The Verge (Lockhart): "We understand that includes 7.5GB of usable RAM, a slightly underclocked CPU speed, and around 4 teraflops of GPU performance." | ResetEra (https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-verge-lockhart-we-understand-that-includes-7-5gb-of-usable-ram-a-slightly-underclocked-cpu-speed-and-around-4-teraflops-of-gpu-performance.235720)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/42ej3mdIIijjy63TWR0wD5Wl6HQ=/0x146:2040x1214/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11515155/acastro_180604_1777_xbox_0001.jpg) Leaked Microsoft document hints at second next-gen Xbox (https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/26/21304112/microsoft-xbox-series-x-lockhart-leaked-document-specs-rumors) Microsoft has still not publicly acknowledged its Lockhart plans (https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7395361/favicon-64x64.0.ico) www.theverge.com
The leaked document also mentions a Lockhart profiling mode. Sources familiar with Microsoft's Xbox plans tell The Verge that this special Lockhart mode is part of the Xbox Series X developer kit. The devkit, codenamed Dante, allows game developers to enable a special Lockhart mode that has a profile of the performance that Microsoft wants to hit with this second console. We understand that includes 7.5GB of usable RAM, a slightly underclocked CPU speed, and around 4 teraflops of GPU performance. The Xbox Series X includes 13.5GB of usable RAM, and targets 12 teraflops of GPU performance. Click to expand... Click to shrink...
I think this info is new, so new thread. Or not new, but confirmation. Lock if necessary.
regards to price:
What the heck is the point of this?
If all xsx games need to support lockhart, it will hold things back. Not for most games but for some.
If xsx games do not need to support lockhart, then MS will have 3 unrelated systems on sale at the same time.
What the heck is the point of this?
If all xsx games need to support lockhart, it will hold things back. Not for most games but for some.
If xsx games do not need to support lockhart, then MS will have 3 unrelated systems on sale at the same time.
I think the hope is
XSX: 4K gaming
XSS: 1080p gaming
It probably won't work out that way...
I expect MS to discontinue the Xbox One this year.
What the heck is the point of this?
If all xsx games need to support lockhart, it will hold things back. Not for most games but for some.
If xsx games do not need to support lockhart, then MS will have 3 unrelated systems on sale at the same time.
MS has been lobbying developers hard for years now that games should be developed with "dynamic resolution".
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/9afems/digitalfoundry_tech_focus_dynamic_resolution/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/9afems/digitalfoundry_tech_focus_dynamic_resolution/)
its a very PC-centric solution to hardware of various specs for games developed in a very "last gen" methodology. in that regard lockhart (and win 10 support) makes a lot of sense, it's a natural extension of this classic approach to game development.
it will be an interesting here to see if the benefits of the ps5 architecture blows up MS entire plan or if the shear volume of PCs and xboxs will defeat innovation. I personally think that MS will demand lockhart support and thus hold back game development. developers will hate it but i'll bet they do it. going ps5 exclusive is just losing too much of the market and 3rd parties really are moving more towards that "scalability" approach to not only support something like lockhart but also mobile.
MS has been lobbying developers hard for years now that games should be developed with "dynamic resolution".
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/9afems/digitalfoundry_tech_focus_dynamic_resolution/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/9afems/digitalfoundry_tech_focus_dynamic_resolution/)
its a very PC-centric solution to hardware of various specs for games developed in a very "last gen" methodology. in that regard lockhart (and win 10 support) makes a lot of sense, it's a natural extension of this classic approach to game development.
it will be an interesting here to see if the benefits of the ps5 architecture blows up MS entire plan or if the shear volume of PCs and xboxs will defeat innovation. I personally think that MS will demand lockhart support and thus hold back game development. developers will hate it but i'll bet they do it. going ps5 exclusive is just losing too much of the market and 3rd parties really are moving more towards that "scalability" approach to not only support something like lockhart but also mobile.
Dynamic resolution isn't specifically helpful for lockhart imo. It's a useful tool that has been popular since before the xbox one released, but it only helps with one bottleneck.
For example if this info is real, xbox one x has more usable RAM and could have a higher max dynamic resolution even if it doesn't hit it very often.
Scalability is a very real thing and the majority of games will have no problem supporting lockhart. It doesn't hold back all next gen games, it just holds back specific next gen games. I'd just expect better specs in this thing if it was mandatory.
