Xbox 720: 6x Performance Increase, Kinect 2, 3D, 1080p

[Zingam_Duo]

6x the performance of Xbox 360 isn't that much, after all it was released so many years ago. I have expected at least twice that much.

 

[A Bad Day]

six or eight ARM or x86 cores

I demand eight cores, because when the developers lazily port their games to PC, they would already have eight-core support.

 

[Combat Wombat]

[citation][nom]cybrcatter[/nom]Old as dirt, worthless document. Move along. Nothing to see here.[/citation]
Don't be such a downer

 

[Maxor127]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, can you stop calling it Xbox 720? That name is stupid and I hope for the sake of consumers that Microsoft has better taste than that.

 

[Raidur]

I smell fanboy thumbs!

 

[TheBigTroll]

The should just use the 7970M if the desktop cards pull to much power. The 7970M performs in between the 7850 and 7870 (it's a downclocked 7870), so that would actually put out very decent performance.

microsoft is dirt cheap. why would they put such a good gpu in a machine that is designed to run at medium settings and 30fps whenever you play?

 

[bigdog44]

A 2 yr old doc should be taken as such. Alot of the "info" should be a given: 3D, 1080p, 6x performance to facilitate 1st 2 items, kinect 2.
DDR4 wont be in mass production til 2014.
3D glasses will be an enhancement upgrade accessory, with baseline 3D available without them.
Recording TV is probably a means to sell HDDs at elevated costs.
The bluray support, B/C and xenon core may mean an accessory.
8x cores are likely IBM.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]john_4[/nom]Whats with all the the trolls who are thumbing down posts. Go back to your mom's basement, trolls.[/citation]
...they're probably already there.

 

[cybrcatter]

[citation][nom]Combat Wombat[/nom]Don't be such a downer[/citation]
OK.

Believe every laughable rumor on the net, everybody!

Better?

 

[Shin-san]

I wonder if they'll let developers use both the ARM cores and the PowerPC cores. The PowerPC cores should actually be used solely for Kinect 2 in this case and leave the ARM cores open

 

[tomfreak]

