UR next gen XBOX is ready

[cerebus]

Seriously - HD6670 graphics core? Does anybody else feel remotely disappointed in rumoured XBOX Next specs?

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

I prefer not to go with rumours when it comes to this stuff. I recall a lot of false information prior to the 360's launch.

 

[Chevron]

Remember that the console will have a lot less overheads than a pc. Games will look amazing compared to pcs using the same hardware.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Remember that the console will have a lot less overheads than a pc. Games will look amazing compared to pcs using the same hardware.

Games will look like whatever the hardware limitations allow regardless.

 

[Yuu]

Well production only starts end of the year so plenty time to tweak whatever needs to be tweaked . Let's hope they stash 4k Res support somewhere hehe :O

 

[gregmcc]

This is even more scary!

Why ‘Xbox 720′ Might Reject Used Games

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/...+3+(Top+Stories+2))&utm_content=Google+Reader

 

[MJ INC]

I can't see them going anywhere near a top spec PC in terms of hardware simply because of price. The console will have to come out around the $500 mark and when you consider top end graphics cards are $1000 they have to use cheaper options.

 

[cerebus]

I get that the actual performance of an integrated console is higher than the card specification would suggest, but there's no way a 6670 is going to approach next generation graphics capabilities. It's predicted to be 20% faster than the Wii U for pity's sake - that means barely noticeably faster than a NINTENDO console. I was hoping for some movement into physical lighting, and parity with current gen PC hardware. This is terrible news for the games industry because it means that PC games will still be hamstrung by 1/5th power console ports.

 

[Nerfherder]

I get that the actual performance of an integrated console is higher than the card specification would suggest, but there's no way a 6670 is going to approach next generation graphics capabilities. It's predicted to be 20% faster than the Wii U for pity's sake - that means barely noticeably faster than a NINTENDO console. I was hoping for some movement into physical lighting, and parity with current gen PC hardware. This is terrible news for the games industry because it means that PC games will still be hamstrung by 1/5th power console ports.

Oh wow... now I know you are just taking ****.

Face it man... we have always know that console graphics are always going to be dumbed down. Its the nature of the business.

Oh and where do you get the notion that A NINTENDO system has to be slower then everything else ? wow...

 

[cerebus]

Oh wow... now I know you are just taking ****.

I'm quite serious.

Face it man... we have always know that console graphics are always going to be dumbed down. Its the nature of the business.

That isn't the case at all. In previous years consoles were on par with PC's, at least when they first arrived. The N64 was monstrously powerful - it was a stripped down Silicon Graphics rendering machine that could do proper AA and z-buffering.

Even the XBOX360 and PS3 weren't that far behind their PC counterparts - PS3 was based on the then $300 7800gtx (in 2006) and XBOX360 was based on the X1900xt. It took a good couple of years for PC hardware to really start to outperform those consoles, and only in the last couple of years it's become noticeable how far behind console ports were on PC's.

Oh and where do you get the notion that A NINTENDO system has to be slower then everything else ? wow...

Nintendo have clearly taken the lead in deemphasizing console specifications and concentrating on unique gameplay elements to sell consoles. The Wii was much slower than the 360 and PS3. There's no absolute reason they must be slower, but it is clearly the direction of their strategy.

 

[I.am.Sam]

how much better can the grafix get cause im quite happy that i can play games on full hd that look very real and with no lag

 

[Lupus]

I'm quite serious.



That isn't the case at all. In previous years consoles were on par with PC's, at least when they first arrived. The N64 was monstrously powerful - it was a stripped down Silicon Graphics rendering machine that could do proper AA and z-buffering.

Even the XBOX360 and PS3 weren't that far behind their PC counterparts - PS3 was based on the then $300 7800gtx (in 2006) and XBOX360 was based on the X1900xt. It took a good couple of years for PC hardware to really start to outperform those consoles, and only in the last couple of years it's become noticeable how far behind console ports were on PC's.


Nintendo have clearly taken the lead in deemphasizing console specifications and concentrating on unique gameplay elements to sell consoles. The Wii was much slower than the 360 and PS3. There's no absolute reason they must be slower, but it is clearly the direction of their strategy.

Agreed, also considering the Gamecube was superior to the PS2 at the time, it was just lacking in third party support, the 360 still has decent graphics for something running on 7 year tech.

 

[Nerfherder]

I'm quite serious.



That isn't the case at all. In previous years consoles were on par with PC's, at least when they first arrived. The N64 was monstrously powerful - it was a stripped down Silicon Graphics rendering machine that could do proper AA and z-buffering.

Even the XBOX360 and PS3 weren't that far behind their PC counterparts - PS3 was based on the then $300 7800gtx (in 2006) and XBOX360 was based on the X1900xt. It took a good couple of years for PC hardware to really start to outperform those consoles, and only in the last couple of years it's become noticeable how far behind console ports were on PC's.


Nintendo have clearly taken the lead in deemphasizing console specifications and concentrating on unique gameplay elements to sell consoles. The Wii was much slower than the 360 and PS3. There's no absolute reason they must be slower, but it is clearly the direction of their strategy.

Thats because the wii came out years before the PS3 and Xbox.... sure they were lazy and just upgraded the GC but that was one generation. Its hardly fair to claim that they have always been the backmarker.

I had a midrange gaming PC that was on par with the PS3 when it came out, I can upgrade my GPU now on that same PC and I will have a faster machine right up until they release the PS4.

Consoles might have been able to compete with PC graphics but its not something they will ever be able to dominate in.
They own : Convenience, price, accessibility and modularity.

Doesn't matter if they put a voodoo2 in the new xbox, it will be a success because of innovation not graphics power.

 

[cerebus]

Agreed, also considering the Gamecube was superior to the PS2 at the time, it was just lacking in third party support, the 360 still has decent graphics for something running on 7 year tech.

Actually I'm quite sure that the next generation of consoles will be perfectly adequate. But there's no way they'll be proper next-generation graphics. They won't really push the bar beyond what PS3 and XBOX360 did. It will feel like an incremental bump. The Wii U will feel like an upgrade because the Wii was so underpowered - and it has very innovative hardware. But by next-gen I mean honest to goodness ray-tracing. That would make me stop and pay attention. Otherwise I might as well just upgrade my gfx card.

 

[Nerfherder]

Actually I'm quite sure that the next generation of consoles will be perfectly adequate. But there's no way they'll be proper next-generation graphics. They won't really push the bar beyond what PS3 and XBOX360 did. It will feel like an incremental bump. The Wii U will feel like an upgrade because the Wii was so underpowered - and it has very innovative hardware. But by next-gen I mean honest to goodness ray-tracing. That would make me stop and pay attention. Otherwise I might as well just upgrade my gfx card.

There in lies the problem... how big does that jump need to be ?

Ok, so they can add 3d but current HD graphics are pushing the limits of what modern TV can show.

This is why the wii never had HD, at the time of development HD tv's were not commonplace.

 

[cerebus]

Thats because the wii came out years before the PS3 and Xbox.... sure they were lazy and just upgraded the GC but that was one generation. Its hardly fair to claim that they have always been the backmarker.

Wii, PS3 and XBOX360 were ALL released in 2006. Please do some research.

Consoles might have been able to compete with PC graphics but its not something they will ever be able to dominate in.
They own : Convenience, price, accessibility and modularity.

They don't need to dominate, they just need to be on par. My point is that there are very few PC games out now that take advantage of the latent power of today's GPU's because they are all scaling across to 6 year old console hardware. Metro 2033 comes to mind, Witcher 2 - and that's about it. Otherwise they just add layers of textures on top of the same basic geometry. But a 6670 would never be able to run those above titles - so when it releases a year from now it will already be 1 1/2 - 2 years BEHIND where a top end gaming PC is right now. And PC games are going to suffer as a result. We should be getting new techniques enabled by better hardware - physical lighting has been promised elusively for a long time, but we still aren't seeing it. And we won't see it for another 10 years at this rate, no matter what PC's are capable of doing.

Doesn't matter if they put a voodoo2 in the new xbox, it will be a success because of innovation not graphics power.

If it didn't matter you would never need to get a new console. You could just keep attaching peripherals to the old ones. A console is an investment.

There in lies the problem... how big does that jump need to be ?

Big enough to keep up with current (even right now) high end GPU technology. That means 6870, gtx560ti, 570 or so. NOT HPTC graphics.

