[ban25]

Originally Posted by JardeL

What are the chances of they [Sony/MS] both going with AMD CPU&GPU ?..

Decent.

[Heinrich4]

Originally Posted by Arwin

I think PS4/360 may well be at a similar distance from WiiU as PS360 are currently from Wii. There may be a smaller difference in terms of memory, but you have to wonder about the overhead of that tablet both in terms of adding to the retail price and in terms of processing overhead. I'm certainly expecting that more than a ps2 to gc/xbox type deal.

I'm agree with Shifty.

I think "ps4/x720" should be at least in graphics power 2 times higher than Wii U, and sorry unfortunately it is a great IMO,2 cents etc,but I imagine something like a GPU 1 TFLOP/800 Alus for the Wii U(rumours -> RV770 pro at 40nm) and at least 1120/1408/Alus/2tflops (Barts XT to Cayman pro like refresh to 28nm) range for next gen console MS and Sony ie, nothing like the extreme difference from the wii (tech ArtX 1998/2000) to ps360 (2004/2006).

[BRiT]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

No way. Wii was built around 6+ year old tech when it launched. Wuu will be all of 2 years behind the tech curve unless Nintendo are supremely cheap, using outdated tech. Where Wii is maybe 1/10th PS360, Wuu should be more like a quarter of PS4/XB3 according to my gut feelings based on current rumours.

Not really. Remember the Wuu is targetting just a notch above the 6+ year old tech [PS360].

Unless MS/Sony set their sights low, it could be just as sizable a difference between the Wuu and the PS4/X80. Fortunately for Nintendo, the difference between them likely wont seem that large since average consumers don't know what to look for. What they will notice is the graphic style differences between different games, but when looking at the same third-part games ported over, it'll seem close-enough. Afterall, they're the same consumer space who don't notice enough of a difference between SD and HD TVs.

[bgassassin]

The gap won't be the same because Wii U will be using "competent" hardware as opposed to Wii.

Originally Posted by Heinrich4

I'm agree with Shifty.

I think "ps4/x720" should be at least in graphics power 2 times higher than Wii U, and sorry unfortunately it is a great IMO,2 cents etc,but I imagine something like a GPU 1 TFLOP/800 Alus for the Wii U(rumours -> RV770 pro at 40nm) and at least 1120/1408/Alus/2tflops (Barts XT to Cayman pro like refresh to 28nm) range for next gen console MS and Sony ie, nothing like the extreme difference from the wii (tech ArtX 1998/2000) to ps360 (2004/2006).

I see it similar to this, but I think Nintendo will target either 32nm or 28nm for the GPU and probably closer to 640 ALUs. I see Sony/MS targeting GCN CUs. No more than 20 (1280 ALUs).

[IllusionistK]

TSMC has already taped out 20nm parts and are expected to have production silicon Q4'12.

I think it is plausible to have a 2048-4096SPs/ALUs (assuming at 250w TDP) part for a 2013 console when 20nm manufacturing will be under way by then.

[sebbbi]

GCN has hardware virtual texturing (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/a...-7970-review/6). I wonder if Carmack has had any input on their decision to include it

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by BRiT

Not really. Remember the Wuu is targetting just a notch above the 6+ year old tech [PS360].

But, unless Nintendo go rummaging in the bargain bins for old tech, their GPU will be reasonably up-to-date. There'll be a DX10.1/11 GPU in Wuu, which will enable a lot of graphical features resulting in feature parity if not fidelity. So I guess Wuu games could look like PS4 games but with rougher polygons, lower IQ, maybe no dynamic GI. The difference won't be as perceptible as PS360 vs Wii again. Unless, as I say, Nintendo massively cheap out. If they greatly underclock their components and/or slap in an anaemic bus, that'd be possible, but I see no reason to expect that.

