The PS5 should have GTX 1080Ti performance!

#2
I have 1080ti and I can max PS4 games at 4K60 fps, but I think new generation should be a little bit more faster than that in order to run games not only at 4K native, but with much better graphics fidelity at the same time. I want PS5, not another PS4,5 that will run games at 4K but with similar (PS4) graphics fidelity.
 
Last edited:
#3
I have 1080ti and I can max PS4 games at 4K60 fps, but I think new generation should be a little bit more faster than that in order to run games not only at 4K native, but with much better graphics fidelity at the same time. I want PS5, not another PS4,5 that will run games at 4K but with similar (PS4) graphics fidelity.
The GTX 1080Ti is enough to deliver next generation graphics. Each performance frame can be converted into significant graphic improvements. If the 1080Ti can run the same PS4 games at 4k60fps it means that it would be able to make twice as beautiful graphics at 4k30fps or 4k60fps for games that already run at 60fps and that on a 1080Ti would be running at 90fps.

I believe the ideal would be that the PS5 would be able to double the performance of PS4 games in 4k. Based on that we'll see more beautiful things with frame-rates below 60 and 90fps.

For example!

COD WW2 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 90fps
COD WW3 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 60fps + Enhenced Graphics.

Or

Far Cry 5 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 60fps
Far Cry 6 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 30fps + Enhenced Graphics
 
Last edited:
#4
I think it was last year a mod made a very insightful post, something along the lines of it would require 4x the power to do native 4K.
Meaning 9-10TF by itself alone would just go to rendering the native resolution itself without any extra's.
So yeah a 12TF+ or close to would be needed if we want a true 4K jump, a CPU that isn't downclocked to the max would help as well.
I cross my finger for a 8/16 Zen2/3 running at 3.5GHz with a 12TF GPU, would be glorious....if only.
 
#5
I think it was last year a mod made a very insightful post, something along the lines of it would require 4x the power to do native 4K.
Meaning 9-10TF by itself alone would just go to rendering the native resolution itself without any extra's.
So yeah a 12TF+ or close to would be needed if we want a true 4K jump, a CPU that isn't downclocked to the max would help as well.
I cross my finger for a 8/16 Zen2/3 running at 3.5GHz with a 12TF GPU, would be glorious....if only.

The problem is that Nvidia's Teraflop performance is higher than AMD's. VEGA64 with 12.6Tflops = GTX 1080 with 9Tflops. These two GPUs do not make 4k 60fps. So I think to achieve the performance of a 1080Ti would need something around 14Tflops from AMD.
I speculate that the ideal for a PS5 is something between 14 and 16Tflops. No matter how improbable this seems to happen.
 
#7
The GTX 1080Ti is enough to deliver next generation graphics. Each performance frame can be converted into significant graphic improvements. If the 1080Ti can run the same PS4 games at 4k60fps it means that it would be able to make twice as beautiful graphics at 4k30fps or 4k60fps for games that already run at 60fps and that on a 1080Ti would be running at 90fps.

I believe the ideal would be that the PS5 would be able to double the performance of PS4 games in 4k. Based on that we'll see more beautiful things with frame-rates below 60 and 90fps.

For example!

COD WW2 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 90fps
COD WW3 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 60fps + Enhenced Graphics.

Or

Far Cry 5 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 60fps
Far Cry 6 GTX 1080Ti = 4k 30fps + Enhenced Graphics
Listen, I still remember differences between PS1/PS2/PS3, it was indeed like seeing new generation of games.


PS4 wasnt so revolutionary, but still some games like "Uncharted 4" or "the order" clearly shows PS3 could never run such a amazing looking games, so even PS4 was OK. I would rather see more amazing games on PS4P/X1X than buy another rushed console with subtle differences in graphics. If I want amazing picture quality (4K60fps), than I have PC for that right now.
 
