AMD: Next Xbox console will have graphics with the detail of Avatar

There is a lot of speculation about what kind of hardware will be inside the next generation of Microsoft's Xbox console. However, a representative for graphics chip maker AMD is making some bold predictions about what the games of the next generation console will look like. The Examiner, using info from the Official Xbox Magazine, states that Neal Robison, the director of ISV relationships at AMD, claims that the next version of the Xbox should have graphics that will have the level of detail that was seen in Avatar (the movie, not the mediocre game adaptation).

In addition to high level of graphics, Robison also claims that the next generation of consoles will allow for higher degrees of game AI. For example, the article states that the hardware "will allow for every pedestrian in a game such as Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row to have a totally individual mentality, meaning when you shoot a gun or run someone over they don't all just do the same thing."

It's important to point out that Microsoft has yet to announce any plans for a successor to the Xbox 360 and it may not do so for some time. In addition, AMD is not confirmed to be providing the graphics chips for the next console. Sales of the current Xbox 360 continue to be solid, thanks in part to 2010's Slim redesign and the launch of the Kinect motion controller camera so Microsoft may wait a while longer before revealing plans for the next version of its game console.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Gaming news round up: July 15-17

Next Story

Used iPhone 3GS on sale at AT&T for $9

36 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Lol @ all the people who think XBox 360 GPU is more powerful than PCs. If that was the case, people would be drooling over Gears of Wars and Halo series graphics. Instead they come nowhere near Crysis. And please don't tell me you think Microsoft Studios themselves didn't know how to take full advantage of their console hardware. And thanks a lot to the consoles, Crysis 2 looks crappy. The textures are low res, the lighting sucks, and it is dull and boring with poor detail [sob] Now feast on this for a while: http://www.postimg.com/42000/photo-41912.jpg and try to identify which is PC and which is junk

gzAsher said,
Lol @ all the people who think XBox 360 GPU is more powerful than PCs.

No one said that the 360 is better than a high end pc now. But on release it was. There is no way you could run Crysis 2 on a 2005 PC.


And thanks a lot to the consoles, Crysis 2 looks crappy. The textures are low res, the lighting sucks, and it is dull and boring with poor detail

There is seriously something wrong with you.

Edited by Lamp0, Jul 18 2011, 7:45pm :

Not to @#! on consoles but I'll believe it when I see it. Remember, the tech industry as a whole is driven by hype and not much else. I'll wait until the specs for the 360's successor are officially released.

I don't see this as being true unless people are willing to sit through an hour per frame of rendering time...

@neoadorable: ISV == Independent Software Vendor

what does ISV stand for? because in Avatar, it stands for Interstellar Vehicle, i.e ISV Venture Star. coincidence? BTW there was nothing mediocre about the Avatar game, i really liked it.

Yea right..not happening.

Also.. if He thinks Unreal Engine 4 is even close to the level of Avatar in graphics. He is wrong.
I believe next console will be able to handle Unreal Engine 4.5 @ 1080p.. if it does that will be a feat!..

Didn't the boss of Xbox 360 launch said : You will never see a 'jaggies' again on Xbox 360, yet still 90% don't use AA and a lot of Xbox game aren't even HD? (lower than 720p)

ryoohki said,
Didn't the boss of Xbox 360 launch said : You will never see a 'jaggies' again on Xbox 360, yet still 90% don't use AA and a lot of Xbox game aren't even HD? (lower than 720p)

If the game developer wants to use their own HDR thus bypassing the postprocessing AA/HDR features of the XENOs GPU, how is Microsoft at fault?

Usually this is because they are a cross platform title that was coded to the least common feature set, the PS3. (Remember the PS3 has DX9 generation GPU, XBox had DX10 generation GPU.)

ryoohki said,
Didn't the boss of Xbox 360 launch said : You will never see a 'jaggies' again on Xbox 360, yet still 90% don't use AA and a lot of Xbox game aren't even HD? (lower than 720p)

Blame the devs, the 360 GPU supports AA in the hardware, they should use it unless they want to do something else and don't.

thenetavenger said,

If the game developer wants to use their own HDR thus bypassing the postprocessing AA/HDR features of the XENOs GPU, how is Microsoft at fault?

Usually this is because they are a cross platform title that was coded to the least common feature set, the PS3. (Remember the PS3 has DX9 generation GPU, XBox had DX10 generation GPU.)

I couple of things wrong with what you said. Firstly, the 360 GPU isn't a DX10 GPU, it's a DX9.0c GPU with superset instructions that are apart of the DX10 spec. Basically it's between DX9.0c and DX10.

Secondly, while the GPU in the PS3 is a DX9 GPU, Sony are not using DirectX since it's not supported by their platform, they rely on OpenGL instead.

Microsoft/ATi had the advantage the last time round because ATi had access to early DX10 material, but the standard was never set until later on a year later. The GPU doesn't support all of the DX10 features so therefore it cannot be classed as a DX10 GPU.

Didn't Nintendo say the N64 would have graphics like Jurassic Park? I remember their customer service guys telling me that on several occasions.

lol

How many years ago was Xbox released? No brainer there when it comes to new hardware for PC's being more powerful then consoles... pfff

Silly comment guys.. c'mon...

Tony. said,

Another 5-10 years before Ray-tracing becomes even practical.

Some games do support ambient occlusion at the moment, even though that isn't full raytracing. And by doing the raytracing on the GPU it's actually possible to do some realtime raytracing today - but I wouldn't expect the performance needed for games until some more years have passed.

Sure it will. Besides, all the power in world wouldnt matter if you dont have the games to back it up and with the current state of MS first party studios I dont have much hope for the next xbox.

the better twin said,
Sure it will. Besides, all the power in world wouldnt matter if you dont have the games to back it up and with the current state of MS first party studios I dont have much hope for the next xbox.

The current state of first party doesn't seem to effect 360 sales though, so somehow I don't think it's a problem.

the better twin said,
Sure it will. Besides, all the power in world wouldnt matter if you dont have the games to back it up and with the current state of MS first party studios I dont have much hope for the next xbox.

This. With all this talk about graphics in the next gen, are there actually going to be any decent games, or crappy games with good graphics?

I really doubt this. There is no way a console, even a couple of years into the future, could real-time render graphics that are comparable in detail (textures) and animations to the planet Pandora in Avatar

Microsoft will probably have some lvl of dx 12 in the xbox before it's implemented in pc gfx chips giving it better detail for a while. Also have to remember games for consoles don't need lod multiple code paths for nvidia and ati and all that stuff cus the hardware is fixed which should equate to more streamlined code and more optimised performance.

MindTrickz said,
if you say so....

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. The current PC hardware is a good few generations ahead of the consoles, and there's nothing close to the details of Avatar released. And just to show the ridiculousness of his statement, this is what took to generate Avatar's details: http://www.datacenterknowledge...g-powerhouse-behind-avatar/

I'm pretty sure the next XBOX won't have the same power, or anything close to it.

Pupik said,

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. The current PC hardware is a good few generations ahead of the consoles, and there's nothing close to the details of Avatar released. And just to show the ridiculousness of his statement, this is what took to generate Avatar's details: http://www.datacenterknowledge...g-powerhouse-behind-avatar/

I'm pretty sure the next XBOX won't have the same power, or anything close to it.

LOL, you guys are so funny. You've taken AMDs words and just assumed they ment the blockbuster 3d hit movie, "Avatar" when they ment the "Avatar - The Last Airbender" movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie3mX550N84


On a more serious note though. Its only really been this last gen graphics cards that have pushed past what the XBOX can do... and yes, A lot of the problems do come from software developers these days. They seem to cater for the console and then try to 'fix up' the game to make it better quality for the PC release, and thats if they even try to. Take Crysis2 for example. Released with the same DX9 engine on both XBOX and PC, it was a few months later before they released the update for DX11 and even then the game didn't much better quality of graphics, nor did adding the high res texture pack.

But yeah, when you have a look at the semi-custom graphics chip in the xbox and what its sill capable of doing NOW and when it was released, for the vast majority of PC users the XBOX blew them away in terms of what games could have looked like. Hopefully the next gen XBOX won't have the developers re-thinking how to code games again so they can get killer looking games out the door stright away rather then mid-life cycle of the xbox.

Edited by sagum, Jul 18 2011, 9:17am :

Pupik said,

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. The current PC hardware is a good few generations ahead of the consoles, and there's nothing close to the details of Avatar released. And just to show the ridiculousness of his statement, this is what took to generate Avatar's details: http://www.datacenterknowledge...g-powerhouse-behind-avatar/

I'm pretty sure the next XBOX won't have the same power, or anything close to it.

This is a really bad assumption...

When the original XBox was designed, the GPU in it was a technical generation ahead of any current PC GPUs.

When the XBox 360 was designed, the GPU was again a technical generation ahead of any current PC GPUs.

So, why would you draw a conclusion of the power of the next XBox GPU based on current PC GPUs?

-Original XBox - introduced PS/VS and along with a new type of shader code, designed by Microsoft. This GPU design was the basis of the next Generation of NVidia GPUs, going all the way up to the 7xxx Geforce series.

-XBox 360 - introduced a lot of things from unified shader to a rich tensellation - some of the features in the XENOS GPU were not even in PC GPUs until DX11 based Video cards came out, especially things like tensellation. It also changed the paradigm of how shaders worked completely and was the first GPU designed to inherently handle general computing and not specific graphical rendering code.

The GPU was seen as so 'novel' that ATI didn't think it would work for PCs, and their next Video Card GPU releases were still based on the older PS/VS designs. After seeing the flexibility and performance the XBox 360 developers were getting out of the XENOs, they changed their entire PC GPU strategy, and so did NVidia, as DX10 required the GPU hardware to be more like the XENOs with a unified shader model.

DX10 originally had all the functionality of the XBox DirectX subset, but NVidia's 8xxx series GPUs failed to meet the requirements, which forced Microsoft to lower the DX10 specifications. It also means that unless your video card is a true DX11 based GPU, it can't do all the things the XBox 360 XENOs GPU can.

This is also why gaming with DX11 has helped bring up the quality of games on both the XBox and the PC, as developers don't have to target the lower end features in their engine, which has been the PC, not the XBox. (And we are talking features of the GPU from the engine standpoint, not how many millions of triangles/pixels it can shove out, as today's PC are fast, but if they can't replicate the scene properly, it doesn't matter how fast they are.)


This is why it is crazy to assume that something will or won't be based on what you can buy today. When the XBox 360 hit the world, PCs COULD NOT get even close to the graphical quality or performance, and even today, it is taking DX11 level Video cards to even offer all the graphical features.

So if you by chance have a DX10 or DX10.1 based video card in your gaming computer today, it can't do things the GPU in the 2005 XBox 360 can.

This type of offset also happened with the original XBox. It was until the DX9 based cards were out in very late 2003 early 2004 that all the XBox GPU features were available to PC gamers. Original XBox GPU is somewhere between DX8.1 and DX9 in features.

sagum said,

LOL, you guys are so funny. You've taken AMDs words and just assumed they ment the blockbuster 3d hit movie, "Avatar" when they ment the "Avatar - The Last Airbender" movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie3mX550N84


On a more serious note though. Its only really been this last gen graphics cards that have pushed past what the XBOX can do... and yes, A lot of the problems do come from software developers these days. They seem to cater for the console and then try to 'fix up' the game to make it better quality for the PC release, and thats if they even try to. Take Crysis2 for example. Released with the same DX9 engine on both XBOX and PC, it was a few months later before they released the update for DX11 and even then the game didn't much better quality of graphics, nor did adding the high res texture pack.

But yeah, when you have a look at the semi-custom graphics chip in the xbox and what its sill capable of doing NOW and when it was released, for the vast majority of PC users the XBOX blew them away in terms of what games could have looked like. Hopefully the next gen XBOX won't have the developers re-thinking how to code games again so they can get killer looking games out the door stright away rather then mid-life cycle of the xbox.

