Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
Console performance or power consumption? Not that either question can be answered because POWER7 based doesn't mean anything! Let's try this another way that people may better understand. Let's say Wii U uses a customised Cell. IBM and Nintendo tweet various PR statements like, "Wii U uses a Cell processor," and "Based on the same Cell architecture used in PS3." Now that CPU could be anything from a 1:8 PPU:SPU Cell as used in PS3, to a 4:32 monster CPU, to a 1:2 cut down version, or a 1:4 version with half the local store per SPE and running at half the clocks. Just hearing the CPU architecture tells us nothing about the capabilities of the processor.
What we have been told is that Wii U shares something in common with POWER7, although that is exceptionally vague because the information is conflicting. We also know it's running far cooler, so is cut back somehow. We can only guess in what way, but just as an i3 is a 'cut back i7', whatever POWER7 type chip in Wii U could be extremely anaemic and its heritage no indicator to its performance. When devs are telling us that it's not a very potent CPU, why keep trying to interpret the tweets and rumours as anything else?
Unless IBM tell us the internal structure of the customised part in terms of execution units, issue, cache sizes and clocks, we have nothing to derive likely performance from.
That's ambiguous. It could just mean the CPU is manufactured in the same way as POWER7. For what it's worth, every console this gen used CPUs manufactured on SOI.
I actually looked into Jaguar a little more for the first time. It's really puny, based on it being perhaps a 15% faster Bobcat.
I would say it's somewhere in the same ballpark as Intel's Atom. Dont think I'd be happy with a 8 Atom console.
Also it's only 3mm^2. 8 of them only gets you a paltry 24mm of area. Wattage is similarly miniscule.
Granted I think Bobcat benches I looked at were 1.5ghz and I expect Jag in Durango to be 2.4, which could help.
If these are in Durango, leaving aside how it fits for PS4, I'd like there to be 16, not 8 (which I recall a 16 core Durango rumor or two). It would still be ~50mm^2 of area which is nothing. Overall I almost doubt it's the chip though. Could be modified.
So the thing uses 76w apparently, all in. That's very close to the current revision of the 360 and PS3 iirc,.
As for next gen CPUs, I'm going to bet on 8 cores minimum for either of them, unless perhaps there will really be some form of APU, in which case I will count that as CPU inclusive
As for next gen CPUs, I'm going to bet on 8 cores minimum for either of them, unless perhaps there will really be some form of APU, in which case I will count that as CPU inclusive
Bobcat is faster than Atom in most situations and Jaguar is faster still so it depends on the size of your ballpark.
Not exactly. The Wuu's power brick maxes out at 75Watts. The XB360 Slim power brick maxes out at 115Watts. The XB360 slim runs 100 watts on demanding games. That's a 33% difference in power budgets between theoretical max Wuu and measured actual XB360 Slim. In actuality I'd say the Wuu will be measured at 60-65 watts. That puts it at a 66% difference.
Thanks, that is what I was going to say.
What is the problem with Jaguar? Even at 4 cores @ 2 Ghgz it would outperform Xenon few times. And you want 16?
Iwata did mention a 45W "typical" consumption, btw.
It's probably not too surprising given that the Wii PSU was rated for 52W max although the console itself was measured to consume half that (at most). I guess they like their safety margin. I do wonder about PSU efficiency though.
Devious
Regular
What kind of GPU would we be looking at if the next Xbox were to say get the 7000 series? Entry-level (7350, 7450, 7470, 7570), mid-range (7650, 7670, 7750, 7770) or high-end (7850, 7870, 7950, 7970, 7870, 7970)
Fair enough, the PS3 also idles at about 75Watts I think, though the new revision coming next week is expected to bring that down to 60W?
Anyway, 45W 'typical' pretty much means it won't be much more powerful than PS3 or 360 (if there was any doubt left).
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
I think it has sense that both Sony and MS went to a tiny/little wattage CPU with Jaguar cores after AMD showed them what a 130-160 watts Oblan chip will be capable of with 3 to 4 Tflops of processing power in a 250-275 m2 die.
What kind of GPU would we be looking at if the next Xbox were to say get the 7000 series? Entry-level (7350, 7450, 7470, 7570), mid-range (7650, 7670, 7750, 7770) or high-end (7850, 7870, 7950, 7970, 7870, 7970)
It's not getting the 7000 series when the 8000 series are coming out nearly a year before the launch.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Are you certain about these figures? Anandtech had the X360 slim Valhalla revision (135W power brick) consume about 82-90W in games.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3774/welcome-to-valhalla-inside-the-new-250gb-xbox-360-slim/3
The new Corona revision (115W power brick) should consume less.
What kind of GPU would we be looking at if the next Xbox were to say get the 7000 series? Entry-level (7350, 7450, 7470, 7570), mid-range (7650, 7670, 7750, 7770) or high-end (7850, 7870, 7950, 7970, 7870, 7970)
I would suppose High-End, 7870-7950 or so.
Just assuming they want to make a profit on hardware without asking for too much, so nothing bleeding edge like for current gen console.
Because this gen's been on so long, there's some sense to launch the next gen two years late with suitably older and cheaper hardware. That is, design the machine for bleeding edge, bleeding pocket hardware for a 2011 release, and then release that console two years later for a lot cheaper cost. The experience for gamers won't be any worse than releasing that same hardware two years earlier, and the majority of console buyers buy a couple of years+ in at the lower price so they won't be affected at all. It would just mean no bragging rights for early adopters getting the most powerful hardware, but that's not possible in a console any more - PC will always have the most powerful hardware as its not constrained by a small PSU or case or maximum price.
This plan wouldn't work if your rival launches 'on time' as they'd have two years generating momentum and install base, but with both parties late and Wii U being something of a last gen hardware spec, it would work, I think.
This plan wouldn't work if your rival launches 'on time' as they'd have two years generating momentum and install base, but with both parties late and Wii U being something of a last gen hardware spec, it would work, I think.
Blazkowicz
Legend
Atom is fast in benchmarks, in stuff that scales perfectly e.g. video and audio encoding. for gaming or web browsing, performance is more important than paper flops and thus Bobcat murders it.
That's not to say future consoles will use it, it's more Wii U CPU level. What's more, Jaguar maxes out at 4 cores, unless you duplicate the whole thing.
Sure, it would still be hardly any area.
I'm not sure I like 16 puny cores though vs say 4 powerful ones. I think the former will obviously be a lot harder to exploit.
Would you have the memory bandwidth to service 16 cores though? ...Probably not, I'd be tempted to say. Not by a long shot.
So what would be the point, regardless of how tiny said cores are?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
