This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="fr3ddiemercury"]
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413873,00.asp
Cannot wait!
I am predicting 720 will have 2 8990s in crossfire.Dunno about the cpu, too many rumors on that but it will probably be strong. When you add optimization on top of these specs...WOW. I bet AMD's avatar graphics prediction will come true.
And for those who are going to say "ya right and it will cost $1000"....720 is rumored to have subscription model so can easily price it low for intial purchase for the masses (just like how $1000 phones/tablets can be had for $400)... Whos excited!?
hartsickdiscipl
I predict that you will be moved to the head of the waiting list for a lobotomy.
Your forgetting about ZeroCore, some of the top of the line cards idle at 15w for amd, and your also missing the point that it takes a lot more power to power an entire card than just a chip,[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Maddie_Larkin"]
*facepalms* (yes I really did that)
Freddie before you float off to your own dreamworld again, lets just restate that MS can NOT alter the laws of physics, 2 of the highest end of the new amd series of GPU would have an idle power consumption at atleast 400 Watts, and a peak at 700-800 that would be for the GPUs alone. Making it so expensive in power consumption that it would limit the potential buyerbase, does that sound logical? No good, you are catching on now.
Next is that unless you would see watercooling, or a case as big as a pc tower, two of those in X-fire would likely develop so much heat that the console would burn.
Given that the next step from AMDs GPU line has been suggested to be an incremental update, you can take the 7970 card, and look at how it works, with what specs, heat and so on.
And what you suggest is not plausible.
What you will likely get, is 1 GPU made for gaming, which might if MS fixes cooling, noise and whatnot, aswell as one way smaller GPU for media, and other none related services. So the biggest GPU would'nt need to draw too much power 24/7
Likewise why you would not see an 8 core AMX at 3.x Ghz, the Power needed for that is simply too expensive, the heat is too high for such a form factor. What you might get (and a very logical way more powerful then what you are used to) 6-8 cores at around 2.0 ghz (maybe slightly lower) would also be more realistic.
That is ofcourse, if your next X-box are not made the way a fridge is, and if it is, good lord, then that box would cost more to turn on then the monthly subscription it is rumored to have.
Maddie_Larkin
Riddle me this then, mighty fine ideling temps, but what when you play a game? Completely useless point for a console. The chips alone as I stated use FAR more power under load. Your idea pretty much just equates to "it will not burn if you do not play games".
Oh and the power draw I wrote were calculated for the chip alone as stated, learn to read.
The statement for "new amd series of GPU would have an idle power consumption at atleast 400 Watts" would be false.
Peak: Crysis 2 at 1920x1200, Extreme profile, representing a typical gaming power draw. Highest single reading during the test.
Maximum: Furmark Stability Test at 1280x1024, 0xAA. This results in a very high non-game power consumption that can typically be reached only with stress testing applications. Card left running stress test until power draw converged to a stable value. On cards with power limiting systems we will disable the power limiting system or configure it to the highest available setting - if possible. We will also use the highest single reading from a Furmark run which is obtained by measuring faster than when the power limit can kick in
AMD PowerTune settings was changed.
The statement for "a peak at 700-800 that would be for the GPUs alone" would be false i.e. my Silverstone SG07's power supply doesn't go this high.
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Maddie_Larkin"]Your forgetting about ZeroCore, some of the top of the line cards idle at 15w for amd, and your also missing the point that it takes a lot more power to power an entire card than just a chip, Doesnt Nvidia have something like that now?*facepalms* (yes I really did that)
Freddie before you float off to your own dreamworld again, lets just restate that MS can NOT alter the laws of physics, 2 of the highest end of the new amd series of GPU would have an idle power consumption at atleast 400 Watts, and a peak at 700-800 that would be for the GPUs alone. Making it so expensive in power consumption that it would limit the potential buyerbase, does that sound logical? No good, you are catching on now.
Next is that unless you would see watercooling, or a case as big as a pc tower, two of those in X-fire would likely develop so much heat that the console would burn.
Given that the next step from AMDs GPU line has been suggested to be an incremental update, you can take the 7970 card, and look at how it works, with what specs, heat and so on.
And what you suggest is not plausible.
What you will likely get, is 1 GPU made for gaming, which might if MS fixes cooling, noise and whatnot, aswell as one way smaller GPU for media, and other none related services. So the biggest GPU would'nt need to draw too much power 24/7
Likewise why you would not see an 8 core AMX at 3.x Ghz, the Power needed for that is simply too expensive, the heat is too high for such a form factor. What you might get (and a very logical way more powerful then what you are used to) 6-8 cores at around 2.0 ghz (maybe slightly lower) would also be more realistic.
