Apparently there will be a new upgraded Xbox 360 in 2010

[parallaxscroll]

PC graphic technology has come a pretty long way since 2004 when the Xenos GPU for Xbox 360 (released in 2005) was completed by ATI.


GPU floating point performances

Xbox 360's Xenos GPU:
240 GFLOPS


mainstream PC graphics of 2008
1000 GFLOPS (1 TFLOP) via 4850 (one RV770)

top-end PC graphics of 2008:
4800 GFLOPS (4.8 TFLOPS) via Crossfire 4870X2 (four RV770s)

So in 2008 you could get anywhere from 4 to 20 times the graphics performance of
Xbox 360 in PC. This is only regarding GPUs, not the CPU side of things.

With the upcoming DX11 generation of AMD GPUs, performance should roughly double across the board, from mainstream to highest-end. So we're looking at 8 to 40 times Xbox 360 graphics performance.


Nevermind what may or may not happen with the refreshed Xbox 360 next year, there's not enough to guess on, performance wise. Maybe it'll only be a RAM increase and no upgrade to the GPU.

Regardless, I hope that the true next-gen Xbox3 in 2012 or so, has the kind of performance you'd get from four RV870 DX11 class GPUs, in a $299 ~ $399 box that developers can target their games toward. That would be a huge leap from Xbox 360, bigger than the leap from the original Xbox to Xbox 360.

 

[Dari]

32GB SSD? This must be a joke, right?

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Dari
32GB SSD? This must be a joke, right?

Probably not. They made an equally retarded move when they chose to use 2.5" laptop hard drives for the 360 instead of standard 3.5" desktop drives. Picking SSD instead of a standard hard drive seems perfectly in line with the kind of stupid shit Microsoft does. Let's not forget the major RROD heat problems the 360 has simply because they wanted the Xbox to be the size of the NES; using a standard mini ATX computer case would have prevented that problem.

The system also uses a standard DVD drive foregoing Blu-ray thus ensuring backwards and forwards compatibility

It almost sounds like they're trying to re-invent PC gaming. PC gaming works on the concept of having multiple systems capable of running the same games, but they do it at different quality levels. Here you could have something like 720p resolution if you have the original 360 but the game will run at native 1080p if you have the upgraded version. The different versions would still be able to play online together because it's still the same game. They would use the same game DVD and they would use the same game updates. That's really not a bad idea. It has worked well for PC games, so there's no reason to believe it can't be done on a console as well.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Microsoft always releases an absurdly expensive to produce console and sells it at a loss. They can afford to.

Umm what console hasn't been sold for a loss in the first few years of it's run???

Every single one except the PS3, Xbox, and Xbox 360? I might be missing one or two, but most consoles aren't sold for a loss.

You know nothing about selling consoles do you? They've all been sold at a loss at launch...cost is driven down by experience and the lower cost of the goods used to make it through time, therefore making it profitable or close to at some point. The money maker is driven by peripherals and software licensing fees.

Pretty sure dguy6789 is right. Nintendo has never sold its consoles for a loss. I doubt Sega or Atari did either. I think the Playstation/PS2 did sell for a loss initially.

Dreamcast, Saturn, Genesis, Nintendo 64, I could go on, cost more to manufacture than it sold as. Wii is different since it's just a modified Gamecube but they know it sells at a loss and make it back with lisencing fees and such like RagingBITCH said.

Do you have any proof? I'm pretty sure Nintendo even said around the time of the Wii's launch that they've never sold a console for a loss.

I'd like to see something as well. I couldn't find anything that says any of those consoles sold for a loss. You guys would do well to keep your tongue in cheek until you have shown that your claims have any merit. There's no reason to get hostile.

 

[mugs]

What's wrong with using a laptop drive? It's not like using a 3.5" drive would make them any cheaper for consumers. Most of what you're paying for with the hard drives is MS's crazy high markup.

 

[herkulease]

oh god this is just plain utter bullshit from 1up to generate traffic. The 2nd link is just pathetic I won't even comment on.

It would be one of the DUMBEST move Microsoft can do. Consoles are about have a single set of specs to test and work with. Releasing a system with upgraded specs will only one splinter your base and make shit harder for the developers that microsoft depends on.

The most likely thing is as Queasy suggest the single cpu/gpu chip and possibly a new slimmer model with some kind natal bundle.

I believe OP made that 2nd site just get ad money. Cmon just registered today. Its almost like freeipods

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: mugs
What's wrong with using a laptop drive? It's not like using a 3.5" drive would make them any cheaper for consumers. Most of what you're paying for with the hard drives is MS's crazy high markup.

The markup is worse when MS needs to pay more for the same product. The other problem is that laptop hard drives are slower. There's really no conceivable reason someone would pick a laptop drive over a desktop drive when the device we're talking about is plugged into the wall 24/7 and heat is not a concern.

