Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[V3]

From the die shots that are floating aroung, it was estimated that the 32 cores Larrabee is around 600 mm^2 on 45 nm. If that's closed to the real thing, Larrabee is not suitable for consoles even on 32 nm. So if the estimate is wrong and 32 cores Larrabee is actually less than 400 mm^2 on 45 nm, than it may have a chance in consoles.

Using Intel performance simulation, 32 cores at 2.5 GHz (the highest clockspeed they are aiming for) would equate roughly to the performance of between AMD 4870X2 and NV GTX295 on DirectX games.

Sure if games are coded specially for it, you can be more efficient and extract more performance compare to GPUs offering. That's the same situation as Sony have with PS3, not many will bother to do it.

 

[Wunderchu]

decided on a whim to post in this thread.

prediction for next consoles (mostly Xbox since I have read up most on MS stuff, and am most familiar with MS compared to my familiarity with Sony/Nintendo):


next xbox release: 2012

- MS would prefer to release in 2013, but Nintendo will force their hand somewhat; by 2010/2011, people will grow more and more dissatisfied with Wii graphics, especially with the continued proliferation of HDTVs (and the continued price reduction of HDTVs), better looking graphics on new PCs with Windows 7, and even better looking graphics on handheld devices such as iphone 5G, Sony PSP2 (I predict PSP2 will probably release around 2011), etc.

specs:

- 6 GB UMA RAM /w 1.5 Tbyte/sec bandwidth GDDR8 RAM (they will choose to go with higher bandwidth RAM rather than more ram (8GB))
- custom IBM Power architecture based on POWER7 architecture CPU (48 cores @ 4 GHz) on 22nm process
- custom AMD/ATi DX12 GPU @ 22nm
- camera motion control technology interface (all 3 next-gen consoles will have motion control)
- 50GB SSD in lowest-end Xbox, (150GB in middle, 250GB in elite) (multiple expansion slots for 500GB, 1TB SSDs on sale @ retail)
- launch titles: Forza 4, 2 Rare games, 1 Lionhead game, Fight Night Round 5, 2 Ubisoft games (1 new IP, and the next Splinter Cell with motion control, lots of 3rd party games
- price: $250 for lowest-end Xbox, $350 for middle, $425 for elite
- Xbox 360 backward compatibility, but with no disc drive (360 games will be downloadable)
- full digital distribution








next Nintendo console release: 2012

- Nintendo will release small info about their next console in 2011, with intent to release in 2012 or 2013. they will decide on 2012 so they are not beaten to market by MS


specs:

- motion contoller much better sensitivity that Wiimote, but backwards compatible with Wiimote to be able to play Wii games
- full digital distribution
- 60GB SSD on board (300GB, 1TB SSDs on sale @ retail)
- custom IBM CPU with 8 cores @ 5.0 GHz and 22nm
- custom DX11 GPU from ATi/AMD (about 1/4 as powerful as next Xbox one) (using 22nm process)
- price: $250 selling @ profit for Nintendo





next Sony console (PS4)

release: 2013
(Sony will want to release later to give more time to recoup costs from PS3 generation)


specs:
- 8GB RAM
- custom IBM CPU based on POWER7 architecture (64 cores @ 4GHz on 22nm tech
- intel Larabee based GPU w/ 64 cores @ 4 GHz (Sony will claim TFLOPs King, as usual) built on 15 nm tech by Intel (one of Intel's first 15nm processors)
- 250 GB SSD in lite edition, 500GB SSD in more expensive edition
- 500GB, 1TB, 2TB SSDs @ retail
- some kinda of motion controller
- full digital distribution (PS3 games backward compatible and available for download)
price: $375 for lite, $475 for Uber PS4








-excuse my messy formatting

 

[liolio]

A bit to enthousisatic imho, I don't think that next systems will run in 64 bits mode thus 3.2GB is the max for the RAM.
Power7 are not likely to be tiny 48 or 64 cores would be crazy big, warm and power hungry.
It's a bit too much overall

 

[Wunderchu]

A bit to enthousisatic imho, I don't think that next systems will run in 64 bits mode thus 3.2GB is the max for the RAM.
Power7 are not likely to be tiny 48 or 64 cores would be crazy big, warm and power hungry.
It's a bit too much overall

even for 2012 tech @ 22nm?

