The constraint is the similar pricing to the ps3 but with more powerful specs. I don't think M$ would have launched a weaker console along side the ps3 for the same price range. This is a hypothetical look at what the console could have been had it launched with the ps3 last month.
What kind of specs would the 360 has if it was released in 2006
- Thread starter Proelite
- Start date
- Status
The constraint is the similar pricing to the ps3 but with more powerful specs. I don't think M$ would have launched a weaker console along side the ps3 for the same price range. This is a hypothetical look at what the console could have been had it launched with the ps3 last month.
The price range is whatever Microsoft wants to charge buyers for it.
If you mean at a similar bill of materials, it is unlikely that Microsoft could match Cell, not with all the work that went into it from various places.
At a significantly higher cost, additional cores to the cpu with a fair amount of extra cache sounds doable.
I'd say OoO would be a risky bet with only an extra year to design and verify it.
There could be more RAM, perhaps more EDRAM.
Throw in HD-DVD and a hard drive as standard, and it would probably be more expensive to make than the PS3, but possibly more competitive from a peak performance perspective.
Of course, without the head start, Sony would probably beat it anyway.
If you mean at a similar bill of materials, it is unlikely that Microsoft could match Cell, not with all the work that went into it from various places.
At a significantly higher cost, additional cores to the cpu with a fair amount of extra cache sounds doable.
I'd say OoO would be a risky bet with only an extra year to design and verify it.
There could be more RAM, perhaps more EDRAM.
Throw in HD-DVD and a hard drive as standard, and it would probably be more expensive to make than the PS3, but possibly more competitive from a peak performance perspective.
Of course, without the head start, Sony would probably beat it anyway.
HD-DVD drive could be added for around $100 in 2006, and another 40GB for the HD shouldn't be more than $25. If the cpu side could not be significantly improved, what about the GPU? A DX10 Xenos with 64 shader threads could make the overall system more competitive along with 256 mb of more ram. Hell even 128 mb of more ram should offset what ever benefits a faster cpu, even the cell, could have brought.
Last edited by a moderator:
The PS3's biggest advantage over the XBox 360 now and in the long-term is its CPU. Without improving the CPU, any improvement in the GPU will only lead to a CPU-limited system.
One of the primary design parameters for Xenon was that it properly support Xenos, which apparently can be accomplished well in the present tricore design. Increasing from 48 unified shader units to 64 would increase the GPU's demands on the CPU by 1/3, worth at least another core in the CPU.
As claustrophobic as the current cache is for three cores, it will be unacceptable for four. The current level of memory bandwidth will be insufficient, so that would need to be increased as well.
Xenos will be more expensive, the CPU will need to be more expensive. Adding 128 MB of high-speed RAM will add about another $100.
If the bandwidth is increased through more memory channels, the board costs go up as well.
The cooling solution will have to be as well-engineered as the PS3's is.
CPU increase+GPU increase+memory size increase+memory speed increase+drive upgrade+hard drive as standard
In relatively little time, the cost of producing the 360 will be in the same neighborhood as the PS3, and possibly be competitive over the long-term, as opposed to the likely scenario where 1st party PS3 exclusives will begin to seriously outshine the 360 in one or two game generations.
Trouble is, without the added lead-time MS had, it would spend all that money just to lose.
You're just talking numbers here. How can 128 MB offset benefits of better CPU power? That's like saying a 6800 with 512 MB RAM will be able to render graphically on par with an X1950XT on 256 MB RAM. You can't just interchange RAM and processing willy-nilly. How is an extra 128 MB of RAM going to get around any advantages you expect Cell to have? If CPU A can process 25 IK skeletons per scene, and CPU B can process 15 IK skeletons, how is adding an extra 128 MB of RAM to CPU B going to offset that advantage?
As for HD DVD drive, that'd be a stellar addition to XB360 if MS only wanted to sell a couple of hundred thousand units in their first year. HD DVD player sales are pretty minimal from what I've read, which is unsurprising seeing how hard Blue Laser diodes have been to come by.
It might allow for better textures in the short term, but I get your point. However, we don't know really which is better, 128mb of ram or a better CPU, but 128mb of ram is easier to implement.
MS only sold a couple of hundred thousand units in 2005. In addition, most sales strategies are at of the window in this hypothetical scenario. This is all about what one could do to the 360 with an extra year, and $200-$300 more.
I was always under the impression, from reading this board, that the 360 is toe-toe with the ps3 in graphical fidelity. So with the benefit of having an extra year of development and $200 more to work with, it would still, some how, be behind?
I think X360 first parties may beg to differ with you on that. So far we have not seen a game tailored for x360's current strengths especially with the abundance of utilisation of the UE3 engine... even the platform's current marquee title [Gears of War] does not use many of the system's more advanced features.
Interestingly enough this is the case more than a year after launch... so it may be the case that PS3 developers without the crush/rush to deliver ANY title within the 2005/2006 timeframe may actually be first to exploit ANY next generation's particular system strengths... Whereas 360 devs had to deliver something to sustain sales over the last year and few months - which due to time constraints and complexity has not left them enough opportunity to plow the virtues of the system fully.
Hopefully christmas 2007 will tell us whether or not the 360 system _as it exists_ can compete with the *expected* performance of the PS3.
It is now when comparing the titles that have been under development for far longer on the 360 than PS3. It is unlikely to stay that way once the next round of first-party exclusives comes out.
The limits of the 360 will show in the next round of games, particularly when Xenon goes against Cell.
Even with a year of extra design time and a bigger budget per unit, it is unlikely Microsoft could do much better than what Sony is doing (a few omissions aside).
For non-technical reasons, just matching the console of an established leader is not enough. Microsoft would be spending money on something that would not win.
The lead time was probably considered more important than picking a fight on Sony's terms.
I'd say graphically, it will be close. On anything that seriously taxes the CPU, I'm betting in the long run that Cell will eventually win out.
I think Microsoft's betting it will be too late to make a difference, or late enough to give them an opportunity to gain ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting.
I've heard about this, but only in things that uses heavy mathmatical operations such as physics, vertex processing, streaming, and sound. Given that the RSX needs SPU's help with vertex processing, the impression is that both consoles are in the same ball park in the end, maybe with ps3 edging out a little in some areas.
And the biggest disadvantage is its GPU.
And PS3 games aren't going to outshine anything out on 360 in one/two generations and everyone and their momma know it.
The Xbox360 is a powerful and balanced system as is.Don't joke. Fight Night Round 3 has been in development for far more time for PS3 and it looks better on the 360.
It's actually likely that PS3 exclusives will match 360 ones(at the moment 360 games are admittedly better looking), but anything noticeably further I highly doubt.
That can be contributed to the inexperience of EA with the ps3's architecture, because afterall, the cell is very difficult to program for. Combined with the ps3's less ram, it would be a testament to Ea's talent if they could pull off something as good as FNR360. However, you were right to doubt the advantage of a CPU. PS2 did have a CPU and bandwitdh advantage over the xbox, but overall it suffered because of less ram and older GPU. However, this is not to imply that PS3 would suffer the same disadvantage.Don't joke. Fight Night Round 3 has been in development for far more time for PS3 and it looks better on the 360.
It's actually likely that PS3 exclusives will match 360 ones(at the moment 360 games are admittedly better looking), but anything noticeably further I highly doubt.
I think most of PS3's marquee titles have been under development longer than x360s titles... think e3 05... think Heavenly Sword, Motorstorm, FFXIII... think MGS... time and undiluted attention to the project may be a bigger factor than any technical differences between the machines.
But I do agree in that the differentiator will be the potential and accessibility of the BBE architecture.
inefficient
Veteran
Don't joke. Fight Night Round 3 has been in development for far more time for PS3 and it looks better on the 360.
It's actually likely that PS3 exclusives will match 360 ones(at the moment 360 games are admittedly better looking), but anything noticeably further I highly doubt.
