sure an iphone isn't a console and we can't compare these but it still makes no sense that we all paid like $399 for the 360 but won't pay like $450 for the next xbox. it would mean loan adjusted that we wouldn't pay more than in 2005. we would still pay less then!  we are stupid to think so or the average customer as well. it makes absolutely no sense to get loan increases almost every year or few years not and then a big increase but we don't want to pay more for consoles.

you know what that means? most people will still think like this "i won't pay more than $400" in 20 years but microsoft has to pay double the amount than nowadys for the employees/energy/whatever so they only can bring us a console for that price if the console isn't anything as good as it could be for let's say $700 which would still be lower for us than paying $400 in 2005 compared to our income.

or with games i live in germany and i paid ~120DM for n64 games games. some games did cost like 140DM and i think 120DM for snes as well but i'm not sure for that. now i pay 50-60€ which is less than 15 years ago or so (60€ would be like 117DM i believe). if microsoft would sell the 360 games for 80€ it would be still less loan adjusted but what? noone would do this... hell if microsoft would say "next gen the games will cost 10€ more", everybody would cry but that makes absolutely no sense. the developers have more and more costs sure big blockbusters make still much money but just look at the annual reports of ubisoft/ea whatever. if we would pay 10€ more that would be more than fair but noone want to do that. but if you pay 3€ for your coffee in a cafe or 2€ 10 years ago most don't care about that lol.

my cinema costs more and more every fewe years and nobody cares. they still run in it and why? because it's fair. it's fair to increase the ticket 20% after a few years. they have to pay more for lease, loans and everything that's why i give them more and that's why my boss gives me more to have money for all of that in my life.

btw you said if people want to pay more the pc is the best for them but that's not true. i have a monster pc but i stil couldn't play like 16 of my favourite 20 games this gen if i wouldn't have one or more consoles. sure i can play battlefield and skyrim on my pc but no forza, gt, uncharted, mario...

I didn't really read the stuff so now I'm gonna call fake since single die dual core is some retarded shit that somebody'd come up as they might as well make one powerful GPU instead, the person who made that shit up obviously doesn't understand the point of parallel processing in those shader cores, instead of using the space for another GPU core, it's better spent on fitting in more custom pipe lines.

2GB is required to run BF3 on Ultra is about it since it takes 1.4-1.5gigs  at ultra.

as long as the gameplay is great, process all the gaming power you want......learn from Nintendo, gameplay over graphics....and now they are meshing both

Your crystal ball must still be working. Mine broke the other day so I can't see the future anymore.

All joking aside, you're wrong. The current consoles can even support more than one monitor, so why wouldn't their predecessors?

And what's really sad is that you feel the need to compare a full fledged $1000+ game rig to a console that will be under $500 and perform very similarly if not better at certain things.

Oh and by the way, these are rumors, not facts, so again, silly to compare right now.

Not really.

Let's just look at the specs a little closer:

CPU: A six core PowerPC, upscaling from current processors, would have a TDP of around 150-175Watts, a die size roughly 250mm^2, around $60-$80 to manufacture.

eDram: The current 10mb Edram in the xBox is a 60mm^2 chip (45nm) that probably is in the $4 region. If they can manufacture the 100mb chip in 28nm technology (someday late 2012 at the earliest), it would be a (very hot) 250-300mm^2 chip around $50

GPU Dual die:  two low to mid range single GPUs each, a die size roughly 200mm^2, a (very hot) chip around $50-$60.

So these specs point to roughly $170 for the three main components only. Add the same to the rest of the machine and you get around $350 manufacturing costs for the next XBox.

Also note there is currently only one company in the world that can manufacture 28nm dies with reasonable yields. And that company has tailoured all processes to one design, its processors. Neither AMD, not TSMC, nor any other manufacturer (that cater to any customers, each one with its own design philosophy) will even be close to being able to master a sub-30nm process with reasonable yields well into 2013. So manufacturing costs are likely 50-80% higher than estimated above.

So these specs are simply wishful thinking if we look at 2012. Maybe late 2013, but we all have seen that MS has burnt billions on faulty XBoxes so it is not impossible that they take a $300 hit on every new XBox just for bragging "First" again.

CPU: We barely know anything about the CPU and already you are estimating a price from nothing.

EDram:  100 MB ISN'T EVEN REALISTIC! It would be so unnecessary that even PCs wouldn't catch up to it for a long time. That's ALOT of edram! The  fact that you would even entertain such obvious bullshit shows you don't really know what you are saying. That site has already been deemed unreliable BTW.

Besides the 100MB eDRAM, 256GB/S GDDR5 ram would also be expensive.

Dual GPU: The console is not going to come with a dual PGU.

Look, I am simply calculating the manufacturing costs (and, like it or not, I _have_ enough experience in that regard) from the assumed specs given in the op. Nobody says these are "the specs" (and my estimates would indicate they aren't commercially feasible). None of your answers have anything to do with this thread or my answers. Just a few things so that I didn't waste typing time:

If MS continues with the eDram design trick on the next Xbox, they will have to increase the size to go 1080p. As you can see, my estimate shows that it won't be 100mb. Whether they retain eDram or not is a question on how powerful the GPU will be. If the new GPU is powerful enough, they can drop the eDram trick and save a large sum of $$. If they figured out the eDram trick still gives them an edge, they will use it again.

Your dual "PGU" bit is so obvious I didn't even mention it at first. Way too expensive - you either pay for glue logic (two chips to same ram) or for ram (2 chips to 2 rams as in the dual PC graphics boards). However, it is entirely possible that early developer units come with a dual GPU layout - just because the manufacturing process for the new GPU (whatever it will be) is not yet ready, finalized or simply doesn't work properly yet. AMD mentioned years ago that they would be going away from the "Monsterdie GPU" to a scaleable assembly of small GPUs (on one or multiple dies). Maybe the new XBox GPU will emerge as the first appearance of that design principle.

My rig was 700. :P

Link me to where an Xbox 360 and a PS3 can support two monitors? PS3 was supposed to before it released but they got rid of it.

Anyway, consoles suck.

Forza 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CVe2JszalI

I have seen Forza 4 do this as well, so it may be limited to a few select games like this, but it is still possible. And you scored a 6 core intel processor, plus had enough to build the rest of your system for just $700? I find that hard to imagine unless you maybe went low on RAM/GPU/Power Supply, or aren't including the OS? I build computers as a hobby and even a side business, so while I suppose you could have a cheaper 6 Core AMD processor, you'd still be pushing it to get good quality combination parts and fit under $700, but I suppose it is possible.