take the three PPC cores clocked at 3.2GHz, double it up to 6x 3.2GHz cores, drop a decent GPU inside = new Xbox. And no more silly console port game that make use of 2-3 threads only.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]Is this what they are supposed to be announcing at 3:30 PST today?[/citation]
nope, that is a tablet found here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2012/06/microsoft-unveils-surface-tablet/1#.T9-82LV5F8F expect this news to hit Tom's in ~2-3 days always behind on the news cycle
[citation][nom]stardude82[/nom]Lets see.. Xbox 360 came out in in 2005... 360 will come out in 2013... so 7 years minimum between releases. If you follow Moore's law where transistor counts double ever 1.5 years... 7/1.5=~4.6. 2^4.6=~25x more transistors. So wow, we are getting x6 performance out of 25x more transistors possible on the same area of silicon. So either, the cost of the new xBox will be way down due to smaller die sizes or the performance per transistor sucks.[/citation]
Moore's law is every 18 months, and has more to do with perceived performance doubling, not just transistor count. As software and hardware grow then there is a near doubling every 18 months. Keep in mind that consoles are closed systems: in other words you can get a ton more performance out of it than equivilant PC software because it is a single purpose device in a closed environment (less compatibility code, less OS headroom, less competing for resources with other software, etc.)
[citation][nom]GamerRO25[/nom]hhhmmm would this be enough power starting next year and last for the next 10? I think in 3 years a mobile phone will have the same cpu/gpu power .... gggrr consoles will always keep back proper games![/citation]
lol, in your dreams! Smartphones started with ~Pentium 2 level processing, and are now leveling off in the middle Pentium 4 levels of processing (granted with much better graphics than were available at the time). The trend now is for a leveling off of CPU development, with continued GPU development, but even still we are not going to see this level of performance in a handheld for another 8-10 years running on batteries, and even then it will be only in the highest end phones.
Consoles will still hold back games, but this will be a huge leap ahead for developers to play with, so we should be able to expect much better games available within the next 3 years (1 year to release console, 2 years to develop games that take proper advantage of the hardware).
[citation][nom]whooleo[/nom]I doubt that it's going to get an ARM or x86 CPU (especially ARM) I don't think they would ditch PowerPC they would need it for backwards compatibility and it's such a widely used architecture in consoles (among other things) so devs and the like are familiar with it. I also doubt DDR4 because consoles normally don't use vanilla DDR RAM it's usually GDDR or something else.[/citation]
Why is this so hard to conceive? Look at all the modern development tools available for ARM and x86! It looks like PS4 will move over to x86. All of the phones, and computers that are on x86 and ARM will be a huge draw to developers to more easily port titles across multiple devices. 1 less hardware platform means easier and cheaper development. This may not mean cheaper games for us, but it will mean a longer extension of $60 games instead of them moving up to $75 like many dev houses are considering for all the effort it takes to make these current high end PC games.
[citation][nom]TheBigTroll[/nom]this aint pc bro. xbox cant draw more than 100w from the wall or else they run into heat problems.[/citation]
Why not? The original PS3 sucked down more power than a refrigerator! MS just needs to pick a better case design next time (and move away from PPC which runs too hot... that is the #1 reason Apple moved away, because of what they wanted to do with their mobile devices).
[citation][nom]john_4[/nom]Whats with all the the trolls who are thumbing down posts. Go back to your mom's basement, trolls.[/citation]
*bam!* Down Vote
[citation][nom]buddhabelly34[/nom]decent performance for now. thats the problem. they release the console next year, then the hardware is that much older. they need to have a beefy ass card when it launches for the console to stay relevant.imagine the 360 without the x1900 in it. it wouldnt have lasted NEAR as long.at least displays wont be getting too much more pixel dense in the near future (google an article talking about the benefits of a home tv with >1080p res). that should keep the hardware performance in check in more ways than the 360 was really prepared to deal with.[/citation]
On the contrary, that is my greatest fear for this gen of consoles. Last time they were coming out with 720P in mind, not anticipating just how quickly 1080P adoption would take place, and frankly current gen consoles can't hack it. This time around they are all set and ready for 1080P... just as 2K and 4K are on the verge of consumer release, and right as PC screens are being developed for 4K+ resolutions. Yes, they are not out now, but they will begin to be announced towards the end of this year, and will begin to be adopted next year just as these consoles are being released. So unless they see it coming, they will be behind again.
[citation][nom]cybrcatter[/nom]Old as dirt, worthless document. Move along. Nothing to see here.[/citation]
Exactly! This document is already a year old. A lot can change in a year, and by now the specs are likely all pounded out, and the systems are in pre-production for deveopers to begin designing around.
My bet? Quad core x86, 32nm or smaller CPU special ordered from AMD and paired with an AMD GPU somewhere in the 7850 range of power, but specially leveraged and developed for so that it acts more like a 7950-7970. 2-4GB of DDR3, but a possibility for DDR4 (DDR4 was not supposed to be released until Broadwell in 2014, but it looks more and more like it will be out early with Haswell next year). Traditional HDD with a SSD upgrade option. All of the features listed in the article, with the possibility of file serving if you attach a large external USB3 HDD... Seriously, whoever makes a console that is also a file server will get my business. Oh, and Wireless N by default, with no Ethernet port.

welp, that's my 2 cents. I am particularly excited for more complex levels which is where consoles have really held back development. Also I cannot wait for Kinnect 2 on PC, that will be awesome

 

[nieur]

if they use x86 then it will be easier to emulate

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]buddhabelly34[/nom]lol, every comment is down rated. im prepared for you trolls to down rate mine.hopefully they make it so that gaming doesn't get held back by consoles. sounds like the cpu power will be plenty for gaming for quite a few years, it's the GPU that worries me. for a long life gpu, you HAVE to get a flagship card, and I doubt they'll be cramming a 680/690 (7970/7990) in there. though, my 460 has stood the test of time better than i expected so who knows. 2-3 years of solid performance is good enough, i'll return to PC gaming after that. oh, and i really hope they dont call it the "720" or "xbawks" for that matter.[/citation]
Every single time and I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME consoles are even MENTIONED in an article discussing performance, a PC gamer chimes in with their PC-centric perspective on hardware requirements while SIMULTANEOUSLY deriding and IGNORING console hardware.

