Next Xbox Out In Oct/Nov 2013, Chips Already Being Made

Time for the latest instalment of "shit people are saying/guessing about the next Xbox console"! This week we have two reports, one from IGN and the other from Fudzilla.

The IGN rumour says the next console will be out in October or November this year, and that it's graphics processor will be based on the existing Radeon HD 6670 (pictured). It also states that "in real terms, the Xbox 720's raw graphics processing power is expected to be six times that of the Xbox 360 and will yield 20-percent greater performance than Nintendo's forthcoming console, the Wii U."

The Fudzilla report, meanwhile, reckons the new Xbox's chip is called "Odan", and that IBM and Global Foundries began manufacturing it in December 2011.

Next week? Who knows! The Wall Street Journal might say the next Xbox can bake cookies and will be built entirely out of balsa wood at a factory in Belgium.

Xbox 720 Will Be Six Times as Powerful as Current Gen [IGN]

Oban initial product run is real [Fudzilla]


Comments

    2012. FFS!!!

      Martin...It's Jan 2012 now

        Really??? I am talking about the discrepency in dates between the article and title. FFS!

          @ Barry. Duck dude - its going over your head!!

            Oops my mistake, I was referring to the GPU chip in the IGN article.

          lol yeh according to this article, they are already manufacturing the next Xbox..

          Is it just me or has the errors on Kotaku been increasing lately?

            In the title they are saying the Xbox will be released in 2013, and in the content they are saying it is being manufactured in Dec 2011, if the chips are being made its most likely for dev kits.

    Why does the title say Oct/Nov 2013, but the article tells a different story of this year (2012)?

    20% greater than Wii-U?

    I know this is just a rumour, and I know next to nothing about the Wii-U, but 20% doesn't sound like a lot, given the current difference between 360 and Wii vanilla.

      Yeah, considering the Wii U is only supposed to be slightly better than the 360.

        It's interesting.

        So, the Wii U is meant to be slightly faster than the 360 from what we've read etc., but this report claims it has both a 20% performance increase over the Wii U AND is about 6 times faster than the 360. Unless I'm misunderstanding what is being said, that makes no sense at all.

          It makes the Wii U sound pretty powerful. Which I doubt is true. (I'd love it to be true, but don't think it is.)

            Something's not right about this. Wii U sounds pretty average, so you'd want alot more power in a system that's designed for games.

            But then "6 times the power" is the same bulls*it hyperbole they pulled out before the 360 was released. Doesn't actually mean anything.

              Just doing the maths here

              If the Wii U is meant to be 150% more powerful than an X-Box 360.
              And the X-Box 720 is meant to be 20% more powerful the the Wii U.
              Than the 720 is only 180% more powerful than a currant X-Box 360.

              That's a bit shy of the 600% needed for 6 times the power..

    lol 6670?

      The R520 that was the basis for the X360 Xenos was rougly a mid-range X1600 or so, but with some other bits and bobs added to make it performance-wise a bit stronger, closer to the X1900. I'd imagine they'd be doing the same here as well, i.e. it won't be an actual 6670, it'll be a modified one derived from the 6670 core and probably a bit higher performance, though maybe not clocked up as high relatively as the Xenos was. I imagine MS will go for something that generates a bit less heat death this time.

    Pretty sure it's meant to be next year if he's just basing it on IGNs article.

    The US site seems to get corrected before anyone notices.

    YAY more typos! What happened to good old fashioned journalism?

      Generally in the past you have a week before articles in the odl stream media , now you have and hour to get the story out before someone beats you to it. Thus more rush and more typos.

      What happened to people not being wankers over a little typo ?

        the wankers were always there they just used to write angry letters with the mistake marked in bold/underlined. Upon reading these the editor would proceed to scrunch them up and pretend to be michael jordan while shoot for the bin.

    Way to put last gen graphics card in your next gen console.

      I know you're a PC gamer only, and I know you're only going to troll these console articles but I'll answer your unspoken question anyway.

      PCs are very inefficient, compared to what a console can do. Also, it will need to be quite cheap so they'll need to use older components. All it needs to be able to do is output smooth directx 11 and 1080p.

      Top PCs will always be faster and will always be able to output massive resolutions and have several programs running at once and also keep all the memory hogs running in the background.

      And finally, a GPU that came out in 2011 is not "last gen".

        Well considering AMD are now up to the 7000 series GPU I'd call a 6670 "last gen".

        I'm just saying if I was looking at buying the latest console I would hope all its components are from the same year it was released, especially something as major as the GPU.
        I guess thats why I prefer PC gaming. Pretty much as soon as my PC can't run games at at least 60FPS I save and upgrade. I know people say the human eye can't tell the difference after about 30FPS, but when a game drops below 60FPS I sure notice somethings not right.

          Damn it. Thanks a lot for being cool and making me look like a dick.

          :)

          If I'm being honest, this GPU does sound a little slow and I really hope they don't balls up the next console by making its insides based on too-old tech.

          Rage and MW3 run at 60fps on the xbox, and Skyrim and Battlefield 3 run at 30fps. When I switch from one of the former to one of the latter I definitely notice the difference.

            But as per your original comment, they need to keep the price down. It would only be a minority demographic that would shell out in excess of $700 for a launch console (supposing it had a recent chipset), using a 2011 chipset helps reduce the overall manufacturing cost. And lest not forget that the current 360 is running on 2004/2005 hardware, so it should still look and run pretty damn slick.

              Umm, wasn't the PS3 about a grand at launch?

              And I think I paid around the $700 for my first 360... but I guess I'm part of that subset.

                Yes, PS3 was about a grand at launch and look how well that went for Sony.... they will not make the same mistake twice as they've been battling Microsoft for market share ever since. Also 3DS and PS Vita are recent examples of what happens if you set your initial price point too high. Nintendo has since dropped price for 3DS and rumours state that Sony are considering a price drop for release into the NA and European markets.

              Even when it was released it was for the low-end segment - it has about half the grunt of a 5850 which was released in 2009. It could be that the 720 will have 2 - 4 GPU's in crossfire.

        The Xenos GPU in the 360 was based on what would become the top-tier chip in the generation released after the 360 launched.

        The Turks GPU in the 6670 is a *fourth-tier* part and will be two or three generations old come the suggested release window.

        I call BS on this rumour. Even though the whole industry is organised around tailoring code specifically for the Xenos it's at the limits of what it can do. The next gen has to be based on a similarly competent part to have the same lifespan.

          Xenos? Purge the heretics!!

          Ahem. I'm sorry, I was playing Space Marine recently.

    @shane, if they are 6 times more powerful than a xbox 360, and 20% more powerful than the wiiU, the xbox 720 is 1.2 xbox 360's more than the wiiU

    So I have a GPU (7970) that is already a generation ahead of next generation of consoles?

    Master race.

      No. Incorrect. I'm sick of statements like this to be totally honest. It's based on the 6670 architecture. *Based* and *Architecture* are the key words here.

      Console system architecture is SIGNIFICANTLY different from PC architecture. I would consider PCs to be rather outdated. Not consoles. The x86 + von Neumann architecture has been around since the 1970s. The architecture has a signficant bottleneck between the CPU, main memory and the IO devices (ports, graphics etc). Data transfer speed (your BUS) is a HUGE bottleneck.

      Take some time and look at the Intel system architecture diagrams for dual core/quad core CPUs and then take a look at the Xbox360 architecture. You'll actually see that the Xbox360 in most cases has twice the data transfer speeds between the CPU, GPU and main memory than a PC does. This and having a micro OS is the reason why consoles can do amazing things with tiny amounts of memory. Generically solving a problem (PCs) will more often than not result in an inefficient design.

      PCs need to catch up, not consoles. Making efficient and effictive use of components is more important than the individual processing power of the components themselves. A bottleneck will always be a bottleneck.

    Lol 6670, looks like people are never going to need to update their PC GPU's ever again after such a machine would launch if that's the case. Those things $75 at retail :D

      Jesus I think I broke the English language with that comment...

    Is it just me or is the name Xbox 720 an atrocious name. Surely Microsoft can come up with a better name then that.

      Microsoft haven't confirmed it exists, let alone named it.

      Considering they called the second Xbox the "360" because they needed a "3" in there to compete with the PS3, they'll need to come up with something other than "Xbox 3". 720 is just a community-made name that doubles the existing name.

        According to their marketing, 360 was called that because it was "a complete revolution"... by that logic they could use 720, as it's a second revolution.

          Oh, is that how they explained it? A good excuse for the "3" but I still believe the PS3 story.

            The PS3 story in my eyes is the ONLY reasonable one.

            Xbox 2 for sale against the Playstation 3. It makes the PS3 sound superior by name alone.

              The Xbox 360 was called that because it needed a name to compete with the Playstation 3, and also the Nintendo Revolution, which we all know became the Nintendo Wii. Hence why the 360 tag.

              Pretty smart if you ask me...

        I assumed they called it the 360 because the Wii was going by the codename "Revolution" at the time.

    As always, masterful restraint and technical knowledge on Plunkett's part... derp. Whoever's in charge of US Kotaku should have kicked this guy out a long time ago, as well as most of the rest of the regulars.

    Two huuuuuuuuuge issues with this article. Number one it's stating the heading like it's fact, not just speculation. It links to IGN as its source, and they don't have a real source either. That means it's pretty much not worth listening to right there. Secondly both the articles give the details of the retail PC graphics card, as though anything even remotely similar to that would just be slapped into a console. If it was "based on" the card, it wouldn't resemble the retail chip at all. "based on" is a very loose term. And as always that's going to be misinterpreted as "the next generation Xbox will be about as powerful as a low end PC is now" which isn't true.

    Gah. I remember reading all this kind of shit before the 360 and PS3 came out. It's exactly the same thing. Most of it (probably 95%) turned out to be bullshit, the rest was half truths. This article (and Luke Plunkett) is just a complete stretch.

