Nextbox: "XBOX Loop"

[bgassassin]

If Paul Thurrott is right & Project Ten is coming out next year, maybe it's the other way around? Or maybe somebody got their project/code-names mixed up?

Tommy McClain

I've had the belief that the new Xbox would be out before E3 2013, so of course I'm going to believe that Project 10 is the rightful successor since it's in line with my view.

I've had my own ideas about Loop, but one I heard that I felt was better than mine was that the ARM cores in Loop would be for downloadable Kinect games.

 

[Barbarian]

As someone who'll be working on these next systems, what do you think about MS (or Sony) switching to ARM? Would you prefer they stick with the Power architecture? Apologies if you really can't answer this question, I'm just trying to get a sense to how an ARM equipped console would perform next gen.

Well, I haven't kept it a secret that I hate the X360/PS3's PPC with a passion. On the other hand I haven't used ARM processors extensively so I don't know for sure if I'd like them any better. ARM does remind me of MIPS a bit and I still consider MIPS one of the best architectures ever made.
But given a decent number of symmetric ARM cores connected via low latency bus (on die, shared cache etc) to a beefy GPU could make a formidable next gen system for sure.

 

[3dcgi]

Well, fwiw, it's one reason why the intel GPU has any decent speed at all (access to cache). The problem will be seeing how this scales up to a beefier core because you'll want a lot more cache.

People like to talk about how useful cache access is for Sandy Bridge, but does anyone really know? I haven't seen a thorough analysis. It might even be a hindrance if there's cache thrashing due to conflicts between CPU and GPU workloads.

 

[Acert93]

Next gen won't be driven around visuals.

And yet significantly inferior visuals means they will be competing against the POS hardware Wii U and the megaton of software Nintendo has that directly appeals to the market that also doesn't care about visuals.

Look, I don't think being 10-15% off in performance between MS/Sony this gen will make much a difference. Lower the IQ here, take a small step back on resolution here, etc and I think we are entering an era were art and design are so much more important that a few percentages here and there won't make a difference.

That being said...

Early adopters are vital.

And peeps are STILL dropping wads of cash for iPads, Laptops, netbooks, and even mobile phones that run well over $300.

It would be a serious mistake for either Sony or MS to seriously under target next gen. You know what would happen?

If MS ships a $250 console with middling power and cut features and Sony goes with a reasonable $399 design that is balls to the walls faster (not the psuedo-PS3 garbage I called out in 2005) then Sony would be in the position to have a great launch (go back and read how well MS's launch sales were--they were fine) and MS would find themselves in an unenviable position.

Basically there are currently 2 tiers: The budget Wii tier and the "Next Gen" performance tier. From the early adopter perspective if it really comes down to a $299 BOM and a $399 BOM, and the difference is in the silicon (and not just all the other junk that is needed for the box) a $399 console, which has historical precedent of being affordable, is going to have a HUGE visual difference.

Which will be amplified by the fact Sony has a ton of really great technical teams and MS has... Lionhead, Turn10, and 343 which has never even developed a game.

Ps- Social networks, btw, will play a major force. There are price points and $300-$400 has shown to be effective for early sales. The enthusiest gamers who line up at midnight for these consoles will be chattering for months before release about the consoles and we saw how fickle they can be (PS3 and their stupid $599 pricing; yet embraced $399 360s). People know when they are getting less for their money.

Per the rumors, a good gauge of what MS is packaging is seeing what is dedicated to the GPU. Whatever the CPU may be it still has to work with a GPU. If the GPU is smaller than Xenos/RSX, or on-die, and MS is still targeting the "premium" price points (i.e. the accountants are now in charge) then it will be a poor valued product for a console that will be expected to be around for over 5 years.

 

[bgassassin]

And yet significantly inferior visuals means they will be competing against the POS hardware Wii U ...

Isn't that kinda presumptuous?

 

[rpg.314]

And yet significantly inferior visuals means they will be competing against the POS hardware Wii U and the megaton of software Nintendo has that directly appeals to the market that also doesn't care about visuals.

Look, I don't think being 10-15% off in performance between MS/Sony this gen will make much a difference. Lower the IQ here, take a small step back on resolution here, etc and I think we are entering an era were art and design are so much more important that a few percentages here and there won't make a difference.

That being said...

Early adopters are vital.

And peeps are STILL dropping wads of cash for iPads, Laptops, netbooks, and even mobile phones that run well over $300.

It would be a serious mistake for either Sony or MS to seriously under target next gen. You know what would happen?

If MS ships a $250 console with middling power and cut features and Sony goes with a reasonable $399 design that is balls to the walls faster (not the psuedo-PS3 garbage I called out in 2005) then Sony would be in the position to have a great launch (go back and read how well MS's launch sales were--they were fine) and MS would find themselves in an unenviable position.