#8
Vega 64 performance in Radeon 580 power (which is largely what I'm expecting, 7nm cancelling out some of the reduced power ceiling it would have over cards) isn't that far off from the 1080, particularly as some of Vegas more novel features like Primitive Shaders and next gen (STOP NAMING THINGS NEXT GEN AMD) geometry culling weren't actually used in launch drivers. With a consoles unified hardware and purposeful API, it should use all the goods and narrow the gap, with whatever extra Navi features can squeeze out.

https://techreport.com/news/33153/radeon-rx-vega-primitive-shaders-will-need-api-support
 
Last edited:
#9
I have 1080ti and I can max PS4 games at 4K60 fps, but I think new generation should be a little bit more faster than that in order to run games not only at 4K native, but with much better graphics fidelity at the same time. I want PS5, not another PS4,5 that will run games at 4K but with similar (PS4) graphics fidelity.
I agree. I want something more impressive then a 1080ti, but a 1080ti on a closed system coding to the metal would yield results closer to a much much higher spec'd card.
 
#13
I'm more interested in things surrounding the hardware. Such as what they'll do regarding VR, and the controller.

I don't think just upping the specs is gonna work this time. And Sony is well aware of this, I'm confident.
Yep, I’ve said it a heap of times before but I’m fully expecting VR to be the driving force for when it comes to suitable specs.
 
Last edited:
#15
Haven't they already decided what's going to be in the PS5?

For me over 60FPS is a must at 1080p or even it's a waste. As a 1080ti owner, I much rather play at 1440p then full 4k because when playing online FPS the frame rate is really important to me.
 
#19
I think I want this generation to last much much longer. Diminishing returns have kicked in and this emphasis on graphics has made too many devs focus on "cinematic" aspect of games instead of making them fun. I don't want to play a game that makes me walk for 10 minutes doing nothing of interest besides admiring its art (eg. Many of Sonys 1st party games). I want to see more innovation, new genres, new multiplayer concepts, new IPs that are known not for their fancy graphics but for doing something genuinely new. Or maybe games will just become playable movies. Japan please save us...
 
#20
I think I want this generation to last much much longer. Diminishing returns have kicked in and this emphasis on graphics has made too many devs focus on "cinematic" aspect of games instead of making them fun. I don't want to play a game that makes me walk for 10 minutes doing nothing of interest besides admiring its art (eg. Many of Sonys 1st party games). I want to see more innovation, new genres, new multiplayer concepts, new IPs that are known not for their fancy graphics but for doing something genuinely new. Or maybe games will just become playable movies. Japan please save us...
Ya I agree they really need to make this generation last longer.
 
#21
For the last time, you guys are not going to get 60fps games across the board on next generation consoles.

First of all, 30 fps is sometimes a developer design choice, not (just)a hardware limitation. With the popularity of open world games recently and with the simultaneous decline in popularity of games like racers, 1 on 1 fighters, twitch shooters, SHMUPs and other genres reliant on 60fps updates, fewer games that depend on high framerates will be created. Outside of VR titles, they are trending down, not up.

Furthermore,In some games, framerate is tied to the game engine (Horizon Zero Dawn, to use a popular, recent example) and more hardware power won't grant you higher framerates anyway.


And besides, the difference between having 60fps games and not having 60fps games has nothing to do with hardware power, otherwise you would have never seen 60fps games on PS1/2/3

Think about it.
 
Last edited:
#23
Theres also one very important thing guys. Game costs has skyrocket with every new console generation, and at the same time it takes longer to make AAA games. That's also why I think new PS5 is not needed right now, because many developes (like rockstar for example) are just starting to release their new games on PS4/XO that they were working for the last few years. So if games are more expensive to make, if it takes more time time to make AAA games, and when technology (GPU and CPU performance) is not advancing as fast as it used to be, then rushed up new console generation will be pointless. Unfortunately there are many console guys who like to make wars with PC guys, because they dont like that idea when PC is better in many ways (and because of that get more graphics features). These guys will want even a little bit faster console generation, but the thing is, consoles are never meant to rival high end PC, it was always about games and it should always stay this way. On PS4 we have only around 15 good exclusives games, and that's nothing compared to previous playstation generations.
 
