Shtof
Member
What do you mean you couldn't see a difference? Read up on some technical specifications or sales data.
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
What do you mean you couldn't see a difference? Read up on some technical specifications or sales data.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
He's talking about graphical capability, which he has a point about. The HD jump is the biggest change for the average consumer in years. Now that all 3 systems will be in HD the differences in graphics will be negligible to the discerning eyes of most consumers.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
So....
A) The new xbox will be a small jump in graphics over a 360
B) it must not consume lots of power
C) it must not be expensive
So if AB and C are all true, wtf do we even need a new xbox for,really?
If after SEVEN LONG YEARS the 720 turns out to be this turd...you would be better off buying a current 360, which runs cool,is cheap AND......supposedly will have similar looking games to boot!
I Hear what some of you are saying but MS knows damn well A new xbox will have all the attention and pent-up demand in the world...and I don't think they would throw away a decades worth of good will they earned from their legions of fans.....who by now are conditioned to associate anything xbox with power and cutting edge graphics.
I am not expecting them to go all out...ala PS3....but I am sure it'll be a monster machine that is plenty beefy.
If not I will just keep my 360 instead and I am sure I wouldn't be the only one.
A) The new xbox will be a small jump in graphics over a 360
B) it must not consume lots of power
C) it must not be expensive
So if AB and C are all true, wtf do we even need a new xbox for,really?
If after SEVEN LONG YEARS the 720 turns out to be this turd...you would be better off buying a current 360, which runs cool,is cheap AND......supposedly will have similar looking games to boot!
I Hear what some of you are saying but MS knows damn well A new xbox will have all the attention and pent-up demand in the world...and I don't think they would throw away a decades worth of good will they earned from their legions of fans.....who by now are conditioned to associate anything xbox with power and cutting edge graphics.
I am not expecting them to go all out...ala PS3....but I am sure it'll be a monster machine that is plenty beefy.
If not I will just keep my 360 instead and I am sure I wouldn't be the only one.
Seriously? Because it's tough to do. Duh. How is this a real question?
Apple makes great products, offers exceptional service, and has an incredible marketing department, but that doesn't mean they don't milk their fans for every cent, knowing full well they can get away with it. There's a big difference between pricing items at what the market will pay and intentionally excluding features from products in order to sell it to them again a year later.
bgassassin
Member
higherARC05
Banned
Exactly
Seems some people here like to think that the next gen will be nothing more then what we have now. Acting like a 100w limit for the system is in place. Im sure Microsoft will go ala 360 and do a 190w launch system and for slim model 2-3 years later make a 100w system.
And what kind of CPU/GPU do you get with 180w? Don't go busting out 22nm 2014 parts when you're considering it, btw. Not even GCN. What's out now?
Proelite
Member
The next xbox will not be using what's out there now.
bgassassin
Member
I'm expecting Xbox3 to use GCN.
There has to be a base to build from. Customization will be done to whatever part will be used, mind you... but if it's a console coming out in late 2012, I would highly doubt it will use a (what will be) limited-yield 2012 part as its base. Let alone something from beyond.
bgassassin
Member
I would assume a base to customize from would have already been established. However scalability sounds like one of GCNs strong-points so it may not necessarily have to have a base before. Now I will agree about the yields and it would depend on if they want to repeat what happened with the 360 in the regard.
EricDiesel
Member
True, but there's this little device called the "Kinect" (that happened in direct response to the Wii) that Microsoft seems to think is important, and is rumored to be getting an upgrade next gen. I'm just saying that if "Kinect 2" is integral to the next XBox (packed in, built in), that could change how powerful it is, pricing, and so on. I'm not saying it's a guarantee, but it is a path they could take, and a possibility to keep in mind.
I would love for the next XBox to just be a more powerful console for $399-$449, but it's not yet certain if that's what we'll get, in my opinion.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
The unified shaders found in Xenos supposedly were a better implementation of an earlier prototype, but still differed from what was eventually put into the first unified shader PC cards. If MS is repeating what they did last time (similar budget, custom design), we could see architecture and features similar to GCN.
- We know it's not going to be 22nm.
- We know it's not going to 300-watt.
The architecture and features could nothing more than a slightly customized upgrade of an existing card, or it could be something more along the lines of Xenos...we don't really know.
higherARC05
Banned
Ya dat kinect that sells games barely 10k per ip?
Or dat kinect recieving high praise and being shown at the VGAs?
