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

lol 6670... Can't even play current games in HD.
And 3D? Srsly? With that card? The card barely will manage 20fps on crysis HD, and in 3D GL with 10 fps

Okay so the 720 will be 6 times faster than the 360... while our systems will be 6 times as powerful as the 720 by fall 2013. So at least we can look forward to running 720 ports like crap on our WAY more powerful systems.YAY!

@Zecias The PS3 released with a outdated gpu. The cell processor and the introduction of blue ray is what costed them the most money I believe. This was a faulty decision that sony made. Every console release the OEMs lose money for selling the system. After a couple years they all become profitable, ignoring what they make on software sales. Sony just decided to lose too much.

As for graphics being relative, I'm a PC gamer first and foremost. I game at 2560x1600 and love it(and hate it, damn gpus are expensive) . I love being able to download the high res pack for skyrim and turning AA up quite a bit. And I love how much better BF3 looks on the PC. But, that still doesn't blind me. These systems have done quite a bit with archaic hardware. You can do more with less on a console, wether that's from efficiency, api access, or whatever. There's no point to judge it like a pc cause it just won't work.

But again, using "common sense" and past experience, Microsoft won't release a console that has a gpu already 2 years old in it.

It's all about the coding, i have a friend who uses the 6670 i have dual 6770's in CFX, both are great budget cards, but we are on PC meaning the games arn't coded specifically for our cards. Why can the graphics in the 360, which is based of the x1900 if i rember correctly, play modern games at a decent level of detail? The devs are coding for one set of hardware, making the games run much smoother and bringing the true power of the hardware out, just imagine if BF3 had been coding just for the GTX 560 Ti on PC, i would imagine that GPU could be playing in much higher settings. Also rember it's based on the 6670, it's not a straight up 6670 in there, there could be other modification to get more power out of it. Microsoft also needs to pick a good CPU, wish they would get away from these Cell based CPU's and go x86, bridging the gap in PC and consoles further.

I would love a quad core cpu, so devs can start coding for that from the start.

Remember, the 720 will only need to power a single screen at 1920x1080. Microsoft will make sure it works, they're not going to put out a subpar product with their 1 in 7 years release in the multi-billion dollar console gaming industry.

Because of DX11 is not supported on those cards.

chazz, " The PS3 released with a outdated gpu."

This is absolutely not true. And neither was it the case for Xbox360.

The GPU in the PS3 was GeForce 7950GT with half the memory bandwidth of the desktop version. At the time of release, this was previous high-end (not highest end 7900GTX) card from NV. 8800GTX came within days around PS3 launch, but it cost $600+. The GPU in PS3 then was a 24 pixel, 8 vertex shader 550mhz 7950GT, which even after 8800GTX launch was more or less mid-range in the NV lineup. It wasn't until 8800GTS 320mb/640mb cards came out that 7950GT series was no longer mid-range. But 8800GTS 320 was $300+ while 8800GTS 640mb was $400!

On the Xbox360 side, the GPU was an R500 unified shader architecture. It wasn't based on X1800XT or X1900XTX. However, it's reasonable to estimate its performance around that of X1900XT card. When Xbox360 came out, such performance was actually at the VERY TOP of the Radeon foodchain in November of 2005 because it wasn't until January of 2006 that X1900 series launched.

Based on these estimates then, the GPU in the Xbox360 was very much top-of-the line in November of 2005 vs. the best GPUs on the PC at the time. The GPU in PS3 was also not obsolete by any means (although obviously it was no longer the fastest). However, keep in mind that 8800GTX was the greatest performance leap in GPU history outside of Radeon 9700Pro. So it was completely not feasible to imagine that PS3 would be able to have an 8800 series GPU in November of 2006.

What is more telling is the price of those respective GPUs.

For Microsoft, Xbox360's GPU at the time cost them $141.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

For Sony, the RSX NV GPU cost them also around $140:
http://www.zdnet.com/news/playstation-3-component-prices-why-so-high/146935

It is true that the BluRay Drive in the PS3 was the most expensive component. The Cell processor was also extremely expensive.

However, keep in mind that HD6670 is only about $60-70 in retail today:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150542

That means by Fall of 2013, MS could probably manufacture such GPU for just $30-40 in-house.

In fact, AMD already makes this GPU in the form of embedded E6760:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4307/amd-launches-radeon-e6760

Its compact design, cheap manufacturing cost, only 35W power consumption are all reasons why MS may have decided to go wit this HD6670 GPU.

Unfortunately, it will be far too weak when it launches in Fall of 2013, and a far cry from the strategy Sony and MS utilized in the last round of consoles.

If this is true, right out of the gate, the next Xbox will have an obsolete GPU. The same could NOT have been said of Xbox360 or of the PS3. This is probably why both the PS3 and Xbox360 lasted 6+ years.

An equivalent mid-range GPU by Fall of 2013 would likely be HD6950/6970/HD7870, etc.

Maybe I used too strong of a word...but, taken in line with everything I said before I think you'd have understood. The PS3 wasn't the best is what I meant. It wasn't the main reason the PS3 was skyhigh in price. The xbox 360 was just about the best AMD was offering at the time. You couldn't get anything better really from AMD...which is why I see them going that route again.

Microsoft expects their consoles to last a very long time and make money for them for around a decade. The 360 will probably just barely do that, If they go with the 6xxx series than they won't last long at all.

As well, microsoft has been trying to unifiy all of their products into one comprehensive ecosystem. I think they'll atleast want DX 11.1 support. Windows 8 would've been out by the time this console comes out, I doubt they'll have it be a step behind from the launch. It just wouldn't make much business sense. If played right, Microsoft, could have the best ecosystem out of all of their competitors. I'm sure they're on top of their game about this.

Adoption will be slow with the bad ecnomoy and all.

Nevermind the fact that it will take another three years for devs to really tap the "new" architecture.

Success once again will hinge upon how good (or bad) Halo 5 & 6 may be.

If microsoft sell the hardware with damage then I think the smartest choice is to design a modular system and after 1-2 years offer to customers a free hardware update taking back from them the old working devices (not the hard disks and controllers) and give them new with the same motherboard but with new cpu, gpu and ram.

its smartest to replace the ban waves with update waves

That great mircosoft but that doesnt mean i wont buy some shitty console i cant even play used games on.

I don't think that they will use that GPU they will most likely use a new custom made Dual GPU for next xbox based on Latest AMD technology THAT'S WAT I HOPE

6670 is pathetic i've got a 6670 on my desktop and why should i buy a console that has the same graphics?microsoft if you're gonna release it in late 2013 and need to find a chip today at least go to a 6850 or the very minimium 6770.Microsoft,the xbox is a great console and in my opinion better than ps3 and wii please dont make us to buy the ps4 instead.