Rumor: Xbox 3 = 6-core CPU, 2GB of DDR3 Main RAM, 2 AMD GPUs w/ Unknown VRAM, At CES

Status
Not open for further replies.
specialguy said:
At least this debate is making me come around to the fact 4GB may be more likely than 8. Before I had personally figured next gen consoles would have 8GB. I still think/hope 2Gb is too low, though. When you consider these consoles may be asked to last as much as 7 years again.

It just passes the smell test, 4GB sounds "reasonable", 2GB sounds like "that's not very much". Not very much NOW. Imagine how bad it's going to seem as each year passes.

On the plus side, I'm not that techy but I'm pretty sure you can practically equate the RAM in a console to being all VRAM, as opposed to PC where the mass quantities of system RAM probably isn't that useful. A PC with 8GB RAM and a 1GB video card, might be outdone by an Xbox with 2GB of RAM, since it's essentially all VRAM.

You almost have to compare tit more to video cards in that way. a PC with 2GB RAM is paltry but a video card with 2GB RAM is pretty cutting edge right now. Too me a console isn't that much more than a glorified video card with a small CPU tacked on to run things.
Click to expand...

Let's put this into perspective: Battlefield 3 on the highest settings (which is a good standard of measuring what next-gen will be like) doesn't use more than 2 GB~ system RAM at max, thanks to streaming. The levels in BF3 are MASSIVE, the textures are extremely high res, etc etc. If the devs have 2 GB of RAM just for system usage with GPU VRAM being separate, they're going to go apeshit crazy with what they can accomplish.

Remember that they're used to working with 512 MB of RAM split between a GPU and system... on average they're going to have 8x~ more system RAM to play with. That's HUGE considering that the OS won't have a giant footprint like Windows does. That's at least 1.8-1.9 GB~ free after the OS and all its functions have loaded.

I think at the very least they'll give it 1 GB VRAM. Hell, it'd be far better if they gave it 2 GB of system RAM and 1.5-2 GB of VRAM.

Finally, GDDR5 is far more expensive than DDR3. That's going to factor into their decision as well.
 
Nirolak said:
Due to the switch to GPGPU I'm expecting them to spend less resources on the CPU than they normally would.

I mean even these days a lot of companies have poor utilization of the 360's CPU, so there's less to gain there in terms of the development community as a whole.

I also expect them to use the exact same controller to save cost there, and am not expecting Kinect in every unit at first.
Click to expand...

I think the poor utilization may be due to those in-order PPEs, but I'm not someone who had to program on them to form a firmer opinion. But if cost is being shifted to the GPU (which I agree with you), then that begs the questions of how much is being shifted and how much can that shift get you?

BoobPhysics101 said:
Not really. Packing, manufacturing + labor costs, etc cut into what they can stuff into it.

4 GB isn't happening. 2 GB DDR3 with a 1GB GDDR5 GPU is what the Xbox 3 will most likely have. If not that, it'll have 3 GB of split, freely allocate-able shared RAM like the Xbox 360. But Microsoft most likely won't use GDDR5 for that.
Click to expand...

Those were the points I was essentially making, though the $354 would not go towards those things (well manufacturing would eat into that) to discuss it from Nirolak's viewpoint of hardware only.

BoobPhysics101 said:
If AMD is indeed in, and if they are using a 4-6 core CPU (which I am 100% sure they will) and depending on how it easy it is to keep the CPU compatible with 360 titles, I'd say it's very likely, almost guaranteed, that backwards compatibility will be in. 80-90% probability.
Click to expand...

That HardOCP article associated Sony as the only one pursuing an AMD CPU, so I'm sticking with PS4 as the only one having an AMD CPU till we hear otherwise.
 
bgassassin said:
I think the poor utilization may be due to those in-order PPEs, but I'm not someone who had to program on them to form a firmer opinion. But if cost is being shifted to the GPU (which I agree with you), then that begs the questions of how much is being shifted and how much can that shift get you?



Those were the points I was essentially making. I'm the one saying 4GB isn't feasible.



That HardOCP article associated Sony as the only one pursuing an AMD CPU, so I'm sticking with PS4 as the only one having an AMD CPU till we hear otherwise.
Click to expand...

Guess you (and others apparently) missed this: AMD makes GPU's. ATI (which is now AMD) made the Xbox 360 GPU. I am not talking about CPU's at all.

