Sure, but it'll be a custom GPU with a tight power budget and limited cost.
They meant the Xbox One X, not the X1. The X1X is already 4 times more powerful than the X1 (1.3 tflops vs 6tflops).
PS4 is 1.85tflops and 4tflops for PS4 Pro.
Most of the rumor sites point to 12-15tflop boxes in FP32 mode.
Im holding my breath, considering a 1080 ti/2080 both work around 12 tflops fp32 and cost $600-800US to purchase....
Only the highest quality pixels!
Find me a console that can do what the PC can. You are not paying just for games and movies when you build a PC.
As for that 4K Blu-ray player... it's just a dust gathering feature. Fewer and fewer people are using it. Samsung and Oppo have stopped making blu-ray players and with the PS4/PS4Pro not supporting it you can consider the format a dying breed.
This seems to be somewhat unlikely - a 225W full Navi 10 chip at 1.8 GHz is less than 9.5 FP32 TFLOPs; that's more power consumption than an entire Xbox One X under load. That figure might be true for FP16 and even then, it's likely to be less to the keep the power usage down.
We know that the whole Scarlett project will be using customized chips, and its predecessor used a GPU that wasn't manufactured for any retail add-in graphics card, having 40 CUs (10 CUs per ACE, 4 ACE GPU) vs the retail 36 (9, 4 arrangement).
So this would suggest that there is a possibility that Scarlett could use a larger Navi (but clocked lower to reduce thermal issues a bit). The current Navi 10 has 40 CUs, arranged so that they're paired into a WGP and there's 5 of those per ACE. What arrangements could this give?
(1) a 6 ACE chip, 5 WGP per ACE, 60 CUs running at 1.55 GHz > ~12 TFLOPs
(2) a 4 ACE chip, 6 WGP per ACE, 48 CUs running at 1.85 GHz > ~12 TFLOPs
(3) Same current Navi but running at 2.4 GHz > ~12TFLOPs
All those clocks are the boost speeds, which we know many RX 5700 boards don't fully achieve due to cooling limitations; that means option 3 is out of the window already. The same is true for option 2, as 1.85 GHz is the current boost level of the RX 5700 XT Anniversary model, so a slightly larger Navi at those speeds will be just as hot. The only remaining option is the chonk version of the processor, with a lower boost. But that would be an almost entirely new Navi, in terms of component placement and interconnect structures.
12 TFLOPs is just wishful thinking.
Imagine even believing the people who can't count to three (Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One) and miss entire version numbers (Windows 9) would deliver accurate math on a product ever, in 2019. Just visualize the audacity it would take to believe anything that people who cannot count might say.
Think beyond TFLOPs. The current Navi 10 is 15% faster than the Vega 64 at 4K, yet has 9.75 TFLOPs to Vega's 12.4 TFLOPs. I think we'll see a lower clock speed with more CUs (64 maybe?).
The BIG game changer is the new RDNA instruction set, and that's going to pay dividends on the console platform.
Not a chance in hell. Much like sony's boasting about the PS5, there is no way these new consoles will be as powerful as they claim, simply due to cost and size restraints. Unless these companies are willing to repeat the blunders of the 360/PS3 generation of high costs, high failure rates, ece.
Especially if they stick with AMD. They simply dont have anything GPU wise to make that much power.
Except for the 360 outselling the PS3. Fairly major point there.
I paid $300 for my GTX 1080.
The PC I run it on I built in 2010, which is an i7 running at 4.0GHz 24/7, and its outlived 2-3 console generations, and its still a better gamer, which massively better GPU/gaming performance, and its 4K performance is also quite superior, although I game at 1440p/144Hz. 60Hz is another console limitation due to slow hardware, but at the same time its all you need for a console.
I didn't say the pricing was close, I said the performance wasn't.
Whats the RX 580? A $200 GPU?
That's about as fast as a GTX 1060, which is pretty slow.
And here's what they cost:
To what degree? Mainstream? It will be awhile.
But as far as it being possible? That's now.
Lol, pretty ridiculous thing to say.
Going from 1080p to 1440p was a massive difference, and so is going from 1440p to 2160p.
And it'll still stutter with 1080p 60fps
Just stop. You paid $300 for ONE component; he paid $380 for the complete system. You already had several components already, which means you had already spent more than $380 on those separate components. You're comparing a modular platform that you've modified over several years with premium price components (many of which individually cost more than a console) to an all-in-one console with a static hardware configuration and bragging about the better performance. Well, duh. If you weren't getting better performance given total amount spent, that would be pretty sad.
Show me a PC that can do what the Xbox One X does equivalently for $399 out the door, with new components (not eBay used stuff). So, case, PSU, CPU, GPU, RAM, HDD, and controller (or KBM) for $399.
9 years ago.
He had to buy an entirely new console system, (which comes with no games) when I just needed a GPU.
So now he has as much into 2 consoles as I do into my entire PC, and my PC is massively superior at running games. And since its a PC, I don't have to rebuy the newer version of the game again, and I get games much cheaper, and they look better. And its free, or much less costly, to play online.
I am not comparing anything.
Of course building a complete PC is more expensive, who do you think your talking to? All you have done is state obvious things and your wasting my time.
Do you have a point?
Consoles are cheaper then PC's?
Holy sh!t they are!?
Hey everyone! We landed on the moon!
Sorry man not trying to make fun of anyone but cmon, your not talking to yuppies here.
Consoles are a good bargain for what you get, I've liked my consoles.
Your making a point no one is arguing against.
Far as myself, when I upgrade to a newer chipset, I don't need a case, PSU, HDD, GPU, or controller. You see, with a PC, you can upgrade specific components without upgrading the entire system, not sure if your aware of that.
I will not engage in the PC gaming vs console gaming nonsense, I am neutral and find the entire conversation asinine, they both have their ups/downs and the console is cheaper, in most cases, who cares, it is what it is. My point is that PC gaming hardware is vastly superior, always has been, is now, and always will be, because a console is nothing more then an outdated PC setup for gaming; its hardware runs a $200 GPU that was slow then and is slow now.
Well it was just a response to the TFLOP rumour - theoretical peak throughput figures are precisely that: peak and theoretical, so for the vast majority of situations a GPU is put into, those processing rates aren't going to be realised.
The Vega 64 is really short on bandwidth - compare the same benchmark results, where an RX 5700 XT outperforms a Vega 64 at 4K, to those achieved by a Radeon VII. Yes the latter is clocked higher than the 64 but the difference at 4K is huge, and that's down to the use of wider and faster HBM2.
The instruction set isn't overly different - there are 9 instruction changes to the previous ISA, 4 instructions and 1 instruction family removed.
It's the architectural changes that's the major benefit for any platform developer and the big ones are:
(1) Single cycle instruction issue rate - GCN was 4 cycles
(2) More cache everywhere, with better access - GCN had less and a lot of it was shared
(3) Work items can be issued to paired CUs (known as Workgroup Processor) - in GCN, one work item was issued to one CU.
I gotta say, I kinda disagree with this point. It's used a lot in arguments when comparing Consoles to PC's but in my personal experience, the Consoles tend to actually be more or at least "feel" more expensive. Let me explain.
A decent TV is more expensive than a decent monitor by quite a large amount normally. Console controllers seem to be going up in price every generation (Isn't the latest Xbox "pro" controller £160?!) and decent Gaming Mice and Keyboards have only gone down in price.
But the biggest one for me, Are the game prices. They are always £10 more at launch and they never really go on sale or drop much. In my PS4's lifetime I've purchased around 15-20 games, and I'd have to go home and actually check my orders but I swear I've spent more money on just buying those 15-20 games than probably the last 60 games on my PC. 20 games in the lifetime of my PS4 at £60 each, that's £1200 on just 20 games for Christ sake. I bet I could re-purchase my entire Steam library for that.
Maybe I'm weird and the odd duck but personally, Console gaming tends to be more expensive for me than PC gaming.
I was trying to make a similar point without getting into this large squabble, as people get very...passionate. But I plan to back out now, as I feel others are going to keep this going.
There are many aspects to the PC/Console gaming discussion/comparison.
No its not, at some point the screen area is just too small to "show" you all those details. I own a 4K 32" monitor and the games look good on it but not as good as I expected them to look, for example I would rather play AC Odyssey on my One X and 65" 4K TV with HDR than on my PC in full 4K at ultra but without the HDR, 8K gaming is going to be stupid and waste of resources honesty I don't see that getting popular for another 10 years, I will not be going 8K and I am resolution junkie.....
That's what people said about 4K 18 months ago.
I don't think it will be 10 years, 4K is already mainstream and people didn't think it was going to happen as fast as it did, just last year folks called it niche.
Look how cheap you can get 4K players, 4K gaming consoles and 4K HDTV's now. 4K went from 'no one uses it, even pc gamers, its niche' to being ridiculously affordable, accessible and mainstream within a year or two.
Heck I got a few HDTV's in my garage setup for sports, and my 55" HDR 4K 120Hz cost pennies.
Many current gen console games are natively sub 1080p and upscaled.
But you don't understand the most important thing here, GPU's are not powerful enough to run 8K which is 4 times 4K, yes you can get a cheap 4K TV but to run it well you need a $700 card but preferably 2080Ti that cost $1200, plus look at steam only about 2% of gamers have 4K monitors/TV's 4K is nowhere near mainstream, yes lots of people have 4K TV's but they don't watch 4K content on it....
I'm still saying it. But I will also relax my standpoint.
So given the 4x target, what will the new name be?
Xbox Four X
Xbox One XXXX
Xbox Two XX
Xbox Two X Squared
No you don't. To run ALL games MAXED...maybe.
My $300 GTX 1080 can run 4K quite well.
a $300-$400 console.
My statement still stands. I think I started gaming 1080p/60fps back in 2008.
I have to agree. 8K video playback not to hard considering the brute power of everything. But 8K gaming at 60FPS is a pipedream unless your playing something that isn't resource intensive at all. Lots of indie titles should be able to play at 8K, but top tier triple A? Fuhgetdaboutit!
Right now I'd be happy with an Xbox One X that didn't sound like a Harrier Jump Jet when it gets warm. Both the One X and the PS4 Pro have crazy loud fans.