Thunder Monkey
Banned
And yet still a huge increase over the 360.2gb ram.....weak realy weak.
Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.
And yet still a huge increase over the 360.2gb ram.....weak realy weak.
All MS needs to do is put Windows 8 on this thing. If investors, shareholders and the board see the Windows userbase growing with high percentages every year because they put it on Xbox's, phones and whatnot they don't care if MS writes down hundreds of millions in manufacturing this thing. Knowing MS they're going to do this next gen stuff in a big way or they drop it. That's how they roll.Yeah, $399 is entirely viable as a launch price at this point; people will pay that to the tune of 3-6 million units upfront and probably continue to buy it at least at moderately decent rates throughout the first year.
The issue is really that a $399 system needs to actually cost $399 to make and be designed with quick price drops in mind. They need to at least be planning a $299 pricedrop within the first year, with a roadmap that's chopping an additional $100 off the manufacturing price every year. Without that, they'll be right back in the situation from this generation where the price is killing them at retail while their excessive manufacturing costs keep them from dropping said price.
2gb ram.....weak realy weak.
To add to what has been said already, there's other issues in people expecting larger amounts of ram. There's also things like traces on the motherboard that need to be taken into account. Sure you could use 16 ram chips, but the cost of manufacturing the motherboard is going to jump big time. Currently the high end types of ram like GDDR5 are topping off at 2 gigbit chip sizes, which is equal to 256 megabytes. So 1 gig of GDDR5 ram needs 4 ram chips. It's not as simple as my PC has 16 gigs of ram so should my Xbox3!
To give you an idea of price differences, back in 2009 when iSupply did a breakdown of the PS3 the XDR ram chips used in it (64 megabyte sized) were estimated to be 10 bucks a chip. (the PS3 uses 4 of these) That comes out to a cost of $160 for 1 gig. At the same time 1 gig of DDR2/DDR3 ram was around $30 - $40.
EDIT
Don't have the iSupply link, but wanted to add a link showing ram prices in 2009
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WMPG/article.php/10706_3794471__8
And yet still a huge increase over the 360.
Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.
And yet still a huge increase over the 360.
Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.
"Huge increase" is not the phrase I'd use in this situation. It's just an increase; nothing huge about it.And yet still a huge increase over the 360.
Plop in something quick and watch game worlds get larger and more intricately detailed. Not like Just Cause 2 was a slouch.
And another factor.Also, wouldn't the fact that resolutions are not expected to exceed 720P/1080P help a lot?
no its not.
4x increase is not a huge increase after almost 7 years.
It would be very hard to match the texture quality of say uncharted 3 in an open world game with 2 gb.
I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather the systems be relatively inexpensive, reliable, and moderately powerful over what we had this gen."Huge increase" is not the phrase I'd use in this situation. It's just an increase; nothing huge about it.
I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather the systems be relatively inexpensive, reliable, and moderately powerful over what we had this gen.
First gen I've had a console die twice in the span of two years. Second not covered under warranty. My best friend practically gave me his otherwise I'd be a no 360 playing fool.
I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather the systems be relatively inexpensive, reliable, and moderately powerful over what we had this gen.
First gen I've had a console die twice in the span of two years. Second not covered under warranty. My best friend practically gave me his otherwise I'd be a no 360 playing fool.
That would be like one of the worst things to happen to videogames since the crash.0 failures and ample disposable income here. Bring on the 599 USD next gen power-hogs!
28G for TSMC.The speculation I read (and like I said "speculation") noted that TSMC is still having trouble getting 28nm (32nm?) where it needs to be, and it was more than likely going to push everything back for a bit. I didn't mean that the technology couldn't or wouldn't exist, just that those process wouldn't be mature enough to be used as soon as originally thought.
Internet speculation is internet speculation though
Considering on how developers crafted beautiful games on 512mb of ram on this generation alone, 2 gig should be more than enough if the other components are top of the range?
Considering on how developers crafted beautiful games on 512mb of ram on this generation alone, 2 gig should be more than enough if the other components are top of the range?
And you know this how exactly?That would be like one of the worst things to happen to videogames since the crash.
Very slow adoption is very bad for both gamers and developers alike.
No matter how much they might want that extra power. And again, nothing about the system I proposed would be weak. It'd still be more powerful than the WiiU, which is a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or 360.
Epic themselves allude to the WiiU being a half step. Like a mid generational console.
Using a GPU design finalized in 2011, with some blazing fast RAM, a sizable edram pool, and a modern CPU would equal very very pretty games.
I think at best that part is just bull.If it's 2GB they get to work with. I just don't understand the use of DDR3. Why would the system need that much RAM? 2GB DDR3 and ~1-2GB GDDR5?
The very next sentence?And you know this how exactly?
I think at best that part is just bull.
I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.
I think at best that part is just bull.
I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.
The math, the price, and their love of unified memory pools leads me back to 2 gigs of GDDR5.DDR3 makes sense if they want more than 2GB of RAM in there.
For the same module budget as 2GB of GDDR5 you could have 2GB of DDR3 + 1GB of GDDR5.
There's no alternative but to involve DDR3 if they want more than 2GB and don't want to use more than 8 ram modules. At least as far as I know, I don't think higher density GDDR5 is on the cards for next year. DDR4 might be too immature next year to use if it's available at all.
If I have to keep reading how the system not having more than 2 gigs is some form of death for the platform, I can be hyperbolic too dammit!DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards comparability, as well.
