Well the consoles are for the console only gamers, which there are a lot of. I'm sure if every console gamer also had a gaming PC, microsoft wouldnt release a console. Then again if every console gamer also had a gaming PC, Sony probably wouldnt release a console, as they make evry little money on actual console hardware sales, and they may even be losing money with next gen consoles.
It was hinted by Mark Cerny and several other sources that some features that are in the new console's architecture could appear in RDNA 3. All part of the collaboration between both companies.
I would nearly agree with your post, but I don't think at all consoles are for console only gamers. Unless you mean the XSX one in specific, in which case I would agree completely. Having a gaming PC and an XSX is an exercise in redundancy. While Sony keeps putting exclusives on their hardware, I'll keep buying it.
I expect IPC gains on RDNA2, maybe not something like 50%, but it's realistic to expect 15-20%. PS5 (10.3TF) should be already at RTX 2080 (10TF) raster performance level (RT performance is unknown) even if we take into account RDNA1 and with 15-20% IPC gains it should be like OC'ed RTX 2080.
Sometimes Sony and MS are building their own features into GPU and it's not like we will see them on next AMD GPUs on PC. For example MS build additional command precessor into Xbox One X and reduced draw calls on hardware level allowing weak xbox CPU to breath more, but new AMD GPUs arnt using such design.
I am not sure it is such a bad thing that people need to upgrade again. This was once the norm, during the heyday of PC gaming 20 years ago. Remember that some of the most famous PC games in history needed computer power that most people didn't have. The anomaly of all games being made to run on console hardware had been going on too long, about damn time balance is restored.
Well we can certainly look at things from this perspective. I still rememeber how it was to build P2 + TNT2 in 1999, my parents have paid a premium for it, and one year later this PC was already struggeling to run new games and obsolete after 2 years when games started using shaders.
venturebeat.com
venturebeat.com
Cerny did not even specify stages of the roadmap or anything. In fact, it is more likely that some RDNA2 features resulted from their collaboration.
PC 8TB SSD 3x Faster Than PS5’s SSD But it’ll Cost You
Say hello to the AORUS Gen4 AIC 8 Terabyte SSD. It isn’t an SSD as you would expect, in fact it is four 2TB SSD’s mounted on a motherboard which is cooled by its own fan and it runs through the ultra fast PCI-Express 4 16x connection.
Boasting speeds of 15,000MB’s of transfer rate a second (real world hovers around 13GB~ a second), it towers over the PS5’s 5GB a second by a factor of almost 3!
PC 8TB SSD 3x Faster Than PS5’s SSD But it’ll Cost You
Say hello to the AORUS Gen4 AIC 8 Terabyte SSD. It isn't an SSD as you would expect, in fact it is four 2TB SSD's mounted on a motherboard which is cooled by its own fan and it runs through the ultra...www.playstationing.com
Good luck spending $2,000 on that though.
In 2018, Epic Games did better than it did in 2019. Revenue in 2018 was $5.6 billion. Epic used a lot of that money to invest in its Epic Games Store, expanding its staff for Fortnite and Unreal Engine, and some acquisitions. The company has raised $1.6 billion to date, including $1.25 billion raised in 2018.
.Epic Games seeking to sell stake for $750 million at $17 billion valuation
Some shareholders of Fortnite maker Epic Games are selling their shares for $750 million, but the amount being raised will go to existing shareholders.
$78,400,000 ($78.4 million) is 1.4% out of $5,600,000,000 in one year if it was in 2018.
In 2019, Epic Games reported $4.2 billion in revenue and $730 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA, a key measure of profitability). Revenue for 2020 is forecast to be $5 billion, with EBITDA of $1 billion.
.Epic Games seeking to sell stake for $750 million at $17 billion valuation
Some shareholders of Fortnite maker Epic Games are selling their shares for $750 million, but the amount being raised will go to existing shareholders.
$60,200,000 ($60.2 million) is 1.4% put of $4,300,000,000.
Damn, they can return their investment money in around 4-5 years.
I am not sure what you are on about, Sony didn't buy a controlling share. Sony probably would have liked to if they could afford it, but they did not. If Sony has that kind of control they could just make Fortnite not run on Series X.
SERVE IT!!!!I think its umpires call
PC 8TB SSD 3x Faster Than PS5’s SSD But it’ll Cost You
Say hello to the AORUS Gen4 AIC 8 Terabyte SSD. It isn’t an SSD as you would expect, in fact it is four 2TB SSD’s mounted on a motherboard which is cooled by its own fan and it runs through the ultra fast PCI-Express 4 16x connection.
