Support NeoGAF

[systemfehler]

Subsidized S3 goes for $199.

Sony took so much flak for pricing PS3 $599, you think they (or Microsoft) want to risk launching console at that price again.

Still people are buying the free version for ~560$ or 430€ and you know that a service provider earns money on you aswell with the monthly contract. Often it is cheaper to get a different contract and buy the phone in a regular store. However this doesn't matter.

People who have enough money just pay 599$ the others pay 199$ and 2 years some Xbox Live subscription - in both cases MS gets the money they want. The PS3 had a high price compared to the Wii/360 but if you compare it with todays smartphones and tablets it isn't even worse when you take Apple into the equation.

If people see the value you have a market - don't get me wrong I wouldn't mind paying less for something I want but in the end I doubt a company with shareholders will sell a luxury item (= something you don't really need) for less than they can get away. Look what a decent gaming PC costs, a flagship GPU, etc.

Why aren't consoles allowed to cost more than 399$?

 

[iamshadowlark]

Yes they it is......but I addressed that in the next sentence which you did not quote. And of course, we still don't have the full details of 720 cpu, what with aegis saying that it is appreciably different from ps4 cpu, and bkillian in B3D (former staff of MS) suggesting that MS can beef up the vector units in the cpu, just like they did in Xenon. If so, and depending on how different and beefed up it might be, it will go a long way in doing compute work because, flop for flop, compute work are still more suited to the cpu. Now mind you, I am not saying that the 720 cpu is more powerful, infact, I believe they are both the same, especially in light of all the secret sauce talk earlier being a misunderstanding of the terms in the durango gpu docs, because as far as I am concern right now, the only secret sauce in the 720 is the eSRAM and the DMEs, both of which are necessary in order to negate the bandwidth situation.

So if they both have the same cpu and the 4CUs are exclusively reserved and optimized for compute work then for games that use a lot of compute resources, the ps4 will be better off. But if they are standard CUs then their use in normal graphic rendering will come to bear when comparing multiplatform titles. All I am saying, and which I addressed in my previous post is that we have report from at least two sources saying that these 4CUs would be used for compute work and I am sure there is a reason for that as it would be pointless to point that out specifically otherwise.

Blanket statements are generally horrible to use in the field of computing unless you are talking basic, fundamental things. "Compute tasks" could generally be anything you want them to be, and in most cases today's GPUs are alot better due to their massively parallel nature.

 

[Drek]

If the current hardware rumors are accurate and MS and Sony both launch at 499 then I will 100% 'jump ship' and go Sony only.

I'd bet on both to hit $399 at launch, not much sku diversity as they've all seen how much noise that generated last generation.

MS likely doesn't have a pricing advantage due to the slightly more convoluted method of mobo design and almost surely bundling Kinect in with every box. The cost of production is likely quite close, they just have different focus groups.

Both releasing in early to mid November, $399 each, is what I'm betting on.

 

[antic604]

As i see it:

-multiplatforms will be coded with the least common multiple and not near to the metal. So they will not make many GPGPU stuff out of the CPU vector units. In these cases both CPUs will bring the same result as they are the same and the GPUs will be used in a standard way: so 12 CUs of rendering power for Xbox and 18 for PS4, and the rops and bandwitdth in the Sony side. Results: better frame rate for Sony.

I meant to ask that and this is a good opportunity.

Assuming that:
- PS4 & Durango are (relatively) close to regular PCs and quite similar (customised AMD parts),
- dev tools will 'hide' a lot of special sauce and platform-unique features behind APIs,
- middleware engines (UE4, Luminous, CryEngine3, Frostbite2, etc.) will use those special features of PS4 & Durango, and will become even more popular,

Don't you think it's likely that this time PC will be the lead dev platform, with PS4 and Durango 'ports' simply being downscaled in settings, just like you'd adjust the rendering quality (+other features, like physins, etc.) depending on the strength of your PC? If that would happen, hopefully we'd finally be able to tweak console game and decide ourselves whether we prefer smooth 60Hz refresh or jaggies-free IQ? That would make Digital Foundry's job a nightmare, but would be a Godsend for many of us

 

[itsgreen]

I'd bet on both to hit $399 at launch, not much sku diversity as they've all seen how much noise that generated last generation.

