Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
24
25
... LastLast
  1. #441
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar: Tsunako
    Posts
    14,940
    Enough with the emulation talk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Poppincaps View Post
    I wonder if the PS5 will play PS4 games at a PS4 Pro level.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squishy Tia View Post
    If Sony can get AMD to somehow keep the GNM API functional that many PS4 games require, yes. The PS4's GPU is a mishmash of GCN 2 and GCN 4 architectures and features. With any luck, Navi is merely a massive superset of those features and can run the GNM API at a low enough level to provide performance enhancements or at least equivalent performance. If they can manage to keep GNM functional, Navi could well be far, far more powerful for PS4 games than the PS4 Pro is and actually provide at or close to stable 4k60 performance. Whether or not that'll be checkerboarding as is currently used or native 4k is unknown currently. One can hope, right?
    I wouldn't really get your hopes up. It'll most likely run at the same performance. One of the patent filed was a device solely to test the timings and boundaries of tweaking hardware and software configurations running the same ISA, like clock speed, memory latency or whatever to get the proper timings so the game wouldn't crash due to different timings by a faster set of hardware. This way Sony or whomever doesn't need to recompile and test each individual game and it should theoretically all work out the box. Due to how it theoretically works it means all the hardware will clock down and adjust itself to match the PS4/Pro to run the game so there will be no gain in performance.

  2. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    Enough with the emulation talk.

    I wouldn't really get your hopes up. It'll most likely run at the same performance. One of the patent filed was a device solely to test the timings and boundaries of tweaking hardware and software configurations running the same ISA, like clock speed, memory latency or whatever to get the proper timings so the game wouldn't crash due to different timings by a faster set of hardware. This way Sony or whomever doesn't need to recompile and test each individual game and it should theoretically all work out the box. Due to how it theoretically works it means all the hardware will clock down and adjust itself to match the PS4/Pro to run the game so there will be no gain in performance.
    Honestly, I'm hoping that it is like the XB1 where you put the disc in, it downloads it from the playstation store(for anything older then the PS4, for ps4, install right from the disc) and allows you to play it without needing to repurchase it.

  3. #443
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    You do realize every other system Nintendo has released since the gamecube has had BC right?
    To be fair it was only the Wii that was backwards compatible with the GameCube. No other Nintendo home console had backwards compatibility.
    There is clear reasons why the Switch can't play Wii-U or 3DS titles. Also when it comes to their handheld systems every single one since the Gameboy Color had some kind of BC.
    Wii-U sure because the Switch is just slightly faster than it. 3DS is extremely similar in hardware to the Switch so I can't see why not besides physically inserting the games into the Switch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    Enough with the emulation talk.

    I wouldn't really get your hopes up. It'll most likely run at the same performance. One of the patent filed was a device solely to test the timings and boundaries of tweaking hardware and software configurations running the same ISA, like clock speed, memory latency or whatever to get the proper timings so the game wouldn't crash due to different timings by a faster set of hardware. This way Sony or whomever doesn't need to recompile and test each individual game and it should theoretically all work out the box. Due to how it theoretically works it means all the hardware will clock down and adjust itself to match the PS4/Pro to run the game so there will be no gain in performance.
    Simply reducing the clock speed of the PS5 CPU will not make it into a PS4/Pro. The Zen2 and the Jaguar architecture are too different from each other, not to forget the difference between Navi and Southern Islands. Zen2 has more than twice the IPC so you'll have to reduce the clock a lot and you'll still get moments when the games run faster or slower. Most likely Sony will probably run PS4 games on the PS5 in a Virtual Machine to get the compatibility right. If the Blu-Ray drive doesn't exist on the PS5 I'd imagine the backwards compatibility would be useless unless people can download their games using the physical media they bought. Buying a game you already own will turn off people.

  4. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    To be fair it was only the Wii that was backwards compatible with the GameCube. No other Nintendo home console had backwards compatibility.
    The Wii-U could play Wii games.

    Wii-U sure because the Switch is just slightly faster than it. 3DS is extremely similar in hardware to the Switch so I can't see why not besides physically inserting the games into the Switch.
    That would be the reason.
    My PC: Intel Core i5-4690K|16GB DDR3-1600|1TB HD|EVGA GeForce GTX 1070
    Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.

  5. #445
    Moderator Remilia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar: Tsunako
    Posts
    14,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    Simply reducing the clock speed of the PS5 CPU will not make it into a PS4/Pro. The Zen2 and the Jaguar architecture are too different from each other, not to forget the difference between Navi and Southern Islands. Zen2 has more than twice the IPC so you'll have to reduce the clock a lot and you'll still get moments when the games run faster or slower. Most likely Sony will probably run PS4 games on the PS5 in a Virtual Machine to get the compatibility right. If the Blu-Ray drive doesn't exist on the PS5 I'd imagine the backwards compatibility would be useless unless people can download their games using the physical media they bought. Buying a game you already own will turn off people.
    I'm overly simplifying things, but I actually read the entire patent. My first thoughts when I saw it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Remilia View Post
    So a bit of background for this thing (and also written in the patent). Games on PS4 are programmed in a way that's to the metal with a lot of assumptions to be better optimized. This way it can always guarantee that certain things will be executed in the proper amount of time. So for example Task A can take 40ns of execution and Task B can take 50ns of execution on the PS4 but to run it properly A must take precedent first before B. However with more powerful CPUs and especially changes in architecture, it is very possible that B finishes first before A and then it errors out and bad things start happening.

    Now the patent itself. It's not the actual method of backwards compatibility but it does give some insight to what they're trying to do. At the moment all it is is testing software and hardware timings on a specially designed device (PS4 presumably).

    "Timing testing mode" as it's referred means it's going to be changing parameters in real time like OS configuration, GPU firmware, cpu clock, cache latency, cache frequency, etc (a whole lot of stuff), to essentially see what breaks. Also the testing hardware will have extra circuits to change IPC to determine their impact. The whole point of this is to disrupt timing of process / threads by modifying basically any aspect of the device and software to record / test for errors that may occur when doing this.


    What can be inferred from this is the PS5 or whatever is going to be run as x86 (well duh, granted actually seen people float ARM around for some reason) and natively run the game in a backwards compatibility mode. This means that it won't need to be recompiled, emulated or use a translation layer the latter two causing a high overhead and the former requiring man power. Backwards compatibility mode will presumably be run in which timings would align within the tolerance of the software so that it won't break due to mismatched timings. It in theory should be a more fine grained method of backwards compatibility than the PS4 Pro to PS4 is atm, which is basically disabling the 2nd GPU cluster and down clocking the CPU / GPU.

    Would love to see boring Cerny make a talk about this cause it seems very interesting to me.
    Sure there's the possibility of not actually implementing the above especially after the patents issued but with the given information currently available it means that it won't be running a VM as you seem to think.
    Last edited by Remilia; 2019-04-22 at 04:22 PM.

  6. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by Onikaroshi View Post
    Not to be too nitpicky but people do it to me all the time, it was 83.8 million PS3 sales.... which was pretty damn good considering 360 only did 84 million and was out about a year longer.


    Unfortunately, Sony finally updated their PS3 numbers and they are well over 84 mil. Even though I already told you logically they had to be over 85 mil, it's even more then that lol...

  7. #447
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post


    Unfortunately, Sony finally updated their PS3 numbers and they are well over 84 mil. Even though I already told you logically they had to be over 85 mil, it's even more then that lol...
    I mean, good for them? We only had numbers at the time to go off of, so now that we know it's higher that is that on that front.

    Were vita sales that bad or something that they don't even want to disclose them?

  8. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by Onikaroshi View Post
    I mean, good for them? We only had numbers at the time to go off of, so now that we know it's higher that is that on that front.

    Were vita sales that bad or something that they don't even want to disclose them?
    We already knew they where higher then that because those numbers where from 2.5 years before production on it ended. Only you where being obtuse and trying to argue they literally sold nothing in those 2.5 years lmao.

    On the vita, yea I wouldn't be propping up Vita sales numbers at an investor briefing either... Best case scenario it's slightly ahead of the Wii U.

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    We already knew they where higher then that because those numbers where from 2.5 years before production on it ended. Only you where being obtuse and trying to argue they literally sold nothing in those 2.5 years lmao.
    Good lord you just want to start arguments don't you.

    It wasn't even 83.8 million units sold in that time period, it was 80 million sold and 3.8 milllion shipped, so the sales could have been extremely low yes, because who's buying ps3s when ps4 is out.

  10. #450
    People were saying the same thing when the Xbox X was released, "why spent $500 on a console when you can get a more powerful pc instead?" but they were wrong. When the Xbox X released, people could not match the price/performance of the console with an equivalent PC build. Now it seems people are making the same false assumption that they can get an equivalent or better PC build for $500 that matches or betters the features of the PS5. To them I say this, "you are dreaming!"
    "Come what come may, Time and the hour runs through the roughest day." — William Shakespeare.

  11. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by Onikaroshi View Post
    Good lord you just want to start arguments don't you.
    Actually you inserted yourself in the PS3 sales discussion and you just have a habit of always being w r o n g.

  12. #452
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    Actually you inserted yourself in the PS3 sales discussion and you just have a habit of always being w r o n g.
    It's not wrong when it's backed up by facts, facts that you provided new facts to prove the old facts wrong.

    It wasn't wrong at the time, it's wrong now, that's life.

