next gen consoles

[VincentHanna]

no way lol has no one seen the new integrated motherboards with 1070gtx in them

remember they could also put in a 1080gtx if they wanted. the price of doing so is irrelevant as they lose on making the consoles anyway . they always have. they make the money on the games themselves. also a long production.

my guess is they will go with the 1070 gtx configuration

Anyone who seriously thinks the PS4 Neo will play games at 4k needs their head examined.

It'll have HDMI 2.0 and UHD Blu-ray support, and the GPU will be faster than a standard PS4, but it'll just mean PlayStation VR will have enough power to run at a decent whip. They will be targeting 1080p/60hz as currently the PS4 tends to be locked 30fps.

 

[Brazo]

If the PS5 even remotely matches a 780ti for performance I'd be shocked

 

[~>Dg<~]

Anyone who seriously thinks the PS4 Neo will play games at 4k needs their head examined.

It'll have HDMI 2.0 and UHD Blu-ray support, and the GPU will be faster than a standard PS4, but it'll just mean PlayStation VR will have enough power to run at a decent whip. They will be targeting 1080p/60hz as currently the PS4 tends to be locked 30fps.

if sony think its worth it they will do the boards im on about.

there is already boards with 1070 gtx intergrated in them coming so 1080 gtx is also possible. that with the optimization they could do would yield close to 60 fps in all games.

what many dont get is. with the ps4 every system would be the same. so the optimizing would be really good.

 

[VincentHanna]

Despite what was said earlier, Sony do make a profit on console hardware (since PS4 anyway) so there's no way they are going to stick a £600 GPU in a Playstation 4.5

Not to mention the existing PS4 uses an AMD APU so there would be all sorts of issues with backwards compatibility.

 

[TheVoice]

what many dont get is. with the ps4 every system would be the same. so the optimizing would be really good.

If you think that's realistically the case, you're seriously out of touch with console gaming.

They're not about to put a £350 GPU into a PS4, that much is for certain.

 

[Seanspeed]

currently the PS4 tends to be locked 30fps.

This is because of the application, not just the hardware. Standard PS4 can run games at 1920x1080 and 120fps natively with stereoscopy and barrel distortion. Already been shown and proven running on PSVR. It's mainly just the AAA games running at 30fps. But most VR games will not be AAA titles.

All PSVR titles will have to hit 1080p/60fps minimum on a standard PS4. This wont be a Neo-only thing. What Neo might bring is either the ability to higher in resolution(supersampling makes a big difference in VR), or to run games at 90fps without reprojection, whereas the standard PS4 runs it at 60fps reprojected to 120fps.

If the PS5 even remotely matches a 780ti for performance I'd be shocked

A true PS5(not just a PS4 Neo) would come out in 2019 or later and would put a 780Ti to shame by orders of magnitudes.

If you're just talking about the PS4 Neo, then there's really not much reason it couldn't be there or thereabouts. Using 14nm FF Polaris, I dont think it's going to take anything super fancy to get there.

 

[Alexrose1uk]

I'm surprised there seems to be so much shock around here and so many comments which are based on the original variants or outdated info?

We know the new revised consoles - Scorpio/PS4K(Neo) are meant to feature faster GPUs AND CPUs compared to the older versions; latest info suggests the specs of the GPU may well be similar to the announced RX480, which should be about GTX 980 level. Polaris/RX480 is going to cost for a 4GB consumer card, around $199. The cost for the actual chip itself will be substantially lower if you take away all the memory, PCB, distributor etc costs involved, and means realistically cost could well be under $100 for the chip itself. Now I assume the upgraded consoles will sell for a premium over the old ones, rather than necessarily replacing them; making this cost somewhat more believable. Then, eh walla, you have GTX 970/R9 290X performance in a console. Polaris is looking very much like it may bring previous enthusiast/high grade performance to a mainstream gaming price point in desktops. It could do the same in consoles.

