Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 2 Architecture Documented, Almost 2004-Launched?
An anonymous reader writes "Over at Xbit Labs, they seem to have new information on the Xbox 2 hardware specs, evidently originating from China, although the date and veracity of the document can't be confirmed. Noteworthy is the inclusion of (3) 3.5GHz CPUs [some say a 3-core CPU?], only 10 MB of dedicated graphics memory, and the undecided comments on whether the hard drive is 'built in'. The high speed bus to the GPU and the small amount of video memory point directly at Microsoft's upcoming DirectX Next, which will supposedly feature virtual graphics memory." Elsewhere, Gamaroo writes "Gamesindustry.biz is reporting that Microsoft originally wanted to release Xbox 2 for Christmas 2004. However, the new system has since slipped from schedule, but the piece claims Microsoft hopes to release the new console in mid-2005, to get ' a full year's head-start on Sony's PS3, and possibly even more'."
Pshaw. Not that they won't exist, but at what prices?
:D
Unless they are *severely* stripped G5s, I wouldn't expect much past 2.5GHz in these things.
Why? Because price, because complexity, because benefits! Now if these aren't 64bit CPUs, but 3 32bit PPC+VMX from IBM... okay, and that would be perfect for IBM to pop into iBooks as well
GPL Deconstructed
There is no way that Microsoft would put three CPUs in a game console because of the dramatically increased cost.
If you did such a thing, then you could have only one coprocessor if you wished. I dunno about G5, never looked at the documentation, but in the G4 altivec was handled via a coprocessor. Or you could eliminate it entirely. In the PS2, a single MIPS core was used as your main CPU, and the vector processors were packaged into the same, well, package, presumably on the same die. That was essentially three CPUs in a single package, though they ran at only ~300MHz.
With all that said, I don't believe that they're going to put one 3.5GHz G5 in there. However, perhaps they're planning for the system to be able to reach such clock rates. I might believe a three-core, ~1.5GHz processor, with faster parts being used later for derivatives of the same system, though I don't see how anything you could do with a game console would take more than three 1.5GHz processors, unless perhaps you were using it as a PVR and doing realtime DVD-resolution (let alone HDTV-resolution) encoding using the CPUs and not some dedicated hardware video codec.
I think that a single 1.5GHz two-core processor is much more likely than any of this shit; Since the processor is know to be coming from IBM it is presumably a fast G4 or some form of G5. Since IBM is all about multiple cores right now (it being perhaps an easier way to increase performance than improving clock speed) it only makes sense that a multiple-core powerpc processor will find its way into Xbox. The question now becomes, how many cores and what clock rate?
Certainly, a random gif from china does not prove anything, but it does provide food for thought. The only problem is, none of these thoughts are going to be particularly original...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The other great thing about more CPU is the NON-GRAPHICS stuff you can do. You can dynamically generate large and complex landscapes, skys, etc. using fractals or other methods. You can have more enemies on screen (think a swarm of hundreds of bees, where each bee has it's own AI, they are not just a clump), or smarter enemies (like in a game like MGS the enemies would only spot you if they would be able to in real life, not just a "guess" at what they could see). You can do per-polygon hit-detection (perfectly accurate shots, no more near misses as hits or vice versa). You can do more advanced AI to better simulate people or animals or whatever. True dynamic 3D sound positioning or use text-to-speech software to give each character an individual and unique voice.
All of that is ignoring how you could use the better CPU power for voice commands or video (ala the eyeToy but better). For games, you can never* have too much CPU, becasue if it's there people will always find new and better ways of using it to make a game better.
*) Sure, Tetris can't really benefit from more CPU (maybe in 2 player), but for most all games more CPU can improve things in some ways.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Couple bullets for the speculative monkeys...
;)
- It's *likely* not 3 CPUs but one CPU with 3 cores (each with it's own L1 cache).
- at 65 nanometers the cpu will cost less to manufacture than even the current 180nm XBOX CPU. (assuming the transistor count is less than 3x)
- 3.5 GHz is a conservative speed for a 65 nanometer CPU. It will still require active cooling (i.e. a fan on the heatsink) but it should be able to run RELATIVELY cool at that speed if the 65nm process tech is good. Note that intel will be running 65nm chips at 5+ Ghz in the same timeframe (2005).
- lastly the dude going on about the virtual graphics memory... I don't know how you figured that had something to do with broadband, but it doesn't. It's a feature of DirectX 10.
This document looks reasonable, albeit old... because MS has likely known their harddisk plan for many months... so if it was a recent doc... it would have finalized the HD info.
Between the super powerful CPU and wicked fast graphics courtesy of ATI's custom R500... both the Xenon and the PS3 will be close enough in technology and performance people should really be choosing the system based on the games. (Cause god knows the price will be the same)
GrandTrain
Wow. From what I've seen, that's a very powerful console. It looks as if the Xbox 2 is shaping up to be just another power-house console, as its predecessor was. Hopefully they can release a good set of games to go with the excellent hardware though.
Maybe we'll be seeing computers and consoles competing once again? Very doubtful, but just remember back when idSoftware wrote Dangerous Dave in Copyright Infringement? That was a work of art, and a large leap in the computer-gaming industry. Since then, computers have down-shifted and took off past consoles... but you never really know when that day will come when they are side by side again. I doubt it will ever come though...
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
HDTV will be a big, big factor.
The prices are coming down fast. Personally, I wish every game played at 1080i- but unfortunately, only a handful (4 I believe) play at that resolution.
I want to see my HDTV do something other than 480p- so the next console better be able to push that resolution, without any problems.
Also, I want everything to load faster, and load bigger. I don't want a 30 second load everytime I use an elevator in Deus Ex: Invisible War.
I want graphics that rival a PC, and not just on day one of the console's release, but after year two would be nice too. The original Xbox was actually a real screamer compared to a lot of PCs when it came out but has since been eclipsed about 4 times over.
Throwing what seems like wayyyy too much hardware at it now, will pay off in the future. Of course, that is always the way it is with every 'computer'.
And if they want to release it a year ahead of Sony, they'll need to attempt parity with Sony's machine that will benefit from the technology being a year older/cheaper.
No reason to lie.