Don't forget 3D !
1080p 3D
I think at best that part is just bull.
I couldn't see them using RAM like that, no matter how cheap it is, because it's completely ineffectual. 2 gigs I can see, DDR3 I cannot.
It might cost them a buttload on the RAM alone, but 2 gigs of GDDR5 makes me drool.
That kind of speed and that much space. Huge textures flowing in and out of the memory. On top of whatever DX effects MS has their teams working on.
Like I said. I don't get it.
DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards compatibility, as well.
won't be any next-gen, not anytime soon at least - it'd need a HDMI standards update.
1080p/60 for 2D, and 720p/60 for 3D. Thats good because if a game can handle 1080p/60 without problems in 2D, it should look great in 3D at 720p.
This is just not true. My PC has 26 GB/s of (measured, not theoretical) main memory bandwidth on DDR3. Newer systems get up to 40.DDR3 isn't unusable, it's the same thing we use for PC main memory. But it's substantially slower than the RAM that 360/PS3 had access to, and is thus a step backwards in at least one respect. Slower, non-unified memory (i.e. the system can't access the faster GPU memory) would likely sound the death-knell for backwards compatibility, as well.
Im not sure, but bluray movies can be played in full 1080p 3D. They sequentialy show one full frame for right eye and then one for left eye. The video that is played is esentialy 1080p@48fps, and hdmi can transfer that much data without a problem.
The very next sentence?
My question is that since 1080p is the max we'll be using for image fidelity, what is the REAL top end of video RAM that is truly needed to give the best picture quality?
I wouldn't mind $400 personally, but I'd rather them put as much stuff in it as possible, since they only launch one every 5-7 years.
I wonder if VRAM can be 1GB or more, which would bring the whole ammount of RAM to 3GB total
No. People gladly pay $300 for smartphones they toss in a year. Don't make the mistake of thinking people don't buy baubles. Look at the tablet market.
No. Not even close to the same thing. Comparing smartphones and game consoles isn't helpful at all.
That would be like one of the worst things to happen to videogames since the crash.
Very slow adoption is very bad for both gamers and developers alike.
No matter how much they might want that extra power. And again, nothing about the system I proposed would be weak. It'd still be more powerful than the WiiU, which is a lot more powerful than either the PS3 or 360.
Epic themselves allude to the WiiU being a half step. Like a mid generational console.
Using a GPU design finalized in 2011, with some blazing fast RAM, a sizable edram pool, and a modern CPU would equal very very pretty games.
I don't really agree.
The PC has allways featured scalable engines. THere is no reason why it can't be introduced into the console world.
Design the game around the Xbox Next and lower the resolution / texture quality and other factors for it to run on the xbox 360.
The 360 is still selling record numbers , MS can sell both a $150 xbox 360 and a $400 xbox next.
For games like COD there is no reason why a 360 user can't play multiplayer with a xbox next player. People have all diffrent levels of computers that play BF3 together perfectly fine.
You're espousing the exact same thing I've been talking about recently.
I agree with you. The console market would be a healthier place if PS4 engines could scale all the way down to the Xbox360. Nothing I posted would preclude that happening.
What I'm posting might make your thought up there easier, compared to some of these other guys outlooks.
Lucky for us the gaming industry is stupid. So publisher like EA will make money on squeezing out the tablets, facebook, Wii U and whatnot and put all that cash to work on super graphical beasts for the Xbox Ten. Kinda like how Ubisoft subsidized their HD business with shitty Wii and DS games. Activision, EA, Ubisoft et all probably also think they can knock out their competitors by hitting them on the head with game and marketing budgets of over a billion dollars.I don't even really want a new console. I've talked about it with my friends - and this has probably mentioned in this thread numerable times as well - and the consensus seems to be that we're all fine with the current generation of graphics. It's only just now that PC seems to overtake the 360 and the PS3... and to give game developers that extra push of freedom I understand why (ie) some extra memory is needed. But I can also see why dev's think this current generation is fine and would want to continue making 360 or ps3 gen-quality-games. I predict a new console on which you can still play 360 games, both the downloadable (xbox live) and retail ones, but will also be able to play newer generation games... the ones that the dev's will be able to produce in a cost effective manner a few years after the release.
So 'upgrade' seems to be a good choice of word by which I am entirely fine and agree with Cliffy B's statement on the Wii U also being some sort of upgrade. But I think in the next 10 years that's all we'll see. New ways to play new games but we won't run out of money to make them.
Also, console ram >>> PC ram
no its not.
4x increase is not a huge increase after almost 7 years.
It would be very hard to match the texture quality of say uncharted 3 in an open world game with 2 gb.
Holy shit, that's insane. If that's true they're not fucking around and Sony better start opening some more credit lines if they still want to compete.People are saying the dev kits have 6990 ati cards in them so the system will have something that pushes 6990 levels of graphics. That will probably be a 7850 or 7870.
Hopefully they add Keyboard and Mouse support so all those Developers can stop moaning about the lack of buttons on consoles. Despite it being on the PS3, its amazing how much it was underutilized.
It is more to do with PC gamers thinking all Consoles should have 4Gb and beyond, just because the average PC needs that amount.
People are saying the dev kits have 6990 ati cards in them so the system will have something that pushes 6990 levels of graphics. That will probably be a 7850 or 7870.
[Nintex];32827386 said:Holy shit, that's insane. If that's true they're not fucking around and Sony better start opening some more credit lines if they still want to compete.