More purported specs of next PlayStation, Xbox leak

New information purported to reveal specifications for Microsoft's next Xbox console and Sony's next PlayStation console have been released today following yesterday's rumors regarding the power of the next-gen consoles.

According to a report by Eurogamer's Digital Foundry, both the next PlayStation console (said to be codenamed Orbis) and the next Xbox console (Durango) will make use of AMD's Jaguar platform and will also each feature an eight-core CPU clocked at 1.6 GHz. Orbis, Digital Foundry says, will feature a graphics card comparable to AMD's Radeon 7970M. The website was unable to acquire information regarding Durango's graphics card, but it did say Microsoft refined "DirectX 11 for a fixed hardware gaming platform."

While much information wasn't revealed about Durango, Digital Foundry does claim Orbis' graphics card and CPU will reside on the same silicon.


Digital Foundry says the above video is comparable to what the next-generation consoles will likely offer.

Digital Foundry also corroborated yesterday's report that Orbis will feature 4GB of GDDR5 RAM while Durango will feature 8GB of DDR3 RAM, with 512 MB and 3GB, respectively, reserved for each console's operating system. The Digital Foundry report slightly differs from yesterday's purported specifications, however, in that VG247's report claimed Orbis would reserve 1GB of RAM for its operating system.

While Digital Foundry was able to provide some information on Durango, its report didn't reveal anything about the rumored Xbox set-top box or rumored 7-inch Xbox Surface tablet. While little information is known about the latter device, it's believed the Xbox set-top box will be revealed at the same time as Microsoft's next-generation Xbox. Microsoft's Larry Hyrb, Xbox Live's director of programming, recently hinted at a June 11 E3 reveal for the company's next-generation Xbox plans.

Source: Eurogamer via Kotaku

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google has a solution to the password problem

Next Story

Telstra confirms Windows Phone 7.8 for Lumia 800 in January, other devices later

65 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

That's nice enough thread-wise, but only 3.5GB/5GB of unreserved RAM? Incredibly disappointing, especially as those systems are going to need to be 64-bit to address that quantity of memory. If true that is.

The thing is you can not compare consoles to pc's why would you even want to.

Console gaming is made for fun games in the living room.

Game pc's are made for nerds to waste money on absurd hardware for nothing more then bragging .

Think about it who really needs 19 video cards in one Pc.

The "point". Recently built a PC with an nvidia GTX 660, not the best but good. Playing games like AC3 were so drastically better with all the graphics cranked up compared to my GF PS3, it was like a different game. Borderlands 2 and even older games like Metro 2033 and Crysis 2 were like entirely new games with the visuals being so much better. If visuals didn't matter, Atari would still be in your living room. Pushing for better specs now means a better experience for years. Why would anyone NOT push companies to make better products instead of cheaping out everywhere they can because they know you'll accept it in the end? They must laugh at all the fanboys that defend how everything is "good enough" and fight for mediocrity. You'd be surprised how little extra money is necessary to drastically improve any machine.

Hahaiah said,
The "point". Recently built a PC with an nvidia GTX 660, not the best but good. Playing games like AC3 were so drastically better with all the graphics cranked up compared to my GF PS3, it was like a different game. Borderlands 2 and even older games like Metro 2033 and Crysis 2 were like entirely new games with the visuals being so much better. If visuals didn't matter, Atari would still be in your living room. Pushing for better specs now means a better experience for years. Why would anyone NOT push companies to make better products instead of cheaping out everywhere they can because they know you'll accept it in the end? They must laugh at all the fanboys that defend how everything is "good enough" and fight for mediocrity. You'd be surprised how little extra money is necessary to drastically improve any machine.

what's wrong with my Atari in my living room?

drazgoosh said,
I'd still go with the PS4, because PSN is free unlike Xbox Live...

because cheap ásses like you can't afford to spend $5 a month.

TruckWEB said,
With the PS4 and XboxNext using almost the same CPU/GPU, the quest will be on who provide the best games....

both of them.
right now:
xbox360 = good for online games.
ps3 = good for single player games.
wii = good for nintendo/casual games.

Anyways, right now, consoles are cheap so it is pretty possible to own a couple of them (if not all). For example, ipad 3 cost about $600, it is the same price that to buy a xbox360 + ps3.

Point being. How do you expect Sony to do 1080p 3D or 4k ready as some rumours have it with a Radeon 7970M?

