Support NeoGAF

[Thunder Monkey]

That would only make any sense if Microsoft plans to use a next generation AMD GPU that's twice as powerful as the current top of the line GPU, and that GPU alone would still draw more power than all three current consoles in their initial version combined, even at 28nm. So no, that certainly won't happen.

Physics be damned!

Let them dream of a gaming industry in which only EA and Activision have the money to push hardware, a console slightly smaller than a PC tower, and of a console that can provide them warmth when their electric bill comes in.

 

[Raide]

Physics be damned!

Let them dream of a gaming industry in which only EA and Activision have the money to push hardware, a console slightly smaller than a PC tower, and of a console that can provide them warmth when their electric bill comes in.

Do we get a small "Master Race Inside" sticker to put on the case?

 

[Maximilian E.]

There is one thing also that is a bit broken with the video games biz..

Now we have 3 companies making hardware and before, some of these sold the machine at a loss, in order to have the "latest" specs on the machine. The problem was/is that the only ones that has to take the hit, are the HW manufacturer themselves, NIntendo, Sony and MS.

Like the whole 512Mb ram on Xbox 360 and the supposed extra cost of 1 billion. It is not Epic or others who has to take that hit, it is MS, in order to "please" the software makers.

Now, the whole landscape has change quite a bit in the last couple of years and there is no chance in hell that a machine will ever be sold at a loss (or at a big of a loss like the PS3 did).

So MS and also Sony, will design their machine with this in mind. However, MS will most likely continue to talk with developers, looking what they would like to have in a console etc and will try to find the best compromise for this. Because, once again, the bottom line is that, developers will anyways make games for the machines "no matter what specs" are on those babies, because of the possibility to sell millions and millions of copies. Devs will figure out how to work around the limitations of the hardware... they somehow always have.

Once again, if people think that Sony will cram latest tech in their PS4, is in for a punch in the face awakening. There is no Kutaragi in the company, who will design a crazy expensive machine and also more difficult to develop for, Sony will totally change philosophy with PS4, Stringer will make sure of that...

So, basically, whatever specs MS (and Sony) will put into their machines, it will be better than what we have now and devs will still make great games for them and people will still buy these machines..

 

[Last Hearth]

I think if Sony waits a year after Microsoft to come out with a PS4 they might as well not bother.

This isn't like 2005-2006, when Sony still had a lot of credibility off the PS2 and could point to a ton of exclusives and tell people to wait for the PS3.

The way this generation has played out, most of those exclusives didn't turn out exclusive, and even those that did weren't significantly better than the 3rd party multi-platform games, the PS3 and the 360 basically plays 95% of the same games, and the expectation from most consumers have been set to that, with very little exception, the two are interchangeable. Given that, there will be far less of the "wait for PS4" crowd that existed for the "wait for PS3" crowd.

Knowing this. Microsoft might very well push hard for a 2012 release that they know Sony can't match. If they grab the market share early the momentum might carry them to a bigger victory than the current gen.

 

[guek]

it's always been in microsoft's better interest to kill off sony, not nintendo.

due to my own personal biases, I hope they do it too.

 

[bill0527]

Another thing I'm curious about is whether or not Microsoft will spend so much energy and money trying to court the Japanese audience, or will they be content selling 40-50 million to the same audience.

I remember in 2005-2006 all the talk was about how they were going to try and compete in Japan. They hired decent Japanese talent, built Japanese-centric games, sold the console at a substantial discount with multiple pack-in games... and nobody in Japan cared.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Another thing I'm curious about is whether or not Microsoft will spend so much energy and money trying to court the Japanese audience, or will they be content selling 50-60 million to the same audience.

I remember in 2005-2006 all the talk was about how they were going to try and compete in Japan. They hired decent Japanese talent, built Japanese-centric games, sold the console at a substantial discount with multiple pack-in games... and nobody in Japan cared.

They increased their marketshare about 4x.

That's a huge improvement.