 

[AlNom]

A bit to enthousisatic imho, I don't think that next systems will run in 64 bits mode thus 3.2GB is the max for the RAM.

Why would it be limited to 3.2GB

 

[phenix]

Why would it be limited to 3.2GB

That is maximum addressable RAM for 32 bit Windows'es. What does that have to do with consoles? I don't know. I guess maximum RAM for 32bit consoles should be 4 GB actually.

EDIT: 4GB for system memory plus graphics RAM of course.

 

[AlNom]

Indeed. They could could just max out the addressable memory space. For UMA there would just be 4GB. For NUMA, whatever combination they choose that adds up to 4GB e.g. 2GB GPU mem, 2GB main mem. PC's aren't fixed, and there are reserved mem addresses.. It might be similar on a console, but probably not to the same extent.*

*of course, all "if" they just stick to 32-bit.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

From the die shots that are floating aroung, it was estimated that the 32 cores Larrabee is around 600 mm^2 on 45 nm. If that's closed to the real thing, Larrabee is not suitable for consoles even on 32 nm. So if the estimate is wrong and 32 cores Larrabee is actually less than 400 mm^2 on 45 nm, than it may have a chance in consoles.

Using Intel performance simulation, 32 cores at 2.5 GHz (the highest clockspeed they are aiming for) would equate roughly to the performance of between AMD 4870X2 and NV GTX295 on DirectX games.

That doesn't sound very encouraging. Given some of those cores will have to be processing the game logic too, the actual GPU transistor budget will be smaller. I expect 300mm^2 of GPU will perform better at the graphics than 300mm^2 of Larrabee. The main advantage for Larrabee would either have to be power consumption or flexibility, but I don't think flexibility counts for much these days. I guess the other benefit to a console company would be a stellar deal from Intel to include Larrabee, saving a lot on costs.

 

[ban25]

Future machines from Microsoft and Sony will certainly be 64-bit and capable of addressing more than 4 GB of RAM. Now, will they have more than that? Hard to say.

It depends on how much else the systems can do aside from play games. I would anticipate a substantially more robust online experience with fully integrated social networking, background game downloads (for digital distribution), and more. It will be nice if these features can have enough memory to run without starving the games themselves. Gone should be the days where a platform holder requires developers to load a disc check library that only ever gets called one time without being able to unload it. Gone I say!

 

[nAo]

Future machines from Microsoft and Sony will certainly be 64-bit and capable of addressing more than 4 GB of RAM. Now, will they have more than that? Hard to say.

I wouldn't expect any next gen console to have more than 4 Gigs, that would be 8x the previous gen, which is in line with previous console transitions.

It will be nice if these features can have enough memory to run without starving the games themselves.

Not going to happen. Games will take all memory available, all of it It's up to the OS reserving memory for other services.

Gone should be the days where a platform holder requires developers to load a disc check library that only ever gets called one time without being able to unload it. Gone I say!

That was retarded but I am not sure it's going to happen again

 

[brain_stew]

I currently don't see Nintendo having a reason to move away from ATI with an updated dx10.1/11 capable chip.

Unless something changes, ATI is very attractive from a cost control standpoint for console makers. They are willing to design the chip and then sign off ownership to the console maker. Nintendo and MS currently. This allows them to control their own costs by contracting manufacturing, etc. without regards to a 3rd party.

I'm not sure Intel would be willing to release complete control of one of their designs. So it would be a similar situation to what a console maker would have with Nvidia.

For both Nintendo and MS, it would be more of a gamble to go with Larrabee than for Sony, IMO.

Then again, Intel's manufacturing prowess may give it a bit of an edge if they want to undercut anything TSMC could offer. But would Intel be willing to cut margins that much just to gain market penetration for Larrabee?

