By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - DF article: Sources say Samaritan running on next Xbox dev kit

disolitude on 26 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
usrevenge said:
Sal.Paradise said:
It surely can't be running at the same quality as the PC demo, or the Nextbox would be more expensive than a PS3 was at launch.

Still, nice to see that the next gen of consoles might be able handle something approaching PC quality tech.


are you clueless?
at launch consoles usually are the latest and greatest tech wise, there will be little distinction between the 2. and then even so when next gen does come out games will be made for console and ported to PC ( kinda like now but more frequent) so it again won't look much differnt

Haha.

Oh, you're serious, let me laugh even more. 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

While his post is pretty funny Xbox 1 and 2 were mid to high tier spec wise when they came out in terms of GPU. The Xenos used in the 360 was a hybrid of X1800/1850 and later to be introduced X1900/1950. 

Are you really trying to tell me that the x1800/x1900 hybrid gpu was as powerful as a high end nvidia geforce 7 series in SLI? Really?

As cool as SLI and crossfire are, it really isn't a benchmark of technology sophistication, efficiency or GPU power. Single GPU's is where its at for the latest and greatest...and SLi is just adding more of the same tech in to a GPU processing array. I'm surprised you didn't mention Quad SLI vs X1900/1950 which was also possible at the time using the 7900GTX2.

Bottom line is that Xbox 360 stuck the best GPU they possibly could in 2005 when it was released. X1900/1950 run curcles around 7800GTX and trade blows with the 7900GTX which came out 9 months later.

What a mess of an argument.

You're completely wrong here. SLI configurations are exactly, exactly, the latest and greatest in technology, and it is something that any home PC owner could do. To say that single gpu technology is 'where its at for the latest and greatest'  is like saying that a car with a single turbocharger is the latest and greatest, but not a car with twin turbochargers. It is technology available at the same time, and before, the 360's release, and it was and continues to be a realistic proposition for many PC enthusiasts that want high end machines. It is the definition of latest and greatest. 

And I do like how you contradict your statement by talking about quad SLI, more tech that is more powerful than the 360's GPU, I didn't even need to mention that as 'dual' SLI 7 series cards were more powerful already than the 360's GPU and they were available for anybody that wanted the latest and greatest, and let me remind you that for ATi cards the configuration is called 'Crossfire', not SLI. I think you are really out of your depth here mate, and these are just shallow waters. 

I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plain wrong. 

You're talking to someone that custom built this setup last year... http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=203722

And someone who has had 4890s in crossfire and GTX470s, GTX560s and currently GTX580s in SLI.

But thank you for acting smug in trying to lecture me what crossfire and SLI is.

You can stick to your argument all you want as I really don't care. Most people will agree that GTX680 is the current latest and greatest GPU. GTX680 in SLI is two of the latest and greatest GPUs in one rig.

My argument is based in reality with limitations and advantages that consoles have in terms of cost, power consuption and game optimization. For what they do and what they are used for, best possible GPU is the best choice for a console and easily enough GPU horsepower to compete with PCs on a 1080p screen and 60 frames per second (which is max single consoles need to do).

Setups like this one that is currently in my basement need SLI/crossfire to work, not game consoles.

Who knows, maybe next gen we are able to stack consoles for SLI/Crossfire like performance or multi screen gaming. Forza 3/4 and GT5 already do this with multiple PS3s/360s.



Around the Network
haxxiy on 26 March 2012

I agree that consoles have mostly catched up with PCs this gen, compare how PC and console games differed back in the 90's and now, the difference on graphics was absolutely massive,

Also, Epic has been pushing for a long time for a very strong next gen probably because they want costs to be so high most developers can't help but renting the UE4. See their predictions for new consoles in 2009,back in 2005, with CPUs of 1 TFLOPS and 60-80 threads, lol, not even Kurzweil is that insane, really.

Anyways AMD and other CPU makers already predicted in their roadmaps that semiconductor process shrinking is going to slow down to some three years for each new process starting 2013, although Moore's law should last a little longer due to optimization and such. Still a good opportunity to make consoles last even longer than this gen's 7 years or so.

So in the end consoles next gen will be noticeably more powerful, but anyone expecting MS of Sony to fit zettaflop photonic processors inside the PS4/Durango to please Epic and their bunch are cuckoo.



 

 

 

 

 

Slimebeast on 26 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:

While his post is pretty funny Xbox 1 and 2 were mid to high tier spec wise when they came out in terms of GPU. The Xenos used in the 360 was a hybrid of X1800/1850 and later to be introduced X1900/1950. 

Are you really trying to tell me that the x1800/x1900 hybrid gpu was as powerful as a high end nvidia geforce 7 series in SLI? Really?

