Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

Just been thinking about this recently as there seems to have been a recent spat of speculation regarding the next-generation of consoles. Its funny to see how predictions have transitioned from the beginning of the generation to where we are now. Its seems like the changing markets and time have really tempered peoples expectations.

I know there are a lot of facets to the design of the console, and each part choice can affect the design of the entire system, but as of late my thoughts have been focused primarily around the which GPU they will choose. I have a 1Gb Radeon 5770 in my desktop computer, and I think its a fantastic part for the price; basically anything outside of the most demanding games (Crysis, Crysis 2, The Witcher 2) is playable at 1920x1080 at max or very near max detail settings. With this in mind, I was thinking that a part at or around this chip would seemingly be a decent starting point for a next-gen GPU, especially if they limited the resolution to 720p, in which case the shading power of the 5770 should be sufficient to produce some very nice visuals. I was also thinking that by the time Xbox 3 and Playstation 4 are released they should be able to utilize the 28nm manufacturing process for increased power efficiency and heat dissipation. I am sure this subject has been covered over the course of this thread, but I figured I would throw my two cents into the discussion.

I know some people are still championing enthusiast level cards with 4-8Gb of RAM, but I have to ask what is still driving this logic. I just cannot see a way for it to be feasable for Microsoft of Sony to include this level of technology in an affordable manner.

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

... I just don't a traditional console in the future.

Can anyone else think of a point in the home console market where the future of the industry was so clouded? I can remember remember last generation people had no problem speculating about the future of the industry, in fact it was basically considered unimaginable that the forthcoming next-gen consoles would not be significant upgrades over the previous generation of systems. I often wonder if I went back in time and told my former self that I was living in the golden age of the home console, and that in the future a combination of technological, practical, societal, and economical trends would make the future of that market seem very uncertain.

 

[AlphaWolf]

As long as games like COD can make billions of dollars (black ops alone has revenues exceeding $1 billion, with not one penny of it on ipad), there will be a fairly traditional console.

Smart phones, tablets and whatever else will undoubtedly grab some share of those traditional entertainment dollars and MS, Sony and Nintendo will need to be on their toes to expand their market into other areas (just like they've been doing the last 5 years),

Who wants to be the moron exec that says no to the halo, gears and COD numbers?

 

[pjbliverpool]

because the ps4 is meant to last another 10 years. PCs would have 8 gb ram within 10 years too.

Even if the next generation of consoles could keep up with PC's in terms of RAM capacity for the next 10 years(!) as you propose, they wouldn't come even remotely close in terms of computation power (we're talking orders of magnitude slower here) so why even try to keep up in terms of RAM capacity when all that will mean is a massive mismatch between amount of RAM vs computation power (not even considering the speed/bandwidth of that RAM).

If next gen consoles get 4GB of RAM, I'd consider it a big win.

 

[Squilliam]

I think people are burdening their visions of the next generation Sony and Microsoft consoles with the idea that they be everything to to all aspects of the market at once. I.E. they have to be cheap with access to a variety of advanced control schemes whilst at the same time being powerful enough to justify people upgrading from current HD consoles. I don't believe this is the case. The current high definition consoles are more than powerful enough to satisfy the current tablet gaming, motion games and multimedia. There's no reason why the Xbox 360 and PS3 cannot also access tablet gaming if it is made available to them. I don't see any reason why people would 'have' to upgrade for these features when the current generation consoles can perform these tasks more than adequately.

Next generation consoles don't have to be cheap. You have to remember that the target market for these devices is people who are willing to buy games which cost $60 new and hopefully also buy downloadable content to go along with it. The trick is to make the new console compelling and if it is compelling enough people won't mind paying a relatively higher ticket price for the new experiences offered. I don't see why a $400 or even $500 price point would be unattainable for a next generation console especially if they can still offer previous generation consoles at good prices. They sell new consoles to gamers first and foremost with other features being a bonus, but the other features don't have to compromise the primary objective of the games console.

Edit:

The question is: What kind of next generation interface hardware would be cost effective to bundle with a $4-500 console? We have motion controllers, cameras, touch screens? How much better can we make each one with a reasonable proportion of the bill of materials devoted to each? Even the regular analogue controller could perform noticeably better if it cost twice as much to make and advancements in camera technology with the associated increase in processing power go without saying.

Beyond the controller, if we have major engine developers like Crytek saying that they want 8GB of RAM in the next generation consoles and given the length of time to develop a new game engine, is it plausible that they have something in mind which we cannot see yet whether that is a requirement to implement technology or discussion with console makers, either way it cannot be discounted entirely.

Hypothetically a console which is designed to fulfill it's primary functions in the best and most practical way can be an exciting piece of technology. Because Microsoft and Sony probably cannot make an exciting console for $250 we probably ought to work as if they can't or won't release something which doesn't give adequate reason for their best customers to upgrade. So in saying that I believe that we should seriously consider the possibility that a next generation console will support technologies such as high speed flash HDDs, lots of RAM, advanced cameras and support display peripherals like tablets and virtual reality. Many technologies only come into their own when combined together. For instance Kinect on it's own is pretty good but when combined with a head mounted display and a significantly more advanced camera with the processing power to back it up, it becomes something else entirely. It becomes a next generation console that's worth buying.

 

[Persistantthug]

My bet is on 2GB as well. No chance of crossing into 64bit address space - too much cost and porting hassle - Sony already tried that with PS3 and we all know what happened.

I think it's crazy to think 2 GB of ram in consoles that are supposed to last 7 and 8 years.

Consoles aren't even game consoles anymore....they're multimedia machines now. PVR/DVR....on the fly editing...multitasking

Not only is 1080p @ 60 frames gonna happen, but then there's 3D, and because we've still got several years left until a PS4 launch,

I can almost guarantee that we will see at least 8GB of ram....and that's a minimum. Because again, if PS4 doesn't come until 2014 or 2015, 12GB -16GB is not totally out of the picture.
Sounds crazy right now, yes....but Fry's Electronics has 16GB of 1600MHz CORSAIR ram this weekend for $94.99. In 2 years, that same ram will be 40 bucks.

2GB is too low...that's not gonna happen

 

[Persistantthug]

Even if the next generation of consoles could keep up with PC's in terms of RAM capacity for the next 10 years(!) as you propose, they wouldn't come even remotely close in terms of computation power (we're talking orders of magnitude slower here) so why even try to keep up in terms of RAM capacity when all that will mean is a massive mismatch between amount of RAM vs computation power (not even considering the speed/bandwidth of that RAM).

If next gen consoles get 4GB of RAM, I'd consider it a big win.

Well....that would totally depend by which standard of benchmark you are using.


To this day, for example, there's no consumer level CPU, I7 or otherwise, that can calculate more Single precision FLOPS than the CELL PROCESSOR. For consoles, that's precisely what those CPU's are designed to do.

Just sayin.

 

[Kaotik]

I think it's crazy to think 2 GB of ram in consoles that are supposed to last 7 and 8 years.

Consoles aren't even game consoles anymore....they're multimedia machines now. PVR/DVR....on the fly editing...multitasking

Not only is 1080p @ 60 frames gonna happen, but then there's 3D, and because we've still got several years left until a PS4 launch,

I can almost guarantee that we will see at least 8GB of ram....and that's a minimum. Because again, if PS4 doesn't come until 2014 or 2015, 12GB -16GB is not totally out of the picture.
Sounds crazy right now, yes....but Fry's Electronics has 16GB of 1600MHz CORSAIR ram this weekend for $94.99. In 2 years, that same ram will be 40 bucks.

2GB is too low...that's not gonna happen

It's not that memory sticks would be expensive, they just won't do for consoles, the architecture we use for RAM on our PCs isn't suitable for console which needs it as VRAM too
Having more than 2GB would require using wider than 128bit membus, which makes prices skyrocket up

 

[homerdog]

Well....that would totally depend by which standard of benchmark you are using.


To this day, for example, there's no consumer level CPU, I7 or otherwise, that can calculate more Single precision FLOPS than the CELL PROCESSOR. For consoles, that's precisely what those CPU's are designed to do.

Just sayin.

So you imply that Cell is preferable to a quad core Sandy Bridge (or even a dual core Conroe for that matter) for running game code? Really I don't have any clue what you mean.

 

[Heinrich4]

I don't know if the issue of memory has reached or not 8GB RAM is due solely to price, because PS3 uses XDR don't know if anyone else hired and Sony still managed to Bill of Materials of US$9.80 to 256MB in 2009 * today the price should be even much smaller.

Perhaps the fact that use up to 12 modules in the PS3 launch is a factor to consider because of PCB space, wattage etc.

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/Ne...n-Point-with-Latest-PlayStation-3-Design.aspx

 

[jonabbey]

Even if the next generation of consoles could keep up with PC's in terms of RAM capacity for the next 10 years(!) as you propose, they wouldn't come even remotely close in terms of computation power (we're talking orders of magnitude slower here) so why even try to keep up in terms of RAM capacity when all that will mean is a massive mismatch between amount of RAM vs computation power (not even considering the speed/bandwidth of that RAM).

If next gen consoles get 4GB of RAM, I'd consider it a big win.

Do you still expect Moore's law to provide orders of magnitude increases in computational power over the ten years following the introduction of the new Microsoft and Sony systems?

 

[Brad Grenz]

So you imply that Cell is preferable to a quad core Sandy Bridge (or even a dual core Conroe for that matter) for running game code? Really I don't have any clue what you mean.

He probably means that for the same silicon budget as a Sandy Bridge CPU you could build a 6 PPE, 48 SPU version of the Cell and I think that would undoubtedly run games faster.

 

[Xenus]

Indeed the bus size is most likely to be the biggest factor in RAM amount.