 

[Raide]

Another thing I'm curious about is whether or not Microsoft will spend so much energy and money trying to court the Japanese audience, or will they be content selling 40-50 million to the same audience.

I remember in 2005-2006 all the talk was about how they were going to try and compete in Japan. They hired decent Japanese talent, built Japanese-centric games, sold the console at a substantial discount with multiple pack-in games... and nobody in Japan cared.

I am interested to see if they go for Japan a 3rd time or not. It would be silly of them to utterly ignore it but what do they need to do?

I have posted a few times saying this but unless they get Monster Hunter, main FF game, DQ etc, people won't even look. Japan is so mobile/smartphone-centric now that another home console might not work at all. Unless they can nab a link between their home console and smartphones, they might have problems gaining traction.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

While MS did gain allot of market share they going to have to bring there A game next gen also.
Sony won't make half the mistake they did this gen should be fun to watch.

 

[dragonelite]

So how about we start talking again about pixel processing powers.
If im not mistaken for 1080p@60fps with like current level of techniques the gpu should be about 5 times more powerful then the current one.

i just looked up what bf3 uses on my rig and it hovers around 1356mb i think that VRAM will be more important next gen considering the models and textures will be loaded into it.
Not sure how they do it on current pc hardware with dual core gpu do they share one pool or each have their own pool. I think a shared pool of 2 gig should be nice or a split pool of 3 gig should give devs a lot of power to tinker with. But this rumor sounds better then the smaller then 360 box with a lof of specialized cores leak some weeks ago

 

[unomas]

Well, if they plan on this system lasting 7-8 years, it's probably their best best to put in at least 4gb of RAM in the system. It might seem excessive to some now, but we're talking about a console a year or two from release, that will have to last until 2019 or 2020. I'm sure they can keep the cost at the $399 pricepoint, $499 and I won't bite at launch.

 

[guek]

Well, if they plan on this system lasting 7-8 years, it's probably their best best to put in at least 4gb of RAM in the system. It might seem excessive to some now, but we're talking about a console a year or two from release, that will have to last until 2019 or 2020. I'm sure they can keep the cost at the $399 pricepoint, $499 and I won't bite at launch.

for the last time, it is impossible for this kind of tech to be "future proof."

They could put 8gb with 580 quad SLI in a big flaming box and I assure you, graphics cards 5 years down the line will have features it doesn't, the ram will be too slow to really make use of all that memory, and people will be complaining all over again about how a new console is overdue.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

One of the more thought provoking rumors was that it would be revealed at CES. Not E3.
Yes, I remember the MTV event, I was there watching it. But I mean, television isn't the place to do that anymore. To me, the rumor about CES which is a general electronic tradeshow rather than gaming specifics speaks volumes about the future of the Xbox. But its just a rumor. Either way I think that I am most excited for the interface and media capabilities of the next xbox rather than the tech inside.

 

[whitehawk]

for the last time, it is impossible for this kind of tech to be "future proof."

They could put 8gb with 580 quad SLI in a big flaming box and I assure you, graphics cards 5 years down the line will have features it doesn't, the ram will be too slow to really make use of all that memory, and people will be complaining all over again about how a new console is overdue.

What are you talking about? Sure, no matter what the specs are, they will be outdated eventually, but 4gb of ram will absolutely make development easier, and help consoles keep up with PCs a bit longer. I figure if Crytek said they want 8gb, they know more than me and you. More memory is always good.

Also, what about 3gb? Couldn't they do that?

 

[Raide]

What are you talking about? Sure, no matter what the specs are, they will be outdated eventually, but 4gb of ram will absolutely make development easier, and help consoles keep up with PCs a bit longer. I figure if Crytek said they want 8gb, they know more than me and you. More memory is always good.

Also, what about 3gb? Couldn't they do that?

2Gb would be ok but 4Gb would give them much more leeway a few years down the line. Not every developer will know how to use it but give that kind of space to Epic, Bungie, etc, I am sure they will make some sweet, sweet games.