Ok, so they can add 3d but current HD graphics are pushing the limits of what modern TV can show.

There is much more to graphics development than 3D effects. But you wouldn't know it because developers aren't evolving the way they should be.

This is why the wii never had HD, at the time of development HD tv's were not commonplace.

That was some Nintendo marketing spin ... the Wii wasn't powerful enough to output 720p. End of story. It was a vamped up Gamecube chip.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Wii, PS3 and XBOX360 were ALL released in 2006. Please do some research.

Actually the Xbox came out first in 2005. The Wii and PS3 followed a full year later. The PS3 took a lot of flack for being late to the party, seeing that it is a direct competitor to the Xbox. The Wii didn't take as much flack because it was a different type of console, aimed at a different sort of market, despite claims of it being a competitor to the PS3 and Xbox.

The Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005, in the United States and Canada; December 2, 2005, in Europe and December 10, 2005, in Japan.

The Wii is a home video game console released by Nintendo on November 19, 2006.

The PlayStation 3 competes with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii as part of the seventh generation of video game consoles. It was first released on November 11, 2006, in Japan,[7] with international markets following shortly thereafter.

 

[cerebus]

Actually the Xbox came out first in 2005. The Wii and PS3 followed a full year later. The PS3 took a lot of flack for being late to the party, seeing that it is a direct competitor to the Xbox. The Wii didn't take as much flack because it was a different type of console, aimed at a different sort of market, despite claims of it being a competitor to the PS3 and Xbox.

Reg soe.

 

[Nerfherder]

Wii, PS3 and XBOX360 were ALL released in 2006. Please do some research.

Sorry, I stand corrected. I think I was confused because of the way the releases happened here.

They don't need to dominate, they just need to be on par. My point is that there are very few PC games out now that take advantage of the latent power of today's GPU's because they are all scaling across to 6 year old console hardware. Metro 2033 comes to mind, Witcher 2 - and that's about it. Otherwise they just add layers of textures on top of the same basic geometry. But a 6670 would never be able to run those above titles - so when it releases a year from now it will already be 1 1/2 - 2 years BEHIND where a top end gaming PC is right now. And PC games are going to suffer as a result. We should be getting new techniques enabled by better hardware - physical lighting has been promised elusively for a long time, but we still aren't seeing it. And we won't see it for another 10 years at this rate, no matter what PC's are capable of doing.

The point is that what ever card they put in it wont make a difference because they will have to stick with it for 6+ years, and after 2 years it will already be a card that would be useless on a PC platform.

If it didn't matter you would never need to get a new console. You could just keep attaching peripherals to the old ones. A console is an investment.

The wii proved that wrong, they released a rehashed version of an old console with brilliant new controls. They sold more than the Xbox and PS3 combined.

Big enough to keep up with current (even right now) high end GPU technology. That means 6870, gtx560ti, 570 or so. NOT HPTC graphics.

There is much more to graphics development than 3D effects. But you wouldn't know it because developers aren't evolving the way they should be.

Actually its the market that are not responding to games that are purely visual fap fests. HD graphics are nice... but gamers want a game, not just pretty pictures

That was some Nintendo marketing spin ... the Wii wasn't powerful enough to output 720p. End of story. It was a vamped up Gamecube chip.

[/QUOTE]

people still paid for it.

 

[cerebus]

The point is that what ever card they put in it wont make a difference because they will have to stick with it for 6+ years, and after 2 years it will already be a card that would be useless on a PC platform.

The point is that a next generation of gaming console should bring something to the table that the previous generation couldn't. That makes it worthwhile to upgrade. If you can't show gamers a reason why they should buy your next console instead of just keeping the old one they have, they will not be compelled to upgrade.

The wii proved that wrong, they released a rehashed version of an old console with brilliant new controls. They sold more than the Xbox and PS3 combined.

They did. And then the games just looked uglier and uglier and more obviously outdated as the console aged.

Actually its the market that are not responding to games that are purely visual fap fests. HD graphics are nice... but gamers want a game, not just pretty pictures

You don't find it at all disappointing that Microsoft is clearly pulling back on hardware this generation? You're perhaps hoping for an evolution of motion control?

people still paid for it.

They did. It had some really good games.