DeadlyraverI'm just happy that the console generation, after so many years, has picked up in graphics capability.

Wut?

Every console generation notches up in graphics capability wtf are you on about? :wtf:

About the emulator thing, basically aren't kits like this emulators? Don't all these companies have fully functional emulators for their consoles/handhelds? Seems like someone could just steal the software and have most of the hard work done.

LAN_deRf_HAAbout the emulator thing, basically aren't kits like this emulators? Don't all these companies have fully functional emulators for their consoles/handhelds? Seems like someone could just steal the software and have most of the hard work done.

yes I said that in a previous comment, the fi al version might be much buffer with enhanced cores and graphics, this could be just for starters so developers can get the general idea, so while they design and optimize on this architecture the finalized version might end up much more enhanced, not to mention it will definitely not be a trinity chip, it would be a derevitive, think of all the PCI express panes in trinity and some of the dedicated hardware for specialized tasks that aren't needed in consoles, all that will be removed

LAN_deRf_HAAbout the emulator thing, basically aren't kits like this emulators? Don't all these companies have fully functional emulators for their consoles/handhelds? Seems like someone could just steal the software and have most of the hard work done.

Development kits aren't emulators

HSA anyone?

BigMack70I find it hard to believe that they're claiming 1080p 60fps possible on an APU based system.

I call BS. More probably 720p upscaled

A GPU made in 2006 is able to handle Crysis 2 (Xbox 360 version of the game). I'd guess with the right optimizations, an APU with HD 7600-class discrete companion GPU should run games at 1080p like butter.

Well I'm just hoping they won't have as many framerate issues and screen tearing this time around. At the end of the day it's still a console so with new game engines coming out and graphics technology like tessellation etc. I highly doubt it will be able to perform 60fps at 1080p with ALL possible eye candy the game dev can dish out as when consoles change so do games.

BigMack70Not on that particular argument... maybe read the thread? Notice anyone still trying to argue that 1080p60 isn't 4x as demanding as 720p30? Your original post just reflects a lack of reading comprehension as even Phenom realized that my argument was correct.

As for rather the PS4 will be doing 1080p60, that's anyone's guess. Some think no, myself among them, others think yes. No way to know who's right until the hardware is released.

I don't understand what you are getting so worked up about. You are comparing it directly to a PC way to much. These consoles lack the bloatware PC's have to start off. On top of that we are talking about a midrange crossfire setup that is purpose built to push 1080P60FPS. Purpose built that means AMD is going to be handed a TDP and clockspeed they have to deliver to Sony. On top of that purpose built software designed to be run on the PS4 means crossfire scaling will be near perfect.

It can already deliver 60+ FPS on certain games as it sits now without perfect scaling and purpose built drivers/applications.



Why do you think when settings get knocked down to low/medium it will not be able to push 60FPS? Remember this wont have 16x AA and AF forced on it. This is still a console and will be doing console things. One of those things is run 1080P@60FPS or Sony simply wont approve the game until the coding is fixed.

Your argument is a waste of time. Look at the 7900 series card in the PS3 on the PC that card could not handle the games and settings it pushes while using the PS3 yet the PS3 does it without sweating. :shadedshu Move on.

BigMack70Lol w/e man... if you want to claim you've got a magic setup, go ahead. Arkham City, Sleeping Dogs, those are just two other recent examples of things that a single card doesn't do 60fps minimum framerate in (they don't even get close btw).

But hey maybe your card is a magic card that does far better than all the benchmarks say. :laugh:

When all console games are 30fps (most shitty looking ones are 60fps, oh wait COD), why are you going on about 60 fps?

I game on the HD 5850 even now, and above 40fps the game is fluid. Occasional hiccups happen, but they happen with my droid too. I don't complain day and night about it. It's perfectly usable.

Same way, it's perfectly playable.

a console from my prospective is good for only certain games like sports game ,hack and slash and platform style.
a pc is a much more multimedia system so games on pc made for console sucks if you think a pc dont have the power for handle a game with low res texture and detail at low medium.
now if sony wanna talk like they know about how is run a game at 1920 x 1080 with an apu and a discrete gpu well they dont know nothing .
they wanna continue to make games than if 60 fps are stable on 1 game if in another dont run smooth they low details and texture res = i bring money from you that dont know nothing about graphics that is part of the entertainment and realism like is super great and advanced fake tecnology.

60 fps in a benchmark doesn't mean much. 60 fps in actual gameplay...that means a lot more. Stuff happens during gameplay. Benchmarks are usually a controlled flyby run. Gameplay has a lot more going on and is not as predictable. That is where Sony needs to nail the 60fps.

There are a lot that argue against dual GPU setups. Really don't gain the performance benefit from it for the money...etc. Ya know, I finally tried it and overall...I say it was a nice way to extend the life of my system. Certainly see the benefit. Not all titles work perfectly with it but there are enough that do to make it worthwhile. The problem has always seemed to involve drivers or getting the game to utilize it. But now imagine a closed hardware console system where devs can really design for it properly.

