We seem to have gone from accepting that Microsoft and Sony will not leap forward in tech terms that much (due to pricepoint) and have gone back to insane tech specs.
GTX295 is the first card to reach 1080p60 on Crysis (on DX9 any way) at maximum settings and surely that is hugely over-engineered compared to what we can expect from the GPUs in the next gen?
I was thinking the exact same thing.
If, for no other reason than to avoid the wrenching software transformation that accompanied the transition from PS2 to PS3, I would expect Sony to learn from Microsoft's example and attempt to maintain software tool continuity from this generation to the next. I expect Microsoft will do the same, since they so clearly benefited from a smooth transition from Xbox to Xbox 360.
This, plus the aforementioned cost benefits, I think, clearly argue for extensions of current architectures rather than radical new ones. The recognition that there are diminishing returns from graphical improvements alone, and the importance of rapidly reaching a mass-market price point, argue against over engineering the next gen consoles.
So here are my two-cent predictions:
Both consoles will feature blue-ray drives as the primary distribution mechanism.
Both consoles will feature
optional hard drives, both because the hard drive is a significant impediment to reaching a low-cost (the cost of drives essentially never drop below $50), and because the selling of add-on drives to consumers who bought diskless consoles, or who want a mid-life storage upgrade, can be a significant profit stream.
As for the details, I think that Sony has the most straight-forward upgrade path for their CPU. Developers have already been forced to come to grips with the Cell architecture and writing code for the SPEs. The Cell roadmap already includes a 2 PPE + 32 SPE variant, and this seems a logical choice for PS4.
Microsoft did considerable, interesting research during the design of the 360 and concluded that six to eight CPU threads represent the maximum that can be productively used in games, with more-parallel tasks being better suited to running on the GPU. Assuming that this generality holds throughout this generation (and it has so far), I expect MS to employ, at most, a four-core variant of Xenon, possibly with more L2 cache, for their next CPU.
Microsoft has the most straight-forward upgrade path for their GPU, as I think that something like RV770 with eDRAM would slot nicely into a new console.
Sony's GPU poses the largest problem; I really haven't a clue what they might do here. RSX is already looking a
bit long-in-the-tooth, feature-wise, and without eDRAM, framebuffer bandwidth will always be a problem. OTOH, switching to a new GPU, whether G200-like or anything else, will break backward compatibility with PS3 games and game engines, and may not be necessary if more and more rendering tasks are to be performed on PS4's 32 SPEs.
So, my predictions:
Xbox 360 CPU: 3 or 4 cores (with SMT), 1 or 2 MiB L2 cache, 4+ GHz.
Xbox 360 GPU: RV770-ish with 32 MiB eDRAM, 700+ MHz, 2+ GiB GDDR5 @ 5+ GHz on a 128-bit bus.
PS4 CPU: 2 PPEs + 32 SPEs, 4+ GHz.
PS4 GPU: ??
Ok, ok, I'd say 40+ or so ROPs at least. Though I do wonder by when we will see GPUs with only one type of "pipe" that can do all functions including texture mapping and rasterization, however thinking about it carefully it probably would be best to leave such actions to a separate part of the GPU considering they are vastly different parts of the rendering pipeline.
