CadetMahoney
Member
soz repeat post.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS4 Rumors , APU code named 'Liverpool' Radeon HD 7970 GPU Steamroller CPU 16GB Flash
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
- Status
Chittagong
Gold Member
You do realize that a 3x leap os barely noticable, and that a more than a 10x leap could already be already achieved this Marcj in Alienware X51, an unoptimized console sized PC, right? Give the tech almost two more years in the cooker and it should not only be much smaller and more optimized, but mass market priced.
Gemüsepizza
Member
"3x at most in best case scenarios"? It will be at least 6x, and that is a very conservative estimation.
CadetMahoney
Member
10 times is unbelievable to me. Getting close to that is 6-7 is also unbelievable, not because it's impossible but because of costs feasible for the console market. $400 at 3x (maybe 4) is my guess. I thought MS is scheduling for late 2013 for 720 though. I'd love to be wrong with a mass market priced console 10x power jump still.
Is this a post from 2009?
No? Then you're wrong.
Nintendo is going to launch a $250-300 console with 4 times as much RAM, a touchscreen controller, and will probably make profit on it as well.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Can you explain this or are you just bringing up random numbers? The PS3 and Xbox 360 have very, very old tech inside. There was recently an interview with someone from nvidia:
Latest PC GPUs '24x More Powerful Than Xbox 360 GPU'
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/143050...werful_than_xbox_360_gpu_nvidia_engineer.html
He is obviously referring to high end cards like the GTX 690 or Asus Mars III which costs alone over $1000, but it should give you a hint about how powerful next gen consoles will be.
And btw, have you seen the E3 tech demos (view in 720p):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmtiQpTPfg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVX0OUO9ptU
You can't do that with a 3x increase.
Plus retail cost is irrelevant - Sony will license the chips at vastly cheaper rates. They could get a 690 if they wanted to. While cost won't be a limiting factor, power/heat probably will be
I'm also looking forward to what extra customisations are made. PC GPUs are not ideal for consoles. You don't need to drive 6 monitors or have 2560 res screens. But you do want efficient AA. So strip a bunch of stuff out, and put a different bunch of stuff in.
I'm also looking forward to what extra customisations are made. PC GPUs are not ideal for consoles. You don't need to drive 6 monitors or have 2560 res screens. But you do want efficient AA. So strip a bunch of stuff out, and put a different bunch of stuff in.
dragonelite
Member
10 times isn't even dreaming for me its the freaking minimal i expect or i wont buy on day one. Dreaming would be 15~20 times.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
3x at the most, and that's in the best case scenario. I expect much better textures, animations etc. but overall it will be the same 30fps games at 1080p.
Is this a joke post? I dont know if we'll get 10x(very possible), but I would consider 6x a very conservative estimate, with 8x being more likely. Were talking about consoles that are going to release in late 2013/early 2014, this is 7-8 years after the previous consoles released, and you only expect 3x?? Thats a bit ridiculous I think...
Can anyone speculate on the idea if Sony has a $500-$525 production budget for PS4, what they could manufacture in late 2013/early 2014? Would it exceed the rumored spec in the OP, or be about the same?
399$ is more likely...
how are you defining a 3x/4x increase?
DemonCleaner
Member
3x/4x = 3 or 4 PS3s duct taped together obviously.
CadetMahoney perhaps meant a 3 to 4x in overall system performance, which
wouldn't be that bad. Most things don't scale linearly. Just try doubling
the resolution and calculate how many more x memory and bandwidth you need
to support the same frame rate. Just because one components increases by 10x
doesn't say something about the overall system performance. Sometimes you
have to increase certain components to 10x just to double the overall system
performance.
wouldn't be that bad. Most things don't scale linearly. Just try doubling
the resolution and calculate how many more x memory and bandwidth you need
to support the same frame rate. Just because one components increases by 10x
doesn't say something about the overall system performance. Sometimes you
have to increase certain components to 10x just to double the overall system
performance.
I only see one way to define it... Each important component (CPU, GPU, memory) increases by 3-4x in performance, so that the same game running on the new hardware could get 3-4x as many frames-per-second.
phosphor112
Banned
Do you guys really see BC on Gaikai? I honestly don't =S.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
On paper, the increase should be much higher than that. Currently, you have integrated and the low end solutions that best the 360 and PS3 in 2011/2012, and mid range solutions that give at minimum 8x the on-paper performance.
I'm talking Intel's faux-APU with the HD4000. It supports DX11 effects, on paper easily bests the Xenos in most categories, and is the lowest end solution. And that's only a 2012 gpu. Supporting DX11 effects at a reasonable framerate and being able to support better lighting already puts it above the current crop's GPUs, IMO. And that's not to consider real APUs like AMD's solutions. And it offers about a third, or less, of the performance of a midrange card of this gen.
