The technology in next Xbox and Playstation...

Robert1986 · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:12

Jamesdavid3 said:
I feel Microsoft will have something very special next!

Special? Like what? Consoles will never be anything special in terms of Tech because the PC will always be years ahead.

wedgie · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:14

So lets say you have a 6 months gap between the final spec decision and release - How many games do you expect to have available for release at the launch of the console? (or anytime soon after for that matter).

Shamikebab · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:15

Robert1986 said:
Special? Like what? Consoles will never be anything special in terms of Tech because the PC will always be years ahead.

Really? What about the Wii? Special doesn't just mean most powerful.

KNiVES · 9 Mar 2009 at 16:17

PS4 will most likely be using Cell for both its CPU and GPU needs, this is a logical choice in terms of finance, especially considering the time and money Sony has poured into the project for the PS3 as well as its failure to penetrate other markets (such as televisions phones and er, toasters) that they originally envisaged. The pressure is on them to utilize the technology so that it doesn't go to waste. They can't really afford to start over from relative scratch again like they did with the PS3.

The 360 most likely will be using an iteration of Intel's CPU/GPU Larrabee technology. I believe they (MS and Intel) already signed a contract to start a working relationship on the development of the next Xbox.

So in a nutshell: Sony to carry on using Cell, and Microsoft to use Intel's Larrabee hardware.

(this is an educated guess btw, based on existing hardware developments and projects)

da_mic_1530 · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:18

you need to give developers time to make games on the hardware platform you give them, yes 6 months down the line you could have more powerful hardware, but no games

Robert1986 · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:22

Shamikebab said:
Really? What about the Wii? Special doesn't just mean most powerful.

Motion tech has been around way before the Wii though.

Shamikebab · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:24

Robert1986 said:
Motion tech has been around way before the Wii though.

Yeah but not really used to the same level. Still doesn't change my second point though.

Chaos · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:35

Jamesdavid3 said:
I just seem to think which ever console comes out first will be the less advance, and the one coming out at the later date will always be the successor.

Less advanced dosn't equal less sales, look at the wii and ds.

Robert1986 · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:42

Shamikebab said:
Yeah but not really used to the same level. Still doesn't change my second point though.

I think the success of the Wii is mainly down to its pick up and play games and marketing. Most if not all of the motion controls performed with the Wii mote can also be done with a joy pad.

Console hardware will also be a step behind what is already on the market.

Joebob · 9 Mar 2009 at 17:54

Kreeeee said:
The reliability has nothing to do with the architecture of the console, just in the solder joints used and the heat sink attachment method which are easy to solve. It's a shame MS doesn't just change this design as it would mean admitting to the fault and there would be even more lawsuits.

Architecture has everything to do with the 360's reliability. As a process, architecture is the activity of designing and contructing a physical sctructure, which covers every spect of the console. So if the solder joints are coming loose due to the uneven pressure applied by the x-clamp causing the solder joints to seperate then it's a design flaw from the design level through - ergo the architecture.

Kreeeee · 9 Mar 2009 at 19:08

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/computer_architecture

Sorry, no, computer architecture is the abstract design of component interaction and functionality. What you're referring to is the simple manufacturing processes and designs.

The 360's architecture was solid and not rushed, the manufacture of the parts that work with the components (mostly the heatsink design) was the flaw.

cokecan · 9 Mar 2009 at 19:48

Kreeeee said:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/computer_architecture

Sorry, no, computer architecture is the abstract design of component interaction and functionality. What you're referring to is the simple manufacturing processes and designs.

The 360's architecture was solid and not rushed, the manufacture of the parts that work with the components (mostly the heatsink design) was the flaw.

Agreed! The hardware/specs of the 360 are pretty solid, if I remember correctly it does have an impressive ammount of bandwidth between CPU/GPU and RAM? plus the decision to add extra RAM after Epic suggested what they could do with the extra also adds to the well thought out hardware. It's just the badly thought out/implementation of "cooling" (or more accuratly, record the temp at which the console explodes, then tweak the fan to run just a little bit faster to drop the temp a few degrees below the exploding temp

) that lets the xbox down

Kreeeee · 9 Mar 2009 at 20:15

I just hate the idea of the technicians/computer architects behind the brilliant architecture design getting blamed for some monkeys poor physical cooling choices.

