Xbox 720 to use Radeon 6000 card, 'six times' 360 power - Report

MD1500 on 25 Jan '12 said:

So, the Xbox 720 is 6 times more powerful than the 360
And the Wii U is 20% less powerful than the 720.

Conclusion: The Wii U is 4.8 times more powerful than the 360.... So much for it being last gen.

Chris_Shanahan87 on 25 Jan '12 said:

This is very smart of Microsoft.

It's not a giant leap, it's just enough. It's competition is the Wii U and PS3 (PS4 won't be out for a few years) so this ensures MS can keep up technically with the other 2, any more power would be useless as it would never be used except for exclusives. It also ensures they can keep the console at a competitive price

Channel4 on 25 Jan '12 said:

The 6670? That isn't much better than my laptop. Are you sure it isn't the 6970?

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

Ok will put a different twist on this.

The XBox 360 and PS3 were released in shall we say, much less economically challenging times, and could probably afford to lose money on each console early on.

Fast forward to 2012 and the economic climate is considerably harsher, meaning any loss made by microsoft or sony on each console sold would have to be minimised, assuming they were being sold at a loss at all. Whilst Kinect has probably give the 360 an extra few years of life, Microsoft recognise that this can't go on forever. But I think its safe to say if Microsoft were going to release a console with a true ten year lifespan, then they would have to take a massive hit on each console sold, unless they sold it with a £500 plus price tag, which aint going to happen.

Considering the economic climate, would anyone discount the possibility that Microsofts strategy could be to release a new console that is considerably more powerful than its predecessor and the Wii U, yet still relatively cheap for a newly released console, being sold at a profit, with a projected lifespan of five or six years tops?

svd_grasshopper on 25 Jan '12 said:

that is gonna be s**te in two years time when it launches, let alone a few years into the cycle.

looks like microsoft is going down its multimedia kinetic-enabled set top box family-friendly route. after seeing nintendo's success with the low budget, high profit wii, they could be forgiven, but think it is misjudged. kinetic was successful, but was it anything other than a fad? who actually uses their kinetic (out of the 8m or so that bought it) on a regular basis?!

slick loose on 25 Jan '12 said:

I tend not to believe a word of these 'reports', I'll just wait until Microsoft unveil their next console.

I even doubt it will be called a 720.

flyfletch on 25 Jan '12 said:

Ok will put a different twist on this.

The XBox 360 and PS3 were released in shall we say, much less economically challenging times, and could probably afford to lose money on each console early on.

Fast forward to 2012 and the economic climate is considerably harsher, meaning any loss made by microsoft or sony on each console sold would have to be minimised, assuming they were being sold at a loss at all. Whilst Kinect has probably give the 360 an extra few years of life, Microsoft recognise that this can't go on forever. But I think its safe to say if Microsoft were going to release a console with a true ten year lifespan, then they would have to take a massive hit on each console sold, unless they sold it with a £500 plus price tag, which aint going to happen.

Considering the economic climate, would anyone discount the possibility that Microsofts strategy could be to release a new console that is considerably more powerful than its predecessor and the Wii U, yet still relatively cheap for a newly released console, being sold at a profit, with a projected lifespan of five or six years tops?

This is a possibility, with a new machine out a couple of years after the PS4, keeps them well ahead of the game, and 6 years max is good enough if they make the machines cheap enough to make upgrading easy. And as for it being uderpowered compared to PS4, no one knows anything about it yet, and even if it is, it will take a couple of years for PS4 to hit its stride and have games looking better than the new xbox, so its a safe bet from MS. Not only that, but 6 times more powerful than the Xbox is very powerful indeed, especially when you consider what they are squeezing out of the xbox now, this should keep epic happy, we might even see something close to the graphics in the unreal engine 3 Samaritan demo.(i said close)

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

Maybe if the report of Microsoft releasing two versions of the 720, a cheap STB and fully fledged gaming machine, that this is the part going into the set top box?

dangermou5e on 25 Jan '12 said:

I tend not to believe a word of these 'reports', I'll just wait until Microsoft unveil their next console.

I even doubt it will be called a 720.

Couldn't agree more! Anyone who believes this should stamp gullible on their foreheads (that includes the posters who are slagging Msoft off)

Channel4 on 25 Jan '12 said:

So, the Xbox 720 is 6 times more powerful than the 360
And the Wii U is 20% less powerful than the 720.

Conclusion: The Wii U is 4.8 times more powerful than the 360.... So much for it being last gen.

When you consider that the PS3 and 360 are over 10x as powerful as the PS2 and they came out only five to six years later. The Wii U coming out six years later with only 4.8x the increase in power is bit disappointing. It's hard atm to class it as fully next gen imo, but then again people were calling the 360 Xbox 1.5 when it was first released. So it could prove to be enough when everybodies cards are on the table.

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

This is a possibility, with a new machine out a couple of years after the PS4, keeps them well ahead of the game, and 6 years max is good enough if they make the machines cheap enough to make upgrading easy. And as for it being uderpowered compared to PS4, no one knows anything about it yet, and even if it is, it will take a couple of years for PS4 to hit its stride and have games looking better than the new xbox, so its a safe bet from MS. Not only that, but 6 times more powerful than the Xbox is very powerful indeed, especially when you consider what they are squeezing out of the xbox now, this should keep epic happy, we might even see something close to the graphics in the unreal engine 3 Samaritan demo.(i said close)

Or maybe even a case of lets see how long we can get out of it? I think given the economic climate, neither microsoft or sony are in a position to release a console that will be sold at a substantial loss at anytime during its lifecycle, which is what developing a console with a ten year lifecycle would entail.

TykerD3 on 25 Jan '12 said:

Ok will put a different twist on this.

The XBox 360 and PS3 were released in shall we say, much less economically challenging times, and could probably afford to lose money on each console early on.

Fast forward to 2012 and the economic climate is considerably harsher, meaning any loss made by microsoft or sony on each console sold would have to be minimised, assuming they were being sold at a loss at all. Whilst Kinect has probably give the 360 an extra few years of life, Microsoft recognise that this can't go on forever. But I think its safe to say if Microsoft were going to release a console with a true ten year lifespan, then they would have to take a massive hit on each console sold, unless they sold it with a £500 plus price tag, which aint going to happen.

Considering the economic climate, would anyone discount the possibility that Microsofts strategy could be to release a new console that is considerably more powerful than its predecessor and the Wii U, yet still relatively cheap for a newly released console, being sold at a profit, with a projected lifespan of five or six years tops?

I agree with the above. I was hoping for more power, and agree with Grasshopper for once that this is not powerfull enough. Id still buy one though, and id still enjoy it. Hell, ill probably still enjoy my 360 on 5 years time..

Scarlet_Pimp on 25 Jan '12 said:

This spec is about 6 times more powerful than current xbox and 20% more powerful than Wii U. Considering that most games are around 600p up scaled to whatever res you set on your TV, and 1080p is about 4x the amount of pixels consoles can currently push then we should have an xbox doing todays level of graphics at 1080p with about one 3rd extra power avalable, at least on the graphics front.
Now if they add in a dedicated physics chip and have a quad or 6 core CPU this could be a pretty good machine.

Weezer on 25 Jan '12 said:

If you said to me would you like Skyrim or Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed, but six times better looking (or, rather, with six times the visual fidelity), I'd rip your arm off. I'm not sure what people really expect from the next gen, but I never thought I'd see games as good looking as these on the Xbox 360. I'm sure this GPUY will be tweaked and modified before use and then have the s**t optimised out of it.

I agree with the poster above that these are difficult financial times. Remember how well the PS3 sold when it was stupidly expensive? Yes: badly. If the next Xbox is noticeably more powerful but affordable from day one, what's the issue? Bring it on, I say.

svd_grasshopper on 25 Jan '12 said:

I tend not to believe a word of these 'reports', I'll just wait until Microsoft unveil their next console.

I even doubt it will be called a 720.

that's what i thought with the trash CVG have been reporting these days, but the fact that it's on eurogamer, and richard leadbetter bothered to comment on it adds a little weight to it. as opposed to it being just another N4G-type rumour.

kirankara on 25 Jan '12 said:

This is a possibility, with a new machine out a couple of years after the PS4, keeps them well ahead of the game, and 6 years max is good enough if they make the machines cheap enough to make upgrading easy. And as for it being uderpowered compared to PS4, no one knows anything about it yet, and even if it is, it will take a couple of years for PS4 to hit its stride and have games looking better than the new xbox, so its a safe bet from MS. Not only that, but 6 times more powerful than the Xbox is very powerful indeed, especially when you consider what they are squeezing out of the xbox now, this should keep epic happy, we might even see something close to the graphics in the unreal engine 3 Samaritan demo.(i said close)

Or maybe even a case of lets see how long we can get out of it? I think given the economic climate, neither microsoft or sony are in a position to release a console that will be sold at a substantial loss at anytime during its lifecycle, which is what developing a console with a ten year lifecycle would entail.

Common sense comments will not be tolerated , get out and come back with utter fanbiy gibberish please

DAEDALUS79 on 25 Jan '12 said:

What a complete disaster, how could microsoft think this is a good idea after Sony proved this year how much having an overpriced, overpowered cell processor benefits the console.....

OptimusFrag on 25 Jan '12 said:

I have a 6850 in my budget gaming PC and it's a fine GPU more than capable of running most new games at a decent lick of speed. It is gonna seem a bit dated in 18 months that much is true but as someone said earlier, the 720 and it's competing systems will be consoles of their financial time. The days of Sony and Microsoft taking a hit on each console made are OVER. They can't afford that marketing model any longer. The next consoles will be more powerful, that is just normal advances in technology. But if your expecting cutting edge technology in your next gen consoles but comparative current gen launch prices your going to be very disappointed. Sony and Microsoft will from now on follow the Nintendo and Apple model, make a profit on the software AND the hardware.

A_S_A_P on 25 Jan '12 said:

I'm more likely to believe the report on Semiaccurate that did the rounds on Jan 18th "Xbox 720 chips in production". They reckon that it'll be a PowerPC CPU with the southern Island GPU (HD7000), therefore based on the latest ATI HD7970. Considering the next Xbox is still over a year away it makes sense to take the latest ATI chip. In a year from now, the 28nm process it's based on will be fully mature, production levels such be good and high enough to make millions of them for the launch. Also by that time the GPU will still be high end and a significant leap over the current Xbox.

If Microsoft want their next Xbox to have the same 10 year or so life cycle then it's got to be high spec at the time of launch, not 2-3 years off the pace when it finally gets out the door.

Scarlet_Pimp on 25 Jan '12 said:

Also there is the matter of the game publishers to consider.
Making graphics that are much better than what we have now is costly so only a few publishers can afford to do it, if you look at the PC not many games come out that are super good looking, partly because of the console port thing but also because to make decent graphics there is a cost to it, and the sales don't justify the cost. So just being able to run games at 1080p rather than the sup HD stuff upscaled we have now, would make it easier for current game publishers to keep on publishing decent looking games with out being left out by the massive budget games like CoD who could afford to do the detailed graphics. Remember most games dont sell the multiple millions of copies that it would take to justify increased budgets.

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

My honest opinion is that even for a console with a five year lifespan, a GPU based on the above chip would mean a somewhat underpowered console, although it would not surprise me in the slightest if Microsoft did release 2 SKU's, one being the cheap set top box with this GPU, and the higher end one with a significantly meatier, but by no means top of the range 7000 series GPU.

I currently have NVidia GTX 460 in my pc, accompanied by 6GB Ram and a core i7 950. It will completely smoke every game at 1680 x 1050, and runs most games I have thrown at it very comfortably at 1080p, including crysis 2 on high settings. The level of GPU I was expecting in the Next XBox would be along the lines of the AMD 6870.

But it makes complete sense that Microsoft are sticking to IBM/AMD combo, as this virtually assures full backwards compatibility.

Inceptor on 25 Jan '12 said:

Consoles are doomed, Apple will see to that.

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

Consoles are doomed, Apple will see to that.

Well put it this way, in 3 years time the ipad could have a stronger GPU than that, let alone a budget gaming PC

Sentinator on 25 Jan '12 said:

My brother was saying the other week he didn't expect 720 to be much more powerful than Wii U because we've hit a wall in terms of graphics. He said next gen will be more dependant on RAM than anything else.

As for me the more this goes on the more I'm convinced MS is taking some sort of casual direction. Time will tell I guess. I fully expect to hear something on this at E3.

vitorfernandes83 on 25 Jan '12 said:

6x better graphics? My god, count me in, I was expecting only double. But if you say the Wii U will be 4 or 5 times better than 360, I might go for the Wii next generation as I prefer Nintendo games. As far as I can see the ps3 and xbox have been around 2 or 3 times better than the previous generation. This time the difference will be major. It might as well last 10 years the next gen. As far as I can see, as long as they output native 1080p, no jaggies, no screen tearing, no slowdown and better graphics that all I ever wanted. Can't ask for more until they change everything into virtual reality. The next consoles better have 4G Ram or else they will not last 5 years. But as Ram is so cheap these days, it would be stupid not to come with as the biggest problem of current gen consoles is Ram.

Agent75 on 25 Jan '12 said:

I laughed when I read that the Xbox 720 will be 20% more powerful than the Wii U. If the Xbox 720 is going to be 6 times more powerful than the Xbox 360, I get the feeling something just doesn't add up. But I'm more into the games rather than the power. If the Wii U is close to the Xbox 360 and PS3 (from recent articles), I can't see it being close to the Xbox 720 if it's 6 times more powerful than the Xbox 360. Next gen, I think the Wii U will be in third place power wise, I think the PS4 will be more powerful than the Xbox 720, what with it being released last, but I think all 3 consoles will be close. There won't be much in it when it comes to cross format games, even including the PC.

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

I laughed when I read that the Xbox 720 will be 20% more powerful than the Wii U. If the Xbox 720 is going to be 6 times more powerful than the Xbox 360, I get the feeling something just doesn't add up. But I'm more into the games rather than the power. If the Wii U is close to the Xbox 360 and PS3 (from recent articles), I can't see it being close to the Xbox 720 if it's 6 times more powerful than the Xbox 360. Next gen, I think the Wii U will in third place power wise, I think the PS4 will be more powerful than the Xbox 720, but I think all 3 consoles will be close.

that could depend on whether Sony learn their lesson, listen to developers and give them an architecture that prevents bottlenecks, allowing developers to squeeze every inch of power out of what is bound to be an upgraded cell. Eg, a hell of alot more ram (agreed 4GB bare minimum) and either a unified memory pool, or one that is significantly more flexible than the current 256mb/256mb split. And at least an 8x blu ray drive.

Agent75 on 25 Jan '12 said:

I have a 6850 in my budget gaming PC and it's a fine GPU more than capable of running most new games at a decent lick of speed. It is gonna seem a bit dated in 18 months that much is true but as someone said earlier, the 720 and it's competing systems will be consoles of their financial time. The days of Sony and Microsoft taking a hit on each console made are OVER. They can't afford that marketing model any longer. The next consoles will be more powerful, that is just normal advances in technology. But if your expecting cutting edge technology in your next gen consoles but comparative current gen launch prices your going to be very disappointed. Sony and Microsoft will from now on follow the Nintendo and Apple model, make a profit on the software AND the hardware.

Look at the Wii. It's basically an upgraded GameCube, which has gone on to sell around 95 million units. On top of that, the range of games isn't anything to write home about, plus new releases have dried up, more so from Nintendo. It's all about the games, not the power.

StonecoldMC on 25 Jan '12 said:

My PC hardware and technical knowledge is limited to say the least. I take it by the comments that these speculated specs are gash then?

Sentinator on 25 Jan '12 said:

I laughed when I read that the Xbox 720 will be 20% more powerful than the Wii U. If the Xbox 720 is going to be 6 times more powerful than the Xbox 360, I get the feeling something just doesn't add up. But I'm more into the games rather than the power. If the Wii U is close to the Xbox 360 and PS3 (from recent articles), I can't see it being close to the Xbox 720 if it's 6 times more powerful than the Xbox 360. Next gen, I think the Wii U will be in third place power wise, I think the PS4 will be more powerful than the Xbox 720, what with it being released last, but I think all 3 consoles will be close. There won't be much in it when it comes to cross format games, even including the PC.

If your right there would that mean Wii U could have third party games as well even when the next box comes out? I recall people here saying 720 would blow Wii U out of the water graphics wise and after that Wii U would see no more third party games.

Looks like those of us who said next generation will rely on "gimmicks" were right afterall. Anyone who predicted that give yourself a pat on the back.

Agent75 on 25 Jan '12 said:

Consoles are doomed, Apple will see to that.

Well put it this way, in 3 years time the ipad could have a stronger GPU than that, let alone a budget gaming PC

Yes, Apple will one day enter the console market. But I hope it's not over priced and there's not a new version every 12 months...

TOKEN on 25 Jan '12 said:

If they could boost the ram to 3/4 GB id be pleased,but i think like others your'll have a cheaper lesser spec to a premium spec at £499?(maybe).If Ps4 has a much better spec with planetside 2 then ill be buying ps4,i dont want an xbox /wii console.
Just have to wait and see.

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

Yes, Apple will one day enter the console market. But I hope it's not over priced and there's not a new version every 12 months...

As much as I appreciate the thought that has gone into the design of many apple products, just remember Apple are currently charging £529 for the baseline mac mini, a system with a 2.3ghz dual core i5, 2GB of RAM (and yes that is not a typo, 2GB RAM), intel integrated graphics, no optical drive, mouse, keyboard or display.

So saying I hope Apple won't release overpriced hardware is akin to saying I hope one day politicians will tell the truth

bjjcjc on 25 Jan '12 said:

If they could boost the ram to 3/4 GB id be pleased,but i think like others your'll have a cheaper lesser spec to a premium spec at £499?(maybe).If Ps4 has a much better spec with planetside 2 then ill be buying ps4,i dont want an xbox /wii console.
Just have to wait and see.

£499?

If they release the next xbox with that GPU then I would expect no more than £230

Scarlet_Pimp on 25 Jan '12 said:

AS has been said earlier we have hit a wall graphiclly creating much better graphics is very costly, so running what we have currently at true HD is good enough, just hope they put in a decent amount of RAM and at least a quad core with dedicated physics.

Drusus on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

buffig on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

Wasn't the samaritan demo produced using 3x gtx590 cards? Are you out of your mind? 1GB of RAM?! Crytek want 8GB. You're funny.

moo man mad on 25 Jan '12 said:

AMD Radeon HD 6670 really wow £60-£80
should have used a HD 6870 OR HD 6850 £100-£130 but its much much better then 6670

ps4 will destory xbox720 if they use it
ps4 will most likly to use the nivida gtx 560ti or 550ti if lauch their console in 2014

560ti and 560ti are much better then 6670.

starvinbull on 25 Jan '12 said:

This spec is about 6 times more powerful than current xbox and 20% more powerful than Wii U. Considering that most games are around 600p up scaled to whatever res you set on your TV, and 1080p is about 4x the amount of pixels consoles can currently push then we should have an xbox doing todays level of graphics at 1080p with about one 3rd extra power avalable, at least on the graphics front.
Now if they add in a dedicated physics chip and have a quad or 6 core CPU this could be a pretty good machine.

