The PS5 and Xbox 2 thread - it's happening

[Metro]

It's high-end taking current-gen GPUs as reference. No matter what one might think, 16GB RAM, RTX 2080 and 8 core zen2 cpu(it's hard to compare because of different architetures, but this should be a rough approximation) is not mid-tier.

And like some user here said, consoles tend to have lower latencies than PCs, so it probably performs marginally better than a PC with those specs.

I don't think it compares directly to a 2080, but even if it did the 2070 Super refresh basically gives 2080 performance at $500. Is there an argument a $500 GPU is not mid-tier? Of course there is, which is why I said it depends. However there is also an argument it is mid-tier, since there's a 2080 Super and 2080ti above it.

Anyway the console specs are still good for $500-600 or whatever they cost. I'm not knocking console value.

There is no argument. A $500 GPU is not mid-tier. It's high-end. Unless you want to count $1000 GPU's but that's not high tier, that's retard-tier.

 

[AwesomeButton]

There is no argument. A $500 GPU is not mid-tier. It's high-end. Unless you want to count $1000 GPU's but that's not high tier, that's retard-tier.

Ahem, it's called "enthusiast"!

But seriously, it's worth the investment in an environment where you need to update GPUs once in 6-7 years.

The question is whether RTX isn't putting us in a situation where updating every other year will again make sense for the first time in a long while. I feel bad for a friend of mine who rushed and bought a high-end GTX 2070 only to see the Super series being released six months later.

 

[Jrpgfan]

It's high-end taking current-gen GPUs as reference. No matter what one might think, 16GB RAM, RTX 2080 and 8 core zen2 cpu(it's hard to compare because of different architetures, but this should be a rough approximation) is not mid-tier.

And like some user here said, consoles tend to have lower latencies than PCs, so it probably performs marginally better than a PC with those specs.

I don't think it compares directly to a 2080, but even if it did the 2070 Super refresh basically gives 2080 performance at $500. Is there an argument a $500 GPU is not mid-tier? Of course there is, which is why I said it depends. However there is also an argument it is mid-tier, since there's a 2080 Super and 2080ti above it.

Anyway the console specs are still good for $500-600 or whatever they cost. I'm not knocking console value.

There is no argument. A $500 GPU is not mid-tier. It's high-end. Unless you want to count $1000 GPU's but that's not high tier, that's retard-tier.

For me it has more to do with performance than price. If the difference is not that big to the best card available then it's high end, which imo is the case here(in most games the difference from 2080/2080 super to 2080ti is a few fps). This generation 2060/2060 super(and maybe 2070) would be the mid-end and anything bellow is low-end.

 

[AwesomeButton]

in most games the difference from 2080/2080 super to 2080ti is a few fps

Important addition: "in most current, and a few years old games". This will start changing as RTX becomes mainstream and older solutions for lighting/reflections/shadowing are gradually phased out.

In my humble experience, for the 6 years since I built my current PC, the games that I've played for a significant amount of hours and that required high horsepower have been GTA V, Witcher 3, Warhammer TW, Hitman 2016/Hitman 2, RDR2. Put together, they make a little over 1000 hours of playtime for me. Since I play on PC I want image quality better than what someone gets on a console, and in the span of the next 6-7 years, I think it's pretty certain that fulfilling this condition will require a GPU upgrade. The open question is will one GPU upgrade be enough and will there be a similar crop of games that will justify such an upgrade for me, because apart from Cyberpunk and eventually KCD2 I don't see them on the horizon, neither on the PC horizon, nor on the possible console port horizon.

 

[Jrpgfan]

in most games the difference from 2080/2080 super to 2080ti is a few fps

Important addition: "in most current, and a few years old games". This will start changing as RTX becomes mainstream and older solutions for lighting/reflections/shadowing are gradually phased out.

