Support NeoGAF

[McHuj]

Consoles have had 3.2GHz CPU's before (PS3 / 360) and with more efficient, smaller manufacturing process (7nm) becoming available soon, it should hopefully allow for decent speeds at lower heat, which will be ideal for next gen consoles.

Good CPU guess would be too look at AMD's current CPU line and find the CPU's with a TPD of around 50-65W. With a process shrink and maybe a little down clocking that should come down to 30-35W on 7nm. The CPU will probably be limited to 25-30% of the power budget for the SOC as the rest will be eaten by the GPU.

A Ryzen 1600 or 1700 would probably fit that requirement.

 

[family_guy]

They'll release the minimum spec that will effectively push a 1440p PSVR 2.0 at 90fps and aim for $400.

 

[Shin]

They have been working with AMD for years

Only one console cycle no?
I kinda agree with the person you're quoting, AMD needs a Ryzen moment with their video cards.

 

[McHuj]

They have been working with AMD for years

Yes, I know and I'm resigned to the fact that it will almost certainly be another AMD design.

 

[jelly]

A new CPU is all well and good but it needs to be an APU for the consoles.

 

[Head.spawn]

A 2X RAM bump would be by far the weakest increase ever.

These are some low expectations

To be fair though, PS4 almost shipped with 4GB of RAM.

16GB seems reasonable to me if I'm being realistic. Expecting a +24GB increase two years after MS was able to score just +4GB more, seems a bit wild, no?

 

[Stevey]

This thread is gold.

 

[Shin]

"SEE true power"
"No funny t-shirts necessary"

I've been having that stupid thought for the past few days.
It would be funny as hell though if they went with something like that as teaser.

A new CPU is all well and good but it needs to be an APU for the consoles.

Probably will be and most likely why they would stick with AMD because of price/performance.

 

[thuway]

To be fair though, PS4 almost shipped with 4GB of RAM.

16GB seems reasonable to me if I'm being realistic. Expecting a +24GB increase two years after MS was able to score jus +4GB more, seems a bit wild, no?

It also isn't so much the amount of RAM but the speed at it which could be deployed. High resolution and framerates necessitate fast bandwidth.

We've been hearing about 3D HBM memory packages for ages now and it's still an obscenely expensive (albeit elegant and incredibly fast) option.

 

[RoadHazard]

AAMARMO PS5 Predicted Specs.

*Low End means the cheapest and less risky and High End means the means the moderate and risky.

Low End:
Main Processor
CPU: AMD "Ryzen" 8 Cores
GPU: 5.80 TFLOPS AMD Polaris Based Graphics Engine

Memory
GDDR5X 12 GB

Hard Disk
1TB HHD

Optical Drive
Yes

High End:
Main Processor
CPU: AMD "Ryzen" 8 Cores
GPU: 6.10 TFLOPS AMD Polaris Based Graphics Engine

Memory
GDDR6 16 GB

Hard Disk
500 GB SSD

Optical Drive
None

6TF would be terrible. Would just be a PS4 Pro Plus in the GPU department, on level with the XB1X. That's no PS5.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

To be fair though, PS4 almost shipped with 4GB of RAM.

16GB seems reasonable to me if I'm being realistic. Expecting a +24GB increase two years after MS was able to score jus +4GB more, seems a bit wild, no?

Yeah people expecting 24-32GB RAM are really pushing beyond realistic expectations. Most PC's still won't have that much RAM, yet they expect consoles to suddenly have more ?

Not even sure why a console would need that much (not yet anyway) it's not like it's a PC, running lots of things in the background and if Xbox One X can do 4k textures with 8-9GB RAM, then 16GB (12-13GB after OS) should be fine.

Not that I'm against more RAM of course but keeping it realistic and we know the price will be a factor too, unless they start selling consoles higher than $500, which is very unlikely.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

To be fair though, PS4 almost shipped with 4GB of RAM.

16GB seems reasonable to me if I'm being realistic. Expecting a +24GB increase two years after MS was able to score just +4GB more, seems a bit wild, no?

Not when you consider it'll be 7nm in two years.

I'd be shocked if Sony doesn't have at least 20 GB (16 for games, 4 for OS)

 

[Hermii]

Has there ever been a perfectly balanced PlayStation?

PS4: CPU limited
PS3: memory starved and gpu limited
Ps2: ?
Ps1: ?

 

[Klocker]

Sounds about right. I like this iteration model like phones

 

[Shin]

Not that I'm against more RAM of course but keeping it realistic and we know the price will be a factor too, unless they start selling consoles higher than $500, which is very unlikely.

Seeing as they did 2x $399 and the success they are enjoying (plus other factors) it's what we might see.
Even if they need to incur a loss they'll make it back and a hell lot more through Network Services.

16Gb costs maybe 80-100 USD (AMD paid $30 for 4Gb), mass discount and all should put it around $20-25 for 4Gb.
That would place it right up there with PS3/PS4 memory cost, yet memory prices are going up and has been for years so IDK.
It might not seem like a big jump on paper, but need vs what looks good, need will always win, plus money saved.

 

[Qassim]

Nope, dont agree. How many 30 FPS games do you get on modern i5 / i7 that are not GPU or bandwidth limited ?

The answer is none. It will be the same for a Ryzen / 8 + TF GPU unless Sony cheap out on Bandwidth.

Maybe console devs will put 16 ms pauses in to slow things down for us console peasants.

60fps is not really a hardware problem. It's a design decision.

 

[Hermii]

60fps is not a hardware problem. It's a design decision.

It's kind of both. They could make a PS4 pro pro with 16tf gpu and it
Still couldn't run most PS4 games at 60 if it had Jaguar.

 

[geordiemp]

60fps is not really a hardware problem. It's a design decision.

Yes, its a design decision taken with severely limited CPU power that impacts frame rate, AI and open world game design heavily.

I recall Naughty Dog taking the design decision to make UC4 60 FPS, I remember their comments, and they had to go back to 30.

Destiny 2 is 30 FPS due to CPU on consoles. I dont know why devs even have to defend 30 due to jaguar.

Yes it is a hardware problem. All those games on console run at 60 on PC.

We are done here.

 

[Theonik]

Nobody needs 32GB any time soon.

Why do you even think it's needed. I mean, you can take a look at the future *now* and you will not find many systems with such a huge amount of ram. I mean, you can't have enough ram but it's definitely not needed.

I mean I have 64GB on my PC right now and I don't think I could live with less! But I think by 2020 and with new systems 24GB might not actually be a bad expectation.

Memory density will only increase and you really can't have too much RAM You will also be targetting 4K resolutions in earnest then and even PC games out now will require more than 8GB of VRAM for 4K rendering with higher resolution textures. You also need to store the game itself in that envelope on consoles as well as the OS. One also needs to remember that as far as memory configurations go, 16GB means a 256-bit bus which unless running at much higher clocks will be slower than say a 12GB 384-bit bus. So 24GB makes a lot more sense in that aspect as well. For reference the first GDDR6 products are expected to hit this year with 12GB 384-bit bus interfaces with a total bandwidth of 768GB/s a 16GB config at the same clock would get you 512GB/s on a 256-bit bus.

Moreover I keep seeing suggestions of including extra memory for the OS to save on more expensive memory. That's actually not that helpful. The reason is quite simple, it ties you to make a prediction on the footprint of the OS very early on which you don't want to do. What Sony and MS did this gen is estimate on big OS use then slowly liberate parts of that as features got cancelled or OS optimisations are reached. You can't do that with dedicated memory for OS. Conversely you could do it down the line if you want to make a Pro-type system. That's what the PS4P does in fact!

I think this is a good point when talking about software -- console games were a lot more expensive in the early 90's. The reason publishers are doing so much DLC and season passes and microtransactions is because $60 in 2017 money really isn't enough for a AAA game. Maybe part of that is just the sheer number of games being made today.

I'm not so sure on hardware though. According to this chart comparing the prices of past consoles in 2016 dollars, most successful game consoles have launched at around $300 or $400 in today's money. Some flirted with $450 but that seems to be the limit. You're right about people's incomes stagnating though.

Another factor to consider though is the overall stagnation of the console audience. Console publishers are focusing more and more on the hardcore gamer who pre-orders special editions and buys season passes. That and the more mainstream GTA/COD/Madden/FIFA gamer. I haven't seen much attempt to expand beyond that. Since around 2008 most of the expansion in video games has been in PC and mobile. One issue in this is how consoles aren't expanding all that much in emerging markets like South America, continental Asia, and Eastern Europe. Sony seems to be trying to make inroads into Korea, China, and parts of Southeast Asia, but I think those places are mostly PC and mobile gaming. Consoles may have missed their chance in these markets.

