Page 9 of 595 FirstFirst ... 578910111323 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 5948

Thread: Official Xbox One Thread

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    You say Fermi here, but gameoverDude said Kepler, which IS capable of Fermi-like performance at 100 watts. Kepler's processing power per watt is 3 times Fermi's. And Maxwell, which will be ready in 2013 looks to more than double that.

    I see no reason why what gameoverDude said isn't entirely possible, even probable. And since dev kits don't need final hardware, they can push pretty much up to the wire as far as GPU availability goes, as they have in the past.
    We're talking the usable stuff here the mid - high ranger, that would actually have the performance gameoverDude is talking about. The rumors I've seen say they'll be 150 - 270 watt chips, but those are RUMORS. We have no hard evidence yet though of that happening. Yeah we see Nvidia claiming 3 -4x the performance per watt but until the chips are in people's hands that is all just PR talk. Until those chips launch and we see actual performance its all "possibilities". Plus we don't have any firm release information for Kepler other than 2011. That could be June 2011, or it could be December 2011. Hell it could see the same kind of delays fermi saw and not come out till mid 2012. You're making assumptions on chips that aren't out yet with nothing other than a roadmap to go by. Lets wait to see what Kepler really does when they finally show the chip. There's so little info about it outside of Nvidia announcing it and saying ohh were gonna get 3 - 4x the performance, back in September of last year. I just do not think you're going to see a 580 level performance out of a 100 watt chip.

    There are 6xxx series chips from ATI that draw less than 100 watts and aren't that expensive. That said though they give you the same and in some cases less performance than a 4870 at 1920 x 1080. So as a console designer you can either take a die shrunk, less than 100 watt tdp modded, cheaper 4870 level chip, or a 6670/6570 that will cost you more and get you the same or less performance.

    That's not even taking into account that MS and Sony lost Billions of dollars this generation trying to push the hardware. Sony burned through all the money they made in the PS1 and PS2 days. These companies aren't in this business to do us any favors. They're in it to make money. If pushing the hardware and taking 200+ dollar loses on the consoles, isn't getting you software sales to make money. Why do it for another generation? Sony and MS have just begun to become profitable. I really don't see them doing that again. I fully expect 350 - 400 machines from them. Which would make it hard for them to launch with a just released GPU in 2013.

    Maybe I shouldn't laugh at people's "expectations" for next gen hardware. I will just be INCREDIBLY surprised if its even remotely like that. I think people's expectations for next generation are way way too high. There are a lot of things different between high end hardware right now and when the PS360 were being designed. High end GPUs then didn't pull 200 - 350 watts at load. The chip that the PS3's GPU is based on had an 81 watt TDP at launch. Not the same as a 350 watt 580. The chip that Xenos is based on had a 70 watt TDP. Not the same as a 280 watt 6970.


    This post was a long ramble that I had to type out between doing about 50 other things, so I apologize if things don't flow as smoothly as they should.
    Where I play
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolemite
    I've changed my mind about Korian. Anyone that can piss off so many people so easily is awesome. You people are suckers, playing right into his evil yellow hands.

  2. Quote Originally Posted by Shin Johnpv View Post
    We're talking the usable stuff here the mid - high ranger, that would actually have the performance gameoverDude is talking about. The rumors I've seen say they'll be 150 - 270 watt chips, but those are RUMORS. We have no hard evidence yet though of that happening. Yeah we see Nvidia claiming 3 -4x the performance per watt but until the chips are in people's hands that is all just PR talk.
    Well sure, ok, any discussion of next gen tech is just talk, but is there some bit of high-level engineering expertise or insider knowledge you possess that makes you cynical of nVidia's (usually pretty consistent) projections here? So much so that you'd laugh at the mere possibility?

    Until those chips launch and we see actual performance its all "possibilities". Plus we don't have any firm release information for Kepler other than 2011. That could be June 2011, or it could be December 2011. Hell it could see the same kind of delays fermi saw and not come out till mid 2012. You're making assumptions on chips that aren't out yet with nothing other than a roadmap to go by.
    Look, I just said it was entirely possible, especially if we give it to 2013 (at which point at the very least least Kepler should be out).

    You seem more sure that it won't happen than I do that it will, but I don't really get why other than "well you never know what will happen." Right now it looks like it very well could and to write off that possibility seems silly.

    That's not even taking into account that MS and Sony lost Billions of dollars this generation trying to push the hardware. Sony burned through all the money they made in the PS1 and PS2 days. These companies aren't in this business to do us any favors. They're in it to make money. If pushing the hardware and taking 200+ dollar loses on the consoles, isn't getting you software sales to make money. Why do it for another generation? Sony and MS have just begun to become profitable. I really don't see them doing that again. I fully expect 350 - 400 machines from them. Which would make it hard for them to launch with a just released GPU in 2013.
    This, on the other hand, is a pretty fair point, but if the NGP is any indication of Sony's thoughts on the matter, I'm not buying it. It might be good business, but I don't personally think it's the way Sony or MS will go.

    Maybe I shouldn't laugh at people's "expectations" for next gen hardware. I will just be INCREDIBLY surprised if its even remotely like that.
    Again, I know these things aren't 100% reliable, but I think to say it'd be "incredibly surprising" if technology meets the present projections is far too strong without some kind of reason beyond what you're saying here.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by GohanX View Post
    The only thing I want the next Xbox to have is a decent digital pad.
    Now I feel like some of my wild wishes are more realistic by comparison. Thanks!

  4. Damn, the graphics cards you guys are talking about cost something like $250. Even in a year, how are you going to take that card, a CPU (CPU's?), RAM, an optical drive, a power supply, a controller, a case, wifi, and all the rest of that shit, sell it for under $400, and make a profit?

    I don't see it happening. If the current gen consoles are just profitable now, anything with much more "oomph" wouldn't be profitable...right? This gen needs to cook a lot longer.

  5. Why are y'all calling it the Xbox Next when NextBox is clearly the better name.
    Boo, Hiss.

  6. #86
    Because "Xbox" and "Xbox 360" clearly weren't the best names, but they were chosen.


  7. Quote Originally Posted by icarusfall View Post
    Why are y'all calling it the Xbox Next when NextBox is clearly the better name.
    Neither name is good because when it actually comes out, they'll have to change it to "Xbox Now" or "NowBox."

  8. #89
    NeXbox
    Quote Originally Posted by Razor Ramon View Post
    I don't even the rage I mean )#@($@IU_+FJ$(U#()IRFK)_#
    Quote Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name View Post
    I'm sure whatever Yeller wrote is fascinating!

  9. X in the Box!

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo