Next Xbox "to have 16 core processor"

[MetallicaRulez0]

There's no point in having a 16-core processor if they're not powerful individual cores. 16 weak cores is great for smart AI bots and things like that, but not very good for general gameplay. If they are actually powerful, then this thing would cost like $1500, so that's obviously not possible.

This rumor is likely not true. There isn't much point in having more than 8ish cores right now.

 

[Rocket Taco]

The difference is desktop PC's have out of order processors whereas consoles are entirely in-order processors. I'll let wiki say it for me. Essentially, in an out of order processor "the processor can avoid being idle while data is retrieved for the next instruction in a program, processing instead the next instructions which is able to run immediately."

While that may be true of Xenon, I would be highly surprised if we don't see a heavily pipelined, out-of-order, branch predicting processor. The features are so common today, even in $1 microcontrollers, that it would be embarrassing not to. The main issue is heat generation; the reason the 360 didn't do OoO was that they couldn't sink the heat fast enough to run the whole processor all the time. Nowadays I would think an OoO processor with a lower clock would meet their performance requirements and be cheaper to produce than a high-frequency, in-order processor. Anyway, if any consoles come out with any architecture other than PowerPC, they definitely will, because the whole reason heat is an issue - and the reason Apple ditched it - is that PowerPC has hit its thermal performance limit.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

Just watch, there will be rumours about it have 6 gigs of ram or something next.

it needs to have atleast that now days... 4gigs is starting to be on the very low end...

For PCs yeah, gaming consoles are still under 1 if I'm correct if not they aren't up past 2 or 3 yet. 6 for a gaming console right now would be overkill.

 

[blackrave]

CPU and GPU isn't the true problem of current consoles (even now those are decent)
It is the tiny RAM
I prefer big, open world games (like TES) and those are RAM demanding
If we ever hope to see Elder Scrolls game without interior/exterior cells, we need at least 8Gb RAM on next consoles

 

[Griffolion]

They took their time, but the PC Master Race has deigned to speak to us lowly console mortals.

He hasn't said anything about PCs, he's talking completely about the stuff consoles are made of. This happens to be a a thread about technology, using words such as "transistor" doesn't mean he's speaking down to you.

I'm a PC gamer predominantly, but I also have a PS3. I have an interest in hardware.

If you look at the jist of my post, you'll see that i'm simply asking questions about what Durango is going to be like and questioning all this speculation. Plus, I might also be trying to dampen the predicted "ZOMG ITS SO POWERFUL" tirade from a portion of the population by reminding everyone of the facts about the 7 series.

lolwut!?

We're not even thinking of 16 core CPUs for hardcore gaming PCs. AMD have only just released an 8 core CPU which is still a hefty amount. A Radeon HD 7000 equivalent seems a little far fetched as well having seen how far they can push what's in the current xbox's card.

Either this thing's gonna cost a bomb or I'm underestimating Microsoft.

The difference is desktop PC's have out of order processors whereas consoles are entirely in-order processors. I'll let wiki say it for me. Essentially, in an out of order processor "the processor can avoid being idle while data is retrieved for the next instruction in a program, processing instead the next instructions which is able to run immediately."

You mind if you source that? Last time I checked, OOP was something pretty standard across most processing archs, including ARM.

CPU and GPU isn't the true problem of current consoles (even now those are decent)
It is the tiny RAM
I prefer big, open world games (like TES) and those are RAM demanding
If we ever hope to see Elder Scrolls game without interior/exterior cells, we need at least 8Gb RAM on next consoles

You're thinking in PC terms that executes:

1 - A full fledged OS
2 - No compressible memory management algorithms what so ever

Take a look at Skyrim on PC. It will typically use 2GB of RAM, however there are things you can do to increase RAM usage for the sake of MOAR STUFF ON SCREEEEEEEN. Couple in Windows and some background processes, and you've not even broken 4GB. On console with a lightweight OS (no more than 100MB RAM usage) and the aggressive memory management algorithms put into the game code (the reason ports take so long outside compiler differences), and you'll see 2GB on a PC go down to 750MB to 1GB on console.

Also remember the main aim of a console (something Sony missed with the PS3 that ended up costing them this generation) is to provide a platform that treads a balanced line between potency and affordability. 8GB of RAM is about £35 for baseline speeds. 2GB at same baseline speeds is under £10. That's £25 saved for every console made. I could go on, but I'm tired, and hope you get the basic point.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

You REALLY need to read the rest of the thread before you start banging on about elitism.

but but but someone said "transistors" in the thread!!!!

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If you look at the jist of my post, you'll see that i'm simply asking questions about what Durango is going to be like and questioning all this speculation

Most of it doesn't even qualify as speculation... Spazzing out is more the term I'd use.

8GB of RAM is about £35 for baseline speeds. 2GB at same baseline speeds is under £10. That's £25 saved for every console made.

The savings are even more when you consider that consoles often use the more expensive memory types designed for RISC based workstation/server systems rather than the kit you'd see inside a desktop PC.

 

[blackrave]

CPU and GPU isn't the true problem of current consoles (even now those are decent)
It is the tiny RAM
I prefer big, open world games (like TES) and those are RAM demanding
If we ever hope to see Elder Scrolls game without interior/exterior cells, we need at least 8Gb RAM on next consoles

You're thinking in PC terms that executes:

1 - A full fledged OS
2 - No compressible memory management algorithms what so ever

Take a look at Skyrim on PC. It will typically use 2GB of RAM, however there are things you can do to increase RAM usage for the sake of MOAR STUFF ON SCREEEEEEEN. Couple in Windows and some background processes, and you've not even broken 4GB. On console with a lightweight OS (no more than 100MB RAM usage) and the aggressive memory management algorithms put into the game code (the reason ports take so long outside compiler differences), and you'll see 2GB on a PC go down to 750MB to 1GB on console.

Also remember the main aim of a console (something Sony missed with the PS3 that ended up costing them this generation) is to provide a platform that treads a balanced line between potency and affordability. 8GB of RAM is about £35 for baseline speeds. 2GB at same baseline speeds is under £10. That's £25 saved for every console made. I could go on, but I'm tired, and hope you get the basic point.[/quote]

Sad thing is that consoles don't have even 1Gb RAM
It's under 500Mb
So yeah 8Gb would be perfect, but expensive, so unlikely
But 4Gb would be achievable
What console developers did wrong was took more expensive faster RAM, instead of little slower, but cheaper RAM. They could keep same price, but have more MB for RAM.
But again it depends on the games you plan run on console.
Intense games (like GoW or CoD) runs better with faster RAM
Big games (like TES or Minecraft) runs better on bigger RAM
So yeah, priorities

 

[Waaghpowa]

You REALLY need to read the rest of the thread before you start banging on about elitism.

but but but someone said "transistors" in the thread!!!!

Everyone who understands technology better than I do is an elitist! Of course more cores makes EVERYTHING BETTER!
..
..
..
EVERYTHING!

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

You REALLY need to read the rest of the thread before you start banging on about elitism.

but but but someone said "transistors" in the thread!!!!

Everyone who understands technology better than I do is an elitist! Of course more cores makes EVERYTHING BETTER!
..
..
..
EVERYTHING!

Not true... I added 4 cores to my coffee and now it tastes funny. I probably should have cleaned the thermal paste off the old CPU I dropped in. Mmmmm... silvery.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

What console developers did wrong was took more expensive faster RAM, instead of little slower, but cheaper RAM. They could keep same price, but have more MB for RAM.

It's not faster, it's higher bandwidth. Good for when you're doing bulk parallel processing... not so good when you're not.

 

[keiskay]

My rig has 16 cores 32 threads and 3 GPU's, i am disappoint in Microsoft.

 

[Waaghpowa]

You REALLY need to read the rest of the thread before you start banging on about elitism.

but but but someone said "transistors" in the thread!!!!

Everyone who understands technology better than I do is an elitist! Of course more cores makes EVERYTHING BETTER!
..
..
..
EVERYTHING!

Not true... I added 4 cores to my coffee and now it tastes funny. I probably should have cleaned the thermal paste off the old CPU I dropped in. Mmmmm... silvery.

I prefer the taste of copper myself.

 

[Sgt. Cow]

Am I the only one who was reminded of this?

 

[-Dragmire-]

Am I the only one who was reminded of this?

Wow, it took four pages to get to that. I'll admit I was looking for it.

Also remember the main aim of a console (something Sony missed with the PS3 that ended up costing them this generation) is to provide a platform that treads a balanced line between potency and affordability. 8GB of RAM is about £35 for baseline speeds. 2GB at same baseline speeds is under £10. That's £25 saved for every console made. I could go on, but I'm tired, and hope you get the basic point.

I figured Sony was fixated on getting Bluray to be the standard media disk in order to safely profit from movie sales, it was so important that they sold the system at heavy loss.

I hear their early backwards compatibility screwed them quite a bit on cost though. I appreciated the feature but it probably would have boosted their initial sales had they of dropped it and lowered the price somewhat.

 

[Vigormortis]

Congrats people! Die-hard console fans will finally have a piece of hardware vastly better than any PC gamer!

Granted, it'll cost you (likely) more than $8000 USD, but hey. At least you can say it's faster and more powerful than any PC gamers rig, right?

Or maybe...just maybe...this is yet another bit of bullshit rumor that deserves to be ignored. Seriously people, the console crowd has been trolled harder in the past month or so than the Half-Life fans have been for the past four years. We really need to stop giving credence to this stuff.

I'm doubting even the dev-builds of the new consoles have that many cores. It's just excessive to the point of being ludicrous.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Wow, that's a lot of grunt, It doesn't really seem financially viable though, hmmmm.

 

[Vigormortis]

Wanted to add, I'm waiting for the next rumor to spring forth that says the new consoles will have four mother-boards, thirty-six controller ports, and will have integrated holo-decks. Just you wait.

 

[Alpha Maeko]

The highways on a motherboard only have so much bandwidth... so... 16 cores won't necessarily equate to four times the performance if the HDD/SSD and the RAM and the GPU can't keep pace. Then there's the actual games and how well they're optimized to take advantage of it.

This speculation is ridiculous. I doubt the next xbox will be any more then twice the raw power of the current xbox, CPU wise.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Am I the only one who was reminded of this?

I'm glad I don't watch this show...