High chance this is the CPU platform for our next gen consoles

https://www.notebookcheck.net/35-Watt-and-65-Watt-mobile-Ryzen-processors-might-be-coming-soon-according-to-a-product-slide.271964.0.html

But also very likely it will be a custom 8 core once more, since developers would appreciate such a design from past experience with the current gen. We will likely be looking at a rough estimate of 2.2x the cpu power. This should allow for more AI controlled activity, physics and dynamic destruction.

Question is, will Xbox one X still be supported by next gen?

It won't be great, but a much needed improvement over the current consoles.

no it will be old when new consoles come out. i think we got another 2 years at least.

Not sure if you've noticed but the consoles are 2 to 3 years behind current tech.

Why wouldn't the Xbox one x be supported? The question is will ps4?

I am still mad that the PS2 was somehow able to show cars exploding into millions of pieces(Burnout 3), But every console since then has not shown that level of destruction.

Same thing for Black and even the “Destroy All Humans” series has more destruction.

Throw the PS2 Emotion Engine chips into the next consoles. Graphics are good enough. It’s time we got destructible environments.

The PS2 was dogsh!t with it's ridiculous emotion engine. The Xbox was head and shoulders better in every regard. The only thing is Playstation sold like hot cakes and took over for that generation. Other than selling by far the most and getting all of the support, it was hot garbage hardware wise.

Almost certain the next consoles will be some form of Ryzen APU. **** knows why MS didn't delay and go for mobile Ryzen with the Xbox One.

I would bet on a Ryzen APU being the next CPU sought after for the next gen consoles. It's a pretty powerful platform while being inexpensive and good on power consumption.

What are the architectural differences between Ryzen and Threadripper?

@BassMan:

If Microsoft wants to continue competing, the One X will have to be abandoned for something new. If the One X gets supported, then they would have to continue using the One's architecture. We don't want to see the new games get held back.

@Shewgenja: Threadripper is Ryzen, same chips with quad channel memory support

@nepu7supastar7: My thoughts exactly. It's more difficult to scale back cpu power across platforms then it is for graphics power. Entire AI systems, physics and setpieces can't work on lesser cpu's. Which is why I think the playstation 5 will squash the Xbox brand, even if the Xbox one X is a good deal right now it's longevity might not be so good. The X is a good console to play a collection of games on though, I hope they keep adding more BC games.

i know its not cutting edge but ps4 pro only came out a year ago. 360 was like 7 or 8 years old when it got replaced.

The answer is Yes. I am not sure why this is even a question.

It's the current gen consoles I'm referring to. The PS4 came out a year ago with hardware equivalent to high end PC hardware from 2014, likewise the Xbox One X has power similar a high end PC from 2015. That's only the GPU's, the CPU's are even further behind.

I think 7nm Ryzen APU will probably be the one Sony waits for, and will possibly be around for a long long time. There's not many more gains to be had in silicon after that point.

How is it not great? Anything less than an 8700K isn't good enough?

They're making laptop Ryzen processors and there's a high chance of them being in the next generation of console. What are you backing this up with, again? This seems like a big assertion with not much reason to believe it.

Consoles used to use high end components, and were sold at a loss, with games/accessories making up for it.

So yeah...8700k'ish would be nice. And until the latest gen, was the standard.

Last gen was the only time consoles were sold at a major loss, which is why it lasted so long. PS2 and Xbox were sold at a loss, but the loss was much smaller and the CPUs were not top of the line anyway.

Not so sure about that. The conventional wisdom in video games - all the way back to Atari and early Nintendo - was that they always took a loss on the hardware early on, and made up for it on the software - then later in the gen the hardware would turn to profitability (I'm sure the "slim" PS One and PS2 were sold at a profit).

The only thing unusual last gen, with the PS3, was the astronomical price of the cell and blu-ray player at launch. Supposedly it cost $840 at launch to produce, and if that's true it was pure madness. At that cost it might as well have been "kitchen sinked" and been way more powerful than the 360 - instead they stupidly put a weak GPU paired to the awesome (but absurdly expensive) cell. If it had a much more powerful GPU at least it would have been worth that early price.

The losses last gen for both PS3 and 360 were much higher than usual. It was the only time truly high-end CPUs were used. As an example, the original Xbox used a midrange laptop CPU that was a year old at the time.

Doesn't this gen use "tablet" class CPU's? They might be looking for even lower wattage next gen. Hopefully they will be more powerful (relative to the GPU) so as to not be a bottleneck. Personally I think they did a very good job this gen, especially Sony who struck a good balance between price/performance at launch. I mean the console was sold for $399 on day 1, and has dropped steadily in price. Hell, it's effectively been well under $200 with game bundles and such. Should the CPU have been a bit more powerful? Sure, but it's not like they were drastically off base, and the tablet CPU gives them a ton of flexibility. I'm actually surprised they made the PS4 slim as quickly as they did, they could have made a truly tiny machine if they just waited a bit. I assume an even slimmer version is coming at some point.

PS5 should basically follow the same principals. But should have UHD support, presumably some type of next gen VR, and probably some other features nobody is thinking of right now.

Eh... I'm still hoping that they at the very least go for 6 Zen 2 cores with SMT at about 2-2.5GHz.

no one cares about videogames anymore you nerds

Yeah...that's the case. Until xbone/ps4, consoles were beasts at launch. PC would take a year or two to catch up/surpass. Xbone and PS4 were always behind, perhaps setting a new trend.

Of course.