If AMD is making a GPU for Xbox 3 (which I'm sure they are), it will have all the functionality of the hybrid Xenos GPU they made for the 360. I expect AMD to either use a 6xxx or 7xxx series design (7xxx more likely since it's 28nm, lower power usage, and yields will increase), possibly adding in future-proofed functionality like they did with Xenos.

The GPU alone in Xbox will be at least 10-20x more powerful in terms of processing power than Xenos. When you look at Gears 3 and Forza 4 and realize they were made with a GPU that's weaker than low-end laptop Radeon GPU's, you can see what a huge leap next-gen is going to be. Sucks about the skyrocketing development costs. Oh well.
 
bgassassin said:
You beat my edit, but anyway you said 4-6 core CPU.
Click to expand...

Read again.

If AMD is indeed in, and if they are using a 4-6 core CPU (which I am 100% sure they will) and depending on how it easy it is to keep the CPU compatible with 360 titles, I'd say it's very likely, almost guaranteed, that backwards compatibility will be in. 80-90% probability.
Click to expand...

If AMD is indeed in (I never specified that AMD = CPU aspect, perhaps I should've been clearer) on the GPU side, AND if they are using a 4-6 core CPU (again, I never specifically mentioned PowerPC), then... etc.

I should've been clearer, but what I meant by this is that if AMD is providing the GPU (which means it'll be compatible with 360 games) and they are using a 4-6 core CPU (so it can be used in a 3-core configuration), then backwards compatibility is almost guaranteed.

Gotta love how people automatically associate AMD with CPU's.
 
bgassassin said:
I think the poor utilization may be due to those in-order PPEs, but I'm not someone who had to program on them to form a firmer opinion. But if cost is being shifted to the GPU (which I agree with you), then that begs the questions of how much is being shifted and how much can that shift get you?
Click to expand...

It seemed to mostly be code structure.

Bungie said:
What for you have been the challenges on the graphics side, going multiplatform?

HC: We re-architected our graphics engine, and the primary reason is the need to go multiplatform and get ready for the next gen. The first challenge to abstract out the platform differences and still be efficient for each platform.

The other challenge is to have a good architecture for multi-threaded, multi-core designs that allow us to distribute work across different hardware threads, and have as many things execute in parallel as possible. We found out that even for Xbox 360, we were grossly under-utilizing the CPU, mostly due to our multi-threading design that doesn't allow us to spread the work and execute them in parallel. So we redid the whole architecture in the new engine.

An even bigger challenge is to future proof the engine so when the next generation of consoles is here, we are already pretty good at squeezing the performance out of it. For example, we want the ability to have a particle system to run on the GPU for the 360, SPU on the PS3, and compute shaders on the future hardware, and this requires good design up front.
Click to expand...
Source: www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6579/all_that_glitters_an_interview_.php?page=3

Epic said:
What's the biggest challenge you foresee in shifting from the current engine to Unreal Engine 4?

The big challenge that's going to be coming up in the next decade is scaling up to tons of CPU cores. The way we write software today in Unreal Engine 3 is to have one processor handle all the graphics and it's only a single CPU core with another processor that's dedicated to all gameplay that's running on another CPU core. The next challenge is going to be scaling up to tons of CPU cores. But once you have 20 cores, you can't easily say this one is going to be for animation and this one is going to be for details on the face of the character, because all these parameters change dynamically as different things come on screen and load as you shift from scene to scene. So the big challenge will be redesigning our engine and our workload so that we scale more of these different computer tasks between CPU cores seamlessly in real-time and dynamically so that you're always getting the maximum computing power out with the engine, regardless of what sort of work you're doing.
Click to expand...
Source: http://games.ign.com/articles/119/1196638p1.html

I have to head out for a bit though, but this is an interesting discussion, so I'll try and make sure to come back.
 
there's more headway to CPUs this gen thanks to multi-cores, but if we go to multi-core GPUs that will pose a bigger potential
 
BoobPhysics101 said:
Read again.



If AMD is indeed in (I never specified that AMD = CPU aspect, perhaps I should've been clearer) on the GPU side, AND if they are using a 4-6 core CPU (again, I never specifically mentioned PowerPC), then... etc.

I should've been clearer, but what I meant by this is that if AMD is providing the GPU (which means it'll be compatible with 360 games) and they are using a 4-6 core CPU (so it can be used in a 3-core configuration), then backwards compatibility is almost guaranteed.

