Predicting the Xbox-2

[Psychogenics]

first off a cell chip is not going to be cheap. Esp not at launch. The ram will not be cheap. Esp since there is no other format that is set to use the new rambus ram . The graphics chip will not be cheap if its coming from nvidia . Also the ram for the graphics chip will be expensive. I highly doubt you'd see two cell chips in the system or two gpus in the system.
I figure ms would go with a modified moble version of the r500. Clocked higher though but with most of the pwoer saving features found in the moble market. Like clock throttling. While playing mp3s or whatnot it would run cooler. I believe they will use two moble chips running at fairly agressive speeds . (yes i know its more expensive to produce the card but i don't really see ms caring. They know they need to at least equal if not surpass the ps3 specs and they will do it no matter the cost. ) I also believe that ati will liscense the chip to ms for ms to produce . That way ms can reap the rewards of new process shrinks and bug fixes and better yields.

I really want them to go with power vr though. From what i hear of thier new chip its a beast . They have the talent , they have the knowledge , they have the experiance of making a console and arcade chip. Not only that but they will def liscense the chip to ms .

I know your going to jump on powervr but you shouldn't . They produce great chips. They liscense the ip though. They don't produce the chips and boards themselves. That is what is causing the bad time to market problems .

You know I strongly that MS will not even come close to what Cell will be able to do...but I do believe that they will come up with a compremise,
they are going to use off the shelf parts and they might produce they're own graphics chip using a DX? but we all know that they're are not willing to keep losing money with Xbox 2 so it will be interesting what they offically anounce.

 

[Gunhead]

Why yes, a powerful derivative of PowerVR Series 5 would indeed be a jim-dandy choice for Xbox2. They talk like the design has VS & PS 3.0 and other DX9/10 goodies, and with enough of the shader units crammed on the chip, and with their "FSAA4FREE" (taking advantage of the tiler nature), it could be just what the doctor (Dr. Evil?) ordered...

Or why not Series 6, while at it? Who knows how far that one is on the drawing board...

And true also that MS would get the fabbing and cost control they'll certainly want this time around.

Yet another quality "me too" post

 

[Paul]

jvd, Sony isn't exactly poor. They could put two Visualizers inside the thing if they wanted and take a loss and make it back later. Playstation tech is expensive, PS2 was no exception but look at it now. Although they took losses to begin with they made it back, and are going to make even more money through making the two chips on one die.

MS on the other hand isn't going to shove 2 GPU's or 2 CPU's inside Xbox2.Remember now, they still have to make money and if they are going to lose a good amount of money per xbox2 sold - even more than with xbox - they will never make money just like with Xbox.

The whole point is to make money, and MS isn't really going to wait 10 years for such a thing to happen. Sure they have money to throw around, but for what cause if they aren't going to make money? To please us gamers? Please, they don't care about gamers they want to make money.

 

[PC-Engine]

MS has said they'r in it for the long haul even if it takes 20 years

 

[Paul]

8) In 20 years what we see as a console today, will not be a console. Infact consoles might not even exist in 20 years, but replaced by a device that does it all, something Kutagari would only dream of seeing in his life time. Or rather, what he wants PS3 to become, although we all know that just will not happen

 

[Psychogenics]

8) In 20 years what we see as a console today, will not be a console. Infact consoles might not even exist in 20 years, but replaced by a device that does it all, something Kutagari would only dream of seeing in his life time. Or rather, what he wants PS3 to become, although we all know that just will not happen

Nice and your right in 20yrs consoles won't exist but maybe robots will....
Playstation 5 anyone???

 

[nonamer]

but would they convince anyone to make software for a $400 machine, when a 5-6 year old PS2 sells for $100 and has decent graphics...

Sony wouldn't have any problem. In Japan alone Sony sold over a million at launch didn't they? Wasn't the console $375 at launch?

My point is for Sony to design the console for a sustained price level of $399 for all markets. The actaul cost to Sony to manufacture each console would be around $475. Sony could lay the foundation for the acceptance of the higher price by smart PR statements. Not only do the statements justify and hype the machine, but they also help maintain the image Sony is the leader in the console market.

How could Microsoft respond to a $399 console? They would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the X-Box 2 launches at $299 they will be underpowered by a large margin. Remember the momentum is on Sony's side right now, so having a machine that is weaker in my opinion hurts Microsoft X-Box 2 image a lot. As it is right now Microsoft can't even sell anywhere near the number of consoles as Sony and they have a more powerful machine. The hype would be all Sony.

XBox 2 at $299 vs PS 3 at $399 ='s PS 3 victory

Lets say Microsoft increases their console target price to match the PS 3 at $399. Then you have 2 machines going head to head at $399 dollars. To get the X Box 2 to equal the performance of the PS 3, Microsoft would have to have to with a multi chip solution if they are depending on a .09nm fabrication process.

As long as Sony has plenty of software support from Square-Enix and Electronic Arts, Sony will be in a good postion to maintain its leadership postion. EA makes great profit of its releationship with Sony and I don't see this changing in the future. Unless Microsoft gets some killer game on its platform, the PS 3 goes on to become the dominate console again in the $399 vs $399 situation.

I come to the opposite conclusion. At launch, the actual power of the system will probably not affect the graphics greatly, at least not as much as the huge developement costs of making next-gen games. Since the Xbox"2" will most likely be easier to program (Windows/DX + x86 is pretty familiar stuff compared to a totally new design like Cell), the Xbox"2" may end up looking just as good and even possibly better than the PS3 at launch.

This more powerful PS3 may not change that, so what may happen is a $299 system looking just as good as a $399 system. Microsoft isn't stupid, they'll try to bring that to their advantage and they'll dump huge amounts on advertisiving. Unless the PS3 has far better launch games, this is a risk I don't think would be smart for Sony. In the end, it should really come down to which one has the better games.

On another topic, if the Xbox"2" launched in 2005 (which I doubt), they will probably have to use 90nm to keep costs at a reasonably level. I don't think this will happen because it seems unlike that the PS3 will launch in 2005 outside of Japan anyways. I feel that the best time to launch will be early 2006 in the US, and then elsewhere later in the year so to not miss the 2006 holiday season. If MS is doing this, 65nm may very well be cheap/available enough to be used. In short, Xbox"2" may not be so expensive as some here may claim it might be, and it may be competitively powerful versus the PS3 too. Just some speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable enough to me.

 

[Brimstone]

but would they convince anyone to make software for a $400 machine, when a 5-6 year old PS2 sells for $100 and has decent graphics...

Sony wouldn't have any problem. In Japan alone Sony sold over a million at launch didn't they? Wasn't the console $375 at launch?

My point is for Sony to design the console for a sustained price level of $399 for all markets. The actaul cost to Sony to manufacture each console would be around $475. Sony could lay the foundation for the acceptance of the higher price by smart PR statements. Not only do the statements justify and hype the machine, but they also help maintain the image Sony is the leader in the console market.

How could Microsoft respond to a $399 console? They would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the X-Box 2 launches at $299 they will be underpowered by a large margin. Remember the momentum is on Sony's side right now, so having a machine that is weaker in my opinion hurts Microsoft X-Box 2 image a lot. As it is right now Microsoft can't even sell anywhere near the number of consoles as Sony and they have a more powerful machine. The hype would be all Sony.

XBox 2 at $299 vs PS 3 at $399 ='s PS 3 victory

Lets say Microsoft increases their console target price to match the PS 3 at $399. Then you have 2 machines going head to head at $399 dollars. To get the X Box 2 to equal the performance of the PS 3, Microsoft would have to have to with a multi chip solution if they are depending on a .09nm fabrication process.

As long as Sony has plenty of software support from Square-Enix and Electronic Arts, Sony will be in a good postion to maintain its leadership postion. EA makes great profit of its releationship with Sony and I don't see this changing in the future. Unless Microsoft gets some killer game on its platform, the PS 3 goes on to become the dominate console again in the $399 vs $399 situation.

I come to the opposite conclusion. At launch, the actual power of the system will probably not affect the graphics greatly, at least not as much as the huge developement costs of making next-gen games. Since the Xbox"2" will most likely be easier to program (Windows/DX + x86 is pretty familiar stuff compared to a totally new design like Cell), the Xbox"2" may end up looking just as good and even possibly better than the PS3 at launch.

This more powerful PS3 may not change that, so what may happen is a $299 system looking just as good as a $399 system. Microsoft isn't stupid, they'll try to bring that to their advantage and they'll dump huge amounts on advertisiving. Unless the PS3 has far better launch games, this is a risk I don't think would be smart for Sony. In the end, it should really come down to which one has the better games.