That is ofcourse, if your next X-box are not made the way a fridge is, and if it is, good lord, then that box would cost more to turn on then the monthly subscription it is rumored to have.
clyde46
[QUOTE="Maddie_Larkin"]
[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] Your forgetting about ZeroCore, some of the top of the line cards idle at 15w for amd, and your also missing the point that it takes a lot more power to power an entire card than just a chip, ronvalencia
Riddle me this then, mighty fine ideling temps, but what when you play a game? Completely useless point for a console. The chips alone as I stated use FAR more power under load. Your idea pretty much just equates to "it will not burn if you do not play games".
Oh and the power draw I wrote were calculated for the chip alone as stated, learn to read.
The statement for "new amd series of GPU would have an idle power consumption at atleast 400 Watts" would be false.
Peak: Crysis 2 at 1920x1200, Extreme profile, representing a typical gaming power draw. Highest single reading during the test.
Maximum: Furmark Stability Test at 1280x1024, 0xAA. This results in a very high non-game power consumption that can typically be reached only with stress testing applications. Card left running stress test until power draw converged to a stable value. On cards with power limiting systems we will disable the power limiting system or configure it to the highest available setting - if possible. We will also use the highest single reading from a Furmark run which is obtained by measuring faster than when the power limit can kick in
AMD PowerTune settings was changed.
The statement for "a peak at 700-800 that would be for the GPUs alone" would be false i.e. my Silverstone SG07's power supply doesn't go this high.
Go to the 7970 under load, since OP talked abou its big brother in Xfire, read before you let out your AMD marketing bull. Infact jest read the threads in which you post and do SW a favor. Again, idle power consumption matters little in a freakin console, common sense should be requirted given what a console is required to do. Not to mention TC were betting on dual chip cards.
Dual chip cards requires alot more in idle power usage. Given that they can not just be chips, thus the best govering example we can have is to use on how the PCB were structured, each of the power draw of the chips alone, and cut PCB power in pcb in half. add the power needed for a cooling solution.
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]
[QUOTE="Maddie_Larkin"]
Riddle me this then, mighty fine ideling temps, but what when you play a game? Completely useless point for a console. The chips alone as I stated use FAR more power under load. Your idea pretty much just equates to "it will not burn if you do not play games".
Oh and the power draw I wrote were calculated for the chip alone as stated, learn to read.
Maddie_Larkin
The statement for "new amd series of GPU would have an idle power consumption at atleast 400 Watts" would be false.
Peak: Crysis 2 at 1920x1200, Extreme profile, representing a typical gaming power draw. Highest single reading during the test.
Maximum: Furmark Stability Test at 1280x1024, 0xAA. This results in a very high non-game power consumption that can typically be reached only with stress testing applications. Card left running stress test until power draw converged to a stable value. On cards with power limiting systems we will disable the power limiting system or configure it to the highest available setting - if possible. We will also use the highest single reading from a Furmark run which is obtained by measuring faster than when the power limit can kick in
AMD PowerTune settings was changed.
The statement for "a peak at 700-800 that would be for the GPUs alone" would be false i.e. my Silverstone SG07's power supply doesn't go this high.
Go to the 7970 under load, since OP talked abou its big brother in Xfire, read before you let out your AMD marketing bull. Infact jest read the threads in which you post and do SW a favor. Again, idle power consumption matters little in a freakin console, common sense should be requirted given what a console is required to do. Not to mention TC were betting on dual chip cards.
Dual chip cards requires alot more in idle power usage. Given that they can not just be chips, thus the best govering example we can have is to use on how the PCB were structured, each of the power draw of the chips alone, and cut PCB power in pcb in half. add the power needed for a cooling solution.
Again, your statement for "new amd series of GPU would have an idle power consumption at atleast 400 Watts" is false. The BS is you.
Infact, research before you post BS and do SW a favor.
From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,3329-12.html
On gaming workloads, Radeon HD 7990 (single board XFire mode) has ~356 watts TDP i.e. the TDP scaling is not quite 2X when it comes to single board XFire designs.
Building a PCB with 1024 bit external bus is a big problem since PCB cost remained pretty static e.g. Xbox1, Xbox 360 and PS3 has 128bit wired VRAM.
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Yep, Every dev is saying that consoles will be weaker this time compared to the previous gens.superclockedThis time around, the consoles don't have any zany new tech like the Unified Shaders from before.I'm hoping that Microsoft is throwing money at AMD's engineering team again, but this time to go crazy improving APU design. You never know...
Rory Read already stated "semi-custom" and it's not a full custom GPU like in Xbox 360. Unlike ATI, AMD has injected X86-64 CPU IP into Radeon HD GCN i.e. the focus is X86 PC first.
PC AMD APUs has limit around 125 watts, while next gen consoles has about 170 to 200 watts i.e. info from https://twitter.com/aegies/status/288485398785699840
just throwing this out there: the xi3 runs at 20 watts of power consumption. the wii u is 50. durango and orbis are ~170-200.