The Xbox, Xbox 360, and PS3 never launched with anything below mid-upper. I'm not too worried. Even just having DX11-level effects, higher resolution textures and 5x increase in geometry would be a huge jump IMO. Definitely tangibly generational
The mininum performance increase will be around 5-6x, only way they'd get a smaller performance increase woulde be if they make a custom chip with very low power consumption based on old tech like Nintendo has done with the Wii U. ( By old tech I mean not current gen PC GPU, 6xxx instead of 7xxx, ...)
iamshadowlark
Banned
Whilst corporate espionage might help get an idea on where the competition is heading and change your specs, it wouldn't help if MS decides to simply decides to outspend them based on their estimations on what they (Sony) can feasibly afford to make (PS4). You probably don't need to spy to estimate that. All depends if Sony's financial trouble actually have any affect on the PS4 specs some ppl say it does, some don't.
3x at the most, and that's in the best case scenario. I expect much better textures, animations etc. but overall it will be the same 30fps games at 1080p.
You really don't know what you are talking about do you? I mean Wii-U will be about 3-4x more powerful. You should really leave this stuff for informed people..
Exactly what I'm hoping for as well. 1080p hopefully won't be out of reach if they're targeting stuff like that and actually having GPUs that can properly handle AF and all the new post-process AA techniques (like SMAA and FXAA which work better at higher resolutions) will make a huge difference visually, especially if combined with DX 11.1 caliber motion blur and DoF.
GoofsterStud
Member
Maybe he means 3-4x more powerful then the Wii? NM, that would still be weak compared to a PS3... I tried.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Than what?
3-4x would mean at the very minimum same exact looking games as today in 60FPS/1080p (two times more pixels to render at twice the framerate). I don't see that from Wii U.
CadetMahoney
Member
I would describe it as if you have sub 30 now at sub 720p, something performing at 80ishfps at 1080p with associated expected increases in I.Q. I'm not familiar with graphics card polygon counts, memory bandwidth and so on and didn't intend to go down road of detail with such a statement. For all I know an increase of 100+x is expected in those things.
If you take a game now and give it 10x the framerate and (potential - obviously locked at 1080p) pixel count with the expected boost in image quality for next gen devs would have no excuse to produce nothing but photorealistic games with 3D option for the sake of it. That much power for $400?
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Honestly, I dont even get where people are getting these arbitrary "6x" performance numbers. Comparing DX9 performance to DX9 performance, there are games out now that reach the 150fps on PC on <$100 midrange cards that are only 30fps to unstable 60 on PS360. That's about 6x raw performance right there.
The intel HD4000 can reach 60 in Mass Effect 3 if you slightly overclock it in 720p with more effects and geometry draw distance going on than console versions, and averages just south of 50 on stock. 360 does a struggling 30 and PS3 a struggling 24.
I think a lot of people are underestimating some of the midrange parts on the market right now. Raw numbers don't mean as much as they used to, especially in a console setting. If the rumors are right and an underclocked pictairn (with shader model, tesselator, and texture units intact) is being used then that's an enormous jump in GPU results from last gen. That's why I don't think 1080p is as much of a pipe dream as some people think it is. The only real thing blocking a full "10x" leap is RAM. The CPU and GPU can easily hit performance levels and results using newer tricks and techniques, it's just a question of will there be enough RAM once the OS is taken into account.
No, in a way he does have a point. All the people using multipliers without context need to realize it's all pointless without using a basis for the comparison. If we're talking about FLOP counts here, no way will next gen consoles be 10x current gen.
Edit:
IF developers push for higher resolutions or faster frame rates, it'll be early next gen. As the generation drags on, resolution and frame rate will be the first two things sacrificed for the sake of more performance.
No matter how powerful these consoles are, they'll still be able to do more at 720p than they would at 1080p.
Death Dealer
Member
Just like current gen consoles were also capable of doing more at 480p than 720p.
Yet, for most PS3 and Xbox 360 games, 720p was the sweetspot.
The important questions are:
How much more can next-gen consoles to at 720p than they would at 1080p?
Is it worth the IQ trade-off?
systemfehler
Member
I am not sure what I would prefer - I guess it will always on the game itself and the sacrifices made for full HD. The only way to prevent that is during certification from Sony - if they have a rule set which says 1080@60 only which obviously won't happen.
dragonelite
Member
Depends what if the res is so low its a blurry mess on 4k screens(maybe not start next gen but after 3 years more and more will have them). What use has it to drop so low when no one can enjoy those effects.
And for the fps i really hope when devs drop them back to 30 they will feel it in the backlash probably wont matter the average gamer just doesn't give a fuck and im not even talking about casual players..
Did you just say that 3-4x the performance of 360/PS3 would mean current gen 720p 30fps games would be able to run at 1080p 60fps?, and at minimum no less. That would take about 5 times the fillrate/shading performance and a whole lot more memory bandwidth.
iamshadowlark
Banned
What point does he have? On the basis of flop totals WiiU will be about 3-4 times the PS3/360. How is that in any way the maximum to expect from Sony?
dragonelite
Member
jep..
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
M°°nblade;39441966 said:
Would much rather have 1080p @30fps with no AA than 720p @60fps with good AA.