[TheWretched]

This might be true for earlier PS4 games, but later on in the cycle, devs might use stuff, which Wuu might not handle at all. I can't really say what that might be, but the situation you describe is very similar to the beginning of this generation. Tomb Raider Legend for example was more or less a PS2 game, but had upgraded shaders and whatnot for 360 and PC. But as the generation went on, stuff was piled onto the engines. And you can't just "disable it" like that anymore. At least not, if you don't want to put a lot of man hours into refactoring all the stuff for Wuu.

But I still can't really imagine that Wuu will be as awesome as some people make it out to be. It's unlike Nintendo if they go with a big console, and thus their are already hamstrung by the TDP before all else. And that alone will disallow any high-end performance parts. The newer generation parts will do their part, yes, but the lower clocks and size will do their part, too.

It's a bit like comparing an HTPC to mid-to-higher-end gaming PCs, if we look down the line between Wuu and PS420. Yes, you can game on an HTPC, but the built in GPU (as in Llano or similar) won't hold up well with newer games and high settings. The gaming PC will breeze through these games at lower settings and might produce acceptable performance on higher settings (depending on how the player wants the game to play, as I prefer stable 60Hz, I usually disable 4xMSAA in favor of higher framerate for example, as I am already playing at 1080P on my TV).

[bgassassin]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

But, unless Nintendo go rummaging in the bargain bins for old tech, their GPU will be reasonably up-to-date. There'll be a DX10.1/11 GPU in Wuu, which will enable a lot of graphical features resulting in feature parity if not fidelity. So I guess Wuu games could look like PS4 games but with rougher polygons, lower IQ, maybe no dynamic GI. The difference won't be as perceptible as PS360 vs Wii again. Unless, as I say, Nintendo massively cheap out. If they greatly underclock their components and/or slap in an anaemic bus, that'd be possible, but I see no reason to expect that.

Pretty much this. The fact that it's supporting Eyefinity which was introduced after the R700 line should have been an early indication that it will be much more modern. And speaking of the bus, I have heard that it's pretty solid.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by bgassassin

And speaking of the bus, I have heard that it's pretty solid.

I can't see any reason to think it wouldn't be. I think it fair to say Nintendo have generally designed well balanced systems without an obvious gimpage. N64 had stupid memory limits, I guess, and perhaps one could say GC was a bit short on RAM too, but they've not done anything really stupid like stick a massive GPU on a tiddly little bus before now and have it BW starved. Where their hardware has been lacking is choice of components, not design. As such, if they put in a decent CPU and GPU this time around, I expect all the extras to be up the task. If we use such gross measures as multiples of a previous generation, if MS and Sony have a typical 10x increase from this gen to next, and Wuu only has a 2x increase over PS360, then Wuu will be 5x behind PS4*. If Nintendo go with 3x this gen (not implausible, with next-gen GPU and more RAM) then that places them ~3x behind PS4. The difference between PS4 and Wuu really can't be like the 10x difference between PS360 and Wii.

*Note I only use PS4 and not PS4 + XB3 for convenience. I clearly mean 'next gen consoles from MS and Sony' in that comparison.

[bgassassin]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I can't see any reason to think it wouldn't be. I think it fair to say Nintendo have generally designed well balanced systems without an obvious gimpage. N64 had stupid memory limits, I guess, and perhaps one could say GC was a bit short on RAM too, but they've not done anything really stupid like stick a massive GPU on a tiddly little bus before now and have it BW starved. Where their hardware has been lacking is choice of components, not design. As such, if they put in a decent CPU and GPU this time around, I expect all the extras to be up the task. If we use such gross measures as multiples of a previous generation, if MS and Sony have a typical 10x increase from this gen to next, and Wuu only has a 2x increase over PS360, then Wuu will be 5x behind PS4*. If Nintendo go with 3x this gen (not implausible, with next-gen GPU and more RAM) then that places them ~3x behind PS4. The difference between PS4 and Wuu really can't be like the 10x difference between PS360 and Wii.

*Note I only use PS4 and not PS4 + XB3 for convenience. I clearly mean 'next gen consoles from MS and Sony' in that comparison.

