Xbox 720 Specs: Eight-core CPU, 8 GB RAM, Windows 8 Kernel?

Microsoft Xbox 720 could have an eight-core CPU, according to new leaks.

This latest rumour is via BD, who posts regularly on TGFC, which is a Chinese forum. What’s special about him? Well, he is an ex-Ubisoft employee, and claims to know all information about the Xbox 720, including the RAM, and plenty of other stuff.

According to him, the Xbox 720 will have an eight-core CPU, and an 8800 series GPU. This also fits in with our previous report where we mentioned that the Xbox 720 could be running on a AMD HD 8000M graphics card.

It is also said that Microsoft will be using Windows 8 kernel for the system, which is pretty straightforward, as they have been pushing it a lot. He said that it will have 8 GB memory and a 640 GB hard drive.

Treat this with a grain of salt obviously, as nothing is confirmed yet. However, these are times when insiders can leak out information for a variety of reasons. E3 2013 will be held on June 13, so not long to go before Microsoft finally unveils the system to the world.

What are your thoughts on this rumour?

  • Earl Cameron

    too high…

    • Kevin Mercado

      please do tell , why you think it’s high.

      • Earl Cameron

        8gb memory(my estimate is 4gb), amd 8000 series gfx(so soon, they already have dev kits out my guess is and 6000 series based) and 640gb hdd(at most a 160gb)

        • Daniel Lawson

          It would be more important to look at the cost of the plates in the HDD… it’s likely that 640gb HDD would not be SSD… and Ram isn’t really expensive…

    • Bigliam morgaan

      Why is it too high ? Are you having a laugh ! This console has too last for years unlike a pc , your talking crap .

  • Ana Helušić

    never gonna happen

    • Kevin Mercado

      Why will it not happen.

  • Kevin Mercado

    Me personally thing it can happen be it a long shot, then again this is ms the are looking to change their company mission or venture if you will.

  • DarthDiggler

    Who makes a 640GB Hard Drive? The smallest you can find is about a 500GB and the next one up from there is a 1TB.

    • Jackolantern


      • Shagohod

        Correct you are. But just ignore him. He’s one of those N4Gtard paupertrolls.

    • dirkradke

      Found plenty of SSD and standard 3.5 inch hard drives for sale that has less than 500GB of storage on I didn’t have to go to more than 1 website to find this information. Although it does appear that 500GB is the low-end sweet spot for most manufacturers.

    • Daniel Lawson

      it’s not off the shell components… you’re most likely looking at Microsoft purchasing the plates for the HDD and assembling them in a proprietary box…

    • yogi

      640GB used to be a pretty common HD size sold by Western Digital, Samsung, Hitachi, etc. etc. it just got phased out as the platter sizes increased.

  • TwiggiePantz

    Sounds nice for the console’s future, though… Unfortunately, this is a last year’s hi-end system at most. As most power builders know, anything too hi-end on a little block will self cook, so I doubt this will be the power system everyone is waiting for.

    All I can ask/hope for and expect from this upcoming next-gen consoles is to run natively at 1080 with locked 60fps (no reason not too), tired of up-scaled resolutions and 20fps fights.
    As a note, yes I do favor PC gaming for many reasons, but consoles have a lot of fun In their offerings (why we love them so much ^_^), ps3 is a good example when it comes to finding good unique games.

    • d0x360

      I don’t recall many games that run at 20fps. Some multi platform games dip into the low 20s on PS3 but none average less than 30 in a modern game.

      • Jackolantern

        Some? Jesus nearly all multiplatform games are inferior in some way on the PS3.

        • d0x360

          Well yes I know but look at my user name! Everyone assumes its because I’m in love with the xbox despite the fact that this was my screen name on AOL in 1995. I gotta tread softly lol

    • 80s_gamer

      Why do people keep going on about 1080 native and 60 frames per second. Do people not understand its all relative. ita always going to be a compromise. ~If any developer runs a game at that setup, then another developer can make a game look visually more appealing running at 30 fps as its only using half the frame rate.

      If on the other hand you want this gen graphics at 1080 native and 60fps then i dont think your asking for anything more than expected.

  • d0x360

    I don’t really under the skeptics. This hardware needs to power games for at least 6 years so it needs muscle. Also keep in mind when the 360 launched its gpu was a generation ahead of anything on pc. It debuted unified shaders.

