XBox Ten Spec Sheet

[BD2003]

Doing 1080p with 4xFSAA and a 32-bit Z-buffer requires around 66M of video RAM. So why wouldn't having 100M serve a purpose?

Aren't you forgetting to divide by 8 to convert bits to bytes?

 

[Soccerman06]

You people are so gullible, you guys do realize that IBM lose their bid with M$, Xbox will be AMD cpu AMD gpu, same with ps4.

 

[Pheran]

Aren't you forgetting to divide by 8 to convert bits to bytes?

Nope, 32-bit color + 32-bit Z-buffer means 8 bytes per pixel, thus 1920x1080x8 = 16.6M. Multiply by 4 again for the 4xFSAA.

 

[Pheran]

You people are so gullible, you guys do realize that IBM lose their bid with M$, Xbox will be AMD cpu AMD gpu, same with ps4.

I think everyone in this thread is aware that these specs could be completely fabricated. However, you seem to be countering one unsubstantiated rumor with another, unless you have a link to back that up.

 

[BD2003]

Nope, 32-bit color + 32-bit Z-buffer means 8 bytes per pixel, thus 1920x1080x8 = 16.6M. Multiply by 4 again for the 4xFSAA.

By those calculations the 360 should require ~29mb for 720p. But it does fine with 10mb.

So why would a 1080p console *need* ten times that amount?

So again, something doesn't compute.

 

[Pheran]

By those calculations the 360 should require ~29mb for 720p. But it does fine with 10mb.

So why would a 1080p console *need* ten times that amount?

So again, something doesn't compute.

Err, in most games the Xbox 360 doesn't do 720p, it scales up from lower resolutions. But 720p without FSAA only requires around 7M. See this article for more info.

 

[BD2003]

Err, in most games the Xbox 360 doesn't do 720p, it scales up from lower resolutions. But 720p without FSAA only requires around 7M. See this article for more info.

I understand that many games don't do 720p exactly, but even 640p would shatter the 10mb.

Ok let's assume they require 66mb to hold a 1080p framebuffer with all the bells and whistles....what's the other 34mb useful for?

You see why I'm having a hard time believing this? One of the most expensive components (the edram) is arbitrarily multiplied by 10. And then they skimp on the system memory, one of the cheapest components?

Even if I accept it's possible....why would they design it that way? It seems insane.

 

[Pheran]

Ok let's assume they require 66mb to hold a 1080p framebuffer with all the bells and whistles....what's the other 34mb useful for?

Well, there could be space used for texture caching or some such. Also, consider that it's supposedly a dual-GPU config, maybe that means there is only 50M per core? In fact, I think the dual-GPU aspect of these specs might be the least-believable thing. I mean, why do you need that for 1080p?

You see why I'm having a hard time believing this? One of the most expensive components (the edram) is arbitrarily multiplied by 10. And then they skimp on the system memory, one of the cheapest components?

Why do you think 2G is skimping? Consoles are not multi-tasking machines like PCs. I would think that 2G will probably be fine for next-gen games. The 360 only has 512M.

I'm not going to spend too much time defending these specs, since they might be complete BS anyway, but I don't think they are blatantly unreasonable on the surface.

 

[BD2003]

Don't get me wrong, I hope the next xbox makes the 360 look like a joke, and I'm willing to pay for it. But more edram for a back buffer doesn't seem to serve much purpose beyond better AA, and it's horrendously expensive. In a day when the post process AA is getting really good, there is absolutely no need for that.

The limited amount of system ram is the single biggest complaint I've seen devs make. The crytek guys were calling for a 4gb minimum on the next gen. I would like to see load times eradicated for good, for one thing. More ram would go a very long way towards that. I'd take that over better AA.

Either way these specs still sound to me like someone conjured them purely out of their imagination.

 

[arod]

Personally I am not concerned at all about the ram if it really is 2 gigs.... I think its very likely ms went to epic and asked them directly..... "what do you need to make games this time around"... like they did with the 512 last go around. The unreal engine is the most important engine to optimize around because of how many of the games are based off it these days and I'm sure they were consulted on how much memory they need to make their games a reality (and that samaritan demo they put out a while back would be my guess for the baseline)

Who knows they could be the ones responsible for the edram (if that is accurate). They might have said this time around edram is more important that system ram and that is where all the cost is.

 

[BD2003]

Personally I am not concerned at all about the ram if it really is 2 gigs.... I think its very likely ms went to epic and asked them directly..... "what do you need to make games this time around"... like they did with the 512 last go around. The unreal engine is the most important engine to optimize around because of how many of the games are based off it these days and I'm sure they were consulted on how much memory they need to make their games a reality (and that samaritan demo they put out a while back would be my guess for the baseline)

Who knows they could be the ones responsible for the edram (if that is accurate). They might have said this time around edram is more important that system ram and that is where all the cost is.

