Rumored Xbox2 Specs

Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Messages
5,898
Reaction score
3
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/509/509465p1.html

They say themselves it's not completely confirmed as the real blueprints. While they don't show the picture of the blueprints due to legal reasons, the explain some of the aspects of the system anyways. If it's true...Xbox 2 is gonna be one powerhouse of a console.
 
But remember that that is still a few if not many years off, and pc's will develope alot during that time.
 
MaxiKana said:
But remember that that is still a few if not many years off, and pc's will develope alot during that time.

Thats an understatement.
 
It's 1 year off. No matter how much certain people want to deny it all three consoles will be better than PC's for a couple years after their release.

I'm much more interested in Sonys Cell processor though, sounds much more innovative.
 
LMAO consoles being more powerful than PC's lol haha. PC's are ALREADY more powerful than xbox2 and PS3.
 
smwScott: The newest gfx cards and the like coming out should put the hi end systems only a relatively small amount behind the newest consoles.


And anyway. To be honest, once graphics get photorealistic on both platforms the only thing to compete on is content. It should be interesting to say the least.
 
Behind the newend consoles? The xbox2 is going to have a nv40 or radeon equivalent gfx card? Give me a break.
 
Wow, let me get this straight... It has three 3.5 GHz CPUs? How can that stay cool? My Athon 64 FX runs at 2.2 GHz and with all 5 of my fans, excluding the heatsink fan, my computer is running at 40 degrees celcius. Unless Xbox 2 has liquid nitrogen or water cooling, the system will likely shut itself off when it gets too hot, or it will just fry itself.

One little fan in the back is not going to cut the cheese. Most consoles have 1-2 little fans. I find it hard to believe that PCs will ever be behind the consoles...they never have been. With the PCIE architecture and the new technology coming in the summer along with the soon to be mainstream 64 bit PCs, consoles won't stand a chance in my opinion.

I could be way off. I just don't think that you could make a stable console that does what Xbox 2 is supposted to do. It will end up being slightly smaller that a computer case if it is supposted to have those features, mainly because of the cooling needed. Processors get hot especially at 3.5 GHz x3 CPUs.
 
marksmanHL2 :) said:
smwScott: The newest gfx cards and the like coming out should put the hi end systems only a relatively small amount behind the newest consoles.

There might be cards out sometime after the PS3, X-BOX2, etc. hit the shelves that are almost as good, but it will cost about $400 (at least). Not like this matters, there won't even be one single game that utilizes any of those features until a couple years after the new consoles launch. Hell, show me one 2001 PC game that has better graphics than Metal Gear Solid 2, or Gran Turismo 3. PC games just started getting better than those about a year ago.

And there aren't ANY PCs out right now that are more powerful than the next gen consoles. Also, the PS2 has a 250MHz processor - it would take about a 1.5ghz PC to do some of the games that it has, so comparing specs directly is useless.
 
smwScott said:
There might be cards out sometime after the PS3, X-BOX2, etc. hit the shelves that are almost as good, but it will cost about $400 (at least). Not like this matters, there won't even be one single game that utilizes any of those features until a couple years after the new consoles launch. Hell, show me one 2001 PC game that has better graphics than Metal Gear Solid 2, or Gran Turismo 3. PC games just started getting better than those about a year ago.

And there aren't ANY PCs out right now that are more powerful than the next gen consoles. Also, the PS2 has a 250MHz processor - it would take about a 1.5ghz PC to do some of the games that it has, so comparing specs directly is useless.

Hmmm...Have you played a PS2 recently? I have. My eyes started bleeding when I looked at a PS2 game and then looked at a game on my computer. PC Games look so much better than a PS2. X-Box on the other hand looks better (than the PS2), but that is primarily because it is newer. But even now, most games look better on the PC because of the higher resolution that monitors support.
 
smwScott said:
There might be cards out sometime after the PS3, X-BOX2, etc. hit the shelves that are almost as good, but it will cost about $400 (at least). Not like this matters, there won't even be one single game that utilizes any of those features until a couple years after the new consoles launch. Hell, show me one 2001 PC game that has better graphics than Metal Gear Solid 2, or Gran Turismo 3. PC games just started getting better than those about a year ago.

And there aren't ANY PCs out right now that are more powerful than the next gen consoles. Also, the PS2 has a 250MHz processor - it would take about a 1.5ghz PC to do some of the games that it has, so comparing specs directly is useless.

You have to remember, PS2 companies make games with a set limitation on what they can do. They know how much they can do since all PS2 have the same specs, so every game is optimized for it. PCs, on the other hand, range so far in specs that you can't do that. PC game developers have to take into consideration the wide range of computers and make it so their game can be played on all of them. Because of this PC games cannot be optimized the same way that consoles are.

I have some trouble believing that the Xbox2 is going to have 3 3.5 ghz processors(hotter than the sun :)) and then I think I read ONLY 256 ram. I skimmed it hours ago and don't feel like going back to look. But why would you give it such processing power then such dinky memory. I feel PCs will always be superior to consoles for video games because PCs aren't as restricted as consoles are.
 
FictiousWill said:
Behind the newend consoles? The xbox2 is going to have a nv40 or radeon equivalent gfx card? Give me a break.

:O I don't get it!! Explain to me how console companies can make a NV40 or R420 equivalent in their consoles and still have them priced around $300-$400(unless new consoles are going to cost $700 and ^)? I mean the NV40 and R420 cards alone for PC's will cost around $300-$500 dollars. If companies have the ability to squeeze that much power into a little box to play videogames, while holding the price range to a minimum, why can't this be performed on PC's?
 
I think I will get an xbox 2 if it is $500 or under but nothing more then that.
 
blahblahblah said:
Hmmm...Have you played a PS2 recently? I have. My eyes started bleeding when I looked at a PS2 game and then looked at a game on my computer. PC Games look so much better than a PS2. X-Box on the other hand looks better (than the PS2), but that is primarily because it is newer. But even now, most games look better on the PC because of the higher resolution that monitors support.

Well, I don't know what TV you were watching it on but there isn't that big of a leap now. What game were you playing? I guarantee it wasn't MGS2, GT3, Onimusha 3, Silent Hill 3, The Getaway, or Jak 2. If you were playing one of those games on a decent TV and still thought it was ugly, then you need to get your eyes checked - they're bleeding for different reasons. Also the graphical difference between X-BOX and PS2 is fairly minimal, so to say one made your eyes bleed while the other wasn't so bad isn't quite possible (unless you were playing Halo on X-BOX and some ugly game like SOCOM for PS2).

And to the other poster - you're right that one of the main reasons console games look better is because developers can make games specifically for them. I don't see how this changes anything though, the games still look better no matter what the reason.

And for the record, I'm certainly not against PCs. Right now it gets more play and certain games have better graphics than my PS2. However, I can still look at it objectively and see that both platforms have their own advantages. But besides all the graphical stuff, consoles have a lot of great games that will never come to PC, or in the case of MGS2 come in the form of shoddy, watered down, glitchy, ugly ports.
 
ailevation said:
If companies have the ability to squeeze that much power into a little box to play videogames, while holding the price range to a minimum, why can't this be performed on PC's?

yep. I think we can assume the xbox2 will offer little more than a current midrange system. It's not possible for the xbox2 to offer such crazy advances both on a physical level (temperature, among other things) and economical. Let's bring this thread back up when the official specs are released, ok?
 
Look maybe Ps3\Xbox 2 will be better than the non 64bit systems right now...
Also one of the main reasons people liked Ps2 better than Xbox was becuz Sony got square therefor getting many many more games, Like FF. Xbox tried to get square but failed.
Also there will soon be the uprise of PC Consoles..... (www.discoverconsole.com)
May not be the best thing...but good enough...
64 bit pc technology is really owning.
EE didnt AMD 64bit computer..have like what 3 or was it 6 processors?
I forget...Damn i need a better memory...
 
FictiousWill said:
yep. I think we can assume the xbox2 will offer little more than a current midrange system. It's not possible for the xbox2 to offer such crazy advances both on a physical level (temperature, among other things) and economical. Let's bring this thread back up when the official specs are released, ok?

It is possible for substantial advances like the ones mentioned in the article. Remember, we're talking Microsoft and Sony, companies that have the cash to buy high-end technology from IBM and ATI.

Oh, and I think it's unreasonable to assume that Xbox2 will have the specs of a current midrange PC, seeing that the console is coming out next year or later when advanced technology like that discussed in the article will be available.
 
Back
Top