What GPU will Xbox 720 have?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#201 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="p4s2p0"] They used less pc cpu's so they didn't pair them. If pc cpu's were better they wouldn't have used cells at all or more pc cpu's than cells instead of more cells than pc..

The best super computers don't use the Cell. Also we are talking about video games which have a different set of requirements. You obviously have no clue what your are talking about. You just posted a random link.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#202 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="mitu123"] I hope they're not expecting something beyond GTX 685 level...or even GTX 680 for that matter.GioVela2010
Just dont expect a gpu that has 100w TDP or higher.

I don't see how such a statement automatically equates to a 6670. A Radeon 7970M is 100w TDP GPU. AMD cards keep gettin more and more effecient so a 8970M or even perhaps a 9970m will be even more powerful and use less power. So yes, I don't expect anything less capable from Xbox 720 than a yet to be released 8970m or even 9970m

First off mobile gpu's are much slower then their desktop counterparts then usually half the performance or more, lets not forget the fact that console design start at a minimum a year and a half before release but MS and AMD have been working since late 2010, so there's no way you will see a 8000 or 9000 series gpu's. also do you also realize that the more transistors are in a processors or in this case gpu's the more power it needs in which more cooling is required and I doubt they will use 11-16nm manufacturing processes to lower power usage enough to make use. In which cost increases, and the 7850 uses 130w while a 7950 uses 200watts while 7970 uses 250w , so no they will not use top tier gpu's. Learn something about hardware before spiting out random fantasies.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#203 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Just dont expect a gpu that has 100w TDP or higher. 04dcarraher

I don't see how such a statement automatically equates to a 6670. A Radeon 7970M is 100w TDP GPU. AMD cards keep gettin more and more effecient so a 8970M or even perhaps a 9970m will be even more powerful and use less power. So yes, I don't expect anything less capable from Xbox 720 than a yet to be released 8970m or even 9970m

First off mobile gpu's are much slower then their desktop counterparts then usually half the performance or more, lets not forget the fact that console design start at a minimum a year and a half before release but MS and AMD have been working since late 2010, so there's no way you will see a 8000 or 9000 series gpu's. also do you also realize that the more transistors are in a processors or in this case gpu's the more power it needs in which more cooling is required and I doubt they will use 11-16nm manufacturing processes to lower power usage enough to make use. In which cost increases, and the 7850 uses 130w while a 7950 uses 200watts while 7970 uses 250w , so no they will not use top tier gpu's. Learn something about hardware before spiting out random fantasies.

U said it urself, they start planning a MINIMUM of 1.5 years before release, that doesn't mean they can't work on it longer, and that doesnt prove it can't use a 8000 series GPU. And y r u bringing up a 7850 when the 7970m is more capable and less power hungry. 7970m is only 100w TDP, and is about as powerful as a 220w GTX 570. The 7970m has about 45% better performance than the 9 month old 6990m it replaced. In a very short 9 months they got nearly 50% better performance, but kept the same 100w TDP! Performance per Watt the HD 7970m is king, and you'd be foolish to think Xbox 720's GPU won't easily surpass it when the release date is still 18 months away, which is twice as long as it took AMD to get 50% better performance from a 100w TDP card! Oh and the X1900 XT which even hermits say Xenos is similar to was 120w TDP
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#204 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I don't see how such a statement automatically equates to a 6670. A Radeon 7970M is 100w TDP GPU. AMD cards keep gettin more and more effecient so a 8970M or even perhaps a 9970m will be even more powerful and use less power. So yes, I don't expect anything less capable from Xbox 720 than a yet to be released 8970m or even 9970mGioVela2010

First off mobile gpu's are much slower then their desktop counterparts then usually half the performance or more, lets not forget the fact that console design start at a minimum a year and a half before release but MS and AMD have been working since late 2010, so there's no way you will see a 8000 or 9000 series gpu's. also do you also realize that the more transistors are in a processors or in this case gpu's the more power it needs in which more cooling is required and I doubt they will use 11-16nm manufacturing processes to lower power usage enough to make use. In which cost increases, and the 7850 uses 130w while a 7950 uses 200watts while 7970 uses 250w , so no they will not use top tier gpu's. Learn something about hardware before spiting out random fantasies.

U said it urself, they start planning a MINIMUM of 1.5 years before release, that doesn't they can't work together longer, and that doesnt prove it can't use a 8000 series GPU. And y r u bringing up a 7850 when the 7970m is more capable and less power hungry. 7970m is only 100w TDP, and is about as powerful as a 220w GTX 570. The 7970m has about 45% better performance than the 9 month old 6990m it replaced. In a very short 9 months they got nearly 50% better performance, but kept the same 100w TDP! Performance per Watt the HD 7970m is king, and you'd be foolish to think Xbox 720's GPU won't easily surpass it when the release date is still 18 months away, which is twice as long as it took AMD to get 50% better performance from a 100w TDP card! Oh and the X1900 XT which even hermits say Xenos is similar to was 120w TDP

