Slashdot Mirror
Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox
An anonymous reader writes "A stock Microsoft Xbox has a 733 MHz Intel CPU with 128KB L2 cache. On Valentine's Day, Friendtech will launch the DreamX-1480, a modified Xbox with a 1.48 GHz Tualatin-core CPU with 256KB L2 cache, promising better framerates and more stable network gaming. FiringSquad has the review."
Here are correct links:
FriendTech
The FriendTech DreamX XBox project
You won't see 1 MB L1 caches, at least not in the forseeable future. The reason there is a memory hierarchy is to reduce access time due to address decoding and (especially) wire delays while keeping costs low since cache is expensive in terms of transistors... 1 MB is simply too large for the L1 to have a reasonable access time. L1 is performance critical, so a large L1 could hurt performance more than it helps, regardless of the hit rate. Plus, if you plan on implementing multiple processors (Xbox Next?), it may be a good idea to have inclusion (where data in L1 is guaranteed to also reside in L2) to shield the L1 from remote probe requests. This in turn means that your L2 should be much larger than your L1 (or else your L2 really doesn't serve much of a purpose).
This story is a dupe.
because it's crappily made(it raises the system realtime clock to 2x too? stupid stupid stupid, but i guess the cheapest and easiest way to get the 1.48ghz.) it just makes it a pain in the ass apart from the cache increase.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
> Even with three consoles, three targets is an easier thing to deal with than, say, 5 video cards speeds X 5 cpu speeds = 25 "speed" configurations.
...the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder.
...[fewer controls is] simply another hardware restriction, which makes it easier to handle because there is less variety.
Except the three consoles have vastly dissimilar architecture. Coding for a PS2 != GCN != Xbox. And once you make an Xbox version, there's not much stopping a developer from jumping to the PC. Coding for different _types_ of hardware requirements (CPU speeds, graphic cards) is significantly different than coding for entirely different hardware.
> And even then, I've simplified the picture for PCs.
You paint a much bleaker picture than is actually the case. DX8 code is forward compatible with DX9, and DX has gotten significantly more cleaned up over the years. It's much easier to support _additional_ functionality now, including detecting the capabilities of the graphics card and offloading anything that it can do in hardware off from DX's software.
It's as easy as coding for a baseline - like picking a target console - and then adding additional effects as you see fit.
>
We're looking at the same thing from different angles. The number of pixels you can display information on in 480i is _significantly_ lower than the number of available pixels in 1600x1200. PCs are able to present a much, much higher quality image - with the baseline of 480i, you have the additional headache of trying to present your image in an extremely limited environment.
Regardless, the number of pixels available is only part of the problem. The other part is the limited hardware - how many polys with different effects you can display, and how good they look. There's also multisampling (AA), which consoles have only barely scratched the surface of (Xbox supports 2xAA).
> Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).
The PS2 & GCN support 480p, the Xbox supports 480p, 720p, and 1080i. There are very, very few games that support 1080i (3?), and a mere handful that supports 720p (10?). HDTV is not even remotely standard, and that is highly unlikely to change in the immediate future. I think that if the next round of consoles assumes HDTV will be standard, that they are in for a rude surprise.
>
Except fewer controls means that it is more difficult to require certain tasks of the user. FPSes are a great example of a really rough transition onto consoles. With the Xbox and Halo, your traditionally button-pressing right thumb is stuck on the right thumbstick, halving the number of buttons available to you. The PS2 has four shoulder buttons, so it's _slightly_ better. Still, 4-6 non-movement buttons for a FPS?
And don't even start with RTSes.
More options does not equal more restrictions - it's the opposite. And since functionality is often duplicated amongst the multiple control types (mouse, keyboard, joystick), we're not talking about huge amounts of effort. Shoot = mouse_1, joy_1, Ctrl.
> Not sure I see the [Children's Books] analogy.
I'm saying that targeting a simpler audience doesn't necessarily make it easier for the targeter to tell a really great story. We have books for adults as well as kids because adults have different, more complex tastes. I'm not reading Green Eggs and Ham in my spare time.
Developing games for a console has its own problems, quirks, and issues. It's not as simple as "consoles have set hardware, therefore it's easier". That's just one tiny part of the whole picture.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
Which, you know, completely explains why Xboxes sold today have "Made in China" on them, and my controller S models say "Made in Malaysia".
The idiots that say that "US company" crap to you, or anyone else, have no real clue.
The Xbox was NEVER made in the US. Originally there were 2 plants, one in Hungary and one in MEXICO, neither of which is the US. Soon after, though, the Hungarian plant closed down, and was moved to China. AFAIK, the Mexican factory was also shut down to have all current Xboxes made in China (but, I could be wrong on the Mexican factory part).
So, when you hear idiots say that the Xbox is made in the US, please ask them where in the US China is, or where in the US the country of Mexico is located.