Top
270°

Xbox 720 Spec Leaks – What if The GPU Rumours Are True?

Following supposed Xbox 720 GPU spec leaks, NowGamer checks out the specs of the Radeon GPU and discusses what this could mean for the industry if the leak is true.

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
fastrez2429d ago

I submitted this piece as I like the site, but even I'm getting fed up of a new Xbox 720 rumour every single day. It's getting silly.

TimmyShire2429d ago

You clearly never lived through the Wii/PS3/360 hype trains then...

darthv722428d ago

I know that when comparing a console to a pc the pc is doing so many other things in the background that cpu performance and memory are the most important.

A console being a closed box doesnt have the overhead as a PC so it can do equal or more with less. How does that reflect on GPU performance?

A game like crysis needing such high requirements to run on a pc and then looking at the ps3 and 360 are considerably less in specs but can achieve similar results.

People have said that this 6670 (rumored) type of gpu is not powerful at all in relation to pc but maybe it is more than plenty for a console.

One thing I am certain of is that usually the beginning of a new console generation, the graphics and games rival if not exceed that of the pc but the PC can be upgraded soon after with newer cpu/gpu and the consoles cannot.

osamaq2429d ago (Edited 2429d ago )

people say that its a good thing to a add a budget GPU because the console will be cheap 2 .

believe me MS will add cheap GPU and the console will be high priced... that's how they will make profit by selling us the (sheep) outdated hardware...

gamingdroid2428d ago

Actually, the leap to the next generation doesn't need to be that high to hit native full 1080p. We are already at 720p native....

The reason why it was so high last generation, was that technology was still limiting the output while we were moving into the HD era.

This is no longer the case and the ceiling is full 1080p native.

The other thing to consider is it sounds like the next chip will be a fully integrated CPU+GPU in one with removes a lot of the bottlenecks and potentially allows the CPU to aid the GPU more freely.

Somewhat similar to a shared memory structure the Xbox 360 used today.

Smart engineering, not brute force!

JellyJelly2428d ago

@osamaq - I wouldn't be surprised if you also believe that the CPU in the PS4 will be capable of time-traveling and mind reading...

ProjectVulcan2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

The leap has to be big if you want more than just higher resolution. If you will settle for the kind if visuals we have now, in 1080p, then sure, a budget GPU will do.

However, if you want the higher resolution, AND 3D, AND Samaritan level visuals....you'll need a damn sight more performance than a budget GPU like a mere 6670. Even if you only want any two of these three criteria you'll need more than a 6670.

The fact of the matter is this: an SoC would be used for one real reason only in this particular situation and that is cost. Manufacturing cost. There are several side advantages to having an SoC, but the base reason is the price of the chip and the simplicity of the board it would sit on.

The side benefits that come with nice high bandwidth low latency buses on die are not to be scoffed at, but in reality they are not and never will be full compensation for separate dies and more performance from individual chips, which have adequately fast off die buses anyway.

Smart engineering ALONE only gets you so far. Smart engineering shouldn't be used as an excuse for lacking speed, it should be employed whether the machine is designed as a powerhouse or not, whatever the case may be.

Whats better than a cleverly engineered chipset? A bloody fast cleverly engineered chipset....

gamingdroid2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

@vulcanproject

I don't disagree with you entirely (and did not give you that disagree vote), but:

***Whats better than a cleverly engineered chipset? A bloody fast cleverly engineered chipset....***

Everything has a cost, and the last thing I want is a $600 console out of the gate. Even adjusted for inflation since the PS3's release, that is a lot. The benefit has been minimal for the early adopters.

My point is, it's better to have a faster console cycle (although I doubt developers will like that) at a lower price. I want best performance for the buck, not best performance at any cost.

***The side benefits that come with nice high bandwidth low latency buses on die are not to be scoffed at, but in reality they are not and never will be full compensation for separate dies and more performance from individual chips, which have adequately fast off die buses anyway.***

I think it actually makes sense on a console. After all, everything else is scaled down to fit specific needs.

Even when the Xbox 360 released with a shared memory structure it was a cheap alternative (with smart engineering on top) that proved to be it's strength and one of the reason why games like Rage has less texture pop up on Xbox 360 than PS3, despite the PS3 have a higher bandwidth and lower latency VRAM.

