Digital Foundry: next-gen PlayStation and Xbox to use AMD's 8-core CPU and Radeon HD

[quest55720]

Here is todays leak of the Orbis dev kit road map. It actually fits the rumors perfectly.

http://www.vgleaks.com/orbis-devkits-roadmaptypes/

Currently, there are 3 types of devkits:

1) R10 boards with special BIOS, running in generic PC’s

2) “Initial 1″ — Early devkit

model number: DVKT-KS000K
SCE-provided PC equipped with R10XX board
Runs Orbis OS
Available July 2012

3) SoC Based Devkit: early version of the ORBIS hardware

Available January 2013


Here is the specs of the latest kit which fit everything with extra ram for code debug.

SoC Based Devkit

Available January 2013
CPU: 8-core Jaguar
GPU: Liverpool GPU
RAM: unified 8 GB for devkit (4 GB for the retail console)
Subsystem: HDD, Network Controller, BD Drive, Bluetooth Controller, WLAN and HDMI (up to 1980×1080@3D)
Analog Outputs: Audio, Composite Video
Connection to Host: USB 3.0 (targeting over 200 MB/s),
ORBIS Dualshock
Dual Camera

The last devkit is the closer one to the retail console. Expect a machine with these specs or similar to these ones. Obviously, Sony could introduce changes in this features, but don’t expect deep mods.

 

[piesquared]

If PS4 and xbox 2 are indeed GCN based derivatives, I imagine future games would do quite well on existing HD7xxx discrete cards also. Southern Islands cards should be fairly well future proofed if that's the case. I bet there's still a lot of untapped potential in GCN that has yet to be exploited.

 

[inf64]

Check the comment section of the article. It's probably BS but not impossible at all,especially given the timeframe of Kaveri and the fact SR design was finished 1+ year ago.

JCanonn 24 January, 2013 at 18:03 Reply
I’am designer under NDA and I can not give much more data. actual devkit data is on Kotaku as called DVKT-KS000K, the version information in vgleaks “Soc based devkit” is false
current cpu on january devkit is monolitic 4 bulldozer modules gen3 (future steamroller) + custom gpu (r1xxx similar liverpool gpu on kaveri apu with more computer units)

So if it ends up being based on SR it makes perfect sense. Just it doesn't need 4 modules,2 modules would be fine but I guess Sonny needs some core leverage for future games.
Also to note that if this ends up being the case,the "SoC" will end up being rather large die if monolithic. 4 SR modules + SB+ maybe some L3+ large iGPU( Kaveri is supposedly having 512SPs so this thing must have more). 350+mm^2 on 28nm.
In any case improbable but not entirely impossible

 

[jpiniero]

I'd say 640. I think I'd rather have the 8C Jaguar + ~1050 SPs though.

 

[MightyMalus]

If they end up being SR cores, I won't be surprised if they run 4C, 6C or 8C at 1.5GHz.
The Wii U is "comparable"/"better" than PS3 and X360 and its only using a tri-core 1.25GHz chip.

 

[beginner99]

Jaguar would make sense in that they could use the IGP for compute Stuff (physics) and the real gpu for graphics only.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Jaguar would make sense in that they could use the IGP for compute Stuff (physics) and the real gpu for graphics only.

Why would it? an 8 core jaguar has 16 128bit AVX units and somewhere around 1.6ghz to 2.0ghz. A 4 module SR will have 8 128bit FMA units somewhere around 3.0-3.5. SR would on average keep the FMA units more busy then Jaguar and will get some perf improvement from FMA but overall total throughput would be in the league. without any real idea on what SR performance looks like its hard to make anymore estimations.

 

[hawtdawg]

I'm completely underwhelmed by rumored specs for either system.

When the PS3 and 360 came out, they had GPU's that were pretty close to the best desktop GPU's available, and the 360's GPU was actually newer technology than the x1900 that came out at around the same time.

The PS4 and 720 are not going to even remotely approach that level of performance relative to the technology available. Instead of getting something on par with an Nvidia 870 or AMD 9750, we're getting chicken shit HTPC caliber GPU's.

I'm very disappointed.

