Next-gen PlayStation 4, Xbox 720 hardware specifications leaked

By on January 21, 2013, 2:00 PM

We’re just a few months away from what many believe will be a huge Electronics Entertainment Expo for the console market. While neither camp has made any official statement (unless you count recent comments from Sony’s Hiroshi Sakamoto), pretty much everyone is expecting to see Microsoft unveil the next generation Xbox alongside Sony’s new PlayStation 4.

And now as we inch close to those reveals, we’re starting to hear some serious chatter with regards to system specifications.

According to sources as reported by Eurogamer, both consoles will be powered by an eight-core processor clocked at 1.6GHz built using AMD’s Jaguar architecture. This type of CPU is typically used for low-power notebooks but will have double the number of cores found in portables as well as a few other customizations.

We are further told that Orbis, the codename for Sony’s PlayStation 4, will ship with Radeon HD graphics. Specifically, we can expect to see the Radeon 7970M clocked at 800MHz with 18 Graphics Core Next compute units. This is expected to produce 1.84 teraflops, according to data recently published by VG24/7.

Not much is known about the GPU behind Durango but sources told the publication just after CES that Microsoft’s new console will be able to achieve 1.23 teraflops – significantly less than the PS4. The Xbox, however, is expected to have double the amount of system RAM which will no doubt help it compete in the performance department.

Eurogamer has published a lengthy write-up on the subject if you are interested in delving deeper into the hardware aspect of each console.




User Comments: 36

Got something to say? Post a comment
2 people like this | Guest said:

Gabe Newell will get the last laugh...

1 person liked this | amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

To be honest, I didn't have high expectations for either console.

As long as they can run games at a true 1080p/60, not an upscaled 720p like they do now I will be happy. (I don't care what your TV says or what the game says on the back, very very few Xbox games run at 1080p/30 or 1080p/60, last I knew anyways). People expecting ground breaking specs or enthusiast PC gaming specs need to adjust thier sails, consoles are large cycle cash cows and niether company is going to throw a 3770k and SLi GTX 670 type power in there.

Thats for us PC enthusiasts to enjoy! :p

1 person liked this | De4ler De4ler said:

Consoles ?

I mean now CoD kids can play on HD whit a same auto aim

better graphics thats all ? this is the new and awesome generation what are wee waiting for 7 years ? 1.6GHz and a 7970M ? thats all ?

well im happy that I have a good SLI pc rig

1 person liked this | TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Well, nice to see that the "new" consoles will be using 3 year old technology from day one instead of the 8 year old technology current consoles use. :p

captainawesome captainawesome said:

The playstation will be just as disappointing as it is now if they do not allow third party apps. I've got a Ps3 and all I use it for is Bluray

Wagan8r Wagan8r said:

The only positive thing that I can say about this news is that maybe, just MAYBE, since the CPUs and GPUs are based on established and similar hardware as are in current PCs, the optimizations that are made for the consoles will also translate into fairly optimized games for PCs. However, since both utilize AMD GPUs, this may end up sucking for those of us who have NVIDIA GPUs.

1 person liked this | davislane1 davislane1 said:

While the specs are nice from a console perspective (still very dated from a PC standpoint), neither of these systems will be made or broken by graphics, special apps & features, or other Sony/Microsoft gimmickry. It's going to come down to which system the devs decide is a worthwhile investment and who Sony/Microsoft are willing to fork out cash to (exclusives and other contract deals). Library size and scope is what made the PS/2 and broke the Dreamcast and Game Cube, it's what held the PS3 back and gave MS the edge with the 360. Things won't be any different with this generation.

Zeromus said:

Might as well run a desktop environment on these machines, they're powerful enough. And a 7970? Could be a cheaper alternative to high quality gaming.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

How the hell are these things going to be cooled? Mid-range gaming laptops with worse specs have a hard time and are very noise. Slightly different form factor, I know, but still...

Jim$ter said:

I agree...The only thing I care about is are they quiet. If they are noisy as the current gen forget about it. My PC is 100X faster and dead quiet. The Xbox and PS3 I think seriously make people deaf from those damn fans!

