TALES FROM MY ASS: Durango rumors discussed by anonymous source

if is right and the gflops xenon+xenos could do r 355
well yeah would be useless

but still coming back to the vgleaks diagram i dont find the soc ...and a soc isnt something that u thing to add the last months...so

or that vgleaks diagram is too old..coz we dont find an important piece like an entire soc..and everything could be changed
or the diagram is ok but ms is hiding stuffs....and as the 360soc could be everything else
or all the diagram and soc story is just bs...and we need to wait
I have a feeling that we might seem some stuff in Durango that isn't in the vgleaks (this is pure speculation btw nothing else), but it will be stuff that does not effect performance of the system such as B/C.
 
If I'm online, let me play a HDD-installed game without the disc with periodic online auth.

If I'm offline, don't let me play without the disc - but prompt me to insert the disc and let me continue playing!

So many of the ideas I see floated that would supposedly validate the kind of regime Kotaku rumoured are actually things that would work perfectly fine as an option when you are connected, without requiring the system to roll over and stop playing software completely when offline.
Agreed. I'd be OK with this.
 
Why does no one bring up the massive positive I see from always online and no used games. Publisher money. Gamestop gives no money to anyone from used games. Microsoft is going to cut gamestop out of the picture which I'm totally fine with. More money for Microsoft, more money for people that make games on 720 over ps4.
 
I think it's a convenient idea, but I don't think it's something that requires the banishment of offline play.

I think it would be a nice optional feature to have for connected systems, but offering that feature doesn't preclude them from letting you play games offline. It's not a 'validation' for forced constant connectivity...there could be graceful degradation to disc-required play if offline.
That is an exceptional idea.
 
Why does no one bring up the massive positive I see from always online and no used games. Publisher money. Gamestop gives no money to anyone from used games. Microsoft is going to cut gamestop out of the picture which I'm totally fine with. More money for Microsoft, more money for people that make games on 720 over ps4.
If it doesn't benefit the customer, why should I even care?
 
Why does no one bring up the massive positive I see from always online and no used games. Publisher money. Gamestop gives no money to anyone from used games. Microsoft is going to cut gamestop out of the picture which I'm totally fine with. More money for Microsoft, more money for people that make games on 720 over ps4.
Because people would rather keep the flexibility of their games than hand them over for an intangible, non-guaranteed benefit as nebulous as "Publishers pocket more dosh!"?
 
Why does no one bring up the massive positive I see from always online and no used games. Publisher money. Gamestop gives no money to anyone from used games. Microsoft is going to cut gamestop out of the picture which I'm totally fine with. More money for Microsoft, more money for people that make games on 720 over ps4.
Well for one I sell or trade in games many times in order to purchase new releases. That's just one practical argument against it.

Don't get me started on consumer rights.

Edit: Reiko and CookTrain nailed it.
 
Why does no one bring up the massive positive I see from always online and no used games. Publisher money. Gamestop gives no money to anyone from used games. Microsoft is going to cut gamestop out of the picture which I'm totally fine with. More money for Microsoft, more money for people that make games on 720 over ps4.
Because a lot of people rely on used games to play any games at all. Gamespot, Gamefly, Redbox...theyre all affected by this.
I personally know someone who ONLY plays the games he rents from redbox. No used games will essentially stop him from playing any games at all on the Durango.
 
I have a feeling that we might seem some stuff in Durango that isn't in the vgleaks (this is pure speculation btw nothing else), but it will be stuff that does not effect performance of the system such as B/C.

about the performance reading that leaks durango gpu could resolve two primive x clock like tahiti and pitcairn but with a bus of 128bit
and the gpu that amd putted out that can do that stuff is the 7790 that would put durango in a total another ballpark....(1.7tf gpu)
what i mean....also "performance talking" there r lots of unanswered questions...no?

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/151367-amd-launches-radeon-7790-meet-the-xbox-720s-gpu/2
 
about the performance reading that leaks durango gpu could resolve two primive x clock like tahiti and pitcairn but with a bus of 128bit
and the gpu that amd putted out that can do that stuff is the 7790 that would put durango in a total another ballpark....(1.7tf gpu)
what i mean....also "performance talking" there r lots of unanswered questions...no?

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/151367-amd-launches-radeon-7790-meet-the-xbox-720s-gpu/2
Its probably based on Pitcairn/Tahiti but with less CU's. This would make sense as they would have to sacrifice something to get the ESRAM and CU's would probably be it.
 
