Rolling_Start
Banned
I think it's a tribal sense of ownership over UMA. Even though it's incredibly common, and for good reason.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Digital Foundry] PlayStation 5/ Xbox Series X New GPU Spec Leak Analysis: 9.2TF vs 12TF?
- Thread starter Bullet Club
- Start date
I think it's a tribal sense of ownership over UMA. Even though it's incredibly common, and for good reason.
CameFromNearFuture
Banned
Confusion is Part of the game.
Having people creating bad expectations only to get them pleasantly surprised with sky high hype in the right moment is a brilliant strategy
Having people creating bad expectations only to get them pleasantly surprised with sky high hype in the right moment is a brilliant strategy
Johnny Silver
Banned
My two cents on this:
I notice some people ignoring an important aspect of the new architectures, IPC gains.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Phil Spencer say that the new Xbox two TWICE as powerful as the current gen Xbox? He didn't mention Tflops, he only said twice as powerful. People are just assuming he means around 12 Tflops.
Now the thing is, the IPC improvements between polaris and navi architectures are substantial, I think they are between 20 to 30% uplift?
This would means that to be twice as powerful as the current Xbox, the next gen Xbox wouldn't need to have 12 Tflops, it could have around 10 Tflops for the Navi architecture and still be TWICE as powerful as 6Tflops for polaris architecture.
So the difference between the PS5 and the Series X could be between 9.2Tflops for the PS5 and 10 something Tflops for the Series X, and in this case the comparison would be between very similar if not identical architecture, so we are talking about the same IPC rate, just for different Tflops.
Also, Mark Cerny confirmed that the PS5 will support ray tracing, so it's either embedded in the GPU or a separate piece of silicon for dedicated hardware. I am thinking that's going to the separate from the GPU, hence the lower Tflop count, because there's dedicated hardware dealing with it.
The Series X on the other hand would need more Tflops in the GPU because their ray tracing solution is integrated in the GPU, and part of that higher Tflop count will be spent on ray tracing.
So both options would balance out one another. They are simply different approaches for a similar outcome.
Having this in mind, these are the scenarios I am thinking can happen:
Scenario 1:
PS5 9,2Tflop - dedicated ray tracing silicon - 499€
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
Scenario 2:
PS5 9.2 Tflop - No ray tracing and just lower Tflop count - 399€
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
Scenario 3:
PS5 9.2 Tflop - Integrated ray tracing and lower Tflop count - 499€ (bad for Sony, no differentiation factor in favor of Sony or lower price compensation. A portion of that lower Tflop count would have to be spent on ray tracing, this would be a weaker console.)
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
(edited)
I notice some people ignoring an important aspect of the new architectures, IPC gains.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Phil Spencer say that the new Xbox two TWICE as powerful as the current gen Xbox? He didn't mention Tflops, he only said twice as powerful. People are just assuming he means around 12 Tflops.
Now the thing is, the IPC improvements between polaris and navi architectures are substantial, I think they are between 20 to 30% uplift?
This would means that to be twice as powerful as the current Xbox, the next gen Xbox wouldn't need to have 12 Tflops, it could have around 10 Tflops for the Navi architecture and still be TWICE as powerful as 6Tflops for polaris architecture.
So the difference between the PS5 and the Series X could be between 9.2Tflops for the PS5 and 10 something Tflops for the Series X, and in this case the comparison would be between very similar if not identical architecture, so we are talking about the same IPC rate, just for different Tflops.
Also, Mark Cerny confirmed that the PS5 will support ray tracing, so it's either embedded in the GPU or a separate piece of silicon for dedicated hardware. I am thinking that's going to the separate from the GPU, hence the lower Tflop count, because there's dedicated hardware dealing with it.
The Series X on the other hand would need more Tflops in the GPU because their ray tracing solution is integrated in the GPU, and part of that higher Tflop count will be spent on ray tracing.
So both options would balance out one another. They are simply different approaches for a similar outcome.
Having this in mind, these are the scenarios I am thinking can happen:
Scenario 1:
PS5 9,2Tflop - dedicated ray tracing silicon - 499€
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
Scenario 2:
PS5 9.2 Tflop - No ray tracing and just lower Tflop count - 399€
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
Scenario 3:
PS5 9.2 Tflop - Integrated ray tracing and lower Tflop count - 499€ (bad for Sony, no differentiation factor in favor of Sony or lower price compensation. A portion of that lower Tflop count would have to be spent on ray tracing, this would be a weaker console.)
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
(edited)
Last edited:
FranXico
Member
You are not the first to think of this, friend.
LittleBusters
Banned
The market evolves too. What worked psychologically in 2013 might not in 2020. Maybe what Sony pulled in 2013 is a once in a lifetime strategy based a LOT on Microsoft's hari-kiri. Of course when a rival is suiciding themselves, you take advantage! Since Sony wasn't able to knock MS out of the market, and I don't believe Phil Spencer is going to pull a Don Mattrick 2013, they can try their old tricks. It will work for SonyGAF, but for the wider audience, no way.
Panaphonics
Banned
There was a massive increase in sales when Playstation hit the market, cemented by Playstation 2.
Also, all Playstations except PS3 outsold even the Wii, so it's safe to say that Playstation took the lead in making console gaming as big as it is.
Especially since Nintendo sales were on a steady decline since the NES, until they got lucky with the Wii.
(PS2 as DVD-player and PS3 with Blu-Ray helped a lot)
Nintendo laid the foundation though, so deserves all the recognition.
Are you telling me, console gaming was unpopular before Sony arrived? Lol
Also, a lot of People bought the PS2 because it has a DVD drive. This has NOTHING to do with making home console gaming popular.
Again: he said Sony made home console gaming popular and before Sony arrived home console gaming was unpopular.
And I said, no, when Nintendo arrived home console gaming became popular (before that arcade gaming halls were very popular)
so it’s a fact that NINTENDO - and NOT Sony - made Home console gaming popular. Nintendo basically „killed“ arcade gaming.
Derktron
Banned
This makes a whole lot of sense to what the current “leaks” are.
Psykodad
Banned
Console gaming wasn't nearly as popular during the NES/SNES era as it has been since Playstation was introduced.
You can literally see the drop in Nintendo sales when Playstation came into the scene.
62M NES
49M SNES
33M N64 vs 102M PS1
Then during PS2 era it sold 158M, while the Gamecube isn't even on that chart.
Laying the foundation is not the same as making it mainstream/popular.
Last edited:
Nintendo revived the console market from the crash and expanded it. Consoles were a thing before Nintendo.
The PS2 as a DVD player is a myth. By the time the first holiday the PS2 hit mass market price 199.99 there was sub 100 dollar DVD players. Shortly after that the market flooded with sub 50 dollar dvd players. The PS2 sold because it had an unprecedented library of games and lots of casuals bought them for things like guitar hero. It was the perfect storm of conditions.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
If it was a once-in-a-lifetime thing, I'm sure SEGA would have loved E3 1995 never happening
(still love Saturn regardless) . But I get what you're saying; that's relatively a lifetime for newer gamers anyway.But still, while $399 PS5 against $499 XSEX won't have the same type of impact $399 PS4 had against $499 XBO, it will still have an impact, especially if the games are there. Which I'm confident at least one heavy-hitter will be present (on both sides).
No, that was Atari. And no, they didn't "kill" arcade gaming; in all honesty the effect of the PS1 and especially PS2 gens had more of an impact on declining arcade numbers (especially in the West) than anything the NES did.
Hell, even Atari can take more of the "credit" (it's a very dubious claim in their case) of hurting arcades in the West thanks to the market crash (which was mainly centralized to the NA market).
...but none of this really has anything to do with PS5 and XSEX, now does it?
