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."

Comments

so

[cft]

so when are we going to see some consoles with 1MB level1 cache? that would totally improve performance, more than upping processor speeds

Re:Not good idea.

[Lightwarrior]

> 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.

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

I'm sure they have access to the "normal" consoles as well, but it's an important distinction to make.

I always thought the "consoles are better for developers because it's a single target" was specious reasoning. Not only do the majority of games come out for multiple platforms, but they have several built-in limitations that are impossible to get around without forcing the player to spend more money (Final Fantasy:Crystal Chronicles, for an example). Consoles have limited graphics capability (due to the extremely poor resolution of the standard television) and a 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), as well as a nonexistant mod base.

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

-lw

Why don't you soup up your Yugo?

[IV-Swamp]

The average /. reader (with the exception of the mac people) knows his rubber booties from his rambus and I am assuming has a PC. So do we really need to upgrade an xBox? I have an xbox and think its groovy but I would rather spend time and geld trickin' out my PC and plugging it into my TVs DVI input. Faster machine, better online play and no credit card rape from xbox live. Come on, from $50 for a year to fiddy a month!? I guess BG needs a new pair of gold plated shoes. My god but I am rambling. I apologize.

Re:Not good idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

As a developer, I know your statement is absolutely wrong.

The Xbox development kits have double the memory of a retail machine (128MB, but this can be turned off so that the machine only sees 64MB) - and a SCSI interface that enables emulation of a DVD-ROM disk on a host PC (so that loading off a disk can be tested). CPU and graphics chipset are absolutely identical to the retail machines. FYI, there are also Xbox "debug kits" that have double the but no SCSI interface.

The Gamecube development kits also have a custom SCSI interface and 48MB of main memory (instead of 24MB) - but everything else is the same as retail hardware.

The Playstation 2 development kits are an odd beast - they have 3 machines in one box, but the Playstation 2 is basicly identical to the retail ones.

The only way these development consoles can output higher resolution is in terms of memory taken up by framebuffers (besides the PS2 kit having a 15-pin VGA monitor plug on the back next to the S-video and composite out). For example, Doing 1080i HDTV is a lot easier on the Xbox when you have a 128MB development kit and you need 8MB just for the front and back video buffers. But that's not something you'd want to make the game do if you can't ship that feature (because it takes up too much memory.)

Debug executables - well, they just run slowly. With fixed time-step code (assuming a locked 30Hz / 60Hz retail framerate) - that's what you want to use to debug the game anyway.