As cool as SLI and crossfire are, it really isn't a benchmark of technology sophistication, efficiency or GPU power. Single GPU's is where its at for the latest and greatest...and SLi is just adding more of the same tech in to a GPU processing array. I'm surprised you didn't mention Quad SLI vs X1900/1950 which was also possible at the time using the 7900GTX2.

Bottom line is that Xbox 360 stuck the best GPU they possibly could in 2005 when it was released. X1900/1950 run curcles around 7800GTX and trade blows with the 7900GTX which came out 9 months later.

What a mess of an argument.

You're completely wrong here. SLI configurations are exactly, exactly, the latest and greatest in technology, and it is something that any home PC owner could do. To say that single gpu technology is 'where its at for the latest and greatest'  is like saying that a car with a single turbocharger is the latest and greatest, but not a car with twin turbochargers. It is technology available at the same time, and before, the 360's release, and it was and continues to be a realistic proposition for many PC enthusiasts that want high end machines. It is the definition of latest and greatest. 

And I do like how you contradict your statement by talking about quad SLI, more tech that is more powerful than the 360's GPU, I didn't even need to mention that as 'dual' SLI 7 series cards were more powerful already than the 360's GPU and they were available for anybody that wanted the latest and greatest, and let me remind you that for ATi cards the configuration is called 'Crossfire', not SLI. I think you are really out of your depth here mate, and these are just shallow waters. 

I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plain wrong. 

It's not wrong. It's perfectly correct that the X360 GPU was on par with the strongest PC GPU which at the time, which was the Nvidia 7800 GTX. The GPU in the X360 is around 75% of the power of a 7800GTX.



Sal.Paradise on 26 March 2012
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
usrevenge said:
Sal.Paradise said:
It surely can't be running at the same quality as the PC demo, or the Nextbox would be more expensive than a PS3 was at launch.

Still, nice to see that the next gen of consoles might be able handle something approaching PC quality tech.


are you clueless?
at launch consoles usually are the latest and greatest tech wise, there will be little distinction between the 2. and then even so when next gen does come out games will be made for console and ported to PC ( kinda like now but more frequent) so it again won't look much differnt

Haha.

Oh, you're serious, let me laugh even more. 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

While his post is pretty funny Xbox 1 and 2 were mid to high tier spec wise when they came out in terms of GPU. The Xenos used in the 360 was a hybrid of X1800/1850 and later to be introduced X1900/1950. 

Are you really trying to tell me that the x1800/x1900 hybrid gpu was as powerful as a high end nvidia geforce 7 series in SLI? Really?

As cool as SLI and crossfire are, it really isn't a benchmark of technology sophistication, efficiency or GPU power. Single GPU's is where its at for the latest and greatest...and SLi is just adding more of the same tech in to a GPU processing array. I'm surprised you didn't mention Quad SLI vs X1900/1950 which was also possible at the time using the 7900GTX2.

Bottom line is that Xbox 360 stuck the best GPU they possibly could in 2005 when it was released. X1900/1950 run curcles around 7800GTX and trade blows with the 7900GTX which came out 9 months later.

What a mess of an argument.

You're completely wrong here. SLI configurations are exactly, exactly, the latest and greatest in technology, and it is something that any home PC owner could do. To say that single gpu technology is 'where its at for the latest and greatest'  is like saying that a car with a single turbocharger is the latest and greatest, but not a car with twin turbochargers. It is technology available at the same time, and before, the 360's release, and it was and continues to be a realistic proposition for many PC enthusiasts that want high end machines. It is the definition of latest and greatest. 

And I do like how you contradict your statement by talking about quad SLI, more tech that is more powerful than the 360's GPU, I didn't even need to mention that as 'dual' SLI 7 series cards were more powerful already than the 360's GPU and they were available for anybody that wanted the latest and greatest, and let me remind you that for ATi cards the configuration is called 'Crossfire', not SLI. I think you are really out of your depth here mate, and these are just shallow waters. 

I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plain wrong. 

You're talking to someone that custom built this setup last year... http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=203722

And someone who has had 4890s in crossfire and GTX470s, GTX560s and currently GTX580s in SLI.

But thank you for acting smug in trying to lecture me what crossfire and SLI is.

You can stick to your argument all you want as I really don't care. Most people will agree that GTX680 is the current latest and greatest GPU. GTX680 in SLI is two of the latest and greatest GPUs in one rig.

My argument is based in reality with limitations and advantages that consoles have in terms of cost, power consuption and game optimization. For what they do and what they are used for, best possible GPU is the best choice for a console and easily enough GPU horsepower to compete with PCs on a 1080p screen and 60 frames per second (which is max single consoles need to do).

Setups like this one that is currently in my basement need SLI/crossfire to work, not game consoles. Who knows, maybe next gen we are able to stack consoles for SLI/Crossfire like performance or multi screen gaming. Forza 3/4 and GT5 already do this with multiple PS3s/360s.

No, your argument is wrong, as I outlined in my post before this.

"I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plainwrong. "

 It really is as simple as that. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument we are having, which I just outlined. I do appreciate your thoughts on everything else you mentioned, but it is not relevant to the argument. 



disolitude on 26 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
 

No, your argument is wrong, as I outlined in my post before this.

"I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plainwrong. "

 It really is as simple as that. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument we are having, which I just outlined. I do appreciate your thoughts on everything else you mentioned, but it is not relevant to the argument. 


So just to clear up everything here for people who don't have time to read all this stuff...

You are saying that 360 GPU when the console launched was not on par with a high end GPU you could get for PCs because you could buy 2 of those high end GPUs for the PC and run them in SLI/crossfire which would boost raw horsepower performance.

This is your argument correct.

My argument obviously is that if we look at GPU vs GPU, xbox 360 was in the high spec tier when compared to any PC GPU at the time.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 26 March 2012
Barozi said:
PC graphics are held back by consumers. No developer will risk a big budget game with insane graphics, because current consoles might not be able to run them, thus you cannot make them multiplat and lose profits and secondly there are not enough high end PC owners.


You only have to look at Crytek to understand your point more clearly.  They went that extra mile.  Crysis 1 was the premiere game to push current PC hardware.  Crytek paid a big price and afterwards Crysis 2 was born on a multiplatform engine.  PC gamers cursed Crytek for the decision forgetting that Crytek is a business and staying in business is their first goal.  Making bleeding edge games for the PC is not profitable enough to risk the investment.

Consoles do not hold PC games back, PC gamers hold PC games back.



Andrespetmonkey on 26 March 2012

tagged



My Music

DirtyP2002 on 26 March 2012

I am so ready for a next generation. Late 2013 will be the perfect timing.
Forza 5 on Xbox 3 would be insane for a launch title.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Sal.Paradise on 26 March 2012
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
 

No, your argument is wrong, as I outlined in my post before this.

"I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plainwrong. "

 It really is as simple as that. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument we are having, which I just outlined. I do appreciate your thoughts on everything else you mentioned, but it is not relevant to the argument. 


So just to clear up everything here for people who don't have time to read all this stuff...

You are saying that 360 GPU when the console launched was not on par with a high end GPU you could get for PCs because you could buy 2 of those high end GPUs for the PC and run them in SLI/crossfire which would boost raw horsepower performance.

This is your argument correct.

My argument obviously is that if we look at GPU vs GPU, xbox 360 was in the high spec tier when compared to any PC GPU at the time.

Yes, because an essential feature of the technology in PC GPU's is the ability to SLI/Crossfire them. When you buy a high end PC GPU, part of the high price you are paying for the GPU is due to the development and manufacture of SLI/Crossfire technology in them. It is expected that you can run them in some form of dual configuration, just as it is expected that you can, for example, overclock a GPU or CPU. Are you telling me that doesn't count also? 

Ignoring these essential features of PC GPU technology just because the technology is not viable in the console GPU is ridiculous. 



disolitude on 26 March 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
disolitude said:
Sal.Paradise said:
 

No, your argument is wrong, as I outlined in my post before this.

"I don't care about the bottom line or what was realistic for Microsoft, or Sony, or Nintendo, we are arguing about the statement you made that the 360's GPU is comparable to high end-PC GPU's at the time, and that is just plainwrong. "

 It really is as simple as that. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the argument we are having, which I just outlined. I do appreciate your thoughts on everything else you mentioned, but it is not relevant to the argument. 


So just to clear up everything here for people who don't have time to read all this stuff...

You are saying that 360 GPU when the console launched was not on par with a high end GPU you could get for PCs because you could buy 2 of those high end GPUs for the PC and run them in SLI/crossfire which would boost raw horsepower performance.

This is your argument correct.

 

My argument obviously is that if we look at GPU vs GPU, xbox 360 was in the high spec tier when compared to any PC GPU at the time.

Yes, because an essential feature of the technology in PC GPU's is the ability to SLI/Crossfire them. When you buy a high end PC GPU, part of the high price you are paying for the GPU is due to the development and manufacture of SLI/Crossfire technology in them. It is expected that you can run them in some form of dual configuration, just as it is expected that you can, for example, overclock a GPU or CPU. Are you telling me that doesn't count also? 

Ignoring these essential features of PC GPU technology just because the technology is not viable in the console GPU is ridiculous. 

All those things do count when it comes to optimizing PC performance but we are not talking about that.

We're not discussing which can be made in to a more powerful gaming machine with extra hardware or tweaking. We are talkng about the fact that xbox 360 GPU at console launch was as powerful as any high end single GPU available on the PC. Apples vs apples comparison... If Xbox 360 had 2 GPUs we could compare it to PC GPUs at the time in SLI/crossfire.