For software, the fact prices have more or less been fixed doesn't help yes but the market wouldn't buy them if they were more expensive so you're stuck but at the same time that doesn't mean that current trends are necessary and increasing the cost of games would fix the problem. In reality publisher are pursuing this model because it makes money and they wouldn't suddenly abandon it if they could charge people more. If anything that model seems to offer better growth too since that's what drives demand for PC and mobile in developing markets though these markets want f2p not pay then micro transactions. If anything I think making more f2p PC games and/or mobile games makes more sense for major publishers to grow their revenues.

As for inflation, it kinda depends on what your metric is, an Xbox 360 in 2005 would generally cost you $399 there was a cheaper model at $299 but that was the less popular option and eventually you needed the accessories in the $399 bundle to play. That can translate to $533 today depending on your inflation metric, it looks like IGN was using the unskilled labour value of the commodity but skilled labour value is more appropriate. By the same metric, a $299 PS2 in 2000 cost $493 in 2016 by the same metric but the same caveat applies in that, you can't sell a modern console at $499 as easily. (data)

Yes, PC doesn't use unified memory.

But then you are comparing apples to oranges. Unified memory is appealing in part because of its higher efficiency, since data doesn't need to be duplicated for faster access by the CPU or GPU respectively. It doesn't make sense to directly compare.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

60fps is not really a hardware problem. It's a design decision.

That is partly true but more powerful hardware (like a PC for example) wouldn't limit developers as much though, allowing them to have nice graphics, better AI and better framerates, with less compromises.

 

[napata]

I mean I have 64GB on my PC right now and I don't think I could live with less!

For gaming & regular use? Only profesional stuff would require that much RAM. Even 8gb is still enough for a regular user/gamer. RAM usage in games has hardly gone up in the past 5 years.

 

[Shin]

Yeah people expecting 24-32GB RAM are really pushing beyond realistic expectations. Most PC's still won't have that much RAM, yet they expect consoles to suddenly have more ?

Need to keep in mind that PC has a separate memory pool, RAM + VRAM where else with consoles it's just one pool for the CPU+GPU+OS.
I'll take Shadow of Mordor once again as an example, that game (IMO) does not look impressive at all at 4K, yet it eats nearly 7Gb of VRAM.
This game was not created from the ground up for 4K so I'd expect games that are created with that in mind would require even more memory.

Sony bought the cheapest chips from Samsung for the original PS4 (512Mb x16: http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/products/dram/graphic-dram/gddr5-component/K4G41325FC?ia=759
For PS4 Pro they went with 1Gb sticks: http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/products/dram/graphic-dram/gddr5-component/K4G80325FB?ia=759

They could very well go with 1Gb sticks x 24, which would probably give the best result in terms of amount and price point.
You'd have the same situation as XBOX 12Gb, but instead it would be in clam-shell like base PS4 is but with a total of 24Gb.
That way they can keep the bus width at 384-bit (12x32-bit) while having more memory available (someone correct me on this).
I can't find the article, but in clam-shell mode they can reap the benefit of it's bandwidth and total memory capacity without widening the bus.
You'd have something like 1152GB/s of bandwidth or 1320GB/s depending on GDDR6's final specification on a 384-bit bus.

On paper that all looks impressive also and easier to communicate to the general consumer that isn't as knowledgeable.
They'll see that it's x and z times better and as a reason as to why they should upgrade, which is the vast majority Sony are selling to.

 

[Theonik]

For gaming & regular use? Only profesional stuff would require that much RAM. Even 8gb is still enough for a regular user/gamer. RAM usage in games has hardly gone up in the past 5 years.

Regular use. Games don't tax system ram much. They do eat up a ton of VRAM though. I basically moved away from 980Ti because 6GB of VRAM is not enough for modern games in 4K.

 

[Colbert]

This thread is gold.

Platinum!

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Need to keep in mind that PC has a separate memory pool, RAM + VRAM where else with consoles it's just one pool for the CPU+GPU+OS.
I'll take Shadow of Mordor once again as an example, that game (IMO) does not look impressive at all at 4K, yet it eats nearly 7Gb of VRAM.
This game was not created from the ground up for 4K so I'd expect games that are created with that in mind would require even more memory.

Sony bought the cheapest chips from Samsung for the original PS4 (512Mb x16: http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/products/dram/graphic-dram/gddr5-component/K4G41325FC?ia=759
For PS4 Pro they went with 1Gb sticks: http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/products/dram/graphic-dram/gddr5-component/K4G80325FB?ia=759

They could very well go with 1Gb sticks x 24, which would probably give the best result in terms of amount and price point.
You'd have the same situation as XBOX 12Gb, but instead it would be in clam-shell like base PS4 is but with a total of 24Gb.
That way they can keep the bus width at 384-bit (12x32-bit) while having more memory available (someone correct me on this).
I can't find the article, but in clam-shell mode they can reap the benefit of it's bandwidth and total memory capacity without widening the bus.
You'd have something like 1152GB/s of bandwidth or 1320GB/s depending on GDDR6's final specification on a 384-bit bus.

On paper that all looks impressive also and easier to communicate to the general consumer that isn't as knowledgeable.
They'll see that it's x and z times better and as a reason as to why they should upgrade, which is the vast majority Sony are selling to.

It will just come down to what's available at the time and cost of components but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I just hope a better CPU is priority this time.

Still, it's fun to guess for now.

 

[Inuhanyou]

It is utterly baffling to me that people believe a new system is coming out in 2 years and that it will be a half step. How would they even market a weak PS5?

Its almost as if people don't bother to read threads. Its not a weak PS5

 

[Hermii]

It will just come down to what's available at the time and cost of components but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I just hope a better CPU is priority this time.

Still, it's fun to guess for now.

If they go amd apu, ryzen is pretty much a certainty.

Last gen lack of memory was the biggest problem, that was fixed this gen.

This gen cpu is the biggest problem, I bet both Sony and MS has heard devs complaining about it.

Would be nice to have a console without any one part holding it back next gen.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

If they go amd apu, ryzen is pretty much a certainty.

Last gen lack of memory was the biggest problem, that was fixed this gen.

This gen cpu is the biggest problem, I bet both Sony and MS has heard devs complaining about it.

Would be nice to have a console without bottlenecks next gen.

Yeah let's hope that's the case. It really would feel like a true next gen step forward for consoles, if they can put in a CPU that is more capable of 60fps gaming with less compromise, like a PC.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Yeah let's hope that's the case. It really would feel like a true next gen step forward for consoles, if they can put in a CPU that is more capable of 60fps gaming with less compromise, like a PC.

There will always be the exact same kind of compromise on console, That doesn't change no matter how powerful the components get, a console is a console and not a PC

 

[almostjuliuscaesar]

it wouldn't make any sense for this to be the route they took. the ps4 pro made sense because they knew it would be another 7+ year cycle.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

There will always be the exact same kind of compromise on console, That doesn't change no matter how powerful the components get, a console is a console and not a PC

Things are changing though and they are already becoming more like PC's, same / similar architecture ect, so never say never.

It's weird how people always complain about 30fps but now we are talking about consoles becoming better and possibly able to do more 60fps games, people are suddenly against it ?

PC elitist crowd getting worried or something ? Harder to justify the higher cost if consoles can do 60fps for less ? Stupid reason if that's the case. I'm a PC gamer too and I'm all for consoles going for 60fps.

Of course non of us know what will happen and it might not change but it would be great if consoles finally broke away from being primarily 30fps machines.

 

[Theonik]

Yeah let's hope that's the case. It really would feel like a true next gen step forward for consoles, if they can put in a CPU that is more capable of 60fps gaming with less compromise, like a PC.

The reason you get 30fps on consoles isn't the CPUs being too weak. It is developers choosing to optimise their games for 30fps.

If they wanted, they could run at 60 but would need to cut things to make that work. A next-gen system would still get 30fps games because developers would end up making the same decisions. You could of course argue that if you had to cut things to hit 60 then the CPU is too weak, but CPUs will never be fast enough, you simply add more things to use the extra speed while keeping within your 33ms frame target.

Now, PCs are different because you get to optimise games to what you want yourself and also get a wide selection of upgrade options available every year that allow you to leapfrog games that are designed to run 30fps on 2 year old console CPUs.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

Dream would be optional boost mode for PS4 games at launch (and hopefully support for games with pro-mode).