Gotta love how people automatically associate AMD with CPU's.
Click to expand...

Well the last sentence we could have done without since you admitted you could have been clearer. I'm also working off the assumed premise that it's guaranteed to be an AMD GPU so that's why I didn't read what you said properly.

Nirolak said:
It seemed to mostly be code structure.
Click to expand...

I still stand by my "lack of direct info" opinion then.
 
Many of you gotta have more fun playing with high specs than actual games.

This makes me remember the old PS2-Xbox1 era, where everyone went for the most powerful console... oh wait...

Lol, happy new year gaffers =)
 
Cmd. Pishad'aç;34007568 said:
Many of you gotta have more fun playing with high specs than actual games.

This makes me remember the old PS2-Xbox1 era, where everyone went for the most powerful console... oh wait...

Lol, happy new year gaffers =)
Click to expand...

Remember when they announced the Dreamcast was 128-bit? That's all I needed back in the day :P
 
duk said:
there's more headway to CPUs this gen thanks to multi-cores, but if we go to multi-core GPUs that will pose a bigger potential
Click to expand...

GPU's are already multi-core in a sense, see: CUDA cores and SP's. Having two main GPU 'cores' on die is actually a hindrance, because then you have to synchronize rendering between GPU's and you need 2x as much VRAM.

Microsoft/Sony will go for one, powerful GPU over a dual-GPU or dual-GPU core set-up.
 
Just heard from someone who would know that a machine shop in Massachusetts is hiring and getting ramped up to start manufacturing a product for Microsoft. Didn't hear what the product is exactly but it's a component for an Xbox related project.

Didn't sound like it was for the next xbox(or any other unannounced project) but the people making components don't really need to know the truth on what the final project is so I guess you never know.

Going to try and see if I can get some more concrete info tomorrow.
 
BoobPhysics101 said:
GPU's are already multi-core in a sense, see: CUDA cores and SP's. Having two main GPU 'cores' on die is actually a hindrance, because then you have to synchronize rendering between GPU's and you need 2x as much VRAM.

Microsoft/Sony will go for one, powerful GPU over a dual-GPU or dual-GPU core set-up.
Click to expand...

ehhhh not in the console space they aren't, yet... that's what I meant
 
bigtroyjon said:
Just heard from someone who would know that a machine shop in Massachusetts is hiring and getting ramped up to start manufacturing a product for Microsoft. Didn't hear what the product is exactly but it's a component for an Xbox related project.

Didn't sound like it was for the next xbox(or any other unannounced project) but the people making components don't really need to know the truth on what the final project is so I guess you never know.

Going to try and see if I can get some more concrete info tomorrow.
Click to expand...

253391-32x_sys_super.jpg
 
BoobPhysics101 said:
GPU's are already multi-core in a sense, see: CUDA cores and SP's. Having two main GPU 'cores' on die is actually a hindrance, because then you have to synchronize rendering between GPU's and you need 2x as much VRAM.

Microsoft/Sony will go for one, powerful GPU over a dual-GPU or dual-GPU core set-up.
Click to expand...

I'm expecting them both to go with GCN and no more than 20 CUs.
 
Let's put this into perspective: Battlefield 3 on the highest settings (which is a good standard of measuring what next-gen will be like) doesn't use more than 2 GB~ system RAM at max, thanks to streaming. The levels in BF3 are MASSIVE, the textures are extremely high res, etc etc. If the devs have 2 GB of RAM just for system usage with GPU VRAM being separate, they're going to go apeshit crazy with what they can accomplish.
Click to expand...

Good point about the system RAM BF3 uses. However I will be INCREDIBLY disappointed if next gen consoles only look like BF3 at highest. I have that on my PC and it's not all that impressive. I think next gen games are going to look many times better than BF3 PC. Considering you got a facsmile of BF3 on the current gen consoles...

I dont expect a system/VRAM split in next consoles though. That layout has been incredibly rare throught console history, hell I wouldn't even say PS3 uses it. PS3 may have split pools but both are blazing fast (for the time) and can be textured from, making them both essentially usable as VRAM. More likely will the typical one pool of RAM plus+EDRAM setup imo.

It might be interesting to throw some DDR3 in as cache or something weird like that, since it's cheap as dirt. Then again perhaps the price will rise in the future when it's no longer the standard, the same as DDR2 is more expensive than DDR3 now.