    The silly part of this whole thing is, I wasn't even bringing up sales as a negative... it was a positive considering the PS3 had a one year shorter lifespan, but you want to sit here and defend something I wasn't even attacking.
    Last edited by Onikaroshi; 2019-04-27 at 01:59 AM.

  13. #453
    Also cool graph for anyone trying to hint the PS5 will be a failure:



    Playstation almost made as much money in just the last year as they did during the entire PS2 gen. That install base that is giving them boat loads of money ain't going anywhere with a fully BC PS5.

  14. #454
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,795
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheEnd View Post
    People were saying the same thing when the Xbox X was released, "why spent $500 on a console when you can get a more powerful pc instead?" but they were wrong. When the Xbox X released, people could not match the price/performance of the console with an equivalent PC build. Now it seems people are making the same false assumption that they can get an equivalent or better PC build for $500 that matches or betters the features of the PS5. To them I say this, "you are dreaming!"
    The Xbox One to this day has nearly half the sales of the PS4, and one of the reasons is the initial $500 price which was because of the useless Kinect. I will say that the PS5 maybe too difficult for someone to match in price/performance with a PC build, even at $500. But, nobody expects the Intel Inquisition. Intel is cooking something with Kyle Bennett leaving to join them. Also, by the time the PS5 is released, we would have another year of prices dropping for hardware. No doubt the specs of the PS5 scare me as a PC gamer. The PS5 and probably the Xbox Two will not be like any other game console before it. Up to the PS5, every game console is basically built from mid or low end off the shelf hardware. This time the PS5 is built using a desktop 8 core Ryzen with a Navi 20... I assume since it can do Ray-Tracing and we know Navi 10 won't. Where as the PS4 uses the worst Jaguar 8 core running at a blistering 1.6Ghz and the equivalent to a mid range Radeon HD 7850 from 2012.

    I'm almost certain that the Xbox Two will be a clone of the PS5, but who will offer their console for $400 first? No console has been successful at $500, including the Xbox One.

  15. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    Up to the PS5, every game console is basically built from mid or low end off the shelf hardware.
    Actually not true. Not sure about when going in the way way back machine but I can tell you the PS4/XBO gen was the first in awhile where new consoles launched that weren't competitive or better then high end PCs. The 360 was a monster in 2005, the PS3 even more so of one in 2006(albeit this shit had stupid hardware that took developers years to learn to properly code for negating it's initial advantage). Both where on par with high end gaming PCs at their release.

    If we go a gen further back from that which was started by the Dreamcast it literally shat on the entire existence of PC gaming at the time and was comparable to a model 3 which was the best gaming hardware that existed at the time. PCs caught up after a few years, then the OG Xbox launched and was basically a high end PC for it's time...

    So not really, been this way for one single gen in the last 3. Hard to compare shit prior to that as PC didn't really get console style games and most of their shit was euro jank.
    Last edited by Tech614; 2019-04-27 at 06:53 AM.

  16. #456
    Quote Originally Posted by Vash The Stampede View Post
    The Xbox One to this day has nearly half the sales of the PS4, and one of the reasons is the initial $500 price which was because of the useless Kinect. I will say that the PS5 maybe too difficult for someone to match in price/performance with a PC build, even at $500. But, nobody expects the Intel Inquisition. Intel is cooking something with Kyle Bennett leaving to join them. Also, by the time the PS5 is released, we would have another year of prices dropping for hardware. No doubt the specs of the PS5 scare me as a PC gamer. The PS5 and probably the Xbox Two will not be like any other game console before it. Up to the PS5, every game console is basically built from mid or low end off the shelf hardware. This time the PS5 is built using a desktop 8 core Ryzen with a Navi 20... I assume since it can do Ray-Tracing and we know Navi 10 won't. Where as the PS4 uses the worst Jaguar 8 core running at a blistering 1.6Ghz and the equivalent to a mid range Radeon HD 7850 from 2012.

    I'm almost certain that the Xbox Two will be a clone of the PS5, but who will offer their console for $400 first? No console has been successful at $500, including the Xbox One.
    The thing is the Xbox One X's price was at relative cost of production; Microsoft didn't want to lose money on every console sold (understandably). With the PS5 appearing to have such beefy specs, Sony might not want to sell each console at a loss either and therefore might go with the ~$500 tag. I get that people who genuinely struggle and don't have much money to spare would prefer $400 over $500, but these consoles don't get made for nothing and I can understand them charging $500. I guess either company could afford to technically take the hit of a loss on every console sold, but it's a risk if their digital stores and game sales don't meet expectations.
    "Come what come may, Time and the hour runs through the roughest day." — William Shakespeare.

  17. #457
    Quote Originally Posted by InTheEnd View Post
    The thing is the Xbox One X's price was at relative cost of production; Microsoft didn't want to lose money on every console sold (understandably). With the PS5 appearing to have such beefy specs, Sony might not want to sell each console at a loss either and therefore might go with the ~$500 tag. I get that people who genuinely struggle and don't have much money to spare would prefer $400 over $500, but these consoles don't get made for nothing and I can understand them charging $500. I guess either company could afford to technically take the hit of a loss on every console sold, but it's a risk if their digital stores and game sales don't meet expectations.
    Taking a hit on new consoles is pretty much the industry standard right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  18. #458
    Over 9000! Vash The Stampede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Better part of NJ
    Posts
    9,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech614 View Post
    Actually not true. Not sure about when going in the way way back machine but I can tell you the PS4/XBO gen was the first in awhile where new consoles launched that weren't competitive or better then high end PCs. The 360 was a monster in 2005, the PS3 even more so of one in 2006(albeit this shit had stupid hardware that took developers years to learn to properly code for negating it's initial advantage). Both where on par with high end gaming PCs at their release.
    The GPU's maybe but not the CPU's or ram. I would say the PS3 had the better graphics because it didn't have to share VRAM with the CPU like the 360 did. But the 3Ghz PowerPC CPU's in those consoles were extremely weak as they didn't have out-of-order execution. Think of it like a 3Ghz Intel Atom as these chips had In-Order execution. The Spectre vulnerability doesn't effect these consoles due to not having good branch prediction. Then you have the 512MB of ram that sits in these machines, and the PS3 has 256MB for the CPU and 256MB for the GPU. Back in 2005/2006 it was common to have GPU's with that much memory.

    There's a reason why the Xbox One's 1.6Ghz Jaguar can emulate the Xbox 360's games which ran on a tri-core 3Ghz PowerPC. They were really weak.
    If we go a gen further back from that which was started by the Dreamcast it literally shat on the entire existence of PC gaming at the time and was comparable to a model 3 which was the best gaming hardware that existed at the time. PCs caught up after a few years, then the OG Xbox launched and was basically a high end PC for it's time...

    So not really, been this way for one single gen in the last 3. Hard to compare shit prior to that as PC didn't really get console style games and most of their shit was euro jank.
    The Deamcast I feel was a better console than the PS2 due specifically of the PowerVR GPU. The Dreamcast has more VRAM, has texture compression, and tile based rendering, which gave it sharper textures. But back in the late 90's and early 2000's PC gaming had its own renaissance since the hardware difference was so vast that PC got unique games that couldn't be available on console. Quake 3 is a good example as it was ported to PS2 and Dreamcast and while the game played alright it wasn't comparable to the PC version. Unreal Tournament was another game ported to PS2/DC/PC and again not comparable.

    It wasn't until the Original Xbox was released where titles like Half Life 2 and Doom 3 could be brought to a home console, and yes the original Xbox was that much more powerful than Dreamcast. The Xbox 360 and PS3 was the generation of game consoles where they actually used PC GPU's to power their graphics and allowed games such as American McGee's Alice to finally make its way to console, a game released in 2000 for PC.

    But none of this compares to what Sony is doing with the PS5. Sony doesn't want to compete with PC gaming as lately the sales of game titles on PC has been surpassing that of the Xbox One. So this time Sony is going all out on the PS5, and even at $500 I believe Sony will actually lose money for each PS5 sold. At $400 Sony would be taking a big loss but if released in 2020 the PS5 will have graphics performance that most PC gamers won't have, including Ray-Tracing. There is no $250 graphics card that can do Ray-Tracing right now, and probably won't be one next year. The PS5 would have a monopoly on Ray-Tracing for the mainstream.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by InTheEnd View Post
    The thing is the Xbox One X's price was at relative cost of production; Microsoft didn't want to lose money on every console sold (understandably). With the PS5 appearing to have such beefy specs, Sony might not want to sell each console at a loss either and therefore might go with the ~$500 tag. I get that people who genuinely struggle and don't have much money to spare would prefer $400 over $500, but these consoles don't get made for nothing and I can understand them charging $500. I guess either company could afford to technically take the hit of a loss on every console sold, but it's a risk if their digital stores and game sales don't meet expectations.
    Consumers don't care, they have overpriced rent to pay and stagnate wages to pay them with. Anything above $400 is not going to work for the PS5's success. People will just hold onto their PS4's and Xbox One's and wait for prices to drop, plus actually see games released.
    Last edited by Vash The Stampede; 2019-04-27 at 12:57 PM.

  19. #459
    ill wait for stadia to play ps5 on my pc

  20. #460
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Berthier View Post
    ill wait for stadia to play ps5 on my pc
    What makes you think Stadia will let you play PS5 games? 99% chance it won't. Sony just won't let it

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •