Not sure that would really be a good thing. They may be at a disadvantage if their competition has games running at 1080p30 or even 720p30 since those games are likely to look better.
Do you think it would be a mistake for MS and/or Sony to launch in 2012?
- Thread starter kagemaru
- Start date
Not sure that would really be a good thing. They may be at a disadvantage if their competition has games running at 1080p30 or even 720p30 since those games are likely to look better.
Basically the performance of GPU/CPU is directly related to how big the chip is. At 28nm you could do almost twice as fast thing as at 45nm and it would not cost twice as much as the total area of the chips would be quite similar.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I wonder how 90nm it really was...
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4046624/Sony-90-nm-chip-may-not-be-analysis-firm-claims
Intel released the 90nm Prescott the next quarter, so 90nm chips were around a long time especially before the launch of the PS3.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Intel is always ahead. 90nm was best what was available for 360 and PS3 despite the age of that process node. 45nm as a launch node for the next gen doesn't sound too attractive. The current systems are still quite power hungry on 45nm. Making a great visual leap that'll last for years would be quite challenging with 45nm on a small box.
90nm didn't sound too attractive either. You're right Intel is always ahead, Intel was already producing 65nm chips for almost a year when the 360 was launched.
45nm doesn't sound too attractive because its fairly conservative but 32nm would be really mature process for cpu production well before the end of 2012. 40nm gpus have been around a while now, so going a 32nm cpu/40nm gpu makes sense. Other than Intel, everybody is having a hard time keeping schedule, so Sony nor MS can afford to wait and hope that 22/28 nm tech is mature enough to be cheap and reliable enough for a 2013 console launch.
The only reason the 45nm parts for current gen PS and Xbox is because they were power hungry monsters to begin with. RROD and the PS3's pretty nifty cooling design costs both MS and Sony a pretty penny. Furthermore, a closed box with current day PC cpu/gpu tech could blow away whats possible on the current consoles. Consoles get by because of their fixed tech and development budgets well beyond whats possible for most PC wares.
I don't know if you intended this or not, but you ironically prove the point of how the hardware doesn't even matter that much next gen. You're buying Sony irregardless as you stated, so it's all about the software. I can totally understand that since I'm the same, I'll only be getting a Microsoft console next gen not because of the hardware which is fast becoming irrelevant, but because I have a Windows phone, I'm getting a Windows tablet and I use Windows pc's, so the complete ecosystem with the console in the mix is just too compelling to pass up, irregardless of the hardware.
Then you both are homers 
I stuck a knife into my long-term platform when I saw their direction + the ability to converge PC gaming with consoles. I like the 360 and definitely think it was a far better choice in NA for my software tastes but there are also draw backs (my RROD was replaced with a filthy unit after a month wait, no online for family member accounts without even more cash, etc) which dictate if Sony can pony up a better *platform* (which means fixing PSN a lot) I would jump in a heartbeat if the platform was substantially better that would be reflected in software. As much as PS3 fans may have protested all those flops didn't help when it came to popular multi-platform software and I have no intention of being on THAT side of the fence. I am probably not doing any potential future job interviews any favors right now And I totally get liking a platform's software, services, or IPs and deciding now what you will get ... but I think it should be required information in your signature
Haha, imagine if debating next gen actually went back to services and games ... wow, that would be amazing. But I don't think these forums have much interest in things like full game recording and matchmaking when we can spend our time counting pixels
I stuck a knife into my long-term platform when I saw their direction + the ability to converge PC gaming with consoles. I like the 360 and definitely think it was a far better choice in NA for my software tastes but there are also draw backs (my RROD was replaced with a filthy unit after a month wait, no online for family member accounts without even more cash, etc) which dictate if Sony can pony up a better *platform* (which means fixing PSN a lot) I would jump in a heartbeat if the platform was substantially better that would be reflected in software. As much as PS3 fans may have protested all those flops didn't help when it came to popular multi-platform software and I have no intention of being on THAT side of the fence. I am probably not doing any potential future job interviews any favors right now
And I totally get liking a platform's software, services, or IPs and deciding now what you will get ... but I think it should be required information in your signature Haha, imagine if debating next gen actually went back to services and games ... wow, that would be amazing. But I don't think these forums have much interest in things like full game recording and matchmaking when we can spend our time counting pixels
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Well they were power hungry monsters because being powerful was an important goal. It's a tight rope trying to balance the performance and power consumption. 28nm would certainly help there. I completely agree that for a while now and especially in the future the end result of a game is far more dependent on other resources than hardware power, but a 40nm gpu would be just a tad too conservative for my liking at this point
Yes, absolutely. I don't have anything against the Xbox, but I guess I'm just sold on the PlayStation 'package', even if most of the games do end up being multi-platform eventually. It would require more than "just about the same" to win me over getting the next successor - or some serious messing up by Sony for me to consider getting something else.
That would happen if one offers something substantially better - e.g. much better hardware (like a generation ahead), which is pretty much out of the question since both have limits on budgets and are limited to the technological timeframe - given they're launching close to each other of course. I'm not interested in move, kinect or entertainment in that direction either, so that's not a factor to me either. Building up friends online on one platform definately encourages this as well. Due to game-time available and room, I'm not interested in getting two consoles (although I did consider a Wii at some point, for the different experience).
I would definately welcome a resolution and framerate policy though. Some of the (PSN) games that run 1080/60 are just gorgeous and when I did make that comment, I knew it isn't something that one realisticly could expect. <wishful thinking>Even if resolution and framerate are not necessarily that related, I guess I would also not mind having 720/60 or 1080/30 policy as a compromise... </wishful thinking>
On the topic - launching in 2012 is too early for me, just as Microsoft launching in late 2005 was as well. I'm still enjoying this generation far too much to be wanting to upgrade and with online play and still progressing graphics, the hardware doesn't feel that old yet. CoD:MW3 IMO shows that a not progressing engine (the graphics are still about the same since 3 iterations) can still deliver lots of appeal and thanks to some good artistic choices, still has that "wow" effect. My choice of 'next generation console' would be perhaps end of 2013 or even 2014.
What would the floodings in Taiwan and skyrocketed HDD prices affect in next gen consoles launching in 2012. How soon until the HDD prices go down again?
Prophecy2k
Veteran
They could always use a smaller amount of flash storage, and offer the user expensive HDD upgrades later on down the line. It worked for MS this gen, and i can't see either Sony or MS doing anything other than that this time around.
I'd say that's an accurate timeframe for when to expect "true" nextgen games to start to appear.
I expect that the vast majority of launch games though will be much like the vast majority of this gen's launch games and the launch games of last gen. Most will not effectively utilize the hardware to the fullest of it's ability. Thus, after a year or so on the market, we can finally expect to start seeing games that take full advantage, just like this gen.
Let's also not forget that the majority of developers this gen are modeling their geometry (and textures in some cases) beyond the capabilities of today's consoles. They are ALREADY making nextgen content, they just need the hardware!
This is also a VERY important reason to launch in 2012. It forces Sony's hand and they will likely be unable to match the launch date. As we saw with this gen, MS still needs a leg up to compete.
Imagine what would have happened if MS launched in 2006 alongside PS3 and Wii this gen!
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd very much expect both to adopt this method of flash storage. Both will likely be using a 12x BRD drive which won't need to rely on HDD access speeds thus eliminating the "need" to have them on-board.
Flash along with cloud storage will be enough for the majority of users.
Personally, based on rumors about development starting this year, first next-gen versions of Unreal Engine being discussed, and a next-gen title should take at the very least 2 years of development, probably 3, I would say that we're still at least 2 years out, so I would be quite surprised if we get something next year. If we do get something that soon, it would only be in reaction to the Wii U, but even there I feel it would be safe to have the Wii U on the market for one year. More important would be to release at a good price-point versus the Wii U, which the inclusion of the tablet may well help with.
So the only reason Microsoft would go for it would be because Sony couldn't follow, as that year they'd still be way too busy with Vita. Microsoft is comfortable in the US right now, and the other regions show less indication of being ready to move to the next-gen consoles imho. On the other hand, I do think that some publishers are very ready to move on and revitalise their franchise sales with next-gen versions.
But I don't know if the consumer market is ready for it. But on the other hand, I'm fairly sure they'll be ready for sure within two years. And here of course I'm talking about the group of gamers that buy the first 15 million.
The first UE3 game didn't show up until a year after the 360 launched. Furthermore, outside of Epic, UE3 games from other third party developers didn't start to trickle until the middle and last half of 2007.
Given that the 360 and PS3 will still be viable platforms in 2012, it makes more sense to port over existing engines and PS360 development slated for release in 2012. The 360 and PS3 have yet to explore the under $200 market. Transition to next gen can be alot smoother than in the past. The PS2 showed there is no need for an abrupt moves to newer consoles if the sales for the older gen are still there.
You could have a GTA5 or Halo4 released on the PS360 as well as the 720/Loop and PS4. You could release the next gen consoles with ports of ME3, Borderlands 3 and Bioshock Infinite with all DLC included/GOTY versions that have been released previously on the older consoles. There are a plethora of ways to viably move onto a new generation of consoles instead of waiting for the market to choke the life out of the current gen.
A extra year in Sony's or MS's R&D basement is not likely buy us anything. An extra year didn't allow Sony to use a smaller process than MS in the PS3, nor did it provide an outright tangible advantage in terms of graphics. A 2012 console means that by 2013, development of next gen games will be much further along than if MS and Sony wait until 2013 for a console release.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Xbox 360's DVD drive spins at about 7000 rpm. I think a 12 x blue ray drive is something like 10,000 rpm (as far as I can tell from the web).
I can't see a 10,000 rpm drive in a console. I really, really hope no-one puts a 10,000 rpm drive in their next console.