If you're even mildly proficient at building computers here's a very relevant thought exercise for you: build a computer with 512MB of TOTAL RAM that can play Mass Effect 2 at medium settings and 720p resolution.





You CAN'T. It isn't POSSIBLE to DO with any modern version of Windows. You cannot build a computer that runs even Windows XP (since ME2 runs only DX9) and Mass Effect 2 simultaneously PERIOD, let alone on Medium settings and HD resolution. The system requirements for ME2 alone are twice what's available in a modern console, and that's the bare minimum.

Yet somehow consoles do it. My Xbox runs ME2 perfectly fine and, while the textures aren't anything to write home about, it still looks decent.

Therefore, anyone who decides they want to compare PC hardware to consoles, anyone that want's to say that the MINIMUM a console needs is a flagship GPU, and anyone that thinks they know enough about game and game console design to speak intelligently on the subject needs to remember that unless you've personally made a game for a game CONSOLE, your frame of reference is irrelevant. PC and console hardware CANNOT be compared.

 

[TheBigTroll]

Every single time and I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME consoles are even MENTIONED in an article discussing performance, a PC gamer chimes in with their PC-centric perspective on hardware requirements while SIMULTANEOUSLY deriding and IGNORING console hardware.

If you're even mildly proficient at building computers here's a very relevant thought exercise for you: build a computer with 512MB of TOTAL RAM that can play Mass Effect 2 at medium settings and 720p resolution.





You CAN'T. It isn't POSSIBLE to DO with any modern version of Windows. You cannot build a computer that runs even Windows XP (since ME2 runs only DX9) and Mass Effect 2 simultaneously PERIOD, let alone on Medium settings and HD resolution. The system requirements for ME2 alone are twice what's available in a modern console, and that's the bare minimum.

Yet somehow consoles do it. My Xbox runs ME2 perfectly fine and, while the textures aren't anything to write home about, it still looks decent.

Therefore, anyone who decides they want to compare PC hardware to consoles, anyone that want's to say that the MINIMUM a console needs is a flagship GPU, and anyone that thinks they know enough about game and game console design to speak intelligently on the subject needs to remember that unless you've personally made a game for a game CONSOLE, your frame of reference is irrelevant. PC and console hardware CANNOT be compared.

good job bro. i see both sides of the argument as im a xbox and pc guy. it intrigues me how the xbox can have such good graphics even though it is about to be 7 years old. ex is bf3. bf3 at medium can be run at a playable frame rate even though it is one of the most demanding PC games out there.

off topic but waiting for halo 4 to come out for xbox (hopefully PC too)

 

[mayne92]

Hard for me to believe. Sounds like M$ is copying Apple's marketing strats. Once something hits the Internet it belongs to the Internet. Taking it down won't do anything.

 

[aggroboy]

[citation][nom]buddhabelly34[/nom]lol, every comment is down rated. im prepared for you trolls to down rate mine.hopefully they make it so that gaming doesn't get held back by consoles. [/citation]
PC is a nice gaming platform. But PC enthusiasts need to have some perspective.

Think about the release of Xbox 360 way back in 2005. What 2005 PC can play today's games?

 

[Stardude82]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]Moore's law is every 18 months, and has more to do with perceived performance doubling, not just transistor count...[/citation]

Yes, that's what I implied. 25x more transistors per area... 6x more performance... What are the transistors doing? It seems there is either drastically less Si or drastically less performance per area of Si. Closed gaming systems are the best place to test this.

 

[Guest]

To throw on a 670 video card or similar varient would jack the cost of the box itself. Hello the 670 by itself goes for 400 USD the XBox 720 is gonna start at 300. do the math you think nvidia is going to sell a high end video card to microsoft for 50 USD........ Then to top it all off you would need the support hardware to even utilize the 670's full potential. ie. PSI-E lanes, have a South bridge capable of handling a 670, a good CPU etc. etc. that be like strapping a 7970/680 to a pentium 4 single core cpu and expect similar performance to a ivy bridge cpu @ 4+ ghz.

