nvidias new flagship card.
Ahh. I was thinking about the Blizzard MMO.
nvidias new flagship card.
Nonsense. Power has always been a driver for new system adoption. But both Durango and Orbis will provide a significant technical leap.
Not as good as Orbis (on paper) but should be cheaper to produce.
Personally I want a good balance of performance and price.
The vast majority of consumers don't care about power. They care about games.
Probably about as much as both consoles combined. Still competitive in terms of Watt/FlopWith five times the amount of calories. What is the power consumption on that thing?
How do we get a wash in power with these specs?
Are we missing something? Durango looks seriously gimped compared to Orbis if true.
Surely ROPs in Orbis have cache as well. Otherwise the main memory wouldn't have enough bandwidth to satisfy their needs (178GBps vs 205GBps).Hmm, dunno if special or not.
How do we get a wash in power with these specs?
Are we missing something? Durango looks seriously gimped compared to Orbis if true.
The following table describes expected performance of the Durango GPU. Bear in mind that the table is based only on hardware specifications, not on actual hardware running actual code. For many reasons, theoretical peak performance can be difficult or impossible to achieve with real-world processing loads.
The Wii was an anomalous exception. Although even that doesn't really fit considering the Wii's success was not built on adoption by the traditional console consumer.Disagree. Wii was a prime example.
I agree with your last statement, though. I think both will be similar enough that people won't see that much of a difference.
The lack of analogies on this thread make me sad
With some devs saying Orbis is only "slightly more powerful", it makes me think there's something missing or we don't have the whole picture.How do we get a wash in power with these specs?
Are we missing something? Durango looks seriously gimped compared to Orbis if true.
Do we know:
A) how much Kinect costs
And
B) if it will be in every box?
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4210649/Kinect-s-BOM-roughly--56--teardown-finds-
A new report from UBM TechInsights reveals that the components that comprise the new Kinect motion sensing camera for Xbox 360 cost only about $56. The teardown of the device shows that the BOM (bill-of-materials) lists the PrimeSense reference system, including the cameras, microphones and processor, as just $17. That's pretty amazing considering that's the technology at the heart of Kinect.
"Basically, the strength of the design is the huge design win for the Israeli fabless company PrimeSense," said Allan Yogasingam, a technical marketing manager at UBM TechInsights. "Theyve provided the most innovative portion of the Kinect with their image processor, audio and video interface."
The BOM is obviously the price of the parts that go into Kinect and does not factor in the manufacturing costs, the years of R&D, the massive marketing for the camera, etc. Nevertheless, if Microsoft does end up selling many millions of the Kinect at an MSRP of $149, the company stands to make a pretty healthy profit on each unit sold.
So the 1.2 TFlop is only theoretical and could even be way lower in practise?
Exactly. And whose to say that Sony won't take a hit and match the $299 price if Durango is announced at $299? Go for the kill.
So the 1.2 TFlop is only theoretical and could even be way lower in practise?
In which departments are MS better than Sony and vice versa?
Gemüsepizza;47288360 said:The power will translate directly into games with very nice graphics. People prefered the Xbox 360 version of some games because of a marginally better sharpness or 1-5 additionally frames per second. The difference this time will be much bigger, it seems.
CODENAMED DURANGO
OH
OH
OH
NEOGAF
NEW TERMS
LETS ALL USE IT
"DURANGO!"
The fuck?
That was probably lherre trying to appease Xbox fans.
i'm really surprised that MS isn't taking the Sony route and going for a really large gap between them and Nintendo, instead they're plopping themselves right in the middle. this is really bad stuff for Sony.
i'm really surprised that MS isn't taking the Sony route and going for a really large gap between them and Nintendo, instead they're plopping themselves right in the middle. this is really bad stuff for Sony.
That was probably lherre trying to appease Xbox fans.
It looks like this right now:In which departments are MS better than Sony and vice versa?
I didn't look in detail, but the additional pages seem to mostly describe the GCN architecture as we know it.
But the PS3 had double the FLOPS of Xbox 360.
But the PS3 had double the FLOPS of Xbox 360.
i'm really surprised that MS isn't taking the Sony route and going for a really large gap between them and Nintendo, instead they're plopping themselves right in the middle. this is really bad stuff for Sony.
The rumours from developers had shown the different. They said this time will be change what we dunno what is it mean. Otherwise we won't heard that if it is same prefer as 360.Bu..bu...bu..80% of developers prefer Durango, RIGHT GUYS!? Right...?
I'm renaming it. From now on it's LOLango.
In CPU. PS3 had slight weak GPU than 360.But the PS3 had double the FLOPS of Xbox 360J.
Microsoft to bait and switch with new graphic card... I can see it happening.
i'm really surprised that MS isn't taking the Sony route and going for a really large gap between them and Nintendo, instead they're plopping themselves right in the middle. this is really bad stuff for Sony.
Not gonna lie, but this basically slaps down Proelite and Aegis and the shit they've been hyping for the past month.
VGbullshit.
I've only skimmed, and would need to check some specifics against other AMD whitepapers, but so far, so very GCN.
Surprised at the ROPs though. Why cut back so much on that? Would they run into bandwidth problems first?
Why are folks complaining? Am I wrong or aren't those specs still a big step up from the Xbox 360? If you expected it to blow PC gaming out the water, or believed the "Avatar Graphics" nonsense, then it was your own fault. And seeing what it accomplished late in it's life it seems like it was a good idea to release a system that won't break the bank but still output good stuff. As it's always been, you want to push the envelope graphics wise, build a PC and download some of those high end mods for games.
Built in Kinect + a potentially more complex board to manufacture. It's not as simple as, Microsoft has a weaker GPU ergo it's going to cost less than Sony's console.