Last edited:
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
The truth of this situation is simply this: this is the first time anyone has seen Microsoft go big when it comes to their first party developers. If you were talking about 2013, I may agree. But this is an entirely different Xbox division with a huge goal for next gen. Clearly stellar first party games are a part of that vision - not just powerful hardware. People want to write Microsoft off becasue of the past. I think next gen, that'll be a mistake. Sony wont run the game like they did last gen when it comes to first party Ip.
Romulus
Member
I agree with people who say the supposed ps5 GPU is not a generational upgrade over X1X's. The problem with that statement is X1X wasn't a full generation ago. If anything, the X1X was a relatively good GPU from only 2 years ago.
But people making the statement like there was a 6TF gpu launched in 2013 know better. That was a 2017 $500 box. Unfair.
Also, what is a 'full generational leap"? It's usually at LEAST 4x power. XSX is only 2x the gpu of X1X so the same argument can be applied to a lesser degree than ps5.
The point is with mid gen consoles, you can't apply old ways of thinking to generational leaps. Mid gen consoles will diminish it from here on out.
But people making the statement like there was a 6TF gpu launched in 2013 know better. That was a 2017 $500 box. Unfair.
Also, what is a 'full generational leap"? It's usually at LEAST 4x power. XSX is only 2x the gpu of X1X so the same argument can be applied to a lesser degree than ps5.
The point is with mid gen consoles, you can't apply old ways of thinking to generational leaps. Mid gen consoles will diminish it from here on out.
Last edited:
Im connected with the insider world I know is gonna be hard to believe me but neither console can reach 12 teraflops the testing are real but the Ps5s devkits has gone thru some changes if you don’t believe me ask any developer if they received any upgraded devkit from Sony devkit v2.1
I hope this can stop the bleeding for now both consoles running games at same capacity with some games hitting the 80-90 fps at 4K some developers saying the ps5 dev kit and tools are easier to work with that’s all for now
Im connected with the insider world I know is gonna be hard to believe me but neither console can reach 12 teraflops the testing are real but the Ps5s devkits has gone thru some changes if you don’t believe me ask any developer if they received any upgraded devkit from Sony devkit v2.1
Saying that neither console can reach 12 TF as if there is some way of calculating how many TF a console reached other than the clock rate x alu operations tells me that you don't actually have this info or if you do have info you don't understand it.
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Banned
With all of the struggles, changes and FUD that were spread at this point before the launch of this gen, we're best of waiting until something is final.
I really believe that Sony would have 4GB of RAM at best! The bam, headshot.
Let's see what happens, when it happens.
Besides, isn't 12tf GCN the same as 9TF RDNA and visa versa? Couldn't the XSX and PS5 be both 9 and 12tf?
I really believe that Sony would have 4GB of RAM at best! The bam, headshot.
Let's see what happens, when it happens.
Besides, isn't 12tf GCN the same as 9TF RDNA and visa versa? Couldn't the XSX and PS5 be both 9 and 12tf?
Yeah they was saying that we would be lucky if we even got 4GB
Latest reliable Orbis and Durango specs
Disclaimer: Everything isn't final, but the general range of these system are more or less set in stone. Durango: AMD CPU, 6-8 cores Ram 3-4 GB AMD GPU Total processing power 1-1.2 teraflops Note: I've heard of 8GB ram from reliable people on this form, but a certain, well...
Geki-D
Banned
Oh right, why didn't anyone think of this before? I'll just get Infinity Ward on the phone and ask.
Why would you even say this? You think devs are like undercover cops in The Departed?; If you ask them a direct question they're obligated by law to respond honestly? Why don't you ask one, seeing as you apparently have an in, then post evidence?
Dee Dah Dave
Member
My conclusion is the Oberon chip was made so Sony can get working on BC. That shit needs to be working perfect right out the gate because you can bet your life it will on Xbox.
Oberon is basically the same as the Navi launch cards, only with PS4 clock modes. The final chip will have more CU’s, ray tracing and vrs.
Oberon is basically the same as the Navi launch cards, only with PS4 clock modes. The final chip will have more CU’s, ray tracing and vrs.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
My conclusion is the Oberon chip was made so Sony can get working on BC. That shit needs to be working perfect right out the gate because you can bet your life it will on Xbox.
Oberon is basically the same as the Navi launch cards, only with PS4 clock modes. The final chip will have more CU’s, ray tracing and vrs.
This sounds plausible.
Dee Dah Dave
Member
I think so. We know that Xbox have only had their real chips quite recently. So if it was the same from a Sony perspective they would only have less than 12 months to get BC working. All games running at at least their original frame rate with no crashes or anything else unwanted. That’s a big project to complete and test thoroughly.
polybius80
Member
I dont consider VRAM an advantage on DC, it is really slow and that affects how much you can update it, is only an advatnage when a developer wont change textures during frame and want to apply it the same on PS2(or GC) but even an average ps2 game using texture cache properly can match or even excel DC textures even on big games like shenmue and games in general
let alone big games with far better textures like area 51, valkyrie profile: silmeria, FFXII, baldurs gate, etc
sure there are bad textures here and there on every game and there are games that can use better textures than others because how they work but overall DC textures only looked better against first games on PS2, DC has very good textures in lot of games like heavy metal geomatrix that look better than textures in games like GTA3,VC or SA (even on xbox) but GTA games are also more complex and require tons of different textures being streamed
mip mapping is also part of texture presentation and DC mip maps are too low filtering even compared to first PS2 games where they didn't used texture cache properly
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Panaphonics
I don't see why you compare textures between He-Man PS2 and Shenmue Dreamcast when you yourself state that Heavy Metal (DC) is a bad case example comparison to GTA because the latter has a lot more going on in terms of game logic and sheer scale. Well, that's the same case inversely for He-Man (simple, relatively linear, smaller in scale) and Shenmue (larger scale, bigger game logic scope, more going on in general).An issue with 3rd party ports at times is that devs may optimize for one platform's architecture but not the other platform's architecture. I can't say that's the case for the games you compared here so I assume it wasn't the case, but just in general it's something to consider. Architectural differences can mean a lot especially for these older systems. Just as an example you would routinely have a lot of 360/PS3 3rd-party games in the first few years that simply looked flat-out better on 360, but the case could also be argued that the PS3 versions simply were not fine-tuned for the architecture (that was usually the case).
It doesn't mean that had they been more tuned for the system that those PS3 3rd-party games would have been just as good/better looking than the 360 ones (there were some examples of that happening though, particularly towards the latter part of the gen); just that the gulf would not have been as wide as it ended up being.
That said, I will agree that there are obvious instances where Dreamcast's texturing capability showed its faults, but there are also instances where it worked really well. You likely weren't going to get the latter with budget 3rd-party titles though.
V4skunk
Banned
But at PS2 launch the PS2 was cheaper than any dvd player....My parents thought it was a bargain at the time for £299.
The same thing happened with PS3! Cheaper than bluray players at launch...
Last edited:
polybius80
Member
GTA has to stream and show a chunck of a city while geomatrix is an arena fighter/shooter with a few characters they are very extreme examples
he-man and shenmue may be different games, but both are restricted to scenes that have to be loaded not streamed, sure shenmue has more variety of characters but also has smaller scenes than he-man, he-man is an action platformer overall shenmue may be more demanding in texture variety per scene vs he-man but not as much as Heavy metal against GTA, he-man compares really good with a game like berserk and similar games
Last edited:
At launch the PS2 did not need any help selling and that is a fraction of the 150 million sales. The vast majority of those 150 million came after sub 100 dollar players in fall 2002. Most were still after the sub 50 dollar players in 2003.
I had stand alone players back then the quality of the ps2 dvd was terrible. The PS3 was different story had 2 one for gaming and 1 gave to my dad for playback. I also had 2 HD-DVD players.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
It's gotten to a point fanboys fearful Series X is more powerful than PS5 will downplay it because it supposedly copied Playstation console architecture.
