I already like the upcoming generation with PS4, the new Xbox, and the Steam Box (while I totally ignore the Wii U). I like PS4 especially because

a) Sony have come to their senses and implemented the x86 architecture

b) Included lots of fast RAM in the system

c) Kept the costs relatively down the CPU solution and other components

d) Chose AMD and Fusion Architecture (or rather Bobcat - Jaguar).

e) Sound a lot more humbled this time etc...

I want to reiterate that my predictions, as always, were right on spot! I want to quote my own post from 2010. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=119706&page=1#

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 - on 16 November 2010

The Memories in computers are not improving as fast as they used to, so the next generation console systems are likely to include several GBs of RAM, and several Hundred GBs of Hard drives as given. On the other hand, the CPUs and especially the GPUs are still improving remarkably. However, they are also the major source inside consoles. They cause instabilities such as overheating, they are usually victimised by the system bottlenecks since they are, by definition, the fastest parts of the system, they cost the most among all others, and they are subject to the most fierce competition. In short they are of the most crucial importance of the system.

In addition to all that, we know that a system is only as fast as its slowest piece. In CPU - GPU solutions, one of those components are always the bottleneck (apart from the other unavoidable memory bottlenecks). Therefore it is logical to try to balance the power of those two. Given all that, it makes a lot of sense to create a cost effective and integrated CPU-GPU design like the AMD Fusion / Zacate.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked

This kind of approach, although not up to the modern mainstream CPU performance levels yet, is very effective in providing a very balanced and reasonable CPU-GPU performance with a very cost effective and power efficient way. I believe that should be the future of console CPU-GPU solutions. It's not only efficient & cost effective but also easily scalable. In other words, the APU (CPU-GPU package) can easily be upgraded without further complications.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 - on 17 November 2010

Now let's think about the power of Xbox, Gamecube and wii in CPU and GPU terms and then compare it with the first AMD APU model (Zacate).

Xbox used a modified P3 - Celeron hybrid at 733 Mhz and was easily faster than GC. The wii has twice the CPU power. Given that Zacate is easily faster than Dual Atom cores, which in return is much faster than P3, Zacate's performance should already be ahead of wii.

Xbox's GPU was something between Geforce2 & 3 as I remember, ahead of GC then. Wii should have roughly the same graphics capability as Xbox. Zacate, in this regard, is generations beyond wii, and should be comparable to Xbox 360.

Now that APU is only the beginning of the story, and specifically designed to be cost effective. That architecture will have been improven in the next couple of years, and the more flexible designs in a larger die or higher buses within, with more cores etc, has the potential to deliver a much better performance.

Guys, please remember that the GPU is the bottleneck in most games. Only few games are CPU intensive (like Starcraft 2), which can be reprogrammed accordingly. I haven't even mentioned the power and cost efficiency of the solution. They will be utilized on netbook and cheap ultraportables for God's sake!

Even the very first APU gives you a performance way beyond Xbox/wii and not too far from Xbox360. On top of all that, they are very programming friendly! I bet they can still easily design an APU today that will top both Xbox360 and PS3,  for a lower cost than their rivals respectively.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And...?

I like your observations. That is all.

thanks for the info. so the wii was more powerful than the xbox. and APU's look to be the cheap standard.

Actually, GC's CPU was comparable with Xbox CPU, even with lower clocks, thanks to architecture differences(P3 being a x86 CPU and Gekko being a PowerPC). Wii is way above the first Xbox in CPU power, as it runs at similar clock rates.

Based on the specs, PS4 seems quite bottlenecked by the CPU's. 8 Jaguar cores may be better than Cell, but not by much, we're talking about Atom competitors here. I believe GPU performance will be crippled because of the CPU choice.

That's a good reminder that we should open up and talk more about the Architectures like Jaguar (AMD) and whether or not they are the future and why? After all, I really like where the Steam is headed for example... The Apple's inclusion of "Account" approaches, which effectively makes all your purchases (games or apps) forward compatible has been embraced by Android, and other mobile platform and we start to see the same reverberations of this on consoles as well. Ouya adopts exactly the same approach, as well as the steambox. If the major console developers cannot adopt to this, they will sooner or later regret it. This will also solve the "major design every X years" and backward compatibility issues... In short,

- Firms should adopt the x86 architecture as the baseline and keep the architecture forward compatible. The systems can still have idiosyncratic tweaks and might require optimizations but "code-wise", they should be compatible (more like where the android and ios have been sailing through for several years).

- The consoles should be renewed yearly, with enhancement on the hardware and software. The idea here is to sell the most up to date hardware at a given (preferably low) price level (like $200-300). This way, there will be no too much fragmentation, only one variation for each year at incremental stages, and the developers may just target the most popular system as base but also scale up and down to others, and gradually shift the development cycle.

- This is great for developers because they don't have to re-learn the programming paradigm every X years. They have to go through all those extra fixed costs. They don't have to deal with PC level fragmentation.

- This is great for the console makers since they don't have to deal with enormous R&D expenses. They will also end up "locking down" their consumer base since all games are forward compatible, which is a MUCH BIGGER DEAL than $1-2 apps in appstore!

- Because of the "locking down" of consumers, The fight for market share will be much lower!

- This is also great news for the consumers because,

a) They will need to spend a few hundred dollars every 2-4 years, which is admittedly more than spending twice as much every 5-6 years but this way, their hardware is always up to date, their games are all forward compatible, and if implemented, downloaded from online servers at will. It's a big win

b) Consumers also don't have to worry about the "exclusives" or viability of their platforms as well. With such settled down market mechanism, their console makers may gradually erode or expand in market share and support, but it is very unlikely for an abrupt change to happen!

This is basically where Steam and Ouya is headed, a la IOS and Android Style, but without the backing up of a giant firm, such as MS, Sony and Nintendo, their viability is questionable. I am amazed that none of the Big 3 have come up with that kind of answer because I know I am not the only genius in town.

This is what I said about Xbox and Wii

"Xbox used a modified P3 - Celeron hybrid at 733 Mhz and was easily faster than GC. The wii has twice the CPU power. "

From here, it's unclear which one is faster but that is irrelevant. I was trying to extrapolate from the figure to come at an approximate performance range for the Bobcat cores and other AMD Fusions processors, and there I conclude that AMD Fusion is easily as fast as Xbox 360 (unlike what others were speculating). And then I argue/imply that it is highly likely and plausible to expect the next generation Fusion cores to have competitve performance to be inside the next generation consoles, considering that they make perfect sense from an efficiency (power and cost) point of view. And there You go! You see similar AMD cores in all 3 next gen consoles!

ok soyour talking about 9th gen. fusion aswell.

I was predicting the upcoming generation (2013 onwards) back in 2010, and I was right on spot. That was a relatively non-technical but scientifically feasible educated guess.

Also as a note, I don't think Wii was faster from Xbox CPU wise, at least not by a long shot. The CPU performance is vastly exaggerated in people's minds. The CPUs in current gen consoles are unbelivably slow compared to modern hardware. I'd say they are even slower than modern Atom processors. But those machines are still capable of producing pretty amazing results that your netbooks can't even dream of, thanks to a combination of right GPU, RAM, architecture and software mechanism and due optimizations.

My only concern about the PS4 CPU is 8 freaking cores. Having such level of parallelization WILL be a huge challenge for developers, and I expect a similar level of uphill for PS4 as in PS3, although it will be relatively much easier thanks to all identical x86 cores, rather than blind sided cell IPs, which could only certain tasks. Also the improved RAM and relatively better GPU is a big relief (The RSX was obviously an after thought in PS3).