Last edited:
#25
Theres also one very important thing guys. Game costs has skyrocket with every new console generation, and at the same time it takes longer to make AAA games. That's also why I think new PS5 is not needed right now, because many developes (like rockstar for example) are just starting to release their new games on PS4/XO that they were working for the last few years. So if games are more expensive to make, if it takes more time time to make AAA games, and when technology (GPU and CPU performance) is not advancing as fast as it used to be, then rushed up new console generation will be pointless. Unfortunately there are many console guys who like to make wars with PC guys, because they dont like that idea when PC is better in many ways (and because of that get more graphics features). These guys will want even a little bit faster console generation, but the thing is, consoles are never meant to rival high end PC, it was always about games and it should always stay this way. On PS4 we have only around 15 good exclusives games, and that's nothing compared to previous playstation generations.

PS4 game costs were only a slight increase over the PS3. I think HD was the big one, and then 720p (or less) to full HD, but as we're already reaching-ish 4-Kinda with the X and Pro I think perhaps the game development cost won't balloon as much. It's likely a more powerful x86 octacore on a familiar, upgraded GCN based GPU architecture. Most of the optimization methods should translate, with new ones to discover, but it should largely be like creating higher end versions of PC graphics vs the PS4; More powerful immediately to dial down less, while those who really dig into it will be rewarded more.

So for most developers I suspect it'll only be a slight cost increase same as the PS4 was, the familiarity offsetting the extra power. Probably mainly first party developers will really dig into it to squeeze all they can out, while otherwise the same development cost as a PS4 game would still put a game well ahead.
 
#26
It won't because no one will buy 1000$ console.

Imho something between 1070-1080 level of performance assuming it will be on 7nm with new AMD MCM gpu design. Without it i assume something max between 1060-1070 level of performance.
 
#28
1080ti performance is probably the ceiling on the ps5/nex(t)box. 699 GPU that launched a yr ago, a true AMD equivalent is yet to be released, and adding cost of cpu/hdd/(optical?) drive etc the systems would have to be a couple years out to get to market sub 500. I have a 1080ti and love it but even that can't do 4k/60 max settings on some open world type games. It's not really apples to apples with consoles though with low level api overhead etc. Graphics right now are hitting a wall IMO. I think good gpu performance is key for next gen but they cannot repeat the mistake both companies made on the cpu side. Those toasters are what are holding the mid gen refresh consoles back from 60fps on many games.
 
#30
As I don't see them dropping VR anytime soon, but rather the exact opposite (stimulate sales), they'd need a strong enough machine for next-gen VR.
Basically where Vive/Occulus are now and/or maybe better graphically is what PS5 should be able to power at at 120Hz+.
Here's a interesting development that we might see in PSVR2 (Ryzen 1600x is capable of pushing 2560 x 1440 at 90 FPS, so really curious about this as you'd need a strong CPU).
https://venturebeat.com/2018/05/10/...h-end-vr-screens-that-could-power-psvr-2/amp/
 
#31
^ Not to sure about that. I guess E3 will tell us, but up till now Sony's game output hasn't really been showing a massive support of PSVR past it's launch. No doubt they'll have a PSVR2 lined up, but I'm not so sure how dominante a role it will play.
 
#32
Well it depends on the launch date. If 7nm is really ready for GPUs (actually Intel has massive problems with 10nm) we might get enhanced Vega64 performance which is most equivalent to the 1080TI on consoles. But well don't count on this. Those cards are still not cheap enough. If you would put something like that at 7nm you may have no problems with the heat but with the $500 price tag as 7nm is not really cheaper.
Also don't forget the cpu which might get a major upgrade in next-gen, so this leaves less room for the GPU. memory does also not get cheaper but must be faster.