Its probably based on Pitcairn/Tahiti but with less CU's. This would make sense as they would have to sacrifice something to get the ESRAM and CU's would probably be it.

yeah durango should have 12 cu's while 7790 14
so ms is going to sacrifice 2 cu to get esram that seem being there to resolve bw problems...caused by the ddr that they want use to save money istead of gddr but adding silicons for the 4 move engines..and
downclocking the 7790 to 800mhz just to cut down definitely that gpu.............and have a 1.2tf machine......if u ask me........TOTALLY CRAZY

but at the same time they wanna put an entire expansive 360 soc in every motherboard to let ppl play old games for how long ? 1 ...2 years? then bc will become useless


i mean..but if u had some engineers that would do that to UR future console that must be out for at least 5 years...wouldnt u fire them in 2 sec?


i dont think they r crazy enough ....they could just overclock the gpu a little bit to get back some of the gpu 1.79tf performance at least no?...

i mean imho a stock 7790 cost less than a 7790 without 2 cu's + move engine (silicon and r&d) + esram if we look at dollar/performance is totally unbalanced
so IMHO must be something hiding behind all this stuff....
 
......
i mean..but if u had some engineers that would do that to UR future console that must be out for at least 5 years...wouldnt u fire them in 2 sec?
...........
I would execute them first, and fire them later!
that's why about the h/w configuration I still have my doubts about all those leaks.
the previous rumors about them trying to slap 2x ati gpus, one 85xx and one more advanced, and them having to sort temperatures and fittings, I found more reasonable. and more ready to follow, as a customer.
but this latest batch of h/w rumors makes less sense.

so its a very reasonable question you've got there, but then again,the "online drm" engineers, and the "kinnect is required" engineers, I would have fired those sob's too!
 
i mean imho a stock 7790 cost less than a 7790 without 2 cu's + move engine (silicon and r&d) + esram if we look at dollar/performance is totally unbalanced
so IMHO must be something hiding behind all this stuff....
You need to look at the dollar/performance of the entire system and not just the GPU, do not forget that the eSRAM allows them to go with cheaper DDR3 as there main ram and therefore allows them to have a cheaper ram configuration as well as more standard controllers.

There doesn't seem to be anything hiding/secret sauce they went with a good balanced design and stuck with it, the decisions they made make sense when you look at the console as a whole rather then just at a single component such as the GPU.

Traditionally there seems to be more of a chance of down clocks then over clocking if the past is anything to go by, over clocking would change there heat budget as well as potentially there power budget and if they do it to much they will get shitty yields as well.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about the modified 360 logo. I definitely think the 360 logo is pretty iconic, but I like seeing logos change over the years. I don't think it will provide any additional brand-confusion, but I'm curious if just flattening and making the color sharper (to make it similar to Windows 8) is enough to differentiate it?

Probably a dumb thing to think about, but whatever.
 
Why does no one bring up the massive positive I see from always online and no used games. Publisher money. Gamestop gives no money to anyone from used games. Microsoft is going to cut gamestop out of the picture which I'm totally fine with. More money for Microsoft, more money for people that make games on 720 over ps4.
Maybe because "publisher money" is not a "massive positive" when it's coming out of my pocket, at the expense of my rights.

And how on earth can you cheer for "more money for Microsoft" as some sort of rallying cry? I think they're doing fine without shitting on my rights to squeeze a few extra bucks out of me. And hey, fuck the retailers, right? That's only 10% of the jobs in this country. But fuck 'em, they didn't MAKE any of the stuff they sell, right?
 
You need to look at the dollar/performance of the entire system and not just the GPU, do not forget that the eSRAM allows them to go with cheaper DDR3 as there main ram and therefore allows them to have a cheaper ram configuration as well as more standard controllers.

There doesn't seem to be anything hiding/secret sauce they went with a good balanced design and stuck with it, the decisions they made make sense when you look at the console as a whole rather then just at a single component such as the GPU.

Traditionally there seems to be more of a chance of down clocks then over clocking if the past is anything to go by, over clocking would change there heat budget as well as potentially there power budget and if they do it to much they will get shitty yields as well.

just a serious question...would be cheaper (money talking) to go with
a stock 7790 (where the r&d cost is all on amd) +8 gddr5 = 1.79tf and +bw

or
custom 7790 (downclocked to 800 and with 2 cu less) + 4 move engines (r&d cost on ms) +32 esram +8gb ddr3 +complexity on the mobo = 1.2tf -bw


someone could answer?

coz i think for them the difference between ddr and gddr price is lesser than the price of 4 move engines the ddr and the esram

or maybe is just the kinect in everyconsoleprice that is destroying the entire design
 
just a serious question...would be cheaper (money talking) to go with
a stock 7790 (where the r&d cost is all on amd) +8 gddr5 = 1.79tf and +bw

or
custom 7790 (downclocked to 800 and with 2 cu less) + 4 move engines (r&d cost on ms) +32 esram +8gb ddr3 +complexity on the mobo = 1.2tf -bw

someone could answer?

coz i think for them the difference between ddr and gddr price is lesser than the price of 4 move engines the ddr and the esram
You're assuming that 8GB GDDR5 was feasible at the time they decided to go with 8GB DDR3 + ESRAM. The choices may have been between 2GB to 4GB GDDR5 versus 8GB DDR3 + ESRAM.

