Just to fixed... PS3 had a ~250 GFLOPS GPU.

If we assume it's 512 MB for the OS and 1 GB for the GPU, that'll leave 2.5 GB. I think it's not enough in the long run. It's good for now but it won't be after the first few years. Well, I mean, devs will learn to live with it and it problably gives them a lot more room to breathe than they have now with the PS3 but they'll still be struggling. And I believe we can say that the PS3 is a good example of how faster memory doesn't help nearly as much as more memory. Also: open world games. They sure seem to like their RAM more than more linear games do, and open worlds seem to be where we're going. Not with everything of course, but they're a big thing now and I don't see them losing popularity any time soon.

Also, I haven't really looked into the Durango rumors. I've heard them and I'm not really comparing these rumors to those. It's kinda unbelievable MS would put 8 GB in it and then take 3 GB for the OS. 3 GB, seriously? I'm running Windows 7 with about 2 GB in use right now, and that's with some rather unnecessary stuff running - and I'm sure they could cut it down by quite a bit for their console.

PS4 can't come soon enough!

And the 51st leak is about to be myself stepping aside to use thet bathroom.  Later everyone!

I'm confused.. some sources say PS3 has a 400GFLOPS GPU while others mention ~250.. which one is correct? (Not questioning you, just asking because you seem to be a more reliable source than wikipedia )

I dont understand people's comments. Some are actually dissapointed at the rumored specs in Orbis and Durango!

Wow. It just shows how out of touch some people are with tec.

Before i get into this, keep in mind PC gpu's and cpu's can at times progress really quickly. Every year we see a performance increase of ~15 - 30 %. Sometimes even more than that in real life performance. I was particularly impressed with this gen's increase in performance. The HD7000 series and the gtx600 series shat all over last gen stuff. My gtx560ti performs significantly worse than a HD7850...we looking at 30% worse. Yet it was cheaper when it released.

To put that into perspective, i can comfortably run all games (with a strong cpu) that i play on full settings at full HD resolution. This includes battlefield 3, Far Cry 3, Crysis 2, Crysis, Starcraft, Dota 2, Skyrim, Batman, etc. The list goes on. For the most demanding games i simply turn down aliasing or switch certain settings down a notch.

I would also say most PC enthusiasts and PC gamers are rocking similar specs to me....theres not a lot of people buying the 680's every year. That's a handful of people. Most people reading this comment (and this is on a gaming forum) don't even have my PC specs. Or even close for that matter. So that's one thing...why the fuck do people compare console specs to PC's when they themselves don't have that high end PC spec (and probably never will?). I really don't understand this.

Now if we look at the rumours...Orbis is rumoured to have a HD7850/7870 gpu with 8 jaguar cores (which is possible in a apu setup). Think about this for a second. If i had told you about 10 months ago that Orbis would ship with a HD7870...people would have said no ways! You crazy!

Personally i was hoping for this. The 7870 is a high end card in REAL LIFE GAMING. Yeah price wise its not...but the only reason its like that is because NVIDIA/AMD can make better cards, and simply charge more for it. With optimization the 7870 can run any game currently on the market easily. At full hd res, with full settings, 30 - 60 FPS. This is good news. Take away the overhead of a PC OS, take in account the customisation, the fact that this is a machine built entirely for gaming, the full control developers have over the hardware etc. And you looking at what i think will be a major leap. What's even better about this rumored specs and the current gen, is that it seems to be waaaay more power efficient, and significantly more cheaper.

People who were expecting more than this for consoles released at the end of 2013 were completely delusional. If they had put a gtx680 in there...you looking at a system that would be ~16x - 20x more powerfull than last gen. Thats simply unnecessary and inefficient. People also don't seem to take into account architectural gains that have been made over the years. The wiiU gpu on paper might only have double the performance of last gen gpu's but the architecture gains has been amazing and will EASILY outperform last gen graphics. This will become apparent in the next year or two.

Is this good news for a PC enthusiast? probably not. They will remain ahead of the curve and then some.

Will the next gen consoles wow the masses? I say ofcourse they will. Especially given the rumoured specs of Orbis and Durango. Hell people were going crazy over the new monolith soft game...and thats just with 2-3x the power of this gen. Imagine what will be possible with 6x - 10x more power.

He's in no way a reliable source :P

Wrong math due the confusion with the architecture.

RSX have 24 pixel pipeline that can run 2 vector4 ALU ops per clock... more 8 vertex pipeline that can run 1  vector4 ALU ops per clock... so you can at maximum run 56 ALU ops per clock.

56 ALUs * 4 (vector4) * 2 (madd) * 550Mhz =  246.4 GFLOPS

The guys in Wikipedia get a number from I don't know saying each pixel pipeline have 27 FLOPS per cycle and each vertex pipeline have 10 FLOPS per cycle: (27 FLOPS x 24 pipelines de pixel) + (10 FLOPS x 8 pipelines de vertex) x 550 MHz) = 400.4 FLOPS

But that was wrong because that's the full power for any operation... not for floating-points (FLOPS is just the count of floating-points)... for floation-points the each pixel pipeline in RSX have  16 FLOPS and the vertex pipeline have 8 FLOPS.

The people make some crazy maths sometimes or get the wrong info... I don't know where the Wikipedia got that 27 FLOPS / 10 FLOPS per pipeline.

Oh really?

Then show me how the RSX have 400 GLOPS performance or even the 1.8 TFLOPS said by Sony.

I'm interested.

PS. The G71 have ~200 GFLOPS... the RSX is G70/G71 based.

Couldn't the OP contain a little explanation of all the technical terms used in this thread? It would be very helpful for fools like me :)