• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

next gen consoles

TheVoice said:
Why? The PS4 is already far, far ahead. Unlike an entirely new generation, people aren't going to be so quick to drop their current consoles for one of these slightly-upgraded ones.
Click to expand...

The Xbox Scorpio will be marketed as 'next gen' though, and the big selling points are likely going to be:

  • 'full' VR, because it'll run the full desktop Oculus Rift setup
  • Probably lots of exclusives to differentiate it more from the PS4 Pro
  • Lots of PC cross-play and current PC-exclusive ports
  • 4K Blu Ray player (PS4 Pro doesn't have one)

All that easily has the potential to impact Sony's sales substantially if they're not careful.

The PS4 Pro offers nothing actually new, it will just run PS4 stuff better and make it slightly prettier. And if they leave it till 2020, we'll be getting another 7 year console cycle, and the Xbox 360/PS3 clearly stunted the growth of games towards the end of their cycle. Also they started off more powerful (relatively) than the PS4/Xbone did, so 7 years would be even worse this time.
 
AllBodies said:
Also they started off more powerful (relatively) than the PS4/Xbone did, so 7 years would be even worse this time.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that TBH - the PS3 had a GPU based on a higher end 7900 card but had massively lower bandwidth and less ROPs so probably was closer to something like a 7600GT IMHO,and the Cell processor was hard to programme for.

The XBox 360 had a better GPU but the CPU was also in-order meaning it probably wasn't as strong as it looked in the spec sheet and it had a tiny amount of relatively slow L2 cache,and this was an era when most people probably still had a single core CPU in their PC as consumer dual cores had only been released a few months prior to the XBox 360 being released.

Plus both consoles shipped with only 512MB of RAM,which was low even by PC standards of the day and it was originally 256MB,but devs pleaded for the RAM to increased.

In fact the lack of RAM was a major problem for both consoles. In fact this is why so many companies experimented with steaming tech like in Rage. Skyrim was probably one of the first games to implement it without major bugs.
 
Last edited:
New Xbox rumored to have vega and zen so maybe but when it comes to new ps4 aka pro version hell no lol. That thing at best has custom version of Rx480 and oced Jaguar cores
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not sure about that TBH - the PS3 had a GPU based on a higher end 7900 card but had massively lower bandwidth and less ROPs so probably was closer to something like a 7600GT IMHO,and the Cell processor was hard to programme for.

The XBox 360 had a better GPU but the CPU was also in-order meaning it probably wasn't as strong as it looked in the spec sheet and it had a tiny amount of relatively slow L2 cache,and this was an era when most people probably still had a single core CPU in their PC as consumer dual cores had only been released a few months prior to the XBox 360 being released.

Plus both consoles shipped with only 512MB of RAM,which was low even by PC standards of the day and it was originally 256MB,but devs pleaded for the RAM to increased.

In fact the lack of RAM was a major problem for both consoles. In fact this is why so many companies experimented with steaming tech like in Rage. Skyrim was probably one of the first games to implement it without major bugs.
Click to expand...

Ah fair enough, so even if they had decent theoretical performance there were some bottlenecks.

Erik13 said:
New Xbox rumored to have vega and zen so maybe but when it comes to new ps4 aka pro version hell no lol. That thing at best has custom version of Rx480 and oced Jaguar cores
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly what I'm getting at. Sony will need to be very careful if they were planning on having the PS4 Pro last 3-4 years.
 
4k gaming is defenitly possible on that hardware but it would be relatively simple graphics.

Remember horsepower needed will differ from game to game.

A game released in 2015 tales of zesteria which I play can be played at 4k with a gtx 970 at 30fps. Although in my opinion 1440p with 4xsgssaa is visually superior to native 4k on that game.

The whole resolution thing is clearly overhyped, there is a lot more to visuals than rendering resolution e.g. a high resolution cannot improve image quality over its native quality, so e.g. if a image is designed at 720p and then rendered at 4k, it will have equal quality to 720p, however anti aliasing could improve the quality. Other example of what I mean is one might be able to do things like disable bloom, AA, shadows, reduce draw distance, reduce grass density and so on to get a higher resolution, but the lower resolution with all that stuff on will be much more visually pleasing.
 
The one S upscaled to 4k looks pretty decent a lot better than I was expecting tbh. I imagine the Pro will look pretty decent even if it is not true 4k..
 
Do we have any idea what the Scorpio is likely to retail at? Surely MS aren't going to take it on the nose like Sony did for the hardware itself? That's not the MS way.
 
MOOGLEYS said:
Does it really matter if its not native 4k if it looks good. Not sure I see what the issue is tbh....
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

I'm actually interested in this checkerboard rendering tech. I believe Valve has also been testing it out for use in VR, in order to lower the processing requirements while still looking 95% as good as rendering at higher native resolution.

Also since Nvidia have introduced multi-res shading on Shadow Warrior 2, but all that does is render the outer edges of the screen at lower res, at a 30% FPS improvement if used aggressively. I wonder which technique is overall superior since, according to Gamespot at least, the checkerboard technique has very little impact on visual quality.
 
Bought the other half the PS4 Pro, since am giving my one to nephew for Christmas present.
Won't be using it @4k just yet but very interested in seeing what it can do with standard definition.
 
shankly1985 said:
Bought the other half the PS4 Pro, since am giving my one to nephew for Christmas present.
Won't be using it @4k just yet but very interested in seeing what it can do with standard definition.
Click to expand...

They seem to be making a really big deal about the fact that at 1080p it won't offer any improvements, except maybe HDR. Where MS are saying don't buy for a 1080p screen, they are also saying they'll bump the resolution and maybe framerate compared to the Xbox One... which is a hell of a mixed message "This console is for 4k only... but it's also better for 1080p". They even mentioned downsampling to 1080p, so running a game at the max res they can hit 60fps for and downsampling to 1080p is a genuinely great thing for 1080p.

I mean if lets say Deus ex ran 810p/30fps on the Xbox One, but on Scorpio they can run 1440p/60fps and downsample to 1080p then I have no idea why they'd say don't get it for 1080p, that would be a monumental improvement.

Sony seem to be saying however that for 1080p they'll just be turning off half the GPU, running lower clocks and you won't even tell a difference to the PS4, besides lower power usage and quieter. Seems completely absurd to me.

It is worth noting what a performance improvement Scorpio really is, 6Tflop vs their current 1.2Tflop, 5 times faster before architectural efficiency comes into play is huge, which is why frankly 60fps with 1440p or even higher downsampled should be really easy for it. I have no idea how the strategy with PS4 pro works, this would be way better at 1080p with a HD tv, but we're just not going to let you use that capability, 4k or bust seems insane to me.


Another thing to think about is Vega and the performance/watt claims. Now Nvidia went for a tile based rendering approach with Maxwell, AMD at the time due to Read were doing a bit of belt tightening so didn't update their architecture. It offered a huge efficiency increase for Nvidia where for the first time in a long time they had mm^2 performance beating AMD. Before that a 438mm^2 290x was matching and now easily beating a 600mm^2 780ti/Titan based on Kepler, with Maxwell a 400mm^2 core was matching an AMD 400mm^2 core and a Nvidia 600mm^2 core matching or beating a AMD 600mm^2 core.

If AMD is bringing tile based rendering to Vega, which would explain the massive performance/watt gains they say they are getting(compare to Hawaii), then 6TF Vega in Scorpio could be much much further than 50% ahead of the PS4 pro using Polaris. If the architecture becomes 30-40% more efficient due to different rendering, then in real terms that 6TF Vega could be equal to a 8-8.5TF Polaris.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They seem to be making a really big deal about the fact that at 1080p it won't offer any improvements, except maybe HDR. Where MS are saying don't buy for a 1080p screen, they are also saying they'll bump the resolution and maybe framerate compared to the Xbox One... which is a hell of a mixed message "This console is for 4k only... but it's also better for 1080p". They even mentioned downsampling to 1080p, so running a game at the max res they can hit 60fps for and downsampling to 1080p is a genuinely great thing for 1080p.

