? or more detailed foliage? See the Anthem comparison below. Devs next gen are not simply not going to settle for less when other devs will focus on all those features and leave them in the dust jsut because they wanted native 4k.
the only reason X1X can do 4k is because its taking the base image from a 1.3 tflops GPU and using all the resources to just run the game at native 4k with no additional effects. Anthem runs at native 4k on X1X and it still looks nothing like the very first E3 demo. the foliage, the lighting, the reflections, the amazing volumetric fog, the insane weather effects and physics, the realistic animal behavior, number of animals, are all missing from both versions because the X1X's power is solely being used to render the base 1.3 tflops image to 4k. With next gen, you will get games that look like Anthem's original demo, maybe even better and when you have the GPU finally being used to render complex graphical features, you will not have gpu resources just laying around for 8 million pixels. You will get 3.7 million pixels which is 1440p or checkerboard 4k which is around 4.5 million pixels.
X1X is essentially wasting 4.7 tflops trying to render games at native 4k. devs are not going to waste that much next gen on base consoles.
Yet it renders the games in native 4k, making your "you won't see games in native 4k" argument invalid when you can already see that on X1X.
i have been watching the quixel demos on UE4. these guys are obviously trying to market and sell their megatextures so these videos are ads that should be taken with a grain of salt but they show how easy it is to create photorealistic worlds from scratch within an hour. its insane.
its very similar to what the horizon devs were doing but with fancier megatextures and other effects that are simply too resource intensive
Of course they also had this insane photorealistic demo at this year's GDC which looked absolutely amazing.
read what i wrote again, my point went right over your head.
U didn't probably get what he wrote and why we see 4k games on x1x. Anaconda and ps5 does not have to run games in 4k.devs will choose a lower resolution and use the rest of gpu power for other computing tasks
No it didn't. If you can see native 4k titles now, why wouldn't you see with double the power? Yes it's a developer's choice, but there is no evidence to support that developers would not choose native 4k as a baseline for their games.
Targeting 30fps or 60fps is a whole different story
And most of those limitations are on the CPU side, not GPU. The fact is that next gen is going to have double the graphics processing power of a console that can already do native 4K regularly, and it will have a much more significant CPU upgrade.
To say we won't be getting plenty of 4K native games is just ridiculous.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ubisoft's game goes sub native 4k though. Not because they can't, but they have a rather incredible upscaling method that was in Division 2 that they can use.
Still not buying the huge loss on each unit stuff. Why lose $150(or more) on each unit when you could repeat the current gen strat of breaking even on 1yr of Live/PS+ and a single game? And especially if they're already going to be at $499, you dont need to pack more tech than that into these consoles. Yeah the hardcore gamers on Era and who watch every DF video care but the PS4 sold almost 100mil already. If it was actually like 2.5TFLOPs and Sony had lost $150+ on each unit, do you think they would have made more money on it? I dont. 90% of the market for these consoles care about games and the price way more than if the manufacturer is giving them a "good deal" by taking some huge loss on each unit. I really dont see the logic in going back to big losses per unit, outside of it just being more fun to speculate about what kind of tech they can pack in when you're not limited by silly things like reasonable MSRPs.
We already see third party developers making 4K games on XB1X just because they have the power to do so.
Third party developers are going to be making games for lower powered PC's too, and that is something that would mean that they can upscale those games to 4K, or make them at 4K and then scale downwards.
A lot of games this year on the XB1X were 4K, especially early on. There were exceptions like Devil May Cry and Anthem if I remember correctly.
Third party developers are going to be making games for lower powered PC's too, and that is something that would mean that they can upscale those games to 4K, or make them at 4K and then scale downwards.
A lot of games this year on the XB1X were 4K, especially early on. There were exceptions like Devil May Cry and Anthem if I remember correctly.
I mean, he's not exactly wrong. People were calling TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushima next-gen games at E3 2018, and the likes of Horizon and God of War have been in the discussion for best looking games of this gen. You guys sound upset.
You guys don't seem to understand. By choosing reconstructed 4K over native 4K, you can free up 50% of GPU resources. Then you can use that to, for example, increase frame rate from 30 to 60fps. Or you can use it to dramatically increase stuff like lighting quality. This will give much more impressive results than choosing native 4K.
I'm glad I longer have to read about forward compatibility from fanboys, that was dumb.
A member said he lost faith in Infinite being 2020. I said don't, that's all.
Yes sorry, someone cleared it up for me a bit later
Edited the original post now to avoid confusion
At the end of the day we know nothing about Navi... until we get some PC Cards example we are all swimming on a dark pool.
I literally gave you half a dozen examples of GPU What more do you want from me? lol
Look I see what you are saying. If native 4k can be done at 6 tflops then surely a 12 tflops console can run games at native 4k. but native 4k can also be done on a base PS4. you can make a 2d game and make it run at native 4k on the xbox one but devs dont do that, do they?
At the end of the day, you are right. neither of us will know for certain where devs will use most of their resources, but i just know that if Rocksteady sees Insomaniac create a fully destructible Manhattan with ray traced reflections and a full NPC simulation, they will not settle for a static boring empty city like in Arkham knight just so they can hit native 4k.
same goes for every other genre except for sports and cross gen games which will be native 4k because they will be speced on the 1.3 tflops Xbox One GPU.
Yep. Unless the new consoles can do photo-realistic ray-traced graphics at native 4K 120fps (they can't), there is always going to be a point where devs have to decide what use of the power is most effective, and unless they prioritise being able to put TRUE 4K in their game's marketing, going from checkerboard 4K to native 4K is inefficient at best. As long as their checkerboard technique is good, which it should be by then.
We'll be getting plenty of 4k native games until devs start pushing the hardware enough to have to make sacrifices. Honestly you sound like someone from the start of last gen thinking we'd get nothing but 1080p / 60fps gaming because of how powerful the hardware is and dat 8GB RAM.
Things are a bit different this time around with official information coming straight from the source. Would a leak even make that much of a difference currently?
If there is a reason that they can use to sell the console they might. For ps3 it was bluray, however the market didn't particularly care about that tech enough to buy in at $599. Next gen, maybe nvme plus super high speed memeory will be that. Zero load times and games that feel different to anything that has gone before could sell consoles.
However, the fact that MS now has 14 studios and is still buying more, says to me that content is what is going to drive next gen, not tech. And since MS has the most money and is now spending it on content, they will 'win'.
devkits are out. i think we could get a leak any second now.
I dont think Jschrier cares much about tflops and specs, but hes our best chance for a true leak right now.
i dont think Richard and others from Digital Foundry have those kinds of contacts in the industry. i hope they prove me wrong.
That's Warchest talk.
And historically, Warchest talk never end up being right. Money can't buy success by itself, especially in the entertainment buisness.
But Sony has also studios that produce games and have a damn good trackrecord. Buying studios doesn't make you king of content.
And content is not the problem of Sony so Im realy convinced they will deliver stunning games. And strong point this gen was (in my opinion) diversity in genres.
Microsoft and Sony will push 4K if their consoles can do that. The only reason Sony is not doing it is they do not currently have a console that can do 4K.
ok but on the other hand we aren't far from E3. I guess it's possible we'll see trailer or even a small gameplay tease of a cross-gen/True next gen game before the actual beginning of E3. According to rumours we should see next-gen related stuff at E3.
Last edited:
- Status