By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 09 January 2012
Edit Thread
zarx said:
Play4Fun said:

The Xbox next rumour said 6 cores, 2 GB DDR3 and unknown V-RAM.

From what I've been told, 4GB would require 8 memory chips at minimum, and those are not going to be cheap memory chips. Furthermore they add to the complexity and cost of the motherboard and cooling system.

360 was originally meant to have 256 MB of memory but Epic convinced them to add another 256 MB which ended costing them a billion in losses. And I can't remember where I read this but it was said Sony was pushed to 512 MB because of MS adding more to their system.

I'm expecting 6850/6950 GPu levels of performance with 2 GB system RAM and 512MB-1GB V-RAM from 2013 consoles. So 2.5 - 3 GB in total.

I don't see  Sony and MS repeating this gen with big, hot and unreliable hardware and taking big losses.

MS is investing in kinect and broadening their appeal to not just core gamers but the more casual ones as well which plays well into their goal of becoming people's home entertainment center.

Sony has said that they don't plan to take huge losses with PS4.

I expect both to launch no higher than $399 and with those specs will put out games that are a huge jump over PS360 and blow the likes of BF3 out of the water.


That is using the current 30nm DRAM production a late 2013 release could allow 8gb production. But yes with current DRAM tech they would need 4 chips for each 2GB pool. But 1.5GB is far more likely than 512, I mean the 360 used 8 chips of 512Mb GDDR3 so it's not like it would be a lot more expensive as RAM prices have not gone up much since then even for GDDR5 and DDR3 is dirt cheap, it's getting to DDR2 prices these days.

The decision to go to 512MB may have cost them billions but I doubt they regret the decision because not only would their games look a lot worse than PS3 but they also would have to have cut features like cross game chat. And it also serves to show the power that Epic have and why I would not be surprised for Samaritan level tech to be what manufacturers end up shooting for just because Epic says that is what they should be shooting for.

If they were shooting for a 6850-6950 level GPU why use 2 GPUs for dev kitts why not just use a 6850/6950? It's clear that if dev Kitts have dual GPUs then whatever GPU they end up using is going to be roghly equel to 2 GPUs otherwise why spend the extra money putting 2 GPUs in the dev kitts when you could just use 1? The GPU will be at least = to a 6970, most likely it will be bassed on the seccond generation GCN (Graphics core next not gamecube) midrange GPU HD 8750/8770 level. 

You seem to be forgetting that these consoles will have the advantage of 8 years of tech advancement on their side not the standard 5-6 for a console generation. And that whatever tech MS and Sony will be using will be cutting edge tech in 2013/2014. If they were going for the throw everything in PS3 design philosophy we would be talking a 12-16x leap over the current generation. After 8 years anything below a 10x leap is conservative compaired to last generation.

Sony also said that they weren't planning to take any  loss on the Vita and look how that turned out, they lost money on each one sold and managed to deliver a system that was 4x more powerful than current available tech (iPad 2) and probably 6x the 3DS which is 2-3x the PSP. 


^This



Yay!!!