It would be one of the DUMBEST move Microsoft can do. Consoles are about have a single set of specs to test and work with. Releasing a system with upgraded specs will only one splinter your base and make shit harder for the developers that microsoft depends on.

It wouldn't be that bad. PC developers say they switch to console because of lower piracy, not because it's too hard. If anything, developing a game on the PS2 is far more difficult than developing a PC game that can run on multiple hardware configurations because it's really not that hard to develop for multiple configurations. Your original art work is all high res, then you lower the resolution a few times so you have many different resolutions supported. Xbox uses the DirectX standard, so as long as the game is coded for that, it's not a problem. Both would use the same controller, so that's not a problem. CPU instructions shouldn't be a problem as long as both hardware configurations use the same architecture.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: mugs
What's wrong with using a laptop drive? It's not like using a 3.5" drive would make them any cheaper for consumers. Most of what you're paying for with the hard drives is MS's crazy high markup.

The markup is worse when MS needs to pay more for the same product. The other problem is that laptop hard drives are slower. There's really no conceivable reason someone would pick a laptop drive over a desktop drive when the device we're talking about is plugged into the wall 24/7 and heat is not a concern.

Microsoft choose a 2.5 purely for size and weight. Which is why your suggestion of using a mini atx case to relieve heating issues is just silly. No one is gonna buy something that big and put it in their entertainment center.

If for instance 60gb drives are no longer available they'll just buy the next available size that the best possible price and just only allow the user access to 60gigs. This is someone they did with the first xbox, later productions had a 10gig hard drive but only allowed access to 8.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: mugs
What's wrong with using a laptop drive? It's not like using a 3.5" drive would make them any cheaper for consumers. Most of what you're paying for with the hard drives is MS's crazy high markup.

The markup is worse when MS needs to pay more for the same product. The other problem is that laptop hard drives are slower. There's really no conceivable reason someone would pick a laptop drive over a desktop drive when the device we're talking about is plugged into the wall 24/7 and heat is not a concern.

Microsoft choose a 2.5 purely for size and weight. Which is why your suggestion of using a mini atx case to relieve heating issues is just silly. No one is gonna buy something that big and put it in their entertainment center.

I could just as easily say nobody's going to buy a piece of shit that has a >90% failure rate due to overheating. It might look cute, but at the end of the day I want to play some games, not look at a cute box with flashing red lights. My entire circle of friends has basically given up the Xbox because the failure rate is so high. One of my friends has gone through 5 of them so far, Silent Rob has gone through 8 of them. If Microsoft had simply asked someone who has owned a computer in the past 20 years "is heat bad?" then maybe this could have been avoided. Maybe they could have come to Anandtech for help; there's an entire forum dedicated to case mods and cooling solutions.

 

[erwos]

I could believe a bundle with the new _version_ of the console with the rumored Valhalla unified chipset, but not like a "new" console ala the PS4. There is zero requirement for more processing power for the casual market, and there's no point putting in tiny performance upgrades few developers will use (remember the PSP's extra-clockspeed mode?).

Also, anyone halfway informed knows that talking about GFLOPS as a performance measure is BS. I can guarantee the second article is made-up.

 

[biggestmuff]

:roll: Great first post. Where's my free iPod?

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Microsoft always releases an absurdly expensive to produce console and sells it at a loss. They can afford to.

Umm what console hasn't been sold for a loss in the first few years of it's run???

Every single one except the PS3, Xbox, and Xbox 360? I might be missing one or two, but most consoles aren't sold for a loss.

You know nothing about selling consoles do you? They've all been sold at a loss at launch...cost is driven down by experience and the lower cost of the goods used to make it through time, therefore making it profitable or close to at some point. The money maker is driven by peripherals and software licensing fees.

Pretty sure dguy6789 is right. Nintendo has never sold its consoles for a loss. I doubt Sega or Atari did either. I think the Playstation/PS2 did sell for a loss initially.

Dreamcast, Saturn, Genesis, Nintendo 64, I could go on, cost more to manufacture than it sold as. Wii is different since it's just a modified Gamecube but they know it sells at a loss and make it back with lisencing fees and such like RagingBITCH said.

Do you have any proof? I'm pretty sure Nintendo even said around the time of the Wii's launch that they've never sold a console for a loss.

I'd like to see something as well. I couldn't find anything that says any of those consoles sold for a loss. You guys would do well to keep your tongue in cheek until you have shown that your claims have any merit. There's no reason to get hostile.

Uhh.. you did the same thing. Back up your claims, and dont be a hypocrite.

 

[Davegod]

I don't buy it. MS are in a pretty good position, very risky strategy to go throwing spanners around. Only things making this plausable is if Natal requires it.