In my humble experience, for the 6 years since I built my current PC, the games that I've played for a significant amount of hours and that required high horsepower have been GTA V, Witcher 3, Warhammer TW, Hitman 2016/Hitman 2, RDR2. Put together, they make a little over 1000 hours of playtime for me. Since I play on PC I want image quality better than what someone gets on a console, and in the span of the next 6-7 years, I think it's pretty certain that fulfilling this condition will require a GPU upgrade. The open question is will one GPU upgrade be enough and will there be a similar crop of games that will justify such an upgrade for me, because apart from Cyberpunk and eventually KCD2 I don't see them on the horizon, neither on the PC horizon, nor on the possible console port horizon.

If the rumors are true, current gen gpus, even the 2080ti, won't hold up well in the long run. That's usually the case in "generation" transitions. Even in current games 2080ti can't do 4k 60fps with RT on the most demanding games.

Nvidia has DLSS though, and if it becomes a standard feature in most games then we might see an increase in turing's life expectancy.

 

[DalekFlay]

It's not even true now that the 2080ti is barely superior. If you watch benchmark videos at all you'll see it beat the lower cards by a pretty wide margin in titles/settings that are actually demanding on GPU resources. The 2080ti is a beast of a card. Not worth $1,200, but a beast nonetheless.

In any event, my point is there's an argument to be made a $500 card is mid-range when $100 and $1,200 cards exist. I don't think that's some out there proposal.

 

[Jrpgfan]

It's usually 10 fps difference at most on the heavier titles at 4k(in lower resolutions the difference is even smaller) from the 2080 Super. In RDR2 for instance it's around 5 fps in 4k. I don't consider that to be a wide margin. The gap between 2060/2070 and 2080 is way bigger than that.

 

[OndrejSc]

 

[DalekFlay]

It's usually 10 fps difference at most on the heavier titles at 4k(in lower resolutions the difference is even smaller) from the 2080 Super. In RDR2 for instance it's around 5 fps in 4k. I don't consider that to be a wide margin. The gap between 2060/2070 and 2080 is way bigger than that.

My memories of benchmark charts are different but I'm too lazy to look around. Maybe you're right, who knows. It doesn't really matter anyway, as my "I guess $400-500 is mid-range from a certain point of view" was solely based on price. I would guess the middle of the pack next time will be $500 again, because nVidia and AMD know they can get away with it.

 

[Perkel]

If 4TF console is true then basically next gen is cancelled.

 

[abija]

If the 12TF can do 4k, 4TF should do 1080p.

 

[DalekFlay]

If the 12TF can do 4k, 4TF should do 1080p.

You would still have to fundamentally design the game around the weaker machine and then add things for higher end hardware, rather than the opposite. That's why when rumors started flying about two SKUs people worried about that outcome. On the Sony side at least though it seems to just be disc and no-disc SKUs.

 

[Perkel]

It doesn't matter if Sony doesn't have lower spec console. Developers will not be doing exclusive PS5 games unless PS5 will outright kill Xbox in sales. And with lower 4TF being for 199 or 299 it won't happen.

So base power around which next gen will be designed will be 4TF.
Also i don't get where you get people optimism that developers will be doing native 4k.
1080p @ 30fps will still be standard even with 12TF consoles.

 

[AwesomeButton]

If the 12TF can do 4k, 4TF should do 1080p.

You would still have to fundamentally design the game around the weaker machine and then add things for higher end hardware, rather than the opposite. That's why when rumors started flying about two SKUs people worried about that outcome. On the Sony side at least though it seems to just be disc and no-disc SKUs.

Technically, there is no problem for the service to detect your console version and serve you a different download if you have the stronger one.

It's all about marketing and selling you the more powerful thing though. Fuck consumer choice, you are a console gamer now.

 

[AwesomeButton]

1080p @ 30fps will still be standard even with 12TF consoles

Do you have data to back this up. Even if true it won't be true for long.

 

[taxalot]

Can't wait for the bazillions of "We built this PC running PS5 games" for 400 € of cheap components Youtube videos.

You know it's coming.

 

[J_C]

No way in hell Microsoft will release any kind of version for 200 dollars. Doesn't matter how much they dumb down the new Xbox, 200 bucks is ridiculous. Why would they even release a newgen console which is less powerful than the current gen Xbox One X? And then developers will have to optimize to several types of Xbox, defeating the purpose of developing to a console?

 

[Perkel]

Not when MS will be willing to subsidize console. Remember that MS sleeps on money while Sony doesn't.
Those 200$ consoles will be all digital which means every purchase will yield MS 30%

 

[taxalot]

If they release a 200 dollars console, they kill the competition, make the money back with games and gamepass .

It will be bad for their finances on the first years, but the long term benefits would be outrageous if that plan works. I too do think it's unlikely but it certainly cannot be ruled out of the question right now.

If one company is strong enough to pull this , it's Microsoft.

 

[J_C]

People want to sign up for the Next Gen, why would they buy a console which is only Next Gen in name, but actually is weaker than their current console. And watch low level graphics and sub 30 fps? Because for 200 dollars MS can only put peanut hardware into it. Because if they put a strong hardarw into it, and sell it at a 70% loss, I don't think this will fly with business suits.

 

[taxalot]

Because most do not own a 4k TV and do not give a shit about raytracing, which are the only two things unachievable on a Lockhart apparently.

 

[Jrpgfan]

Because most do not own a 4k TV and do not give a shit about raytracing, which are the only two things unachievable on a Lockhart apparently.

Based on what?

4k TVs are cheap as fuck nowadays. Even my girlfriend bought one for her daughter's room without even knowing it was 4k.

If you take a look at rtings under $300 TVs you'll notice most of the TVs there are 4k with only the smaller ones being 1080p/720p(only because you can't really see much of a difference on smaller panels). We're not in 2012 anymore.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Based on what?

4k TVs are cheap as fuck nowadays. Even my girlfriend bought one for her daughter's room without even knowing it was 4k.

If you take a look at rtings under $300 TVs you'll notice most of the TVs there are 4k with only the smaller ones being 1080p/720p(only because you can't really see much of a difference on smaller panels). We're not in 2012 anymore.

Televisions have long legs (it's not a yearly replacement for most). And there's billions of 1080p displays floating around out there.

 

[DalekFlay]

1080p @ 30fps will still be standard even with 12TF consoles.

They're going all-in on 4k as a marketing term du jour right now, so I doubt it. I'm sure many games will render lower natively, but way higher than 1080p to sell the 4k experience. That and ray tracing are why I do think 30fps will remain the console standard, because pretty images sell much more than high framerates and that will always be the case. Meanwhile on PC 4k monitors don't sell that well and 1440p monitors at 144hz are selling like hotcakes. Going to be an interesting division there over the next handful of years.

4k TVs are cheap as fuck nowadays.

Bad ones are, sure. OLEDs and good LCDs with full array local dimming, plus good HDR brightness, not so much. The average joe doesn't care though, he just knows his TV is "4k" and wants his games to be "4k" and thus here we are.

 

[Markman]

Stop listening to that fat fuck, he got no source.
Also I do think that pricing rumors are way too optimistic. For the tech you get even 600 euros/dollahs is kinda cheap.

There may be some cheaper versions that put it at 399 at most but $200 is extremely optimistic. Even that shity digital One S is like $200 right now and you hope you'll get next gen AMD shit with a nvme drive in it for that money. Gtfo.

I would bet on a Chromecast-like stick for poorfags that can stick into their TVs and use xCloud and play games that way for $99 or so.

 

[DalekFlay]

I do think it's quite believable they would take a hit to sell systems without disc drives at a loss. This lets them push consumers to digital delivery where they make more money and can market subscription services (which is what they see as the mainstream future). Everyone is saying "disc drives don't cost $100" but that's not the only factor.