Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the console-upgrades dept.

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."

5 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this kinda pointless? by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If all of the games are designed for the stock hardware, is upgrading really going to make the slightest difference? Who cares about the framerate anyway? NTSC is only 60Hz interlaced refresh. Also, I'm pretty sure I heard about a company in Hong Kong that was already doing this.

  2. Not all that it seems... by sirmikester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While upgrading the processor in an xbox sounds like a great idea, the artice makes it perfectly clear that it doesn't make everything better. I don't know if I could live with only some of my games being faster and with some not working properly. Plus, I think that Xbox live is one of the Xbox's major selling points, so taking that away would really make buying an xbox pointless. But its an interesting modification nonetheless.

    --
    In linux libertas
  3. Not good idea. by polyp2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as this type of thing starts happening, you can kiss goodbye to the concept of consoles as being a set/fixed architecture. Say hello to tweaking your FPS/performance settings a'la PC gaming.. Might as well just buy a PC and stick windows on it because in the long run there aint going to be a lot of difference.

    I dont want to have the inconvenience of sifting through games in a store to check if my console meets the minimum gaming requirements, and neither do a great deal of console gamers. I really dont like the sound of this at all.

    I wonder what the opinion of a game developer would be on this one...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Not good idea. by hawkstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see this ever becoming common.

      First, developers would hate it. The beauty of consoles has always been that you know, as a developer, whether the game will work on everyone's system based on a single data point: whether it works in the exact same console you have sitting in your office. They don't want to have to worry about varying systems, and gamers don't want to have to worry about system specs.

      It is absolutely in the developers best interest to target the lowest common denominator (i.e. the base system) to have the widest market, even if there ever did get to be a significant percentage of people with upgrades in the wild.

      Not only that, it most certainly would void your warranty with MS, so I don't see the average customer ever being interested in it. How many console owners (including XBox owners) are less tech savvy than TiVo owners, and what percentage of TiVos have been upgraded? My guess is that the percent of modded TiVos is actually quite small, and the percentage of modded XBoxes (where the benefit of upgrading is even less apparent) will be even smaller.

    2. Re:Not good idea. by hawkstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Except, of course, that console developers get special Development Kit versions of the consoles, that are more powerful and capable of outputting higher resolutions.

      You're right, I glossed over that point. The development consoles need to be different, at least to handle debug code at close to a reasonable speed. The point still stands, though, that they have a single target, even if intermediate development is on a different platform. 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.

      And even then, I've simplified the picture for PCs. Do we keep using DX8, or switch to DX9 now that it's out? Am I going to have an issue with ATI cards if I use pixel shaders? What glitz can I drop for a slow video card -- can the CPU take over some of that work? How about giving more work to the graphics card for a machine slow CPU? When the game is finished a year from now, what will be the base CPU speed we can allow? Not only do I have to worry about different speed configurations, I need to worry about different brands now, too!

      > Consoles have limited graphics capability (due to the extremely poor resolution of the standard television)

      True, but the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder. You may be able to do less with that resolution, but damnit, you know what that resolution is going to be and you don't have to worry about someone who wants to run at 2048x1440 and someone who wants to run at 640x480! Anyway, that is passing with HDTVs becoming more common. Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).

      > very limited control set (even the Xbox's 4-axis 10 button controller pales in comparison to a mouse with a wheel, and a 102+ keyboard)

      That's true. However, there are many games -- entire genres -- where a mouse+keyboard doesn't make sense. Even so, that is simply another hardware restriction, which makes it easier to handle because there is less variety. You don't have to worry about supporting mouse+kbd and a joystick.

      > That's like saying Children's Books are better for Authors because children have a lower common denominator.

      Not sure I see the analogy. A book for a 2-year old and a book for a 6-year old bear absolutely no resemblance to one another, and trying to make one book (game) to appeal to (work on) all children (configurations) is virtually impossible.