What will PS4 graphics be like?

[zerocool84]

Nah I don't think so, or the N64 would have been called the Super Nintendo 2 and the Gamecube would have been called the Super Nintendo 3.

NINTENDO Entertainment System
Super NINTENDO Entertainment System
NINTENDO 64

Common theme there, basic marketing. After how the N64 turned out, it's easy to see why they called it Gamecube. Wanted to distance themselves from it.

 

[Arkaign]

Most PS4/720 games won't even be 1080p.



I imagine Sony will try to push Bluray 4K.

That's true, I should clarify that :

They won't worry about 4K gaming beyond super simple basic stuff (to show that it's indeed possible with lowered details/framerate or super basic 2d games like Angry Birds)

but ..

4K BluRay will, and should be, heavily promoted as a plus to the PS4. Even if practically nobody has a 4K set for a few years, it will make a notable impact on mindset, and aid adoption (4K movies to go with 4K TV after all, one without the other is pointless).

4K BluRay/2D is feasible even with very weak GPU like 7750 after all. So it won't break the bank to have that hardware power in there.

 

[Sulaco]

Nah I don't think so, or the N64 would have been called the Super Nintendo 2 and the Gamecube would have been called the Super Nintendo 3.

No, it was the same idea. The Nintendo 64 was the same basic naming idea; use the name of the company itself as the name of the console. That was the power of the Nintendo name. They just added '64' on the end this time to play up the marketing hype of the "bit wars" over their 32-bit competition.

The N64 was also largely a disappointment compared to the PSX, and "GameCube" was born.

 

[BenSkywalker]

FYI the PS3 3D games are not 2560x1440, it can't handle that resolution. I don't know why you're making that stuff up.

I should have stated 2560x720, typed it out quick. It's 1280x720 per frame per eye.

Side-by-side 3D presents one initial problem; a loss of resolution.

Err, that's nice, doesn't help with shutter glasses which is what Sony uses.

Besides, 3d doesn't even come close to the true load of a higher resolution due to the vast majority of the data in L/R frames being identical, just buffered and skewed for perspective.

No, that isn't how it works at all. You need to change the entire view frustum to get perspective data, it is more intensive then just doubling up on resolution, but not hugely so.

You'll note that 3d drops the PS3 and X360 to ~30fps (or less, look at AC3) and lowered res/details vs 2d games for AAA titles.

GT5, UC3 don't agreed with the lower details. The lowered framerate is a given, TVs can't input 120HZ which is the only way that the framerate wouldn't go down(not that the current consoles could handle that).

The main point is moving to 4K is only an increase of 400% over what the consoles are *already* doing. Is anyone going to try and say that the consoles aren't going to have 400% more GPU power then the previous generation?

Sony and Microsoft won't give a crap about 4K this gen

Sony cares enormously about 4K, perhaps more then anyone else in the world. They used the PS3 to make sure Blu Ray buried HDDVD, they will use the PS4 to promote 4K TVs. It isn't even remotely in question.

99%+ of their market will be 1080p, so it makes no sense to lose a bunch more money with a much more expensive console to produce, shooting for a target (4K with good framerate/details) that is currently unfeasible.

Perhaps you would like to explain why Sony has billions of dollars tied up in that whole making TVs thing? Sony cares, and cares an enormous amount about the success of 4K. MS won't care, they don't have a horse in the TV/Movie market to worry about.

Most PS4/720 games won't even be 1080p.

Wrong. Feel free to quote me, 1080p will be the baseline for next gen, 1080p 3D will be the standard. Everything over that will vary.

 

[Doppel]

I don't follow hardware that much but I agree 1080P will be baseline. I really can't see much happening with 4k, though. Essentially everybody has a flat screen now and none are above 1080p. At the earliest it will be the tail end of the PS4 before 4k is taken seriously by the masses I would guess, and quite possibly much later than that.

 

[reallyscrued]

You a young pup? Go ahead and link up some glorious software rendered games from the PC circa 1994. I was long out of school by the time the PSX launched, PC graphics didn't take off until 3Dfx launched the original Voodoo some two years after then PSX. PC graphics flat out sucked prior to that.



Yep, you are very young, heh. 1024x768 running Quake in 1996? Using what? Imaginary Pixie accelerator or something? In 1998 we could run 1024x768 if we ran SLI Voodoo2s, only 800x600 if we were using a single card(that was the maximum resolution, performance still sucked).



