Am I correct in saying that 'next-gen' consoles are about as next gen as a colour TV? Hmmmm

[GoodBytes]

Yes. These consoles are next gen, and they are a generation ahead of PCs right now.  The UMA with 8GB of joint CPU and GPU memory on each console, especially the GDDR5 memory is an advancement not yet in the PC world.  Even a low-mid range PC is much more powerful, but these consoles are next gen in technology, just not really the special in performance to what we have now.

YES! Super high latency RAM is exactly what I always wanted for my CPU [/sarcasm]

GDDR has no space for the CPU space. That is why you seek the lowest latency RAM.

GDDR is a modified DDR type memory where it exchanges latency for super high bandwidth, which the the GPU really needs, in order to load textures and rendered frames, at high speed. It doesn't need extra memory to deposit calculation to take back later on, let alone store a list of instructions to execute, making the processor continuously access the memory non stop, like the CPU does.

[eshbop]

 

If the dev wants, they can drop the visuals, closer to XBox 360/PS4 levels, and now get 1080p 60fps solid, no mater what. But people don't care about this. they care about visuals. Most XBox One and PS4 gamers wants "realistic graphics", or at least, that is what dev thinks, not unique art style... as this makes the game "feel likes it's for kids", and not "mature" and "hard core".

Which kinda makes sense. Console gamers would notice fidelity over frame rate. I wasn't nearly as sensitive to 360 games running at 30FPS before I got a decent PC, but now it looks horrid. Prettier graphics are easier to sell and that's the exception with a new generation, if that means 30FPS so be it.

[Glenwing]

Yes. These consoles are next gen, and they are a generation ahead of PCs right now. The UMA with 8GB of joint CPU and GPU memory on each console, especially the GDDR5 memory is an advancement not yet in the PC world. Even a low-mid range PC is much more powerful, but these consoles are next gen in technology, just not really the special in performance to what we have now.

The GDDR5 system memory is not an advancement, it is a compromise. On PCs we use GDDR5 on graphics cards and DDR3 for CPUs for a reason, they are both the best option for their use case. GDDR5 offers massive bandwidth which GPUs need, but at the cost of latency. CPUs do not need high bandwidth RAM, and so GDDR5 system RAM only creates latency and takes more power and generates more heat to provide no benefit. Since Sony is using an APU, with the CPU and GPU in one package, they could choose either DDR3, to help the CPU more, or GDDR5, to help the GPU more. They made the right choice since games will be graphics bound on that APU long before CPU bound, but the best option would have been to have DDR3 for the CPU and GDDR5 for the GPU separately like PCs do, but they had to make a compromise.

[Stonep11]

YES! Super high latency RAM is exactly what I always wanted for my CPU [/sarcasm]

GDDR has no space for the CPU space. That is why you seek the lowest latency RAM.

GDDR is a modified DDR type memory where it exchanges latency for super high bandwidth, which the the GPU really needs, in order to load textures and rendered frames, at high speed. It doesn't need extra memory to deposit calculation to take back later on, let alone store a list of instructions to execute, making the processor continuously access the memory non stop, like the CPU does.

CPUs are hardly ever the limit in video game performance and I would highly doubt a higher latency, much higher capacity, and greater bandwidth memory being accessed by each component together will be a negative to the CPU at all, and definitely a huge boost to the GPU.

[Stonep11]

The GDDR5 system memory is not an advancement, it is a compromise. On PCs we use GDDR5 on graphics cards and DDR3 for CPUs for a reason, they are both the best option for their use case. GDDR5 offers massive bandwidth which GPUs need, but at the cost of latency. CPUs do not need high bandwidth RAM, and so GDDR5 system RAM only creates latency and takes more power and generates more heat to provide no benefit. Since Sony is using an APU, with the CPU and GPU in one package, they could choose either DDR3, to help the CPU more, or GDDR5, to help the GPU more. They made the right choice since games will be graphics bound on that APU long before CPU bound, but the best option would have been to have DDR3 for the CPU and GDDR5 for the GPU separately like PCs do, but they had to make a compromise.

Of course GDDR5 is not an advancement and of course it is a compromise, these are $500 gaming consoles.  The way these next gen consoles have integrated the GPU and CPU IS an advancement, not an improvement if it were to be done on the PC right now, but it is a stepping stone in the pathway to a more fluid interaction between parallel processing and series processing on the GPU and CPU respectively.

[beebskadoo]

Here is what you don't get. The console has the power to run 1080p. Most WiiU games run at 1080p 60fps, but they are not graphically pleasing as the PS4 and XBox One.

If the dev wants, they can drop the visuals, closer to XBox 360/PS4 levels, and now get 1080p 60fps solid, no mater what. But people don't care about this. they care about visuals. Most XBox One and PS4 gamers wants "realistic graphics", or at least, that is what dev thinks, not unique art style... as this makes the game "feel likes it's for kids", and not "mature" and "hard core".

 

Also, another things to consider is that 6 years ago, both Microsoft and Sony lost MASSIVE amount of money on each console sold. This generation, not only they try to differentiate themselves and not play a price war, but also reduce significantly their losses.

How are you coming to the conclusion that I 'don't get' something when I only wrote a few sentences.... you must be a great mind reader.

I understand that they are taking a loss on these consoles.

The visual fidelity is what games want, that includes the higher res textures, higher resolution games, AA, and 60 fps. Consoles are to the point that they shouldn't have to choose between higher res and better looking. That's what I'm saying.

[eshbop]

The visual fidelity is what games want, that includes the higher res textures, higher resolution games, AA, and 60 fps. Consoles are to the point that they shouldn't have to choose between higher res and better looking. That's what I'm saying.

Games will get better as the consoles age, though by how much is hard to say. 1080p is the target resolution now, last gen it was really 720p. You'd think in 8 years they could manage higher graphics quality with double the pixels and frame rate but with PCs slowly moving past 1080p and 60FPS I still think they should of opted for beefier hardware. TBH I think this is just going to allow PC gaming to move even further ahead and within a few years gaming on PC will blowup (due to entry costs lowering, new technologies like game stream, Mantle, gsync, >1080p, >60Hz, etc) and consoles sales will lose out from it.

[gastew15]

Well our "next gens" as a race are fucking retarded mouthbreathers, but they're still next gen…

This that you Buckley?

[beebskadoo]

Games will get better as the consoles age, though by how much is hard to say. 1080p is the target resolution now, last gen it was really 720p. You'd think in 8 years they could manage higher graphics quality with double the pixels and frame rate but with PCs slowly moving past 1080p and 60FPS I still think they should of opted for beefier hardware. TBH I think this is just going to allow PC gaming to move even further ahead and within a few years gaming on PC will blowup (due to entry costs lowering, new technologies like game stream, Mantle, gsync, >1080p, >60Hz, etc) and consoles sales will lose out from it.

yes and no. The architecture isn't new to DEVS. It's x86, so down the road games will look better, but not by much.

The 360 and PS3 had strange architectures that took devs a while to fully understand. that's why games got better with age.

[eshbop]

yes and no. The architecture isn't new to DEVS. It's x86, so down the road games will look better, but not by much.

The 360 and PS3 had strange architectures that took devs a while to fully understand. that's why games got better with age.

Ye true, they also had top tier hardware when release, which makes me a little sceptical that these consoles will last, especially with the direction PCs are heading.

[beebskadoo]

Ye true, they also had top tier hardware when release, which makes me a little sceptical that these consoles will last, especially with the direction PCs are heading.

Consoles are already left in the dust.

[eshbop]

Consoles are already left in the dust.

Pretty much. Given the similar architectures I think it's safe to say devs will move to developing for PC then porting to consoles, again this would just add to the gap between PC and console.

[beebskadoo]

Let's just hope it's a while before they hold back game development on PCs like they have been.

Yeah, I had big hopes for game development on the PC.

But the big important companies mostly on board with Mantle so that helps out.

Indie devs will still be on pc too

[Nicolas]

The PC I built a month ago can run BF4 on native 1080p at 60 fps on ultra, I call that more next gen than the next gen consoles

[GoodBytes]

How are you coming to the conclusion that I 'don't get' something when I only wrote a few sentences.... you must be a great mind reader.

I understand that they are taking a loss on these consoles.

The visual fidelity is what games want, that includes the higher res textures, higher resolution games, AA, and 60 fps. Consoles are to the point that they shouldn't have to choose between higher res and better looking. That's what I'm saying.

That's your opinion.

The reality is that textures can always be better, AA can always be higher and improved, and more polygons can be used.

[GoodBytes]

CPUs are hardly ever the limit in video game performance and I would highly doubt a higher latency, much higher capacity, and greater bandwidth memory being accessed by each component together will be a negative to the CPU at all, and definitely a huge boost to the GPU.

So then, please never build a computer to someone, to avoid him or her get a horrible experience.

Low latency is what we want. If you enjoy ultra cheapo RAM, then that's you.

[Stonep11]

So then, please never build a computer to someone, to avoid him or her get a horrible experience.

Low latency is what we want. If you enjoy ultra cheapo RAM, then that's you.

We are talking about consoles, I can't build a PC with GDDR5 system memory  If you think the GDDR5 memory on a PS4 is so high latency that it will make the CPU useless than I really don't know what to say to you.  The typical CAS latency of GDDR5 memory is around 15 while around 9 is common for DDR3 memory.  There is a difference, but it really isn't as much as you think and the benefit ON THE CONSOLE will be much greater then the negative of the higher latency.  I understand the GDDR5 system memory for a high performance PC is not feasible right now unified memory is the next step in the PC world and the PS4 and XBONE are taking that step with admittedly customized solutions first.

[GoodBytes]

We are talking about consoles, I can't build a PC with GDDR5 system memory  If you think the GDDR5 memory on a PS4 is so high latency that it will make the CPU useless than I really don't know what to say to you.  The typical CAS latency of GDDR5 memory is around 15 while around 9 is common for DDR3 memory.  There is a difference, but it really isn't as much as you think and the benefit ON THE CONSOLE will be much greater then the negative of the higher latency.  I understand the GDDR5 system memory for a high performance PC is not feasible right now unified memory is the next step in the PC world and the PS4 and XBONE are taking that step with admittedly customized solutions first.

What you fail to understand is that the CPU gains nothing from the higher bandwidth. So you have higher latency for 0 benefits for the CPU.

As games aren't CPU intensive, contrary to what people believes, Sony decided to focus on GPU performance. Microsoft on the other hand, due to it's features and abilities, it requires more CPU power, therefor opt for DDR3 for it's GPU/CPU combo processor, meaning the GPU gets a hit. And what do you know.... that's exactly what we have. Search the forum, and you'll see this is exactly what I have been saying since the rumor of GDDR5 on the PS4 came out.