Microsoft XBOX ONE


As for the processor it will have , who knows, however, if you look at the xbox cpu's.

The Xbox had a 733Mhz Pentium 3


The Xbox 360 had a 3.2 Ghz PowerPC Tri-core Xenon


Stands to reason the Xbox 720 will have more than a quad or six core - that would just be to small a progression(especially after 8 years). Mind you it probably wont be out until the end of 2013. I think there is a fair chance it will be an 8 core system or at least 2 quad core processors , but who knows, time will tell.

Come on now, you're extrapolating using two data points. Saturn had two cores, Dreamcast had one, what do you think its theoretical successor would have had? Or perhaps Intel's desktop non-enthusiast line CPUs: dual core in 2005, quad in 2007, but nothing higher until 2014 at the earliest, if then.


Games have made decent strides in utilizing more cores but only a few really scale up well synchronously. If game developers had to choose between more than four (or especially more than six) general purpose CPU cores or something else I think they'd pick more GPU resources, especially if those are useful for compute.
 
It's a educated guess for sure, and to that, nothing more. It just doesn't sound right to me that the next gen Xbox would only have something like a quad core processor, I wouldn't buy it, not enough of an improvement, especially after 8 years - even if the graphics card was hot


There's also the bit in that Slashgear story about the rumored Kinect needing the extra fire power. But this is all hear say, one can do nothing but guess. There is nothing concrete to go on.
 
So what, you'd take 8 crappy cores over 4 good ones, even ones typically twice as fast? Why would you judge it solely based on how many cores it has?
 
I don't think you can assume the 8 cores would be crappy, who knows what will be out in 18 months. 18 months is a long time - could even be longer if it comes out in 2014
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is, they can't pull the no used game bit off for one very important reason: That will actually increase game piracy.
Why do you think they actually care about that? Yes, that's the official reason that gets flaunted around but you don't exactly see them go into fits over the security leaks related to the semiroutine occurence of pirated copies being available before commercial release. Or comment much at all about the reality that consoles are far from immune to piracy.

The reason for this is really quite simple. They'd make it necessary for even legally purchased products to be cracked just to function.
How so? Registering a license to the device doesn't cause any problems for all purchases they see any profit from, and is the increasingly standard approach.

When you buy a used game, you've already paid for it once, you sure as hell aren't gonna pay for it want to pay for it again.
The principle behind DRM, in actual practice, is that you do pay for the same piece of software more then once either on the basis of each individual having an individual license or in order to use it on different devices. More importantly however neither a console producer or a game manufacturer sees anymore profit from the sale of a used game then a pirated copy. The only difference between the used game market and the piracy circuit from their standpoint is they technically can't bring criminal charges against the former.

What benefit do used console or game sales bring to the producing parties? What benefit does rentals when the more traditional chains ala Blockbuster are disapearing and the surviving entities tend to be those who deny them profits thanks to making a point to operate around reselling? Remember Microsoft and Sony's strategy has been to sell hardware initially at a loss while marking up everything else so they make a net profit on hardware through TCO instead of the intial investment. This is very important to remember as it's the core of their strategy.


I'm not saying it's right or wise in the bigger picture, but in terms of business from their perspective, your objections don't make a lot of sense. They're in this market to make money. They're a business, not a charity.

I don't think they'd be quite that stupid yet.
Why would you assume past performance->future performance black box business analysis would pay that much attention to the facet you're focusing on? Especially as console software vendors are already engaging in these kinds of efforts? As far as I'm aware consoles don't have an equivalent of GOG, trying to counter these movements so where's the advocacy group that'd grab their attention enough to acknowledge this facet and give it weight versus doing what they think protects _their_ interests.

And let's really get at the heart of the matter. Let's say Microsoft and Sony do this full stop, every title. You as a console game now have the alternatives of using Nintendo's Wii U and PC, or caving. How do you think that will actually breakdown? Particularly when the latest Call of Duty is routinely one of the best selling titles.


On the other hand there's nothing to say this isn't just the stuff of good rumor bait.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think you can assume the 8 cores would be crappy, who knows what will be out in 18 months. 18 months is a long time - could even be longer if it comes out in 2014

The cores used in XBox 360 (and the PS3's main core, almost the same thing) are pretty awful compared to PC CPU cores you could get in 2005, at least for general purpose workloads and not really vector friendly ones. I doubt the next gen consoles will have bleeding edge CPU technology either, but the question still remains if you'd rather have eight low quality cores or four medium quality ones.


Consoles have generally succeeded by focusing on graphics first, then customized coprocessors or CPU extensions that are only useful for specific workloads (ones useful to games of course), with CPU quality being a distant third. IMO they should stick with this and not go crazy with CPU core counts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For processors, some of the AMD 8 cores are alright, so it's possible to get the kinks out of the Intels by the time it matters.


As for DRM, when stuff's cheap enough, like that recent(ish) big sale Steam had(& where I got most of my Steam games), it's not as bad that I can't ever sell them, since I effectively paid bargain bin prices anyway.


As for game consoles in generally, they're pretty much garbage PCs these days & that condition is only going to get worse as they put more & more non-gaming stuff on them.
 
I'd rather have 8 good quality core :)


Tell you what, I'll bet you an Aussie beer (Carlton Draught) that it comes out with either a cpu of more cores than 4 or 2 quad core cpu's at minimum.


Is it a bet?
 
But AMD's 8 cores (and I hesitate to even call them full cores) are relatively large, expensive, and so far offer close to zero gaming advantage over their 4 cores. Not that you should compare them with Intel's. And not that Intel has "kinks" with theirs per se, just different design focuses.


Sadly some of this could be swayed by marketability, much like the ridiculous bit wars of the past.

I'd rather have 8 good quality core :)


Tell you what, I'll bet you an Aussie beer (Carlton Draught) that it comes out with either a cpu of more cores than 4 or 2 quad core cpu's at minimum.


Is it a bet?

I'll bet you on 8+ cores - originally you said you won't be happy with 6 cores. And we have to be talking full on homogeneous cores, not a bunch of specialized ones that are not useful for general purpose workloads, like Cell. 6 cores is a maybe. I don't want beer though ;p


Just don't know why you think consoles are all of a sudden going to start having high end CPUs..
 
I'll step up and go a 8 cores bet, but not with any fine differentiation on what the cores might be . Fair enough?


Ok no beer , perhaps a cup of tea? - just kidding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll buy the ouya and the wii u but if they're gonna block used games Thier creating a market for modchips
 
I'll step up and go a 8 cores bet, but not with any fine differentiation on what the cores might be . Fair enough?

Ha, no thanks, you could call pretty much anything a core. You can call GPUs several cores for instance. Going to have to go with 8+ of the same thing (homogeneous), all running your "normal" CPU code. Not that I think anyone will try another Cell, I just think it's more likely than 8 bulky CPU cores. I'll accept something like Bulldozer, of course.

Ok no beer , perhaps a cup of tea? - just kidding.

I like tea ;D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, why not - 8 cores of the same thing. Something needs to break up the boredom while we wait for the P2 and product 3. It's a bet


Tea it shall be.
 
I don't think you can assume the 8 cores would be crappy, who knows what will be out in 18 months. 18 months is a long time - could even be longer if it comes out in 2014

The cores used in XBox 360 (and the PS3's main core, almost the same thing) are pretty awful compared to PC CPU cores you could get in 2005, at least for general purpose workloads and not really vector friendly ones. I doubt the next gen consoles will have bleeding edge CPU technology either, but the question still remains if you'd rather have eight low quality cores or four medium quality ones.


Consoles have generally succeeded by focusing on graphics first, then customized coprocessors or CPU extensions that are only useful for specific workloads (ones useful to games of course), with CPU quality being a distant third. IMO they should stick with this and not go crazy with CPU core counts.
its a different generation now. gaming console dont, and will not anymore, simply do gaming. they have to be able to do many other things these days. one might call it useless features, but im sure the ps3 got some sales over 360 simply because it could play blu ray. and im sure MS will focus a lot more on things other than gaming on the next xbox
 
Maybe it will be either an 6 core sandybridge, or an 8 core sandybridge that will only be available in the XboxNext but not on the consumer market.


I think it also highly depends on the production of the CPU's, if a lot of them have broken cores, maybe MS might decide to disable a core and make it a 7 core system instead, just to cut cost.


If you however consider that dev kits are usually a bit stronger then the actual consoles, then a 6 core xbox next may be the most likely thing.
 
its a different generation now. gaming console dont, and will not anymore, simply do gaming. they have to be able to do many other things these days. one might call it useless features, but im sure the ps3 got some sales over 360 simply because it could play blu ray. and im sure MS will focus a lot more on things other than gaming on the next xbox

And what non-gaming feature do you think demands a high core count? Especially when Intel isn't even going to be selling > 4 core mainstream CPUs in 2013, and AMD's 4-module CPUs will probably continue to only get a small fraction of sales?


Consoles did just fine with all their non-gaming stuff while having poor CPUs this generation.
 
I'm not saying it will have 8 cores, but being a console means they stand more chance of being well used due to the standard hardware.


It would also sell consoles, I mean unless the PS4 also has eight cores too MS have some serious advertising and bragging power there.


I can just see the forum arguments now... BUT WE HAVE EIGHT CORES!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And what non-gaming feature do you think demands a high core count?
Adverts :p

kw.jpeg
 
Sorry I had thought the slash gear story explained why the extra cores/power was needed. In fact an earlier story on slash gear had the supposed reasoning. Here is the statement from that slashgear story:


"Why the need for such power? Apparently the next version of Microsoft’s Kinect will command at least four of those cores, due to being significantly more accurate than the existing version. Kinect 2 will supposedly have the capability of tracking multiple players at once, not to mention precision, being able to track even fingertips."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top