MS likely doesn't have a pricing advantage due to the slightly more convoluted method of mobo design and almost surely bundling Kinect in with every box. The cost of production is likely quite close, they just have different focus groups.

Both releasing in early to mid November, $399 each, is what I'm betting on.

I'll take that bet How about we bet who's buying beer if we ever meet.

I expect a $449 Xbox 720.

 

[Espada]

I'd bet on both to hit $399 at launch, not much sku diversity as they've all seen how much noise that generated last generation.

MS likely doesn't have a pricing advantage due to the slightly more convoluted method of mobo design and almost surely bundling Kinect in with every box. The cost of production is likely quite close, they just have different focus groups.

Both releasing in early to mid November, $399 each, is what I'm betting on.

Yeah, $399 is what I'm expecting for both camps. IIRC the gaming market hasn't been doing too hot for the last year or two, and $499 or $599 is a massive psychological barrier. Both companies know not to stray near those numbers. Both are using nearly the exact same parts with minor differences, and none of this hardware is high end or heavy on R&D costs. $499 price point estimates are kinda foolish.

 

[Corky]

I'll take that bet How about we bet who's buying beer if we ever meet.

I expect a $449 Xbox 720.

$349 gimped pack 720
$449 premium

$499 standard sku ps4

 

[JimiNutz]

I'd pay $399, but if Orbis is more powerful and launches close to Durango then I will prob go with Orbis.

Why should I pay more for xbox if it's weaker? I only really care about games and how well those games are going to look/perform.

MS better have some good games on the way...

 

[yon61]

Proelite was banned??

 

[Pug]

If either company launches for £450 in the UK they will be done for. Launching at £400 will be asking for it also. In the UK £299.99 is where I'd expect the new xbox to be, the 360 launched at 279.99. Of course Sony drop the ball in the UK, launched at a ridiculous £425 which stuffed them completely.

 

[ekim]

Proelite was banned??

What for?

 

[scently]

Blanket statements are generally horrible to use in the field of computing unless you are talking basic, fundamental things. "Compute tasks" could generally be anything you want them to be, and in most cases today's GPUs are alot better due to their massively parallel nature.

Yeah they are, but in this case you know what I mean so I don't know why you are generalizing. But in case you don't, I mean compute task like physics in games; cloth rendering, hair and fluid simulation, lighting computation etc. Yes, its true these type of work are massively parallel in nature, which is why they are suitable for gpu because of their nature, yet flop for flop, these works are still better suited to cpu. A cpu with a 200 flops of vector performance would smoke a gpu with the same amount of flops in these "compute" job, hence all flops are not equal.

 

[Drek]

I'll take that bet How about we bet who's buying beer if we ever meet.

I expect a $449 Xbox 720.

That doesn't seem like a rather high price point to you? Looking at Sony's design it is extremely conservative and focused on more or less off the shelf parts with minor engineering tweaks, so they should see very high yields on relatively low cost wafer fabrication.

Sony doing that makes me assume they recognize that straying from the "$299 and under" philosophy last generation was a big mistake. Obviously $299 isn't viable anymore, but when scaled for inflation $399 falls in line quite well, and the rumored hardware would make sense at about that price with zero profit and perhaps only a slight per unit loss.

I guess this is the wildcard with MS though. Sony has shown themselves to be content with just breaking even on hardware, will MS try to make profit at launch this time?

 

[scently]

What for?

Probaly for thread whining in the Wii U gpu photo thread.

 

[jaosobno]

Why aren't consoles allowed to cost more than 399$?

Historical reasons most likely.

N64 - $199
Gamecube - $199
SNES - $199
PS1 - $299
PS2 - $299
PS3 - $499/599 - Sony "doom&gloom" period begins
PS3 Slim - $299 - Sony "doom&gloom" period ends

Xbox - $299
Xbox 360 - $299/$399

Yes, I know that we have to adjust for inflation, but people don't care about that. All they care is the number on the price tag. And if it's more than $399 for a video games console they are immediately put off.

 

[Drek]

I'd pay $399, but if Orbis is more powerful and launches close to Durango then I will prob go with Orbis.

Why should I pay more for xbox if it's weaker? I only really care about games and how well those games are going to look/perform.

MS better have some good games on the way...

I'd bet on both being quite close at MSRP, and the Durango being weaker accounts for the costs incurred by wanting Kinect in every box and needing to go with a bit more convoluted architecture to have 8 GB of ram, which was needed when they decided on a fat OS.

I don't think the per unit cost that both were shooting for from day one is all that different, they're just dividing it up differently. Sony's focus is providing the equivalent of a good enthusiast graphics card in a box with video out and a CPU that can keep up. MS' goal is to provide a media convergence box that can be a one stop shop for games of all kinds (core and casual), music, movies, TV, etc..

 

[JimiNutz]

I'd bet on both being quite close at MSRP, and the Durango being weaker accounts for the costs incurred by wanting Kinect in every box and needing to go with a bit more convoluted architecture to have 8 GB of ram, which was needed when they decided on a fat OS.

I don't think the per unit cost that both were shooting for from day one is all that different, they're just dividing it up differently. Sony's focus is providing the equivalent of a good enthusiast graphics card in a box with video out and a CPU that can keep up. MS' goal is to provide a media convergence box that can be a one stop shop for games of all kinds (core and casual), music, movies, TV, etc..

If true then the Sony philosophy seems more in line with mine.
I've been a very happy 360 owner and always assumed that I would prob go MS next gen but not so sure now.

At the end of the day it all boils down to games for me. I have no real interest in any of Sony's current IP, but am very tired of Halo and Gears too. Hopefully they've both been working on something interesting om the software front.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Yeah they are, but in this case you know what I mean so I don't know why you are generalizing. But in case you don't, I mean compute task like physics in games; cloth rendering, hair and fluid simulation, lighting computation etc. Yes, its true these type of work are massively parallel in nature, which is why they are suitable for gpu because of their nature, yet flop for flop, these works are still better suited to cpu. A cpu with a 200 flops of vector performance would smoke a gpu with the same amount of flops in these "compute" job, hence all flops are not equal.

Yeah, no. lol.

A CPU with enough power to outperform a GPU in those tasks would cost a couple thousand.
And what do you mean "flop for flop"?

You seem to be talking out of your hind parts.

 

[Brad Grenz]

If MS gets Xenon on die & BC at $349-449 (249-349 would be better), they can kill the 360 without killing the 360 while forcing an upgrade on casuals. A $199-299 price point is MS going "for the jugular" of Sony. If BC is included, MS can keep the paywall to subsidize the price.

Both the Orbis and Durango design appear to have been explicitly designed NOT to be sold at a loss. Durango in particular seems to show that MS feels they are entering the "reap the rewards" phase of the Xbox plans. Taking losses is a thing of the past. I would not be that surprised if $299 is the entry level price, but it would almost certainly require a 2 year Xbox Live Gold membership contract (so cross your fingers that you'll pass the credit check!).

 

[scently]

Yeah, no. lol.

A CPU with enough power to outperform a GPU in those tasks would cost a couple thousand.
And what do you mean "flop for flop"?

You seem to be talking out of your hind parts.

I was giving an example, and by flop for flop I mean if both have the same amount of flop or comparing a cpu flop to a gpu flop. And if you still don't understand what I am saying that's alright, you really don't have to insult me to tell me that you think I am wrong.

 

[Ol No Bones]

3 gigs for the os is ridiculous. I really have a hard time believing this rumor.

 

[Can Crusher]

Is it true that this GPU is based on Cape Verde?

 

[iamshadowlark]

I was giving an example, and by flop for flop I mean if both have the same amount of flop or comparing a cpu flop to a gpu flop. And if you still don't understand what I am saying that's alright, you really don't have to insult me to tell me that you think I am wrong.

What difference is there between a CPU flop(never mind the dozens of different cpu types) and GPUs'?

Spoiler

Hint: proccesors are measured in FLOPS/s , usually a MADD. There is no difference, I kind of know what you meant but I wanted to give you the BOD of maybe bad wording.

 

[Alx]

3 gigs for the os is ridiculous. I really have a hard time believing this rumor.

IIRC, the rumor didn't say 3G for the OS exclusively, but for "other features". I don't think either that a console OS would require as much, unless they would want to emulate a full PC. And I have no idea what other features could require them too, but that's the exciting part of the rumor.
MS has shown with the 360 that they can fit a small and efficient OS in a small amount of memory, and it's been one of the obvious strengths of the console. I can't imagine they would make a bloated OS for the next one, unless they have very good reasons to do so.

 

[itsgreen]

3 gigs for the os is ridiculous. I really have a hard time believing this rumor.

Well, it probably is 3 GB for the OS and Apps. Even if they fill up only 1 GB on launch day, they probably want to be future proof.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

$349 gimped pack 720
$449 premium

$499 standard sku ps4

Would either company be stupid enough to risk going over $400 after having factual evidence from the PS3 launch that anything over $400 does not work?

 

[KAL2006]

$399/£350 for core consoles for both systems
$529/£450 for Kinect/EyeToy Move systems

 

[BruiserBear]

I'll take that bet How about we bet who's buying beer if we ever meet.

I expect a $449 Xbox 720.

Either company going over $399 is just asking for trouble. Especially when they're both launching within a month of each other. Price will be an even bigger factor as a result.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

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.

20 pages late, but whatever. See, this is not a good argument. I can push detail with my PC, sure, but the developers behind my favorite games aren't even really developing for the PC. So even with a powerful PC I still want decent power in my consoles as that is where I find the most appealing games.

And I'm probably only buying one of the new systems early and MS already had an uphill climb with less interesting first party ouput, so... lesser power might very well be the final nail. Assuming of course that we're not looking at a $200 price difference. But I don't think Sony will make that mistake again.

 

[AdventureRacing]

If true then the Sony philosophy seems more in line with mine.
I've been a very happy 360 owner and always assumed that I would prob go MS next gen but not so sure now.

At the end of the day it all boils down to games for me. I have no real interest in any of Sony's current IP, but am very tired of Halo and Gears too. Hopefully they've both been working on something interesting om the software front.

I think your tastes sound exactly like mine and i'm leaning the same way. Will have to wait and see what games they announce as i'm both to have a bunch around launch.

 

[Ales]

They better hope they can price this thing in the 299$ range or else their screwed from the core gaming community and I'll only have a single console under my TV for the next 5-6 years and it'll be PS4.......dumb dumb dumb move by Microsoft if they can't price this thing incredible cheap.

This.
The only hope for the next xbox is the price,if MS will be able to sell it at 249/299$ with some new AAA IP will have a chance.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Sure.

I think, though, we should clarify something - what we're calling 'compute tasks' may well be tasks that fall in the realm of graphics. New graphics techniques may use 'compute tasks' in their passes.

These 4CUs can be used for compute shaders, pixel shaders, or vertex shaders. Even if the dev is using for compute shaders, it may be as part of the rendering. For example IIRC UE4 - or at least the original UE4 pipeline - had two compute shader phases as part of its lighting calculation.



But per the above, that's a misnomer. There may be lots of 'compute' work in graphics going forward.

Putting that aside, the 4 CUs can also be used for pixel and vertex shaders.

The only question here is whether the 4 CUs have to be addressed by the application separately from the other 14, or can be addressed together as 18 transparently. And the answer to that question has ramifications for how easily the 4 can be used if a game isn't doing much compute shader work, or if they'd likely be ignored in games where that was the case. If devs are getting 'good enough' performance for their pixel/vertex shaders out of the 14 relative to other skus and they don't have any compute shaders, they might well ignore them. On the other hand, depending on the setup and or the game, it might be pretty easy to mix them in for vertex/pixel shaders even if they do have to be addressed separately.

tldr: I think it'll be relatively very few games that just skip over those 4 CUs, even if they live in a totally separate world from the other 14

I think that those 4 CU's have a modified scheduler and possibly also some other changes that makes them more effective at general computation tasks and less at being used for geometry/vertex/fragment shaders. So, if you used the 4 extra CU's for "general shading" you would not get linear performance increase from it, but you would still get some gain from doing that. So, it might be easy to mix them in for regular shaders, but expect that they will not provide a linear speedup.

 

[mrklaw]

I think that those 4 CU's have a modified scheduler and possibly also some other changes that makes them more effective at general computation tasks and less at being used for geometry/vertex/fragment shaders. So, if you used the 4 extra CU's for "general shading" you would not get linear performance increase from it, but you would still get some gain from doing that. So, it might be easy to mix them in for regular shaders, but expect that they will not provide a linear speedup.

But many first party devs (in particular) will be used to using SPEs for graphical assistance. For them, separate compute shaders would be useful for things they might want to do outside of a standard graphics pipeline

 

[onQ123]

It's nowhere good enough for 4K though. Of all the people, I'm surprised you are the one who says this.

That's where you are wrong Xbox Next is at least powerful enough to run your favorite iOS & Android games in 4K with Kinect controls.

Tablets will be pushing close to 4K next year & even Project Shield will be able to run some of these games at 4K.

 

[Ol No Bones]

I might be wrong but wasn't there rumors rumors of multiple skus? Wasn't there also rumors of dual gpus? Is it feasible ms could have a couple machines with different specs?

 

[Angelus Errare]

Yeah they are, but in this case you know what I mean so I don't know why you are generalizing. But in case you don't, I mean compute task like physics in games; cloth rendering, hair and fluid simulation, lighting computation etc. Yes, its true these type of work are massively parallel in nature, which is why they are suitable for gpu because of their nature, yet flop for flop, these works are still better suited to cpu. A cpu with a 200 flops of vector performance would smoke a gpu with the same amount of flops in these "compute" job, hence all flops are not equal.

This reads like this

"A 200HP Mustang would smoke a 200HP Ferrari 458"

Not sure how this thread arrived at the point of purposefully gimping GPUs to make CPUs look equal in parallel based tasked. You really can't sit here and argue that a CPU is better suited for something by gimping the object it's being compared to, since this scenario will never happen.

 

[Panajev2001a]

But many first party devs (in particular) will be used to using SPEs for graphical assistance. For them, separate compute shaders would be useful for things they might want to do outside of a standard graphics pipeline

That's more than fine too. I think it is a case in which Sony realized that the CPU might need assistance in performing certain tasks and thought that the GPU could provide it, but rather than getting less than optimal performance at those compute tasks across the whole GPU or losing performance at running general shaders across the whole GPU, they decided to make some changes to a group of logically separated CU's and allow you to set those aside for compute tasks as they are meant for (probably the default) or to configure them to be used as egular CU's and aid with regular shading workloads although they do not run those kind of workloads at peak efficiency (depending on the actual work being performed or a combination of factors... there is a lot that is currently unknown about this unfortunately).
SCE is giving developers choice on how to use those 4 extra CU's.

 

[iceatcs]

I might be wrong but wasn't there rumors rumors of multiple skus? Wasn't there also rumors of dual gpus? Is it feasible ms could have a couple machines with different specs?

I think that's one dying. The new rumours, is........ CPU!!!!
Insiders were hope both CPUs are different, for competition sake.

Quite funny thing has change.

 

[quickwhips]

This reads like this

"A 200HP Mustang would smoke a 200HP Ferrari 458"

Not sure how this thread arrived at the point of purposefully gimping GPUs to make CPUs look equal in parallel based tasked. You really can't sit here and argue that a CPU is better suited for something by gimping the object it's being compared to, since this scenario will never happen.

I'm sure that 200 HP Ferrari is lighter making it faster than that mustang. I'm not disagreeing I just think that was a bad example.

 

[eso76]

back in 2010 or even earlier, don't remember, Microsoft was talking about "forward" compatible games.

i'd be fine with games running at 720p on lower specs sku and 1080p 3d on the beefier model.

But it would still basically be the 'same game', so the more powerful model would still be held back by its little brother (we don't want that) and we'll have people on xbl playing the same game with different performances (which is something Microsoft always wanted to avoid, although i'm sure there are differences for those playing in hd vs those still playing in sd)

These specs are certainly not just for a dvr / media center system only. It's a rather capable game machine, so even if we were indeed getting two xbox consoles, games will be made with these specs (assuming they're not outdated) as lowest common denominator and we could only expect 'marginal' improvements from a more powerful sku.

 

[michaelius]

I think that those 4 CU's have a modified scheduler and possibly also some other changes that makes them more effective at general computation tasks and less at being used for geometry/vertex/fragment shaders. So, if you used the 4 extra CU's for "general shading" you would not get linear performance increase from it, but you would still get some gain from doing that. So, it might be easy to mix them in for regular shaders, but expect that they will not provide a linear speedup.

I wonder if those 4 modified CUs are just using full Double Precision architecture from Tahiti/79x0.

 

[open_mouth_]

I think Sony will have one SKU at $399.

and MS will have two SKU's. One base model at $349 and the Kinect model at $449. Also, they will sell Kinect separately for $129. The base model will have voice control built in.

 

[Z_Y_W_Y]

The real question here is - will it run Crysis? Well, as long as the next-gens will be able to produce smooth native 1080p I'm fine with that, 60fps or not doesn't matter, high-res textures and AA are pretty much given by now. I'm more concerned in smooth online connections and post-release support than techincal specs of next-gens TBH.

 

[Pug]

Is it true that this GPU is based on Cape Verde?

Probably, Yes

 

[dbztrk]

What is the likely hood of MS increasing the ESRAM if devs complain about it being insufficient?

 

[Pug]

What is the likely hood of MS increasing the ESRAM if devs complain about it being insufficient?

Zero.

 

[systemfehler]

What is the likely hood of MS increasing the ESRAM if devs complain about it being insufficient?

At this stage rather unlikely and the 32MB are carefully considered - I don't think that much more eSRAM would make a significant difference unless you go nuts with 128MB or higher. Space on the motherboard including complexity and cost are the main factors here.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I can't wait until about 6 years in when the console will no longer be playing games off disks but streaming games through a windows live service.

 

[VIDEOGAMESYAY]

I might be wrong but wasn't there rumors rumors of multiple skus? Wasn't there also rumors of dual gpus? Is it feasible ms could have a couple machines with different specs?

yes, but the same basic specs are sure to be present in all of them.

since they're (rumored to be) launching with a 28nm CPU that leaves a lot of room for cost reduction down the line with 22nm/16nm CPUs already beyond the planning and into implementation phases.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I'm sure that 200 HP Ferrari is lighter making it faster than that mustang. I'm not disagreeing I just think that was a bad example.

Their weight really isn't that different, the V6 stang is only 3,350 to the 458's 3,279. But yea it was a dumb example for a dumb statement. I wouldn't entertain such a hilarious notion with an actual logical analogy.