Maybe in Crossfire config. This card is akin to a GTX 580.

FunkyMike said,
Point being. How do you expect Sony to do 1080p 3D or 4k ready as some rumours have it with a Radeon 7970M?

Maybe in Crossfire config. This card is akin to a GTX 580.


And since when can a gtx580 not do 1080p? A gtx580 easily exceeds 1080p even on high end games.

FunkyMike said,
Point being. How do you expect Sony to do 1080p 3D or 4k ready as some rumours have it with a Radeon 7970M?

Maybe in Crossfire config. This card is akin to a GTX 580.

First, you are comparing a dedicated card to an mobile chip secondly..oh wait, no, I won't even go further than that.

FunkyMike said,
Point being. How do you expect Sony to do 1080p 3D or 4k ready as some rumours have it with a Radeon 7970M?

Maybe in Crossfire config. This card is akin to a GTX 580.


Clearly you have ZERO clue of what you are talking about.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

First, you are comparing a dedicated card to an mobile chip secondly..oh wait, no, I won't even go further than that.

Yes well done on your observation skills. I am clearly comparing a mobile GPU to a dedicated card in terms of performance. Please tell me how this card will manage to output 3D in 1080p without loss of quality. We all know what the PS3 has to do to even manage 3D.

If you are expecting high quality, 3D in 1080p you sir are clearly misunderstanding the performance of the 7970M

Edited by FunkyMike, Jan 19 2013, 6:37pm :

ahhell said,

Clearly you have ZERO clue of what you are talking about.

Your remarks are clearly witty, but why don't you enlighten us with your knowledge of consoles, mobile GPUs and Sony's long term competitive vision.

FunkyMike said,
Yes well done on your observation skills. I am clearly comparing a mobile GPU to a dedicated card in terms of performance. Please tell me how this card will manage to output 3D in 1080p without loss of quality. We all know what the PS3 has to do to even manage 3D.

If you are expecting high quality, 3D in 1080p you sir are clearly misunderstanding the performance of the 7970M

Here's a quote from Tomshardware.com on the performance of the HD 7850, which is roughly the desktop equivalent of the 7970M. "The Radeon HD 7850 1 GB is one of our price/performance favorites, so long as it's more than a few dollars cheaper than the 2 GB version. It's significantly more powerful than Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650 Ti, and you don't run into a problem with just 1 GB of graphics memory unless you push aggressive levels of anti-aliasing at high resolutions (usually above 1080p)."

Invizibleyez said,
Here's a quote from Tomshardware.com on the performance of the HD 7850, which is roughly the desktop equivalent of the 7970M. "The Radeon HD 7850 1 GB is one of our price/performance favorites, so long as it's more than a few dollars cheaper than the 2 GB version. It's significantly more powerful than Nvidia's GeForce GTX 650 Ti, and you don't run into a problem with just 1 GB of graphics memory unless you push aggressive levels of anti-aliasing at high resolutions (usually above 1080p)."

Thank you for being upstanding with your comment .. I appreciate it after seeing the previous comments.

Here is the benchmark of the 7970m compared to its siblings and elders.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/A...adeon-HD-7970M.72675.0.html
It comes in at between the HD 7850 1/2 GB and the GTX 580. (the GTX 650Ti being slower than the GTX 580)

Now to the 3D part:
Most console games are 720p (or lower) upscaled to 1080p. Bf3 on the PS3 is not available in 3D for obvious reasons.

Lets assume that the 7970M manages to output BF3 in 1080p at the highest detail which in itself is hard to do at a good framerate even for laptops. Considering we are talking non gimped down graphics the 7970M does 1920x1080 Ultra (no not Medium or High) AA:4x MS AF:16x at around 40.0 fps in Bf3 on a laptop. The video on Eurogamer shows how it does good on Medium. Considering we are talking about consoles we will just assume that it will work on High with all the pretty and stable FPS @1080p.

Now comes the performance cost of the 3D functionality which will most likely be balanced out through loss of visual quality.

This is a very good laptop card for 2012. We will not pretend like this card will be able to output games in 4k. It will be 1080p upscaled with media being able to play at 4k native if available.

Again referencing my original question if maybe this will be a crossfire configuration after all. (The cost of which would probably be too high for Sony & MS)

Since the PS4 is based on the A10 APU you might want to check out this article comparing an A10 7970m with an ivy bridge setup just for information sake:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...ivy-bridge-vs-trinity-video

Edited by FunkyMike, Jan 20 2013, 5:18am :

Funky, You forgot the fact that the APU is actually modified for consoles, it's not your typical APU that you can find on the market now, therefor it might be that the graphics chip is also modified.

