Xbox 720 to be six times faster than current 360, coming fall 2013

this is going to suck for PC gamers (not just console)

most PC games are console ports, so it will be more of the same

console port games with more shadows to make people think their games are hardware intensive. meanwhile people are playing the games just with with their athlon II & AMD 6670 or 7670 video card

A 6850 type GPU wouldn't suffice?
Cmon Microsoft!

Its a sure sign the world is ending. There is no inovation.

After I read this:

"....the GPU will be similar to the AMD Radeon HD 6670 GPU and feature multi-display out, DirectX11, 3D and 1080p HD out. Graphics cards based on the HD 6670 currently start around $79.99."


....Take my F$Ck$N $$$ AMD/NV.

Kepler/HD8000 series, here I come. PC Gaming FTW!!

By the time Xbox next launches in the fall of 2013, ~ HD6670 will be slower than the integrated GPU inside AMD's APU designs. Sad really.

I can't believe we'll have to endure 6-8 years of such underpowered next generation consoles. I hope this means developers finally ditch underpowered consoles and give us next generation PC games. First HD4000 series in Wii U, no low-end HD6000 series in the next Xbox?

Looks like future console games will be running games in DX11 but still at 720P @ 30 fps. HD6670 is so weak.

thewind,

Passmark is a joke of a benchmark because it's not a real game engine or a real game.

This is a pretty accurate list of GPUs in the last 10 years based on compliation of reviews of GAMES from hundreds of websites:

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewtopic.php?p=41174

HD 6670 = 48
GTX 580 = 180

In real world games, the GTX580 is about 3.75x faster than HD6670. By the time the next Xbox launches, we'll probably have GTX780 that is 2x faster than GTX580.

But worse of all, this console has to last us another 8 years?........Surely they could have tried to fit an HD6850, shrunk on 28nm, at least!

Another under powered console! SAD! PC is the only way to game. I admit to playing Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox occasionally but PC is my main gaming device!

LOL 6x faster than xbox360 by 2013, PC's will have 15x the power of the xbox360, Consoles are a joke and crap at playing rts games and the likes, Plus they hold back graphics in games already. PC's are best at playing the latest games with graphics cranked right up .

See how the original GPU was based somewhere between an ATI X800 and ATI X1800, a 6670 seem a little light.

6x more likely to be faulty!
6x more likely to be outdated!
6x more likely to be unable to play used games!

You can believe that if you want. PC's are bloated, consoles are not. Try to use the xbox's gpu on your pc and play any of the games out for the 360 right now on your pc. Tell me how that works out for you.

And I just said that the xbox was released with a gpu that was pretty high end for it's time. So..how does that make this true?

Ahem, which part of a PC's "bloatness" clogs up GPU resources? Because my GPU sits at a cool 0% utilization when I'm not playing games.

All of this "bloat" that you refer to doesn't affect gaming performance at all. I could have Word, Powerpoint, Outlook, Firefox, IE, Chrome, Notepad, and Explorer open all at the same time while playing Battlefield 3 and it wouldn't affect my performance. Why? Because the only resources they use while idling is RAM, and how much RAM is or isn't being used doesn't affect gaming performance.

Okay sure, they use some resources, but the combined CPU resources of all those programs idling would still be 1% or less. Not that the CPU is the most important component to gaming performance anyway.

The only reason you'd get better performance on a console compared to a PC with the exact same hardware is because consoles and their drivers/games are generally more optimized as they know the exact hardware they are working with and the hardware won't change. It's NOT that PCs are so called "bloated" that there is a performance discrepancy between the same hardware on the different platforms.

The main thing holding xbox's back right now is shitty ram/vram. If it had more it could atleast use high res textures.

Now don't get it confused, the cpu/gpu on the Xbox and the PS3 is extremely old. It is aged and the only thing holding back PC gaming right now. But the fact is, you could not play the games that these systems play with equal settings using an AMD 1900xt. It just won't happen.

And again, I'm quite sure this rumor is false. The 1900 was pretty high end when the xbox came out so I'm sure they will use atleast 78xx which will last us for many years.

They should just make a console that can actually play games in 1080P with anti-aliasing and latest DX11 visual features and let you play all of your previous games from 1998 (i.e. backwards compatible). It should have almost no load times because the games would be stored on an SSD. And once your GPU is no longer fast enough in 2-3 years, instead of getting a brand new $400 console, you could just buy a new $200 GPU and keep going. And the console should also give you a choice of keyboard/mouse and traditional gamepad since certain genres work better with one or the other. The console should also not charge you $ to play multiplayer games online. And as games get older, they should fall faster in price instead of remaining at the $30-level for years. Oh wait a second....that console already exists today. It's called the PC!

-

if they really wanted to tell the public how powerful their xbox is they should have said " our next gen console is 50 times more powerful than intel 845." 6670 is next gen ...gimme a break.

I think most of you are really failing to realize that consoles =/= PC's because of cost. Sure, if they threw in something like a 7870, that'll be half the cost of the system. It will be $600-$700 all over again and knowing how that literally cost the PS3 with low sales and baclash, no console manufacturer will ever do it again.

And besides, if they started making consoles that surpass or meet PC graphics, then there goes the "Elite" status of PC gamers.

I don't fully understand what you're trying to say, but i assume that you're referring to my last sentence... Ok clearly you DON'T know how to use your brain so i will explain for you. The PS3 was released with high end hardware. It cost $700(600? i forgot) upon release. Compare it to the Wii which was $250(somewhere around there). It took two years for the PS3 to become profitable while the Wii was in huge demand upon release. To this day, the wii has sold around as many units as the Xbox360 and ps3 combined. Companies have to invest alot of money to release next gen consoles and they don't want to alienate the general populace by releasing consoles at a high price point(especially in this economy).

I don't really see how this is relevant but...
I have around 15 tabs of chrome open right now along with a bunch of background applications (including an antivirus program). Cpu usage is at 2% and gpu usage is at 0%. Not to mention that my GPU is many times stronger than the console GPUs. If you are trying to imply that windows OS uses up alot of resources, it doesn't. Console games have horrible graphics COMPARED TO modern PC games. I don't know about you, but i like playing my games at 1920x1200p @ 60 fps with non blurry textures and no jaggies.

I'll say this once again. "amazing graphics" is subjective so i won't try to argue that console graphics suck. But i can say for a fact that consoles won't come close to PCs in terms of graphics(at least not in the next 10-20 years).

I take those news with a grin of salt, by 2013, 28nm will be the standard. I don't see next gen consoles not making use of that, and on that node, a 6670 equivalent "chipset" will be incredibly cheap, i'd call it won't cost over 20$ per GPU (we're talkin about the chipset alone, not a whole card with a PCB and a heater). I don't expect them to throw a 7970 equivalent, but c'mon not a 6670 !!!
Regardless, a 6670 equivalent would rock the console and deliver graphics unmatched by even a 7970, the problem with PC graphics is that the code is written at a very level language, communicated to the GPU via layers of API,drivers, OS ... and bear in mind that those layers are designed to be compatible with the largest set of hardware available, not very much with efficiency in mind.

First off, a 6770 or preferably 7750 or 7770 would be better, and not affect the price very much.
Secondly, if the next generation Xbox would meet PC graphics (highly unlikely), the PC would still be superior in gameplay. There is a reason games like Starcraft never would have worked ery well on a console.

This year we will see the offer of more 4K screens. If MS releases 720 in fall next year without 4K support, nobody will buy it.

Writing for hardware yields much better performance than writing for middleware across multiple diffrent platforms.

The fact that a xbox 360 and ps3 can run decent versions of bf3 with the hardware they have available is quite amazing imo. The average high end gaming pc has around 10 times the performance of the current gen of consoles, crappy ports or not, i dont see 10 times increase in the level of quality or performance.