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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Can the 360 really live that long!

Mifely said:

The 360 will last 7 years simply because it has to.

Making a console "next-gen" past the architecture of the 360 is not impossible, but it almost definately involves making the next-XBox a parallel architecture, much like the PS3.  If MS want to make a console that is signifigantly faster than the 360, they have to completely redesign it, and that costs time and money.  MS will hold onto the 360 as long as they can.

The PS3 can leap to the "next gen" very easily, and it can even still offer backwards compatibility with the current gen, whereas the 360 likely cannot (due to its need to redesign).  The Cell could be scaled to have, for example, 32 SPUs, with 512 KB or 1MB localstore each, maybe even the PPU could be turned into something more similar to the 360's triple core processor.. voila MUCH more powerful console, thanks to forward thinking.  The 360 represents the pinnacle of "old school"... or maybe I should call it "last school" design, which is one of the reasons it has so much trouble with heat.

Since the old "hardware doubles in performance every 18 months" died during the development of this generation of consoles, I would venture to say that the console lifespans from here on out are going to be a lot longer, unless some pretty major breakthroughs show up in the near future (like cheap diamond wafers, although even that has near-term limits).


What are you talking about? Ahh, I see.. you're just another one who tries to sell The Cell-myth.

Consoles are about gaming, and gaming hardware relies on having a good GPU. And GPUs still double in performance every 18 months.



Around the Network

the 360 wont sell at the level of the ps2, but i see it lasting at least 7 years.



  3DS FC: 4355-9313-6815

evo03 said:
I think they will make it last. I don't think a new console from any one of the three will arrive before 2012. The 360 is making a profit and the PS3 will soon as well (if it isn't already) after expensive launches there's no way Sony and Microsoft will cut the legs out from under themselves just to repeat it all over again. Nintendo will have the Wii out for as long as they possibly can they've been making money from the start they will let it roll in as long as possible.

 I beg to differ. Sony plans on maintaining the PS3 for ten years but that is a plan that I think was complete BS. My opinion on that plan was that it was made because Sony's shares were falling over the PS3's losses. So Sony made up some crap about how they intended for the PS3 to slowly adapt and for it to last for ten years. However I can almost guarantee that the next PlayStation, Microsoft console and Nintendo console are well under way. I know that for a fact!

Nintendo will not keep the Wii as its main platform any longer then it has too. Do not doubt Nintendo's willingness to ditch the Wii at the drop of a hat as their primary platform. Why?, because the Wii will continue selling to cheap casual gamers long after their next generation console makes its debut.

Currently Wii software doesn't need to push the hardware envelope to maintain steady success. Nintendl has seen this and will likely keep the Wii around for along time. However I know for a fact that Nintendo already has its next console deep in development and I know that most believe 2011 will be its unvieling year.

Microsoft has a three phase plan that requires three consoles. Their next console will launch before or alongside Nintendo's. Once Nintendo's next console hits the market I expect to see PS3/360 killed off pretty quickly. My best bet is that Nintendo will turn the Wii into a 99.99$ console in 2011 and turn software development over to indy studios as a primary console for independants. The Nintendo WiiWare service will probubly be ported to their next console and they will probubly keep supporting the Wii through that.

 In the end I think once the next generation hits the market Microsoft and Sony will have no choice but to follow suit. Nintendo really controls when the next generation is going to start because if Microsoft/Sony don't beat Nintendo to the punch this time they will suffer crippling sales!

In other words I don't see seven years as that possible considering once the next generation is up and running they will get run into the ground. The Wii itself will go very low budget and kill off any current generation consoles that put up a fight! 



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

I'll be nice and give it 6 years. That means next one is '11



Life spans of 360 and next XBox will overlap for a couple of years. Expect next XBox to arrive in Nov. 2010 or Nov. 2011.



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:
Mifely said:

The 360 will last 7 years simply because it has to.

Making a console "next-gen" past the architecture of the 360 is not impossible, but it almost definately involves making the next-XBox a parallel architecture, much like the PS3. If MS want to make a console that is signifigantly faster than the 360, they have to completely redesign it, and that costs time and money. MS will hold onto the 360 as long as they can.

The PS3 can leap to the "next gen" very easily, and it can even still offer backwards compatibility with the current gen, whereas the 360 likely cannot (due to its need to redesign). The Cell could be scaled to have, for example, 32 SPUs, with 512 KB or 1MB localstore each, maybe even the PPU could be turned into something more similar to the 360's triple core processor.. voila MUCH more powerful console, thanks to forward thinking. The 360 represents the pinnacle of "old school"... or maybe I should call it "last school" design, which is one of the reasons it has so much trouble with heat.

Since the old "hardware doubles in performance every 18 months" died during the development of this generation of consoles, I would venture to say that the console lifespans from here on out are going to be a lot longer, unless some pretty major breakthroughs show up in the near future (like cheap diamond wafers, although even that has near-term limits).


What are you talking about? Ahh, I see.. you're just another one who tries to sell The Cell-myth.

Consoles are about gaming, and gaming hardware relies on having a good GPU. And GPUs still double in performance every 18 months.

 

 

The "Cell myth"? You mean the fact that parallal multi-core architectures are the future is... a myth? Intel, AMD, Sun, IBM, and every other processor manufacturer in existance don't appear to agree with you. They seem to believe in "The Cell Myth", as you call it. They're all working on simplified, 16-core processors at this moment, to beat the heat problems super-sized processors (like the P4) can't overcome with sheer muscle.

GPUs suffer from the same heat troubles that CPUs do, and you can't ship a console with a set of huge fans, empty airspace in the case, and special cooling units. They go in the living room, not the special air-conditioned chamber of your home that you use as a server-room, and because you spent thousands on keeping it extra cool, you also use it for gaming. They aren't going to keep getting faster without going parallel.

The fastest PC Graphics cards on the market today... Multiple GPUs. Increasing the number of GPUs available isn't really as difficult an architectural change as changing the CPU is, so if your argument is that MS can merely add GPUs to their existing 3-core, overheated design, and just reduce the die on the CPU to reduce heat... then that'd be a good argument... except that most console apps are limited by CPU power, not GPU power. They don't have the memory required (zillions of textures for huge multitexturing, super complex geometry, etc. take a lot of memory.. much more than the PS3 or 360 are usually able to provide, and still have a decent game) to push their GPUs to their limits and still have a decent game, really. You *can* push the GPUs too hard... but as a general rule, game developers are constantly struggling to increase performance on both the CPU and GPU -- and I would say the CPU is usually the one they work harder to improve software performance on, not the GPU. The CPU has to feed the GPU -- even the fancy GPUs on the 360 and PS3 still need to have their animation blending and physics done on the CPU before the data is pushed up the the GPU, and that's a hella lota work. There's no reason for more complex geometry on characters if you can't, for example, animate the bones in the skeleton to make it look realistic, and the big part of the expense with that is on the CPU, not the GPU.

If you doubt my claim, step back and think about it for a second. Why do you think ported games have, thusfar, tended to be so much faster on the 360 than the PS3? The 360s GPU is perhaps *slightly* faster than the PS3s, in certain circumstances (and the reverse may be true in other circumstances)... so why do you suppose the framerate is so drastically different? Its because the GPU output dependsupon the CPU that feeds it, and porting an app that is written to run on a 3-primary core CPU, to be an app that is meant to run on a 2-HW thread CPU and 6 SPUs is difficult, and publishers often push the ports out the door because they are tired of spending money on the framerate.

In order to be signifigantly better, as a platform, the 360 would have to change in a big way. increasing the number of cores it has to, say 6 or 8, is just going to make the chip crazy expensive and smouldering hot, if its even possible. The PS3's Cell, on the other hand, can probably up the number of SPUs very easily with smaller die sizes. It *is* a forward thinking architecture, no matter how difficult it is, for the average game development studio, to squeeze performance out of it.

 

As I said, this generation is built to last, as least as far as MS is concerned, for a pretty simple reason -- heat. I think 5-7 years per console generation is a dated concept, and if you did a little research, I think you might agree. If this issue was purely a business problem, Sony and MS might very well choose to release a new console by 2011 or 2012. At this time, however, the PS3 and 360 are powerful machines, and they won't be overshadowed by successors anywhere near that soon. If there's a new console by 2012, it'll be from Nintendo. The PS3 and 360 will just be cheaper and slimmer by then.

I wouldn't expect a new "high-end" console until at least 2013, and the ball is in Sony's court for making an easy upgrade on their existing hardware. MS is going to have to work for it, and its going to be painful... especially when they tell the customer "Sorry, backwards compatibility... totally impossible on the new platform" -- unless they're willing to include the entirety of the 360's triple core CPU on the new design.



If it keeps selling than it will but by 2011 microsoft will have another console out and do the same thing to 360 as it did for the original.



Mifely said:
Slimebeast said:
Mifely said:

The 360 will last 7 years simply because it has to.

Making a console "next-gen" past the architecture of the 360 is not impossible, but it almost definately involves making the next-XBox a parallel architecture, much like the PS3. If MS want to make a console that is signifigantly faster than the 360, they have to completely redesign it, and that costs time and money. MS will hold onto the 360 as long as they can.

The PS3 can leap to the "next gen" very easily, and it can even still offer backwards compatibility with the current gen, whereas the 360 likely cannot (due to its need to redesign). The Cell could be scaled to have, for example, 32 SPUs, with 512 KB or 1MB localstore each, maybe even the PPU could be turned into something more similar to the 360's triple core processor.. voila MUCH more powerful console, thanks to forward thinking. The 360 represents the pinnacle of "old school"... or maybe I should call it "last school" design, which is one of the reasons it has so much trouble with heat.

Since the old "hardware doubles in performance every 18 months" died during the development of this generation of consoles, I would venture to say that the console lifespans from here on out are going to be a lot longer, unless some pretty major breakthroughs show up in the near future (like cheap diamond wafers, although even that has near-term limits).


What are you talking about? Ahh, I see.. you're just another one who tries to sell The Cell-myth.

Consoles are about gaming, and gaming hardware relies on having a good GPU. And GPUs still double in performance every 18 months.

 

 

The "Cell myth"? You mean the fact that parallal multi-core architectures are the future is... a myth? Intel, AMD, Sun, IBM, and every other processor manufacturer in existance don't appear to agree with you. They seem to believe in "The Cell Myth", as you call it. They're all working on simplified, 16-core processors at this moment, to beat the heat problems super-sized processors (like the P4) can't overcome with sheer muscle.

GPUs suffer from the same heat troubles that CPUs do, and you can't ship a console with a set of huge fans, empty airspace in the case, and special cooling units. They go in the living room, not the special air-conditioned chamber of your home that you use as a server-room, and because you spent thousands on keeping it extra cool, you also use it for gaming. They aren't going to keep getting faster without going parallel.

The fastest PC Graphics cards on the market today... Multiple GPUs. Increasing the number of GPUs available isn't really as difficult an architectural change as changing the CPU is, so if your argument is that MS can merely add GPUs to their existing 3-core, overheated design, and just reduce the die on the CPU to reduce heat... then that'd be a good argument... except that most console apps are limited by CPU power, not GPU power. They don't have the memory required (zillions of textures for huge multitexturing, super complex geometry, etc. take a lot of memory.. much more than the PS3 or 360 are usually able to provide, and still have a decent game) to push their GPUs to their limits and still have a decent game, really. You *can* push the GPUs too hard... but as a general rule, game developers are constantly struggling to increase performance on both the CPU and GPU -- and I would say the CPU is usually the one they work harder to improve software performance on, not the GPU. The CPU has to feed the GPU -- even the fancy GPUs on the 360 and PS3 still need to have their animation blending and physics done on the CPU before the data is pushed up the the GPU, and that's a hella lota work. There's no reason for more complex geometry on characters if you can't, for example, animate the bones in the skeleton to make it look realistic, and the big part of the expense with that is on the CPU, not the GPU.

If you doubt my claim, step back and think about it for a second. Why do you think ported games have, thusfar, tended to be so much faster on the 360 than the PS3? The 360s GPU is perhaps *slightly* faster than the PS3s, in certain circumstances (and the reverse may be true in other circumstances)... so why do you suppose the framerate is so drastically different? Its because the GPU output dependsupon the CPU that feeds it, and porting an app that is written to run on a 3-primary core CPU, to be an app that is meant to run on a 2-HW thread CPU and 6 SPUs is difficult, and publishers often push the ports out the door because they are tired of spending money on the framerate.

In order to be signifigantly better, as a platform, the 360 would have to change in a big way. increasing the number of cores it has to, say 6 or 8, is just going to make the chip crazy expensive and smouldering hot, if its even possible. The PS3's Cell, on the other hand, can probably up the number of SPUs very easily with smaller die sizes. It *is* a forward thinking architecture, no matter how difficult it is, for the average game development studio, to squeeze performance out of it.

 

As I said, this generation is built to last, as least as far as MS is concerned, for a pretty simple reason -- heat. I think 5-7 years per console generation is a dated concept, and if you did a little research, I think you might agree. If this issue was purely a business problem, Sony and MS might very well choose to release a new console by 2011 or 2012. At this time, however, the PS3 and 360 are powerful machines, and they won't be overshadowed by successors anywhere near that soon. If there's a new console by 2012, it'll be from Nintendo. The PS3 and 360 will just be cheaper and slimmer by then.

I wouldn't expect a new "high-end" console until at least 2013, and the ball is in Sony's court for making an easy upgrade on their existing hardware. MS is going to have to work for it, and its going to be painful... especially when they tell the customer "Sorry, backwards compatibility... totally impossible on the new platform" -- unless they're willing to include the entirety of the 360's triple core CPU on the new design.


I believe he was refering to your comment that 'the old "hardware doubles in performance every 18 months" died during the development of this generation of consoles' which is simply not true. Moore's Law basically states that the number of transistors that can be put on the same sized microchip will double every 18 months; people have speculated that this may stop being true within 20 years but it is still alive and kicking as we speak. In fact, as we move towards a 45nm microchip it is possible to fit 4 times as many transistors on a microchip than were possible on the 90nm process that both the XBox 360 and PS3 used.

By the end of 2010 it should be possible to take advantage of a 22.5nm process for both a CPU and GPU which would translate to 16 times as many transistors as were possible on either the XBox 360 or PS3's processors. What this means is that it would be fairly easy for Sony (for example) to release a 4 core cell processor, with each cell-core having 9 SPEs, that would (potentially) run at over 6GHz ...

The "Cell Processor Myth" is essentially the belief that the release of the Cell processor (somehow) broke Moore's law which is simply untrue.



HappySqurriel said:

I believe he was refering to your comment that 'the old "hardware doubles in performance every 18 months" died during the development of this generation of consoles' which is simply not true. Moore's Law basically states that the number of transistors that can be put on the same sized microchip will double every 18 months; people have speculated that this may stop being true within 20 years but it is still alive and kicking as we speak. In fact, as we move towards a 45nm microchip it is possible to fit 4 times as many transistors on a microchip than were possible on the 90nm process that both the XBox 360 and PS3 used.

By the end of 2010 it should be possible to take advantage of a 22.5nm process for both a CPU and GPU which would translate to 16 times as many transistors as were possible on either the XBox 360 or PS3's processors. What this means is that it would be fairly easy for Sony (for example) to release a 4 core cell processor, with each cell-core having 9 SPEs, that would (potentially) run at over 6GHz ...

The "Cell Processor Myth" is essentially the belief that the release of the Cell processor (somehow) broke Moore's law which is simply untrue.


By 2010 we will at most be at the 32nm process node not the 22nm one. Given the same silicon budget as before there will be 8 times the number of transistors theoretically. One of the problems chip companies will face is at the density increases the leakage of transistors will also increase and that bumps up the heat output.



Tease.

Squilliam said:
HappySqurriel said:

I believe he was refering to your comment that 'the old "hardware doubles in performance every 18 months" died during the development of this generation of consoles' which is simply not true. Moore's Law basically states that the number of transistors that can be put on the same sized microchip will double every 18 months; people have speculated that this may stop being true within 20 years but it is still alive and kicking as we speak. In fact, as we move towards a 45nm microchip it is possible to fit 4 times as many transistors on a microchip than were possible on the 90nm process that both the XBox 360 and PS3 used.

By the end of 2010 it should be possible to take advantage of a 22.5nm process for both a CPU and GPU which would translate to 16 times as many transistors as were possible on either the XBox 360 or PS3's processors. What this means is that it would be fairly easy for Sony (for example) to release a 4 core cell processor, with each cell-core having 9 SPEs, that would (potentially) run at over 6GHz ...

The "Cell Processor Myth" is essentially the belief that the release of the Cell processor (somehow) broke Moore's law which is simply untrue.


By 2010 we will at most be at the 32nm process node not the 22nm one. Given the same silicon budget as before there will be 8 times the number of transistors theoretically. One of the problems chip companies will face is at the density increases the leakage of transistors will also increase and that bumps up the heat output.


Well, I was talking about the end of 2010 (basically a little under 3 years from now) so the 32nm process will be the mature process but a 22.5 may be possible. Regardless, the point was that Moore's law has not stopped and processors will be a lot more powerful than the cell by the end 2010.