Slashdot Mirror


Updated CPU For 360 Next Year

Next Generation reports that Microsoft has already lined up a new CPU for their next-gen console. Production with the new chip should begin next year. From the article: "Singapore-based Chartered has been a supplier of less-advanced 90nm SOI CPU products since the Xbox 360 console launch. By implementing the newer 65nm SOI technology, the system's transistors will retain less charge, allowing the microprocessor to operate faster."

124 comments

  1. Faster or cooler by Ahnteis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Consoles don't usually change their cpu speed, but it will probably run cooler.

    1. Re:Faster or cooler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'd expect to see the Turbo button on the console soon.<joke>

    2. Re:Faster or cooler by wed128 · · Score: 1

      Oh how i miss the turbo button of yore...until PC manufacturers realised people just left it on all the time.

    3. Re:Faster or cooler by hector_uk · · Score: 1

      i recon M$ will release a 1080p capable HDMI 360 with HD-DVD, it needs HDMI for HDCP and if it has HDMI it has to really do 1080p thus needs cpu brunt to do games in 1080p. i think i'll buy annother 360 to take to uni.

    4. Re:Faster or cooler by zxnos · · Score: 1

      you must have been really good at frogger, cause man, that timer would run out in about 5 seconds with the turbo button on...

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    5. Re:Faster or cooler by wpanderson · · Score: 1

      A have and have-not culture in the console world is a dangerous thing; look how badly the Jaguar CD failed, or the Mega 32X. Microsoft are already playing with fire by shipping Xboxen with and without hard drives. Do they really need to add pressure by shipping them with different optical drives? Imagine the first publisher to release an HD DVD only title, and then the shrieking of everyone with a regular DVD Xbox360 ...

      --
      neuro at well dot com (when I post, it's my opinions, no-one elses)
  2. Upgrades all round! by Threni · · Score: 1

    Unless you're happy playing the older, slower games. Or will games not be allowed to take advantage of the new high speed?

  3. Not faster -- cooler and cheaper by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By reducing the number of failed starts, the cost of each chip falls. By reducing the amount of silicon involved, power demands fall. Both of those reduce the cost of the console.

    1. Re:Not faster -- cooler and cheaper by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Xbox 360 does a series of tests at every startup & will reduce RAM or CPU (I can't remember which) clock speeds until the system passes the test.

      Or something like that.

      I remember commenting on the 90nm --> 65nm design when the Xbox360 first came out. It makes sense to wait for the gen 2 hardware that has a cooler CPU and the bugs worked out.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Not faster -- cooler and cheaper by Traiklin · · Score: 1

      yet in the end it won't.

      Microsoft could make the system for $50 and still charge everyone $399.99 just like Sony would or Nintendo would.

    3. Re:Not faster -- cooler and cheaper by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      First, Microsoft is aiming for market segment right now. They're willing to take a hit to get more people on their systems.

      Second, all companies in this industry make their money off of game liscensing fees. If they can make a minor profit on the console that's just icing on the cake (but they will take a loss on it if necessary).

      If MS could afford to build these things for $50, you can bet there would be $100 Xbox 360's on the shelves.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  4. Well why not... by MBraynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you can get a cheaper processor that uses less energy and install it into your console even though you've already shipped a million or so, why not?

    1. Re:Well why not... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Two good reasons why not

      1)Any bugs in the new processor could break existing apps. And a console can't patch them.
      2)Console games are typically optimized for the hardware. Some games may break due to timing changes of a faster processor.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Well why not... by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Why assume any bugs?

      And I don't think it would break timing of anything. It's just technically slightly faster - the real key is the chip is cheaper to fab.

    3. Re:Well why not... by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Because there's *always* bugs. Just like in software. I don't know any chip more complicated than an 8 bit microcontroller that doesn't have an errata page on it. Chips are complicated things.