M°°nblade;39441966 said:
720p was the standard this Gen due to these machines being marketed as HD consoles.
720p can, and likely will be the standard next Gen. The resources saved by picking the lower resolution can be applied to better filtering which could lead to a cleaner overall IQ, even at 720p vs 1080p.
We don't know how far tech will be pushed so really it's hard to say now. Though traditionally, lower resolution + better filtering and effects looks better than higher resolution with missing filtering and effects.
Edit:
4K TVs won't really play a role with next Gen game development IMO.
Also you must be new to gaming if you think there's a chance of a backlash over 30fps. =P. People that care that much will have a gaming PC.
I thought the estimated FLOP count for the Wii-U was <1TFLOP, correct? That's nowhere near 3-4 times current Gen.
I want 1080p due to less scaling to be done by sets, reducing added input lag, and for smaller HUDs and UIs. The extra clarity will help for spotting hiding enemies too. I would love for 1080p/30, 720p/60, or 720p/30/3D to be the norm next gen. I'm sure there will be exceptions but it just seems like the best balance to me.
Horse Armour
Member
4 times? So you're saying the Wii U might have a 1TFLOP GPU? Wow, I thought AceBandage was optimistic.
dragonelite
Member
Im not sure we need some sample to judge is 720p with 4xMsaa better then 1080p no AA or 1080p 2xMsaa hell or even FXAA. The 1080p is native res because most sets will be 1080p or 4k dont think people will even have 720p sets.
If it requires the same processing power by the end to render then it makes sense to do 1080p.
iamshadowlark
Banned
1Tflop today is far from "optimistic". But then again this is Nintendo
WiiU will be more like 2-3x in raw flops (somewhere in between likely). Maybe he meant 3x more (4 times as much), still conservative but its not really easy to compare when you're using these kind of multiples unless you have a definite idea of what you're talking about (flops, fillrate, bandwidth, everything..).
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
lol @ 4K TV's , let me know when I can walk in a store, buy one and take it home...........will be waiting a long long long long long before their anything resembling mainstream........PS6 MAYBE.
systemfehler
Member
I agree with you but I doubt we will see a higher resolution than 1080p anytime soon in the next generation. So we should be able (hopefully) to see the best games from this generation in full HD without a problem or better. I would love to hear a developer tell (or better show) me what the difference in image quality would look like if they still stay with 720p + added effects because as a gamer I don't always care about super realistic real life shadows especially if they hog memory bandwith and CPU/GPU time. Maybe in the next Splinter Cell sacrificing resolution for better shadows make sense but not in God of War 5
They'll probably be fairly common, although not mainstream, by the end of next-gen.
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
Anythings possible I just don't see people jumping on them, they give some benefits for 3D but asking people to buy new BluRay players and new disks to just to take advantage of their new 4000$ TV is a lost cause(see current high end TV sales) and there's no bandwidth or equipment for 4K broadcasting not to mention the networks have ZERO plans to upgrade past 1080p.
I just meant that they'll be fairly common on the market, not in the home. I follow a lot of AV communities so many people are looking forward to 4k there.
Doesn't really matter what sets people have when the GPUs should support all forms of scaling.
You can check out some differences now by taking a PC game at 720p with filtering (MSAA & AF) versus the same at 1080p without any filtering.
Adding AF and AA (along with post process effects) likely won't require the same processing power as rendering more than twice the amount of pixels. That's the reason why devs choose lower resolution to begin with.
I agree with you but I doubt we will see a higher resolution than 1080p anytime soon in the next generation. So we should be able (hopefully) to see the best games from this generation in full HD without a problem or better. I would love to hear a developer tell (or better show) me what the difference in image quality would look like if they still stay with 720p + added effects because as a gamer I don't always care about super realistic real life shadows especially if they hog memory bandwith and CPU/GPU time. Maybe in the next Splinter Cell sacrificing resolution for better shadows make sense but not in God of War 5
Each game has different performance requirements. GoW5 may not be able to reach 1080p for entirely different reasons Splinter Cell can't reach the same resolution.
So basically the state of HD displays at the end of the ps2/xbox/GC generation. ;p
There is a good subject for a thread.
I agree, especially since some people apparently think 1080p should be possible no matter what since these newer consoles are more powerful.
I also think it would be great for the few at GAF that do understand the technicalities of game development to create and contribute to an info thread to help better educate GAF on many of today's misconceptions. There isn't a facepalm.jpg large enough for many of the posts I read in these types of threads. =p
May help put things into perspective for those that are willing to learn and cut down on many of the silly posts thrown out there.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
I thought it was pretty much confirmed that Wii U's GPU was around 460ish GFLOPs but with some 2010 gpu features(tesselation unit, ect). People hoping for something close to 1TFlop in the wii u are dreamin.
I expect PS4's GPU to be 2TFLOp+ when its released, as this 1.83tflop rumor is from a very early dev kit and theres still 1.5years for this thing to be finalized. If they go the two gpu route with one discrete you'll probably see something around 3tflops in combined gpu power.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll