The PS5 and Xbox 2 thread - it's happening

[Wirdschowerdn]

Right before your eyes.

I already told you that the PS4 was losing to a 750Ti. There are hundreds of videos proving it. Again, do you have anything to back up your claim?

Not in practice. Unless you enjoy playing your games in 900p@30fps on PC.

 

[J_C]

Right before your eyes.

I already told you that the PS4 was losing to a 750Ti. There are hundreds of videos proving it. Again, do you have anything to back up your claim?

You forget that the 750Ti alone was quite expensive that time. Even today it is not cheap. Obviously you can easily put together a PC which is more powerful than a console, but it cost much more at launch.

 

[Achilles]

Not in practice. Unless you enjoy playing your games in 900p@30fps on PC.

I actually don't care that much about quality or resolution. 1600x900 at medium settings is just fine for me but 60 fps is the minimum. 30 fps is unacceptable.

You forget that the 750Ti alone was quite expensive that time. Even today it is not cheap. Obviously you can easily put together a PC which is more powerful than a console, but it cost much more at launch.

I wouldn't call a 750Ti expensive to be honest. It launched at $150 which is in the budget range.

 

[sullynathan]

 

[Makabb]

I can't decide if people are just that ignorant or they are simply trolling. PS4's "supercharged PC architecture" got its shit pushed in by a 750 Ti at launch. You have to be an absolute moron to believe that the shit GPU and CPU they will pack inside a small box for $400 is going to anything other than budget hardware which will perform exactly like budget hardware.

You are the one trolling or ignorant, ps4 had no 'superchared pc architecture' it had shit laptop cpu and gpu, and everyone knew that at release.

PS 5 however will not, and it will not cost 400$, it will be more expensive, like 600$

 

[Achilles]

I can't decide if people are just that ignorant or they are simply trolling. PS4's "supercharged PC architecture" got its shit pushed in by a 750 Ti at launch. You have to be an absolute moron to believe that the shit GPU and CPU they will pack inside a small box for $400 is going to anything other than budget hardware which will perform exactly like budget hardware.

You are the one trolling or ignorant, ps4 had no 'superchared pc architecture' it had shit laptop cpu and gpu, and everyone knew that at release.

PS 5 however will not, and it will not cost 400$, it will be more expensive, like 600$

https://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4009940/playstation-4-tech-specs-hardware-details

Sony is saying the same dumb shit now that they said back when PS4 was announced. They said the exact same shit when PS3 was announced. They're feeding you a constant stream of bullshit and you keep falling for it. And you really are a massive idiot if you think that they'll launch at $600.

 

[Makabb]

I can't decide if people are just that ignorant or they are simply trolling. PS4's "supercharged PC architecture" got its shit pushed in by a 750 Ti at launch. You have to be an absolute moron to believe that the shit GPU and CPU they will pack inside a small box for $400 is going to anything other than budget hardware which will perform exactly like budget hardware.

You are the one trolling or ignorant, ps4 had no 'superchared pc architecture' it had shit laptop cpu and gpu, and everyone knew that at release.

PS 5 however will not, and it will not cost 400$, it will be more expensive, like 600$

https://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4009940/playstation-4-tech-specs-hardware-details

Sony is saying the same dumb shit now that they said back when PS4 was announced. They said the exact same shit when PS3 was announced. They're feeding you a constant stream of bullshit and you keep falling for it. And you really are a massive idiot if you think that they'll launch at $600.

, are you not aware that ps3 already launched at price 599$ ? This is nothing new.


You don't listen to what they say, you judge yourself by the specs, and we already know 100% that PS5 will have a 7nm, Zen 2, 8 core / 16 thread cpu, which is a high end cpu.

 

[abija]

Depends on how well they handle heat, otherwise it will be a slightly upgraded jaguar.

 

[Makabb]

Depends on how well they handle heat, otherwise it will be a slightly upgraded jaguar.

much more than 'slightly'


We do not know the clocks yet, but 3ghz is expected minimum, so the PS5 will have a 450% faster CPU compared to PS4.

 

[J_C]

I can't decide if people are just that ignorant or they are simply trolling. PS4's "supercharged PC architecture" got its shit pushed in by a 750 Ti at launch. You have to be an absolute moron to believe that the shit GPU and CPU they will pack inside a small box for $400 is going to anything other than budget hardware which will perform exactly like budget hardware.

You are the one trolling or ignorant, ps4 had no 'superchared pc architecture' it had shit laptop cpu and gpu, and everyone knew that at release.

PS 5 however will not, and it will not cost 400$, it will be more expensive, like 600$

https://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4009940/playstation-4-tech-specs-hardware-details

Sony is saying the same dumb shit now that they said back when PS4 was announced. They said the exact same shit when PS3 was announced. They're feeding you a constant stream of bullshit and you keep falling for it. And you really are a massive idiot if you think that they'll launch at $600.

, are you not aware that ps3 already launched at price 599$ ? This is nothing new.


You don't listen to what they say, you judge yourself by the specs, and we already know 100% that PS5 will have a 7nm, Zen 2, 8 core / 16 thread cpu, which is a high end cpu.

And 600 dollars did worth more back than than it worth now.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

 

[Makabb]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

playing at 900p @ 30 fps which they bought for 150$ and going 'my pc is better than a console!!!1111'

 

[J_C]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

I don't fucking care about your useless 4K. 1080p is perfectly fine for every game, they look good on it. So what if I don't see the hair on a character's ass? 4K in gaming monitors is the biggest waste of money. It makes more sense in a huge TV, but for monitors it's useless. So get the fuck out of there with your high horse.

 

[soulburner]

The new consoles will obliterate current generation PC gaming. Here's why.

Consoles always offered APIs that are "close to the metal". You have direct memory and hardware access, you can control how everything is done from start to finish. That's why console ports always have higher hardware requirements on PC than the hardware the consoles have. Even with Vulkan and DX12 the PC will never get the same level of optimization due to several factors. You can optimize only to an extent due to the number of graphic cards available. For example, if you push a Radeon 570 to its limit, all your work might have no effect on any GeForce or other Radeons with a different arch revision. So what do you do? You optimize as much as you feel is necessary for all architectures.

Additionally, the code for console has to be verified by Microsoft and Sony before it is allowed to be published. On PC, the programmers code however they want and just release it and then GPU manufacturers fix their errors with drivers, which often replace the developers' shader code on the fly with the manufacturer's own. There was an article a few years ago by someone who worked with a driver team at either Nvidia or AMD and he said the way developers code their games is so messy and full of simple errors, we will always see "game ready" drivers which will attempt to fix all this. Ever wondered why GPU drivers have such huge installers? That's because they contain code for hundreds, maybe thousand games.

If that ain't enough, programmers are not used to coding for the PC with the same mindset they have with consoles. For some reason, they failed to embrace Vulkan and DirectX12, even with all their similarities with the console APIs. We often get DX12 renderers which offer worse performance than DX11. Somehow it's better for them to re-do the renderer with DX11 for PC instead of modifying the Xbox's DX12 one.

The hardware used in the new consoles will be well ahead of what we have available on PC today. So the PS5 is confirmed to have RT capability - do you actually think the RT cores will offer the same performance a mid-end GPU for PC does today? The thing releases next year, it will likely have hardware similar to yet unreleased PC GPUs. It will have a performance level of a next generation RTX card. With all the above in mind, with close to the metal APIs and stuff, the games that will use ray tracing will be coded with ray tracing in mind - maybe not the very first releases, but they will come within months. Today, we've got a "normal" game engine with ray tracing added as an aftertought. We could compare it to, for example, Telejano engine port for Quake. It used all the things we've had in Doom 3, but added to an engine that never supported it. It looked pretty, but its performance was shit. Now if you create your code and assets with RT in mind right from the start, it will be a different story than it is today, with games like Control struggling to perform well. Until that happens, though, we will see RTX 3000 graphic cards out there and even AMD will release a Radeon with specific RT capabilities.

