[Console] Xbox One

[modru2004]

Then why are you posting in this thread? This is the internet.. its practically built on unfounded righteous indignation. If you don't have any opinions about consoles, or have so much tunnel vision that you don't care about them because all you play are PC games, then why get worked up about people getting worked up? We get it.. these are rumors, but this is also a message board. Talk is cheap and I don't see why you need to come in and repeatedly thread-crap.


Not mad about that at all.. just sad that we'll run probably run into this situation sooner rather than later if these leaked specs are real, because it means bad things for the graphical and technical development of future PC games.

the thing i would like to see most from the next generation is a heavier focus on physics and AI which generally means more computational power is required. sadly i don't think the 8 core jaguar is really meant for that.

it was my understanding that jaguar was meant for low power low-mid range computing. but thats assuming its a standard jaguar cpu and hasn't been modified, which it seems some changes have been made because i didn't think amd was releasing a version with more than 4 cores for the laptop/tablet market.


its kinda disappointing but at the same time understandable. keep costs low and a reasonable price point net good sales and avoid selling at a hefty loss like they did in 2005. more profit for the company and no real price increase for consumers but still an "upgrade".

because to get a true beast of a console we would probably be looking at a $700-800 console unless microsoft or sony sold at a massive loss. i mean the ps3 originally came on the market around $500-600 iirc and sony was still selling at a loss for the hardware.

and i don't know about yall but i sure as heck wouldn't fork out $700+ for a console anytime soon. i didn't even buy a ps3 until it dropped into the $300 range, the original asking price heck no.

[Insanatrix]

Then why are you posting in this thread? This is the internet.. its practically built on unfounded righteous indignation. If you don't have any opinions about consoles, or have so much tunnel vision that you don't care about them because all you play are PC games, then why get worked up about people getting worked up? We get it.. these are rumors, but this is also a message board. Talk is cheap and I don't see why you need to come in and repeatedly thread-crap.


Not mad about that at all.. just sad that we'll run probably run into this situation sooner rather than later if these leaked specs are real, because it means bad things for the graphical and technical development of future PC games.

Well for one, "because it means bad things for the graphical and technical development of future PC games." is about the only reason I care. The problem is that it's not the console itself, but rather the development companies that develop games not wanting to spend any more to develop PC versions or to optimize them better for PC's. It's not about the specs in the console, it's about the companies wanting to maximize profit and seeing PC gamer's as a 4th meal. Even if the console had the latest cutting edge technology for it's time, it would still drop behind PC's in 2-3 years. Technology moves too fast, and you're dealing with a static entity that never changes while everything else around it does.

The fact is that console's sell because they are cheap, so why make it cost more than putting together a semi decent PC? Why make a console cost $1000 when you can build a good PC for that price and do more? To stay competitive they have to balance cost to performance. So while you see a 8 core 1.6ghz as lame because you prolly have a 4 or 6 core i7 runnin at 4ghz or something, you also have to factor in that you probably paid more for the CPU than the console costs alone.

Also you're looking at the speed and performance of the equipment in the specs. You're not even focusing on the technology aspect. What can a 6970 do that a 6670 cannot do, except run a process faster? You've already acknowledged that they can code closer to the metal so they can probably get a lot more done with it than say a PC. So really what can that 6970 do that the 6670 not do? Also what can that theoretical i7 at 4ghz do, that a 1.6ghz 8 core cannot do, again except run something faster? Now if we were on the verge of a shift to another major graphical API, I would agree that it could mean bad things. Problem is that we are not.

Trying to use one title that is terribly optimized for both console's and PC's as your example as to why console's are the doom of PC gaming is wrong. The fact that development companies saw that they could make more money on console's because they are cheaper and more accessible would be a more accurate assessment of why PC gaming could be doomed. The fact you expect a console to keep up with PC's is laughable and shows your ignorance. The fact that you blame the console itself rather than the development companies that have much more say in whether they support PC titles or Console title's and how well they support them is just completely inaccurate.

You're whole argument that these specs look more "low-rent" than the 360's specs at launch, is untrue and quite frankly irrelevant because you are comparing the new xbox specs to current PC specs, saying that there is a bigger difference than the 360 and current PC spec's during it's launch, without factoring in cost as well as quality and type of components being used. They could make the new 360 better than your current average PC. I also guarantee you it would cost more than your current average PC, which kind of nullifies the point of the console.

