Ok where to start.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...pio-is-console-hardware-pushed-to-a-new-level
"From what I've seen so far, there is some evidence that Scorpio's true 4K performance could pose a challenge to the likes of Nvidia's GTX 1070 and AMD's Fury X-class hardware. I've seen Microsoft's new console running a Forza Motorsport 6-level experience locked to 4K60 on the equivalent to PC's ultra settings - cranking up the quality presets to obscene levels was one of the first things developer Turn 10 did when confronted with the sheer amount of headroom it had left after a straight Xbox One port. Out of interest, we tested Forza 6 Apex with similar settings at 4K on GTX 1060, 1070 and 1080. Frames were dropped on GTX 1060 (and a lot of them when wet weather conditions kicked in), while GTX 1070 held firm with only the most intense wet weather conditions causing performance dips. Only GTX 1080 held completely solid in all test cases. It's only one data point, and the extent to which the code is comparable at all is debatable, but it certainly doesn't harm Scorpio's credentials: Forza 6 Apex received plenty of praise for the quality of its PC port."
The primary block has clearly been the CPU on framerate, Forza was clearly selected because it is not CPU limited.
Moving forward:
"Navi is still based on GCN so the 64CU cap probably isn't going away."
Ergo why I said that they will likely hit the cap and said 64. Given the increases so far that is a conservative estimate just looking at history. They would otherwise go beyond 64.
"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"
Because a 12 - 14 teraflop GPU in a console would not be GPU bottle necked even hitting 4k. The 6 teraflop xbox one x hits 4k at 30, and some at 60fps, with medium settings, an again, the CPU is the main block. A gpu this powerful, would definitely have no issue with fidelity at this point, and 60 fps is their focus. The CPU would never have an issue if it is a ryzen 8 core zen 2 with 60fps as a baseline. Literally never, for more reasons as well. CPU's were stagnant for 6 years or more before we had this switch and finally we have competition, and a Zen 2 will literally handle all games at 60 with no draw backs as it removes all the CPU bottleneck. Changes moving forward to CPU even in the PC market will not make a difference for a long time at this point. We only finally moved past 4 cores in the last few years, and the hardware cycle is slowing down, not speeding up. It's common sense. They will hit 60fps on nearly every game. It won't even be an issue, and they are unlikely to max the GPU unless they do something crazy. They could ultra and ray trace at 14 teraflops with Navi. Also, consider that a 6 teraflop gpu did what the AMD did with Forza with headroom. The console nearly matches a 1080 when not considering the CPU block. This means optimization is real buddy. If this navi matches a 64 cu 1800 MHz clock, we are talking what would IN A PC compete with a rtx 2080, and that is not an opinion, this is BEFORE considering ANY architectural increases, an consider that VEGA was the FIRST that did not have an increase and it was as leaked, BECAUSE they focused on Navi that Vega suffered. I'm going to guarantee it will have a huge one, similar to the RX 480. That being the case RTX 2080ti is going to likely be the PC comparison, NOT the optimized one, and the bare minimum is going to be a RTX 2080 PC comparable, but again, NOT the optimized consideration. Anyone with a brain knows that will far outperform a rtx 2080ti when accounting for optimization, now that the CPU bottleneck is gone, there will be no problem of 4k 60fps on consoles. I'm calling it: Not one game will miss it. Think I'm wrong? This is linked to my facebook. Come back when the consoles release. I'm actually betting that Microsoft used the phrase "high frame rate gaming" rather than "60" for this reason. Variable 90 fps will be what they go for. Mark it.
"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)."
You are saying this due to Xbox one and PS4 making that the top concern, and you are disregarding that the Navi 10 is expected to have a 150 watt power envelope, the one that is expected to beat a gtx 1080. This is going to be a move like the RX 480. A huge power efficiency gain. You are also forgetting that if you undervolted even the Vega, it was quite powerful. Amd just couldn't get the clockspeed higher past a certain curve. 1.8 ghz at 150 watts shouldn't be that hard to do, if they pull a rx 480 here, and they could. The die size shrink is to 7nm, they already did 1152 with Xbox one X with 16nm, up from 853 at 28. This die size will be in less than half, an even greater shrink. Xbox one x is almost clocked 40% higher than the xbox one, and it did not shrink in half. This means a Navi gpu with no clockspeed or efficiency increases due to architecture, would be able to get to 1.6 ghz with a similar increase to last time. 1.8 ghz is not outside of the scope of reality.
I believe you like others are basically calling xbox one and ps4 the norm. They aren't. These were garbage consoles when they released, and the Xbox one X was a moderate at best. They were the exception to the rule, not the rule.
"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 ?"
You're forgetting that the xbox one used the most powerful mobile gpu, and so did the PS4, slightly modified. They were concerned with power. You're also forgetting that Nvidia has had their gtx 1060 so well optimized, that laptop parts are within 10% of the desktop parts. In other words, power envelopes are getting better, AMD included, they just pushed the poor top clockspeeds with Vega. When down clocked, they had really great power usage. You are also forgetting halving the die size halves the amount of board required, which saves money. And to tie it together: The 7970m was a $699 part to upgrade in laptops which allowed for upgrades. You are using traditional cost methods not console ones. The consoles have consistently used the most powerful, or second most powerful GPU out. Xbox one used the most powerful 7970m modified, instead of a desktop one. Xbox 360 used a modified version of the most powerful GPU when it came out, desktop unit. Trying to state that they won't use a powerful gpu is absurd. It is a question of two things: How much has low power evolved? 1.6 ghz is the minimum at equal standards. And, how much are they willing to move toward desktop parts? Can they do a middle ground with minimal increase?
They've already put as expensive parts in the xbox one included.
Rtx 2080 is the minimum performance increase they will allow. This is especially the case considering the Xbox one X is Gtx 1070 level.
You really believe they will wait 3 years from xbox one x, just to release a console that is say 60% more powerful, not even twice?
You're out of your mind. The xbox one x was 5 times more powerful in 3 years. While we should expect it to slow down, you're talking not even doubling in 4 years. I'm sorry, the next console will bare minimum be twice as powerful as a gtx 1070 for the goal. RTX 2080 performance is coming, from a purely hardware level. From a performance level, RTX 2080ti minimum, due to optimization. And if they do rtx 2080ti hardware, then things will be really exciting.