The main problem isn't even directly heat related (made blindingly obvious by the issue existing with the much smaller and cooler chips, although it most certainly doesn't help), it's the torsion spring on the heat sinks flexing the board and breaking tracks during cooling/heating cycles not the console getting too hot and frying the components.

NorthstaNder · 9 Mar 2009 at 20:38

Jamesdavid3 said:
I'm confused as of why Xbox always seem to bring out there console first, as this gives Playstation or other consoles time to look at it and easily think of ways to make it much better.(Adding blue Ray, bigger Hard drive etc)

Thing is, the PS3 and 360 hardware was finalised at a very similar time. The reason the PS3 was late to the market was because of problems with the Blu Ray drive I believe (either that or it was CPU manufacturing problems), not because Sony were adding bells and whistles to the PS3.

mmj_uk · 9 Mar 2009 at 21:10

NorthstaNder said:
Thing is, the PS3 and 360 hardware was finalised at a very similar time. The reason the PS3 was late to the market was because of problems with the Blu Ray drive I believe (either that or it was CPU manufacturing problems), not because Sony were adding bells and whistles to the PS3.

Yeah but the Xbox 360 was also very early to market because Microsoft bypassed the quality assurance phase, three years later and the console is still plagued with problems somewhat so I think it's safe to say it would have been delayed by at least a year if they had acted ethically.

I wasn't commenting on system architecture earlier but I agree Xbox 360 was pretty sound aside from the short-sightedness of the storage medium, a higher capacity choice would have probably also been more profitable in the end due to the reduction in piracy. Then again, I wouldn't have stuck a £100 drive in a knowingly defective console either.

Alexrose1uk · 9 Mar 2009 at 21:56

Shame about it is they could have done more with standard use of HDDVD, instead of DVD. At the time it was a better solution than blu - faster, cheaper and movie features were ahead of blu at the time, would have made sense and given the 360 another sellimg point, as it still would have been cheaper than the ps3.

cu3ed · 9 Mar 2009 at 22:46

Kreeeee said:
I just hate the idea of the technicians/computer architects behind the brilliant architecture design getting blamed for some monkeys poor physical cooling choices.

The main problem isn't even directly heat related (made blindingly obvious by the issue existing with the much smaller and cooler chips, although it most certainly doesn't help), it's the torsion spring on the heat sinks flexing the board and breaking tracks during cooling/heating cycles not the console getting too hot and frying the components.

Just want to be clear on the problem, but am i right in saying that because of the metal x-springs that pull the heatsinks down, when they cool I assume the pressure applied on the head of the cpu isnt even during this phase, does that cause the actual damage?

cokecan · 9 Mar 2009 at 23:57

pretty much. it's a combination of the x-clamps applying uneven force and pressure onto the board/cpu/gpu while the heating and cooling cycle from the cpu & gpu causes the board to warp slightly under the stress from the x-clamps which in turn breaks some solder points/tracks.

Kreeeee · 10 Mar 2009 at 00:15

cu3ed said:
Just want to be clear on the problem, but am i right in saying that because of the metal x-springs that pull the heatsinks down, when they cool I assume the pressure applied on the head of the cpu isnt even during this phase, does that cause the actual damage?

No.

During the heat cycling the tension across the X-Clamp varies which puts uneven strain on the motherboard and causes the flexing that breaks the solder joints. The processor is fine during this process.

Sinny · 10 Mar 2009 at 00:26

I've always thought the consoles were aimed at differant markets.

Wii - 4 to 13
360 - 13 - 21
PS3 - 18+

that's based on my own personal opinion, the price difference and the capabilities of each system.

In my honest opinion I think the next xbox will probably beat the PS3 again because of the current install base but things can change. Playstation said they expect the PS3 to have a 10 year lifespan so expect the new xbox to come out way before the PS4 and probably sell a lot more units.