The PS5 will be the industry leading console

Sony Domination Continuation

Cell as a consumer cpu was garbage, it was intended to be used as a simple stand alone APU with a single proper PPE core, 7 gpu compute unit equivalent SPE's (1 reserved for the OS) it was a great failure for them that they had to had to add separate gpu just to match the 360 resulting in very inefficient design with the die size being way bigger then a consoles deserves to be, coupling that with the astronomical development costs that they had to pay IBM (and microsoft got to leech the result for pennies) resulted in a late launch, with a really expensive and inefficient product while also having indirectly helped their competition.

The entire Cell was a huge train wreck, it also wasn't viable in other consumer products, and while it did see some short 'success' in the parallel computing scene the adoption rate wasn't great and it was completely obsolete in a year.

tl;dr

The Cell/PS3 wasn't expensive because it was so good.

360/PS3 were not ahead of PC either.

That trend ended with PS2/XB/GC.

Consoles today launch at the equivalent of a low-mid end PC.

We'll have to disagree on that one. I don't believe you are accurate. It took until 2006/7 for pc to catch up in game performance.

You can disagree with him all you want the hardware has been benchmarked, and you are demonstrably wrong, the CPU's were worse then most Athlon 64 X2, and Pentium D's, there wasn't much ram available and it was shared between the system and the gpu, and the gpu's were equivalent to top end 600usd GPU's.

The hardware was better, but the ports were really bad.

Perhaps I should rephrase, as I would say you are both demonstrably false: http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/12/02/xbox-360-the-launch-review

At launch the 360 was a beastly machine, equivalent to a high end pc for gaming. I restate that it took a year or two for most gaming rigs to upgrade their way past what the 360 brought at launch. All the while the new consoles (ps4/xbone) were weak sauce out the gate.

So yeah my claim is supported by countless benchmarks, while yours is supported by an IGN article which doesn't even really talk about tech in detail, but makes some very bold statements.

"PC would take a year or two to catch up/surpass." ≠ "I restate that it took a year or two for most gaming rigs to upgrade their way past what the 360 brought at launch."

The 360s gpu was high end, but nothing else (rest of the specs ranging from low to mid), but you are right about the ps4/xbone being weak sauce compared to the 360 (at launch) as they were weak on all fronts.

Thanks for conceding my point. My claim that it took until 2006/7 for pc to catch up in performance (for 95 percent of pc's...) to the 360 (In gaming...cause that's why we are here, right?) is true. Maybe you are saying that 5 percent of pc's was technically more powerful...which I don't really care about. Because it doesn't matter to my claim.

Anyways...consoles tended to be high end pc'ish (give or take) until this latest gen. Feel free to retort back, but I've spent enough time on this post.

I doubt you are going to see anything more than 8 cores.

How can the 360 GPU be truly high-end when it can't even do what older mid-range PC video cards support which is 1600x1200 resolution?

It wasn't really high end in raw performance terms..... however it was ahead of the curve with its unified shader architecture, which allowed it allocate its shader processors to what ever combo its needed for pixel, vertex etc type of workloads. while at that time all pc gpu's had a fixed amount of processors to each type of workload. The gpu was mid ranged with advanced features which within a year of its release would have become the new standard.

Xbox/360 where high end for its time no way to spin it otherwise.

my i7 3770 from 2013 is 3x faster than current console CPUs so it would be another terrible bottlenecked console gen

@leandrro: Your cpu is around 60-70% faster than the Xbox one X cpu. With the 2.2x factor I was talking about the X cpu, not the bone.

At the end of the day, looking at the tech behind Horizon Zero Dawn, and at the massive battles with crazy good draw distances on Battlefront 2, it's up to the artist skills to get a game running better and not just raw cpu compute power. A 2.2x increase in cpu power is applicable if they use a quad core platform. But looking at the current gen architecture we are probably looking at a 8 core Zen platform from the OP link.

We could theoretically be looking at a 3-4x raw cpu power increase. That would be massive and with smart optimization tactics the sky is the limit.

If the X is any indication of where next gen is going ,it's with a truck load of GDDR6 ram and 10+ Tflop gpu's. Combined with this custom 8 core Zen cpu, we could be looking at a very interesting generational leap.

Gaming is very far from just being about the GPU, if i threw a 1070 into my HTPC with my old ass phenom X4 970 it still couldn't be called high end. The 360 would have been a high end rig if its CPU was better, had more ram and if the ram wasn't shared.

Obviously 95% of PC's were inferior at the time, as most PC's run on integrated graphics, were laptops with low clockspeeds due to power/thermal constraints, and on average were 4-5 years old (talking about the ones still in use), bank atm's, old servers etc. that percentage might be even higher.

But in terms of PC's bought/used almost exclusively for gaming the 95% figure is way off.

tl;dr

High end gpu + below average everything else ≠ high end system.

It was more or less a Radeon X1800 XL with some extra features, that was a high end $430 GPU back in 2005, i mean as far as i can remember the GeForce 7800GTX was a slightly better card at the time and cheaper, but still the 360's gpu could be considered high end (in 2005) in my opinion.

The 360 gpu wasn't really high end , it was more toward mid range than high end. The x1800xl pixel rate had 2x the amount of the 360's gpu. 8 GPixel/s vs 4, while both texture fill rate was the same and x1800xl has 2x the ROP's 16 vs 8. So not really on par when it comes to pixel pumping power. While the 7800GTX has 6 GPixel/s pixel rate, 24 TMU's vs 16 of the x1800xl and 360, which gave 7800GTX 10.32 GTexel/s vs x1800xl and 360's 8 GTexel/s.

The games in 2005 into early to mid 2006 those gpu's creamed the 360 when it came to performance. say for instance COD 2 7800gtx and x1800xl was able to run the game at 1600x1200 with no AA around 30 fps vs 360's 1024x600 with 2xaa toward its 30 fps cap.