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.'"
And you can also use it to heat a two-story house!
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.
If that's the real specs for this thing I'll just buy one of them and run *nix and never buy a "real" computer againg. Long Live products that don't have to make a profit.
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.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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....
"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
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?
As far as the size of the box, I dont think that is an issue for me, personally. The xbox looks about the size of a stereo component, and I find it looks nice on an entertainment center. Unless you are carrying it around (why? its not a DS or PSP or GBA), size is the least important factor to me.
Actually...I would rather have a larger box the remains cooler than a small box that has a potential to run really hot.
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."
It also features a cold-fusion power supply, egg beater, clothes washer, monopole magnet, a 50" plasma display, and platinum coated interconnects.
Seriously, I'm skeptical of these specs, as MS's supposed objective is to lose LESS money per unit sold.
For great justice.
I guess Microsoft is enjoying getting the extra $80-$100 they are charging for the wireless adapter for the current Xbox. Where it would be really, really nice to have as an included feature, I can see where MS are trying to way the bottom line, although arguably by including it they could boost Xbox Live acceptance. In any event, I've been curious as to whether the current wireless adapter would likely work with future incarnations of the Xbox. (and if there are any other practical, cheaper wireless solutions outside of the linksys game adapter?)
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.
Actually, I think they should make it *bigger* with a flat top. And a longer A/V cable. And cupholders (the DVD drive doesn't count :P). And maybe a magazine rack on the side.
Hey, it's not like I'm gonna waste good video game money on a real coffee table.
With no HD it should be a big improvement but my Xbox is wayyy too loud when the disk is chattering away and the DVD is spinning.
It's even louder than my (modded with extra fan) Tivo which is right next to it in the entertainment center.
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.
Now the N64 didn't need much ram because all the textures were stored on the cart and could be accessed VERY fast. Now since MS is using some fancy expensive fast EVDRAM (or something), putting a gig in (which I think would be ideal, and probably not that expensive a year or two from now when this thing comes out), they could make due with only 256. They should just make a ramdrive out of standard DDR ram or something like that! It's dirt cheap, and it could lose it's contents when power is removed. But it would be a fantastic place to store textures and such. You'd use it as a cache (not actual memory). That way you could preload all your textures for the level into this cache. When they move from one part of the level to another, instead of having to load the textures off a CD or HD (which you have to have big advanced warning for due to latency and such), you copy them out of this RAM cache which would be very VERY fast (relative to HD/DVD).
The X-Box did something like this using a partition on the hard drive, why not do it in cheap memory. You could precache sound and textures and models and stuff and have them all at near instant access times without having to buy a gig of ultra-fast-proprietary-no-one-else-uses-it-so-it's -really-expensive RAM.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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.
You forget its a console not a PC. Less ram is made up for with a monster memory bandwidth. This means that they can just demand the textures as their used instead of caching everyone for the next 4 scenes in mem. The ps2 messed up because the video ram was smaller then the textures required ina scene but having a very large cache defeats the purpose of havign a large pipe to jam them through.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Have you seen DDR RAM prices lately? Microsoft is trying to cut way down on the price for the new XBox. There's no easy solution for Microsoft because the need for lots of RAM isn't compatible with their need for high resolution gaming.
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.
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."
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.
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
"Troll" is still the moderation option closest to "Not remotely funny."
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm seeing a lot of incredulous posts regarding the ability of Microsoft/IBM's ability to put three cores on a die, etc. feasibly for power and/or cost reasons. However, IBM develops a number of lines of PowerPC family processors, not just those for Apple and RS-6000 workstations. My understanding is that these cores are some sort of hybrid between 4xx and 7xx (G) series processor cores. The 4xx cores are low power devices (with set-top box, printer, router applications) and are already in multi-core chips. I imagine that with a stripped down 7xx core and some of the low power features, the brains of Xenon will not melt the unit or break the banks of those poor, struggling artists at Microsoft.
Thinking of starting a business in Minnesota? Me too! mnsmall.biz
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.....
Lets go oevr an example:
....
....
PC:
Slice1: OS
slice2: Load game from hd
slice3: initialize game
slice4: OS
slice5: network monitoring
slice6: switch back to game
Each context switch requires a refresh form main memory and a huge huge penalty in regaurds to the predictive branching algorithm for cpu pipelining. the context switches occur often, and each time the memory bus must be ustilized to refresh the cache and resupply the pipeline.
Console (Xbox et al)
slice1: load game frm DVd
slice2: Rungame
little to no context switching and the biggest thing on the bus is graphics. It doesn't have any context switching and thus the memory bus is almost dedicated to the GPU, since instructiosn are about 1/100 the size of textures.
As for jaming everything, a PC graphics card know it has a small and busy bus to get it's textures, so it grabs as much as it can when the pipe is available and stores it in the video ram. While a console GPU knows the bus won't be very busy and it can grab the textures when ever. Theres a big big difference in memory bandwidth. Peak bandwidth for the highest rated DDR is theoretically 3.2 gb/s Reference. While a PS2 has a theoetical memory bandwidth of 3.2 gb per second Reference. The xbox has a bandwidth of 6.4 gb/s Reference. Now for the PC it divides this bandwidth between every device that is on the memory bus, the GPU/CPU/carious controllers and the device bus. The Xbox/PS2 dedicates it to GPU/cpu. A Pc GPU has maybe 10% of the memory bus to itself, 0.32 gigs/s while a PS2/Xbox GPU has essentially the whole bus. A scene in NTSC of PAL will never require 3.2 gigs of textures every second. But a 1260x1024 res monitor will require more then 0.32gigs/s of textures thus the high ram sizes of graphics cards.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
After some investigation I think it is fake. And my reasoning has nothing to do with the specs, etc. In the supposed "leaked document" the author, Pete Isenee, uses the letter 's' in spelling 'maximise' (second bullet point under "Hardware Goals".) That is not the way that word is spelled in the United Sates. It is spelled 'maximize'. The British use 's' where we use 'z'.
I found the guy's personal web site here:
http://www.tantalon.com/pete.htm
On that page he spells a similar word, 'optimize', with a 'z' and not a 's'. There would be consistency in the way he used 's' or 'z'. It looks to me that this was faked by someone in Britain.
You're forgetting that Nintendo is harping that very same line and if Sony falls that doesn't automatically make Microsoft the king of consoles. Nintendo is planning to make the big change that will save the japanese market and they seem to hope their next console can do that.
Besides, not only japanese people buy japanese games. I have a console just because certain games don't appear on the PC and those certain games are mostly japanese. With XNA the number of western console exclusive titles will go down further, meaning I'll be able to play those games on my PC. If Sony and Nintendo don't get a single western game that's no loss for me since I have my PC.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
it's appropriate: can you imagine a fecking beowulf cluster of these?