Even if 8GB DDR3 + ESRAM cost more than 4GB GDDR5; Microsoft may have felt that the benefits of going with 8GB + ESRAM outweighed the benefits with GDDR5 in a lower quantity.
 
You're assuming that 8GB GDDR5 was feasible at the time they decided to go with 8GB DDR3 + ESRAM. The choices may have been between 2GB to 4GB GDDR5 versus 8GB DDR3 + ESRAM.

Even if 8GB DDR3 + ESRAM cost more than 4GB GDDR5; Microsoft may have felt that the benefits of going with 8GB + ESRAM outweighed the benefits with GDDR5 in a lower quantity.

so u think that ms end the design of durango so much before sony did with the ps4......this much before that they cannot go to change anymore the memory design also seeing that sony gone out poiting directly at the gddr5 from the start (4gb)
so that expansive design pushed them to cut price also on the gpu.....

when ps4 isnt a custom design in anypart (no a lots of r&d as in the durango design) just a faster gpu with faster ram...

and at the end...spending + or - (i think +) the money of sony they have two system one with 1.8tf and another with 1.2tf

uhm....really i dont know....it sound embarassing stupid by ms...the only reason to cut this much the price of the machine could be just the kinect....i think
 
just a serious question...would be cheaper (money talking) to go with
a stock 7790 (where the r&d cost is all on amd) +8 gddr5 = 1.79tf and +bw

or
custom 7790 (downclocked to 800 and with 2 cu less) + 4 move engines (r&d cost on ms) +32 esram +8gb ddr3 +complexity on the mobo = 1.2tf -bw


someone could answer?
likely the latter setup is much cheaper, especially over the lifetime of ~100m or more systems manufactured.

cerny even touched on it in his new ps4 interview:

The CPU and GPU are on a "very large single custom chip" created by AMD for Sony. "The eight Jaguar cores, the GPU and a large number of other units are all on the same die," said Cerny. The memory is not on the chip, however. Via a 256-bit bus, it communicates with the shared pool of ram at 176 GB per second.

"One thing we could have done is drop it down to 128-bit bus, which would drop the bandwidth to 88 gigabytes per second, and then have eDRAM on chip to bring the performance back up again," said Cerny. While that solution initially looked appealing to the team due to its ease of manufacturability, it was abandoned thanks to the complexity it would add for developers.
"We did not want to create some kind of puzzle that the development community would have to solve in order to create their games. And so we stayed true to the philosophy of unified memory."
ease of manufacturability=essentially cost imo.

And he's apparently only speaking of GDDR5 256 bus vs GDDR5 128 bus+EDRAM. Difference should be even much more when it's DDR3 instead.
 
likely the latter setup is much cheaper, especially over the lifetime of ~100m or more systems manufactured.

cerny even touched on it in his new ps4 interview:



ease of manufacturability=essentially cost imo.

And he's apparently only speaking of GDDR5 256 bus vs GDDR5 128 bus+EDRAM. Difference should be even much more when it's DDR3 instead.
ok thnx :)

i want to trust ms r hiding an ace....coz if is 1.2 vs 1.8 (that with this tf nowdays both arent really nextgen)....is a gg for sony
 
so u think that ms end the design of durango so much before sony did with the ps4......this much before that they cannot go to change anymore the memory design also seeing that sony gone out poiting directly at the gddr5 from the start (4gb)
No, I believe it was easier for Sony to go from 4GB GDDR5 to 8GB GDDR5 once the 4Gb chips went into mass production this past January thanks to going with GDDR5 from the beginning. I believe Sony going with 8GB GDDR5 is purely consequential due to the 4Gb chips.

If it wasn't for going with GDDR5 from the beginning I don't think Sony could have made to switch to 8GB GDDR5 once it was made possible. If the 4Gb GDDR5 chips had not gone into mass production this past January I believe Sony would have stayed with 4GB GDDR5.

I don't believe MS has had this luxury due to going with DDR3 + ESRAM and I don't believe it would be anywhere near as easy to make a change to a different GPU or add another.

Having more RAM plus ESRAM may had been Microsoft's ace if it wasn't for the switch to 8GB GDDR5.