I honestly wanted a more beefed up Pro console, with more later hardware.
PS5 Pro is releasing in 2024.
AMD already have Phenix 2 in 2023 with Zen4c.
And Phenix 1 with XDNA. Bottom left square.
Then there is the up coming Strix Point.
Which would be great for the PS5 Pro with 60 RDNA3.5 CUs total, 54 active.
Guess I just wanted a console with the latest tech this time around.
But Pro was literally a mix of Polaris, Vega and Sony proprietary extensions.
PS6 hardware would still be 6-8x more powerful than a 12 Core, 64 AIE tile, 54CU Pro console.
I'm not sure if you know who you're talking to but lol
It's funny you say that and yet mess up ghz for mhz.
Yeah I had other things on my mind but anyway 2.5GHz - 2.8GHz
Cool. 6800.
I highly doubt that. The PS5 is not even 3x the PS4 Pro (GPU wise) and GPU improvements are slowing down.
My guess is 8X the PS5 power, but not sure about the jump in power from PS5 PRO, probably somewhere between 3 and 4 times.
I think you’re right on the money. With almost every console generation we’ve seen an 8x to 10x increase in power so it’s pretty normal to expect the same amount for next gen. It’s gonna be lit!
Only if your looking at the TF number.
I doubt it, Uncharted 4 for example can't even do 4k60 on the PS5. Implying a less then 4x multiplier over the Pro. Even the 1080p120 mode drops frames.
The PS5 is like 2.5x the pro in terms of the various fill rates,about 2x the bandwidth vs the Pro and the TFLOPS of the PS5 is exactly 2 PS4 pros plus the base PS4.
The 470 was 4.94 TF though. So that's like 18% faster. (The fillrate and texture rate differentials also track similarly higher)
The 6700 is also faster than the PS5.The 470 was 4.94 TF though. So that's like 18% faster. (The fillrate and texture rate differentials also track similarly higher)
The RX 6400 would be a closer comparison according to the TPU charts, as that sits between the 470 and the R9 280X (4.096 TF GCN 1.0 GPU). So at 1440p the 6600 XT is 3.18X faster. That's about where we would expect it to be with the 1.25X boost to IPC on RDNA 2.
AMD Radeon RX 6400 Review
The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is targeting entry-level gamers wanting to spend less than $200 for their graphics card. Priced at $160, the RX 6400 is the most affordable new release in a long time, but does it have the graphics horsepower to deliver an AAA gaming experience?www.techpowerup.com
Loxus point is that often games will perform much better because of tech improvements. For instance Death stranding on PS5 performs like 4 times better than on PS4 Pro (CBR 4K at 30fps vs native 4K 60fps).
It's not fully 4k60 though. In the most demanding cut scenes it drops to the mid 40s, while the Pro drops to the high 20s. Gameplay drops to the 50s (in BT combat) while the Pro is locked. CBR isn't free either, so some computation power is wasted on that. So roughly 3.4x, if not a bit less.
I think that as long as it is not done around Raytracing, all games will be able to work perfectly on PS5
That's why I specified 'like 4x' when it's actually 3.5x times better in this heavily GPU limited cutscene: PS4/Pro 23fps vs PS5 40fps.
I'd suspect that initial versions wouldn't come out optimized and would have to be relegated to patches until the PRO actually comes out. I recall seeing a quote indicating that Sony would stop providing information on upcoming hardware to studios upon acquisition by MS, so I wouldn't expect any of those studios to get dev kits until non competing studios get theirs first.
not sure of next year.
Not to defend Microsoft, as I feel like you in a lot of ways, but there is a reason to their actions, and each of your complaints can be explained to favor their plan if you accept a few caveats. One of the most interesting parts of the video from Laura Fryer was the praises that she had about some of the process that exist at Microsoft. And of the competent people that she was working with. There is a reason that we are talking more in Neogaf about mismanagement than incompetence at Xbox. I believe like you that T2 is more valuable than Activision for Xbox. But in my opinion Activision was the one that wanted to sell so from Microsoft POV why not take it? They simply failed to buy them the right way.
They are likely either going to be very slow with the Pro patches or totally ignoring PS5 Pro next year.
Devs had to make sure their games (new games, not old games) would work without glaring bugs on PS4 Pro. But they had no obligation to actually improve the experience (settings, resolution or framerate).
i think it was after launch, yeah
New games were required to have native support for Pro (see that slide above).
Wait do you mean the game could have specific bugs only on Pro even with "Pro native support"? If true that's even worse than I thought. I thought of native support as the game being tested against bugs the same way as the normal PS4 version.
