AMD's next-gen PlayStation/Xbox chip moves closer to final version

[Raytrace3D]

PCMR guys are more akin to someone that spends $600 importing a pack of cards from overseas and then dissing your cards because they dont look as fancy as THEIR cards do, despite both packs of cards playing the same games.

See, I'm a pretty big hypocrite though as I dropped over 3500 on my rig. lol I'm running a Threadripper 2950X and an RTX 2080 TI with 32GB's of RAM with dual M.2 NVMe drives with RGB up the ying-yang and a few other toys. I use it mainly for work but play games a few hours a day on it too. To each his own really. Consoles have their place and PC's do too. It's all a matter of preference and where you want to sink your (hopefully) extra money for the sake of entertainment.

 

[thehaxfactory]

[But the point is - people need to stop acting like the next gen consoles aren't gonna blow most of what's out now away. Sorry, but I think people are mega underestimating how stagnate the PC Hardware market has been...

I actually hadn't thought about how stagnant the PC hardware market has been until you mentioned it. I mean people are still gaming just fine on 970s in 2019 and that's like a 4 year old card now.

I had a 1060 3 GB sitting around for like 2 years unused and my brother is getting good use out of it now. That's actually pretty crazy in PC terms.

I literally have two RX580s sitting around though one is in my Mac Pro for the time being and my other one might go in my girlfriend's PC to replace her 7850 which is barely getting to be too old now. And the RX580 would still be an absolute screamer for her (she historically primarily plays Borderlands, Bioshock, Saint's Row, and Overwatch).

My personal rig has a GTX 1080 in it and I feel absolutely no need to upgrade at the moment.

I'd like to add another small tidbit to the conversation:

They don't actually even need to beat existing hardware to get better performance. Console optimization might not account for as much extra performance than it did prior to the console x86 transition. However, we do still have Xbox One X playing games at 4K on a glorified RX580 and that's worth consideration (especially with that weak CPU).

If we get consoles at RTX 2080 performance, they might actually outperform the 2080 TI in real world scenarios for a while and that's actually crazy.

 

[ButtonPusher]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

And how much did this gaming PC you built and 2 gaming laptops cost you exactly? North of $5K at least?

When you're benchmarking your PC vs. "these things", don't forget to benchmark the cost of a few hundred dollars vs. a small fortune.

 

[OptimumSlinky]

This thing is meant for 4KUltra 60FPS gaming.

Phil Spencer has stated that 60-fps is a major goal with the next gen, but I don't think we're going to see a lot of "True 4K" games. It's just too computationally demanding, and with Sony in particular showing off some incredible checkerboard rendering techniques that can get 80% of the native 4K image quality at significantly less GPU cost, I think we'll see a lot of dynamic resolution and checkerboard rendering in titles.

Especially when you consider most consoles are placed in living rooms and are 8-12 feet away from the viewer, Sony and Microsoft would be *****s not to leverage checkerboard tech.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Ehhh no, it really wouldn't have to be. It's rumored to have a Navi 10 die, but less cutdown than the RX 3080. If the RX 3080 is already supposedly in the 2070-2080 region, then there's no reason a less cut version couldn't edge it that little bit higher.

Additionally, rumors point to the PS5 having a 320-bit memory controller with the fastest GDDR6 available. That would give it another big boost. Either way I wouldn't double down on my bet until we have some more info about Navi and Consoles (Should have concrete stuff by the end of this month).

But the point is - people need to stop acting like the next gen consoles aren't gonna blow most of what's out now away. Sorry, but I think people are mega underestimating how stagnate the PC Hardware market has been...


Check out "Moore's Law is Dead" on youtube for more info.

Errrr yes it really would. Navi's power efficiency would have to be Nvidia beating to get something faster than an RTX2070 inside the next gen consoles. I just spent several paragraphs explaining to you why that seems extremely unlikely!

Unless you think this is going to be a 250 watt machine with an expensive cooling solution and the size of a decent gaming HTPC?

