Next Xbox is ‘More Advanced’ Than the PS5 according to Insiders.

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
2,027
1,710
320
I really don't think it would, I also doubt it would be half. I think a lot of people are not only overestimating the amount of RAM these systems will have but also the demands from the software.
Well we are talking about the lockart rumor no? or are there separate rumors?
You don't need double the memory to run the same game at 4k, you can verify this by checking memory usage in pc games.
 

DynamiteCop!

Member
Mar 3, 2018
1,424
2,444
285
Well we are talking about the lockart rumor no? or are there separate rumors?
You don't need double the memory to run the same game at 4k, you can verify this by checking memory usage in pc games.
I know how memory consumption scales, honestly the top of the moon for these consoles is probably 16 GB's with Lockhart at 12 GB's.

People are letting their imaginations run wild and not thinking about cost. 24 GB's of GDDR6? 60% of the system cost would be RAM, that's not happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Insane Metal

DemonCleaner

Junior Member
Jun 11, 2004
1,519
107
1,210
I'm not sure the Nvidia flops vs amd flops thing applies to consoles, since they are closed platforms with fixed hardware and have their own very optimized APIs.
Just look at the ps4, at has 1.8 AMD tflops and I'm sure each flop is very well used in games like God of War or Spiderman.
Sure you can get more performance out of closed box but the same hw limitations exist.
A 6TF nvidia GPU would perform better on a console than a 6TF AMD GPU.
man i hate it when people do such improper abbreviations. while technically true, this would apply only to a much smaller margin in console space. in fact the margin is heavily dependent what your bottleneck actually is. that might be things like bandwith limitations or geometry overload. one of the biggest deficiencies for amd compared to nvidia is that their hardware scheduler in the CUs doesn't do it's job as effective as the software aquivalent seen with nvidia GPUs. this can and does lead to lots of idle cycles where the GCN cores are consuming power and render time without actually doing any work. that is probably the biggest differentiator which hinders to get GCNs raw power "on the road". in console space first parties and every competent third party (which isn't coding there stuff in dx11 legacy mode) will be designing their low level data packages in a manner that minimizes those stalls. for that alone the architectual gap would be much much smaller in console space.
 

stetiger

Member
Jun 8, 2013
82
65
305
man i hate it when people do such improper abbreviations. while technically true, this would apply only to a much smaller margin in console space. in fact the margin is heavily dependent what your bottleneck actually is. that might be things like bandwith limitations or geometry overload. one of the biggest deficiencies for amd compared to nvidia is that their hardware scheduler in the CUs doesn't do it's job as effective as the software aquivalent seen with nvidia GPUs. this can and does lead to lots of idle cycles where the GCN cores are consuming power and render time without actually doing any work. that is probably the biggest differentiator which hinders to get GCNs raw power "on the road". in console space first parties and every competent third party (which isn't coding there stuff in dx11 legacy mode) will be designing their low level data packages in a manner that minimizes those stalls. for that alone the architectual gap would be much much smaller in console space.
Never expected such a thoughtful and understanding response here haha. AMD hardware on console are effectively running on Vulkan.
Please folks watch this video
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
2,027
1,710
320
I know how memory consumption scales, honestly the top of the moon for these consoles is probably 16 GB's with Lockhart at 12 GB's.

People are letting their imaginations run wild and not thinking about cost. 24 GB's of GDDR6? 60% of the system cost would be RAM, that's not happening.
So you agree then that half the memory would cause problems?
24GB GDDR6 would cost under $150 btw, so not even close to 50%
 
Last edited:

Freeman454

Member
Feb 3, 2019
326
167
170
for that alone the architectual gap would be much much smaller in console space.
So why sticking navi in there, just use a an older architecture if this doesnt matter in consoles.
Amd could have just used ps4 gpu again at higher TF count. Even a 20yr old architecture would suffice then. Gpu devs must be stupid coming with complete new architectures.

