Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
The RAM is ridiculously low. I was expecting at least 4GB next gen or higher.
Rumor: Xbox 3 = 6-core CPU, 2GB of DDR3 Main RAM, 2 AMD GPUs w/ Unknown VRAM, At CES
- Thread starter subversus
- Start date
- Status
Nealand Liquor
Member
Shanadeus said:
Notsureifserious.gif
I say that because isn't the wiiu supposed to be a small step up from the current gen consoles?
bgassassin
Member
Shanadeus said:
One thing this rumor begs having asked is will this 6-core processor be in-order execution or out-of-order execution?
Zombie James
Banned
Shanadeus said:
Based on info from Wikipedia, The Wii's CPU got a 243MHz boost from the GC (729Mhz vs 486Mhz). Going from three cores to six is a much larger improvement.
bgassassin
Member
Lunchbox said:
If serious, then why?
AlanzTalon
Member
Lanbeast said:
it will. Kinect.
bloodyroarxx
Member
Honestly 2GB sounds like we will end up with another "Every game in 720p"
Disclaimer: UPSCALED to 720p means most games rendered at sub HD resolution and scaled to 720p
Disclaimer: UPSCALED to 720p means most games rendered at sub HD resolution and scaled to 720p
bgassassin
Member
Lunchbox said:
And that's supposed to mean ... ?
The amount of cores doesn't matter as much as the architecture of the CPU. My four core 2500k is better then new AMD 6 core CPU's.
Microsoft won't just be adding "more cores" to their existing piece of shit CPU in the 360. It will be brand new architecture from the ground up. Meaning the performance leap will be MASSIVE.
My 2500k is so much faster then the pile of crap in the 360 it's hard to express. By the time this thing is out, the 2500k/sandy bridge stuff will be almost two years old.
Basically expect a new, great, fast little CPU for the new console. Not two pieces of shit duct taped together.
Microsoft won't just be adding "more cores" to their existing piece of shit CPU in the 360. It will be brand new architecture from the ground up. Meaning the performance leap will be MASSIVE.
My 2500k is so much faster then the pile of crap in the 360 it's hard to express. By the time this thing is out, the 2500k/sandy bridge stuff will be almost two years old.
Basically expect a new, great, fast little CPU for the new console. Not two pieces of shit duct taped together.
TOAO_Cyrus
Member
EloquentM said:
How about one understands the difference and still correctly believes 2gb is not enough?
Zombie James
Banned
The POWER7 comes in a six-core configuration, but that thing is massive (567mm2 @ 45nm).
bloodyroarxx
Member
Lets put it this way I would want enough RAM for games to never have to be rendered at lower resolution then upscaled to fit some kind of requirement on Microsofts list.
And I would like it if we could have some decent AA and AF on games
And I would like it if we could have some decent AA and AF on games
Maybe it's just me, but I would much rather have next-gen systems taking advantage of amazing art direction in games (like when WoW first began), than going for hyperrealism. You can always have very realistic looking games, it just depends on the strengths of the developer. No matter what, it always comes down to just how creative and talented a developer is, and how much they can use a system to express what they're trying to convey. You don't need 8gigs or more of RAM to make a game look visually amazing.Clear said:
Nothing to do with it is the word I keep taking issue with. Its an unequivocally false statement in every sense of the word. Is it the be all end all? No, absolutely not. However noticeable graphical increases has been a strong pillar of a successful console in almost every generation and system with the exception of Wii.DeaconKnowledge said:
I certainly think that games are a factor. I mean of course they are. Nowhere did I state it wasnt. But I think it is unequivocally true that the biggest factor is early momentum and buzz and in the long term attractiveness to developers. Which can be achieved in a number of ways. Wii broke the mold and was successful(in the short term) entirely on the gimmick aspect of their system. However most successful systems have seen the best return when their systems push graphics, games and then features. The graphical power attracts the majority of developers who, whether you want to believe it or not, like being in the business of creating better and better looking games ant to use new technology to further the experience. And consumers have responded in kind and have made it known that graphics are at least one of the factors affecting their descisions in purchasing games/systems.
What wii gimmick is out their right now to repeat that outlier success? The WiiU tablet is underwhelming. Kinect blew its load, and move is a rehash of waggle controls.
Furthermore what is Xbox's pillars of success? Live, a system that is attractive to the cutting edge developers that make them their lead platform, and more recently a gimmick in kinect. Which while sucessful is not pushing out loads of software and atracting big time developers to develop their premiere games for it. So what in your mind makes you think that the road to sucess going forward for Microsoft is to abandon the formula they have used and go all out into the wii model that is quite possibly a fluke and has shown to alienante developers and hurt long term software sales?
Can someone plot the average gaming rig's total System and Video RAM by year, with the last couple of consoles' total RAM by release year?
It'd then be interesting to see how those ratios have changed (or not).
It'd then be interesting to see how those ratios have changed (or not).
I'd do the hunting myself, but I'm in the only signal deadspot in Chichester and my internet doesn't come until Monday... 
metareferential
Member
Mrbob said:
Current console are being held back mostly by the lack of memory dedicated to the GPU.
The rumour only takes into account system ram. If the architecture was similar to the 360 (unified memory), then having 2gb (total amount) would be underwhelming.
But it seems more a ps3-like approach. So, as I said, having 2+2gb at the end would be great.
That has nothing at all to do with the size of the main memory pool. If they go with eDRAM again then that would be a consideration.bloodyroarxx said:
Me too, but I'm starting to think that unless it's strictly enforced by the platform holder that will never happen on consoles. Look at Vita, AA is very cheap on that GPU and there are still some games without it.bloodyroarxx said:
Hmm.
Looking at Elpida's current RAM offerings, DDR3 is available in 4Gbit varieties, but GDDR5 is currently only available in a max module density of 2Gbit.
If MS has a maximum module budget of 8 (same as 360/PS3 initially, IIRC - probably the reasonable max), if they were to go with GDDR5, that would limit them with the above to a max of 2GB of memory. Assuming they're targeting 2012 and 4Gbit GDDR5 modules aren't on the cards in that timeframe.
But if they go with DDR3, they could use 4 modules off the CPU for 2GB and 4 off the GPU for another 2GB. Or 4 2Gbit GDDR5 chips off the GPU (for 1GB).
That could explain the choice of DDR3. Favour memory capacity over speed on the CPU side.
Plausible?
Looking at Elpida's current RAM offerings, DDR3 is available in 4Gbit varieties, but GDDR5 is currently only available in a max module density of 2Gbit.
If MS has a maximum module budget of 8 (same as 360/PS3 initially, IIRC - probably the reasonable max), if they were to go with GDDR5, that would limit them with the above to a max of 2GB of memory. Assuming they're targeting 2012 and 4Gbit GDDR5 modules aren't on the cards in that timeframe.
But if they go with DDR3, they could use 4 modules off the CPU for 2GB and 4 off the GPU for another 2GB. Or 4 2Gbit GDDR5 chips off the GPU (for 1GB).
That could explain the choice of DDR3. Favour memory capacity over speed on the CPU side.
Plausible?
AzureNightmare
Banned
fake.
brotkasten
Member
GDDR5 is based on DDR3. Does that count?Proelite said:
bgassassin
Member
SYNTAX182 said:
LOL. I just want people expressing disappointment if it doesn't meet their standards to give a justifiable reason to back it up.
Blackface said:
That's a strong assumption to make. Especially with early rumors indicating something based either on Bulldozer or something from IBM. And by that I mean we don't know what type of architecture it may use.
Zombie James said:
That's only because they disable the cores. The 4-core and 6-core version are just the 8-core version with disabled cores.
As a comparison the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T is supposedly 346mm2 @ 45nm.
gofreak said:
More plausible than the 4GB of GDDR5 some have posed in the past.
The RAM module predicament could also explain why they'd go with a non-unified approach this time.
You don't want your GPU feeding off DDR3. But if you want more than 2GB you might be forced to use it in 2012. So let the CPU use DDR3, and give the GPU a smaller GDDR5 pool. That might make more sense than either 2GB of GDDR5 total or 4GB of DDR3.
You don't want your GPU feeding off DDR3. But if you want more than 2GB you might be forced to use it in 2012. So let the CPU use DDR3, and give the GPU a smaller GDDR5 pool. That might make more sense than either 2GB of GDDR5 total or 4GB of DDR3.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Zeal said:
I agree with you completely.
I don't think people's imaginations are limited anymore by what a console can display visually, its more a case of talent, timescale, and money.
New technology is always more work, because no matter how awesome the hardware you still need to apply that power towards the goal. The more stuff you pack in, the more closely you need to look to make sure its working correctly under all circumstances due to machines' annoying habit of interpreting your instructions literally!
Realistically we're approaching a plateau because although the machines are getting better, people aren't. And people are the crucial element in the equation.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
99 percent of folks in the real world think that tripple A games look great on their TV. It's only geeks like us that can spot the issues so I can't see MS or any other manufacturer going the whole 9 yards just to keep a small bunch of rabid tecnogeeks happy. And why should they.
2 gigs of fast DDR3 memory coupled to a hexcore CPU and a decent GPU will give us Forza 5 that looks real. That's good enough for anyone.
2 gigs of fast DDR3 memory coupled to a hexcore CPU and a decent GPU will give us Forza 5 that looks real. That's good enough for anyone.
Fixed.
Durante said:
Chip densities and solder points matter a lot more than cost.
Jonm said:
Every generation's "winning" system has been its weakest the past few times around.
And what's with all this graphics talk? If you people cared about graphics *this* much as to be complaining about a next gen console releasing with 2GB of RAM (which is fantastic, btw)... why aren't you all playing your multiplat games on PC?
Durante said:
Exactly. What is the 360's mobo supposed to mean?
Blackface said:
...what's your argument?
If you're going to post a picture of the mobo and not circle the RAM, I don't know where are you going with this.
Here:
The RAM also extends to the other side as well.
The reason why the RAM, GPU, and CPU chips are so close to each other is to save space for PCB circuit routes and cut costs.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I think they are more limited by their GPU speed than memory. You could have all the memory in the world for these consoles, and you'd still not have games that run at 60FPS or render at 1080p, or even at full 720p in many cases.Mrbob said:
- Status