As has already been stated, R9 280/290s/980s CAN do 4K, just not with high settings, the polaris chip may well be stronger. As it is still GCN based, there shouldn't be too many compatibility issues between titles.

Throw on top a console is FAR more optimised and focused on than a PC, as the devs and manufacturers are targetting a single spec (well two in this case), rather than thousands of subspecs with the PC, and over the life time of a console, eek far more out of the hardware than PC devs will do, as PC technology keeps moving forward.

You also have to remember that due to sitting distance from the screen, consoles can and generally do make far more shortcuts graphically to ensure framerate or overall settings are maintained. You notice on a PC because you're sitting so close to the screen, sitting 6+ feet from a TV some of the shortcuts employed are far harder to notice unless you're looking very closely, yet save some reasonable hardware performance to use towards 'the bigger picture', and still looking reasonably good.

Honestly, I think the suggestion made earlier in this thread of a few game profiles being used by Devs is very sensible, and quite possible, and would mean the Devs would not need to do too much additional work beyond a little testing and tweaking of the exact settings used for each profile; with the profile used determined by the display res/method and model of system. Not too far off what is already done!

1) Base Xbox One/PS4 - 720 60FPS/1080 30FPS varied settings
2) Base Xbox One/PS4 - VR
3) Scorpio/PS4K - 1080P 60FPS/High Settings
4) Scorpio/PS4K - 4K 30FPS/Varied Settings
5) Scorpio/PS4K - VR

 

[Padraig]

Even a £600 GeForce 1080 can only just about do it.

Umm are you sure about from the benchmarks ive been seeing the 1080 is more than capable at 4k for 60 fps yeah on some games you cant have everysingle setting on beyond ultra but your never gonna have to be playing on medium? infact my puny little 390 with certain settings turned off can play a good few games at 50-65 average at 4k... if they had a gpu upgrade to like a 980 performance they could do a 4k game at 25 to 30 fps just without the most insane lighting and filter effects. 4k gaming is pretty much there just not with every single setting turned up as ultra as possible which will make no where near as big a difference as resolution.

 

[~>Dg<~]

If you think that's realistically the case, you're seriously out of touch with console gaming.

They're not about to put a £350 GPU into a PS4, that much is for certain.

you obviously dont understand then do you.

its not new. every console costs them more than they make off them during first few years.

ps2 did ps3 ps4 xbox xbox 1.

xbox 360 for eg at the time had a equivalent to a £300 pc gpu in it.so yes they do do it.

if they aiming for 4k which they are doing they need the horse power. dont agree fine. when it comes out and its got the big gpu power in just remember what i said

 

[TheVoice]

xbox 360 for eg at the time had a equivalent to a £300 pc gpu in it.so yes they do do it.

But that's an entirely new generation you're talking about; this is just a mid-life refresh. The hype around Neo will be a fraction of that which surrounded the PS4 when it launched because for the most part, it's just the same thing as everyone already has except a bit faster. No new features, no new games, no exclusive titles. Sony themselves have already said they'll be making profit on Neo from day one.

if they aiming for 4k which they are doing they need the horse power.

But they aren't, all of the leaked info so far has pointed towards them targeting better performance at 1080p and for PSVR which is a more important product for them than 4K given its another piece of hardware and another library of games for people to buy from. There's been comparatively very little mention of 4K at all other than people filling the gaps with their own assumptions.

I'm genuinely surprised that so many PC gamers think this console is going to be some sort of powerhouse when they're usually the ones complaining that consoles are slow and inadequate!

 

[Panos]

I'm genuinely surprised that so many PC gamers think this console is going to be some sort of powerhouse when they're usually the ones complaining that consoles are slow and inadequate!

Yep. And on top, because both the consoles support Async compute, the games are going to be much more optimised towards it, now more games are coming with it.

But, there are going to be a lot of sour grapes regarding this, from some GPU owners.

