Rumored Next-Generation Xbox Specs Float About

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]the situation is diff here, the combine power of 8 cores @ only 1.6GHz running a fully optimized software are still not enough to make up Twice the clock speed diff.[/citation]


Can you show us the testing or white papers you have showing that fact please?

Why is it folks still don't understand the underlying factors involving console performance are quite different to PC performance. Not to mention all the special custom parts and other optimisations that go into them. PC architecture is still largely a mess due to legacy demands and other factors such as cross hardware conformity. You don't have that with consoles.

How many PCs from 2006 (considering the 360/PS3 are largely 2004/5 level hardware) can push the level of gaming that the PS3 and 360 can still push today?
 
A core 2 quad are still capable to run battlefield 3 today with 8800GTX @ low detail @ 30fps @ 1680x1050p

Dont forget that Consoles are running on texture details that are lower than PC's BF3 low detail setting @ even lower resolution @ 720p @ 30fps @ only 24 players.

U actually believe those optimization can allow console to run things @ half of the resources? The diff isnt that big as what u might believe. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that there is no way a 1.6Ghz 8 core is anywhere near a 3GHz+ Sandybridge or a full fledged 3.6GHz bulldozer. Think about how weak these CPU on year 2020 @ 6yrs console life span.

Optimization do not make miracles. They probably make things run more efficient, but NOT as much as u actually believe.
 
I'm a little confused by the eight core at only 1.6GHz. The new core designs confuse me a little so can someone put it in prospective for me. I have a Phenom II 980 BE slightly overclocked to 4.2GHz. I know that some people are still debating if the Phenom II 980 is better or worse than Bulldozer, but how does the 980 BE stack up against this new Xbox processor?
 
Just to clarify my previous post what I'm really wondering is if my computer will be able to keep pace with the reported specs of the new Xbox. If it can I know I'll be able to game on it for the next four to six years with maybe upgrading the video card along the way or adding more RAM. My current configuration is AMD Phenom II x4 980 BE, I have 8GB RAM (can always put 16 or more in it), EVGA GTX 650 Ti video card (can always upgrade along the way). I know a lot of people on this forum know a lot more about the tech than I do so I just wanted to know if you guys think my system will keep pace with the new Xbox, is it better than it, or is it less powerful than it? Thanks in advance.
 
cowboy44mag, your plan sounds pretty good to me. Your 980BE at 4.2 should last a while as well as your 8GB of ram. You may be upgrading that gtx650ti sooner rather than later and may end up bumping up your ram in a few years. Otherwise you should do pretty well.
 
Cowboy you wont be riding that horse to the county dance. That setup will not give you the jaw dropping moment you will get when the next gen footage appears. Sure you can get by with that old steed, but the 360 had oblivion and no pc matched that for 2 years, much less for $400. So dont buy a $400 gtx770 , buy a $400 console.
 
@cowboy: If worse comes to worse and your 980BE can't handle games in a while, update your mobo bios and get a fx8320 to overclock for 160 bucks(likely less later on). You can get a console if you want, but I'd skip it and just upgrade your system if need be. Computer games will always have better graphics than consoles(hence graphics upgrades being the most important thing).

Edit: Forgot a few things. If you upgraded your current system with a fx8320(160 bucks), a hd7870(200 bucks) and an extra 2x4GB kit of ddr3 for 40 bucks(bringing you from 8GB to 16GB) that would total 400 bucks. You could sell your old cpu and gpu to recoup much of the cost of upgrading. You can do it again on down the road if you need/want. Better than being stuck with a console for who knows how many years. You will have better cpu and gpu performance than a console as well(better desktops graphics!).
 
Based on this past gen, you buy a console on release 2005. It has best gfx untill 2007 but will need a 1500 pc to equal. Wait untill 2009 and build a $500 pc and have better gfx until 2011 and then add another $500 to upgrade your pc.

2013-new console
2016- build new pc
2018- upgrade pc
 
I can see what different people are saying about when the last gen consoles first came out they out performed a lot of mid range gaming PCs, but there were high end PCs that still bested the 360 on release. What I was looking at was the hardware specs for the next gen Xbox, if correct, aren't "blow your socks off" like the 360 was when it first released. The next gen Xbox is much better than the 360 but when compared to mid range gaming PCs right now it isn't vastly superior. As far as graphics go its card doesn't seem any better than a GTX 550 Ti. It only boasts 8 GB of RAM I can upgrade my PC to 32GB if needed. I could be off but those two stats don't put it on the level of most mid range gamers today. What I'm wondering is what this 8 core 1.6GHz processor is going to be capable of. The more I look at my current stats the more I'm thinking my PC right now is as powerful for gaming as the next gen Xbox. I could be way off, what do you guys think?
 