 

[SneakySnake]

[citation][nom]guardianangel42[/nom]Therefore, anyone who decides they want to compare PC hardware to consoles, anyone that want's to say that the MINIMUM a console needs is a flagship GPU, and anyone that thinks they know enough about game and game console design to speak intelligently on the subject needs to remember that unless you've personally made a game for a game CONSOLE, your frame of reference is irrelevant. PC and console hardware CANNOT be compared.[/citation]

lol but console's use PC hardware, and I'm sure the 720 will be running some version of windows 8. So yes we can compare them. And also, yes we can demand a flagship GPU in the new xbox, because guess what, back in 2005 the xbox was released with a flagship GPU, so why it is so naughty of us to demand a flagship one in the new xbox?

Also, your right in saying that I can't build a PC with 512 MB of RAM that'll play ME, but why would I ? A full 4 GB costs $20. I can build a PC for $500 that'll play ME3 at 1080p on high settings. And then I don't have to pay for xbox live, and can slowly upgrade that PC in the future to always play on max graphics, or just leave it how it is and play at console level graphics.

Also, the 8800 GT came out in 2006. That'll play any game today at at least medium settings - and at 1080p

 

[buddhabelly34]

[citation][nom]guardianangel42[/nom]Every single time and I mean EVERY SINGLE TIME consoles are even MENTIONED in an article discussing performance, a PC gamer chimes in with their PC-centric perspective on hardware requirements while SIMULTANEOUSLY deriding and IGNORING console hardware.If you're even mildly proficient at building computers here's a very relevant thought exercise for you: build a computer with 512MB of TOTAL RAM that can play Mass Effect 2 at medium settings and 720p resolution.You CAN'T. It isn't POSSIBLE to DO with any modern version of Windows. You cannot build a computer that runs even Windows XP (since ME2 runs only DX9) and Mass Effect 2 simultaneously PERIOD, let alone on Medium settings and HD resolution. The system requirements for ME2 alone are twice what's available in a modern console, and that's the bare minimum.Yet somehow consoles do it. My Xbox runs ME2 perfectly fine and, while the textures aren't anything to write home about, it still looks decent.Therefore, anyone who decides they want to compare PC hardware to consoles, anyone that want's to say that the MINIMUM a console needs is a flagship GPU, and anyone that thinks they know enough about game and game console design to speak intelligently on the subject needs to remember that unless you've personally made a game for a game CONSOLE, your frame of reference is irrelevant. PC and console hardware CANNOT be compared.[/citation]
okay internet warrior, calm the eff down.

the reason your crap hardware can run current games at medium settings @720p 30fps is because the games are optimized and are purposely gimped graphically. if it was not for the uniformity of hardware within consoles, your shit hardware couldnt run a single AAA game being developed currently.

and i could build a computer for about $400 that could do exactly what you want, no discrete GPU needed thanks to AMD. granted it needs more ram because my computer is doing MULTIPLE THINGS not just gaming. same performance in games though.

so no, you need to calm down before you take what others say out of context. i want a flagship card in the consoles so that the graphics in games arent dumbed down in a few years when that 7670/7770 based architecture in the xbox isnt enough to play anything decently. think Crysis (when it was released) versus any console title.


oh, and i wont bother writing in about all the fallacies in your post. unless you REALLY want me to.

[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]On the contrary, that is my greatest fear for this gen of consoles. Last time they were coming out with 720P in mind, not anticipating just how quickly 1080P adoption would take place, and frankly current gen consoles can't hack it. This time around they are all set and ready for 1080P... just as 2K and 4K are on the verge of consumer release, and right as PC screens are being developed for 4K+ resolutions. Yes, they are not out now, but they will begin to be announced towards the end of this year, and will begin to be adopted next year just as these consoles are being released. So unless they see it coming, they will be behind again.[/citation]
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]PC is a nice gaming platform. But PC enthusiasts need to have some perspective. Think about the release of Xbox 360 way back in 2005. What 2005 PC can play today's games?[/citation]
what xbox can play at 1080p or even over 30fps at 720p? none. what is your point?

console gamers need some perspective. your idea of "360 is good enough" screws over those that want progress. seems selfish if you ask me.

