Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox

Posted by CowboyNeal on Monday February 9, 2004 @04:41AM 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."

13 of 64 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:so whats the deal. by hawkstone · 2004-02-09 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative

Here are correct links:

FriendTech
The FriendTech DreamX XBox project
Isn't this kinda pointless? by PedanticSpellingTrol · 2004-02-09 04:46 · 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.
Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-09 04:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Will this void your X-Box warranty?
Re:so by AKnightCowboy · 2004-02-09 04:54 · Score: 5, Funny

so when are we going to see some consoles with 1MB level1 cache? that would totally improve performance, more than upping processor speeds
And put in a better processor! How about an AMD Athlon 64 FX-51? Up the paltry 10 gig drive to a 72GB WD SATA Raptor... granted all this is gonna get pretty hot so it'd need a bigger case and some more fans. Oh, let's not forget a good modern video card.. maybe an NVidia GeForce FX 5900. Get rid of the goofy controller though while we're at it and repace it with a nice keyboard and trackball. Also, it should run the full version of Windows XP Pro. I wish someone would make a version of the X-Box with those specs. I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
Re:so by philthedrill · 2004-02-09 05:00 · Score: 5, Informative

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).
Not all that it seems... by sirmikester · 2004-02-09 05:00 · 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
Not good idea. by polyp2000 · 2004-02-09 05:07 · 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 · 2004-02-09 05:15 · 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 Lightwarrior · 2004-02-09 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  > 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
  
  --
  Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
  World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
3. Re:Not good idea. by hawkstone · 2004-02-09 06:43 · 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.
I'm curious by ooby · 2004-02-09 05:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Has anyone ever been sued into existence?
1. Re:I'm curious by rmull · 2004-02-09 06:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think SCO is trying.
  
  --
  See you, space cowboy...
But then again by DumbWhiteGuy777 · 2004-02-09 08:16 · Score: 5, Funny

72GB WD SATA Raptor ~$100

NVidia GeForce FX 5900 ~$300

AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 ~$750

Making your little brother cry until he wets his pants because you owned him at Halo on your suped-up Xbox - Priceless