Sections

Durango tech specs leaked in full, Orbis detailed – rumour

Monday, 21st January 2013 23:40 GMT By Brenna Hillier

The next Xbox console, codenamed Durango, and its rival PlayStation 4, codenamed Orbis, are the subject of yet another round of industry whispers, this time getting even more detailed on both machines’ innards.

The information comes from VGLeaks, but matches up with and is expanded by information received by Eurogamer, and is said to concern development kits not more than nine months old.

According to this latest report, which agrees with many previous leaks, the new Xbox has an eight-core CPU from AMD running at 1.6GHz, based on Jaguar tech.

So far, so Orbis, but where Durango differs is its memory set up. The report claims it has 8GB of DDR3 and 32MB of ESRAM, with the two memory kinds working together to produce throughput of 170GB/s. The ESRAM is accessible by other components, not just the console’s graphics core, potentially making it more flexible and easy to develop for as the hardware ages.

Durango is said to have a number of dedicated hardware accelerators. A couple are devoted to audio and another to video encoding, suggesting Microsoft intends to continue ramping up its media box efforts, and there’s also a couple of Data Move Engines which nobody has any theories about as yet.

Kinect appears to have its own input rather than be built in, and Durango will be USB 3.0 compatible, with a 500GB harddrive as minimum and a 6x Blu-ray drive.

Again lining up with past rumours, the Orbis is said to have more raw computational power than the Durango – although its what you can do with the power that counts, of course. The report reiterates this power imbalance by claiming the next PlayStation has 18 Radeon GCN compute units at 800MHz (1.84 teraflops in total), while Durango has just 12 of the same speed (1.23 teraflops in total)..

If you’re technically minded, visit both links above for more detailed analysis of the new consoles’ gizzards.

We’re expecting reveals of the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft this year, and perhaps even to see the hardware launch before the holidays. A recent comment from Sony boss Kaz Hirai suggests Microsoft may go first.

Thanks, Telepathic.Geometry.

Latest

52 Comments

  1. absolutezero

    This is’nt going to stop for an entire year is it?

    ugh.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Telepathic.Geometry

    Well, I think that the most interesting part of all this is that there seems to be dedicated hardware in the box for Kinect and for TV/media services.

    I always felt like if Wii had gotten more support, we could have had more genuinely amazing immersive games. But publishers were down on Ninty until it was too late, and never really gave it their all. I think Kinect was largely the same.

    So, if it’s defo in every box and is a bit better, maybe devs will get on board and make something amazing. Personally, I’ll wait to see if that happens. But even if random games could just fuck with you and use those features a bit here and there to surprise ya…

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Mike W

    @1

    Doesn’t look like it ;)

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    “the new Xbox has an eight-core CPU from AMD running at 1.6GHz, based on Jaguar tech.”

    That is very weak. Eight-core from AMD running at 1.6 GHz? That is actually not that great. + It’s Jaguar. It’s based on mobile shit and AMD these days is a failure when it comes to CPU’s, although they are durable.

    8 Gb Of ram based on DDR3 is actually very good. My Previous PC had 8 GB of Ram based on DDR3 and that memory was not used in full even then. Now I have a monster PC with 32 GDDR5… but that does not count.

    P.S. Why the fuck Sony needs a better processor. It’s going to be the same shit all over again. Sony devs will use it for one game aka (Uncharted 2:AT – train level).

    P.S.2: D3D. Direct X11. Every game will have tesselation. FINALLY. No more shitty wheels that looks like squares.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. NocturnalB

    One thing i haven’t seen mentioned hardly at all is the hard drive, but i think that’s because it’s pretty easy to believe it should have upwards of 500 GB, heck a brand new 1 TB HDD is under a $100 these days. But that’s not SSD. Really kind of sucks because in about 2 or 3 more years SSD’s will be much more affordable with much more realistic space.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. JimFear-666

    oh look… Boring rumours again…. ZZZZzzZZzzZZzZzZZ

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Telepathic.Geometry

    Your posting in this thread belies your claim that it’s boring. I’ll bet if we were to go to your house now, you’re having a nice handy shandy whilst reading those numbers. I’ll bet you’ll climax on the 1.84… /quivers …teraflops… /trembles

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Night Hunter

    For Hardcore PC Gamers this won’t be all that impressive, but for (mostly) Console only gamers such as myself this will be an absolutely awesome jump graphics wise!

    #8 2 years ago
  9. OnionPowder

    @4 The rumored PS4 CPU is the exact same chip. For low power efficiency it’s perfect. They don’t want another RROD (or YLOD for Sony).

    #9 2 years ago
  10. CPC_RedDawn

    @#4 Erthazus : “Now I have a monster PC with 32 GDDR5… but that does not count.”

    Please god link me to where you got this 32GB GDDR5 from? Also what processor your using and what motherboard too! PLEASE! I need to know because PC’s are only on DDR3 memory at the moment, and motherboard only support them in Quad-Channel. GDDR5 memory is used on Graphics cards and no graphics card on earth using 32GB of it. The most memory on a retail card is 6GB GDDR5.

    On topic:

    1.84 Teraflops… LMAO my HD7970 has 3.79 Teraflops of power and thats at stock of 925MHz core/1050MHz memory I have it overclocked to 1200MHz core/6800Mz memory. So its probably at around 4.00 Teraflops now and has nearly 300GB/s bandwidth compared to this measily 170GB/s…. OK consoles are seriously dead to me now.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. Telepathic.Geometry

    @CPC_RedDawn: As a matter of interest, how much did your PC cost to build?

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Zohar

    Well hopefully we’ll know everything when GDC rolls around, but until then we have plenty of time to complain about stuff!

    OMG SATA 2.0 XBlows 360 1.5 Suxxor fail.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. RaisinBran

    I have no idea what these tech specs mean unless someone explain them to me in plain English.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. DarkElfa

    @10, Well now that we’ve established that Erthazus has no credibility, can we have that Erthazus bullshit post auto-blocker we’ve been asking for?

    #14 2 years ago
  15. G1GAHURTZ

    I wonder if the PC fanboy brigade will ever realise that normal people don’t want to pay $1000 to play a port.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. DarkElfa

    @16, There are no fanboys of ANY brigade that will ever realize anything intelligent about what they’re fanboys about.

    That’s why they’re fanboys.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. Telepathic.Geometry

    @G1GA: Well, that’s why I’m interested in how much their rigs cost, because I often hear that they’re not as expensive as you think. I guess that the most expensive skew of the next-gen consoles (because let’s face it, there’ll be at least two or three) will be about $500. So I wanna know how much PC I can get for that…

    I especially wanna know how much bang you’d get for your buck with an expertly built $500 PC running Windows. I imagine it wouldn’t be better than next gen consoles…

    #17 2 years ago
  18. Dragon246

    In PC Overlord voice-
    Just so you know, I have a giant pc with 1TB OF GDDDRRR 100 RAAM and INTEL III700 100 CORE PROCESSOR WITH TURBO HYPER TECHNOLOGY WITH NVIDIA 9999999GGTTXXX GRAPHICS CARD WITH ALPHA BETA GAMMA TECHNOLOGY WITH 99999999999999 PETABYTE SDD FROM WD AND A 92312323K MONITOR ON WHICH I RUN GAMES IN 60000000000FPS . SO, FUCK YOU.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. G1GAHURTZ

    @TG:

    Yeah, good point. Although I don’t think that any next gen consoles will cost more than $400, I’d also like to see a comparison of a next gen console game against a PC version running on an equally priced PC rig.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. Jerykk

    $1000 to play a port? You mean $1000 to play the best version of every multiplatform game released (which comprises about 95% of all current-gen games)? Hell, the savings you get on PC games more than makes up for the greater entry cost. If you shop smart, you can save $10-30 on brand new games, more if you wait a few weeks after release. If you buy ten new games a year, you’ll be saving at least $100-200 if you stick with the PC versions.

    If you were arguing that a $500 console offers a better value than a $500 PC, you might have a point. A $500 PC isn’t future-proof and won’t last long before becoming significantly outdated. But arguing that a $1000 PC is a poor value because it only plays “ports” is dumb. A $1000 PC will last for years and will play “ports” at significantly higher resolutions, framerates, etc, than the console versions. You’ll be playing the best version of any given game. Then you’ve got the wide range of PC exclusives, from indie games (Overgrowth, Natural Selection 2, Torchlight 2, Chivalry, etc) to the big-budget ones (Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, ArmA3, Rome: Total War 2, etc).

    Ironically, I often wonder why people would buy consoles when at least 90% of the games they’ll play look and run significantly worse than they do on PC. Console-exclusives are becoming increasingly rare so it would make more sense to invest in a platform that plays the majority of games better.

    #20 2 years ago
  21. xxJPRACERxx

    What #21 said.

    #21 2 years ago
  22. G1GAHURTZ

    Playing a PC version doesn’t make the game any better.

    It’s still exactly the same game, gameplay wise. It’s still a port.

    The only difference is a few extra graphical bells and whistles that, IYAM, aren’t worth the money, or the hassle.

    Even then, the comparison is relative. Oh wow, so this PC version has a sharper texture on this piece of wood…

    But that’s all it is. A blatantly obvious flat texture on a polygon.

    That it looks less blurry than another texture on another format doesn’t make the game better, or make the visuals, built using a decades old technique, any more convincing.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. Telepathic.Geometry

    @Jerykk: I think a lot of what you say is correct, if you accept a-priori that you want to play PC games only, you can certainly find solace in the astonishing graphics, the ease of online, the savings to be made with steam… but, it’s not that simple.

    I think what’s true is that a lot of console gamers simply lack the expertise, the cash, or the perseverence to set up a proper gaming PC rig. I know I got a fairly beefy alienware PC years ago when I had more money than I knew what to do with, and it still mysteriously wouldn’t play Doom 3 past a certain level. American McGee’s Alice wouldn’t run at all. Other games were okay but would occasionally just quit on me or ask me to go online to find drivers.

    I understand that to a certain degree, a lot of this is fixed now, but I still carry that trauma of trying to get into PC gaming and having had a lot of shit to deal with, and that was with my best mates being PC gamers and solving a lot of my problems for me.

    Like many others on here, I suspect that the Steambox is my only prayer of getting back into PC gaming…

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Telepathic.Geometry

    Oh, and @G1GA: Of course I don’t know but, I have a feeling that the low-end skew will (have to) be at least $350, but some kind of high end skew with a larger hard-disk and extra controller and game and subscription thrown in (or some shit like that) will probably got as far as $500.

    Of course that’s just my guess, but I really can’t imagine them pricing it lower than $350 or higher than $400 for the basic units.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Jerykk

    @G1GA: You must be blind if you don’t notice the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. Playing a game at 60+ FPS not only looks significantly smoother but it also feels significantly more responsive and precise. In terms of image quality, PC ports have significantly higher resolutions, higher/better AA, AF, AO, tessellation, 3D support, multi-monitor support, etc. In the past year, many PC ports have also had higher-res textures. The result? Better looking games. FOV sliders are becoming increasingly common as well.

    You’re correct that the core game is still the same (unless you use PC-exclusive gameplay mods) but that’s not the point. The point is that the PC versions are always significantly better than the console ones. It’s like the difference between VHS and Blu-Ray. Sure, the actual movie is the same but the quality of its presentation is miles apart.

    So again, how is a good gaming PC not worth it? Not only do you get the best versions of multiplatform games (which comprise the vast majority of console games these days), but you also get the huge range of indie games and other PC exclusives. On top of all that, you get the best prices on all games. As for convenience, Steam has made installing and playing PC games simple. Two clicks and you’re ready to go. It automatically installs the necessary third-party apps and enters the necessary serial keys. It also automatically patches any games you have installed.

