Next gen Playstation to get 8-core Zen2, Navi and 8K Support

This didn't go directly to You, but all others who are very salty towards AMD.

Define bad?
I play at 1440p resolution and Vega64 with undervolt and overclock, I get very decent performance. While card using 240-280w of power, depends on a scene.
Most AAA games I play are getting 100+ fps. Should be plenty for everyone to really not notice a difference.
I bought the card second hand 5 months ago ~300 euros. Plenty of oomph. Right now they are selling at 220-250 euros in local forum.
But I would not buy Vega VII for 700 euros, nor I would buy RTX2080 for same price. There are plenty of used GTX1080Ti's for 450 euros.
I have no doubt that new Zen3 will be amazing and 1:1 in games with Intel. Definetly buying it, just to support a competitor so we could have better products in the future from both companies.

I always buy bang for my buck. This happens to be AMD from CPU side right now and AMD on used card market. With 250 euros, You cant go wrong with Vega64
I dont mind the powerdraw why I have a platinum rated 1000w PSU anyway then, if I dont use it properly
Altough when undervolted, Vega64's powerdraw is very competitive.

 

Fair enough, but my point was that NVidia cards have power overheads available that generally aren't available to AMD cards, as in AMD cards are often running at the upper end of what is possible in terms of TDP/cooling/noise - so AMD owners optimise their cards by undervolting at the current power levels, whilst NVidia owners increase their power limits AND in addition optimise their voltage frequency points by overclocking - the latter option provides the most performance uplift & still the NVidia cards suck less power, make less noise & perform better than their AMD couterparts. This is what I meant by voltage frequency optimisation in the better direction. NVidia cards in recent history have just been better designed & engineered than AMD cards, hence their comparitive success.

 

I don't know why you think you're making a point by posting the prices of a discontinued card and comparing them to a newly released part. Of course the 1070 is not a good GPU to buy anymore. Nvidia has a new line of GPU's out that are cheaper and faster than the 590.

 

Only 8K upscaling support. Maybe a separate upscaler chip will be used.

 

I thought this thread was about the PS5? Ok then.

Anyway, like others have said, backwards compatibility is a big thing for me. I haven't owned a tv-console since the Dreamcast, but, the ability to play PS4 games on PS5 is enticing. On the other-hand, my boys are only 8 and 5, which means I don't think they're ready for such a console (but will be during PS5 life-time).

The 2 products I'm really waiting on is the Switch Pro (Nvidia) and the GPD Win 2 Max (rumoured to be AMD soc this time).

 

No it wasn't. Old performance tiers were being compared, and then you decided to throw price/perf into the discussion for some unknown reason. Comparing discontinued GPU's at current prices no less. i mean wtf?.

 

Sony has already played around with checkerboard rendering for the PS4 Pro so IMO it's expected their next-gen games will build upon that for targeting 4k and higher. The early games will probably be able to brute force 4k, whereas the late-gen games will resort to upscaling.

 

Yes, and it isn't actually "ray tracing"...it's pre-programmed rasterizing code in the game which attempts to mimic what something being rendered might look like if it was actually ray-traced (because 3d GPUs are not ray-tracers at all, but rasterizers.) It's a gimmick, and a complex and very time-consuming gimmick for the game dev to employ. This "ray-tracing" marketing frenzy reminds me of how the stereoscopy fad was often called "3d"...when actual 3d (simulated in 2d, of course) is something that originated with the Voodoo1/2 from 3dfx--at least, that was the first iteration of a 3d GPU playable at a decent 20 -30 fps at the time.

Don't forget that all modern console technology is derived from x86 PC R&D, though. Both the xbox and the playstation are now x86 PC's by AMD. Consoles are not only derived from PC tech, they often employ the lower-end-towards-the-value-segment of PC tech. Not to mention that several AAA titles of the last few years were first developed for the PC, then later ported to various consoles.

If anyone's GPU was actually ray tracing, you'd have a point... But nVidia GPUs are just rasterizers--not ray-tracers--they can't do *anything* aside from rasterize. Their so-called ray tracing is not ray tracing at all, but simulated ray-tracing effects via the GPU, from pre-programmed code written into the game engine by the developer. Basically, they are telling you "this is what X would look like if ray-traced" but unfortunately for you, but fortunately for nVidia, there is no actual ray-traced version of the object/scene to compare it to... As it is, you no doubt know that D3d now supports this imitation of "ray tracing," and that anyone's GPU can do the same. Gawd, sometimes I really loathe marketing.

Amen...that's marketing, again...

You are a bit late to the party, as the current consoles being sold by Microsoft and Sony are indeed x86 PCs by AMD. It's been that way for awhile and won't change. I've been on multicore x86 PCs for years--0 problems to report. You seem to be fighting the inexorable technological trends--it's a losing battle.

Yes, precisely. You can bet that when AMD releases it they'll explain exactly what it is, and what they are doing--won't be claiming to actually be "ray tracing" on a rasterizer...

 

That's it, we need 8K monitors ASAP. Can't have PCMR gaming at a lower resolution than console gamers. Also, tell AMD and Nvidia to get off their keister and produce an 8K-capable graphics card!

Have you never played a game at 4K? Even on a relatively small 27" monitor, I can see a sizable difference in image quality (I can see detail that I never noticed on my 1440p or 1080p monitor). The jump from 1080p to 2160p is enormous, and and same will go for a 4320p resolution.

In five years from now, 1440p will be considered low, 2160p mainstream, and 4320p high. Display standards will continue to go up.

 

Steve from gamers nexus said the same thing in his Vega56 video. AMD is hell of a fun to tweak and nvidia is not.

 

3D GPUs are not raytracers? What the hell is a "raytracer"?.. Raytracing is just a product of vector math - which is exactly what a GPU does. Almost every single production-level raytracer runs on GPUs - Arnold, Pixerman, Mentalray, Vray, etc they all have GPU variants or run on a mix of GPUs/CPUs.

AMD has a bunch of "raytrace" GPU Open libraries that work on their hardware and call them raytracing. RadeonRays for example. They call them raytracing because it's raytracing - it's literally simulating photons of light and tracing their path through a 3D scene...which is exactly what OptiX does, exactly what Arnold does, exactly what DXR/RTX does.

Edit:

It took me like 5 minutes to even process how ridiculous this statement is.. is this what Nvidia is doing? Trying to make rasterization so real it looks like raytracing? No one else is trying that? The entire industry hasn't been trying that for four decades? like what..

 

Some of us live in places where the power consumption savings alone would be worth the $100 extra.



And undervolting is not a validated answer to this problem

 

That can also be said about cpus and people still buy power hungry Intel cpus. 100$ extra a year? Thats insignificant.

 

8K and RTX ?? LMAO ! Sure !!! It won't even do 4K with RTX.... Let just say 1080p with RTX UPSCALED to 4K / 8K...

It make's me laugh when I see concole peasant saying their PS3 is displaying their games in 1080p (which is 720p upscaled to 1080p) or their PS4 games in 4K (which is 1080p upscaled to 4K for 95% of the games)

P.S.: same for Xbox 360 / Xbox One

 

that extra $100 could cover a childs medicine expenses, be put away for a trip every coupe years or go to upgrading the machine for storage or dram.