 

[Durante]

for the last time, it is impossible for this kind of tech to be "future proof."

They could put 8gb with 580 quad SLI in a big flaming box and I assure you, graphics cards 5 years down the line will have features it doesn't, the ram will be too slow to really make use of all that memory, and people will be complaining all over again about how a new console is overdue.

If someone says "future proof" they don't mean "forever". They mean that it should still adequately allow developers to express their ideas halfway through the generation. Having an adequate amount of memory helps a lot with that.

What do you think most big releases would look like today if 360 had shipped with 256 MB, as originally planned?

 

[guek]

What are you talking about? Sure, no matter what the specs are, they will be outdated eventually, but 4gb of ram will absolutely make development easier, and help consoles keep up with PCs a bit longer. I figure if Crytek said they want 8gb, they know more than me and you. More memory is always good.

Also, what about 3gb? Couldn't they do that?

What I'm talking about is this 10 year console cycle nonsense.

Most people who are clamoring for a console capable of staying graphically competitive for 10 years don't seem to understand that that's pretty much impossible. They're the same ones who will be calling the ps4/720 outdated by 2017 no matter what it's packing because the fact is, it will be easily outclassed by that time.

And while more ram is definitely preferable, my limited knowledge of game development tells me that crytek is talking out of their ass. 8gb of high quality, high speed ram is not a reasonable request, and frankly, I have a hard time believing they'd be able to make adequate use of it when present day, PC exclusive games like witcher 2 (yeah I know it's being ported, but PC was still the lead platform) don't ask for more than 4gb total ram (system + vram) on a machine with considerable OS overhead.

I'll defer to anyone who has actual programming experience if they tell me I'm wrong here, but it just seems really far fetched.

I personally think anywhere between 3-4gb of total unified ram is the sweet spot that'll easily last 5 years. 4gb is the reasonable MAX in my opinion, not the bare minimum as some people have suggested. Even 2 would be adequate to last a good long while.

 

[guek]

What do you think most big releases would look like today if 360 had shipped with 256 MB, as originally planned?

I think MS made the right call. I'm not saying there isn't a sweet spot, I'm saying asking for more than 4gb is absolute overkill and that 2gb total wouldn't be as bad as people are making it out to be.

 

[gofreak]

That would only make any sense if Microsoft plans to use a next generation AMD GPU that's twice as powerful as the current top of the line GPU, and that GPU alone would still draw more power than all three current consoles in their initial version combined, even at 28nm. So no, that certainly won't happen.

They might be using them in dev kits to 'emulate' final performance on a certain feature that they individually are not very good at, but that the console's chip will be. That is, it's not representative of the final chip's power overall, but in one or two specific respects. With devs being told that the final chip won't be as good in the other respects, and told what performance constraints to work within in those other areas.

While MS did gain allot of market share they going to have to bring there A game next gen also.
Sony won't make half the mistake they did this gen should be fun to watch.

Yeah, pretty much. Anyone saying that a year's head start will be some critical blow to Sony ala PS3 - PS3 was hamstrung in a number of crucial ways, the year's headstart wasn't nearly the most critical of those even. As for hardware pecking order, there's just obviously way too many factors at play here that we don't yet know about to come to any conclusions. Obviously Sony isn't going to eat a 100% loss on PS4 as they reportedly, initially, did with PS3. But depending on other factors that doesn't mean they won't offer more (or less!) bang for buck in their box.

 

[Durante]

And while more ram is definitely preferable, my limited knowledge of game development tells me that crytek is talking out of their ass. 8gb of high quality, high speed ram is not a reasonable request, and frankly, I have a hard time believing they'd be able to make adequate use of it when present day, PC exclusive games like witcher 2 (yeah I know it's being ported, but PC was still the lead platform) don't ask for more than 4gb total ram (system + vram) on a machine with considerable OS overhead.