    If you’re happy playing games on consoles, that’s fine. I understand the appeal of the lower entry price and overall accessibility. But don’t try to undersell the advantages of PC gaming because you’ll just look silly.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. Telepathic.Geometry

    “So again, how is a good gaming PC not worth it?” See my post for details…

    I think if you can’t understand why other people might have issues with PC gaming, you’re being a little narrow-minded, or deliberately obtuse. I for one am not trying to shit on PC gaming, it obviously has some amazing good-points. But come on, be reasonable.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. G1GAHURTZ

    @26: I didn’t say that I didn’t notice any difference. Obviously, when you compare the two in relative terms, a PC version running on a new high end rig will look better than a 7 year old console version.

    But as you point out, it’s not like a bad game on console will suddenly become fun to play, just because it looks a bit nicer.

    Same with your video analogy. Watching John Carter in 4k won’t suddenly make it a good movie. Maybe it will be a bit of eye candy for a while, but sooner or later, you’re going to realise that many other people just watched the same film, but paid a whole lot less for the disappointment.

    It also works the other way around. A good game is a good game, whether you play it on a 15″ CRT, or a 102″ 4k LED. There are millions of people who play relatively ‘poor’ looking games like CoD on cheap setups for hundreds of hours, and they get just as much enjoyment out of the game as people who play on high end, expensive rigs.

    And just to clarify, I wasn’t attacking PC gaming, per se, but the idea that certain people around here were putting forward, which is that consoles are somehow devoid of value, because they don’t match up to high end PC tech.

    Well, they might not match up, but my initial point was that the majority of gamers clearly don’t see the need to spend 200%, or more, of the money for 50% better visuals.

    That was my point, so I think you misunderstood me. We are perfectly happy with what we have now, and what the next gen looks like it will bring. We don’t need to know, or even care, if some PC fanboy’s $1000 rig can do more.

    He will probably only end up playing ports of games designed for console, anyway, and complaining about the ‘dumbed down’ console controls.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. G1GAHURTZ

    @TG:

    Yeah, i agree. I think $350-400 sounds most probable for the standalone consoles. Maybe more than that would be retailer specific bundles…

    #28 2 years ago
  29. RandomTiger

    Get on with it!!

    #29 2 years ago
  30. Jerykk

    Watching John Carter in 4k won’t make it a good movie but it will make it a better experience than watching it on VHS, which is my argument. Gameplay is undoubtedly the most important part of any game but image quality and framerate are still important parts of the overall experience. Throw in mod support, more graphical options, more input options, tweaks, superior control schemes (for games that benefit from quick and precise aiming and/or hotkeys) and you have a better overall experience. PC gamers generally want to get the best experience possible which is why they’re willing to spend more money on hardware. It’s certainly dumb for any PC gamer to automatically dismiss consoles as worthless but it’s also dumb to dismiss the PC’s numerous strengths.

    Anyway, getting back on topic, I’m not particularly impressed by the rumored GPU and CPU specs but I’m happy to see they aren’t skimping on memory this time. Previous console generations have always skimped on memory, which has always hurt developers in the long-term. Although the hardware is relatively weak compared to high-end PCs, being a dedicated gaming machine will inevitably result in better optimization and some impressive stuff later in the generation. Since most games are multiplatform, this benefits everyone including PC gamers.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. Fin

    The power differences don’t mean anything so early on. It’s not how much power the system has, it’s how you use it (see PS3 v 360, etc).

    #31 2 years ago
  32. Erthazus

    @,CPC_RedDawn, all memory is based on DDR3, but mine has FBGA and 1024Mx64 which has the same speed and efficiency + 2400 Mhz.

    @G1GAHURTZ, “Playing a PC version doesn’t make the game any better.

    It’s still exactly the same game, gameplay wise. It’s still a port.

    The only difference is a few extra graphical bells and whistles that, IYAM, aren’t worth the money, or the hassle.

