Are you a developer? Have you used it?

Frankly, I only added it as the general rumor of going IBM to AMD seems prelavant. But an 8-core beast seems far fetched and incorrect when you look at logical and realistic terms of heat, wattage, and of course cost.

Additionally, 8 cores is completely unnecessary for anything. Most PCs only have quad-core for a reason. Its not a damn server. 4 or 5/6 cores is more than enough, even if you consider Kinect needing one core to itself; very likely.

I'm betting on a 4core device with may a 2nd standalone CPU just for Kinect and/or OS. All 2011 (at best) tech and lower specs than high-end current PCs.

Um, I said 7970m is downclocked 7870, not 7970 - you now how both AMD and nVidia call their mobile parts one tier higher than their desktop parts. Sneaky bastards ;)

As far as I've seen, the HD 7770 is rated at 100W, and it doesn't give the performance of a GTX570 (the rumor talked adout dev kits featuring the 8 core Intel CPU and a GTX570). To get that level of performace you'll need a HD7850 or 7870, and those cards use 120 - 150W. Even with Sea Islands, the HD8xxx series, you'll need an HD8770 to get that performance level, and you'll still be in the 100W mark.

And then you not only have to worry about the power but also about other things as well. The Sea Islands GPUs are stated for release in spring 2013. If Microsoft launches their console in 2013 they will be in the hands of TSMC and as Nvidia and AMD know way too well, they aren't that reliable. They could end with a console launch without enough chips to met the demand and the ones they have costing more than planned.

Oops! My bad.

But yes, greedy bastards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units#Radeon_HD_7xxxM_Series

As I said, I have no idea how they make mobile version that is rated at only 75W (7970m vs HD7870).

What I can tell you people is someone is working on a 1,000+ core processor that is less than 10n and it's intended for a consumer device, not a server. Y'all figure out the rest of it.

For those of you who keep saying either the next Xbox or PlayStation console will be limited to no more than 4 processors, you need to start thinking out of the box. In the very near future you'll be looking at computing devices that are smaller than anything currently on the market (including the Raspberry Pi) and that have more computing power than a mainframe.

Next ms console will release in 2013, I think. 360 had a lifecycle of 8 years, do you think that 9 years from now 8 cores would be unnecessary?

How much do you want to bet?

Did you think 6 years ago 3cores was too little? Its a specialized product and can do a lot more with a lot less as compared to general PCs. Also, it won't be another 8yr gap. This gen was ackward thanks to Wii, the casual user, Kinect, and higher starting price points. Next gen will be different thanks to the explosion of the mobile market, iOS, Android, etc.

These coming consoles won't be "dedicated gaming consoles". They will be TV connected smart devices with strong gaming capabilities. They will also, very likely, have a shorter life-span and incremental upgrades over time. Part of why I think MSony will be far closer to WiiUs power than many of you want to believe. All you have to do is look at Win8, surface tablets, the leaked document that showed MS's complete vision circa 2010 to see this.

Last gen started 2005 and gave way to next in 2012. Next gen will start 2012 and give way by 2016 or 17 as incremental changes and full backwards compatability (in digital form) to previous gens. Much like how iOS and Android are updated yearly at the OS level but software just keeps being supported. These TV boxes will start to be replaced 3-4 years eventually vs 6-7 as now, but at lower costs and seamless transitions. Even some software overlap where new game can still play on older hardware. (sorry for the tangent)

While all these numbers are nice and all (8 core this, 3 gbDDR3 that) what REAL difference will these super powered consoles do that their current consoles (PS3, X360) cannot.

Is the so-called power of the PS3 already tapped out?
Can visuals really get any better than they are already now on 360/PS3? If the consoles will be at LEAST twice as strong, will anyone be able to tell the difference?

I'm confused...I understand why Nintendo did what they did with the Wii/WiiU, but with the power of the HD consoles now, will it really make a difference if they come out twice as strong as they are now?

I guess all this extra power just seems pointless to me I guess.

WiiU is not monumentally more powerfull than PS360 yet there are major things it can do that PS360 cannot.

Its not all about raw power, there are signifant visual technologies that require newer APIs and such.

Just compare say CODBLOPS2. We know PS360 run native at sub-600p and 60FPS (mostly) all on one display. We also know WiiU will be at 720p60fps all on one display while simultaneously at 480p60fps (true 16:9 too) and virtually no latency on a 2nd screen. That's no small difference.

Then you consider all the stuff that isn't visual. Size and scope of game, number of unique characters on screen, complexity of AI, OS and service capabilities like WiiU's ingame video chat capabilities. All that comes with newer technologies as well as the raw power being increased.

As it is now, any PC built game has to be greatly down-sized to be placed on PS360. Have you seen the visual and gameplay differences between PC Battlefield3 and PS360 version? Its a pretty massive difference and that's just one game.

There is significant room for improvement, even if using technology from a few years ago.