PC to be destroyed next year. Xbox 720 specs= AMD 7990. 16 Core CPU, 4GB Ram

[QUOTE="glez13"]16 cores is something you would see on a server.parkurtommo

Oh, snap!!!!1111 :shock:

All these specs will be used to make the next COD look about the same.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Xboxdroolz"]

lol @ 4gb ram my pc has 8gb

Xboxdroolz

All these specs will be used to make the next COD look about the same.

Chemical_Viking

[QUOTE="Xboxdroolz"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] A console doesn't need very much Ram.parkurtommo

Didn't TC say he was leaving system wars for a while? What happened with that?

clone01

Why would he leave when you guys give him 18+ pages of attention? Only place that gives him attention is here sadly...

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

How could adding cores NOT increase transistor count?

Kinthalis

Uhh, by not adding more transistors? Unless the die size is getting bigger, or the manufacturing process getting smaller, the transistor count isn't going up, they have finite space and they fill up as much as possible to begin with.

A modern processor core has many many times more transistors than something like a p4, or even a stream processor(in a gpu), that's where you see 2048 stream processors in the core of a 7970, it's not that there's 512x the transistor count, it's that there are less devoted to any individual piece.

First you decide eon the chip architecture, specifically how the main logic and each core is structured. This gives you a transistor count per core. Then adding cores increases the number of transistors on the die.

You seem to be saying that given a specific number of transistors, it doesn't matter how they are spread across cores... well duh, yes that's true, but the number of transistors is tied to the number of cores and their architecture.

lostrib -"Can they even shove 16 cores into a 22nm chip? I would think the heat would be off the charts"

Was the origin of the conversation, and the answer is 'yes' that they can, and 'no' that it will make it hotter (necessarily). There's no mention as to the core's architecture, or even manufacture. Not even Trol.. err Reach3's OP says who's making the processor.

04dcarraher said "Look at intel's i7 3770k is 77w tdp, just add 4x the cores, you will see it use more then 200w."

I don't know why everyone is jumping on the i7 3770k as if it's some standard for processor architecture, it isn't. You clearly can't just blindly shove more cores onto a die of equal size/process, as I said, there's finite space and the transistor count is basically as close to maxxed out as they can achieve. If the cpu is designed to have 16 cores, it's not likely to really have any more transistors as any other cpu with the same die size or process, and it also isn't necessarily a higher clock, so it's not going to generate more heat just 'cause of having more cores.

[QUOTE="Xboxdroolz"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] A console doesn't need very much Ram.parkurtommo

They will get used to them in about five minutes. Same games, same experiences.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Xboxdroolz"] Yes it does call of duty 2 on pc had better textures than cod2 on 360. Which was a launch title lmao.Chemical_Viking

They will get used to them in about five minutes. Same games, same experiences.

lol 360/ps3 watered down call of duty no more 64 players

LAME

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Xboxdroolz"]

lol @ 4gb ram my pc has 8gb

Xboxdroolz

Isnt that more related to the VRAM not the system RAM

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Consoles don't have a bunch of processes running in the background, 4 gb is PLENTY for a console.Xboxdroolz

They will get used to them in about five minutes. Same games, same experiences.

Cod 12 xbokx 723 2 players

PC gaming won't be destroyed by Xbox720

PC gaming will be destroyed by Microsoft/Window/Itself

16 cores? Get ready to be disappointed.

As a PC gamer, my first response is: YEEEAAAHH!!!

Now we don't have to worry about console ports watering down our experience.

Remember guys.. competition is great. It makes things improve. The customer always wins... Yet simpletons think this a lose for PC..

As a PC gamer, my first response is: YEEEAAAHH!!!

Now we don't have to worry about console ports watering down our experience.

Remember guys.. competition is great. It makes things improve. The customer always wins... Yet simpletons think this a lose for PC..

thphaca

I don't think it is a lose, I just know it won't be even close to that powerful.

Next year?

The AMD 8000 series will be out end of this year = FAIL

mrfrosty151986

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Next year?

The AMD 8000 series will be out end of this year = FAIL

reach3

Software optimization for console's AMD GCN can be applied for PC's AMD GCN.

Well, hopes and speculation seem to be in the stratosphere at this point.

Well, hopes and speculation seem to be in the stratosphere at this point.

YearoftheSnake5

How in the world did a thread based on the two year old document that's been talked about to death here, and reach3's (reach3's!!!!) absurd predictions get this long?

How in the world did a thread based on the two year old document that's been talked about to death here, and reach3's (reach3's!!!!) absurd predictions get this long?

santoron

Amusement and boredom, my friend. Amusement and boredom.

[QUOTE="YearoftheSnake5"]

[QUOTE="reach3"] I have no worries. The 7990 for 720 will be customized for it. Even stronger, with less power used. I cant wait to say i told you so when they announce specs :)reach3

Can I take a look into that crystal ball of yours? I'd like to know what the next lottery numbers are going to be.

[QUOTE="YearoftheSnake5"]

Well, hopes and speculation seem to be in the stratosphere at this point.

reach3

X1900 runs Crysis 2 like an Xbox 360

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Next year?

The AMD 8000 series will be out end of this year = FAIL

reach3

Yeah...that's not true

[QUOTE="reach3"][QUOTE="YearoftheSnake5"]

Can I take a look into that crystal ball of yours? I'd like to know what the next lottery numbers are going to be.

krayzieE99

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

Uhh, by not adding more transistors? Unless the die size is getting bigger, or the manufacturing process getting smaller, the transistor count isn't going up, they have finite space and they fill up as much as possible to begin with.

A modern processor core has many many times more transistors than something like a p4, or even a stream processor(in a gpu), that's where you see 2048 stream processors in the core of a 7970, it's not that there's 512x the transistor count, it's that there are less devoted to any individual piece.

Inconsistancy

First you decide eon the chip architecture, specifically how the main logic and each core is structured. This gives you a transistor count per core. Then adding cores increases the number of transistors on the die.

You seem to be saying that given a specific number of transistors, it doesn't matter how they are spread across cores... well duh, yes that's true, but the number of transistors is tied to the number of cores and their architecture.

lostrib -"Can they even shove 16 cores into a 22nm chip? I would think the heat would be off the charts"

Was the origin of the conversation, and the answer is 'yes' that they can, and 'no' that it will make it hotter (necessarily). There's no mention as to the core's architecture, or even manufacture. Not even Trol.. err Reach3's OP says who's making the processor.

04dcarraher said "Look at intel's i7 3770k is 77w tdp, just add 4x the cores, you will see it use more then 200w."

I don't know why everyone is jumping on the i7 3770k as if it's some standard for processor architecture, it isn't. You clearly can't just blindly shove more cores onto a die of equal size/process, as I said, there's finite space and the transistor count is basically as close to maxxed out as they can achieve. If the cpu is designed to have 16 cores, it's not likely to really have any more transistors as any other cpu with the same die size or process, and it also isn't necessarily a higher clock, so it's not going to generate more heat just 'cause of having more cores.

stop with these random rumours.

[QUOTE="krayzieE99"][QUOTE="reach3"] Not the same thing. Its common sense. 360 matched and beat the best pc on release day. 720 will do the same. Xbox has always been the strongest console each gen and will continue that with 720.reach3

You're not very smart are you?

[QUOTE="krayzieE99"][QUOTE="reach3"] Not the same thing. Its common sense. 360 matched and beat the best pc on release day. 720 will do the same. Xbox has always been the strongest console each gen and will continue that with 720.reach3

That alone shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. Oblivion on gaming PC of that era could run at a higher resolution with better lighting(meaning it would look BETTER than the 360 version). Of course, there are similarities because it is a MULTIPLATFORM game. So, there are mods to take advantage of what a PC can really do. And a modded Oblivion mops the floor with the 360 version.

I try to force the names of trolls out of my head so I don't remember morons in my monkeysphere, but in this case I do remember OP having a giant whiny meltdown, and then before that telling us that taping two PC's together makes it more powerful.

So no I won't take this thread seriously.

[QUOTE="reach3"][QUOTE="krayzieE99"] you have no clue what you are talking about. when the 360 released it did NOT match or even come close to beating the best PC. keep on reach3n.YearoftheSnake5

That alone shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. Oblivion on gaming PC of that era could run at a higher resolution with better lighting(meaning it would look BETTER than the 360 version). Of course, there are similarities because it is a MULTIPLATFORM game. So, there are mods to take advantage of what a PC can really do. And a modded Oblivion mops the floor with the 360 version.

wrong. Oblivion on 360 looked better than pc and Gears 1 was graphics king until Crysis 1 came out. Took 3 years for pc to match 360. With 720's specs and optimization, I wouldn't be surprised if it took pc 8 years to match.reach3

[QUOTE="reach3"]wrong. Oblivion on 360 looked better than pc and Gears 1 was graphics king until Crysis 1 came out. Took 3 years for pc to match 360. With 720's specs and optimization, I wouldn't be surprised if it took pc 8 years to match.psymon100

[QUOTE="reach3"]wrong. Oblivion on 360 looked better than pc and Gears 1 was graphics king until Crysis 1 came out. Took 3 years for pc to match 360. With 720's specs and optimization, I wouldn't be surprised if it took pc 8 years to match.psymon100

[QUOTE="psymon100"][QUOTE="reach3"]wrong. Oblivion on 360 looked better than pc and Gears 1 was graphics king until Crysis 1 came out. Took 3 years for pc to match 360. With 720's specs and optimization, I wouldn't be surprised if it took pc 8 years to match.reach3

Is that like how crysis was better on console too according to the dev?