Im sure Microsoft wants kinect to take over their plans for XBOX.
Going to be mad if Kinect 2 peripheral is built into the next Xbox as standard. I don't want it, and I don't want to have to pay for it. There is no way a device like this could be built into system. Will have to be an add on.
Sell it as an add on a couple years down the road. X360 with Kinect will be the casual system anyway until next xbox pricing can come down.
Sell it as an add on a couple years down the road. X360 with Kinect will be the casual system anyway until next xbox pricing can come down.
MadScientist
Banned
I really wonder what the next generation of consoles will be all about.
Usually a new generation of consoles must provide a significant visual improvement to be considered a worthy upgrade to the mass market. I do not think that games like Witcher 2, Metro or Battlefield 3 offer a boost big enough that will make the average gamer buy a new console. And these games need a modern 500W+ PC to run smooth at high settings.
Games that have the visual fidelity of movies like Avatar or the Samaritian Demo seem to costly to produce and the necessary hardware is not available.
The current generation of consoles had features beyond better graphics that made them a significant update: A robust online experience and the ability to display huge and detailed worlds (GTA IV, Assassin's Creed). I do not see such features for the next generation.
I think Microsoft and Sony feel more or less forced to put something out to defend their market share against the WiiU. At the same time they cannot provide a significant boost because of hardware and game development budget ceilings.
I fear they will bring out consoles meaningful ahead of the WiiU, that basically just offer current gen games at 1080p, 4xAA, sharper textures, maybe 60fps. Even this would require the power of a modern PC. In this scenario games for two generations could be developed equally. The adoption rate of such consoles would be minimal though. Many gamers would basically upgrade their old consoles if their old ones brake.
McHuj
Member
I think we will see something very similar to GCN. MS seems to really be getting on board with GPGPU type computing (even pushing they're own C++ AMP as a way to program GPU's). I really think they will try to provide a very flexible GPU in their next console that can run GPGPU code very well. That could open up a whole world of possibilities for creative devs to use that efficiently in physics, animation, or ai algorithms.
Also, I think people continually underestimate how old the current gen's capabilities. Even a bumb to only a 125-150W system with about 1-1.5 billion transistors between the CPU/GPU would be a massive upgrade. I think people will be really surprised at how good next gen looks.
I think many people are taking what's being suggested a bit too far in the other direction. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. Me an others are just trying to temper expectations. Throwing stuff like 7990 around (either in a literal sense, or in terms of raw power) is just silly.
bgassassin
Member
Yeah but it sounds like some are expecting CPU/GPU combo of about 3+ billion.
Proelite
Member
28nm means you can fit 10x as many transistors as 90nm, so (150+330) x 10 ~ 4.8 billion transistors in the next xbox.
bgassassin
Member
I wanted to say 4+ billion, but I was being modest.
Assuming that both the GPU and the CPU go down to 28nm, and if you've been keeping up with IBM's CPUs, you'd know that that's not a guarantee.
I'm a little confused when I see people citing stuff like 'I'm expecting a 5870', or 6870, 6950, 6970, 6990, 7990 ... whatever. What exactly is meant by that? Do you actually think they'll just take a PC part and throw it in a console? I just don't think it makes sense in the console space. The earlier cards are missing features, and the upcoming cards have too much performance. Consoles have different requirements than PC's, and I think people are picking the wrong priorities.
When designing a system, obviously Sony and MS want something that's going to last as long as possible. There are a lot of considerations and priorities battling against an arms race for raw power however. An efficient, balanced system that utilizes as much of its theoretical performance as possible (few bottlenecks), while leaning towards the things that will let it remain competitive graphically and feature-wise seems like the goal.
For older generation cards, sure you can die shrink them for improved efficiency, but then you're missing features. And in some cases, even these older cards can be seen as wasting your transistor budget if they are pushing things that don't need to be pushed in the console space. Similarly, you can't expect them to just grab a high-end part from the then current GPU lines. It's simply too much size, heat, draw, and cost. Some sort of custom design is what makes the most sense.
The way I see it, one of the most important things needed to stay competitive versus PC peers is feature-set. You want to be capable of the same graphics effects/features and compute features for as long as possible, even if the performance doesn't actually match. This of course is in opposition to what many are requesting which takes a current or high-powered last gen design, shooting for raw performance of current features. In my mind, even if such a design can keep up with something like polygons or texturing, things instantly look dated when you start see new features being regularly utilized on PCs ... like a new graphics effect or some more efficient rendering method (eg. tessellation) making your raw performance capabilities lose relevance.
With that in mind, I would imagine they'd be deriving their design from Southern Islands ... and including some features expected to be in the next shader model (obviously this depends on the status of DX at the time). Basically it will be as up to date as possible. What it won't have is the same raw performance as a higher-end PC card - because it isn't needed. A console is not a PC, and therefore has different requirements. It doesn't need as much fill-rate or RAM because it's limited to a single 1080p display for most titles. Like it or not, console users don't have the same expectations for IQ, so it doesn't need to do 16x AA/AF. You get the picture. What I think it does need is to take advantage of what raw power it has. That means things like memory speed and bandwidth are important. Less, faster VRAM or use of eDRAM - basically whatever gives the best bang-for-the-buck.
Basically it all comes down to making the most balanced design that targets 1080p and has the needed effects and features to not appear 'dated' for as long as possible - even if that means giving up raw performance. I feel such a design would be: a custom design derived from the next-gen GPU's , includes any features they can pack in from the next shader model, less VRAM but higher bandwidth, paired down shader units, ROP's, etc versus a high-end card.
When designing a system, obviously Sony and MS want something that's going to last as long as possible. There are a lot of considerations and priorities battling against an arms race for raw power however. An efficient, balanced system that utilizes as much of its theoretical performance as possible (few bottlenecks), while leaning towards the things that will let it remain competitive graphically and feature-wise seems like the goal.
For older generation cards, sure you can die shrink them for improved efficiency, but then you're missing features. And in some cases, even these older cards can be seen as wasting your transistor budget if they are pushing things that don't need to be pushed in the console space. Similarly, you can't expect them to just grab a high-end part from the then current GPU lines. It's simply too much size, heat, draw, and cost. Some sort of custom design is what makes the most sense.
The way I see it, one of the most important things needed to stay competitive versus PC peers is feature-set. You want to be capable of the same graphics effects/features and compute features for as long as possible, even if the performance doesn't actually match. This of course is in opposition to what many are requesting which takes a current or high-powered last gen design, shooting for raw performance of current features. In my mind, even if such a design can keep up with something like polygons or texturing, things instantly look dated when you start see new features being regularly utilized on PCs ... like a new graphics effect or some more efficient rendering method (eg. tessellation) making your raw performance capabilities lose relevance.
With that in mind, I would imagine they'd be deriving their design from Southern Islands ... and including some features expected to be in the next shader model (obviously this depends on the status of DX at the time). Basically it will be as up to date as possible. What it won't have is the same raw performance as a higher-end PC card - because it isn't needed. A console is not a PC, and therefore has different requirements. It doesn't need as much fill-rate or RAM because it's limited to a single 1080p display for most titles. Like it or not, console users don't have the same expectations for IQ, so it doesn't need to do 16x AA/AF. You get the picture. What I think it does need is to take advantage of what raw power it has. That means things like memory speed and bandwidth are important. Less, faster VRAM or use of eDRAM - basically whatever gives the best bang-for-the-buck.
Basically it all comes down to making the most balanced design that targets 1080p and has the needed effects and features to not appear 'dated' for as long as possible - even if that means giving up raw performance. I feel such a design would be: a custom design derived from the next-gen GPU's , includes any features they can pack in from the next shader model, less VRAM but higher bandwidth, paired down shader units, ROP's, etc versus a high-end card.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
I feel the Xbox3 will be a big leap over the 360.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
me too.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Yes it will.
Death Dealer
Member
It's a given unless you think they're definitely coming out in 2012, and with a cheap sold for profit day one system with an HD6000 class GPU.
bgassassin
Member
Just adding that a capable CPU will also be needed since the resolution isn't going past 1080p.
I think a 2012 launch with GCN can happen. But that's just me.
Don't quite understand the thought process of those that think that Microsoft will release a console with a minuscule hardware improvement than that of its predecessor, or the WiiU, unless of course one thinks that Microsoft has changed their target audience to that of casuals, who are not their main audience, my prediction is that if Microsoft releases its next console with minimum graphical edge over previous generation, there won't be any support from their main audience, or perhaps they are trying to target other types of audiences, and are willing to risk their current ones.
Microsoft's target with the xbox has been, and always will be, dominating the living room. Yes, this means appealing heavily to casuals. The internet is such a horrible echo chamber. It's easy to believe that neogaffers are the target audience, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.