[citation][nom]SneakySnake[/nom]lol but console's use PC hardware, and I'm sure the 720 will be running some version of windows 8. So yes we can compare them. And also, yes we can demand a flagship GPU in the new xbox, because guess what, back in 2005 the xbox was released with a flagship GPU, so why it is so naughty of us to demand a flagship one in the new xbox? Also, your right in saying that I can't build a PC with 512 MB of RAM that'll play ME, but why would I ? A full 4 GB costs $20. I can build a PC for $500 that'll play ME3 at 1080p on high settings. And then I don't have to pay for xbox live, and can slowly upgrade that PC in the future to always play on max graphics, or just leave it how it is and play at console level graphics.Also, the 8800 GT came out in 2006. That'll play any game today at at least medium settings - and at 1080p[/citation]
thanks for being intelligent. fanboys never seem to be able to wrap their minds around "PC does more for less." my games are cheaper, look better, and my system does a plethora of stuff without a $60/year subscription.

 

[buddhabelly34]

[citation][nom]Drexen[/nom]To throw on a 670 video card or similar varient would jack the cost of the box itself. Hello the 670 by itself goes for 400 USD the XBox 720 is gonna start at 300. do the math you think nvidia is going to sell a high end video card to microsoft for 50 USD........ Then to top it all off you would need the support hardware to even utilize the 670's full potential. ie. PSI-E lanes, have a South bridge capable of handling a 670, a good CPU etc. etc. that be like strapping a 7970/680 to a pentium 4 single core cpu and expect similar performance to a ivy bridge cpu @ 4+ ghz.[/citation]
i belive the 670 architecture could be bought for about 150 a pop. you have to remember, they will be buying in bulk, and will have a LONG contract for that card. it also means that games are being developed for that card specifically (assuming no major changes when putting the big card into a smaller form) which means nvidia can market to pc gamers as "your games will run better on our stuff."

and you wouldnt need a pci-e lane for the 670. most pcie lanes arent being used fully at this point. not to mention that the argument for a 670 going into the new console has nothing to do with an actualy desktop card, but more to do with the lifespan of the card. maxwell architecture will come soon after the supposed launch of the "720" and putting a mid-to-low range kepler card in it (or the AMD equivalent) will basically screw over pc gamers in the long (and short) run.

 

[masterofevil22]

This is an Old Butt, INTENTIONAL leak (if it IS even legit) by MS.. just to try and let Sony Not put too much hardware into the PS4 and get blindsided by a better box from MS or have to scramble to make hardware revisions to their own box "last minute" after planning for different hardware.

Either way, GIVE US MORE POWER Fers!!!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]stardude82[/nom]Lets see.. Xbox 360 came out in in 2005... 360 will come out in 2013... so 7 years minimum between releases. If you follow Moore's law where transistor counts double ever 1.5 years... 7/1.5=~4.6. 2^4.6=~25x more transistors. So wow, we are getting x6 performance out of 25x more transistors possible on the same area of silicon. So either, the cost of the new xBox will be way down due to smaller die sizes or the performance per transistor sucks.[/citation]

You don't know Moore's law very well... FYI, it's constantly slowing down. It hit every two years quite a while ago.

[citation][nom]whooleo[/nom]I doubt that it's going to get an ARM or x86 CPU (especially ARM) I don't think they would ditch PowerPC they would need it for backwards compatibility and it's such a widely used architecture in consoles (among other things) so devs and the like are familiar with it. I also doubt DDR4 because consoles normally don't use vanilla DDR RAM it's usually GDDR or something else.[/citation]

Consoles don't use graphics RAM as their system RAM for the OS and CPU-based portions of the games. For example, the PS3 has 256MiB of XDR memory as its system RAM instead of another 256MiB of GDDR3 like its VRAM.