This is what I keep saying. If they try to do todays games with 1080p graphics at 60fps they will find themsleves with games that look almost no better than now. If I were making decisions at Sony I'd be thinking of either going smaller than M$ or much bigger.

M$ are clearly going to focus on the Windows Live route and beefing up the media capabilities of their console.
Despite all the moaning people do about the lack of exclusives the 360 userbase clearly use their console as a media hub much more than PS3 users do with their PS3s. This will automatically be accepted by the 20-30 million people who use their 360s for everything, it's the smart move.

The PS3 suffered by not showing itself to be more powerful than the 360 early enough, developers chose not to make games that used the advantage of greater disc space and yet Sony had invested heavilly to have greater power and greater disc space.
Either they show themselves to have a much better product that is obvious to anyone or they run the gamble of appealing to customer loyalty, which has all but evaporated in the last 4 years.

The costs of the new machines won't be an issue I feel either given that people are satisfied with current games the hardcore can snap up the new consoles for £400+ and in time more of the price conscious can get on board.
The PS3 I think suffered from being more expensive without demonstrating how much more powerful it is.
To this day there are only a handful of games that geinuinely couldn't be done on the 360. If M$ or Sony go much bigger than the other, price won't be an issue.

Mobius01 on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

Impossible. That demo was rendered using a high end i7 with tri-SLI 580s - a 6000 series GPU would have no chance.

starvinbull on 25 Jan '12 said:

AMD Radeon HD 6670 really wow £60-£80
should have used a HD 6870 OR HD 6850 £100-£130 but its much much better then 6670

ps4 will destory xbox720 if they use it
ps4 will most likly to use the nivida gtx 560ti or 550ti if lauch their console in 2014

560ti and 560ti are much better then 6670.

One thing that won't happen is either console manufacturer using an off the shelf graphics card. Whichever graphics cards get used they'll have to fit the power usage and form factor of the consoles they are sitting in.
They'll be only loosely based on their off the shelf product equivalent.

buffig on 25 Jan '12 said:

the 360 userbase clearly use their console as a media hub much more than PS3 users do with their PS3s.

Dont know if I agree with this. I know 4 people who have bought a PS3 for the blu-ray, home networking, iplayer functionality alone and have never bought a game. I don't know anyone who has an xbox 360 in their lounge. Not that they don't, but that's my experience.

Madjeski on 25 Jan '12 said:

AMD Radeon HD 6670 really wow £60-£80
should have used a HD 6870 OR HD 6850 £100-£130 but its much much better then 6670

ps4 will destory xbox720 if they use it
ps4 will most likly to use the nivida gtx 560ti or 550ti if lauch their console in 2014

560ti and 560ti are much better then 6670.

This ^ the 560/550Ti GPU will eaisly smash this card to pieces. The 6670 is a low-mid range card which doesn't even require external power from a PSU, it can be run off the 75watt PCI output on any modern day motherboard.

This card is designed for basic PCs which have small 200-350w PSU's. And Microsoft want to run their next generation console on this? Pft!

Beebop10 on 25 Jan '12 said:

It will perform much better than its like for like equivalent on PC, because developers code to the metal for consoles thanks to the homogeneous HW. Near Samaritan graphics may well be possible once developers really start to unlock the full potential . PCs are limited in this regard by the API.

However , this GPU still seems like a missed opportunity and a little on the weak side considering the consiole cycle can last five, possibly ten years. Sony could certainly have an opportunity to really raise the bar here. In 2005/6 when the PS3 and Xbox360 came out, they had the best GPUs available at the time of their development (PS3 based off a 7800gtx chip iirc) and how dated do they seem now.

Mobius01 on 25 Jan '12 said:

It will perform much better than its like for like equivalent on PC, because developers code to the metal for consoles thanks to the homogeneous HW. PCs are limited in this regard by the API.

^^THIS

lmimmfn on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

not a chance, the Samaritan demo ran on 3x580's in tri-SLI, this proposed card would be around 40% the speed of 1 580 card. Even if you gained 25% from hitting the hardware directly rather than use DirectX, youre still talking about achieving 25% of the power needed to drive the Samaritan demo.

A 6970 in a PC would destroy the performance of this card even going through directX. In 2 years time ATI/AMD will be releasing their 9 series gpu, each cycle improves performance by 50% on average, so PC's in 2 years time with a top end card will have performance of about 6 times what this card will deliver.

Masterspy on 25 Jan '12 said:

Makes sense in the current climate to use an older card I guess, but the tech will have been on the store shelf for 3 years by the time it's released!

Beebop10 on 25 Jan '12 said:

Makes sense in the current climate to use an older card I guess, but the tech will have been on the store shelf for 3 years by the time it's released!

It is mid range, although it's likely due to a trade off between performance vs power consumption/ heat(cooling) concerns. How much did the red ring problem cost MS? Planned die shrinks to 22nm in 2013 could mitigate these problems though , so waiting for more efficient, more powerful GPUs would make sense.

Beebop10 on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

not a chance, the Samaritan demo ran on 3x580's in tri-SLI, this proposed card would be around 40% the speed of 1 580 card. Even if you gained 25% from hitting the hardware directly rather than use DirectX, youre still talking about achieving 25% of the power needed to drive the Samaritan demo.

A 6970 in a PC would destroy the performance of this card even going through directX. In 2 years time ATI/AMD will be releasing their 9 series gpu, each cycle improves performance by 50% on average, so PC's in 2 years time with a top end card will have performance of about 6 times what this card will deliver.

We don't know much about that private build Epic demo though . How optimized was it? There are loads of techniques devs use to eke out extra performance before going gold. These next gen consoles could well produce graphics of similar quality. Although probably only at 30fps on a 1080 screen.

Izo on 25 Jan '12 said:

A lot of you are aware the 20% more power is based on the rumoured U specs which according to neogaf are less then what the console actually has? Next gen was always going to be an equal playing ground as far as power goes, the U uses high end specs so X3 being a bit more powerful is actually more then impressive unless you're one of those living in cloud cuckooland believing that the nextgen would deliver what you see in Avatar, tech works differently in consoles and is customized.

murphy7801 on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

not a chance, the Samaritan demo ran on 3x580's in tri-SLI, this proposed card would be around 40% the speed of 1 580 card. Even if you gained 25% from hitting the hardware directly rather than use DirectX, youre still talking about achieving 25% of the power needed to drive the Samaritan demo.

A 6970 in a PC would destroy the performance of this card even going through directX. In 2 years time ATI/AMD will be releasing their 9 series gpu, each cycle improves performance by 50% on average, so PC's in 2 years time with a top end card will have performance of about 6 times what this card will deliver.

Imimmfn I think you sentament of your statement is correct and I like it (im not hating just devil is in the details) but your maths and gpu archtexture estimations are bit off. Ok first off 40+25= 65 meaning it would require another 35%. Now if you bench a 6670 on a game with high shader demand which samaritan has by the bucket load you will find a 6670 has about 10% performance (Im talking about using unigine, 3d mark 11 on extreme, metro 2033, bf3 on higher settings and none of these come close to samaritan). Now also Samaritan is running 3 gtx 580's ok now with any multi gpu set up be AMD or nvidia you do get slight performance loss on later cards so 1st gpu 100% the 90% and the 75% would be fair even with an i7 990X. Ok now also the benchmarks require high end cpu as well to handle all the data now the i7 990x is a 32nm (same as proposed spec) but has 6 cores and hyper threading so it can run 12 threads (so in windows you appear to have 12 cores) the 720 will not have a cpu this good because they cost to much. So the 6670 doesnt have enough shaders to run high end games (like something based of samaritan) also the cpu wont be powerful enough either even add 25% for direct hardware use your coming up about 80% short of performance needed.

adison on 25 Jan '12 said:

I would just like to say that as soon as the hardware developers can get there heads together and work on making 1 console,
But provide there own softwear and peripherals i.e Dualshock 3/360 pad, Kinekt/move the world will become a better place.

Nearly 20% better

Sleepaphobic on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Is that at 1 fps genius?

Tbh they can't use smthg too powerful as it'll just be bottlenecked unless everything else is awesome too. That won't happen as it'll drive up the cost and people don't want to spend money on anything nowadays. How PS3 at 600 bucks at launch caused outrage is beyond me, $600 is not that much money.

I'm not expecting a lot from the next consoles as my PC hardware now is just in another galaxy (Not even the highest end system) but it would be sick if they could actually do 1080p at the minimum with some decent AA and for the love of god some textures that don't make you want to throw up.

alan666 on 25 Jan '12 said:

buy the time it's released the GPU will be a year older, so why not just go for a 7000 series GPU the price would have fallen by then anyway to the current price level of the 6000 GPU & MS would get a big discount anyway as they would be using so many, they coud even go with with a custom setup & maybe call it the 7200 GPU.

Ali_ on 25 Jan '12 said:

Hmmm, this is either idle speculation or the machine isn't going to be very powerful. Currently, the 360 GPU outputs a maximum image of 720p which is (very well) upscaled to 1080p. To run true 1080p requires it to produce around 4 times as many pixel changes. To run all games in 1080p and 60fps requires 8 times more pixel changes. That 6 times power suddenly looks underwhelming unless devs really are going to carry on with 720p and 30fps, blowing the extra processing on unnecessary effects, but surely 1080p, 60fps and no bloody v-synch/screen tearing issues should be the bare minimum for entry into another gen.

alan666 on 25 Jan '12 said:

just thought, maybe more of the graphics processing will be carried out by the main CPU ?

Cogglesz on 25 Jan '12 said:

Damn i've got a 5770, i must be about 7 times the power of my 360 but i feel getting full on 1080p with aa and tesselation is gonna be a bit hard, i know consoles can use the resources alot better but i'm not sure, the graphics are getting insanley good i'm not sure how they can get much better, i guess i always said that about a new generation though, but i'd not like my new generation getting ruined with jaggies, screen tearing, s**tty frame rate drops and insane loading times, i want it to run as well as it looks.

murphy7801 on 25 Jan '12 said:

Basically it run left 4 dead 2 at 1080p native at 60fps at medium to high which tbh pretty sure one of better apu from amd can do anyway and there pretty cheap already

murphy7801 on 25 Jan '12 said:

Actually hang on these specs make perfect sense for a next gen tablet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

V4.SKUNK on 25 Jan '12 said:

It's kind of cute how little people understand console tech, a 6000 series gpu with the cpu they've mentioned and 1G of high speed ram will produce images on par with the samaritan demo and once they've become used to it better. It will produce grapihics that are relevant for years and by the time they look outdated cloud gaming will be the norm. These stats are good, it's cute that people think their pc with a 6000 series gpu will even compete slightly with this.

Impossible. That demo was rendered using a high end i7 with tri-SLI 580s - a 6000 series GPU would have no chance.

EPIC also said with optimisation the demo would run off one GPU.

Paradaz - UK on 25 Jan '12 said:

I'm more likely to believe the report on Semiaccurate that did the rounds on Jan 18th "Xbox 720 chips in production". They reckon that it'll be a PowerPC CPU with the southern Island GPU (HD7000), therefore based on the latest ATI HD7970. Considering the next Xbox is still over a year away it makes sense to take the latest ATI chip. In a year from now, the 28nm process it's based on will be fully mature, production levels such be good and high enough to make millions of them for the launch. Also by that time the GPU will still be high end and a significant leap over the current Xbox.

If Microsoft want their next Xbox to have the same 10 year or so life cycle then it's got to be high spec at the time of launch, not 2-3 years off the pace when it finally gets out the door.

They're hardly going to use a gpu that has just been released at nearly £500. Granted, it will be a litttle cheaper in 18 months time but MS can't offord to be subsidizing huge amounts as they will never make a profit.

You're talking about the requirement for a significant leap over current consoles.......so 600% isn't significant? Consoles don't waste power and resources like PC's do so lower spec is fine and they will always be years out of date when compared to gaming PC's on release anyway.

starvinbull on 26 Jan '12 said:

I'm more likely to believe the report on Semiaccurate that did the rounds on Jan 18th "Xbox 720 chips in production". They reckon that it'll be a PowerPC CPU with the southern Island GPU (HD7000), therefore based on the latest ATI HD7970. Considering the next Xbox is still over a year away it makes sense to take the latest ATI chip. In a year from now, the 28nm process it's based on will be fully mature, production levels such be good and high enough to make millions of them for the launch. Also by that time the GPU will still be high end and a significant leap over the current Xbox.

If Microsoft want their next Xbox to have the same 10 year or so life cycle then it's got to be high spec at the time of launch, not 2-3 years off the pace when it finally gets out the door.

They're hardly going to use a gpu that has just been released at nearly £500. Granted, it will be a litttle cheaper in 18 months time but MS can't offord to be subsidizing huge amounts as they will never make a profit.

You're talking about the requirement for a significant leap over current consoles.......so 600% isn't significant? Consoles don't waste power and resources like PC's do so lower spec is fine and they will always be years out of date when compared to gaming PC's on release anyway.

6X 360 power doesn't get you 6X better graphics.

Are the animations and physics going to be better?

Is it going to run at 1080p, 60fps?

Are the game worlds going to be bigger and more dynamic?

Ok so now that you've applied all that to your new console what's left over to make better textures, high quality sound and higher polygon characters? Not a lot.

nolim on 26 Jan '12 said:

My hope is that if Microsoft are indeed producing two versions of their next console then this is the GPU for the set top box version and the the hardcore gamer version will have something better, a 7000 series variant perhaps. After all if they are making two different types of the next xbox then how else will they differ, both will have a hard drives as this is needed for the media hub capabilities, i also expect both to have a Blu-ray drive as the current state of broadband means download only is still off the cards. They'll still be able to program the same game for both versions and simply upgrade the performance if you have the pro version.

bjjcjc on 27 Jan '12 said:

My hope is that if Microsoft are indeed producing two versions of their next console then this is the GPU for the set top box version and the the hardcore gamer version will have something better, a 7000 series variant perhaps. After all if they are making two different types of the next xbox then how else will they differ, both will have a hard drives as this is needed for the media hub capabilities, i also expect both to have a Blu-ray drive as the current state of broadband means download only is still off the cards. They'll still be able to program the same game for both versions and simply upgrade the performance if you have the pro version.

If there is any truth in some of the earlier rumours released I would definitely ask

1) As the above quote mentioned and as I mentioned before, if there is any truth in the 2 sku rumour, would it be illogical to consider that the 6670 based GPU was going into the set top box, with the southern islands based gpu going into the fully fledged console?

2) If there is any truth in the earlier rumour about the next xbox having 6 core cpu/dual gpu, would there be the possibility that we may be may be getting two of these chips on board?

what kind of gaming performance on the PC would 2 x 6670's in crossfire render?

skabone on 27 Jan '12 said:

all anyone seems to give a monkeys about is graphics and i think this is going to hold back the next gen if thats all we want to talk about - i'm happy to take a hit on graphics to allow more RAM and processing power and an accessible price - for me I want to see improvements in A.I and interfaces over the next gen. Things like cloud intelligence (skynet) and persistent worlds, bigger multiplayer.

And besides - the more capable of graphics a system - the more time is needed to make it look good. When you start hitting photo-realistic graphics the amount of work involved in Art assets alone will become a real drain on developers.

More complex and dynamic A.I and better ways to play a game - thats what I want from next Gen

Joe90_Remy700 on 27 Jan '12 said:

More complex and dynamic A.I and better ways to play a game - thats what I want from next Gen

yup, gameplay. so long as 1080p runs fast (40-60fps) then its all down to game content. big open worlds and supoer smart A.I, and jam packed multiplayer with ooldles of folk to slap their faces on my bullets...

Paradaz - UK on 27 Jan '12 said:

More complex and dynamic A.I and better ways to play a game - thats what I want from next Gen

yup, gameplay. so long as 1080p runs fast (40-60fps) then its all down to game content. big open worlds and supoer smart A.I, and jam packed multiplayer with ooldles of folk to slap their faces on my bullets...

That sounds like PC Gaming...............8 years ago

murphy7801 on 28 Jan '12 said:

My hope is that if Microsoft are indeed producing two versions of their next console then this is the GPU for the set top box version and the the hardcore gamer version will have something better, a 7000 series variant perhaps. After all if they are making two different types of the next xbox then how else will they differ, both will have a hard drives as this is needed for the media hub capabilities, i also expect both to have a Blu-ray drive as the current state of broadband means download only is still off the cards. They'll still be able to program the same game for both versions and simply upgrade the performance if you have the pro version.

If there is any truth in some of the earlier rumours released I would definitely ask

1) As the above quote mentioned and as I mentioned before, if there is any truth in the 2 sku rumour, would it be illogical to consider that the 6670 based GPU was going into the set top box, with the southern islands based gpu going into the fully fledged console?

2) If there is any truth in the earlier rumour about the next xbox having 6 core cpu/dual gpu, would there be the possibility that we may be may be getting two of these chips on board?

what kind of gaming performance on the PC would 2 x 6670's in crossfire render?

2 crossfired 6670 is abut 6770-6790 area but tbh it would cost more to have two cards then one better card

panantukan on 28 Jan '12 said:

So...the xbox 720 is basically a mid-range gaming pc?

It's utilising a sub-£50 pc chip and is currently housed in pc casing so this seems indeed to be the case...

Paradaz - UK on 28 Jan '12 said:

So...the xbox 720 is basically a mid-range gaming pc?

It's utilising a sub-£50 pc chip and is currently housed in pc casing so this seems indeed to be the case...

Well yeah, but the PS3 and 360 are currently equivalent to low-end gaming PC's so at least you have an improvement to look forward to.

slick loose on 28 Jan '12 said:

Well yeah, but the PS3 and 360 are currently equivalent to low-end gaming PC's so at least you have an improvement to look forward to.

Just a shame PC doesn't have the quality of the exclusives the consoles do. Don't worry, I'm sure your precious Half Life 3 will be released at some point...maybe

Paradaz - UK on 29 Jan '12 said:

Exclusives are only good for fanboys to talk about as justification for their one and only system.....

Why the importance of exclusives anyway when some people own all gaming systems? AAA console exclusives appear about once or twice a year and whilst you're raving about those (and I'm also playing them on my consoles) I'm also playing 30 multiplats on PC that are by far the best version available anyway. CoD, BF3 etc etc are running 1080p and beyond at anything from 70-200fps, dedicated servers etc etc....and hopefully that's what the next generation of consoles will give to console gamers because the current gen simply doesn't have the ability.

Your example of HL3 isn't relevant for me, I own all systems therefore exclusivity means nothing - my machines are not in competition with each other. Unlike you, and because you only have a PS3 you seem to think that everyone else only has access to a particular library of games and that exclusives suddenly become relevant. They don't - but I find it does tend to be the kids that are attracted to exclusives for some reason.......probably because mummy and daddy bought them the console and they don't really have the chance to experience games on other systems so they end up creating some false hope and attachment to the particular brand name they feel forced to love.

slick loose on 29 Jan '12 said:

Nope, I was making a point. I have had two complaints about you trolling and being a PC elitist. That message of mine was just trolling you, to show everyone and yourself how much of a PC fanboy you really are. Seriously you go around calling people fanboys and yet you are the biggest one on CVG...and yes i'm including everyone. The only reason you haven't been banned yet is because your responses are a bit more eloquent than "PC rulez, consoles suck!", although that is what you are saying in it's most basic form.

I agree, if you want the best in gaming you need all 3 game consoles, a PC and the hand helds. You seem to think that because I have a PS3 that I'm a fan boy. It is my proffered console yes, but I don't wander into threads boasting about how awesome my chosen format is AT EVERY GIVEN OPPORTUNITY. The fact you are in this thread doing it again and the way you responded to my obvious attempt to troll you, goes to show how much of a fan boy you really are. So how about you take your own advice and grow up? We get it, PC is your favourite format...but it's not everyone else's, so stop trying to force it down everyones throat every 5 minutes.

Lot's of Love

slickloose

xxxxx

Paradaz - UK on 29 Jan '12 said:

There is absolutely nothing in my posts that isn't perfectly true. If someone wants to whinge about that then its their problem not mine.

Unless of course you can justify or explain that PC gaming:

Hasn't had 1080p gaming for many years now
Cannot produce very high frame rates at true HD and beyond
Aren't significantly more powerful than today's consoles
Aren't using technology that is out of reach in today's console games
Has the best version of most multiplats due to a combination of the above.

?????

What are people complaining about, the use of facts and truth within posts? As I mentioned in my first post PC's are woefully wasteful on resources. The next generation of consoles dont need the latest technology to compete but even if they did they would still be out of date when it came to the actual release. Anyone with an understanding of current tech will acknowledge this.

And no, handhelds will never offer the best of anything when it comes to gaming............they simply offer a compromised alternative.

slick loose on 29 Jan '12 said:

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong...it's just the way you go about it. I dismissed the complaints because like you said, you are quoting facts. But there is a LOT wrong with PC gaming that you (and other PC elitists) refuse to accept, I won't bother listing them now because I'm not here to have a debate about what's better, PC or Consoles?

Just try and understand that your view that PC gaming is the best is not fact and people are allowed to have a different opinion to you. Here I found a pic that instantly reminded me of you...

How I think you view PC gamers and console gamers

I thought you could have it as your desktop image

Mmmmgrolsch on 29 Jan '12 said:

Not this crap again. PS3 rules. The end.

Paradaz - UK on 29 Jan '12 said:

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong...it's just the way you go about it. I dismissed the complaints because like you said, you are quoting facts. But there is a LOT wrong with PC gaming that you (and other PC elitists) refuse to accept, I won't bother listing them now because I'm not here to have a debate about what's better, PC or Consoles?

So...it's the way I go about quoting facts is it lol? There's plenty wrong with PC Gaming, just like there is all systems........if you venture into the PC Forums you'll see some mature discussion about it. People in there do accept there are problems and negativity isn't jumped on like it is in the console forums.

Just try and understand that your view that PC gaming is the best is not fact and people are allowed to have a different opinion to you. Here I found a pic that instantly reminded me of you...

My view on PC gaming is my opinion, and I use these forums for the reason they are designed......to broadcast my opinion just like everyone else does. Someone doesn't like that and reports me? Water off a ducks back. I don't see you in the articles thread or the PS3 forum stamping your feet when they talk s**te about console games. My posts are all on-topic, in this instance the relative power of todays PC's and tomorrows consoles - I'll expect a ban warning shall I the next time I mention some on-topic facts? Don't answer - not interested.

slick loose on 29 Jan '12 said:

MEOW!

slick loose on 30 Jan '12 said:

I was too tired to respond last night after Reegeee made me play an addictive game on the net

So...it's the way I go about quoting facts is it lol? There's plenty wrong with PC Gaming, just like there is all systems........if you venture into the PC Forums you'll see some mature discussion about it. People in there do accept there are problems and negativity isn't jumped on like it is in the console forums.

Yes but the way you talk, any game that is on multiple platforms is most certainly best on PC...that just isn't the case. Some people don't want to jump through hoops just to play a game with things like DRM and compatibility issues. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, playing a Ubisoft game on PC is a real hassle. Yes I'm aware there are ways around this...but that's beside the point, you should be able to just play the game out the box/folder. Then there are the poor ports from consoles, like GTA IV. Yeah, they get fixed but yet again it should be perfect out the box. Of course consoles suffer from the same fate, just look at Skyrim, but no one is denying that or pretending it's OK. Then there is the fact that not all games even make it to PC and despite your views on console exclusives, PC gamers will miss out on some great games. Yes, I get you have all the consoles but I'm surprised you play them to be honest, seeing as you think consoles are such a joke. And these are only the main problems that the PC has, there are still many more, such as price and piracy.
You quote facts but only the positive ones for the PC and the negative ones for a console...that's fanboyism at it's finest. I've been in the PC forum and you're like a completely different person! If I ever wanted to build/buy/upgrade a PC, I would want your advice. Unfortunately, I don't think the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to PC gaming so I'll stick with consoles...as hard as you find that to believe.

My view on PC gaming is my opinion, and I use these forums for the reason they are designed......to broadcast my opinion just like everyone else does. Someone doesn't like that and reports me? Water off a ducks back. I don't see you in the articles thread or the PS3 forum stamping your feet when they talk s**te about console games. My posts are all on-topic, in this instance the relative power of todays PC's and tomorrows consoles - I'll expect a ban warning shall I the next time I mention some on-topic facts? Don't answer - not interested.

Yes it may be your opinion but you can say that about the PS3 fanboys you hate so much, you're a complete hypocrite. I think you mean "I don't see you in the articles thread or the PS3 forum stamping your feet when they talk s**te about PC games". Well for one, it doesn't happen that much and two I only responded here because of the multiple complaints. If I get a report from any thread, I will go have a look and see if it's worth my time or if it's someone being too sensitive. I don't like any fanboy trolling a thread, be it a PS3 fanboy or a PC fanboy. I agree, your posts in this thread were on topic, hence why I never gave you a warning. I find your blind PC elitism funny to read and love having a good debate with you but you have been known to go into a PlayStation article and just slander SONY or the console, just because you seem to hate them ever so much. But to my recollection you have not done that for a while, so you carry on what you are doing. Just try and be a bit more understanding that not everyone wants to game on the PC and try and be a bit less hypocritical.

flyfletch on 30 Jan '12 said:

I was too tired to respond last night after Reegeee made me play an addictive game on the net

So...it's the way I go about quoting facts is it lol? There's plenty wrong with PC Gaming, just like there is all systems........if you venture into the PC Forums you'll see some mature discussion about it. People in there do accept there are problems and negativity isn't jumped on like it is in the console forums.

Yes but the way you talk, any game that is on multiple platforms is most certainly best on PC...that just isn't the case. Some people don't want to jump through hoops just to play a game with things like DRM and compatibility issues. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, playing a Ubisoft game on PC is a real hassle. Yes I'm aware there are ways around this...but that's beside the point, you should be able to just play the game out the box/folder. Then there are the poor ports from consoles, like GTA IV. Yeah, they get fixed but yet again it should be perfect out the box. Of course consoles suffer from the same fate, just look at Skyrim, but no one is denying that or pretending it's OK. Then there is the fact that not all games even make it to PC and despite your views on console exclusives, PC gamers will miss out on some great games. Yes, I get you have all the consoles but I'm surprised you play them to be honest, seeing as you think consoles are such a joke. And these are only the main problems that the PC has, there are still many more, such as price and piracy.
You quote facts but only the positive ones for the PC and the negative ones for a console...that's fanboyism at it's finest. I've been in the PC forum and you're like a completely different person! If I ever wanted to build/buy/upgrade a PC, I would want your advice. Unfortunately, I don't think the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to PC gaming so I'll stick with consoles...as hard as you find that to believe.

My view on PC gaming is my opinion, and I use these forums for the reason they are designed......to broadcast my opinion just like everyone else does. Someone doesn't like that and reports me? Water off a ducks back. I don't see you in the articles thread or the PS3 forum stamping your feet when they talk s**te about console games. My posts are all on-topic, in this instance the relative power of todays PC's and tomorrows consoles - I'll expect a ban warning shall I the next time I mention some on-topic facts? Don't answer - not interested.

Yes it may be your opinion but you can say that about the PS3 fanboys you hate so much, you're a complete hypocrite. I think you mean "I don't see you in the articles thread or the PS3 forum stamping your feet when they talk s**te about PC games". Well for one, it doesn't happen that much and two I only responded here because of the multiple complaints. If I get a report from any thread, I will go have a look and see if it's worth my time or if it's someone being too sensitive. I don't like any fanboy trolling a thread, be it a PS3 fanboy or a PC fanboy. I agree, your posts in this thread were on topic, hence why I never gave you a warning. I find your blind PC elitism funny to read and love having a good debate with you but you have been known to go into a PlayStation article and just slander SONY or the console, just because you seem to hate them ever so much. But to my recollection you have not done that for a while, so you carry on what you are doing. Just try and be a bit more understanding that not everyone wants to game on the PC and try and be a bit less hypocritical.

Ok, im only asking, but why would anyone want to ban or warn someone for a debate on which is better? Pc, Xbox, PS3, im completely lost, its only a debate, and as long its does not contain anything offensive, then whats the problem? I see many comments on here i dont agree with, and im sure people see some of my comments and think im talking nonsense, but i dont report them, or they dont seem to report me, so why on earth would i want to anyway, its only someones opinion, its not life threatening or offensive. I understand that you should keep to the subject in hand, but its never going to completely stay that way. Correct me if im wrong though, becuase i am lost here...really.

slick loose on 30 Jan '12 said:

Unfortunately people are really petty and discussions that start off as debates between which format is better almost always turn into arguments. People then start getting offensive and it all gets out of hand, so it's best just to nip it in the bud. No one will get even warned for discussing the subject, it's when people start getting defensive and reacting in quite an offensive manner.

People like Daz have been known to 'troll' console fanboys and what I mean by that is he would purposely infuriate fanboys by slagging off their beloved console. Although he hasn't done that for a quite a while. Now he just takes the PC up the USB port, while I lick out the PS3's disc drawer.

flyfletch on 30 Jan '12 said:

Unfortunately people are really petty and discussions that start off as debates between which format is better almost always turn into arguments. People then start getting offensive and it all gets out of hand, so it's best just to nip it in the bud. No one will get even warned for discussing the subject, it's when people start getting defensive and reacting in quite an offensive manner.

People like Daz have been known to 'troll' console fanboys and what I mean by that is he would purposely infuriate fanboys by slagging off their beloved console. Although he hasn't done that for a quite a while. Now he just takes the PC up the USB port, while I lick out the PS3's disc drawer.

Oh ok, i think i get the reasoning behind it now lol I was genuinely lost there lol

starvinbull on 30 Jan '12 said:

There is absolutely nothing in my posts that isn't perfectly true. If someone wants to whinge about that then its their problem not mine.

Unless of course you can justify or explain that PC gaming:

Hasn't had 1080p gaming for many years now
Cannot produce very high frame rates at true HD and beyond
Aren't significantly more powerful than today's consoles
Aren't using technology that is out of reach in today's console games
Has the best version of most multiplats due to a combination of the above.

?????

What are people complaining about, the use of facts and truth within posts? As I mentioned in my first post PC's are woefully wasteful on resources. The next generation of consoles dont need the latest technology to compete but even if they did they would still be out of date when it came to the actual release. Anyone with an understanding of current tech will acknowledge this.

And no, handhelds will never offer the best of anything when it comes to gaming............they simply offer a compromised alternative.

Go play MS Excel Quest and give the rest of us a fanboy free comments section.

panantukan on 31 Jan '12 said:

Now he just takes the PC up the USB port, while I lick out the PS3's disc drawer.

To think you would even insinuate that the PS3 has something so primitive as a disc drawer!

panantukan on 31 Jan '12 said:

...although to say you were "licking out its black slit" sounds a little wrong as well.