The PS5 and Xbox 2 thread - it's happening

[Makabb]

The weaker lockhart (ms console):

- 1440p 60FPS
- No disc drive

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6913...ignificantly-less-ram-1440p-gaming/index.html

Sony has no 'weaker' console, so let's hope devs won't be using lockhart as the 'base' console for next gen games.

The "base" will still be the Xbox One for quite some while, because MS wants to treat their Xbox family plus PC gaming (a lot of low end hardware) as one ecosystem. That's a fundamentally different strategy than Sony's.

:facepalm: when new consoles will hit the market, games from ps5/anaconda/lockhart will not run on xbox one

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

The weaker lockhart (ms console):

- 1440p 60FPS
- No disc drive

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/6913...ignificantly-less-ram-1440p-gaming/index.html

Sony has no 'weaker' console, so let's hope devs won't be using lockhart as the 'base' console for next gen games.

The "base" will still be the Xbox One for quite some while, because MS wants to treat their Xbox family plus PC gaming (a lot of low end hardware) as one ecosystem. That's a fundamentally different strategy than Sony's.

:facepalm: when new consoles will hit the market, games from ps5/anaconda/lockhart will not run on xbox one

And yet, many games are still in development for current systems. Enjoy your cross-platform titles for another 2-3 years.

 

[Makabb]

The lockhart has same 3,5ghz cpu and ssd as stronger one, it only has less ram and GPU, which means the difference will only be in resolution and graphical options scaled down for lockhart, pretty fine.

Anyway, 3,5ghz cpu and 12 TF gpu, goodbye PC gaming.

 

[Zeriel]

It's the same as it's ever been. New consoles are mid-tier PCs at the time they are developed, especially so now that they are not trying to do anything special with the hardware and just using AMD SoC's they are literally PCs in a branded box.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Anyway, 3,5ghz cpu and 12 TF gpu, goodbye PC gaming.

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to ignore PC gaming. Too much money to be made, and how many PC gamers actually have a ~12 TFLOPS GPU? 5%?

Goodbye wishful thinking.

 

[Makabb]

It's the same as it's ever been. New consoles are mid-tier PCs at the time they are developed, especially so now that they are not trying to do anything special with the hardware and just using AMD SoC's they are literally PCs in a branded box.

the stronger consoles will have high end pc components though

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

It's the same as it's ever been.

No, gaming has become a lot more fluid in terms of platform variety and hardware requirements. Engines can scale from mobile to Switch all the way to a RTX 2080 Ti, and I think this trend will continue, baring First-Party exclusives and some AAA blockbuster projects.

 

[Makabb]

and how many PC gamers actually have a ~12 TFLOPS GPU? 5%?

That's the point, why get a 700$ GPU if you can get a lockhart for 299$ ?

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

It's the same as it's ever been. New consoles are mid-tier PCs at the time they are developed, especially so now that they are not trying to do anything special with the hardware and just using AMD SoC's they are literally PCs in a branded box.

the stronger consoles will have high end pc components though

And then there's Lockhart. And XB1. And PS4. And whatever Nintendo comes out with next. And 90% of PC gamers using something like a GTX 1060 or below. That's a yuge! market no publisher can afford to ignore.

 

[Makabb]

It all depends if you want graphics or don't care about them.......... if you have a 4k monitor and want best graphics you will get the powerfull consoles..... if you don't care as much you can get a lockhart for cheaper (but it does not even have a disc drive, so you would have to buy everything digitally)

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

It all depends if you want graphics or don't care about them.......... if you have a 4k monitor and want best graphics you will get the powerfull consoles..... if you don't care as much you can get a lockhart for cheaper (but it does not even have a disc drive, so you would have to buy everything digitally)

So then you admit a ~4+ TFLOPS Lockhart is enough for 1080p Next-Gen gaming? Then why all the disappointment?

 

[Makabb]

It all depends if you want graphics or don't care about them.......... if you have a 4k monitor and want best graphics you will get the powerfull consoles..... if you don't care as much you can get a lockhart for cheaper (but it does not even have a disc drive, so you would have to buy everything digitally)

So then you admit a ~4+ TFLOPS Lockhart is enough for 1080p Next-Gen gaming? Then why all the disappointment?

It's enough because it has the same cpu and ssd as the more powerfull one, ram and gpu only affect resolution and graphical options (textures, view distance), which will be scaled down for lockhart, but the base game will be the same, so in that sense lockhart is also next-gen. (and it's been said it will use 1440p not 1080)

 

[DalekFlay]

It's not about resolution or draw distance. The point is the core game itself... how big the areas are, how it streams from the VRAM, how many shaders can be on screen at once, etc... will be determined by the lowest common denominator. This isn't debatable, it's a fact every console "generation" and effects PC ports as well. If Microsoft does two consoles then one will have higher resolutions, framerates (maybe), maybe some other PC style higher settings, etc. But it will be the same core game, which means said core game will be impacted and designed around the bottom level experience. This won't be a big deal at first, but as the "generation" goes on it will be. This has literally already happened multiple times, like with the Xbox 360's lack of HDD on the base model.

Anyway, I'm talking to someone who wrote the words "goodbye PC gaming" unironically, so I'm wasting my fucking time.

 

[Makabb]

It's not about resolution or draw distance. The point is the core game itself... how big the areas are, how it streams from the VRAM, how many shaders can be on screen at once, etc... will be determined by the lowest common denominator. This isn't debatable, it's a fact every console "generation" and effects PC ports as well. If Microsoft does two consoles then one will have higher resolutions, framerates (maybe), maybe some other PC style higher settings, etc. But it will be the same core game, which means said core game will be impacted and designed around the bottom level experience. This won't be a big deal at first, but as the "generation" goes on it will be. This has literally already happened multiple times, like with the Xbox 360's lack of HDD on the base model.

Anyway, I'm talking to someone who wrote the words "goodbye PC gaming" unironically, so I'm wasting my fucking time.

You wouldn't have to write all of that if you would just check the specs

the cpu and ssd is the same for lowest console, the cpu handles all of the game design in short sentence, the gpu mostly does only graphics.

 

[Zeriel]

the stronger consoles will have high end pc components though

They really won't. Wait for the actual product, TFLOPS can be cited in a dozen different ways so they tell you nothing. At maximum the GPU unit is going to be RX 5700 tier, and in reality it will probably be more like GTX 1660. If you are buying budget PC builds at the time a new console comes out then yeah they're a pretty great deal if you don't mind the console ecosystem since console makers come pretty close to selling things at cost, but that's always been the case. Well, as long as it's really been PC hardware, going back to the 90's days the hardware was so different you couldn't even make comparisons.

 

[Zeriel]

It's the same as it's ever been.

No, gaming has become a lot more fluid in terms of platform variety and hardware requirements. Engines can scale from mobile to Switch all the way to a RTX 2080 Ti, and I think this trend will continue, baring First-Party exclusives and some AAA blockbuster projects.

I meant the value offering of consoles. They've always been pretty good deals in hardware right when they launch, sometimes unbeatable in value, then quickly get outmoded. One major exception to that I can think of offhand was the SNES, which was extremely underpowered for when it was released due to a decision by Nintendo. So much so that SEGA marketed its Genesis on the power of its hardware.

Anyway, at this point you know what you're getting. AMD's mid-grade CPU and GPU offerings at a SoC discount because the margins in that business are tiny. That's Xbox and PS now.

 

[Makabb]

8 core 16 thread at 3,5ghz is a high end cpu and not mid end

 

[abija]

2700x is not high end in 2019 and is better than that. Not exactly sure where you found that lower spec xbox will have the same CPU, in the shit you linked it says scaled down (so best scenario just lower clocks)

 

[Whipped Cream]

:facepalm: when new consoles will hit the market, games from ps5/anaconda/lockhart will not run on xbox one

This generation the first multi-platform third-party AAA games that were clearly developed for current gen consoles from the beginning were Assassins Creed: Unity (which was rushed as fuck) and The Witcher 3, which came out one year and one and a half years after the console launches respectively. Don't expect to see any major third-party multi-platform next-gen only games untill autumn 2021 at the earliest and don't expect it to become the standard untill autumn 2022. Releasing a big budget game on next-gen consoles only early on in a generation when the userbase for the new consoles is still small is risky for a third-party publisher.

