View Full Version : xbox2
Cybermonkey
2004-07-01, 04:00
Just came across this (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=106381) and i dont know whats funnier, the article or the people that believe this. According to the article the xbox2 will contain 3 3.5ghz G5's!! This is going to be the most expensive games console in history.
This is going to be the most loss-leading games console in history.
Fixed that for you.
Cybermonkey
2004-07-01, 05:03
:lol: :lol: :D
alcimedes
2004-07-01, 13:31
supposedly those specs are real. as in they've been confirmed as what the developer kits look like. if this really were to come out, i might have to crack and buy an xbox. i'd never have to use my computer for games any more.
anyway, IBM is supposed to be supplying them with chips, so it could be real.
propellerhead
2004-07-01, 13:50
Apparently the dev kits are heavily modified G5s with software to emulate certain XBox specific functions...
Take with the usual grain of salt...
supposedly those specs are real. as in they've been confirmed as what the developer kits look like. if this really were to come out, i might have to crack and buy an xbox. i'd never have to use my computer for games any more.
anyway, IBM is supposed to be supplying them with chips, so it could be real.
Of course the video cards on computers are vastly superior to any of the consoles. The consoles only have to support the resolution of TV monitors. I'm pretty sure that trend will continue until there is little difference between TV and computer monitor.
Personally, I could care less. l like using my consoles and the resolution doesn't bother me. Plus, it gets me out of the ass-groove I've left in my desk chair and over to the ass-groove that's in the couch... ;)
Humm. . .
I might have to buy one when they port Linux to it. . . .
This will be one powerfull desktop, and for cheap.
LewsTherin
2004-07-01, 15:49
3.5GHz 440s? I don't think so.
Humm. . .
I might have to buy one when they port Linux to it. . . .
This will be one powerfull desktop, and for cheap.
What's the old saying...if it moves you can port linux to it :lol:
Of course the video cards on computers are vastly superior to any of the consoles. The consoles only have to support the resolution of TV monitors. I'm pretty sure that trend will continue until there is little difference between TV and computer monitor.
Personally, I could care less. l like using my consoles and the resolution doesn't bother me. Plus, it gets me out of the ass-groove I've left in my desk chair and over to the ass-groove that's in the couch... ;)
Video cards aren't necessarily worse in consoles than in computers. When the XBox came out in 2001, the GeForce 3 powering it was one of the fastest cards available. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the XBox was selling for less than or equal to the price of the video card at the time. Now, of course, GeForce 3s are cheap, but it's three years later.
Then again, the PS2 has a mere 4 MB of video memory, and the GameCube has some kind of Radeon 7500 variant with maybe 16 MB or 32 MB of video memory. Not quite the graphics powerhouse that an XBox is, but the GameCube is quite a bit more efficient and svelte.
LewsTherin
2004-07-01, 22:20
While I haven't researched it specifically, I read many tech/game news sites. I have seen any of them theorize that the CPU will be based on a 440 core.
SamuraiDL
2004-07-06, 16:41
i just want the return of shenmue!!!
The three cores are IBM 440 based, not 970 based. BIG difference.Have you _any_ evidence on this? You are the first I've seen that have suggested this. I think it'd be _quite_ remarkable for IBM to pump an evolved 440 core 4 times in less two year's time, not so remarkable to take a customized 97x-core to the same frequenzy. Remember that the fastest 440 processor to date (440GX) is a 800 MHz part. 970FX is at 2.5 GHz today and have alot in common with the suggested CPU of the Xbox NeXT.
And I'm not convinced that the 440 core would be as suitable as 970 is. I havn't seen any 440 implementation with that kind of massive memory bandwidth nor AltiVec. The only place I've seen 440 cores in a heavy computation implementation is in the BlueGene/L prototypes, and they achieve this by packing A LOT of them, at quite low frequenzies (500-700 MHz). The Xbox NeXT is nothing like this.
The future for the 900 family _will_ include stuff like multi core and hyperthreading, and I hope, an integrated memory controller. Presto! We have excatly the processor that every Xbox fanboy is drooling over.
The step from a 800 MHz 440 GX to a 3x3.5 GHz massive über processor is just to large. I just can't see it.
futuretheory
2004-07-08, 19:22
whatever it is, if they are selling at a loss and it can take linux and Xgrid... my new render farm is looking good. :D
LewsTherin
2004-07-08, 20:45
The step from a 800 MHz 440 GX to a 3x3.5 GHz massive über processor is just to large. I just can't see it.
I think so too.
Paranoid666au
2004-07-17, 08:28
Well it looks like the xbox 2 will be a dul processor machine.
I have a pritty good idea what the third proccesor will be used for. Emulating the orignal xbox for backwards compatabilty.
The specs might be impressive now, but the xbox 2 won't be out till 2007.
By the way GameCube doesn't have any Radean or ATI technoligy at all. It has an LSI with the graphis designed by ArtX, wich was then later bought out by ATI.
By the way GameCube doesn't have any Radean or ATI technoligy at all. It has an LSI with the graphis designed by ArtX, wich was then later bought out by ATI.
Sorry, you are mistaken. The chip is a 'special' version of a Radeon (7X00). . . ATi was in with it from the start.
http://www.hardwareportal.ru/Multimedia/Inside.gamecube/Gc5a.jpg
Sorry, you are mistaken. The chip is a 'special' version of a Radeon (7X00). . . ATi was in with it from the start.
Paranoid666au is right. ATi only added their name to the chip. It was not deisiged by ATi and it shares nothing with any of their chipsets.
Basically, the deal doesn't anything as far as GameCube hardware concerned. The ArtX chipset has remained intact and will still be delivered exclusively to Nintendo. The only difference is that ATI will also be drawing profits from it.
From here (http://cube.ign.com/articles/083/083749p1.html)
As for the Xbox 2, the graphics are going to be amazing, but graphics does not gameplay make.
Did you read the discussion I cited over at Ars?? Its not my original determination, I just happen to agree with what the industry types over there came up with--after I checked what they were talking about. It pretty much fits despite the boost in speed.
Yeah I did and I agree to some degree that the spec that Xbox-Scene.com (http://www.xbox-scene.com/xbox1data/sep/EplZAyukEVDWcUicJE.php) provided have similarities to 440 especially when looking to instruction issuing. 970 can issue 8 and 440 can issue 2, like the specs are saying.
The 970 is a general purpose processor, which will be dealing with a lot of different tasks simultaneously.
The Xbox 2-processor (Xenon) will be running code that are highly predictable and optimized for this particular platform. As they say over at Ars, gaming code won't need the level of instruction issuing and branch prediction that a general CPU benefit from. There probably won't be a need to issue 8 instructions per cycle just to keep one core busy. There will be 3 cores, issuing 2 instructions each, 6 in total for the CPU.
IMO lengthening the pipes to the degree that they suggest in the Ars thread would transform the core from 440 to something different, it would require a lot more silicon and transform the small and tiny embedded core that 440 once was to something more like the.. 970?
And, the transition is from 130 nm (440GX) to 65 nm, not from 180 nm. A grandios feat! By just reducing 440GX to 90 nm would land it around or slightly above 1 GHz (+25%, like the 970->970FX transition)
Doing a 4x increase in clockspeed by reducing the fab and lengthening the pipelines seems like a bigger feat than to modify the 970 core to just issue 2 instructions per cycle.
It is the the Mac rumor world has jumped on it as a 970 or Power5 or follow on design adaptation, something that would be vert expensive silicon-wise compared to a custom 440+Altivec based solution which is much more fitting for an embedded console chip.
I agree that a three core 970 processor would be quite huge, but it will land in the vicinity of a Prescott processor in transistor count. Since it will be a made in a 65 nm fabrication process it will actually be smaller than a Prescott. A 440 based device would be even small though. I grant you that.
But.. The 970 based Xenon is not just a Mac rumour. There is a fact here that some miss. The dev kits that Microsoft have been issuing are in fact PowerMac G5s, ie 970 based. If the developers were to get acquainted to PowerPC code in general and the 440 core in particular then I guess that a PCI card with something similar to the BlueGene/L-processors (dual core 440) on it would have done nicely. I think that the PowerMac G5 is more similar to the final product though and that's why it was chosen, ie 970 based.
Well well.. this discussion will continue I'm sure :) There are no hard evidence, just speculation and I does bu no means claim superiority over the guys at Ars. The specs that are reported might be wrong even if some Xbox developers say that they seem acurate. We don't know how knolegeable those quoted are though. Everything is up in the air. I still keep my money on something with a 9xx core though.
autodata
2004-07-18, 18:25
As for the Xbox 2, the graphics are going to be amazing, but graphics does not gameplay make.
Plus it forces you into a subscription service, so the graphics get a big, "So what?" IMO. The only way I'll buy another xbox is if all of the good games switch to it AND they stop crippling them to force xbox live on customers.
Are people seriously that cheap about paying for LIVE?
Whatever...miss out on the best console experience in a long time for the sake of anti-capitalist, "everything-for-free-or-else-it-sucks" geek cred....
nowayout11
2004-07-18, 23:10
It doesn't have anything to do with being cheap per se. It simply solidifies the theory of many that console online gaming isn't ready for prime time yet.
LewsTherin
2004-07-19, 00:24
I don't understand. How does having to pay for online gaming make it unready for "prime time"?
It doesn't have anything to do with being cheap per se. It simply solidifies the theory of many that console online gaming isn't ready for prime time yet.
But how? Cripes, the charge is yearly and more than reasonable. It's less than 5 bucks a month. Can't even get a coffee and scone at Starbucks for that.
The whining about XBOX Live! pricing is well into "give me a break" territory.
Let's see, these are kids that pay $200 for sneakers...skip a few Gogurts a week and they can pay for Live!...
Price is a non-issue.
nowayout11
2004-07-19, 03:53
I don't understand. How does having to pay for online gaming make it unready for "prime time"?
I was referring to its lack of success (overall) as an indicator for it being unready for prime time. MS was pumping home for years how the Xbox was built for online gaming, yet they haven't even reached 10% penetration with it. PS2 hasn't done much better either, percentage-wise.
But how? Cripes, the charge is yearly and more than reasonable. It's less than 5 bucks a month. Can't even get a coffee and scone at Starbucks for that.
The whining about XBOX Live! pricing is well into "give me a break" territory.
Let's see, these are kids that pay $200 for sneakers...skip a few Gogurts a week and they can pay for Live!...
Price is a non-issue.
There is also the cost of the Xbox itself, cost of the Live kit, cost of game(s), and monthly cost of the broadband connection. Factor in the total cost to get up and running.
That's not to say I disagree with you, though. To me it is still fairly nominal pricing, even so.
But I don't think it's a "cheapness" factor per se for the majority. Once (If) the technological and monetary hurdles are surpassed, consumers will pay for something if they feel it's worth paying for. If they're not shelling out, then game developers have been unsuccessful in finding that killer app that makes it worthwhile. We may have been easy sells, but for every hardcore type, there are ten casual players that don't know any better.
The "internet" was a major killer app for PCs, so PC-to-internet was very natural once the web took off. Games haven't yet found that special something, because by and large it's simply multiplayer gaming with anonymous people rather than friends sitting next to you. But the market is coming along; it's just going to take more time.
There ARE folks out there that just don't want to pay for it though... and that's an easy attitude to get if they're spoiled with free multiplayer connectivity with PC games. But still I believe many of these folks can be cracked once they're convinced of the tangible value. It's just a matter of time until they get there, but until then, they're also part of the vast majority that remain offline.
PhenixReborn
2004-07-20, 23:18
Just one thing:
Doing a 4x increase in clockspeed by reducing the fab and lengthening the pipelines seems like a bigger feat than to modify the 970 core to just issue 2 instructions per cycle.
Someone is making two assumptions about IBM that need some evidence to back up.
First is that they are going to redesign their 970 masks to issue only 2 instructs / cycle. If you have the 440, which already does that and which has been mass-produced already with a high yield-rate, it is actually easier to scale it down than to alter the design of the 970. The reason is because there is new technology (<1 yr old) using thin-films that allow an IC manufacturer to scale down a mask to a feature size smaller than it was made for by placing a thin film of some material between the mask and the wafer (usually water or some type of clear liquid).
The second assumption is that IBM is shooting for G5 feature sizes (think 90nm features), which isn't necessarily true. By scaling the 440 down a couple of nodes (to 139nm or maybe 110nm), then you can get the speed increase, use old equipment instead of buying new, and use a fab process that works for mass production instead of the struggling 90nm process.
Just because new technology nodes are reached doesn't mean fab companies migrate everything to fab at those levels. In fact, most the older machines go from fabricating computer CPUs to fabbing dedicated microprocessors like what would be used in a game console or other limited-function electronic device.
Anyway, that's what I think.
The second assumption is that IBM is shooting for G5 feature sizes (think 90nm features), which isn't necessarily true. By scaling the 440 down a couple of nodes (to 139nm or maybe 110nm), then you can get the speed increase, use old equipment instead of buying new, and use a fab process that works for mass production instead of the struggling 90nm process.You are absolutely correct! But.. No die shrink I know of would propell the 440 core from 800 MHz to 3.5 GHz. For that to be made IBM would have to do some pretty radical design changes to the 440 core. But not so much for the 970 core, if any.
The specs might be impressive now, but the xbox 2 won't be out till 2007.
:no:
It's really looking like all three next-gen consoles will be released in 2006 (wallet apocolypse!), and if any of them would see a 2005 release date, which is unlikely, it'd be the Xenon (Xbox 2). But not with specs like that...unless Microsoft pulls an, uh, Microsoft on the gaming industry and sells all the hardware at a huge loss, to get everybody to buy a system miles ahead (performance-wise) of the competition, just because they have deep pockets and can afford to lose a ton of dough to monopolize the games industry.
Which would suck.
But yeah, the Xbox will not ship any later than 2006, unless there is some huge catastrophe in Redmond. (Which might be nice. ;)) Coming from a gamer first, and Mac user second.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.