Gamers Nexus writes, "This rig is affordable - costing you only slightly more than an ultra-budget system - and powerful - consisting of a Phenom II X4 quad-core (with amazing L3 cache and cache per core ratios), an ATi 6870, and 8GB of beautifully heat-spread memory modules - clocking in at 1600MHz (PC3 12800 RAM). Oh, and there's more, too."
A partially redacted data sheet highlighting the expected ray tracing features coming to RDNA 4 GPUs has been shared by well-known hardware information leaker @Kepler_L2. We expect the features to also be present in the hybrid RDNA 3 + RDNA 4 RT design coming to PS5 Pro when it launches (presumably) later this year or early next year. The leaked data points seem to confirm that advancing ray tracing technology is going to be a major focus of RDNA 4.
This will be the actual start to Ray Tracing on consoles, I'm really looking forward to seeing what PSSR is capable of as well.
I can't wait to see what games designed around this can do.
Don’t hope for anything major imo. RT remains a power consuming feature and I don’t think a pro version will make all that much difference. Higher frames (say 60fps) with RT features as they are now would be a big win if that would be the case. If RT features would be extended, games will probably stick at 30fps like they do now, is that worth a pro upgrade?
Zero first, second or major third party console exclusives have lacked a 60 fps mode on PlayStation, 30 fps is an xbox problem.
The GPU alone statistically offers 40% uplift, and with PSSR upscaling games designed around the console should have a significant performance uplift.
And my understanding is that RT has been largely decoupled from the CU's in RDNA 4 so the performance hit from RT should be much less than on current AMD GPUS. And regardless, the huge number of RT cores with the doubled RT intersect engine should be able to power through RT in a way that simply is not possible on current consoles.
With a rumored (according to the leaks) 4x performance jump in RT performance (and a 40% boost in overall GPU performance), in addition to the added AI upscaling frame generation tech, the actual RT performance increase should be significant.
@Frosty; 40% GPU boost you claim. With PS4 pro vs base at the time, that increase basicly doubled so 40% ain’t that big of a deal imo.
4x performance jump with RT (if true) sounds impressive but will we be able to play games in 60fps quality mode then? If not then pro is a waste as most gamers prefer 60fps performance over 30fps quality mode.
@sagapo
The PS4 Pro had the same GPU as the PS4, the PS5 Pro is switching from RNDA 2 to a mix of RDNA 3 and 4. The 40% increase is just the CU increase and doesn't include any uplift from the technological improvements AMD has done to RDNA which have been significat.
PS5 Pro is going to be a much bigger improvement than the PS4 Pro was, especially when you take into account the RT improvements..
@Einhander; assuming you are right, answer my question: will the pro do 60fps in quality (RT) modes? Because if not, why bother imo.
I really hope so, AMD has been pretty far from Nvidia's performance on Ray Tracing, so to see such a huge uplift, with greater performance and efficiency is a big win.
if astro bot is fully raytraced / 60fps on the pro model, we can start believing the hype
No games are fully raytraced as of now, even on PC. All of them utilize a combination of raytraced and rasterized graphics, with ray tracing being used for shadows, reflections, or global illumination in the best cases, but not for the entire rendering process.
There's gonna be quite a difference between ps5 and ps5 pro compared to ps4 and ps4 pro
agreed, PS4 Pro was only geared at pushing more pixels per frame (and HDR), not making those pixels look better in the process. PS4 Pro didn't offer much as far as increasing the actual quality of the rendering went.
Expecially when ps5 is around 10tflops and ps5 pro rumored to be 30tflops compared to ps4 at 1.84tflops and ps4 pro at 4.2tflops u could pretty much call it a ps6 near enough. Then ps5 pro could be using rdna 3 or say rdna 3.5 because it's rumoured to be using that newly assets of rdna 4 which benefit greatly on resolution and Raytracing even effect etc etc. What would be nice for sony greatly benefit is amd solution of the X3D in its Cpu on cpu bound games
As always:
I can't wait for the specs of the new consoles.
Wether it's NSW2, Xbox Next or PS6.
If Cerny stays the lead architect of the PS6's hardware (which is very likely I guess?), I am VERY excited for Sony's approach.
They've always done something unique noone else did.