The term casuals is also such a dumb, pejorative term. MS wants as broad of an audiences as possible. Of course they want hardcore gamers, but really, the overwhelming majority of people would be satisfied with less than cutting edge technology in the next generation of consoles. Most people do not think current console games look bad by any stretch of the imagination. Show a person off the street uncharted 3 and 9 times out of 10, they'd concur that it looks great. What MS and the rest of the console manufacturers are going to be interested in most next gen is going to be a solid hook that sets them apart, not eye melting graphics. The high end graphics war is slowly on its way out. It'll still be a big aspect of the next consoles, but no longer the stand-out feature. Expect connectivity between devices, expect better integration of Kinect, expect expanded app market places and content-streaming. Those things are what's going to sell to "casuals," and it's what MS is going to try to get down pitch perfect in order to dominate the living room. That's the real prize.
Death Dealer
Member
I agree. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't. It was an awkward statement on my part.
On that note, I really hope the next MS system comes out in 2012. I'm am burning to buy a next gen system. And if Wii-U has a killer "New Mario World 3D" game at launch, I would early adopt that too.
PS3 didn't really even go all out, despite the price. The GPU was pretty basic stuff.
I think people are just looking for a reference point to compare to. I hope most aren't literally expecting a PC GPU because - well what you said.
Dictator93
Member
To lend credibility to the rumor about dual GPU setup: I found this discussion on the guru3d forums when discussing the next AMD GPU using XDR2 and the differences between that and GDDR5 and what Nvidia and AMD have traditionally done.
"384bits memory controller is not really an improvement over 256bits.. in fact Nvidia use 2 memory controllers: a 256 + a second 128bits. and the 128bit one is only in charge of some operation who will be stock in the memory.. this is not a real 384bit controller.
AMD have allready try the 512bit memory controller, who was a perfectly well thinked system ( the famous 512bit ring memory controllers, the memory controllers is a ring around the SP and is accessed directly by the shaders ( each SMID or group of shaders have a cache who will access directly the memory controllers ) but the result, there was and there's still not any game who can take advantage of this configuration.
So AMD choose a different void now.... they create a virtual memory space environnement.. the gpu stock the data in his memory in x86 instructions, the cpu can stock the data and pass trough in x86 instructions, your 8-16gb memory system, become part of your 2-4gb gpu environnement, the data was treated by system then send back to the cpu and send by the PCI express link to the gpu, now the data will be stored in the memory and acceded by the gpu and taken directly by the gpu in this memory space..
This configuration, will permit too on crossfire system to get the full memory available, instead as today with SLI Crossfire, even if your 2 gpu have 1.5-2gb available to see the 2x2gb as a complete memory system, instead of have just 1 core who can use 1 set of GDDR space . ( even if you have 2 gpu with 2gb today, each gpu can use only the 2gb on each card, and so you don't have 4gb available )
This will not forcibily get an impact in all games ( thanks to the engine code ), but this will have a dramatically impact on computing.
Therefore, after AFDS show, Nvidia first, and then Intel have announce they will use the technic from AMD too . "
To make along story short, this means AMD will have the tech to use the graphics memory from both GPU's unlike the traditional cloning technique that has been done in the past. Perhaps this means that the nextbox may actually have 2 gpu's and not one. Thought I would throw some fuel on the fire.
"384bits memory controller is not really an improvement over 256bits.. in fact Nvidia use 2 memory controllers: a 256 + a second 128bits. and the 128bit one is only in charge of some operation who will be stock in the memory.. this is not a real 384bit controller.
AMD have allready try the 512bit memory controller, who was a perfectly well thinked system ( the famous 512bit ring memory controllers, the memory controllers is a ring around the SP and is accessed directly by the shaders ( each SMID or group of shaders have a cache who will access directly the memory controllers ) but the result, there was and there's still not any game who can take advantage of this configuration.
So AMD choose a different void now.... they create a virtual memory space environnement.. the gpu stock the data in his memory in x86 instructions, the cpu can stock the data and pass trough in x86 instructions, your 8-16gb memory system, become part of your 2-4gb gpu environnement, the data was treated by system then send back to the cpu and send by the PCI express link to the gpu, now the data will be stored in the memory and acceded by the gpu and taken directly by the gpu in this memory space..