+1

A DX9 designed engine is not going to even use, nor be able to take advantage of the performance and the shift in how things work in DX10 or DX11. So it is using the DX9 techniques, and then they slap on DX10 or DX11 lighting and some tensellation and call it DX10/11, when it really isn't.

A large part of DX10 and DX11 were the changes in how things were processed not just to 'look better' but to give engine designers a lot of ways to increase performance by using the features of the DX10 and DX11 GPUs that are like the XBox 360 GPU.

So any game that is based on a DX9 engine, no matter how much lipstick and 'pretty' they put on it, is still a DX9 game at the heart. And this limits its performance and richness of graphical quality.

As most developers know, DX11 is the first version of DirectX for the PC that matches the XBox 360 DirectX subset fully. As even with DX10, there are features missing that are available for quality and performance on the XBox 360 version of DirectX. So as DX11 is used as the real baseline or even a DX10 optimized engine, which is starting to happen, it will mean games on both sides that are PC/XBox releases will be better by using all the capabilities of the XBox 360 GPU and finally using the performance featueres of DX10/11 on the PC and then being able to add in more visual quality. (People would be surprised how close to Avatar we are already today with just a high end DX11 based GPU, if the games was designed around the DX11 technologies.)

Pupik said,

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. The current PC hardware is a good few generations ahead of the consoles, and there's nothing close to the details of Avatar released.

I'm pretty sure the next XBOX won't have the same power, or anything close to it.

True, PCs are, the 360 is using what is basically equal to a X1900/X1950... But that's the thing, being able optimize a game or the consoles OS to a specific set of hardware does a lot.
It's not all about raw power which PCs do a good job of showing, they are so much more powerful than current consoles, and yet, when a game is game is done for the PC, even exclusively for the PC it isn't all that much better looking than console games are, only thing PC has going for it is that a game actually runs at full HD resolution and not a lower resolution being unscaled as most HD consoles titles do, that and well newer version of DirectX (which due to not being on consoles are horribly optimized for anything ).
And I say that as a PC gamer, I do play console games but I prefer to play on PC.

thenetavenger said,

This is a really bad assumption...

When the original XBox was designed, the GPU in it was a technical generation ahead of any current PC GPUs.

When the XBox 360 was designed, the GPU was again a technical generation ahead of any current PC GPUs.

So, why would you draw a conclusion of the power of the next XBox GPU based on current PC GPUs?

-Original XBox - introduced PS/VS and along with a new type of shader code, designed by Microsoft. This GPU design was the basis of the next Generation of NVidia GPUs, going all the way up to the 7xxx Geforce series.

-XBox 360 - introduced a lot of things from unified shader to a rich tensellation - some of the features in the XENOS GPU were not even in PC GPUs until DX11 based Video cards came out, especially things like tensellation. It also changed the paradigm of how shaders worked completely and was the first GPU designed to inherently handle general computing and not specific graphical rendering code.

The GPU was seen as so 'novel' that ATI didn't think it would work for PCs, and their next Video Card GPU releases were still based on the older PS/VS designs. After seeing the flexibility and performance the XBox 360 developers were getting out of the XENOs, they changed their entire PC GPU strategy, and so did NVidia, as DX10 required the GPU hardware to be more like the XENOs with a unified shader model.

DX10 originally had all the functionality of the XBox DirectX subset, but NVidia's 8xxx series GPUs failed to meet the requirements, which forced Microsoft to lower the DX10 specifications. It also means that unless your video card is a true DX11 based GPU, it can't do all the things the XBox 360 XENOs GPU can.

This is also why gaming with DX11 has helped bring up the quality of games on both the XBox and the PC, as developers don't have to target the lower end features in their engine, which has been the PC, not the XBox. (And we are talking features of the GPU from the engine standpoint, not how many millions of triangles/pixels it can shove out, as today's PC are fast, but if they can't replicate the scene properly, it doesn't matter how fast they are.)


