Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Megadrive1988]

Last-gen seemed to be better for framerates. I think more games were 60fps and most of the ones that weren't 60fps were at least a consistant 30fps.

Fewer games are 60fps this gen, and too many are sub-30fps. Not that there weren't sub 30fps last-gen, but there seem to be more this gen. I think HD resolution (and even sub HD resolution) took their toll on these consoles that only have 8 ROPs and 128-bit external memory busses.

 

[eastmen]

Financially yes. They can't afford another lost like this gen. Some people aren't too happy with current gen graphics. You know sub HD res, choppy frame rate, lack AA etc. Both MS and Sony is bleeding money in order to deliver us graphic that some consider to be sub par.

when you factor out the rrod 1B fiasco are ms really loosing alot of money this gen? It looks like this gen ms will turn a profit.

Sony is bleeding money cause they were stupid in their choices. They built an extremely expensive system that has yet to offer any graphical benfits over its main competitor that was much cheaper to make. If sony invested the money they spent on bluray into another 512 megs of ram and things would have been diffrent.

The technologies to deliver core gamers expectation of next gen graphics is even more expensive.

If a next gen consoles were to launch in next two years, the GPU will be around 1+ billion transistors. That's about the processing power of RV770 or GT200. It's getting harder and harder to deliver eye candy to awe core gamers. They would need to look to PC with it's 1000+W PSU to deliver the eye candy.

I don't agree really.

Simply adding a radeon 4870 and a 9 core verison of the waternoose cpu along with perhaps 4 gigs of ram would easily let you do some nice stuff at 720p and some games at 1080p.

Would such a system be that expensive ? Your looking at what 45nms for the process if not smaller. You might be able to squeeze in a dx 11 gpu.

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

I think the biggest factor in determining the technology of the next generation of consoles is going to be the current and expected future market situation. Nintendo has set a precedent with the Wii, in which a console does not need to rely on graphics and computing power to attract customers. If Microsoft and Sony foresee a continued economic downturn in which consumer spending on big ticket items is restricted, then I cannot imagine a future console being released in $499-499 range ever again, nor do I see it using bleeding edge technology (within reason). I am in no way knowledgeable of what is expected for the future of computer technology, but baring any impending revolutions in programing and hardware, wouldn't something along the lines of a mid range or maybe even high end computer provide a nice increase for a next gen console releasing in the 2011 - 2012 time frame? I guess the end goal of using current day technology and not attempting to predict or design based on an up and coming specification would be to keep the launch price of the console around $299. The next most important aspect would be something to differentiate yourself from your competitors, which is arguably what makes the Wii so successful.

Anyway, I just thought I would chime in on this massive thread.

 

[Silenti]

Financially yes. They can't afford another lost like this gen. Some people aren't too happy with current gen graphics. You know sub HD res, choppy frame rate, lack AA etc. Both MS and Sony is bleeding money in order to deliver us graphic that some consider to be sub par.

The technologies to deliver core gamers expectation of next gen graphics is even more expensive.

If a next gen consoles were to launch in next two years, the GPU will be around 1+ billion transistors. That's about the processing power of RV770 or GT200. It's getting harder and harder to deliver eye candy to awe core gamers. They would need to look to PC with it's 1000+W PSU to deliver the eye candy.



What new PC games would you play though ? New PC games are mostly consoles port or designed with consoles in mind. Though console ports in high res and lots of AA with good frame rate controls as well as mouse and keyboard, is very attractive to most PC gamers.

My point is they may just end up with another "lost-gen." Maybe one that doesn't lose them as much money, but they would abandon the core that brought them here (at least in MS's case) and for people like myself if they do become even more "user-friendly" then I'm out. They will be counting on taking a piece of the Wii's pie while X percentage of their existing user base drops them entirely. I don't really consider MS to be bleeding money this gen. They had a 1B$ screwup that should not have happened. That throws the curve a bit.

