GPU in XBOX Scorpio

[wahdangun]

so according to this source the xbox scorpio will have 6 teraflops,

The Xbox One is believed to operate a peak target of 1.32 teraflops, compared to the 1.84 teraflop performance numbers attributed to the PS4. Meanwhile, per documents secured by Giant Bomb's Austin Walker — and corroborated by our sources — the PlayStation 4 "Neo," at approximately 2.25 times more powerful than the PS4, is likely to have a peak performance number of 4.14 teraflops.

The current performance target for Microsoft's Scorpio is approximately 6 teraflops.

it will be interesting if the GPU turn out to be polaris 10


http://kotaku.com/sources-smaller-xbox-one-coming-this-year-more-powerf-1778634446

 

[antihelten]

2304 shaders at 1.3 GHz or 2560 shaders at 1.17 GHz would fit the target of 6 TFLOPS.

That would seem to fit the current Polaris 10 rumours to a tee.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

2304 shaders at 1.3 GHz or 2560 shaders at 1.17 GHz would fit the target of 6 TFLOPS.

That would seem to fit the current Polaris 10 rumours to a tee.

The only thing I could see is a desktop version of the chip at much higher clocks with a much higher power consumption that a console gpu would not have.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[C@mM!]

2304 shaders at 1.3 GHz or 2560 shaders at 1.17 GHz would fit the target of 6 TFLOPS.

That would seem to fit the current Polaris 10 rumours to a tee.

That'd be full size polaris on an APU though? Geez

 

[JDG1980]

That'd be full size polaris on an APU though? Geez

Polaris 10 is rumored to be a 232mm^2 chip. That's not much bigger than Pitcairn, and the current PS4 has a GPU with the same on-die shader count as Pitcairn (it probably has more transistors, since it's GCN 1.1 compared to Pitcairn's 1.0).

With the die shrink, a Polaris 10 + 8x Puma APU shouldn't be any bigger than the PS4 APU.

 

[Sweepr]

Rumoured to launch in late 2017 so it could be a different chip. Having more shaders at lower clock is probably the most efficient solution, so I would guess at least 2560 shaders (same GCN gen as Vega) at around 1 GHz. PS4 Neo is already going with a P10-style GPU (2304 shaders @ 911 MHz).

 

[ZZZAAA]

So all three console makers are going to have AMD chipsets in them? I wish at least one of them would go intel/NVidia just to mix things up. Hopefully, they don't use SoC's anymore and go with a full-blown GPU this time like the old days although the PS4 had some impressive hardware. Imagine how disappointed MS was when they found out their own supplier gave their competitor a superior product which btw completely halted and derailed the X-Box's momentum it had from the previous generation. It only makes sense that one of the two go with intel/NVidia.

 

[caswow]

So all three console makers are going to have AMD chipsets in them? I wish at least one of them would go intel/NVidia just to mix things up. Hopefully, they don't use SoC's anymore and go with a full-blown GPU this time like the old days although the PS4 had some impressive hardware. Imagine how disappointed MS was when they found out their own supplier gave their competitor a superior product which btw completely halted and derailed the X-Box's momentum it had from the previous generation. It only makes sense that one of the two go with intel/NVidia.

why would people buy the consoles if they were 800€ again?

 

[therealnickdanger]

So all three console makers are going to have AMD chipsets in them? I wish at least one of them would go intel/NVidia just to mix things up. Hopefully, they don't use SoC's anymore and go with a full-blown GPU this time like the old days although the PS4 had some impressive hardware. Imagine how disappointed MS was when they found out their own supplier gave their competitor a superior product which btw completely halted and derailed the X-Box's momentum it had from the previous generation. It only makes sense that one of the two go with intel/NVidia.

In actuality that makes no sense.

AMD is willing to sell hardware and designs at a low enough cost that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all want to buy them. Each console maker has their own in house techs that designed the consoles to have the features that they do and bought the parts they wanted in the configuration they wanted from AMD. Nvidia is actively trying to be a competitor to the consoles themselves with the Shield.

 

[ZZZAAA]

why would people buy the consoles if they were 800€ again?

When did they ever sell for that much? The PS3 was the most expensive modern console and I think it retailed for around 499-599 USD, although resellers sold it for much more than which only shows how much demand there was for it. If they were to sell at a loss and recuperate with more software sales like they did with that generation, that would be a much better deal for gamers.

 

[ZZZAAA]

In actuality that makes no sense.

AMD is willing to sell hardware and designs at a low enough cost that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft all want to buy them. Each console maker has their own in house techs that designed the consoles to have the features that they do and bought the parts they wanted in the configuration they wanted from AMD. Nvidia is actively trying to be a competitor to the consoles themselves with the Shield.

Well, they'll have more synergy this way. Hopefully, AMD isn't bleeding through the nose anymore and charge a higher price with their zen/Polaris architecture that one of the three would go another route. I hate seeing cheap AMD parts everywhere. Give us something more competitive is all I'm saying.

 

[showb1z]

Not happening. Sony/MS are done with selling consoles at a major loss and APUs are perfect for consoles.

 

[ZZZAAA]

Well I disagree. I also think one of the big two should move up and sell higher-end hardware to people who want a better gaming experience with better graphics then. Neither of the two are notable for having great first party games anyway and I only see one victor coming out of this kind of matchup. It would be much better for gamers in general if the three would compete in different market segments. What do you think?

 

[ZZZAAA]

A videogame costs about $60 each these days... How many games does the average system owner purchase during the lifespan of a console? Don't you think its worth shelling out a couple hundred more and getting the best hardware available at that time?

 

[RussianSensation]

Well I disagree. I also think one of the big two should move up and sell higher-end hardware to people who want a better gaming experience with better graphics then. Neither of the two are notable for having great first party games anyway and I only see one victor coming out of this kind of matchup. It would be much better for gamers in general if the three would compete in different market segments. What do you think?

Most of the market will not buy such a console. NV's gross margins are almost 60% vs. 30ish% for AMD. If you do the math, an NV powered console that's much more powerful than the Neo/Xbox Scorpio would need to cost $599+. Then there is the issue that no ARM CPU is powerful enough to drive a videocard of GTX1070 level. Even a Core i3 bottlenecks a GTX1070/Polaris 10 easily. That means the designer would have no choice but to go Intel quad-core CPU. The market for $600 USD consoles is dead. The reason AMD GPUs make sense for consoles is because the big 3 console makers get more GPU power for less $, all from the same supplier that provides them the CPU too. It's a win-win.

 

[Sonikku]

So all three console makers are going to have AMD chipsets in them? I wish at least one of them would go intel/NVidia just to mix things up. Hopefully, they don't use SoC's anymore and go with a full-blown GPU this time like the old days although the PS4 had some impressive hardware. Imagine how disappointed MS was when they found out their own supplier gave their competitor a superior product which btw completely halted and derailed the X-Box's momentum it had from the previous generation. It only makes sense that one of the two go with intel/NVidia.

I think what derailed Microsoft's momentum was they spent an entire E3 telling the world about all the things the Xbone couldn't do, while Sony spent all of E3 telling the world what they could do. Though certainly selling a machine that was larger, more expensive and less powerful than the competition did not do them any favors.