 

[sense]

Has anybody thought up the possibility of both ps5 and ps5 pro releasing at the same time? One is 399 and the other is 499 or maybe 549 lol. I can see it happening just to keep everyone happy!

 

[Inuhanyou]

Things are changing though and they are already becoming more like PC's, same / similar architecture ect, so never say never.
.

It has nothing to do with PC elitism, or having similar architectures.

Developers by default maximize the potential of the closed box hardware they are working on. Developers will aim for 60fps, they will aim for 30fps, they will aim for higher resolutions or lower resolutions depending on what kind of game it is they want to make.

Whether the GPU is 2 teraflops or 20 teraflops or the CPU has 4 cores of 40

 

[jdstorm]

Yeah people expecting 24-32GB RAM are really pushing beyond realistic expectations. Most PC's still won't have that much RAM, yet they expect consoles to suddenly have more ?

Not even sure why a console would need that much (not yet anyway) it's not like it's a PC, running lots of things in the background and if Xbox One X can do 4k textures with 8-9GB RAM, then 16GB (12-13GB after OS) should be fine.

Not that I'm against more RAM of course but keeping it realistic and we know the price will be a factor too, unless they start selling consoles higher than $500, which is very unlikely.

Seeing as they did 2x $399 and the success they are enjoying (plus other factors) it's what we might see.
Even if they need to incur a loss they'll make it back and a hell lot more through Network Services.

16Gb costs maybe 80-100 USD (AMD paid $30 for 4Gb), mass discount and all should put it around $20-25 for 4Gb.
That would place it right up there with PS3/PS4 memory cost, yet memory prices are going up and has been for years so IDK.
It might not seem like a big jump on paper, but need vs what looks good, need will always win, plus money saved.

I think Sony will go all out on the CPU and Ram but limit the GPU. Its a great way to keep the costs under control and will create a gap in the market for the PS5 pro if the Pro allocates more resources to the GPU.

I also think Sony will go overboard on Ram. In general increased RAM is one of the best ways to futureproof a device and 8GBs has been well recieved on the PS4.

I could see based Sony going with 60GB (12x4GB and 12x1GB) or 48GB (24x2GB) however i think the 60GB configuration would be advantageous as Sony could make the 12×1GB Ram higher quality then the 12x4GB as a way to save money and increase peformance.

 

[Fess]

Yes, its a design decision taken with severely limited CPU power that impacts frame rate, AI and open world game design heavily.

I recall Naughty Dog taking the design decision to make UC4 60 FPS, I remember their comments, and they had to go back to 30.

Destiny 2 is 30 FPS due to CPU on consoles. I dont know why devs even have to defend 30 due to jaguar.

Yes it is a hardware problem. All those games on console run at 60 on PC.

We are done here.

No it's not, it's all about choice, every single game could be 60fps on console if the devs wanted that, but since most devs think graphics impress more than smooth framerates they rather go for better graphics. This is why we still have both 30fps and 60fps games in all genres.

Multiplat games are usually 30fps on console simply because there is such a big power gap between console and PC, the games are usually 60+ fps on PC with the right hardware and the devs want to keep the graphics as close to the PC version as possible, so when down porting to console they simply target a slower framerate on console to not have to scale back the graphics.

This power gap will never go away, therefore low framerates on console will never go away either.

Naughty Dog didn't have to go down to 30fps on UC4, they decided to go down to 30fps because they wanted pretty graphics. There was nothing forcing them to go down to 30fps.

Look at Polyphony Digital and Evolution Studio. Why is GT Sports 60fps and Driveclub 30fps? Same hardware, same genre, same "corridor racing". What's going on there?
It's simple, PD has set 60fps as the target and Evolution has set 30fps as the target. Nothing else. Driveclub could've been 60fps too, no problem, but Evolution went for graphics instead of smoothness. And that's it. Every single time, the hardware has never been the problem.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I think Sony will go all out on the CPU and Ram but limit the GPU. Its a great way to keep the costs under control and will create a gap in the market for the PS5 pro if the Pro allocates more resources to the GPU.

I also think Sony will go overboard on Ram. In general increased RAM is one of the best ways to futureproof a device and 8GBs has been well recieved on the PS4.

I could see based Sony going with 60GB (12x4GB and 12x1GB) or 48GB (24x2GB) however i think the 60GB configuration would be advantageous as Sony could make the 12×1GB Ram higher quality then the 12x4GB as a way to save money and increase peformance.

60GB and 48GB don't even exist in PC density right now. RAM densities on desktop GPU's remain limited to 32GB and they have not even gotten anywhere near that, they are still at 8 to 12 at most.

My guess is 16, or 20GB if we're being very VERY optimistic.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

The reason you get 30fps on consoles isn't the CPUs being too weak. It is developers choosing to optimise their games for 30fps.

If they wanted, they could run at 60 but would need to cut things to make that work. A next-gen system would still get 30fps games because developers would end up making the same decisions. You could of course argue that if you had to cut things to hit 60 then the CPU is too weak, but CPUs will never be fast enough, you simply add more things to use the extra speed while keeping within your 33ms frame target.

Now, PCs are different because you get to optimise games to what you want yourself and also get a wide selection of upgrade options available every year that allow you to leapfrog games that are designed to run 30fps on 2 year old console CPUs.

PC's can run at 60fps or higher because the GPU and CPU are fast and powerful, so developers can make games look great and still have enough juice left to run at 60fps or more.

Consoles are generally much weaker, so had to make the compromise of the framerate for the nice graphics but now console GPU's are already at 6Tflops and will be even higher next gen, GPU power is less of an issue. So if they pair it with a decent CPU, then there won't be the need for the compromise, or at least less of a compromise.

 

[Fess]

PC's can run at 60fps or higher because the GPU and CPU are fast and powerful, so developers can make games look great and still have enough juice left to run at 60fps or more.

Consoles are generally much weaker, so had to make the compromise of the framerate for the nice graphics but now console GPU's are already at 6Tflops and will be even higher next gen, GPU power is less of an issue. So if they pair it with a decent CPU, then there won't be the need for the compromise, or at least less of a compromise.

6TF will be too weak too just as 2TF is too weak today. There will always be a gap. It's never going to go away.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

We is right. I can see PS5 easily becoming the top powerhouse with MS going Scorpio 2.0 and everything repeating ala PS4 Pro to Scorpio releases. I don't see MS coming half baked into a hardware PR battle after X1's flat tire at the start of this gen.

Now, the main question from me: Will they learn how to CPU this time? Cause Jaguar is FeelsBadMan

 

[Matt]

No it's not, it's all about choice, every single game could be 60fps on console if the devs wanted that, but since most devs think graphics impress more than smooth framerates they rather go for better graphics. This is why we still have both 30fps and 60fps games in all genres.

Multiplat games are usually 30fps on console simply because there is such a big power gap between console and PC, the games are usually 60+ fps on PC with the right hardware and the devs want to keep the graphics as close to the PC version as possible, so when down porting to console they simply target a slower framerate on console to not have to scale back the graphics.

This power gap will never go away, therefore low framerates on console will never go away either.

Naughty Dog didn't have to go down to 30fps on UC4, they decided to go down to 30fps because they wanted pretty graphics. There was nothing forcing them to go down to 30fps.

Look at Polyphony Digital and Evolution Studio. Why is GT Sports 60fps and Driveclub 30fps? Same hardware, same genre, same "corridor racing". What's going on there?
It's simple, PD has set 60fps as the target and Evolution has set 30fps as the target. Nothing else. Driveclub could've been 60fps too, no problem, but Evolution went for graphics instead of smoothness. And that's it. Every single time, the hardware has never been the problem.

That's just not true. Lots of game design decisions affect CPU utilization, not just graphics. AI, world size, physics, etc.

A lot of games just can't run past 30 on these consoles and keep the same game design decisions, no matter how shiny the developers make them.

 

[Hawk269]

Can a Ryzen CPU effectively be used for PS4 backwards compatibility? Would moving to a Ryzen CPU break bc? Sony has not been the greatest when it comes to BC, so just curious of a Ryzen CPU would be easy for them to still have BC with PS4 games?

 

[Theonik]

PC's can run at 60fps or higher because the GPU and CPU are fast and powerful, so developers can make games look great and still have enough juice left to run at 60fps or more.

Consoles are generally much weaker, so had to make the compromise of the framerate for the nice graphics but now console GPU's are already at 6Tflops and will be even higher next gen, GPU power is less of an issue. So if they pair it with a decent CPU, then there won't be the need for the compromise, or at least less of a compromise.

Again, all of these are design choices on the part of the developers. They are choosing to do more with the CPU than run faster, having a faster CPU would not change that, they will just use more impressive physics, animations etc.

If games were designed with PCs in mind you would end up in a Crysis 1 situation again where it would be impossible to run the game at a consistent 60FPS for more than 5 years on PC.

Can a Ryzen CPU effectively be used for PS4 backwards compatibility? Would moving to a Ryzen CPU break bc? Sony has not been the greatest when it comes to BC, so just curious of a Ryzen CPU would be easy for them to still have BC with PS4 games?

It shouldn't affect BC. Though this depends solely on Sony and whether they want to have BC.
Before the PS4 Sony were the best in the business in terms of BC.

 

[RoboPlato]

Can a Ryzen CPU effectively be used for PS4 backwards compatibility? Would moving to a Ryzen CPU break bc? Sony has not been the greatest when it comes to BC, so just curious of a Ryzen CPU would be easy for them to still have BC with PS4 games?

It would be the easiest that it's ever been. Still some hurdles to overcome but going from an X86 CPU from AMD to another X86 CPU from AMD is way less of a headache than something like Cell.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

6TF will be too weak too just as 2TF is too weak today. There will always be a gap. It's never going to go away.

Well yeah, when I said 6Tflop I was talking about what we will have shortly with Xbox One X, clearly next gen will be more powerful.

 

[Fess]

That's just not true. Lots of game design decisions affect CPU utilization, not just graphics. AI, world size, physics, etc.

A lot of games just can't run past 30 on these consoles and keep the same game design decisions, no matter how shiny the developers make them.

It is true, and you know it. It's all about decisions. Some devs simply aim too far and they would keep aiming too far no matter how powerful the hardware was. And some dev has 60fps-is-must as the target and no matter what they add to the game they won't budge and break that initial target. Hell I've even made games myself thinking that way! You keep adding more and more stuff and see what the engine can handle, then you either keep your initial target and optimize it to never go below 60fps or you lower the target and add even more stuff. This has been going on since forever, in all genres, since the beginning of gaming. Some people blame the devs and their optimization skills, some blame the hardware, in the end it's always about what the devs are targetting and that will never go away.

 

[Fess]

Well yeah, when I said 6Tflop I was talking about what we will have shortly with Xbox One X, clearly next gen will be more powerful.

Yeah but the GPU gap to PC won't go away even if next gen consoles are 30TF. It's no use expecting this to change.

 

[Matt]

It is true, and you know it. It's all about decisions. Some devs simply aim too far and they would keep aiming too far no matter how powerful the hardware was. And some dev has 60fps-is-must as the target and no matter what they add to the game they won't budge and break that initial target. Hell I've even made games myself thinking that way! You keep adding more and more stuff and see what the engine can handle, then you either keep your initial target and optimize it to never go below 60fps or you lower the target and add even more stuff. This has been going on since forever, in all genres, since the beginning of gaming. Some people blame the devs and their optimization skills, some blame the hardware, in the end it's always about what the devs are targetting and that will never go away.

This is a very limited view of development. The fact is, sometimes a dev will keep pushing things to the absolute breaking point no matter what that point is, but more often a game will have specific design goals that a dev wants to reach, and will live with 30 FPS if that's what it takes. In those cases a stronger CPU (if that is the frame rate limiting factor) will make the difference.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Again, all of these are design choices on the part of the developers. They are choosing to do more with the CPU than run faster, having a faster CPU would not change that, they will just use more impressive physics, animations etc.

If games were designed with PCs in mind you would end up in a Crysis 1 situation again where it would be impossible to run the game at a consistent 60FPS for more than 5 years on PC.


It shouldn't affect BC. Though this depends solely on Sony and whether they want to have BC.
Before the PS4 Sony were the best in the business in terms of BC.

Apart from exclusives, games are designed with console and PC in mind and we have already seen games that are on both, limited by the weak Jaguar CPU on console. Witcher 3 looks great on console, for example, not quite as good as PC but it still looks seriously good, so graphics aren't the big issue, but the CPU limits the developers running the game at 60fps.

Now if the CPU is stronger, then developers have the choice of 60fps + good graphics too. We already have Bungie saying they can't run Destiny 2 at 60fps on console because the CPU doesn't have enough power left, with all the things they are using the CPU for but it's no problem on PC because the CPU is more powerful and has enough juice to do all the tasks and still run at 60fps+