Could the PS5 Get Bespoke AMD Hardware?

[GTPNewsWire]

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

Could the PS5 Get Bespoke AMD Hardware?

This article was published by Joe Donaldson (@Joey D) on June 16th, 2018 in the Gaming category.

 

[FT-1]

So what does this mean for gamers? Well, the most impactful is that the next-gen Xbox and the PS5 will use different technologies. While they both still might use AMD they won’t be as closely related as they are now. This could lead to multi-platform games looking better on one system due to optimization.

This I am not really worried about given how impressive many Pro/X enhanced titles look. As long as a stable 60fps is the norm next-gen, I can live with slight visual differences.

Going even deeper, this could also lead to console exclusives. However, companies like EA, Ubisoft, and the other big players will likely always keep games multi-platform. But for the smaller developers and especially indie devs, you could see them choose one system over the other.

Now this is a bit harder to live with. While exclusives sell systems, the average player with only one console miss out on gaming experiences they could enjoy on the alternative console. That would feel even more frustrating if the exclusive game was from a third-party developer.

 

[HarVee]

Well, the most impactful is that the next-gen Xbox and the PS5 will use different technologies.

Another potential 7th gen ordeal? Might be skipping the 9th console gen too if that proves true.

But for the smaller developers and especially indie devs, you could see them choose one system over the other.

They already do that now. Steam/PC is the go-to place for many indie developers.

 

[Rustyhole]

This has been true for every system with a competitor. Multi-platform games look better on the system it was designed for (or so we're told). Though I imagine the market for selling to people not only with both systems but said game for both systems is small. Everything else is advertising and hyperbole.

Systems will always have - and had - exclusives big and small. Smaller indie devs have always had to choose whether to optimize for one system or stretch themselves over multiple platforms. Nothing unexpected.

As for bespoke hardware, designed for first to market (PS5) and called AMD PS5. Change a few unimportant specs (to be wildly overhyped in the media as the second/third/fourth coming) and rebrand as AMD Xbox. It's called marketing and manufacturing efficiency. Processes AMD/Sony/MS know well.

As long as a stable 60fps is the norm next-gen, I can live with slight visual differences.

They're been hyping stable 60fps since PS2. Enjoy the wait.

 

[KingFrog]

if consoles want to stay relevant, they have to distance themselves from PC architecture . Consoles up until this gen , had superior graphics. The ps3 out did any pc until 2009 ish. The ps4 was already mid spec right out the gate ..

 

[SimTourist]

if consoles want to stay relevant, they have to distance themselves from PC architecture . Consoles up until this gen , had superior graphics. The ps3 out did any pc until 2009 ish. The ps4 was already mid spec right out the gate ..

Yet there is nothing on PC that looks as good as GT:S, Uncharted 4, Horizon ZD, Driveclub and others. Funny how that works.

 

[lancia delta hf]

Yet there is nothing on PC that looks as good as GT:S, Uncharted 4, Horizon ZD, Driveclub and others. Funny how that works.

But how would those games look on PC? Not that I agree with the post you quoted though.

 

[Robin]

I like the idea of there being custom hardware in gaming consoles again because right now they are all but the same generic mid range PC in a different box. I like the idea of there being proper competition again, graphical comparisons, fighting over 1st part titles and exclusives etc... like it's the 90's and 00's!

Sony does it best when they go custom, the PS2's EE & GS, the PS3's CELL & RSX... both hugely powerful platforms that, whilst taking a while to master, ended up producing arguably the best results.

 

[Imari]

Yet there is nothing on PC that looks as good as GT:S, Uncharted 4, Horizon ZD, Driveclub and others. Funny how that works.

I dunno man. FM7/FH3 at full 4K/60fps is pretty staggering, and so is PC2. PC2 gains a staggering amount over console on a good PC. I'd say those games can absolutely compete with GTS and DC graphically. DC is getting quite old now, and it's only 30fps remember.

