Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Console & PC Gaming' started by GTPNewsWire, Jun 10, 2019.
I just barely got a 4k TV, there is no way I am swapping it out in a year for a new one.
I got 4K recently. I'd swop it out for 8K in a heatbeat if the price was acceptable and there are games that support that resolution. I don't see the latter happening soon. The former? Probably sooner than people think.
To be fair though, there's actually few PS3 / X360 games that run full 1080P and also few PS4 / XBone that run full 4K.
Really though devs should be focused on things like anti aliasing, rendering, etc instead of resolutions.
So did you just type "8k 2080" into Google and post the first result? Because "NVlink" means the "certain configuration" happens to be "2080s." Plural. And "if you run NVlink," meaning you dropped at least $1400 on graphics cards alone before you even started, the best you may get for more intensive games is around a 30fps average, without any accounting for severe drops that are masked by charts like that (that have always been a problem with multi-GPU configurations) .
I know you're trying to double down on the absurd notion that the barely competitive AMD is going to include a midrange GPU in the next Gen consoles that will run 8k as something you were right all along about because of a marketing slideshow and "optimization," but perhaps linking to a benchmark with two $700+ graphics cards and a decently overclocked $360 CPU showing some games barely running at 1/4th of the speed of what you're saying Scarlett owners can expect within two years of the system's life isn't the best way to go about it.
Higher resolutions negate the need for AA to varying degrees.
Maybe not Anti Aliasing specifically. Thing is though that with this power, I hope devs prioritize to approach >60 FPS on all games (including heavy games like RDR2).
Reason I stated this is because 8K gaming is so extremely resource hogging that 4 times the processing power will not going to cut it, let alone to approach said >60 fps on all games. Lets hope since Microsoft also notices this and decides to support up to 120 Hz (aka 120 fps at the very max).
8k, huge meh.
It's a great buzzword to get people to think "hey, better graphics". When in reality 8k does nothing more than create a sharper, and incredibly harder image to render for the hardware (read, reduces graphic fidelity but makes it sharper).
"8k Pong, is still going to look like Pong."
I'd much rather progress resolution a lot slower than we are now, and see the power used on ray tracing, or other image enhancing effects, for example.
4k is at a stage now where it's going to become the mainstream very soon. Support 4k and forget all about 8k, imo.
When I used to game on a PC, super sampling was always an option and I never used it. Because it never gave me the value for money (so to speak). The FPS dropped far more than the image quality increased.
Therefore by the same logic, 8k can do one (for now, PS6 purhaps?).
Exactly, literally every supermarket even sells own brand ones for a couple of hundred.
They're talking about the SoC as a whole, as I thought:
They've confirmed that bit already.
If you look at the chart, it shows what a single 2080 does for those games. While not spectacular, you can still play a game at that frame rate, which is why I said in certain configurations it is playable 8k gaming is possible. If you move to NVlink, it's definitely possible (even if it's not really practical).
And I'm not doubling down on anything. I originally said that the next-gen Xbox had a real possibility to do 8K and all games would have a baseline of 60fps. Since we only know what MS has said, that's the only thing we can go off of. And right now it's saying that the new Xbox will do 120fps and 8k resolution. I have no reason not to believe the company when talking about its own product.
It's really not that farfetched either since the current generation of consoles can do 4K at 60fps. It stands to reason that the next generation of consoles will make a leap to something greater than what's already on the market. If those consoles don't, then they lose out on valuable marketing.
I just checked myself:
The answer is yes, as it were.
I looked at the chart. Most of the games not even approaching 20fps average. Some of them having single digit lows (again, with no graph showing frame times either). A single 2080 is not an 8K card, period.
Microsoft and Sony would never allow a game on the console with performance like that. It would never be considered playable when people throw fits online about games having trouble averaging 30.
Again, NVlink is two cards. If you "move to NVlink," the additional cost is more than the entirety of either console will be next year.
It's two cards that are both individually better than any AMD has ever made (though they've finally gotten competitive, at least), with a CPU generally decently better at games than anything AMD has ever made. And half of the games still never get to even 30FPS. It's not even remotely relevant to the discussion of Scarlett, beyond to point out how absurd the claim is that a midrange GPU and and an at-best mid range CPU one year from now would accomplish 4 times the performance because the games would be "optimized".
You provided a link to a benchmark with a $2000 at least PC build, containing two graphics cards individually about 10% more powerful than the best AMD has ever made (with a gap that widens with resolution) and an overclocked CPU usually 10% better for gaming than the best CPU AMD has ever made. That link had a single game that even got past 60FPS, which is half what you're telling people to expect. Your inability to understand the context of those numbers when throwing around press releases is not my concern.
AMD talked extensively about awesome Bulldozer was too not too long ago. Sony talked about the amazing 4K (checkerboard) PS4 Pro (after years of people insisting Sony just needed to enable 4K on the original PS4), and before that the 1080P (where even the flagship titles ran at half width 1080p with occasionally*awful framerates) PS3.
The current generation of top of the line PC hardware, altogether costing probably six times as much as any console will a year, doesn't. Let me reiterate that: If you bought two graphics cards that cost $1200 each and spent time overclocking the $360 CPU that will most definitely blow whatever CPU AMD puts in PS5/Scarlett out of the water, it doesn't even come close to 120fps at 8k for games now (nevermind ones with things like Raytracing running). It doesn't even come close to 60 on most of them. Your link shows this. The end.
>I believe they said the CPU they are using is 4x more powerful
It's the combination of CPU-GPU and Ram that makes it 4x more powerful according to Matt Booty, Head of Microsoft Game Studios.
Back to Scarlett... you mentioned it has four times the power of Xbox One X, which certainly sounds good. But what does that mean?
Matt Booty: It's a few things - it's the combination of speed, not just of the SSD but of the processor, the performance of the GPU and RAM
So yeah, most probably 24TF computational power seems too much.
Specs that may or may not be true.
CPU Custom eight core
GPU Custom NAVI 4+ teraflops
RAM 12 GB, GDDR6
Storage 1 TB SSD, 1 + GB / s
CPU: Custom eight core
GPU: Custom NAVI 12+ teraflops
RAM:16 GB, GDDR6
Storage:1 TB SSD, 1 + GB / s
PS5 computational power prediction: up to 14.6 teraflops
If that's true, i guess XBOX Anaconda could be the same or even a bit higher than that.
My initial comment and the only tied to the one with the link has nothing to do with MS or Sony or consoles in any way. @rhalgr said a 2080 couldn't run a game at 8k, and I merely pointed out in certain configurations on a PC you can. I never said anything about the price, which I agree is very high for what you actually get. It's also not all that practical either.
But if you want to link it to consoles, I still don't doubt MS. The next-gen Xbox is still 18 months away and if you believe Moore's Law chances are the system will be able to handle upwards of 120fps and 8k resolution with it's processing power.
A PC can and will do 4k and 60fps with a 1080 Ti. But if you want to look at solely consoles, both the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro both do native 4k at 60fps with the best example on the One X being Forza.
I also didn't say the new Xbox will do 8k at 120fps, that's probably not all the realistic for this generation assuming the price for the console will be between $600-$1000. I said it'll be capable of both. 8k will probably run at 60fps and 4k or 1080 at 120fps.
Just "8K capable". Their wording and seperation of the bullet points seems to suggest games will focus on 4K and up to 120FPS. This is already impressive imo.
That sounds to me like this:
1920 x 1080 120FPS
Sony could also launch dual systems. Ps5 price which is said to be appealing to gamers and a new pro that can have 24 TFLOPS since the casual unit and the hardcore unit system both were doing seemed to work well. All gamers were happy. IMO ps5 will launch with 2 consoles. One thats is nutz like they say and a normal ps5. And the anaconda unit as the hardcore and lockhorn or whatever they call it as the casual. Im sure the next pro and X model will be 500-800$
On my shelf of 55 or so ps3 games. 38 of them say 1080p on the back. Most sports games like mlb the show and madden and pretty much anything sony first party and ea from like 2009 and up are 1080p. So im sure there are 100 or more ps3 titles 1080p
Heck even Naughty Bear says 1080p. Dont why i have it
And I suspect maybe one or two of them at most actually are.
Yep. Even games like GT5 weren't native 1080p. Although, Gran Turismo was higher than 720p. Most games last gen are 720p or less iirc.
I believe they often used 1080p to refer to games where the horizontal resolution was less than 1920?
You can have 1080p and it not be native. I dont think there were any native 1080p games on ps3 as only a few games ran at 60fps with no dips and even in menus. But 1080p. 80% of ps3 games ran 1080p. Do your research.
Gt5 runs at 1080p 60ps on my DECR-1400a Dev ps3 with double the ram at 512mb. Thats my go to system for playing the big games. As you can lock games at how many fps you want in the debug settings, yet gt5 and gt6 run well at 1080 60fps
It seems a lot of the Xbox E3 focused a bit on "simpler" games that were top-down or 2D, even AOEII was shown as a remaster, or bringing in already developed titles, so the quantity seems to be their intent with the Games Pass.
But, I get you on the Rockstar point. With the expanded power of the consoles, Rockstar will clearly want their biggest title to make the most of it, which unfortunately means Vancouver, London, Leeds, & Toronto have all been basically tasked with supporting North & San Diego's GTA/RDR series rather than bringing back those well-demanded titles. I'm betting VI is now the front runner with hopefully, Bully or Midnight Club given a sequel after (seeing as they managed at least Max Payne in-between once).
It's not only Rockstar, I was saying game dev in general takes longer - Naughty Dog - 4 games on PS3, 2 games and sidegame on PS4, Quantic Dream - 1 game this gen, Santa Monica - 1 game. Although some devs seem to be able to make a lot of game like Insomniac and FromSoftware. I dunno, the whole thing will collapse at some point with ever increasing budgets, fidelity and manpower. When you need to sell 10 million units to break even something is definitely not right. The only hope is AI assisted development, heavy outsourcing, and obviously post-purchase monetization. It's a complex problem that affects everyone in the industry.
Using SSD as RAM? Not a good idea...
I mean you can use an SSD as physical RAM, but that's not what the new Xbox will be doing. It will use the SSD as virtual RAM in conjunction with the physical RAM in the system. The console will still use GDDR6 RAM for its primary memory function.
A page-file then?
It seems like that's what the console will use, but since we know so little about the console, it's hard to say.
The display resolution can be 1080p, but we are talking about native rendering resolution here and most games weren't 1080p native last gen.
Neither GT5 or GT6 run with 1920x1080 natively and the framerate dips below 60FPS rather often on an consumer PS3.