Seems a difficult concept to grasp...that only a very small minority give a rats backside about power.
-
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
Seems a difficult concept to grasp...that only a very small minority give a rats backside about power.
It gets hilarious when people conflate power to sales success though. You won't find me saying that Xbox One X isn't a powerful piece of kit because it is.
I would argue that receipts and context are necessary with those kind of quotes. My country's biggest online shop has a top-10 selling consoles, and it has the first Xbox SKU (the S) placed six. The top 5 is Switch and PS4 SKUs and the NES mini, and 7 to 10 are also Nintendo and Playstation SKUs. So, the X isn't even top 10 selling console over here.
You couldn't be more wrong, i'm afraid.
The APU will include a memory interface, but a 25% faster GPU will need roughly 25% more memory bandwidth, which may be the difference between a 256bit bus and a 384bit, which requires more die area, thus bigger APU die, as well as more GDDR6 memory chips... potentially.
The PCB is the printed circuit board, so quite how the APU can include that as per your claim is clearly absurd. The point is a faster APU needing a bigger memory bus and thus more chips increases the board complexity and thus assembly costs.
Your cooling costs claim while technically true, the cost increments aren't insignificant and together with everything else will all add up.
Also, we're assuming a similar cooling system design in both cases, so going with a 25% faster chip that has to dissipate possibly more than 25% more heat (because increase in TDP with clocks and thus voltage is not linear) won't result in a smaller box assuming both cases use a similar vapour chamber heatsink as in the XB1X.
Dissipating a higher TDP requires more fin area and likely a higher air flow through the chasis; so for the same acoustic profile you can't escape a bigger box.
I think Radeon 7 proves the diminishing returns between Vega 56 and Vega 64 are down to an issue of memory bandwidth.
That said, NVidia seems to need less bandwidth for the same performance and less for more performance most cases than AMD.
Didn't help at all? Xbox sold like 27 million units to ps2's 150 million. It had 1/5th the sales. Then 360 matches ps3 with 80 million plus. Which was around 2.5 the sales of Xbox. Ps3 had almost a 50% drop off.
How is that "didn't help at all".
And? You are delusional if you really believe that power and price was the only reason everyone hated original xbox one vision.
And conveniently you forgot about how all that media you so like was damage controlling that disaster xbox reveal.
And most of them are already on the pc side.
Thanks to MS help they don't need a Xbox anymore.
Yeah, I don't know what that claim is based on but it surly isn't based on the information we have.
I don't think Xbox will do much outside of the US, neither Lockhart nor Anaconda.
Unless Sony fucks up hardware, pricing and exclusives I don't see people even considering Xbox in most markets, regardless of what MS delivers.
Adding /s takes all the fun from shitposting you know
People also think that a cheaper next-gen Xbox is an autowin and completely discounting the brand power of PlayStation.
Sony is outselling Xbox literally everywhere on a month to month basis so I'm gonna need to see the receipts where X is 'dominating the sales charts.' (edit: nvm, troll post I guess)
Yes, let's ignore the year head-start, the massive price difference, the lack of decent excluisves when PS3 launched, the poor online service etc etc.
It was just the power.
Out of interest, is hmqgg verified? Because a lot of people confirm a lot of stuff. I assume hmqgg is a known and trusted source? Because usually they get verified is so.
Gotcha. Not sure this thread is the right place to experiment with that tho ;)
MS had almost every advantage with the 360 and couldn't beat a ps3 with the worst problems ever for a playstation.
Almost 60 million 360s where sold in the us+uk.
So yes, with all their advantages, all of sonys errors they couldn't sell 1/3 of their consoles outside of their comfort zone.
Power was one of many advantages. I wouldn't try to sell a next-gen console on the hopes one advantage magically will suffice when almost all of the advantages didn't help them win before.
Interesting, be really interesting to see how they manage to hit to $300 being banded around! I suppose RT will be s/w based at a guess...the only other cutbacks are raw GPU/CPU power and (again I assume) a drive? This will potentially be painful for devs.
What did the original reddit post say?
With Sony's current engineering team, I do believe it's possible to create a slightly more powerful console, as Microsoft tends to go more for brute force and Sony has their "Secret Sauce" that they seem to enjoy getting creative with to allow them to punch above their weight, so it's up in the air at this point. Regardless, I wouldn't put much faith in a 4Chan post. Once more specs are out, then we can understand the situation a lot better.
Well he never confirmed it is 299 iirc, only that it is "best value" it could be 399
This is gonna be true for both systems for sure. All these specs won't mean shit once fans see next-gen Halo or Spider-Man 2 or Sony's VR 2.0. Shit is gonna be wild next-gen regardless of final flop count.
Huh? Your examples undermine the point you're trying to make.
The Xbox sold less than 25% of its direct competitor while being significantly more powerful - but also launchong much later.
The 360 only managed to match the PS3's sales while essentially being roughly the same in realworld performance (PS3 on paper had more shading performance - so going by the flops numbers people are so obsessed with PS3 was more powerful), despite launching a year earlier and Sony's monumental fuck-up with the PS3.
The 360s successes had more to do with its ability to match PS3 on library, together with MS's first party juggernauts over the first half of the gen.
So the above examples aren't in any universe examples of more power helping sales success. You can't even justify from that an argument that power advantage made any difference at all.
He doesn't have any . His gut feeling . many times he has been told 9tf amd is not same as 9tf 1080 . 1080 is around 12tf of amd not 9
Yes, I think there's too many self proclaimed experts giving guesses as almost facts
Those already locked into Ms ecosystem, sure.
But no reason for PS4 owners to jump ship, specially if PS5 it's a $399 BC SKU, as it's my prediction.
The way the sentence is phrased it sounds like the user is conveying information he acquired elsewhere, rather than gut feeling.
Anyway, with regards to real world performance of Nvidia cards compared to AMD, your claim of equivalency is correct.
i will just say, that based off his post history i wouldnt believe it.
Honestly, I don't believe in secret sauces and consider both companies fairly equal in their engineering capacity. I think what really is going to determine performance is the target price and nothing else. For the same price, I expect both companies to offer similar machines, since they are basically using the same vendor and both focus on the main console and not on peripherals like Kinect.
In any case, I think that all 3 SKUs are going to have a different price and as a result won't be directly comparable. I also think that MS is going to focus a lot on Lockhart since that is the SKU that is going to determine success or failure for them. If they don't manage to establish Lockhart as an appealing proposition then people are just going to turn to direct comparisons between PS5 to Anaconda, and in that case Anaconda is going to lose even if it's more powerful (since it's going to be more expensive).
That's why I've been about Sony being very competitive when it comes to pricing for PS5. I think you will see PS5 be a more balanced system than Anaconda. Anaconda will have more raw performance power than PS5 but Sony will have a console that is no slouch and possibly be cheaper.
That is a great point and one that will be a defining factor. I'm really hoping that Sony can place the PS5 at $399, but since they are going all-out, the $499 price is seeming to be the reality IMO — which, isn't an entirely bad price, but it all depends on the specs. It's an amazing time to be a gamer, as with Phil running Xbox and Mark Carney designing the PS5, I have a lot of faith that both sides will produce fantastic experiences with the new horsepower.
I don't think we have a valid comparison point to the Radeon VII to say that for sure. IIRC, OCing the memory for the Vega 64 didn't do much to improve it's perf relative to the the 56.
Yes my example was illustrative, but when I said 80% yield I was referring to chips that were at least not dead. So basically chips that have defects only on the GPU side of them. In which case, a portion of those chips (the best performing ones) will go to anaconda and the rest will go to lockhart. Also, while I know that lokhart is being pushed as the mass market device.... I don't think that's really what it is. I look t it as the whole PS3 60GB vs PS3 20GB. The cheaper 20GB was not the most available sku. Its really just there so MS can say "starting at XXX" where xxx is a price $100 less than whatever the PS5 is. I also see it as MS ay to ensure they still use all the chips they have available as opposed to only being able to use the chips that can lock the highest and have every single CU in the GPU working. That conundrum is what makes all AMD 64CU GPUs expensive because the yields are low for chips that can meet all those requirements.
Think of it this way. Both Sony and MS order chips. Both chips are pretty much the exact same size. And they both get 80% of the chips available on each wafer. That 80% yield puts the cost of each chip to around $150. Now for Sony, that's it for them, they will be able to use all of that 80% because they're disabling 4CUs. But for MS they can only use like 60% of that 80% because they are not disabling anything for anaconda. Rather than just throw away the remaining 40% of that 80%, they will put them in Lockhart. Now mind you, nothing stops them from making a Lockhart specific APU that has only 50CU (54CU with 4 disabled) but those will be ordered in a smaller quantity.
Either way, this represents the cheapest way for MS to do the whole dual SKU thing and still be more powerful than the PS5 even if they were technically spending the exact same amount of money Sony is spending on the PS5.
Yes you are right, mixed up my totals a bit, but we are still n the same ball park.Two things I need to address.
1. The jaguars took ~70mm2 on 28nm. On 16nm they took much less space.
2. 64 CUs take up more than 42% of the die on Vega 7. More than 140mm2. I am not sure if they can improve density for Navi from 140mm2 to 95mm2.
See pic for vega 7: It's easy to calculate that the 64 CUs takes up around ~140mm2.
If jaguar 16nm took up 70mm2, then at 7nm it's safe to assume that an 8core ryzen which is bigger than jaguar will take up around the same 70mm2. 70mm2 for CPU + 140mm2 for GPU still puts us at around 210mm2. That is still leaving a lot of wiggle room for memory controllers I/O, caches..... etc for what should be an APU of anywhere between 300mm2 to 360mm2(as is in the XB1X). Ultimately we still fall in the same range of APU sizes that's been prevalent in the current gen.
For sure.
With a $399 sku they have WW domination secured again.
Not to the insane levels if this gen, that will end up 2.5:1 (125M VS 50M) by fall 2020, but somewhere between 1.4:1 and 2:1.
I mean this is a given guys, no ifs and buts about it. Best case scenario will be something like 120 vs 80M (1.5:1)
Even with a 599 SKU they'd have WW domination, but competing is not MS's plan (pure hardware numbers).
MS has been pretty open about competing with Sony and their goal next-gen. You should check out some articles/interviews (esp w/ Phil Spencer).
I don't care about the TF. The performance will be on par with a 1080. Period. Ya'll can speculate all you want about how that will translate to games.
Who said anything about handing MS the market? All that was said was that for budget conscious COD, FIFA, Madden, Fortnite players the decision won't be as clear cut.
SO if isnt about power....is about price..isnt it? ....but i suppose it isnt about that too..at some point...it sound suspicious
That just doesn't make any sense. This will be aimed at casual gamers, who are much less likely to feel "locked in" to any ecosystem. $100 price difference, Game Pass, and Xbox exclusives will be appealing to casual gamers.
The person I was replying to? Also a reminder that MS have had the cheapest console for the majority of this gen yet the crowd you're talking about weren't affected.
and whatelse should have been if not power and price sorry?...damage controlling? who was doing it? there was covers of magazine openly saying...to buy a ps4 man :D
How are "brute force" versus secret sauce or an elegant design quantified? I've seen this or similar mentioned a few times; when brute force is mentioned in this thread it's typically done as a pejorative, in comparison to an alternate more efficient (better) design.
The difference between the PS4 Pro and the 1X comes down to engineering and BOM. Both had chips produced on the same manufacturing node. The CUs on the 1X are 10% smaller than those on the PS4 Pro, and can clock close to 30% higher (with the aid of a more advanced cooler). The system has 4 more memory chips (and a larger memory bus on the SOC), a higher clocked CPU, packaged in a smaller and quieter form factor, and only draws about 20 watts more power. Results of 50-100% higher resolution are typical. Which design is brute force and which design is elegant/efficient/?
Edit - corrected math.
Last edited:
To be fair, Call of Duty, FIFA, Madden & Fortnite won't be going next-gen only anytime soon. Their respective companies will be *extremely* reluctant to turn their backs on the current PS4/XB1 install bases (and the micro transactions they can squeeze from them). So really for the people who only buy those games its gonna be a long time before they "need" to upgrade anyway.
I protect my sources. Why would I give them up and endanger their job?
- Status