One X is a 4K console, and has 9 GB of usable ram for games. Lockhart outputting at quarter resolution could do with less than that, especially when Velocity Arch is helping conserve texture memory with sampler feedback and using high speed paged approach.
Machine with slightly lowered CPU clocks (similar to PS5 CPU clocks), 512GB SSD, 4+TF GPU, 10 GB RAM could be around $200-250 while still be able to give a great next gen experience at lower resolutions compared to XSX. And with DLSS 2.0 type upscaling, it could rival or even outperform PS5.
And with DLSS 2.0 type upscaling, it could rival or even outperform PS5.
Please, be more specific what was so silly in that?
you mean like... pc? as always? crazy!Good luck to devs willing to make games that will run to the best possible performance on both 7.5GB RAM and 4TF but also 13.5GB RAM, and 12FT. If this is true, MS are pretty much asking devs to make 2 versions of each game. Of course what will really happen is that they'll just make the higher spec version then quickly disable and lower stuff till it runs ok on Lockhart. So games are probably going to look like rushed Switch ports.
You.Please, be more specific what was so silly in that?
I'm curious about the likely performance,
this should be a 1080/1440 console?
Wondering about the inclusion of an SSD too.
Why would they bring this to market???
Why would they bring this to market???
Honestly the price here is a complete pipe dream. If $200-$250 is the retail price then the BOM including retail cut and distribution as well the parts/build cost, would be around $150-$175.
That would be ludicrous for just the APU/RAM/SSD alone never mind all the other parts needed. Unless the parts costs for PS5/XSX BOMs are being grossly overestimated.
I'm guessing it's the part where M mrBarrelNut says that Lockhart could rival or even outperform the PS5.Please, be more specific what was so silly in that?
Because if you have two consoles for sale, one of them is $500 and the other is $350, a lot of people who can't afford the $500 console will get the $350 one. A sale is better than no sale, plus it gets them in the Xbox ecosystem with Xbox live and their on demand services and whatnot. Companies always try to lessen the barrier of entry.
Good luck to devs willing to make games that will run to the best possible performance on both 7.5GB RAM and 4TF but also 13.5GB RAM, and 12FT. If this is true, MS are pretty much asking devs to make 2 versions of each game. Of course what will really happen is that they'll just make the higher spec version then quickly disable and lower stuff till it runs ok on Lockhart. So games are probably going to look like rushed Switch ports.
I guess it matters not if Xbox vcr is in the ringAt those specs Lockheart is an anchor because exclusive games have to run on it.
At those specs Lockheart is an anchor because exclusive games have to run on it.
Its going to use one tiny chip, only 10 GB of ram, half the capacity SSD, no disk drive. And I would suspect it having a smaller and cheaper form factor, something like Xbox One S but smaller. 4TF GPU would not need the same kind of cooling capability like 12 TF GPU in XSX.
I understand all this but I've done the maths and I can't make more than $150 in BOM difference over the XSX' $500+ BOM and that includes deleting the disc drive when, given the market Lockhart is presumably aimed at, a disc drive could be a requirement. Also I doubt Microsoft want a big loss on this SKU if they plan for it to sell a lot of units.
In saying all this *if* it is the case the BOMs are being exaggerated and in fact both XSX and PS5 can get down to $399 or close(er) to it, then all this is moot.
So all the different graphics settings in PC games are all different version of games?
Isn't the secret to this being that the APU is going to be the same as the series X but chips that lost the Binned lottery?
There were rumblings about developers allowing players to choose a target resolution/fps, so it's probable that the Lockheart will only run at 1080p while the XSX will go up to 4k
No way. Unless Microsoft like throwing billions away. disabling half of a 360mm^2 chip sounds like a colossal waste to me. It surely has to be a discrete/unique SoC around 200mm^2 as I understand these things?
No way. Unless Microsoft like throwing billions away. disabling half of a 360mm^2 chip sounds like a colossal waste to me. It surely has to be a discrete/unique SoC around 200mm^2 as I understand these things?
That doesn't sound convoluted to you?
I mean, devs have trouble sticking to release dates now. And what you're describing right now sounds like a lot of extra work. But that aside, my main concern is that games will have to run on that and I'm trying to go next generation. And not have games built to run or 7 year old or lockheart hardware. Some will disagree but I'm ready for next gen experiences unimpeded by legacy or lower hardware.
It's not throwing away billions if the chips aren't able to be used for series x.
I'd think of it more like a PS4 and XSX game being ported to Switch, not that extreme of course, but similar downgrades to fit the spec. So with your comparison its more like editing ini files to get down below the minimum settings in the games menus. Which isn't possible in most games, and even then you will still hit fundamental walls that some specs can't overcome, so the devs would need to put in extra work there.
I would hope yields weren't so bad I'd have enough bad ones to service a 10 million/yr SKU!
I'm guessing it's the part where M mrBarrelNut says that Lockhart could rival or even outperform the PS5.
This is fine. There will probably be tech videos explaining that the way these versions run is absolutely miraculous.So games are probably going to look like rushed Switch ports.
If indeed XSX and Lockhart are using the rumoured Direct ML based upsampling method similar to Nvidia's DLSS 2.0, its pretty easy to see that the 4 TF Lockhart could out perform the 10 TF PS5 while outputting at same resolution and same graphical fidelity.
For example, here a 2060 super (~7.2 TF) with DLSS 2.0 enabled is outperforming 2080 Ti (~13.5 TF) with DLSS 2.0 disabled, 42.9 FPS vs 25.8 FPS respectively.
It's basic math, not some weird magic.
so wrong.I'd think of it more like a PS4 and XSX game being ported to Switch, not that extreme of course, but similar downgrades to fit the spec. So with your comparison its more like editing ini files to get down below the minimum settings in the games menus. Which isn't possible in most games, and even then you will still hit fundamental walls that some specs can't overcome, so the devs would need to put in extra work there.
Well, it could be. xbox one x is still some kind of GCN so RDNA 4tf should be able to be faster in most cases. But we talk about consoles. The weakness of GCN was always that it couldn't get all the performance it has out of the general code. But consoles get optimized code so here we got a problem in the calculation. It could be that 4TF RDNA(1 or 2) are as fast as 4TF GCN if the code is optimized enough. RNDA only allows it to use the flops more easily.Is this strong than Xbox One X? So, how could be more cheap?
outperform PS5
Well, it could be. xbox one x is still some kind of GCN so RDNA 4tf should be able to be faster in most cases. But we talk about consoles. The weakness of GCN was always that it couldn't get all the performance it has out of the general code. But consoles get optimized code so here we got a problem in the calculation. It could be that 4TF RDNA(1 or 2) are as fast as 4TF GCN if the code is optimized enough. RNDA only allows it to use the flops more easily.
But I really hoped that xbox one x BC 4k patches would work on the smaller console. This doesn't look like it. Not without modified 4k patches.
It's nothing like that.
These are both the same system. Running the same OS, Same Software, Same game package.
Just one is more powerful. It will probably auto adjust and the devs won't need to do anything.
I'd think of it more like a PS4 and XSX game being ported to Switch, not that extreme of course, but similar downgrades to fit the spec. So with your comparison its more like editing ini files to get down below the minimum settings in the games menus. Which isn't possible in most games, and even then you will still hit fundamental walls that some specs can't overcome, so the devs would need to put in extra work there.
Amazing concern trolling from the Sony camp.
Microsoft doing everything right here. The most powerful console for bragging rights, and the cheapest for all parents out there who want to get their kids a fifa/cod machine.
Classic pincer move, that should make some headway into the Sony/MS sold machines ratio.
Did any of those imaginary pc gamer you build narrative with said dlls > native ?Its funny, when consoles do a perfect upscale from 1440p like UE5 and nobody can tell, PC gamers tell us its not native 4K.
When Nvidia do upscaling from 1440p to 4K using DLSS, its magic.
But its machine vs temporal therefore we are better - lol, does not matter, its the end result that matters no the algorithm to do it.