Boasting speeds of 15,000MB’s of transfer rate a second (real world hovers around 13GB~ a second), it towers over the PS5’s 5GB a second by a factor of almost 3!
PC 8TB SSD 3x Faster Than PS5’s SSD But it’ll Cost You
Say hello to the AORUS Gen4 AIC 8 Terabyte SSD. It isn't an SSD as you would expect, in fact it is four 2TB SSD's mounted on a motherboard which is cooled by its own fan and it runs through the ultra...
Good luck spending $2,000 on that though.
Probably this, but definitely because they need new games to hold Gamepass subscribers. With a few exceptions, Xbox first party games are the only ones releasing day and date on Gamepass, if suddenly these games stop coming to a +40kk install base, people will bail out.
I assume that would also depend on the CPU? Not sure but I don't think we can expect that to be proportional to IO speed.
Then Xbox run into the Chicken or the Egg problem. They need next gen exclusives to get people to upgrade, but they can't make next gen exclusives unless enough Gamepass users upgraded already. So what happens? The upgrade never occurs. If this is their buisness plan, they are going to need all the luck they can get.
Yep, I'm starting to think they do that on purpose.
I think the missing link to this problem is Xcloud, or should I say, 'Gamepass delivery system'(I love 'The Insider', great movie). If it's successful for these two years, they will have enough subscribers to safely pull the plug on OneS/X without risking loosing too many subs.
Me neither, but they’re switching to Qualcomm this year.
www.resetera.com
www.resetera.com
Is pixel fill rate calculated correctly? I'm looking at techpowerup data, and PS5 pixel fill rate match up, while XSX fillrate is much lower here compared to techpowerup data (146.0 GPixel/s, instead of 116 GPixel/s here).Difference in CPU is so meaningless that is not even worth mentioning.
Of course XSX has a higher bandwidth speed because, guess what, it has 1.8 TFLOPS more. More TF, higher bandwidth required. But you're looking at this in the wrong way. Bandwidth speed per TF is very similar to both. Read this posts :
PlayStation 5 System Architecture Deep Dive |OT| Secret Agent Cerny
Bandwidth is expressed as GB/s, or capacity to transfer data over the course of a second. You are then telling me that the number of times a CU will be executing instructions over the course of a second is not a factor in how much bandwidth it will need over that same second. How does that...
Not so higher in the end, isn't. Mind you that if some game on XSX will use more than 10 GB, RAM speed will drop.
Also, regarding GPU and "allmighty" 1.8 TF more on XSX, higher speed clock GPU in PS5 has some advantages, and here they are :
Microsoft: We Could Have Used Variable Clocks for Xbox Series X, But We’re Not Interested in “trying to 'hunt' down certain record numbers”
Not always. I remember some indie dev thinking Lockhart was not real because he has not seen the profile for it.
Whilst I'm here, I might as well post the rest. It's important to note all the below are theoretical maximums, including whether the clocks are fixed or not:
Extrapolated from RDNA1:
Triangle rasterisation is 4 triangles per cycle.
PS5:
4 x 2.23 GHz ~ 8.92 Billion triangles per second
XSX:
4 x 1.825 GHz - 7.3 Billion triangles per second
Triangle culling rate is twice number triangles rasterised per cycle.
PS5:
8 x 2.23 GHz - 17.84 Billion triangles per second
XSX:
8 x 1.825 GHz - 14.6 Billion triangles per second
Pixel fillrate is with 4 shader arrays with 4 RBs (render backends) each, and each RB outputtting 4 pixels each. So 64 pixels per cycle.
PS5:
64 x 2.23 GHz - 142.72 Billion pixels per second
XSX:
64 x 1.825 GHz - 116.8 Billion pixels per second
Texture fillrate is based on 4 texture units (TMUs) per CU.
PS5:
4 x 36 x 2.23 GHz - 321.12 Billion texels per second
XSX:
4 x 52 x 1.825 GHz - 379.6 Billion texels per second
Raytracing in RDNA2 is alleged to be from modified TMUs.
PS5:
4 x 36 x 2.23 GHz - 321.12 Billion ray intersections per second
XSX:
4 x 52 x 1.825 GHz - 379.6 Billion Ray intersections per second
HUELL!!
Man your calculator suggest PS5 GPU is not only on XSX level (despite having whole 16 CUs less), but even faster thanks to higher clock alone. I dont know If can trust your calculator
and especially when your data dont much up with techpowerup data (reputable site).
You're inventing a position I never took, yet you still refuse to address the original point I made...it's true that some people have claimed that PS5 will outperform the Series X.
