Support NeoGAF

[OmegaTreeFish]

Is 4k adoption rate even that big?

Its getting there as the standard. Go look for a TV at your local shop. If you go buy a new telly its prob gonna be 4K. Thay have hit a price point that you can get them super cheap. You even see them lesser known brand ones in supermarkets.

 

[Fredrik]

Another issue with consoles now that the power gap won't be as impactful at new generations because of the upgrades. On PC we can go from a 6tf to a 10tf graphics card and instantly feel the upgrade just by seeing the framerate go up. On console they're still locking us down to 30fps with no video settings to tweak, so the upgrade won't be as easy to notice now that graphics in general is, dare I say it, good enough.

I know most console gamers don't want video settings. I don't know why though.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

It'll be about twice as powerful, I don't know I think it's a relatively small jump at a new generation. :/
But this is unfortunately the reality I guess now when the upgrades fills in the gaps.

And a 1080ti powered console would be amazing today, but in 2-3 years? Nah.

This is why I want Crazy Ken back. Everybody thought Cerny was awesome, me too, but in hindsight PS4 is just plain boring and weak without any cool features except great design and was also replaced by another console just 3 years in. What's so great about that?
This generation has honestly been awful for early adopters. I would rather have payed more for a more powerful console from the start not in need of an update and a 5 year generation than this situation where you either pay another $399 or wait with a weak sauce console another 3 years.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of the upgrade idea.

Trouble is most people won't pay more though and that is their main audience, they want to sell lots of consoles, so they will have a balance of power vs price. Anyone wanting more will have to get a PC or wait for the mid gen refresh, if they do another one.

Also if they get the CPU right, next gen won't feel weak like this gen because games will be able to hit 60fps a lot more, not just racing games and they might not even need a mid gen refresh then.

PS4 is somewhere around a HD 7870 GPU, which is old 2012 tech and is still running amazing looking games like Uncharted The Lost Legacy in 2017, so I'm sure they could manage with a GTX 1080 Ti level of power for 6 years, even a few years from now.

It will be down to cost at the end of the day though, if in 2019 / 2020 there is something more powerful than 10-12 Tflops, that is cheap enough to use in PS5, then they will.

 

[Goalus]

The problem is that games take longer and longer to make as they become bigger things. having a new gen every 6 years again seems crazy in terms of game development.

a 3 year cycle with upgrades and game support for latest 2 models might work better but that would be pretty boring and stunt inovaton on console design almost entirely. It would just be the same thing but more powerful as it has to be completely compatible with the prior model.

I think the pro and X are possibly just a one off thing because of the rise of 4k. Thats the only reason they really exist and its the audience who has those TVs that it really serves. I think next gen, unless some new TV tech arrives and takes hold, it will be a typical refresh where its smaller and more efficient.

I don't think this is true for Xbox. The One X successor will assume the same role with regards to One X that the One X currently plays with regards to One S. You give one of the reasons yourself in the first two paragraphs.

 

[Fredrik]

Trouble is most people won't pay more though and that is their main audience, they want to sell lots of consoles, so they will have a balance of power vs price. Anyone wanting more will have to get a PC or wait for the mid gen refresh, if they do another one.

Also if they get the CPU right, next gen won't feel weak like this gen because games will be able to hit 60fps a lot more, not just racing games and they might not even need a mid gen refresh then.

PS4 is somewhere around a HD 7870 GPU, which is old 2012 tech and is still running amazing looking games like Uncharted The Lost Legacy in 2017, so I'm sure they could manage with a GTX 1080 Ti level of power for 6 years.

It will be down to cost at the end of the day though, if in 2019 / 2020 there is something more powerful than 10-12 Tflops, that is cheap enough to use in PS5, then they will.

The CPU isn't the problem when it comes to 60fps, they simply prioritize graphics over framerate and that's all there is, every single game could be 60fps on OG PS4/XB1 if they wanted to. Racing games don't hit 60fps because they're less demanding, the devs just target 60fps and go from there.
There is nothing at all that says that more games are able to hit 60fps next gen. PC will be ahead again and the console versions will try to go as close as possible, which usually means 30fps.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

I don't think this is true for Xbox. The One X successor will assume the same role with regards to One X that the One X currently plays with regards to One S. You give one of the reasons yourself in the first two paragraphs.

Yeah but i counter that reason as well.

Really we just don't know. if the XOX somehow sells crazy well then I can see maybe MS trying this new approach but im not convinced at all at this point.