What PC games? Sadly, probably MMO's. I have avoided EVE for years now and may soon take the plunge. It seems to have quite the list of possibilities. Certainly better than anything on the consoles. Still investigating that though. I don't see EVE, or god forbid WOW, on the consoles. I don't see games like X-Com, watched Bungie mail it in for HALO 3, saw Ubisoft create a great world they forgot to populate or build any depth of play into. Everything feels like half-a-game. For COD4, make that 1/4 of a game. Portal took longer, cost me less and was a hell of a lot more fun.

There is also always the possibility that I skip a generation or more. I've done that in the past, maybe I will do it again. Almost skipped the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube gen. If the Xbox had not come out I would have been less a games console.

 

[Silenti]

Reply to Inquisitive Idiot and any others saying that Sony and MS are going to chase down the Wii's path. What happens to rest of the gamers. Somewhere around half of the existing user base I believe (at least for the moment.) There will be little enough to differentiate the consoles at that point and as was stated above, it is difficult to satisfy the hardcore. Am I the only who thinks that a bunch of people would gravitate to the one console that offered the better possibilities or dump consoles all together if no one did? What happens to the early adopters who pay the higher prices and get the ball rolling? If all we see is a bunch of hopped up Wii's for playing singing games and various minigames, how many of us do you think are even going to bother shelling out for them at all? Certainly not early.

I stated on some previous thread that "Yeah for Nintendo, they are making money, and frankly my dear I don't give a damn." A number of people, publicly and privately, wholly agreed with me. What percentage of the possible user base are like that?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Maybe the question that should be asked is whether bleeding edge hardware is needed to keep core gamers happy. It could very well be that alot of core gamers arnt happy with wii not because of the gfx but because of the lack of core games.

Look at it like this, the ps2 had alot of core gamers, still around 2001, 2002 alot of pc games looked alot better than what ps2 had to offer while they could be run on relative slow hardware for that time. Same goes for the whole HD thing. You could run pc games at high res years ago, but still alot of core gamers where happy with their ps2 but now suddenly you must have HD?

I think alot of people allowed sony and ms to brainwash them with their HD marketing.

Also I dont see how slower hardware would really be much of a problem. 5 times faster hardware will cost alot of money, but you wont get 5 time better gfx. Devs would again have to spend alot more money on gfx because that is all people seem to look at. This will probably mean games get even shorter and the content and gameplay gets even worse.

I dont think a x360 or ps3 x2 would have to be bad. Your not gonna see a jump in gfx like ps2 - ps3 anyway because there is no way that can be paid. They need to spend their money on updating/grading in places that really need it. I think you can have a x2 like system and still over a decent improvement providing you spend your money where its needed.

I dont think the core would be mad. If you really are core you know its about the game and not just whether it has the best gfx or not.

 

[liolio]

when you factor out the rrod 1B fiasco are ms really loosing alot of money this gen? It looks like this gen ms will turn a profit.

Sony is bleeding money cause they were stupid in their choices. They built an extremely expensive system that has yet to offer any graphical benfits over its main competitor that was much cheaper to make. If sony invested the money they spent on bluray into another 512 megs of ram and things would have been diffrent.



I don't agree really.

Simply adding a radeon 4870 and a 9 core verison of the waternoose cpu along with perhaps 4 gigs of ram would easily let you do some nice stuff at 720p and some games at 1080p.

Would such a system be that expensive ? Your looking at what 45nms for the process if not smaller. You might be able to squeeze in a dx 11 gpu.

A 4870 equivalent should be pretty to fit in even with a tight budget, if my memory is right I think I read that it could be ~170mm² @40nm.
But I see no point in using a 9 cores waternoose/xenon, any job that is likely to spread well on such a chip may be handled better by the GPU (say a more flexible 4870 with the thoughput).

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't see why going with consoles that are much more powerful than Xbox 360/PS3 would be so expensive. We've had several generations of huge leaps in processor and graphics.

If in 2002, you were told of Xbox360 and PS3 specs, that they would be doing HD resolutions, and be a large leap (not massive but large) over PS2 and Xbox, you might say that would be finantially impossible. but it happened. It's cost Sony, Microsoft and developers/publishers alot of money, but it happened.

The generation before, with PS2, GCN and Xbox, they provided, more or less, a massive 100x leap over PS1/N64 graphics at $299. You could say that should've been too expensive, but it also happened.


Next-gen won't see another increase in resolutions, except that more games will be 1080p which is already in limited use today. New hardware will just provide more geometry detail, better/faster shaders, better/more AA, the ability to do better framerates, fewer-sub 30fps games, more games locked at 30fps and more at 60fps than this gen. More physics, better A.I., all of that.

So I don't understand why hardware power cannot improve another 10 to 20 times, and games cannot look, say 4-5x better than they do today.

I see the arguements for a modest improvement in power, but I also see the arguements for another large increase in power. I am torn, though I know I want another large leap beyond current-gen

 

[Silenti]

Maybe the question that should be asked is whether bleeding edge hardware is needed to keep core gamers happy. It could very well be that alot of core gamers arnt happy with wii not because of the gfx but because of the lack of core games.

Look at it like this, the ps2 had alot of core gamers, still around 2001, 2002 alot of pc games looked alot better than what ps2 had to offer while they could be run on relative slow hardware for that time. Same goes for the whole HD thing. You could run pc games at high res years ago, but still alot of core gamers where happy with their ps2 but now suddenly you must have HD?

I think alot of people allowed sony and ms to brainwash them with their HD marketing.

Also I dont see how slower hardware would really be much of a problem. 5 times faster hardware will cost alot of money, but you wont get 5 time better gfx. Devs would again have to spend alot more money on gfx because that is all people seem to look at. This will probably mean games get even shorter and the content and gameplay gets even worse.

I dont think a x360 or ps3 x2 would have to be bad. Your not gonna see a jump in gfx like ps2 - ps3 anyway because there is no way that can be paid. They need to spend their money on updating/grading in places that really need it. I think you can have a x2 like system and still over a decent improvement providing you spend your money where its needed.

I dont think the core would be mad. If you really are core you know its about the game and not just whether it has the best gfx or not.

Power is not JUST about graphics. I'm not personally concerned about high levels of AA or resolution beyond 720p (for while yet anyway.) AF and draw distance sure, but those shouldn't be impossible. The raw horsepower, whether from a GPU, a CPU or a hybrid can do a lot more. Same for the amount of RAM available.

I'm not sure what it is called, but instead of a large number of expensive, and often inaccurate, animations they have some kind of skeletal system where the animation is created on the fly. (I've heard of this in reference to future Madden games and the Indiana Jones game.) Something tells me that will take a bit of horsepower. Now try and populate a city with all the characters and NPC's moving in a natural fashion using that technology.

How about more than 6 (or is it 8?) cars in Forza. Voice command. Bullets and shell fragments that are actually tracked and ricochet. I often wonder why "sniper rifles", or really most guns in most games, are limited to ranges which are more suited to pistol and submachine gun work, is it draw distance? What limitation causes this? It is so universal I have assumed that power is part of it.

The list can grow if I really think about it. This board has a number of developers present, why don't we ask them what the power could be used for if it wasn't sucked down by graphics. Just in terms of pure silicon and what is spent on making the game look pretty. My point is simply that I feel the Wii has pushed back what games are capable of being, not limited to the graphical sense. If that is the route that is chosen, well, maybe I have to crawl back to PC gaming.

Give me a living, breathing, browing world instead of just prettier graphics.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I know its not just about the gfx but takes too long to name every possibility evertime. But what can be done isnt the point of this topic as far as me is concerned. Its about what hardware could be in the next generation.

Ofcourse you could ask what a dev wants. You can say here you got 5 years, 100 million and a box of hardware with whatever you want. Go ahead and do what you please. Im sure you would end up with a great project but I doubt it will be viable as a commercial product.

Its a matter of costs vs profit. What can we do vs what should we do.

 

[Silenti]

That was the point I was addressing. It just got a bit sidetracked into the details. The "what can you do vs. what should you do" is going to have to be affected by what your custoers want. That decision cannot be made in a vacuum of heading for the lowest common denominator hardware wise. You have to consider your base. The point has been made here that the HD consoles could do what the Wii does, and likely will next gen regardless.

Take the 299$ starting price point bandied about here. I'm assuming a 350$ or 400$ with a hdd or a solid state, maybe something SSD offerred as an accessory down the road. That is exactly where the 360 started this gen. I don't believe that is a failure price point wise.

What do the roadmaps show as being available in 2011 or 2012. (There have been some interesting memory advances being announced that could have a major effect as well, not just shrink processes.)

As to "here's 5 years and 100 million$." Sounds like Blizzard to me. When is the last time one of their games was a failure? Ghost that they cancelled? Bungie probably had similar numbers, if a different timeframe. What is Star Wars: The Old Republic going to cost considering the sheer size of the development team? IF MMO's and subscriptions are a large part of the future, the console is going to need to be built around those needs. I don't see a future of nothing but Wii style games with consoles designed around that need and some media streaming capabilities.

 

[liolio]

I don't see why going with consoles that are much more powerful than Xbox 360/PS3 would be so expensive. We've had several generations of huge leaps in processor and graphics.

I wouldn't say more expansive but manufacturers (Sony and MS as Nintendo made money on hardware from scratch) may very well chose to lose less money if any.

If in 2002, you were told of Xbox360 and PS3 specs, that they would be doing HD resolutions, and be a large leap (not massive but large) over PS2 and Xbox, you might say that would be finantially impossible. but it happened. It's cost Sony, Microsoft and developers/publishers alot of money, but it happened.

Yes but Sony, Ms and some huge developers lose some money. The risks are getting pretty high on medium anf high bufget games.

The generation before, with PS2, GCN and Xbox, they provided, more or less, a massive 100x leap over PS1/N64 graphics at $299. You could say that should've been too expensive, but it also happened.

Are you sure about the figure?
Anyway, process have made huge improvement and manufacturers as AT/Nvidia have pushed 3D rendering pretty far this last decade which is cool

Next-gen won't see another increase in resolutions, except that more games will be 1080p which is already in limited use today. New hardware will just provide more geometry detail, better/faster shaders, better/more AA, the ability to do better framerates, fewer-sub 30fps games, more games locked at 30fps and more at 60fps than this gen. More physics, better A.I., all of that.
So I don't understand why hardware power cannot improve another 10 to 20 times, and games cannot look, say 4-5x better than they do today.

I'm not sure about your metric how 20 time more power translate in 4/5 time better game than today.
What I can say from my restricted understanding is that manufacturers have already psuhed pretty important factors as power consumption and heat disspation.
Chips used in the pc space and in the ps3 and the 360 are already almost as huge as they can, hot and power hungry.
Look to the actual overall best gpu available on the market, the 4870 (Nvidia fans don't crush me ). The chip is big as it can while sutaining acceptable yelds, is super hot and is power hungry. GPU have impressive product in every way... CPU manufacturers would love to have that kind of tolerance to size/heat disspation/power hungry.
The 4870 is almost the same size as xenos (when it launched) it has ~4 time the raw power and is likely a more efficient architecture but it is warmer hungrier.
Actual machines are pretty huge, console manufacturers have no room to add bigger cooling solutions. Sony or MS making a machine now could not use it it consume more than the whole 360.

I see the arguements for a modest improvement in power, but I also see the arguements for another large increase in power. I am torn, though I know I want another large leap beyond current-gen

Every body wants more but honestly even if manufacturers go with something conservative the jump in power will be more than noticeable.
Take your 4/5 times better and apply it to graphic.
A 4870 could fit the bill, it's actually to warm and power hungry but the same @ 40nm or 32 nm would be fine and really tiny.
That kind of gpu + say a 4 core xenon (just for the figue) could be pack on chip (fusion style) easily, it would be a pretty tiny say between 150 and 200mm².
This kind of machine would be cheap to produce! One chip a pool of RAM and let's go.
Manufacturers can use better and still use to a one chip solution.
Imho no matter what manufacturers choices are the next generation systems will deliver way better expeirence in graphic, physic, ai/whatever.
Conservative doesn't mean a Wii, the change between the gamecube and the Wii is more more what Intel would call their tic toc strategy which is supossed to happen in... 18 months (if my memory is right) than something new.
I completely dismiss the possibility of all the manufacturers will go that route fortheir next gen system but aiming for tinier/cooler/cheaper box well it's another story.

 

[Silenti]

Are you simply saying, smaller, cooler and cheaper than the boxes that were released to start this gen? A single chip solutio to start? I just find that extreme somewhat difficult to believe. (This is incredibly annoying to figure out from a laymans point of view.)

I need time to think, brb.

 

[Silenti]

Your position is 299$, at little to no loss at release. Maybe 40 or 32nm process at release. Assuming no Larrabee since we are short on what it actually will look like an how well it will work come the release dates we are looking at. That and it is Intel.

Are we assuming 2 controllers? 1 that doubles as a remote and a motion stick and the other a classic? That would be a mild cost increase.

Everything else should be fairly similar: wifi built in, wireless controllers, etc. Optional hdd. Digital download vs. optical drive is probably a wash price wise.

I don't think that would be a large step backwards from this last gen. What did MS lose on the 360 at release? 100$ on the arcade and nothing or little on the Premium? And they sold more premiums.

How does that figure into a less powerful, cheaper console?

 

[babcat]

I seriously do not think the next generation of game consoles (PS4, Wii 2, and XBox 720) will be launching as soon as many people here think. Here are my reasons.

1) The Wii is simply doing phenomenal. I don't think it would make sense for Nintendo to launch another console anytime soon. When sales of the Wii finally start slowing they can simply have a few price cuts to boost up sales.

2) The PS3 has cost Sony a ton of money. There is no way Sony will launch a new system anytime soon. Before a new system is launched I think Sony will continue to drop the price, offer a slim version of the PS3, and try to recoup some of their losses.

3) The XBox 360 is doing great (although not as fantastic as the Wii). They are dominating Sony and are generating large sale volumes. There is no reason for them to launch a new system because they don't have any real competition (for the moment).

I don't think we will see another console launch until 2013. I think the first console to launch will be an HD version of the Wii. Then a year or so later the PS4 and 720 will launch.

I think the PS4 will probably use graphics technology from 2011 or 2012 that will blow away anything we have today.

 

[Squilliam]

This is what im picking as a good target for the next generation hardware from Microsoft.

GPU/CPU

CPU - X number of Sandybridge cores attached to X number of LRB cores: TDP ~150-200W

Reason: High internal bandwidth, allows developers to spend their compute budget where-ever they want to, saves on PCB costs by using one CPU instead of two. LRB should help reduce the need for as much off chip bandwidth. Essentially simple, powerful and cheap(er) to manufacture.

Memory/Storage

4 x 4gbit memory chips but FAST. (2GB ram total)

Flash based media - 200MB/Sec+ transfer speeds, 8/16/32 GB media available at launch.

Reason: Keep it simple, fewer trace lines make the console cheaper to manufacture. With fast data delivery and no need to keep flash onboard to act as a cache the system won't need as much memory anyway, especially if they use techniques such as Tessellation and a fast frame buffer like the current Xbox 360.

My overall design reasoning:

High speed data traces are expensive, cooling two high powered chips is more expensive than one, a design using flash based media can be packaged and cooled a lot easier and the $30-50 saved from not using an optical drive can offset the initial cost of the media, and the need for a HDD/Flash based cache in every SKU. Also using flash reduced/removes loading screens and vastly improves start-up times for games, all to make the device much more consumer friendly.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I'm not fond of the suggestions here of a quad-core Xenon or a nine-core Xenon, or any arrangement. Please we deserve a real CPU core . no matter the multi-threading, weak single-thread performance will still hold you back even next-gen. Put some AMD Bulldozer cores instead or anything out-of-order.

then I agree about your 4870 example. RV870 will be an interesting beast to see. put a RV870 alike with 4 or 6 CPU cores on a single chip, maybe 3GB of GDDR5 on a 192bit width and that will be quite massive performance already.

 

[liolio]

Well 4 cores was just for the figure, to show that upcoming process will allow to pack bunch of transistors even if manufacturers use tinier silicon budget.
It's clear that a improved xenon would be a better choice:
3 cores for BC
faster/bigger L1 & L2 cache
improved branch prediction
OoO implementation
Lower latency to the RAM (a one chip design including the memory controller would help).

