Eh, I honestly think you're being willingly obtuse now, but okay, have it your way. If you think it will be a small leap in visual fidelity over current gen, that's fine.
-
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.
PS5 and next Xbox launch speculation - timing and specification
- Thread starter zomgbbqftw
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't the absence of a disc drive make publishers (and not just) really, really happy? No more second hand sales.
I just think you made a mistake using the word "artificial" and are having a hard time owning up to it. I can agree with what you said after the pedantic part, but none of that addresses the fact that there's nothing artificial in Sony's decission of not lowering the price. As long as it's selling like it is, it makes sense not to do it.
Regarding the launch date I can see both 2019/2020, but I think we don't have all the info Sony has, and I'm sure they will make a much better informed decision that we could ever do. And that decision was made long ago
I kind of expect the next Playstation and Xbox to be nothing more than a HDMI/USB/Wifi/Bluetooth - HUB with a controller that streams the games from the cloud. All subscription based.
I know internet speeds aren't there yet for most countries (if any), but it will happen. Maybe not the next generation, but certainly the one after.
The pro's are just too big for this to not be the future. Imagine the costs it will save the platformholders if they don't have to make another console, but rather update their server hardware.
I know internet speeds aren't there yet for most countries (if any), but it will happen. Maybe not the next generation, but certainly the one after.
The pro's are just too big for this to not be the future. Imagine the costs it will save the platformholders if they don't have to make another console, but rather update their server hardware.
It's not about internet speed, but about latency. I can notice it even when playing at home and streaming locally within my home network let alone from a server several hundred (thousand) km away.
I think streaming service as some people here imagine is totaly unrealistic.None of the big 4 publishers Ubi,EA,ActBlizz and Take2 will allow their own new games on such service by sony/ms ,instead they will launch their own streaming service,like we see now with tv streaming services.We will have fragmentation like we have with pc gaming with Steam,Gog,Origin,UPlay etc. Sony and MS would be able to stream only first party games that they own and old games from smaller publishers that can not afford their own streaming service.
Why tho? Their console sells well and a lot of their big releases are making money hand over fist.
This post is needlessly hostile in the way it's written.
I normally would overlook stuff like this but you've been in the past very quick to call out other posters for this and yet here you are guilty of the exact same thing.
maybe because he's a consumer and not a Sony corp. stakeholder?
I mean things like BC or crossplay are one thing, by giving people something they want (or not, in this case ...) for pretty much peanuts. But you can't realistically expect a company to actively sabotage their own sales by giving away the games for a lot less, especially not if the room for further growth is limited.
I only spoke my mind on regards what would be nice to have. I don't expect it to happen. :)
PS. I wouldn't mind a higher tier PS+ subscription either.
PlayStation generally make single player story driven games that are complete at launch. The gamepass style model doesn't work for this.
Steamroller cores, but they're weren't ready at the time. So Jaguar was the only available option, unless they wanted to go with a discrete GPU / CPU solution with something like an ARM CPU, but that would have cost more.
It was going to be 4 cores right? Is there any reason to think they'd go with 8 Zen cores for PS5? I'm thinking they'll settle with 4 because it'd be "good enough".
This covers the troubled history of steamroller: https://techraptor.net/content/look-amds-steamroller
Also, AMD has already said they'll split Zen 7nm and Vega 7nm products across TSMC and GloFo, so both should have capability. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1231...n-exclusive-interview-with-dr-lisa-su-amd-ceo
Also, AMD has already said they'll split Zen 7nm and Vega 7nm products across TSMC and GloFo, so both should have capability. https://www.anandtech.com/show/1231...n-exclusive-interview-with-dr-lisa-su-amd-ceo
Yes, it was going to be 4 Steamroller cores.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about how console hardware design is done here. The principle design goal isn't "design something that's 'good enough'", it's to design the most capable console, within a target TDP and silicon budget (i.e. die size) limitations, in order to achieve a target launch price point—within a reasonable cost margin.
Thus, there are plenty of reasons to go with more than 4 Zen cores:
- 8 cores (i.e. 2x Zen CCXs) will fit within a similar silicon footprint as the CPU in the PS4 APU—thus retaining the same die area ratio split between CPU and GPU for the same overall die size as the Liverpool APU @28nm.