BTW the 360's HDD problem was not that it went with 2.5" laptop drives, the problem is they didn't go with a 2.5" laptop drive - they went proprietary and lost out big time on falling costs of standard drives (and were unable to respond to Sony allowing users to install whatever laptop drive).

 

[BD2003]

I think a new 360 is a certainty, and a great idea. But these specs are nonsense.

There is no way theyre replacing the HDD with a solid state drive, even if its the cheapest MLC they can buy. Theyre going to continue to go with a standard 2.5 drive. They want to sell more movies and have you DL games. Theyre not going to limit that. Itll probably come with a HUGE hdd.

If you think there's anything proprietary about it but the file system, youre dead wrong, its just a regular ol western digital drive theyre just raking in huge profits on each. They could easily allow you to use your own drive with a simple firmware update.

All I want is a silent fan in it, and for the NXE/Menu system to be much more responsive.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I could see it happening - an "XBox 1080" that could actually do 1080p60 w/ 4xFSAA, where all official 1080 games could be played at a scaled down resolution on the 360. Not sure they'd be able to do the opposite for 360 games (ie properly play 360 games @ 1080p), but such a system should at least be backwards compatible much like the Wii is for the GC.

 

[iluvdeal]

Good business move by Microsoft. While most people have bought 1 console from each generation in the past, for example I've had exactly one PS1, one PS2, and one original XBOX, it's likely quite a few people will have purchased 2 or more versions of the XBOX 360 because of upgraded HW in later versions and/or HW problems with their previous 360.

It really does look like Microsoft is following the PC gaming model here by releasing upgraded HW on a frequent basis as opposed to releasing an all out new console.

Is this good for gamers? We'll have to buy a new 360 again if we want to experience the games to their full potential. What turned me off about PC gaming was the constant need to upgrade every couple years to play the latest games. It just got too expensive.

I'll be curious to see how developers react to this as well. Previously they basically had a static configuration to build a game for so they could eek out every bit of performance from that system, now there's two which will add to the development cost and time and increase the chance for bugs.

 

[Dari]

All this sounds like junk.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Microsoft always releases an absurdly expensive to produce console and sells it at a loss. They can afford to.

Umm what console hasn't been sold for a loss in the first few years of it's run???

Every single one except the PS3, Xbox, and Xbox 360? I might be missing one or two, but most consoles aren't sold for a loss.

You know nothing about selling consoles do you? They've all been sold at a loss at launch...cost is driven down by experience and the lower cost of the goods used to make it through time, therefore making it profitable or close to at some point. The money maker is driven by peripherals and software licensing fees.

Pretty sure dguy6789 is right. Nintendo has never sold its consoles for a loss. I doubt Sega or Atari did either. I think the Playstation/PS2 did sell for a loss initially.

Dreamcast, Saturn, Genesis, Nintendo 64, I could go on, cost more to manufacture than it sold as. Wii is different since it's just a modified Gamecube but they know it sells at a loss and make it back with lisencing fees and such like RagingBITCH said.

Do you have any proof? I'm pretty sure Nintendo even said around the time of the Wii's launch that they've never sold a console for a loss.

I'd like to see something as well. I couldn't find anything that says any of those consoles sold for a loss. You guys would do well to keep your tongue in cheek until you have shown that your claims have any merit. There's no reason to get hostile.

Because if you've been a gamer for more than just one generation, it's generally known that consoles are sold at a loss and make it back.

Here's an article that talks about the same thing.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/09/7752.ars

Making of PS1 saying it was sold at a loss.

http://www.edge-online.com/mag...playstation?page=0%2C3

I could go on.

 

[dguy6789]

Could you continue? I'd like to see links that the consoles you said were selling at a loss on launch. As far as I can tell, the only consoles that have sold for a loss are the PS1, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, and possibly the PS2. That doesn't translate to most consoles selling for a loss.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Uhh.. you did the same thing. Back up your claims, and dont be a hypocrite.

No I did not. It's the default that products do not sell at a loss. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking that the people making claims back them up. Or do you honestly think that more things in the world are sold at a loss than not? Economics don't work that way.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: parallaxscroll

PC graphic technology has come a pretty long way since 2004 when the Xenos GPU for Xbox 360 (released in 2005) was completed by ATI.


GPU floating point performances

Xbox 360's Xenos GPU:
240 GFLOPS


mainstream PC graphics of 2008
1000 GFLOPS (1 TFLOP) via 4850 (one RV770)

top-end PC graphics of 2008:
4800 GFLOPS (4.8 TFLOPS) via Crossfire 4870X2 (four RV770s)

So in 2008 you could get anywhere from 4 to 20 times the graphics performance of
Xbox 360 in PC. This is only regarding GPUs, not the CPU side of things.

