The main restriction for these things is storage space anyway, also remember that consoles use lower res textures and lower polycounts. That said, it would be a good countermeasure to the constant BRRRRRRR of loading stuff off of the disk all the time. Consoles are always going to be horribly underpowered because they need to be sold as cheaply as possible and the RnD development cycle is so slow for these things.
The disc-loading is circumvented by installing the game on the HD - something that is becoming ever more used on consoles. Of course, the 360 has the problem that not every owner has a HD in the first place, which is where the PS3 has the advantage of guaranteeing all users will have at least 20GB, if not more. Throw in the PS3's BluRay, and storage isn't a massive issue, it's simply getting that data off the disc fast enough (not helped by the 2x read speed of the first-generation BD drive they're now stuck with). Offloading to RAM isn't going to achieve much, as it still means the data has to come off the disc every time you play the same - leading to longer load times. The HD route is much better, and we may even see hybrid disk drives being used to gain some of the SSD speed. Consoles are, of course, underpowered compared to a PC that costs multiple times more. However, they kick out graphics of a higher performance/quality than you'd get from a PC of similar specs simply due to the direct access developers have to the hardware, and a single hardware profile to code for. As for R&D, the cycle isn't necessarily that long, but more that they want to eke out as long as possible between hardware releases to maximise profits.
No new Xbox in 2012 - confirmed by a senior French Exec. So Q4 2013 seems even more likely now. Omg, think where we will be with PC GPUs by then. That is two years down the line. We will have at least a brand new GPU line from ATI, probably the 8970, or even 8990. Meanwhile Nvidia will have released Kepler, and in all likelihood, the revision of Kepler too, probably the GTX 780/880
Although perhaps this will give AMD enough time to improve their Fusion line enough to have a credible gaming console product out?
I personally would have hoped for something closer to a 6850/6870. They're really power efficient GPUs, cheaper to manufacture than a 6900 series card yet pack a lot more performance than a 6670.
Well if they do approach the next generation cards. Perhaps the replacement for the HD6850/HD6870 will do fine.
I think consoles need to come out with hardware packages like basic, performance, extreme. that way people can pick what they think is best for them. each package has different hardware CPU, Ram, Gpu. Basic starting with 1080p gaming @30fps Performance with 1080p @60 Extreme higher res than 1080p with again high fps Prices could work out good that way, plus people get to pick there needs. what you think.
People need to remember dedicated hardware is not the same as a PC ...Still a bit disappointing if rumours are true though.
Would never catch on. The more hardware varieties you introduce the more potential for inefficiency. I understand the need to have hardware finalised before the games enter production phase, but 6670 sounds a bit too low. If it were announced today then maybe. But we probably won't see a new console on the market until Q4 2013 at the earliest. If they do go with slightly modified off the shelf components then is it possible for the early devkits to use 6670s to compile the early alpha builds and then move on to something more powerful, say a year before release? I guess 2GB of RAM and a 6670 are a massive jump from current hardware anyway and even with the old hardware both consoles can produce some decent visuals. Also have to take into account that every new console will aim for 1080p max. Higher res will not happen so there isn't as much need for super powerful GPU's when you try to run BF3 at 2560x1600 or multi screen. I'm still worried though. If memory serves me right, new consoles usually had GPU's only slightly below the high-end PC hardware at release. If we will truly get a, by then, two year old and two generations behind mid-range chip to power most popular gaming platforms until 2020 then that is sad. Hardware and eyecandy is secondary, but there is a point when you are limiting the game design. If I see another corridor based shooter, I think I'll need some depression meds.
But the issue then will be that some games will be tailored to suit the low end model = no point in buying the higher spec console, and other games will be tailored to the higher end versions, resulting in mediocre/poor performance on the low end consoles. People who game on PCs understand that you need a decent setup to play modern games well / at higher settings, but try explaining this to a 12 yearold or their parent when they start complaining half their £40 games run slowly or the console is constantly overheating. I too understand why you think a tiered console spec is a good idea, but consoles are not PCs- you simply cannot have different performance levels from the same console , it just isn't feesable from a business view point..
It's going to be interesting to see what the gap is between PC and console if the next generation of console games are all 1080p. The resolution difference has always been one of the main graphical advantages of PCs so unless 1600p becomes a lot more affordable they will be equal on that front for most PC gamers.
I'll be interested to see how they market it too... "the new Xbox, play games in HD, and we're not lying this time!"
I imagine they'll call it XtraHD resolution or some other made up acronym. It's like the previous high definition but both higher and more defined.
High-End Smartphones now come with upwards of 1GB of RAM, I'd expect to see at least 2GB in the next generation Xbox. Also, I hope to see some sort of AMD Fusion set up. One chip, shared RAM, Low power draw, low heat, low cost, DX11, reasonably powerful. It makes complete sense if you ask me. But looking at current consoles on the market, they all have some variety of IBM PowerPC architecture so I can only guess this would be a massive change to the software development and would mean no chance at all of it being backwards compatiable with Xbox 360 games and possibly Kinect (My knowledge on the subject isn't great, so forgive me if that is utter non-sense!). Would also expect the next Xbox to be having Wi-Fi and rechargeable controllers from the start, all the peripherals you had to buy along with the Xbox all added up.
But smartphones multi-task, consoles don't (beyond running a very lightweight OS and messaging in the background). They don't need that much RAM, so 1-2GB is enough. WiFi will be built in, as it's in all the current hardware revisions of the consoles. Rechargeable batteries would be good, which is one of the reasons I prefer the PS3.
I think we are all forgetting with a console you have no choice, what you get is what you get.Throw all that creativity away, if they use this GPU or improve the ram capacity... They will go for the cheapiest option possible at least sony provide competition otherwise it would be twice as worse.They don't even let you open the case without voiding warrenty! Such a shame the way the PC game market has gone.
I would say 2GB of RAM just because RAM density and RAM prices are still so damn cheap. As for a graphics chip, well honestly anything at this point will be ~4x the performance of the current consoles providing they're mid-range. But it makes me wonder why they aren't say...using something that could be more. Perhaps the nightmare of YLODs and RRODs have convicned console manufactureres to stay in the mid-range?