I think the hope is
XSX: 4K gaming
XSS: 1080p gaming
It probably won't work out that way...
I expect MS to discontinue the Xbox One this year.
If that was their goal, I'd expect more ram. Say a next gen game averages ~6gb for cpu side ram and ~6gb for gpu side ram. If it drops everything on the gpu by 75%, you get exactly 7.5gb. That works great.
But what about literally any game that uses more ram that doesn't scale with resolution? How is the game supposed to be ported without decreasing quality. Would players be happy if games on Lockhart feel last gen with cut content?
The whole Lockhart just makes little sense.
The whole Lockhart just makes little sense.
Remember when xbox one x was supposed to do this?
Games would be be on xo and xox. Then they'd be on xox and next gen. Then they'd be on next gen and next gen pro. It was the death of generations.
Yet this is like an endorsement of generations.
Lockhart SHOULD be xox but instead an xox v2 is needed with a next gen ssd.
It just seems like a complete misfire. Maybe xox should have released 1 year earlier and lockhart should have released in 2019. Then it'd feel a bit more natural.
Sounds like the very thing that killed sega.
I've slowly been realising I've been developing the indie Crysis of this generation :P
What will happen to Lockhart when games decide to go 1800p or 1440p on XSX or PS5.
We have seen devs this gen and the previous one forgo the highest resolution possible at times to hit performance targets or have a certain look. And with the price of going from 4k to 1800p negligible, and 1440p very low, I believe more devs will be tempted to do so
That unreal demo was 1440p, if devs decide to use that tech (which a lot will) and they cant hit 4k on PS5 and XSX. What will Lockhart do?
I simply don't see how a 4tf machine will do 1440p with next gen graphics, lighting and assets. Even 1080p will be a struggle most of the time
With XSX it kind of feels like they would expect 10 GB for GPU and 3.5 GB for CPU. (Their GPU optimized™ RAM).
A 75% GPU reduction would put it at 2.5GB plus 3.5GB for CPU work. With 1.5GB for flexibility.
The issue is, that's all very idealistic. It really puts a hard limit on what you can do with the CPU, even if you can scale all the GPU work.
With XSX it kind of feels like they would expect 10 GB for GPU and 3.5 GB for CPU. (Their GPU optimized™ RAM).
A 75% GPU reduction would put it at 2.5GB plus 3.5GB for CPU work. With 1.5GB for flexibility.
The issue is, that's all very idealistic. It really puts a hard limit on what you can do with the CPU, even if you can scale all the GPU work.
Plus with SSD streaming, shouldn't that push most games towards using more RAM for CPU work? Traditionally a game might need 10gb for textures, models, frame buffers, and compute buffers but with super optimized streaming you'd just need a small amount of ram for the current textures and models on screen ala super textures. That means next gen games could use a smaller percentage of available memory for GPU tasks and a smaller percentage of that memory would scale with resolution.
At the moment it feels like a complete mistake to not have 12gb of ram instead of 10gb.
What the heck is the point of this?
If all xsx games need to support lockhart, it will hold things back. Not for most games but for some.
If xsx games do not need to support lockhart, then MS will have 3 unrelated systems on sale at the same time.
I've been thinking that since the moment this thing was first rumoured. For some reason people have gradually started reacting very defensively to this idea, often dismissing it entirely because "the Lockhart will just run the game at 1080p and everything else will be the same". I don't buy that shame and already see this machine becoming a massive headache to devs by the midway point of next gen.
I've been thinking that since the moment this thing was first rumoured. For some reason people have gradually started reacting very defensively to this idea, often dismissing it entirely because "the Lockhart will just run the same at 1080p and everything else will be the same". I don't buy that shame and already see this machine becoming a massive headache to devs by the midway point of next gen.
Almost every community nowadays is confident in their position, regardless of what it may be. Makes meaningful discussions pretty hard :P
I think the majority of games will be fine on lockhart. Scale resolution, scale textures, decrease draw distances/lod distances, decrease particle effects, remove raytracing, and the majority of games can function on it even if the results aren't that pretty.
The harder part imo are games that do anything unique. GPU compute, simulations, raytracing exclusive features, procedural worlds, vr, etc. are much harder to scale and might require full reworks.
I think Microsoft is stuck in a sort of paradox. If Lockhart support is optional then there is no problem for devs. It'd just be like PC games with high minimum requirements. Yet if lockhart support is optional, how does Microsoft market this thing? It's almost like there are three competing consoles for next gen, all with pros and cons.
Lockhart's existence in general is super weird.
1.) It's a hard sell. Considering how weak it is, it has to be quite a bit cheaper to be remotely worth selling.
2.) MS has completely ignored its existence. At this point MS is pretty much the only one not talking about it.
2a.) And this is super weird compared to series X. MS has been talking about SX for almost 2 years, and yet if the August rumor is true, it'll be 3 months between announcement and launch. The only console with a shorter turn around that I know of is the PS4 Pro.
3.) The specs make it an even harder sell. Depending on how MS goes about it. You either have games that can't run on the XSS, or if they require relative feature parity, it seems like PS5 would get a better version. Pretty much the best case scenario is that devs have to do more work and get their games to run.
-----
On a related note, it's also super weird that MS announced monthly news and apparently literally missed their first month of that news.
i saw a post in another site that make lockhart click for me. it will be super popular with dumb adults. it will be just like a nintendo console,.. no one actually wants one for themselves but loads of people feel great about gifting them at christmas.
i saw a post in another site that make lockhart click for me. it will be super popular with dumb adults. it will be just like a nintendo console,.. no one actually wants one for themselves but loads of people feel great about gifting them at christmas.
I know you're joking mostly but I'd bet Lockhart is extremely cheap like $199 with a 24 month gamepass contract. Make it so attractive feeling that it's the default console for non enthusiasts. Hook them in to gamepass and try to upsell them to series x at a later time.
Lockheart is going to sell like hotcakes if they advertise it right. A cheap "next gen" console with gamepass is a wining combo.
Faster cpu than ps5?
Faster cpu than ps5?
The original claim was that it was slower. Tom Warren says it is the same now.
So it'd have a very slightly faster CPU, but way worse everything else.
Faster cpu than ps5?
Same CPU as XSX which is faster than the PS5. I can imagine it would make optimizations much easier if devs had nothing to do or little on the CPU side. Its including the same hardware regardless, they just need to clock it at the same speed
Seems like it would be really lopsided. All that cpu and a weak gpu.
What if the cpu keeps it from being super cheap?
It's great that it has the same cpu but since it has about half the ram and a third the gpu, it's not like devs can just port without work. Some games may be really hard.
So as fish tacos said, why is the cpu so strong? It can still scale with resolution a bit.
Option 1: $249 box that can play almost all next gen games for a few years. Some games may have things scaled back beyond resolution.
Option 2: $399 box that can play every next gen game for the full gen with everything the same except for resolution.
People seem to want option 2 but these specs seem like a little bit of both. What if the system ends up costing closer to option 2 but in practice functions like option 1?
What if the cpu keeps it from being super cheap?
Tom Warren said it wasn't going to be cheap. Seems to me like $299 is probably the lowest we can expect.
CPU + SSD are pretty expensive, a smaller GPU, and less RAM doesn't open up the door to a lower price.
It's great that it has the same cpu but since it has about half the ram and a third the gpu, it's not like devs can just port without work. Some games may be really hard.
So as fish tacos said, why is the cpu so strong? It can still scale with resolution a bit.
Option 1: $249 box that can play almost all next gen games for a few years. Some games may have things scaled back beyond resolution.
Option 2: $399 box that can play every next gen game for the full gen with everything the same except for resolution.
People seem to want option 2 but these specs seem like a little bit of both. What if the system ends up costing closer to option 2 but in practice functions like option 1?
Practically it's hard to say. Most games tend to get limited by the GPU before the CPU, but that's not universal.
Though I'm going to bet it'll be Option 1.
Tom Warren said it wasn't going to be cheap. Seems to me like $299 is probably the lowest we can expect.
CPU + SSD are pretty expensive, a smaller GPU, and less RAM doesn't open up the door to a lower price.
Practically it's hard to say. Most games tend to get limited by the GPU before the CPU, but that's not universal.
Though I'm going to bet it'll be Option 1.
Yeah beefy cpu plus ssd will make this cost a bit to build. Compared to series x though it could be kinda cheap. No disc drive, half ram, third gpu, cheaper power supply, cheaper cooling, and smaller box.
It's just so hard to understand without prices or marketing.
$349 lockhart
$499 ps5 digital
$549 ps5
$599 series x.
It makes the most sense if the other systems cost a ton.
$400 lockhart
$450 ps5 digital
$500 ps5
$500 series x.
i'm really not sure about lockhart but i think you underestimate how much of a loss console makers are willing to take. i'm like 100% certain nothing will be sold for $600. i'm quite certain sony and ms had a target price in mind when they designed this hardware and at no point would $600 been chosen. that is just suicide.
**in case it wasn't obvious i edited the prices in the quote to match my expectations.
Yeah beefy cpu plus ssd will make this cost a bit to build. Compared to series x though it could be kinda cheap. No disc drive, half ram, third gpu, cheaper power supply, cheaper cooling, and smaller box.
It's just so hard to understand without prices or marketing.
$349 lockhart
$499 ps5 digital
$549 ps5
$599 series x.
It makes the most sense if the other systems cost a ton.
I'm personally almost 100% certain that the gap between the PS5 and the PS5 Digital will be $100. Even in the worst case scenario I don't see the gap getting smaller than $80.
$50 just feels like way too little of a saving considering what you are giving up for it, people won't go for that. And since people with a digital only console will be almost exclusively locked into Sony's store front, I'd say that Sony has a vested interest in having a good chunk of people get that version.
My gut feeling is $500 for the standard version and $400 for the Digital console.
i'm really not sure about lockhart but i think you underestimate how much of a loss console makers are willing to take. i'm like 100% certain nothing will be sold for $600. i'm quite certain sony and ms had a target price in mind when they designed this hardware and at no point would $600 been chosen. that is just suicide.
**in case it wasn't obvious i edited the prices in the quote to match my expectations.
I agree with $600 being crazy but I don't see the point of lockhart if it's only $100 cheaper. Who wouldn't pay $100 more to get a disc drive and full power with series x?
Or just pay $50 more to get a PS5 digital.
I'm personally almost 100% certain that the gap between the PS5 and the PS5 Digital will be $100. Even in the worst case scenario I don't see the gap getting smaller than $80.
$50 just feels like way too little of a saving considering what you are giving up for it, people won't go for that. And since people with a digital only console will be almost exclusively locked into Sony's store front, I'd say that Sony has a vested interest in having a good chunk of people get that version.
My gut feeling is $500 for the standard version and $400 for the Digital console.
A $100 gap makes sense if the standard one is sold at a gain.
I agree with $600 being crazy but I don't see the point of lockhart if it's only $100 cheaper. Who wouldn't pay $100 more to get a disc drive and full power with series x?
Or just pay $50 more to get a PS5 digital.
A $100 gap makes sense if the standard one is sold at a gain.
no one would buy a lockhart,.. for themselves.
lockhart is MS's fruit cake or nintendo console of the holiday gift giving season for uninformed parents and uncles that want to give a "cool" gift.
no one would buy a lockhart,.. for themselves.
lockhart is MS's fruit cake or nintendo console of the holiday gift giving season for uninformed parents and uncles that want to give a "cool" gift.
Then they'd buy a current gen xbox or a cheaper switch.
I guess it depends a lot on what the name is. Maybe lockhart is "New Xbox."
Then they'd buy a current gen xbox or a cheaper switch.
I guess it depends a lot on what the name is. Maybe lockhart is "New Xbox."
clearly it will be called xbox series s
clearly it will be called xbox series s
Which won't do anything to help sell the system to confused adults.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/brad-sams-info-on-lockhart-shape-and-lockhart-holding-back-next-gen.238312/ (https://www.resetera.com/threads/brad-sams-info-on-lockhart-shape-and-lockhart-holding-back-next-gen.238312/)
Also I've seen a lot of misunderstanding about 4K textures on other websites discussing this. If anyone here didn't know and is interested in learning, 4k textures have nothing to do with 4k rendering resolution. Almost all base PS4 games include 4K textures and Rage on PS3 even included a ~32K texture or something like that.
Here is an example of a 2k character texture.
(https://download.tuxfamily.org/makehuman/assets/1.1/base/skins/textures/young_caucasian_female_special_suit.png)
When used in game, the pixels are stretched across the model and warped. They do not align with display pixels and there are a million different factors involved. Oftentimes you can get better results with multiple lower res textures, and oftentimes multiple lower res textures are combined into a single higher res texture. In general there is no such thing as 1080p textures.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/brad-sams-info-on-lockhart-shape-and-lockhart-holding-back-next-gen.238312/ (https://www.resetera.com/threads/brad-sams-info-on-lockhart-shape-and-lockhart-holding-back-next-gen.238312/)
"development (or profiling as it is now called)"
This line stuck out to me. Maybe Microsoft has something strange going on but with my limited next gen xbox experience, it comes across as a misunderstanding of development and an invalidation of the rest of his technical points.
Or just pay $50 more to get a PS5 digital.
A $100 gap makes sense if the standard one is sold at a gain.
Albert Penello was talking about the difference.
The Optical Disk Drive has a low manufacturing cost ~$20, but it has high value for the consumer ~$100.
If the price difference is too small, Digital version will lose out, too big then the standard will lose out.
Albert Penello was talking about the difference.
The Optical Disk Drive has a low manufacturing cost ~$20, but it has high value for the consumer ~$100.
If the price difference is too small, Digital version will lose out, too big then the standard will lose out.
I know I'm buying the disc drive version but I know a lot of other people have been all digital for years. I'd bet for them a $50 dif is plenty. It might just be about giving consumers a choice instead of pushing a specific model.
But if they go with a $100 dif, I mean I'd expect it to be something like lose $60 per digital version sold, gain $20 per physical version sold. That way the standard sells less but makes a profit just by existing.
I know I'm buying the disc drive version but I know a lot of other people have been all digital for years. I'd bet for them a $50 dif is plenty. It might just be about giving consumers a choice instead of pushing a specific model.
But if they go with a $100 dif, I mean I'd expect it to be something like lose $60 per digital version sold, gain $20 per physical version sold. That way the standard sells less but makes a profit just by existing.
i've been all digital from this entire generation,.. the only disc i have is astrobot because it was bundled with my psvr. all the same i'm still getting the disc version even at $100 more. i have about 500 dvds and blurays on the shelf and a library across the street that i rent discs from. i'm not giving up the ability to play those even if my game library is 100% digital.
i've been all digital from this entire generation,.. the only disc i have is astrobot because it was bundled with my psvr. all the same i'm still getting the disc version even at $100 more. i have about 500 dvds and blurays on the shelf and a library across the street that i rent discs from. i'm not giving up the ability to play those even if my game library is 100% digital.
Same with movies. Would not buy the discless version regardless of price.
Same with movies. Would not buy the discless version regardless of price.
well, if the difference was $500 then i'd buy the digital version. but it is worth $100 to me which is the most i'd expect to see a difference in price. i'm still leaning towards $50 as the actual price difference.
and seriously,.. what the fudge is up with the digital movie market. the main reason netflix disrupted the industry is because they make it impossible to buy a digital version of a movie/show an play it literally fudgy anywhere. and then they have the audacity to put like a 200% mark up on digital copy that can only be played on one device. wtf guys, you were literally "asking for it"...
I wonder if PS6 will still have an optical drive.
I'm hoping so.
I wonder if PS6 will still have an optical drive.
I'm hoping so.
Not in my opinion.
They can sell an external optical drive for the few people that want it, but of course all PS6 games would be digital.
I wonder if PS6 will still have an optical drive.
I'm hoping so.
consider this a "test generation". if the digital version sell to 90% or more of the market thren no it won't. but of it only sells to 50% then i'd expect next gen to have the option again.
you vote with your wallet.
At the moment I'm feeling that $399 digital and $499 physical PS5 are 90% likely to happen. If those prices are locked in, then $499 for series x and $299 for lockhart imo.
Maybe Microsoft would want to undercut the PS5 by $50.
At the moment I'm feeling that $399 digital and $499 physical PS5 are 90% likely to happen. If those prices are locked in, then $499 for series x and $299 for lockhart imo.
Maybe Microsoft would want to undercut the PS5 by $50.
I think there's like an 80% chance of the prices.
Don't think Sony will let MS undercut.
My take:
PS5:
80% $499
19% $449
1% 399
PS5 DE:
80% $399
19% $449
1% $349
XSS:
80% $299
19% $349
1% $249
XSX:
80% $49919% $4491% 399