This configuration, will permit too on crossfire system to get the full memory available, instead as today with SLI Crossfire, even if your 2 gpu have 1.5-2gb available to see the 2x2gb as a complete memory system, instead of have just 1 core who can use 1 set of GDDR space . ( even if you have 2 gpu with 2gb today, each gpu can use only the 2gb on each card, and so you don't have 4gb available )
This will not forcibily get an impact in all games ( thanks to the engine code ), but this will have a dramatically impact on computing.
Therefore, after AFDS show, Nvidia first, and then Intel have announce they will use the technic from AMD too . "
To make along story short, this means AMD will have the tech to use the graphics memory from both GPU's unlike the traditional cloning technique that has been done in the past. Perhaps this means that the nextbox may actually have 2 gpu's and not one. Thought I would throw some fuel on the fire.
So do I. This isn't Nintendo where a modest WiiU is still a massive jump over Wii. There's zero point for MS to release a lateral move.
I do expect there to be a 100 watt thermal limit though. But so what? It'll be using custom parts and they can do a hell of a bump over 360 and still limit it to 100 watts.
Stupid question: Why is everybody freaking over Watt consumption?
My launch PS3 is 300W.
brotkasten
Member
M°°nblade;32972124 said:
Power consumption can be important if you don't live with your parents anymore. Also, it usually means hot components, which means you'll need a strong cooling solution and that can get pretty loud.
M°°nblade;32972124 said:
No, it's not. Its power supply is, but it only uses up to ~220W.
And the reason for it is that it's one of the two biggest limiting factors on the power of the console, as well as the fact that your average consumer isn't going to want a console the size of a mid-tower.
It also means reliability. 360s and launch PS3s are an endangered species. Those spaces are too cramped and require too much in costly cooling solutions when you start getting 200+ watts. And even then, MS and Sony still failed and had massive failure rates (although obviously MS had the worse problem/publicity with it.)
Well, I'm sure a few hundred watts extra besides my 50"plasma and 60W megaspots and electrical heating system won't make that big a difference in my energy bill which is around 550/year.
I don't really care about the energy consumption or size of my consoles.
dgrdsv
Member
This is utter bullshit. 384-bit bus in GeForces is comprised of 6 64-bit memory controllers. And yes, they all do the same "operations" as needed by software. And yes, 384 bit bus is 50% better than 256 bit.
I agree that it's not going to happen however there are benefits with the most obvious one being that dual GPU on consoles would remove the biggest problem dual GPUs have atm and that is the compatibility issues.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
This is how I see things ATM.
I have been looking at high end test PC's on the Tech' sites from 2006 for power consumption and it show's that the PS360 were pretty poor when it comes to perf/watt.
Intel X6800 Extreme, 7950GT 512MB, 2GB ram, 250GB HD =203W under load.
Launch PS3 = ~200W playing a game.
Even if they reduce the power down to 125-150W, it should still be a very nice upgrade if they are smarter with the CPU/GPU customisations.
Looking at Vita, doesn't it bode well for the PS4? I think it does.
I very much agree that it won't happen because it has tons of drawbacks, but I think there is at least one benefit. By going dual-gpu you split the main source of heat (presumably) in two, which should make it easier to cool.
All compatibility issues you see are performance tweaks gone bad. It's straightforward to build a multi-GPU setup that has 100% compatibility, but its performance scaling beyond single GPU will be pretty awful.
I don't know what's worse, byzanthine 30MB driver binaries on PC that contain myriads of special workarounds and edge-case tricks for individual games, or forcing the development of such tweaks on closed-box programmers. The former is at least done in one place and lots of shit can be reused and recustomized to "fix" many titles with one minor set of changes. Not that you'd want all these big-boned software layers on a console, mind. The latter is a smaller headache, but a headache shared and replicated at every studio working on such hardware.
Nu-uh. No precedent for any of that in PC hardware. Dual-GPU coolers are just as huge and obnoxious as the ones used on equivalent single-GPU cards.
Forgive me bringing logic into this, but if you split a 300mm² 200W chip into two 150mm² 100W chips -- which you can't to begin with; certain things need to be replicated across both -- heat transfer per chip area obviously remains the same. You still need the same total contact patch area to get the heat off the chip, the same heatsink surface area to dissipate it into air, and the same airflow to get it out of the case. Even if they're far apart. Which is another thing you can't have. If you want the chips to exchange data swiftly, you need proximity.
- Status