Exactly. It's like if Xbox360 and PS3 at the time both had R500 GPU or 7950GT, it wouldn't have mattered at all if they both used NV or AMD. The end result is we got 7 years of mostly crappy console ports. The few gems such as Crysis, BF3 and Metro 2033 are notable stand-outs. How fast the GPU is will dictate how good the games will be. They can put GCN, but if it's some low end model, it's a waste.

You're posting only garbage. Where did you read about HD6670 or HD4850?!? Provide a link!

He is posting garbage? He is right actually based on current rumors.

The rumored GPU in Wii U is HD4850. "The last reported dev kit GPU for the Wii U had a Radeon HD 4850 powering it but needed to be underclocked due to overheating. The developers have said that the target specs were going to be the HD 4850 but dev kits were still being modified; which probably means size, RAM and clock speeds."
http://www.nintengen.com/...-gpu-vs-xbox-720-gpu.html

The rumored GPU in Xbox 720 is HD6670.
http://www.ign.com/articl...s-powerful-as-current-gen

Maybe you should do your research next time before you accuse other posters here of providing false information. We'd gladly read sources that refute this information. Until then vid_ghost is posting currently available info.

Woah woah woah. Slow down there sparky. Oban will be featuring 8 IBM power pc cores and most likely a AMD 7000 series GPU. I have no idea where you are getting you facts from.

Link to reputable source: http://semiaccurate.com/2...-720-chips-in-production/

haha 5 year old technology that smokes the hell out of current ps3 or xbox 360 gpus which are over 7 years old.. and which just happen to be able to run games like crysis 2 smoothly. Remember for consoles its the price that matters most, If any company is to compete with a 199 dollar Wii , theyl need something cheap and effective. The 6670 sounds perfect.

http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

they want to keep the cell going so as to avoid paying for new tech and recoding the software SONY PS3-OS to work with x86 CPU's..

Also the lag on the CPU having to share memory with the graphics would be much worse then a 6670 of 4850 in the next xbox and wiiU

Overall i still hope that all this info on 2013 released consols is incorrect and that they will wake up and put in a 28nm GPU, by that time the price would have come down and 28nm would have matured allot with better yeilds.

I think the real reason for the HD6670 GPU's is because MS has chosen it as the SDK packaged GPU for use in development kits so they can start making games for the system... when they release the system with a HD7750 28nm GPU they will send out new development kits with final hardware specs for those games to be adjusted to work with the new hardware...

By the 2013 release they may even go up to a HD7770 or HD7850 Custome made GPU, if they do then it will not only desimate the WiiU but also put it back inline as the cheap unable to port over games system that sits in the corner collecting dust.

Doubtful. I don't expect MS to put a 7770 or 7850 in their next gen consoles they want to keep the production cost down and the sales price competitive. Plus the hardware is already being sent out to game developers to test. So i doubt we will see such gpu's in the xbox 720 or whatever they call it. Whatever we see at E3 this year will end up being what we will see on store shelves when its released.

Even if they shove HD7970 in there, us PC guys are already waiting until we can get a 30 inch 4K LCD screen. In 5 years, we might be gaming on 4K OLED monitors with graphics cards 5-6x more powerful than HD7970. Basically we all know, no matter what they put inside the consoles, it will be obsolete. The only difference is how long it will take before the new consoles are obsolete?

The GPU in PS3 was previous generation high-end (7950GT). The GPU in 360 was at the time near high-end (R500 on unified architecture ~ the performance of R520 X1900XT). Look what happened to those? 7 years later, completely obsolete.

In this context, even if they put HD6970 or HD7870 in there (equivalent of the GPUs in 360/PS3 at the time), in 5-7 years they will be holding us back anyway.

Consoles just need to go back to being updated every 4-5 years, not every 7-8 years as appears to be the case now. The much longer console shelf life cycles is what's really causing all this console port trend.

Think about, it's like buying an HD7970 for $600 and holding it for 6 years vs. buying 3 new GPUs for $200 every 2 years for the next 6 years. That's why no matter what GPU they put in, it will eventually always be a disappointment since you can't upgrade it!

OLED well since the Blue LED burns out in 4 to 6 years give or take 8 hours per day of use, you'll have to go run out and buy another one. OLEDS are great but they have a short lifespan.

I am pretty sure the commercial OLED TVs will have operating life-cycle of 100,000 hours, similar to today's LEDs and Plasmas. Also, I don't use my TV for 8 or even 6 hours. I can't imagine anyone who has that much time? 9-5 jobs (minimum) + commute. 6 hours of TV usage per day means doing nothing else but coming home from work and playing games non-stop? That's not reality for most adults, I hope.

Either way, I am pretty sure commercial OLED panels will have sufficient operating life.

My main point is us enthusiast PC gamers might get a console to augment our gaming experience for console exclusives (some of which are great games). However, PC will still offer superior gaming experience in terms of higher resolution screens (4K is coming sooner or later), 3D gaming, controls via keyboard + mouse, mod community, as well as the retain the flexibility of exponentially increasing the graphics performance through GPU upgrades.

I hope they bring out powerful consoles of course so developers will be more likely to make DX11 games from the ground-up, with full-blown Tessellation, smarter AI, and so on. But I am not expecting miracles. Also, I believe the rumors point to the next Xbox launching in the Fall of 2013, and PS4 later. By then, we'll be probably have HD8000 series and Kepler refresh. Basically no matter what consoles have, the more important question is will developers finally start to make games much better looking and more realistic/interesting to play?

Take away the great lighting model of BF3 and the EA sports character animations, and the game is still barely better than Crysis from 4 years ago (Ugly textures, ie. sandbags...). PC graphics have stagnated severely. Sure you can throw massive amounts of AA, Super-Sampling, Transparency AA, etc., but that's like putting lipstick on a pig.

Syndicate just came out - yet another console port with OK graphics.

lots of people kids come home after school play games on it for 3 hours or whatever, then parents take over and watch another 3 or 4 hours of TV. Then you got retirees that watch a lot of TV. My grandfather and the weather channel comes to mind. lol


They don't check out the reason for it.

Longevity

OLED TVs currently have one major flaw, and this is it! Currently the Blue LED only has around a 10,000-14,000 hour lifespan, although recent developments have gone some way into correcting this. However the 100,000 that standard LED TV manufacturers are quoting are far superior to OLED for the time being.

http://www.tvoled.co.uk/oledvsled.html

Blue OLEDs historically have had a lifetime of around 14,000 hours to half original brightness (five years at 8 hours a day) when used for flat-panel displays. However, you are not accounting for any improvements in OLED technology in the next 5 years? Trust me, as OLED takes over LED, it's only a matter of time before those mass manufacturing of OLED displays and subsequent revisions will increase their lifespan, perhaps even pushing their expected life past that of LCD displays. Already in 2007, experimental OLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m2 of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs.

The screen in PS Vita is OLED. I doubt Sony would release Vita with an OLED screen if it thought the Blue OLEDs in it would only last 5 years. They'd have lawsuits on their hands.

there is a big diff between a small 7 inch screen and a TV with OLED on it the bigger the screen size the more contrast and light admissions it puts out which puts a lot more ware time on the LED itself. I mean you can't compare a vita screen to a 55 inch OLED screen, because the 55 inch OLED screen is obv going to have to put out a lot more contrast and light admissions then some 5 inch display. So that 198,000 hours you speak of basicly applies to small pocket size screens not big TV screens.

I used to worry about that then I realised hang on a sec I am constantly updating my pc every year anyway, If my screen lasts me 3-5 years then that is good enough. New screen technology will be out by then so I would want to replace my screen anyway. I have a perfectly good first gen 24inch LCD in the cudboard now as I have updated to a 27inch 120hz screen, My point being I am sure I could have got another few more years out of that 24incher but it was time for an upgrade.

I update my PC every 5 years or so but I bought a nice 19 inch SPVA-panel LCD monitor in 2003 and I still use it. I plan to keep it around even if I get a bigger monitor.