With the upcoming DX11 generation of AMD GPUs, performance should roughly double across the board, from mainstream to highest-end. So we're looking at 8 to 40 times Xbox 360 graphics performance.


Nevermind what may or may not happen with the refreshed Xbox 360 next year, there's not enough to guess on, performance wise. Maybe it'll only be a RAM increase and no upgrade to the GPU.

Regardless, I hope that the true next-gen Xbox3 in 2012 or so, has the kind of performance you'd get from four RV870 DX11 class GPUs, in a $299 ~ $399 box that developers can target their games toward. That would be a huge leap from Xbox 360, bigger than the leap from the original Xbox to Xbox 360.

Always looks good on paper. especially seeing 4.8 tflops on pc vs 1 tflop console.
just too bad console titles ported to PC play like crap in comparison without making any further use to PC hardware. you can use the graphical enhancments (AA, high res) but still kinda sad.
The PC titles that are not ports, still dont look like their using no 4.8 tflops worth of power for anything.

console launches seem to drive the graphics evolution a bit faster. I like the idea of console hardware addons, but historically they have all failed.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Uhh.. you did the same thing. Back up your claims, and dont be a hypocrite.

No I did not. It's the default that products do not sell at a loss. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking that the people making claims back them up. Or do you honestly think that more things in the world are sold at a loss than not? Economics don't work that way.

It's called a long term inventment but ehh whatever. They are sold at a loss but if you don't think so that's fine then. Back onto this "new" console.

 

[parallaxscroll]

Here's what I think will happen:

Microsoft will release a new model of Xbox 360 with the SAME core specs, no upgrade to the CPU, GPU or RAM. This will be the Slim Xbox 360 with the Valhalla chipset. The only thing it'll have that old Xbox 360's did not have is built-in WiFi (which Wii and PS3 had from the start). This Xbox 360 will be packed with Natal and some casual games, priced at $199 or $249 to go up directly against the Wii.

In 2012 or so, Microsoft will release the NEXT-GEN Xbox3. It'll be a massively more powerful console, a bigger leap over 360 than 360 was over the original Xbox. It'll be on par with upper-midrange PCs, although not the highest-end PCs. In 2012 an upper mid-range PC will be more powerful than todays highest-end, where today you can have 4.8 TFLOPS of graphics/shader performance in two 4870X2 cards (four RV770 / RV790 GPUs). So lets say in 2012 you can get 20-40 TFLOPS of GPU performance in a PC rig, the Xbox 3 will be around 10-20 TFLOPS which would be an absolutely massively HUGE increase over the 360 GPU, which provides only 240 GFLOPS (about 1/4 of a TFLOP). Xbox 3 and PC development will be very similar. If Xbox 3 is DX11+ , most developers will use DX11 for games across PC/Xbox3, even if there's a DX12 on the PC side, most games will use DX11, just like how most games are currently written for DX9 even though DX10 has been around since 2006/2007.

The Slim 360 with Natal will continue to be sold for years. Casuals and non-gamers don't care about hardware power or graphics.
The Xbox 3 will satisfy hardcore gamers and those that are tired of upgrading PCs. Microsoft will have two consoles on the market like Sony does with PS2 & PS3. Slim 360 with Natal will be around until 2015 or as long as it sells. Next-gen games will only run on Xbox 3.

In the future, say 2017 or later, the Xbox 3 will become the new low-end casual console, while Xbox 4 replaces Xbox 3 as the hardcore console.

What I'm guessing here with this post completely does away with the idea (in the two articles in my OP) of an upgraded Xbox 360 with higher specs next year.

 

[Fox5]

Very few consoles are sold at a loss in terms of being sold for less than the cost of production + distribution. They are sold at a loss if you include R&D.

First console sold at a hardware loss was the PS2, and only for the short time. The gamecube did as well, but the Xbox 1 has probably been the only console to be a consistent long-term cost loser.

BTW, I call shens on those new xbox specs. Not enough of an upgrade to make it worthwhile, and the SSD drive would make it far too expensive.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Uhh.. you did the same thing. Back up your claims, and dont be a hypocrite.

No I did not. It's the default that products do not sell at a loss. I'm not making any claims, I'm asking that the people making claims back them up. Or do you honestly think that more things in the world are sold at a loss than not? Economics don't work that way.

Yes you did. And we arent talking about "products". We are talking about consoles. You made a statement, like they did, with no proof. They asked them for proof. Thats being a hypocrite. Prove that its the default.

Because games, make up for the loss. After time, consoles are cheaper to make. Not at first.

But please, provide proof of your statement, "the only consoles that have sold for a loss are the PS1, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, and possibly the PS2." Which by the way, is a lot of consoles. Certainly most of the recent ones. You named all of Microsofts, and Sonys, other than the PSP.