There have been enough of fights over whether the 360 or ps3 version of this game looks better. Most people agree the PS3 character models look better. While others cannot ignore that the crowds in the audience look better on the 360.
The team who made FN 360 is not even the same as PS3 version - that team is in canada iirc. 360 was the lead SKU and it was ported over later by another team. So people constantly bringing up points about how the development team had longer to work with it is silly.
Any differences between the 2 versions have much more to do with the fact 2 different groups of people worked on it, than any minor hardware obstacles they ran into on each respective platform.
Very true indeed, but the overall shape of multiplatform titles on ps3 gives the impression that most developers are stilling scratching at cell.
Last edited by a moderator:
The question depends more on microsofts strategy than any hard technical/cost concerns.
You can always outpower the other guy, it's a question of how dedicated you are to doing it.
My feeling is with 360 ms wasn't all that dedicated to being superior, maybe to being on par, but not superior. So an extra year would have made little difference. ms was focusing on price, being first, etc.
As well, I always look at the Ps3 as essentially being from the same time frame as 360, and the technology shows that. It was just delayed because of Blu-Ray, and the fact as frontrunner Sony was naturally a bit slower in wanting last gen to die.
As to what COULD be done given the dedication, oh, enourmous things. You COULD have had two G80 derived GPUs in SLI-like config. The late 2006 timeframe would allow that technology. You would be looking at probably $599 price tag, but I'm of the opinion it's almost always worth it. People will accept very high prices if what you offer is worth it. Look at the ipod in everyday life. It's an expensive item but people love to pay it for the catchet of the brand. A price cut would almost hurt Ipod I think. It's partly popular because it is costly. Imo a dual G80 derived console or something similary spectacular would def be worth it. You would probably need to up the RAM to at least 768 to take advantage of the power, but with $599 (assuming no Blu-Ray) you'd have plenty of wiggle room to do that.
I think part of Sony's problem with PS3 is all the extra cost went into Blu-Ray, not higher tech, which people cant see on the screen. It's not so much the price, it's the perception of whether you are getting enough for that price, where Sony is struggling. If you put a monster tech console out there, hell lets say it had "only" one G80, and 1GB Ram, pretty reasonable, I think people would line up to pay 499, 599, for that kind of superiority.
You can always outpower the other guy, it's a question of how dedicated you are to doing it.
My feeling is with 360 ms wasn't all that dedicated to being superior, maybe to being on par, but not superior. So an extra year would have made little difference. ms was focusing on price, being first, etc.
As well, I always look at the Ps3 as essentially being from the same time frame as 360, and the technology shows that. It was just delayed because of Blu-Ray, and the fact as frontrunner Sony was naturally a bit slower in wanting last gen to die.
As to what COULD be done given the dedication, oh, enourmous things. You COULD have had two G80 derived GPUs in SLI-like config. The late 2006 timeframe would allow that technology. You would be looking at probably $599 price tag, but I'm of the opinion it's almost always worth it. People will accept very high prices if what you offer is worth it. Look at the ipod in everyday life. It's an expensive item but people love to pay it for the catchet of the brand. A price cut would almost hurt Ipod I think. It's partly popular because it is costly. Imo a dual G80 derived console or something similary spectacular would def be worth it. You would probably need to up the RAM to at least 768 to take advantage of the power, but with $599 (assuming no Blu-Ray) you'd have plenty of wiggle room to do that.
I think part of Sony's problem with PS3 is all the extra cost went into Blu-Ray, not higher tech, which people cant see on the screen. It's not so much the price, it's the perception of whether you are getting enough for that price, where Sony is struggling. If you put a monster tech console out there, hell lets say it had "only" one G80, and 1GB Ram, pretty reasonable, I think people would line up to pay 499, 599, for that kind of superiority.
I think this was mentioned in "Xbox 360 Uncloaked". Although, an MS employee told me OoOE was dropped due to time constraints. I don't know how much more time would have been needed.
- Status
Similar threads
