Rolling_Start
Banned
What is this idea that MS copied PS4 architecture for the X?
I think it's a tribal sense of ownership over UMA. Even though it's incredibly common, and for good reason.
What is this idea that MS copied PS4 architecture for the X?
You are not the first to think of this, friend.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 IPC 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 performance - 399€
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
Scenario 3:
PS5 9.2 Tflop - No ray tracing and just lower performance - 499€ (bad for Sony, no differentiation factor in favor of Sony or power price compensation)
Series X 10-12Tflop - integrated ray tracing on GPU - 499€
(edited)
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.While I am in the Xbox camp next gen, just because im getting to old to justify buying two consoles, coupled with the fact I like the xbox live experience over the PS online experience. I must say, the Sony first party games are a force to be reckoned with. I do hope MS buys Project CD or some other such studio who can produce on the level sony has come to be known for, in terms of story telling, and quality of production. Even if the PS is under powered, MS still has to combat with Sony’s software.
![]()
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 v2.1I 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
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?
Oh right, why didn't anyone think of this before? I'll just get Infinity Ward on the phone and ask.if you don’t believe me ask any developer if they received any upgraded devkit from Sony devkit v2.1
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.
I was just discussing objective technical advantages, simply noted the areas where DC has an advantage over PS2, and the areas PS2 has an advantage over DC. Not the how and why so why draw this out into a giant write-up?
But yes, to reiterate: DC had the advantage in VRAM, resolution, and texture quality (on average). PS2 had the advantage in faster CPU, physics, polygon geometry and lighting. I don't think listing it's technical advantages in select areas relative PS2 equals me implying it's a better/more overall powerful system than PS2.
But at PS2 launch the PS2 was cheaper than any dvd player....My parents thought it was a bargain at the time for £299.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.
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).
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.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...
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.What is this idea that MS copied PS4 architecture for the X? Last I checked the vapor chamber was MS innovation and X runs very quiet compared to the reported PS4 Pro jet engine.
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.
Can't wait to see what each systems final specs are. You got so-called insiders conflicting each other: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 settle down and wait.
We need some analysis of what to expect from a 9.2 vs 12tf system. Rez? framerate? Shadow quality? All of the above?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
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.We need some analysis of what to expect from a 9.2 vs 12tf system. Rez? framerate? Shadow quality? All of the above?
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.Why when it's Microsoft do people suddenly not believe it? Sony's goal isn't power, Microsoft's is.
The PS4 was 40% more powerful than the Xbox One, was that unbelievable? No, so why is this? I think there's a stark contrast between what's unbelievable and what you don't want to believe.
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.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.
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
![]()
is there a thread debating/comparing old school multi plats. Id eat that shit up.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 ...
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.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.
![]()
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 v2.1I 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
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.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.
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."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.
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.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.
We need some analysis of what to expect from a 9.2 vs 12tf system. Rez? framerate? Shadow quality? All of the above?
Realistically, I'd say it's the more powerful console that could actually suffer
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 XSX 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.
You're an insider too??
![]()
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 v2.1I 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
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.
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...
Didn’t the Xbox upscale the res no matter what the game was? Ie: 720p or 900p upscale to 1080pConsoles 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.