Littleczr Littleczr said:

Those specs can play amazing games. The only reason we dont see it in a pc is because they make the games for consoles and just port them to PC. I am a PC gamer but happy they are coming out with consoles, it just means better games for u.

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

PC and console are two different kind of consumer devices. If you want to be uber general, you also have to lump in *shudders* phones, tablets, and phablets.

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Yay so my soon to be 4 year old 5870 which has 2.7 teraflops is still faster, and I have two of them... My 5 year old laptop has an AMD chip at 1.6GHz and its so sad. On the bright side it will bring the consoles into DX11 allowing for better PC ports. Hope these new consoles dont launch with astronomical prices like the current ones did way back when. Your basically getting a gaming laptop without the laptop part, and amd CPUs are cheap. Shouldn't cost more than $400 at launch, even then I wouldn't buy one. Also anyone know why they need so much Ram in these things, 8GB is way overkill 3GB is reserved for the OS, guess they still don't know how to optimize that. Again maybe that will allow the PC versions to start using the vastly superior platform the PC is and always has been. Oh wait I got it, Microsoft is using the oldest trick in the book, inflate the RAM to make it look faster. Anyone who has sold computers will know what I'm referring to, if not go to a best buy and ask which computer has the most ram and why it makes it faster, put on your boot and get ready for bullshit.

Guest said:

Looking forward to another 10 years of consoles holding back PC games.

Guest said:

^That is what made me possible to have 1080p/60 fps maxed out in any game with a half decent gpu. Which I love.

PC nerd PC nerd said:

Those specs aren't too bad. At least they aren't 5 years behind everyone, like they usually are.

Still, PC MASTER RACE!

Guest said:

Underwhelming isn't it.

where are the days when PC hardware took two-three years to "catch up" ?

Puiu Puiu said:

Yay so my soon to be 4 year old 5870 which has 2.7 teraflops is still faster, and I have two of them... My 5 year old laptop has an AMD chip at 1.6GHz and its so sad. On the bright side it will bring the consoles into DX11 allowing for better PC ports. Hope these new consoles dont launch with astronomical prices like the current ones did way back when. Your basically getting a gaming laptop without the laptop part, and amd CPUs are cheap. Shouldn't cost more than $400 at launch, even then I wouldn't buy one. Also anyone know why they need so much Ram in these things, 8GB is way overkill 3GB is reserved for the OS, guess they still don't know how to optimize that. Again maybe that will allow the PC versions to start using the vastly superior platform the PC is and always has been. Oh wait I got it, Microsoft is using the oldest trick in the book, inflate the RAM to make it look faster. Anyone who has sold computers will know what I'm referring to, if not go to a best buy and ask which computer has the most ram and why it makes it faster, put on your boot and get ready for bullshit.

It's for smoother multitasking and xbox720 has double than ps4 (8gb) because kinect 2.0 (aka not the beta that they use now on the 360) is expected to consume large amounts of ram.

RAM is very cheap so it's best to make sure that in 5 years it won't become a bottleneck like it is for the current consoles.

killeriii said:

Underwhelming isn't it.

where are the days when PC hardware took two-three years to "catch up" ?

Agreed!

Very disappointing.

It would be nice to have something worthwhile to look forward to.

The WiiU is more exciting. Although, lack of A+ titles is beginning to make it look like it's going to have the same failing as the Wii. (over-saturation of crap titles)

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

It's for smoother multitasking and xbox720 has double than ps4 (8gb) because kinect 2.0 (aka not the beta that they use now on the 360) is expected to consume large amounts of ram.

RAM is very cheap so it's best to make sure that in 5 years it won't become a bottleneck like it is for the current consoles.

Do you really think 8GB of RAM will save this thing in 5 years time? PCs can already double that easily. Perhaps if Kinect matters to you this may be important but It certainly doesn't to me, the whole waiving around looking "special" doesn't appeal to me. Don't worry the RAM won't be a bottleneck on either console, the 1.6GHz CPU will have that roll almost immediately. Also I'm not sure where your getting your information regarding the memory usage for Kinect 2.0, unless your extrapolating based on the current console. I do agree that RAM is cheap and both console could be fitted with 8GB of RAM for next to nothing, but at the same time look at what the current consoles do with such limited amounts of memory, its all about optimization to reduce cost of production. Just going to have to wait and see how these "specs" line up with the actual hardware, could still be rumors to a certain extent.

MrAnderson said:

I don't know what many of you guys are talking about when you are happy that the GPU and CPU are up to par with current PC tech. In all actuality, when Xbox and PS3 were first released they had enhanced versions of the most state of the art PC GPU in them. The PC GPU market always will leave the console in there dust becuse they are not fixed hardware.

For this next gen we seem to be getting older hardware. Which is not a bad thing. In all honesty, we will be able to see the true potential of the hardware as it can not be reach on a multipurpose PC. And the extra system memory is ultra exciting. I think it is the key component for large environments and detailed graphics to get to the next level. And yes, it should be enforced that all the next gen games run 1080/60+ and maybe even 1080/120 when running 3D.

I'm excited and ready for the next evolution. It is always going to be about software, but this time it really will be. The boost in hardware will not make everything automatically good. This will be the generation for developers to really show off, surprise and delight.

2 people like this | Shawnonymous Shawnonymous said:

I think you people are missing the point here.

Consoles are built on older technology than a PC because they are based on dedicated hardware and do not need to be as powerful to produce "close to PC" performance. A PC has so many more things running in the background and so many different hardware configurations that it literally requires juicier hardware, amongst a tonne of other thing to consider in which I won't get into here because you're all smart enough to know what I'm referring to and we'd be here for a year going through it all.

Consoles are nothing more than extremely expensive DVD/Blu-Ray playing, cash cow gimmicks, that is all, nothing more, nothing less.

The PC will never die, no matter how many shitpads/tablets/iPhonies or w/e it may be, so you're still better off to stick to a PC!

Go ahead and flame away for my short-to-the-point opinion, but at the end you know I'm still right.

Guest said:

Incredible how many people still think that PC and Console hardware to performance ratio is like-for-like. Funny thing, this thing goes back to days of PSX, but the kids commenting somehow don't realise that.

The differences between embedded architecture vs. Windows OS and software layer somehow go out the window.

4 people like this | Blue Falcon said:

De4ler, "1.6GHz and a 7970M ? thats all?"

The CPU is worrying long-term but keep in mind that Xbox 360 had a 3-core in-order CPU architecture with IPC slower than a Pentium 4/Athlon X2. PS3 had just 1 of those cores and 6 supporting SPE engines (I.e., really a crappy processor that needed very expensive and time consuming optimizations). Metro 2033 developer estimated that the entire Xbox 360 Xenon CPU is only 70-85% as powerful as just one core in the 1st generation i7 Nehalem. Yup, that's right just a single core in the i7 960 is as powerful as the entire 3-core 6 threaded Xbox 360 CPU.

[link]

Each Jaguar core is an out-of-order CPU architecture and it has much higher IPC than a Pentium 4. The new consoles are rumored to get 8 of those cores. That means the CPU performance will grow substantially in console terms, at least 2.5-3x faster than the CPUs they have now.

On the GPU side, R500 in the Xbox 360 was only roughly equivalent to X1800XT 256MB in speed according to ATI's own estimates. The RSX in the PS3 is just a G71 7950GT 550mhz with 50% less ROPs (8) and 50% less memory controllers (hence the memory bandwidth is reduced to just 22.4 GB/sec compared to the desktop 7950GT 256MB version). Due to reduced memory bandwidth and ROPs, this GPU is probably only as fast as a 7800GT 256MB one.

Look at games like Halo 4, Uncharted 3 and God of War 3 and what the developers/programmers were able to accomplish with such crappy hardware.

The rumor calls for an 800mhz HD7970M part with 2 less compute units. This GPU normally is clocked at 850mhz.

Let's take a look at the GPU performance:

Xbox 360 Xenos ~ X1800XT 256MB = 16.2 VP

RSX in PS3 ~ 7800GT 256MB = 12.3 VP

HD7970M = 150VP

Converting to PS4's power => 150VP * (800/850mhz) * (18/20 CUs) = 127 VP

That means the GPU in the PS4 will be 8-10x more powerful than than the RSX/R500 in PS3/360! That doesn't sound that bad.

Anyone who expected a $350-400 console to pack a GTX680 or Titan and Core i7 3770K/4770K is smoking something. The main reason PS3 sold so poorly was because it sold for $500-600 and Sony ended up losing billions of dollars on hardware sales. Given the current state of the global economy, it's just not feasible to sell next gen consoles for $500-600. Given Sony's current financial state, it's just also not possible for them to sell an $800 BOM PS4 for $400.

The best part about next gen consoles is the move to x86 CPUs which means porting PC games to consoles and vice versa should be much easier/cheaper. Hopefully the console ports to PC will be much better optimized than the crappy unoptimized ports we often get (Assassin's Creed 3, GTA IV, NFS:MW, etc.)

Blue Falcon said:

Oh forgot to link the actual GPU Voodoo Power Ratings chart where I got the data:

[link]

Guest said:

Gaming computers and consoles are different, an ok gaming rig can cost upwards of 800 dollars and often times need to be constantly updated to play new games, I cant afford to put such an absurd amount of money to play video games, personally I would pick guaranteed compatibilty for years, and a decent price, Then an expensive gaming rig that I would have to constantly maintain (I cant even do that for my regular pc)

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Oh forgot to link the actual GPU Voodoo Power Ratings chart where I got the data:

[link]

WooHoo, I'm packing a whole 63VP!

treetops treetops said:

Hexcore, nice, but that video card looks terrible, my video card beats it and you can get it for like 70$. The current generation from what I remember had some pretty decent cpu gpu power when they were released. A current generation to new generation hardware spec chart would be cool.

Geeze that gpu only consumes 100 watts that is quite laughable. To bad they don't have any competition....

[link]

Guest said:

Incredible how many people still think that PC and Console hardware to performance ratio is like-for-like. Funny thing, this thing goes back to days of PSX, but the kids commenting somehow don't realise that.

The differences between embedded architecture vs. Windows OS and software layer somehow go out the window.

QFT, people are too dumb to realise that.

Puiu Puiu said:

De4ler, "1.6GHz and a 7970M ? thats all?"

The CPU is worrying long-term but keep in mind that Xbox 360 had a 3-core in-order CPU architecture with IPC slower than a Pentium 4/Athlon X2. PS3 had just 1 of those cores and 6 supporting SPE engines (I.e., really a crappy processor that needed very expensive and time consuming optimizations). Metro 2033 developer estimated that the entire Xbox 360 Xenon CPU is only 70-85% as powerful as just one core in the 1st generation i7 Nehalem. Yup, that's right just a single core in the i7 960 is as powerful as the entire 3-core 6 threaded Xbox 360 CPU.

[link]

Each Jaguar core is an out-of-order CPU architecture and it has much higher IPC than a Pentium 4. The new consoles are rumored to get 8 of those cores. That means the CPU performance will grow substantially in console terms, at least 2.5-3x faster than the CPUs they have now.

On the GPU side, R500 in the Xbox 360 was only roughly equivalent to X1800XT 256MB in speed according to ATI's own estimates. The RSX in the PS3 is just a G71 7950GT 550mhz with 50% less ROPs (8) and 50% less memory controllers (hence the memory bandwidth is reduced to just 22.4 GB/sec compared to the desktop 7950GT 256MB version). Due to reduced memory bandwidth and ROPs, this GPU is probably only as fast as a 7800GT 256MB one.

Look at games like Halo 4, Uncharted 3 and God of War 3 and what the developers/programmers were able to accomplish with such crappy hardware.

The rumor calls for an 800mhz HD7970M part with 2 less compute units. This GPU normally is clocked at 850mhz.

Let's take a look at the GPU performance:

Xbox 360 Xenos ~ X1800XT 256MB = 16.2 VP

RSX in PS3 ~ 7800GT 256MB = 12.3 VP

HD7970M = 150VP

Converting to PS4's power => 150VP * (800/850mhz) * (18/20 CUs) = 127 VP

That means the GPU in the PS4 will be 8-10x more powerful than than the RSX/R500 in PS3/360! That doesn't sound that bad.

Anyone who expected a $350-400 console to pack a GTX680 or Titan and Core i7 3770K/4770K is smoking something. The main reason PS3 sold so poorly was because it sold for $500-600 and Sony ended up losing billions of dollars on hardware sales. Given the current state of the global economy, it's just not feasible to sell next gen consoles for $500-600. Given Sony's current financial state, it's just also not possible for them to sell an $800 BOM PS4 for $400.

The best part about next gen consoles is the move to x86 CPUs which means porting PC games to consoles and vice versa should be much easier/cheaper. Hopefully the console ports to PC will be much better optimized than the crappy unoptimized ports we often get (Assassin's Creed 3, GTA IV, NFS:MW, etc.)

I agree with everything above.

We'll get consoles that are 5 to 7 times more powerful (including newer tech like dx11, proper multitasking and other important features the new hardware will have) compared to what we currently have and they start at a good price point.

Isn't it enough for you guys? if it isn't then don't buy them.

PS: I also mostly game on PC's and I do consider it superior to consoles, but I do enjoy an occasional ps3/wii game when I'm with other people.

Steven Demon Steven Demon said:

They always telling 3D with 1080p. There is no TV that can handle that today with a framerate highter than 24 images/sec. Action game is near to be unplayable at this framerate. Only 720p (the actual favorite resolution of the Xbox 360) is playable in 3D at 60 images/sec or higher. Perhaps future TV on market will integrate the DualDVI or displayport input to be able to play at least at 60 images/sec in every resolution, like today's 3d monitors do... Perharps Microsoft will launch a special 3D monitor bundle, according the fact that the 720 will have dualDVI or displayport output. Wait and see

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I don't understand why people need higher frame rates in games, than they do for motion picture television. Wouldn't the television also be unsuitable for motion picture, if it was unsuitable for game-play?

Steven Demon Steven Demon said:

I don't understand why people need higher frame rates in games, than they do for motion picture television. Wouldn't the television also be unsuitable for motion picture, if it was unsuitable for game-play?

You must try a game at different frame rate to be able to understand. More framerate means more precision in your movement in a game, more responsiveness, more fluid animation... It's a different thing than a movie. 30 FPS is a good speed to play, but 60 or highter is far more better, there is a hughes difference. Also, computer or console need to be powerfull enough to give a stable FPS : When there is a lot of action in a scene, on older computer/console, FPS can drop below 30 FPS and you will notice and suffer that drop when playing : The game becomes more choppy and harder to play.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

30fps and 100fps is like the difference between watching a movie on a standard TV or an LED 100Hz+ TV. The effect in movies is called 'hyper-realism' and makes everything look like a cheap drama show, but it's a desirable effect in gaming.

1 person liked this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

I don't understand why people need higher frame rates in games, than they do for motion picture television.

You really can't compare the two

Motion picture -say for arguments sake, 24 fps, divides one second of motion between 24 "slices" (frames)- each frame is an aggregate of the action that happened in that 1/24th of a second- which is why a movie still has a very slightly blurred image- the illusion of continuous motion comes from the slight lack of image definition blending/bleeding into the following frame (an aid to persistence of vision).

Gameplay motion is capturing an instance in time- a series of high definition scenes scanned as fast as the hardware allows. While the framerate is usually be faster than motion picture 24 fps, it often lacks the fluidity of "film" precisely because of the clarity of the image. It's also why motion picture 24fps generally looks more fluid than digital video shot TV, and why small variations in framerate are more detectable in gaming and DV than motion picture.

Wouldn't the television also be unsuitable for motion picture, if it was unsuitable for game-play?

Game play on a TV can be fairly problematic if the TV is 1080i (interleaved) rather than 1080p (progressive scan), since 1080i at 60Hz refresh is basically displaying at 30 fps with alternating lines displayed (so, 1920x540 even scan lines followed by 1920x540 odd scan lines) which tends to exacerbate the lack of fluidity in sharply drawn game frames. Even if the TV is 1080p, you may have issues with input lag - there is a lot of hardware between the TV input and the final displayed scan.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

This could be the last of gaming consoles as we know them. Just look at what Nvidia & Razer brought to CES this year not to mention Valves interpretation of a console. This is probably the way gaming will go.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.