In 5-6 year you WONT have cards 5-6 times faster than today simply because each new year the performance improvement of each top gen card is at most 40-50% .You do the math

I did the math. At a 40% increase each year over the previous year in 5 years what is available then would be 5.38 times faster than the original. After 6 years it would be 7.53 times faster than the original. Maybe you should do the math before basing your opinions on made up results.

We will for sure. New generations are far quicker than 40-50% between generations, because you aren't counting refreshes, or the fact that more advanced graphical features produce an exponential decrease in performance on older cards. For example, GTX480 is ~ 51% faster than GTX280 but GTX580 is 73% faster than GTX280. But GTX480 and GTX580 are still the same generation.
http://www.computerbase.d...schnitt_leistung_mit_aaaf

Most reviews test brand new cards on games at the time and never revisit. Imagine if you tested HD5870 in September of 2009 when almost no demanding games other than Crysis were around? Now HD5870 is 75-100% faster than HD4870. In most of today's games, HD5870 is about 50% slower than HD7970, but in DX11 games, that grows to 100%.

To drive my point home, take a look at this:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18682/6

7900GTX = March 9, 2006
GTX480 = March 26, 2010 (4 years)

GTX480 is easily 5x faster than 7900GTX. 7900GTX is faster than the GPU in PS3. So it's not inconceivable that even if the engineers manage to somehow put an HD7970 in the next consoles, in 5 years the GPUs in our PCs will be 5x faster. Plus we will have moved on to DX13, and whatever other goodness next generations will bring.

Even now with some overclocking HD7970 is ~ 2x faster than HD6970. The pace of GPU increases hasn't slowed down as much as the games are not demanding enough to expose the added benefits of new hardware because they are still light on Tessellation and Compute.

Let's revisit in 2 years and you'll see we'll have a GPU that's already 2x faster than HD7970 in modern games at that time come Spring 2014.

Of course we don't even have to discuss the possibility of an HD7970 in a console since the GPU itself consumes almost 200W.

DX 13 o.O

Now if only it was real time ray tracing by then, I can dream can't I?

Actually, the GPU in PS3 (RSX) was smack in between a 7800GTX and a 7900GT (closer to a 7900GT, though). The GPU in 360 (Xenos) was phenomenal in that it was faster than X1800XT that finally became available that November. Xenos actually had more advanced architecture than the X1900XTX that came out a couple months later (unified shaders ALA R600, rather than just expanded shaders ALA R580). Imagine, the X1800XT that was delayed past the 90nm Xenos, actually launched with a MSRP of over $500.

Can you imagine a console being launched with graphics more powerful than a $500 video card today (i.e., HD 7970)?!? That's why Xbox360 was absolutely phenomenal for its time circa 2005. Not even RSX graphics in the PS3 released a full year later could actually beat Xenos. It was quite a revolution, and the reason why we continue to see impressive games on these platforms today.

However, the shift will be directed towards 3DTVs. Stereo3D technology needs leaps and bounds greater graphic processing power, along with true 1080p rendering with full antialiasing. This, combined with far greater tessellation (polygon) and texture/pixel fillrates, requires several magnitudes of orders greater processing power.

Sega Dreamcast was able to make games look nearly as good as PS2, or even the Wii, although the PS2 was like 10 times as powerful. It was the revolutionary leap of unified shader architecture (DX9.0"d" that marked such a revolution. However, I have the feeling that with the upcoming consoles, it will just be more of an evolution rather than a revolution (like the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube just being an evolution over Dreamcast).

The Wii U definitely needs 28nm-fabbed HD 7750 graphics (based on the super-efficient GCN architecture), even if slightly underclocked. Xbox 720 definitely needs 28nm-fabbed HD 7850 graphics (roughly equivalent to HD 6950)- but much better if Microsoft truly hopes for it to have a chance against Sony's PS4 that will most likely come out later on. MS probably knows that Sony will be more aggressive regarding the graphics, especially since MS won't be implementing such cutting-edge graphics as they did with Xbox360's Xenos. Sony is definitely going to want to make sure that PS4 has a clear advantage over Xbox720 regarding the gfx. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony indeed jumps ahead to 20nm graphics that is even more powerful than today's HD 7970, just to try to establish a clear sense of dominance like they always wanted to (for the PS2, it was the overall-especially with a headstart before Xbox and Gamecube, for the PS3-which came out a year behind the competition-it was Bluray, and for the PS4 which would also be late in 2014, it would have to be the graphics).

BTW, Microsoft already has the Kinect (and would likely be integrating Kinect 2.0 with Xbox720 right at the start), so Sony would have to do the same with copying MS this time around rather than copying Nintendo's Wiimote the last time around, by designing the PS4 to have built-in Kinect-like capabilities.

I agree with everything you said until, up to and including this point:

"However, I have the feeling that with the upcoming consoles, it will just be more of an evolution rather than a revolution"

But then in the next paragraph you describe the opposite, the possibility of Sony putting a GPU at least as fast as an HD7970 and Wii U having HD7750 graphics card. The current rumors for both Wii U and Xbox, based on development kits, already show far far slower GPUs.

Also, Sony is bleeding cash flow due to losses in TV business and many other businesses they have. It would be a miracle of PS4 has some insane hardware. If anything, based on poor sales of Vita, Sony would be better off releasing a cheap $249-299 console and get a head-start by underpricing MS.

While the GPU in the 360 was better than PS3, in the end it didn't really allow the 360 to have much superior graphics. PS3 and 360 are more or less comparable in graphics, and one might even argue that PS3's exclusives such as Uncharted and God of War have better graphics.

If Sony spends a lot of $ on trying to ram a very powerful GPU inside PS4, they'd need to add a more expensive PSU, more complex PCB/circuitry, more expensive cooling, etc.

Why go through all that hassle? Unless the GPU is 2-3x more powerful in PS4 vs. Wii U/Xbox 720, it's doubtful that developers would devote extra time on PS4 due to that requiring the game to be coded separately for PS4. That's not working that well for PC already despite 10-12x the GPU horsepower advantage. If PS4 is way more powerful, best case scenario its games will run at higher frames with higher resolution textures and farther draw distances/with less texture pop-in. That's about it.

If PS4 does have a GPU ~ HD7970, it would only happen imho if they delay the launch to late 2014/2015.

Sony has openly stated that they will not design PS4 like they did with PS3 where they lost $400+ on each console sold since PS3's Bill of Materials was initially >$900.

HD7970 is a $550 GPU right now with ~ 200W power consumption on 28nm. No way that's going to be in a console unless they shrink it to 14nm or something.

At the very least, they should use Kaveri. Kaveri should approach the performance of HD7750 by 2013. If they go with Trinity, that's a failure from the start. Trinity is slower than HD4850. So I don't think that's going to happen.

Having said that, I agree with you that Sony won't make the next PS4 as advanced as the PS3 was at the time since the company's other business lines are suffering. So I can't imagine them going all out this time, as their resources are much more limited.

Right, and NV could easily optimize their GPU design to run really fast on Radeon-optimized games. Ever heard of a Geforce card running ATI's own Ruby demo faster than any Radeon card could run it? Yep, it happened before many times. Now the HD 7970 can finally run tessellation faster than GTX 580 in most cases. It's like AMD CPUs being able to run Intel's SSE5 code just as efficiently.

Dude, you should be Sony's CEO! The greatest and last one!

There is a backup plan Zingam, invest our monies into Apple stock since Apple sheep never disappoints. I'll ride the wave to $800 a share and use the profits for my OLED PC upgrade. Economy be damned, Apple sheep prevails!! (At least so far it has). You know you increase your chances of getting a job if you browse Monster on a MacBook Pro at Starbucks? That's been my strategy to subsidize my PC hobby

Radeon quality is awesome, but MS's penny pinching ways on cooling and TIM better not result in RROD #2. "Guys, it's on 28nm. We don't need active a heatsink".