Next-gen PS5 and next Xbox speculation launch thread |OT7| - nm

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonnax

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,144
Has there been any good fanfiction lately?

Like "Microsoft are buying a GDDR6 manufacturer so that they can put 32gb of RAM in Scarlett and sell it for cheap. "
 

chris 1515

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,841
Barcelona Spain
Last question, how are they taking it? Are there grumbles or it's not really that bad because microsoft supports scarlett development in other ways?
I don't think this is a big problem because PC use DX12 and as a mutliplatform developer, they need to support lower PC configuration than next generation console.

I will ask but maybe the only annoying things if they want to do RT is not being able to work with AMD RT implementation if PS5 technology is different.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,178
Somewhere South
This is not a good comparison, it has low RAM on the 530, which is causing a lot of stuttering.
It has roughly half of the working memory (2GB used for graphics alone vs. 5GB used by GPU + CPU) and 2/3rds of the bandwidth. More limited, sure, but with everything on low and/or disabled (like texture quality, for instance), should mitigate some of this deficit, not to say anything about the fact that it's rendering less than 1/4th of the pixels.
 

Jeffram

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,081
going to intel, nvidia, arm, not gonna happen either for cost or changing isa.

i can’t imagine any scenario where sony would get to know what ms requested to build, so i’d just discount this blathering out of hand.
why would MS allow this? MS has more money than Sony. If Sony can threaten to go with Nvidia then so can MS.

And AMD knows neither of them had any leverage because due to BC they are both pretty much forced to stick with AMD next gen. Besides, if there was a contract, MS wouldve known about it and they wouldnt have said the bit about setting the power benchmark last year.
I'll just straight out say that I don't believe this is true, but willing to discuss it from an academic standpoint.

It's hard to say just how captive MS and Sony are to AMD. If they were truly captive, AMD would and should take them for a ride and give them a price that is marginally better or even worse than what they can get from Intel/Nvidia, knowing they can't switch. Given that we have been from the start of the generation all the way to the Pro and X been given really good performance per cost, and that both are sticking with AMD, I assume that's not what AMD are doing, so there must be some concern of competition.

As for why Sony would get the preferential treatment, Sony is the bigger order, meaning by volume, the most profitable, and can command preferential treatment. Right now the sales ratio is > 2:1. MS had previously targeted 200M Xbox Ones, there could be some fallout from past commitments to AMD they made on revenue.

Sony doesn't need to know what MS was building as these deals were done before there were tangible products, and by the looks of it Sony went first. AMD would have committed to certain performance characteristics when they inked the deal. I have no idea what they could be from a semiconductor standpoint, but for laymen's sake lets say its FLOPS per watt. Sony could have Said, ok I agree to a deal with this baseline flops per watt floor, and as a part of me agreeing to this deal, you can't provide better or equal flops per Watt within x% to any other buyer. I'm this biggest buyer in the market, and this is what I'm asking.

I have specifically seen in my line of business the largest buyer doing this from a price perspective. To win the business, the supplier agrees to do something like commit to not to give anyone a lower price on a widget, contractually. I've represented buyers who weren't the biggest, and were specifically told while negotiating price that the price can't go lower than X as they have contractual commitments. They are willing to make other concessions, but they can't on the price per unit.

EDIT: and as for MS leveraging its other business with AMD to get better deals on consoles, it's unlikely, especially with how siloed we hear MS can be. With how big and multifacitated companies are these days, they often have reciprocal and multi-layered relationships with each other that they mostly keep separate due to products and agreements being on different time tables and beholden to different stakeholders. I've specifically seen a salesperson from company A, go to company B and say if you don't agree to this deal on Product X, we are not going to do business with you on Service Y. Company B CEO called Company A CEO and the salesperson was fired.
 
Last edited:

BitsandBytes

Member
Dec 16, 2017
3,182
Aaahh, remembering back to the launch of PS4 and XB1, the best thing about it was the gifs and memes that came outta that.

No matter what happens next year with MS and Sony, it's gonna be one hell of a fun ride.
Its going to be crazy with the build-up of two consoles plus a massive amount of games. Maybe even Nintendo doing something and high-end GPUs from AMD/Nvidia.
 

AegonSnake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,203
I'll just straight out say that I don't believe this is true, but willing to discuss it from an academic standpoint.