    • sniperxx

      @dox360 –

      It’s simple really – $$… You realize that a ‘current gen’ quad core i7 is 290 dollars. a ‘current get’ GTX 680 is $500 dollars. So, right off the bat, we are talking 800 dollars and we havnt even touched the motherboard, memory or hard drive. Thats why these rumors are rediculous. If you want the system for 400 dollars – your gunna get a crappy last gen system as far as current PC standards go.

      • d0x360

        Not true. Microsoft gets prices we don’t on account of many factors. First off when we buy hardware we pay not only for the actual hardware and building it but also for the years of r&d it took to bring that to market. With a console in this case Microsoft owns alot of the design and patents for the hardware and then another company builds it. These r&d costs are absorbed by them for quite some time.

        This isn’t a pc graphics card that’s designed to sell for an year and be replaced. We are talking 5± years of sales. R&d costs can be spread out over those years. Also consider games licensing helps pay for this as well.

        Next up is quality of hardware and pricing. The price of high end hardware is lessened for us the consumer when we buy a console because Microsoft sells that hardware at a steep loss for the first year. After about a year hardware yields go up and costs to build them go down. Also shrinking chip size means lower costs and further high volume lowers it. As the hardware ages its no longer high tech this again its cheaper to build. After 2 years they start making profit on the hardware. This profit margin can be large and more than makes up for selling at a loss to begin with.

        By the end this complex machine has been simplified down to SOC levels just like the current xbox is now.

        So yea they can easily sell high tech hardware beyond anything now for $400-600 even if it’s costing them $1000 to build the box. They make their money back in the long term through hardware revisions, game sales and accessories. You need to think big picture here.

        I’ll also repeat volume. If you pay say $500 for the latest gpu then Microsoft is probably paying $100 for the same thing because unlike you they are buying 5 million of them right off the bat.

        • sniperxx

          lol – well, it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. No skin off my back – but tried to help you lower your expectation – how about this? I heard the next xbox will have 12 cores, and a tri-sli setup for video cards. its possible, MS gets prices the consumer doesnt.

          • d0x360

            Seriously? I have no idea what I’m talking. About? I’ve provided a couple basic facts and past histories proving my point. What is your opinion based off other than the fact that YOU cant buy something for a certain price. Hell the next xbox could cost Microsoft $3000 to build and if they wanted they could sell it for $500. That’s my point.

            Also I never said it would have that hardware. I have no idea what hardware it will have. What I’m saying and im 100% correct in this statement is that if Microsoft wanted to put 20 cores and 20 gigs of ram and it for $400 they certainty can.

            Fact is developers dictate hardware. Microsoft drafts specs based on where things will be in the future then developers make suggestions based on where they think it’s going.

            An acceptable loss on hardware is around $400 or double the selling price at launch. That’s how all hardware with the exception of the game cube and Wii have been sold and it will continue to be that way because the boxes need to be semi future proofed.

            Basic video game history proves everything I said so im not really clear on how you can disagree and tell me that I’m wrong.

        • brendy

          d0x360, is 100% correct. I believe the PS3 and Xbox 360 cost somewhere around $700-900 to manufacture per console, yet they sold for well below those prices. Everything he said is accurate, and you don’t know what you are talking about sniperxx. The graphics need to be at least current gen or next gen at the time of release. This isn’t retarded nintendo. These are the titans of the console industry. These have to be able to support games for 10 years without being out of date as far as hardware goes on day 1.

      • d0x360

        Oh and look back to the 360. When it launched it was beating pc games graphic wise for a year and a half due to the gpu. Unified shaders were a leap and Microsoft did it first and did it well. Look at far cry 3. It looks amazing on xbox. Its because they ditched all the api and coded right to the hardware. Show me a pc with a 7 year old gpu and half a gig of ram that can come. Anywhere close to that quality. Hell show me a 3 year old gpu in a system with half a gig of ram and ill eat my Wii

        • sniperxx

          ROFL – ok, wow you CLEARLY have no idea what you are talking about.

        • yogi

          No, as soon as it launched there were more powerful PC components available. Whether or not people chose to code for those components is a different question, so yes the more optimised code got released on the 360. From a straight benchmarking perspective you’d be wrong though.

        • HisDivineOrder

          Except the Xbox 360 also came with considerably underwhelming CPU and memory performance. The only thing incredible about the 360 at its release was its GPU and it was so amazing it caused nearly all the launch units to fail within a year due to overheating and poor QA.

          I don’t think MS intends to repeat that mistake this time, so I expect a much more conservative console that aggressively pushes the Xbox platform as more than just games. You don’t need much muscle to push games into 1080p realm (right now, the 360 does most of its games at sub-720p and then uses hardware scaling tricks to scale it to 720p) and keep about the same level of graphical fidelity with regards to effects, shadowing, physics, etc.

          Why do you think Epic made such a loud bit of noise about Unreal Engine 4 and how it demanded all this performance? Because they saw the Xbox and PS successor and were underwhelmed. They tried to put the emphasis back onto MS and Sony to get performance up higher.

          Let’s also not forget the 360 was low on memory even back in the day. So to tell me that MS is going to release a console later this year that includes a decent amount of memory, high end CPU, high end GPU for a price that would actually sell in a market increasingly dominated by iPad and iPhone gaming…

          Well, it sounds far fetched. What you’ll likely see is a custom APU by AMD that includes 8 GB DDR3/4 shared with the CPU at an overclocked beyond 1600mhz speed, which will be considerably less performance than what a discrete Radeon would be capable of.

          They may even go back to their wheelhouse and pull a 360, putting some high speed RAM on there next to the GPU to give it a bit of a boost, but it wouldn’t be much RAM if they did that.

          I can’t imagine MS wants to go much higher than $300 for their next console. They don’t have time for a slow progression down in price like they did this last time when they basically owned the market for all the time Sony was giving it away with a $599 console. This time, they have Apple and the iOS market encroaching on their territory. This time, they face a company that is actually bigger than MS and whose focus could switch REALLY fast to gaming with Jobs being gone (Jobs being a perennial hater of games) and with so much money being in games as a source of app sales.

          For the first time in a long, long time, MS faces a company with deeper pockets. MS needs to keep the next Xbox an impulse buy and something people want to buy a lot of. In order to do that, it must not be $400-$500. But it’s also such a huge risk/gambit (consider how much money they lost on the 1 billion warranty boost) and they can’t afford mistakes or missteps that lead to tons of money lost with little software sales to help pay for the thing.

          So they have to sell it around cost or perhaps a little above. Which means it must cost (figured with R&D) to make what they charge to sell it for. Or less. The old model of losing tons of money on the hardware to sell the razor blades isn’t going to work IF Apple is busy selling everyone $1-5 games and everyone’s just using their new Xbox to watch 24 on Netflix.

    • Gnet

      The main reason is that microsoft and sony both sold at a loss last gen and it didn’t do them much good (in terms of overall profit) whereas the wii sold for a profit and sold loads. Add to that the fact that the global financial situation is pretty weak. Microsoft are going to have to sell their next console in around the 300-400 bracket and they’re not going to be as inclined to sell at a loss this time around. Also to get a noticeable (or more a marketable) difference the jump would have to be quite high and it would all have to be very expensive. As others have said aswell if you get too high then the system just becomes too hot. Factor in sony and nintendo who have not/will not release big hardware leaps (sony just don’t have the money to do that right now) and the emphasis of microsoft on kinect and creating a multimedia experience and I doubt that microsoft would care much about hugely beefed up specs.

      • d0x360

        Yes they both sold at a loss and they will again. First off ms can eat those costs every day all day even if Sony can’t. Second by year 3 Microsoft was making a good profit on EVERY xbox sold. By the time the slim rolled out they were making really good profit on the hardware. Selling a $400 console that’s obsolete in a year is bad business and they know it. Nintendo is going to learn that lesson this time around. It worked last time only because motion controls were oh wow new… They aren’t anymore. A low resolution non multi touch tablet controller also isn’t appealing to core gamers as much as they wanted and the casual gamer doesn’t care about it either. If they want a tablet experience they buy a tablet. Nintendo made a mistake this time. Will it totally fail? Hell no. I’ll buy one for Zelda and metroid when they come out but 3rd parties will not make enough money and support will dwindle like it did on game cube.

      • d0x360

        Heat isn’t so much an issue anymore since chips have become so small and use lower voltage you can fit bigger heat sink in the same size box. 28nm chip sets will run just fine without heat being an issue.

        • yogi

          It’s the GPU heat that’s probably more likely to be a problem rather than the processor heat. I’d expect more likely a downclocked 8850 AMD card or a relatively close to stock 8770 AMD card.

      • Soj

        300-400 what? £, $ or €?

    • sniperxx

      Everyone should keep things in context here – for as much crap as everyone gives the Wii for being a ‘casual’ gaming system – consoles were developed and made for the casual audience for people that couldnt afford a gaming PC. The same is true today – consoles are casual gaming experiences – your not buying the next console to last the next 6 years – your buying a crappy old PC that can run games on minimum settings for the cheapest price possible. At least Nintendo can admit that and focus their efforts elsewhere.