I really don't see where this is going. "doubling" the xbox one x is not enough for 1080TI performance and the price tag goes way above of $500 which seems to be to much for most gamers.
So I would guess be get a $399 base-model with a better cpu and more memory and maybe better performance than the ps4 pro and than a "Pro"-Version with a doubled GPU.

A Crossfire or SLI interface might be good for the manufacturers. Just connect 2 Consoles to get e.g. AA in the game. But I don't think that will happen. And an Upgradeable console .. well I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
#33
Well it depends on the launch date. If 7nm is really ready for GPUs (actually Intel has massive problems with 10nm) we might get enhanced Vega64 performance which is most equivalent to the 1080TI on consoles. But well don't count on this. Those cards are still not cheap enough. If you would put something like that at 7nm you may have no problems with the heat but with the $500 price tag as 7nm is not really cheaper.
Also don't forget the cpu which might get a major upgrade in next-gen, so this leaves less room for the GPU. memory does also not get cheaper but must be faster.

I really don't see where this is going. "doubling" the xbox one x is not enough for 1080TI performance and the price tag goes way above of $500 which seems to be to much for most gamers.
So I would guess be get a $399 base-model with a better cpu and more memory and maybe better performance than the ps4 pro and than a "Pro"-Version with a doubled GPU.

A Crossfire or SLI interface might be good for the manufacturers. Just connect 2 Consoles to get e.g. AA in the game. But I don't think that will happen. And an Upgradeable console .. well I don't think so.
X1X performance is very good for a console, MS have totally rebuilded RX 580 to the point where it no longer should be compared to any PC GPU (like RX 580 for example) because it's much differenct card. GTX 1060 is simply not enough to mach X1X in most games, and GTX 1070 is first Nv card that can really mach X1X experience in most games. If you pair GTX 1070 in SLI you get similar performance as single 1080ti. And the thing is, in some games like wolfenstein 2 for example, even GTX 1070 results arnt as good as X1X. On my PC I can only double the framerate compared to X1X, so for example forza horizon 3 runs at 4K and 30fps on my X1X, and 60fps on 1080ti. I have compared many games and I'm amazed how fast X1X GPU is. It's very sad X1X was made with jaguar cores, because otherwise this console would run all games at 60fps easily.
 
Last edited:
#34
Is it helpful if someone knows how to measure it - to consider the graphics power increase from ps1-ps2-ps3-ps4-ps4pro plotted as points on a graph to extrapolate what ps5 actually might give ?
 
#35
If all developers were like Santa Monica and all games looked and felt like GoW, nobody would even think about a new console cycle.
 
#36
I'm more interested in things surrounding the hardware. Such as what they'll do regarding VR, and the controller.

I don't think just upping the specs is gonna work this time. And Sony is well aware of this, I'm confident.
I completely agree with this. Sony needs a better selling point than 'native 4k/60fps', the ps5 will flop if that's all it advertises over the ps4 pro.
 
#37
1080ti will be low-mid end by mid 2019

GTX 2000 series are supposed to be out this year and a $200 GTX 2050/2060 will be between a 1070 and 1080 in performance. By next year, a $200 GTX 3050/3060 will beat a 1080ti easily.
 
#40
The PS5 would need a good GPU AND CPU. It will never be able to provide 60fps for all games without a good CPU. Seeing how that likely won't happen and they will only have a newer AMD chip I doubt most games will hit 1080p 60fps. The PS5 should be to do all games in native 4k 30fps. I would bet that is their target.
 
#41
And the thing is, in some games like wolfenstein 2 for example, even GTX 1070 results arnt as good as X1X.
That's because the X1X runs things at lower quality than PC, run them both at equal settings, and 1070 is always the faster one.
My personal experience is X1X is exactly RX580/1060.
 
