Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Other way round, I think. They're internally RISC-based, with a CISC->RISC μop decoder.All modern X86 cpus are CISC based. They have a RISC to CISC converter built in them.
The CISC vs RISC argument is old and dated. All modern X86 cpus are CISC based. They have a RISC to CISC converter built in them.
As powerful as those IBM PowerPC processors seem, just remember a few fun facts about them.
#1 They're IN-ORDER and not OUT-OF-ORDER like modern CPUS. Since Pentium Pro's, they've been using out-of-order. Which makes the consoles very slow in comparison.
#2 Apple dumped PowerPC in favor of Intel, which has been proven for many years to be much faster. Benchmarks have constantly shown that IBM PowerPC to be vastly slower then Intel's.
#3 Many developers had expressed hatred for the next generation CPUS. Due to the lack of out-of-order, many developers believed their code ran faster on the original Xbox, as opposed to the 360.
Another thing to remember is that Microsoft has expressed interest in merging the Xbox platform with their Windows platform. So rather then having two competing platforms, you'll just have a universal platform. In other words Microsofts next generation console will likely have their games able to be played on PC as well as console. Whether that's a good thing for PC gamers is yet to be seen.
Risc or Cisc or the cpu in next generation will play a much more minor role. The shaders or GPU processing is way more important with APIs like OpenCL, Direct Compute, DirectX, OpenGL etc. Beefing up the shaders as much as possible while keeping the total power curve as low as possible, I say 150w maybe max target. A little bit less then the current X360. 100w would even be better.
As for memory, if you want everything to be fast with an APU you better have very fast memory. In this case I would think a custom memory controller for DDR 5 will be used. 2-4gb. Now if this fast pool of memory has access to like a 16gb-32gb SSD then game loading, level loading and caching the game so the hard drive turns off may really make the machine take less power, cooler but also much more quiet in the long run. I don't see a need for 8gb of memory with a SSD.
I really don't think Microsoft will accept loosing money this time around for each hardware sold, especially if they don't have to. APU streamlines and makes simplier many aspects, don't need separate cpu/GPU, don't need a memory controller, more compact making overall design smaller and cheaper to build. Upgrades are cheaper to do, a new smaller process APU, highest cost part reduced, makes an overall big impact later on during the life time of the console generation.
Anyways using an APU looks to be very smart on Microsofts part which also supports their other platforms better then previous generation is even better.
Been there, done that, after Dungeon Siege and D&D Daggerdale turned out to be crappy Xbox ports. Both with out the ability to remap the keys. I am not sure I want to encourage more crappy xbox ports.
Running Xbox 360 inside win 8 sounds kinda weird.... wont some sort of virtual box be required -- even if it is hidden from the user? Ya it would be a nifty and well used achievement, given how the OS for the 360 seems to work it would almost have to require virtualization to pull it off. I wonder if XP Mode is some sort of test product along those lines.
You know it's not an x86 CPU, right?The whole argument in that thread was no computer hardware can emulate the 360 currently. I suggested that a virtual machine might be a better option since you can just run it on a system with AMD-V or Intel VT-x capable CPU.
...
But, can Microsoft really do that? Can they or do they have the capability to program an entire virtual 360 machine for Windows 8 on the level of performance that VMware does it?
Hell if nothing else, MS wont deviate from their current hardware manufacturers so that they can keep backward compatibility in software. So that rules out any AMD CPU.
AMD Fusion makes perfect sense for a new console. They only have to pay one license fee, cheaper to manufacture, it's a single platform that is designed to work efficiently instead of bringing an IBM CPU and AMD GPU together to work in harmony etc etc
It's not entirely impossible that they could include an Xbox 360 CPU/GPU package onboard like Sony did with PS2 hardware built in original PS3s.
Thank you for reminding me, forgot that processors have RISC to CISC decoder in them now and you're right, the argument is dated.
No MSFT console uses DirectX in any form or shape, aside from the DX-inspired API. There'd be no point in using a cross-platform library on a console with a fixed configuration, ergo you strip away all the cruft and use the hardware as directly as possible. Ergo no DXSimilarly, could avoiding having to port DX10 or DX11 to a PPC/RISC based CPU be the reason they opted to return to an x86-based console?
Would you stop posting this garbage Hardocp?
AMD's integrated graphics could drive 1920x1080 but those are going to be some pretty poor looking graphics. Maybe the next generation of APU will fare much better and that's what will go into the Xbox3.
The next console will need to do 1080p natively @30fps for me to consider it.
Also it will need more than 4GB RAM, hopefully 6GB. If they think 2GB RAM is next gen, PC gamers are in for another long 5-6 years of sub-par games.
Do we really need backwards capability? I mean I already have a 360....
I never played any of my Xbox games on the 360. It got packed away the day the 360 arrived. Still where I left it over 5 years ago.
As for folks deriding a custom IGP, I may remind you that the PS3 is still doing quite well with an antique custom 7800GT. If anything the PS3 has shown us that its not about the GPU so much its what you can do in software using the CPU side.
Maybe MS is deciding to go more CPU heavy this time rather then GPU.
6 or 8GB of GDDR5 will tend to be really fucking expensive(and if the console makers use anything else they're nuts, including XDR), plain DDR3 won't have enough bandwidth, and will use far too many chips. If you think it's a good idea YOU try and sell the big three on the benefits of the cost of using a complex PCB with 24(!) memory chips on it with all the traces routed to a less than 2 sq. in. area. Then trying to apply die shrinks and cost reductions to that design over the next 5-10 years.
2GB is far more realistic for a unified architecture, maybe 4GB if density goes up and price goes down in time.
The CISC vs RISC argument is old and dated. All modern X86 cpus are CISC based. They have a RISC to CISC converter built in them.
As powerful as those IBM PowerPC processors seem, just remember a few fun facts about them.
#1 They're IN-ORDER and not OUT-OF-ORDER like modern CPUS. Since Pentium Pro's, they've been using out-of-order. Which makes the consoles very slow in comparison.
#2 Apple dumped PowerPC in favor of Intel, which has been proven for many years to be much faster. Benchmarks have constantly shown that IBM PowerPC to be vastly slower then Intel's.
#3 Many developers had expressed hatred for the next generation CPUS. Due to the lack of out-of-order, many developers believed their code ran faster on the original Xbox, as opposed to the 360.
Another thing to remember is that Microsoft has expressed interest in merging the Xbox platform with their Windows platform. So rather then having two competing platforms, you'll just have a universal platform. In other words Microsofts next generation console will likely have their games able to be played on PC as well as console. Whether that's a good thing for PC gamers is yet to be seen.
Also about PS3, completely wrong. It uses a 7800GTX, and that was definitely a high end card in 2006 when PS3 released. About as far from an IGP as you could get. So, you just proved yourself even more wrong with your own example.
The correct example would be if PS3 had used a 2005 IGP, in which case, of course it would have been discontinued a long time ago and Xbox would own the whole market.
I would like to see how great the PS3 would be doing "in software using the CPU side" if it had a 2005 IGP (1/20 the power of RSX, probably cannot run Quake 3) instead of RSX. Hint: Not well.
But if you like that philosophy, cool, we'll use that for playstation 4. Low powered IGP in PS4 it is. You said yourself that worked fine so, no argument from you. For Xbox 720 though, we'll use an extremely powerful AMD GPU if it's all the same to you. PS4 will still win because of all that CPU software no doubt.
In your rush to point out I forgot the X in GTX you kinda missed my point entirely but it doesnt matter. Not that it was really a GT or a GTX but a derivative of the 7800 family is neither here nor there.
No I got your point, it's totally misguided.
You're saying "look the GPU in the PS3 is crap so it's okay for a next console to have a crap GPU it'll still be better".
What you're totally ignoring is that the GPU in PS3 specifically wasn't crap (and not even close to an IGP) in 2006 when it came out.
These consoles may have to last until 2020 or beyond. What's below average in 2011 will be a joke then.
I think Ps4 will use 2Gb because Sony is a little broke so they can afford a lot, so I agree with you there. It's just too expensive for Sony to use more than 2Gb in PS4.
Microsoft is doing better financially so probably 6-8GB.
as long as the experience is enjoyable it doesn't matter what FPS or how many GB of ram it has in it.....there's no way they would need 6GB of ram in a console with all of the optimizations those things go through...it's not like they have to hold Windows 7 Ultimate with all the service packs and hold all your internet junk files, patches, etc.......they don't run multiple applications at once. They don't multi-box MMO's.
Honestly for what a console does, 2Gb is probably plenty with 4Gb being overkill and they don't tend to spend money on things they dont need when they are taking losses anyways. Watch it have either 2 or 3 GB ram and be just fine with that. Hell, anything over 4Gb in a desktop is mostly wasted even today!
When I play my 360 I don't sit there trying to analyze how many FPS it is running at. I play on a 55" 1080p HDTV. If it wasn't smooth I would be complaining but I'm not......i really dont care if it's 10 FPS.
don't even count on that first one. It's going to be 720p for the vast majority of games. Most people don't have a TV big enough to distinguish 720 from 1080 at 5 feet much less 8-10 feet.
I'm predicting no less than 8GB based simply on trends from previous consoles and what devs have said this gen about the lack of ram. Not to mention crytek calling for 8GB.
I'll honestly just laugh if it has 2GB. By the time these things are through, PCs will be topping 64-128GB and phones will be at 8-16GB if not more. If these things are super powerful, phones will overtake them before the generation is out. They were pretty powerful this gen, and phones will probably match them just before or after the new ones come out. So unless they want to price themselves out of the market, they'd better blow our minds with this damn machines.
because IBM cell processors kick major ass. the closes thing that comes to it will be the fusion line from AMD provided that they code correctly for it
Technically, all console systems are powered by an IGP. Modern Xbox 360's combine both the Xenos and Xonon chip together. Plus, the graphics chip in the Xbox 360 has to share memory with the Xenon CPU. The Xenos graphics chip is considerably behind even the $50 graphic cards you can buy for your PC.Fusion wont be NEAR powerful enough to power the next gen Xbox, especially when AMD is on record recently stating next Xbox will have Avatar quality graphics. How many SP's does the highest end Fusion have? According to wiki, currently it's 400. That's basically an IGP. You heard it hear first guys, the next Xbox is going to be powered by an IGP.
Technically, the Fusion will make the next Xbox a power house. Even back when the Xbox 360 was first released, it wasn't comparable to PCs in performance. Considering the Xbox 360 graphics are stuck in DX9, and has a crippled PowerPC processor, the Fusion will bring Xbox up to speed in performance.It's funny how all these rumors try to make next Xbox out to be some weakling system.
Ever heard of emulators? If it's done with software, then emulation is going to be easy. Given that the Fusion chip is powerful enough to emulate the 360 hardware, which it most likely will. BTW, direct to metal is already being done on the 360.-Reason 2, Backwards compatibility. Microsoft does this in software not hardware, so there's pretty much no way they can switch to another brand of CPU. It would make BC a nightmare. And unlike Sony BC is pretty important to MS (they actually force all games to be programmed in Direct X, just so BC will be easier in the future, unlike Sony which allows lower level programming). This is a big factor suggesting an IBM CPU.
Modern Xbox 360's have both the CPU+GPU together on a single chip. Having the GPU sitting right next to the CPU will also increase performance. Also, why do so many people believe that the crap in consoles is anywhere as comparable to Fusion, or even surpassing it? What evidence has shown you that a Fusion won't utterly destroy what's in modern consoles?-Reason 3, simply not powerful enough. The simple fact is you cant fab a CPU+GPU together that's anywhere near as powerful as the two separate. I suspect that's why Hardocp is pimping this rumor. IF the next Xbox uses a Fusion, it will by necessity be pretty weak. Which also doesnt jive with actual statements recently from AMD about avatar.
It's funny how the games on PC end up that way also.We all know console games will be stripped down and optimized compared to their PC counter-parts.
You guys are dreaming,
How much system memory or video memory do you honestly need at 1920x1080 with a 68XX series video card?
Devs asked for 8GB, I asked for 4GB. I guess the devs are dreaming, but they are the ones making the games.
If this indeed turns out to be true, this is going to be a HUGE win for consoles and PC gamers. Since we get mostly console ports these days, having a leading console utilize the same architecture that PC's are using will be big in that it will likely increase the quality of the ports as well as the quality of the content we will get. This will also make life insanely easier for developers to come out with quality PC stuff while adhering to strict deadlines.
so will games be blu-ray on the new xbox?
Better question yet, will we get blu-ray movie playback on the new xbox?
Of course, most folks will already have BD players and our old PS3's, so it won't matter much.
Have to remember that consoles also don't have the overhead a typical PC has in terms of operating system. They are much more focused on one task, running the program.
I say they might bring back HD-DVD tech for the games discs. after all its sitting there, paid for and they dont have to pay Sony.
I dont care for having a BD player in the new machine. I would say this issue is probably causing MS the most concern.
Yea, cause when friends log onto their Xbox 360, it doesn't pop up on my screen. Also, Xbox 360 can play music while playing a game. Yea, extremely focused.
It's getting to the point where I expect to enter a user name and password to log onto my Xbox.
I say they might bring back HD-DVD tech for the games discs. after all its sitting there, paid for and they dont have to pay Sony.
I dont care for having a BD player in the new machine. I would say this issue is probably causing MS the most concern.
Links? I'd be very interested to hear these developer's and their reasoning for wanting such asinine amounts of ram.