DC was dead and buried at that point, the PS2 launched in '99- it is the system that gave us GT4 running 1080i. Yes, it would have been going up against a Voodoo3, a contest it would have very easily won.



Since when? Since after the GeForce hit? The problem moving forward is that due to PC gamers demanding low resolution at this point that is about to go away. 4K TVs are shipping already, the PS4 will certainly support it. You will be able to pick, low res PC gaming, or high resolution console gaming. Thank the PC gaming community and their demands for hyper low resolution for the last ten years for that one.



Three really shitty looking games, what's your point exactly? If you take outdated games and throw thousands of dollars of hardware at it you can run it at a higher resolution on the PC? I guess, up until this coming generation, that was a valid point. Sadly, 4K is going to take that away from PC gaming.

Now if you limit it to discussing raw GPU power, PCs dominate most of the time, but at launch against the consoles on a historic basis PCs don't look all that great. And then we get into the other half of the equation, the CPUs, where consoles tend to violently sodomize PCs. When the GeForce launched it pushed a whopping 10 million verts/sec, which was extremely impressive for a PC, and one sixth of what the PS2 could do that was already out. True, the PS2 was doing that with its' CPU which PCs would just roll over and cry at the time trying that, but the fact remains that some of the tasks that PCs use GPUs for, the consoles could fall back on to their CPU to do the same.



Now? It isn't remotely close. The thing is we are comparing cutting edge PCs to seven year old consoles(six in the case of the PS3). I'm speaking on a historical basis, at launch console hardware has actually held up rather well.

You just negated your entire post with that one statement, which I agree with.

Instead of trying to insult me by bringing attention to my age (I'm glad you take so much pride in being older? ....Good luck with that) how about you read what you just wrote. If your idea of 'more powerful graphics' is measured by a racing game, then sure, GT3 (released in 2001, while PS2 was released in late 2000 in the US, get your dates right) ushered in a new wave of graphics. Then easily discount the 'three bad-looking games like Doom3, Farcry, and Half Life 2'.

It would be pointless to argue with you when you're making statements like "you have two options, pick high resolution gaming with consoles or low resolution gaming with PC". Stuff like that sounds so ridiculous I'm not sure how to begin to attack it. I bid you a blissful 4k gaming experience on the PS4.

 

[HeXen]

Every new console has always seen an uptick in graphics.
For example, Dreamcast pushed more polygons than any PC game of its time, rounder and more detailed objects. It took quite a few years to beat the detailed environments of Shenmue or even have a game where a simple Turtle had as many poly's as the ones in Ecco.

On 360's release, Condemned for example pushed texture detail beyond what most PC games offered at the time.
PC's should catch up faster this time since far more games are Multiplatform now, but no doubt a few devs will push the first batch of games beyond what we're seeing now or at least make far more use of it on the exclusives.

If you think about it, not too many PC games have fully destructable enviro's, foliage physics, ability to burn down things and AI behaviors seen in Skyrim...so i suspect we'll see more games that use all those features. Right now it's really hit n miss. Farcry 2/3 you can burn things, but poor AI, Crysis had good all around physics and ok AI at times, no games seem to bring them all together and push the features. No doubt we'll see games where every single building and tree can be destroyed in unique ways with accurate physics

 

[BenSkywalker]

You just negated your entire post with that one statement, which I agree with.

If that's the case then quite frankly you are too ignorant to bother having a discussion with. The explicit launch window that a console hits is a very explicit thing. When the PS1 launched the PC had *no* 3D consumer cards. By the time the PS2 launched we had four generations. The time between those two points was extensive, and for a great deal of that the PC was, by a very large margin, ahead. When we narrow the discussion down to when the consoles launched it is a different matter entirely.

Instead of trying to insult me by bringing attention to my age

I didn't before, but that you think I did does show profound immaturity on your part.

I'm glad you take so much pride in being older?

Being older is a function of the passage of time. My pointing out that you are younger was based on your comments, clearly you weren't there or you wouldn't be writing what you have been.

Then easily discount the 'three bad-looking games like Doom3, Farcry, and Half Life 2'.

It is all relative. Quake was ground breaking in 1996, it would have been trash in 1998. By the launch of the 360 I don't think you would have found a lot of people holding up any of those games as the high points of PC graphics. None of them look good compared to say Gears of War.