 

[Kelt]

The way I feel today and reading a couple of these threads, I might as well buy a console. Less trouble and works

Or do what a lot of people (me included) do and have both!

 

[karik666]

There is no way the new version of the consoles will go from 1080p 30fps,
to 4k 30fps.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I think 10nm will just be skipped like 20nm, especially if the 7nm looks to be on track.

EUV at 7nm should bring them to single patterning afaik, which in terms of complexity of design and number of stages will be a ridiculous improvement over a triple patterning 10nm. The issue could be EUV, the issue that is taking so long getting power/speed out of EUV to push through wafers fast. Currently they can easily make uber quality EUV processes but the EUV light source itself is too under powered and production is slow, if less complex and easier to design for.

EUV has been ramping in power and the speed of production has been increasing. In terms of making chips with easier design rules and far tighter margins, yields and quality of chips from ability to make absolutely tiny logic parts so accurately. If EUV is up to speed for 7nm, it will be a bit epic.

10nm complexity to design, tape out costs and expected yields all point to a problematic node.

No, you don't.

So absolutely no explanation why you can make a small gpu and not a big one?

 

[Telecaster]

Pick two out of the three, because you can't have all three.

1) affordable
2) capable of 4k gaming
3) small enough to be a console

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

.....

its not new. every console costs them more than they make off them during first few years.

...........

Part of the recent announcement was that this mid-cycle hop would be profitable unlike previous generations.

 

[~>Dg<~]

stick something like that in it will be guaranteed 30 fps at 4k if they went bigger with a 1080 gtx and a lot of optimization it would be close to 60 fps at 4k.

thats a 1070gtx on the left.

 

[XeNoNF50]

I just hope the ps4.5 has a 4k bluray player. id be sold.

 

[zulu9812]

I daresay a GTX1080 will not only wipe the floor with the PS4.5 and whatever it is Microsoft have up their sleeves but even the PS5 and next Xbox will probably be trailing the inevitable 1080ti when they are released in five years time.

I think price is a big factor. £600 for a 1080 plus however much you want to spend on a CPU + MB + HDD + PSU + case, versus approximately £400 for a PS4.5/5. PC gaming is getting expensive. Not to mention that most A-level games will be optimised for consoles and PC gaming looks like bad value for money.

 

[Omaeka]

I think price is a big factor. £600 for a 1080 plus however much you want to spend on a CPU + MB + HDD + PSU + case, versus approximately £400 for a PS4.5/5. PC gaming is getting expensive. Not to mention that most A-level games will be optimised for consoles and PC gaming looks like bad value for money.

Over the course of a console generation, console gamers will pay an absolute ton more money on games than PC gamers. Console isn't cheaper than PC in the long run and hasn't been for about 6 years now. People who buy Ps4.5/Xb1.5 have essentially paid almost a grand in hardware this generation. How is that cheaper than PC? Only the hardcore enthusiasts will pay more, my 670 cost me £300 nearly 4 years ago and to this day gives me a better gaming experience than a console could on all fronts.

I'm sorry to say, but consoles are for people who don't know any better or don't want to. All that muck about 'but you should buy them for the exclusives!' doesn't wash either, because if Playstation didn't exist, you can bet your ass Uncharted would be on PC anyway. Exclusives exist because consoles exist.

I threw together a PC for my missus for less than £900 (same cost as a Ps4 on release + Ps4.5 on release) that blows both machines out of the water, and will no doubt in several years time be running every game out at a higher quality and framerate than the PS5/XB2 can do, considerably so.

Last generation it was the same, oh the next gens gonna blow PC out of the water!

It was the weakest generation ever AFAIK in comparison to PC. Consoles talk big and deliver small. Bloodborne and Uncharted 4 are the closest to impressive this generation has offered so far. It's embaressing that members of a PC enthusiast forum actually believe some of this stuff, and are even putting out claims the console companies haven't lol! 4K is not happening.