-
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 |OT6| - Mostly Fan Noise and Hot Air
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
- Status
Transitioning from what exactly? Most of their leading 1st party titles have been 60 fps on XBO already.
I also feel that this is still going to be 100% up to the developers and will vary between titles according to gameplay and such.
Indeed. The devs decide the frame rate with their games. But you could hope that it is easier with next gen to achieve 60 fps without sacrificing the original vision. That is something I at least hope for.
Yeah, fingers crossed that at the very least, 30fps and 60fps caps are optional. VRR is going to be so good.
Considering that VRR won't be a standard feature during the duration of next gen console h/w all console games will still have to target either 30 or 60 for setups without VRR.
Those with VRR are likely to get options of unlimited framerates which will go either above 30 in 30 fps titles or above 60 in 60 fps titles.
I'm assuming that there will still be some form of framerate limiting though as most people likely won't be happy with games running with VRR alternating between 30 and some 150 fps all the time.
I think this guy (Colbert) knows more than he let's on... I can't wait for the definitively most powerful next gen console: Scarlet
Last edited:
Oh sure, but I'm just talking about making the caps an option. Any game with a framerate target will frequently go above that target, that's just how games work (unless they use dynamic res, I guess). Just give every game a Frame Rate Cap section in the options with '30', '60' and '120' for future-proofing on the PS5 Pro or the PS6, with the default being selected by the devs.
Spencer talked about using your home console to stream remotely. That would definitely require always online.
This gen has been largely successful at copy protection, so I don't see a need for online DRM protection.
Yep, Gears 5 clearly demonstrates this imo. They didn't have to target 60fps for the campaign on Xbox One X. But they did, and it looks amazing. Can't wait for their other games. I'm especially looking forward to Forza Horizon 5: Probably 4K + 60fps, improved weather effects, better lighting... game will look insane!
That's one way of looking at it, if you're that way inclined.
Seems kind of odd to specifically say dedicated RT cores if that's not the case.
CONTINUED: So, uh, I was chatting with that dev again (more hype-fuel if you like) and I don't know if he knows this for sure or if he's just estimating based on the stuff the public knows but he suggested that the GPU leap from PS4-5 is bigger than the GPU leap from PS3-4!
Don't know if I said too much.
Don't know if I said too much.
Cancelled. MS being bought by Nintendo, Halo Infinite will be a Switch exclusive.
No, no, not insider type of info. I'm just aware that he has devkits. He obviously can't reveal anything else.
I'm pretty sure he's satisfied.
Gears 5 demonstrate nothing about policy because it still needs to be compatible with Xbox one.
But it demonstrate the awesome scability of their engine and the huge difference between the two consoles.
60 fps ray traced games is a pipe dream. maybe some shooters like cod, doom and battlefield but going by control, i just dont see how even heavily optimized games with ray traced effects, destruction and physics can run at 60 fps on next gen console GPUs. my rtx 2080 has to run the game at 960p and then dlss up to 1440p just to hit 60 fps with all ray tracing effects enabled. we would be lucky to get a console as powerful as a 2080.
gears is a 30 fps game. its only 60 fps because the x is so damn powerful they were able to take the 30 fps game on a 1.3 tflops gpu and run it at 60 fps on the 6 tflops gpu. if they design the game on a 12 tflops gpu, they will try to push graphics and physics first, framerate second. you will get your 60 fps modes in mid gen refreshes or on PC.
gears is a 30 fps game. its only 60 fps because the x is so damn powerful they were able to take the 30 fps game on a 1.3 tflops gpu and run it at 60 fps on the 6 tflops gpu. if they design the game on a 12 tflops gpu, they will try to push graphics and physics first, framerate second. you will get your 60 fps modes in mid gen refreshes or on PC.
I can't say much necessarily but don't doubt so fast! ;)
If they consistently target this with FP games, regular players will start to notice and expect it. I hope that's where we get to this gen.
Interesting, thanks for the update. I'm even more interested to know the reason for the changed wording.
didnt the amd patent say that rt is built into CUs unlike the nvidia rtx cards which have dedicated RT cores.
Patent say hybrid method with hw fixed function ray intersection engine
The AMD patent have the RT intersection part inside the CU linked to the TMU and some form of BVH traversal acceleration...
For reference, the AMD patent suggests that RT hardware will be part of the texture mapping units (TMU). Navi has 4 per CU, or one for every 16 SPs, for 160 total.
www.freepatentsonline.com
TEXTURE PROCESSOR BASED RAY TRACING ACCELERATION METHOD AND SYSTEM
Complete Patent Searching Database and Patent Data Analytics Services.
www.freepatentsonline.com
In FLOPS...
RSX - 400 GFLOPs
PS4 - 1.8TFLOPs
4.5X increase
PS4 1.8TFLOPs X 4.5 is still less than 9TFLOPs that people are projecting.
However, PS3->PS4 was really higher than FLOPs would suggest. The architectural change was massive and GCN is much more efficient than what NV had back in G70 days.
Rsx is 192 gflops according to wiki
edit: ok depend how to calculate as it's old arch with independent vertex and pixel shader
This is just my gut speaking with no expertise or info, but as a fan I feel like they will hit 10TF minimum for marketing purposes. Whether it's 10.1, or 11-12 idk.
Yeah pretty much, so I don't even know how to calculate a baseline that's somehow comparable to what we have currently.
In regards to framerate I wouldn't be surprised if we got a lot of 60fps games early on, less steady but VRR friendly frame rates a couple years in, and then dropping to 30 for a target on the launch consoles while Pro and X focus on performance.
I could also see a scenario where they let people choose native 4K at all times with a 30 cap or dynamic res with temporal upscaling for 60. Both would look great and please everyone without a ton of added work on the dev side and the dynamic elements would be immediately upgraded on mid gen refreshes.
I could also see a scenario where they let people choose native 4K at all times with a 30 cap or dynamic res with temporal upscaling for 60. Both would look great and please everyone without a ton of added work on the dev side and the dynamic elements would be immediately upgraded on mid gen refreshes.
The ninjas are especially brutal this time.
the xbox 360 gpu is a better comparison. it was 250 gflops and much better than the rsx. nvidia just lied out of their ass and fooled sony into thinking it was a powerful gpu. lol
1.84/.250=7.36x
Thats good example that tflops should be compare only in the same arch, 8800gtx destroy ps3 rsx by miles and it's 345 gflops card.
and if df is right and navi is ~1.6x more effective than tahiti we need just over 8.46tf navi to beat it ;) back to 9tf prediction ;d
ive said this before numerous times, every gen sees architectural efficiences. im sure the AMD GPU in the 360 was far less efficient with i\ts flops than the tahiti GPU in the x1. and yet NO ONE takes that into account. everyone just looks at a 5x increase and calls it a day.
neither Sony or MS would be able to get away with an 8.4 tflops gpu just because Navi tflops are more efficient. especially if they plan on releasing $500 consoles. especially after MS went on and on about 6 tflops in their marketing.
RSX Reality Synthesizer - Wikipedia
The RSX was not 400 Gflops, this was an inflated number... The true number is 230 Gflops
nah, 8.5tf navi, 1tb very fast ssd, 24gb gddr6 and I would pay 499$ for it
btw not every gen seems arch advantage, at least not in case perf/tf, see vega vs polaris (not great example as vega is much bigger but still)
Last edited:
He didn't let it slip. The implication is that there are no dedicated RT cores. It's in line with the AMD patent, so not a huge change in expectations, at least for some.
I don't think there's enough information to determine what the implication is.
It could be a correction due to it being information that wasn't suppose to be shared, it could be inaccurate, or it could be both of those things.
I think people are getting too hung up on meaningless nomenclature. Cores or not, it's all just dedicated function hardware, be Nvidia's discrete entity or AMD's TMU-adjacent implementation.
Not really... its a common mistake, people throw cores around all the time. And because that statement is incorrect doesn't mean its a bad thing. RT hardware is more accurate, kinda like how GPUs have texture mapping hardware, or compute hardware... those aren't called cores are they? they are just called "units" which means they are are subset of the GPU. So there will be RT specific hardware in the GPU, RT units if you will...
Exactly.
My name is Jon Snow and I know nothing about the final specs of next gen consoles!
Some news for the most optimistic members in this thread:
RDNA2 is not a topic for next gen. Why I say that because the most recent AMD Corporate Slide Deck talks about 7nm+ and RDNA2 as "In Design" and not as "Design complete". Time now would be to short for expecting this new technology in next-gen consoles.
RDNA2 is not a topic for next gen. Why I say that because the most recent AMD Corporate Slide Deck talks about 7nm+ and RDNA2 as "In Design" and not as "Design complete". Time now would be to short for expecting this new technology in next-gen consoles.
- Status