You can't please everybody ... once the dance game market is driven into the ground by oversupply it will take a while to find the next big thing for motion controls. The real gamers are less fickle ... but they do want a significant improvement in graphics, if Microsoft and Sony don't collude it's very dangerous to disappoint them in this regard because the other one would mop up.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
Will those real gamers get significantly better graphics with significantly better hardware when developers are targeting the following platforms?
Xbox 360/PS3 <<< Wii U <<<<< NG1 <<< NG2 where NG1/NG2 are the respective next gen Microsoft/Sony platforms. Even once they drop support for the legacy platforms they'll likely still release games for the Wii U. Once the base game design is set for the lowest common denominator the difference faster hardware makes won't be realized and the cost for doing justice to that performance will be again more expensive. Exclusives won't cut that mustard either given the fact that they will have significantly smaller markets to target. If people won't be able to tell if a next generation console is 2* faster than a current generation console as a whole then they likely won't know that one platform is 2* the performance of the other given increased diminishing returns.
P.S. I never said slow hardware, my target has always been realistic hardware given the other requirements they also must meet.
You need to convince mom to buy the upgrade, and it will take power to do that, not a fancy UI update. Early adopters (the people willing to pay $400 and more for a box) are also most likely to be looking for performance.
And the problem exists when you release something mediocre and your competition decides to push the envelope and you wind up looking 2nd best, so I expect MS and Sony will both try to get the most out of their boxes.
And the problem exists when you release something mediocre and your competition decides to push the envelope and you wind up looking 2nd best, so I expect MS and Sony will both try to get the most out of their boxes.
My point is you're referencing laptop GPU's all the time when we talk about what MS could fit into a console. But those GPU's come at a premium price compared to a similarly speced desktop part. Just because they can get that kind of power in a $2000 laptop doesn't mean MS are happy to do that in a $400 console.
I know MS won't buy each chip, but the amount it'll cost them for the design and the cost of the royalties and even how much it costs to fab them (surely mobile GPU's have significantly lower yields) will change depending on what they want from the chip.
Also if a great cooling solution is such a small cost increase compared to one that makes the solder melt in your console then why didn't MS use one with XBox 360? PS3 was a big hot and loud box too, why didn't they spend the extra few dollars for a robust cooling system?
Last edited by a moderator:
It would only downclock if it was overheating or on battery power, a gaming laptop would not be fit for sale if it downclocked under normal conditions when running a high work load (like playing a game).
A console would have a lot more space to work with than a laptop.
It does not matter if the laptop looks noisy, not only is it highly unlikely that the next gen consoles will have 2 GPUs, but also the laptop is much thiner than a console. In a console you could fit one slower, large fan to do the cooling (like the PS3) instead of a bunch of small, fast and noisy ones.
I doubt that Laptop GPUs are high binned parts, they have all the signs of being low binned parts.
e.g The GTX580M runs the same core as the GTX560 Ti, but is clocked at 620Mhz on the core vs 822Mhz, shaders at 1240 vs 1645, memory 3000 vs 4008.
Last edited by a moderator:
But when it comes to a custom GPU that's only being used for that system binning surely means throwing away a lot of working chips, which will drive up cost.
For example the chip being mentioned (6990M) is 100w, but the standard non binned version is the 6870 which is 150w. If they were only using that chip for Laptops they'd have to be throwing away a hell of a lot of 6870's..
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd suggest they are binned for heat and power rather than high performance.
a lot? a few? some? Obviously they have the advantage in a pc environment of still using a part which might not reach certain goals. My point being I don't think what they are charging for a high end laptop part has any significant relation to its cost. The console is going to benefit from economies of scale that these laptops most certainly do not.
Of course, I'm just saying that I'm looking at this within the context of a console.
anexanhume is pointing out a GPU which is binned so they can drop it from 150w to 100w for use in a laptop and saying that kind of thing would be fine for a console, I don't agree. That sounds like pretty picky binning to me. I'm not expert but if you're going to only use chips that run 17% cooler than normal then you're going to be throwing away quite a lot of chips.
EDIT: forgot the 20% down clock.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well it's not just binned to reach 100w, it's down clocked by 20% or something. I really don't think there's much point in looking at a 6990m in terms of what will be in a console launching in 2013, you're going to see 2 or 3 generations of parts between now and then, and while the console part might be similar, I wouldn't expect it to be the same. It might be useful as a reference point in terms of TDP, but I'm not sure how that is really helpful.
Good point something I noticed and totally forgot in my last post 
20% down clock, and another 17% from binning.
I agree its not useful to look at a laptop GPU to see what next gen consoles will use.
EDIT: I could be wrong on the TDP actually, looking around the 6990M is often reported as 75W. Though that doesn't do anything to change my mind. I can't see any console manufacturer designing their consoles to require significant CPU/GPU binning over and above "this chip works, this one doesn't".
20% down clock, and another 17% from binning.I agree its not useful to look at a laptop GPU to see what next gen consoles will use.
EDIT: I could be wrong on the TDP actually, looking around the 6990M is often reported as 75W. Though that doesn't do anything to change my mind. I can't see any console manufacturer designing their consoles to require significant CPU/GPU binning over and above "this chip works, this one doesn't".
Last edited by a moderator:
anexanhume
Veteran
They wouldn't need the same yields. As others have pointed out, they could afford to exceed the 200W barrier given their space.
Lowest BOM cost while meeting specs. They didn't build in margin because they are being graded on cost per console, not engineering excellence. I would almost bet my left arm the engineer on the project wanted beefier cooling.
6990M is a 100W card to compete with the 485M/580M. The 6970M is the 75W card.
Maybe you're right, however there is conflicting information showing 6990M as 75 watts TDP and others claiming 100 watts, but either way it still under 40nm perhaps at 28nm allow a 1408ALUs/gpu and still meet the 100 watts,so i still believe in a system with efficient cooling system allows this level gpu in a next gen console.
http://computerinvoices.com/geforce-gtx-580m-sli-radeon-hd-6990m-cf.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gtx-580m-sli-hd-6990m-crossfire,3022-2.html
Nvidia about Geforce 500M revision N13 series Entusiast model at 28nm at 75 watts:
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/71-graphics/43990-nvidias-first-mobile-28nm-gpus-revealed.html
Last edited by a moderator:
This is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. MS and Sony need to push for as much performance possible or they risk losing a good chunk of the early adopters to the competitor.
IMO if we see a repeat of this gen, where the two high end systems are roughly equal, I see these two systems becoming the target platforms/specs.
If there's sales to support the investment, I do see the Wii-U enjoying far greater support than the Wii did this gen. Even if the 720/ps4 outclass the Wii-U in spec, it should still be far easier to down port a 720/ps4 game to a WiiU than it was to port a 360/ps3 game to the Wii.
anexanhume
Veteran
I doubt that. It's peak theoretical performance is slightly better than the PS3 and 360 from what I've seen. No way that performance can be achieved only consuming 30W. My guess is between 60 and 100W.
It´s using newer designs thus more efficient. Wii had GPU heating problems when it was using only less than 20W and the current Wii U box is just bigger than that. 50W+ seems impossible for that design
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