On another topic, if the Xbox"2" launched in 2005 (which I doubt), they will probably have to use 90nm to keep costs at a reasonably level. I don't think this will happen because it seems unlike that the PS3 will launch in 2005 outside of Japan anyways. I feel that the best time to launch will be early 2006 in the US, and then elsewhere later in the year so to not miss the 2006 holiday season. If MS is doing this, 65nm may very well be cheap/available enough to be used. In short, Xbox"2" may not be so expensive as some here may claim it might be, and it may be competitively powerful versus the PS3 too. Just some speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable enough to me.

While I agree both next generation systems will look fantastic, hype is also very important. When you had people selling PS 2's on EBay for $500 dollars, you know you've done something correct. The reasoning for putting a second chip into a PS 3 isn't just seeing better visuals in games. It's about creating an avalanche of hype to bury the X-Box 2. Also it removes just about any hope of Microsoft trying to eclipse the PS 3 hardware.

The perception would be the PS 3 is more powerful even if the games looked the same at launch. People would have more confidence in buying a PS 3.

 

[jvd]

there is no way there will be two cell chips in the ps3. Mabye 2 gpus but not two cell chips. There is no need. At one teraflop i doubt any gpu at the time will be able to draw the same amount of polygons persecond . Even if the cell chip is doing physics .Besides what will adding another cell chip do for the system? Increase its specs. two teraflop cpus in a system and the gpu wont be the bottleneck it be the friggen titanic for the system. Two gpus on the other hand doing sli though would help the ps3 much more than two cpus . The only way i can see sony going with two cpus is if they are using a custom gpu that they made.

 

[chaphack]

I come to the opposite conclusion. At launch, the actual power of the system will probably not affect the graphics greatly, at least not as much as the huge developement costs of making next-gen games. Since the Xbox"2" will most likely be easier to program (Windows/DX + x86 is pretty familiar stuff compared to a totally new design like Cell), the Xbox"2" may end up looking just as good and even possibly better than the PS3 at launch.

This more powerful PS3 may not change that, so what may happen is a $299 system looking just as good as a $399 system

Thats what i saiid before!
A 399 console is never a good thing. You are selling not only to hardcore tech geeks but also simple casual gamers. Features creatures full it might be, but never a good thing for everyone...

 

[jvd]

I come to the opposite conclusion. At launch, the actual power of the system will probably not affect the graphics greatly, at least not as much as the huge developement costs of making next-gen games. Since the Xbox"2" will most likely be easier to program (Windows/DX + x86 is pretty familiar stuff compared to a totally new design like Cell), the Xbox"2" may end up looking just as good and even possibly better than the PS3 at launch.

This more powerful PS3 may not change that, so what may happen is a $299 system looking just as good as a $399 system

Thats what i saiid before!
A 399 console is never a good thing. You are selling not only to hardcore tech geeks but also simple casual gamers. Features creatures full it might be, but never a good thing for everyone...

If ms really wanted to win the next console war. They'd match the specs of the ps3 as close as possible or excede it in some areas and then launch at 200 bucks with 30 or 40 games at launch. It be nuts though if ms took a 300 or so loss on each system. but good for us gamers .

 

[Almasy]

If ms really wanted to win the next console war. They'd match the specs of the ps3 as close as possible or excede it in some areas and then launch at 200 bucks with 30 or 40 games at launch. It be nuts though if ms took a 300 or so loss on each system. but good for us gamers .

DC anyone?

Really, even though it´s nice to think MS cares about gamers, truth is that MS shareholders are putting pressures on the gaming division to make a profit. MS calculated a loss of 1 billion dollars during the entire lifespan of Xbox, it´s been a year and a half, and they´re already past half a million in losses. Investors and shareholders are not really happy with how things are going, and it doesn´t sound exactly reasonable to lose $300 or so per console just to catch up with Sony.

There´s advantages to the off-the-shelf model, but low costs isn´t one of them. At least Sony has the ability to control the manufacturing of PS3, MS isn´t as lucky.

Long story short: Sky is not the limit for MS. There´s a limit to what they´re willing to spend on this venture.

 

[zurich]

I've always said, if anything will kill the Xbox, the MS suits will.

 

[Josiah]

You know I strongly that MS will not even come close to what Cell will be able to do...but I do believe that they will come up with a compremise,
they are going to use off the shelf parts and they might produce they're own graphics chip using a DX? but we all know that they're are not willing to keep losing money with Xbox 2 so it will be interesting what they offically anounce.

I know, Cell sounds like a monster with insurmountable performance, but so did EE. Neither PS1 or PS2 had the most powerful hardware of their time, and I don't see this changing with PS3.

 

[V3]

The R300 has the capability to scale to 256 VPUs. Why not use this approach for XBox2. use two R500 or R550s. And would this not be cheaper than using a custom built XGPU2?

Why don't MS put in the maximum ? I am sure they can afford it. And I am sure ATI or NV will give discount. Come on MS, put 256 high end VPUs in Xbox 2. That'll be like losing thousands of dollar per console, but monopoly is almost guarantee. And only MS can subsidise such thing. I say do it

 

[rabidrabbit]

You know I strongly that MS will not even come close to what Cell will be able to do...but I do believe that they will come up with a compremise,
they are going to use off the shelf parts and they might produce they're own graphics chip using a DX? but we all know that they're are not willing to keep losing money with Xbox 2 so it will be interesting what they offically anounce.

I know, Cell sounds like a monster with insurmountable performance, but so did EE. Neither PS1 or PS2 had the most powerful hardware of their time, and I don't see this changing with PS3.

PS1 and PS2 did have the most powerful hardware of their time (for home consoles), only the power was naturally surpassed by technology that was a couple of years newer.

 

[Josiah]

You know I strongly that MS will not even come close to what Cell will be able to do...but I do believe that they will come up with a compremise,
they are going to use off the shelf parts and they might produce they're own graphics chip using a DX? but we all know that they're are not willing to keep losing money with Xbox 2 so it will be interesting what they offically anounce.

I know, Cell sounds like a monster with insurmountable performance, but so did EE. Neither PS1 or PS2 had the most powerful hardware of their time, and I don't see this changing with PS3.

PS1 and PS2 did have the most powerful hardware of their time (for home consoles), only the power was naturally surpassed by technology that was a couple of years newer.

What I'm saying is, in the previous generation of consoles PS1 was not the most powerful hardware. And in this generation of consoles, PS2 is not the most powerful hardware. I expect in the next generation of consoles, PS3 will not be the most powerful hardware.

 

[Phil]

Josiah:

What I'm saying is, in the previous generation of consoles PS1 was not the most powerful hardware. And in this generation of consoles, PS2 is not the most powerful hardware. I expect in the next generation of consoles, PS3 will not be the most powerful hardware.

That's always relative to the timeframe in which you launch. How could the PS be the most powerful one when it launched about a year earlier than the N64 did?

Also, given that last generation is over, I'd do find the graphics of PS far more impressive than what I saw on N64. Sure everything was pixelated to a certain degree, but I always prefered the aliased/sharp look to the blurry mess the N64 was.

Also, PS2 is quite competitive considering it's launch date compared to the other newer consoles. I wonder how things would look if they had gone with a conventional design: probably no ZOE2 or SH3 for that matter.

 

[Psychogenics]

You know I strongly that MS will not even come close to what Cell will be able to do...but I do believe that they will come up with a compremise,
they are going to use off the shelf parts and they might produce they're own graphics chip using a DX? but we all know that they're are not willing to keep losing money with Xbox 2 so it will be interesting what they offically anounce.

I know, Cell sounds like a monster with insurmountable performance, but so did EE. Neither PS1 or PS2 had the most powerful hardware of their time, and I don't see this changing with PS3.

PS1 and PS2 did have the most powerful hardware of their time (for home consoles), only the power was naturally surpassed by technology that was a couple of years newer.

What I'm saying is, in the previous generation of consoles PS1 was not the most powerful hardware. And in this generation of consoles, PS2 is not the most powerful hardware. I expect in the next generation of consoles, PS3 will not be the most powerful hardware.

The only reason pS2 is not the most powerful is because it came out 18 months before Xbox or gamecude BUT if xbox2 comes out before the PS3,PS3 will be alot more powerfull than X2.

 

[chaphack]

I am sure MS will pull all, everything, everygoddamn thing for X2.

The suits might hate losing money but they are highly aware of IBM and Linux threat present to them(it was highlighted in one to their internal emails). Now that Sony is with them, MS has to fight back aggressively. The PC market is dwindling and if PS3 has its way, MS-OS will be in deeeeeeeep shit. No two ways about that. MS WILL TAKE ON SONY POUND FOR POUND, and most likely more!

The major reason why X1 is so costly to them, is the lack of a good foundation. The system was slapped together within 18mths. X2 will have a better R&D background to it. I look forward to a much more customised and efficient system with the X2, even if it did use Intel/AMD/NV/ATI parts.