It happened the other way around. MS wanted to skimp and put in 256mb. Epic said "this is how sh*t our game will look with 256mb. Seriously don't do it".

If they had gone with 256mb in the end, the PS3 would have been the far more capable system. Going from 2 to 4 gb is like a 5-10 dollar difference. Retail. For what MS would pay in bulk its probably even less. And this is in 2011. In 2015 it might boil down to cents. It'd be crazy for them to hobble their system for the next decade to save so little.

 

[lamedude]

Doing 1080p with 4xFSAA and a 32-bit Z-buffer requires around 66M of video RAM. So why wouldn't having 100M serve a purpose?

MRTs used by deferred renderers need more memory. But other than triple buffering its wasted on forward rendering so I don't see it happening.

 

[Looney]

Yes, but that's a huge use case, and the BD drive is one of the few real advantages the PS3 has over the 360. It's in their best interest to negate that advantage in the next generation.

They won't. If they wanted the 360 to play BD they could have done that as well when HD-DVD died. BD drives are dirt cheap now, and will only get cheaper. And it looks like online streaming is the future anyways. I'd rather have a bigger HDD than a BD drive.

Remember, they want to price the console as cheap as possible. There is a reason the Wii did so well and the PS3 did so crappy, and the entry price is a huge factor. I doubt even Sony will make a $600 console again.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Nope, 32-bit color + 32-bit Z-buffer means 8 bytes per pixel, thus 1920x1080x8 = 16.6M. Multiply by 4 again for the 4xFSAA.

No that is wrong, FSAA only needs to be done on the polygons. 4x16.6MB means that you are applying super samlping AA.

 

[BD2003]

No that is wrong, FSAA only needs to be done on the polygons. 4x16.6MB means that you are applying super samlping AA.

I could have swore that was the case as well.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Lol at 100mb edram. That's the part how you know this is fake.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/18/idUS123822+18-Sep-2009+PRN20090918

100MB of eDRAM, particularly on a daughter die would be absolutely trivial today.

You guys are making my head hurt with your estimations on memory useage for framebuffer tasks.

Back buffer, front buffer, z buffer- You need all three.

1080p 32bpp- 7.9MB for each buffer without any AA at all, 23.7MB for the most simplistic setup.

1080p 32bpp 4x AA- You need 4x the memory for the front buffer and z buffer- while you don't necessarily need the data on every pixel in the front buffer, you must allow for the possibility of their being a poly edge in any possible pixel. That brings us to 71.1MB, but we aren't done yet

1080p HDR 4x AA tripple buffer- Color goes to 64bpp for the front buffer, doubling that up, we move to tripple buffer for smoothing out framerates, 63.2MB just for the front buffer, another 47.4MB for the rest bringing our total to 110.6MB- still think 100MB sounds outrageously high? We could bump it up to 8x AA, move to more advanced post processing rendering techniques that require 64bpp for the mid buffer, but you get the general idea. A factor of ten may be a huge jump from the last systems eDRAM, but it isn't overkill by any means.

Original PS1- 2MB of RAM, PS2- 32MB of RAM- PS3- 512MB of RAM- all of these systems shared one thing in common- developers complained about the lack of RAM available to them. Increasing RAM by a factor of 16 on successive generations hasn't been enough to date, dropping that to a factor of 4 certainly isn't going to resolve the issue.

Remember, they want to price the console as cheap as possible. There is a reason the Wii did so well and the PS3 did so crappy, and the entry price is a huge factor.

The generation, particularly for Sony, isn't over yet. By the end of this generation there is a very good chance that the PS3 will have generated more revenue then the Wii by a considerable amount. BTW- I say particularly for Sony as I can still walk into some stores and buy new PS2 games- yes there is a very small selection but the PS2 launched about 12 years ago(Nintendo and MS drop support for their systems at a much faster rate).

 

[Looney]

We're in the twilight of this generation. Sony has had losses for far more quarters than profits. You're delusional if you think they're going to make up for all those losses and still beat Nintendo with only a couple of years left.

Total losses up to 10Q2 put Sony at -$4,695,000,202 http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/30/sony-ps-division-has-lost-4-7-billion-since-launching-ps3/

And 2011 hasn't been any better, they're still losing money, so that's probably over $5B in the red.

Nintendo on the other hand has made a total of $15,922,614,389 in profits for year end 10Q3 (since the Wii was released)
http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90

So there is a difference of almost $22B between Sony and Intendo profits. You're telling me the PS3 is going to make over $22B in profits in the next couple of years to beat Nintendo? Even though they are STILL LOSING MONEY?

 

[BenSkywalker]

So there is a difference of almost $22B between Sony and Intendo profits. You're telling me the PS3 is going to make over $22B in profits in the next couple of years to beat Nintendo? Even though they are STILL LOSING MONEY?

Sony is not the PS3. Nintendo is not the Wii. Get those down and come back if you want to talk with the grown ups

And 2011 hasn't been any better, they're still losing money, so that's probably over $5B in the red.

....

Sales in the PlayStation division -- which also includes Sony's PC business -- were virtually flat at ¥1.58 trillion ($19.3 billion), compared to ¥1.57 trillion ($19.2 billion) year-over-year. But operating income was ¥35.6 billion ($435.5 million) in the segment, a swing to profit from an operating loss of ¥83.3 billion ($1 billion) for the previous fiscal year.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34787/Sony_Posts_Profit_In_PlayStation_Division.php

Now based on the numbers you provided, Sony made over a billion dollars in profit in the Playstation division in the last six months of FY 2K10.

You also do realize that I said 'revenue' not 'profit' too, right? Go ahead, look again, I'll wait...... Yep, that post hasn't been edited BTW- Most recent quarterly reports have Nintendo losing a quarter of a billion dollars. Nintendo isn't the Wii, but the short term versus long term benefits of design philosophy had d@mn well better be in Nintendo's favor at this point, come back at it three years from now and see how the numbers looking. I will absolutely stand by my point that the PS3 should generate significantly more *revenue* the the Wii and it is possible it will end up making more profit(though that is a much tougher bar).

 

[American Gunner]

I'm sorry, but why are we discussing Sony and Nintendo profit margins in an Xbox thread?

 

[BD2003]

I'm sorry, but why are we discussing Sony and Nintendo profit margins in an Xbox thread?

Because it makes you wonder which philosophy MS will follow.

Nintendo has done well with very weak hardware, and Sony has done relatively poorly with arguably the most advanced. But those tables are turning.

Nintendo is doubling down on their low cost weak hardware strategy on the wii U. Sony doesn't seem in a position to take it to the next level yet.

So who will the next Xbox be competing against? Are they just going to try to outdo the wii U, or stand toe to toe with a presumably very powerful PS4?

 

[Looney]

No, i caught it when you said revenue, i just ignored it because that's a pretty dumb metric. What's the point in having more revenue when you're losing money? The hardware is more expensive. The games are more expensive. The service is more expensive. So ya, i would expect them to have more revenue.

And we're talking about the the gaming division, so those ARE the losses that Sony has had with the PS3. It may actually be more because the PS2 and PC divisions are still profitable which would have offset some of the PS3 losses. It's true that Nintendo profits also includes their DS line, but regardless, every Wii sold has been profitable from Day 1.

And i don't know what numbers you're looking at, but Sony didn't make a billion dollar profit in the last 6 months of 2010 (unless you misread and didn't see the minus sign beside those numbers, because they lost 1 billion in the last 6 months of 2010).

 

[American Gunner]

Well, I hope it is the powerful route. If not, I will not be buying. I understand that the Wii did well with grandmas and little kids, but when I actually get to play some, I want to play grown up games. If they go casual, then I will get the PS4. The only thing that sucks is most of my friends are Xbots, and will buy into the bs that MS will spew about their console, so they will jump on it.

 

[Looney]

So who will the next Xbox be competing against? Are they just going to try to outdo the wii U, or stand toe to toe with a presumably very powerful PS4?

I think the next generation is going to involve more than those 3 players. I think Google and possibly Apple will be competitor in that space as well. Android and iOS has already proven that they can deliver games on those platforms, and they're both attempting to move into the living room.

People won't buy Android and iOS TVs or receivers for games, they'll buy them for a better TV experience, just as they buy smartphones for a better mobile experience, but games are going to be a big part of it.

 

[Looney]

Well, I hope it is the powerful route. If not, I will not be buying. I understand that the Wii did well with grandmas and little kids, but when I actually get to play some, I want to play grown up games. If they go casual, then I will get the PS4. The only thing that sucks is most of my friends are Xbots, and will buy into the bs that MS will spew about their console, so they will jump on it.

Like how twice the price for the PS3 over the 360 (at release) meant it was a more powerful machine, and had far better graphics?

If anybody seems to be buying into BS it seems to be you.

 

[American Gunner]

Like how twice the price for the PS3 over the 360 (at release) meant it was a more powerful machine, and had far better graphics?

If anybody seems to be buying into BS it seems to be you.

I am talking about the difference between the 360/PS3 and the Wii.