Now if anybody wants to bash feel free, but I have a feeling that's actually a sensible comment. Not that marketing BS that we see from Sweeney or Gabe...

Well why wouldn't they be? Modern CPU, current unreleased GPU tech and also additional RAM (More of it and faster.) plus a SSD at that (PS5 getting some extra speed if that makes any major difference at all in the end, maybe for exclusives and first parties.) and hardware wise in addition to the overhead advantages and single system optimization it thus should be able to match a lot of the current PC titles maybe outside of some of the more extreme "Ultra" presets at 1920 and upscale or downsample into 2560 and even 3840 though I will expect "4k" to still focus a lot on 30 FPS and higher visual fidelity and not a shift to 60 FPS although fighting and racing games might use this for responsiveness and additional advantages. I don't see a problem with the statement, system might be geared towards power efficiency perhaps but it's still a powerhouse as is the XBox X Series or what it's actual name will be and cost wise I don't see PC's matching a 500$ console with those specs although I suppose the price isn't quite finalized yet either. It sounds reasonable going by what is known from the hardware, low-level API and less overhead to deal with and that as a developer only having to optimize against a single target system (Well within the PS5 or XBox development, there's cross platform too of course.) and I would imagine additional advancements on the SDK and toolset side of things too plus maturing game engines and early support from licensed ones like Unreal Engine and what not. First year or two these are going to be powerful console systems and even after that it's going to be a solid contender compared to the lowest common denominator and your usual or average PC build whether custom, OEM or laptop. EDIT: Last bit sounds a bit odd I suppose but on Windows or PC overall that's what will be the common target and reference hardware, not everyone will have the newest OS or 8+ core new CPU let alone the upcoming GPU models although if NVIDIA and AMD can get stuff out across low, mid and high-end segments that should help. 🙂 EDIT: What's the current PC target hardware anyway these days, 4 core CPU, 8 GB of RAM, HDD and a 4 GB GPU roughly. Advantages on single core efficiency on the CPU speed wise although multi core is doing better scaling into hexa and octa territory. RAM is still a bit of a thing as games are sparse with allocating above 3 - 4 GB and have limited cache or reserve small amounts but it's also seeing some change, VRAM is about the same. (But scaling up to around 6 - 8 GB although still often hitting cache limits and swapping a lot.) Storage wise yeah that's HDD and SSD's are improving but speed gains are varied although some titles show a noticeable improvement in start up and loading times so that's good. GPU well that's the one dragging behind even more I suppose, 11_x or 12_x support mixed into hardware from four or six years old (Or more.) although you can't just set 12_2 as the target and omit everything until more systems have that sort of hardware. Plus differences between AMD and NVIDIA and the focus on D3D11 and coding practices although adaption of Vulkan and D3D12 is growing but slowly. That's one area I expect we'll see some changes on with this switch in console hardware in particular but not immediately. Can't be done.

Michal Turlik 21:

To which pc? A mid entry? Sure I agree.

I'd say mid to high level PC. Enthusiast level i would say not though.

Lol, even PS4/X1 are identical because of console parity..Remember what Ubisoft said about The Division downgrade.. https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50229/division-pc-held-back-unfair-consoles/index.html High-end PCs just brute-force console ports in order to get 4K/60 instead of 4K/30(Xbox One X).

That´s normal, after all the PS and the Xbox are nothing more than PCs right now...

Well duh, it should be. You're purpose building for specific (and new) hardware and you don't have to go through generic api's. There will be better PC hardware by the time they launch the consoles however, as is always the case.

No-matter the comment, game or theme, Square Enix always gather attention. There is always room in the games industry for someone like Square Enix, just as there is room for the EA stable of 'sports game 20xx'

Fox2232:

You are right about HW on instruction level. CPU in consoles can perform same arithmetic operations as in PC. GPU can do same mathematical transformation as in PC. But HW quantitative target you wrote down is mean. Many games scale beyond 4C CPU and in some 4C CPU does not provide good user experience. 8GB ram, while being close to what mean is, does not result in games targeting it. RAM usage is consequence of project's data size that gets processed from one moment to another. Same as VRAM use is consequence of design used by engine. And that applies even to caching. Specs you wrote end up being minimum specs for some games even today. COD:MW remake had minimum 4C CPU, 8GB of RAM and GTX 670/HD7950/... GPUs. Recommended is not what enables you to max out game on 1080p, but what delivers reasonable experience (usually) on med/high settings and 1080p. So, from visual point of view, technology enables consoles to deliver same images as PC. Question is: "At what rate?" And that remains to be seen.