 

[Plimogz]

I still feel that by going for semi-custom COTS parts the console vendors could well be aiming for a quicker refresh cycle, holding onto better GPU performance for the time being as an ace up their sleeves and a major selling point for the next iteration.

The way I see it, CPU performance is the most important factor to push at first. This way they cover the media center/hub crowd, gain customers to their own online marketplace and sell to those who might just as soon pick up a console as much for its desktop replacement capabilities as for straight gaming. They also make sure that the game engines developed with this next generation of consoles will function properly on a future (wholly hypothetical) eye-candy version.

I assume that game developers would naturally play into this scheme given that with the consoles being basically just custom PC's, addressing the PC market with higher gfx settings would just be that much easier than it is today.

Then, after a future process shrink, sticking a high performance GPU into the same, already-existing console and selling it as new SKU would be a small thing; easily inciting eye-candy hungry gamers to buy/upgrade, while having locked customers into their brand through peripherals, downloads and games.

And of course, AMD would be working on shrinking the CPU/APUs in any case, and would naturally build compatible graphics hardware down the line.

This way, maintaining hardware and software (i.e. games) backwards compatibility becomes almost a non-issue. And a future console not yet finalized could already count on its library of existing games having higher graphics options to push as selling points down the road.

 

[hawtdawg]

I really don't see that happening. Half of the convenience of consoles is not having to worry about if your system will run a game in its full glory.

 

[Plimogz]

Fair enough. But the reason that you don't have to worry about it with consoles isn't necessarily down to the game running in any glorious fashion, but rather that 'what could you do about it'?

For instance, I spent a couple dozen hours watching a buddy of mine play oblivion on his PS3 a few years back. Then not very much later I played it on my PC and when I went back to my buddy's house I couldn't believe how choppy and low-res it looked.

Case and point, this guy couldn't be bothered with PC gaming: He liked the whole, push disc into PS3, sit down, play. But would he have been tempted if 3 years after buying his console he could've had that same simple experience but with improved graphics in all his existing games and all the future games he was likely to play? I think he would've been.

Particularly if the console hadn't initially cost 600$ but a slightly more palatable, say, 400$.

 

[Greenlepricon]

I really don't see that happening. Half of the convenience of consoles is not having to worry about if your system will run a game in its full glory.

Agree with you. Most people I know don't want to bother knowing what's in their consoles. They like to see a preview, buy the game, and get what they saw. If you have a pc, you know you have to look at the performance, buy the game, and then mess with the settings until it works. It's still simple, but you actually have to know what to expect rather than just expecting what you saw.

Honestly I think the gpu and cpu combo they chose will be really powerful. Considering that you can have console games that look good with such old technology, it should be pretty awesome looking at what developers can squeeze out of an x86 cpu and a gpu that will run most games at very high standards on a pc. Asking for a 7970 and 3930 is just silly. Calling anything else htpc material is just ridiculous.

 

[hawtdawg]

But how would the graphics be improved? If this generation of consoles is going to be 1080p, what would a better GPU even accomplish as far as graphical improvements? Also, at what point does MS/Sony go "alright, the next console is going to be the "new"' one so, games going forward won't run on the consoles before this one".

 

[hawtdawg]

Asking for a 7970 and 3930 is just silly. Calling anything else htpc material is just ridiculous.

How do you figure? A 7950 or abouts there would be perfectly inline with the 360/PS3's hardware relative to when they were released. All of the rumors are pointing to something in the 7670-7770 range, likely with lower clock speeds. A 7670 could certainly be considered an HTPC GPU, especially by the time one of these consoles actually comes out. It would be comparable to a PS3 launching with an Nvidia 6600 GT, and that's being generous. That wouldn't have impressed anybody then either.

MS would have to release the 720 with a GPU comparable to the fastest AMD GPU out at the time, with technology that won't even available on the PC for another generation for things to be comparable to the last console release. Instead, we're getting a GPU that was mid-range 2 years ago.

 

[cplusplus]

How do you figure? A 7950 or abouts there would be perfectly inline with the 360/PS3's hardware relative to when they were released. All of the rumors are pointing to something in the 7670-7770 range, likely with lower clock speeds. A 7670 could certainly be considered an HTPC GPU, especially by the time one of these consoles actually comes out. It would be comparable to a PS3 launching with an Nvidia 6600 GT, and that's being generous. That wouldn't have impressed anybody then either.

