So now that we know the the PS5 is expected to ship in 2020 on 7nm with AMD’s first major GPU architecture improvement since the PS4, which should probably provide Maxwell-ish performance plus all the subsequent shrinks, I’m expecting it to come in somewhere closer to 11 TFLOPS in a 200w envelope with the CPU rather than the 8ish I threw out a year ago.
Basically I think it’ll be somewhere in the neighbourhood of a Ryzen 2600 paired with a 1080 Ti for $400. This seems pretty reasonable insofar as it’s still a 3x bump on the Pro in both CPU and GPU terms, which historically wouldn’t have passed for a generational improvement but is still pretty good, and yet is only about equal to a very fast computer from 2016, which bodes well for not needing upgrades on the PC side.
the really interesting thing is by the end of the PS5 lifecycle it’s not at all clear what’s going to happen because we will have exhausted the physical limits of semiconductor shrinks and Nvidia will be heavily pushing mixed precision compute for ray tracing and such and meanwhile there will be an increasing push for streaming solutions over selling you a dedicated console at all
But the PS5 generation should be extremely predictable in current terms and fully backwards compatible and all of that, though the downside is there will probably be record little difference in terms of changing what game designs are possible, it’ll just be a lot of native 4k30
I find it hard to believe that we’ll only be hitting 4k native 30 in two years when the xbone x can already hit 4k dynamic to 4k native in several current releases with lowered settings compared to PC versions
More often than not, I think we’ll be seeing, at the very least, 4k with unlocked framerates and adaptive sync abuse
oh yeah, adaptive sync perhaps if TVs support them, I just don’t expect publisher tastes to suddenly favour 60fps over more graphical complexity
right now almost all the console 4K I’m aware of is dynamic rather than native, and we’re looking at a not-quite-doubling of GPU power from the XXXBone
hey y’all I’m gonna be building a PC for rhythm games sometime in the next couple of months. I know it’s probably gonna be cheap bc the specs aren’t demanding, but my question is how small could I build something like this?
there’s probably an argument for getting a Ryzen 2500U with an iGPU if you were otherwise going to get a super cheap GPU except I seem to remember that their PCIe lanes are super gimped if you ever did then want to get a better GPU?
Speaking of 1080, what monitors do people use and recommend? My PC has been hooked up to a 32" TV since forever. I still play the odd PC game here and there (on a 1060), but I’m thinking of switching to a pair of monitors for work reasons. Is there some slam dunk price-to-performance darling I could buy a pair of?
4K is 2x2 1080p. (On second thought might be missing sarcasm.)
Is it important to have two monitors or would a sufficiently large 16:10 monitor work? I always want more vertical real estate because most tasks don’t lend themselves to landscape tasks.
If you’re looking straight-on a TN panel with a high refresh rate is going to be cheaper than an IPS equivalent.
Yeah just playing dumb (that time). It’s been some years since I looked, but I’m guessing monitor selection still doesn’t matter much at the lower end.
Most of the work I do is just staring at code on one screen and a web page on another (or the code-page-mockup trifecta).
up until a year or two ago I was in “definitely just get two 1080p or even 1680x1050 panels instead of something bigger” but now that most GPUs can drive 1440+ OK and new monitor technology is getting so much better…
idk, it still sucks tbh, because most of what’s worth buying above 1080p starts at like $350. I had work pick up my current display otherwise it would’ve been a lot to swallow.
I’ve had a Korean glass panel 1440p IPS display from Monoprice for like four years(?), I think it was $300 back then and I have been happy with it. It can’t do over 60hz or any like adaptive frame rate stuff and I’m sure the response time is not great but it works good for design stuff.
60fps vs graphical complexity is a false dichotomy in the adaptive sync world. On fixed refresh rates, if you’re going to target higher than 30fps then you have to hit 60fps at 99% consistency, or you only made things jerkier. So if you want it, you’re forced radically alter your game aesthetics and level design to hit that. Naturally, most devs aren’t up for that kind of radical focus/compromise unless responsiveness is at the very core of their experience.
In a world where you can like hit 55fps 90% of the time with a few dips to 35fps and this looks almost as good as 60fps instead of like absolute garbage, the decision space looks very different. If adaptive refresh gets popular, a lot more games will target higher framerate instead of tolerating 30fps.
Since that decision (30fps or 60fps) gets locked in at earliest days (and all department rendering budgets are fractions of that time slice), I don’t think studios will feel comfortable targeting adaptive sync users until it’s a large majority of displays. I think we’ll still see a majority of games targeting 30FPS and a large number of them with a menu toggle for unlocked framerates; I’d expect that to bounce between 30-45fps in most games.