9tf turing outperforming much higher pascal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CurryPanda

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
2,027
1,710
320
in console space first parties and every competent third party (which isn't coding there stuff in dx11 legacy mode) will be designing their low level data packages in a manner that minimizes those stalls. for that alone the architectual gap would be much much smaller in console space.
If that was the case a 750Ti wouldn't be trading blows with PS4 in DF comparisons
I agree that you can use the hardware more effectively on a closed box setup (even more so exclusives) but i dont think its that simple, Nvidia SM design is more complex, independent and efficient thats why they invest more die space per core which in turn translates to lower TF number but better performance and apparently AMD is going in that direction as well.
 
Last edited:

DynamiteCop!

Member
Mar 3, 2018
1,424
2,444
285
So you agree then that half the memory would cause problems?
24GB GDDR6 would cost under $150 btw, so not even close to 50%
I think it could be worked around but would never present itself in a situation where the code would be a problem. It's nearly $12 per GB of GDDR6, it would be like $280 for 24 gigs, that's not happening.
 

ethomaz

Member
Mar 19, 2013
23,145
2,250
520
36
Brazil
If that was the case a 750Ti wouldn't be trading blows with PS4 in DF comparisons
I agree that you can use the hardware more effectively on a closed box setup (even more so exclusives) but i dont think its that simple, Nvidia SM design is more complex, independent and efficient thats why they invest more die space per core which in turn translates to lower TF number but better performance.
That is probably the best way to describe it.

AMD shaders works better when they are programmed to run the same task across the CU... so 64 shaders doing the same job at the same time... when that happens it automatically uses a scalar load that loads the same data to all 64 shaders in one wave instead to load each one independently so that way it is basically free of execution time getting the best of GCN architecture.

While NVidia runs independently being more efficient and scalable.

That said AMD way peaks at specifics high parallelized workloads that is not the case all the time with games... so NVidia can be way more efficient than AMD in most of cases.

That is another limitation of AMD Arch while Nvidia is more well prepared for the future.

I have the felling AMD is working in some new Arch way different from GCN for a while already but could put it outside the paper so having to extent the life of GCN... let’s see until when they can push GCN until they can finally present that new Arch.
 
Last edited:

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
2,027
1,710
320
I think it could be worked around but would never present itself in a situation where the code would be a problem. It's nearly $12 per GB of GDDR6, it would be like $280 for 24 gigs, that's not happening.
$11.69 is the price of 1GB chips for a purchase quantity of 2,000 units, GPU manufacturers can get over 40% discounts buying in bulk, console manufacturers even more so ( over 24 million units for a console launch)
Consoles will use 2GB chips, when a higher capacity chip becomes available it tipically replaces the previous one in the same price bracket.

But for arguments sake let's say a 2GB chip costs $20 for a purchase quantity of 2,000 units, add in long term console contract discount of 50% and now each 2GB chip costs $10 multiply that by 12 and you get $120 cost per console.
I think it could be worked around but would never present itself in a situation where the code would be a problem
Uh? a 4GB memory gap (your estimate) is a far cry from a 12GB gap. If a game is designed around a 24GB system at 4k, it would require sacrifices (downgrades) to run on a 12GB system even at 1080p in some cases drastic changes.

To put things in perspective, assuming OS memory consumption remains unchanged, Lockhart would have barely 4GB headroom over PS4/XBONES to push next gen graphics not even a 2x increase of memory over the past gen.
I have the felling AMD is working in some new Arch way different from GCN for a while already but could put it outside the paper so having to extent the life of GCN... let’s see until when they can push GCN until they can finally present that new Arch.
They are
(disregard Arcturus speculation)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Insane Metal

DynamiteCop!

Member
Mar 3, 2018
1,424
2,444
285
$11.69 is the price of 1GB chips for a purchase quantity of 2,000 units, GPU manufacturers can get over 40% discounts buying in bulk, console manufacturers even more so ( over 24 million units for a console launch)
Consoles will use 2GB chips, when a higher capacity chip becomes available it tipically replaces the previous one in the same price bracket.

But for arguments sake let's say a 2GB chip costs $20 for a purchase quantity of 2,000 units, add in long term console contract discount of 50% and now each 2GB chip costs $10 multiply that by 12 and you get $120 cost per console.

Uh? a 4GB memory gap (your estimate) is a far cry from a 12GB gap. If a game is designed around a 24GB system at 4k, it would require sacrifices (downgrades) to run on a 12GB system even at 1080p in some cases drastic changes.

To put things in perspective, assuming OS memory consumption remains unchanged, Lockhart would have barely 4GB headroom over PS4/XBONES to push next gen graphics not even a 2x increase of memory over the past gen.

They are
(disregard Arcturus speculation)
What exactly are you basing those discounts and prices on? Sounds like some conjecture.
 

xool

Member
May 29, 2018
317
211
210
HBM2 doesn't seem like the right direction. The bandwidth is really low compared to GDDR6. I also thought NAVI was supposed to be GDDR6.
It isn't comparing like for like. (same amount of memory on one package)

Samsung 16Gb (2GB) GDDR6 is 72 GB/s per chip, so 72x4 = 288GB/s for 8GB

HBM2 is specced at 256-306 GB/s per package with up to 8GB per package (both 4 and 8GB packages exist)

So compare 288GB/s (8GB package) vs 256-306GB/s (8GB package) .. they're essentially the same - no suprise for cutting edge technology from the same date period - neither is particularly better..
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
PlayStation is a pretty big deal for Sony, they won't cripple the PS5 GPU to save a few cents.
Of course they wouldn't. Especially now that the Playstation brings in about 40% of all Sony profit.

It's not necessarily that they will cripple themselves, I don't think they have the willingness to invest as much money as Microsoft.
Playstation means more to Sony, than Xbox means to Microsoft. I'm 100% sure they are willing to invest as much money if not more than MS will.

Microsoft can just add another $150 onto the ps5 price for mr snek, since Lockhart is their focus, they wont care about lost sales. That is why I think sony wont be able to match anaconda theoretical performance, microsoft doesnt actually care about anaconda sales numbers.
Why would MS want to sell a console for $650? In what world does that make sense?
 
Last edited:

Insane Metal

Member
Mar 11, 2006
20,605
1,542
1,385
Br
So I messed around with Klobrille's image on PS and it seems there actually is something written under those black bars. If anyone wants to try and find out what it is?

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
973
486
225
Of course they wouldn't. Especially now that the Playstation brings in about 40% of all Sony profit.



Playstation means more to Sony, than Xbox means to Microsoft. I'm 100% sure they are willing to invest as much money if not more than MS will.



Why would MS want to sell a console for $650? In what world does that make sense?
They want “Plays best on xbox” to be in every ad and to be technically true. To do that, they need a substantial power boost over PS5. Since mr snek’s only purpose is to cast that “plays best on xbox” glow on the inferior products, they can charge $599 or $699 without taking a loss as long as they have xbox boatanchor for $3-400 as well.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
8,617
1,161
430
Can’t believe this thread is still going round in circles.

- Sony didn’t actually release any specs.
- Whatever they have in dev kits now ain’t final
- And possibly won’t be for another year
- We know even less about next box
- Rumours, speculation and “insider” information is worthless

At this stage anyone saying Xbox (or PS5 for that matter) will be more powerful is talking out of their arse.
Didn't Super Dae etc give us 1.2 vs 1.8 about this time before launch? Dude, R&D goals don't change 6 months before launch. I'd wager specs are very much set in stone by now, so much so that Dev kits are out there making launch games.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
They want “Plays best on xbox” to be in every ad and to be technically true. To do that, they need a substantial power boost over PS5. Since mr snek’s only purpose is to cast that “plays best on xbox” glow on the inferior products, they can charge $599 or $699 without taking a loss as long as they have xbox boatanchor for $3-400 as well.
But people aren't going to fall for that. Gamers aren't going to fall for it. Digital Foundary wouldn't exist if hardcore gamers didn't care about specs, framerate, resolution, etc. As soon as they push the "plays best on xbox" gamers will be creating $699 memes making fun on MS.
 

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
973
486
225
But people aren't going to fall for that. Gamers aren't going to fall for it. Digital Foundary wouldn't exist if hardcore gamers didn't care about specs, framerate, resolution, etc. As soon as they push the "plays best on xbox" gamers will be creating $699 memes making fun on MS.
I hope you are right because i don't want ms dominating gaming. Premium + cheap + stream anywhere + gamepass looks like a winning strategy to me. Sony’s plans are still mysterious tho, so we’ll see what they bring. I hope it is more than psvr2.
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
I hope you are right because i don't want ms dominating gaming. Premium + cheap + stream anywhere + gamepass looks like a winning strategy to me. Sony’s plans are still mysterious tho, so we’ll see what they bring. I hope it is more than psvr2.
Just look at that list and ask yourself what MS is trying to be great in. You can't maximize your next-gen console if the Premium option is $699 or if the cheap option is 4 TFs and only has 12 GBs of RAM. Streaming is still new and we know for a fact MS likes to lie about their ability of the cloud when it comes to gaming (see Crackdown 3). Game Pass is amazing, but it's out right now and it's not setting the world on fire.

I always ask myself why people think gamers don't want next-gen to not be like the PS4, just a better version of it.
 
Last edited:

SaucyJack

Member
Aug 8, 2013
686
174
330
Didn't Super Dae etc give us 1.2 vs 1.8 about this time before launch? Dude, R&D goals don't change 6 months before launch. I'd wager specs are very much set in stone by now, so much so that Dev kits are out there making launch games.
Leaks doing the rounds in Jan 13, a month before reveal, were materially wrong. If we are looking at “holidays” 2020 launch then we're 9 or 10 months away from that point.
 

Aceofspades

Member
Mar 31, 2015
2,038
72
295
I hope you are right because i don't want ms dominating gaming. Premium + cheap + stream anywhere + gamepass looks like a winning strategy to me. Sony’s plans are still mysterious tho, so we’ll see what they bring. I hope it is more than psvr2.
Only way MS can dominate gaming is to buy "Playstation" from Sony.

They can release Lockhart or even Anaconda for $199 or less and still get beaten by Playstation worldwide. Playstation is way bigger brand than Xbox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mckmas8808

joe_zazen

Member
May 2, 2017
973
486
225
Just look at that list and ask yourself what MS is trying to great in. You can't maximize your next-gen console if the Premium option is $699 or if the cheap option is 4 TFs and only has 12 GBs of RAM. Streaming is still new and we know for a fact MS likes to lie about their ability of the cloud when it comes to gaming (see Crackdown 3). Game Pass is amazing, but it's out right now and it's not setting the world on fire.

I always ask myself why people think gamers don't want next-gen to not be like the PS4, just a better version of it.
Good post. I think i do have a prejudice that the richest always win, and a belief that American companies dont play by the same rules everyone else does. So I might be trying to fit xbox into that instead of seeing it for what what it is.

I still wouldn't invest in sony stock right now.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
8,556
1,397
800
I have to admit that the way the enthusiast press is facilitating MS deceptive marketing practice of using the high-cost SKU's performance benefits to almost completely overshadow the defecits of the low-cost offering (the so-called "halo" effect) disgusts me.

I can well see them enshrining this strategy into their business plan for next gen, as its receiving zero push-back.
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
I have to admit that the way the enthusiast press is facilitating MS deceptive marketing practice of using the high-cost SKU's performance benefits to almost completely overshadow the defecits of the low-cost offering (the so-called "halo" effect) disgusts me.

I can well see them enshrining this strategy into their business plan for next gen, as its receiving zero push-back.
This is what happened when MS displayed their Xbox One (TV, TV, TV) and Always Online strategy. Most in the press thought it was amazing vision of the future and like or loved it, whereas gamers went crazy. Still till this day they love the idea of your console "checking in" once a day and if it doesn't respond the console locks you out of playing your games.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,643
16,632
685
This is what happened when MS displayed their Xbox One (TV, TV, TV) and Always Online strategy. Most in the press thought it was amazing vision of the future and like or loved it, whereas gamers went crazy. Still till this day they love the idea of your console "checking in" once a day and if it doesn't respond the console locks you out of playing your games.
That shit was bananas and it still blows my mind that there are parrots in the press still talking that shit up.
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
That shit was bananas and it still blows my mind that there are parrots in the press still talking that shit up.
Yo check this out.