      • d0x360

        $500 for a console designed to last 6-10 years is cheap. People are used to paying higher prices now thanks to modern consoles, smartphones, tablets and hdtv’s. Back in the 80s when mes launched it was equivalent to about $400 today

        • sniperxx

          exactly, for 500 dollars, your not going to get a 8 core processor and a current gen video card. that is the point.

          • d0x360

            Yes you will because IT WILL BE SOLD AT A LOSS.

            Back when the 360 launched you couldn’t get a triple core cpu and a high end graphics card for $400 yet they were both in the 360. Hell the cpu alone would have cost $900 retail BUT because ms owned design patents, did their own r&d and bought BULK they paid less than you or I could ever dream and still despite that they were losing money on every box sold for almost 2 years. MS has of money. Their yearly r&d budget alone is $9 billion… Billion! Despite that they still make massive profits every quarter. They could give everyone an xbox and still not break a sweat.

          • sniperxx

            yes you could!! the tri core and gpu that was in the xbox they were selling at the time WAS NOT CURRENT GEN, it was already old and outdated by PC standards – your not even comparing apples to apples. This is the point – unless the xbox 720 comes out selling a GTX 680/780 – its already a slower spec then ‘current gen’. And this article speculates a mobile GPU, which puts this at 1/4 the power EVEN IF it were true.

          • d0x360

            A triple core 3ghz gpu was most certainly not out dated when the xbox 360 launched. Back then even dual core was just hitting mainstream pricing. Jesus man go Don some research lol. And again the gpu in the 360 when it launched was A GENERATION AHEAD OF ANYTHING IN A PC. All the info you need is on Wikipedia please i beg of you before you tell me how wrong I am PLEASE check some basic facts and perhaps get a better understanding on how business works. Please.

          • bucky1965

            If that’s the case, then explain why the 360 can only do 1900×500 resolution. most games in 720p upscaled to 1080p. P.C.’s could do 2500×1600 res. long before the 360 was even launched. Consoles are a generation BEHIND at launch. Quad core CPU’s were launched the same year plus the next gen GPU’s were out. They do not use chips that are in current production for P.C’s for many reasons. And the chips they do use. are detuned (without all the details) to keep the keep the power consumption down. If your going to quote Wiki. check launch dates of ALL chipsets.

          • d0x360

            Oh my god dude the 360 is 7 years old! I don’t need to explain anything. Look, when nes launched it did things the pc couldn’t in games So right there you are wrong and thats the first truly mainstream console.

            The 360 was pushing out prettier games than pc at a higher frame rate for quite a while after launch due to the gpu.

            Let’s end it on this. A game console is a specialized device. It doesn’t have the overhead a pc has. It doesn’t have to worry about drivers and a million different hardware configurations. That means with lower spec hardware you can get better results. Just in the last 2 years has pc really started to pull ahead.

            Seriously man go do a little research. You are wrong plain and simple. The facts are everywhere just go read. Read about hardware and how it works. Read about api versus directly coding to hardware. Read about how gpus actually work. Read about os kernels read about memory architecture and bandwidth bottlenecks. Maybe then you will understand.

            I know nobody likes to be wrong and if you look at all this at face value price versus price then what you’re saying makes sense. Except it’s a deeper issue than that and far more complex because prices aren’t retail for a manufacturer and they don’t need to break even when they sell a console and even if the next generation specs were lower than a high end pc it could still produce better visuals and performance.

            Seriously I beg of you go read up because while I love a good discussion and or a good civil argument, i dont like it when someone just ignores the truth and the fact when they are so easy to find.

            Its obvious this stuff interests you and that’s awesome.

          • d0x360

            Intel first retail quad core cpu was released in 2007 btw. Ahem

          • JDLFC

            c0x360, your are correct. I won’t pretend to be an expert on chips, processors, etc but when the 360 came out it was definitely more powerful than any PC on the market at the time. I read a LOT of gaming magazines around that time because I was excited about the 360 coming out and all of the experts, computer programmers, etc that these magazines interviewed were saying the 360 was the most powerful machine to play games on at the time. Of course it got overtaken in raw power in time by the PS3 and PC. If Microsoft do something similar as Nintendo next generation and release an underpowered machine that just makes me go ‘meh’, then I for one won’t be buying it. They need to wow me if they want my money.

          • d0x360

            Its not necessarily a question of more power. Its a question of design and how that design is efficiently used. There is no direct way to compare even the 360 and ps3 because they are so different. The ps3 had a much better cpu but it has a weak gpu and memory architecture issues but at the same time the cells unique yet complex architecture help bridge some of that divide. By the same token a dedicated gaming machine doesn’t need to match a pc spec for spec to achieve similar results. That’s why it’s very very important to understand how the hardware works and why seemingly trivial things like kernel footprint matter. Another important thing is how good are the development tools. You could have a system that’s just insane powerful but if it has subpar api or bad documentation it could produce nothing more than a system with 1/4 its power.

          • JDLFC

            What you’re saying seems sensible to me mate. I bought all three consoles and as most gamers accept, although the PS3 is more powerful on paper, very few developers are able to demonstrate this additional power with the 360 often making cross platform games run smoother. Of course there are exceptions to the rule like Naughty Dog who seem to know how to get the best out of the PS3. From what I understand the 360 is easier to program for as it has architecture similar to a PC whereas the PC is more complex.

          • d0x360

            Yes using Microsoft developed tools the 360 is really easy to make games for. The problem with that is those tools can’t push the system because they use apis and add overhead. That’s why halo 4 and far cry 3 look do damn good. They are coded at the hardware level which is more complex but gives shocking levels of performance and thats exactly what naughty dog does on ps3.

            The reason multi platform titles are usually inferior on PS3 is due to an couple things. First and foremost is the gpu and badly design memory system. Splitting the ram was a mistake Sony won’t make again. The other issue is Sony designed api (think direct x or open gl) just aren’t the same quality as Microsoft apis. That makes perfect sense since ms is a software company. However again as naughty dog has shown if you’re willing to dig into what the PS3 has to offer you can achieve stunning results. Results you will never see from and engine like unreal.

          • yogi

            Well at the time the 360 launched I already owned a quad core CPU… soooo…………

      • dirkradke

        The games are also better designed because they don’t have to allow for all the variables a PC might have as peripherals. It isn’t just cost to the consumer, but to the publishers and developers as well. A dedicated console keeps costs down even if the console is considered expensive to the individual consumer.

  • dirkradke

    Let us hope someone besides Microsoft designs the next X-Box. That way they can possibly avoid the embarrassing teething problems.

    • d0x360

      The issue was IBM designed the cpu and wanted to design the cooling system. They wanted to use liquid cooling until they could shrink the chip set down but ms deemed it to expensive. It would add about $30 to every unit so they designed fans and heat sink in house. They worked just fine but unfortunately the under side of the motherboard had no cooling so it warped

      • Daniel Lawson

        nothing a little extra soder didn’t fix

        • d0x360

          Or a nice warm towel lol

      • dirkradke

        Yes and Microsoft should have let them. An extra $30 per box is nothing compared to the loss of the 360’s reputation and prestige. If Microsoft thought that would have made the 360 too expensive and ate the $30 extra per box it would only cost an additional $33 million vs. the $1 billion they spent to fix the problem.

        • d0x360

          Hindsight is 20/20. Microsoft never imagined that the issue would come up the way it did. Unfortunately testing wouldn’t have shown the issue because it didn’t start to appear until months and months of use which was months and months of the motherboard flexing and eventually popping its solder points. They should be commended for fixing the issue and extending warranties by 3 years. Quite honestly most companies couldn’t have afforded that kind of loss. It sucks that it happened for gamers and ms but at least they fixed it. Being without your console for a couple weeks was rough but we all survived.

          • dirkradke

            I agree. In this case Microsoft wouldn’t have needed hindsight if they would have listened to IBM. Ironically, I’m sure IBM is kicking themselves for not listening to Bill Gates about putting an operating system on every computer in America in 1980’s. That O.S. eventually became known of course as Windows.

          • d0x360

            I’m sure IBM is kicking themselves even harder over how they licensed DOS lol. Without that deal which was awesome for Microsoft in terms of control and revenue who knows where we would be. Speaking of Microsoft and money… Somehow despite constantly giving money away and being retired Bill Gates managed to become richer this past year. What I wouldn’t give to have his bank account for a day.

  • LoConde

    I think It will be impossible with that configuration, it’s just too much heat for a home console and it would be very expensive over 600, I think more on a Ivy bridge Intel i7 based quad core (like they did with the 360) and a Nvidia 580 (customized but portable based) would be enough for 5 years and easily selled under 400 with enough power to beat easily all the competitors.

  • yassy

    Aint happening. That’d be way expensive.

  • Bigliam morgaan

    Why wouldn’t it be true the man is not going to lie about something if he has been working on the dev kit or on the console computer itself why would he?


    look this cant be true if this is the new xbox then the were looking at a 500-600 pound xbox do you guys even know hoe much that graphics

    • Daniel Lawson

      I don’t know about how much AMD APUs cost in the UK, but here across the pond they’re less then half the price of their Intel counter parts… 8 core CPU runs around 200 USD at retail


    look this cant be true if this is were the new xbox were looking at would be a 500-600 pound xbox do you guys even know how much that graphics is alone ,no? well nether do i because its not out yet but i can gues with a lot of confidence the graphics card alone will be in excess of 400 £,if a 15 year old can figure that out i dont know the people behind this couldn’t . im not bias because i would love this to be the new xbox more than anyone

    • Joshua-tree Thornton

      are you a troll? Chances are this is going to be an APU, to not only to save space and keep heat down, but to also keep within power requirements. And considering amd just announced their new APU lineup with an 8400(coincidence?) series igp, i’d say it’s damn likely. 200$ is the average price of AMD’s best apu and microsoft would get a discount. At 120$ for the apu, 100$ for hdd(being liberal) and 100$ for most of the other parts combined, you’re looking at 350$ cost. And since the 360 stated at 699, i’d say a 200% profit is achievable. Don’t talk about shit you have no idea, kid.

      • yogi

        The article specifically mentions an 8800 series AMD card… which is NOT an 8400 and likely will cost more than 400 pounds. So his point is correct as he’s replying directly to the article. If it is the 8400 APU version that makes SO much more sense than this article. Therefore you should be agreeing with him and instead saying the article got it wrong and it’s going to be an APU which means it won’t be an expensive card.

      • Russell Gorall

        You should take your own advice.

  • Daniel Lawson

    Xbox used a NT4 kernel and the 360 used some variant of the 2000 kernel… the Windows 8 kernel is actually really small

  • bucky1965

    8 core is possible (counting virtual cores).8000M ? weak. is meant for notebooks still won’t do 1920 x1080 at high settings. Still an improvement over the 360, not by much.

  • Nadeem Khan

    640 GB hard drive :P

    I expect 1 TB at least and 16 GB RAM at least !

    • Russell Gorall

      Are you joking about the 16GB?

  • k4s

    scary pc fanboys :)

  • ninja

    Why the hell are people quoting prices of intel CPUs? It won’t be an intel CPU and 8 cores will really mean 4 cores.

  • razzoo

    To all the people thinking how much each part costs. MS dont care they make it back in licensing. this thing could easy cost 2k for the initial release and just like all technology it will become cheaper to make. Sony made a loss on the PS3 at the start. Some people dont have a clue.

  • Luke

    Hopefully it’s software fits its purpose which in the gaming industry is to create the most realistic graphics with the least lag/FPS for the gamer to enjoy or do whatever they do

  • gawdzilla90

    This rumour is just OTT…
    First of all, Microsoft are just pushing for a console that will have the capacity that will end up unused… The reason why games consoles have lower specs than PC’s because games consoles are designed for playing games on at a cheap price, something that Microsoft and Sony have forgotten… Consoles don’t need 8GB RAM, or a 4GHz CPU, consoles need great games where the consumer wants to have fun and doesn’t have to worry about upgrading specs or constant graphics modifying! It’s the sole reason why the Wii sold well, it was cheap and everyone had fun with it… despite it being underpowered!
    Soon, consoles will be pushed to the point where consoles won’t exist because it’ll be more logical and cheaper to buy a PC!

  • blaster man


    05-19-2005, 09:05 AM

    the problem is gonna be the costs for both the consoles and the games.

    cos these next gen consoles are total entertainment packages many times
    faster than todays pc’s, either the prices of these consoles is gonna be
    in the $1,000-2,000 price range….or, they are worth only 500-700
    dollars each which will end up forcing the standard price of current and
    future pc’s down by a lot. Even apple will have to worry and lower its
    prices for its household computers.

  • Julia Robert

    Thanks for sharing this nice post. Windows 8 is Microsoft’s next generation operating system and Windows 8 features are easy to use for desktops, laptops and tablets users.

  • Russell Gorall

    It is their current gen operating system. None of the tablet use of “boxes” can really translate to console operation with a controller or voice control.

    The current 360 UI is the definition of this.