So if rumours are true Series X is more powerful, Sony deserves a brownie point for MS success.
And that magical console architecture that so special and never done in the history of videogame consoles is supposedly having a Jaguar cpu + a single pool of ram which the cpu and gpu shares.
Innovation at its finest.
Last edited:
It's just trolling by both sides as I see it. I want 2 12tf beasts. But everything from E3 until a week ago was Sony by 10%. They need to settle down and wait.
Last edited:
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
What would be an interesting scenario would be a $399 sony, vs a $399 xbox (let's call it xbox series s, same power as ps5) and monster $599 series x with elite controller with more power. Would this not change the whole game? Xbox would have a mainstream compatible "next gen" box model, and an elite model.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Can't wait to see what each systems final specs are. You got so-called insiders conflicting each other:
- Xbox is more powerful. No wait, PS is more powerful
- Xbox is at at 12TF. Sony is 9.2 TF or up to 12-13TF
- "Both systems are close in power". Whatever that subjective and impossible to quantify BS claim means
- Xbox has a dumbed down Lockhart version. Let's see if even this is true. Lockhart 4TF has been floating around for probably a year
Shmunter
Member
We need some analysis of what to expect from a 9.2 vs 12tf system. Rez? framerate? Shadow quality? All of the above?
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Right now, the best bet would be PC gamers with good rigs (or ones who have had PCs with similar 12 vs 9 specs) or benchmark sites, telling us what kind of performance and visual differences there are.
I don’t believe it because it would be a massive error and it took the Xbox brand being headed by non gamers for that mistake to happen in the first place.
My comment wasn’t system wars, I just don’t believe Sony would allow it. They didn’t with the ps3 or ps4.
DynamiteCop!
Banned
This isn't about what Sony can or cannot allow, they can't let that dictate their business or hardware design. As much as Microsoft may be doing something with the Xbox that doesn't mean it's right for them as a company or a business to follow.
What could be best for Microsoft is the most powerful system that can possibly be built within high but acceptable cost values, for Sony it might be something weaker but more cost oriented around what we've come to expect from them with the PlayStation 4.
Microsoft has made it clear they're not afraid of $500, they've made it clear as far as hardware is concerned they want to push the envelope. Now that doesn't mean Sony's system will be underpowered, it just means they're targeting a different but still entirely capable spec to hit a lower price point. There's nothing wrong with this, there's nothing wrong with either, sure it will be a bit of a PR mess for them initially but if they deliver on games and they're able to do things like checkerboarding and what not then no one will really care.
Sure it will be different but at the end of the day it will just be forum fodder and not of that much importance.
Rolling_Start
Banned
I dont consider VRAM an advantage on DC, it is really slow and that affects how much you can update it, is only an advatnage when a developer wont change textures during frame and want to apply it the same on PS2(or GC) but even an average ps2 game using texture cache properly can match or even excel DC textures even on big games like shenmue and games in general
let alone big games with far better textures like area 51, valkyrie profile: silmeria, FFXII, baldurs gate, etc
sure there are bad textures here and there on every game and there are games that can use better textures than others because how they work but overall DC textures only looked better against first games on PS2, DC has very good textures in lot of games like heavy metal geomatrix that look better than textures in games like GTA3,VC or SA (even on xbox) but GTA games are also more complex and require tons of different textures being streamed
mip mapping is also part of texture presentation and DC mip maps are too low filtering even compared to first PS2 games where they didn't used texture cache properly
Those He-Man textures are much, much lower detail than the Shenmue textures. The number of unique patterns is far lower and the number of colours in each texture is also much lower. PS2 typically sacrificed either texture resolution or colour compared to its peers.
Even when efficiently cycling textures during rendering a frame, the PS2 is hard pressed to match ~5.5 MB of VQ compressed textures while accounting for geometry levels typically involved in impressive PS2 games. The DC could also use tri-linear filtering (and even anisotropic filtering), but many games didn't use it as turning it off allowed for an easy performance gain.
The sheer amount of variety and colour in that Shenmue 2 screen still impresses me. DC was a relatively low cost, low power draw console using chips first introduced in the early 1998 Naomi board. Incredible. That He-Man game isn't even on the same planet.
Edit: oops, rather OT. I'll get back to the whole 9TF thing ...
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
is there a thread debating/comparing old school multi plats. Id eat that shit up.
CameFromNearFuture
Banned
Sony is master at trolling
Mustaphadamus
Member
I hear you and I agree. I was just stating my opinion of what they need to do. But I am team Xbox. I just hope they bring really good, top quality, unique experiences this go around. Which I think they definitely can do, just hope they do it.
TeamGhobad
Banned
Im connected with the insider world I know is gonna be hard to believe me but neither console can reach 12 teraflops the testing are real but the Ps5s devkits has gone thru some changes if you don’t believe me ask any developer if they received any upgraded devkit from Sony devkit v2.1
what is photoshop alex?
I think giving MS a 30% power advantage that will be obvious to anyone with eyes in all multiplats from go is a terrible business decision. I won’t hand waive it away as a lesser but ok spec. It’s a fine spec on in a vacuum but will lack a true next gen punch, especially at launch compared to the Xbox.
It makes a ps3/x360 outcome more likely which I doubt Sony would want.
NickFire
Member
I'm not yet willing to jump as far as you have (concluding its a horrible business decision), but the mere possibility of the possible 30% difference being discussed by DF has certainly caught my attention. It caught my attention the same way a successful hail mary would in (US) football by a team down by 9-16 points would. Changed my train of thought from 95% certain to stay with PS next gen, to "let's see what they have up their sleeve for the conversion and ensuing onside kick."
Based on Lockheart rumors, I'm still expecting this to be more style over substance for average gamers even if true. But, if MS really has a 30% advantage, and by gosh comes in at same price or damn near same price due to MS money hatting muscle, all bets are off.
I always buy Every console so I really don’t care for myself. Just discussing that Sony is far less likely to dominate like with the PS4 if they launch 30% down on MS. Therefore yeah it’s a bad business decision if true and also requires MS to actually have a 12TF console. That’s why I’m doubtful any of it is accurate.
ZywyPL
Banned
Realistically, I'd say it's the more powerful console that could actually suffer - In the battle between Pro and 1X the biggest, and most often the only difference is the resolution, as both consoles were released to fulfill the dramatically growing urge for 4K content, and the Pro falls short of delivering the promise,
Now, take the 1X out of the equation and compare Pro with the base PS4 - the devs know they can't hit 4K on the Pro no matter what, so almost all games play the same as on the base model, in FullHD, and those extra ~2.4FT are literally being wasted most of the time, because nobody wants to aim for half-resolutions and waste time tweaking and figuring out whether the game should run in 1440p, 1600p or 1800p, the publishers won't give the devs such freedom of time to begin with
Now let's go (theoretically) a year forward - PS5 will do 4k, without without breaking a sweat, I have zero doubts about it. So the question is, what more could possible a more powerful XBX offer? 5-6K? Like Titanfall 2? Like I said, no one will play in half-resolutions, and the GPU difference won't that big to go straight into 8K, which could actually be an amazing marketing tool. So the devs would settle for lowest common resolution, which is 4K. More more details? Again - the publishers would prefer the devs to focus on DLCs, day-1 patches etc. instead of polishing the graphics for a single platform, where the differences would be visible only in still pictures with 300% zoom anyway.
I truly don't expect much, if any difference in the graphics.resolution if the PS5 can hit native 4K. More stable framerate, that's the only given advantage I can see for the more powerful system. MAYBE, if the games will still rely on CBR/dynamic resolutions (I hope not) there will be differences, but so tiny even the DF wouldn't be able to do the pixel counting and determine the actual native resolutions.
