All Three Next-Gen Consoles Sporting AMD GPUs?

[sunflier]

By the time any of these consoles are released with both the AMD Radeon RV770 GPU and IBM's 45-nm multi-core a whole new generation or two will have already been on the market for PC's.

 

[sunflier]

Sry, jfby, I didn't mean to step on your comment. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[flugelhorn]

This is awful news. Even the 28 years old nurse thinks so.

 

[burnley14]

The new Xbox to use an IBM cell processor? Seriously? This sucks, why in the world would they not use Sandy Bridge or even better Ivy Bridge? If you want max performance with lowest possible thermal overhead (and avoid a new generation of RRoD's), why not go with these chips?

 

[kinggraves]

[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]Consoles have a life span of about 10 years, so I do hope for something better than "good enough" when they decided which GPU, CPU, amount of RAM etc... Even better give us the freedom to expand our consoles by simply been able to add more RAM, add more video memory, or even change the GPU 5 years down the road if we want.[/citation]

Silly newkids, this is the first generation to ever have a lifespan of 10 years. Previous console generations lasted around 5-6 years.

I really doubt that MS will put the next XBox out any time after 2013, 2014 would give the Wii U a 2 year start. Notice how they announced these after the WiiU was announced? Nintendo forced their hand, they have to at least have something for people to look forward to while Nintendo's new product is being released.

I would think it better for Sony/MS to use a similar architecture that's different from the Wii U. The idea is to prevent Nintendo from having 3rd party support, a necessity if they want to bring their fans back. Devs don't like having to develop for different architectures, so whoever the odd man out is will get less attention from developers. Nintendo's already made things a bit more difficult with a wacky controller, so if their system was also inconvenient to work with, it would hurt their chances of getting 3rd parties back on thir side.

 

[invlem]

Considering MS already is using a 3 core IBM processor and an AMD graphics chip in their 360 its not really suprising to hear they'd use the same partners for their next gen console.

Don't forget, nvidia burned bridges with MS with the original XBox, AMD seems to have kept a good relationship with MS through the life cycle of the 360

 

[josejones]

There's no law that says the XBox must be manufactured with expensive custom parts. If they weren't making all those custom parts for consoles, maybe upgrades and consoles themselves wouldn't be so expensive.

Making custom parts probably holds them back far more than it helps. They should turn the XBox into a mini upgradable computer specific for gamers. Maybe we should be able to connect it to our computers and have the mouse/keyboard option.

Hardcore gamers are always saying that PC's are far better with much better technology and that consoles hold back development and technology. Maybe Microsoft/XBox should listen? They might gain many new PC customers. It sounds like a win/win to me.

 

[accidic]

[citation][nom]kashifme21[/nom]Not at all, just a small example for you, note how much microsoft charges for stuff like Hard drives, Wifi devices for the Xbox. I can assure you unless off shelf PC parts are not used, console upgrade parts prices will be sky high compared to PC counterparts.[/citation]
Saying that they charge these higher prices because they are limited run though is just kind of silly. The royalties are honestly the bigger chunk here and even then it's them being overly greedy. While I'm not against the Unified platform, I wouldn't think it would cause any problems so long as they stuck with the same lineage of video card. It might limit the number of possible upgrades but it does open the door for them to make a few more bucks without gouging the rest of the consumers. As an example, my current video card is using the same actual driver as the one two generations prior last time I checked. I didn't even bother to upgrade the driver for a while til I ran into a problem down the road and it didn't even fix that. As for memory? Haven't they been essentially charging us for Memory in the form of Memory Cards for years prior to the current generation? My only real fear is the SegaCD/32X factor of it and those had a tougher climb imo because of the shorter upgrade cycles versus the current one.

 

[sunflier]

I knew Apple was rotten, but wow!

 

[Guest]

@burnley14

cause sandy bridge is a gfx crunching monster......

@drwho1 and stingstang

windows has a large amount of junk handlers that allows for unknown multitudes of hardware to interface with it, partly why it has such a big foot print, throw that into your console and it's going slow the thing down like no tomorrow. If you know that your using a specific hardware you can streamline it, also means you can directly address the hardware without the requirement of middle-ware negotiators, this has a significant speed advantage (drivers and directx are middle-ware negotiators ensuring the software can reliably communicate with the hardware)

 

[emergent84]

They should at least use the best GPU available today and a 32nm CPU. I assume they will all be DX11 like.

After these next-gen consoles there will little pressure to change until mainstream TV adopt 4k resolution (preferably more), which is going to be a long, very long time. 1080P sucks on larger screens, and most people do or will own at least a 50in screen. I dream of a day when I can get a 100in screen at 33MP resolution.

 

[master9716]

Amd Currently controls the Low Power Consumption segment while providing ultimate performance and lower prices than Nvidia.