Think a dual GPU system is genius personally. We're gonna see devs able to better handle complex games than ever before. The question is...what bottleneck will be presented. Every console has had a bottleneck of some kind where years later it is the first thing people say the dev shouldn't have cheapened out on. Most of the time it is RAM or VRAM. Last gen continued that tradition. 512MB was not terrible for 2005 but it wasn't great. Most PCs were coming with 2-3GB and games were pushing into those ranges. But the problem with both 360 and PS3 was not the size but allocation. PS3 cut things 50/50 with VRAM, 360 shared with VRAM. Had the PS3 had more than 256MB VRAM...I think we would have seen more games pushing 1080 on it. 360 could do it but still, resources were being pinched. A dual GPU system usually means VRAM on both GPUs. So 2 sets of VRAM. Orbis may be the first system to get rid of the age old RAM bottleneck. If programed properly, the only thing holding it back eventually would be the hardware itself, but we'd continue to see better games for a lot longer than 360/PS3 due to that dualie setup.

You're all assuming performance will be similar to that of the A10-5800k. In reality we don't know how fast it is. If you read the article it says the following:

PS4′s APU was described today as a “derivative” of existing A10 hardware. The hardware is “based on A10 system and base platform”.

This means that is very possible that the specs of this chip are different from the FM2 chips available now and that Sony and AMD might have a special relationship here where the final product might have a CPU that is much different than what is out now. Just a thought.

HossHugeCan we just agree that this will make gaming better finally for PC and console gamers?

For graphics maybe, for gameplay no.

BenetanegiaI remember those days. They sucked bad. I spent all days knowing how much better my uncle's PC games were compared to the crap I was forced to play because I was a child.

Better graphics don't make games worse. There's games with bad graphics that suck too, etc. One thing does not exclude the other. Better graphics means more immersion and in some games that contributes and makes it 100x better. i.e. Metro 2033 with worse graphics would have not had the same atmosphere and wouldn't have been so immersing.

I shouldn't reply to this as we approach the subject from vastly different angles but I can't help myself: HERP DERP.

Dent1It isnt 4x demanding, what is your point?

Either show mathematical proof or a link source or sit down.

You can't claim stuff with no evidence then say you're right.

Mathematical proof (for like the 4th time):

(1920*1080)/(1280*720) = 2.25
60/30 = 2

Put them together... 2.25*2 = 4.5

Hence, 1080p60 is ~4x as demanding as 720p30.

That's not a point about hardware. In fact, strictly speaking my point here has nothing to do with hardware. It's a point about math which is apparently too simple for many of the elite minds in this thread to grasp. :shadedshu

cdawallI don't understand what you are getting so worked up about

I'm worked up about kiddos who don't understand kindergarten math and reading comprehension. (I also got worked up earlier about people making crazy claims about what a single graphics card can do on the PC.)

It doesn't get me worked up that some people think this APU will be able to do 1080p60... I've said about a hundred times that your guess is as good as mine and we won't know till we actually see what the hardware can do. I'm skeptical and don't believe it. Others here aren't as skeptical. But it's not unreasonable either way. It depends a lot on how demanding you think the next generation of games is going to be, how well you think they can optimize for console rather than PC, and rather or not you read Sony's claims of 60fps as being an average 60fps or a minimum 60fps (and rather or not you trust Sony's word).

I understand your math, but I don't think it is as linear as that. To say it is ~4 times demanding is flawed.

BigMack70Mathematical proof (for like the 4th time):

(1920*1080)/(1280*720) = 2.25
60/30 = 2

Put them together... 2.25*2 = 4.5

Hence, 1080p60 is ~4x as demanding as 720p30.

That's not a point about hardware. In fact, strictly speaking my point here has nothing to do with hardware. It's a point about math which is apparently too simple for many of the elite minds in this thread to grasp. :shadedshu

So if you stand behind your equation why wouldn't show this in your very first post? Why wait until page #10 to provide proof? Only a complete idiot would argue for 10 pages straight and take a massive amount of heat when it could have been resolved earlier with your equation. You are a certified psychopath.


PS. Your formula doesn't prove that the GPU needs to be 4x powerful. The architecture of the GPU is the deciding factor. For example a GPU could in theory render 4x faster, but may still perform worst than it's predecessor with less rendering horsepower due to lack of bandwidth throughput.

If everything was linear, like you seem to suggest the transistor count and heat output might also increase by approximately 4x which isn't the case.

BigMack70It doesn't get me worked up that some people think this APU will be able to do 1080p60... ).

How can you know that without knowing the which GPU the APU will feature. For all we know the GPU on the APU could be a 7970 (unlikely due to cost, heat) but we don't know. Also like I said earlier it depends on the game, a linear game like COD's campaign yes, a big open world game like GTA, probably not. Without knowing which games are in question we can't make any concrete conclusion. Also Sony did not say all games will be 1080p/60. You jumped to your own conclusion.

BigMack70I'm worked up about kiddos who don't understand kindergarten math and reading comprehension.

If you've graduated kindergarten, find another forum. Bye.

Dent1So if you stand behind your equation why wouldn't show this in your very first post? Why wait until page #10 to provide proof? Only a complete idiot would argue for 10 pages straight and take a massive amount of heat when it could have been resolved earlier with your equation. You are a certified psychopath.


PS. Your formula doesn't prove that the GPU needs to be 4x powerful. The architecture of the GPU is the deciding factor. For example a GPU could in theory render 4x faster, but may still perform worst due to than predecessor rendering horsepower due to lack of bandwidth throughput.

If everything was linear, like you seem to suggest the transistor count and heat output might also increase by approximately 4x which isn't the case.


How can you know that without knowing the which GPU the APU will feature. For all we know the GPU on the APU could be a 7850 (unlikely due to cost, heat) but we don't know. Also like I said earlier it depends on the game, a linear game like COD's campaign yes, a big open world game like GTA, probably not. Without knowing which games are in question we can't make any concrete conclusion. Also Sony did not say all games will be 1080p/60. You jumped to your own conclusion.



If you've graduated kindergarten, find another forum. Bye.

I explained my math in post #74. Lrn2read? And even if I hadn't, it's not like I'm asking you to do calculus to figure out how many more pixels need to get crunched out in 1080p60 compared to 720p30. :shadedshu.

Issues about non-linearity are addressed in post #85. Lrn2read?

P.S. I've explained throughout that this is a picky point about math and not a point about hardware. Lrn2read?

I don't claim to know anything about what this APU can do. I say I'm skeptical of these claims and I've explained why. I'm also not the only one skeptical about it in this thread. Lrn2read?

:shadedshu :shadedshu :shadedshu :shadedshu

BigMack70I don't claim to know anything about what this APU can do.

Then your arguments have no basis.

Dent1Then your arguments have no basis.

:roll:

+1 to the number of people in this thread who don't understand what speculation is

You don't know any more than I do about what this APU can do, unless you have a time machine and have been to the future.

I hope they have hybrid crossfire!

BigMack70I explained my math in post #74. Lrn2read? And even if I hadn't, it's not like I'm asking you to do calculus to figure out how many more pixels need to get crunched out in 1080p60 compared to 720p30. :shadedshu.

Issues about non-linearity are addressed in post #85. Lrn2read?

P.S. I've explained throughout that this is a picky point about math and not a point about hardware. Lrn2read?

I don't claim to know anything about what this APU can do. I say I'm skeptical of these claims and I've explained why. I'm also not the only one skeptical about it in this thread. Lrn2read?

:shadedshu :shadedshu :shadedshu :shadedshu

BigMack70:roll:

+1 to the number of people in this thread who don't understand what speculation is

You don't know any more than I do about what this APU can do, unless you have a time machine and have been to the future.

Resolution isn't the only thing that determines performance.

Going from 720p to 1080p does not require 4 times as much power. You're over simplifying how computers work and you're spreading false information. Maybe its time for you to get off of your high horse and realize that you really don't know what you're talking about. Are you a programmer? What experience do you have in the field that proves you know what you're talking about because everything you said is straight up false. The amount of geometry and calculations that need to be done to the "world" doesn't change with resolution which is why your "equation" doesn't work. The complexity of the geometry doesn't change just because you're running at a higher resolution so the majority of the work done that is "taking longer" is determined by the fill rate which is directly related to performance at different resolutions, which is only one part of what the GPU does. It also explains why there is more CPU power used at lower resolutions because at higher resolutions the gpu is doing more fragment shading than at lower resolutions.

Dent1Then your arguments have no basis.

At least some one knows bullshit when they see it. :mad:

BigMack70:You don't know any more than I do about what this APU can do, unless you have a time machine and have been to the future.

+1

10 pages later and you admit it.

We know it's all speculation and your opinion. Forums are built on this and we respect your theories. But you have to remember until we know more about the APU and the games in question everything, you, others and myself say are educated opinions.

I think where you annoy people is when you assume your opinion are iron truth. Then insult our reading and math ability, and intelligence in general when we fail to agree that your opinion is truth.

AquinusResolution isn't the only thing that determines performance.

Going from 720p to 1080p does not require 4 times as much power. You're over simplifying how computers work and you're spreading false information.

+1 to the # of people who don't understand my point has nothing to do with hardware

You have to churn out ~4x the pixels at 1080p60 as you do at 720p30. That's basic math.

Now, I understand (and have stated from very early on in this argument) that when you actually go look at how things perform in the real world, this breaks down and is not linear. But there's all sorts of various reasons for that and none of them have to do with the fact that you're putting out a different ratio of pixels at 1080p60 vs 720p30 than ~4x.

Why does it take dozens of posts to explain such a stupidly over-simple point? Go read the thread - I was making a picky point because of a lack of clarity in one of mailman's posts, and you guys have taken it to a whole other level.

Wow.

Dent110 pages later and you admit it.

You REALLY haven't read the thread, have you? Multiple times, even beginning in post #19, I've stated we will find out i.e. "know" in a year or two, when the hardware is released, what it can do.



:shadedshu