You're aiming too low. Expect next gen in game engine cut scenes to look like this (from Naughty Dog):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM
With gameplay at 1/3 the detail (a bit better than ultra quality BF3).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IGN Rumor: Xbox 3 GPU ~= AMD 6670, Wii U ~5x current gen, Xbox 3 ~6x, Dev Kits August
- Thread starter NateDrake
- Start date
- Status
You're aiming too low. Expect next gen in game engine cut scenes to look like this (from Naughty Dog):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSXyztq_0uM
With gameplay at 1/3 the detail (a bit better than ultra quality BF3).
GTA + Ice requires about the same amount of hardware as that demo from what I hear. GTA on PC is horribly unoptimized.
6990 in the next Xbox, not enough facepalms in the world for this thought.
Oh and while we're discussing TDPs ..
Something like a custom design based off of Pitcairn sounds the max I think will be the internal ceiling for both Microsoft and Sony. In other words, willing to take a bet we wont see anything nearly as powerful as the 6990/590 in the next gen consoles.
Thinking most of you are throwing out multipliers without context. In addition, too many comparisons to PC tech progression concerning the next xbox. The graphics pumped out of 6670 when specifically programmed for will be completely different than a computer game meant to run on several configurations.
In addition, the 6670 realistically, will not be the exact chip in there either.
In addition, the 6670 realistically, will not be the exact chip in there either.
6990 in the next Xbox, not enough facepalms in the world for this thought.
Oh and while we're discussing TDPs ..
Something like a custom design based off of Pitcairn sounds the max I think will be the internal ceiling for both Microsoft and Sony. In other words, willing to take a bet we wont see anything nearly as powerful as the 6990/590 in the next gen consoles.
Edit: I didn't mean to suggest that a 6990 would go into the next xbox, although I could see how that might be inferred. I was refuting the comment that a 6950 isn't 3x faster than a 6670.
I think we'll see a 28 nm version of something that performs around the 6950. such that total system power is < 300 Watts.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
people need to stop taking the chip as being exact, we're looking at modified hardware and likely custom designed for specific strengths, it's not going to be an off the shelf gpu.
Also what are the chances that if it's an SOC that they can a share an edram pool, and a relatively large one at that? and would there be any major benefits.
Also what are the chances that if it's an SOC that they can a share an edram pool, and a relatively large one at that? and would there be any major benefits.
That's probably not so far fetched a path for devs to take, especially as the generation drags on. I'm not inclined to think 720p is particularly awful in itself, especially backed up by MSAA; 4xMSAA is certainly much easier to achieve due to how the ROPs are setup plus there's no increase in shading or texturing - you'd just need to be wary of the memory requirements.
It's pretty clear what higher resolution brings to the table, but it's all about compromises and trade-offs in the end, and the decisions will be made case-by-case anyway just as every game will have its own peculiar performance patterns or artistic goals etc.
But for PC gaming considerations, there are already a number of shading effects that can more easily be scaled up just by changing a few key parameters (# of light probes, sampling rates, render target formats etc), so maybe it won't be as dependent upon or limited by the console as previous generations. e.g. just think how Frostbite 2.0, CryEngine 3, Unreal Engine 3 can go above and beyond the console. The game design will be affected of course, but here I'm just strictly speaking about scalability limitations.
Texture quality is clearly a different matter, but available RAM is perhaps less of an excuse these days considering advances to streaming or virtualized texture management (whatever you want to call it). I'd argue the in-game quality is going to be hampered more by development time, the artists, and the actual storage medium for the games, but I digress. More RAM is always nice to have for other things too.
Jorok Goldblade
Member
Microsoft is going to be a bit more conservative with processing power because they know they need to manage heat. They don't want a repeat of the Red Ring Of Death saga that plagued the 360's early years.
Launch 360 was under 200W.
ColonelColon
Member
And the Xbox 360 drew about twice as much wattage as the original Xbox.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
but if you want things to look better you have to "spend" more...
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
360 launched right when people were switching to lead-free solder in anticipation of the EU tin-lead ban. I don't think a lot of people knew then what a mistake that was going to be.
203W
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware#List_of_revisions
Those are 3 precious, precious Watts.
I'm hoping for 720p now for the sake of PC ports.
PS3 hardware launched at 380W:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware#Configurations
That same page also claims that the PS3 only actually used about 200W. The rest went back into the wall, I imagine, or was only necessary for very brief periods of time at peak use. As I understand it, it's not so much the required power supply which is the limiting factor but rather the heat dissipated (per volume or area, I'd guess), which is going to scale with consumed power. That's also a reason to doubt that the next set of systems will consume more than this set, even though that's been the trend. The 360 and PS3 at launch were about as big and loud as people are willing to accept.
bgassassin
Member
Those are the power supply numbers. From what I remember PS3 and Xbox 360 never exceeded 200W in actual TDP.
If Microsoft is really serious about making this a full-on set-top media player box, then noise will be a far more limiting factor for MS than RROD. They will want this sucker to be very quiet if they want it to be taken seriously as a household media center.
bgassassin
Member
Half Correct.
I believe the launch PS3 was just above 200W.
You're right. This seems to indicate it reached just above 200.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware#Form_and_power_consumption
I remember a fellow GAFFer had done a comparison with the launch and slim versions on youtube.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Huge fans. Low rpm. Make it like a Gamecube, but bigger overall and have the whole back be one big fan, lol. Definitely use another external power supply.
Ha ha, but that's the other aspect of going for a media-hub. It needs to be quiet, and aesthetically pleasing. In other words, it can't be a behemoth like the original 360.
So it depends if MS wants to focus on high-end gaming, or a set-top media box. There's really no way to go all-out on both aspects.
bgassassin
Member
Slayer-33
Liverpool-2
Half Correct.
I believe the launch PS3 was just above 200W.
That beast just over 200? lol was expecting to hear 250-300 or some shit lol
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
PS3 did, but not by much.
With the conflicting reports and all, I kind of believe this rumour more and more.
Good catch.
eso76
Member
i've been thinking of that too, but i don't know..it doesn't sound realistic to me.
Sing me up for the true nextgen one, in that case.
Re. 'all these rumours', twitter chatter among various journos suggests there's lots of stuff floating around out there, but that some outlets are more trigger happy than others about posting anything that comes there way even if there isn't much verification with other sources etc.
Now, while they are competitors of IGN and Kotaku and 'they would say that', the suggestion seems to be that there may not be a lot behind at least some of what's been posted so far.
I guess as more outlets report things and either corroborate or contradict previous info, we'll be able to converge on a more reliable picture.
BUT JOURNOS/SOURCES, IF YOU ARE LISTENING: no more '2x this', '5x that' please - if you can, just get us straight-up info about the hardware, either in the dev boxes or planned for the final machines. I remember a time when we got relatively detailed spec leaks :\ Having a rough idea of what architecture a GPU will relate to is fine and all, but we can't really derive anything from that. Thanks!
Now, while they are competitors of IGN and Kotaku and 'they would say that', the suggestion seems to be that there may not be a lot behind at least some of what's been posted so far.
I guess as more outlets report things and either corroborate or contradict previous info, we'll be able to converge on a more reliable picture.
BUT JOURNOS/SOURCES, IF YOU ARE LISTENING: no more '2x this', '5x that' please - if you can, just get us straight-up info about the hardware, either in the dev boxes or planned for the final machines. I remember a time when we got relatively detailed spec leaks :\ Having a rough idea of what architecture a GPU will relate to is fine and all, but we can't really derive anything from that. Thanks!
Brad Grenz
Member
Yes please! We'll do the math ourselves since its clear neither the journalists or their sources can be relied to know how numbers actually work.
AdventureRacing
Member
Definitely agree with this. The whole 2x this 5x that is just bullshit and you have no idea what that really means.
Kinda makes all this information pretty meaningless.
Avoiding specifics is also the tactic of rumour-mongerers who're making stuff up
They're already breaking NDAs by talking at all about it too.
The problem with the comparison stuff is that any two devs might have a totally different judgment about the difference.
Cosmonaut X
Member
Pretty much. If a dev comes out with detailed specs for the latest iteration of the WiiU devkit, Nintendo are going to be able to narrow down the leak to a relative handful of companies. If the same dev just gives a ballpark "X times current gen" or "more powerful than we expected/not as powerful as we expected" it's far less likely to track back.
Detailed spec leaks will likely come later, when final hardware is out.
Yes, but it's way less serious than leaking out the full target specs or posting curiously blurry pictures of their devkits.Avoiding specifics is also the tactic of rumour-mongerers who're making stuff up
They're already breaking NDAs by talking at all about it too.
The problem with the comparison stuff is that any two devs might have a totally different judgment about the difference.
The actual specs will be either revealed in full by the manufacturers (Sony and Microsoft) or will eventually leak over time (Nintendo).
Fair enough. But maybe something more...consistent? Or some clearer indication without actually going into low level detail?
Saying '6x' 360 and 'akin to a 6670 - but different' is sort of really vague. They could, for example, just flat up tell us what PC chip, hardware wise, it is closest aligned to. The '6x 360' bit, as pointed out by others, doesn't really jive with it being similar to a 6670 performance wise, so it leaves us to think it's something architecturally similar to a 6670 but...what is it closer to performance wise?
Or is the 6x bit just a different comparison, not a straight, paper comparison?
They could be clearer and more specific without giving us details that would let MS identify a mole.
Must be honest, I'm amazed the specs aren't out on the net already.
These dev kits have been sent to lots of companies, with lots of employees at those companies having access to them.
There must be a few disgruntled employees out there who wouldn't give a sh*t about their company getting into trouble or them losing their jobs.
These dev kits have been sent to lots of companies, with lots of employees at those companies having access to them.
There must be a few disgruntled employees out there who wouldn't give a sh*t about their company getting into trouble or them losing their jobs.
Oh, I agree. I was just saying they're probably not being too specific to cover their arses, in case things start to get hot.
Something clearer would of course be preferable.
But in terms of games, how would that work?
NemesisPrime
Banned
Early dev kits usually don't mention hardware specs, just targets on a PC (witha warning that everything can still change).
A lot of people seem to underestimate the power difference. Even imagine how Skyrim would look/play at 2x the power. 8 to 10 times faster is already very impressive IMHO.
Both are making the rounds as well, though (talking about the Wii U here, of course). There have been some substantial and plausible rumors/ leaks, but they get drowned out by the "x times more powerful, x % less powerful" bullshit.
To be fair, percentages and multiples are also easier to understand even though they're far less useful and substantial. So it's not surprising they get parroted much more on internet forums.
Certainly. But they're also incredibly vague. Would overclocking a 360 by exactly 100% make it 2x a 360? Sure, if you only consider computational performance. But what about the amount of RAM? The system is twice as fast, but is it twice as powerful?
And what about the featureset? Would supporting SM4.1 instead of SM3.0 factor in? It increases the capabilities and visibly effects the games, but it has no direct impact on computational performance.
I'm all for making complex issues easy to understand, but I don't really think that's even remotely possible here.
Agreed 100%.
FunnyBunny
Member
I'm sure this has already been answered, but I cant seem to find the answer. Just how much more power does the 360 have over the original XBOX?
In terms of ?
iamshadowlark
Banned
Gamecubes taped together.
Pfft, fixed. You forgot the secret ingredient.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll