Bagel seed
Veteran
Diminishing returns means we need more 'x' to generate a noteworthy visual leap each gen. Whatever amount of x we need to get close to Infiltrator graphics at 900p-ish is what we should hope for :smile:
- Status
Yes and no. smarter solutions mean less performance is needed to get the same result. eg. GI years ago required squillions of traced light samples in a scene. Now it can be calculated much faster not because the processing power has increased that much faster, but research has found alternative solutions and optimisations. Increased flexibility in the GPU (and possibly APU using both processors more symbiotically) is going to count for a lot.
curious, if you do that you'll end with 5 GB for games. the same quantity rumored for infinity
Bagel seed
Veteran
Agreed, the 'on paper X' will be worth more this time. So this 6X is actually somewhat higher. But that still only means we're falling behind the curve comparatively to last gen's bump.
PS1 to 2 was a revelation. 2 to 3 did pretty damn well, also having to consider a resolution increase. 3 to 4 could squeek by! But we'll see.
Really? RAM gets cheaper does it not. If not we'd not get bigger amounts of RAM for the same price?
Or is it because you could buy the $25 add-on seperately for more than $100 meaning they can make more profit (on both upselling and future upgrades)
Assuming that $10 saving at launch remains the same throughout the lifetime? Highly unlikely I would have thought.
This is a big assumption. It could be argued that due to the price-drop the console sold 2m more units, and on top of that because the 12m who were happy to pay full price saved $50 a pop half of them spent that on an extra controller which has a higher profit margin...you could go on with all kinds of permatations
Really? RAM gets cheaper does it not. If not we'd not get bigger amounts of RAM for the same price?
Or is it because you could buy the $25 add-on seperately for more than $100 meaning they can make more profit (on both upselling and future upgrades)
Assuming that $10 saving at launch remains the same throughout the lifetime? Highly unlikely I would have thought.
This is a big assumption. It could be argued that due to the price-drop the console sold 2m more units, and on top of that because the 12m who were happy to pay full price saved $50 a pop half of them spent that on an extra controller which has a higher profit margin...you could go on with all kinds of permatations
sure sure, those were just generalities.
But then changing CPU archiecture and making backwards compatibility suspect runs counter to that logic.
Lock-in works better if the foundation of the design has a future, and it's not an ecosystem unless there are other devices and platforms it has synergies with.
Sharing tools and development is a big bonus, while locking in with the older generation means an unending commitment to hardware and tools that get you less and less while costing more as time goes by. There is little interest in Cell or Xenon going forward.
Biting the bullet and latching onto an architecture that is obviously larger and with many other players means the platform has a chance at being competitive.
Sharing tools and development is a big bonus, while locking in with the older generation means an unending commitment to hardware and tools that get you less and less while costing more as time goes by. There is little interest in Cell or Xenon going forward.
Biting the bullet and latching onto an architecture that is obviously larger and with many other players means the platform has a chance at being competitive.
You do know the PS3 is within a million or two of the sales of 360, right? Possibly even surpassing it now. Despite the launch debacle, costing $100 more for a long time, launching a year later, and losing most digital foundry comparisons. It appears that the average gamer doesn't really care about the relative power after all.
Doesn't that discount the market share that each console came into this generation with? The average gamer population shifted quite a bit this past gen for one reason or another...
Bagel seed
Veteran
Actually it was a wash in power this gen. Basically the closest it's ever been in. Where it counted in multiplats it never really showed or was at a deficit most of the time.
but as far as i could tell the ps3 was perceived as more powerful, whatever the actual case.
otoh too be fair people's eyes dont lie, and 360 games looked plenty impressive regardless undeniably.
i wonder how many people even had some sort of an opinion of which was more powerful? maybe 50% of owners? maybe i'm selling that short though, because ps3/360 were core consoles, where it does matter and the consumer is more sophisticated.
yeah, i often have written that if you put a gun to my head i'm still not sure which one is more powerful, when pushed to it's absolute limit.
360 had the edge in multiplats, ps3 in exclusives, would be the conventional wisdom.
Im guessing since we are talking about early production not ready for retail chips, there should be some expectation of an uneven experience where some dev kits run hot. They are called "beta" for a reason right?
Should every story of overheating be met with "Oh my Gosh!!! Something must be happening."?
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just relating the rumor as I heard it. Dont kill the messenger.
It makes sense though and I suspected it immediately, but I had not heard it from anybody else until then.
My bad. I don't want you to think my post wasn't direct at you per se. But the reality where rumors that lack any context, keep spinning out of control is to the point of irritation.
First it was Durango wasn't overheating because it was too big and now it because it getting a bump in specs.
Yet aren't Durango beta kits packed with apus that are basically engineering samples?
Seems like the context is provided by the internet not early production realities faced by manufacturers.
Could have been (much) worse. Gamecube, anyone...? (...Which was originally slated to be called the much more epic starcube, but nintendo had a brainfart and the rest is history.)
Actually, infinity is pretty decent, although a bit long. When casually speaking about the current xbox, either xbox or 360 are short, snappy labels. With another (mainstream!) xbox on the market, especially if the 360 soldiers on in the coming year, you have to use the mouthfully full name or misunderstandings might occur.
(...Which was originally slated to be called the much more epic starcube, but nintendo had a brainfart and the rest is history.)Actually, infinity is pretty decent, although a bit long. When casually speaking about the current xbox, either xbox or 360 are short, snappy labels. With another (mainstream!) xbox on the market, especially if the 360 soldiers on in the coming year, you have to use the mouthfully full name or misunderstandings might occur.
(((interference)))
Veteran
possibilities..
maybe this
This is not a new logo though, they've been using it for Xbox Music/Video and the Smartglass app since last year - though I don't think I've actually seen it on any Xbox 360 related branding (either the system itself, games or Xbox.com)
I like it though and don't see how they can come up with something better that fits in with the rest of their Metro-look logos.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky