Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
"The Xenon GPU is a custom 500+ MHz graphics processor from ATI. ... Xenon not only supports high-level shading language (HLSL) model 3.0 for vertex and pixel shaders but also includes advanced shader features well beyond model 3.0."
ATI doesn't have (true) Pixel Shader 3.0 development done yet... (if they did I'm sure there'd be an X800 XT Turbo or something) let alone implemented into a processor, even more ridiculous is the "shader features well beyond model 3.0".
Another thing is the technical limitations on have 3 CPUs and 1 GPU sharing the same L2 cache, while technically feasible, it's not a good idea, the bandwidth of the L2 cache would be severely taxed. It would make much more sense to have the smaller L2 cache for each processor. (Even this "locking down into segments" doesn't improve bandwidth...)
a 3 core processor each running at 3.5Ghz is pretty unlikely on a PowerPC based technology... 2.0Ghz probably... 3.0Ghz maybe. And a dual core probably not. But a 3 core... come on...
My money is on some lonely XBox fanboy made it up.
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
we see it. That does sound might impressive but then again the xbox 2 or next or whatever you wanna call it, is how far away? Seriously these specs if even from M$ are probably still speculation to some degree. While next gen consoles (we need a new name for them) will need more power they also need to maintain reasonable prices. Giving it power and making the system cost $600 isn't exactly going to make them sell.
Granted the companies are already losing money on the consoles but you cannot expect it to all be made up for on games. Especially when you are M$ and you have a hard time selling your console outside the US. If they cannot win over console gamers in another country then they will always be playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle behind those boys at Sony and Nintendo.
---
"Friends don't let Friends play FPS's on consoles"
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Normally I don't reply to trolls. But in this case I will make an exception.
GameCube has a pretty powerful GPU, and it CAN do hardware effects. Rebel Strike uses it to great advantage, and does a lot of stuff on hardware. The CPU is used for one HELL of a lot of AI, physics, and all that sort of jazz. I don't know why you would think that all the things Xbox does in hardware would have to be done on software on the GCN. I am not saying that the Xbox can't run Rebel Strike, I am saying that it would push the hardware just as much as it does on GameCube.
Unified memory also means unified bandwidth. Something that I know developers would appreciate more of on the Xbox.
Nintendo is second place worldwide. This is a fact. And I don't see PS2 lacking much western support.
SMT is IBM's name for Hyperthreading, which is probably an Intel patented term.
Yeah, and the rigid memory size is easier for game developers to optimise for. Xbox only has 64MB, PS2 32MB. Gamecube has somewhere inbetween I believe. Certainly much less than the average PC would require to run something similar.
Besides, I doubt they'll be putting workstation class amounts of L2 cache on them, which should allow them to up the clock speeds.
A PC has a very busy and congested memory bus, thus loading all the graphics onto the Graphics card is mro eefficient. To avoid the bottle neck in the memory bus. A console isn't as busy. It's doesn't have to run OS stuff while your playing. since code is miniscule compared to textures/ graphics the memory bus is almost dedicated to graphics. thus instead of having 1/3 of a 166mzh bus, you get 9/10 of a 233mzh bus. Which means you can just jam the textures when you need them.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I don't know the HDTV standard screen resolution but the standard PAL or NTSC out certainly won't be needing that many pixels per frame.
HDTV is either 1280x720 progressive (720p) or 1920x1080 interlaced (1080i). 1920x1080 progressive (1080p) will almost certainly exist at some point, but it isn't part of the current HDTV standard.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
SMY = Simultanious Multi Threading. It is a term that has been around for years. It is not something unique to IBM. All it means is that you can run more then one thread at a time.
Intel's server class processors are called Xeon not Xenon.
Why would 2 or 4 cores be more logical than 3? I mean, I know it feels like it should be a power of two, but I honestly can't think of a good technical reason why 3 isn't just as rational a choice. Doesn't it just come down to a tradeoff between how much power you want, what you can put on a die, and how much it will cost? Maybe 3 is the number that pops out when you optimize for whatever they wanted to optimize for?
The L2 cache thing does seem weird. It's either a garbled or badly worded document, a truly strange design decision, or simply evidence that this whole thing was just fantasy and aren't the real specs at all.