This is why it is crazy to assume that something will or won't be based on what you can buy today. When the XBox 360 hit the world, PCs COULD NOT get even close to the graphical quality or performance, and even today, it is taking DX11 level Video cards to even offer all the graphical features.

So if you by chance have a DX10 or DX10.1 based video card in your gaming computer today, it can't do things the GPU in the 2005 XBox 360 can.

This type of offset also happened with the original XBox. It was until the DX9 based cards were out in very late 2003 early 2004 that all the XBox GPU features were available to PC gamers. Original XBox GPU is somewhere between DX8.1 and DX9 in features.

+1

These guys don't realise that GPUs in Consoles are about a generation ahead of PC GPUs on release and that PC GPUs follow consoles NOT the other way around.

neo158 said,

+1

These guys don't realise that GPUs in Consoles are about a generation ahead of PC GPUs on release and that PC GPUs follow consoles NOT the other way around.

I was going to say that, people around here have short memories when it comes to technology it seems. I bet the next Xbox GPU will be the first to use the next version of DX, maybe DX12 depending on it's release date. And as in the past the PC graphics cards won't support that till their next cycle some 4-6 months later.

I'm more interested in the comment about Avatar graphics, AMD released a new 6990M GPU, could it be time for some crossfire/Sli support in consoles? With the shrinking of the chips down to 32nm and less I wouldn't be surprised if MS comes out with a dual-GPU system this time around. Toss in support for GPGPU work with the new DX11 directcompute API and they can do some nifty stuff in and outside of gaming.

thenetavenger said,

This is also why gaming with DX11 has helped bring up the quality of games on both the XBox and the PC, as developers don't have to target the lower end features in their engine, which has been the PC, not the XBox. (And we are talking features of the GPU from the engine standpoint, not how many millions of triangles/pixels it can shove out, as today's PC are fast, but if they can't replicate the scene properly, it doesn't matter how fast they are.)

This is why it is crazy to assume that something will or won't be based on what you can buy today. When the XBox 360 hit the world, PCs COULD NOT get even close to the graphical quality or performance, and even today, it is taking DX11 level Video cards to even offer all the graphical features.

So if you by chance have a DX10 or DX10.1 based video card in your gaming computer today, it can't do things the GPU in the 2005 XBox 360 can.

You sure?! Cause I haven't seen a single multi-platform game that looks better on consoles and that is when compared to DX10 video cards, not DX11; and before you say that console exclusives look better than PC games, remember that a game called crysis exists.

P.S. AFAIK 360's GPU supports a superset of DirectX 9.0c which is still inferior to DX10.

Edited by eddman, Jul 18 2011, 12:38pm :

Pupik said,

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. The current PC hardware is a good few generations ahead of the consoles, and there's nothing close to the details of Avatar released. And just to show the ridiculousness of his statement, this is what took to generate Avatar's details: http://www.datacenterknowledge...g-powerhouse-behind-avatar/

I'm pretty sure the next XBOX won't have the same power, or anything close to it.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges. From you link....

"A final copy of Avatar equated to 17.28 gigabytes per minute of storage".

Which means nothing since the full HD movie fits on a single BD, which is a max of 50gig. I bet it does not even use the full BD disk.

The next Xbox will probably default to 1080p for games vs 720p today.

It is really hard to compare PC graphics vs Console graphics. The 360 was actually more powerful than PC graphics cards when it shipped. It had the first unified shader GPU at the time.

John Carmac and others have said that you get near 100% eficiency out of a console GPU because everyone has the exact same GPU, OS and Drivers, vs a PC where you get about 70% so you can be compatible. So on the PC side you can enable more features but you may block some users. On the console side you can use every ounce of the GPU because every user can use it.

Add to that the current 360 only has to display a max of 1280x720 which is not that much these days. Where my PC gaming is done at 1920x1200.

yowan said,
But PC GPUs will still be more powerful

The 360 had a GPU that was 2 generations more powerful than what the PC had at the time, so AMD could do it again.

Tony. said,

The 360 had a GPU that was 2 generations more powerful than what the PC had at the time, so AMD could do it again.

You're joking right - You seriously think that?