Xbox 720: CPU houses 8 x64 cores – rumour

The L2 cache seems pretty small, considering if this cycle is gonna last as long as the current…

I’m pretty sure the PS4 and 720 will be equal power. And if not no developer is going to make a certain version of a game look better than the other. So fuck all these specs.

This is just another route to the same destination. The power on paper may not be the same, but the end result will be. Beware the trolls. They’ll be on this like flies on shit, but not a single one of them will understand what’s through the jump.

But does it play audio CDs?

That’s the real question, here…

^ Thats the dealbreaker for a lot of people!

@G1GA,
So true. I am canceling my pre-order of PS4 just for this.
Fuck Sony.

Supercharged PC.

That’s great, now all Multiplatform titles will be lead on the PC. That’s awesome. Thanks Sony and Microsoft.

@7 are these specs good?

@8 The answer he gives will depend on his mood

if this hint at some form of backwards compatibility with the x360 and microsoft goes to support disc games and xblive content for their x360 on the x720, SONY ARE IN FOR A NEVER ENDING SHIT STORM AND WILL LOSE BIG TIMES!

It’ll be interesting to see how the PS4 and nextbox compare in real-world performance.

Yeah, it will be interesting ….. for fanboys.

I can give you the answer: both weak.

^ Like your English.

^ Like your comment that has nothing to do with the topic.

@12 Both weak, but will still be very capable at playing games and I’d be comfortable enough to say that 1080p60 will be a breeze for these devices. If you can’t concede even that, then your opinion is invalid.

60 frames per second? Let’s see about that.

Why not? Think of how threaded both the graphics and processing load will be on this platform (PS4 AND 720). Both the xbox 360 and ps3 were capable of either 60 fps OR 1080p. So why can’t they achieve 1080p60 with this huge leap in horsepower? Give me a straight and technical answer please.
You know I’m a pc gamer but I’ll be buying both 720 and ps4 if the line up is varied enough so I have no bias in this.

well, 8 cores x86-64 CPU on 1.6 GHz — pretty dumb choice. 1) Xenon is really more poverfull, each xenon core could overperform whole 8-cores in unbalansed task (which is most natiral in gaming). 2) No xbox360 compatibility is possible — floating points instructions in x86 world quite nonstantart and Xenon could not be emulated on x86-64. 3) A lot of cashes == a lot of memory hit issues, a lot of slowdowns.

@17 You’re gonna be here all day if you keep going like that

Truth is that yes, consoles are going to be perfectly optimized for when they come out, and they probably will be top notch for another two years or so.

But what happens beyond that?

I would be surprised if it wasn’t just the same old pattern repeating itself.

@17, I’m going to buy PS4 or 720 too in the end depends on the games ofc.

But, next generation comes at a price. Next gen looking games require some decent power.

http://www.vg247.com/2012/12/18/carmack-believes-many-next-gen-games-will-still-target-30-fps/

+

http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/25/killzone-shadow-fall-demo-runs-at-30fps-digital-foundry-tests-suggest/

So i’m not super sure about 60 FPS. some games will probably have 60 frames like Gran turismo games or racing games. Maybe some Call Of duty games that look like shit.

“Both the xbox 360 and ps3 were capable of either 60 fps OR 1080p. ”

95% Of games had 720p games and 30 frames at best. What are you talking about?
50% of them even were below 720p.

If they were capable of 1080p/60 fps, that does not mean games supported that.

@17 This gen consoles were barely 720p/30fps

@18 1.6ghz jaguar > 3.2 Xenon. More cycles does not mean faster in this day and age. This will do so much more per cycle than the old xenon. 360 compatibility is not likely though as you say, PowerPC architecture vs x86-64. But not impossible.

@19 Yup, I know . After a couple of years, the game will change as usual and they’ll introduce the next shiny waggly must-have fandangly thing for the PS4/720 along with a price cut. So long as my PC games are optimised then I’ll be happy.

@20/21 Yup, I said capable. Some games used it, some didn’t. Most were 720p at 30fps but this is a massive leap none-the-less and no matter which way you slice it, all the technical sites running with this info are saying that they’ll be aiming much higher this round. Lets face it, 1080p was the big thing back then, then they realised that most people only had 1080i capable tv’s. So what was the point in busting a bollock for the extra screen real estate. That has changed. 1080p is the standard now for a much larger chunk of the populace. Times are a changin’

@22 Yeah, I’m not a hater, I don’t have a problem with someone using a machine I’m not.

The thing that really got me this generation though, was how limited the games became.

It seemed to me like they just started to have less of everything because they were designed for boxes that couldn’t really do as much as the developers could.

I will be surprised if they have 1080 and 60fps. Because the killzone effort certainly wasn’t running @60fps and I don’t think it ever will but its just my opinion. The proof will be in the pudding so to speak but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

I’m not big on specs and whatsoever, but is this good?

If it doesn’t have 8Gb of GDDR5 RAM I am out.

I don’t know man,, this doesn’t say anything about if it plays CD’s or not.. am on the fence

@20
“95% Of games had 720p games and 30 frames at best. What are you talking about?”

The other 5%?

Looks like people forget why games target 30fps. Next gen is easily capable of 60 fps at 1080p, but they could improve graphics significantly to lowering the frames, hence the trade-off.
Most console players aren’t bummed by it.

I’d rather have better visuals than 60fps. I notice 60fps when I have it, not when I don’t. Not fussed.

In other news:

NEXTBOX HAS A CPU!?!?!>?

NO WAY!

@27

I heard that MS could tweak it so that it won’t be much of a difference at all. Time will tell. I just wouldn’t understand it if MS comes with significant weaker specs though..it’s fucking MS. Ah well, we’ll see.

Yes, current consoles can do 60 fps and 720p at the same time.

http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-consoles/3015-3223/games/

Doing 30 fps (at least) doubles the rendering budget per frame, and that’s why it’s popular with the devs–prettier still shots, acceptable motion (to most users). It’s all a tradeoff.

Games I own that I know for a fact run at 60 fps at 720p:

Burnout: Paradise
Forza 4
Grid
Dirt 2

Yep, all racers, where full, synched frame rate is paramount.

@Cobra: GT5 on PS3 also runs in 60fps, internally rendered at 1080p (4:3, width is stretched), also MGR:R runs at 60fps on both consoles and Bayonetta mostly at 60fps on the Xbox360.

This generation already makes almost anything imaginable possible. Since the Xbox360 or the PS3, games could almost already look like some Pixar movie. Actually you will never again see such a high difference in graphics, like the difference from PS1 to PS2, or PS2 to PS3. People who are no experts in video-gaming or at least spend alot of time playing won’t really see a difference between games of this generation and the next one. It’s like standing in a TV-shop, trying to figure out, which TV has the best image quality, without knowing, that the only real with you bare eyes noticeable difference lies in some TVs standing farer away from the source-signal and the more expensive ones standing directly at the source.
The problem lies more with the budget, it is not only expensive to have an engine, that can render houndreds of thousands of polygons and high res textures on a current gen console, while people already want to have next-gen-like graphics. It is far more expensive to find out and compose the looks of a game that might or might not attract consumers, or to create thousands of square kilometers of high res textures and map them on good designed models, or to create content in terms of levels and 3D-modles, or to script gaming passages lasting 8 hours or so of gameplay with happenings and NPC-interactions in any possible way the player might want to approach and not making the player walk in empty corridors for even some minutes.
It will get a little easier with the new conosles, as they do not only have those abilitys, but developers can play arround a bit more with stuff and throw in more objects without caring too much for the performance. But they will still have to make the content as they do now and as the current gen already reached some kind of budget limit, games won’t really look better on first sight. What will be better is loading times, smoother framerates on 1080p in all games, switching between tasks, setting your console to sleep or wake it up almost instantly, getting into the marketplace of internetbrowser instantly while playing of whatever.

In my opinion, there will be no difference in the graphical output of multiplatform titles on PS4 or next-Xbox (like with the bad ps3 or xbox360 ports in this generation). It will even stay far closer to the graphical output of a PC, as the hardware will get less and less important. The only difference will be the quality of the art design, as it already is today. I think the next console-cycle will last alot longer than the current one. Something in the process of making games with patterns and stuff has to change radically first, before there will be another huge graphical jump, current PCs and the PS4/next Xbox can’t handle. It’s not 2003 anymore.

^ This. This is very good. Well said CF.

@34

just lol…….

Ive got a 360 and a pc both through the same 1080p 32 inch tv, my pc is running a gtx570 (midrange card) and the same game looks like its on a different generation on the p.c. There will be a huge gap in graphics, a proper 1080p game with hd textures looks a hell of a lot better than an upscaled game with poor textues ala ps3/360. games in point are BF3 and skyrim and GTA4

They probably need that many CPUs to run all the mother fucking ads they’ll shove in your face every time you turn on your console to play a game

@36 To me it does too, but his (correct) point is that to the gaming masses, it isn’t going to appear to be the huge leap it was previously. The bells & whistles count will increase massively, but do the gaming masses notice that?

@37 Don’t you think Sony has a lovely layout for adverts too now? Don’t pretend MS are the only ones wanting some Ad revenue. All the good business’ are selling you up the river these days

Yeah true Samoan, their layout for the next one looks like admania too unfortunately. How does the Wii-u look in terms of ads? Anyone got a Wii-u?

We already have a next gen title, it’s called wipeout HD. Beautiful game, 1080p, 60 frames per second.

I do wish people would stop saying ‘There’s not much of a gap this time’. It’s retarded.

Look at the Killzone demo (the view from the air), look at Deep Down. The jump is fucking huge and these are only the earliest of early demos.

Timed exclusivity on ALL EA games?

Killzone demo with graphics from 2007 Crysis on Ultra setttings. Cool story bro. Lol

Deep Down – amazing as F and how much of this was in-game and when it’s coming out?

@43

Sorry, but no. Way in advance of Crysis. Played Crysis on Ultra (more than once); Killzone (in the air) was miles ahead. Far, far more impressive.

My two cents. Not trying to start an argument here or disagreeing with any one as we’re all entitled to our opinions of course.

But, in my mind graphical horsepower is the least important element of every game ever made.

That’s because you can have the best looking game ever with graphics so detailed it makes your soul weep, but if the story is a bunch of unintelligible guff, and it has broken or messy controls then what have you got?

You have a very pretty-looking husk of a game.

I get ‘why’ visuals are important as they help with immersion and in setting scenes wonderfully, but I think devs need to nail the other core fundamentals before betting the farm on gloss.

Look at Pac-Man. It’s still a master-class in twitch gaming control to this day, Mario Bros. NES still has better platform controls than some modern platformers, but they look like shit now compared to say, Crysis.

To me, visuals are aren’t even a secondary concern. They’re so far down the list of priorities that I can’t even see them.

But again to stress this – I’m not saying any of you are wrong here. This is just my personal take.

Ta

*goes back to writing awesome features for you all*

@41 Granted close up the erection factor is quite large and potentially embarrassing in polite company when watching those demo’s, but then to hammer home the point of what people are saying, load up something like tomb raider on the PS2, and right afterwards load up Uncharted on a PS3. Are you telling me we’re going to see THAT kind of a jump again? That’s what its all about. Then throw in the fact that you will be sat 6-8′ from your TV and some of the eye candy will get lost. Smoothness and general bells & whistles (TM) will be improved however.

Moores law shall come upon thee.

“That’s because you can have the best looking game ever with graphics so detailed it makes your soul weep, but if the story is a bunch of unintelligible guff, and it has broken or messy controls then what have you got?”

Crysis? Killzone?

@44, “Way in advance of Crysis. Played Crysis on Ultra (more than once); Killzone (in the air) was miles ahead. Far, far more impressive.”

Which is not true at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSyF-5WQyIw

Not even close to these effects.

#45

A-freakin-MEN brother!

Testify!