And I expect the same for the PS6.
Edit: man, crazy. PS6 (six!) is already near! Time flies.
Ceeny won't be going anywhere I don't think. He and his team have produced back to back amazing consoles
What I want to know is what the price for pro will be since it's much more powerful compared to regular PS5
Initial investigations will weigh the significance of any data theft.
— hack may have uncovered future product details
China/Russia plain and simple. Chinese are producing their own chips and to catch up they do what they have always done……steal it. When you can’t innovate, stealing is your best friend.
Shaz from GL writes: "AMD could spur the beginning of a new era in handheld gaming with their upcoming APUs"
To me the most important hardware is the battery. Doesn’t matter how powerful the chips are.
Eh…. It’s a combination of multiple things.
The battery is hugely important as it allows you to have ideally 4 - 5 hour gaming sessions.
The more powerful the processor the more games developers can share to the handheld, nd of course the better said games perform.
From there display, software, and ergonomics matter, as a good display/software will allow games to be more vivid, run at variable fps 30/40/60 ideally, and good ergonomics means it’s comfortable to play for said 4 - 5 hours. Everything else is gravy at that point.
I know we all want more power. But it’s sad that 4-5 hours is considered good now. It really shows how batteries have progressed at a much slower pace than hungry components.
Of course it matters how powerful the chips are for it to be future proof. Don't you want to be able to play new games?
the Switch proves that you don't need the most cutting edge power out there to be successful.
@Neonrdr that doesn't prove anything because only Nintendo could get away with that. Their games aren't the most complex/graphically ambitious and Nintendo fans don't care.
@Neonridr
If anything, the Switch proves the exact point "redrum06" was making. Yes, it might be successful, but it's definitely not future-proof. Just look at how many games and franchises completely skip the platform.
I have a Switch, and recently got the Legion Go. I havent touched the Switch ever since, purely because of its inability to play even older games at a decent frame rate. For anyone wanting to play multiplatform games as well, people should skip the Switch.
There’s no way you’re getting that 40CU 16-core APU in a handheld. That’s too hot and power hungry for that. The highest end APU they’re suggesting is going to end up in gaming laptops that can cool a 100W chip.
I think these articles get things a little out of perspective, Steam Deck has sold around 3 million and Switch has sold 140 million. But if you are browsing certain parts internet you'd think the Steam Deck had sold over 100 million. If articles are going to continue to circulate like this and continue to put the Steam Deck in the same arena then I'm comfortable calling the device a flop.
Steam Deck, while considerably more popular due to it's lower barrier of entry, is still a niche device with the likes of the ROG Ally and others.
I own one and it's really nice to be able to play some games on the go or in bed, but it'll never fully compete with a system like the Switch.
Especially when they're not in the same price range, the Switch is considerably cheaper.
sure but theres still a limit to what u can put in there ha. power consumption would be the biggest hurdle. and cooling.
I wana try out a pc handheld but I would like to experience a steady framerate etc I don't wana have to keep going into my settings trying to make things smoother in gameplay, that's the only thing that's been keepin me from getting one I've heard others having to go into the settings time from time that'll be annoying
"$550 PC Build That Plays It All"
Doesn't play Crysis 2 DX11 or Crysis maxed out
I'm aiming for a $500-$1K PC max to play Battlefield 3 and other PC exclusives. Medium settings at least.
My friend went all out and paid $2K, but that's insanely out of my price range.
It still more expensive than a console.
I've just recently bought a gaming PC for £600 (specs below) anyone know if it will run Battlefield 3 @ 1080p max settings? I probably wont get 60fps, but I'll be happy with 30fps
- AMD Phenom X6 1100T AM3 Six Core 3.3ghz
- 8 GB DDR3 1333 PC10660 Memory (Kingston)
- Asus GeForce GTX 560 Ti Top Directcuii - 1 GB GDDR5 - PCI-Express 2.0
- OCZ ZS Series 750W 80PLUS Bronze Power Supply
- Windows 7 64 bit software
2k for PC
Or 2k for 3DTV(less than 1k from Samsung) and console(250$) and hometheater(500$) with some games.
But WOW! really if you notice even 10K can't do a lot for us these days ( for the life matters not just games ).