It's not as powerful as a GTX 570. And you seem to forget mobile gpus are two to three times the price of normal gpus.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#205 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
A mid range card like a Radeon 6870 or Nvidia 560 equivlent would be more than enough for next gen consoles imo.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#206 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] First off mobile gpu's are much slower then their desktop counterparts then usually half the performance or more, lets not forget the fact that console design start at a minimum a year and a half before release but MS and AMD have been working since late 2010, so there's no way you will see a 8000 or 9000 series gpu's. also do you also realize that the more transistors are in a processors or in this case gpu's the more power it needs in which more cooling is required and I doubt they will use 11-16nm manufacturing processes to lower power usage enough to make use. In which cost increases, and the 7850 uses 130w while a 7950 uses 200watts while 7970 uses 250w , so no they will not use top tier gpu's. Learn something about hardware before spiting out random fantasies.RyviusARC
U said it urself, they start planning a MINIMUM of 1.5 years before release, that doesn't they can't work together longer, and that doesnt prove it can't use a 8000 series GPU. And y r u bringing up a 7850 when the 7970m is more capable and less power hungry. 7970m is only 100w TDP, and is about as powerful as a 220w GTX 570. The 7970m has about 45% better performance than the 9 month old 6990m it replaced. In a very short 9 months they got nearly 50% better performance, but kept the same 100w TDP! Performance per Watt the HD 7970m is king, and you'd be foolish to think Xbox 720's GPU won't easily surpass it when the release date is still 18 months away, which is twice as long as it took AMD to get 50% better performance from a 100w TDP card! Oh and the X1900 XT which even hermits say Xenos is similar to was 120w TDP

It's not as powerful as a GTX 570. And you seem to forget mobile gpus are two to three times the price of normal gpus.

Yes it is. 61000 in 3dmark at stock clock speeds And 20,000 in Vantage http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/658185-amd-7970m-vs-gtx-680m-2.html#post8460234
Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#207 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

hmmmm. what will it have??? hmmm? what gpu.... hmmmm...

*goes to newegg looks in the $75 to $125 range*

yep, there it is.

Avatar image for p4s2p0
p4s2p0

4167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#208 p4s2p0
Member since 2010 • 4167 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="p4s2p0"] They used less pc cpu's so they didn't pair them. If pc cpu's were better they wouldn't have used cells at all or more pc cpu's than cells instead of more cells than pc..

The best super computers don't use the Cell. Also we are talking about video games which have a different set of requirements. You obviously have no clue what your are talking about. You just posted a random link.

The link showed in 2008 the fastest supercomputer was made with mostly cell processors. So for a short time cell was faster than what pc was offering. The newest one being built in the U.S. uses amd opteron http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/us-lab-aims-fastest-supercomputer-titan-187705 Japan has it for now with the k supercomputer.
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#209 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] U said it urself, they start planning a MINIMUM of 1.5 years before release, that doesn't they can't work together longer, and that doesnt prove it can't use a 8000 series GPU. And y r u bringing up a 7850 when the 7970m is more capable and less power hungry. 7970m is only 100w TDP, and is about as powerful as a 220w GTX 570. The 7970m has about 45% better performance than the 9 month old 6990m it replaced. In a very short 9 months they got nearly 50% better performance, but kept the same 100w TDP! Performance per Watt the HD 7970m is king, and you'd be foolish to think Xbox 720's GPU won't easily surpass it when the release date is still 18 months away, which is twice as long as it took AMD to get 50% better performance from a 100w TDP card! Oh and the X1900 XT which even hermits say Xenos is similar to was 120w TDP

It's not as powerful as a GTX 570. And you seem to forget mobile gpus are two to three times the price of normal gpus.

Yes it is. 61000 in 3dmark at stock clock speeds And 20,000 in Vantage http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/658185-amd-7970m-vs-gtx-680m-2.html#post8460234

That is not ingame performance.
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#210 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="p4s2p0"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="p4s2p0"] They used less pc cpu's so they didn't pair them. If pc cpu's were better they wouldn't have used cells at all or more pc cpu's than cells instead of more cells than pc..

The best super computers don't use the Cell. Also we are talking about video games which have a different set of requirements. You obviously have no clue what your are talking about. You just posted a random link.

The link showed in 2008 the fastest supercomputer was made with mostly cell processors. So for a short time cell was faster than what pc was offering. The newest one being built in the U.S. uses amd opteron http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/us-lab-aims-fastest-supercomputer-titan-187705

Fastest has many meanings. Also where is the link of this cell supercomputer saying it is the fastest even at the time of creation? And it has to be only using that CPU and no others. Also you forget one vital point. The supercomputers that used such tech was not the same CPU used in the PS3. It's an altered version. So either way you are wrong. And you seem to forget we are talking video game performance which those types of computers are not made for.
Avatar image for p4s2p0
p4s2p0

4167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#211 p4s2p0
Member since 2010 • 4167 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="p4s2p0"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"] The best super computers don't use the Cell. Also we are talking about video games which have a different set of requirements. You obviously have no clue what your are talking about. You just posted a random link.

The link showed in 2008 the fastest supercomputer was made with mostly cell processors. So for a short time cell was faster than what pc was offering. The newest one being built in the U.S. uses amd opteron http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/us-lab-aims-fastest-supercomputer-titan-187705

Fastest has many meanings. Also where is the link of this cell supercomputer saying it is the fastest even at the time of creation? And it has to be only using that CPU and no others. Also you forget one vital point. The supercomputers that used such tech was not the same CPU used in the PS3. It's an altered version. So either way you are wrong. And you seem to forget we are talking video game performance which those types of computers are not made for.

I'm just saying sony made a good cpu even if ps3 didn't need it. But it did help research with folding@home http://www.1up.com/news/ps3-foldinghome-guinness-world-records But ya video games don't require that much power.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#212 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"] It's not as powerful as a GTX 570. And you seem to forget mobile gpus are two to three times the price of normal gpus.

Yes it is. 61000 in 3dmark at stock clock speeds And 20,000 in Vantage http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/658185-amd-7970m-vs-gtx-680m-2.html#post8460234

That is not ingame performance.

Well it's going to be impossible to have both cards benchmarked on the same machine obviously. But here is an idea.
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#213 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Well it's going to be impossible to have both cards benchmarked on the same machine obviously. But here is an idea.

That is some nice results. I wonder how it's doing so well compared to what Nvidia has to offer for laptop GPUs. Although The GTX 570 I used performs much better than the GTX 570 in that benchmark. Mainly because I oced mine to 950mhz core clock. You can't really OC laptop GPUs as well especially with power and heat issues. But those are still nice benches for the 7970m.
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#214 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

I don't see how such a statement automatically equates to a 6670. A Radeon 7970M is 100w TDP GPU. AMD cards keep gettin more and more effecient so a 8970M or even perhaps a 9970m will be even more powerful and use less power. So yes, I don't expect anything less capable from Xbox 720 than a yet to be released 8970m or even 9970mGioVela2010
First off mobile gpu's are much slower then their desktop counterparts then usually half the performance or more, lets not forget the fact that console design start at a minimum a year and a half before release but MS and AMD have been working since late 2010, so there's no way you will see a 8000 or 9000 series gpu's. also do you also realize that the more transistors are in a processors or in this case gpu's the more power it needs in which more cooling is required and I doubt they will use 11-16nm manufacturing processes to lower power usage enough to make use. In which cost increases, and the 7850 uses 130w while a 7950 uses 200watts while 7970 uses 250w , so no they will not use top tier gpu's. Learn something about hardware before spiting out random fantasies.

U said it urself, they start planning a MINIMUM of 1.5 years before release, that doesn't mean they can't work on it longer, and that doesnt prove it can't use a 8000 series GPU. And y r u bringing up a 7850 when the 7970m is more capable and less power hungry. 7970m is only 100w TDP, and is about as powerful as a 220w GTX 570. The 7970m has about 45% better performance than the 9 month old 6990m it replaced. In a very short 9 months they got nearly 50% better performance, but kept the same 100w TDP! Performance per Watt the HD 7970m is king, and you'd be foolish to think Xbox 720's GPU won't easily surpass it when the release date is still 18 months away, which is twice as long as it took AMD to get 50% better performance from a 100w TDP card! Oh and the X1900 XT which even hermits say Xenos is similar to was 120w TDP

HD 7970M is based on HD 7870 desktop GPU.
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#215 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] HD 7970M is based on HD 7870 desktop GPU.

A gimped version of the 7870 desktop GPU.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#216 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Well it's going to be impossible to have both cards benchmarked on the same machine obviously. But here is an idea.

That is some nice results. I wonder how it's doing so well compared to what Nvidia has to offer for laptop GPUs.

I think it's because even on desktop GPU's AMD is more performance per watt focused, which makes developing mobile GPU'S that much easier and natural for them. If you read that notebookforum link and thread I posted, everyone is jaw dropped by the performance for being a 100w TDP GPU, even on stock voltage people are getting stock GTX 580 performance when over locking the 7970m. And apparently the GPU is going for $400-450, keep in mind again that Xbox 360 had equal power to a X1900 XT which cost $500 at the time. And yet it was reported that Microsoft was paying $150 for Xenos (360 GPU) at launch. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#217 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][ I think it's because even on desktop GPU's AMD is more performance per watt focused, which makes developing mobile GPU'S that much easier and natural for them. If you read that notebookforum link and thread I posted, everyone is jaw dropped by the performance for being a 100w TDP GPU, even on stock voltage people are getting stock GTX 580 performance when over locking the 7970m. And apparently the GPU is going for $400-450, keep in mind again that Xbox 360 had equal power to a X1900 XT which cost $500 at the time. And yet it was reported that Microsoft was paying $150 for Xenos (360 GPU) at launch. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

There is no where that indicated it has equal performance to a X1900 XT. And the only reason is was stronger than most mid range cards at the time was because of unified shader tech. There is nothing like that this time around. Although I wouldn't find it impossible for the new Xbox 720 to have performance near a GTX 570. . I would welcome it because that would mean PC gaming wouldn't be held back as much.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#218 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Well it's going to be impossible to have both cards benchmarked on the same machine obviously. But here is an idea.