I don't see any reason either, but with the level of pessimism we see at times you'd think Wii U was running on a mouse in a little squeaky hamster wheel.

But yeah my assessment would be the same as yours. What Nintendo does with the GPU and memory will determine how close or how far they end up.

[Arwin]

I don't know. Not once have I seen something from Nintendo that lived up to performance expectations even remotely but who knows. And I'm curious about the overhead for the controller. Even then, 25% performance would mean I was more right than wrong.

I think personally that a much more uncertain factor will be how far ms and sony are willing to take performance vs cost. Sony won't be able to go as far as last time, but may not have to. Microsoft may be more focussed on Kinect 2.0 than anything else.

[bgassassin]

Originally Posted by Arwin

I don't know. Not once have I seen something from Nintendo that lived up to performance expectations even remotely but who knows. And I'm curious about the overhead for the controller. Even then, 25% performance would mean I was more right than wrong.

I think personally that a much more uncertain factor will be how far ms and sony are willing to take performance vs cost. Sony won't be able to go as far as last time, but may not have to. Microsoft may be more focussed on Kinect 2.0 than anything else.

Well Wii U also has an ARM processor to help with the controller so there won't be much of a burden on the CPU/GPU.

And with the latter I've heard that amongst devs its debatable which one of the two is more powerful.

[manux]

For me it might be enough if nintendo has timed exclusivity for gtV and slightly better game compared to ps3/xbox360. I'm on the fence if I want to buy back into current gen or wait for whatever ms/sony has in store for next gen.

I'm not money constrained to get consoles. For me it's time, I DO NOT want to waste time to redundancy or same old, same old. Whatever gives me fresh stuff, I'm in for.

[TheWretched]

A timed exclusive of GTA will not happen. Not unless Nintendo basically buys Rockstar. That game is set out to sell 20 million units in an instant and Nintendo just cannot sell these many units of a new, expensive (supposedly?) console that fast. Some rumors even state that this time around the PC version might launch on time, too, which I'd appreciate... at least if the port is a bit better this time around than 4.

[manux]

Originally Posted by TheWretched

A timed exclusive of GTA will not happen. Not unless Nintendo basically buys Rockstar. That game is set out to sell 20 million units in an instant and Nintendo just cannot sell these many units of a new, expensive (supposedly?) console that fast. Some rumors even state that this time around the PC version might launch on time, too, which I'd appreciate... at least if the port is a bit better this time around than 4.

There are rumours all the way, around and then some, time shows Most likely I pass consoles 2012 and wait for next gen.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I can't see any reason to think it wouldn't be. I think it fair to say Nintendo have generally designed well balanced systems without an obvious gimpage. N64 had stupid memory limits, I guess, and perhaps one could say GC was a bit short on RAM too, but they've not done anything really stupid like stick a massive GPU on a tiddly little bus before now and have it BW starved. Where their hardware has been lacking is choice of components, not design. As such, if they put in a decent CPU and GPU this time around, I expect all the extras to be up the task. If we use such gross measures as multiples of a previous generation, if MS and Sony have a typical 10x increase from this gen to next, and Wuu only has a 2x increase over PS360, then Wuu will be 5x behind PS4*. If Nintendo go with 3x this gen (not implausible, with next-gen GPU and more RAM) then that places them ~3x behind PS4. The difference between PS4 and Wuu really can't be like the 10x difference between PS360 and Wii.

*Note I only use PS4 and not PS4 + XB3 for convenience. I clearly mean 'next gen consoles from MS and Sony' in that comparison.

What if Wuu is only 20% more than PS360? And XB3/PS4 are more like 20X PS360, as we get into year 8, 9, from ps360 release?

I think sadly for Nintendo, the gap will be more than enough. Lets take your best case, 3X scenario, for this gen, that would be a 360 with a 166 mhz Xenos, 1ghz xenon, and I dont know, ~170 MB RAM? How pitiful would ports on that box have looked? Would anybody have bothered?