      Case in point? I heard uwe bol based some of his movies on games.

    I'm glad I paid a premium last year for the R2D2 Xbox, which has been delayed. Now it might only have 6 months of usefull life before it gets replaced. :/

    Tag team shafted by Gates & Lucas.

    too early for it, 360 still has alot of life left in it. And I DO NOT want another rip off paying $650 at launch time.. never have I felt so cheated. Price it at $300 and that is reasonably fair.

      I don't see it coming out this year.

        TBH launch price doesn't concern me too much, what bothers me is consoles that have major design flaws (RROD anyone?) and also the fact they put out so many different iterations of the 360 (ie: arcade, pro, elite,pro with hdmi, arcade with hdmi, slim arcade, slim pro, slim pro with kinect etc)

      Even if it came out this year, thats still what 7 years it's been kicking around? In the more likely event it comes out next year thats 8 years - aka a damn long time for a console.
      It's well and truly time for a new gen of consoles.

      How is paying $650 on something you won't replace for 7 years a rip off, especially something that you will use on a regular basis? If it was only a 12 month purchase cycle then yeah... I could understand.

        Because when it RRODs you'll probably end up replacing it 3 or 4 times in that 7 year life cycle :)

          Still have my launch console :) Worth every $ i spent on launch :)

            I still have my launch 360 aswell!

            Of course it no longer works.... But I still have it!

          I've had the RROD twice, on my original console. The second time we replaced it and gave the refurb to a friend when it was returned to us.

          Then that second one was dying (no faults, it just seemed to be on the verge of catastrophic failure) so we replaced it again.

          I think when I bought my first 360 they were $600, my second we got for about $500 (plus some games) and my third was $450 with four games, an extra controller and a bunch of other crap. So, yeah, I've spent about $1500 on Xbox consoles alone since November 2006.

          My Xboxes do fail, yes, but honestly it's because I use the hell out of them. Case in point - I bought Skyrim 10 days ago. Between my wife and I, we've accumulated about 150 hours on Skyrim. That's 15 hours of operation a day. Back when I killed me first console we were deep in the midst of Halo 3, plaing it every goddamn night - so it perished under similar conditions.

          The only other appliance I own that can beat that for reliability is my fridge.

          I spent $700 on a PS3 and if you quizzed me right now as to how it's working I couldn't tell you, because the bloody thing hasn't been used for 6 months.

          My PC cost me about a thousand dollars three and a half years years ago and it died about 2 years ago. It wasn't until 11 months ago that I got my shit together and got it repaired so I could stop using the old laptop as my main computer. Counting repairs and occasional hardware upgrades, I've probably dropped $1500 on my PC too. Can it run everything my Xbox can? Nope.

    As a PC gamer, i feel we need a new set of consoles to come out in order to force Developers and publishers to up the ante. The current power of the PC could effectively handle and open world game like skyrim on a map the size of Just cause 2 with the graphical abilities of Crysis 1 and still only have less than 15 load times.

    People complain at a lot about the load times skyrim on the 360 and PS3 yet on the PC without any mods or hacks except the 4gig LAA patch (which is now baked into skyrim) the load screens are less than 5 seconds.

    Cakes and pies.

    But current high-end PC's are already over 10 times more powerful than the X360, so when this comes out (in almost two years) it'll be at most half as powerful as that day's mid-range PC's? As of now, the 6670 I put into my computer a few weeks ago is already considered "low-end"... I realise they'll be able to do more with a 6670 (especially if they modify it) in a console, but the idea of putting a 6670 in a machine they expect to survive for 5+ years seems a bit myopic to me.

      Stated this above, but just to add some perspective, 360 is currently running on 2004 hardware and still running games like Battlefield 3 and Skyrm, albeit not at high end PC levels. but I don't think the drop off is that massive considering the difference a 5-7 year difference is technology.

        ...considering a 5-7 year difference in technology. Need to read my posts before submitting ;-)

          The Xbox 360 can do this today because when it was released, it was a state-of-the-art machine. My point is if the X720 is already lagging behind by today's standards, by the time it does come out in almost two years, it would become almost obsolete, much like the Wii was when it came out.

        Yeah they would be much better off jumping in the Delorian and going to 2018 to bring graphics cards back to put in the consoles so they dont go out of date.

          sounds like a great idea! Do you have one that they can borrow?

          But that's my point, when the 360 released in 2005 it was running on 12 month old + technology.

    Just to clarify, in case it's not been picked up by anyone, the IGN article stated 'next' year, not 'this' year.

    http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/01/24/xbox-720-will-be-six-times-as-powerful-as-current-gen

    This article was confusing and nearly borked my brain...
    Anyway, the next Xbox coming out at the end of this year fits with the whole 'dropping microsoft points' thing. Just sayin'

    I just did some quick algebra, and if the numbers mentioned in the story are correct (Nextbox = 6*360, Nextbox = 1.2*WiiU), this would mean that the WiiU is 5 times as powerful as the 360...

    I'm a bit skeptical of that.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now