Launch games Gears of war 3 and Halo Reach and people will stand in the line for it :).

For people saying these specs do not sound reasonable, be aware that 6 PPE cores would provide the hypothetical X360 with 12 working general-purpose threads, 50% more than the top Core i7. I'm not comparing console CPUs with PC CPUs, but you get the picture pretty clear anyways.
1024 MB of GDDR5? That would be reasonable if MS are going for a GC>Wii-like transition, seeking to dominate the market. 256-bit data bus, providing about ~128GB/s of bandiwidth, five times more than the XDR DRAM found on the PS3.
About the 600MHz GPU... well, I thought it should be 500MHz at the very top to keep the console within a reasonable power consumption.

I'm not saying I believe these specs, just pointing some stuff out.

MikeB said: If true, sounds like a disbalance between storage capacity and graphics potential. The upped EDRam should provide a lot of additional graphics potential, so a true 1080p console like the PS3 in terms of full potential. The PS3 will still have the advantage of more storage (Blu-Ray vs DVD) and higher performance processor (6 cores vs 8 processors for the PS3 with fast local system memory) which may compensate for the 360's newer GPU. The NextBox will then however provide more system RAM than the PS3 and a faster loading internal drive. Technically the PS3 would be about on par, but IMO Blu-Ray >>> more system RAM for a games console. I hope it's true, as it will up the potential for cross platform XBox/PS3 gaming and I hope PC devs will start to move towards Blu-Ray in the coming years, then the PS3 would have an edge for cross platform PC/PS3 development in terms of game potential.

Haw haw haw!

The only statement in this post that is remotely true is the "disbalance between capaicity and graphics potential".

So... a system with enough EDRam to provide free anti-aliasing in 1080P, a vastly more newer GPU with more features, and for 6 full cores as opposed to 8 memory limited SPU's (one of which isn't even used) is only on par with the PS3?

Also, how can a console on which a huge fraction of its games CAN'T run at 1080P be called a "true 1080P system"?

This architecture would do FAR more than be "on par" with a PS3.  However, I think it is a foolish manuver.  If MS is considering this, they should stop immediately.  They are going to alienate existing users if they launch in 2010.  Plus, there is no need.  Wait until late 2011 and launch that system with....

*  An even better GPU for the same cost.

*  2 GB of system RAM

*  A high def storage medium

*  250 GB hard drive, no SSD - cost issues

*  Keep the rest the same.  Call it the XBOX 540

shams said: You guys are missing the point. If this is *backwards* compatible - and if it contains the same CPU, same architecture - just souped up - its basically an enhanced 360. MS are overdue on a 360-slim - we also know that the 360 still suffers from bad architecture in general. If MS can make this happen, and at a near-Wii pricepoint - it would be huge. It would also be the perfect way to launch NATAL. NATAL on its own might take 1-2 cores and a heap of RAM - so give half the machine to NATAL, and the other half to run games. They really do seem hell-bent on hurting Sony - this would go a long way towards doing so. NATAL only-software would run on NATAL-only hardware anyway - so why not bundle the controller with an updated console? It also means they could slash the price of existing 360 models - making a lot of gamers very happy. ... Not saying its true, just saying that it sounds possible to me. It would be aimed at the Wii-market, and launch with a Rare developed Wii-Sports rip-off (or similar). Only thing that seems 'odd' is the choice of a SSD rather than hard disk... wonder why? SSD makes much more sense for a portable device than a console.

Shams, you are missing the point:

1-  Casuals aren't bored with the Wii, and  they're not of the "Ooh shiny" variety like gamers are. They could advertise Natal and this propsed "upgrade" until they're blue in the face, casuals who own Wii systems aren't going to bite. The likely response from this crowd will be "$200? For another game system? That's airfare to Florida right there. My Wii good enough, thanks."

2- Going on that, Nintendo isn't going to sit idly by, and instead be continuing to impress their customers with more interesting products. Every other person has dismissed that fact that Ubisoft is coming out with a motion camera for the Wii in 2009. This will further confuse the casual gamer to see what the big deal is over another gaming system a year later on.

Basically the only way this can be huge, as you say, is if the current 360 fans go out and buy the new version. Ps3 fans will continue to resist, being the loyal fanbase that they are. Ultimately, the news only delays my 360 purchase to a wait-and-see approach. If I was going to drop money on a 360 for $300, I'm sure as hell going to wait and see if there's any truth to this news, to get a more powerful 360 next year, if it happens.

Infinity said: 5 year cycle...right on the money. 360 came out is 2005, definitely due for a new console. Though this console still has shortcomings even compared to the current gen PS3. The PS3 has one single core CPU and one Cell CPU with 7 active cores + 1 core for redundancy. This new Xbox only has one 6 core CPU. Secondly, XBox Live is presumably still not free for the next Xbox. Thirdly, using the same media 3 generations in a row is lame. DVDs will not have enough storage for all next generation games. Disc swapping is so 5 years ago.

Only 6 of the Cell SPEs are enabled for games (1 is disabled in hardware, the other one is reserved by the OS).

More importantly, the vast majority of games are limited by the GPU, not the CPU. With more RAM and a vastly better GPU this new Xbox would be capable of significantly better graphics than the PS3.

 

It seems like a step in the right direction if, as others said, they are trying to pursue a Wii-like strategy, its a 2x leap forward, enough to provide a better experience, but not break the bank for either the consumer or the manufacturer. They could then be aggressively priced from the get-go, and start moving forward from there

@ Crazymann

All systems are memory limited, just some more than others. You can make efficient use of the available memory, like a NeoGeo was extremely memory limited for its time or an Amiga 500 vs PCs with tons more system memory requirements for its time.

Entry model Amiga 500 vs top range PC gaming (usually multiple times the memory requirements, both regarding system memory and harddrive capacity):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cETl8PhUy_E

The PS3 still has a lot of untapped potential, however game engines have matured a lot as is evident by comparing a game like Uncharted 2 to early PS3 efforts.

The NeoGeo was so powerful despite its tiny memory footprints due to fast streaming of data using cartridges, I think similarly PS3 streaming engines will play an ever more important role to demonstrate its capabilities (and Blu-Ray is most excellent for this).

Compare c64 games which only had a single load of 64KB max to later c64 games like Turrican 2, which loaded this per level. Streaming goes much further than that, you are no longer strictly memory limited per level.

@MikeB: Way to ignore the gist of what you were replying to (as usual).

In 5 years you'll still be saying the PS3 can surpass the newest GPUs.

 

1. I don't think they would go to a SSD as that is still rather expensive. Instead I would see internal flash drive w/ SD card slot for expansion as a more practical solution if they went away from regular HDD.

2. I doubt it would carry a regular DVD drive. Probably more likely a bluray or one of the many other large capacity HD type of drives that are not Sony property and still could easily play DVDs.

Other than those two things, everything else seems plausible as it would allow a sub-$300 pricing at launch next year and probably still give the ability to make a slimmer design.

As I said, those specs are laughable and it's obviously fake, but let's imagine for a second that they were true.

People would laugh Microsoft in their face.

MS would be a pathetic 4 years behind in trying to "do a Nintendo" (Wii launched late 2006 - this 'only-twice-the-power-of-X360' console would launch in late 2010). MS would be run over by Sony's hardware powerhouse PS4 within a couple of years and lose all of their hardcore audience.