Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JonStrickland t1_jacpfl2 wrote

Woof. I don't like the sound of that. Largely because I suspect this will make consoles more expensive for the consumer. As it stands, companies typically sell consoles at cost or at a loss with the long-term plan to make revenue selling games and services. If the development/deployment cycle is cut in half, companies will have less time per console to make that revenue model work, which leads me to think we'd see companies try to change that model to make the margins better. Then you're looking at a world where there's a new system out for each brand every few years and they're each more expensive than earlier consoles. Then again, maybe I'm way off base. Maybe companies would still take a hit on hardware sales.

39

Reasonable_Ticket_84 t1_jadejah wrote

Counterpoint, modern day consoles are now just PCs with a customized off the shelf CPU and GPU. There's no reason their R&D cycle has to be crazy these days because the base is pretty mature.

31

9-11GaveMe5G t1_jaenbye wrote

Regardless of what it actually is, many console customers are on console specifically for the certainty of compatibility for X amount of time. Start making it like pc and people will stop buying.

4

[deleted] t1_jadyod2 wrote

Which makes me wonder about the hardware. What’s the point with the kind of hardware that exists these days.

Build every console or PC with an i9-13900k and an rtx 4090. Put a big enough drive inside or allow drive swapping/upgrading. 64gb of 6000 speed ram, And you literally have 4k gaming for the rest of your life.

I have an rtx 3080 and an i9-9900k at 5ghz and I don’t expect to have to upgrade for at least 10 years.

1

[deleted] t1_jae3aoz wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_jae9htp wrote

I don’t think I am. I have an easy 300-400 fps at max settings.

Memory clock at 4000 and cpu clock at 5.0 stable no throttling.

1

[deleted] t1_jaea3qa wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_jaeefge wrote

no.

The 9900k is a perfectly capable pairing with the 3080ti.

And yes I’ve played star citizen without any issues. Easily get a minimum of 45-75 fps on max depending on space or city. Never been below 45 for me.

1

[deleted] t1_jaeoetm wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_jaethox wrote

Sounds like you slapped your PC together and never went into the bios to take full use of that “k” at the end of the CPUs name.

The i9-9900k at 5ghz is by no means a bottleneck for the rtx 3080ti or 3090 at max settings; And it can handle a 4080ti just fine as well.

The 9900k is by all means good for the next 10 years of gaming, even upgrading to a 4090 won’t bottleneck it.

A 13900k OC to 6.2 GHz with E cores disabled will probably be needed for a top line 50xx series if you wanted one. But at that point there is really no reason to start gaming at 8k, 4k is plenty tbh.

Now if you compare only stock speeds and never OC then sure, upgrade. But maybe stop wasting your money on the “k” if you never plan to put it to use.

0

[deleted] t1_jaeu3w9 wrote

[deleted]

0

[deleted] t1_jaewa51 wrote

I’m not insulting you, I’m just correcting your inconsistencies and incorrect information. Your arrogance is astounding.

You aren’t gaming at 4k then if you have star citizen at your claimed fps. And yes 45-75 fps is good for 4k on a 3090. Even with a 13900k cpu, you will still see that same drop, It’s the gpu that’s the bottleneck at that point. Sounds more like you are gaming at most at 2k. Which will yield a higher fps on your gpu. Did you even setup the nVidia power settings or go into the game graphics settings to turn the graphics up? Do you even own a 4k monitor?

The “my rig is top notch” statement is mute when you never went into your bios and manually setup your hardware in the first place.

Open task manager, if you have a 13900k CPU, and I’ll bet your running your DDR5 ram at 2100 mhz. If you spent the money on a i9-13900k you better have DDR5-6000 ram, with it properly setup in bios. And if you bought the “k” variant of the CPU, then you better have at minimum a 360mm AIO or custom loop with the clock manually set to 6.0GHz, otherwise you wasted your money for hardware you won’t push to its max potential.

Again, your also comparing stock clocks. A 9900k OC to a minimum of 5.0GHz with DDR4-4400 won’t bottleneck a 4090 running 4k, only if your running it at 8k.

A 13900k stock clock of 5.6 GHz w/ E cores disabled is not much more than the OC’ed 9900k and won’t make a difference to it unless you OC that 13900k to 6.0-6.2 GHz (For 8k gaming).

0

suntehnik t1_jadum85 wrote

Or: customers will be forced to rebuy remastered games for their next gen console, even generations has the same cpu architecture, thus maximizing console makers profits.

4