I mean if lets say Deus ex ran 810p/30fps on the Xbox One, but on Scorpio they can run 1440p/60fps and downsample to 1080p then I have no idea why they'd say don't get it for 1080p, that would be a monumental improvement.

Sony seem to be saying however that for 1080p they'll just be turning off half the GPU, running lower clocks and you won't even tell a difference to the PS4, besides lower power usage and quieter. Seems completely absurd to me.

It is worth noting what a performance improvement Scorpio really is, 6Tflop vs their current 1.2Tflop, 5 times faster before architectural efficiency comes into play is huge, which is why frankly 60fps with 1440p or even higher downsampled should be really easy for it. I have no idea how the strategy with PS4 pro works, this would be way better at 1080p with a HD tv, but we're just not going to let you use that capability, 4k or bust seems insane to me.


Another thing to think about is Vega and the performance/watt claims. Now Nvidia went for a tile based rendering approach with Maxwell, AMD at the time due to Read were doing a bit of belt tightening so didn't update their architecture. It offered a huge efficiency increase for Nvidia where for the first time in a long time they had mm^2 performance beating AMD. Before that a 438mm^2 290x was matching and now easily beating a 600mm^2 780ti/Titan based on Kepler, with Maxwell a 400mm^2 core was matching an AMD 400mm^2 core and a Nvidia 600mm^2 core matching or beating a AMD 600mm^2 core.

If AMD is bringing tile based rendering to Vega, which would explain the massive performance/watt gains they say they are getting(compare to Hawaii), then 6TF Vega in Scorpio could be much much further than 50% ahead of the PS4 pro using Polaris. If the architecture becomes 30-40% more efficient due to different rendering, then in real terms that 6TF Vega could be equal to a 8-8.5TF Polaris.
Click to expand...

6 tflops of AMD is still 6Tflops at the end of the day. I hate when they say, GTX 1070 level. Because nvidia tflops and AMD tflops are completely different.

390x - 5.9Tflops 2816 cores
Rx480 - 5.8Tflops 2304 cores

Even after an architectural change there is not much between them performance wise.

It also depends on the game in question. Even the latest GTX 1080/Titan X. Still will see drops below 60fps on the witcher 3 (fully maxed out, 1440p).

I think they are likely to run 1080p/60 on Xbox one games. And 4K/30 on Scorpio games. In all fairness I'd prefer maxed 1080p/60 to some low quality 4K. There is a lot more to visuals than just resolution.
 
tyler_jrb said:
6 tflops of AMD is still 6Tflops at the end of the day. I hate when they say, GTX 1070 level. Because nvidia tflops and AMD tflops are completely different.

390x - 5.9Tflops 2816 cores
Rx480 - 5.8Tflops 2304 cores

Even after an architectural change there is not much between them performance wise.

It also depends on the game in question. Even the latest GTX 1080/Titan X. Still will see drops below 60fps on the witcher 3 (fully maxed out, 1440p).

I think they are likely to run 1080p/60 on Xbox one games. And 4K/30 on Scorpio games. In all fairness I'd prefer maxed 1080p/60 to some low quality 4K. There is a lot more to visuals than just resolution.
Click to expand...

Polaris was a VERY small architectural change, the shaders are the same shaders and the overall design remains the same. There were updated parts, slightly updated memory controller etc. A full architecture change is coming with Vega, how big is unknown but using the difference between Polaris and the last gen as a way to determine how much improvement an architectural change can make is invalid.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Polaris was a VERY small architectural change, the shaders are the same shaders and the overall design remains the same. There were updated parts, slightly updated memory controller etc. A full architecture change is coming with Vega, how big is unknown but using the difference between Polaris and the last gen as a way to determine how much improvement an architectural change can make is invalid.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this.

Vega is going to be very different if only because of the time it is taking AMD to bring it to market.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They seem to be making a really big deal about the fact that at 1080p it won't offer any improvements, except maybe HDR. Where MS are saying don't buy for a 1080p screen, they are also saying they'll bump the resolution and maybe framerate compared to the Xbox One... which is a hell of a mixed message "This console is for 4k only... but it's also better for 1080p". They even mentioned downsampling to 1080p, so running a game at the max res they can hit 60fps for and downsampling to 1080p is a genuinely great thing for 1080p.

I mean if lets say Deus ex ran 810p/30fps on the Xbox One, but on Scorpio they can run 1440p/60fps and downsample to 1080p then I have no idea why they'd say don't get it for 1080p, that would be a monumental improvement.

Sony seem to be saying however that for 1080p they'll just be turning off half the GPU, running lower clocks and you won't even tell a difference to the PS4, besides lower power usage and quieter. Seems completely absurd to me.

It is worth noting what a performance improvement Scorpio really is, 6Tflop vs their current 1.2Tflop, 5 times faster before architectural efficiency comes into play is huge, which is why frankly 60fps with 1440p or even higher downsampled should be really easy for it. I have no idea how the strategy with PS4 pro works, this would be way better at 1080p with a HD tv, but we're just not going to let you use that capability, 4k or bust seems insane to me.


Another thing to think about is Vega and the performance/watt claims. Now Nvidia went for a tile based rendering approach with Maxwell, AMD at the time due to Read were doing a bit of belt tightening so didn't update their architecture. It offered a huge efficiency increase for Nvidia where for the first time in a long time they had mm^2 performance beating AMD. Before that a 438mm^2 290x was matching and now easily beating a 600mm^2 780ti/Titan based on Kepler, with Maxwell a 400mm^2 core was matching an AMD 400mm^2 core and a Nvidia 600mm^2 core matching or beating a AMD 600mm^2 core.

If AMD is bringing tile based rendering to Vega, which would explain the massive performance/watt gains they say they are getting(compare to Hawaii), then 6TF Vega in Scorpio could be much much further than 50% ahead of the PS4 pro using Polaris. If the architecture becomes 30-40% more efficient due to different rendering, then in real terms that 6TF Vega could be equal to a 8-8.5TF Polaris.
Click to expand...

You sure about that DM ? :p
It will allow Devs to increase either the Image Quality or give the user higher frame rates! Uncharted 4 is getting patched and at 1080p will be 60fps in the single player.


Q: Will PS4 Pro require a 4K TV?
No. PS4 Pro can display much higher resolutions than the standard PS4 when using a 4K TV. But if you own an HDTV (720p, 1080i, 1080p), PS4 Pro can still improve your gaming experience.
Q: What benefits does PS4 Pro provide when played on a non-4K HDTV?
PS4 Pro offers benefits even if you play on a HDTV that isn’t 4K. Depending on how the developer chooses to use the increased processing power, games with PS4 Pro support are able to render higher or more consistent framerates, increased environmental and character model detail, improved overall visual quality, and other related visual enhancements. For a look at how games are using the power of PS4 Pro, watch some of the first game footage on our YouTube page.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2016/09/08/ps4-pro-the-ultimate-faq/
 
Maybe they've changed it, I kept seeing interviews with them harping on about how it wouldn't offer a better experience at 1080p. They've talked several times about how with older games and at 1080p they'll just clock the gpu down and turn half of it off. Will it only be games that are updated to take advantage while other games will just run in effectively PS4 mode with the half gpu and lowered clocks to match the PS4?

If at least newer games are going to take advantage and be better at 1080p that is certainly less bad than I thought. Though they only mention pushing res up to 1080p and more consistent framerates where as MS are talking about using higher res with downsampling where it can and increasing frame rates. More consistent frame rates sounds more like hitting 30 or 60fps consistently, rather than moving games that were 30fps to 60fps.

Even so at the very least it's going to have a similar architecture and have a full 1/3rd less horsepower, at worst it's going to have almost half the horsepower(if Vega is a huge efficiency increase as suspected).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom