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. 

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. 

12-16x jump? HIGH END DUAL GPU PERFORMANCE? You are way overblowing it.

The PS3 was like a 10x jump.

Beyond 3D are expecting PS4/Next Box to be a 8x-10x jump and 3x-5x the power of Wii-U. 

So Wii-U is expected be like, a quarter of Xbox Next/PS4.

If they launch in 2014, then I can see your 12x reasoning happening but not for a 2013 launch.

Vita uses conservative off-the shelf part, it's not as cutting edge as PSP was at its' time.

And I still stand by my statement that Sony and MS will be releasing systems built more like the systems of the previous generations and not over-heating, noisy, over-sized, unreliable hardware that cost them so much this gen.

Yes the PS3 was a 10x jump after just 6 years that was my point we are closing in on 8 years, hence why a PS3 style throw as much tech as possible ignoring reason and cost console in 2013/14 would be more like 14x the current generation.

One poster does not a consensus make and nether of those posts contradict what I have been saying at all. All along I have been saying that next box and PS4 would be 6-10x the current generation and the Wii U arround 2-3x.

The Vita does not use just off the shelf parts, it is the only system that uses a SGX543MP4+ it was custom for the Vita saying it is off the shelf is like saying that the Xenos in the 360 was off the shelf because it's a tweaked X1900 chip. It is currently the most powerful mobile device out there and likely will be atleast until the iPad 3 if it does use a retina level display 2048x1536 as rumoured, because they are going to need a hell of a GPU to keep the UI resopnsive at that resolution.

And I stand by my statement that with 8 years of tech advances they won't need an overly hot, big and noisy console to make a generational leap.

And given how well the 360 worked out for MS this generation I doubt they would want to change stratergy to much, I mean they went from 24 million to 60+ and turned a profit in the last few years that is a massive win for them, I don't see how they would consider it a failure.

It's not just one poster, I linked his posts because he is one of the veterans of the forum and knows his stuff.

Anyways, we'll just have to wait and see who is right.

I think it will be me since I am superior to you and take more things into account like the business/financial feasibility of the consoles, not wanting dev costs to blow up too much, not wanting to be forced to have a gen that drags on too long (Like they were forced to this gen),  heat output and size of the consoles and them wanting to launch at a more market friendly price than just thinking MAXIMUM POWAH!!!

A gen that drags on too long?  How can you possibly come to the conclusion that it may be a bad thing?  Especially on a sales site like this here one. Ha ha ha.

It's not just one poster, I linked his posts because he is one of the veterans of the forum and knows his stuff.

Anyways, we'll just have to wait and see who is right.

I think it will be me since I am superior to you and take more things into account like the business/financial feasibility of the consoles, not wanting dev costs to blow up too much, not wanting to be forced to have a gen that drags on too long (Like they were forced to this gen),  heat output and size of the consoles and them wanting to launch at a more market friendly price than just thinking MAXIMUM POWAH!!!

i suppose there are advantages to longer console cycles...gamers don't have to dish out money for new tech in a few years, games are taking longer to develop so more time available for devs, more time to squeeze every bit of processing power out of the console.

But there are disadvantages too,like:

. the hardware companies missing out on revolutionary tech trends which could make consoles that have been on the market too long lose some appeal to possible customers and leaves an open window for a new player to seize the opportunity to enter the market

And yet you are saying they shouldn't go for cutting edge tech next gen... What "revolutionary tech trends" do you think they are missing now? The only thing I can think of is true digital distrabution, which could be done today if they really wanted to.

.The gap between consoles and PC would grow larger and larger which could lead to some of the graphics enthusiast console market migrating to PC because they are hungry for better tech and graphics.

But if you want to close the gap with PCs you are going to need a very poerful console, a single GPU PC today on the high end is already 10+x above current consoles, a half step generation would mean that PCs would be far ahead at console launch and the gap will widen quicker, and shorter gens that are just half steps wouldn't really help ether as they would still fall further and further behind. Not sure why this would be considered a bad thing tho, I mean PCs have always become significantly more powerful than current consoles within a year of launch and the age of multiplatform lowest common denominator development means that the power isn't really used these days anyway.

. The console manufacturers would want to move on to new hardware once their current hardware start to hit the impulse buying prices.

And yet you want the next generation to start out at a lower sub $399 (despite massive inflation meaning that it would be $355 in 2006 money) price point where they will reach impulse buying much quicker meaning using the usual price cut trend we could see a sub 5 year generation, that or sales stagnate because they don't want to drop prices.

. In the beginning of a new gen, you usually see devs releasing new, more innovative IPs. Not that it doesn't happen in mid-to-late gen but devs find it easier to launch new IPs with a fresh  gen to build a fanbase because at that time customers are very open to trying new things. As consoles get more mature it is the big established brands that soak up alot of the sales.

I think consoles will evolve into something like  a combination of Onlive and Steam before we reach a point where we have to have really long gens due to diminishing returns.

We are hitting deminishing returns now, didn't you read the Carmack quote? This is likely the last chance for a generational leap after this one there is nowhere to really go without some drastic change in the way graphics are rendered, like raytraced voxels or something but they require a 100x leap over current hardware.

Then a new gen will be the manufacturers sending out add-on hardwares like new controllers, a virtual reality system or a holodeck. =D

I'm just going on a limb here, who knows what we'll really end up with but I do believe consoles will evolve to something really new in the near future.

That we can agree on next gen is likely the last of consoles as we know them, deminishing returns and nearing the silicone wall plus the age of software updates mean that another generation after next would be a waste of time, until quantum computing or a holo deck which is still 20+ years off