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'."

Comments

Headstart? Just like sega!

[Captain Rotundo]

THe headstart means nothing without a completely killer app. The dreamcast beat sony by a year and it was twelves months of people saying "I'll wait and see what sony comes out with" not because they couldn't afford more than one system over the year, but because there was no killer that every one had to have (Halo, MGS, Zelda, etc).

What either MS or Nintendo have to do is come out with there systems with some very nice launch or near launch games, and heavily push a good line up. thats the only chance they have in the next round.

Of course I didn't own any of the current gen systems till I got a GameCube back in december, so I really am not the best to comment on console systems :)

Re:Headstart? Just like sega!

[Anonymous Coward]

THe headstart means nothing without a completely killer app. The dreamcast beat sony by a year and it was twelves months of people saying "I'll wait and see what sony comes out with" not because they couldn't afford more than one system over the year, but because there was no killer that every one had to have (Halo, MGS, Zelda, etc).

The dreamcast's US launch went way better than expected - $110M in the first 3 days, retail.

"While one week's sales do not make a system a success, Dreamcast is off to an excellent start,"

- Ed Roth, president of NPD Leisure Activities
September, 1999

And software sales (or piracy for that matter) were not why the dreamcast failed - Sega would not have dropped it to go exclusively into the software biz if that were the case. Nope, Dreamcast failed for one simple reason - Sega launched it while the company was in debt. No console can be sustained without massive cash reserves, not in a market where multinational corporations are competing. Sony and Microsoft can afford to sell their consoles at a loss. So can Nintendo, to a lesser degree. Sega, post-Saturn, could not.

Xbox 2 will do just fine, because Microsoft is backing it. Microsoft is not Sega. That is the crucial difference.

Re:Headstart? Just like sega!

[MBCook]

The difference is MS could afford to launch the console at some special price (say $200, or $300 but that includes one game) for only 6 months. That would get them tons of sales (WAY ahead of current consoles, and cheaper than the PS3 should be) which could get them off to the head start they need. This combined with a few killer games at launch (with only Halo, MS struggled with the X-Box) and they could get a MAJOR foothold in the market and force Sony to fight them all the way. Microsoft can afford to take a large hit upfront for profit later, while Sega had to try to stay proffitable (or as close as possible) the whole time.

When entering a new market MS can learn VERY fast. Don't underestimate them with this next launch, this could be where they try to move from trailing Sony and Nintendo to moving into the left lane and FLOORING IT to win.

Re:Headstart? Just like sega!

[MMaestro]

Don't underestimate them with this next launch, this could be where they try to move from trailing Sony and Nintendo to moving into the left lane and FLOORING IT to win.

If MS tried to do that Sony would just hit the speed booster on the stage and Nintendo would just switch drivers to hit whoever's in the lead with red turtle shells.

Re:3.5GHz by this Christmas? By next year?

[NanoGator]

"Unless they are *severely* stripped G5s, I wouldn't expect much past 2.5GHz in these things."

It's hard to say. Microsoft might be willing to take an embarrasing loss on these systems just to beat Sony to market. They're a big enough company, they'll risk it. It'd either reallly pay off or really be a huge loss. Hard to say. Frankly, I'm not sure that Sony's being first to market was everything to their success. Afterall, Dreamcast beat them there, and graphically it wasn't substantially inferior to the PS2. They were still eclipsed pretty fast.

I'm putting my money on "no".

[silentbobdp]

Now, I know MS has been eating a loss, but the things that are being talked about for this thing are ridiculous.

They are not going to put 3 3.5ghz G5s in there. Not unless they want it to be the size of a tower to fit stuff in there to cool it.

The things people believe these days are really amusing.

Re:I'm putting my money on "no".

[drinkypoo]

I don't read the diagram the way you do. All three blocks labeled "CPU" are in the same box. In my book, that makes it a three-core CPU. That still sounds expensive but not nearly as expensive as three CPUs.

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...

it could be real, but who knows?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

He's calling....from INSIDE THE HOUSE!

[superultra]

This stuff is so outlandish I'm inclined to believe there's a javascript random rumor generator floating around the web that kicks in for the month preceding E3. It almost always begins with some kind of information from a Japanese developer or, in this case, a "Chinese BBS." It's the classic beginning to an urban legend. It's Asian, so it holds an air of reputability. At the same time, fewer people can just start researching this like we collectively did with the "Infinium Urban Legend." They have a picture, and in a community that orgasms a Doom III screenshot every three months, visuals are everything. Plus, people can comment on it and sound like they know what the hell they're talking about, as if they themselves worked on the machine.

Just to get this out the way so we don't take up anymore of Slashdot's not-so-precious bandwidth: Microsoft will announce that the Xbox2 will be released this year, will have a clock speed of 16ghz, and will be supported by ATI, IBM, and McDonald's. It will both have a hard drive, and not have a hard drive. Not only that, but they will be releasing Halo 1.5 within weeks following E3, and Halo 2 will be pushed back to the Xbox 2. Also, Microsoft will buying at least three major developers, not the least of which are Bioware, Valve, Blizzard, and Sega. And Nintendo. And maybe Sony. And probably Microsoft, if they're feeling particularly moody. These are all true, because a Thai website (Http://www.thaixxxmassage.com) posted it a few days ago after Bill Gates stopped by. Actually, it was Bill Gates' gardner. Or at least his friend. Relative of. The friend. Who lives in Thailand.