cucker tarlsonmain reason for the people to go with a console - pc components too expensive.

Haha, what?

Consoles = games you cannot get on PC.
Consoles = plays nicely in living room on your large TV
Consoles = comfy sofa gaming

PC has it's uses it doesn't need to be either or.

ChomiqRelative high end, relative. There was no base/enhanced option in previous generations. Now it's a thing.

relative high end.
aka mid range gpus sold as high end consoles.
;)

medi01Haha, what?

Consoles = games you cannot get on PC.
Consoles = plays nicely in living room on your large TV
Consoles = comfy sofa gaming

PC has it's uses it doesn't need to be either or.

no,just no.
main thing is cost.

cucker tarlsonf the asking price is $500-600,the console performs like 2080,

No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".

cucker tarlsonmain thing is cost.

No, in fact, I don't know a single person who'd buy consoles because "PC is too expensive".
In fact, I don't know anyone who owns a console, but doesn't have a PC.

Consoles = a lot of comfort. PC is much more fiddling.

medi01No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".

no,again.
watch some yt comparisons.
"better cause tailored" is a myth.
1060 can outperform ps4pro a lot of times.

they're running 30 fps at ~1800p ~low-medium quality,I guess you did not know that.

cucker tarlsonrelative high end.
aka mid range gpus sold as high end consoles.
;)

Good enough for console pleb.

medi01No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".


No, in fact, I don't know a single person who'd buy consoles because "PC is too expensive".
In fact, I don't know anyone who owns a console, but doesn't have a PC.

yes,cause "who medi01 knows" was always a point of reference :laugh:

cucker tarlsonyes,cause "who medi01 knows" was always a point of reference :laugh:

Oh, your opinion based on thin air is of course much more important. Figures.

cucker tarlson"better cause tailored" is a myth.

Get real, check how Horizon, GoW look at guts of (non-pro) PS4, and tell me how you'd expect that to be possible on 7850.

I won't mention common sense as it doesn't work with strong bias applied, chuckle.

medi01Oh, your opinion based on thin air is of course much more important. Figures.



Get real, check how Horizon, GoW look on (non-pro) PS4, and tell me how you'd expect that to be possible on 7850.

I won't mention common sense as it doesn't work with strong bias applied, chuckle.

of course consoles are supposed to be wallet friendly,what are you talking about.
have consoles suddenly become workstations everyone has been waiting to drop +$500 on cause your beloved amd says they're 12 tflops + rt ?

It makes me chuckle how in 2018 pc enthusiast weren't ready for RT cards but now console users are ready to drop that much :roll: :roll:

cucker tarlsonamd says they're 12 tflops + rt

Microsoft.

Jeez, are you hurt?

cucker tarlsonof course consoles are supposed to be wallet friendly,what are you talking about.

There is difference between vague "wallet firendlieness" of consoles and most console buyers buying it because they are poor.

Consoles are cheaper for a number of reasons:
1) Uh, hold on, average PCs of a typical gamer runs 1060/580 or worse. Yeah, let's get that straight first
2) Economy of scale, of course and better contracts on parts
3) Normal business model is to make money on games, not consoles (Nintendo is a notable exception)

It is curious that XSeX that is unlikely to cost beyond $550, will have GPU that is faster than $700-800 GPU from NV, but it's not usual.

cucker tarlsonIt makes me chuckle how in 2018 pc enthusiast weren't ready for RT cards but now console users are ready to drop that much :roll: :roll:

I can't make any sense of this statement,.
I assume there is some virtual war of yours in which you personally have achieved impressive victory and inflicted devastating blow to your enemies after Sony or Microsoft or AMD or Intel or NV did something, I just can't figure exactly which of those wars it was or exactly whom you are trying to adress in a thread about XSeX specs, chuckle.

faster than $800 ? what are they 2080Ti's now ? :roll: :roll:
lol.
this thread :rolleyes:

cucker tarlsonfaster than $800 ? what are they 2080Ti's now ? :roll: :roll:

I'm pretty sure there are no 2080Tis sold for 800 Euros in Poland and you are just having weird meltdown.

please someone notify me when medi01 starts making sense.

The Quim ReaperAll very impressive but the fact remains that with no exclusive games, as a PC gamer with a 9900K & 2080, I have absolutley no incentive whatsoever to want one or need one.

..as powerful as it is, I'm just one GPU upgrade away from stomping all over it and seeing the PC version of their games run even better than the Series X can.

The PS5 on the other hand with all its exclusive 1st party content is a different matter entirely, even if it is (slightly) less powerful than the X.

PC and console sales are driven by different motives, practically no one chooses a console over a PC because it's "better value" (even if it was). Console sales are all driven by specific games, so it doesn't really matter how many Tflop the next Xbox have vs. PlayStation or vs. a "comparable" PC.

medi01No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".

This is complete nonsense.
The only thing which is "tailored" for console games is the assets(model details, texture details) are tuned to a desired frame rate, but even that usually only applies to top games.

efikkanThe only thing which is "tailored" for console games is the assets(model details, texture details) are tuned to a desired frame rate.

So model geometry, textures being tailored for consoles prove... tailoring for consoles is "a myth" and "complete nonsense".



Amazing.

Oh, and look at the assessed effects of such "non-tailoring tailoring":


Chuckle.



Asset tailoring would be more than enough, but sometimes they don't stop there. Blizzard has mentioned they optimized for 6 cores when doing a console port, because, well, remember, Jaguar isn't really a monster CPU.

medi01

efikkan

medi01No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".

This is complete nonsense.
The only thing which is "tailored" for console games is the assets(model details, texture details) are tuned to a desired frame rate, but even that usually only applies to top games.

So model geometry, textures being tailored for consoles prove... tailoring for consoles is "a myth" and "complete nonsense".

I even highlighted the main point in the quote from you, and yet you somehow missed it and topped it off by adding a clip from "dumb and dumber", the irony…

There are no magical fairy dust inside consoles. If you run the same code on comparable hardware, it will perform comparably, that's a fact. The only way to make the code faster on consoles is if they have unique and faster API features, which is becoming more and more rare. The majority of console games are mostly using off-the-shelf engines and have nothing close to optimal code at all, and most launch titles are rushed, so console games are not necessary more polished than games in general.

Console games today are developed on PCs, then tested and if needed debugged on devkits towards the end. Early titles are often developed largely without the help of devkits at all. Devkits running hardware comparable to the final product are only available a few months ahead of release of the console. Let's end this BS about console games performing better right now.

$600 consoles are a niche, most people just want something cheap to play FIFA, COD, Fortnite and others. As strange as it may seem to some, 1st party exclusives are a very small part of sales in the general universe of game sales.

That's why much is speculated about a significantly cheaper "Series S". If Microsoft launches just one console in the $600 zone, it easily loses the generation, if Sony surprises again with the $399, even with inferior hardware.

Sony has already tried to have a single console at $600 on the market and has done extremely badly, only after a few years with many price cuts along the way, it started to recover in sales.

kings$600 consoles are a niche, most people just want something cheap to play FIFA, COD, Fortnite and others. As strange as it may seem to some, 1st party exclusives are a very small part of sales in the general universe of game sales.

That's why much is speculated about a significantly cheaper "Series S". If Microsoft launches just one console in the $600 zone, it easily loses the generation, if Sony surprises again with the $399, even with inferior hardware.

Sony has already tried to have a single console at $600 on the market and has done extremely badly, only after a few years with many price cuts along the way, it started to recover in sales.

There is no way Sony can justify $399 price tag because this would cover less than 50% of the manufacturing/R&D cost of the components inside:
1. Processor;
2. Graphics;
3. SSD;
4. Main board;
5. Case;
6. Power supply and delivery circuit;
7. Etc related costs.

We don't know what hardware the PS5 will have, the only thing we know is that it will be based on Zen 2 and Navi, nothing more.

If Microsoft is going to be able to sell a 12TF console at $600 or slightly less, why Sony would not be able to sell a 9TF console for example, at $400?

Even though it´s $450, it´s a significant difference to $600, most people would not pay that premium.

kingsWe don't know what hardware the PS5 will have, the only thing we know is that it will be based on Zen 2 and Navi, nothing more.

If Microsoft is going to be able to sell a 12TF console at $600 or slightly less, why Sony would not be able to sell a 9TF console for example, at $400?

Even though it´s $450, it´s a significant difference to $600, most people would not pay that premium.

But we do know the current market prices and what we can do with $399 - if you are lucky a Ryzen 3 or Athlon with 8GB RAM max for office use.

I do expect $799 for the Microsoft top offer and not less than $550 for the corresponding Sony offer.

efikkanI even highlighted the main point in the quote from you

efikkanThere are no magical fairy dust inside consoles.

And who said there was? Oh, I see, nobody. Ah, but you can highlight a single word in this, rather clear, sentence:

"No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".

But feel free to ignore part marked red, and defeat the strawman.
The irony.

This means the PS5 will have simmilar specs and features, since both consoles share the same CPU+GPU?

ARFAMD needs the money. It's unfair for AMD who supply and always stay in the red because of such criminal practices.

I wouldn't buy a next-gen console for $300 because it's dirty cheap.

"Criminal"? How? It's not like it's anticompetitive; it is how the console market has always operated, everyone does it and it's a perfectly viable business model. Hardware is sold as a loss leader to allow for profits through software licencing (FIY, this is also done in a lot of other industries, from movie tickets being sold at a loss with profits made on candy and drinks, to TVs sold at a loss with profits made on accessories, cables, insurance, etc. Don't get me started on capsule coffee makers.). For most current console games there's a ~$10 licencing fee per game (which is why console games have used to be $60 instead of $50 on PC). It would be very different if someone did this in a market where the software licencing part didn't exist or they had a dominant market position and the money to force competitors out through doing this, but that's not the case here. And besides, AMD's margins aren't affected here - if MS and Sony sell their consoles at a loss doesn't mean AMD are selling their chips at a loss, it just means that AMD's margins are a part of the BOM cost of the console. AMD isn't likely to have fat margins on a part like this (ordering 10-50 million chips is likely to give you a decent amount of leverage in price negotiations), but they're nowhere near losing money on this. Semi-custom has been one of AMD's most profitable departments in the previous console generation, no reason to expect that to change.

medi01No, consoles always perform way better than PC counterpart, because games are tailored for them, while PC gets abstract "scaling slider" that does "some things".

Sure, there are some titles that are optimized in amazing ways and use a lot of clever tricks and smart utilization of the specific console hardware to look far better than anything comparable on PC, but for the majority of cross-platform games the console ports just run at a lower detail level (normally somewhere roughly equal to medium or medium-low on PC). Just watch a few Digital Foundry analyses and you'll see this clearly. Low-level hardware access is mostly a thing of the past, as modern consoles use PC-equivalent APIs (or even just PC APIs; Xbone uses DX12) for ease of development. They do demonstrate very well how much can be done by abandoning the rather silly "Ultra or nothing" mantra of many PC gamers, but that's about it.

ARFThere is no way Sony can justify $399 price tag because this would cover less than 50% of the manufacturing/R&D cost of the components inside:
1. Processor;
2. Graphics;
3. SSD;
4. Main board;
5. Case;
6. Power supply and delivery circuit;
7. Etc related costs.

1: Very expensive, yes, both in R&D and production.
2: Same silicon as 1, no additional cost. Same R&D.
3: Flash is expensive, otherwise this is cheap, likely using off-the-shelf parts with semi-custom firmware.
4: Medium cost, but cheap in the long run due to mass production. Highly optimized for cost with few PCB layers and likely a single-sided board. Much cheaper than the cheapest PC mobo, and produced in >100-1000x the quantities for much lower R&D costs per board.
5: Cheap AF. Initial tooling is expensive (likely hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions), and the design work and certifications isn't free by any means (though I guess the latter goes under point 7), but amortized over >10 000 000 consoles all of this amounts to a few dollars per console at most, and production costs are very low thanks to a simple stamped steel frame with injection-molded plastic for aesthetics.
6: very cheap, likely requires near zero design, just tweaking of specs and layout/form factor from an existing OEM solution. MS/Sony will just go to Delta/MeanWell/whoever and say "we need an internal PSU in roughly this form factor, at this efficiency level, rated for this temperature, at this level of output noise and ripple, with x Amps on the 12V rail and a 5VSB rail", and the OEM likely has a suitable solution already that just needs some layout/form factor tweaks.
7: FCC testing and other certifications do cost quite a lot, but again, amortized over millions of consoles it's next to nothing per unit.

That being said, $399 is unlikely due to the size and performance level of the SoC - as that's by far the most expensive component of the build.


As for people saying that consoles don't sell due to price: don't be silly. A basic off-the-shelf gaming PC is ~$1000, with deals down to ~$700 if you're lucky and know where to look. They can be built cheaper, but that requires knowledge that the average user isn't even close to. So cost is definitely one of the main reasons for consoles being popular. Simplicity is another - they're mostly plug-and-play, and don't require any real skill to configure, and no assembly. Using them is also dead simple, and the software is relatively easy to learn. A third reason is that you can buy any game for the platform and expect it to work (at least in theory ... these days, yeah ...), unlike on PC where you have to know if your PC is powerful enough and/or start tweaking settings for it to run properly. A fourth reason is the couch experience - they fit smoothly into a contemporary TV-centric living room. PCs can too, but most don't whatsoever, and the UX is poor. So let's stop trying to point at one reason why consoles are popular - as with anything the answer is complex and consists of many discrete parts. Break any one of them, though, and it becomes a lot less attractive - raise the price too much, complicate the software, make game compatibility complicated, or mess up the UX; any of that can turn users off a console.

Just wondering: Aside from RDNA2, what features does the Series X bring that doesn't exist in the PC GPU market today?
Or is RDNA2 the big thing here?

WhitestarJust wondering: Aside from RDNA2, what features does the Series X bring that doesn't exist in the PC GPU market today?
Or is RDNA2 the big thing here?

Well RayTracing and VRS will now be a mainstream“ feature for the “masses“

And still no Support for mouse nad Keyboard.