Creator of FXAA gives thoughts on Orbis and Durango specs

[QUOTE="avshaman"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] It's not more powerful in terms of specs, but in terms of what has actually been accomplished on the PS3 it surpasses almost everything on the PC. The best PS3 games--heck, Halo 4 on the 360 too--look better than the vast majority of games on the PC. I'm not talking about things like framerate or anti-aliasing, which do make the image quality more pleasing and the response from the controls more precise. I'm talking about the core elements that comprise the visuals: things like textures, post-processing effects, shader techniques, lighting and shadows, etc. I'm not speaking out of ignorance. I own a fairly high-level gaming PC with a GTX 670, but it's simply the truth that developers leverage the performance of consoles to a much greater degree than they do with the PC.ronvalencia

Many aspects of console games dont even look that good. Of course its your opinion that you think console games look better. However , you are wrong about very few pc games look better then console exclusives.And you also need your eyes checked if you think UC 3 "looks better"

[QUOTE="avshaman"][QUOTE="rilpas"]so cows are now going to start deluding themselves again? the PS3 was not more powerful then PCs at the time and neither will the PS404dcarraher

Indeed...

I really respect the work some first-party console studios did in pulling out every last ounce of power out of the aged PS3 and 360 hardware, but to claim they have a chance of technically outmatching games running on a competent gaming PC is simply speaking nonsense...

[QUOTE="killzowned24"]

He posted some more in the comments.04dcarraher

128bit GDDR3-800/1600 would not yield 102 GB/s e.g. my old Radeon HD 4650M has 128bit GDDR3-700/1400.

I wonder if Xbox Next has stacked VRAM with 512bit connections (on-chip-package).

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

When he says ahead of the PC he means in terms of what they can do on the back end interfacing with the hardware and getting the most out of the hardware. PCs are horribly inefficent due to their OS and their grpahic APIs.

RyviusARC

Most of the ineffiencey is on the CPU side though.

You will notice this is lousy console to PC ports.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="killzowned24"]

He posted some more in the comments.ronvalencia

128bit GDDR3-800/1600 would not yield 102 GB/s e.g. my old Radeon HD 4650M has 128bit GDDR3-700/1400.

I wonder if Xbox Next has stacked VRAM with 512bit connections (on-chip-package).

LOL 1.6 GHz

I find it hard to believe Microsoft would skimp out so much on the RAM. I'll wait till final specs are released before I draw any conclusions.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] The only flaw in that post is the rumor of the 720 memory being at 102 GB/s which is fast enough to all the console parts and for the gpu. The ESram is a buffer that is suppose to have 170GB/s which means that it will be fine. the xbox specs might be this CPU: 8 Core X64 chip running at 1.6GHZ with 4MB of L2 cache. each CPU thread has its own 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB L1 data cache - each module of four CPU cores has a 2 MB L2 cache resulting in a total of 4 MB of L2 cache - each core has one fully independent hardware thread with no shared execution resources - each hardware thread can issue two instructions per clock RAM: 8GB of DDR3(102 GB/s, it may be GDDR3) along with 32MB of "ESRAM", connected directly to the GPU. - from the GPUs perspective the bandwidths of system memory and ESRAM are parallel providing combined peak bandwidth of 170 GB/sec Graphics: Custom Direct3D graphics chip supporting DX11.1, running at 800MHZ. 12 Compute Units providing a total of 768 Stream Processors It looks like a slightly customized downclocked AMD 7850 performance type of GPU. It reminds me of the AFOX's 'HD 7850' Prototype. Storage: SATA II HDD, presumably varied sizing options. Suggested default of 500GB. Optical Drive: 6x 50GB Blu Ray Networking: Gigabit ethernet and 802.11 a/b/n/g WiFi as standard Connectivity: USB 3.0, Kinect In, HDMI 1.4a in/out, SPDFI out

04dcarraher

128bit GDDR3-800/1600 would not yield 102 GB/s e.g. my old Radeon HD 4650M has 128bit GDDR3-700/1400.

I wonder if Xbox Next has stacked VRAM with 512bit connections (on-chip-package).

384bit PCB would make it expensive. I recall PC GPU with 384bit and GDDR3 @ 1080Mhz would be Geforce 8800 Ultra. I guess MS could "duck tape" six Radeon HD 5450/64bit GDDR3 1080Mhz PCBs together.

yet keep falling in my trap,you keep looking pathetic and like a loser fighting on the internet for the supremacy of the PS4 being more powerful...there is a huge difference between you and me,i don't use rumors or speculations as facts ;)...keep showing how butthurt i make you every time i post something :cool: how does it feel to debunk all your rumors with rumors? looks like it hurts in the ass :cool: BTW his claims came from Inside AMD and all the info has been deleted for some reason at beyond 3d n google cache...keep on crying ;)Tessellation

[QUOTE="killzowned24"]

He posted some more in the comments.04dcarraher

Your trap..:lol: Do you need some straws.? :lol:tormentos

under your skin once again,keep showing your butthurt :cool:

People nothing stop MS now from making a powerful console,they can byte the bullet once again,but apparently they don't want to which is why so many people can't accept this,they find it hard to believe.. But think about it from a money perspective MS is not in the race to give incredible powerful hardware and not make a dime,the xbox 360 could have been a money maker for them if they would have done things better and would not have loss 3.1 billion at the start of the generation,this is about money and winning. For 2 generations MS has give powerful hardware and for 2 generations they have loss and haven't been able to be number one,so apparently MS is trying a different approach and now it will be more about windows and features than about games.tormentos

''And you've hit one of the reasons I left. Almost all of the core gamers that created the Xbox that were in management have been forced out or left, and what's left over is MBAs with dollar signs in their eyes. I just found I could no longer believe in and agree with the direction the execs were taking the Xbox org. ''

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1696487&postcount=1317

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="killzowned24"]

He posted some more in the comments.tormentos

Its only 60mhz slower and is missing 256 shader processors. Which means it will be about 20-25% slower then a full blown 7850. We have no real clue whats in the PS4, it could a downclocked 7870 or a normal 7850.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] The only flaw in that post is the rumor of the 720 memory being at 102 GB/s which is fast enough to all the console parts and for the gpu. The ESram is a buffer that is suppose to have 170GB/s which means that it will be fine. the xbox specs might be this CPU: 8 Core X64 chip running at 1.6GHZ with 4MB of L2 cache. each CPU thread has its own 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB L1 data cache - each module of four CPU cores has a 2 MB L2 cache resulting in a total of 4 MB of L2 cache - each core has one fully independent hardware thread with no shared execution resources - each hardware thread can issue two instructions per clock RAM: 8GB of DDR3(102 GB/s, it may be GDDR3) along with 32MB of "ESRAM", connected directly to the GPU. - from the GPUs perspective the bandwidths of system memory and ESRAM are parallel providing combined peak bandwidth of 170 GB/sec Graphics: Custom Direct3D graphics chip supporting DX11.1, running at 800MHZ. 12 Compute Units providing a total of 768 Stream Processors It looks like a slightly customized downclocked AMD 7850 performance type of GPU. It reminds me of the AFOX's 'HD 7850' Prototype. Storage: SATA II HDD, presumably varied sizing options. Suggested default of 500GB. Optical Drive: 6x 50GB Blu Ray Networking: Gigabit ethernet and 802.11 a/b/n/g WiFi as standard Connectivity: USB 3.0, Kinect In, HDMI 1.4a in/out, SPDFI out

04dcarraher

Its only 60mhz slower and is missing 256 shader processors. Which means it will be about 20-25% slower then a full blown 7850. We have no real clue whats in the PS4, it could a downclocked 7870 or a normal 7850.

its just a copy and paste job for the specs. but again about the xbox gpu being further away from a 7850 is false. the 12CU 768 stream processors matches AMD's 7850 prototype specs.

Its only 60mhz slower and is missing 256 shader processors. Which means it will be about 20-25% slower then a full blown 7850. We have no real clue whats in the PS4, it could a downclocked 7870 or a normal 7850.

04dcarraher

LOLz at low level control. I could have said the same about Xbox360 still yet to be utilized power, but, ultimately no one is going to waste their time on it (maybe one or two, but, that's about it). magicalclick

[QUOTE="rilpas"]so cows are now going to start deluding themselves again? the PS3 was not more powerful then PCs at the time and neither will the PS4avshaman

false in every respect

Not false at all. Decent PCs offers much more power than a console yet very few games on the PC look better than the better console exclusives. This is my opinion from actually owning a gaming PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. The Witcher 2 is the best looking PC game to my eyes and yet when I compare it directly, side by side to Uncharted 3 I find the latter game to look better in many cases. It is at the very least tied. And this is on the same 1080p display, where Uncharted 3 has the disadvantage of lower native resolution. Still, it somehow looks very sharp and clear. The Witcher 2, even though outputting native 1920x1080 doesn't really look appreciably sharper or clearer. avshaman

and now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, considering how consoles have yet to surpass the first Crisis

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]its just a copy and paste job for the specs. but again about the xbox gpu being further away from a 7850 is false. the 12CU 768 stream processors matches AMD's 7850 prototype specs.

Its only 60mhz slower and is missing 256 shader processors. Which means it will be about 20-25% slower then a full blown 7850. We have no real clue whats in the PS4, it could a downclocked 7870 or a normal 7850.

tormentos

Here is the 7850 prototype

released 7850

Pixel pumping performance is virtually the same while the texture fillrate is only 25% slower.So for all intents and purposes its very close to a 7850.

Now dont forget that the PS4's rumored gpu specs say 1.7 TFLOP pf performance which means its equal to a normal 7850, if in fact the gpu has 18CU's its been severely downclocked. Since a 7870 can do 2.5 TFLOP.... So the xbox gpu is closer to a 7850 then the PS4 is to a 7870 performance wise.

I honestly predicted xbox brand was going downhill after Peter Moore left and Don Mattrick was appointed the interactive media president at MS.

Mystery_Writer

Peter Moore was awsome. Always made me laugh each E3 when he pulled up his sleeve to reveal a new game for 360 tatooed on his arm with a grin on his face :lol:

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]Yeah, people do seem to be getting excited by this article.

But because it's a rumour this whole things a little redundant right now.

The guys is commenting on what he admits is rumoured specs about an obvious flaw that apparently no other expert can see but him. I don't think so.

This guys expertise owns the common forum poster, fine. This guys expertise owns the entire of MS, don't think so.

PS2 Vs Xbox, what was the most efficient development console. PS3 Vs X360, what was the most efficient development console. Yeah, I think MS knows what they're doing.

tormentos

I said "efficient development console" to work with. As in "then this next Xbox will act like a boat anchor, dragging down the min-spec target for cross-platform next-generation games". My point is MS are experienced enough if anyone is to avoid these issues.

Taking weeks to make each car in GT6 isn't efficient is it? The PS2 and 3 were not efficient development platforms. Combining an old style GPU with fixed shaders and the CELL to get results is not an efficient way of doing things.

I think it's you who is getting power and efficiency mixed up. Efficiency is to do with a devices design for the job and how quickly you can get results from the device. If there is one thing the Xbox 360 is, it's efficient. Most games can hit top results pretty easily, the higher end software needing a bit more of a push. Most games across the gen were consistent in performance.

Where as the PS3 was difficult at the standard and required a massive push to get top results for the high end software, to the point no one really bothers except 1st party developers with resources and the financial backing of Sony.

Wheres that console fanboy at that said they'd be more powerful than a GTX 690? :lol:

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]its just a copy and paste job for the specs. but again about the xbox gpu being further away from a 7850 is false. the 12CU 768 stream processors matches AMD's 7850 prototype specs.

Its only 60mhz slower and is missing 256 shader processors. Which means it will be about 20-25% slower then a full blown 7850. We have no real clue whats in the PS4, it could a downclocked 7870 or a normal 7850.

04dcarraher

Here is the 7850 prototype

released 7850

Pixel pumping performance is virtually the same while the texture fillrate is only 25% slower.So for all intents and purposes its very close to a 7850.

Now dont forget that the PS4's rumored gpu specs say 1.7 TFLOP pf performance which means its equal to a normal 7850, if in fact the gpu has 18CU's its been severely downclocked. Since a 7870 can do 2.5 TFLOP.... So the xbox gpu is closer to a 7850 then the PS4 is to a 7870 performance wise.

Would Microsoft contract fabricate a Pitcairn design and disable 8 CUs? Is Microsoft expecting thier (GoFlo) yields to be under TSMC's 7850(16 CU count) yields?

The only reason why Pitcairn comes with different CU count is due to yield issues. Atm, it seems AMD can fabricate Pitcairns with minimum of 16 working CUs from TSMC.

The reason for 7870 XT's existence is due to AMD Tahiti not having yields at 7950's 28 CU count i.e. a Tahiti with 24 working CUs.

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]LOLz at low level control. I could have said the same about Xbox360 still yet to be utilized power, but, ultimately no one is going to waste their time on it (maybe one or two, but, that's about it). tormentos

It all sounds right. And going by these rumored specs, the next xbox is not as powerfull as I was expecting. Though I was not expecting a GTX 690 killer, hehe. These consoles will be power efficient and can't have a 800 watt powersupply in them. But I was at least hoping for specs to be around the rumored Orbis.

We can sit here and discuss those GPU specs up and down. But what it looks like to me, is that the GPU in the Durango won't match the performance of a equal PC GPU anyways, because of the slow 8GB DDR3 bandwidth of just 68GB/s. And that is where the GPU has to fetch all the textures and stuff from...right??

So the same PC GPU with the same amount of CU's, stream processors and dedicated 2GB GDDR5 of at least 153GB/s will be faster than Durango's GPU.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] Dude 12 CU and 768 Stream processor on the 720 GPU don't match the 7850,the 7850 has 30% more stream processors 1024 and 16 CU it has 20,4 are disable. So basically the 720 GPU has 4 CU less and 256 less SP. The 7870 has 20 CU and 1,280 Stream Processors now for the PS4 the stream processor count still haven't been reveal but it has 18 CU.the 7870 has 20... So yeah basically the 720 GPU is further away from a 7850 than the PS4 is from a 7870.ronvalencia

Here is the 7850 prototype

released 7850

Pixel pumping performance is virtually the same while the texture fillrate is only 25% slower.So for all intents and purposes its very close to a 7850.

Now dont forget that the PS4's rumored gpu specs say 1.7 TFLOP pf performance which means its equal to a normal 7850, if in fact the gpu has 18CU's its been severely downclocked. Since a 7870 can do 2.5 TFLOP.... So the xbox gpu is closer to a 7850 then the PS4 is to a 7870 performance wise.

Would Microsoft contract fabricate a Pitcairn design and disable 8 CUs? Is Microsoft expecting thier (GoFlo) yields to be under TSMC's 7850(16 CU count) yields?

The only reason why Pitcairn comes with different CU count is due to yield issues. Atm, it seems AMD can fabricate Pitcairns with minimum of 16 working CUs from TSMC.

The reason for 7870 XT's existence is due to AMD Tahiti not having yields at 7950's 28 CU count i.e. a Tahiti with 24 working CUs.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Here is the 7850 prototype

released 7850

Pixel pumping performance is virtually the same while the texture fillrate is only 25% slower.So for all intents and purposes its very close to a 7850.

Now dont forget that the PS4's rumored gpu specs say 1.7 TFLOP pf performance which means its equal to a normal 7850, if in fact the gpu has 18CU's its been severely downclocked. Since a 7870 can do 2.5 TFLOP.... So the xbox gpu is closer to a 7850 then the PS4 is to a 7870 performance wise.

04dcarraher

Would Microsoft contract fabricate a Pitcairn design and disable 8 CUs? Is Microsoft expecting thier (GoFlo) yields to be under TSMC's 7850(16 CU count) yields?

The only reason why Pitcairn comes with different CU count is due to yield issues. Atm, it seems AMD can fabricate Pitcairns with minimum of 16 working CUs from TSMC.

The reason for 7870 XT's existence is due to AMD Tahiti not having yields at 7950's 28 CU count i.e. a Tahiti with 24 working CUs.

True, but a dual AMD Mars would also result in 12 CUs.

IF Microsoft recycles AMD's Pitcairn design, improving the yields to TSMC's 7850 levels would result in 16 working CUs.

When he says ahead of the PC he means in terms of what they can do on the back end interfacing with the hardware and getting the most out of the hardware. PCs are horribly inefficent due to their OS and their grpahic APIs.

Wasdie

I'm not suprised by the rumored specs of Durango. Microsoft has been leaning towards a more Kinect oriented future for the Xbox brand, also with significant interest to incorporate Windows 8 into the X720. No wonder the 3GB for the OS rumor sounds viable.

Would Microsoft contract fabricate a Pitcairn design and disable 8 CUs? Is Microsoft expecting thier (GoFlo) yields to be under TSMC's 7850(16 CU count) yields?

The only reason why Pitcairn comes with different CU count is due to yield issues. Atm, it seems AMD can fabricate Pitcairns with minimum of 16 working CUs from TSMC.

The reason for 7870 XT's existence is due to AMD Tahiti not having yields at 7950's 28 CU count i.e. a Tahiti with 24 working CUs.

ronvalencia

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="magicalclick"]LOLz at low level control. I could have said the same about Xbox360 still yet to be utilized power, but, ultimately no one is going to waste their time on it (maybe one or two, but, that's about it). Tessellation

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]Would Microsoft contract fabricate a Pitcairn design and disable 8 CUs? Is Microsoft expecting thier (GoFlo) yields to be under TSMC's 7850(16 CU count) yields?

The only reason why Pitcairn comes with different CU count is due to yield issues. Atm, it seems AMD can fabricate Pitcairns with minimum of 16 working CUs from TSMC.

The reason for 7870 XT's existence is due to AMD Tahiti not having yields at 7950's 28 CU count i.e. a Tahiti with 24 working CUs.

tormentos

Consoles has it's own yield buffer e.g. PS3 CELL's 8th SPU.

For PS4's Pitcairn, it's possible to have 18 working CUs from 20 CUs.

Btw, AMD rumored Bonaire XT (Radeon HD 8770) has 768 stream processors (12 CU). Atm, the old 7770 was renamed to 8760 OEM.

Bonaire XT is basically Mars XT @ 2X scale.

good read but i don't think MS will be stupid enough to release a weak ass system when they have money to release a powerful system. If they do release some outdated sh!t like Nintendo is doing then lol.silversix_

Heh, Microsoft's more concerned about trying to take over the living room & focusing more on Kinect more so than having better hardware, or putting focus on exclusives.