Yeah it's a bit conservative especially these last two years we've seen a steady shift over from quad core into hexa and almost a complete transition over 4 GB for VRAM. Still not quite there yet though, AMD and NVIDIA GPU's has popular models from the 300 series (AMD) and 900 series (NVIDIA) from 2014 - 2015 and many systems looking at OEM and laptops skimp on RAM speed and RAM amount to where 16 GB is actually a bit uncommon but at least more available than it used to be. 🙂 OS wise Windows 7 while EOL is not out yet and that's holding back Windows 8 / 8.1 advancements and then Windows 10 particularly the current 2004 build which far as I know is still rolling out incrementally. Game wise a lot of games that I've been looking at seem to prefer at or under 4 GB RAM and VRAM usage although a few also precache 75 - 80% of the total available and use it as needed or there's a cache or pool size and that's what the program tries to utilize and scale to. Interestingly even with increases in texture resolution and other assets the dedicated cache can be as little as 512 MB to 1 GB even if the total used amount can go up to 4 GB or at times higher although as a more recent development we are starting to see 6 - 8 GB as a target sometimes even above that plus usage of Vulkan and D3D12 allows for more fine grained control and better utilization assuming the developers make use of it. Lowest common denominator, way I see it that's the target and baseline and from there it gets scaled up though I suppose it's not too long now when this will definitively be a hexa core CPU, 16 GB RAM and a more recent GPU with 8 GB VRAM. More modern models of said hardware too much as there's a vocal pushback whenever lack of SSE4.1 or lower happens or requirements for D3D12 or Vulkan 1.1.x soon 1.2.x I'd imagine but it'll happen regardless. SSE instruction set on it's own isn't a huge thing but the really old CPU models you now get could be problematic, 4.2 as the baseline and eventually AVX1 should be a bit of a shift as a result into requiring a much newer range of hardware here. (AVX2 I don't think will happen soon though it might see some usage here and there if it's not already part of some game engines when supported and well AVX512 is something Intel seem to have as their thing ha ha.) Oh and despite the common hardware and stuff like the Steam survey and OEM and laptop system and prevalence we are still seeing a push gradually into newer and newer hardware even as the PS4 and XBox One remained static and fixed though the upcoming console generation might kick it into gear a bit more than this slower progression to requirement of newer hardware. 🙂 EDIT: Anything I missed, CPU wise I guess we have Ryzen now from AMD and improvements from Zen to Zen+ and Zen2 for now and improvements to the OS hardware scheduler making better use of it's architecture as long as the user has Windows 10 1903 / 1909 or later and the newer chipset drivers and bios update for that. Intel also moved hexa core into a more mainstream segment instead of keeping that and above as more expensive high-end or enthusiast models which has shifted things around somewhat and also made it more viable to target scaling into 6 and 8 core processor systems as the new minimum. Multi threading both CPU and on the GPU as well will probably continue to be a complicated affair, improving though little by little along with the low-level API's and advancements into new practices for how to code in regards to multi threading. Doubt it's easy though, dual core systems probably complicated things already back in the early 2000's and then triple and quad core systems after that and balancing that effectively instead of relying on CPU0 and offloading here and there. Glad to see those quad cores put to use and above although now there's a little bit of a thing with a few engines not scaling down instead but it's a transitional stage as the new hardware moves to the hexa core systems and then from there to octa core. EDIT: That and just about anything could happen this first year after the new console hardware comes out, for all I know it could be a much faster transition into much more recent hardware on PC as developers get familiar with D3D12_2 and I expect Vulkan 1.3 when that's ready to also utilize the new hardware. Memory wise that's probably going to be one of the things we'll see increased use of early coupled with utilizing additional CPU cores. Disk throughput and bottlenecks surrounding storage that's just guesswork from what little I know on this, HDD's remain ever popular and will be a bottleneck I expect.

Console developers are fluent in lying about this stuff..

They will be superior... for just a month or two maybe. Until RTX 3000, "Big Navi" "6000", new Zen 3 CPUs launch. After that they will become inferior again, as usual.

the ps5 has 16 gb ram pretty much what most likely will be something like the rx 6700 and an 8 core zen2 cpu .... who would have thought ? next article : Square Enix: the sky is blue !

wavetrex:

They will be superior... for just a month or two maybe. Until RTX 3000, "Big Navi" "6000", new Zen 3 CPUs launch. After that they will become inferior again, as usual.

Assuming that people will buy them. Top 3 cards on steam still are 1060, 1050 ti and 1050. New consoles will still be faster than the average consumer pc for quite a time.

Focus in PC is more on Hz instead of resolution ATM , that is also part of how it looks right ? Though i wish we had much higher resolutions right now. AMD ? Nvidia ?

"The PS5 dramatically improves video technology, with the implementation of ray tracing technology that reflects light. Compared to what you see on the PC, it's almost identical, "said Matsuda.

Come on guys read the comment he made properly.

JonasBeckman:

Yeah it's a bit conservative especially these last two years we've seen a steady shift over from quad core into hexa and almost a complete transition over 4 GB for VRAM. Still not quite there yet though, AMD and NVIDIA GPU's has popular models from the 300 series (AMD) and 900 series (NVIDIA) from 2014 - 2015 and many systems looking at OEM and laptops skimp on RAM speed and RAM amount to where 16 GB is actually a bit uncommon but at least more available than it used to be. 🙂 Lowest common denominator, way I see it that's the target and baseline and from there it gets scaled up though I suppose it's not too long now when this will definitively be a hexa core CPU, 16 GB RAM and a more recent GPU with 8 GB VRAM. More modern models of said hardware too much as there's a vocal pushback whenever lack of SSE4.1 or lower happens or requirements for D3D12 or Vulkan 1.1.x soon 1.2.x I'd imagine but it'll happen regardless. SSE instruction set on it's own isn't a huge thing but the really old CPU models you now get could be problematic, 4.2 as the baseline and eventually AVX1 should be a bit of a shift as a result into requiring a much newer range of hardware here. (AVX2 I don't think will happen soon though it might see some usage here and there if it's not already part of some game engines when supported and well AVX512 is something Intel seem to have as their thing ha ha.) Oh and despite the common hardware and stuff like the Steam survey and OEM and laptop system and prevalence we are still seeing a push gradually into newer and newer hardware even as the PS4 and XBox One remained static and fixed though the upcoming console generation might kick it into gear a bit more than this slower progression to requirement of newer hardware. 🙂

I don't expect that much of a drastic change until games stop being released for the PS4 and Xbox One. That said, I wouldn't be surprised either if we see older GPUs being abandoned due to lower feature sets alone, just like how some games stopped supporting feature level 10_0 and required fl 11_0 even though they were released for the 360 as well. In practice, I don't think the instruction sets will be as frustrating as they are today. The 1.6 Ghz Jaguar cores were weak even at release, and a Phenom II X6 typically outperforms the console versions, so in these cases it's extremely frustrating to see them out of support in games like RDR2 just because they don't support the specific instruction set. But the Zen 2 cores are on the higher end of the ladder, so I think most games that end up saying "Instruction x not supported" would just run too poorly on the affected CPUs anyway. But the CPU is definitely where I think PC gamers will be brutally affected. Imagine if the next-gen only Assassins Creed game is targeting 30 FPS on these Zen 2 cores and PC gamers expect to just bruteforce them to 60+ FPS.

wavetrex:

They will be superior... for just a month or two maybe. Until RTX 3000, "Big Navi" "6000", new Zen 3 CPUs launch. After that they will become inferior again, as usual.

Probably. Maybe the loading times and streaming will be superior for a longer time, but I can see PC's catching up within the year. As people said, PC's will just brute force their way through eventually with sheer performance numbers. Then again it's logical, consoles don't evolve much during a generation, whereas PC are constantly evolving with each new GPU/CPU/Storage/... release.

same old story, game developers code game under the weakest link aka consoles and then just do lazy ports with some minor differences but always not too big so there be no outcry from the console owners, we have to remember consoles is tgheir main selling target not PC Square Enix is the brightest example of that shambolic practice

But isn't this bad news from Square Enix if their PS5 games will not look any better on PC? Are they saying they will not give PC gamers enchancements their more powerful PCs could run? Obviously this is a retarded commercial and nothing more.

I wouldn't call the PS5 a medium quality PC. Considering it has a higher pixel fillrate that the 2080ti. 142gpixels - PS5. 136gpixels -2080ti. Obviously that's just one part of a GPU, But RDNA2 is 40-50% faster then RDNA1 which the 5700xt is built on. It's going to have no problem pushing a tons of pixels, But it depends what devs choose fps wise. I think all games should have a 30/60fps mode at the very least. But PS5 is a massive upgrade of ps4/ps4pro in every aspect. But i think people are very interested in the new I/O layout with no bottlenecks so data can flow seamlessly from SSD to GPU at 5.5gb/s raw and 9-22gb/s compressed.