Microsoft was right in 2013: This is the always-on generation​

Xbox was poised to dominate the eighth gaming cycle.
By: Jessica Conditt for Engadget

No one would argue Microsoft didn't mess up in 2013, but looking back on five years of computational advances and widespread internet adoption, it seems like the company was onto something with an always-on Xbox One. Its original vision for the eighth console generation has come true. Today, the Xbox One, PS4 and even Nintendo Switch are all online-focused consoles, with the bulk of their entertainment options tied directly to streaming or live online services. Many of the top games today only work online, including League of Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite, Dota 2, PUBG, Rust, Roblox and multiplayer Battlefield, Star Wars Battlefront and Call of Duty iterations. Even games that don't have online components receive regular updates via an internet connection, often on day one. Esports -- games of high skill played against people around the world -- have exploded in popularity. Netflix, the most-used app on the Xbox ecosystem, today has 125 million subscribers and is valued at more than $140 billion, competing directly with giants like Disney and Comcast. Twitch, owned by Amazon since 2014, is a global livestreaming phenomenon with more than 15 million daily active viewers.

Our online world has changed drastically in the past five years and the gaming industry has done a fairly good job of keeping up, taking advantage of better connections and more widespread internet adoption, and generally pushing the technology industry to evolve. Now imagine the street cred Microsoft would have if it had pressed forward with its online version of the future -- and actually succeeded in selling it to the public. Allowing physical games to be given away once after this process was generous, from a digital-first standpoint. Plus, with a constant (or at least regular) internet connection, players could share their entire digital libraries with friends at the tap of a button. The current video game marketplace makes Sony's 2013 jab at Microsoft's game-sharing policies look hopelessly out of touch. The video showed two people sharing a game by simply handing over a box, but who actually buys discs anymore?



The Xbox One probably wouldn't operate very differently today had Microsoft stuck with its original plan
. Players can share their libraries with friends, download games to their Xbox accounts and take them to other consoles, and stream media all day long if they'd like. But maybe Microsoft's dedication to digital gaming would have paid off in unforeseen ways. It could put more pressure on the PS4 to play catch-up -- maybe Sony would have given in to demands for cross-console play by now. It is the lone holdout in that regard, after all. Microsoft had a wild idea, and looking back, it was a good one. However, selling DRM to video game fans isn't easy, and Xbox leaders took every wrong turn they saw. They could have laid out a clear vision of gaming's digital future, expressed all of the benefits this system could bestow upon players, and then branded the Xbox One as the only console capable of fully delivering on this promise. Players simply wanted to buy into a future they could believe in, and the Xbox crew couldn't keep its story straight.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/10/xbox-one-reveal-always-on-online-sony-ps4-e3/
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma

Dabaus

Member
Apr 23, 2018
428
460
210
Yo check this out.


Microsoft was right in 2013: This is the always-on generation


Xbox was poised to dominate the eighth gaming cycle.
By: Jessica Conditt for Engadget​
No one would argue Microsoft didn't mess up in 2013, but looking back on five years of computational advances and widespread internet adoption, it seems like the company was onto something with an always-on Xbox One. Its original vision for the eighth console generation has come true. Today, the Xbox One, PS4 and even Nintendo Switch are all online-focused consoles, with the bulk of their entertainment options tied directly to streaming or live online services. Many of the top games today only work online, including League of Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite, Dota 2, PUBG, Rust, Roblox and multiplayer Battlefield, Star Wars Battlefront and Call of Duty iterations. Even games that don't have online components receive regular updates via an internet connection, often on day one. Esports -- games of high skill played against people around the world -- have exploded in popularity. Netflix, the most-used app on the Xbox ecosystem, today has 125 million subscribers and is valued at more than $140 billion, competing directly with giants like Disney and Comcast. Twitch, owned by Amazon since 2014, is a global livestreaming phenomenon with more than 15 million daily active viewers.​
Our online world has changed drastically in the past five years and the gaming industry has done a fairly good job of keeping up, taking advantage of better connections and more widespread internet adoption, and generally pushing the technology industry to evolve. Now imagine the street cred Microsoft would have if it had pressed forward with its online version of the future -- and actually succeeded in selling it to the public. Allowing physical games to be given away once after this process was generous, from a digital-first standpoint. Plus, with a constant (or at least regular) internet connection, players could share their entire digital libraries with friends at the tap of a button. The current video game marketplace makes Sony's 2013 jab at Microsoft's game-sharing policies look hopelessly out of touch. The video showed two people sharing a game by simply handing over a box, but who actually buys discs anymore?
The Xbox One probably wouldn't operate very differently today had Microsoft stuck with its original plan. Players can share their libraries with friends, download games to their Xbox accounts and take them to other consoles, and stream media all day long if they'd like. But maybe Microsoft's dedication to digital gaming would have paid off in unforeseen ways. It could put more pressure on the PS4 to play catch-up -- maybe Sony would have given in to demands for cross-console play by now. It is the lone holdout in that regard, after all. Microsoft had a wild idea, and looking back, it was a good one. However, selling DRM to video game fans isn't easy, and Xbox leaders took every wrong turn they saw. They could have laid out a clear vision of gaming's digital future, expressed all of the benefits this system could bestow upon players, and then branded the Xbox One as the only console capable of fully delivering on this promise. Players simply wanted to buy into a future they could believe in, and the Xbox crew couldn't keep its story straight.​
https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/10/xbox-one-reveal-always-on-online-sony-ps4-e3/

I genuinely hope this a paid for schill article by Microsoft. I wouldnt be shocked at all if they were this out of touch. Wasnt there a rumor that said Lockhart wouldnt have a disc drive? If theyre running articles like this i would believe it,
 

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
I genuinely hope this a paid for schill article by Microsoft. I wouldnt be shocked at all if they were this out of touch. Wasnt there a rumor that said Lockhart wouldnt have a disc drive? If theyre running articles like this i would believe it,
Many of these people are starting to make me wonder if MS really are paying people to shill for them.
 
Jul 29, 2013
945
900
470
Lol at that article. Don Mattrick and that entire push is rightly despised and mocked by gamers and most sane people. Phil Spencer has done a good job turning things around...assembling, acquiring, and funding a more respectable stable of 1st-party devs, building up Game Pass and Play Anywhere, bringing nice hardware with the X1S and X1X. There are still some areas of concern, notably Halo, but things are in a good state for Xbox fans. The original vision for Xbox One(TV, tv, always-on, always connected Kinect) almost ruined the brand. Let's leave it dead in the past where it belongs.
 

onQ123

Member
May 1, 2010
14,604
1,402
850
My guess is

Lockhart will be ~ 5.8TFLOPS

PS5 will be ~ 11.3TLOPS

Anaconda will be ~ 11.7TFLOPS




And PS5 will end up with the best looking games
 
  • Like
Reactions: Insane Metal

Dabaus

Member
Apr 23, 2018
428
460
210
what do you mean damage control? im not in the know.
Im not an in the know guy either so alot of what im saying is just my opinion. I say damage control because Microsoft wasnt expecting sony to out of the blue talk about ps5 so early or have the features and specs that it does. They sent out one their minions to "hype" up a redacted official looking "leak."
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
8,617
1,161
430
Leaks doing the rounds in Jan 13, a month before reveal, were materially wrong. If we are looking at “holidays” 2020 launch then we're 9 or 10 months away from that point.

I'm replying to your "- And possibly won’t be for another year"
 

TeamGhobad

Member
Oct 15, 2018
1,416
1,253
245
in all seriousness what can 13 tflops accomplish that lets say 10 can't on a 4k tv. seems kinda overkill.

also 8 cores at 3.2 ghz sounds extremely hot.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Member
May 24, 2005
40,639
3,595
1,560
in all seriousness what can 13 tflops accomplish that lets say 10 can't on a 4k tv. seems kinda overkill.

also 8 cores at 3.2 ghz sounds extremely hot.
I'm pretty sure those 3 TFs will come in handy when it comes to getting more games at native 4K with pure next-gen graphics. Maybe it's the difference of having ray-tracing in games and not having ray-tracing.
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
2,027
1,710
320
Yo check this out.


Microsoft was right in 2013: This is the always-on generation


Xbox was poised to dominate the eighth gaming cycle.
By: Jessica Conditt for Engadget​
No one would argue Microsoft didn't mess up in 2013, but looking back on five years of computational advances and widespread internet adoption, it seems like the company was onto something with an always-on Xbox One. Its original vision for the eighth console generation has come true. Today, the Xbox One, PS4 and even Nintendo Switch are all online-focused consoles, with the bulk of their entertainment options tied directly to streaming or live online services. Many of the top games today only work online, including League of Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite, Dota 2, PUBG, Rust, Roblox and multiplayer Battlefield, Star Wars Battlefront and Call of Duty iterations. Even games that don't have online components receive regular updates via an internet connection, often on day one. Esports -- games of high skill played against people around the world -- have exploded in popularity. Netflix, the most-used app on the Xbox ecosystem, today has 125 million subscribers and is valued at more than $140 billion, competing directly with giants like Disney and Comcast. Twitch, owned by Amazon since 2014, is a global livestreaming phenomenon with more than 15 million daily active viewers.​
Our online world has changed drastically in the past five years and the gaming industry has done a fairly good job of keeping up, taking advantage of better connections and more widespread internet adoption, and generally pushing the technology industry to evolve. Now imagine the street cred Microsoft would have if it had pressed forward with its online version of the future -- and actually succeeded in selling it to the public. Allowing physical games to be given away once after this process was generous, from a digital-first standpoint. Plus, with a constant (or at least regular) internet connection, players could share their entire digital libraries with friends at the tap of a button. The current video game marketplace makes Sony's 2013 jab at Microsoft's game-sharing policies look hopelessly out of touch. The video showed two people sharing a game by simply handing over a box, but who actually buys discs anymore?
The Xbox One probably wouldn't operate very differently today had Microsoft stuck with its original plan. Players can share their libraries with friends, download games to their Xbox accounts and take them to other consoles, and stream media all day long if they'd like. But maybe Microsoft's dedication to digital gaming would have paid off in unforeseen ways. It could put more pressure on the PS4 to play catch-up -- maybe Sony would have given in to demands for cross-console play by now. It is the lone holdout in that regard, after all. Microsoft had a wild idea, and looking back, it was a good one. However, selling DRM to video game fans isn't easy, and Xbox leaders took every wrong turn they saw. They could have laid out a clear vision of gaming's digital future, expressed all of the benefits this system could bestow upon players, and then branded the Xbox One as the only console capable of fully delivering on this promise. Players simply wanted to buy into a future they could believe in, and the Xbox crew couldn't keep its story straight.​
https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/10/xbox-one-reveal-always-on-online-sony-ps4-e3/
Im a simple man. I see Engadget, I click away.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Insane Metal

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
2,027
1,710
320
in all seriousness what can 13 tflops accomplish that lets say 10 can't on a 4k tv. seems kinda overkill.

also 8 cores at 3.2 ghz sounds extremely hot.
Are you kidding or just misinformed?
If we want to see a next gen leap, every tf counts, 4k its a huge resource hog that will take a big chunk of the system resources, not to mention RT. In fact im sure some devs will target 1800p CB or even 1400p to push better graphics or faster fps.

3.2Ghz CPU core is very conservative considering the desktop equivalents will be running close to 5ghz.
 
  • Like
Reactions: makaveli60