Stuff like that sounds so ridiculous I'm not sure how to begin to attack it. I bid you a blissful 4k gaming experience on the PS4.

It's like you want to come off as under twelve with your attitude. I do the overwhelming majority of my gaming on the PC, I actually haven't played the consoles much at all lately, currently back playing SWTOR a bit, doing some Alpha testing of an upcoming MMO and playing through Dishonored, all on the PC. People on this forum for some reason think that acknowledging reality means it's what you want to see or are hoping to see. Reality is what it is. Only the delusional or very young try to see things otherwise.

 

[Arkaign]

I don't follow hardware that much but I agree 1080P will be baseline. I really can't see much happening with 4k, though. Essentially everybody has a flat screen now and none are above 1080p. At the earliest it will be the tail end of the PS4 before 4k is taken seriously by the masses I would guess, and quite possibly much later than that.

Yep. PS4 should be excellent, but 4K is going to be not much use outside of BluRay 4K (nice!), until the power is really there in a low-TDP form (PS5).

400% should easily be doable as an increase in GPU grunt over PS3, but that would assume that nothing else is getting more intensive with new titles, that we'd see PS3-level AI, level complexity, model/poly count, texture size/resolution, etc.

Another way to look at it is this :

In 2005, a 6600GT could run most titles of the time at ~60fps at 1280x1024 with moderate details. That same 6600GT cannot run anything today (2012 titles) at ~60fps, and usually not even 30fps outside of stuff on very very old engines. To get the same results with modern AAA titles with a similarly midrange resolution (1680x1050), you have to have a dramatically faster card, really a 7850 is the starting point for 60fps play.

Consoles ARE more efficient in using their hardware power with less overhead, and another inarguable bonus point is that Sony and Microsoft will pour tons of money (not as dramatically as the 05/06 war due to economic forces, but still a difference) into their AAA titles and dev kits, which is notably more intense than the resources put into PC.

But we come back to fundamental limitations and the target market :

(1)- Target market : 99.99% of customers have 720p and 1080p screens. Many, many of these have been purchased recently and people don't feel like replacing them. The vast vast majority of these customers won't buy a 4K set until they come down to no more than about $3,000, and most of those won't buy until they hit the $1k mark.

When faced with a choice, game devs can either (A)- Build a game world and models/textures/etc that will work in 4K well, hence way less detailed to enable a good framerate, or (B)- Build it with nice AA, effects, high detail models, textures, etc, in order for a super smooth 1080p experience. It's possible that some titles will have both modes enabled. And it's also possible that they might enable some kind of hybrid mode that the game is actually rendering in 1080p but upsampling to look *better* in 4K, but not really native 4K.

(2)- Fundamental limitations. Pushing 8 million pixels in a game world with extremely high detail is not feasible with low-TDP hardware. Sony and Microsoft are starting out with a dev kit and locked base hardware specs that have already been determined, they have to hit a target MSRP and components that will fit their cost limitations within current process tech (28nm most likely), within a power/heat envelope that will work within a nice somewhat slim casing. What is possible? Very good hardware design, good dev kits, lessons learned (for Sony : ease development process, for Microsoft : DVD too small!), and a super smooth seamless 1080p experience with huge leaps forward in game complexity possibilities due to vastly increased memory.

PS3/X360 look pretty good on a TV from far, but when you look at them on an equal footing (HDMI to a nice monitor) they look pretty rough. You see a laggy framerate in most things compensated with blur effects, low resolution textures, poor shadows, lots of aliasing, some load time issues, it goes on and on. It's actually quite impressive that the devs got as much out of them as they did. PS4/X720 should really give a gigantic leap forward for good 1080p experiences and deeper gameplay possibilities.

But 4K AAA high-res gaming is a pipe dream for now. It's a bridge too far, and to build for that would cause a console's price to increase drastically, with gigantic PCBs/Coolers/Power Supplies, Heat, etc, all for a market that MIGHT get to 1% in 3 years. They simply won't do that, they're not that stupid.

 

[HeXen]

Consoles need a reboot in how they are marketed.
As it is, we know that Addon's don't work. But pushing new peripherals and games every 5+ yrs isn't ideal either. Gaming PC's have it right, we can opt to upgrade as we see fit and most everyone does so.
Most current console owners have already been through a couple or few 360's and PS3 systems.