Another thing that I suspect next gen consoles will do and I'm all for is throw in 8-16GB of flash as cache to reduce loading. It should be cheap enough.
 
duk said:
ehhhh not in the console space they aren't, yet... that's what I meant
Click to expand...

...Yes they are. What do you think the 48 Shader Processors in the Xenos GPU of the 360 are? They're parallel cores.


specialguy said:
Good point about the system RAM BF3 uses. However I will be INCREDIBLY disappointed if next gen consoles only look like BF3 at highest. I have that on my PC and it's not all that impressive. I think next gen games are going to look many times better than BF3 PC. Considering you got a facsmile of BF3 on the current gen consoles...

I dont expect a system/VRAM split in next consoles though. That layout has been incredibly rare throught console history, hell I wouldn't even say PS3 uses it. PS3 may have split pools but both are blazing fast (for the time) and can be textured from, making them both essentially usable as VRAM. More likely will the typical one pool of RAM plus+EDRAM setup imo.

It might be interesting to throw some DDR3 in as cache or something weird like that, since it's cheap as dirt. Then again perhaps the price will rise in the future when it's no longer the standard, the same as DDR2 is more expensive than DDR3 now.

Another thing that I suspect next gen consoles will do and I'm all for is throw in 8-16GB of flash as cache to reduce loading. It should be cheap enough.
Click to expand...

Next-gen games will look better than BF3. And calling BF3 unimpressive is ridiculous. It is the best looking, most advanced game out along with Crysis 2 and The Witcher.
 
BoobPhysics101 said:
...Yes they are. What do you think the 48 Shader Processors in the Xenos GPU of the 360 are? They're parallel cores.




Next-gen games will look better than BF3. And calling BF3 unimpressive is ridiculous. It is the best looking, most advanced game out along with Crysis 2 and The Witcher.
Click to expand...

got it 360 is a 48 core gpu!
 
duk said:
got it 360 is a 48 core gpu!
Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. Multi-core means processors in parallels. Modern GPU's are made up of thousands of processing cores for various tasks. Why do you think GPGPU is such a big thing? GPU's have far more processing power than CPU's, they're just specialized in the kind of numbers they crunch.
 
specialguy said:
Good point about the system RAM BF3 uses. However I will be INCREDIBLY disappointed if next gen consoles only look like BF3 at highest. I have that on my PC and it's not all that impressive. I think next gen games are going to look many times better than BF3 PC. Considering you got a facsmile of BF3 on the current gen consoles...
Click to expand...

Similar specs to BF3's recommended for highest quality doesn't mean you can't surpass what it is CURRENTLY capable of. Have you never seen a full console cycle?
 
Saying that Battlefield 3 on max will be what we can expect from next-gen is like declaring in 2004 that vanilla Half-Life 2 (you know... even pre-HDR patch) will be representative of this gen, except even more of an understatement.
 
If Microsoft does announce the next Xbox at CES, we're in for a hell of a E3 this year.

That and it would probably forces Sony's hand to announce their next console too.
 
I agree with the monkey.

BY2K said:
Didn't Sony only started making money on PS3s in like 2009? I think they would try to keep it THE Sony console for a little longer, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I think the are ready to move on and at the same time were probably already anticipating the others coming out around this time. Plus going on limited data from the top of my head, it seems the sales of PS3 aren't that of a "normal" console's cycle. I don't think they are willing to ride out something like that for a couple more years.
 
BurntPork said:
Ah. Right.

The eDRAM isn't really "RAM" in the conventional sense, though, is it?
Click to expand...
Nope, it's made of Hamsters.


Thunder Monkey said:
Actually Microsoft is seeing more success in America than they ever have. They out of all the manufacturers see more benefit in extending the generation out.
Click to expand...
Yeah I wonder if well start to see leap frogging gens. Not sure if it makes financial sense having a competitor that's more powerful (worked OK for Wii I guess) but with their Kinect success, if MS wait 2 years they will obviously have a technologically superior machine and set of services. Spend 2 years establishing Wndows Phone and Windows 8, promoting Kinect and getting their living room strategy ready.
 
TAJ said:
Saying that Battlefield 3 on max will be what we can expect from next-gen is like declaring in 2004 that vanilla Half-Life 2 (you know... even pre-HDR patch) will be representative of this gen, except even more of an understatement.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is saying that. Obviously in 2-3 years after release on a closed platform, developers will have the hang of everything and will be blowing Battlefield 3 out of the water.
 
specialguy said:
Good point about the system RAM BF3 uses. However I will be INCREDIBLY disappointed if next gen consoles only look like BF3 at highest. I have that on my PC and it's not all that impressive. I think next gen games are going to look many times better than BF3 PC. Considering you got a facsmile of BF3 on the current gen consoles...

I dont expect a system/VRAM split in next consoles though. That layout has been incredibly rare throught console history, hell I wouldn't even say PS3 uses it. PS3 may have split pools but both are blazing fast (for the time) and can be textured from, making them both essentially usable as VRAM. More likely will the typical one pool of RAM plus+EDRAM setup imo.

It might be interesting to throw some DDR3 in as cache or something weird like that, since it's cheap as dirt. Then again perhaps the price will rise in the future when it's no longer the standard, the same as DDR2 is more expensive than DDR3 now.

Another thing that I suspect next gen consoles will do and I'm all for is throw in 8-16GB of flash as cache to reduce loading. It should be cheap enough.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking they'll have better shaders and textures but worse IQ.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
And if need be they will drop the res down to under 720p levels if they think they'll get an ounce more power out of the system.
Click to expand...

It's fairly rare this gen. Next-gen, it'll be like someone going below 640X480 on 360.
 
Holy moly, this thread is still arguing about ram? Waaaah!?

This rumor seems less and less likely, I'm pretty sure this would all be majorly leaked and confirmed by now...
 
simple question :

if i have a 6 years old product that sells very well and will sell for the next 3 years , do i have to make another console to steal the attention from the old one given the fact that the new one doesn't have a core or mainstream gamers behind it while the old have a massive following and strong market presence ??



am i so smart that i will kill the old one so the new can live ?? or can i let them both live and wait for the old one to die slowly ??


( this question is for the guys who are wondering and hoping for 360 backward ...etc )
 
kx11 said:
simple question :

if i have a 6 years old product that sells very well and will sell for the next 3 years , do i have to make another console to steal the attention from the old one given the fact that the new one doesn't have a core or mainstream gamers behind it while the old have a massive following and strong market presence ??



am i so smart that i will kill the old one so the new can live ?? or can i let them both live and wait for the old one to die slowly ??


( this question is for the guys who are wondering and hoping for 360 backward ...etc )
Click to expand...
You should probably ask Sony. I seem to recall the PS3 had BC with the still ridiculously popular PS2 at launch. Ditto for the PSX-> PS2 transition.
 
saunderez said:
You should probably ask Sony. I seem to recall the PS3 had BC with the still ridiculously popular PS2 at launch. Ditto for the PSX-> PS2 transition.
Click to expand...

sony wanted to make up an excuse for the high price of PS3 at that time but then they removed it for good since they planned the remastered collections ...etc
 
saunderez said:
You should probably ask Sony. I seem to recall the PS3 had BC with the still ridiculously popular PS2 at launch. Ditto for the PSX-> PS2 transition.
Click to expand...

I doubt the next Xbox launches for over $399.

The PS2 to PS3 transition was a special case. High price stunted it's growth. PS2 practically flourished under that scenario. Not something the next Xbox likely has to deal with.
 
kx11 said:
sony wanted to make up an excuse for the high price of PS3 at that time but then they removed it for good since they planned the remastered collections ...etc
Click to expand...

I don't believe that at all. They provided it as a selling point in the PS3 just like PSX compatibility was a selling point of the PS2. And I'm sure it would still be around if it weren't the initial poor sales of the PS3 and the need to cut costs internally. Hell I'm sure if they could get it emulated in software for minimal cost it would still be there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Switch 2 Dummy Units Been Shown At CES 2025:
Rumor 
20
2K
Robb replied
Intel Nova Lake-S Desktop CPU SKUs Leak: Up To 52 Cores With 16 P-Cores, 32 E-Cores & 150W TDP, Entry-Level SKUs With 12 Cores
Rumor  2
65
557
Insane Metal replied
[VideoCardz] Inno3D teases “Neural Rendering” and “Advanced DLSS” for GeForce RTX 50 GPUs at CES 2025
Rumor Hardware 
37
3K
Agent_4Seven replied
Steam beta adds in-game overlay for CPU, GPU usage, RAM, temperature
46
275
yet_another_alt replied
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D CPU Review Thread
2
61
4K
winjer replied
Top Bottom