As a consumer I think a traditional gens but with fully backwards compatability is the best option. It will have the same effect for those who want the new console. Devs can still make versions that work on PS4 like they did with PS3 but this time with easier hardware to work with. They can still innovate on what a console is.

Im not really sure what the upside to just constant upgrades would even be if you made sure your systems were BC so your library went with you.

 

[12Dannu123]

Yeah but i counter that reason as well.

Really we just don't know. if the XOX somehow sells crazy well then I can see maybe MS trying this new approach but im not convinced at all at this point.

As a consumer I think a traditional gens but with fully backwards compatability is the best option. It will have the same effect for those who want the new console. Devs can still make versions that work on PS4 like they did with PS3 but this time with easier hardware to work with. They can still innovate on what a console is.

Im not really sure what the upside to just constant upgrades would even be if you made sure your systems were BC so your library went with you.

It depends. Microsoft's model allows for much lower prices than what you would get for a traditional generation.

While Xbox One X won't sell as strongly now, it'll become the best seller in a few years as price of the console lowers.


If we followed traditional generations, then you won't be able to lower prices as quickly. As Sony will probably have a PS5 Pro and PS5.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

The CPU isn't the problem when it comes to 60fps, they simply prioritize graphics over framerate and that all there is, every single game could be 60fps on OG PS4/XB1 if they wanted to. Racing games don't hit 60fpd because they're less demanding, the devs just target 60fps and go from there.

While they can target 60fps in any game, the lack of power could really compromise the developers vision, when it comes to other things. I'm sure lots of people would complain if all games looked last gen again just to hit 60fps.

It's hardly a secret that Jaguar CPU is still weak and struggles on big open world games, Bungie can't even run Destiny 2 at 60fps because they use the CPU for their AI and it hasn't got enough left to hit 60fps.

Even the games that target 60fps don't always hit it, with games running between 35-50fps. The Pro and X help a bit, with faster clocks but still might not be perfect.

A better CPU will allow for better performance, AI, load times / memory bandwidth ect, so is very important for next gen.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

It depends. Microsoft's model allows for much lower prices than what you would get for a traditional generation.

While Xbox One X won't sell as strongly now, it'll become the best seller in a few years as price of the console lowers.


If we followed traditional generations, then you won't be able to lower prices as quickly. As Sony will probably have a PS5 Pro and PS5.

Based on what?

If history has tought us anything it is that the most powerful console does not = best selling console.

Until new consoles arrive (in what ever form they do) the standard version of these consoles will sell better as they play all the games and are cheaper. As the pro and X come down in price so will the standard versions.

However, if say in 3 years time MS come out and say "well we are dropping the price of the X to $250, releasing the X2 for $449 and the ONE will no longer be supported". This is assuming they got the upgrade model and all games will have to work on the X as well as the X2 then the X starts selling better and prob more than the X2 would. But Sony have already announced the PS5 with no attachment to PS4 bar BC so that you will get truly next gen games as well as your prvious library still working and can buy the PS4 Pro dirt cheap by this point.

What will sell better? PS5 or the X2?

Of course we don't know this but I am willing to bet the the idea of something totally new and not an upgrade will be more exciting for the enthusiast.

As with every gen. The one that sells most will depend on things like exclusives, price and what peoples friends buy. Marketing will play a big part in it. MS marketing so far has been "looks at these specs" and I don't believe that will do much for most people out there. They want games.

 

[Shin]

I am willing to bet the the idea of something totally new and not an upgrade will be more exciting for the enthusiast.

For everyone, once owners feel like they've gotten enough out of their purchase they'll look for something new, be it a new console or experience.
PlayStation will probably keep pushing PSVR as a platform, if the current is compatible with PS5 then those adopters might see even more benefit out of their purchase.

 

[jroc74]

It depends. Microsoft's model allows for much lower prices than what you would get for a traditional generation.

While Xbox One X won't sell as strongly now, it'll become the best seller in a few years as price of the console lowers.


If we followed traditional generations, then you won't be able to lower prices as quickly. As Sony will probably have a PS5 Pro and PS5.

Ok, how are these 2 things different in the context of this post? Both companies could do ongoing new baselines for consoles when they launch mid gen refreshes. Both can lower prices to help the mid gen refreshes be the new baselines.

If anything Sony not trying to overdo it in specs with the Pro might mean it can drop in price more than the XBO X.

I started to post earlier MS could keep the XBO name and make it look like its generation less. XBO insert name here.

Sony launches the PS5 and it looks like a clean break from PS4 just because of the name. When in reality MS and Sony both might be doing the same thing.