One more thought is both Microsoft and Sony are going to want to keep these next gen consoles cost effective. Yes I realize that a lot of times they will take a loss on the sale of the console to get it back later from the games, however neither company is going to want that loss to be a huge one. If Microsoft wants to keep the next gen console at $400 or even $500 they are going to have to cut a few corners, as Microsoft loves to do with Xbox anyways. At 400-500 dollars I just don't see it. The processor if its an underclocked AMD is still going to be expensive, a 50GB Blu Ray won't be cheap, not to mention 8GB of DDR3 RAM, Motherboard, GPU, case, fans, controller, hdmi cable, ect.. Microsoft will cut corners somewhere and I have a feeling that its in the 800MHz GPU. Either that or it will debut at $600 plus like the PS3 did, and Microsoft is going to want to keep their console under the price of the PS4. Thoughts?
 
Back when the 360 debuted, the most powerful rig you could get was an Athlon 64 FX55 or fx57 CPU with either crossfire(2x x1800xt which launched earlier in the fall) or sli(2x 7800gtx which launched in the summer or 2x 7800gtx 512 which launched around Thanksgiving). Dual core processors were fairly new to the desktop(both AMD and Intel debuted their respective tech in the spring) and while P4 with HT had been around a few years, Athlon 64(single core) was faster and cheaper for gaming(so little developer incentive to optimize for 2 or more cores at the time). It wasn't until Christmas or New Year's that dual core processors started to match and then later beat single cores(on a purely clock speed basis based on similar architecture in a family of chips).

So you could buy a better PC than the 360 before the 360 came out, but it would have been very expensive.

The GPU for the next xbox(based on this article) might well fall between the levels of a hd7770 and a hd7850(similar to the current position of the gtx650ti). I say this despite the fact the article lists a slightly lower theoretical TFLOPS number compared to hd7770( the calculation is a little low and I have a feeling the gpu will have 32 ROPS compared to the 16 on hd7770 plus it will have more effective bandwidth between the fast system ram and the edram like ram that is several times larger and several times faster than what is in the xbox 360). I don't know why they couldn't just use a fx8350(or fx8320). 125w cpu and less than 150w(more like less than 140w) GPU plus ram and blu-ray burner. That's less than 380w(so decent inexpensive power supply) and you are plugging it into a wall, not hauling it around like a portable. Those parts don't need a heck of a lot to cool them, either.
 
[citation][nom]invlem[/nom]Sigh, just because the word 'thread' is in the description doesn't mean hyper-threading will be in the CPU.A thread is simply an instruction set that can be run independently of another instruction, it has absolutely nothing to do with hyper-threading!Hyper-threading is intel's proprietary method of making 1 core into 2 logical (virtual) cores in a way of more efficiently handling a work load.Neither AMD, nor IBM have the rights to use hyper-threading (proprietary technology, owned by intel), so the likelihood of it showing up in the 720's processor is zero considering intel has absolutely nothing to do with the 720's development.If they say there are 8 cores, its 8 physical cores, unless they plan on a legal battle with intel...[/citation]
What do you think the 360 has? Intel doesn't own SMT.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]A core 2 quad are still capable to run battlefield 3 today with 8800GTX @ low detail @ 30fps @ 1680x1050pDont forget that Consoles are running on texture details that are lower than PC's BF3 low detail setting @ even lower resolution @ 720p @ 30fps @ only 24 players. U actually believe those optimization can allow console to run things @ half of the resources? The diff isnt that big as what u might believe. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that there is no way a 1.6Ghz 8 core is anywhere near a 3GHz+ Sandybridge or a full fledged 3.6GHz bulldozer. Think about how weak these CPU on year 2020 @ 6yrs console life span. Optimization do not make miracles. They probably make things run more efficient, but NOT as much as u actually believe.[/citation]
Even though the article is probably a fake ( look at confused usage of the term "core" is used)... You talk about efficiency, so look at the entire hardware architecture, like the large ?SDRAM?
 
that seems just about right specially since these would probably cost $300~350 at launch. it doesn't need to be able to play BF3 or Crysis 3 on 1080p Ultra since that's what $1500+ gaming pc's are for. those who says that it should, please slam your head on the wall... 10 times just to be sure. thanks.
 
Everyone keeps talking about this like they know what they are talking about. You wouldn't happen to think that either of the companies involved could have invested heavily in cpu's specifically made for someone to play video games on?

Think about the corners they can cut with performance when its only going to run a proprietary operating system performing proprietary tasks, im excited to see what its like.
 
[citation][nom]Ragnar-Kon[/nom]8 Cores? I sense multithreaded games.... maybe.[/citation]

Really? XBOX 360 has 3 cores and PS3 has 7+1, but 8 makes you think multithreading? And why, if no more than 4 are used in PC games?'

*sigh*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom