Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Acert93]

How many whats would the memory and I/O devices use?

The GPUs you are spec'ing already have memory and full PCB and managing a PCIe bus, how much more do you want to "add"?

Per the CPU, there are desktop chip options under 65W. I would also gather, just like Sony with Cell where they had a large layout of voltage/performance/power options, that MS/Sony when looking at whatever CPU option will consider lower clocks/voltage as it can result in a big reduction in heat and a not so big reduction in performance. The memory situation is similar (if they go with some embedded memory that means the CPUs memory controller doesn't need to be as beefy to power those memory traces).

I don't think taking the TDP of off the shelf PC parts and adding them up gives a completely realistic threshhold. It gives ballparks and considerations but a console will be one PCB (maybe a small package for the GPU like the PS3) that aims to be as minimalistic and efficient as possible. iirc when I was comparing the GCN GPUs clock speed more so than die size had a bigger impact on TDP. We may see lower clocked larger chips (compared to a Cape Verde which may be smaller but clocked higher). A cheap Cape Verde works great in certain markets where cost is more important than absolute TDP but in a console it may be inverted where the power wall hits before the cost wall.

--

Per DDR4, three big advantages:

(a) less voltage
(b) it is the future and will cost reduce quickly (current DDR modules may be hard to get, and expensive, in later years of the consoles)
(c) it can potentially be stacked which could help future console size / complexity reductions

No memory is ideal, including DDR4, but it may scratch the itching points console makers are most concerned about.

 

[almighty]

The GPUs you are spec'ing already have memory and full PCB and managing a PCIe bus, how much more do you want to "add"?

Per the CPU, there are desktop chip options under 65W. I would also gather, just like Sony with Cell where they had a large layout of voltage/performance/power options, that MS/Sony when looking at whatever CPU option will consider lower clocks/voltage as it can result in a big reduction in heat and a not so big reduction in performance. The memory situation is similar (if they go with some embedded memory that means the CPUs memory controller doesn't need to be as beefy to power those memory traces).

I don't think taking the TDP of off the shelf PC parts and adding them up gives a completely realistic threshhold. It gives ballparks and considerations but a console will be one PCB (maybe a small package for the GPU like the PS3) that aims to be as minimalistic and efficient as possible. iirc when I was comparing the GCN GPUs clock speed more so than die size had a bigger impact on TDP. We may see lower clocked larger chips (compared to a Cape Verde which may be smaller but clocked higher). A cheap Cape Verde works great in certain markets where cost is more important than absolute TDP but in a console it may be inverted where the power wall hits before the cost wall..

Those GPU power consumption numbers were taken with a special tool and taken from the PCIEX power plug themselves, they're not just TDP numbers.

TDP and power consumption are too completely different things.

 

[Acert93]

So to answer my question you ONLY took the power draw of the chip and not the entire bard and memory.

 

[anexanhume]

So, the tags, presumably written by the in the know B3d mods, outed the Durango GPU as 2.8 teraflops, before it was abruptly removed further proving the nugget's validity.

Discuss

Then it has to be Sea Islands based to be a reasonable TDP

 

[3dilettante]

An AMD APU is out of the question, way to power hungry and will go very close to the power budget on its own. And AMD A8 APU will top out at 150-160w in reviews and AMD's new A10 APU's are built on the same 32nm line so even they won't show a significant drop in power consumption. The IGPU is also not fast enough t warant it's power consumption which could be used for a faster discreet GPU.

No APU is slotted to have a 150W TDP. No x86 CPUs outside of some Xeons or XE chips contemplate going that far.

 

[AlphaWolf]

For 4 GB, that would require 16 2Gb chips which depending on speed will consume 16-32 watts. IMO, that's a significant percentage of the total power consumption.

Half of which is already figured into almighty's number as he's using an 8 chip graphics card.

 

[almighty]

So to answer my question you ONLY took the power draw of the chip and not the entire bard and memory.

That's the ENTIRE CARD..... But 2Gb GDDR5 only consumes around 20w at most.

Here's a nice chart comparing a 7870 to RSX and Xenos

The charts reduces the 7870's power consumption by 20w as the memory will work differently in a console.

7870's under volt very well and with no GDDR5 to power the card could be made to run at 80w

 

[almighty]

No APU is slotted to have a 150W TDP. No x86 CPUs outside of some Xeons or XE chips contemplate going that far.

Go and read some reviews of AMD's A8 APU's and they do tests with both the CPU and GPU loaded and it peaks at ~150w

 

[liolio]

AMD tdp is not about max power draw

 

[3dilettante]

Go and read some reviews of AMD's A8 APU's and they do tests with both the CPU and GPU loaded and it peaks at ~150w

I've not seen ones that claim the APU pulls 150W. Can you provide an example?

 

[liolio]

I've not seen ones that claim the APU pulls 150W. Can you provide an example?

Same here hardware.fr as 130watts in peak for the a8.

 

[almighty]

I've not seen ones that claim the APU pulls 150W. Can you provide an example?

The CPU alone is pulling over 100w here on it's own

From Xbit labs with both the CPU+GPU heavily stressed

 

[liolio]

I've not seen ones that claim the APU pulls 150W. Can you provide an example?

Same here hardware.fr as 130watts in peak for the a8.
edit

It's interesting to see how RSX and Xenos compare. It reinforce my belief that there is room for a bartized rendition of Pitcairn.

 

[almighty]

Same here hardware.fr as 130watts in peak for the a8.
.

Which is over the rated '100w'

People are confusing TDP with power consumption.

 

[liolio]

Which is over the rated '100w'

People are confusing TDP with power consumption.

Indeed I do agree, AMD TDP is different from max power usage (actually for their GPU the TDP is closer to max power draw).

 

[babcat]

The next console will probably be required to last for a decade or longer before another comes out. I think this is especially true for the PS4. For Sony's console to remain as competitive as possible against computer gaming (and be clearly more powerful than Durango) I think they will go with a powerful, top of the line GPU that may require a somewhat larger box. Think it will not be gigantic, but probably large enough to accommodate 300 to 400 watts of power. This will be needed for let's say a full sized, top of the line NVIDIA GPU, 4 to 8 gigs of RAM, a good CPU, Blueray drive, etc. By doing so I think they will have a very powerful system that will be somewhat future proofed. Anyone trying to make a console more powerful than theirs would hit an obvious wall of diminishing returns. It may not be worth any company even trying for ten years or more.

 

[almighty]

The next console will probably be required to last for a decade or longer before another comes out. I think this is especially true for the PS4. For Sony's console to remain as competitive as possible against computer gaming (and be clearly more powerful than Durango) I think they will go with a powerful, top of the line GPU that may require a somewhat larger box. Think it will not be gigantic, but probably large enough to accommodate 300 to 400 watts of power. This will be needed for let's say a full sized, top of the line NVIDIA GPU, 4 to 8 gigs of RAM, a good CPU, Blueray drive, etc. By doing so I think they will have a very powerful system that will be somewhat future proofed. Anyone trying to make a console more powerful than theirs would hit an obvious wall of diminishing returns. It may not be worth any company even trying for ten years or more.

Sony can't afford to build and sell that, the loss they suffered on PS3's expensive hardware nearly killed them, they will not be wanting to go through such financial loss again IMO.

 

[McHuj]

The next console will probably be required to last for a decade or longer before another comes out.

In my opinion, this will not be the case. I think the next consoles will be more affordable ($299-399 as opposed to 499/599), profitable more quickly, less power consuming, and have a shorter life span. Technology changes too fast and disruptive technologies can destroy a market for competitors who are too slow to adapt. 10 years is a lifetime in consumer tech.

 

[ERP]

I don't think any console manufacturer thinks they are competing against PC gaming.
For the most part game don't sell in enough quantities on PC to be a significant competition, it's also a very different experience, it usually takes place infront of a dedicated monitor and the costs involved are much higher.

 

[kalelovil]

From Xbit labs with both the CPU+GPU heavily stressed

"The graphs below (unless specified otherwise) show the full power draw of the computer (without the monitor) measured after the power supply. It is the total of the power consumption of all the system components."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a8-3870k_8.html#sect0