As far as Uncharted and Horizon ZD, PC versions of GTAV (with mods, it's an older game now) and Witcher 3 can certainly hold up on Ultra. As can Rise of the Tomb Raider (and presumably Shadow of the Tomb Raider). Assassin's Creed: Origins and Hellblade are also pretty stunning to look at on a high end PC. Most new FPS are pretty nuts at Ultra as well (BF1, Destiny2, CoD:WWII). I think there's plenty of similar games that can compete with the console exclusives graphically if you bother to look.

Consoles do really well considering the hardware that they have, but PC can generally look as good or better through sheer horsepower unless there aren't comparable games at all. And as far as racing and adventure games, there certainly are. Funny how that works.

 

[Lee x sensai]

I want good CPU support please, so I could see smart A.I and 60fps or leading to more good stuff besides graphic.

 

[Joey D]

Yet there is nothing on PC that looks as good as GT:S, Uncharted 4, Horizon ZD, Driveclub and others. Funny how that works.

PC gaming will almost always look better since the GPU can be upgraded, whereas in a console it can't. The only exception is when a dev is lazy and does a poor port from console to the PC.

You also need to look at the sheer amount of console games that only run 30 FPS. In 2018, that's actually fairly unacceptable. 60 FPS should be the absolute low end when it comes to games nowadays.

 

[Aphelion]

PC gaming will almost always look better since the GPU can be upgraded, whereas in a console it can't. The only exception is when a dev is lazy and does a poor port from console to the PC.

You also need to look at the sheer amount of console games that only run 30 FPS. In 2018, that's actually fairly unacceptable. 60 FPS should be the absolute low end when it comes to games nowadays.

I think you will find that only the relatively hardcore demographic of gamers actually give a single toss about 60+ fps. I honestly and truly never once noticed the difference between 30 and 60 fps games untill about 2 years ago when a freind actually explained it to me, despite passionately playing games of all sorts for 10 years prior.

 

[Wolfe]

60fps benefits everyone whether they can perceive it or not. Similar to how input latency on HDTVs affects everyone even if they're clueless that it is negatively impacting their playing experience -- once in a while I'll read a comment about a game that reminds me that people play games on HDTVs and blame timing-related problems or mistakes on the game, the controller, or themselves, but not the TV. I've always been aware of the problem, so when I upgraded to HD I went out of my way to be sure to minimize it.

60fps isn't necessary for every genre of game, but it is a widely accepted prerequisite for some, like fighting games, and is still of significant benefit to the player for others, like platformers or racing sims. Though a stable framerate is perhaps more important than whether a game targets 30 or 60fps. Forza Horizon is a smoother experience than a PCARS2 race with too many cars on the grid.

For me the difference between 60fps and even a stable 30fps is very apparent. Swapping directly from a 30fps game to a 60fps game is akin to taking off ankle weights and suddenly feeling much "freer" for it.

 

[Joey D]

I think you will find that only the relatively hardcore demographic of gamers actually give a single toss about 60+ fps. I honestly and truly never once noticed the difference between 30 and 60 fps games untill about 2 years ago when a freind actually explained it to me, despite passionately playing games of all sorts for 10 years prior.

Don't get me wrong, I'll play games that only run at 30 FPS and enjoy them. However, I can tell the difference between a 30 FPS game and a 60 FPS game almost instantly. There's less motion blur, images are sharper, and it's overall just a smoother experience. There's also a lower latency with a higher frame rate.

 

[samdu]

This I am not really worried about given how impressive many Pro/X enhanced titles look. As long as a stable 60fps is the norm next-gen, I can live with slight visual differences.

60FPS won't be universal (or maybe even that common). There will always be developers that choose more visual effects over frame rate. And 30FPS works for most games.

 

[samdu]

As for bespoke hardware, designed for first to market (PS5) and called AMD PS5. Change a few unimportant specs (to be wildly overhyped in the media as the second/third/fourth coming) and rebrand as AMD Xbox. It's called marketing and manufacturing efficiency. Processes AMD/Sony/MS know well.

Unless Sony and AMD have some kind of exclusivity contract on the bespoke portions (I don't, for a second, think that the whole chipset will be designed and built from the ground up for Sony) of the chipset. In which case, Sony's hardware will have unique parts.

 

[Lain]

I dunno man. FM7/FH3 at full 4K/60fps is pretty staggering, and so is PC2. PC2 gains a staggering amount over console on a good PC. I'd say those games can absolutely compete with GTS and DC graphically. DC is getting quite old now, and it's only 30fps remember.

As far as Uncharted and Horizon ZD, PC versions of GTAV (with mods, it's an older game now) and Witcher 3 can certainly hold up on Ultra. As can Rise of the Tomb Raider (and presumably Shadow of the Tomb Raider). Assassin's Creed: Origins and Hellblade are also pretty stunning to look at on a high end PC. Most new FPS are pretty nuts at Ultra as well (BF1, Destiny2, CoD:WWII). I think there's plenty of similar games that can compete with the console exclusives graphically if you bother to look.

Consoles do really well considering the hardware that they have, but PC can generally look as good or better through sheer horsepower unless there aren't comparable games at all. And as far as racing and adventure games, there certainly are. Funny how that works.

True, though I think that console's lack of power actually pushes devs to come up with creative rendering solutions which then bleeds into the PC space. So while games will always look best on PC, I think console devs are the ones doing the most to push graphics tech forward since they can't rely on sheer horsepower to brute force better graphics.

 

[Robin]

It's true that games which originate on console are usually the most graphically creative to achieve great results with what they have to work with but I don't ever feel they can be classed as equal to or better than a what top spec PC can produce. If you could get something like Uncharted on PC it would undoubtedly look better than its PS counterpart.

I was reading about the huge efforts Nintendo devs went to produce games on the N64 with its paltry 4KB of texture cache which gave rise to all sort of ingenious programming.

 

[Imari]

True, though I think that console's lack of power actually pushes devs to come up with creative rendering solutions which then bleeds into the PC space. So while games will always look best on PC, I think console devs are the ones doing the most to push graphics tech forward since they can't rely on sheer horsepower to brute force better graphics.

I'd agree with that. There's no need to solve with cleverness what you can solve with brute power. See stuff like the original Crysis: looked great but was used as the butt of PC jokes for near on a decade because of how ridiculously hardware hungry it was.

Restrictions breed solutions. PC developers would doubtless eventually get to the same conclusions as console devs, but console devs have an absolute hardware limit and only a handful of sets of hardware to build for at worst. It's a competitive space, and it's definitely a better one for pushing the boundaries of what a game can do.

Still, we're seeing a lot more crossover between the PC and console space these days, and honestly the difference between a really well optimised game and a multi-platform mediocrity isn't really as large as it used to be. I think the peak for being able to differentiate a game through skillful programming was probably late-PS2/early-PS3 era, and these days you can get away with a lot simply by using an established engine. As we progress through generations I expect there to be less and less difference between a bespoke, hand-tweaked game engine and an off the shelf solution.

 

[letsdothis97]

I'd agree with that. There's no need to solve with cleverness what you can solve with brute power. See stuff like the original Crysis: looked great but was used as the butt of PC jokes for near on a decade because of how ridiculously hardware hungry it was.

Restrictions breed solutions. PC developers would doubtless eventually get to the same conclusions as console devs, but console devs have an absolute hardware limit and only a handful of sets of hardware to build for at worst. It's a competitive space, and it's definitely a better one for pushing the boundaries of what a game can do.

Still, we're seeing a lot more crossover between the PC and console space these days, and honestly the difference between a really well optimised game and a multi-platform mediocrity isn't really as large as it used to be. I think the peak for being able to differentiate a game through skillful programming was probably late-PS2/early-PS3 era, and these days you can get away with a lot simply by using an established engine. As we progress through generations I expect there to be less and less difference between a bespoke, hand-tweaked game engine and an off the shelf solution.

Yeah you are right, ease of use is a big thing in development at the moment. Furthermore everyone wants to reduce R&D costs, dropping a year on making a new engine versus letting someone else do that tech is becoming massively popular both in hardware and software. The last thing you want to do is scare devs away from your platform which was the case for the PS3 and PS2 and other consoles which tried to break the mould.

When I heard both consoles are going x86 and are effectively just standard computers(aside from sonys api which is actually very good imo) I was very happy, I made the prediction of many titles becoming multiplatform as a result so its a win win for everyone as its more sales, more fans, more retention and hype leading to more ambitious future projects.

Some people think consoles shouldnt be computers however, I dont see the logic, it makes development harder or more time consuming as there is a learning process to understand how to best effectively utilise the constraints.

Im very interested to see how they handle this next generation, i hope 60fps becomes a norm or hopefully there are options in all games as its hard to go back to 30. Would be interesting to see if 144fps ever becomes a thing for consoles as well certainly for the smaller titles. Something like resogun for example.

 

[Imari]

Would be interesting to see if 144fps ever becomes a thing for consoles as well certainly for the smaller titles.

I doubt consumer TVs will be 144fps any time soon. While I also feel strongly about 60fps, there's enough casual gamers that find it to be of marginal benefit that I can't see developers trying to push any higher than that outside of VR titles. Not until display technology progresses significantly past where it is now at least.

 

[SimTourist]

I dunno man. FM7/FH3 at full 4K/60fps is pretty staggering, and so is PC2. PC2 gains a staggering amount over console on a good PC. I'd say those games can absolutely compete with GTS and DC graphically. DC is getting quite old now, and it's only 30fps remember.

As far as Uncharted and Horizon ZD, PC versions of GTAV (with mods, it's an older game now) and Witcher 3 can certainly hold up on Ultra. As can Rise of the Tomb Raider (and presumably Shadow of the Tomb Raider). Assassin's Creed: Origins and Hellblade are also pretty stunning to look at on a high end PC. Most new FPS are pretty nuts at Ultra as well (BF1, Destiny2, CoD:WWII). I think there's plenty of similar games that can compete with the console exclusives graphically if you bother to look.

Consoles do really well considering the hardware that they have, but PC can generally look as good or better through sheer horsepower unless there aren't comparable games at all. And as far as racing and adventure games, there certainly are. Funny how that works.

Nah, all of those don't come close in both tech and art to ps4 exclusives, remember that all of those games are created with xbox one as their baseline, and ps4 devs don't have to keep outdated specs like that in mind.

 

[Whitestar]

Yet there is nothing on PC that looks as good as GT:S, Uncharted 4, Horizon ZD, Driveclub and others. Funny how that works.

If you follow Digital Foundry's videos you will see many comparisons between console and PC graphics for multi-platform games. What on PC is Ultra (wrt effects) will usually lie between low to medium to high on the consoles. Simply because PCs have the horsepower to use all effects while consoles have to compromise.

 

[Imari]

Nah, all of those don't come close in both tech and art to ps4 exclusives, remember that all of those games are created with xbox one as their baseline, and ps4 devs don't have to keep outdated specs like that in mind.

Remember that all of those games are created with PC as a hardware choice, and PC devs don't have to limit their games to underpowered specs like the PS4.



Seems like swings and roundabouts to me.

And these:







Horrific looking pieces of tat. Don't know why anyone bothers to buy a PC. Not even close to anything on base PS4, let alone Pro. Might as well stab my eyes out right now.

You know you can appreciate what developers have managed to achieve on console without having to lie and declare it the greatest bestest most shiny looking game of all time, right? GT:S is no less of a graphical achievement for not being the absolute last word in pretty racing games. It's a great looking game, as is Driveclub.

I don't claim that games on PC are necessarily better, I think it's all close enough for people to make up their own mind for their own reasons. But to suggest that there's nothing even comparable on PC is just false.

 

[Whitestar]

Remember that all of those games are created with PC as a hardware choice, and PC devs don't have to limit their games to underpowered specs like the PS4.

Sweet jebus! The lighting in some of those GTA5 NaturalVision shots are insane. I'm using that mod myself but hadn't noticed this latest version.

 

[KingFrog]

I like the idea of there being custom hardware in gaming consoles again because right now they are all but the same generic mid range PC in a different box. I like the idea of there being proper competition again, graphical comparisons, fighting over 1st part titles and exclusives etc... like it's the 90's and 00's!

Sony does it best when they go custom, the PS2's EE & GS, the PS3's CELL & RSX... both hugely powerful platforms that, whilst taking a while to master, ended up producing arguably the best results.

The ps2 was incredible. They pulled off some godly stuff with such an underpowered machine.
One thing I will say is, first-party console devs as a whole are infinitely more talented than third party devs ( EA spends ore than MS or sony on their titles and they look objectively worst) . Mind > hardware. When you aren't limited by the hardware you get REALLY inefficient and stop searching for ways to crank out more power.

 

[Northstar]

One thing I will say is, first-party console devs as a whole are infinitely more talented than third party devs ( EA spends ore than MS or sony on their titles and they look objectively worst) . Mind > hardware. When you aren't limited by the hardware you get REALLY inefficient and stop searching for ways to crank out more power.

I wouldn't put it all down to talent. First party developers have the benefit of only having to optimize for one console while third party developers have to make a working game for 2+ consoles. That means third party developers have to spend more time working on the functionality aspects instead of the eye candy.

 

[Imari]

One thing I will say is, first-party console devs as a whole are infinitely more talented than third party devs ( EA spends ore than MS or sony on their titles and they look objectively worst) . Mind > hardware. When you aren't limited by the hardware you get REALLY inefficient and stop searching for ways to crank out more power.

Not necessarily. Time isn't infinite, so when designing for multiple hardware sets a developer may have to rely on systems that work on all of them but are optimal for none. The way that they do this may end up being very clever, but because any given user isn't seeing an optimal experience for their specific hardware it often flies under the radar.

I mean, it would be hard not to put Rockstar on the top tier of developers, and GTAV is on two generations of Playstation and Xbox as well as PC. I'd argue that CD Projekt Red deserves to be considered as top tier as well, and they're multi-platform. They can absolutely go toe to toe with Naughty Dog or Polyphony as far as skill goes.

Evolution was once a Sony first party studio and are now a multi-platform studio under Codemasters. Does that mean that they've gotten less talented just by being booted out from under Sony's wing?

 

[SimTourist]

If you follow Digital Foundry's videos you will see many comparisons between console and PC graphics for multi-platform games. What on PC is Ultra (wrt effects) will usually lie between low to medium to high on the consoles. Simply because PCs have the horsepower to use all effects while consoles have to compromise.

Most of those ultra effects are barely noticeable in normal gameplay, it's actually a really lazy way to tax hardware without much effort and only to satisfy the assumption that people have which is if the game runs like crap means it's technologically advanced. Crysis 1 to this day runs like complete garbage on top end PCs because back then Crytek assumed we would have super high clocks like 10 GHz maybe or more, but then we went the other direction with multiple cores and parallel computing, and their engine simply can't take advantage of modern hardware no matter how much you spent on it.

 

[Whitestar]

Most of those ultra effects are barely noticeable in normal gameplay

That's debatable and depends on the game and effects used. And it's beside the point, which was that on PC the effects look better (in the games that are on both platforms and thus can be compared).

it's actually a really lazy way to tax hardware without much effort and only to satisfy the assumption that people have which is if the game runs like crap means it's technologically advanced.

Actually not sure if you're being serious here. But I like how you make the leap to...

Crysis 1 to this day runs like complete garbage on top end PCs

...as if Crytek were somehow lazy and faking technological advancement. Crysis upon release was technologically groundbreaking and way ahead of its time. That's the reason it was so demanding on the hardware.

Crytek assumed we would have super high clocks like 10 GHz maybe or more, but then we went the other direction with multiple cores and parallel computing, and their engine simply can't take advantage of modern hardware no matter how much you spent on it.

This is true. It doesn't take anything away from their accomplishments at the time though.