That is some nice results. Although The GTX 570 I used performs much better than the GTX 570 in that benchmark. Mainly because I oced mine to 950mhz core clock. You can't really OC laptop GPUs as well especially with power and heat issues. .

Pretty damn good temps at stock speeds
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#219 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"][ I think it's because even on desktop GPU's AMD is more performance per watt focused, which makes developing mobile GPU'S that much easier and natural for them. If you read that notebookforum link and thread I posted, everyone is jaw dropped by the performance for being a 100w TDP GPU, even on stock voltage people are getting stock GTX 580 performance when over locking the 7970m. And apparently the GPU is going for $400-450, keep in mind again that Xbox 360 had equal power to a X1900 XT which cost $500 at the time. And yet it was reported that Microsoft was paying $150 for Xenos (360 GPU) at launch. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

There is no where that indicated it has equal performance to a X1900 XT. .

I don't really care that u don't agree, pretty much everyone else does
Avatar image for kalipekona
kalipekona

2492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#220 kalipekona
Member since 2003 • 2492 Posts

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

And yet, a 7800GTX SLI that would cost a 3000$ PC in 2005, cant even start Witcher 2, it is not even a supported card at all !!!!

When 360 manages to run it with better lighting than PC and at a super steady frame rate and above medium settings

It is crazy how 360 completly destroys even 2010 video cards

ShadowMoses900

Begone foul beast! Xbox 360

Lol and Lemmings say Witcher 2 on Xbox looks just as good as Uncharted 3 :lol:

Well, put Uncharted 3 up against The Witcher 2 on PC and it will look just as bad.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#221 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
Getting off topic now, but can ur over clocked gtx 570 top this? 7658 in 3DMark
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#222 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
I don't use such benchmarks to test performance because it usually differs in games. I've had cards that test better on 3D mark but perform worse in games and the video games is what matters.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#223 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]I don't use such benchmarks to test performs because it usually differs in games. I've had cards that test better on 3D mark but perform worse in games and the video games is what matters.

I'll chalk that up as a no :)
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#224 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I'll chalk that up as a no :)

I haven't tested it so I wouldn't know. But I can't trust those screenshots either because the data displayed is not there. And I have no clue on knowing the temps or if it can keep those stable running 100% for 24 hours.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#225 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"][ I think it's because even on desktop GPU's AMD is more performance per watt focused, which makes developing mobile GPU'S that much easier and natural for them. If you read that notebookforum link and thread I posted, everyone is jaw dropped by the performance for being a 100w TDP GPU, even on stock voltage people are getting stock GTX 580 performance when over locking the 7970m. And apparently the GPU is going for $400-450, keep in mind again that Xbox 360 had equal power to a X1900 XT which cost $500 at the time. And yet it was reported that Microsoft was paying $150 for Xenos (360 GPU) at launch. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20051123214405.html

There is no where that indicated it has equal performance to a X1900 XT. .

I don't really care that u don't agree, pretty much everyone else does

those "everyone else" are wrong Lets look at the specs of each gpu Xenos (360) GFLOPS performance 240 Memory for Graphics use under 384mb *averages 256mb Memory bandwidth 21.6 GB/s ATI X1900xt GFLOPS performance 465 Memory for video 512mb memory bandwidth 46 GB/s
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#226 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I'll chalk that up as a no :)RyviusARC
I haven't tested it so I wouldn't know. But I can't trust those screenshots either because the data displayed is not there. And I have no clue on knowing the temps or if it can keep those stable running 100% for 24 hours.

Silicon quality for laptops are of higher quality then desktop because of the pounding they get from extra heat from poor. Also almost all benchmarks have been published by AMD , MD also presented some data showing their estimate of performance results for HD 7970M vs. GTX 675M, which you can see that it appears that information was simulated using desktop hardware (Core i7-2600K). The selection of games and the chosen settings could be debated. AMD obviously isn't an unbiased review source. Need to wait for real unbias reviews.

Avatar image for tenaka2
tenaka2

17958

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#227 tenaka2
Member since 2004 • 17958 Posts

It will be a really really cheap one, soccer moms don't care about gpus.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#228 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"] There is no where that indicated it has equal performance to a X1900 XT. .

I don't really care that u don't agree, pretty much everyone else does

those "everyone else" are wrong Lets look at the specs of each gpu Xenos (360) GFLOPS performance 240 Memory for Graphics use under 384mb *averages 256mb Memory bandwidth 21.6 GB/s ATI X1900xt GFLOPS performance 465 Memory for video 512mb memory bandwidth 46 GB/s

Make up ur mind kid ;)
Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#229 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] HD 7970M is based on HD 7870 desktop GPU.

A gimped version of the 7870 desktop GPU.

7970M has 1280 stream processors @ 850Mhz instead of desktop's 1Ghz i.e. 7970M is higher than desktop 7850.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#230 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

It will be a really really cheap one, soccer moms don't care about gpus.

tenaka2
Speaking of Soccer, don't u have tryouts to go to kid?
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#231 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I don't really care that u don't agree, pretty much everyone else doesGioVela2010
those "everyone else" are wrong Lets look at the specs of each gpu Xenos (360) GFLOPS performance 240 Memory for Graphics use under 384mb *averages 256mb Memory bandwidth 21.6 GB/s ATI X1900xt GFLOPS performance 465 Memory for video 512mb memory bandwidth 46 GB/s

Make up ur mind kid ;)

huh? you totally took it out of context, which shows you do not understand as with the statement the Xenos is more like a x1900/ 2000 based on arcitectrure then a 3000 series let alone the fact of optimization allowing the Xenos to perform close to the X1900 as seen with Crysis 2. Theres no way a Xenos can out process any high ended gpu's that were out during or shortly after its release.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#232 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] those "everyone else" are wrong Lets look at the specs of each gpu Xenos (360) GFLOPS performance 240 Memory for Graphics use under 384mb *averages 256mb Memory bandwidth 21.6 GB/s ATI X1900xt GFLOPS performance 465 Memory for video 512mb memory bandwidth 46 GB/s04dcarraher

Make up ur mind kid ;)

allowing xenos to perform close to the X1900 as seen with Crysis 2.

Lol there u go again. Face it kid, every non port multi developed game has the X1900 XT or at worse X1800 XT performing the same as a Xbox 360. And both cards were over $450 at time of Xbox 360's release

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#233 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Make up ur mind kid ;) GioVela2010

allowing xenos to perform close to the X1900 as seen with Crysis 2.

Lol there u go again. Face it kid, every non port multi developed game has the X1900 XT or at worse X1800 XT performing the same as a Xbox 360. And both cards were over $450 at time of Xbox 360's release

Kid? :lol:

Its funny that games running better and faster with same era gpu's then what consoles do, just look at 8600GT which is slower then a 7800GTX can match or surpass console gaming abilities.

do you realize that actual costs to manufacturers is much less then what they charge for a product? Even with bulk pricing and direct manufacturing prices for Microsoft and or Sony they lost hundreds per console made and didnt start making profit until three years after the fact. Consoles are money pits when they use high tier hardware. MS or Sony will not create a $600+ console and less it at a lost again. They will use lower tier hardware to save money, from not needing more cooling and power to run the product.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#234 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] allowing xenos to perform close to the X1900 as seen with Crysis 2. 04dcarraher

Lol there u go again. Face it kid, every non port multi developed game has the X1900 XT or at worse X1800 XT performing the same as a Xbox 360. And both cards were over $450 at time of Xbox 360's release

Kid? :lol:

Its funny that games running better and faster with same era gpu's then what consoles do, just look at 8600GT which is slower then a 7800GTX can match or surpass console gaming abilities.

do you realize that actual costs to manufacturers is much less then what they charge for a product? Even with bulk pricing and direct manufacturing prices for Microsoft and or Sony they lost hundreds per console made and didnt start making profit until three years after the fact. Consoles are money pits when they use high tier hardware.

And they use the same strategy every gen. What's ur point? I don't give a **** if they make a profit at launch, and neither does Microsoft
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#235 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Lol there u go again. Face it kid, every non port multi developed game has the X1900 XT or at worse X1800 XT performing the same as a Xbox 360. And both cards were over $450 at time of Xbox 360's release

GioVela2010

Kid? :lol:

Its funny that games running better and faster with same era gpu's then what consoles do, just look at 8600GT which is slower then a 7800GTX can match or surpass console gaming abilities.

do you realize that actual costs to manufacturers is much less then what they charge for a product? Even with bulk pricing and direct manufacturing prices for Microsoft and or Sony they lost hundreds per console made and didnt start making profit until three years after the fact. Consoles are money pits when they use high tier hardware.

And they use the same strategy every gen. What's ur point? I don't give a **** if they make a profit at launch, and neither does Microsoft

God your either a troll or an idiot, Companies do not try to make products to lose money. Nor ignore lost in revenue.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#236 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Kid? :lol:

Its funny that games running better and faster with same era gpu's then what consoles do, just look at 8600GT which is slower then a 7800GTX can match or surpass console gaming abilities.

do you realize that actual costs to manufacturers is much less then what they charge for a product? Even with bulk pricing and direct manufacturing prices for Microsoft and or Sony they lost hundreds per console made and didnt start making profit until three years after the fact. Consoles are money pits when they use high tier hardware.

04dcarraher
And they use the same strategy every gen. What's ur point? I don't give a **** if they make a profit at launch, and neither does Microsoft

God your either a troll or an idiot, Companies do not try to make products to lose money. Nor ignore lost in revenue.

Xbox 360 cost $525 to manufacture at launch. So yes at launch Microsoft lost $125 per console sold, but by Nobember of 2006 they were making $ $75 per console sold. That's a $200 dollar turnaround in 1 short year per console. And they obviously make plenty of money from Xbox alive and games as well. You Kid, are clueless
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#237 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] And they use the same strategy every gen. What's ur point? I don't give a **** if they make a profit at launch, and neither does MicrosoftGioVela2010
God your either a troll or an idiot, Companies do not try to make products to lose money. Nor ignore lost in revenue.

