http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=YgY5O2MKYDE

An Xbox 720 that's 6 times more powerful then the 360 :0 and a TMNT that runs on the Arkahm city engine! i'd buy that.

Still aint got nothin on my pc.

The video card that is suggested is a joke, as it's already outdated and will certainly be outdated when the console is actually released..I can't even see how they could do that.

That is weak...

Not a bad gpu price point. Any one care to wager the launch price? My guess is $599. At least we can expect more dx11 implementation with future titles (as long as the pS4 doesn't have an extended due date).

I'm going to guess 399 as a price point, that GPU is horrid. Imagine in a year when the 720 is released. It's going to be so outdated that the whole console/PC war is going to go up in flames even more.

IGNorant
Bleh i really hope it's not that high. what was the 360's launch price again? something ridiculous i'm sure. hoping for like a 250 or 300 launch price at most.

I don;t think the GPU is "Horrid". Just because it isn't the best doesn't mean it is horrid, my card (GTX 460 768mb) runs most games on high and probably will do for another 2 years or so and it is nowhere near the best. Remember this: the consoles need to be cheap or there is not much point in having the console in the first place (just get a PC for the same price).

I'm guessing $499 by November of 2013. I would have no problem paying that much or even a 100 bucks more depending on its power and which games come out on launch.

Not only is the GPU not the best, it hasn't been the "best"..ever..It's not a good GPU. It's "ok". And what is "ok" 1 year ago is going to be trash in 1 year from now.

Just like 2 year old GPU's now are trash.

It depends on the model. IIRC the elite was $499, but the core system was $299 to $399.

I would expect the same variety with selection ranging from $399 to $599 (U.S. Dollars).



Exactly. Certainly not the best card out there, but a good compromise for market accessibility. What does the 67xx hd series retail for? $100? That is 1/4 of the total package (guessing of course). Sounds about right to me for a console.

I think my GPU is about 2 years old and it works fine, runs all the latest games at high. I'm sure if I SLI'd it I'd get them up to ultra. The 6670 is probably around the same as mine, it is certainly not trash. Tbh I think a company as big as Microsoft know what they are doing.

And they've proved that lately..how..?

The point is that the 6670 isn't horrid as you say. Whether they have proved they know what they are doing lately or not is irrelevant. For something as big as releasing the next console, I think they will have done their homework. The consoles need to be cheap, putting a 6970 or whatever the latest card now is in them won't make them cheap which kind of nullifies the point of having a console.

GTX 460 >>>> Radeon 6670. GTS 450 is a better comparison. And yes, a Radeon 6670 in a console that's supposed to last at least five years is pretty bad.

Oh, well that sort of weakens my argument. But still, if you think about it are graphics and gameworlds really getting that much better? Anything that the 6670 won't be able to handle for at least another 2 years? The point of it is that it is affordable, and to me the 6670 seems a good compromise between affordability and graphics. Isn't this all speculation anyway? There might be a different card after all in the xbox.

That's exactly my point. In even TWO years the graphical prowess of the console is going to be severely outdated by using this old GPU that isn't amazing. In order for the consoles to stay competitive for 5 years, it's going to be even worse than the 360 is now in terms of competitiveness if it uses the Radeon 6670.

by dominating Sony and Nintendo in sales this past year? That's a pretty good indication that they know what they're doing...just saying.

Not in japan.

/trollface

When did they dominate Sony in sales this past year? If anything, the PS3's been gaining ground and Nintendo... can't really compare them to Nintendo as Nintendo don't have competition. Worldwide sales are only marginally ahead for the 360 in comparison to the PS3. Only with the Kinect is Microsoft really excelling with sales, and the Kinect... isn't exactly what I would call a good thing. Of course opinions may vary, but just because the Wii and Kinect prove motion-based gaming is lucrative doesn't prove that Microsoft know what they're doing. Now, in the PS1 and PS2 era, Sony "dominated" the market... by far.

Going by your logic, Sony must really know what they're doing, right? Nintendo did the same with the SNES era. Do they really know what they're doing? Microsoft, on the other hand, have never really dominated a console generation. They had an edge at the beginning of this console generation, but this past year, they haven't "dominated" anyone. They have no first-party developers, for one thing, and the 360 hasn't proven any real technical advantages over the PS3 meanwhile Microsoft demand yearly Live payments for even basic services (such as Netflix streaming) and their console doesn't really feature anything indicative of grandeur in relation to, again, Sony.

What Microsoft's lead in the U.S. has proven is... not really anything other than an advantage for the platform on its home turf whereas the PS3 does the same in Japan, its home turf, and the two are roughly matched with a slight lead for the PS3 in Europe. Success doesn't mean a company "knows what they're doing" (not even in sales, but if so, likely only in sales as clearly, some people are dissatisfied with the purported GPU choice and unless one is a Halo, Gears of War, or Forza diehard, there's little in the manner of exclusive games provided by Microsoft's platform) and Microsoft have never achieved the success Sony or even Nintendo have in the past at any stage, the Wii far outsold both consoles total, and Microsoft's only unique offering is Kinect... something I'm sure many see as a gimmick much as they view the Wii's selling factor.

Microsoft haven't proven anything and what's good financially for a business is also quite separate from what's good for the consumer. Again, I reference the Wii... an abysmally outdated amalgamation of, what, 2000 era hardware that is, subjectively (from my point of view), based all around a gimmick and features little of value aside from a few first-party titles. The Wii has outsold both the 360 and the PS3, individually, this console generation. Does that prove Nintendo "know what they're doing"? Separate console generations are separate console generations with many variables (many of which companies have to take risks on estimating) and subjective attitudes and values applied to each facet of each individual console generation. Marginally, or even majorly (360's is more marginal, if there at all), advantageous situations (especially just those initially or even long-term financially beneficial for a company) are not indicative of any sense of knowing what one's doing in the struggle to maintain a successful position in the gaming market, as I've pointed out, and if we're to go with any console manufacturer knowing what they're doing based on past success, Microsoft still aren't the ones to hand that benefit of the doubt award to.

Seems like some people can't avoid doing petty platform wars