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.'"
Quickest guaranteed way onto /. Games is to claim you have an "authentic" list of Xbox2 stats. I'll believe a list when I see something with a bit more evidence to back up its authenticity than just a couple paragraphs of assorted stats with no clue where they were obtained at. I'd don't want a name, just something to give me a little confidence before I get worked up over the capabilities.
Who came up with the idea of having all of that CPU and GPU power with only 256mb of ram? Many games are already demanding more ram than that while running on systems that are otherwise half of that. For example, many games are now using 1024x1024 textures (or even 2048) which would mean that the XBox would only have enough ram for 256 textures if nothing else was loaded. I know that ram costs a lot now, but I think this could be a fatal mistake, espcially if they expect people to hook the XBox up to a normal monitor or HDTV.
The development kits that Microsoft sent out to developers runs on a modded G5 running a modified NT kernel. I would bet that the dev environment is going to be faster than the actual console, and no current G5 even comes close to what is described....
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.
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.
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...
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?
I'm no engineer but if Apple could only get up to 2.5 GHz in their big as a tank many fan G5 case why should we believe the new XBox is going to be able to house a 3.5+ GHz chip?
And it will sell for only $150! Bwaahaahaa. Seriously guys, this rumor is so implausible it's laughable. Maybe it's just because I've been hearing the same twin-turbo H6 Legacy for under $30K rumor EVERY year...
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
ATI doesn't have PS 3.0+ support in their released products. The work they are doing for MS (and Nintendo) may be well ahead of the X800, and may be the reason PS 3.0 support didn't make it into the X800 itself, if they are concentrating on their console development. The original Xbox also included features that went beyond MS's PC graphics standard at the time (DX8), after all.
You missed part of the parent's point: Given a certain screen resolution, you can quickly compute an upper limit to how much texture information you can keep in physical (that is, non-virtual) memory at once.
From there it's a short trip to see that the volume of RAM is a potential performance bottleneck.
Balanced against that is your point about the OS having a smaller footprint; the high memory *bandwidth*; and the fact that the screen resolution generally *won't* be 1024x1024. 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.
VGA out will be nice, I'm one of those who like the option of getting higher resolution on a smaller screen that's not in the living room (and, thus, less likely to be contended for by significant others, children, etc.). That's assuming that it puts out a smart and/or configurable resolution to VGA out (especially for folks with LCD screens...).
Plus, it's likely to be a lot simpler to hook up to the network connection if it can be in the computer room instead of the living room...
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Over the last week or so, there have been a lot of XBox 2 related stories and now this "leak". I wonder if Microsoft is leaking all of this information to A) keep XBox in the news during a quiet summer and B) get some free advice from the community of interested gamers. Given its PC roots, I'd be willing to guess that XBox gamers are more technically knowledgeable as a group compared to other console gamers. If this is true, then their opinions with respect to XBox 2 specs could be valuable.
Given it's target audience is teenage American boys who enjoy sports games I would guess this is not true. The game library doesn't have much beyond Halo to attract a true geek.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Today in order to survive as a console you need great games, and a large overall library. IE: if MS got something like a GTA4 as an exclusive launch title, that would do far more than just impressive hardware. It's all about the software today, and I will buy a system on the basis of where the great games are.
Dident I read a story the other day about UT2k4 using up 2 gigs of ram.
Memory is cheap now a days thow a gig of ram in the box.
It will look good on paper even if it is not used, or devs can use it as a ram drive.
(Moderators: this is "humor" not "troll")
Isn't humor supposed to be... well, you know, funny?
I seriously doubt that. While it would push the hardware, it would not push it as much as a gamecube (imo, the gamecube actually as a pretty easy time with it, though, i don't see it 'pushing' the gamecube at all. Facts are facts, and the Xbox *does* have more power than the Gamecube, ask any professional/dev/journalist. Hell, go look at Splinter Cell for all three platforms -- while not much, the gamecube version WAS toned down a bit, because the gamecube DID have a slightly harder time with it.
They are both powerful. XBox has a better GPU, Gamecube has a better CPU (while clocked slower, the PowerPPC romps an x86 anyday).
Saying that the Cube had a harder time with Splinter cell is a little misleading however. Clearly it is a port from another system. Ports are usually done hastely: they need to get to market fast. So the developers didn't spend a lot of time optimizing it for the Cube as they could have. When you have the same game ported across all systems, they will obviously not run all the same. The only way to make a fair comparison is if you took the development team, magically cloned them twice and had them develop on all platforms simultaneously.
Whats next? Mac OSX for the x86? (C'mon Apple!)
Just to keep things in perspective, I don't really care how powerful "any" game platform is, console/pc/other. I think we are past the point of the "bit wars", or that is comparing hardware.
Someone should mod this up; it is an excellent point! In the whole history of game-dom, hardware has never been an indicator of a system's success (except maybe once with the PS1, more on that later). The Sega Master System was more advanced than the NES. SNES was more advanced than the Genesis. Hell, the 3DO was more advanced than anything when it first came out. How did those hardware battles turn out? The opposite of the specs. Every time. It all comes down to the software support.
The PS1 was an interesting anomoly in that their system and the Saturn were built to do two different things. Sony caught the gaming industry at a time that it was being wowwed by 3d graphics. Sega chose poorly with their system design focusing on 2D, Sony chose wisely.
That does bring us back to Microsoft and the Xbox2. To be honest, I can't say that I am impressed with their software so far on the Xbox with the last game I played in any detail being Ninja Gaiden and befor that Halo. In fact, this has kept the dust layer thick on that system while my PS2 gets constant play (Jak2, VF4E, Gran Tarismo, Kingdom Hearts, etc). If Microsoft wants to win this next battle, they need to get their software quality to match up with their hardware quality.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
This may have something to do with the new standard. If they make the wireless adapter 802.11g and the demand is for the 802.11n by the time the new XBox is released, they're stuck with an old standard. 10/100 Ethernet has been around forever, but wireless is still developing rapidly. 802.11n will supposedly have between 100Mbps and 320Mbps, which puts it equal to or better than standard ethernet, as well as increased reliability, or so I hear (this is a real problem in my 900MHz and 2.4GHz noisy area).