Basically there are currently 2 tiers: The budget Wii tier and the "Next Gen" performance tier. From the early adopter perspective if it really comes down to a $299 BOM and a $399 BOM, and the difference is in the silicon (and not just all the other junk that is needed for the box) a $399 console, which has historical precedent of being affordable, is going to have a HUGE visual difference.

Which will be amplified by the fact Sony has a ton of really great technical teams and MS has... Lionhead, Turn10, and 343 which has never even developed a game.

Ps- Social networks, btw, will play a major force. There are price points and $300-$400 has shown to be effective for early sales. The enthusiest gamers who line up at midnight for these consoles will be chattering for months before release about the consoles and we saw how fickle they can be (PS3 and their stupid $599 pricing; yet embraced $399 360s). People know when they are getting less for their money.

Per the rumors, a good gauge of what MS is packaging is seeing what is dedicated to the GPU. Whatever the CPU may be it still has to work with a GPU. If the GPU is smaller than Xenos/RSX, or on-die, and MS is still targeting the "premium" price points (i.e. the accountants are now in charge) then it will be a poor valued product for a console that will be expected to be around for over 5 years.

There's no way in hell anybody's launching with >$300 BOM next gen. Both sides know it.

 

[Proelite]

^^^

I would gladly pay for a $399-$499 console. Does anyone have the numbers for pros vs cores in the first two years of 360's lifecycle?

Isn't that in line with the original Xbox 360? Seems like a reasonable target, and I'm sure they learned their lesson about inadequate cooling.

Maybe they will go the Wii route but I think that's very unlikely.

Also, the hypothetical console I described was on 40nm. On 28nm it would draw a good bit less.

I was just salivating at the prospect of a 28nm 200W beast, probably can expect 2x GTX 580 graphical performance.

 

[rpg.314]

I was just salivating at the prospect of a 28nm 200W beast, probably can expect 2x GTX 580 graphical performance.

You can't fit 2x580 in 200W in this universe even on 28nm.

Think 460.

 

[AlphaWolf]

There's no way in hell anybody's launching with >$300 BOM next gen. Both sides know it.

They might not be big loss leaders, but I seriously doubt after 8 years they'll launch with a >40% lower BOM. They are still selling current bundles for $300....

I would gladly pay for a $399-$499 console. Does anyone have the numbers for pros vs cores in the first two years of 360's lifecycle?

We've only gotten numbers for that occasionally, whenever we have, the core/arcade bundles have been less than 1/3rd.

 

[Acert93]

There's no way in hell anybody's launching with >$300 BOM next gen. Both sides know it.

Sorry, what was the ASP for the Xbox 360 the last couple months ? Hint: > $300... You will need something of more substance and thought than one liners.

The fact is the 360 sold very well at launch at $399 and current Xbox 360 ASP the last time I checked was over $300 ASP at retail. Multiple generations have passed with a loss leading tactic, even if small, it is hard hard to believe that BOTH platform makers would just ignore the obvious benefits of corning a huge part of the 50%+ "traditional console" market.

And don't point to Sony's idiotic $600 console, because I am not suggesting that. But what I am suggesting is that the market shows trendy gear frequently goes north of $300. I don't see that you have given any reason why MS or Sony would be adverse to such.

 

[Acert93]

Isn't that kinda presumptuous?

What do you know for a fact that indicates its hardware is anything but middling?

All the current data from leaks is it isn't much of a step above the current consoles ... with a 2012 release date that is pretty pathetic from a technical perspective. But Nintendo is selling a gimmick controller, the hardware is there to serve that function.

 

[rpg.314]

Sorry, what was the ASP for the Xbox 360 the last couple months ? Hint: > $300... You will need something of more substance and thought than one liners.

The fact is the 360 sold very well at launch at $399 and current Xbox 360 ASP the last time I checked was over $300 ASP at retail. Multiple generations have passed with a loss leading tactic, even if small, it is hard hard to believe that BOTH platform makers would just ignore the obvious benefits of corning a huge part of the 50%+ "traditional console" market.

And don't point to Sony's idiotic $600 console, because I am not suggesting that. But what I am suggesting is that the market shows trendy gear frequently goes north of $300. I don't see that you have given any reason why MS or Sony would be adverse to such.

Next gen is going to be the last console gen, with very strong competiion from mobile devices. Do not expect prices much higher than that.

Kinect and move are going to be pretty much a standard next gen.

 

[bgassassin]

What do you know for a fact that indicates its hardware is anything but middling?

All the current data from leaks is it isn't much of a step above the current consoles ... with a 2012 release date that is pretty pathetic from a technical perspective. But Nintendo is selling a gimmick controller, the hardware is there to serve that function.

You mean the old leaks about the alpha hardware that was underclocked. You've been selective in what you wanted to hear.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Next gen is going to be the last console gen, with very strong competiion from mobile devices. Do not expect prices much higher than that.

Don't expect prices higher than mobile devices? Smartphones are more expensive than consoles ever have been, the best selling tablets are >$500 and they are actually cheaper than the phones.

