I still believe. and with EA saying the consoles are 8-10x more powerful. the PS4 is 8 times.
Then you also believe the Xbox 720 isn't coming out this year if you want anything to change from the confirmed 2012 feb leak.
VGLeaks rumor: Durango CPU Overview
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
Then you also believe the Xbox 720 isn't coming out this year if you want anything to change from the confirmed 2012 feb leak.
MaulerX
Member
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
Kinect has 64MB RAM on the unit.
statham
Member
I took NeoGaf slogan to heart. "Believe"
Miles Quaritch
Member
Never forget thuway's comment. Fat juicy steak with all the trimmings at E3, tinned spam with generic ketchup at release.
th4tguy
Member
The thing about the tv tuner that is major is not the tuner itself. It's the fact that MS is probably going to partner with cable and satellite companies to give away the boxes in return for signing a contract for their service.
There isn't a single one of us that would turn down a free Durango if we were already signing up for a service. It would also be an easy way for them to get the device into casuals hands with little effort.
There isn't a single one of us that would turn down a free Durango if we were already signing up for a service. It would also be an easy way for them to get the device into casuals hands with little effort.
That argument holds water on both sides. Prior to Sony's announcement of the increase in RAM, many here were discussing how the PS4 may hold development of larger level design etc back.
Pertaining to visuals, I think there is nothing to fret about given that keeping parity is in the best interest of third parties and it will be the first parties who get to show off what the machine is really capable of (in terms of visuals and perhaps even Kinect).
Finally, you are right in stating that certain people hold leaks as gospel or classifying hearsay and even jokes as rumours. I think there is this large temptation to enter into a bickering contest because the official unveiling is still (rumoured to be) in late April.
HocusPocus
Member
I hope it's close enough to push Sony to lower the price. Those wanting a giant gap are crazy if you care about costs.
DataStream
Member
Sounds like pretty classic FUD to me.
I do not think Sony can compete (in NA at least) if MS goes the route of "subscription" alone.
travisbickle
Member
Someone's going to have to pay for those consoles though. Do you think MS is going to sink all the costs?
PS Plus subscription? They already mentioned they are looking into having more subscription options for their online services.
I think he's talking a subsidized contract subscription, like the $99 360 with a monthly $14.99 Live payment for two years.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Subscribers are going to pay, of course, through higher monthly subscription rates, but that would still make the pill a lot easier to swallow for many people.
Indeed this.
I still have very real doubt about them actually implementing it with XB3 (at launch) given it will be a completely new piece of hardware that will be in high demand. Plus, I think MS would not want people defaulting on their payment that will lead to a console ban because that still means a new generation console becoming a paperweight instead of providing sufficient return. Trial with 360 post XB3 launch is more likely.
So was I. With more subscription models for the online services, Sony can do the same thing as MS did with forced live subscription for a subsidised box.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Not sure how you gathered "Durango has bad graphics" from that. The current belief right now is "herp derp these specs are old, MS is going to blow us away with <insert some borderline insane shit> specs! MS won't release a console that's less powerful than PS4 it's just not possibulz!" If these specs are dead on then they'll change their tune to the usual "herp derp graphics don't even matter! all about teh gameplayz"
In their minds it's either MS console is more powerful or fuck it, graphics don't matter. There is no common sense area (that common sense area being PS4 might be more powerful but the visual differences won't be nearly as big as people want them to be).
You're a cool dude and one of my favorite posters, but when it comes to this entire Durango speculation, you jettisoned rationality ages ago.
statham
Member
exactly why psn+ exists., I read many peeps saying I already pay for PSN+ with the notion of the 3 levels of pay service for PSN/
statham
Member
6/10 j/k
Dude, you're reading too much into this. I can believe the Durango can have Dual APUs, 64MB of ESRAM, and double wizard jizz CPU power if I want to.
The only question is why does that bother you?
Unlike the PS4 threads there are no official specs. Nothing, Nadda, ZIP. The system hasn't even been announced yet. After the real specs are released we can go on to serious discussions, because right now we are talking about a console that's composed of thin air in Microsoft's eyes at the moment.
Relax dude, I'm still the same guy that you know in OT GAF. It does not have to get that serious. Everything is in good fun.