 

[Fredrik]

While they can target 60fps in any game, the lack of power could really compromise the developers vision, when it comes to other things. I'm sure lots of people would complain if all games looked last gen again just to hit 60fps.

It's hardly a secret that Jaguar CPU is still weak and struggles on big open world games, Bungie can't even run Destiny 2 at 60fps because they use the CPU for their AI and it hasn't got enough left to hit 60fps.

Even the games that target 60fps don't always hit it, with games running between 35-50fps. The Pro and X help a bit, with faster clocks but still might not be perfect.

A better CPU will allow for better performance, AI, load times / memory bandwidth ect, so is very important for next gen.

I get what you're saying but there is nothing at all that says that more games will be able to hit 60fps next gen because the CPU is faster. PCs will be ahead again as usual and the console versions will simply try to go as close as possible, which usually means 30fps. We've heard that framerates will go up so many times at the entry of new generations. It never happens. If anything framerates has become worse.

 

[Darklor01]

This is the first console Gen which has had iterative upgrades. I don't think this definitely means this is the standard going forward.

If I remember the articles I've read, Sony created the PS4 Pro to primarily to increase console power for better PSVR experience, and to push 4K as well since, well, Sony TVs. In MS case, I think they created the XBOX One S as a natural better smaller version and to increase power a bit while maintaining price point to increase sales. XBOX One X is a different animal. I think they created that not as an answer to the Pro, but to increase the sales within the XBOX One family by offering a more powerful unit in the marketplace with still, likely, about what, 2-4 years before Sony introduces a new machine.

None of this dictates a standard that either Mfr will continue to introduce iterative hardware. That might depend on what the market supports. They may try it again and not do it after if not successful, or not at all.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I get what you're saying but there is nothing at all that says that more games will be able to hit 60fps next gen because the CPU is faster. PCs will be ahead again as usual and the console versions will simply try to go as close as possible, which usually means 30fps. We've heard that framerates will go up so many times at the entry of new generations. It never happens. If anything framerates has become worse.

Things are moving on now though and consoles are getting more powerful / more like PC's. The whole mid gen refresh thing was a way to improve performance and try and stop some people going to PC, so they are starting to get that people want better now.

If something like a 7nm Zen 2 CPU is ready to use and has a decent clock speed, along side a powerful GPU and good amount of RAM, it should offer a good boost in performance and allow developers to hit 60fps if they want to, just like a decent spec does on PC.

Not every game will be 60fps of course but a better CPU will allow the developers to have more choice when making their games.

 

[Shin]

If anything Sony not trying to overdo it in specs with the Pro might mean it can drop in price more than the XBO X.

Screw this, if they are going to put out a premium or whatever they call it product then do it right and not cut corners, MS has the right idea about a premium console.

 

[gatti-man]

Is 4k adoption rate even that big?

If you're buying a tv for the past year or two they are all 4k. Then there are the enthusiasts so yeah there are millions of 4k sets out there now.

 

[Clear]

Screw this, if they are going to put out a premium or whatever they call it product then do it right and not cut corners, MS has the right idea about a premium console.

That remains to be seen from a sales standpoint.

It cannot be overstated enough that both 1X and Pro are not successor products; they are both intended to sell alongside their older brethren for some time to come. As such the sales impact of having one model being inherently much more desirable than the other comes into play.

Sony have soft-pedalled the Pro and kept the price-points fairly close for strategic reasons, and only time will tell if that is more effective than MS more diifferentiated approach.

 

[Fredrik]

Things are moving on now though and consoles are getting more powerful / more like PC's. The whole mid gen refresh thing was a way to improve performance and try and stop some people going to PC, so they are starting to get that people want better now.

If something like a 7nm Zen 2 CPU is ready to use and has a decent clock speed, along side a powerful GPU and good amount of RAM, it should offer a good boost in performance and allow developers to hit 60fps if they want to, just like a decent spec does on PC.

Not every game will be 60fps of course but a better CPU will allow the developers to have more choice when making their games.

I don't want to crush all dreams here... But. Unless the price points for consoles go up there will always be a big enough gap between gaming PCs and consoles that devs has to sacrifice something on the console side, the CPUs on PCs gets faster too and the gap will unfortunately be there no matter what CPU console makers choose.

But the CPU has never been the problem. The "problem" today is that multiplats are always on PC too, which are much faster. So there is always some downscaling needed and devs currently think great graphics will impress more than fast framerates so the framerate is always sacrificed first.