And that's all 3rd party titles. because well, we can't compare for example Gears 5 on the PS4, or Horizon on XB1, because they simply don't exist. With PC potentially, but not between the two consoles. But the 1st party titles however, will as always show what the systems are truly capable of, where again - I'm confident Sony's development studios would easily match, if not even outperformed XB 1st party titles as far as technology goes, even on less powerful hardware.
Journey
Banned
WTF? Just like the PS4 suffered compared to Xbox One and the Switch?
So somehow you think that resolution is the only reason why we're upgrading from current gen to next? Xbox One X is doing Red Dead Redemption 2 at native 4K resolution, are you saying that that's the best the PS5 can do? Oh wait, you mean we should expect Red Dead Redemption 2, just like Xbox One X, but at 60fps??? your logic is terribly flawed.
Gamernyc78
Banned
Osiris is a known insider on here. He's been around awhile.
Im connected with the insider world I know is gonna be hard to believe me but neither console can reach 12 teraflops the testing are real but the Ps5s devkits has gone thru some changes if you don’t believe me ask any developer if they received any upgraded devkit from Sony devkit v2.1
how desperate... sony fanboys now need to fake screenshots lol
if you knew this, why didnt you post something about this beforehand? no one knew this. stop lying
ZywyPL
Banned
Consoles are meant to be played on TVs, so the desired/targeted resolution is always the native one, either FullHD or 4K. Now, I'm not connected with the industry, but I bet the devs had actually more work to do in order to get the games running on XB1 than the PS4, which could do 1080p just like that. But if the XB1 was able to hit 1080p, then the devs wouldn't bother with let's say 1200p on the stronger PS4. So again - if both next-gen consoles will push native 4K, there wont be much, if any difference. The resolution was basically the only difference between all 4 current-gen consoles, where two of them struggle to hit the native ones. I'll repeat once again - it is not within any of the publisher interest to push beyond the baseline resolution (as seen with Pro). There's a difference where you have a target, and cannot hit it (XB1), and where you can easily hit it but not really do much more (Pro) That's why I compared both PS4 models, because it perfectly illustrates what will most likely be the outcome of the next-gen consoles.. Let me put it this way - if NV doesn't send a bag of cash to a publisher, they won't give a damn in implementing any of their technologies, even tho NV completely dominates the dGPU market, and that might be even the issue with X1X getting all of those patches, vs Pro running like the base model - it does 1080p? It does. No extra money? No extra effort. Simple
Your logic is actually flawed here, because you compare current-gen baseline with next-gen one - the mid-gen refresh models were indeed meant to do what you are talking about, to play current games at higher resolutions, and that's exactly what they do, but that "end-game resolution", let's call it like that, is now becoming the baseline resolution for the upcoming systems. So all the additional power won't go for any resolution bump, instead, it will push the graphics further, and by graphics I mean polygons, textures, shaders, particles, draw distance, PBR and so on and so on. Take cross-gen titles or remasters for example, like Uncharted collection or TLoU - I won't say they look like shit, but they use most of the new console's power for just a resolution bump, whereas games written for the PS4 from the get go look couple of times better. So if you;ll run a PS4/XB1 game on PS5/XBX then sure, expect nothing more than a mere resolution/framerate bump, but the games prepared specifically for next-gen hardware will push the envelope beyond your imagination, you can quote me on that next year.
Plus - again and again, people forget abut RT, and how much of the heaviest tasks it will offload from the actual CUs (but then again, many "experts" here believe FP32 cores are at the same time the dedicated RT hardware lol). Take HFTS from The Division for example - it literally tanks the framerate, that's how computing heavy it is, while the newest CoD:MW thanks to RT does exactly the same thing, except even better, and without any framerate penalties. Think of playing with shadows not even on very low, but completely turned off, that's how much performance boost the next-gen consoles will get thanks to RT.
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Then when 3D Blu-ray players launched at £500+, the Ps3 could be picked up for £250, as a software update turned them in to 3D Blu-ray players.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Didn’t the Xbox upscale the res no matter what the game was? Ie: 720p or 900p upscale to 1080p
Similar threads
- Locked