Seems like Durango should be cheaper than Orbis. Kinect was estimated as a $56 BOM in 2010. I wonder if they can make Kinect 2 BOM cost less than Kinect 1 BOM at launch. To me, that will be a big story. If Kinect 2 costs too much, then the price of Xbox is too high. Honestly, which console the average person finds "better" will have a lot to do with price. I'm not sure how much controllers cost to build, but it sounds like Sony is going with something a bit more expensive than their dualshock.
NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*
- Thread starter Barso
- Start date
- Status
Averagejoe
Regular
But they could have more success attracting the casuals,and those are many more than the core ones.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
At this point I have no clue what you are rambling on about.
What chips? The GPU is on the same die as the main system memory on these consoles? I think not.
Let's put it more clearly.
At no point were we talking about anything happening over the PCIE bus. At no point are we talking about ANY communications between the GPU and CPU or any other chip. The only thing that matter's in the memory latency discussion was...
GPU <-> GPU memory pool (GDDR5 or DDR3 for modern discrete GPUs)
CPU <-> System memory pool (DDR3 for modern systems)
CPU/GPU <-> System memory pool (next gen consoles).
You cannot reduce the latency any more than that without putting the memory on die which is prohibitively expensive for the capacities required. And it can be argued that the DME module on Durango if it is a seperate chip might actually increase latency but since that will most likely be used to increase memory access speed to the GPU that any increase in latency will still be lower than the latency cost for accessing GDDR5 as well as feeding the GPU which is latency tolerant.
Regards,
SB
Big difference between the thinking of a market leader and an underdog. I guess we probably won't be getting an ARG leading up to the unveiling either this time.
That is what may hurt them if they push too far /to the point it nullify some of their advantages VS Sony (ie deploy an overall software environment Sony can't match).
Imo the weak specs comments be it for durango or the ps4 is close to FB bull crap for me and a lot of that is often just FB war under disguise. Like I buy lot of games, I've a significant buying power:
You might have PC and graphic card are not that expansive, with Steam/amazon pricing your in the grey for your GPU investments just after buying a few games.
Imo 7 years after release I find pathetic the focus on how the 360 and the ps3 compares. A person that would care would have gone PC since a while, keeping its console(s) for a couple of exclusive a year.
For year a few people here, including me , having posting articles (last an Nvidia presentation) and what not about the raising costs (both R&D and wafer) the power wall, etc. and raising the hypothesis that well new consoles won't touch new PC at release in peak perfs.
Sony system is better going by the rumors and that's it. Actually if the system are not as close as the ps360, I hope that is a good omen and it will save us from now till a couple of year ahead all the crap (both in media and the web) that followed that "infernal" combo release and the extremely stupid PR about the system specs...
By the way imo this thread should be closed, as I think the mods have no idea the pain they are setting for them selves if they start to allow people to enter under disguised a pre FB war.
Looking at that threads and others I bet that once again the console forum might ended close altogether again sometime next year /early 2014
Last edited by a moderator:
The risk is as high for MS as it is for Sony. MS shareholders want growth. If Ballmer put so much weight into xbox and it doesn't deliver the profit, ending up like the xbox-1, there goes the xbox division. With Windows failing on portable devices, and PCs being replaced by Apple and Android devices, and Office being replaced by LibreOffice and googleDocs, Microsoft really need the xbox to work.
Anyway, we all know that they will just split the next gen market share in two, but let's hope none of them will pull a WiiU
Last edited by a moderator:
Averagejoe
Regular
If i am not mistake both GPU and CPU are on the same die which should reduce latency and increase the already faster bandwidth.
http://www.monolithic3d.com/2/post/...pu-gpu-integration-at-the-vlsi-symposium.html
Maybe you should read.
See figure 5 the first thing they say..
I take AMD words as good over yours no offense.
Definitely cheaper, I wonder if MSFT could ship the console + kinect for the same price as the ps4 if they are vouching for an aggressive pricing strategy .
That's an old slide comparing an APU versus graphics on a motherboard-mounted chipset. That setup is constrained by the limited I/O link between the processor and chipset.
Sigh, in order
It remains to be seen what impact that has or if it is even the full story.
MS crushed Sony on the exclusive front last time, even without accounting for the awesome live arcade games. While I doubt the magnitude of the difference will be the same, the only rationale assumption is that MS will once again win the the exclusive front.
kinect is a great thing, or rather NUI is going to rule our world. In 3 years, NUI will control everything. Kinect 2 will likely have tracking for individual fingers enabling detection of virtual button presses. Get on the bus or go live in a cave.
Why is monetizing bad? As long as monetization delivers value to the consumer it is a good thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
djskribbles
Legend
What exactly do you mean by "MS crushed Sony on the exclusive front"?
Last edited by a moderator:
upnorthsox
Veteran
Well except for the x360 of course.
It depends on the apps they are running. If it's video and graphics heavy, then the workload will skew towards the specialized units. If the apps are web oriented, then the HTML5 layout code and JavaScript execution will be more CPU-intensive.
I doubt the user experience will be worse than existing mobile devices. Those devices (even PS3 and 360) have limited memory and general purpose CPU/PPU power. When they turn on VM for the apps, they will end up hitting the HDD or Flash memory when dealing with large data too.
I doubt the user experience will be worse than existing mobile devices. Those devices (even PS3 and 360) have limited memory and general purpose CPU/PPU power. When they turn on VM for the apps, they will end up hitting the HDD or Flash memory when dealing with large data too.
So, what we basically have at the moment is this....
1) Orbis offers more TF than the Xbox (1.8)
Xbox Durango offers 1.2 TF
There is no special sauce in Durango to obtain higher TF performance, but Durango will probably be more efficient to reach those flops than Sony will. So, if you are less efficient you may not get close to exploiting the 1.8 TF number as that number is at peak performance which is not easy to achieve.
In other words this is complete wash if true. Because Sony may have a much harder time to get to the 1.8 TF. So, this number in theory if true would be reduced greatly. Still Orbis > Durango, but not by much if anything (if true).
Orbis going for brute force while Durango going towards cheaper efficiency makes a lot of sense.
We don't have all the information just yet but this is interesting.
2) Orbis offers faster RAM, but a lot less
Durango offers slower ram, but with assists to get it up around the same speed.
So, the Orbis might have a speed advantage of 192/GB a second verses 170/GB a second with durango, but Durango offers a lot more memory. So, this means that having more memory but slower memory, but using assists to get to higher speed means that this is a bigger deal than the TF issue. So Durango > Orbis here.
Over time the memory footprint of the OS goes down, meaning more memory can be used for gaming and other things.
1) Orbis offers more TF than the Xbox (1.8)
Xbox Durango offers 1.2 TF
There is no special sauce in Durango to obtain higher TF performance, but Durango will probably be more efficient to reach those flops than Sony will. So, if you are less efficient you may not get close to exploiting the 1.8 TF number as that number is at peak performance which is not easy to achieve.
In other words this is complete wash if true. Because Sony may have a much harder time to get to the 1.8 TF. So, this number in theory if true would be reduced greatly. Still Orbis > Durango, but not by much if anything (if true).
Orbis going for brute force while Durango going towards cheaper efficiency makes a lot of sense.
We don't have all the information just yet but this is interesting.
2) Orbis offers faster RAM, but a lot less
Durango offers slower ram, but with assists to get it up around the same speed.
So, the Orbis might have a speed advantage of 192/GB a second verses 170/GB a second with durango, but Durango offers a lot more memory. So, this means that having more memory but slower memory, but using assists to get to higher speed means that this is a bigger deal than the TF issue. So Durango > Orbis here.
Over time the memory footprint of the OS goes down, meaning more memory can be used for gaming and other things.
I'm not sure how you can conclude the GPU performance is probably a wash, or that Durango ">" Orbis with respect to memory, or that either Durango or Orbis will lower their OS memory footprint over the life of the console.
There really isn't enough information out there to conclude any of those things. We've only seen a couple block diagrams and some vague information about the "data move engines" on Durango.
There really isn't enough information out there to conclude any of those things. We've only seen a couple block diagrams and some vague information about the "data move engines" on Durango.
All this siscussion of which new console is more powerful brings backa memories of the same kind of discussion over the PS2 and the original Xbox. I remember posting a link to an article that stated the polygon thruput of the Xbox was twice that of the PS2. ERP chimed in, saying 2x wouldn't make a noticeable difference. I'd like ERP to chime in once more if possible: Will Orbis having 50% more flops make a noticeable difference?
Check his post history. He has some comments about the flop difference in this thread. Basically, flops alone are not a good measure two different architectures because he doesn't believe ALUs are the bottleneck for the majority of rendering a frame. That's paraphrasing from his posts. He also goes on to say he's not sure how much the 32MB "scratch pad" on Durango will help GPU efficiency, because it depends on the latency of the memory and the functionality of the "Data Move Engines." So, I don't think you'll get a straight answer until more is known about the GPUs and how the 32MB scratch pad on Durango works.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sigh, if you just understood what you were reading. 3dilettante has said enough with regards to that.
I did say computer which implies an emphasis on applications other than games. X360 didn't have much in the way of applications at launch and while features were expanded later in life still didn't have much in the way of applications (Internet Explorer and a few other app lite type processes).
If you are going for purely games where a significant amount of time is spent in graphics and you could only have one or the other, then that's a good compromise to make. It's still potentially slower than having game code run in DDR3, but the benefits outweight that small drawback. As as you're focused purely on games, you don't need a large pool of memory. Anything larger than the 512 MB it launched with would have been prohibitively expensive. At the time X360 launched you could have likely gotten 4 GB of DDR3 for relatively the same price. Or 8+ GB or DDR2. As it was it took considerable effort from one of Microsoft's primary software partners to convince them the added cost of another 256 MB of GDDR really was required.
Durango from the rumors that are being presented has a significantly larger focus than just games. In this case MS/AMD have decided that the better compromise is a large pool of relatively inexpensive RAM that was better suited to applications with a few helper modules to theoretically give it similar performance to GDDR5, at least within the scope of what the console will be asked to do. We'll find out whether they were justified in making those choices when the consoles are launched.
In other words, X360 really is "just a console" while the Next Xbox is a console that could also do PC like tasks. Although I'm sure MS will strive to differentiate it enough that you won't be doing things commonly relegated to PCs (extensive document editing, productivity software, running arbitrary user installed/created programs, etc.).
Regards,
SB
- Status
Similar threads