#43
it'll probably be a rough equivalent of a 1080 with a bunch of ram slopped on top

it's really more about optimization at this point, just creating those parameters that can last five years or so
 
#44
That's because the X1X runs things at lower quality than PC, run them both at equal settings, and 1070 is always the faster one.
My personal experience is X1X is exactly RX580/1060.
It does depend on the game, Far Cry 5 for instance runs a lot smoother at 4K/30FPS than it does with the same settings on a 1060. That's down to optimisation at the end of the day though.
 
#46
Also I think expecting 1080Ti performance from a PS5 or Xbox Two pretty foolish. AMD can't even match a 1080Ti currently. They have nothing in the highest end for gaming GPUs.
Properly priced, the 1080Ti is a £680 GPU from 2017. The PS4 launched in 2013 with the equivalent of an AMD HD 7870 that released at the price of £260ish one year prior.

Assuming AMD's Navi goes to rumour/plan, and they release a £250-£300 GPU with performance on par with a GTX 1080. Then expecting that is reasonable depending on the release for that and next gen consoles.
 
#48
Listen, I still remember differences between PS1/PS2/PS3, it was indeed like seeing new generation of games.


PS4 wasnt so revolutionary, but still some games like "Uncharted 4" or "the order" clearly shows PS3 could never run such a amazing looking games, so even PS4 was OK. I would rather see more amazing games on PS4P/X1X than buy another rushed console with subtle differences in graphics. If I want amazing picture quality (4K60fps), than I have PC for that right now.
I don't disagree with you but this "I would rather see more amazing games on PS4P/X1X than buy another rushed console with subtle differences in graphics" That is more so dependent on developer, like completely in soooo many ways its not even funny. Sony or MS can do much about that outside of their own personal games, but they can't force any developer to graphically do something different that is against the game they are making. ie Titanfall running on Source. the team made that choice ,so yea....Titanfall doesn't look like The Order or Horizon etc, but that is developer dependent.

So you can have a developer next gen very much do a "Titanfall" and run a last gen engine to max out other specs, but you'll always get developers to make your "The Order" in terms of beefy graphics that melt hardware lol That is more a conversation with developers, not really with hardware manufacturers, to a degree, but what is being asked is up to a developer to decide how they make that game. Its not as if we don't have graphically powerful games this gen either so clearly the hardware can handle some complex stuff, doesn't always mean a developer is talented enough to do that or can afford to or wants that look.
 
#49
It'll never happen, most developers/publishers will put resources into better graphics over performance since it's easier to sell games that way.
1000%

Thread.

I don't understand why many on here don't even know that those settings are developer dependent. Sony, MS, Nintendo, NO ONE can tell you their hardware will play all games at 1080p 60fps or 4k 60fps etc. Those settings are based on a game by game basis, developer dependent and no company can create any type of hardware that can't be maxed. So "performance" in terms of frames and resolution is a conversation to be had with developers, not so much Sony, Nintendo, MS etc.

btw, I love how very little on here are even talking about what a developer wants. If they want to max that hardware and have the most realistic game at the cost of frames or res, nothing Sony or MS can do to change that goal the developer has.

Thus irrelevant (as I'm not sure why anyone things some secret GPU or CPU combo exist that is unmaxable)
 

PsyEd

Neo Member
#50
It won't happen unless sony or m$ willing to sell the console at a huge loss. IMHO at the end both "consoles" are AMD mini pc's anyway...one runs freebsd and other DX12 win10. Too bad m$ moved away from nvidia...or else X could've had the nvidia specific bells and whistles some games have.

I have MSI Gaming X Trio 1080ti SLI with a i7 8700k @ 5ghz...that setup gives me proper 4k60+ stable experience on games like SW:BF2, The Division etc with DX12. With one it stays close to 45-50's but never solid 60's. But some games can maintain 60fps with everything bumped up like FC5 on just one. So highly unlikely next round of consoles can support true 4k60 experience with everything dialed to max on multi-platform games.