Real Xbox Next Specs Leaked?

maaaaac writes "Looks like Xbox-Scene might have been sent a copy of the alleged specs for Xenon, aka Xbox Next [Spong.com has a slightly longer version of the document, apparently from Microsoft's Xbox Advanced Technology Group.] Interesting tidbits -- CPU: A 3-core (on one die) 3.5+ GHz IBM PowerPC processor w/SMT and 1MB L2 (accessible by the GPU, no less); GPU: 500+ MHz DirectX 9.0+ part from ATI, 96 shader ops per clock cycle, 4+ gigapixels/sec, 500+ million triangles/sec, 10MB EDRAM; RAM: 256+ MB of unified memory with 22.4+ GB/sec bandwidth (EDRAM has 32 GB/sec); Misc: all audio done on the CPU, 10/100 Ethernet (no wireless?), USB 2.0, VGA out (!), 12x DVD, undecided on HD but definitely as an option, at least, and what I think is one of the better improvements, 'The Xenon console will be smaller than the Xbox console.'"

Comments

If anyone mods this troll up i will KILL THEM.

[Recoil_42]

Actually, most Xbox fans I have seen have just said that the Xbox is the most powerful without qualifying that in any way. Just looking at the specs and seeing higher numbers does NOT denote more power. GameCube is more powerful in some ways, and even PS2 is more powerful in a few areas.

That's quite true, but its also like saying that a buick has a better air conditioner than a porsche. In other words, yes, the GC and PS2 do have more power in *some aspects*, but the Xbox more than makes up for it in every other category.

Now I am going to make myself look sort of like a hypocrite by not qualifying my statement in detail, but I will say that GameCube has more efficiency going for it than the Xbox could ever hope for, and THAT is where GameCube's true power lies. For a real world example, compare Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike with Halo 2. Rebel Strike pushes an insane number of polys and does it with pretty much every effect imaginable. Halo 2 pushes about half that. Granted, the frame rate will probably be better in Halo 2, but my point is that the consoles really. do. stand on even ground. At least that's what developers for the consoles say (Factor 5 most notably), and I tend to trust them more than fans anyways.

You acre correct in saying that the GC is much more efficient with it's power, much less bottlenecks, for example, but you seem to think that immediately makes it more powerful than an Xbox. Polys != total power. Halo 2 uses less polies, but there is a reason for that -- all the effects are applied up the wazoo. bump mapping, dynamic lighting, etc. ad infinitum are just applied in spades to Halo 2, and as a result, everything looks better. The Xbox would have no trouble with Rebel Strike 3, because it would not be forced to use that extra processing power for effects, and rather use it all on polys.

As for the specs in the article, I have to say that it's looking like quite a machine. Unified Memory being the one exception of course. It seems that MS still hasn't learned their lesson...

Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Unified memory has been stated over and over to be a huge advantage for the Xbox, because it is much more flexible, and developers can choose to apply the memory where they need it, rather than being constrained by each component's limits.


But really, I think that the days of scaling up the hardware to make a better game are about over. What really counts is what games Microsoft will have on the console. Can they win over the Japanese developers? Can they take over Sony's spot in the lead this time? Or are they just going to be playing second fiddle to Nintendo again?

The Xbox's strength isnt Japanese games/developers, it's western games/developers, and arguably, it doesnt need Japanese games/developers to win on the world market. As for playing second fiddle to Nintendo, that is highly arguable, as the two consoles are pretty much neck-and-neck, each claiming to have a lead in sales.

So shove it, fanboy.