 

[sebbbi]

Only 2GB of ram? In a high end gaming device that's released next year, and with a five+ year life time?

All high end Android phones have 1GB already, and next year we are surely going to see phones with 2GB of memory. Would be sad to see a next generation console launch with devices that have less memory than the top end mobile phones...

 

[Platon]

Next generation consoles don't have to be cheap. You have to remember that the target market for these devices is people who are willing to buy games which cost $60 new and hopefully also buy downloadable content to go along with it. The trick is to make the new console compelling and if it is compelling enough people won't mind paying a relatively higher ticket price for the new experiences offered. I don't see why a $400 or even $500 price point would be unattainable for a next generation console especially if they can still offer previous generation consoles at good prices. They sell new consoles to gamers first and foremost with other features being a bonus, but the other features don't have to compromise the primary objective of the games console.

Gamming is a relatively expensive hobby and as such yes, it might not be wrong in speculating that price might not matter as much as people think in general. However, price, even in the beggining when you are tageting the enthusiasts or "core" is important. In the end you want as many as possible to jump on board as soon as possible and we have seen that even for popular consoles like the PS2 going into PS3 was quite a hassle due to the price. You will have those that will buy a new console no matter what, undoudebly, but are they many enough, for game developers to put the effort/money to taget them? This can of course be adressed, in part, by having a console that is similar to your previous one just more powerfull. Then devs can target it like they do the PC with max/min settings kind of thing and easily make games that target the old and new platform at the same time...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well....that would totally depend by which standard of benchmark you are using.


To this day, for example, there's no consumer level CPU, I7 or otherwise, that can calculate more Single precision FLOPS than the CELL PROCESSOR. For consoles, that's precisely what those CPU's are designed to do.

Just sayin.

One can question your choice (FLOPS does not equal useful workload done) but XB360 is eclipsed in every way and still remains a valid gaming paltform.

Again, I point to the RAM capacities of the previous two generations. They did not have RAM or performance comparable with a PC 5 years from launch, let alone ten. Technology moves too fast for any device to be competitive still in ten years! The 10-year life cycle includes several years as a cheap entry-level gaming device, like PS2's still selling now. PS2 is so far behind the technical curve, without 2GBs RAM to remain competitive with PCs at the end of its lifecycle (so 1/64th the current PC spec, taking a modest 2GB system RAM with no VRAM), but it still has a market.

Same with any and every fixed-hardware console. They'll be specced according to offering a good gaming experience at a price that works for release and can be cost reduced to mainstream prices years later. They will not be trying to win any power wars long term other than maybe with the rival consoles, but even then the games and features are more important there.

 

[Squilliam]

... However, price, even in the beggining when you are tageting the enthusiasts or "core" is important. In the end you want as many as possible to jump on board as soon as possible and we have seen that even for popular consoles like the PS2 going into PS3 was quite a hassle due to the price. You will have those that will buy a new console no matter what, undoudebly, but are they many enough, for game developers to put the effort/money to taget them? ..

I think the PS3/Xbox 360 sold pretty well at the $3-400 price point so I don't see why they couldn't target a viable entry level console around that level next time with good sales. That should give developers more than enough incentive as I suspect they'll release current and next generation multiplats for at least a few years into the next generation regardless.

 

[Ninjaprime]

Uhh... PCs will have a little more than 8GB of RAM in 10 years...

Actually 8GB is fairly standard already. By 2021 I'd say we'll be looking at 64-128GB as the norm.

I would disagree. Food for thought: The average RAM in 2001 was about 1 Gigabyte, and now, 10 years later, its between 6-8GB, not quite 8 times, about 7. In 1991, your average 286 had 1 Megabyte in it. Ten years later, 2001, the average had increased a thousand-fold. People in 2001 probably were guessing we'd have nearly a Terabyte in 2011... Our ability to use RAM doesn't even come close to keeping up with our ability to make more/smaller RAM. I would be suprised to see more than 32GB average by 2021.

On the main topic, signs and industry analysts point to this gen being less of a huge upgrade than those before it, I would expect 2GB as likely, 4GB a possibility, 8GB probably has a snowballs chance in hell. Same with anything Cell related, I'm sure Sony learned that lesson this time.

 

[TheWretched]

The problem isn't RAM size, at least in PCs... it's speed and latency above all else. My desktop has 6GB of RAM and besides Virtualization and Blender, no other application comes even close to using that much RAM. Crysis 1, 64bit, with disabled streaming crosses the 4GB barrier in the last level. But only just.

 

[Gubbi]

With RAM currently at $6/GB, 4GB seems an absolute minimum. The price of RAM is going to roughly halve every other year. It will effectively be free by the time next gen console sales maximizes.

I expect a mininum of 4GB RAM (<$25 cost at launch) and 32GB flash (<$45 at launch), but 8GB (<$50) RAM and 48 GB Flash (<$65) to be much more likely. Launch at $400, hit $300 at year one, $250 at year two and $200 at year three.

Cheers