It's hard to say just how captive MS and Sony are to AMD. If they were truly captive, AMD would and should take them for a ride and give them a price that is marginally better or even worse than what they can get from Intel/Nvidia, knowing they can't switch. Given that we have been from the start of the generation all the way to the Pro and X been given really good performance per cost, and that both are sticking with AMD, I assume that's not what AMD are doing, so there must be some concern of competition.

As for why Sony would get the preferential treatment, Sony is the bigger order, meaning by volume, the most profitable, and can command preferential treatment. Right now the sales ratio is > 2:1. MS had previously targeted 200M Xbox Ones, there could be some fallout from past commitments to AMD they made on revenue.

Sony doesn't need to know what MS was building as these deals were done before there were tangible products, and by the looks of it Sony went first. AMD would have committed to certain performance characteristics when they inked the deal. I have no idea what they could be from a semiconductor standpoint, but for laymen's sake lets say its FLOPS per watt. Sony could have Said, ok I agree to a deal with this baseline flops per watt floor, and as a part of me agreeing to this deal, you can't provide better or equal flops per Watt within x% to any other buyer. I'm this biggest buyer in the market, and this is what I'm asking.

I have specifically seen in my line of business the largest buyer doing this from a price perspective. To win the business, the supplier agrees to do something like commit to not to give anyone a lower price on a widget, contractually. I've represented buyers who weren't the biggest, and were specifically told while negotiating price that the price can't go lower than X as they have contractual commitments. They are willing to make other concessions, but they can't on the price per unit.

EDIT: and as for MS leveraging its other business with AMD to get better deals on consoles, it's unlikely, especially with how siloed we hear MS can be. With how big and multifacitated companies are these days, they often have reciprocal and multi-layered relationships with each other that they mostly keep separate due to products and agreements being on different time tables and beholden to different stakeholders. I've specifically seen a salesperson from company A, go to company B and say if you don't agree to this deal on Product X, we are not going to do business with you on Service Y. Company B CEO called Company A CEO and the salesperson was fired.
But if X1 flopping is any indication, there is a good chance it will be Sony's turn to flop this gen. how can AMD promise them an advantage if Sony cant promise another 100 million consoles sold.

MS is also working with AMD on Surface products and the xcloud servers. they should be buying 5-10 million units themselves to build up a big enough server base for the rest of the gen. though i guess Sony too probably promised to buy several million for their own cloud servers.

the biggest problem is why AMD wouldnt take more money from say MS if they want a 64 CU APU compared to say a 56 CU APU by Sony. The silicon will be bigger and more expensive. it would be insane to deny a more lucrative contract. their shareholders would riot. hell i would say this is one of those fiduciary responsibilities a company has towards their shareholders. if word leaks out that MS was willing to pay extra for a bigger GPU and AMD said no thanks because we already signed a contract with Sony, Lisa Su is gone the next day.
 

gundamkyoukai

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,628
But if X1 flopping is any indication, there is a good chance it will be Sony's turn to flop this gen. how can AMD promise them an advantage if Sony cant promise another 100 million consoles sold.

MS is also working with AMD on Surface products and the xcloud servers. they should be buying 5-10 million units themselves to build up a big enough server base for the rest of the gen. though i guess Sony too probably promised to buy several million for their own cloud servers.

the biggest problem is why AMD wouldnt take more money from say MS if they want a 64 CU APU compared to say a 56 CU APU by Sony. The silicon will be bigger and more expensive. it would be insane to deny a more lucrative contract. their shareholders would riot. hell i would say this is one of those fiduciary responsibilities a company has towards their shareholders. if word leaks out that MS was willing to pay extra for a bigger GPU and AMD said no thanks because we already signed a contract with Sony, Lisa Su is gone the next day.
Even if Sony flop and they won't you should remember there worst selling home consoles is 87 million .
It also possible the have another PS2 gen where after what PS1 set up and PS4 looking that way .
Not like that matter since AMD won't be doing anything like that .
 

melodiousmowl

Member
Jan 14, 2018
2,393
CT
I'll just straight out say that I don't believe this is true, but willing to discuss it from an academic standpoint.

It's hard to say just how captive MS and Sony are to AMD. If they were truly captive, AMD would and should take them for a ride and give them a price that is marginally better or even worse than what they can get from Intel/Nvidia, knowing they can't switch. Given that we have been from the start of the generation all the way to the Pro and X been given really good performance per cost, and that both are sticking with AMD, I assume that's not what AMD are doing, so there must be some concern of competition.

