• RUMOR: Next Xbox 'to boast ridiculously powerful 16-core CPU'
    228 replies, posted
[img]http://cdn.medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_280135_thumb_wide300.jpg[/img] [quote]By Andy Robinson for computerandvideogames.com Yet another next-gen Xbox rumour has reared its head this morning, claiming Microsoft's next console's set to boast a monster 16-core CPU. The latest issue of Xbox World reports that codename 'Durango' devkits were sent to developers last month, shortly after secret meetings were held in London. The Durango kits don't resemble the final hardware in appearance, says XBW (the original Xbox 360 devkits were PowerPCs in standard PC cases), but the hardware inside is representative of the machine you can expect to see released in late 2013. XBW's sources suggest Durango's devkit is powered by a state of the art 16-core IBM Power PC CPU with a graphics processor on par with AMD's Radeon HD 7000-series graphics cards, as previously rumoured. The 16-core processor in particular would be a surprising addition, as it's future tech even for high-end PCs. AMD launched the world's first 16-core processor for the business market in November last year. XBW explains: "It's a ridiculous amount of power for a games machine - too much power, even. But remember, Kinect 2 could chew up four whole cores tracking multiple players right down to their fingertips, so it'll need a lot of power." Despite Microsoft and Sony both denying they'll show next-gen tech at E3 in June, XBW's sources claim many developers are working towards an LA debut for their next-generation software, "whether Microsoft and Sony are ready or not". It's going to be an interesting few months...[/quote] [url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/343191/next-xbox-to-boast-ridiculously-powerful-16-core-cpu/]SOURCE[/url]
Probably not true
I'd be surprised but really, it won't make a difference. They're wanting a family-friendly multimedia device now not an actual console so I doubt we'll be seeing much good from it.
599 US dollars, 599 US dollars, 599 US dollars.
[quote]Kinect 2 could chew up four whole cores tracking multiple players[/quote] Okay that's bullshit, I'm fed up with this motion controller shit and I can't see why they would invest even more on it.
[QUOTE=Fingers!!!;35509189]Okay that's bullshit, I'm fed up with this motion controller shit and I can't see why they would invest even more on it.[/QUOTE] I don't see what's so bad investing more in this field, it could prove to be quite useful in other future tech.
If that means Kinect 2 has near instant feedback and is much more accurate, then by all means go for it. There are a lot of cool things you can do with it (not really play games, though). (It probably won't though, I'm pretty sure they've seen from PS3 sales what too high a price can do)
[QUOTE=farmatyr;35509203]I don't see what's so bad investing more in this field, it could prove to be quite useful in other future tech.[/QUOTE] But it's increasing the price of the console for stuff that people potentially care next to nothing about.
I heard it could cure cancer, my uncle works for xbox
[QUOTE=farmatyr;35509203]I don't see what's so bad investing more in this field, it could prove to be quite useful in other future tech.[/QUOTE] Kinect proved to be quite useful indeed, what I'm actually afraid of is what is going to be of the normal gaming industry if every single developer starts jumping into the gimmicky bandwagon, adding unnecessary features instead of useful, nice ones. Think of this as the Wii-U, it could have some amazing features, BUT knowing Nintendo, there's going to be A LOT of shovelwares too. Shit like this, Kinect 2 etc are MEANT to be gimmicky. I'm sorry for making a clichéd statement but casual gaming industry is shit, they're not even making decent games anymore, I mean, I had A LOT of fun with wii sports, but now it's either dancing, singing, sports etc. TLDR; I'm afraid of what's becoming of the casual gaming industry. [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] farmatyr, IMO, technology like this should be improved, not sold out as something unnecessary.
For me that sounds good so far, I don't give a single ass on Kinect. If games are beeing made more enjoyable without those stupid limits they have today then: Xbox here I come!
[QUOTE=Fingers!!!;35509189]Okay that's bullshit, I'm fed up with this motion controller shit and I can't see why they would invest even more on it.[/QUOTE] The original Kinect was the fastest selling piece of consumer electronics last year. So in other words, money.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;35509177]599 US dollars, 599 US dollars, 599 US dollars.[/QUOTE] 1999$ 1999$ 1999€
AMD 16 Core aka 8 core "hyperthreaded" or whatever AMD's version of the technology is. AMD needs to stop marking virtual cores as physical cores.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;35509310]The original Kinect was the fastest selling piece of consumer electronics last year. So in other words, money.[/QUOTE] It also was the only selling piece of consumer electronics last year that was new.
[QUOTE=joost1120;35509415]It also was the only selling piece of consumer electronics last year that was new.[/QUOTE] I think he means "ever" [img]http://i.imgur.com/BPEnh.png[/img]
16 core RISC at 12Mhz! 768Mb of SD RAM! And a Nvidia Geforce 1 for amazing HD graphics!!!!!11 [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] Yeah, its going to be outdated before it even hits the shelf.
kinects actually pretty fun, hopefully they'll be able to think up some cool games for it
I've never played on the Kinect but I have seen people play on it during some of the game conventions in the UK, it looked pretty fun, I don't like the Kinect but I respect it for what it is.
In today's bullshit news that also happens to be useless, Obama might be a commie socialist.
It might have those 16 cores but are those cores each individually working on a single process? In most cases when this new technology comes out it's underdeveloped and you simply just have a fast running 8 core rather than a 16. Also it would be very hard for programmers to take on board the new 16 core system so who's to say programmers will even make use of all 16 cores. It just seems like something silly to boast about having that many cores but not specifying anything else about the CPU's operation, it's stupid really.
Just like the Jaguar had a 64 bit processor, right (it turned out to be either two 32bit or four 16bit procs that didn't even work well together) Also, who the fuck cares about anything beyond four or five cores besides people who need to do 3DSmax work, seriously? Every game would have to be made to use all 16 cores, and that'd mean it'd be hard to code and fucking impossible to port. Four very powerful cores are better than 16.
*Cough cough* [IMG]http://hitechanalogy.com/wp-content/uploads/intel-knights-corner-worlds-superfast-processor.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=latin_geek;35509737]Just like the Jaguar had a 64 bit processor, right (it turned out to be either two 32bit or four 16bit procs that didn't even work well together)[/QUOTE] Where did YOU learn to fly? :v: On topic: More cores does not automatically mean more power
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;35509777] On topic: More cores does not automatically mean more power[/QUOTE] This is true, a single i7 3960x can beat a pair of Xeon E5-2687's in some benchmarks.
So us army will stop buying ps3's and get these bad boys for their computing power ?
So if xbox uses ati and amd as their bases and ps3 nvidia and intel guess who will win outta this? ps3:bigger price xbox:lower price
Good god will you PC gamers stop complaining...
[QUOTE=EzioAuditore;35509925]Good god will you PC gamers stop complaining...[/QUOTE] that's ok even if it's true PC will just blast right past it in a through years or 1 month and problem solved. EDIT: I don't take that back either because it's 100% true, PC specs WILL surpass console specs, doesn't make PC better though.
SEGA make dreamcast 2 pls
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.