NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*
- Thread starter Barso
- Start date
- Status
Sure Xenon was (probably with little eDRAM amount) biggest hurdle in 360 design, mostly because little cache and in order design (which is only IBM could deliver in 05). But, I don't remember it being that bad where one would put their money on CPU next generation, when the GPU gave them 3rd party advantage in first place.
Than again, I don't know where did I get "CPU centric" design in the first place. Its very possible that CPU won't be anything great either, and they think of being profitable first and performance later. Certainly there is no CPU worth mentioning that will give them performance ala Cell to compensate for weak GPU in 2012. Either they would lump serious cash into R&D, or they will settle for CPU like it is today. Not meant for pushing graphics on screen.
Than again, I don't know where did I get "CPU centric" design in the first place. Its very possible that CPU won't be anything great either, and they think of being profitable first and performance later. Certainly there is no CPU worth mentioning that will give them performance ala Cell to compensate for weak GPU in 2012. Either they would lump serious cash into R&D, or they will settle for CPU like it is today. Not meant for pushing graphics on screen.
I know this is just an example to how different designs can be applied, but I really hope you guys don't go with this direction. It didn't seem like the most efficient way to get performance out of the PS3, and I imagine it would be the same for Durango.
He's likely getting those numbers from the original PR specs announced back around E3 2005. The 360 was said to have a theoretical peak of 1TFLOP and shortly after Sony announced at E3 that the PS3 would be 2TFLOP.
Curious to see if MS do over compensate here since the CPU also seemed like a weakness in the original xbox but it doesn't look like they over compensated in the 360. Both the xbox and 360 had relatively strong GPUs and it looked like it worked out for them two generations in a row. Besides, I could be wrong, but I get the impression that most games weren't CPU bound this gen anyways.
Announced numbers from both parties. The official spec on xbox.com (no longer there, I noticed) specified "Total System Performance" at 1TF.
This page cuts the pieces of the actual news releases: http://theconsolewars.blogspot.com/2005/05/ps3-2-teraflops-vs-xbox-360-1-teraflop.html
Gamespot's Coverage: http://www.gamespot.com/news/playstation-3-announced-for-2006-6124681
Apparently it involves counting some magical thing called "non-programmable flops", but like I have stated twice already, you can't rely on paper specs to determine the relative power of consoles.
But anyway, my point is made.
Those numbers you said weren´t believed by anyone back in 2005.
Thats moot point since we are looking at programmable flops and thats theoretical power advantage PS3 has and developers talked about, mainly because of CPU. Still, that difference is pretty much non existent since Xenos is GPU better of the two. So, as I said, theoretical performance of PS3 (CPU+GPU) where around 400 GFLOPs, while 360 where around 350 GFLOPs. Difference was minimal, especially since their architectures where so different, and one relied on CPU and other on GPU as their main advantages.
On the other hand difference between rumored next gen specs is very big, and if both are getting GPU from AMD based on GCN, than I don't know what can MS pull out to of its hat to catch that 800 GFLOPs advantage Sony machine supposedly has.
I believe the right question would be: why would MS let Sony take that big advantage? They can perfectly go for the same route.
I'm not sure they can. Kinect 2 must be pretty expensive thing to pack in with console, plus, they probably want to be as close as profitable as they can. But to me it seems like MS took of this gen because of Sony's mistakes and their smart timing to give people alternative.
Sony was late and MS was first on market so they where the first to claim "HD era started" with their console . MS had great online with LIVE while Sony just made first babysteps with PSN. MS also had quite a few exclusives early in the generation, and because of great tools and good hardware they got better end of the stick, and people noticed that. They still do.
Next gen will be a bit different if things remain like this. Sony has solid online thats also free, they are much better with their SDK side this time around and it seems their hardware will hit sweetspots developers want. They have great portfolio of 1st party studios, and I can't see how is MS going to get out of the situation where Sony fixed all the problems that they had last time, and along with that giving people free online and quite possibly better looking/running 3rd party games (along with their good 1st party offering).
So, since this is prediction thread I will predict what I expect from next gen consoles.
MS
3GB of DDR4 RAM available for games (1 gig for OS)
Under clocked Cape Verde ~1 TFLOPs with 34 megs of fast ram for frame buffer
4-6 Jaguar cores available for games
Sony
2GB of GDDR5 (4GB if they can hit higher density by end of 2013)
Pitcairn lvl GPU, ~2 GFLOPS
4 Jaguar cores for games
Last edited by a moderator:
That is true, but too be fair, shader flops is probably easily the single most important number out there in regards to how good games look. If you had to pick just one. Especially since as I noted on GAF, the rest of the GPU typically scales to match the shader number anyway. So a higher shader number is basically a proxy for "better GPU" which is a proxy for "better visuals". Though again, I agree with you other factors (mostly RAM) could play big roles.
It's hard to possibly imagine devs could gripe about Xenos anywhere near as much as they did for Cell. Especially given that 360 was considered the easy to develop for console.
It's more likely from what we know that if there is such a CPU centric focus in Durango, the reason isn't gaming.
This isn't the first time kilian has hinted at a very powerful CPU in Durango. It doesn't jive with our most accepted Durango rumors though, which focus on something like 8 small Jaguar cores.
It depends on many things.
I can see Sony offering a pretty "core" naked system, that's my hope.
Ms can subsidize more but they have to include Kinect. They have to deal with the overhead induce by running a Windows 8 renditions (my bet is that feature wise the xbox will not be in the same ballpark as the ps4). All comes at a cost.
Then FLOPS is by far not the only important metric to measure GPU power. Nowadays Nvidia and AMD FLOPS are really close but still before Kepler Nvidia was doing better with significantly less FLOPS than ATI.
I would say that the most important metric for GPU might still be fill rate with blending.
If I go by this review of the gtx 680 putting every other metrics aside one may notice that the real world performances pretty much follow the fillrate with blending performances.
By looking at this graph only you could almost tell how those GPU ranks in real world, FLOPS don't.
So definitely the memory architecture is critical. Say Sony has standard solution with a pretty wide bus on GDDR5. If MS has some on chip memory pool and bandwidth to it, well it may trump FLOPS.
Then there is the overall system performance. MS may have more CPU power, more RAM, and lower latency RAM (DDR4). Definitely it's going to make a difference. (I go by the rumors even though I agree with SHifty it's pointless at this stage).
Anyway I think it's pointless to compare both systems at this point, let see the price, the overall software environment, which accessories are std or not, and then the real specs.
At this stage that focus on comparing systems gives a F-B smells at this thread and that's not the place here overall and not the purpose of that thread as Shifty pointed out.
Better move foward imho either I predict a tropical storm level of thread cleaning to follow...
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd guess someone who posts under their real name isn't hinting anything.
Yes, you guys actually went there... Spawned this just to get it out of the hardware prediction thread. Short summary of the rest of this thread:
"This console has bigger numbers than that console. It's better"
"Bigger number don't mean better."
"This preferred platform exclusive is a million times better than anything on that other console because it has more numbers"
"You can't compare exclusives. These multiplatform titles run better on this console because it has better quality numbers."
"Nu-hur"
"Yu-hur"
"This console has bigger numbers than that console. It's better"
"Bigger number don't mean better."
"This preferred platform exclusive is a million times better than anything on that other console because it has more numbers"
"You can't compare exclusives. These multiplatform titles run better on this console because it has better quality numbers."
"Nu-hur"
"Yu-hur"
So ah,how can we know that until MS/Sony's official announcement,but i highly doubt Durango's OS(+apps,i know) will use 1GB RAM,since even Win8 for PC use less RAM than Win7(they won't go back),plus Kinect never a expensive thing(unless include marketing cost)
Next gen=new start=new rule,we need to know that
And like many people,i also think Sony should learn their lesson after PS3's launch...but then PSV launched...well,i don't think they really learned anything.
Next gen=new start=new rule,we need to know that
And like many people,i also think Sony should learn their lesson after PS3's launch...but then PSV launched...well,i don't think they really learned anything.
upnorthsox
Veteran
PSV launch not really late(compared to 3DS),there is another lesson Sony didn't learned,like crap marketing
And we don't even know the release date of nextbox or PS4...i mean guess is nothing wrong but...i can disagree right?
No one really know PS4 gonna beast again or not,but i guess even PS4 not a beast,it still doesn't mean they're going Wii route
Thing is, I think the PS4 specs are relatively modest and inexpensive, while still looking like they pack the most punch so far.
A very capable system can be pushed out at a reasonable price without breaking the bank imo. A lot of debates otherwise assume a lot of things that just arent true. Like that any decent system must cost $600 and bankrupt it's maker. There is a middle ground. I fear Microsoft is the one making the wrong choices here (but again, thats based on only rumors so far). But for example, the leaked docs suggest Microsoft plans their next gen box to come in at 299 and be profitable immediately. That is an example of being too frugal, that will cost them in the long run when in year 3 their system is all the sudden flagging badly for lack of punch, and the only thing they can do at that point to stimulate sales is costly price cuts. Basically what I saw the Gamecube go through. When you're in a situation where the only way to stimulate demand is price cuts because your hardware isn't attractive enough compared to the competition, that "cheap" hardware is going to cost you way more in the long run (Nintendo will likely face this in the extreme with Wii U imo).
- Status
Similar threads
