Next-gen PlayStation 4, Xbox 720 hardware specifications leaked

[Blue Falcon]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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]

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

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

WooHoo, I'm packing a whole 63VP!

 

[treetops]

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....

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970M.72675.0.html

 

[Guest]

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]

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.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-interview-metro-2033?page=4

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[dividebyzero]

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]

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.