Everything has a knock on effect in console design. Everything is a compromise for power, size and cost. You can't just slap more performance in a small box without then spending more on the VRMs, and then the power supply/brick, and then a more expensive cooling solution. Console manufacturers hit very fine targets for all of these so the budget for their box doesn't explode. One small change can affect everything.

A mere $20 extra per machine is a tight call when you know you may have to build 10 million of them if it's successful, probably selling them at a loss in the first year.....

It's likely that the memory bandwidth of the console will be reasonable, but again with the talk of 'fastest GDDR6 available' is unrealistic and hyped. Do you know how expensive 14GBPS GDDR6 is? It's at least $8 per gigabyte at supplier prices and bulk volume. That would be $160 for 20GB of memory alone. Do you really think that they can afford the fastest modules and lots of it?

Again, no chance. It'll be slower modules with cut down speeds the same as the slower modules in PS4 or Xbox One X when it debuted. Everything is pared down to a budget.

 

[Roy Mepham]

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

Yeah, let's benchmark a $400-$500 console against a $3,000+ PC and see which is faster! Makes total sense!

Sarcasm aside, this generation's console hardware has undoubtedly been anemic, but it hasn't stopped the PS4 from putting out some visually impressive titles (Horizon: Zero Dawn, God of War, Ghost of Tsushima). Sony's dev kits definitely make the most of whatever they're working with.

I agree this generation was pathetic considering what the PS3 was able to achieve in its day!

 

[Evernessince]

Hate on consoles all you want but this next generation will offer some incredible performance for the cost. And this is coming from a lifetime pc gamer. The only question is will it be enough for good visuals and performance at 4K.

That's not hard to do given the current state of the market.

 

[ghostf1re]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

I'm not sure why you're bringing your PC specs into the conversation here. The article is simply talking about consoles and nowhere mentions it's competition or difference in terms of PC gaming. All he says is they are going to be big improvements over what we currently have.

Also, I've got a PS4 Pro, a Xbox One X, a Switch, and a solid gaming rig with a 1080ti. Yes, my computer is obviously way more powerful than the rest, but that doesn't matter. It's not what the article is about. You just came in here with this elitist mentality for no reason at all.

 

[OcelotRex]

I actually hadn't thought about how stagnant the PC hardware market has been until you mentioned it. I mean people are still gaming just fine on 970s in 2019 and that's like a 4 year old card now.

While true your GTX 1080 (likely 2 years old as well) is nearly twice a powerful at 1080p and more than twice as powerful at 4k. When you consider the new 2070 is a step down a tier and 10%+ more powerful than your 1080 is that really stagnation?

 

[McMurdeR]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

They're still good fun though, especially Sony's exclusives. I say this as an avid PC gamer.

 

[thehaxfactory]

When you consider the new 2070 is a step down a tier and 10%+ more powerful than your 1080 is that really stagnation?

I game at 1440p144 on a Pixio PX276h, I don't have any 1080p displays left in my home.

My secondary monitor is an Acer B286HK 4K60 monitor and I upgraded the living room and bedroom TVs to 4K last year.

The GTX 1080 will be three years old next month.

The RTX 2070 just came out a couple months ago and it had the same MSRP at launch as the GTX 1080 did at launch.

So in a way, no, it's priced in the exact same tier, they are only different tiers in name only.

For $500 three years later you're getting barely 10% more performance on average in real games (we're talking going from 60 fps to 66-67 fps in the kinds of test scenarios that these games are tested in).

That is stagnation if I've ever heard of it.

Think about the people that bought GTX 780 Ti in November 2013, that card is probably still roughly on par with a GTX 970. Those people got a full console generation out of their GPU, it literally launched around the time of the PS4/Xbox One launch. Though they did pay $700 for the privilege.

Or even better the people that spent like $330 on a GTX 970 September 2014. We're like 6 months away from 5 years for those people. And for that price they really couldn't do that much better 5 years later. If I bought a GTX 970 in 2014 and my budget was ~$300, I'd probably still be using it if I were those people.

 

[pencea]

Anyone else underwhelmed?

The cpu seems awfully under powered, 3.2ghz max?

Seems to be more of the same....

The current generation of consoles which includes PS4/PS4 Pro & Xbox One/ Xbox One X all use Jaguar cores which was originally designed to run on really low powered tablets & notebooks.

It’s no where near close to even AMD’s slowest performing Bulldozer FX series. Considering how much faster even first gen Zen is already over Bulldozer, you can see how huge the gap really is coming from Jaguar.

Point is the jump from current Jaguar cores to Ryzen alone is already a substantial generational leap in performance. This will allow next gen consoles to be able to run more games at 60fps instead of 30fps since the current consoles biggest Achilles hills is the weak Jaguar processors.

 

[thehaxfactory]

Point is the jump from current Jaguar cores to Ryzen alone is already a substantial generational leap in performance. This will allow next gen consoles to be able to run more games at 60fps instead of 30fps since the current consoles biggest Achilles hills is the weak Jaguar processors.

I googled someone's Cinebench R15 numbers with an AMD A4-5000. A desktop part on the Kabini platform that used 4 Jaguar cores at 1.5 GHz.

It scored a measly 125 cb.

Of course, we're talking about 8 core 1.6 GHz parts in the PS4, but multiply that number by 2 and let the 100 MHz difference account for the scaling between cores and you get a good idea.

PS4's CPU would get ~250 cb.

Does that put into perspective to people just how weak that actually is?

What would Ryzen get at 8 cores 1.6 GHz? How about 3.2 GHz with the boost? Maybe just under 900 stock and ~1600 boost?

We're talking about a several times more powerful processor here.

This isn't just an 8 core 1.6 GHz vs 8 core 1.6 GHz with 3.2 GHz boost.

If I had to compare this to anything, I'd say it's like comparing a quad core Atom with an i7 quad core.

 

[144hzGamer]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

Is not about benchmarks or h2h conparisons with pc builds. Is about the games + ease of use. Thats why people buy them, not because of being the most powerful systems you can use. 2019 and people still dont get it, geez.

 

[L0neRang3r00]

Let hope the game price for PS5/Xbox Scarlet don't hike so much... $500 is consider affordable to play Triple A titles game on 4K 60FPS.

 

[Nobelstone]

Next gen consoles only need to aim at 4k/60fps.

The only difference between a 1060 and a 2080 is the number of fps delivered, the image quality is identical.

With clever use of rendering and upscaling (doesn't need to be true 4k) a gpu around 1660ti/2060 would be adequate combined with a current gen/next gen CPU.

The issue is the thermal envelope, keeping the wattage within limits (down clocking most likely). Nothing revolutionary required here, just sensible APU design.

 

[Bp968]

I very highly doubt it'll be faster than a RTX2070! That's just wishful thinking, Navi would have to be an amazing architectural leap to be better than an RTX2070 and fit inside a console box.

Ehhh no, it really wouldn't have to be. It's rumored to have a Navi 10 die, but less cutdown than the RX 3080. If the RX 3080 is already supposedly in the 2070-2080 region, then there's no reason a less cut version couldn't edge it that little bit higher.

Additionally, rumors point to the PS5 having a 320-bit memory controller with the fastest GDDR6 available. That would give it another big boost. Either way I wouldn't double down on my bet until we have some more info about Navi and Consoles (Should have concrete stuff by the end of this month).

But the point is - people need to stop acting like the next gen consoles aren't gonna blow most of what's out now away. Sorry, but I think people are mega underestimating how stagnate the PC Hardware market has been...


Check out "Moore's Law is Dead" on youtube for more info.

Your dreaming. It doesn't work like that anymore. The PC market and AI market subsidizes R&D for consoles. The last few gens of consoles now have all been the equivalent of budget PC builds. AMD is going to hold back some magic sauce to drop into consoles when there is a massive AI/PC market to rake cash in from as well. They don't have the tech or margins for it.

You can look at what would be considered a budget PC build right now, scrape a little of the cost off the top for volume discounts and you'll have the performance of your next gen consoles.

What your *not* going to get is the performance of a 700$+ video card in a 500$ system. It sadly doesn't work like that anymore. The days of fancy custom chips for consoles outpacing PCs died a decade or more ago. A mid grade PC is always going to be faster than a console simply due to the speed of the upgrade cycles (should you choose to get on that treadmill).

They will likely be good consoles, but their not going to be 1500$ class PCs in 400$ magic boxes.

 

[Eldritch]

Yes, consoles are pretty cool to have but comparison of price are unfair simply as PC and Consoles serve different purposes. I spend more time working on computers than playing and in this age, its true for many people. PCs aren't just toys for most of us.
Also, PC games are much cheaper and you can play even MS Dos games on PC to the latest release and anything in between for almost free. This is not the case with consoles.
Anyway, let me tell you that PCMR will be thrilled if the consoles are powerful. This will mean that better games will be developed as most are limited by console processing and that we can finally utilize our hardware. Bring it on, amigo.

 

[gamerk2]

Point is the jump from current Jaguar cores to Ryzen alone is already a substantial generational leap in performance. This will allow next gen consoles to be able to run more games at 60fps instead of 30fps since the current consoles biggest Achilles hills is the weak Jaguar processors.

I googled someone's Cinebench R15 numbers with an AMD A4-5000. A desktop part on the Kabini platform that used 4 Jaguar cores at 1.5 GHz.

It scored a measly 125 cb.

Of course, we're talking about 8 core 1.6 GHz parts in the PS4, but multiply that number by 2 and let the 100 MHz difference account for the scaling between cores and you get a good idea.

PS4's CPU would get ~250 cb.

Does that put into perspective to people just how weak that actually is?

What would Ryzen get at 8 cores 1.6 GHz? How about 3.2 GHz with the boost? Maybe just under 900 stock and ~1600 boost?

We're talking about a several times more powerful processor here.

This isn't just an 8 core 1.6 GHz vs 8 core 1.6 GHz with 3.2 GHz boost.

If I had to compare this to anything, I'd say it's like comparing a quad core Atom with an i7 quad core.

Yes, the CPUs crippled this console generation. It was noted very early on the CPUs in these consoles weren't any faster then the Xbox 360's main CPU. In the case of the PS4, even counting the Cells difficulty to program well, the CPU in the PS4 was a clear downgrade in performance. Devs like Ubisoft complained *very* early about CPU performance, but most people just brushed it off at the time.

This addresses the CPU weakness, but it doesn't look like the GPU subsystem is going to be appreciably more powerful. As a result, the next console generation can likely handle 4k60, but you won't see any significant upgrade in graphical performance beyond resolution.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I'm on the other hand have both a high end PC, PS4 Pro, & Switch. I get to enjoy the best of both worlds. I don't resort nor limit myself to just one specific platform like a fanboy or some elitist.

Umm, WWWWHHHAAT?!

 

[ZackL04]

The current generation of consoles which includes PS4/PS4 Pro & Xbox One/ Xbox One X all use Jaguar cores which was originally designed to run on really low powered tablets & notebooks.

It’s no where near close to even AMD’s slowest performing Bulldozer FX series. Considering how much faster even first gen Zen is already over Bulldozer, you can see how huge the gap really is coming from Jaguar.

Point is the jump from current Jaguar cores to Ryzen alone is already a substantial generational leap in performance. This will allow next gen consoles to be able to run more games at 60fps instead of 30fps since the current consoles biggest Achilles hills is the weak Jaguar processors.

Ya I knew there were Jaguar cores, just under 4ghz seems a bit underwhelming IMO. But your right, all it really needs to do is maintain 60fps

 

[crazypostalbob]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

The overwhelming odds are the next gen console will considerably beat a 1080 gpu.

The cpu is the bottleneck on xbox one x. It already slightly outperforms 1070 performance when it is not cpu limited (aa shown by digital foundry with the initial tests with forza)

And this apu will certainly have more cu by a large margin. Last time ps4 doubled the cu in 3 years. This will be 4 years. If they cap out the cu at the same as vega (64) they will easily meet that with the same increase rate. The navi may not even have that cap so a 64 cu it is a low estimate. Early indications are a navi unit with only 20 cu performing as well as a vega 56.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.hothardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-7nm-navi-gpu-benchmarks-leaked

If this is true, a navi gpu with 64 cu would be unbelievably fast. If we went on teraflops alone, 64 cu at 1.8ghz is 14.7 teraflops. That is more than twice as fast as the xbox one x before accounting for architecture differences. If this other leak is true, it will be greater than 3 times as fast. This is well beyond gtx 1080 territory, and 24gb of ram is not needed to get to 4k, especially not on a console. This could well be approaching close to rtx 2080ti performance.

If a console with rtx 2080 performance or above launches, and it likely will be above, for $500, I am ditching pc. Especially as now that it has the proper cpu it will never fall below 60 again. That is the main factor for me and graphics are well enough ensured to be comparable to pc especially due to the strong gpu, but also due to diminishing returns.

 

[Aiibo]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

Now, let's talk about what makes you go online and compare apples and oranges, while bragging about your mighty $2000 rig which is, oh my, much more powerful than 4x cheaper stuff.

Feel free to share, this is a safe place.

 

[kira setsu]

Probably still wont be able to hit a locked 1080p 60fps, and in playstations case it will still have a laggy OS

 

[parowOOz]

Both Xbox One X and PS4 Pro lost my attention and I went and built a gaming PC and bought 2 gaming laptops.

I sincerely doubt this "next gen" console will have the power of an i9ex with a 2080ti, or even an i7 with a 1080.

I doubt "ray tracing" will be a priority in the next-gen consoles.

And I KNOW they won't have 32GB of DDR4.

I'd love to benchmark these things vs. my desktop.

The overwhelming odds are the next gen console will considerably beat a 1080 gpu.

The cpu is the bottleneck on xbox one x. It already slightly outperforms 1070 performance when it is not cpu limited (aa shown by digital foundry with the initial tests with forza)

And this apu will certainly have more cu by a large margin. Last time ps4 doubled the cu in 3 years. This will be 4 years. If they cap out the cu at the same as vega (64) they will easily meet that with the same increase rate. The navi may not even have that cap so a 64 cu it is a low estimate. Early indications are a navi unit with only 20 cu performing as well as a vega 56.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.hothardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-7nm-navi-gpu-benchmarks-leaked

If this is true, a navi gpu with 64 cu would be unbelievably fast. If we went on teraflops alone, 64 cu at 1.8ghz is 14.7 teraflops. That is more than twice as fast as the xbox one x before accounting for architecture differences. If this other leak is true, it will be greater than 3 times as fast. This is well beyond gtx 1080 territory, and 24gb of ram is not needed to get to 4k, especially not on a console. This could well be approaching close to rtx 2080ti performance.

If a console with rtx 2080 performance or above launches, and it likely will be above, for $500, I am ditching pc. Especially as now that it has the proper cpu it will never fall below 60 again. That is the main factor for me and graphics are well enough ensured to be comparable to pc especially due to the strong gpu, but also due to diminishing returns.

Could you link those benchmarks showing XBOX One X GPU being faster than a GTX 1070 ? I'm very curious about your claim since the X's GPU is more or less a RX580 which is slower than a GTX1070.

Navi is still based on GCN so the 64CU cap probably isn't going away.

Yeah, uhm, going with TFLOPS is not a good way to judge graphics performance. If we compare the latest from both AMD and NVIDIA, we have the Radeon VII with theoretical FP32 performance of 13.44TFLOPS and RTX 2070 with 7.465TFLOPS. The difference is substantial and yet, both have similair gaming performance. So I'd be cautious about using theoretical peaks to judge real-world gaming performance.

I sincerely doubt we'll get RTX2080 topping GPU in a console for 500$. I mean, AMD currently sells Radeon VIIs with performance in the ballpark of an RTX2070 for 699$. So you'd have a faster GPU than that + 8core Zen2 CPU + RAM + HDD/SSD + controller for less than the RVII alone ?

Then there's power consumption to consider. RVII draws a lot of power. More than the whole XBOX One X. A machine with a more powerfull GPU and all the other components would require even more juice. Don't think Microsoft or Sony are willing to raise their power consumption that hight (if at all).

Uhm, if developers get faster hardware to work with, they are going to increase visual fidelity. What makes you think games will never drop below 60fps ?