I say they should do hardware evolutions each year, update the CPU,ram,Gpu incrementally like they basically do for Ipad each year, same cost, updated hardware.
All games and perhipherals would be compatable, same form factors..etc But for those that need a new one, you would get better frame rates, higher resolution options.
Would extend the life of the systems, developers can be almost as free as they are to develop on PC.
Main con would be the cost of the consoles would never go down. A wise choice is the $250 area for base model, each year it could receive upgrades and people would be more apt to buy in that price range than they would $500. So it would be a weaker system to start, but better than a stronger one with no upgrades for 5yrs or longer as eventually the weaker system upgrades would surpass it quickly.

I don't know anyone who still has the very original PS3 and 360. So it's obvious that most people end up having to purchase a new one at some point, This method would give further reasons.
Imagine such a scenerio with the 360..we may now have a far more superior quad core and importantly far more ram...so Forza 4 could look like Project Cars while still looking like Forza 4 does now for those that have the original system *cough*.

The old perception of owning a 5+yr piece of hardware is as old as the perception of a 15yr Television set. The poor do of course, but most of the working class seems to toss away Cell phones, Tv's, Laptops, Tablets and replace them often and their old apps work just fine...why not Consoles too? It's not the 90's anymore.

 

[zerocool84]

Every new console has always seen an uptick in graphics.
For example, Dreamcast pushed more polygons than any PC game of its time, rounder and more detailed objects. It took quite a few years to beat the detailed environments of Shenmue or even have a game where a simple Turtle had as many poly's as the ones in Ecco.

On 360's release, Condemned for example pushed texture detail beyond what most PC games offered at the time.
PC's should catch up faster this time since far more games are Multiplatform now, but no doubt a few devs will push the first batch of games beyond what we're seeing now or at least make far more use of it on the exclusives.

If you think about it, not too many PC games have fully destructable enviro's, foliage physics, ability to burn down things and AI behaviors seen in Skyrim...so i suspect we'll see more games that use all those features. Right now it's really hit n miss. Farcry 2/3 you can burn things, but poor AI, Crysis had good all around physics and ok AI at times, no games seem to bring them all together and push the features. No doubt we'll see games where every single building and tree can be destroyed in unique ways with accurate physics

Yes every new console generation has seen a significant upgrade in graphics but from what we've been hearing about this coming generation, it's not going to be that big of a leap because they want to make money on each console they sell so they won't be extreme powerhouses with the latest hardware.

 

[Arkaign]

True, and process tech improvements aren't nearly as dramatic as they were in the past. In order to push PC graphics further and further, GPU complexity, power requirements, and coolin requirements have increased a good bit for high-level cards.

Look at 8800GT

Look at 670

Both upper midrange/a step back from top end cards of their eras. But now the 670, which uses LESS power than the competing 7950, needs two PCI-e connectors and a very aggressive cooler.

It's not quite stagnation, there are stilll gains to be had. PS4 will be a massive leap forward from PS3, but iit will show more in ram and the ability to run good 1080p than anything else. A huge, hot, expensive, fragile money loser that shoots for beyond 1080p is an idiotic thing to build at this point, and they won't do it. 4K BluRay on the other hand, is very easily doable and will make a fantastic marketing point, even if only a tiny tiny fraction of people have 4K screens until at least 5 years out, when you might see displays dropping below the $5k mark.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Hahaha...4K. Man, what are some people smoking? There is zero economic incentive for the PS4 to do that. How many people do you know that have a 4K TV? None, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

 

[BrightCandle]

Hahaha...4K. Man, what are some people smoking? There is zero economic incentive for the PS4 to do that. How many people do you know that have a 4K TV? None, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

Not to mention the fact that no high end GPU can reasonably cope with the resolution let alone the entry level low power one that goes into a console.

You might get 4k support for videos with software post release if that is doable, but no chance for games.

 

[Spjut]

Not to mention the fact that no high end GPU can reasonably cope with the resolution let alone the entry level low power one that goes into a console.

You might get 4k support for videos with software post release if that is doable, but no chance for games.

Undemanding games on PSN/XBLA could probably get 4k support.


Regarding the GPU, I expect something comparable to the HD 8750/8770.
I think the consoles will compare pretty well to the PC during the first years, I think alot of the negative mindsets are underestimating the PC's currently large overhead

 

[destrekor]

True, and process tech improvements aren't nearly as dramatic as they were in the past. In order to push PC graphics further and further, GPU complexity, power requirements, and coolin requirements have increased a good bit for high-level cards.

Look at 8800GT

Look at 670

Both upper midrange/a step back from top end cards of their eras. But now the 670, which uses LESS power than the competing 7950, needs two PCI-e connectors and a very aggressive cooler.

It's not quite stagnation, there are stilll gains to be had. PS4 will be a massive leap forward from PS3, but iit will show more in ram and the ability to run good 1080p than anything else. A huge, hot, expensive, fragile money loser that shoots for beyond 1080p is an idiotic thing to build at this point, and they won't do it. 4K BluRay on the other hand, is very easily doable and will make a fantastic marketing point, even if only a tiny tiny fraction of people have 4K screens until at least 5 years out, when you might see displays dropping below the $5k mark.

Huge card with extra power isn't entirely unprecedented. I think it began with the Geforce 5800 cards.
They had a dual-slot "blower" style, though it didn't cover the entire PCB like today's cards do - it technically really doesn't need to anyhow, but why not? Though, with the increased amount of memory on cards, it's spread out around the GPU more, and there are probably more electrical components (capacitors, VRMs, etc) spread out on the PCB today vs yesteryear, which are hotter and one big block of metal plus active cooling is easier versus separate heatsinks all over the place.

Granted, the 5800 appears to have only needed one molex power connection. That was, however, not always the case - the 6800 Ultra required TWO molex connections (perhaps others in the 6xxx series did as well).


Yes, I can see that you are comparing cards that are just below the top-end single-GPU cards in those respective generations (well, 8000 series didn't even have a dual-GPU, that was a few generations later).
8800 Ultra required a dual-slot, full-PCB cooler assembly, and required 2x6pin power connectors.

So yes, there was/is a trend now that even the mid-range cards are essentially beasts in terms of power/heat. But is that such a bad thing?
They could easily provide us with a single-slot mid-range card, and charge what currently charge for the mid-range cards, and reserve the beastly card for the top-end. They'd need AMD to be complicit with such a rape-fest in order to actually survive as a company, though.

 

[destrekor]

Undemanding games on PSN/XBLA could probably get 4k support.


Regarding the GPU, I expect something comparable to the HD 8750/8770.
I think the consoles will compare pretty well to the PC during the first years, I think alot of the negative mindsets are underestimating the PC's currently large overhead

That ultimately I wouldn't question one bit - this thread kind of blew up with the whole 4K discussion.

If they release with a GPU comparable to mid-range of the next-gen GPUs, regardless of the fact if they do or do not beat out the same desktop-equivalent GPU, the systems will technically be capable of more than what a higher-spec'd PC (w/top-end of next generation) could wring out.

The PC has tremendous overhead, not just from the OS either, but the CPU time required for all the other hardware in the system which might not seem like much but consoles are very streamlined. Plus pipelines will be shorter, and the separate components will be more tightly integrated. RAM would likely be much faster, and there won't be many steps for data to flow between GPU and CPU and outward.

At the same time, who knows if the first generation of games would truly eek out what the system can truly accomplish (coding efficiency and knowledge of the architecture are common roadblocks, especially for Sony systems). Just look at how much better recent PS3 titles look compared to the first batch of games. I don't think we'll actually see anything visually outpacing a similarly-spec'd PC for any multi-platform games, not right away for sure. First-party titles, may give PC graphics a fight, looking better than currently-available engines when running at the same framerate. But it's also so difficult to compare a first-party console title to a plethora of other engines released before on the PC. If that first-party title uses an in-house engine, it'll be catered to specific hardware, whereas even in-house PC-only engines are only so efficient since they have to work with a wide range of hardware capabilities.

If developers of currently-available multi-platform engines can get one of said engines efficiently running on the new platform somewhere near launch, it may give a good comparison.

But there's two things that may occur:
1)
If it looks better on the new console architecture, well, I hesitate to say it but that's probably a case-closed situation (but again, the issue of non-specific architecture for the PC as a platform does play a role, especially since said engine may have been console-oriented in the first place, just giving extra visual prowess to the PC)
2)
If it doesn't look any better and runs at a similar framerate (likely capped at something, be it 60 or 30fps), it may be that the console can't actually compare to the PC, but it may be an in-efficient use of the architecture (which again is common for the first year or two with a new console).

I think the best opportunity would be taking Frostbite 2.0, probably 2.5/3.0 at that time, and compare it with the same title on PC and the next-gen consoles. I imagine Battlefield 4 will utilize 2.5, perhaps 3.0, and as it'll be releasing this fall, it would end up being available at launch for the next gen consoles. If they release after fall 2013, then the game will probably just be released for them at time of launch - EA is going to want a piece of that FPS pie, even if launch dates aren't perfectly timed with PC, because I can only imagine the same will be true for the CoD Flavor of the Year release.

 

[HeXen]

it's not going to be that big of a leap because they want to make money on each console they sell so they won't be extreme powerhouses with the latest hardware.

yeah, for another 5 plus years. That's what sucks about it. Fine if they actually did what i was talkn about, but in 2 years time, the new consoles are going to look dated graphic wise...at least to us PC gamers. Beyond that, then everyone has to buy all new hardware with little liklihood of backward compatability with previous titles, it really doesn't have to be like that, it's just how they market it.

 

[mmntech]

The Vita is the Vita and not the 'PSP 2' likely because the PSP was largely considered a flop, Sony doesn't want to be associated with that moniker anymore.

The PSP wasn't a flop by any means. It sold far short of the DS's 150 million units, but 71 million units isn't half bad. Sales figures are on par with the 360 and PS3. The PSP was a bit more successful in it's native Japan largely due to a stronger library of games.

The Vita on the other hand has indeed been a flop. Marketing has been weak and games from core franchises have been weak. Though a lot of the Vita's problems stem from marketing and pricing. Maybe they would have been better off calling it the PSP2.

 

[destrekor]

The PSP wasn't a flop by any means. It sold far short of the DS's 150 million units, but 71 million units isn't half bad. Sales figures are on par with the 360 and PS3. The PSP was a bit more successful in it's native Japan largely due to a stronger library of games.

The Vita on the other hand has indeed been a flop. Marketing has been weak and games from core franchises have been weak. Though a lot of the Vita's problems stem from marketing and pricing. Maybe they would have been better off calling it the PSP2.

The device itself seems absolutely stellar.

It's library is mediocre, and marketing is abysmal. I wouldn't doubt if I could poll a few people and be given a befuddled look, followed by "what's a vita?" If I possibly asked "have you heard of the playstation vita", I might expect a few to shoot back: "is that the next playstation?"

Granted, those same people might also not be aware of each specific GameBoy to have been released, or specifically the latest one. Depending on the person, they'd probably recognize the concept of the GameBoy.
Sony shot themselves in the foot by not sticking to the PSP name.
You had PSP, Portable in it's name, and that clearly referenced the idea of it being a gameboy-like device. Maybe they felt too many people thought of it more as a "me-too" type device, which are almost always inferior to the star product (GameBoy). But calling it a Playstation Vita really doesn't stick to people's minds as a handheld device. the GameBoy might not originally have called that image to mind, as a device name for the first release, but it's cemented in the public's mind now. PlayStation most recognize as a home console, and PSP would have seen a good fit to latch onto that recognition but always call to mind the concept of a handheld gaming system. Now, they muddied the waters of brand recognition.



I realized I barely ever used my PSP, and I don't care to sit on a handheld device when I'm sitting at home. I did as a kid, true, but now I'd rather just go big or go home (PC games, or console), or find other things to do (nef, maybe do some other work, etc). Thus, I didn't get the Vita, although I'll be damned if I don't think about picking one up from time to time. Thankfully I don't, and I'm proud of that since I can be a little impulsive about purchasing things like that.

I imagine the Vita will do well enough to ensure Sony doesn't shy away from making another portable down the road, especially if they do it like the PSP and, with redesigns, launch more successful marketing campaigns that actually latch on. Overall it won't be an abysmal flop, and it's probably fairing about as well if not better than the first PSP at this point in it's life (I have never compared sales figures, I may be way off). I have a feeling Sony may never, or at least not for another generation or two, actually go toe-to-toe with Nintendo in the portable business, but that doesn't make it a failure. Selling over 70 million units (PSP) is nothing to take lightly. Nintendo is THE juggernaut, so that's a damn commendable job on Sony's part.

 

[HeXen]

Vita is a nice piece of portable tech, i think if they ever get the price to $150 or less, it would do fine and they should market the darn thing. I think they should have waited for PS4 release and market them together, maybe make the Vita with remote ability..etc.
I loved my PSP once i hacked it, i got 8 gigs worth of old console games via emulators. Playing NES..etc on it is great as it's so quick and convenient to get that nostalgic quickfix.

 

[zerocool84]

Undemanding games on PSN/XBLA could probably get 4k support.


Regarding the GPU, I expect something comparable to the HD 8750/8770.
I think the consoles will compare pretty well to the PC during the first years, I think alot of the negative mindsets are underestimating the PC's currently large overhead

I think they MIGHT have something close to that power wise. They'll have something quiet, cool, and cheap seeing as they're going to want these new systems as a set-top box in our living rooms as the media center as well as gaming. I don't think they want the RROD fiasco all over again especially seeing as the systems are going to get a lot more use out of them with streaming and such.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Alright, time to get into some cost analysis on how the companies are approaching this generation versus the last generation.

We will take MS first as they have been around the longest.

First off, the 360 launched at a $299 price point in the US for the core model, the Pro had the addition of a HD and some other random parts for $399. That console launched with a GPU a generation *ahead* of *anything* in the PC space. Said another way, launching with the highest end GPU available in the PC space would have been a *reduction* in specs, let alone if we started talking about the highest end part 18 months before the console launched, which is *exactly* what the people in this thread are doing.

To put that in perspective, 18 months prior to the launch of the 360 the x800 hadn't launched yet, what you people are suggesting is akin to saying the 360 would have shipped with a *9600 Pro* class part. It is one thing to talk about them not going as all out as they did in the previous generation, it is quite another to say they are going to instantly become profoundly retarded and ship a console that noone will want to buy.

There is a full three generation gap between what MS did last time and what you all seem to think they will do this time.

Now on Sony's side their are actually a combination of several different factors, by *FAR* the largest and the one everyone hides is that the biggest cost of the PS3 by a *HUGE* margin was the Blu Ray drive. When the PS3 hit it was the, or close to the depending on what market you were in, cheapest Blu Ray player you could buy. Forget Cell or the RSX, the HD, the built in WiFi, the controller- the Blu Ray drive was the major cost factor with the PS3.

Due to the cost of the BRD Sony was taking a loss on the hardware, the actual hardware itself wouldn't have been loss incurring if not for that(ie- if the BRD would have been replaced with a DVD drive it would have made money at $499), however there were additional costs. One was the R&D Sony spent to develop the CPUs for both the PS3 and the 360. $500 million, in the scheme of things pretty cheap over the long haul as the PS3 is about to crest 75 million units, but a decent upfront cost. Then you had the new fab Sony built to produce the chips used in the PS3. Long term, it saved them money, but another couple billion dollars is a lot of money to most people.

In Sony's current situation repeating the costs associated with getting the PS3 can't be repeated, but that doesn't come remotely close to implying they are going to use two year old mid range parts to power their next gen console. While it was only by a very brief period, Sony shipped a part directly comparable to the highest end GPU in PCs when the PS3 hit(surpassed in a week or two by the 8800). The timeframe of these consoles launch will be within spitting distance of the 9870 and 880GTX, talking about them using a next gen mid range chip would be, in relation to the previous generation, a rather decent sized step down from what they did last generation.

There is a massive gap between the extremes either of them went through in the last generation to what you people are talking about now.

For relative comparisons just because people want to talk about what the next gen is going to be capable of doing or not.

RSX-

13.2 GTexel/S
400GFLOPS

660Ti-

102GTexel/S
2459GFLOPS

7870

80GTexel/S
2500GFLOPS

So even if we ignore everything I posted about the disparity in costs from last generation to this one, even if we assume that Sony and MS are going to go the route of Nintendo and use a mid range year and half old part, they would *still* have ~600%-800% of the performance of the previous generation.

 

[Arkaign]

http://www.examiner.com/article/xbox-720-specs-radeon-hd-6670-based-gpu-to-display-games

 

[destrekor]

Alright, time to get into some cost analysis on how the companies are approaching this generation versus the last generation.

We will take MS first as they have been around the longest.