Plus, remember when Uncharted trilogy was about to launch and Naughty Dog pushed for 60fps to be standard? Halo 5 was 60fps too, Tomb Raider DE was close to 60, Uncharted 4 was supposed to be 60fps too. But then something happened, ND went for better graphics instead, Rise of the Tomb Raider too, Driveclub, Forza Horizon 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Quanthum Break, etc etc. I believe that was a crossroad for console gaming regarding framerate. And too many defended their decision to downgrade the framerate and then it became standard even among first party devs. There was nothing except a change of mind that got changed and then we were back at 30fps.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I don't want to crush all dreams here... But. Unless the price points for consoles go up there will always be a big enough gap between gaming PCs and consoles that devs has to sacrifice something on the console side, the CPUs on PCs gets faster too and the gap will unfortunately be there no matter what CPU console makers choose.

But the CPU has never been the problem. The "problem" today is that multiplats are always on PC too, which are much faster. So there is always some downscaling needed and devs currently think great graphics will impress more than fast framerates so the framerate is always sacrificed first.

Plus, remember when Uncharted trilogy was about to launch and Naughty Dog pushed for 60fps to be standard? Halo 5 was 60fps too, Tomb Raider DE was close to 60, Uncharted 4 was supposed to be 60fps too. But then something happened, ND went for better graphics instead, Rise of the Tomb Raider too, Driveclub, Forza Horizon 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Quanthum Break, etc etc. I believe that was a crossroad for console gaming regarding framerate. And too many defended their decision to downgrade the framerate and then it became standard even among first party devs. There was nothing except a change of mind that got changed and then we were back at 30fps.

The CPU is part of the problem though or games like Destiny 2 would be running at 60fps on console and PC, Bungie made it very clear the CPU isn't strong enough on console to do everything they are doing on the CPU side and most people know the Jaguar is weak compared to today's CPU's.

PC tech advancements have slowed down lately, Sandy Bridge was the last massive leap forward in CPU's, since then, it's been much smaller jumps forward with each new CPU gen. That's why people are still using the awesome i5 2500k.

Consoles are catching up to PC in terms of tech, yeah it's still got a way to go and nobody is saying it will be better than a PC, as they are designed to be cheaper but console power (with the right CPU) is getting to a stage that could offer 60fps and good graphics, not have to sacrifice one over the other.

30fps will probably always be a thing, as it's developers choice but with a fast CPU, powerful GPU and enough RAM (like a PC) 60fps would be totally possible with less compromises on console.

 

[Darklor01]

The CPU is part of the problem though or games like Destiny 2 would be running at 60fps on console and PC, Bungie made it very clear the CPU isn't strong enough on console to do everything they are doing on the CPU side and most people know the Jaguar is weak compared to today's CPU's.

PC tech advancements have slowed down lately, Sandy Bridge was the last massive leap forward in CPU's, since then, it's been much smaller jumps forward with each new CPU gen. That's why people are still using the awesome i5 2500k.

Consoles are catching up to PC in terms of tech, yeah it's still got a way to go and nobody is saying it will be better than a PC, as they are designed to be cheaper but console power (with the right CPU) is getting to a stage that could offer 60fps and good graphics, not have to sacrifice one over the other.

30fps will probably always be a thing, as it's developers choice but with a fast CPU, powerful GPU and enough RAM (like a PC) 60fps would be totally possible with less compromises on console.

I agree with you. I bellieve I remember having read articles where at least one developer stated that they develop for graphics enhancements over FPS because that's what sells. People watching a video at E3 don't scream out, "Forget the grapics...WOW.. that looks like it's 60+FPS!!!". It just makes sense. PC Power is a completely different ball game. For reasons like that, it is usually graphics first and will continue to be that way until such time as both can be had on a console without sacrifice. Console hardware like that, at this time, wouldn't be cheap enough for mass market appeal.

 

[Fredrik]

The CPU is part of the problem though or games like Destiny 2 would be running at 60fps on console and PC, Bungie made it very clear the CPU isn't strong enough on console to do everything they are doing on the CPU side and most people know the Jaguar is weak compared to today's CPU's.

I think we have to agree to disagree on this. To me it sounds like excuses. Bungie isn't known for 60fps either and isn't the best dev to judge what is needed for 60fps. Naughty Dog could've done it on Uncharted 4 but they upped the graphics and went for 30fps instead.

30fps will probably always be a thing, as it's developers choice but with a fast CPU, powerful GPU and enough RAM (like a PC) 60fps would be totally possible with less compromises on console.

Yes that I can agree with, 60fps with less compromises. But I doubt that anything will change as long as pretty graphics is more popular than 60fps among both gamers and devs.