Maybe I posted in here because while I value opposing opinions and views, I detest inaccurate and faulty assumptions and opinions.

the thing i would like to see most from the next generation is a heavier focus on physics and AI which generally means more computational power is required. sadly i don't think the 8 core jaguar is really meant for that.

it was my understanding that jaguar was meant for low power low-mid range computing. but thats assuming its a standard jaguar cpu and hasn't been modified, which it seems some changes have been made because i didn't think amd was releasing a version with more than 4 cores for the laptop/tablet market.


its kinda disappointing but at the same time understandable. keep costs low and a reasonable price point net good sales and avoid selling at a hefty loss like they did in 2005. more profit for the company and no real price increase for consumers but still an "upgrade".

because to get a true beast of a console we would probably be looking at a $700-800 console unless microsoft or sony sold at a massive loss. i mean the ps3 originally came on the market around $500-600 iirc and sony was still selling at a loss for the hardware.

and i don't know about yall but i sure as heck wouldn't fork out $700+ for a console anytime soon. i didn't even buy a ps3 until it dropped into the $300 range, the original asking price heck no.

This is what I'm talking about here. Modru hit it dead on.

A lot of people don't understand that programming a true parallel processed, multi threaded application is extremely hard to do because of the massive amount of varying system configurations. When you have a proprietary system with multiple core's in it that you can code to without needing overweight API's and bloated OS's, it increases your performance from the same type of hardware immensely.

Just a rough estimate, your average PC game that is multi threaded, probably makes use of at best 50% of each core. That doesn't mean you can open task manager and see your cpu at 50% even on every core, sometimes you can even see every core at 100% because of thread swapping. On a console, because you can skip the API and typical OS overhead and because you are programming for a set configuration, you could probably code to make use of 85-95% of each core.

The same goes for your GPU, since you aren't having to use the Directx API or in the case of the Xbox a very stripped down version, you are able to get a lot more for every clock of your GPU and memory.

[Activate: AMD]

Well for one, "because it means bad things for the graphical and technical development of future PC games." is about the only reason I care. The problem is that it's not the console itself, but rather the development companies that develop games not wanting to spend any more to develop PC versions or to optimize them better for PC's. It's not about the specs in the console, it's about the companies wanting to maximize profit and seeing PC gamer's as a 4th meal. Even if the console had the latest cutting edge technology for it's time, it would still drop behind PC's in 2-3 years. Technology moves too fast, and you're dealing with a static entity that never changes while everything else around it does.

Its hard to argue with anything you've said here. If the devs wanted to they could do much more with PC versions, the only problem is that they don't. They don't see it as financially viable. Unfortunately, at some level we have to accept that. While it pisses me off, I've still come to terms with the fact that the most likely way we'll see big-budget titles on PC is to have them co-designed for consoles. If the consoles are closer to a PC in terms of real net performance, the less I'll feel like the PC platform is being held back. I know that it will always eventually be held back, but is there anything wrong with hoping the specs are more impressive to stave that off a bit longer?

The fact is that console's sell because they are cheap, so why make it cost more than putting together a semi decent PC? Why make a console cost $1000 when you can build a good PC for that price and do more? To stay competitive they have to balance cost to performance. So while you see a 8 core 1.6ghz as lame because you prolly have a 4 or 6 core i7 runnin at 4ghz or something, you also have to factor in that you probably paid more for the CPU than the console costs alone.

Yes, but the BOM for a volume-priced chips is nowhere near what I paid for my i7. I'm also not so concerned about the CPU, though it is a bit slow. Its hard to get excited for what amounts to 8 souped-up Atom-class chips

Also you're looking at the speed and performance of the equipment in the specs. You're not even focusing on the technology aspect. What can a 6970 do that a 6670 cannot do, except run a process faster? You've already acknowledged that they can code closer to the metal so they can probably get a lot more done with it than say a PC. So really what can that 6970 do that the 6670 not do? Also what can that theoretical i7 at 4ghz do, that a 1.6ghz 8 core cannot do, again except run something faster? Now if we were on the verge of a shift to another major graphical API, I would agree that it could mean bad things. Problem is that we are not.

The difference is 480 SP's vs 1500+ SP's. If they can do great things with a 6670, does it not logically follow that they could do more with 3x the shaders? In 4-5 years those 480 SP's are going to look like an even bigger joke than the GPU on the xbox, because it already looks like a joke from a hardware perspective.

Trying to use one title that is terribly optimized for both console's and PC's as your example as to why console's are the doom of PC gaming is wrong. The fact that development companies saw that they could make more money on console's because they are cheaper and more accessible would be a more accurate assessment of why PC gaming could be doomed. The fact you expect a console to keep up with PC's is laughable and shows your ignorance. The fact that you blame the console itself rather than the development companies that have much more say in whether they support PC titles or Console title's and how well they support them is just completely inaccurate.

First: I never chose the FC3 argument. Second: You're now putting words into both my and Keven's mouths.I think both of us simply said it was a crappy thing for ubisoft to do, release a game that exceeded the hardware capability of the console. I extrapolated to say that this would be more likely to happen in a shorter time frame if the capability of the new console wasn't as advanced.

You're whole argument that these specs look more "low-rent" than the 360's specs at launch, is untrue and quite frankly irrelevant because you are comparing the new xbox specs to current PC specs, saying that there is a bigger difference than the 360 and current PC spec's during it's launch, without factoring in cost as well as quality and type of components being used. They could make the new 360 better than your current average PC. I also guarantee you it would cost more than you're current average PC, which kind of nullifies the point of the console.

Maybe I posted in here because while I value opposing opinions and views, I detest inaccurate and faulty assumptions and opinions.

How is it untrue? Go back and compare the PC state of the art in 2003 and the Xbox 360 and compare the current PC market to the rumored specs. Also compare the costs of those parts during the same time period. The 360's GPU was somewhere between (technology-wise) the X1800 and the HD2900, two top end $400 parts. The 6670 launched as a $100 budget/at best mid-range card. The 360 launched with a triple core processor when the lowest end A64 X2 was well over $300 and even the garbage P4 dual-core was over $250. Just because things cost that much in the retail market doesn't mean that a volume deal wouldn't bring those prices way way down. And somehow I'm the one who has unrealistic expectations for next-gen console hardware whos making things up?

A lot of people don't understand that programming a true parallel processed, multi threaded application is extremely hard to do because of the massive amount of varying system configurations. When you have a proprietary system with multiple core's in it that you can code to without needing overweight API's and bloated OS's, it increases your performance from the same type of hardware immensely.


Just a rough estimate, your average PC game that is multi threaded, probably makes use of at best 50% of each core. That doesn't mean you can open task manager and see your cpu at 50% even on every core, sometimes you can even see every core at 100% because of thread swapping. On a console, because you can skip the API and typical OS overhead and because you are programming for a set configuration, you could probably code to make use of 85-95% of each core.

The same goes for your GPU, since you aren't having to use the Directx API or in the case of the Xbox a very stripped down version, you are able to get a lot more for every clock of your GPU and memory.

for about the third time.. you've made your point on this topic and we get it.

the thing i would like to see most from the next generation is a heavier focus on physics and AI which generally means more computational power is required. sadly i don't think the 8 core jaguar is really meant for that.

it was my understanding that jaguar was meant for low power low-mid range computing. but thats assuming its a standard jaguar cpu and hasn't been modified, which it seems some changes have been made because i didn't think amd was releasing a version with more than 4 cores for the laptop/tablet market.


its kinda disappointing but at the same time understandable. keep costs low and a reasonable price point net good sales and avoid selling at a hefty loss like they did in 2005. more profit for the company and no real price increase for consumers but still an "upgrade".

because to get a true beast of a console we would probably be looking at a $700-800 console unless microsoft or sony sold at a massive loss. i mean the ps3 originally came on the market around $500-600 iirc and sony was still selling at a loss for the hardware.

and i don't know about yall but i sure as heck wouldn't fork out $700+ for a console anytime soon. i didn't even buy a ps3 until it dropped into the $300 range, the original asking price heck no.

I agree, it seems like they're less willing to subsidize the consoles this time around, which is undoubtedly a major factor when compared to 2005's hardware choices. I don't think we need a true beast of a console because of what Insanatrix is saying. I'd just like to see something with a little more punch than a 6670. 68xx-class maybe?

[Keven]

Well for one, "because it means bad things for the graphical and technical development of future PC games." is about the only reason I care. The problem is that it's not the console itself, but rather the development companies that develop games not wanting to spend any more to develop PC versions or to optimize them better for PC's. It's not about the specs in the console, it's about the companies wanting to maximize profit and seeing PC gamer's as a 4th meal. Even if the console had the latest cutting edge technology for it's time, it would still drop behind PC's in 2-3 years. Technology moves too fast, and you're dealing with a static entity that never changes while everything else around it does.

The fact is that console's sell because they are cheap, so why make it cost more than putting together a semi decent PC? Why make a console cost $1000 when you can build a good PC for that price and do more? To stay competitive they have to balance cost to performance. So while you see a 8 core 1.6ghz as lame because you prolly have a 4 or 6 core i7 runnin at 4ghz or something, you also have to factor in that you probably paid more for the CPU than the console costs alone.

Also you're looking at the speed and performance of the equipment in the specs. You're not even focusing on the technology aspect. What can a 6970 do that a 6670 cannot do, except run a process faster? You've already acknowledged that they can code closer to the metal so they can probably get a lot more done with it than say a PC. So really what can that 6970 do that the 6670 not do? Also what can that theoretical i7 at 4ghz do, that a 1.6ghz 8 core cannot do, again except run something faster? Now if we were on the verge of a shift to another major graphical API, I would agree that it could mean bad things. Problem is that we are not.

Trying to use one title that is terribly optimized for both console's and PC's as your example as to why console's are the doom of PC gaming is wrong. The fact that development companies saw that they could make more money on console's because they are cheaper and more accessible would be a more accurate assessment of why PC gaming could be doomed. The fact you expect a console to keep up with PC's is laughable and shows your ignorance. The fact that you blame the console itself rather than the development companies that have much more say in whether they support PC titles or Console title's and how well they support them is just completely inaccurate.

You're whole argument that these specs look more "low-rent" than the 360's specs at launch, is untrue and quite frankly irrelevant because you are comparing the new xbox specs to current PC specs, saying that there is a bigger difference than the 360 and current PC spec's during it's launch, without factoring in cost as well as quality and type of components being used. They could make the new 360 better than your current average PC. I also guarantee you it would cost more than your current average PC, which kind of nullifies the point of the console.

Maybe I posted in here because while I value opposing opinions and views, I detest inaccurate and faulty assumptions and opinions.



This is what I'm talking about here. Modru hit it dead on.

A lot of people don't understand that programming a true parallel processed, multi threaded application is extremely hard to do because of the massive amount of varying system configurations. When you have a proprietary system with multiple core's in it that you can code to without needing overweight API's and bloated OS's, it increases your performance from the same type of hardware immensely.

Just a rough estimate, your average PC game that is multi threaded, probably makes use of at best 50% of each core. That doesn't mean you can open task manager and see your cpu at 50% even on every core, sometimes you can even see every core at 100% because of thread swapping. On a console, because you can skip the API and typical OS overhead and because you are programming for a set configuration, you could probably code to make use of 85-95% of each core.

The same goes for your GPU, since you aren't having to use the Directx API or in the case of the Xbox a very stripped down version, you are able to get a lot more for every clock of your GPU and memory.

If the consoles can do anything if the software is optimized, then why not forgo coming out with a new machine? Keep the Xbox 360 out there and just optimize better.

Yes, you're right. Console developers can do a lot because they're developing for a uniform set of hardware. But, at the end of the day, they're still playing within the limits of the hardware. If software engineers could wave a magic wand and make any software run perfectly on any hardware, then we'd all still be using Commodore 64s.

I have a $99 Western Digital box on my TV that lets me watch Netflix on my big screen. It has a "games" like solitaire or something. I don't know what specs it has, but it can't have more than a 500MHz processor. There aren't enough programmers in the world to make any game run good on that little box.

[kbohip]

Not mad about that at all.. just sad that we'll run probably run into this situation sooner rather than later if these leaked specs are real, because it means bad things for the graphical and technical development of future PC games.

A lot of truth in this. I remember how it was back in the early days (pre-2002) of pc gaming, before consoles really took off like the PS3 and Xbox. Hardware was coming along faster than ever for the pc, you could practically do a worthwhile graphic card update every 6 months! Gamers were so excited about the future of gaming. We all thought by this time the graphics would be as good as real. There was even talk back then of an almost "Holodeck" type of machine being available in our lifetimes, and at the rate hardware was improving and game graphics were improving back then, it didn't seem all that out of the realm of possibilities. Then consoles got really popular due to the fairly cheap buy in price and all of the developers jumped on that bandwagon. Even worse is the consoles update timeline was laughable.

Now I'm even less optimistic about the future of gaming. Oh to be sure we'll always have games, but I'm not the slightest interested in playing FC4 on my phone using my fingers. The bad part about that will of course mean graphics that are horrific on the pc, if it even gets a port by then anyway. It seems the industry is convinced now that cheap $5 and under phone and tablet games are the way to go. My fear is they'll continue to use more and more resources going after that market at the expense of the real gamer's market.

[Big B-man]

A table or smartphone is not a gaming platform. I'm not saying that I won't play any sort of game on one, but for any FPS? Outside of a rail style shooter (e.g. Area 51), there's no way in hell. The control options are better with any controller out there, let alone the keyboard/mouse combo.

I don't know if PC gaming will go away completely. I think we might see a scenario with PC gaming much like the high-end car segment (Lamborghini, Bentley, Rolls Royce, etc.) which are the best, but not everyone can afford it. Your typical $500 computer probably doesn't include a separate graphics card, and if it does, it's not a screamer. Are consoles the best? No, but it's good enough for most people.

I like building computers, and even if I don't have a box for gaming, I'll still have involvement for the hell of it. Hopefully, gaming is a part of it, but that all depends on kids and money.

[Insanatrix]

If the consoles can do anything if the software is optimized, then why not forgo coming out with a new machine? Keep the Xbox 360 out there and just optimize better.

Yes, you're right. Console developers can do a lot because they're developing for a uniform set of hardware. But, at the end of the day, they're still playing within the limits of the hardware. If software engineers could wave a magic wand and make any software run perfectly on any hardware, then we'd all still be using Commodore 64s.

I have a $99 Western Digital box on my TV that lets me watch Netflix on my big screen. It has a "games" like solitaire or something. I don't know what specs it has, but it can't have more than a 500MHz processor. There aren't enough programmers in the world to make any game run good on that little box.

I didn't say they could do anything, just that they can do more. I'm done with this, you basically wanna bitch for the sake of bitching. Have fun.

[3dfxrain]

I doubt they will have a giant enemy crab that's based on real life that peeps attack the weak point for massive damage for the playstation 4.

[Keven]

I doubt they will have a giant enemy crab that's based on real life that peeps attack the weak point for massive damage for the playstation 4.

Did not know there were giant crabs in Ancient Japan.

[Big B-man]

See, Japan had nuclear accidents in feudal times. Won't go into further detail, but I'm surprised it was a crab and not something with tentacles.

I don't know how the dashboard on the 360 looked before, but between it and the Playstation 3, I prefer the XMB over Dashboard in it's current form. XMB is simple and while Sony has a lot of hate, they got the XMB right from the start in the interests of building a multimedia console. I still think Metro UI is good for touch screen operation, but if you need to use anything else, it's cumbersome. Maybe it's just personal preference, I don't know.

Now, the 360 is a little friendlier for gaming, and that was evident from the get-go, IMO. The best example is the achievement points that had been around awhile before Sony added in the Trophy support feature. However, I think Microsoft had been too busy getting it out the door and was a little short-sighted on it as a multimedia platform. They did build a better gaming oriented community than Sony did.

I think Microsoft is trying to have a more rounded approach this time around, but I'm not yet sure about Sony.

[3dfxrain]

I wish they'd put more of the new Halo games on PC like some months after console. I don't like it on console. My aim on controller is terribad. Also, no widespread rrod like things, if the disc drive doesn't scratch disc because of movement that's even better.

Surely it isn't that difficult to put some blocking pads or whatever in the drive.

http://www.llamma.com/xbox360/repair...-DVD-Drive.htm

[Keven]

Ilamma.com... crap, I remember them. The DVD drive in my original Xbox crapped out in like 2003. I purchased a replacement from some shady guy in Hong Kong via eBay and replaced it using a Ilamma guide.

[modru2004]

http://kotaku.com/5982097/report-the...ock-used-games

im not really liking the direction this is headed.

[3dfxrain]

Seems it's made up lies until something more reliable. CPU clock speed seems too slow than what it should be.

[modru2004]

Seems it's made up lies until something more reliable. CPU clock speed seems too slow than what it should be.

actually there have been many sources reporting that the next xbox was going to use an amd jaguar cpu for a long time now.


and i don't understand why people get so hung up on clock speed. its like complaining that your cummins turbo diesel engine only revs to 3k. the engine speed, and in this case clock speed of the cpu is irrelevant when taken out of context and looked at on its own "merits" which both have none as they are meaningless when they are your only data points.