First off, the 360 launched at a $299 price point in the US for the core model, the Pro had the addition of a HD and some other random parts for $399. That console launched with a GPU a generation *ahead* of *anything* in the PC space. Said another way, launching with the highest end GPU available in the PC space would have been a *reduction* in specs, let alone if we started talking about the highest end part 18 months before the console launched, which is *exactly* what the people in this thread are doing.

To put that in perspective, 18 months prior to the launch of the 360 the x800 hadn't launched yet, what you people are suggesting is akin to saying the 360 would have shipped with a *9600 Pro* class part. It is one thing to talk about them not going as all out as they did in the previous generation, it is quite another to say they are going to instantly become profoundly retarded and ship a console that noone will want to buy.

There is a full three generation gap between what MS did last time and what you all seem to think they will do this time.

Now on Sony's side their are actually a combination of several different factors, by *FAR* the largest and the one everyone hides is that the biggest cost of the PS3 by a *HUGE* margin was the Blu Ray drive. When the PS3 hit it was the, or close to the depending on what market you were in, cheapest Blu Ray player you could buy. Forget Cell or the RSX, the HD, the built in WiFi, the controller- the Blu Ray drive was the major cost factor with the PS3.

Due to the cost of the BRD Sony was taking a loss on the hardware, the actual hardware itself wouldn't have been loss incurring if not for that(ie- if the BRD would have been replaced with a DVD drive it would have made money at $499), however there were additional costs. One was the R&D Sony spent to develop the CPUs for both the PS3 and the 360. $500 million, in the scheme of things pretty cheap over the long haul as the PS3 is about to crest 75 million units, but a decent upfront cost. Then you had the new fab Sony built to produce the chips used in the PS3. Long term, it saved them money, but another couple billion dollars is a lot of money to most people.

In Sony's current situation repeating the costs associated with getting the PS3 can't be repeated, but that doesn't come remotely close to implying they are going to use two year old mid range parts to power their next gen console. While it was only by a very brief period, Sony shipped a part directly comparable to the highest end GPU in PCs when the PS3 hit(surpassed in a week or two by the 8800). The timeframe of these consoles launch will be within spitting distance of the 9870 and 880GTX, talking about them using a next gen mid range chip would be, in relation to the previous generation, a rather decent sized step down from what they did last generation.

There is a massive gap between the extremes either of them went through in the last generation to what you people are talking about now.

For relative comparisons just because people want to talk about what the next gen is going to be capable of doing or not.

RSX-

13.2 GTexel/S
400GFLOPS

660Ti-

102GTexel/S
2459GFLOPS

7870

80GTexel/S
2500GFLOPS

So even if we ignore everything I posted about the disparity in costs from last generation to this one, even if we assume that Sony and MS are going to go the route of Nintendo and use a mid range year and half old part, they would *still* have ~600%-800% of the performance of the previous generation.

So, you are assuming the consoles will launch in, what, Fall 2015?

Nvidia isn't anywhere near releasing the GTX 700 series, and the 700 will probably be hurried up simply because they slacked on the 600-series. So there should be a decent window between the 700 and 800 series unless the 700 series is blown away by AMD.

Personally, I know I was stating the concept of using next-gen mid-range GPUs, say, a GTX 770, on the notion it would be around at the same time frame. If they launch a little AFTER the 770 is available in PC, say, by half a year, they might help cook up a specific version of the GTX 870 or whatever.
But just like the rumors for the next Xbox state using a lesser GPU, I wouldn't doubt if Sony dials things down a little bit to shave development costs and help make it more developer friendly.
I'm also expecting the PS4 no later than Fall 2014, a decent chance of Fall 2013 - there have already been a few versions of the dev kit IIRC, and I can't imagine the dev kits being in the hands of devs for over two years.


As for the PS3 and BD, well - no. Just no. There was no way the PS3 would have produced a profit at launch if they simply removed the Blu-ray drive. I remember, at the time, seeing that the most expensive part of that whole setup was the diode assembly, costing between $25-$50. A few other specific components probably raised it up a bit, but the PS3 was able to use most of the other equipment to use the Blu-ray drive, as opposed to other expensive Blu-ray players having to include a whole bunch of dedicated processing and encoding hardware.
At most, all-inclusive for the Blu-ray was $100, likely less than $75 iirc. At launch, the PS3 was said to suffer a loss of $~200.