I'll defer to anyone who has actual programming experience if they tell me I'm wrong here, but it just seems really far fetched.

Well, I have actual programming experience, and I'll tell you that crytek could make good use of 8GB easily. Basically, next generation hardware will be capable, in terms of speed, to handle assets (meshes, textures, whatever) at almost 10 times the complexity of the current console generation. And for most games, those assets are already made at that resolution, so it's not like production costs would skyrocket. Given that, even if we don't expect more open-ended, complex and interactive worlds and gameplay from next gen (I do!), a 8x increase in RAM could well be used up by assets alone.

 

[TUROK]

I think MS made the right call. I'm not saying there isn't a sweet spot, I'm saying asking for more than 4gb is absolute overkill and that 2gb total wouldn't be as bad as people are making it out to be.

It would be if Sony puts more RAM in the PS4. The key here is parity. It's what allowed the 360 to stay in the game this long.

 

[whitehawk]

What I'm talking about is this 10 year console cycle nonsense.

Most people who are clamoring for a console capable of staying graphically competitive for 10 years don't seem to understand that that's pretty much impossible. They're the same ones who will be calling the ps4/720 outdated by 2017 no matter what it's packing because the fact is, it will be easily outclassed by that time.

And while more ram is definitely preferable, my limited knowledge of game development tells me that crytek is talking out of their ass. 8gb of high quality, high speed ram is not a reasonable request, and frankly, I have a hard time believing they'd be able to make adequate use of it when present day, PC exclusive games like witcher 2 (yeah I know it's being ported, but PC was still the lead platform) don't ask for more than 4gb total ram (system + vram) on a machine with considerable OS overhead.

I'll defer to anyone who has actual programming experience if they tell me I'm wrong here, but it just seems really far fetched.

I personally think anywhere between 3-4gb of total unified ram is the sweet spot that'll easily last 5 years. 4gb is the reasonable MAX in my opinion, not the bare minimum as some people have suggested. Even 2 would be adequate to last a good long while.

@bold

Yeah but I don't want the new consoles to match current PCs, I want them to surpass them! I think Windows 7 uses 1-1.5gb of ram without any programs running, so let's say it leaves Witcher 2 to run with 2-3gb. I'd rather the 720 not match that with 2gb of ram, but surpass it by having 4gb.

Spoiler

*Disclaimer: I probably don't know as much as I think I do about how computers run.

 

[Diablos]

Only 2GB of RAM? What the fuck? RAM is so cheap these days, you can get 12GB of DDR3 for $90 ffs.

4GB at a minimum should be in all next-gen machines. If this is true: Holy hell, Microsoft. Going from 2->4GB won't hurt your bottom line.

 

[Orayn]

@bold

Yeah but I don't want the new consoles to match current PCs, I want them to surpass them! I think Windows 7 uses 1-1.5gb of ram without any programs running, so let's say it leaves Witcher 2 to run with 2-3gb. I'd rather the 720 not match that with 2gb of ram, but surpass it by having 4gb.

Spoiler

*Disclaimer: I probably don't know as much as I think I do about how computers run.

The bolded hasn't happened that often, historically, and I sincerely doubt we'll see it happen in a big way this generation either.

Only 2GB of RAM? What the fuck?

It's an iffy detail on a hokey-sounding spec sheet.

 

[guek]

Well, I have actual programming experience, and I'll tell you that crytek could make good use of 8GB easily. Basically, next generation hardware will be capable, in terms of speed, to handle assets (meshes, textures, whatever) at almost 10 times the complexity of the current console generation. And for most games, those assets are already made at that resolution, so it's not like production costs would skyrocket. Given that, even if we don't expect more open-ended, complex and interactive worlds and gameplay from next gen (I do!), a 8x increase in RAM could well be used up by assets alone.

That is baffling. I'm still incredibly skeptical since no game currently exists that requires more than 5gb on a bloated PC to play at absolute max settings, but man if you say so. Also, why would textures need to be that much larger when your max resolution is 1080p?

