Next gen consoles, someone will make a grave error, will it be S0ny or M$ to fall for the CPU powa hype trap?

TLDR SCROLL DOWN BABY!!!

Next gen is a few years away. We are talking 2019 at the earliest, more likely 2020 and no later than 2021. Last time it was M$ that fell for the motion control hype train. They released an underpowered, overpriced, kinect box and it was HUUUUUGE. And they wanted always online before they quickly changed course. Surprise, it got spanked by the competition.

If you read these boards you will see constant threads about how weak the CPUs in consoles are. The CPU hype machine is strong so you may see one of these two companies fall for the CPU hype and that would be really bad.

Current consoles do have weak CPUs, that's true. Next gen we need a big bump in CPU power, that's true too. But the trick is to make sure you have enough GPU power within the budget constraints.

Allow me to explain how this could happen. Let's say Sony is the one to fall for the hype. Sony for example would release a $499 PS5 let's say. They would have 24 GBs of GDDR5 RAM, 10 teraflops of GPU power and a 6 core/12 thread powerful CPU.

The problem with that setup is that it would have to go against the competition. The new Xbox's hardware could be much better for gaming at the same $499 price. For example, it would have 24 GBs of GDDR5 RAM, 16 teraflops of GPU power and a 4 core/8 thread powerful CPU.

Since 99.999% of gamers game on HDTVs then it is safe to assume next gen console games will be built with the 60 fps target. A 6 core CPU vs 4 core for example could be a big mistake if it means you are using up too much die space on the CPU and not enough goes to the GPU. That could leave it considerably underpowered vs the competition.

On the PC side a decent 4 core/8 thread is all you need to run games at way over 60 fps. That's why even on PC you see guys upgrading their GPUs rather frequently compared to their CPUs. If only 60 fps is the target for consoles and it is, it would be a huge mistake to waste resources on an uber powered CPU. The only reason a Sony or Microsoft would do that is because they fell for the hype that these fanboys on boards like this are spewing.

TLDR; If either of the big two spends too much on the CPU, they would face a dramatic GPU power deficit which would be much more detrimental. Because on consoles 99.9% of the time you will not be gaming at over 60fps. The extra CPU power would have little use. Extra GPU power however is always very welcome and needed.

What if they both use the same thing, like this gen?

LOL as if they'll use vastly different CPUs.

They'll both be using some sort of low TDP 8 core ryzen/ryzen 2 variant.

this. Manufacturers aren't oblivious to the idea that CPUs are rather inconsequential unless they're a bottleneck and they won't over budget the CPU. If they didn't give a shit about them this gen they won't give a shit about them next gen either. It's going to be all about the flippity flops the GPU does.

This. OP is a clown a clown as usual and is completely clueless when it comes to hardware.

He just wasted his time typing that wall of text. Good thing I didn’t bother reading it.

24GBs of RAM and 16 TFLOPS GPU for $499 in 2019 (next year) or 2020? Please... Also the “99.999% of gamers game on HDTVs” and “60fps will be the target” comments are beyond silly. First of all, why would a console need so much RAM and GPU power to run at 1080p? Next, when has 60fps ever been the target? As long as casuals are the majority of the console consumer base, 30fps will continue to be a thing. Devs will always push graphics over frame rate.

If you want high frame rates and native resolutions, you know what you have to do. We’ve been over this generation after generation after generation.

Meh, power doesn't matter that much in consoles. It's all about either a unique tech or the games.

CPUs won't bottleneck the junk GPUs they use in consoles. They're going to cheap out on both, as usual. It's the only way to keep costs down on consoles.

@UssjTrunks: That’s the other thing I don’t get on this board. The Xbox One X’s GPU performs on par with its PC counterpart, a little bit better than the GTX 1060. This is despite the CPU in the console. Wouldn’t this mean the CPU isn’t bottlenecking it? An overclocked 1060 isn’t running games at 1800p-4K at 60fps even with a Ryzen 5/7, Intel i5/i7. The GPUs are holding the consoles back, not the CPUs.

Good people, hear me out. This is what we call a CLOWN.

And this is his response to @BassMan 7700K CPU.

@Xplode_gamessaid:

First, upgrade your piece of crap CPU before you open your mouth criticizing my rig.

