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

By Shawn Knight ยท 53 replies
Jan 25, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. fraggleki

    fraggleki TS Rookie Posts: 17

    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!
  2. 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 .
  3. Tekkaraiden

    Tekkaraiden TS Evangelist Posts: 997   +93

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

    ramonsterns TS Enthusiast Posts: 744   +12

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    6x more likely to be outdated!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

    Chazz TS Evangelist Posts: 679   +75

    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. does that make this true?
  6. 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.
  7. Chazz

    Chazz TS Evangelist Posts: 679   +75

    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.
  8. 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!

  9. 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.
  10. Sarcasm

    Sarcasm TS Guru Posts: 367   +46

    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.
  11. Zecias

    Zecias TS Booster Posts: 202

    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).
  12. 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.
  13. CryVer

    CryVer TS Enthusiast Posts: 38

    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.
  14. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 3,670   +1,959

    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.
  15. fimbles

    fimbles TS Evangelist Posts: 1,185   +208

    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.
  16. Twixtea

    Twixtea TS Rookie Posts: 86

    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 :D
  17. Modena

    Modena TS Booster Posts: 143

    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!
  18. Chazz

    Chazz TS Evangelist Posts: 679   +75

    @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.
  19. GeforcerFX

    GeforcerFX TS Evangelist Posts: 578   +188

    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.
  20. Chazz

    Chazz TS Evangelist Posts: 679   +75

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

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,890   +1,224

    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.
  22. Because of DX11 is not supported on those cards.
  23. 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.

    For Sony, the RSX NV GPU cost them also around $140:

    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:

    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:

    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.
  24. Chazz

    Chazz TS Evangelist Posts: 679   +75

    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.
  25. 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.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...