And why would next gen be the last console gen? There will always be a place for consoles because most people won't want to buy an extra phone just for playing games on when they can buy more powerful hardware for that purpose that will be always connected that doesn't tie up their phone when they want to play.

 

[TheD]

The Amiga had it right, and did it almost 30 years ago . PCs at the time had no dedicated hardware. By the 90's we saw specialization coming in, with soundblasters and VGA cards. Nowadays we're so used to these specializations we don't even see them anymore. For instance, you talk about general, but ignore that the GPU is about as specialized and discrete as they come. Every PC nowadays comes with audio hardware (cheapo crap, sure, but it's there and still has SB compatibility deeply buried under it) and the ridiculously specialized GPU. How is that so different from the Copper, Blitter and Paula?

That's not always true. A dedicated DSP for audio can provide better performance for a lower cost than dedicating general purpose CPU cycles to it. In general you are correct, but for things that every game will use, like audio, or graphics, there is value in dedicated silicon (like a DSP or a GPU)

Most PCs only come with an integrated audio Codec (DAC and ADC), no need anymore for soundcard DSPs because CPUs can do the same things without breaking a sweat.

 

[bkilian]

Most PCs only come with an integrated audio Codec (DAC and ADC), no need anymore for soundcard DSPs because CPUs can do the same things without breaking a sweat.

Yep, that's pretty much what the soundblaster was. I actually built my own using a resistor ladder and two printer ports, and then wrote a driver that looked like the SB to software. Lost out on the FM synthesis stuff, but so few games used it that I got by just fine

The Amiga was a bit more advanced, 4 channels and effects. The Gravis Ultrasound was 32 voices with hardware mixing, it was like magic when it released. Then the SB AWE32, which had hardware mixing and a SB16 slapped on. At that point CPUs started getting fast enough to do that work themselves, so the soundcards fell by the wayside. You still find them in pro-audio setups, and my local PC store still stocks whatever the current multi-voice hardware mixing card is (Creative X-Fi?), which can offload audio workloads from the CPU for any games that use directsound or OpenAL. I have no idea how popular they are, but you can get quite a few FPS boost for a low cost by installing one.

 

[liolio]

I've seen a few hints that Microsoft was involved in the definition of ARMv8, so they might consider ARMv8 to be their "brand new ISA".

Not surprising but interesting, even though their share in the ARM market are low now the coming of windows and overall MSFT commitment to the ISA make them an unavoidable actor for ARM, the same is true for Google or Apple I guess. I tried to read some info about the ISA and discussion about it but it's way too technical for me to have an opinion on the matter.
In any case I'm not sure ARMv8 will be the basis for a hypothetic chip, it's still not completely finalized, so for something releasing next year we can dismiss it. Actually even for something launching fall 2014 time line could be too constrained for one to implement something complex and high performance, what is someone with knowledge on matter opinion on the matter?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And the reason I say this is that the tablets need to be complimentary products to the home consoles. You can pack in more punch and power in a $300 box than you can a $300 tablet.

That assumes that the market only wants more power, but Wii shows otherwise. The loss in performance will be balanced by an increase in coolness and functionality. Chuck in a docking bay to help up the processing power when at home and it would offer something for everyone in a 'new' product. If that was the only product and there was no traditional console on offer from a company too, then I can agree that all the COD fans would go to the traditional console. But release a normal console alongside that plays the same games as the tablet and you're laughing. The only necessary change would be in software needing a scalable platform so the same games run at different levels - mobile, docked, and console.

 

[BRiT]

That assumes that the market only wants more power, but Wii shows otherwise.

I don't think the Wii sales can be used an indicator of anything price related. It's merely an indicator of motion gaming. Since all next-gen platforms will have that standard, buyers will want more power.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't think the Wii sales can be used an indicator of anything price related. It's merely an indicator of motion gaming. Since all next-gen platforms will have that standard, buyers will want more power.

Wii is an indicator that you can compete with ubnique experiences. In the same way people are buying less powerful tablets over PCs because of the advantages or novelty. Every console next-gen will have motion gaming, so if that's all you're offering, you ahve to compete on the bread-and-butter performance and price. But there's still a chance of someone offering something unique, a 'disruptive move'. A console that you can use as a tablet for media and internet access, take round a friend's house and play your games including motion gaming, and all the other options, is offering a different experience to a standard console and can compete with that rather than just power and price. It wouldn't be for everyone, but neither was Wii and that did very well for Nintendo. I reckon a tablet console would find a very healthy market, and it could be operated in parallel with an existing standard console for added value and revenue. An XB tablet would give MS way to enter this tough market with a strong brand and build on their entertainment business, although I think MS would be the least likely to try that given a historical lack of huge success in their hardware - they'll probably stick with a conventional console that they've been successful with this gen and let other hardware companies worry about producing and launching Windows tablets.