The PS5 and Xbox 2 thread - it's happening

[Makabb]

Yep, this is not ps4 situation where it had low end cpu and mid end gpu, ps5 will have a high end cpu and gpu

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Well you will be able to build similar PC when the console release next year for around 700$.
The CPU boost on the console will be 3.2, so something like R7 1700 for 150$ is very comparable.
5700 is 350$ now, so in a year it would be 300$ for sure.
RAM, mobo and SSD is around 250$ more.
So that is 700$ PC now with new parts, if you go 2nd hand it's a 600$ machine.

 

[Makabb]

The CPU boost on the console will be 3.2, so something like R7 1700 for 150$ is very comparable.

There's also a thing called IPC (instructions per cycle) which newer CPU's have more than the old ones, so Zen 2 leaves that CPU behind as it is 2 generations older.

That's why the newer CPUs are generaly faster even if they have same cores and clock speed, because of the IPC.



also you have to add psu and a case, so 50+50 and more comparable cpu another 50, that is 850$.


850$ just to have same hardware.....now comes in the optimizations, which at minimum, double the PC requirements, which is a 1500$ PC.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

The CPU boost on the console will be 3.2, so something like R7 1700 for 150$ is very comparable.

There's also a thing called IPC (instructions per cycle) which newer CPU's have more than the old ones, so Zen 2 leaves that CPU behind as it is 2 generations older.

That's why the newer CPUs are generaly faster even if they have same cores and clock speed, because of the IPC.



also you have to add psu and a case, so 50+50 and more comparable cpu another 50, that is 850$.


850$ just to have same hardware.....now comes in the optimizations, which at minimum, double the PC requirements.

No, the clocks on the 1700 will negate the IPC gain of Zen 2, you even can go with 10$ more for 2700 and actually get better CPU than what will be in consoles.

And these are prices now, in one year they will drop, especially the GPU pricing may get wonky with intel's entry or new series from both nvidia and amd.

 

[soulburner]

Why are you still comparing consoles to PCs? While they are technically a modified PC, you do not see anyone ever try to build a PS4 level PC (well, you do, but they suck at it). Not only because a similar CPU doesn't exist on the PC (8 core Atom-like), any other similarly poor CPU would not be capable of running any game at all. The Jaguar CPU was very low end on the day the PS4 entered the market. Next year, the PS4 will enter the market with a pretty high end CPU. The same way console game designers are able to squeeze an 8 core Atom-like CPU to do anything, they will also be able to do with the new Ryzen CPU. And they will instantly forget all this when porting their game to the PC. Ryzen here, Ryzen there, but the consoles' Ryzen will be utilized better, same with the RDNA graphics architecture - the PC ports will keep running better on an Nvidia in DX11 mode. Partly because of lazy developers, and partly because the architectural differences, which will make some console optimizations unavailable for the PC: the PS5 will use unified HBM memory for most of its game related tasks and it will be accessible to both the CPU and GPU at the same time, at the same speed. Something our PCs with puny DDR4 will never be able to get close to.

 

[unfairlight]

Consoles are power limited compared to PCs as well. A PC might draw 250w on the GPU alone, but that's the entire system load on something like the Xbox One X. The very minimum to make this happen with a first gen Ryzen performance CPU with 8 cores that's been underclocked and power limited, a cut down GTX 1660 level GPU probably with 16gb of shared pool RAM (probably GDDR6, maybe HBM) and a 1tb SSD would come in at 500 or 600. It's a ballsy move to launch consoles at 500 but since the only people buying Playstations and Xboxes are "hardcore console gamers" who will buy it no matter what anyway, they can very well do it.
I don't think graphics will be getting too much better, primarily because it's a cost/benefit situation. RDR2 is probably gonna be one of those new benchmarks for a while, all you'll get is roughly that level with a few extra polygons and larger textures tacked on it.

 

[circuit breaker]

btw it was confirmed by Sony that devkit design is real and it's what the devs have, it's beefy like that because the heat needs to get out, which means it will be STRONK

ok but why does it look like an office building

 

[DalekFlay]

Two days after the PS5 comes out, you'll see Youtube videos "How to build a PS5-like PC for 400$ with benchmarks that compare to the actual thing.

Quote me on that.

I doubt for $400, but for normal "mid-range" gaming PC prices? Sure.

 

[Makabb]

Looks like dragon scales

Massive vents for getting the heat out.

 

[aweigh]

 

[The Decline]

So will it surpass the PS4 as a cockroach hotel?

 

[Makabb]

PS5 will be the biggest console leap in history but it's kind of a fluke really, here is why.

The biggest jump in hardware so far was commodore 64 to amiga, amiga in 1985 was atleast 5 years ahead of its time compared to PCs, we won't have that with PS5, but PS5 having high end components will push current PCs to the limit also.
There are 3 main reason why.

1) Moores law, the CPU in PS5 still will be relevant 10 years from now, as the improvements in CPUs will be even less pronounced that we had before, CPUs went from 22nm to 14 to 7, theres only 5 and 3nm left, and the perfomance gain goin from 7nm to 3nm will be much less than going from 22nm to 7nm. Today even the 10 year old i5s and i7s 2770 can play games, so with todays zen 2 it will be the same.

2) If AMD would not create the Zen 2, there probably would be no PS5 (or it would be crap like it was with PS4) as in 2012 AMD had no good CPU to rival Intel and Sony had to do with what was available.

3) PS4 had a low end cpu and a mid end gpu at launch, ps5 will have everything high end

So since C64 to Amiga this will be the 2nd biggest hardware jump, not directly related with raw power like it was with Amiga in 80's, but many factors played a role for the overall outcome.

 

[unfairlight]

1) Moores law, the CPU in PS5 still will be relevant 10 years from now, as the improvements in CPUs will be even less pronounced that we had before, CPUs went from 22nm to 14 to 7, theres only 5 and 3nm left, and the perfomance gain goin from 7nm to 3nm will be much less than going from 22nm to 7nm.

You're not wrong but you're not right either. TSMC has marketed 20-30% density improvements from their current 7nm process to their improved 7nm process. The law will be upheld for a few years from now, we'll truly peak out and hit diminishing returns hard in about 2 to 4 years. You're not wrong that current CPUs will still stay relevant for a while from now, though.

 

[DalekFlay]

Worth noting high-end Intels at 14nm still beat Ryzen in gaming despite Ryzen being 7nm. This might change as more console ports use more threads, but it's not as simple as "7nm is better." Also I just watched the Digital Foundry video linked to above and he said the "confirmed" boost clock is around 3ghz on the console chip. If confirmed that's a good bit below the PC specs of even a 3600 (though again console optimizations make up for that in a lot of ways).

 

[J_C]

Worth noting high-end Intels at 14nm still beat Ryzen in gaming despite Ryzen being 7nm. This might change as more console ports use more threads, but it's not as simple as "7nm is better." Also I just watched the Digital Foundry video linked to above and he said the "confirmed" boost clock is around 3ghz on the console chip. If confirmed that's a good bit below the PC specs of even a 3600 (though again console optimizations make up for that in a lot of ways).

Isn't the adventage or Ryzen is that is brings the same power as intel for much lower price and less power consumption?

 

[Makabb]

Worth noting high-end Intels at 14nm still beat Ryzen in gaming despite Ryzen being 7nm. This might change as more console ports use more threads, but it's not as simple as "7nm is better." Also I just watched the Digital Foundry video linked to above and he said the "confirmed" boost clock is around 3ghz on the console chip. If confirmed that's a good bit below the PC specs of even a 3600 (though again console optimizations make up for that in a lot of ways).

While they do, the difference is nothing Intel can brag about, I would totaly go for the lowest Ryzen, as it costs peanuts.

 

[DalekFlay]

While they do, the difference is nothing Intel can brag about, I would totaly go for the lowest Ryzen, as it costs peanuts.

It's not, didn't mean to say it was, but I'm responding to the idea that 7nm means the world. It's likely going to be a weakened 3700, so the 10% difference or so up there will be exacerbated and it's going to under-perform a years old PC CPU. It will be a big leap over the PS4 I'm sure, but you keep acting like this tech will blow our minds. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

I have a Ryzen so certainly not knocking them, I think the price to performance ratio is unbeatable.

 

[Makabb]

The 'weakened' one is still a 3.2ghz, usualy CPUs come today with around 4ghz stock, 800mhz is very little at this point, a 10% difference at 60 fps is 8-7, if ps5 will aim for 30 fps with high graphical fidelity that difference is lessened to 3-4 fps.

 

[DalekFlay]

The 'weakened' one is still a 3.2ghz, usualy CPUs come today with around 4ghz stock, 800mhz is very little at this point, a 10% difference at 60 fps is 8-7, if ps5 will aim for 30 fps with high graphical fidelity that difference is lessened to 3-4 fps.

My boost clock is 4.8Ghz. And yes, I'm sure it'll be fine for a console, not saying otherwise. Your repeated "this is going to blow a high-end PC away!" bullshit is what I'm refuting.

 

[Makabb]

The 'weakened' one is still a 3.2ghz, usualy CPUs come today with around 4ghz stock, 800mhz is very little at this point, a 10% difference at 60 fps is 8-7, if ps5 will aim for 30 fps with high graphical fidelity that difference is lessened to 3-4 fps.

My boost clock is 4.8Ghz. And yes, I'm sure it'll be fine for a console, not saying otherwise. You're repeated "this is going to blow a high-end PC away!" bullshit is what I'm refuting.

Depends on what you mean by 'high end pc', if you pay 2000$ for it, it will be better than ps5, but if you want to build a PC for 800$ and expecting it to be better than ps5, than it won't happen.

 

[DalekFlay]

Depends on what you mean by 'high end pc', if you pay 2000$ for it, it will be better than ps5, but if you want to build a PC for 800$ and expecting it to be better than ps5, than it won't happen.

Starting from scratch with $800? Sure. Putting $800 of upgrades into an existing PC? Nah.

Anyway the pissing match stuff isn't interesting. Like I said before I'm a PC guy and have zero interest even if the PS5 blows away my PC. My interest is in seeing how expectations meet reality in a $400 system. Your stuff is really exaggerated because of fanboying, but even Digital Foundry seem to be setting pretty high expectations. I'm interested to see where it all ends up, and where Sony/MS cut corners and don't.

 

[Makabb]

> my stuff is exaggerated
> digital foundry says exactly the same thing and it's ok

 

[DalekFlay]

digital foundry says exactly the same thing

Didn't say that. Anyway debating with you is pointless.

 

[Makabb]

You said 'Digital Foundry seem to be setting pretty high expectations', i'm setting high expectations also.

 

[soulburner]

While the new consoles will be a significant technological jump from the current gen, it won't be such a jump like the C64 to Amiga. We had a huge architectural change back then - not only did we go to 16 bit from 8, ~1 MHz to ~7 MHz (not counting other performance increases due to how different the CPU was in its entirety), increased memory from mere 64K to 512K (and anyone who wanted to do anything serious, including gaming, upgraded that to 1 MB), we received much more advanced specialized chips dealing with graphics and audio. There is nothing comparable to that jump today unless we would somehow triple the single thread performance (at the same time increasing the number of threads), go full real-time ray tracing and let go "normal" polygons and do virtualized voxels... and all that with a single generation

So while the performance increase will be pretty substantial it is nothing like what Makabb is expecting or hoping for.