[Rodéric]

Originally Posted by Rangers

I think sadly for Nintendo, the gap will be more than enough. Lets take your best case, 3X scenario, for this gen, that would be a 360 with a 166 mhz Xenos, 1ghz xenon, and I dont know, ~170 MB RAM? How pitiful would ports on that box have looked? Would anybody have bothered?

What are you talking about ?

We already have a fair idea of what the Wii U will be like, it's > PS360, and I highly doubt competitors will release anything with more than twice its memory. (For the record the Wii only has 88MiB vs 512MiB this gen, and sold best , although I agree its gfx look quite dated.)
There almost certainly won't be as much difference between the WiiU and its competitors as there was between the Wii and PS360.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Rangers

I think sadly for Nintendo, the gap will be more than enough. Lets take your best case, 3X scenario, for this gen, that would be a 360 with a 166 mhz Xenos, 1ghz xenon, and I dont know, ~170 MB RAM?

Those specs don't describe what I mean by a 3x difference. I used the term 'gross measure' because such measurements are hard to make and very inexact. Is 2x the console achieved with just 2x the RAM, 2x the CPU clock, 2x everything? If we take this gen as 10x last gen, for PS3 that was achieved with 8x the RAM; 11x the CPU clock, but massively more execution units; 3x the GPU clock; the same working RAM bandwidth...it's such a mishmash of different variables, you can't make a simple performance extrapolation by just changing clocks and RAM amounts.

For 3x the performance, I guess I mean 3x the perceived on-screen graphics and in game elements. 3x the vertex counts, 3x the shader complexity, 3x the amount of physics, whatever hardware that runs on. And it's probably not a linear scaling for all those factors either. Heck one console running a game 60 Hz, and the other at 30 Hz, would constitute a literal half performance, yet Joe Gamer won't care a great deal about the difference if other factors come into play (cost, popularity, yadayada). It's probably a logarithmic scale, like human visual perception. With light, half the amount of light is seen as about a 10% difference in brightness. Likewise a console that's 'half' the performance of another is only going to look marginally worse, and not only half as good. This is something tech-specs can't shed any light on, how a console's graphics will hold up especially versus competitors. Hence it's a gross measure, just for discussion purposes.

Edit: In fact, I can explain exactly how the specs work. They are like dimensions of a shape. A square that's half the size of another square isn't half the width and half the height. These parameters are multiplied to achieve a half total value. In a console CPU clock, GPU clock and RAM could be considered dimensions of a cube. Halving all three would result in 1/8th the total 'volume' or console 'power'. Only there are way more dimensions than just three. Thus a 10% decrease across the board could result in a halving of the total performance And some dimensions can't be measured, such as shader capabilities or GPU features.

In real terms for graphics, a third of an XB3 would probably look very similar in games, only at less fidelity. A lot of future performance could be spent on excellent lighting and shading, which a lesser console could fake more and look comparable. Hopefully we'll see a decent amount spent on IQ next-gen, but a lesser console could get away with less AA and still be in the same ball-park. Wii wasn't in the same ball park, or the same league. It was several divisions down and that was obvious in its visuals. Wuu should have visually less discrepancy. The same game could be run at half the poly detail, less AA, slightly simpler shaders, lower resolution (720p vs 1080p), and still look the broadly same and not like some last-gen throwback. The only way this couldn't happen AFAICS is if MS and Sony go all out with insane, unaffordable specs leaving Wuu some generations behind. That or launch 3 years later!

[east of eastside]

Originally Posted by JardeL

But AMD CPU&GPU combo may be cheaper then IBM CPU&AMD GPU, wouldn't MS/Sony choose price/perf over perf/watt?..

What about an AMD designed ARMv8 64bit chip custom designed with Microsoft?

Is this a totally unrealistic scenario? It would seem to solve the whole price/perf and perf/watt conflict very nicely.