- Better CPU performance is always welcome—provides more next-gen gameplay opportunities.
- Cost differential between 4 and 8 cores isn't significant.
- The die area saving of dropping to 4 CPU cores won't offer more than ~10% additional GPU execution units—thus 100% more CPU is better than 10% more GPU.
- Backwards compatibility is made much easier with 8 Zen cores, as QoS on a per core basis can be more readily assumed than trying to make an emulation solution work with SMT on 4 cores.
Good points. Some PC games are starting to show benefits on 6 or more cores, so it makes sense. Also, do yo really want to roll out a 4 core APU when you're competitor is very likely to do 8?
This isn't happening any time in the near future amd definitely not next generation.
If I read that correctly she says that different product lines will be at different foundries so if Sony choose TSMC that is where it will stay? Sure they could go GF but doubt they'll change?
I would say they will probably looking into dual-sourcing or picking between the two if they tape out early enough. Best case, they find the superior process for their chip and that foundry has capacity, or they can dual source to keep cost down and supply up for launch.
As an example, last time Apple dual sourced their SoC, the die areas were 10% different between TSMC and Samsung for the same chip, but the bigger die (TSMC) performed better thermally.
User Warned: Hostility
I must have really hurt your ego since you're still in such a mental state weeks later.
While I do find it cute to see it's probably better for you to send me more PM's.
What i said was correct and on point, this little poke is more of act of desperation. Let's stay on topic, now that things are more interesting.
It's not. You won't get anything from anywhere on a completely different architecture. The balance between CPU and GPU may be different in next gen but it doesn't mean that either will be less loaded because the code which they will run will obviously be different too.
I'm also still not really sure where this persistent idea of a significantly faster CPU somehow magically affecting gaming to the point where it'll be a dividing factor between this and next gen is even coming from. People thinking that modern console CPUs is the reason why we get mostly 30 fps games are wrong, plain and simple. This won't change no matter what CPU next gen will have. The amount of how much a possible 8-core Zen CPU will affect gaming workloads in nextgen consoles is really overblown right now.
Can't the PS4 and Xbox One stream games already, why would they need a new box for that?
To provide a little more detail, apparently Vega is considered a pipe cleaner (initial production design used to work out process kinks) for GloFo's 7nm. Given it makes the majority of the die and will probably be the yield driver, I'd say that gives GloFo a good case for being a provider of next gen APUs, at least in part.
It also makes sense given the consensus seems to be GloFo is more geared toward performance at 7nm than TSMC. When you're making 200W+ GPUs, you're kind of optimizing for peak performance.
It certainly helps that a 2020 launch would mean 7nm had been in volume production for 2 years, but a full year for a 2019 launch isn't bad, either. A 2020 console really doesn't look all that different than a 2019 console with current roadmaps, to be honest. It would launch just on the eve of Zen 3, post GCN, and 7nm+, unfortunately.
It also makes sense given the consensus seems to be GloFo is more geared toward performance at 7nm than TSMC. When you're making 200W+ GPUs, you're kind of optimizing for peak performance.
It certainly helps that a 2020 launch would mean 7nm had been in volume production for 2 years, but a full year for a 2019 launch isn't bad, either. A 2020 console really doesn't look all that different than a 2019 console with current roadmaps, to be honest. It would launch just on the eve of Zen 3, post GCN, and 7nm+, unfortunately.
Last edited:
They won't, but they could introduce a new 'box' with just the streaming possibility for $30 or something. For the people that don't own a console already. But like others said; this is probably far future talk still.
I'm not sure how dual sourcing works. Do they need two chip designs (TSMC & GF) or is the design interchangeable and would that mean twice the cost?
I think Sony will take a better the devil you know approach on this aspect and stick with TSMC at least for launch.
TSMC and GloFo are not part of a 7nm alliance, so they would be separate designs. It's not as if they're creating from scratch, though. The libraries and rules will be pretty similar, but deriving a common spec could bring the performance down a bit, depending on how they want to yield. If AMD is truly making Zen 2 at TSMC and Vega at GloFo, then they have to port at least one of the designs anyway. This all assumes AMD isn't already undertaking this effort by themselves outside of console APU development, which wouldn't surprise me.
It certainly means more NRE cost, but it could be advantageous for production costs, and for supply reasons.
See instantly here I would say what you describe is risky and overly complicating things. I just can't see Sony taking such risks after the success of the "simple" PS4. We'll see soon enough I guess.
I don't think it adds risk. They can cancel one of the designs at any time. It doesn't seem likely they'll be in a time crunch given current timelines. It may ultimately add cost, but diversifying your supply chain is normally always a good thing. Less susceptible to unforeseen events, and more leverage in purchasing.
I have serious doubts post-GCN will launch in 2020, given the current state of AMD's graphics division (underwhelming recent releases, recent managerial shake up and all that), especially if it's intended to be a clean break and a ground-up rethinking of their arch.
Very realistic, 4TF in give or take 1 year apart :P
I don't think Sony will bundle VR with the system as much as they'd love sell as many units the price tag could cause doubt on their biggest audience - the general one.
You don't release a console for $599. Never again. You'd get headlines that PS5 costs $599, informed people would know it's not true, but the $599 gets clicks.
It'd would be much better to just release VR stand alone after a year. That's if they still want to keep it going.
It'd would be much better to just release VR stand alone after a year. That's if they still want to keep it going.
With 1 year and $100 I'd expect some degree of gap. Look at Pro vs X.
I think Sony is going to push harder with VR next gen and I do expect an (alternative) system bundle to include it. They won't force it completely though, not after how Kinect went for Xbox One.
Again if pro was using the a good cooling chamber and it was clocked like 1x it would be 5.6 TF in 2016 .1 year would have given MS 0.4 additional TF . So 1 yea didn't give MS 1.8 TF .but ratehr them choosing 499 price and putting a cooling chamber to clock higher gave them that
Right. So 1 year later AND $100 more. Like I said.
They might be closer too (hence the +), I just went with the ballpark minmums I'd expect.
Then you're counting on internet speeds keeping up with increasing demands. I don't see that happening anywhere, especially US
Not a chance in Hell.
It'll be Xbox something but keeping the 'One' attached is an awful idea. That branding is stained and MS will want to make 100% clear 'nextbox' isn't just an incremental upgrade.
Agreed. If they commit to technology that isn't ready, they can hobble out a launch early or wait a year and launch like normal.
They've had 6 years to be ready, assuming PS5 launches in 2019.
I agree on some level but with how X worked out for them (vs how One did originally) I think it's a strategic risk they'll take. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a tweaked One X S in the interim.
I'm not so sure, One brand has turned around some in their big markets and all the talk we hear from execs and leads make me think MS will put greater emphasis on platform continuity rather than go all in on a generational reset. There's a risk to both approaches.
I'm really expecting it to be more "Xbox One X2" than "Xbox 4", even if they drop One from the name.
I don't see a disc drive EVER going away
All digital will turn off so many consumers. Low income families especially, the same people who buy loads of GTA, Lego, Minecraft, etc.
Plus,games are getting bigger. Even if internet speeds catch up and become affordable for low income families to download say, a 30-50GB game in minutes with no ability to resell, games will go 100GB with UHD BR next gen due to games targeting 4K eventually
Then, 5-10 years later another major change in graphics will come along and games will continue to get bigger, eventually 200GB+ and demanding a new storage method for customers (new disc format) and I very much doubt internet speed/affordability keeps up with this
All digital will turn off so many consumers. Low income families especially, the same people who buy loads of GTA, Lego, Minecraft, etc.
Plus,games are getting bigger. Even if internet speeds catch up and become affordable for low income families to download say, a 30-50GB game in minutes with no ability to resell, games will go 100GB with UHD BR next gen due to games targeting 4K eventually
Then, 5-10 years later another major change in graphics will come along and games will continue to get bigger, eventually 200GB+ and demanding a new storage method for customers (new disc format) and I very much doubt internet speed/affordability keeps up with this
- Status