I didn't forget that it will be modified and I took that into account when mentioning that it will most likely run with all details comparable to High in a game like BF3 which is pure speculation on my part but yet relies on the inherit limitations of the base APU, GPU and on Sony's competitive ambitions of brining out a console that doesn't destroy a bank account whilst being sold for a huge loss.

This generation of consoles is supposed to be much closer to what pcs are and seeing how Sony went with x86 this time around to obtain better traction and to keep costs down it is safe to say that there will be limitations to how much it will be able to push .. It won't be magic.

We can speculate about AMDs new 2013 range but with the final 3rd Dev kits just around the corner there is not much point.
Again this is all speculation the 7970m is expensive and I would not be surprised if Sony uses something cheaper.

Guys, who cares? Console gaming is about living room entertainment. The current consoles are great for it, so the next batch will be. Who cares if it pushes X number of pixels. The quality will be better and higher res. The experience to the gamer will not change one bit.

I care, because more RAM = more players. It's the reason games like BF3 only support 24 players on console because of the limited hardware, while on PC you get 64. With 8GB of RAM you could have games running 128 players.

Crisp said,
I care, because more RAM = more players. It's the reason games like BF3 only support 24 players on console because of the limited hardware, while on PC you get 64. With 8GB of RAM you could have games running 128 players.

Err what? 128 players on 8GB? I think you haven't hosted a single server have you?

My point is regarding the graphics ... people complain like these games on the current consoles look like C64 games. No matter how restrictive they are compared to PC's (which cost a lot more for a sweet system), they still deliver beautifully created games. Some of the most amazing artwork comes on PS3 etc. Watching some videos of the PC vs Console versions of software often shows off very few differences. And on a TV screen when the action is fast, not one person here notices. If they do, they're going to play pretty badly

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Err what? 128 players on 8GB? I think you haven't hosted a single server have you?

Thanks for the question, yes I have. I guess you've not played Project Reality.

Err what? 128 players on 8GB? I think you haven't hosted a single server have you?

He means console RAM not server RAM. Afaik when you host a game on the 360 you aren't actually hosting it on your console, you're hosting it on MS' servers.

But the BF3 version on consoles are limited to 24 players because the consoles themselves cannot handle any more. Sadly parts of that have found their way on the PC version too...

-Razorfold said,

He means console RAM not server RAM. Afaik when you host a game on the 360 you aren't actually hosting it on your console, you're hosting it on MS' servers.

But the BF3 version on consoles are limited to 24 players because the consoles themselves cannot handle any more. Sadly parts of that have found their way on the PC version too...

In that case I'm sorry, didn't think of that.

And if the console's life span is 5 years, and they come out at the end of this year then it will mean that the we would still have 2012 PC quality in 2018/19.

With the next gen consoles i can see the same thing happening all over again that we have now.

The X360 has slower RAM, but more of it for use with games, while the PS3 has faster RAM but less for use with games. So you basically end of with the actual games looking better on the 360. Whenever you get cross platform games the 360 version almost always has better looking textures, with the rest of the graphics looking exactly the same.

If anything, 360 games sometimes also have better frame rates too as the PS3 is a bitch to program for, it's hard for devs to make use of all the CPU cores properly. Yet the PS3 is theoretically more powerful (atleast the CPU anyway, not the GPU) but still has nothing to show for it after all these years. I'd expect PS4 to have an easier to work with architecture though, because now that Sony are no longer the leader in the console race, devs are not going to bend over for them anymore with yet another crappy needlessly complex architecture.

If MS do actually reserve 3GB fo RAM then it's safe to say this will be running an advanced OS, something based on the NT kernel, maybe a customized version of Windows 8. Which opens up a lot of possibilities software wise.

In reality I believe it will be very much the same in performance. 4GB RAM is still perfectly fine on the PC. Considering the next gen consoles will most likely have games that look like the best stuff on PCs right now, they should have no problems with memory. How much video RAM can be allocated on each will determine how large textures they can use.

For this gen consoles the image quality varied from game to game - sometimes sharper textures on the 360 but better lighting on the PS3 etc. Sometimes both were the same, sometimes one was noticeably better.

Welp, PC gaming is doomed. These machines are going to be outdated once they're released.

Also 1.6GHz? I know it's not right to compare certain CPU architectures via clock rates, but seriously, that seems absurdly low for something that's running, you know, high fidelity games.

I question the clock speed as well but on the other hand we are talking 8 cores now instead of 3 in the 360. In the end we're probably looking at 16 threads vs 6 threads in the 360's cpu. So even if the speeds are lower we're doing more work per clock cycle.

GP007 said,
I question the clock speed as well but on the other hand we are talking 8 cores now instead of 3 in the 360. In the end we're probably looking at 16 threads vs 6 threads in the 360's cpu. So even if the speeds are lower we're doing more work per clock cycle.

Unless it's one of those with four low power cores for menial tasks (like running the dashboard) and four high power ones for the actual gaming.

Maybe the 1.6GHz is simply the low power cores' clock rate.

DAOWAce said,
Welp, PC gaming is doomed. These machines are going to be outdated once they're released.

Also 1.6GHz? I know it's not right to compare certain CPU architectures via clock rates, but seriously, that seems absurdly low for something that's running, you know, high fidelity games.


It could turbo-boost.... who knows? AMD also has that technology....

I don't see why you'd have to necessarily use different types of cores when we know they can auto adjust their clock speeds down when not in full use. Also iirc doesn't AMD already use technology that can auto shut down cores that are not in use or needed?

I'm sure that whatever the speeds are we'll see both of these techniques put to use.

GP007 said,
I don't see why you'd have to necessarily use different types of cores when we know they can auto adjust their clock speeds down when not in full use. Also iirc doesn't AMD already use technology that can auto shut down cores that are not in use or needed?

I'm sure that whatever the speeds are we'll see both of these techniques put to use.

There must be a reason, as that technique is talked about all the time lately in mobile devices. Exynos 5 Octa apparently has what I described above; four low and four high powered cores.

There are others talked about where there's a fifth low-power core included in quad core processors to improve power consumption.

Something like that is a option but I think it applies more to the mobile side of things where you do all you can to save on battery life. I don't see that as a issue here though but we're all just guessing here. Gonna have to wait for some official specs.

I do hope that the graphics will be more stunning than what they say, not that I'm into consoles, but if they can run Battlefield 3 on high then welcome to 2011.

While a console will never match a high end PC, they are still capable of pushing out some pretty impressive visuals! seen Halo 4? that is pretty impressive for something running on ~6 year old hardware

Xerxes said,
While a console will never match a high end PC, they are still capable of pushing out some pretty impressive visuals! seen Halo 4? that is pretty impressive for something running on ~6 year old hardware

7+ year old hardware.

The problem i have is that if the next gen console hardware is pretty weak, then it's also very bad news for PC gamers. We've had to put up with consoles ports for many years, and none of these properly make use of our PC hardware. Graphics have barely gone anywhere over the last 3 - 4 years.

A good example is the original Crysis from 2007. It's over 5 YEARS OLD and still better looking than ANY console game. And you know why? Because it was purely made for PC hardware, nothing else. But now everything, including Crysis games and the actual game engines, are made with console hardware in mind so graphics have gone nowhere. It's not even just about visual graphics, more power opens up many more gameplay possibilities (advanced physics, super accurate collision detection, larger more complex worlds, better A.I, and much more).

1Pixel said,

We've had to put up with consoles ports for many years,

Yeah! F*ck those console peasants they should be forbidden from enjoying games. If you can't afford a decent PC then you don't deserve to play new games. (# sarcasm)

1Pixel said,

A good example is the original Crysis from 2007. It's over 5 YEARS OLD and still better looking than ANY console game. And you know why? Because it was purely made for PC hardware, nothing else. But now everything, including Crysis games and the actual game engines, are made with console hardware in mind so graphics have gone nowhere.

Look at it from a different perspective. Not PC versus console but high-end versus low-end. Because the majority of the PCs out there can play Crysis but it does NOT look better than on consoles.

Crytek has realized that they've only been catering towards a small elite group of PC gamers while their games looked bad and played bad on the majority of PCs. Fact is most gamers (in general) don't need the best of the best, they like great graphics but they have to do other things with their money as well. This is why many PC gamers (including myself) migrated to consoles and why traditional PC genres had to follow their target audience.

You blame consoles for this but what if all of us gamers had stayed on PC? Our version of Crysis would look worse than it did on consoles because the specific specs of a console allow developers to optimize their games for that set of hardware. If we had all stayed on PC than the majority of PCs would be low to mid-end and you stil would have to suffer the existence of regular gamers.

Ronnet makes a great point. Look at the launch games vs recent games for current gen consoles. The hardware might have changed but developers have certainly been able to make some incredible software over the generation.

It seems to me that some gamers are far to obsessed with top tier tech, and think consoles are holding it all back. But with out consoles the industry wouldn't have grown and have the kind of rich content it has.

Ronnet said,

Yeah! F*ck those console peasants they should be forbidden from enjoying games. If you can't afford a decent PC then you don't deserve to play new games. (# sarcasm).

I didn't say anything like that. No need to be a ****.

And you're conveniently missing out the fact that even an average barely mid-range PC can very easily produce better graphics these days than any console, while actually running them at 1080p as well. You don't have to pay for high-end hardware, which is pretty pointless now anyway, because like i said theres nothing that will actually make proper use of it thanks to all the console ports.

Alot of games wouldn't exist to be ported in the first place if it weren't for consoles.

High end hardware being pointless is not the fault of consoles, but rather because most gamers aren't interested in being PC tech hobbyists.

Whilst PC gaming is becoming more & more affordable, consoles still offer a comfortable position between tech & accessibility.

Sounds OK I guess, time will tell...was hoping for a little more "umph" in the graphics department ....dual core would have rocked...

Hahaiah said,
Sounds OK I guess, time will tell...was hoping for a little more "umph" in the graphics department ....dual core would have rocked...

Graphics cards already have literally hundreds of cores.

Hahaiah said,
Sounds OK I guess, time will tell...was hoping for a little more "umph" in the graphics department ....dual core would have rocked...

First of all these are not confirmed. Second of all, what makes the graphics so lack luster to you? The GPU in the current generation Xbox isn't even being fully optimised by any games! As for dual core??? GPUs have many hundreds of "cores" but contrary to popular belief the number of cores in a CPU or GPU is not necessarily relative to speed.

PS An Xbox with the same graphics card/chip as a Play Station will be far faster and have better colour and picture quality.

Dual GPU is kinda pointless at this point, considering the console is gonna be capped at 1080p the extra graphics horse power will go to waste. Before you say it, I am aware of Ultra HD (4k) TVs etc but how many people are actually going to buy them for it to be viable for MS to cater for them? for the next gen, 1080p will pretty much be the de facto standard I think. Maybe the generation next when 4k is more prevalent we will start seeing things like dual (or more) GPUs in consoles. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

I was thinking more of like an SLI type performance boost with dual GPUs. It doesn't get "wasted" in a PC, why would this be any different? More power means better frame rates, anti aliasing and action without slowdowns. Reasoning above is ridiculous.

ingramator said,
PS An Xbox with the same graphics card/chip as a Play Station will be far faster and have better colour and picture quality.

That just screams bias. Got anything to back that up?

fmanchu said,
I would say if that were true it's because of Direct x 11

"Microsoft refined DirectX 11 for a fixed hardware gaming platform." - It's poorly worded, could be one of two things:

Either Microsoft refined DX11 for their own next gen Xbox console, or
Microsoft refined DX11 for console hardware in general, meaning the PS4 would benefit as well.

Other than that, the amount of RAM hasn't been set in stone yet, but like I said, it just screams bias comments - who really cares which is strongest (*cough* Wii).

I'm sticking with the one that provides the best exclusives, and so far that's the PS brand, you can only have so many exclusive shooters on the Xbox.

elcapo24682 said,

The Xbox 360 is already like this. Don't be an idiot.

Great insult, I'd like another! Look at the exclusives, MGS, Uncharted, GT - need I say more?

Indeed. But I would like to know more official specs instead of this conjecture.
One thing is for certain though, I'm not buying the next PlayStation. The Sony parent company is already approaching a financially critical status with about $150 Billion (over 85% of their total worth) in debt and credit rating agencies putting them on "junk" status means it'll only get worse. They have more debt than all of their direct competitors combined, seriously, that's a very frightening prospect for future Sony product buyers.

The problem, as always, is no matter how much of a mess Sony is in, they still bring out the better quality exclusive games. If I bought a Microsoft console it would be to play games that I can get on my PC anyway!

Although I guess if Sony died off then we could have multiplatform glory from the wonderful developers at Naughty Dog =D