The current gen consoles use a Jaguar CPU by AMD. It's a processor similar to Intel's Atom - low performance, low power. Pretty much the only difference to "normal" PC models is it's an 8 core. Now imagine changing your Atom based netbook to a modern Ryzen based laptop. It will rip your head off. Even if its clock won't be high, it will be a modified Zen 2 architecture which is so good, a 6 core desktop Ryzen 3600 performs better than an 8 core Ryzen 2700.

 

[Makabb]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

I don't fucking care about your useless 4K. 1080p is perfectly fine for every game, they look good on it. So what if I don't see the hair on a character's ass? 4K in gaming monitors is the biggest waste of money. It makes more sense in a huge TV, but for monitors it's useless. So get the fuck out of there with your high horse.

ps5 will have native 4k tho, ps4 pro and xbone is already doing 4k.

 

[Makabb]

The new consoles will obliterate current generation PC gaming. Here's why.

Consoles always offered APIs that are "close to the metal". You have direct memory and hardware access, you can control how everything is done from start to finish. That's why console ports always have higher hardware requirements on PC than the hardware the consoles have. Even with Vulkan and DX12 the PC will never get the same level of optimization due to several factors. You can optimize only to an extent due to the number of graphic cards available. For example, if you push a Radeon 570 to its limit, all your work might have no effect on any GeForce or other Radeons with a different arch revision. So what do you do? You optimize as much as you feel is necessary for all architectures.

Additionally, the code for console has to be verified by Microsoft and Sony before it is allowed to be published. On PC, the programmers code however they want and just release it and then GPU manufacturers fix their errors with drivers, which often replace the developers' shader code on the fly with the manufacturer's own. There was an article a few years ago by someone who worked with a driver team at either Nvidia or AMD and he said the way developers code their games is so messy and full of simple errors, we will always see "game ready" drivers which will attempt to fix all this. Ever wondered why GPU drivers have such huge installers? That's because they contain code for hundreds, maybe thousand games.

If that ain't enough, programmers are not used to coding for the PC with the same mindset they have with consoles. For some reason, they failed to embrace Vulkan and DirectX12, even with all their similarities with the console APIs. We often get DX12 renderers which offer worse performance than DX11. Somehow it's better for them to re-do the renderer with DX11 for PC instead of modifying the Xbox's DX12 one.

The hardware used in the new consoles will be well ahead of what we have available on PC today. So the PS5 is confirmed to have RT capability - do you actually think the RT cores will offer the same performance a mid-end GPU for PC does today? The thing releases next year, it will likely have hardware similar to yet unreleased PC GPUs. It will have a performance level of a next generation RTX card. With all the above in mind, with close to the metal APIs and stuff, the games that will use ray tracing will be coded with ray tracing in mind - maybe not the very first releases, but they will come within months. Today, we've got a "normal" game engine with ray tracing added as an aftertought. We could compare it to, for example, Telejano engine port for Quake. It used all the things we've had in Doom 3, but added to an engine that never supported it. It looked pretty, but its performance was shit. Now if you create your code and assets with RT in mind right from the start, it will be a different story than it is today, with games like Control struggling to perform well. Until that happens, though, we will see RTX 3000 graphic cards out there and even AMD will release a Radeon with specific RT capabilities.

The current gen consoles use a Jaguar CPU by AMD. It's a processor similar to Intel's Atom - low performance, low power. Pretty much the only difference to "normal" PC models is it's an 8 core. Now imagine changing your Atom based netbook to a modern Ryzen based laptop. It will rip your head off. Even if its clock won't be high, it will be a modified Zen 2 architecture which is so good, a 6 core desktop Ryzen 3600 performs better than an 8 core Ryzen 2700.

This should be like stickied

 

[Tehdagah]

They will be outdated in 2 years after the release. Saying that they will be better than current PCs is a no brainer.

 

[Makabb]

They will be outdated in 2 years after the release.

CPU won't be outdated for a long time, we reached end of moores law and there is little to none CPU improvements being made with yearly gains of 5%, the CPU in PS5 will still be relevant 5 years from now.

 

[Tehdagah]

They will be outdated in 2 years after the release.

CPU won't be outdated for a long time, we reached end of moores law and there is little to none CPU improvements being made with yearly gains of 5%, the CPU in PS5 will still be relevant 5 years from now.

But everything else will be outdated.

I wonder if the PS5 will be able to run Fortnite at 4k60fps, considering that the PS4 version of God of War III (a PS3 game) does have frame drops.

 

[Makabb]

But everything else will be outdated..

So there will be PS 6 after usual 7 years

 

[fizzelopeguss]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

playing at 900p @ 30 fps which they bought for 150$ and going 'my pc is better than a console!!!1111'

Playing at ULTRAAAAAAA settings bruh. Just need ShillFoundry to put out a video however so we can actually tell what the difference is.

This console is looking to be solid. Should Fix my biggest gripes with the Pro which was the loading times (SSD) and sluggish OS (decent CPU).

It should be hitting 4k, and actually has a working HDR for my OLED. Unlike PC which is still spotty at times.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

I don't fucking care about your useless 4K. 1080p is perfectly fine for every game, they look good on it. So what if I don't see the hair on a character's ass? 4K in gaming monitors is the biggest waste of money. It makes more sense in a huge TV, but for monitors it's useless. So get the fuck out of there with your high horse.

ps5 will have native 4k tho, ps4 pro and xbone is already doing 4k.

1080p is a £50 alcatel phone from tesco resolution these days.

 

[Tehdagah]

1060 or 480 fags itt gaming on fucking abysmal 1080p LED monitors. Master race my arse.

playing at 900p @ 30 fps which they bought for 150$ and going 'my pc is better than a console!!!1111'

Playing at ULTRAAAAAAA settings bruh. Just need ShillFoundry to put out a video however so we can actually tell what the difference is.

This console is looking to be solid. Should Fix my biggest gripes with the Pro which was the loading times (SSD) and sluggish OS (decent CPU).

It should be hitting 4k, and actually has a working HDR for my OLED. Unlike PC which is still spotty at times.

The biggest issues with the PS4 are the obligatory installation of games, high price and the terrible PS Plus. PS5 won't change any of these things sadly.

 

[DalekFlay]

It should be hitting 4k, and actually has a working HDR for my OLED. Unlike PC which is still spotty at times.

I really doubt native 4k is any more popular on the next machines than it is now. They'll use reconstruction most of the time (and target 30fps most of the time) so they can have more pretties in screenshots and whatnot. It's literally the same story every generation but people always act like "this time it'll be different!." 1440p at 100+fps is honestly the sweet spot anyway, the added crispness going above 1080p offers along with ten times better motion clarity and response. You talk about 1080p being outdated, 60fps is becoming outdated and 30fps is fucking archaic. Once you go 100+fps you can't go back.

Anyway this thread is turning into the normal pissing match. I don't really think any of this shit matters to 90% of gamers, they're either a PC gamer and in that culture or a console gamer and in that culture. The PS5 could literally be a $2,000 PC miraculously put into a $400 box and I still wouldn't give a shit, because I'm a PC gamer and have been for 30 years. Hope it's a good machine for console bros, though.

 

[Makabb]

fps above 60 fps is a meme, you don't need more than 60 fps.

 

[Modron]

fps above 60 fps is a meme, you don't need more than 60 fps.

Makabb going to soon be arguing that 4k 20 fps is how games were meant to be played.

 

[Makabb]

fps above 60 fps is a meme, you don't need more than 60 fps.

Makabb going to soon be arguing that 4k 20 fps is how games were meant to be played.

Back in my day we used to play on c64 and amiga with 15-20 fps and those were best moments of gaming, fps is not what makes a game good or not.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

fps above 60 fps is a meme, you don't need more than 60 fps.

Makabb going to soon be arguing that 4k 20 fps is how games were meant to be played.

Back in my day we used to play on c64 and amiga with 15-20 fps and those were best moments of gaming, fps is not what makes a game good or not.

Those games though were designed in a way where framerate didn't matter (much). Even later PC games still using ~12 fps sprite animations (BG, Fallout, Adventure games) wouldn't be much of a bother.

You can't seriously believe though to apply the same paradigm to a fully explorable, highly interactive 3D world and expect to have the same fun.