Does Moore's Law equat to Consoles?

No.

I'm not seeing it. I see old tech being used more often and for longer.

Advancements in tech for consoles seems to have come to a stand still.

The next console will be nothing more than tech from a few years ago, but a little smaller and with less power consuption and heat.

We have gotten revisions. My Xbox 360 now is better than the version I got earlier.

Don't consoles loosely follow a five year cycle? And couldn't "view poll results" fall under "other"?

I said no because I thought it had to due with an issue of scale. Not to mention the fact these consoles are probably really expensive to create too.

Nope - why build games for a platform that may flop when you have an established eco system which your engineers understand already?

Which may be why Sony is buying studios perhaps?

@Video_Game_King said:

Don't consoles loosely follow a five year cycle? And couldn't "view poll results" fall under "other"?

This video game cycle changes everything. View Poll Results has become a habit of mine. I forgot the e in equate, so this poll sucks. I now hate it.

Sort of. The frequency is lower, but the curve is similar. The poly counts in games is enough to prove that. Dreamcast to Xbox, Xbox to Xbox 360, etc. THing is, the PC is usually the pushing factor in console upgrades, so once the PC hits that breaking point, it'll happen. Things have been a bit dampened by the PC not being as aggressively developed, but I think it fits, if not snugly, even for consoles. Also, after a very long ass time, saying that the next actual step up will be the same is just silly. 8 gigs of ram today costs like 50 bucks. That was far from the case when the 360 launched. The GPU in that thing was like, 500mhz/650mhz. The only reason games look as good as they do today is because of pure optimization. But the next consoles, being at least 2 years off, maybe more, there will be a very very large step up. Moores's law doesn't pertain too much to any specific product line and frequency. As long as it has moved along the same line with the next upgrade, then it'll be true. Certainly has been in the past. Remember, the Vita is coming with a quad core CPU.

Yes, it certainly does. The problem is, most people have no idea what Moore's Law is. It does not guarantee what you think it guarantees...

wait, I just reread your post. You're talking about revisions? Seriously? You want an entirely new hardware iteration every year? are you insane? That's the exact opposite of what a console is. A console is a stable development environment. A console is a monetary investment that is guaranteed to be current for five years or more. If you want a system that literally doubles in transistors ever two years, what you need is a PC and very well-paying job.

My question to you? Why would it not. Consoles use processors just like pc's do, in fact anything that uses a processor is affected by Moore's Law. All moore's law says really is that processors will get smaller and smaller as time goes on, and more powerful. However, there is a limit to the number of processors that can be fit into a space and so we end up with multiple cores, and eventually there will be 3d transistors and such. This is a crude rendering of Moore's law but what it means for consoles is that, yes, eventually consoles will need to use processors that have been adapted to the fact that Moore's law may not be relevant anymore as we reach a specific threshold. If it uses a processor, it is affect by Moore's law. In fact, most technology is affected by it. For more on this topic:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21605

Moore's Law has to do with the amount of transistors that can be integrated into a circuit board, it has nothing to do with the life cycles of consoles, so no.

Moore's Law applies to the components that could potentially make up a new console, not the console itself.

@Moonshadow101 said:

Yes, it certainly does. The problem is, most people have no idea what Moore's Law is. It does not guarantee what you think it guarantees...

wait, I just reread your post. You're talking about revisions? Seriously? You want an entirely new hardware iteration every year? are you insane? That's the exact opposite of what a console is. A console is a stable development environment. A console is a monetary investment that is guaranteed to be current for five years or more. If you want a system that literally doubles in transistors ever two years, what you need is a PC and very well-paying job.

Revisions were in, but they're so 2010. Now it's cut costs, longer lifespan.

What if...the world economy is slow to grow. Everyone suffers, the next gen of consoles don't sell as well. Shareholders are angry because they don't see an increase in profits, but only small profits being gained.

A strange world if you can't buy the newest and best even though Moore's Law still stands strong.

@Claude: You can never not buy the newest and best. Again, it's called a PC.

If console manufacturers decide en-mass to throw out the graphics arms race and focus on more substantial features, then I have nothing to offer them but thanks.

I say yes since the PS3 fatty doesn't use the same chips as the PS3 slim. This is only possible with moores law in which they found a way to have the same processing power in a much smaller compact design.

Strictly speaking, I have no idea. Moore's Law is actually about how many transistors you can fit on a chip, which has consistently doubled about every eighteen to twenty-four months. People have since morphed this observation into "performance/power doubles every two years", which is not necessarily the same thing.

That said, consoles adhere to a different measure. One of moderate improvements, while keeping within a very cheap commodity component selection. Of course, cheap tech should improve at about the same pace as everything else, so . . .

According to Moore's Law (as people use it; not the actual 'law"), if a console came out in 2013, it would have to be 1600% more powerful than the existing consoles and that seems like it would be a stretch, to me. I really wonder how consoles are going to maintain in the long haul, because eventually people are going to upgrade from current HD televisions (1080p) to the already launching 4k televisions (I believe that's 4,096x1,900?) and current consoles are already chugging along to maintain 720p. (Yes, I know we wouldn't be seeing 4k televisions widespread in home use for another decade or so, but that's only one or two console cycles from now).

What I'd really like to see is console makers get over the "we have to be as cheap as a toaster" hangup. I pay $65 for a game. I pay $50 for a fucking online subscription. I think that, over a period of five or more years, I can afford more than a measly $300 for a console. I mean, for fuck's sake, I upgrade my video card every year or two and that's double the price of a console each time. I'm not saying consoles should be $2,500, but I'd sure as fuck be willing to spend $600 or $900 for something that is going to be more robust. While I'm die-hard PC, I completely enjoy consoles, too, and it really bums me out that when it comes to the console world, you're stuck at the lowest-common-denominator experience (while, on PC, you can throw as much or little power as your mind or wallet can cope with).

@Claude:

RollingZeppelin said:

Moore's Law has to do with the amount of transistors that can be integrated into a circuit board, it has nothing to do with the life cycles of consoles, so no.

Moore's Law applies to the components that could potentially make up a new console, not the console itself.

Yea your logic is a bit flawed. The law is for overall technology, not individual companies or sub sections of the computer industry. Regardless of that, it still takes time for the cutting edge tech to come down in price to even be feasible in putting in a console. So Zep if very much correct.

@Branthog:

Yeah, $600 worked out super well for the PS3...

i say no, not anymore. video games are staying because of the technology is staying.

@RollingZeppelin said:

Moore's Law has to do with the amount of transistors that can be integrated into a circuit board, it has nothing to do with the life cycles of consoles, so no.

Moore's Law applies to the components that could potentially make up a new console, not the console itself.

This.

As for consoles lasting longer, sure. I'm hating this more now because I can run games better than the consoles at higher resolutions on my pc. I want new consoles.

This is a skewed question, Unc. I don't think you correctly understand what "Moore's Law" is. Anyway, in the far flung future, computers, including consoles, will finally be able to harness the awe inspiringly immense processing ability of what scientists now call "Nano Processors" ( we don't even know how they work!), and, I imagine they will have developed a means to grow "bio-circuits" by then, thus eliminating the hurdle that's known as "Moore's Law".

Correction: I meant Quantum Processors, not Nano Processors.

Moore's Law has to do with the amount of transistors that can be integrated into a circuit board, it has nothing to do with the life cycles of consoles, so no.

Moore's Law applies to the components that could potentially make up a new console, not the console itself.

This thread needs Sir Patrick Moore reviewing sweets to bring sense to it.

View poll results is pretty rad.

While Moore's Law is relevant anyway, I suspect as console makers start introducing revisions earlier and earlier in their console's lifespans (re: Nintendo, Apple), Moore's Law will become more apparent in said consoles.

Moore's Law is about transistor count (and by extension manufacturing process). An easy example here, the Xenon has a shitload more transistors than the 733mhz Celeron in the Xbox 1 (~170m vs ~30m). It's also a much smaller process, obviously.

Moore's Law has nothing to do with hardware lifespans. What are you people talking about?

Moore's law does not equate to consoles or will in the future in any major way due to the fact games are not a simply processing task to create. As the console have become more powerful we have seen development costs increase greatly due to the extra work needed to take advantage of the processing power. And very soon it will become a zero sum game of releasing expensive new consoles for only incrementally better graphics.

Moore's Law dictates only that the technology can exist, it says NOTHING about whether or not companies choose to use that technology in mainstream consoles or to use something that presents a cheaper, more value friendly alternative.