Xbox 360 cost $525 to manufacture at launch. So yes at launch Microsoft lost $125 per console sold, but by Nobember of 2006 they were making $ $75 per console sold. That's a $200 dollar turnaround in 1 short year per console. And they obviously make plenty of money from Xbox alive and games as well. You Kid, are clueless

No the 360 did not start making profit per console until 2008. Yet you forget the fact in total the 360 has cost MS over 7 billion in loses

MS profit

Avatar image for Shinobi120
Shinobi120

5726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#238 Shinobi120
Member since 2004 • 5726 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Lol there u go again. Face it kid, every non port multi developed game has the X1900 XT or at worse X1800 XT performing the same as a Xbox 360. And both cards were over $450 at time of Xbox 360's release

GioVela2010

Kid? :lol:

Its funny that games running better and faster with same era gpu's then what consoles do, just look at 8600GT which is slower then a 7800GTX can match or surpass console gaming abilities.

do you realize that actual costs to manufacturers is much less then what they charge for a product? Even with bulk pricing and direct manufacturing prices for Microsoft and or Sony they lost hundreds per console made and didnt start making profit until three years after the fact. Consoles are money pits when they use high tier hardware.

And they use the same strategy every gen. What's ur point? I don't give a **** if they make a profit at launch, and neither does Microsoft

Are you serious? If you were to be in charge of running a business for a while, & you blow tons of money or revenue trying to please some fanboys on the internet, while hurting the company financially in the process, you'd be fired.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#239 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
http://m.techspot.com/23612/ November 2006. Through reduction in manufacturing costs, Microsoft has managed to bring the cost of the Xbox 360 to a zero loss, if not a slight profit. With a reduction in manufacturing costs by nearly 40% since the console's release and perhaps streamlining of the process and bulkier orders, a $399 pricetag now nets Microsoft $75.70 before the unit has been shipped however. While Microsoft themselves haven't announced whether or not they plan a price drop, this will definitely give them leverage in the console wars if they wish to make the console cheaper. And LOL at ur Entertaiemt division BS. That includes losses from Zune, Kin, Windows Phones, and other crap :| KiN alone lost them over a billion dollars.
Avatar image for Innovazero2000
Innovazero2000

3159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#240 Innovazero2000
Member since 2006 • 3159 Posts

those "everyone else" are wrong Lets look at the specs of each gpu Xenos (360) GFLOPS performance 240 Memory for Graphics use under 384mb *averages 256mb Memory bandwidth 21.6 GB/s ATI X1900xt GFLOPS performance 465 Memory for video 512mb memory bandwidth 46 GB/sGioVela2010

huh? you totally took it out of context, which shows you do not understand as with the statement the Xenos is more like a x1900/ 2000 based on arcitectrure then a 3000 series let alone the fact of optimization allowing the Xenos to perform close to the X1900 as seen with Crysis 2. Theres no way a Xenos can out process any high ended gpu's that were out during or shortly after its release.

The R&D and technology based from Xenos was used in development of the 2000HD series. Xenos at the time had shading power that out muscled the X1800, however due to bandwidth it may still have been bested at higher resolutions. Mike Doggett who was involved in that projected shed such light in an interview long ago. Ultimately though, it's apples and oranges.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#241 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Kid? :lol:

Its funny that games running better and faster with same era gpu's then what consoles do, just look at 8600GT which is slower then a 7800GTX can match or surpass console gaming abilities.

do you realize that actual costs to manufacturers is much less then what they charge for a product? Even with bulk pricing and direct manufacturing prices for Microsoft and or Sony they lost hundreds per console made and didnt start making profit until three years after the fact. Consoles are money pits when they use high tier hardware.

Shinobi120

And they use the same strategy every gen. What's ur point? I don't give a **** if they make a profit at launch, and neither does Microsoft

Are you serious? If you were to be in charge of running a business for a while, & you blow tons of money or revenue trying to please some fanboys on the internet, while hurting the company financially in the process, you'd be fired.

MS went from $125 loss per console to $75 profit per console in one short year. Which means they probably broke even on each unit sold 6 months or so after launch.
Avatar image for RyviusARC
RyviusARC

5709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#242 RyviusARC
Member since 2011 • 5709 Posts
[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] MS went from $125 loss per console to $75 profit per console in one short year. Which means they probably broke even on each unit sold 6 months or so after launch.

You seemed to have missed this chart.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#243 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] MS went from $125 loss per console to $75 profit per console in one short year. Which means they probably broke even on each unit sold 6 months or so after launch.

You seemed to have missed this chart.

That has nothing to do with profit per console sold vs manufacturing cost. Xbox is not the only Entertaiemt device, and most of those Loses are from before Xbox 360
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#244 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] MS went from $125 loss per console to $75 profit per console in one short year. Which means they probably broke even on each unit sold 6 months or so after launch.GioVela2010
You seemed to have missed this chart.

That has nothing to do with profit per console sold vs manufacturing cost. Xbox is not the only Entertaiemt device, and most of those Loses are from before Xbox 360

Lol your so full of it, Xbox is over 90% of their entertainment division, as you can see every start of a new console MS has made is has been a money pit , which is why the next xbox will be cheaply made using off the shelf parts that are not high teir. MS wants to get away from loosing money and create a console at the very least break even on profit.

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#245 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"] You seemed to have missed this chart.  04dcarraher

That has nothing to do with profit per console sold vs manufacturing cost. Xbox is not the only Entertaiemt device, and most of those Loses are from before Xbox 360

Lol your so full of it, Xbox is over 90% of their entertainment division, as you can see every start of a new console MS has made is has been a money pit , which is why the next xbox will be cheaply made using off the shelf parts that are not high teir. MS wants to get away from loosing money and create a console at the very least break even on profit.

A money pit? Again that chart proves nothing about Xbox Console profitability per console sold. I already provided a link which discuses nothing but Xbox hardware costs! Which is what were arguing about kid. MS was losing $125 per Xbox sold at launch, and than was turning a $75 dollar profit within a year. That is a $200 dollar drop in manufacuring costs in 12 months! Average out that $200 dollar difference between 12 months and that's a $17 dollar deduction in manufacturing costs per month in the first year. So they probably broke even after 8 months. They shipped about 4 million consoles TOPS in those 8 months, and they lost about an average of $100 per console in those 8 months. 4 million sold at $100 loss each is 400 million in loses which are directly related to manufacturing costs and the retail price of the console. Of course this doesn't take into account the billions in advertising costs and the billion in RROD replacements. But loses coming directly from manufacturing costs was in no way over $500 million in the first year, and has since been turning a profit.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#246 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23623 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] That has nothing to do with profit per console sold vs manufacturing cost. Xbox is not the only Entertaiemt device, and most of those Loses are from before Xbox 360GioVela2010

Lol your so full of it, Xbox is over 90% of their entertainment division, as you can see every start of a new console MS has made is has been a money pit , which is why the next xbox will be cheaply made using off the shelf parts that are not high teir. MS wants to get away from loosing money and create a console at the very least break even on profit.

A money pit? Again that chart proves nothing about Xbox Console profitability per console sold. I already provided a link which discuses nothing but Xbox hardware costs! Which is what were arguing about kid. MS was losing $125 per Xbox sold at launch, and than was turning a $75 dollar profit within a year. That is a $200 dollar drop in manufacuring costs in 12 months! Average out that $200 dollar difference between 12 months and that's a $17 dollar deduction in manufacturing costs per month in the first year. So they probably broke even after 8 months. They shipped about 4 million consoles TOPS in those 8 months, and they lost about an average of $100 per console in those 8 months. 4 million sold at $100 loss each is 400 million in loses which are directly related to manufacturing costs and the retail price of the console. Of course this doesn't take into account the billions in advertising costs and the billion in RROD replacements. But loses coming directly from manufacturing costs was in no way over $500 million in the first year, and has since been turning a profit.

That $75 more is not pure profit its just MS managed to lower the price of the console by cutting quality and then Microsoft still didnt subtract freight, toll, retail partners profit and other possible charges with the 360. Proof is staring you right in the face showing Xbox consoles has been a leech for MS and two consoles later should have made them learn that selling at a lost, using high TDP based hardware and quality problems dont pay off.The 1st xbox lost MS 3.8 billion, and with the 360 its at 4 billion,

Also in 2007 from the horse's mouth from May of 2007
"Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment & Devices Division, smells profits a'comin. Speaking to eWeek, Bach said that the Xbox 360 "[is a business that will be profitable next year -- we'll make money next year and that will be the first time, which is pretty exciting."

As to where the profits will come from, exactly, Bach offers this explanation: Software, both first-party games and third-party title through royalties Xbox Live: Bach relates this to an amalgam of subscription, ad-based, and download-based business models. Peripherals (e.g. camera, controllers)

Concerning the hardware itself, Bach asserts that they will probably break even in the console's lifespan (i.e. as the cost come down, the profits from the units will eventually compensate for the losses Microsoft endured in the system's early years), although he also notes that the price of memory "goes up and down seemingly like a yo-yo.""

Needless to say that again MS lost money on the 360 from 2005 to 2008 and didnt start making profit on the 360 as a whole even with royalites, fee's including xbox live from 2005 - 2008 and until MS produces enough profit to make up for the losts in those three years the xbox 360 is a negitive return, aka a money pit. Also as a side note 360's sales have been going down 48% year on year....

If you dont see the facts that with their trend is not profitable then your clearly a fanboy. Which is why it seems that they are going with the low tdp off the shelf parts to kick the money loosing trend in the butt.

Avatar image for AlexKidd5000
AlexKidd5000

3057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#247 AlexKidd5000
Member since 2005 • 3057 Posts

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It will be surpassed the moment it comes out...

360 was beat by Intel Xeon with a SLI 7800/X1800 Crossfire setup.

loosingENDS

It was beat without needing SLI or Crossfire. Also when the consoles first released they had shoddy optimization. My 6800gt from early 2004 was running games at better settings and fps compared to the Xbox 360.

And yet, a 7800GTX SLI that would cost a 3000$ PC in 2005, cant even start Witcher 2, it is not even a supported card at all !!!!

When 360 manages to run it with better lighting than PC and at a super steady frame rate and above medium settings

It is crazy how 360 completly destroys even 2010 video cards

Huh? Witcher 2 was a PC game ported to the 360, and it looks like the PC version at medium setting, and below HD standard resolution. And an SLI 7800GTX setup didn't cost nearly that much. It you took a high-end PC from 2005, and played any 360/PS3 game at the same settings and resolution as the consoles, it would run them just fine, wouldn't struggle at all.
Avatar image for AlexKidd5000
AlexKidd5000

3057

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#248 AlexKidd5000
Member since 2005 • 3057 Posts
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]Honestly I think the 720/PS4 will had the equivilant of a 7770 or a 7670. They are much more power efficient than the 6xxx series. The 8000 series won't come out in time for next gen consoles unless they actually launch in 2014BPoole96

They can always use a prototype of that tech like they did on xbox 360 with unified shaders for example

And then there is custom tricks like the EDRAM etc

Anything goes really. fact is these systems will be made to last 10+ years

I'm sure they will be supported for 10 years but it will be like this gen where the PC will pull away. I strongly doubt consoles will even be more powerful than a current high end PC. And with how CPU/APU are advancing and becoming more and more efficient, consoles will probably become outdated even more quickly.

Agreed, devs have complained alot about todays games being so expensive to make. I think consoles and what not being uber powerful forces devs to make crappy rehashes like CoD over and over because they know they sell like crazy, and are afraid to take the risk of putting too much money into an original idea because the game might bomb, and they go bankrupt. So more super powerful hardware would probably make the situation even worse.
Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#249 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts
[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"] It was beat without needing SLI or Crossfire. Also when the consoles first released they had shoddy optimization. My 6800gt from early 2004 was running games at better settings and fps compared to the Xbox 360.AlexKidd5000

And yet, a 7800GTX SLI that would cost a 3000$ PC in 2005, cant even start Witcher 2, it is not even a supported card at all !!!!

When 360 manages to run it with better lighting than PC and at a super steady frame rate and above medium settings

It is crazy how 360 completly destroys even 2010 video cards

DiRT 2 can't even run on a 7900 GTX, so it sure as hell won't run on a 2005 card.  Huh? Witcher 2 was a PC game ported to the 360, and it looks like the PC version at medium setting, and below HD standard resolution. And an SLI 7800GTX setup didn't cost nearly that much. It you took a high-end PC from 2005, and played any 360/PS3 game at the same settings and resolution as the consoles, it would run them just fine, wouldn't struggle at all.

Avatar image for ronvalencia
ronvalencia

29612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#250 ronvalencia
Member since 2008 • 29612 Posts

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] I don't see how such a statement automatically equates to a 6670. A Radeon 7970M is 100w TDP GPU. AMD cards keep gettin more and more effecient so a 8970M or even perhaps a 9970m will be even more powerful and use less power. So yes, I don't expect anything less capable from Xbox 720 than a yet to be released 8970m or even 9970mGioVela2010

First off mobile gpu's are much slower then their desktop counterparts then usually half the performance or more, lets not forget the fact that console design start at a minimum a year and a half before release but MS and AMD have been working since late 2010, so there's no way you will see a 8000 or 9000 series gpu's. also do you also realize that the more transistors are in a processors or in this case gpu's the more power it needs in which more cooling is required and I doubt they will use 11-16nm manufacturing processes to lower power usage enough to make use. In which cost increases, and the 7850 uses 130w while a 7950 uses 200watts while 7970 uses 250w , so no they will not use top tier gpu's. Learn something about hardware before spiting out random fantasies.

U said it urself, they start planning a MINIMUM of 1.5 years before release, that doesn't mean they can't work on it longer, and that doesnt prove it can't use a 8000 series GPU. And y r u bringing up a 7850 when the 7970m is more capable and less power hungry. 7970m is only 100w TDP, and is about as powerful as a 220w GTX 570. The 7970m has about 45% better performance than the 9 month old 6990m it replaced. In a very short 9 months they got nearly 50% better performance, but kept the same 100w TDP! Performance per Watt the HD 7970m is king, and you'd be foolish to think Xbox 720's GPU won't easily surpass it when the release date is still 18 months away, which is twice as long as it took AMD to get 50% better performance from a 100w TDP card! Oh and the X1900 XT which even hermits say Xenos is similar to was 120w TDP

Note that both the Xbox1 and Xbox 360 still has 128bit wired VRAM PCB i.e. the cost of PCB does not significantly change.

Atm, one the fastest 128bit wired VRAM enabled GPU is AMD Radeon HD 7770.

AMD Xenos is a cross between Radeon X1600(8 ROPs, 128bit wired VRAM PCB) and Radeon HD X1900.

PS3's NVIDIA RSX is a cross between Geforce 7600 GT (8 ROPs, 128bit wired VRAM PCB) and Geforce 7900 GT.

Radeon HD 7970M(based on 7870 desktop) has non-value market 256bit wired VRAM PCB.