I still think most devs wouldn't make full use of anything 4gb couldn't pull off though.

What kind of programming experience do you have anyway?

 

[Durante]

Oh, one more thing regarding the Witcher 2 example: Witcher 2 looks really good, but it still takes place in somewhat small areas separated by "loading tunnels". If you want the next Elder Scrolls game to have that quality in a completely open world setting then keep that in mind.

What kind of programming experience do you have anyway?

I've been working in high performance computing for 4 years, and I'm currently working on a compiler for highly parallel software. I've also developed some games and demos in my free time, starting from 12 years or so ago.

So admittedly I may be a bit biased since the systems I work with usually start at 32 GBs.

That is baffling. I'm still incredibly skeptical since no game currently exists that requires more than 5gb on a bloated PC to play at absolute max settings

They don't exist because the majority of the audience couldn't run them. It's like looking at a PS2 game and saying no one will ever need more than 256 MB.

 

[guek]

It would be if Sony puts more RAM in the PS4. The key here is parity. It's what allowed the 360 to stay in the game this long.

developers aren't going to suddenly all turn PS4 exclusive. Just aint happening.

 

[NBtoaster]

developers aren't going to suddenly all turn PS4 exclusive. Just aint happening.

With more significantly more available RAM I could see them going to PS4-led games, at least.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

developers aren't going to suddenly all turn PS4 exclusive. Just aint happening.

A console would have to be a PS2 style frontrunner to get that sort of exclusivity. I expect this time around the pubs won't discount any of the consoles from the get-go. Everything will be ported as widely as possible.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

With more significantly more available RAM I could see them going to PS4-led games, at least.

It's easier to scale up to use more ram than the other way around. Run min-spec for the base port, and then bloat up for the extra textures and model resolution.

 

[gofreak]

Only 2GB of RAM? What the fuck? RAM is so cheap these days, you can get 12GB of DDR3 for $90 ffs.

4GB at a minimum should be in all next-gen machines. If this is true: Holy hell, Microsoft. Going from 2->4GB won't hurt your bottom line.

It may not be possible for MS to go with 4GB of (good) RAM next year without actually significantly increasing cost/size.

360 and PS3 sized motherboards accommodated 8 ram modules. I don't know if we should expect anything more than 8 in the next systems. 8 next year might not allow MS 4GB (or 4GB of anything other than DDR3 at least).

Though it does beg the question why consoles spread memory modules across the MB rather than putting them on sticks to slot perpendicularly into the MB ala PCs? That would give more space flexibility, surely.

 

[guek]

They don't exist because the majority of the audience couldn't run them. It's like looking at a PS2 game and saying no one will ever need more than 256 MB.

While this is a valid point, I'd argue it's more an issue of development cost than anything else. Ultimately, I think that's what's going to hold back next gen devs more so than technical hardware limitations.

 

[Raide]

It may not be possible for MS to go with 4GB of (good) RAM next year without actually significantly increasing cost/size.

360 and PS3 sized motherboards accommodated 8 ram modules. I don't know if we should expect anything more than 8 in the next systems. 8 next year might not allow MS 4GB (or 4GB of anything other than DDR3 at least).

Though it does beg the question why consoles spread memory modules across the MB rather than putting them on sticks to slot perpendicularly into the MB ala PCs? That would give more space flexibility, surely.

Maybe something to do with the amount of times a console might get moved around, slot style RAM might work loose and cause issues. I think most PC users have had RAM problems due to them not being seated right. Just a guess though!

 

[Orayn]

Maybe something to do with the amount of times a console might get moved around, slot style RAM might work loose and cause issues. I think most PC users have had RAM problems due to them not being seated right. Just a guess though!

Plus the fact that installing DIMM slots and paying for the PCBs and contacts for the individual modules is more expensive than just soldering the modules onto your motherboard.

 

[TUROK]

developers aren't going to suddenly all turn PS4 exclusive. Just aint happening.

No, but I'd be willing to bet that some would.

Though it does beg the question why consoles spread memory modules across the MB rather than putting them on sticks to slot perpendicularly into the MB ala PCs? That would give more space flexibility, surely.

Because it's potentially more beneficial from an architectural perspective.

 

[wsippel]

Only 2GB of RAM? What the fuck? RAM is so cheap these days, you can get 12GB of DDR3 for $90 ffs.

4GB at a minimum should be in all next-gen machines. If this is true: Holy hell, Microsoft. Going from 2->4GB won't hurt your bottom line.

4GB are already at least eight individual chips. Not exactly easy. Go even higher and it becomes a nightmare. Going with 2GB/ four chips allows Microsoft to use a layout similar to the 360 mainboard layout (which used four 1Gbit chips).

 

[Maximilian E.]

Another question..

The issue about filling the RAM memory with data, from the dvd/bd or whatever it might be.
It is a question about RAM vs speed of storage device, what kind of speeds can be expect from a next gen disc-drive?

Just putting 4Gb and then not feeding the memory with data (or not feeding fast enough) is a bit of waste as well..

 

[Robot Pants]

All valid talking points.
But the big question is, will it blend?

 

[Raide]

All valid talking points.
But the big question is, will it blend?

That depends on MS spending the cash to get Blast Processing added.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Another thing I'm curious about is whether or not Microsoft will spend so much energy and money trying to court the Japanese audience, or will they be content selling 40-50 million to the same audience.

I remember in 2005-2006 all the talk was about how they were going to try and compete in Japan. They hired decent Japanese talent, built Japanese-centric games, sold the console at a substantial discount with multiple pack-in games... and nobody in Japan cared.

IMO, that money should have been put into continental Europe instead, a far more attainable prospect when it comes to expanding the userbase.

 

[sTeLioSco]

You know, it just dawned on me. If these specs are real, they may just represent innards of a early dev kit. The dual GPU part is probably just a reference of what MS shooting for.

that's what i believe.lets say the rumor is true then the source 99% must have seen an early dev kit
this explain ddr3 and dualgpu....
even if the next360 releases next year i don't think final hardware exists today................

so probably a 6 core capable of 12threads
2gb ram+unknown vram(probably 1gb)
unknown amg gpu .....
and an optical drive whatever bigger than dvd

 

[gofreak]

4GB are already at least eight individual chips. Not exactly easy. Go even higher and it becomes a nightmare. Going with 2GB/ four chips allows Microsoft to use a layout similar to the 360 mainboard layout (which used four 1Gbit chips).

The 360 originally used 8 512Mbit chips. Not sure what the later revisions used.

I think it's not unreasonable to expect 8 again in the next system - which is why I think 2GB total would be conservative/a bit cheap. 8 4Gbit DDR3 chips (for 4GB total) or 4 4Gbit DDR3 + 4 2Gbit GDDR5 (for 3GB total, 1GB of faster memory for GPU) would be possible with that same 8 module budget.

Another question..

The issue about filling the RAM memory with data, from the dvd/bd or whatever it might be.
It is a question about RAM vs speed of storage device, what kind of speeds can be expect from a next gen disc-drive?

Just putting 4Gb and then not feeding the memory with data (or not feeding fast enough) is a bit of waste as well..

I think if you went with 4GB or whatever, you'd be feeding it from a HDD too. RAM isn't just taken up by 'static' assets spooled off a HDD or disc, though, it's also filled dynamically by work the processors are doing (e.g. buffers, decompressed data etc. etc.). It's also not necessarily a case of needing to fill memory before being able to do anything - for example you might have one scene that doesn't need lots of data in memory, but be spooling in data in the background over time for a scene around the corner that needs lots of RAM.

So...disc or hdd read speed doesn't really place a limit on what's of practical use RAM wise.

 

[TTP]

Plus the fact that installing DIMM slots and paying for the PCBs and contacts for the individual modules is more expensive than just soldering the modules onto your motherboard.

and I guess that would also negatively affect their ability to streamline the MB design down the line.

 

[brain_stew]

How about quad GPUs in a console?

Seriously though, a Multi GPU setup in a closed box actually makes more sense than a multi GPU setup in an open box. On you're PC, the task load in a dual GPU setup is divided up in a generic, one size fits all manner. One GPU fills in half the screen and the other GPU fills in the other half. This way the algorithm will work with any pair of identical GPUs and will evenly distribute the load over both so one GPU doesn't hinder the other. In a closed box, the developers will know exactly how much power each GPU will have so instead of dividing the load by screen space, they can divide the load by task thus utilising both GPUs more efficiently.

The way PowerVR GPUs scale is completely different to how a high end GPU scales.

High end GPUs are already inherently parallel, they even have multiple geometry pipelines these days. All a dual GPU setup is going to do is duplicate the parts of the pipeline that simply don't need to be duplicated, it's just going to reduce efficiency. Nvidia have been tweaking and refining SLI on the PC for nigh on a.decade now and it's still a fundamentally broken solution.

This rumour is pathetic and isn't even worth proper discussion. These chumps need to actually start putting some effort into creating their rumours.

 

[nasos_333]

I think the clock speed and bus design for those 2GB ram, are more important than the size, especilly since streaming engines are used on consoles anyway

Also holiday 2013 is still far away, anything can happen until then

 

[gofreak]

Just to throw it out there, but what of DDR4?

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/387/444/html/kaigai-09.jpg.html

It's due to start mass production 2012, offers much lower power consumption than DDR3, will be commercialised in 4Gbit modules...

Maybe would be borderline whether it would be worth it in a 2012 machine, depending on clocks/bandwidth etc (?) Will be pricey in 2012, maybe the tech benefit wouldn't be deemed worth it.

Just wondering also about the cost-curve going forward on DDR3 modules. If they choose that, will they be able to decrease the number of modules over time? Are 8Gbit DDR3 modules planned? Or could they replace them in later revisions with DDR4 modules with the same performance characteristics, and benefit from higher density modules there?

 

[Mr. Pointy]

The biggest problem at the moment for RAM on a console is chip size and cost. If we just look at chip size, 2GB of DDR3 can be done with 4x 4Gb (512MB) chips, as previously mentioned. DDR3 is cheap but slow as dogshit for a console. You might have, for example, 8GB of RAM in your PC, but none of that is being used to crunch 3D graphics in your games because it's slow as dogshit.

The biggest GDDR5 chips at the moment are 2Gb (256MB) in size, meaning you will need 8 chips to have 2GB of VRAM. For reference, 2GB of VRAM will fit on a foot-long graphics card on one side, though a graphics card does not come with a CPU or anything extra. Also, shit is more expensive than DDR3.

The more RAM chips you have, the bigger the motherboard you'll need, the bigger the console, the higher the heat output, the more costly the console will be to produce, the higher the retail price at launch, etc.

 

[Nemesis121]

Do you think MS or Sony will ditch backwards compatibility next gen?

I think they should dump it and just focus on next gen only system...

 

[The Shift]

Do you think MS or Sony will ditch backwards compatibility next gen?

I think they should dump it and just focus on next gen only system...

No. The now established marketplaces/services and products such as xbla/GOD/PSN Store are far more important going forward than graphics upgrades or the latest tech doo-dad. Like Apple with the itunes marketplace I would expect the legacy content to be fully backward compatible for each new console/set top box from here on in.

 

[Averon]

Do you think MS or Sony will ditch backwards compatibility next gen?

I think they should dump it and just focus on next gen only system...

With the success of HD re-releases and the cost of having extra HW for reliable backwards compatibility (early gen PS3 phats), I think traditional backwards compatibility is unlikely. However, backwards compatibility for games bough on PSN or XBLA games is likely.