This would be several low watt ARMv8 integrated within the GCN architecture all on a single fusion chip further realizing cost and cooling gains.

With AMD making every suggestion that they are going to eventualy adopt ARM and their former manufacturing division, Global Foundries, already working with ARM on 28nm and 20nm tech could this be the secret perfect solution that not only meets all performance, cost, thermal, etc requirements, but gives MS the advantage of integrating 720 with Windows on ARM and Windows phone and tablets?

[Heinrich4]

Originally Posted by bgassassin

The gap won't be the same because Wii U will be using "competent" hardware as opposed to Wii.



I see it similar to this, but I think Nintendo will target either 32nm or 28nm for the GPU and probably closer to 640 ALUs. I see Sony/MS targeting GCN CUs. No more than 20 (1280 ALUs).

Could be interesting with a gpu wiiu 640alus at high clock,wich in this case was a similar technology on the market the like Radeon HD 4770/RV740 since 2009 at 40nm dissipating 80 watts and performance similar to HD 4850,which in theory would probably be less than 60 watts under 32/28nm which fit perfectly in the apparent small size of the next gen Nintendo console( my guess wii u = less than 150 watts).

About 1280alus for "psx4720" gpu I also agree, but let us not forget the miracle that AMD did to get put in just 4.31 billion transistors only 365mm2 with Radeon HD 7970 with many thanx to 28nm process.So I do not rule out the possibility of all of it up to see a psx4720 1408alus capable of being placed in a console 200/250watts(my another guess about wattage for next gen console MS and Sony).

[IllusionistK]

The HD 7850 has 1408 ALUs and is a 90w part counting board power, so less for a console with lower clocks.

If the CPU is less relevant and we already have 1408 ALUs under 100w with an alleged target of 200w, then I still see headroom for a bit more.

Significantly more if the 20nm die shrink is considered in 2013-14. Perhaps big-die 28nm in 2013 in hopes of a 20nm, cost cutting respin in 2014-15.

-----------------------------------

What if Microsoft designated Xbox 360 as the "Kinect Console" with a newer, cheaper hardware revision. Since Kinect is currently bottlenecked by the USB port, perhaps a newer model with USB 3.0 and a 20nm/22nm APU.

[bgassassin]

^ Is that correct? I haven't seen TDPs for anything below the 7950.

Originally Posted by Heinrich4

Could be interesting with a gpu wiiu 640alus at high clock,wich in this case was a similar technology on the market the like Radeon HD 4770/RV740 since 2009 at 40nm dissipating 80 watts and performance similar to HD 4850,which in theory would probably be less than 60 watts under 32/28nm which fit perfectly in the apparent small size of the next gen Nintendo console( my guess wii u = less than 150 watts).

About 1280alus for "psx4720" gpu I also agree, but let us not forget the miracle that AMD did to get put in just 4.31 billion transistors only 365mm2 with Radeon HD 7970 with many thanx to 28nm process.So I do not rule out the possibility of all of it up to see a psx4720 1408alus capable of being placed in a console 200/250watts(my another guess about wattage for next gen console MS and Sony).

I still think that amount is too high, but that's my take from what I've seen so far. And I think Wii U will be less than 100w.

[babybumb]

No chance Nintendo will use 28nm chips. If they have to drop the clocks they just do. Until proven otherwise i agree with digitalfoundry that we are looking at a 4670 320SPUs @40nm derivate

[bgassassin]

Originally Posted by babybumb

No chance Nintendo will use 28nm chips. If they have to drop the clocks they just do. Until proven otherwise i agree with digitalfoundry that we are looking at a 4670 320SPUs @40nm derivate

DF made an assessment based on underclocked dev kits. Though I don't criticize them because that info came out after their assessment.

And it's very plausible that they can use 28nm for their GPU since NEC/Renesas started development of their 28nm fab back in 2009. They are also capable of eDRAM on a 28nm process. Nintendo used NEC for both GC and Wii.