Also, look at Phil Spencer's answer on this subject:

GC: What also frustrates me is that the only number I do care about is the only that you and Sony don’t obsess over. Which is 60fps, which I understand is easier to do on the Xbox One X than any other console.

PS: That’s correct. But… [laughs] Why do you care about 60fps?

Yeah. Not good. :/

 

[Ivan]

Personal Computer
Seriously though I obviously mean that consoles and PCs share the same type of CPU/GPU. There are zero surprises.

And I mean, I can already play typical console multiplats with less input lag, higher framerate, better graphics, higher resolution, free online, using the same controllers on a PC... So what will get me wowed at the PS5/XB2 reveals except maybe a few launch exclusives and a bunch of target renders of exclusives I'll play in 3 years or so?

I miss the Crazy Ken surprises!!

But PS5 and consoles in general aren't aimed at pc hardware enthusiasts, but largest possible audience instead.

You're smallest possible audience, sorry.

That's not how it works...

 

[mrklaw]

Screw this, if they are going to put out a premium or whatever they call it product then do it right and not cut corners, MS has the right idea about a premium console.

What does this even mean? If MS came out with XB1X last year it would be similar to ps pro in power. That's what 12 months and $100 more lets you do

 

[Fredrik]

But PS5 and consoles in general aren't aimed at pc hardware enthusiasts, but largest possible audience instead.

You're smallest possible audience, sorry.

That's not how it works...

I know but the PC platform is definitely gaining ground. Just look at any thread about Microsoft's exclusives and that "smallest possible audience" suddenly doesn't seem so small anymore. I know you shouldn't judge the market with GAF though but I definitely think it's a problem to use budget PC parts for consoles since the jump to next gen might barely be noticeable for those who talk and report about games. Next gen games might look just like the games they saw running on a 1080ti 3 years ago which might take away lots of the hype. Isn't XB1X roughly on the same level of a 980ti? That's what I've had for about 2 years now so it's not like I'm bursting with hype even though I'll still buy it. I just find it all a bit boring tbh.

 

[Shin]

The 7nm process goes into risk production THIS YEAR.

Iirc both GloFlo and TSMC are already taking designs, don't know about other companies.

 

[Shin]

What does this even mean? If MS came out with XB1X last year it would be similar to ps pro in power. That's what 12 months and $100 more lets you do

They could have came out with it last year it's not like they are using something that's only available this year.
Premium/high end product is just that, iPhone people or even those buying 1080Ti+ or luxury cars or whatever it's not about the price.
If you're thinking about the price then that product isn't meant for you.

This is also the exact message Ms has put forward and that is how it works, I know this from experience.
Want owns logic/money, you can call it a sickness even.

 

[Lady Gaia]

Premium/high end product is just that, iPhone people or even those buying 1080Ti+ or luxury cars or whatever it's not about the price.

Price is always a factor for any recognizable consumer segment. There are plenty of people buying luxury cars who balk at paying for a fully loaded Tesla, for example. So pricing dictates the size of your market and that's an extremely important factor here, because developers aren't going to waste time adapting and certifying a title for a vanishingly small customer segment.

If you're thinking about the price then that product isn't meant for you.

That's elitist nonsense. Most people think very carefully before buying a car, a home, or anything else that doesn't fit into the impulse buy price range for them. Does that mean car/home ownership "isn't meant for them?"

From a completely different perspective, anyone who wants to understand the ecosystem to predict the relative health of the Xbox marketplace may well care about the price. Not because they can/can't afford it, but because the viability of development for the platform makes a difference in the perceived value of their purchase.

Want owns logic/money, you can call it a sickness even.

Some people have better impulse control than others. Everyone prioritized their hobbies for their own reasons. Nobody is immune from budgetary considerations.

 

[Shin]

Seems like I should have wrote not primarily in there somewhere and you forgot "IMO".
Some can control their urge sure, vast majority can't.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I think we have to agree to disagree on this. To me it sounds like excuses. Bungie isn't known for 60fps either and isn't the best dev to judge what is needed for 60fps. Naughty Dog could've done it on Uncharted 4 but they upped the graphics and went for 30fps instead.

Yes that I can agree with, 60fps with less compromises. But I doubt that anything will change as long as pretty graphics is more popular than 60fps among both gamers and devs.

True, Bungie normally make 30fps games but Destiny 2 is running 60fps on PC and runs pretty well from what I've seen of it, so the engine is up to the job and with a fast enough CPU they could have gone 60fps on console too, not quite as high on the graphics settings obviously but the game is CPU bound, so a much better CPU would have helped them hit 60fps.

Great graphics are pretty standard now, so if they can give next gen a decent CPU too, then I see no reason why they can't do 60fps and great graphics, just like what a PC offers.

Obviously PC will still have more raw power but the right CPU would allow consoles to be more flexible to developers when it comes to framerates.

 

[AmyS]

I believe there will be massive changes to how AMD designs their GPUs. AMD said that in the long run it would make more sense to stop increasing die sizes as the larger the die, the worse the overall yields are (less large chips can be made from the same wafer size than small chips) hence, their future direction might be to actually have multiple core GPUs (several smaller chips make up one die) that will be connected through infinity fabric.

I think it's very likely PS5 will utilize something similar.

Reference: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/amd_reveals_a_exascale_mega_apu_in_a_new_academic_paper/1

Yup, I posted that a number of times in various threads, including this one.

This is most likely the path forward for many (not all but many) of AMDs products, including semi-custom silicon for consoles. IMO.

 

[dr_rus]

Yup, I posted that a number of times in various threads, including this one.

This is most likely the path forward for many (not all but many) of AMDs products, including semi-custom silicon for consoles. IMO.

Such configuration would almost certainly be more expensive in production than a single SoC of the size which is used in modern consoles (~400mm^2). This is basically why all consoles switched to SoCs from having several chips in the previous generation.

This approach makes sense for high end CPU/GPU market, especially if you're constrained by the reticle size already - and with production tech hitting scaling wall everyone will be size constrained soon. But it should be noted that such configuration will not be able to perform in the same way a modern big GPU does - it will require special care from s/w programmers in the same way as DX12 mGPU does right now. Infinity fabric's bandwidth (~45GB/s between chips at best) isn't nearly enough to make such system perform as a single GPU (which right now has ~500GB/s UMA bandwidth, so basically 10 times more).

 

[Shin]

This is most likely the path forward for many (not all but many) of AMDs products, including semi-custom silicon for consoles. IMO.

While reading a press release from AMD they called it their secret sauce it made laugh cuz it reminded me of the whole xb1 situation.
Makes me wonder if they delayed Navi because of HBM3, I still think Navi will have such a setup.

@Rus,if this is the way forward then what can ms/Sony do but hop on board?
Jump ship to Intel/Nvidia, amd probably have their reasons for this.

 

[dr_rus]

@Rus,if this is the way forward then what can ms/Sony do but hop on board?
Jump ship to Intel/Nvidia, amd probably have their reasons for this.

Well, they can use the IP to design their own SoCs, pretty much like they did with XBO/PS4. What AMD does or plan to do isn't the only option for MS/Sony even if they won't switch to a different tech provider.

 

[Negotiator]

Such configuration would almost certainly be more expensive in production than a single SoC of the size which is used in modern consoles (~400mm^2). This is basically why all consoles switched to SoCs from having several chips in the previous generation.

This approach makes sense for high end CPU/GPU market, especially if you're constrained by the reticle size already - and with production tech hitting scaling wall everyone will be size constrained soon. But it should be noted that such configuration will not be able to perform in the same way a modern big GPU does - it will require special care from s/w programmers in the same way as DX12 mGPU does right now. Infinity fabric's bandwidth (~45GB/s between chips at best) isn't nearly enough to make such system perform as a single GPU (which right now has ~500GB/s UMA bandwidth, so basically 10 times more).

Infinity Fabric can scale up to 512GB/s.

 

[Fredrik]

True, Bungie normally make 30fps games but Destiny 2 is running 60fps on PC and runs pretty well from what I've seen of it, so the engine is up to the job and with a fast enough CPU they could have gone 60fps on console too, not quite as high on the graphics settings obviously but the game is CPU bound, so a much better CPU would have helped them hit 60fps.

Great graphics are pretty standard now, so if they can give next gen a decent CPU too, then I see no reason why they can't do 60fps and great graphics, just like what a PC offers.

Obviously PC will still have more raw power but the right CPU would allow consoles to be more flexible to developers when it comes to framerates.

Well, 'everything' is 60fps on PC with the right hardware and settings so it's really not some crazy feat to get a game to run at 60fps on PC ;p But I get what you're saying. If console CPUs would've been faster today then Destiny 2 could've run at 60fps on console today. Probably so.

But with better CPUs they wouldn't have cost $399 then so it's a strange discussion. And great graphics is standard today you say, but in the future even better graphics will be standard, on PC, then the games will be scaled back yet again either visually or in performance to get them on the $399 consoles we want. :/

It's really a never ending loop of power-increase on PC and downscaling to fit $399 consoles.

What could change this though is, as you say, if tech advancements slow down on PC so consoles essentially get closer to PC powerwise in the future. Maybe you're right that CPU advancements will slow down so PC games that use the CPU a lot wouldn't have to be scaled back as much to get them on consoles. That would definitely help.

Personally I still think devs will find something else to 'waste' the power on instead of a higher framerate. But I certainly hope you're right, that would awesome. 60fps as standard on consoles would be the biggest change since 2D-to-3D for me. The higher framerate is the main reason why I mostly game on PC today.

 

[dr_rus]

Infinity Fabric can scale up to 512GB/s.

Theoretical figures don't mean anything as in theory anything can scale up to infinity. In practice it is ten times slower than VRAM right now.

 

[KOHIPEET]

Such configuration would almost certainly be more expensive in production than a single SoC of the size which is used in modern consoles (~400mm^2). This is basically why all consoles switched to SoCs from having several chips in the previous generation.

This approach makes sense for high end CPU/GPU market, especially if you're constrained by the reticle size already - and with production tech hitting scaling wall everyone will be size constrained soon. But it should be noted that such configuration will not be able to perform in the same way a modern big GPU does - it will require special care from s/w programmers in the same way as DX12 mGPU does right now. Infinity fabric's bandwidth (~45GB/s between chips at best) isn't nearly enough to make such system perform as a single GPU (which right now has ~500GB/s UMA bandwidth, so basically 10 times more).

IMO the bolded part is the exact reason why it would make sense to introduce it in consoles.

Introducing it in high-end GPUs would require programmers to specially optimize for a very tiny fragment of (sure this can be said for a console early in its life-cycle) the market.

I can't really argue with the rest of what you said except perhaps the cost of manufacturing. As far as I know one of the main advantages of a configuration like this (exascale APU as AMD calls it) is that it costs less to manufacture than a similarly-sized single-die chip because of better yields on smaller chips(let)s.

Badwidth is a big concern though.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

IMO the bolded part is the exact reason why it would make sense to introduce it in consoles.

Introducing it in high-end GPUs would require programmers to specially optimize for a very tiny fragment of (sure this can be said for a console early in its life-cycle) the market.

I can't really argue with the rest of what you said except perhaps the cost of manufacturing. As far as I know one of the main advantages of a configuration like this (exascale APU as AMD calls it) is that it costs less to manufacture than a similarly-sized single-die chip because of better yields on smaller chips(let)s.

Badwidth is a big concern though.

The "similarly-sized single-die chip" you mention here is far outside of the traditional die-sizes console APUs tend to be designed for anyway. So in a console context, this exascale design is a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Similarly, the requirement to move data around between "chiplets" on this kind of design will handicap it's performance against a similar-sized console APU with a traditional single GPU/CPU design.

People need to stop posting this Exascale APU thing. It's not for consoles. It wouldn't even be inherently more efficient than existing architectures for typical console workloads. If anything the converse is true.

AMD (and Nvidia) sell products into lots of different industry sectors. So just because something appears on a road-map (or in this case, a white paper), it doesn't mean it is the "future of computing" for ALL industry sectors. It's the same reason Intel isn't packaging Knight's Corner as their primary consumer-grade CPU design... i.e. it's a solution designed to solve a different problem.

 

[mrklaw]

Such configuration would almost certainly be more expensive in production than a single SoC of the size which is used in modern consoles (~400mm^2). This is basically why all consoles switched to SoCs from having several chips in the previous generation.

This approach makes sense for high end CPU/GPU market, especially if you're constrained by the reticle size already - and with production tech hitting scaling wall everyone will be size constrained soon. But it should be noted that such configuration will not be able to perform in the same way a modern big GPU does - it will require special care from s/w programmers in the same way as DX12 mGPU does right now. Infinity fabric's bandwidth (~45GB/s between chips at best) isn't nearly enough to make such system perform as a single GPU (which right now has ~500GB/s UMA bandwidth, so basically 10 times more).

They could use it to offload the zen as it is a lot larger than jaguar. Then use the entire 350-400mm2 for the GPU

 

[Negotiator]

Theoretical figures don't mean anything as in theory anything can scale up to infinity. In practice it is ten times slower than VRAM right now.

Right now it's only being used in Zen (EPYC). CPUs require less bandwidth, therefore it's not bottlenecked. GPUs/APUs will have higher IF bandwidth.

 

[dr_rus]

IMO the bolded part is the exact reason why it would make sense to introduce it in consoles.

Introducing it in high-end GPUs would require programmers to specially optimize for a very tiny fragment of (sure this can be said for a console early in its life-cycle) the market.

I can't really argue with the rest of what you said except perhaps the cost of manufacturing. As far as I know one of the main advantages of a configuration like this (exascale APU as AMD calls it) is that it costs less to manufacture than a similarly-sized single-die chip because of better yields on smaller chips(let)s.

Badwidth is a big concern though.

Sure, such config makes sense for console space specifically as it's very easy to "force" everyone to optimize for some obscure architecture - look at Cell for example.

They could use it to offload the zen as it is a lot larger than jaguar. Then use the entire 350-400mm2 for the GPU

How's that going to be cheaper than just one 350-400mm2 die? The cost of packaging, including possibility of an interposer usage is very high in such configurations - so high that it may easily offset the cost of production of a bigger chip. Another thing to consider is that the cost of such packaging doesn't go down much over the course of years while the cost of a big chip does, along with the improvements in yields and general process robustness.

So it's not really a clear cut that such option is cheaper in production - it is certainly cheaper in development though.

Right now it's only being used in Zen (EPYC). CPUs require less bandwidth, therefore it's not bottlenecked. GPUs/APUs will have higher IF bandwidth.

Epyc CPUs require all the bandwidth they can get. They have EIGHT memory channels for this sole purpose.

 

[Negotiator]

How's that going to be cheaper than just one 350-400mm2 die?

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/877495715316060164
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/877951041236606976
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/877645180723224576

Epyc CPUs require all the bandwidth they can get. They have EIGHT memory channels for this sole purpose.

Do they require more bandwidth than conventional CPUs? Yes.

Do they require the same bandwidth as GPUs (massively parallel processors)? No.

There's a reason you don't see GDDR/HBM in CPUs. DDR is more than enough.

 

[Shin]

Actually this part is of interest:

Zen @ 14nm → Zen2 @ 7nm LP (DUV) → Zen3 @ 7nm LP (EUV)

Zen 3 if it's not delayed should be out in 2019, by 2020 it should be smooth sailing.
Kinda gives an idea what to expect in PS5.

We are also getting information regarding the hardware of the Sony PS5 and sources claim that the next generation console from Sony will ditch the APU in favor of a discrete GPU. Having that said, this would allow the console to have much greater graphical power but will also increase power consumption.

Probably nonsense and the same information Tweaktown ran an article on.

 

[Shin]

IMO the bolded part is the exact reason why it would make sense to introduce it in consoles.

Introducing it in high-end GPUs would require programmers to specially optimize for a very tiny fragment of (sure this can be said for a console early in its life-cycle) the market.

I can't really argue with the rest of what you said except perhaps the cost of manufacturing. As far as I know one of the main advantages of a configuration like this (exascale APU as AMD calls it) is that it costs less to manufacture than a similarly-sized single-die chip because of better yields on smaller chips(let)s.

Badwidth is a big concern though.

And just like that nVidia is going to take the same approach:
http://research.nvidia.com/publication/2017-06_MCM-GPU:-Multi-Chip-Module-GPUs

 

[K.Jack]

Man this projected "new console every 3 years arms race" is really going to turn me off of console gaming.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Man this projected "new console every 3 years arms race" is really going to turn me off of console gaming.

I think it's exciting. Don't want to have to wait 6-8 years for new technology ever again.

 

[c0de]

I think it's exciting. Don't want to have to wait 6-8 years for new technology ever again.

"new technology"... Even in the console micro-space midgen upgrades are not really new technology (at least this gen).

 

[KOHIPEET]

And just like that nVidia is going to take the same approach:
http://research.nvidia.com/publication/2017-06_MCM-GPU:-Multi-Chip-Module-GPUs

Really interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

as long as generations still exist, i don't mind mid generational upgrades. i'll just ignore them. If everything becomes iterative, then there's really no point in upgrading until your device is unsupported

 

[Panajev2001a]

Yeah I think it's the only way they won't fall behind now that they jumped in on the upgrades first, Sony will definitely be first to jump in on next gen so it'll be the weakest too, but the PS5 Pro will fix it.
Then it's up to us to decide if we want to buy them all or just buy the upgrades kind of like many do with S-models of iPhone.

By sticking with backward compatible generation resets they ensure people have a strong incentive to get a PS4 or a PS5 or a PS6, but they can also get the users who crave the bestest specs and extra graphical polish with PS4 Pro or PS5 Pro or PS6 Pro... and so on. It is a fusion of the cycle that Apple pioneered with the traditional console model we know and like (I DO like console generations as a model ).