NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*

[XpiderMX]

I don't think it will be that bad. I'm still not convinced the average gamer notices 1080p over 720p, and given the lack of complaints this gen about sub HD games. I really don't think you're going to hear much complaints next generation outside of the "hardcore forum going" gamers. Besides if Durango is less powerful, if development leads on it you'll still see parity overall.

Of course this is all my opinion with no factual data to corroberate any of it. I just don't think the difference between Durango and Orbis will be so much that MS is left hurting/struggling in any sense of the word.

[strike]Offtopic:[/strike]
People don't notice 1080p vs 720p, but Sony will take care of it being noticed, and the core gamers are, generally, the enthusiast buyers.

Just take a look at digital foundry articles.

On topic: Can we expect more info from vgleaks next week?

 

[Xenio]

You are assuming that Durango can make up the difference the +4 cu's of Orbis and not actually need to use some of it's 12 cu's to actually do some of the stuff done on Orbis's +4 cu's.

Is that really likely, I mean really?

If you want to play that game take off anywhere between 2 and 4 cu's from the 12 and then do the math.

the 4 CU can't give a plus 300% in power to the whole orbis
and anyway they can do only a marginal help in graphics, so if they do IA or physics this can't giustify going from 720p@30 to 1080p@60
how can you believe that is out of me.

 

[liolio]

I decided to do some rough calculations to test out a theory.

According to VGLeaks, Orbis has 1.84 TF of GPU compute power and .1 TF (102.4 GF) of CPU compute power being serviced by 176 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Proportionally, if you take 176/1.94 TF (total compute of GPU+CPU) you get 90.73 GB/s per TF of compute.

Now, assuming Durango's CPU is the same as Orbis's, if you take Durango's 1.2 TF of GPU and add the .1 TF of CPU compute you get 1.3 TF of compute. To receive the same proportion of memory bandwidth to compute resources as Orbis would require 1.3 * 90.73 or 117.95 GB/s of bandwidth.

Durango has 170 GB/s of total bandwidth between the DDR3 and EDRAM. Subtract 51.2 for the cost of the DMEs reading from one pool and writing to the other at their maximum speed of 25.6 GB/s and you have..... 118.80 GB/s.

Well honestly I don't think that you can "count" (in both cases) that way.
I don't think that either system are all the time "Bandwidth bound", you have to take in account compression and the compression ratio, etc.

I think like for the aggregate bandwidth figures in the ps3 and 360 those figures are going to be discussed for eons

 

[Averagejoe]

from what we know, we have 14 CU on orbis for graphic balanced work and 4 for other task that could give only marginal help for graphics

14 CU vs 12 means +16%
and only in GPU

how can this 16% make orbis 400% times faster than durango? (720p30 vs 1080p@60)




this is more on earth, can be

But if the 4CU are use for animation,lighting,physics and stuff like that,from where Durango will use power to replicate those.?

From the 12 CU.?

Because that would mean a performance hit,and it would also mean that the difference from 14CU vs 12CU would not be 16%,after all the resources Durango is using will come from those same 12CU,while Orbis will still have 14CU without penalty to use.

I always wonder this scenario because it is what happen now with PS3 and xbox 360.

So everything those 4CU do would have to be replicated on the 12CU of Durango.

What do you think.?

 

[Xenio]

So everything those 4CU do would have to be replicated on the 12CU of Durango.

why?
this is not the way it works

simply go for a faster and slim phisycs on cpu
anyway 4 CU cant multiply 4x the performances of the whole console

this is pure fantasy for anyone that even knows what is a computer or a graphic card

 

[Averagejoe]

the 4 CU can't give a plus 300% in power to the whole orbis
and anyway they can do only a marginal help in graphics, so if they do IA or physics this can't giustify going from 720p@30 to 1080p@60
how can you believe that is out of me.

I don't think they can give you 300%,but i don't think they are just marginal help,we are talking about 400Gflops that is 1/3 of all the 720 flops dedicated to physics,animation and other stuff,on a GPU from the same company and basically the same series.

They are also say to be beef up from the rest,so i think anything done on those Durando will have to make for using several CU from those 12.

Maybe is not apple to apple,but i don't think Durango CU are stronger than Orbis one,a CU is a CU at least on these models from the same line and vendor,so i think there will be a notable difference in frames or physics and animation even on lighting.

Just like i think that it may be possible that Orbis choke on some really big games that get advantage of having allot of ram like Skyrim or games like those.

 

[Xenio]

On the other hand if the sales are muted they can release Xbox 3.1 with 2 gpu's a year or 2 out and say, "this is the real Xbox 720". Kind of makes you wonder if those rumors of them simply calling it "Xbox" isn't without regard for this kind of situation. And forcing devs to code to a higher level API (I guess simply some DX11 subset), as Edge reports, buys them forward compatibility for this case.

this makes sense, and some rumors say the same thing, a new xbox next every two years, starting from one year after the first low powered SKU

 

[XpiderMX]

so i think there will be a notable difference in frames or physics and animation even on lighting.

We don´t know some details from Durango CPU. The word "slightly", talking about the difference between both consoles, in last rumors, don't sound like "notable difference" as you said.

 

[Averagejoe]

why?
this is not the way it works

simply go for a faster and slim phisycs on cpu
anyway 4 CU cant multiply 4x the performances of the whole console

this is pure fantasy for anyone that even knows what is a computer or a graphic card

Yes i think it is,in fact is the way the PS3 uses to keep up with the xbox 360 stronger and faster GPU.

Remember that Orbis has the same CPU as well,i just don't see how Durango can keep up with this specs,it doesn't ad up and this is all simple math.

I don't think 4CU will multiply 4X the performance,i just think that 4CU heavily helping the GPU in Orbis will have an impact on Durando 12 CU,there will be a difference how big i don't know but there will be..

 

[XpiderMX]

Yes i think it is,in fact is the way the PS3 uses to keep up with the xbox 360 stronger and faster GPU.

Remember that Orbis has the same CPU as well,i just don't see how Durango can keep up with this specs,it doesn't ad up and this is all simple math.

I don't think 4CU will multiply 4X the performance,i just think that 4CU heavily helping the GPU in Orbis will have an impact on Durando 12 CU,there will be a difference how big i don't know but there will be..

Some people here in B3D has speculated that Durango CPU is a more customized jaguar.

 

[anexanhume]

Some people here in B3D has speculated that Durango CPU is a more customized jaguar.

On no factual basis with 0 outside rumors. We've simply spitballed how they could change the vanilla core to make it more exciting for the purpose of games. Most of the discussion has been centered on ALUs, FMAs, AVX and AVX2, etc. Some have mentioned purging legacy x86 support, but I don't see how that's particularly worth the effort.

 

[McHuj]

On no factual basis with 0 outside rumors. We've simply spitballed how they could change the vanilla core to make it more exciting for the purpose of games. Most of the discussion has been centered on ALUs, FMAs, AVX and AVX2, etc. Some have mentioned purging legacy x86 support, but I don't see how that's particularly worth the effort.

Perhaps like the GPU, any customization done to the CPU could be with regards to its memory subsystem. The performance of the cores themselves, maybe, is sufficient, but how the 8 cores communicate, how the caches behave,etc may have been tweaked. It wouldn't surprise me is all the focus has been in power and area efficiency.

 

[BRiT]

Online activation codes and no second hand games discussion has been moved to this topic: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=63015

 

[anexanhume]

Perhaps like the GPU, any customization done to the CPU could be with regards to its memory subsystem. The performance of the cores themselves, maybe, is sufficient, but how the 8 cores communicate, how the caches behave,etc may have been tweaked. It wouldn't surprise me is all the focus has been in power and area efficiency.

True, but perhaps less exciting for this crowd. The efficiency of those changes would be an interesting disclosure from developers post release, though.

 

[DJ12]

the 4 CU can't give a plus 300% in power to the whole orbis
and anyway they can do only a marginal help in graphics, so if they do IA or physics this can't giustify going from 720p@30 to 1080p@60
how can you believe that is out of me.

Did I really say that, did I?

You seem to be missing the point, if these 4 CUs are used for Orbis to do physics, AI or animation, what is Durango going to use to do these tasks? Magic?

Even if it runs physics, AI or animations at a vastly reduced level of sophistication, it's still going to use resources from the the system.

All 14 CUs will be used for graphics in Orbis, all 12 will not be used for graphics in Durango.

 

[Xenio]

Did I really say that, did I?

You seem to be missing the point, if these 4 CUs are used for Orbis to do physics, AI or animation, what is Durango going to use to do these tasks? Magic?

you call it magic
I call it CPU

All 14 CUs will be used for graphics in Orbis, all 12 will not be used for graphics in Durango.

your fantasy become fact? when?
you nor me,know what will be used for what, so those statement are only personal assumption

 

[Averagejoe]

Some people here in B3D has speculated that Durango CPU is a more customized jaguar.

I read that,but many also speculated about special sauce and it turn out to be nothing as of now,as of now both have the same CPU.

 

[mrcorbo]

I decided to do some rough calculations to test out a theory.

According to VGLeaks, Orbis has 1.84 TF of GPU compute power and .1 TF (102.4 GF) of CPU compute power being serviced by 176 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Proportionally, if you take 176/1.94 TF (total compute of GPU+CPU) you get 90.73 GB/s per TF of compute.

Now, assuming Durango's CPU is the same as Orbis's, if you take Durango's 1.2 TF of GPU and add the .1 TF of CPU compute you get 1.3 TF of compute. To receive the same proportion of memory bandwidth to compute resources as Orbis would require 1.3 * 90.73 or 117.95 GB/s of bandwidth.

Durango has 170 GB/s of total bandwidth between the DDR3 and EDRAM. Subtract 51.2 for the cost of the DMEs reading from one pool and writing to the other at their maximum speed of 25.6 GB/s and you have..... 118.80 GB/s.

I wondered what happened to this post. I didn't view it as a comparison post as I was only using Orbis as a frame of reference to describe what would be expected in Durango and how well all the various memory bandwidth numbers fit when viewed in this context. Guess a mod either felt differently or is casting a wide net to keep the dedicated threads clean at all costs.

 

[patsu]

I read that,but many also speculated about special sauce and it turn out to be nothing as of now,as of now both have the same CPU.

The secret sauce is there, but it is invisible or tasteless if the reader don't appreciate it.

 

[Renegade_43]

I think the point is that worst case scenario is not a factor of 400%. The idea that you would go from 1080p 60 to 720p 30 is not what the specs show. 12 cu Durango vs 18 cu, with similar cpus. A 1080p 60fps game on Orbis is more likely to run 1080p 40fps on Durango. Give or take. The whole argument that the difference will be noticeable to the general public is not well founded. You are worried about 6-8 times increase not being enough to notice yet 33% is going to make or break the system? If the Xbox 360 was 33% faster then it is right now would that actually have made a difference 8 years out? These new systems would still be 6-8 times faster then an uber super unbelievable spec'd 360 at launch! Or pretend the 360 was released in its current form in 2007. It is 2013 now.. that would still have been a 6 year life with very conservative specs for 2007.

Smaller, quieter is definitely important. No one is buying large towers anymore so there will be little forgiveness for a large bulky console. The business people said "What if we had released 360 in 2007 on a smaller process and saved the billion dollars? There is hugely diminishing returns to being at the extreme edge of the technology curve. Pretty simple I think.