 

[assen]

Well 4 cores was just for the figure, to show that upcoming process will allow to pack bunch of transistors even if manufacturers use tinier silicon budget.
It's clear that a improved xenon would be a better choice:
3 cores for BC
faster/bigger L1 & L2 cache
improved branch prediction
OoO implementation
Lower latency to the RAM (a one chip design including the memory controller would help).

You don't need the cores to be exactly 3 for BC; you just need a compatible instruction set.

The trouble with this plan (which I like, btw) is that there doesn't seem to be much progress in the PowerPC world nowadays.

 

[pc999]

It would be much easier if we just say the price point we expect, why and the specs for it (including or not extra HW that it isnt GPU/CPU/RAM).

So I expect a price point around 250$ (give or take inflation) because:

1) I dont expect economy to be all that good and even if it is the consoles are being developed now;

2) I think they will want a even bigger market, lower price is a good way;

3) Silicon will be hiting its limits so to lower the price in the future they need to star with a low price to (althought I not sure the investiment in silicon would be as large, % wise, as it is with todays consoles);

4) The demand for always better gfx will be a lot less. Personally I am playing Crysis on a X2 4850e + X1900GTO 256 MB with everything but tex on high 1024x768 rez, and it is almost everything I can ask from a tech in a "gfx" POV. I just dont like the pop up (I need a 512MB card) and the saving times, besides that I cant even think what I could ask more from it (assuming a photo realistic game) that could matter and that isnt just say x times that (enemys or such), and given the scope of the game ... I assume the must of the gamers specially those less hardcore find themsefs in this situation;

5) From a dev POV the 3 consoles will be much alike and easier to dev, crossplatform games will be even more important, and no gaming software (eg education, meybe some from the PC etc...) will play a big part;

6) Consoles will diferentiate themsefs by no specs features, like I/O, multimedia, comunications, content creation, web surfing etc... (we already see some of this in all three consoles) and their implementation in gaming;

7) People tastes are changing, many think they already have the performance needed, look at the netbook sales!

So MS and Nintendo will stick with AMD/ATI, they got great tech and deals with them, no reason to change, plus they are also working with tech like voice recg aceleration and the like and things like Z-Ram (great to replace the expensive edram). The real question is if they would keep IBM/PowerPC or not, I dont have any major argument in any way (meybe BC in MS case, wii could be easly emulated).

I think they will use a SoC (Fusion) design (a low-mid end one), with at least for OoO "CPU" cores (updated AMD or IBM (xenon?) ones???), gfx capability at least on par with a 4650 (that already is a lot more than Xenus) with a updated direct X, a lot o Z-Ram (at least 8x Xenus) and 2GB of DDR5. On top of that several cores for custom work, ie gaming work, ie to whatever they will use to diferentiate themselfs from this gen, let it be: voice/image recg, wii like remote version 6.0, super compression for net data (real massive online games, someone has buulding such card IIRC), Minority Report I/O..., and meybe also some more "traditonal gfx" work (eg physics and the like) and sound.


Even if you suposse a higher end price point/specs just pick a high(er)-end Fusion.


For Sony would pick more or less the same but with a Cell 2.0 (that is their original (still is?) idea, right?), with OoO and better branching but no specialized cores (shouldnt need anyway) following Moore Law for the given price point selling at no cust, and a (low-mid end) updated geforce tech, at least 9800 level (no special reason to change, althought it could happen), the question is if it will be a SoC or not. Meybe some more advanced multimedia/comunication features too.

If you supoose more just use the modular Cell architeture and pick a higher geforce card.

Wouldnt be supprised with a standard ssd internal drive for all (would be faster and cheap) with the possibility to add a few more for DC, full games and patchs for MMO.

This way they could have a real improvement in the specs that one meybe could notice on screen (specially physics and such), it would keep the price very low, the size could be (if they want) very smal and so power consumption (for Wii like features).

Anyway I dont expect console to be much interesting from a tech POV only variation, the I/O features should be king next gen.