Regards,
SB

Well if it means getting LRB into 100 million homes, I'm sure they'd at least consider it. If anyone can take the hit, its Intel. Nothing's going to speed up LRB focused development like a move like that would so it may be a sound investment. Whatever happens, Nintendo will likely go with whatever works best for their bottom line, performance be damned!

From the die shots that are floating aroung, it was estimated that the 32 cores Larrabee is around 600 mm^2 on 45 nm. If that's closed to the real thing, Larrabee is not suitable for consoles even on 32 nm. So if the estimate is wrong and 32 cores Larrabee is actually less than 400 mm^2 on 45 nm, than it may have a chance in consoles.

Using Intel performance simulation, 32 cores at 2.5 GHz (the highest clockspeed they are aiming for) would equate roughly to the performance of between AMD 4870X2 and NV GTX295 on DirectX games.

Sure if games are coded specially for it, you can be more efficient and extract more performance compare to GPUs offering. That's the same situation as Sony have with PS3, not many will bother to do it.

I'm talking about a cut down, 16 or 12 core based version for Nintendo's console. I don't expect it to feature anything that comes close to the PC high end, but then it doesn't have to be. Anything's going to be a huge leap above Wii, its going to be replacing over a decade old GPU design by the time it hits. As such whichever way Nintendo goes the performance inrease is going to be so massive that it doesn't matter what they choose, which leaves cost as the primary deciding fatcor imo. If the rumours of Intel pushing LRB to the console manufacturers with lucrative contracts are true, then that's got to have Nintendo taking notice.

Is the next process shrink after 32nm (22nm iirc) viable for a console released in fall 2012/2013? Surely A 16 core LRB on based on 22nm tech. would be suitable for a console design, especially one that forgoes a separate CPU altogether?

Would others be happy with a 16 core LRB with a 128 bit memory bus and 1GB of GDDR5 for Nintendo's next machine? Surely that's got to be capable of some very interesting things at 720p/30hz?

I agree with Shifty on the RAM front, no chance of us seeing more than 4GB of RAM, next gen. Sadly, after the Wii has shifted the goalposts making cutting edge tech. less of a concern I fear we may only see 2GB of RAM in Sony and Microsoft's box. Consoles are always RAM starved, we were lucky to get 512MB this generation, I doubt we'll be lucky enough to be seeing anything like 6GB or 8GB.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'm not sure there's a particularly good reason for any of the console makers to move to 64 bits unless the CPU core would cost the same otherwise. The main benefit of accessing more memory more easily is pretty moot when you don't intend to use that much memory.

Likewise, I currently don't see them targeting a memory footprint larger than 2 gigs for system and maybe 512 megs - 1 gig for graphics.

Heck considering the state of PC computing, I don't see more than a small fraction of games targetting more than 2 gigs. Unless there's a sudden mass migration from x32 Windows to x64 Windows with all legacy 32 bit systems suddenly vanishing in the next 3-4 years.

And unless console UI's suddenly grow exponentially large, 2 gigs of system memory on a console would exceed what most games would use on the PC side. And it's been a LONG time since console games targetted a larger memory footprint than PC games.

Regards,
SB

 

[Squilliam]

Wouldn't Microsoft be the best bet for Larrabee support in a next generation console? Of the three they have the most vested in the legacy architecture of X86 and it gives them the option of leveraging their Windows empire in some way to support their console. For me anyway whilst its the best bet, its certainly not the only bet.

Now the funny thing about these rumours is that I heard that they were going as far as designing the entire console for the company willing to adopt their new architecture. So obviously they would design something which they could use as well, so stitching Larrabee onto the ring bus of Sandybridge would make sense given the many presentations they have given on how off chip bandwidth is expensive and their future roadmaps for integrated GPUs on the same dies as their CPUs.

So for a mainline console, one designed to have impressive computing capabilities wouldn't something like this make sense? 2-4 Sandybridge cores (4 threads per core yielding 8-16 main CPU threads) stitched together with X numbers of Larrabee initially produced on a mature 32nm process with an ariel size of ~400mm^2 with an external or internal pool of Intel Z-ram for the framebuffer along with whatever quantity of ram they deem fit for use?

 

[I.S.T.]

I'm not sure there's a particularly good reason for any of the console makers to move to 64 bits unless the CPU core would cost the same otherwise. The main benefit of accessing more memory more easily is pretty moot when you don't intend to use that much memory.

Likewise, I currently don't see them targeting a memory footprint larger than 2 gigs for system and maybe 512 megs - 1 gig for graphics.

Heck considering the state of PC computing, I don't see more than a small fraction of games targetting more than 2 gigs. Unless there's a sudden mass migration from x32 Windows to x64 Windows with all legacy 32 bit systems suddenly vanishing in the next 3-4 years.

And unless console UI's suddenly grow exponentially large, 2 gigs of system memory on a console would exceed what most games would use on the PC side. And it's been a LONG time since console games targetted a larger memory footprint than PC games.

Regards,
SB

This entire post is wrong.

1. all of the current consoles are running on 64 bit CPUs anyway.

2. Just because few games use 2 gigs now, that doesn't mean they won't on a brand new console generation 4 years from now(The extra years taking into consideration a few years to get used ot the hardware and for truly epic games to show up).

 

[brain_stew]

I

Heck considering the state of PC computing, I don't see more than a small fraction of games targetting more than 2 gigs. Unless there's a sudden mass migration from x32 Windows to x64 Windows with all legacy 32 bit systems suddenly vanishing in the next 3-4 years.

Regards,
SB

Windows 7 coming in both x86 and 64 bit flavours as well as Intel dropping x86-64 support from most Atom chips, put an end to that dream.

 

[Rangers]

I think as we get closer 4GB (maybe more) is becoming more likely in next gen consoles. The costs of PC RAM have fallen so dramatically.

Currently you can get 4GB DDR2 for under $50. Probably $25 with rebates when you find deals, which might be the price console makers would pay in volume now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...170147 105233070 1052315794&name=4GB (2 x 2GB)

Newegg floor for 4 GB seems to be about $40, which actually seems to have gone up a bit from the recent lows I remember.

 

[nAo]

I doubt MS & SONY next gen consoles will use DDR2, perhaps GDDR5 or better

 

[brain_stew]

Yeah, I don't see how DDR2 prices are all that relevant, even the Wii used GDDR3 memory. I think GDDR5 will be the ticket unless something better comes around before then.

Nintendo could stick with a 128 bit bus that way, and Sony/Microsoft a 256 bit bus and they'd both still have reasonable performance if they're targeting 720p and 1080p respectively, especially if they employ some eDRAM in conjunction with it.

How much eDRAM would be needed to avoid tiling at 1080p with 4xMSAA? Is it an in anyway feasible amount (I have no idea)?

 

[Rangers]

I doubt MS & SONY next gen consoles will use DDR2, perhaps GDDR5 or better

Yeh, but I figure the prices might be similar...

 

[Rangers]

Yeah, I don't see how DDR2 prices are all that relevant, even the Wii used GDDR3 memory. I think GDDR5 will be the ticket unless something better comes around before then.

Nintendo could stick with a 128 bit bus that way, and Sony/Microsoft a 256 bit bus and they'd both still have reasonable performance if they're targeting 720p and 1080p respectively, especially if they employ some eDRAM in conjunction with it.

How much eDRAM would be needed to avoid tiling at 1080p with 4xMSAA? Is it an in anyway feasible amount (I have no idea)?

I hope EDRAM isn't used next gen..all that silicon should be used for something that does work..

Even now I'd rather have a bunch more shaders on Xenos (and some other bandwidth solution) instead of that EDRAM..

Some 360 devs here have spoken critically of the lack of flexibility of the EDRAM as well..seems RSX allows you to really push some wild techniques morseo.