New gen consoles will finally match mid tier PC hardware on release.

We haven't had a console release that could match mid tier PC hardware since the original Xbox release, the PS4 and xbox one had decent GPUs but shitty CPUs from the Bobcat family with half the clock speed and IPC of CPUs of that time period, resulting in them not being able to push 60fps in most games regardless of settings, same thing happened with the PS3 and XBOX360, their CPUs were hot garbage fire with in-order execution and long pipelines both cell and xenon sacrificed IPC for clockspeed causing them to run hot while not delivering much performance it was basically a repeat of intels netburst but worse, cell even sacrificed die space for SPEs which couldn't even handle the task they were supposed to on their own and they still had to use a dGPU, meaning that despite these consoles having great GPUs (xbox360 at the time of the release had one of the best GPUs out there) they struggled to push 60fps in any game.

on the other hand both the PS5 and XBOX Scarlett will have 6-8 zen2 cores with great IPC running at 2.3-3.0 GHz which will definitely be able to finally push 60fps, on the CPU side the only bottleneck besides the clock speed will be the cost cutting measure where they use vram as system ram which adds some hefty latency but despite all that the CPU will manage to push 60fps on a large number of demanding games, GPU will be decent no doubt, and there's even talk about them using SSD's finally.

In my opinion the only real worry is the price, in terms of quality this will be the best time period to game on a console since the OG xbox, your thoughts?

PS3's CPU was hot garbage? ?

I’m not really interested in PC gaming these days so all I really care about is how an upcoming generation of consoles compares to the last one.

It was a failure in many many ways, there's even a book about this tragedy of an APU(/CPU) named "The Race For a New Game Machine" released by insiders

the first failure was that microsoft ended up buying the PPE design for cheap from IBM that sony spent so much resources on.

the second failure was the huge delay the console suffered because of the CPU.

the third failure was that it didn't even come close to the ridiculous clock speed that they were expecting to reach.

the fourth problem was that the SPEs were hot garbage they were supposed to take on the GPUs job, but sony got insider information on the 360 and they saw that their console was many times worse in any graphics related tasks so they were forced to use a dGPU despite already using an APU which resulted in tons of wasted die space and costs that the end users had to shoulder.

the fifth problem was that it was shit in general, a CPU with long pipelines and in-order-execution chasing high clock speeds in a very heat constrained environment in 2006, a perfect recipe for disaster, it was far far worse in CPU related tasks than any modern CPU of that time period out there (same goes for the 360 but the 360 was a lot better because of the 3 PPCs vs cell's 1) and the SPEs could hardly help they couldn't really do any CPU tasks because they even lacked branch prediction.

It's listed among the worst CPUs (APUs) of all time on many sites, but the fanboyism on here and sonys marketing of that time might have led you to believe otherwise.

@boxrekt: Had some major design flaws.

@crimson_v: Jesus, I forgot how much of a mess Cell was.

Someone got properly schooled. :D

i'll wait for day one releases to believe it.

1 - PC gaming is boring.

2 - Who cares? As long as the games play well and are good looking, that's all that matters.

Average gamer doesn't care. Millions of people play Minecraft and that has 20 year old graphics.

I think the average gamer does care, large budget games are sold on graphics more so than the stale gameplay because they can't take risks, games with better graphics still tend to do way better (not sure how much of that is marketing), at least that's how i see it.

but i'm unsure about the % of hardware enthusiasts among console buyers, so i guess people care more about the end result than the hardware itself.

Don't conflate graphics and marketing.

I wasn't, to clarify what i meant, i wasn't sure if large budget games are doing well because of their graphic prowess or perhaps marketing helps more than the graphics do, but its undeniable that both help.

It wasn't bad technology. It was just not really ideal for a gaming console.

PS3 and X360 were a match for high-end PC in 2005. The 1900X from ATI was slower than Xenos and costs $549. The CPUs were acceptable for the most part. We still dont know the true power of the next gen consoles. Last I spoke with my sources regarding PS5 was that it has 24GB GDDR6, zen2 @3.5ghz, and a Navi GPU rated at 12.9tflops. The last part has me wondering if that is an RDNA measurement than it would be comparable to a GCN chip rated around 18tflops. Not sure what to think.

CELL wasn't ideal for servers and HPCs. IBM abandon in-order CPU design created fat out-of-order processing CPU cores with Power9 instead.

The lesson is to not underestimate branch hardware's importance with decision making software.

Note that PS3 was released after GeForce 8800 GTX (G80).

From https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1021045/nvidia-core-g80-emerges

March 2005 already has NVIDIA's G80 (the 1st CUDA GPU)

NVIDIA'S NEXT generation graphic remains a well protected secret. We still managed to get some information about it, despite that.

We confirmed that G70 is the real thing and we learned that Nvidia has one more chip down the road codenamed the G80. We expect it to be based on 90 nanometre and have more pipes than NV40. We don't think that it will be dual graphics core stuff but you never know, you kow.

We suspect this card should be ready sometimes in September time even some people suggested April as a possibility. But we believe that April is just a poisson d'Avril, or mayhaps a red herring.

Nvidia and its partners are quite confident that they have the right thing but ATI has strong R520 horse for race. Let's see what the future brings.

We also know Xbox 360 was rush out of the door.

https://www.techpowerup.com/4110/nvidias-g80-to-battle-atis-r580-in-06

June 2005, G80 speculated target Q1 2006.

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/406454-nvidia-g80/

Nvidia to introduce G80 graphics processor and SM 4.0 support in 2006

Wolfgang Gruener

7 Dec 2005 20:30

Nvidia provided some updates on its near-term product strategy at a conference with financial analysts. While the first half of next year will focus on introducing updates for the current GeForce 7 generation - including the 90 nm model G71 with up to 750 MHz core clock and the entry-level chips G72 and G73 - the successor of the 7800 will be commercially available sometime in the second half of 2006.

Not surprisingly, G80 will be tailored to run with Windows Vista and its Aero Glass functionality. The new graphics processor will transition to DirectX 10 and support Shader Model 4.0, Nvidia said. It was indicated that the current G7x generation will be available for some time, serving the entry-level and mainstream segment. G80 promises to bring a completely new processor architecture.

I skipped G70s and R500s, and waited for G8X.

X360 and PS3 were very much comparable to high-end PCs upon release. It was the PS4 and X1 that dropped the ball with mid-range PC specs.

compared to the 5700XT, which is 40 active CU's, 9.75tflops, 225W

we'd be looking at: 54 active cu's and 280W so...

It wasn't ideal for anything much less gaming. The arrival of GPGPU put a final nail in its coffin.

Don't be naive. Next-gen consoles will do 8K/120 FPS with RT and have no loading screens.

I am glad that the consoles will finally be getting a decent CPU. However, you still get what you pay for. PC is where it is at if you really care about a quality gaming experience. There is no substitute for a beast PC.

a subjective point , not a fact

2 - Who cares? As long as the games play well and are good looking, that's all that matters.

PC gamers care

Last time i remember in 2005 when i got my 360 it compete really well with my high end PC from 2004... i actually found Gears of War and Dead Rising more impressive than anything i played on PC. So... no idea what OP is talking about. Glad i quit PC gaming back then.

I don't think it will match it but it will be alot closer. This gen console hardware was already dated when it was released. It's crazy how Watch Dogs E3 2012 version still looks better then the new Watch Dogs just think about that for a second a 7 year old PC demo.

Same old shit...

Did you forget???

The Pee Salty Seas are very insecure this time of year. :P

I still find it funny how PC elitists try to say how horrible consoles are in terms of power. We get it. You hate consoles. Most of us don't care. Enjoy your PC.

I'll still be playing my launch PS4 and enjoying the hell out of it until PS5 releases.

@the_master_race: nobody cares about PC gamers, the ports are usually afterthoughts, non optimized crap or inexistent lol rdr2 says hi.

X1X has auto-generate power curve profile under-voltage VRM per silicon quality design.

From https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-580-review,5020-6.html

6.1 TFLOPS RX 580's gaming power consumption is ~209 watts, while RX-5700 XT has 225 watts.

Read https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ao43xl/radeon_vii_insanely_overvolted_undervolting/ for AMD's lazy workmanship with dumb VRMs which needs end users has to under-volt their Vega II GPU for lower power consumption.

MS was able to lower X1X 6 GFLOPS GPU's power consumption without end user's intervention.

They really weren't, the 360 had a better GPU than the PS3 but it was still somewhat slower than a X1900 XT (got no clue why you'd think its fasterm its specs are listed online its only real stand out feature was the unified shaders, but that can't make up such a large difference), but regardless as i said previously the 360 had a "great GPU" definitely high end, the real reason why they were far from high end PCs was the ram limitations (360 only had 512mb vram that also acted as system ram and the PS3 had 256mb proper system ram and 256mb vram), and their shitty CPUs.

I would take your 'sources leaks with a grain of salt, since most people only have access to GDK consoles at this point in time which are always known to have higher specs than the actual public release models.

I wan't next gen consoles to be great but that amount of vram seems unrealistic from cost perspective and 3.5ghz seems unrealistic from a TDP perspective (unless they go with 4 cores or something which i think is unlikely) that is why i think that the leak might originate from a GDK console.

AMD is simply increasing yields, this isn't exactly a secret. Which also means not every shipped chip will function as well on lower voltages.

Basically this is a recopilation or bullshit claims never proven by another dusted alt account.lol

Fact is Cell walked all over the xbox 360 CPU.

With just 5 SPE Cell chew and spit the 360 CPU 3 times better performance with just 5SPE.

The PC version is almost always superior to the console version these days. You know this.

RDR2 is not saying hi. RDR2 is screaming for help. It is dying to break free from console hell and the 30fps shackles. Don't worry, PC will come to the rescue.

LMFAO, keep damaging controlling that while we play games made for our platforms, not yours. All you have is that sad SCAM CITZEN ROFL.

You sound just as sad as the person you are responding to.

@calvincfb: You really should look up how game development works. Start with API's and go from there.

I don't know if I would brag about that. A mid-tier PC equivalent in 2020 will be what in 2024? 2026?

Console gamers really need to keep the power talk in check.

Of course I am sad. I don't like to see games suffering on shit hardware.

@fedor: that won't change the fact that developers make bad ports for PC because PC gaming is an afterthought, since they don't buy games

@calvincfb: That's your counterpoint? LMAO!!!

@fedor: it's just a fact, not my problem if it hurts.

@calvincfb: Why would you being ignorant hurt me?

And probably at best be weak within two years of release. Consoles died when they went with off the shelf parts, fact.

Oh yeah, Switch and PS4 are pretty much dead, right? lol

@tormentos said:

Basically this is a recopilation or bullshit claims never proven by another dusted alt account.lol

Fact is Cell walked all over the xbox 360 CPU.

With just 5 SPE Cell chew and spit the 360 CPU 3 times better performance with just 5SPE.

Haha that's one of the dumbest things i read on this forum, that's a graph about GPGPU performance you moron they were rendering dancers with mostly GPU's that graph was there to showcase how good GPUs have become at general-purpose computing (at highly parallel tasks that the CPUs were doing in the past before the "GPGPU revolution"):

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-Clobbers-Xbox-One-Ubisoft-GPU-Benchmark-67877.html

This topic is clearly way over your head, go home before you embarrass yourself further.

Some of my sources include IBM workers (the author of "The Race For a New Game Machine) how can you call my shit "recopilation" of bullshit claims, when you post a questionably graph about GPGPU performance while talking about CPU performance?

So, what's the most impressive looking PC exclusive confirmed to be releasing this year?

The "shit" hardware is better than the shitty integrated graphics that can be easily found in may PCs. :)

Shit hardware is shit hardware. It doesn't matter if it is a PC or a console. I don't recommend people play games on shit hardware.

Consoles died?

So when's the only blockbuster PC AAA exclusive hyped by PC fans this gen, Star Citizen's: Squadron 42 releasing again?

Will it release before next gen systems launch? Will it still be exclusive?

Star Citizen is literally the only AAA PC exclusive to be hyped by PC fans since Crysis in 2007, and it seems less and less likely it will stay PC exclusive when next gen consoles release next year. But sure, it's the consoles that died ¯\_(ツ)_/¯