If AMD Kaveri APU has quad core Streamroller CPU (it has Intel Sandybridge's level quad instructions per issue per CPU core) with Radeon HD 7750 level GPU (i.e. 8 CU = 512 SPs) and 100 watts TDP, a semi-custom AMD Kaveri APU could have expanded IGP to 16 CUs (1024 SPs) which about same level as Radeon HD 7850. This config is very close to PS4's AMD Liverpool APU spec.
From PC's ~100 watts CPU socket, ~50 watts for Radeon HD 7750 IGP and ~50 watts quad-core Streamroller. If you add another Radeon HD 7750 IGP, that would add another ~50 watts which results to ~150 watt APU. Two Radeon HD 7750 IGP ~= one Radeon HD 7850.
Microsoft could select an 8 core AMD Jaguar CPU with a Radeon HD 7850 level GPU. Note that all future AMD APUs has quad-core ARM Cortex A5 for TrustedZone DRM functions.
To solve PCB's 128bit wired VRAM cost issue, AMD could use interpose method to stack VRAM chips on the chip package.
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/10/27/amd-far-future-prototype-gpu-pictured/
AMD has been working on interposer GPU since 2011.
---------------------
My chip size calulation for semi-custom APU using current processor design blocks.
Semi-custom AMD Trinity (quad core PileDriver) with Radeon HD 7850 = ~335 mm^2
Quad core PileDriver = ~50 watts.
Radeon HD 7850 = ~130 watts (16 CUs operational, with 4 CUs disabled for yeild issues).
Total: ~180 watts.
Chip sizes for Xbox 360 http://www.anandtech.com/show/2682/4
Xenon/Zephyr's total chip size is 358 mm^2 (not including eDRAM chip which contains GPU's backend units).
---------------------
From http://www.anandtech.com/show/6567/amd-ces-2013-press-event-live-blog
AMD Kaveri APU make it for year 2013 release.
------------------
Notice AMD GCN (Graphics Core Next) for the console category.
AMD has designs for Radeon HD 7850 level APU with the cost structure of 1st gen/2nd gen Xbox 360.
But you are ignoring AMD. THEY ARE MAKING THE CHIPS. They said it will have near-Avatar graphics. This will require no less than 2 GTX 8990s in crossfire + optimization. So a larger case will be required. A small case is already ruled out based on AMD speaking about the Avatar graphics thing
fr3ddiemercury
AMD is thinking of Cinema 2.0 (running on two Radeon HD 4870 in XFire with a total of 512bit wide memory bus) type compute tricks to speed up raytracing. Even with Cinema 2.0 type tricks, it would not be Avatar CGI level raytracing i.e. real time raytracing would have cap'ed the light bounces and it would be significantly less than non-real time raytracers.
AMD/GoFlo's on-chip-package with 512bit wide VRAM for AMD GPUs i.e. stacking the VRAM chips on the chip packaging. This avoids PC's costly PCB boards approach.
As part of Cinema 2.0, Blu-ray storage would be reasonable storage device to store massive amounts of voxel data for lights.
From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fusion-hsa-opencl-history,3262-11.html
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="superclocked"]A PC with XBox specs couldn't even run those games on low. Doom 3 looked just as good as it did on PC, just at a lower resolution. Same with Halo. Optimizations for one particular hardware set can lead to some amazing results...superclockedWrong,optimization isnt magic, after the coding is to a point where is using the resources(processing/memory) to the smallest degree while being able to do what it needs to do. Then they have to fight a juggling act of what to keep and what to get rid of or downgrade to allow the system to run in a resource limited environment. Doom 3 for example on xbox ran at 320x240 and had total sections of levels cut out, let alone major cuts in lighting, With a Duron 1ghz cpu and a FX 5200 I ran Halo, Doom 3, Halo 2, Republic Commando, Battlefront, and Call of Duty much higher resolution and higher settings then xbox could ever do. I hope that you're joking.. For one, Doom 3 for the XBox ran at a native resolution of 800x480 (480p), and looked nearly identical to the PC version on high.. And a 1GHz Duron and FX 5200 could not run those games at anything even approaching a playable framerate. My Athlon XP 2600+ and FX 5600 could barely run Halo and Doom 3. At 1024x768 and medium settings, both games were like a slideshow with my hardware...
Texture resolution of the Doom 3 on xbox was 320x240, Doom3 did not run at 800x480 on xbox the game was design to run at 640x480, and its funny that you think Doom3 on xbox looked nearly identical to the PC version on high..
Aside from map differences, the in-game sacrifices that the Xbox makes are as follows:Resolution - the Xbox version of the game only goes up to 480, and most folks played on standard TV .Lighting - Below, you'll see a direct comparison of the lighting effects used on the Xbox versus the PC.Textures - Some of the Xbox textures look very "washed out", pixelated, and just plain bad next to the PC version.Bump Mapping - the Xbox version simply doesn't "pop" like the PC version, even at the same resolution.
Log in to comment