    Even then, the comparison is relative. Oh wow, so this PC version has a sharper texture on this piece of wood…

    But that’s all it is. A blatantly obvious flat texture on a polygon.”

    You are an idiot.

    PC version does not have sharper texture. I’m playing all my games in 60 frames per second in 1080p/2560×1440 resolution, with Max graphical configuration that contains filters, tesselation, Shadow bokeh, decent shadows and other stuff that makes all games look completely different to consoles.

    If you really think that graphical “stuff” add one beautiful texture is all you get, you should just sit and shut your hole.

    Playing on the console for 400$ with AUTO-AIM in CoD is for disabled people who can’t play games at all.

    Ahh, Yes, SSD. You are still using outdated HDD technology on your console? Okay. My games have 3 seconds of loading in multiplayer sessions or singleplayer.

    I hate retards that does not have PC thinks that ” gaming PC should cost 1000$ and it adds absolutely nothing to the game except for one great texture”.

    your xbox is also probably have enough power to run Planetside 2 shooter with 2000 people that are on one server, right? Right?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYG_lP1OAhA here G1GA, special message from one of the best players in the world (Athene) that know how to play and who made dozens of records. :D It’s pure trolling and funny, but for you G1Ga this should be in full seriousness. Haha.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. Erthazus

    “The power differences don’t mean anything so early on. It’s not how much power the system has, it’s how you use it (see PS3 v 360, etc).”

    I like that comment. Linear-corridor shooters in less then 30 frames per second in Sub-HD resolution or shitty shooters with 60 frames per second. Ahh, I forgot, you actually like these games.

    #33 2 years ago
  34. Samoan Spider

    Lets say for arguments sake a launch xbox360 (£280 for pro) + kinect (£130). Or launch PS3 (£400) + Move (£60). So lets work with £400-£450 as a base. I realise the wavey shite was launched well after the console but the point is they push it as a complete product so for illustration here is my 2p.

    I have a pc that isn’t the greatest, but plays anything at 1080p at 60fps+.
    An FX4100 (clocked at 4.5ghz) + mobo + 8gb ram – £135
    A 60gb SSD + 1TB HDD – £65
    A Bluray reader (4x) – £28
    A 7850 1gb (clocked at 1050/1350) – £134
    Case – £17.
    PSU – £35

    Seems reasonable right. It isn’t a world beater as per Erthazus and his cutting edge unrealeased technological monstrosity but it suits me, and suits the arguement that PC gear isn’t so expensive as to be untenable.
    I’ll never argue that consoles have a place, I have both a PS3 and xbox360 too, I just dont use them much any more these days. But likewise, I’ll never abide someone saying a PC isn’t just as viable for playing games.

    Back on topic, I’m still quite excited to see what MS and Sony bring to the table. The specs look ok, and a pretty reasonable jump from current gen, so as long as they stay well away from killing the used game market I’ll be happy.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. Erthazus

    ^ your PC is more powerfull then mine. :D I still don’t use Blu Ray reader. I still have DvD on it. I don’t know the reason why anyone should use Bluray reader right now :D except for PS3 fanboys.

    #35 2 years ago
  36. CyberMarco

    @33 I hope that video was a troll, as the OP. That’s why human species wont evolve if we continue arguing over this shit. So, if you have money you can enjoy the good things in life (in this case uber-awesome PC gaming) compared to the half-assed miserable console gaming… Yeah right!

    I would like to add that I do have a decent rig, custom built back in late 2010 (i7-950, 6gb ram, gtx 480). My PC isn’t only a gaming box, but it’s a tool too. I use it for my university studies, media entertainment and much more, and even if I stop playing PC games, I’ll still have a good investment for the future.

    I would like to add to those console haters, I just got a PS3 back in September 2012, although having a PC that is an overkill compared to it, just to “PLAY DA GAMES” simple as that.

    So please stop bitching around and enjoy your favorite hobby without making such a fuss.

    /stops rant.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. Samoan Spider

    @36 Haha, yeah, only reason for the reader is that the PS3 is upstairs at the moment and the PC is for watching BR movies downstairs. Although its getting a lot less use these days. And a reader I think is ok, I just can’t see the reason for a burner.
    But at least this proves PC gaming is a realistic alternative to consoles. Steambox will cement this. The only downside I can see is those ‘gamers’ who only buy a PS3, FIFA and CoD. They wont shift their habit and they need help.
    (I have played many iterations of both btw but my game tastes are an awful lot wider)

    #37 2 years ago
  38. Erthazus

    @37, It was trolling. :D But funny one.
    but he is a proffessional gamer and he have a tons of records. For example he has a tons of records in CoD, WoW, Diablo III and Civilization. Also he won pocker (World record for the most hands of poker played in 1 month) by playing few days on the PC and then donated everything to charity for children.

    That video is just for G1GA type of casual gamers, he should also play with him. Haha :D

    #38 2 years ago
  39. mistermogul

    @35 – Where can you get a 60gb SSD + 1TB HDD for £65 my friend?

    #39 2 years ago
  40. Erthazus

    @40, I don’t know about SSD, but I know for sure that you can get 1TB HDD for 25£ or 30£ at best. That’s for sure.

    I also know that for 73$ you can get Crucial M4 64GB 2.5″ SATA III SSD which is very good for that price.
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10440897&PID=3067296&SID=

    #40 2 years ago
  41. CyberMarco

    @39 I don’t to sound as an ass****, but damn are those some life achievements. -.-

    #41 2 years ago
  42. Erthazus

    @42, So by donating one million dollars to charity is not an achievement? He could buy something for what he won, instead he did the right thing.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. CyberMarco

    ^ I was referring to the “professional” part, Cod and WoW champion. Really constructive… Good for him that he donated that money, no argue in that.

    I just wanted to point out that society tends to reward such acts and ignore some more important…

    #43 2 years ago
  44. Telepathic.Geometry

    @Samoan Spider: Ya see, if you can build that kinda rig for about $500, I have hope that in 2014/15 Valve will be able to build a much more powerful rig with some fancy controllers thrown into the mix… ^-^

    #44 2 years ago
  45. Fin

    @34
    LOL we both know you’ve played far more corridor shooters than I. I forget, how many hours have you put into Call of Duty?

    I mean this with all sincerity:

    Go fuck yourself.

    #45 2 years ago
  46. Erthazus

    @44, Society does not ignore some more important stuff, it’s just government ignore these things. But what we all can do about that anyway…

    @Fin, You too, bro. Have a nice day.

    Stop editting your posts mate. :D that is stupid.

    #46 2 years ago
  47. Fin

    @47

    Ya sorry, I just said go fuck yourself, but then I thought I’d bring up Call of Duty.

    So, how many hours?

    #47 2 years ago
  48. Erthazus

    @48, less then you. I never touched Black Ops II and won’t touch that bullshit anyway.

    Also, you are out of the topic. Call OF Duty thread is somewhere else. So get out of here.

    #48 2 years ago
  49. Fin

    @49

    That’s not what I asked bro!
    Let’s try it again!

    How many hours have you spent on Call of Duty games?
    I never mentioned Black Ops II.

    You’re the one who brought up corridor shooters, I never mentioned them.

    #49 2 years ago
  50. Erthazus

    “How many hours have you spent on Call of Duty games?”

    Less then you. Got the answer? Now, get out.

    #50 2 years ago
  51. Fin

    @51

    I don’t think so bro. Pretty sure it’s over 400. For just one of them. Black Ops 1 I think it was? I remember seeing a screenshot of your Steam game page for it.
    I haven’t spent 400 hours on all the Call of Duty (6) and Halo (5) games I’ve played, combined.

    So we all know who the biggest CoD fan is here, right?

    #51 2 years ago
  52. Samoan Spider

    60gb agility 3 ssd was £40 from dabs eBay store and1tb HD was from a new WD blue drive from an eBay outlet for £25.
    Just so ya know. Not the best drives available but work very well for the money.

    #52 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.