The cheaper and scaled down the device, the importance of flexibility and smart engineering is more apparent to the point where some dedicated component cannot outclass a general one, because it wasn't utilized the entire time. Key is balanced system.

That said, this is a rumor so we will have to wait and see.

ProjectVulcan2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

"Everything has a cost, and the last thing I want is a $600 console out of the gate"

When have you personally ever paid $600 for a console though? I mean, when have you ever been forced to pay that much for a console instead of waiting for the price to drop? I would much prefer a console generation to last. Developers need a lot of time to squeeze the machine. Accelerating hardware cycles would be disastrous for the industry, a crash would ensue.

I am not saying that the new consoles must be extremely fast and expensive, i am saying that they should be closer to cutting edge than based off technology that was last fast 5 years ago. This is how they last as long as they do. Getting cheaper over the life of the machine all the time so people with less money can buy them.

Early adopters support a machine that may cost a lot to build initially. They always have.

As for the SoC thing, then the very nature of a console is that it is a custom built machine. I don't think that it is any particular advantage to a console initially if it means the machine is well down on power. It can have custom buses only good enough for what is needed and no more.

Later on the machines life then consolidating the chips is commonplace anyway, when the process technology allows.

And as for the xbox 360, then Sony only have themselves to blame for making a hash of Ps3's architecture. 360's is made to look better than what it really should be considered because PS3's is a bit of a mess. Its development suite helped a lot too.

The unified memory address makes the machine flexible but also slower overall- 360 benefits from being lead in most cases. If the situation were reversed, that design choice would not mean much difference and we have seen that now in several games, haven't we? Multis lead on PS3, or top end PS3 exclusives.

PS2 was a nasty thing to programme, but because it was nearly always lead platform it didn't matter so much. 360s advantages come more from it managing to be lead, essentially.

The fundamental thing here i guess i am saying is the machine that sells best is the benchmark architecture and games are built to its strengths and developed to try and dodge its weaknesses. Unless the rival platform is considerably more powerful then games can have all the weaknesses of the host platform technically, in addition to the weaknesses of the platform the game is ported to.....

gamingdroid2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

@vulcanproject

***When have you personally ever paid $600 for a console though?***

I paid $600 for the PS3 4-5 years ago and mind you, not at launch. I bought the Limited Edition Gunmetal Grey MGS4 console!

Still looks sexy as ever, but no BC. :(

***The unified memory address makes the machine flexible but also slower overall- 360 benefits from being lead in most cases.***

Actually, even though the 360 unified memory architecture is slower, the 10MB EDRAM keeps the processor busy. It's part of smart design by trying to balance out the weaknesses.

***If the situation were reversed, that design choice would not mean much difference and we have seen that now in several games, haven't we? Multis lead on PS3,***

Exacty! The most flexible platform wins! Xbox 360 owners get a great experience regardless of who is lead.

***or top end PS3 exclusives.***

PS3 exclusives are good because Sony put in some serious amount of resources optimizing their games. If you put in equal amount of resources (which MS doesn't) I wouldn't be surprised the games would be equally as good on the Xbox 360 (and obviously there will be differences).

***The fundamental thing here i guess i am saying is the machine that sells best is the benchmark architecture and games are built to its strengths and developed to try and dodge its weaknesses.***

That is only true, if one is truly dominant and even then there are exceptions. Wii *was* the dominant console, but core games aren't built to mask Wii's weaknesses.

In a situation like this, where two platforms (PS3 and Xbox 360) is pretty much on par in marketshare with similar demographics, the game gets paired down to lowest common denominator i.e. weaknesses of both systems.

***Unless the rival platform is considerably more powerful then games can have all the weaknesses of the host platform technically, in addition to the weaknesses of the platform the game is ported to.....***

In this situation, the game inherits both weaknesses of both systems. However, because of that the platform's weaknesses will shine through. It is through multi-platform games you notice differences, not exclusives as those games are built to mask the weaknesses so you would actually never know i.e. a level require too much RAM, well let's pair it down and the user would never know as they have no baseline to compare it too!

***I mean, when have you ever been forced to pay that much for a console instead of waiting for the price to drop? I would much prefer a console generation to last.***

Nobody is ever forced to buy anything... but I'm a huge fan of faster cycles with lower introductory prices.

***Accelerating hardware cycles would be disastrous for the industry, a crash would ensue.***

A crash is somewhat exagerated... but I do think the industry would oppose this. Consumers, I think will accept it similar to how they accept the fast replacement cycle of smart phones.

ProjectVulcan2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

Yes you paid $600 but who forced you to do it? Nobody as you admit. You want a cheaper machine then you could and should wait for the price to drop TBH. I will pay up for whatever i think the thing is worth, if its worth $600, then cool. If you know you are gonna keep it 5 or 6 years then its not a problem. I would be less inclined to drop $300 on a new machine i'll be throwing out in 2 years and its value (plus its games!) will crash even faster.....

EDRAM is sort of smart. There isn't really enough of it in xbox 360- it is smart engineering but again the concept isn't fully realised because 10mb is not enough to fit any more than a 1024 x 600 framebuffer with AA. More was needed for a full size 720 framebuffer without tiling the framebuffer (at least 15mb).

The end result is that 360 is not really faster for it- the 'free' 4 x AA that was touted early on never camer to fruition for any game that ran natively in 720p. Smart engineering then- but without the follow through....

Nah, The most flexible platform doesn't always win. PS2 wasn't the most flexible platform, it was easily the weakest and nastiest to make games for last gen. But it won easily, so everything was lead on it. Being the default platform to lead on gets you a lot more than being flexible. It is a bigger factor.

My point was PS3 exclusives did not suffer. When games were lead on PS3 they did not suffer much either.

Wii is not the same generation hardware as the other console. This is the only exception in the history of console gaming because one manufacturer altered their strategy. You can't really consider wii in these points because it isn't relevant hardware wise.

When two fairly closely matched consoles come together, the lead is usually gonna be on the one devs are more familiar with. This is 360 this gen because of its early launch, much higher sales in the states where the majority of core games will be sold- western developers.

I already made my points about the weaknesses of multi ports and i don't see what your point is with this. When a multi is lead on 360, then the game will be built to say avoid excess storage usage. This means one of PS3's advantages goes unused and thus the port shares the weakness across both platforms. It is sharing a weakness here from the lead that really, it shouldn't. This happens every generation.

I don't think a crash is at all exaggerated. Smartphones are replaced mainly for the reason everyone has short term contract, 18 months - 2 years. People want a change and fresh start with a new device as they can change providers etc. Consoles just can't be compared, when you buy a TV or a console or a bluray player or a hifi....then you expect it to last a fair while.

Accelerating this would be a baaaaaaad idea.

gamingdroid2427d ago (Edited 2427d ago )

@vulcan

**Yes you paid $600 but who forced you to do it?**

I'm not sure what your point is?

**...I will pay up for whatever i think the thing is worth, if its worth $600, then cool.**

I'm don't "invest" in disposable technology that is obsolete in a year so why saddle myself with a high price and lower average experience over the technology lifespan.

I don't want to pay significantly more for 2 extra "last" years of sub-par experience.

***Nah, The most flexible platform doesn't always win. PS2 wasn't the most flexible platform, it was easily the weakest and nastiest to make games for last gen.***

I'm talking about consumers winning... Whatever way you design the game, as lead on PS3 or Xbox 360, the Xbox 360 tends to get at a minimum parity if not the upper hand. I can't always say that about the PS3 lead or port.

***But it won easily, so everything was lead on it. Being the default platform to lead on gets you a lot more than being flexible. It is a bigger factor.***

Such as?

Unless there are significant differences in your systems, I don't think it matters much at all as general consumers don't do much comparison. Last I checked, BF3 sells on the Xbox 360 and CoD sells on PS3 despite their opposite preferential treatment.

***My point was PS3 exclusives did not suffer. When games were lead on PS3 they did not suffer much either.***

Of course not! Why would they suffer if they are exclusive? As I said, how would you even know if there is no baseline to compare it to?

In the console world, you start with the most rigid and least flexible system as a starting point. If anything, lead means it is actually holding the game back to accomodate the weaknesses.

***When two fairly closely matched consoles come together, the lead is usually gonna be on the one devs are more familiar with. This is 360 this gen because of its early launch, much higher sales in the states where the majority of core games will be sold- western developers.***

You are actually leaving out the most important factor, architecture and tools. MS by far has changed the industry from developer conforming to hardware, to where console manufacturer takes into account developers.

Even Sony openly now talks about how much easier the PS Vita is to work with. A far cry from the PS2 (and earlier) era.

***When a multi is lead on 360, then the game will be built to say avoid excess storage usage.***

Then I ask you, has there been multi-platform games on PS3 that is larger than a DVD disc? Clearly the Xbox 360 then has the ability to allow pretty much on parity experience despite a smaller disc size. That is flexibility at work.

***This means one of PS3's advantages goes unused and thus the port shares the weakness across both platforms.***

... and that is where the weaknesses show through! Xbox 360 is unable to handle as large disc size than the PS3 and you know that because the Xbox 360 version released with multiple discs compared to the PS3.

That is my point, multi-platform exposes weaknesses, not exclusives!

***Consoles just can't be compared, when you buy a TV or a console or a bluray player or a hifi....then you expect it to last a fair while.***

There is no reason why you can't replace a console sooner, *IF* it was cheaper.

The reason you hold on to it so long, is because you paid more for it!

***Accelerating this would be a baaaaaaad idea.***

It would make the cycle change less risky for businesses and avoid market saturation, like we do now.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2427d ago
tehpees32428d ago

The gap next gen won't be as big as it was this gen I don't think. Methinks MS will rely on gimmicks instead of graphics.

Unfortunately Cliffy B wanting avatar realistic graphics =/= will have avatar realistic graphics.

kainslayer2428d ago

maybe you mean xbox avatar then!!!!
lolol

TimmyShire2429d ago

Fair points. Doesn't sound to me like the next Xbox will be that powerful then. I thought 6x more sounded powerful... guess not.

hazardman2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

I'd say the xbox does ok in the graphics now. If it's 6x more powerful I think that was good, I'm no tech, but i like the sound of it!

Feckles2429d ago (Edited 2429d ago )

Not sure where this six times more powerful figure has come from.

A) sounds like it's not that much more powerful, so unlikely.
B) how has it even been measured? Polygon count? fill rate? graphics memory? Total processing power?

Don't buy it at all.

NYC_Gamer2429d ago (Edited 2429d ago )

i'm waiting for some concrete specs about all the new hardware.its been too many wild rumours already.

ProjectVulcan2428d ago (Edited 2428d ago )

I want concrete specs too. People have been banging on about 1080p with 3D, Samaritan style visuals and all these things that really demand major GPU performance for the past few years. Having only a 6670 would be the KO blow to all these ambitions.

So really enough speculation and lets see how Microsoft are gonna pitch this thing. Are they gonna low ball on the specs and deliver a cheaper machine?

Chances are we will not know for an absolute certainty until full reveal. This might be as early as this Summer, but we could be waiting quite a bit longer.

matey2429d ago (Edited 2429d ago )

GO ON NINTENGEN THEY SHOW YOU THE SPECS 4 EACH CHIP AND THE 4850 IS BY FAR MORE POWERFUL THAN A 6670 THE FILLRATE ON 4850 IS 10000 M/PIXELS PER SEC COMPARED TO 6400 M/PIXELS PER SEC ON THE RUMOURED 720 CHIP THE WIIU HAS 30% MORE M/TEXELS IN OTHER WORDS BETTER TEXTURES ALL IM SAYING IS THE 4850 IS ABOUT 30% MORE POWERFUL THAN THE RUMOURED 720 6670 CHIP.

GO ON YOUTUBE THE 4850 CAN RUN DOOM4 AT 83FPS
THE 6680 52FPS

THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT BOTH CHIPS 4 720/WIIU WILL BE CUSTOM SO MORE POWERFUL THAN THE ACTUAL CARD ITS BEING BASED OFF IN MY OPINION.

fastrez2429d ago

Woah...

The Rain Man of GPUs is in the house.

OpiZA2428d ago

Audible laugh. Thank you.

skyward2429d ago

Only John Carmack can extract anything useful from that.

h311rais3r2429d ago

I CAN BE LOUD AND OBNOXIOUS TOO!!! LOOK I CAN CAPS LOCK CAN I JOIN THE CLUB???

BX812429d ago

BASED OFF YOUR COMMENT, YOU LACK THE MENTAL STANDARD TO JOIN HIS CLUB. LOL

bozebo2429d ago

lol at even mentioning the fill rate. That is an irrelivant spec in modern graphics hardware and has been since ~2007.

LightofDarkness2428d ago

Nu-uh, fill-rate is important in order to make the scene more full and thus more satisfied, like a Snickers made out of texels. Think about how important a Snickers is.

<trollface/>

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2428d ago
Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.