It's not about resolution or draw distance. The point is the core game itself... how big the areas are, how it streams from the VRAM, how many shaders can be on screen at once, etc... will be determined by the lowest common denominator. This isn't debatable, it's a fact every console "generation" and effects PC ports as well. If Microsoft does two consoles then one will have higher resolutions, framerates (maybe), maybe some other PC style higher settings, etc. But it will be the same core game, which means said core game will be impacted and designed around the bottom level experience. This won't be a big deal at first, but as the "generation" goes on it will be. This has literally already happened multiple times, like with the Xbox 360's lack of HDD on the base model.

Agreed.

I think the Lockhart is a terrible idea. I don't think its strictly bad from a business perspective (Although it is a risky move. I can already imagine the "Buy the PS5 for a TRUE next-gen experience" ads.), but its terrible for anyone who wants multi-platform next-gen games to be truly next-gen.

A part of me wants to believe that Microsoft wouldn't be so stupid, but then I remember the Kinect... and the Xbox One announcement conference... and Windows 8... and Windows 10... and the Xbox SAD edition... and the "8K 120 fps with ray-tracing" nonsense at their E3 conference this year... and all the other stupid shit that Microsoft has done over the years... and it worries me...

 

[Zeriel]

8 core 16 thread at 3,5ghz is a high end cpu and not mid end

"High end" does not mean what you think it means. High end CPUs would be at least $500+, same as graphics cards. What you're describing is maybe mid-end, and even then it's the lower end of mid-end. The Ryzen 3600 which is pretty entry-level and average is 6 core, 12 thread, 3.6 ghz to 4.0 ghz boost and can go as high as 4.2 with its automatic PBO. So what you're looking at is a part with 2 more cores than that and less clock speed.

Honestly, gaming CPUs aren't even high-end anymore, you get high-end CPUs for production/workstation purposes. Until games become highly parallelized (and that's not happening anytime soon) that will remain the case. If you want to just take the top of the common consumer and not workstation oriented stack, though... okay, you're looking at the Ryzen 3900X with 12 cores and 24 threads and a clock of 3.8-4.6, or even the 3950x which is still on the consumer socket and sits at 16 cores and 32 threads.

 

[DalekFlay]

Yeah, high-end processors are almost useless for games today. 4 cores and 4 threads is slowly dying, I doubt we'll jump to "you need super fast 16 cores!" overnight. It seems pretty clear both consoles will have roughly a Radeon 5700 and Ryzen 3700, but with slower clocks and some other tweaks to lower costs and heat.

 

[Zeriel]

I think 8 cores is something that some games can use today, especially if you like to have something else running in the background like a browser or you're streaming/recording. 12 core is maybe future-proofing, in the same sense that a few years ago 6 cores seemed impossible to use but now sees some use, so I could see a 12 core for someone who wants to buy a processor and use it for 10 years (which I've done before). 16+ is definitely getting into workspace only territory. And if you buy a processor every few years and like to ride the latest tech then I'd say a fast 8 core is ideal.

 

[tritosine2k]

Yeah, high-end processors are almost useless for "games" today.

Wouldn't be the case with realistic draw distance, nuanced adversaries, path planning inside volume instead of plane etc.
Wouldn't think you need full fledged sims for these to come into play.
If FPS as a genre means devs can get away without the former then FPS was a mistake, period.

 

[Zeriel]

The problem is not the capabilities or lack thereof, the problem is that no games actually distribute the load equally. Even the best, most parallelized games distribute niche tasks to other threads and run the core/render tasks on one thread. So you see an improvement as far as all cores seeing some usage on modern games, but there is always that one thread at 90-99% while others are at 10-50%.

 

[DalekFlay]

Yes, I was speaking about literally today, not tomorrow. The current consoles do have 8 cores I believe, but they're less powerful and some of them are used only on system tasks. Even a Ryzen 3700's value over a 3600 for purely games is suspect, because the extra cores and threads are so very rarely used. However if the new consoles change this and use more cores on the actual games running, then it might also change how well PC CPU cores are utilized, so we could see a shift to the 3700 or equivalent being more important. In either case stuff like the 3950x has always been way overkill for gaming.

Though again it's not a 1-to-1 comparison because despite consoles basically being PCs now they have certain hardware advantages and disadvantes, and PCs tend to rely more on GPU resources, and other quirks.