 

[carlhenry]

you kids should stop about this "upgrade" thing.
the last thing you'd ask for a console game is THE specs.
if i have an xbox 720, i want to play games with a 720 logo on it.
not xbox 720 GeForce 660 or AMD equivalent.

consoles are consoles. it is pointless to have "upgrades".
now, to lessen the gap, i agree that consoles should have a mouse and keyb.

that's about it. fun right out of the box. no complicated crap.
imagine the horror of an upcoming game for your ps4 but you need upgrading??
heck, if that ever happens, you'd wish you had a PC instead of buying
a 1/2 year lifespan console. and then on its 3rd year, new tech will emerge
that is more efficient than your current console's board..... sheesh...
good luck with the "upgrade".

 

[dalethepcman]

[citation][nom]jfby[/nom]I don't see how new consoles will really raise the graphics bar (in the long run). Sure for the next year or two they will help, but when the consoles debut, the GPU tech will already be 2 - 4 years old. In 2015 or so, we all might be talking about 'console ports' all over again. But then again, I'd rather take a year or two of awesome graphics, then not.[/citation]

When the XBOX 360 was released it had a R500 Radeon core. The release date of the R500 core (X1300) for desktop GPU's was October 2005. The release date for the 360, November 2005. So where do you get your 2-4 year old hardware analogy from? If the next 360 was released today, it would have the equivalent to a radeon 6850-6870 built in.

 

[atminside]

point less. I bought my 360 in 2009 and sold it last week. Last console I will ever buy. Personally I think it's a complete waste of money to buy something that has little to no upgrade options and is built on a proprietary system. Sure consoles are cheaper than computers and simpler to use but in the long run I don't see the value. Unfortunately game developers are directing their efforts to consoles and we are seeing a drop in PC gaming quality. We have games like Crysis 2, Mass Effect 2, and even duke nukem forever that have gone to the console path and only ported to the PC for added market gain. It seems no one wants to develop a game for just the PC anymore. I expect all future AAA title games will be console games and then later will be ported to the PC. In terms of graphical, physics, textures, lighting, shadows, etc... I see no future for the PC. It's just going to be console consoles console console.

 

[walter87]

[citation][nom]JoseJones[/nom]They should turn the XBox into a mini upgradable computer specific for gamers. Maybe we should be able to connect it to our computers and have the mouse/keyboard option. Hardcore gamers are always saying that PC's are far better with much better technology and that consoles hold back development and technology. Maybe Microsoft/XBox should listen? They might gain many new PC customers. It sounds like a win/win to me.[/citation]

The reason they wouldn't allow people to tinker with the hardware of a console is because
Developers know the hardware and can make full optimizations with the games without worrying if there game will work or not. Customers know that if they buy a game, it will work and have consistent performance for everyone.
Its also a business. Why would Sony or M$ make it so you will only need to buy 1 console ever again and then go buy 3rd party hardware? Thats insane from a business standpoint.
Still, PC gamers will still play on PC even if what you said ever did happen and will always have more advanced hardware.

 

[poloytisoy]

So it would be nice and cheap...
I think...

 

[walter87]

[citation][nom]kashifme21[/nom]Not at all, just a small example for you, note how much microsoft charges for stuff like Hard drives, Wifi devices for the Xbox. I can assure you unless off shelf PC parts are not used, console upgrade parts prices will be sky high compared to PC counterparts.[/citation]
Exactly, Microsoft wouldn't let you buy new hardware without placing the Xbox Certified sticker on it.
They've also killed 3rd party hardware makes. Now you need to buy certified 360 Controllers and accesories. Why would i pay $100 for a certified Xbox HDMI cable when i can get one for $20.

 

[Guest]

My only question is.... how do you relate the CPU to a "heart" again??? It's more of the brain don't ya think?

 

[jfby]

No stepping involved... I'm glad someone sees it like I do.

Everyone needs to remember where consoles came from: back then almost no one was building and playing games on computers. Even in the early 90s, I had 1 friend who played computer games, and 20 that played console games. No one dreamed of owning let alone playing computer games, and you loved playing your NES and eventually SNES or Sega Genesis and didn't think of upgrading it.

With PS and XBOX on the scene, computers were more established, and people started to home build computers, but more so when the PS2 came out.

Consoles are still very much stuck in the packaged deal, and some like it that way. I would love to have upgradeability in my gaming system... but I do. It's my computer.

Consoles are as 'cheap' as they are because when a manufacturer builds the same thing over and over and over again, 20 - 50 million times, they get better at making it cheaper and cheaper. If they were constantly upgrading it, even with 1 - 2 year old tech, the systems wouldn't drop in price like they do. Like it or hate it, this is how I see it.