SlipperyMoose
Member
So are we to assume the whole IllumiRoom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1EatGRV0w) technology is going to be a part of the assumed new Kinect?
travisbickle
Member
But bought through a cable provider, the subscription would have to cover the cost of the 720, the cost of the cable subscription, and the cost of Live subscription. I perceive it would be difficult for the companies involved to agree to a happy medium.
statham
Member
no. its very cool tech, but you won't see it on the 720. having to buy/mount a projector kills it.
th4tguy
Member
The cost would be subsidized through whatever tv service you are paying for. Technically I shouldn't say free, but you get the point.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
I still believe. and with EA saying the consoles are 8-10x more powerful. the PS4 is 8 times.
Except PS4 specs are already 10x as powerful...and the rumored VGleajs specs put Durango at 8x...
Angelus Errare
Banned
I personally don't care if you believe any of that, the only issue I ever drew is when you tried to draw parallels to the 360 as some sort of validation that it could happen, when quite the opposite happened with 360. As I said earlier the 360 hardware as it exists now did not just happen in 2005 and in 2004 the specs were something else entirely. So I don't understand how you think it'd be different now. I mean you can read the 360 book by Dean Takehashi and it pretty much verifies what I'm saying, 360 hardware as we have now was something MS had all the way back to end of 2003 and had been tweaking it ever since. They didn't have one hardware in 2004, caught wind of rumors of Sony's hardware scraped everything they had done up to that point and in the beginning of 2005 went in a completely different direction with their hardware. Why people think it's magically going to be different this time? No clue, it's humorous though. As if 1 year is even enough time to completely change the hardware anyway.
Deuterium
Member
Is it possible that the "rumored" Xbox720 architecture being more "conventional" and PC-like, that Microsoft's ability/facility to make significant chages (prior to production) is much greater, than as compared to the 360 architecture? I don't know the answer to this...I am just asking the question.
Sure. Anything's possible. These reality downers are really getting to me. I've decided that MS really is using secret sauce to cool the super clocked cpu/gpu.
The time lies in the effort needed to redesign the motherboard, heat budgets, cooling, power supply, etc and everything to accommodate a new modified component.
It doesn't have much to do with using off the shelf components its more to do with the time required to facilitate everything mentioned above.
And the factories need time to tool up.
Not anymore, Santa and his elves got the contract.
We don't even know what the price is though... Given the hardware in each (if Kinect comes with every Xbox) then they should be about the same price.
Possible? Yes. It's also possible that earth will get hit by a massive asteroid in the next week. Aka possible but very unlikely.
It's only "PC-like" in terms of the components and how they communicate. It's NOT PC-like in how it's all put together, and that's very important to understand. On my PC I could switch to an i7 CPU from my current i5 if I really want to, because a PC is modular. I could switch to an Nvidia GPU in five minutes. A console uses heavily customized components where any small change generally means changing a lot of other things. And since it has to be for the next 6-7 years, they have to make sure they absolutely nail their vision in the first place. Do any of you actually think MS didn't know about what Sony was doing with PS4 (and vise versa)? Do you really think that with a 1.2 TF GPU, they were expecting to have the most powerful system of the big three? People seem to have this idea that Microsoft is/needs to base their design off of pure reaction to what their competitors are doing. Why would they suddenly change their goals this close to launch just because Sony has a different vision than they do?
Turn of phrase? :lol
Deuterium
Member
A few posts back it was remarked that the 360's specs were pretty much finalized by 2003, and it would have been exceedingly difficult to make significant changes prior to production/release in 2005. I am simply asking the question...have engineering/manufacturing/fabrication "economies of scale" changed favorably in the CPU/GPU/Gaming world in the ensuing 5-7 years, that would make the "window" of opportunity for design/spec changes to shrink...such that a Sony or Microsoft could make a "significant" change within a smaller time-frame, without jeaporadizing launch milestones?
I don't think this is an irrational question. It seems that in the high tech arena, time-frames from initial master specification / concept==>prototype==>final production have been getting shorter and shorter. I mean, look at how quickly the smart phone and tablet industry is continuously changing their models. It seems like they are on a yearly cycle, if not shorter.
All those models utilize preconfigured SoCs with features and physical components either enabled/disabled or bolted on. On very few occassions are the SoCs being modified significantly - only case i can think of is the 2.5D stacking used by the vita
travisbickle
Member
MS this generation provide a subscription service for online play, that has recently been used to subsidise the upfront costs of buying the console.
I honestly have never heard the rumour of a TV tuner in the Nextbox before this, but I don't see how MS who has been very profitable with their subscription service is going to partner with another subscription service unless it's some sort of meme bought to life " I heard you like subscriptions, so..."
That's certainly the position AMD would like to be in, selling a build-your-own SOC where you choose a base and add toppings. There's been some speculation that both consoles could be using the exact same package with different ingredients. I'm not really sure there's much of a market outside consoles for AMD though. I wonder if this can keep them alive long enough to make a break into low-power devices.
th4tguy
Member
The tv tuner aspect is new from what I know but subsidizing the cost of the system through tv service is not a new rumer. MS selling systems through their subscription service only appeals to people who are looking for a gaming/ multimedia device. MS giving the systems to people through cable/ sat subscription hits everyone who is interested in getting a tv service with the idea of digital sales being a side product of that. Its a much larger demographic. Tv company wins because they will see a bump in subscriptions and already pay for the hardware they rent out to the subscribers. MS wins because getting the system into people's houses is half the struggle.
There are looooots of benefits to MS making a deal like this.
What if they only usw a beamer to show it off but it really runs on Fortaleza glasses?
Not going to work in places like uk, you get your first box for free with sky and virigin in the uk. Ive never paid for a dvr in my life.
It's more interesting to compare an early 2004 360 devkit to the final console because that's what we are talking about in terms of specs compared to the supposed launch in late 2013. 360 got a much more capable graphics solution than the R350 that was in the devkit 18 months earlier.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Don't be so quick to dismiss the claims, he has dat insider info.
And why would cable companies give up offering shitty embedded systems boxes for $5-10 a month and instead offer an Xbox? The hardware is more expensive which either means higher rental costs for their customers or higher subsidies from the cable company. And cable companies won't want to hand over any of those subscription fees.
I just don't see a business model where this works - perhaps with the exciting of them doing a single deal with one company.
HDMI in with control of existing set top boxes is more likely IMO and less cost for MS
Ninja Moomin
Banned
TBH I don't think it matters... but it does become hard to understand the appeal of the next Xbox....
It won't be the most technically proficient. MS - at present - has relatively few of it's own franchises and a lot of the appeal of 360 (for me at least) was in easy online gaming, reliable coms and technically better third party games.
A lot of the early-doors reasons many gamers made a leap to Xbox early in the generation won;t exist this time around... well, assuming we're not in for another $599 moment.
It's going to be very interesting.
What I can't understand, at all, is why anyone would be trying to call an advantage in any direction at this point.... there's way too many variables unknown. One of them could have a manufacturing delay and by 6 months late yet. We don;t even know dates, territories and prices... and pre order volumes will be telling.
I have a (possibly not that surprising to some) theory regarding the rumoured RAM/OS reservation: if we take the rumoured Durango specs as evidence that total RAM was the over-riding strategic determinant in the Xbox3 design, which seems reasonable to me, we can form some conclusions from this. It seems unlikely to me that Microsoft would allow developer generosity to command their strategic goals in system design (by offering developers large amounts of RAM for game design). Feel free to disagree, but it seems to me Microsoft have bigger fish to fry.
From their statements and their actions in other areas, it seems to me they intend the Xbox 3 to function as a media server for the entire family, across multiple screens/devices within the home. That doesnt necessarily mean multiple games (although perhaps it could), but it would mean media streams, apps, music, gaming, all being run by one system. In order to do that you would I imagine need lots of RAM. We can argue if that might be 1.5, 2 or 3GB (Id guess 2+ personally), but it would surely (tech heads?) require significantly higher memory than a typical console OS. Bearing in mind their current consolidation of Windows OS across their devices, it seems likely that some form of Windows will also act as the system OS; however much RAM that actually takes its probably more than a leaner, Xbox3-specific OS might take.
Taking all that into consideration, I can well believe that a family media server of all kinds of content would be a strong strategic goal for Microsoft and would mitigate any concerns they had about being beaten technically by concentrating on RAM in their system design. What the actual RAM reservation is then is largely moot it would surely have to be significantly larger than a normal console OS in order to run multiple media streams (possibly including multiple games), not only those available now but what might be required in years to come.
Now that might be obvious (I havent seen anyone talking about this specifically anywhere, perhaps I missed it), or perhaps idiotic, but its where my thinking is going. Id also suggest it would be a strong selling point for Xbox 3, regardless of its game-playing capabilities.
Ok, you may now shoot large conceptual and technical holes in my theory.
From their statements and their actions in other areas, it seems to me they intend the Xbox 3 to function as a media server for the entire family, across multiple screens/devices within the home. That doesnt necessarily mean multiple games (although perhaps it could), but it would mean media streams, apps, music, gaming, all being run by one system. In order to do that you would I imagine need lots of RAM. We can argue if that might be 1.5, 2 or 3GB (Id guess 2+ personally), but it would surely (tech heads?) require significantly higher memory than a typical console OS. Bearing in mind their current consolidation of Windows OS across their devices, it seems likely that some form of Windows will also act as the system OS; however much RAM that actually takes its probably more than a leaner, Xbox3-specific OS might take.
Taking all that into consideration, I can well believe that a family media server of all kinds of content would be a strong strategic goal for Microsoft and would mitigate any concerns they had about being beaten technically by concentrating on RAM in their system design. What the actual RAM reservation is then is largely moot it would surely have to be significantly larger than a normal console OS in order to run multiple media streams (possibly including multiple games), not only those available now but what might be required in years to come.
Now that might be obvious (I havent seen anyone talking about this specifically anywhere, perhaps I missed it), or perhaps idiotic, but its where my thinking is going. Id also suggest it would be a strong selling point for Xbox 3, regardless of its game-playing capabilities.
Ok, you may now shoot large conceptual and technical holes in my theory.
I have a (possibly not that surprising to some) theory regarding the rumoured RAM/OS reservation: if we take the rumoured Durango specs as evidence that total RAM was the over-riding strategic determinant in the Xbox3 design, which seems reasonable to me, we can form some conclusions from this. It seems unlikely to me that Microsoft would allow developer generosity to command their strategic goals in system design (by offering developers large amounts of RAM for game design). Feel free to disagree, but it seems to me Microsoft have bigger fish to fry.
From their statements and their actions in other areas, it seems to me they intend the Xbox 3 to function as a media server for the entire family, across multiple screens/devices within the home. That doesnt necessarily mean multiple games (although perhaps it could), but it would mean media streams, apps, music, gaming, all being run by one system. In order to do that you would I imagine need lots of RAM. We can argue if that might be 1.5, 2 or 3GB (Id guess 2+ personally), but it would surely (tech heads?) require significantly higher memory than a typical console OS. Bearing in mind their current consolidation of Windows OS across their devices, it seems likely that some form of Windows will also act as the system OS; however much RAM that actually takes its probably more than a leaner, Xbox3-specific OS might take.
Taking all that into consideration, I can well believe that a family media server of all kinds of content would be a strong strategic goal for Microsoft and would mitigate any concerns they had about being beaten technically by concentrating on RAM in their system design. What the actual RAM reservation is then is largely moot it would surely have to be significantly larger than a normal console OS in order to run multiple media streams (possibly including multiple games), not only those available now but what might be required in years to come.
Now that might be obvious (I havent seen anyone talking about this specifically anywhere, perhaps I missed it), or perhaps idiotic, but its where my thinking is going. Id also suggest it would be a strong selling point for Xbox 3, regardless of its game-playing capabilities.
Ok, you may now shoot large conceptual and technical holes in my theory.
I agree with your basic initial comment that OS RAM is a strategic approach for MS.
If they were not needing 3GB ish of ram for the OS, I don't think that means devs would get 8GB - more likely MS would have just shipped with 4GB. Right now they may be of the opinion that by having 8GB total, devs get 5GB available for games which is more than enough
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
I also think that's going to be the case. Some Microsoft representatives have already hinted at it by saying that all the Xbox 360s you might already have won't suddenly become obsolete once you get the next Xbox. I imagine they will be used as clients, perhaps doing more than just receiving streams from the main box.
I don't know how much memory that would require, but even in that case, I still don't see Durango running anything resembling the full version of Windows. It still won't be a proper multipurpose machine that PCs are.
I say that all this OS RAM talk is legit but I also think that MS has a strategy lying beneath: The app-concept. I don't think that MS will reserve 3 GB RAM for OS-purposes but I think it will open the XBOX Os somehow to their windows store where users can download apps as they like. I don't know if Sony will do this also (but I doubt that because they don't have a proper equivalent) but if this was true MS would have to make promises on how much RAM apps + os can use. But this does not necessarily mean games will be affected by this. They could easily set the limit lower or move the RAM occupied by non-gaming-apps to external memory.