Receipt

Then this is what he thinks about 4-core/8 threads

@Xplode_gamessaid:

What I don't understand is how someone can be so damn bamboozled to believe a 4 core, 8 thread CPU is good in 2018 in a top end system.

@Juub1990: Holy shit!

Neither Sony nor Microsoft will use GDDR5in their next gen consoles.

It's almost certainly going to be either GDDR6 or HBM3, whatever the "Nextgen Memory" is that AMD will be using with the Navi GPU family. PS5 and the next Xbox are no doubt going to use Navi GPU architecture, that or mix of Navi and the GPU that comes after it.

A now outdated AMD GPU roadmap:

Navi is now due sometime in 2019, and the future "Next Gen" GPU on 7nm+ by the end of 2020.

The most recent GPU roadmap that AMD has made public:

For a PC that CPU is trash. Because PCs are used for more than gaming. Having a 4 core/8 thread CPU in 2018 and thinking you have a high end system is laughable.

It most certainly bottlenecks his GTX 1080 ti. It's not a bottleneck to hit 60 fps obviously and that is why I think it's good enough for a console. However, for a 1080 ti that runs $750 it is a bottleneck. Someone who spends that much on a GPU is likely to want to game at 144 fps. If you watch the DF video, they showed exactly that GPU being bottlenecked by the 7700k vs the 8700k. Do I need to link the video or are you good?

For a console though, it's a good compromise because you need to keep the budget at $499 or below.

I'm sure you think you know more about PCs and PC hardware than me, right? Well, then this should be easy for you. Let's say you were designing a console and you had a $500 budget for a CPU and GPU only. all the other components are standard. What GPU and CPU would you have in your system? Let's say your goal was to run games the best possible with a max 60fps limit and as close to 4k res as possible. How would you spend that $500?

Here you go buddy.

And WTF makes you think he uses his CPU for other things than gaming? The 7700K is a good gaming CPU.

You called it quote "garbage" and a "piece of crap". On what planet is a CPU meant for gaming and good enough for "way over 60fps" a piece of crap?

Also lol at your question. 4K/60fps with a 500$ budget. I'd target 1080p/60fps instead. 500$ doesn't even get me the GPU for 4K/60fps.

TCs threads go from 0 to rekt so fast

Why are you running away from the rest of my post? LMFAO!

The rest of your post is nonsense and irremediably stupid. You got destroyed again.

1. Even if he uses it exclusively for gaming, that CPU bottlenecks his GPU.

2. It's garbage and a piece of crap for a 1080 ti which is bottlenecked by it.

3. You won't even name the GPU and CPU? Wow. target 1080/60 if you want just name some parts.

In what scenario will a 7700K bottleneck a 1080 Ti? More often than not, the 1080 Ti will bottleneck the 7700K lol. Games are GPU-bound these days. CPU's are for the most part plenty capable.

I already told you what scenario. Someone who wants to game at 1080p and 144 fps. Aren't you the PC guy? Why do I have to tell you that PC gamers love to game at 144 fps and buy GTX 1080 ti's to do so?

Watch the video below and watch how a 7700k bottlenecks a 1080 ti. You know, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

But then would you call the 1080 Ti a piece of crap because it cannot push 60fps in 4K? Clearly it's the bottleneck there.

You are trying to spin so hard you are getting dizzy. I already got you to admit that games today are heavily GPU dependent and not so much CPU. That was my entire point about why it's not such a travesty that the X CPU isn't stronger. But you PC guys want to have it both ways which is why you keep pushing 144 fps gaming. Now that I call the 7700k a bottleneck for the 1080 ti which it is, you try to move the target.

You are right, the 1080ti is the bottleneck for gaming at 4k 60fps. Which is exactly my point why the next gen consoles don't need such a strong CPU, what they really need is a monster powa GPU!!!

Class dismissed.

Can you point me to these people pushing 144fps as if it was commonplace? Can you link posts like I did?

The 7700K isn't a bottleneck for the 1080 Ti in regular gaming scenarios you mongrel. Anything can be a bottleneck for anything depending on what you target. As I already pointed out, the 1080 Ti IS the bottleneck at 4K/60fps, why aren't you calling it a piece of crap? Why aren't you urging the OP to instead go buy a Titan V at 3,000$?

You called the 7700K a garbage CPU and a piece of crap but then readily admits it can do way over 60fps. Is way over 60fps garbage now?

Another win for the TC

And just like a hat TC gets Hermkids to admit X1X CPU is not a bottleneck for 4K graphics lol

If they can get a 1080ti level GPU in the next generation machines I'll be impressed.

Another noob comment...... You act as if they've always done that...

AFAIK software/game design is another factor. I think the game has to be "properly" designed for the existing hardware; hence some games may look better/performs better relative to other games.

Might be an extreme case but I think Crysis 1 doesn't seem to take as much advantage of the many more cores on newer CPUs; software bottleneck(?).

Hardware will always have a bottleneck AFAIK realistically speaking; money's involved; we're not getting 8th gen i9 CPU, GTX 1080Ti for $ 499 in 2020.

I'm guessing that as cliche as it sounds, the game makes will hopefully find a "balance" most would fancy.

it obviously is, many games require compromises to even run at 30, while many games drop below that in cpu intensive scenarios

This is the norm. High end hardware is too cost prohibitive for console manufacturers. The gap between high and low end has expanded significantly since 2005/2006 when the 360/PS3 came out. Consoles will have to settle for low/mid end GPUs and CPUs from now on.

The PS4/X1 and Pro/X all launched with junk hardware, at $500, while being sold at a loss. You're dreaming if you think it gets better from here.

No no no...... you said 'as usual' - that implies they've always done it....... so please elaborate.........As this generation is the only time it's happened.

Or are you just spouting rubbish again....

lol exposed_clown thread

You want a balanced design

Well, lets see. Nintendo couldn't compete with the big boys and fled the console biz so it won't be them.

I'll go with a sure bet and say the one to fail hard will be of course...Phony, the one and only. :P

You guys take this too seriously!

Wow, I hope they don't put a total pile of shit like an 8600K into the next gen consoles then.

Only 6 cores in 2020? Would be a HUGE downgrade.

If you look at the OG XBOX, Gamecube, and PS2 you'll notice that their hardware was mid or even low tier PC equivalent components. The PSone and N64 were mid tier PC equivalents. The 7th generation is the exception to the rule.

@Johnny-n-Roger: Huh what? The OG Xbox hardware didn’t have low to mid-range components. It was equivalent to a high-end PC. Same for the N64. Until the 7th generation consoles were on release close to high-end PC. In some cases they even exceeded them in some areas. It was also hard to compare them at the time. Graphics hardware wasn't as standardized as it is today.

@Johnny-n-Roger: you need to check your facts. PC is my preferred platform, but consoles have fairly consistently released with very competitive hardware - the PS4/X1 release was probably one of the worst comparison points. The OG Xbox, for example, fell in between a GeForce 3 and GF3 Ti500 in specifications. This was a very compelling package at that time.

*edit* it's also been historically VERY challenging to directly compare the hardware on consoles vs PCs. The systems often had extremely customized hardware making raw numbers like ram frequency poor indicators of the effective capabilities of the systems when properly coded for by a developer. This generation and the OG XBox and X360 were the easiest ones to make comparisons like you want to make.

@Xplode_games Your thread has backfired again with everyone laughing at you.

I am willing to bet sony gets cocky next gen thinking because ms lost this time they will charge 600for the ps5

I assume now he will scurry away in defeat until he's cobbled together his next word salad

To be fair, the OG Xbox probably doesn't support my argument at all, except that it's CPU was very under powered. Generally speaking, however, these console CPUs have hardly been competitive with PC CPUs. The PS2 was extremely underwhelming from a hardware perspective, and the GCN was mid tier when it was released. Dreamcast? Mid-tier.

Edit: As far as comparing PC to console technology prior to the 6th gen, there's no fair numbers comparison, but you can compare overall quality of visuals to a low tier PC.

per usual.

When I think "grave error" , the first things that come to mind are force feeding kinect, PS3 being $600, and RROD.

That's completely false. Games like Shenmu and Virtua Fighter had no equivalent on the PC. Indiana Jones ported to the N64 had better graphics than the PC version. At the time, games released on consoles were visually on par with the same games on PC at their highest preset(except maybe resolution).

The second setup would outperform the first setup. Even my 6600k @4.2 GHz would not bottleneck that GPU.