As for why Sony would get the preferential treatment, Sony is the bigger order, meaning by volume, the most profitable, and can command preferential treatment. Right now the sales ratio is > 2:1. MS had previously targeted 200M Xbox Ones, there could be some fallout from past commitments to AMD they made on revenue.

Sony doesn't need to know what MS was building as these deals were done before there were tangible products, and by the looks of it Sony went first. AMD would have committed to certain performance characteristics when they inked the deal. I have no idea what they could be from a semiconductor standpoint, but for laymen's sake lets say its FLOPS per watt. Sony could have Said, ok I agree to a deal with this baseline flops per watt floor, and as a part of me agreeing to this deal, you can't provide better or equal flops per Watt within x% to any other buyer. I'm this biggest buyer in the market, and this is what I'm asking.

I have specifically seen in my line of business the largest buyer doing this from a price perspective. To win the business, the supplier agrees to do something like commit to not to give anyone a lower price on a widget, contractually. I've represented buyers who weren't the biggest, and were specifically told while negotiating price that the price can't go lower than X as they have contractual commitments. They are willing to make other concessions, but they can't on the price per unit.

EDIT: and as for MS leveraging its other business with AMD to get better deals on consoles, it's unlikely, especially with how siloed we hear MS can be. With how big and multifacitated companies are these days, they often have reciprocal and multi-layered relationships with each other that they mostly keep separate due to products and agreements being on different time tables and beholden to different stakeholders. I've specifically seen a salesperson from company A, go to company B and say if you don't agree to this deal on Product X, we are not going to do business with you on Service Y. Company B CEO called Company A CEO and the salesperson was fired.
“we have NO clue why all the amd based pcs are crashing deleting data and catching fire after the last patch, we swear” - ms after finding out and made sure sony had a better performing part
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,611
I guess I can warm up more and more to a 4TF+ Lockhart if it still outputs 4K, plays games in upscale 4K, and has all the 4K benefits for Xbox One BC games as Xbox one X, and is of course, priced $300-$350.

maybe it could work like this:

same 8 core CPU @3.4Ghz, sane 16GB-18GB GDDR6, same UHD drive, but smaller case for Lockhart, smaller fan, plays games designed for 1080p but upscales 4K (like One S and One X), LH has 4TF GPU and 500GB SSD, at $349.

anaconda then has 10ish TF GPU, bigger case, bigger fan, more materials in general, 1TB SSD, $499.

I do wonder if LH could come in below $399, which would be the whole point of a cheaper SKU holding back the gen’s leap in GPU or RAM.

I think both companies will make $400-450ish devices, and will sell them for a decent loss, $399 for PS5 for sure
 

Flutter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,617
I'll just straight out say that I don't believe this is true, but willing to discuss it from an academic standpoint.

It's hard to say just how captive MS and Sony are to AMD. If they were truly captive, AMD would and should take them for a ride and give them a price that is marginally better or even worse than what they can get from Intel/Nvidia, knowing they can't switch. Given that we have been from the start of the generation all the way to the Pro and X been given really good performance per cost, and that both are sticking with AMD, I assume that's not what AMD are doing, so there must be some concern of competition.

As for why Sony would get the preferential treatment, Sony is the bigger order, meaning by volume, the most profitable, and can command preferential treatment. Right now the sales ratio is > 2:1. MS had previously targeted 200M Xbox Ones, there could be some fallout from past commitments to AMD they made on revenue.

Sony doesn't need to know what MS was building as these deals were done before there were tangible products, and by the looks of it Sony went first. AMD would have committed to certain performance characteristics when they inked the deal. I have no idea what they could be from a semiconductor standpoint, but for laymen's sake lets say its FLOPS per watt. Sony could have Said, ok I agree to a deal with this baseline flops per watt floor, and as a part of me agreeing to this deal, you can't provide better or equal flops per Watt within x% to any other buyer. I'm this biggest buyer in the market, and this is what I'm asking.

I have specifically seen in my line of business the largest buyer doing this from a price perspective. To win the business, the supplier agrees to do something like commit to not to give anyone a lower price on a widget, contractually. I've represented buyers who weren't the biggest, and were specifically told while negotiating price that the price can't go lower than X as they have contractual commitments. They are willing to make other concessions, but they can't on the price per unit.

EDIT: and as for MS leveraging its other business with AMD to get better deals on consoles, it's unlikely, especially with how siloed we hear MS can be. With how big and multifacitated companies are these days, they often have reciprocal and multi-layered relationships with each other that they mostly keep separate due to products and agreements being on different time tables and beholden to different stakeholders. I've specifically seen a salesperson from company A, go to company B and say if you don't agree to this deal on Product X, we are not going to do business with you on Service Y. Company B CEO called Company A CEO and the salesperson was fired.
That was a really fun read
 

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,111
Would it even be legal for AMD to not sell something because Sony said so?
Of course. My company has tons of things it can’t sell to others because of how that product was sold. It effects the price of the product for the company that doesn’t want others to have it. When we can re-sell the product, we can price it cheaper to the company that did the original purchasing.
 

sncvsrtoip

Banned
Apr 18, 2019
1,840
Of course. My company has tons of things it can’t sell to others because of how that product was sold. It effects the price of the product for the company that doesn’t want others to have it. When we can re-sell the product, we can price it cheaper to the company that did the original purchasing.
Just curious, company you work for is AMD? :d
 

DukeBlueBall

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,669
Seattle, WA
I guess I can warm up more and more to a 4TF+ Lockhart if it still outputs 4K, plays games in upscale 4K, and has all the 4K benefits for Xbox One BC games as Xbox one X, and is of course, priced $300-$350.

maybe it could work like this:

same 8 core CPU @3.4Ghz, sane 16GB-18GB GDDR6, same UHD drive, but smaller case for Lockhart, smaller fan, plays games designed for 1080p but upscales 4K (like One S and One X), LH has 4TF GPU and 500GB SSD, at $349.

anaconda then has 10ish TF GPU, bigger case, bigger fan, more materials in general, 1TB SSD, $499.

I do wonder if LH could come in below $399, which would be the whole point of a cheaper SKU holding back the gen’s leap in GPU or RAM.

I think both companies will make $400-450ish devices, and will sell them for a decent loss, $399 for PS5 for sure
Man you almost nailed the actual specs.

I have to add the 4/5 TF Navi GPU in Lockhart would be similar boat performance wise that the Xbox One GPU was at launch in comparison to the market.

The 1.3TF GPU was around a quarter the power of the top of line GPUs in 2013.

4/5TF Navi would be around a quarter of the top AMD cards in 2020.

Do people think devs will stop supporting 1080p cards like the GTX 1060 Super / GTX 1070 in the coming generation?

It's probably a QA burden for small scale console only developers, but I don't think Lockhart is weak enough to hold back next gen gaming.

It run circles around the XB1X / Pro.

Temporal upscaled from 960x1080 to 1080p and then upscaled to 4k using super scaling is going to look like a generational leap from those coming from base consoles.
 
Last edited:

Jaypah

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,345
Has there been any good fanfiction lately?

Like "Microsoft are buying a GDDR6 manufacturer so that they can put 32gb of RAM in Scarlett and sell it for cheap. "
Sure, on the last page. It's about how AMD is contractually obligated to give Sony better specs. Naturally it was rightfully called out as bullshit but it did spawn a nice hypothetical scenario post on this page.
 

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,111
NTT or NTT DATA DACH ?
You guys are hilarious 😂

I am only kidding about that last bit (I am US and my Uncle is retired lol), as I am sure you knew, but I am surprised you both guessed the same company.

Truthfully, I am an specialized type of EE who works on custom and semi-custom stuff all the time.

to be clear; nothing CPU or GPU related. think high freq comm systems anywhere from DC-110 GHz++
 

Colbert

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,749
Germany
You guys are hilarious 😂

I am only kidding about that last bit (I am US and my Uncle is retired lol), as I am sure you knew, but I am surprised you both guessed the same company.

Truthfully, I am an specialized type of EE who works on custom and semi-custom stuff all the time.
NTT DATA operates world wide. Was a good candidate to be true ...
 

unapersson

Member
Oct 27, 2017
268
“we have NO clue why all the amd based pcs are crashing deleting data and catching fire after the last patch, we swear” - ms after finding out and made sure sony had a better performing part
The classic anti-trust gambit, which leads to the company being split up into a dozen Nanosofts. I think they're past that kind of thing now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.