[QUOTE="reach3"][QUOTE="psymon100"] Does this help you?lostrib

Is that like how crysis was better on console too according to the dev?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="reach3"] Direct from Bethesda "The Xbox 360 version should be visually identical to a PC running with all the visual options turned to maximum. PC users will have more options to turn down certain visuals to better accommodate older hardware setups. The only thing the Xbox 360 version will lack is the Elder Scrolls Construction Set for modding. It simply isn't possible to offer on a console." So both look the same, yet 360 version run better thanks to console experience. 360 version was better, straight form the dev, end of discussion.reach3

Is that like how crysis was better on console too according to the dev?

No, in pretty much all ways it wasnt.

Look the 360 was great and powerful when it came out, but there was also a significant graphical leap to be made. The next graphical leap is not as great and companies don't want to have to put out expensive hardware at a loss, it's not a good business model. We are still in a recession.

[QUOTE="psymon100"][QUOTE="reach3"]wrong. Oblivion on 360 looked better than pc and Gears 1 was graphics king until Crysis 1 came out. Took 3 years for pc to match 360. With 720's specs and optimization, I wouldn't be surprised if it took pc 8 years to match.reach3

So both look the same, yet 360 version run better thanks to console experience. 360 version was better, straight form the dev, end of discussion.

If this guy is serious and not trolling, I will eat my shoes.

4 GB of RAM? That was made irrelevant for most PC's last year. Most these days come standard with 6-8 GB.Zeviander

[QUOTE="krayzieE99"][QUOTE="reach3"] Not the same thing. Its common sense. 360 matched and beat the best pc on release day. 720 will do the same. Xbox has always been the strongest console each gen and will continue that with 720.reach3

Oblivion PC with mods beats 360 version. Gears 1 was released on the PC. Oblivion PC with DX9c Radeon PC hardware has both MSAA + HDR FP (via "chuck patch"). MSAA + HDR FP limitation was defined by DX9 and NVIDIA DX9 hardware followed it.

[QUOTE="reach3"][QUOTE="krayzieE99"] you have no clue what you are talking about. when the 360 released it did NOT match or even come close to beating the best PC. keep on reach3n.ronvalencia

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="reach3"] wrong. Oblivion on 360 looked better than pc and Gears 1 was graphics king until Crysis 1 came out. Took 3 years for pc to match 360. With 720's specs and optimization, I wouldn't be surprised if it took pc 8 years to match.reach3

[QUOTE="reach3"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Oblivion PC with mods beats 360 version. Gears 1 was released on the PC.ronvalencia

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="reach3"] I am talking on release date. 360 version was light years ahead in performance and costs thousands less. Also, GEars released on pc right before crysis came out. So my pint still stands, 360 was graphcis king and took 3 years for pc to match it. 720 will take pc 8 years to match reach3

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="reach3"] I am talking on release date. 360 version was light years ahead in performance and costs thousands less. Also, GEars released on pc right before crysis came out. So my pint still stands, 360 was graphcis king and took 3 years for pc to match it. 720 will take pc 8 years to match reach3

Well gears came out in 2006 and crysis came out a year later along with gears on PC. And crysis still looks better than most console games. So i'm gonna guess you're wrong

[QUOTE="reach3"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] 360 wasn't graphics king with PCs equiped with Radeon X1900 (beyond 720p). Gears1 feels like UT3 with less color range.Captain__Tripps

[QUOTE="krayzieE99"][QUOTE="reach3"] Not the same thing. Its common sense. 360 matched and beat the best pc on release day. 720 will do the same. Xbox has always been the strongest console each gen and will continue that with 720.reach3

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

360 couldn't even get 20fps outdoors and it didn't even have most of the shadows enabled...most of the game ran on medium

[QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="reach3"] I am speaking technical graphics. No game matched Gears on 360 until Crysis came out. Took 3 years, as i saidreach3

Which also came out in 2006...so you had about a year of having graphics on par with high performance PCs and then got destroyed for next five years