[citation][nom]buddhabelly34[/nom]okay internet warrior, calm the eff down.the reason your crap hardware can run current games at medium settings @720p 30fps is because the games are optimized and are purposely gimped graphically. if it was not for the uniformity of hardware within consoles, your shit hardware couldnt run a single AAA game being developed currently.and i could build a computer for about $400 that could do exactly what you want, no discrete GPU needed thanks to AMD. granted it needs more ram because my computer is doing MULTIPLE THINGS not just gaming. same performance in games though.so no, you need to calm down before you take what others say out of context. i want a flagship card in the consoles so that the graphics in games arent dumbed down in a few years when that 7670/7770 based architecture in the xbox isnt enough to play anything decently. think Crysis (when it was released) versus any console title.oh, and i wont bother writing in about all the fallacies in your post. unless you REALLY want me to. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199 [...] re-stupid/what xbox can play at 1080p or even over 30fps at 720p? none. what is your point?console gamers need some perspective. your idea of "360 is good enough" screws over those that want progress. seems selfish if you ask me.thanks for being intelligent. fanboys never seem to be able to wrap their minds around "PC does more for less." my games are cheaper, look better, and my system does a plethora of stuff without a $60/year subscription.[/citation]

The 7670 has VLIW5 and the 7770 has GCN... The two have radically different architectures in their GPUs.

[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom] Moore's law is every 18 months, and has more to do with perceived performance doubling, not just transistor count. As software and hardware grow then there is a near doubling every 18 months. Keep in mind that consoles are closed systems: in other words you can get a ton more performance out of it than equivilant PC software because it is a single purpose device in a closed environment (less compatibility code, less OS headroom, less competing for resources with other software, etc.) [/citation]

1.5 years is 18 months and Moore's law has absolutely nothing to do with performance. It is only transistor density in affordable chips. Look it up on wiki or somewhere else if you want to know exactly what it is. Beyond that, Moore's law slows down over time. It started off as every 12 months and is already at every 2 years or so. Furthermore, performance does not double in CPUs nearly as often as you claim. Maybe, just maybe, a SB/IB i7 can be double a similarly high end (for its time) Core 2 Quad in highly threaded performance, but even then... That's a 3-5 year spread. Furthermore, if we go by single-quad threaded performance, we haven't even doubled Core 2 yet.

[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom] Oh, and Wireless N by default, with no Ethernet port.welp, that's my 2 cents. I am particularly excited for more complex levels which is where consoles have really held back development. Also I cannot wait for Kinnect 2 on PC, that will be awesome[/citation]

Ditch the Ethernet port, the only way that some people would be able to use it with internet and/or network access? I don't think that this is a good idea.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]PC is a nice gaming platform. But PC enthusiasts need to have some perspective. Think about the release of Xbox 360 way back in 2005. What 2005 PC can play today's games?[/citation]

What Xbox 360 plays today's games? None. They might play games that were made today but use ancient hardware, but that doesn't make them today's games. Furthermore, I have several computers from 2004-2006 that can play some games today, if you count WoW and such as today's games (I don't, but you seem like you would). No, these aren't high end computers that have been upgraded over the years... A P4 3.0GHz computer with a Radeon x200 or some crap like that can play WoW and can do it above the minimum settings too.

[citation][nom]buddhabelly34[/nom]i belive the 670 architecture could be bought for about 150 a pop. you have to remember, they will be buying in bulk, and will have a LONG contract for that card. it also means that games are being developed for that card specifically (assuming no major changes when putting the big card into a smaller form) which means nvidia can market to pc gamers as "your games will run better on our stuff."and you wouldnt need a pci-e lane for the 670. most pcie lanes arent being used fully at this point. not to mention that the argument for a 670 going into the new console has nothing to do with an actualy desktop card, but more to do with the lifespan of the card. maxwell architecture will come soon after the supposed launch of the "720" and putting a mid-to-low range kepler card in it (or the AMD equivalent) will basically screw over pc gamers in the long (and short) run.[/citation]

The 670, with at least 8GB/s of PCIe throughput, is not PCIe bottle-necked. With 4GB/s, it shows weakness. With anything less, it is now bottle-necked. You'd need at least 4 PCIe 3.0 lanes for a GTX 670. Considering the level of optimization would probably allow the console 670 to play 5760x1200 better than the regular 670 can do 2560x1600 in a desktop, it would need 8GB/s of PCIe throughput, so either 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes or 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes to avoid PCIe bottle-necking well enough for code to be able to account for this issue.