MS would have to release the 720 with a GPU comparable to the fastest AMD GPU out at the time, with technology that won't even available on the PC for another generation for things to be comparable to the last console release. Instead, we're getting a GPU that was mid-range 2 years ago.

First of all, this rumor almost literally says something along the lines of a 7850 for the GPU (a mobile 7970 is basically a desktop 7870, and this is a slightly slower version of that), so you're wrong about the range. Second, power on the high end cards has gone up since the last time consoles were released (2005-6). Consoles just aren't big enough to have a 7970-level GPU + a decent CPU and be able to cool the whole thing on air. Third, global economy means that neither company wants to put $800 worth of stuff in there and sell it for $400 anymore.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Your ignoring system architecture for flop counting, peak flops are easy, moving data, aka maximizing average flops is hard. The other thing your ignoring is power consumption, right when the 360/PS3 where released was when power stopped its linear scaling with transistor size.

 

[zebrax2]

How do you figure? A 7950 or abouts there would be perfectly inline with the 360/PS3's hardware relative to when they were released. All of the rumors are pointing to something in the 7670-7770 range, likely with lower clock speeds. A 7670 could certainly be considered an HTPC GPU, especially by the time one of these consoles actually comes out. It would be comparable to a PS3 launching with an Nvidia 6600 GT, and that's being generous. That wouldn't have impressed anybody then either.

MS would have to release the 720 with a GPU comparable to the fastest AMD GPU out at the time, with technology that won't even available on the PC for another generation for things to be comparable to the last console release. Instead, we're getting a GPU that was mid-range 2 years ago.

The 7950 itself consumes nearly the same power as the PS3 and xbox360. While GPU performance has increased dramatically we should also remember that power consumption has gone up as well.

 

[Plimogz]

But how would the graphics be improved? If this generation of consoles is going to be 1080p, what would a better GPU even accomplish as far as graphical improvements? Also, at what point does MS/Sony go "alright, the next console is going to be the "new"' one so, games going forward won't run on the consoles before this one".

Graphics could be improved in much the same way that turning up graphics settings in PC games from "low" to "high" works: Better textures, better shadows, better lighting, AF, AA, increased draw distances, 60 FPS, etc. Even higher resolution rendering if ever they persist in simply upsampling 720p and calling it 1080p or if a new display standard gains unexpected traction in the next couple of years. Imagine something like nvidia's geforce experience, but catering solely to a couple of consoles. Maybe it's growing up during the 8-bit and 16-bit console wars that makes it easy for me to imagine a marketing campaign centered around improved graphics and almost meaningless tech-specs.

If they really do put 8 core CPUs into their next consoles, it should by all rights enable non-graphics-based improvements like better A.I and physics all around. And given that the gfx power of even a 2012 APU trumps that of a 2006 console, it's not as if it would be an absolute step backwards in terms of graphics. Just a smaller step forward for the time being in this one particular area, instead of the large leap which next-gen consoles have traditionally brought.

As for backwards compatibility... Based on what Good Old Games can manage, my feeling is that x86 is just as good as anything else out there. And just look at what's possible with emulators. How long would they maintain free hardware backwards compatibility is an open question, and it's true that it will be a little sad to see Sony's impressive streak of compatibility through all 3 playstations come to an end... But there's no reason why they couldn't just pull a Nintendo and put much of their past catalog up for payed download on their marketplace.

Still, what I'm speculating about isn't quite another quick console generation, so much as say a next-gen & a half. Just another, more dramatic way to differentiate the products coming down the line like they already do with slim models and increased hard-drive sizes. The base models would also scale down in cost as chips are shrunk, on-board components are moved on-die and features are potentially dropped.

It also has the upside of avoiding the issues they had last-gen around when trying to fit both leading-edge CPU and GPU's inside an acceptably console-sized enclosure right from the start.

And I find that it plays to the existing Console/PC hardware landscape rather well with regards to what is profitable for game devs to spend resources on. Synergy is, I believe, the appropriate buzz-word.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

How do you figure? A 7950 or abouts there would be perfectly inline with the 360/PS3's hardware relative to when they were released. All of the rumors are pointing to something in the 7670-7770 range, likely with lower clock speeds. A 7670 could certainly be considered an HTPC GPU, especially by the time one of these consoles actually comes out. It would be comparable to a PS3 launching with an Nvidia 6600 GT, and that's being generous. That wouldn't have impressed anybody then either.

MS would have to release the 720 with a GPU comparable to the fastest AMD GPU out at the time, with technology that won't even available on the PC for another generation for things to be comparable to the last console release. Instead, we're getting a GPU that was mid-range 2 years ago.

I think you have the timeline mixed up pretty badly. When the PS3 finally released it was 2 days after the 8800GTX was released. The PS3 has roughly a 7800GT in it. The 8800GTX was miles ahead.

 

[2is]

How do you figure? A 7950 or abouts there would be perfectly inline with the 360/PS3's hardware relative to when they were released. All of the rumors are pointing to something in the 7670-7770 range, likely with lower clock speeds. A 7670 could certainly be considered an HTPC GPU, especially by the time one of these consoles actually comes out. It would be comparable to a PS3 launching with an Nvidia 6600 GT, and that's being generous. That wouldn't have impressed anybody then either.

MS would have to release the 720 with a GPU comparable to the fastest AMD GPU out at the time, with technology that won't even available on the PC for another generation for things to be comparable to the last console release. Instead, we're getting a GPU that was mid-range 2 years ago.

One also needs to consider timing of these consoles. When the PS3 came out, it was a very expensive unit for Sony to build, but the economy was good and Sony was also in a commanding position.

Fast Forward to today. Sony is a shadow of what they used to be. They cannot afford to lose money on every console sold and rely on game sales for their revenue. Economy is also far worse meaning fewer people willing to pay $600 for a console. Then there's the competition out today with tablets and smart phones being the primary gaming device for a lot of people, particularly kids. Instead of parents trying to figure out how to switch inputs on their TV so their 5 year old can play a game, they buy the kid an ipad and he plays till his hearts content, and frees up the TV on top of that.

 

[Haserath]

Once a child has experienced a console or PC gaming experience, they will never think a tablet is a gaming device.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

I still remember playing ninetendo 64 when I was 5-6. It already ruined me.^_^

 

[2is]

Once a child has experienced a console or PC gaming experience, they will never think a tablet is a gaming device.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

I still remember playing ninetendo 64 when I was 5-6. It already ruined me.^_^

It depends on the age and the individual. My cousins kid is 4 years old, they have a Wii, PS3 and an iPad. It's no competition, the iPad wins the battle on which one he would rather play. His older cousins (by about 3 years) play more Console games than he does, but they still play on iPads more than they do Consoles. Now that may change in a few years, but the point stands, at the time of the 360 and PS3, mobile devices weren't an really an option, at any age, and today they have to share that market space. Yeah, they had mobile Sony and Nintendo devices, but at least that kept revenue within the company, that's not the case now.

Heck, I have a Wii, PS3, a gaming PC and an iPad and I play more games on my iPad than I do on my consoles, but that's largly becuase I do most of my real gaming on the PC.

 

[Olikan]

Your ignoring system architecture for flop counting, peak flops are easy, moving data, aka maximizing average flops is hard. The other thing your ignoring is power consumption, right when the 360/PS3 where released was when power stopped its linear scaling with transistor size.

so true...

a good way to see this is AMD's vliw-4 vs GCN...with same number of shaders and clock, they both have equal peak flops...
but GCN is around 30-50% faster with the latest drivers

 

[Lepton87]

so true...

a good way to see this is AMD's vliw-4 vs GCN...with same number of shaders and clock, they both have equal peak flops...
but GCN is around 30-50% faster with the latest drivers

No, it's not that much faster, just compare 6970 with Tahiti LE.

Tahiti is just 22% faster despite having it's core clocked over 8% faster and more memory bandwidth to boot. After equalizing clocks it would be about 15% faster. How did you come up with that 50% figure? It's just ridiculous.

 

[itsmydamnation]

pick modern game code that is compute heavy ( BF3 for example) and it is way faster. pick game code thats nothing but PS and VS then its only a little bit.