      And it can break timing (not will, but can). THe idea of a console is that it never changes hardware. Some devs take advantage of that, and assume things will happen in time. If they don't, we'll get glitches or breaks in games. This one isn't an "it will happen", but an "it can happen". THe first is something that will happen at some point.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:Well why not... by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Well said.
      More to your point, assume the original processor had some bug / undocumented feature / behaviour that was mistakenly used (i.e conceptual bug) in some game, but works fine on the older chip. The new chip might change something minor like allowing instructions X and Y to run in parallel when they previously weren't, and then the software bug rears its head and crash.

      When you have software that needs to work and cannot be changed later, you quite surely test it as thoroughly as possible. So if you do even a small change that you're sure won't make a difference, you MUST test it again because you don't know what butterfly effect this might have.

      For example function f(x) works correctly for 0x100 but is supposed to work for 0x1000. Even if in your testing, x was never outside that interval, changing a number might just throw it off and bang you're down.

      --
      ^_^
    5. Re:Well why not... by smallfries · · Score: 1

      The GP is completely wrong. The advantage of a console for a games developer is one standard configuration. They rely on this to squeeze as much out of the platform as necessary, which is pretty much your second point. And as others have pointed out they may use less energy but that is just a side effect.

      Decreasing the feature size will increase the yield, and so the cost per chip will drop. This is the primary reason for the reduction. Your first point isn't technically wrong, just very unlikely. The behavioural specification for the chip will be the same as the unreduced one - so there will be no new bugs unless there is a side-effect from the change in size. Chip companies tend to hold off on reducing feature sizes until they've worked the kinks (ie side-effects) out of the fabrication process.

      This reduction is not like going from a PIII -> PIV, the design of the chip is the same. It's just the unerlying fabrication technology that differs.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  5. Prediction by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1, Troll

    This thread will include a debate over whether there are 360s available yet. Testimonials will be provided on how many stores they went to in their town, and the terms FUD and shill will be used.

    1. Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, a giant fish on stilts will start singing the Lithuanian national anthem.

  6. too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel sorry for all those people paying lots of money to get the first 360's, just so they can get replaced by newer, better hardware a year later.

    1. Re:too bad... by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      That happens all the time for anything tech-related. The only thing that gets worse and more expensive with time is gasoline!

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
  7. At least I have a real first name, J Allard by pin0chet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So I was an early adopter, now I have to pay the price, watching as other gamers soon obtain the same console for the same price (presumably), but with a cooler processor that could even boost game performance. (speculation by TFA) This sort of yearly one-upsmanship is to be expected of other console manufacturers (There's this "one company" who releases enhanced versions of basically the same product at least once a year, but the name of the company slips my mind...) When the original Xbox was released and MS cut the price aggressively after a few months, they gave "credits" to early adopters who paid full price shortly after launch. Hopefully MS again recognizes its hardcore fans who acquired the 360 early in the production cycle will expect some sort of compensation for their willingness to purchase a console with apparent heat/performance issues.

    1. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. Part of the reason why folks should think twice about doing business with Microsoft. I'm not saying this in some idealistic Linux zealot type way, but just from my own personal experience and beliefs. Microsoft is 100% about making money and 0% about actually delivering a product that does what *you* want it to. They intentionally cripple their software and features like requiring MCE for Xbox 360-PC interaction, etc.

      They have no real strategy or vision beyond "make money." They will do whatever it takes too, if tomorrow Microsoft learned that Barbie sales were up 4000% and that was the hot market then MS would be out everywhere stating how they had designed the Xbox 360 just for Barbie! and market that to death while alienating the core users who they had originally marketed to with no concerns.

      There aren't many idealistic companies left who actually put the customer and their core market first... sure many claim they do, but in reality it is harder and harder to find. No one likes to buy a fairly expensive product only to find that in a few months it is inferior to a "new" version and leaves them out in the cold.

      I have no respect for their business and I do my best to not support that type of company.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    2. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hopefully MS again recognizes its hardcore fans who acquired the 360 early in the production cycle

      Absolutely. All technology companies recognize you. You're referred to in product meetings as "suckers". There are two possible scenarios here. One, you're a young adult or new graduate who's fairly new to high end consumerism. Two, you're an early adopter because it's worth it to you. In the first scenario, you might learn from this and not be so eager to adopt next time but you'll be replaced by the next wave of new consumers so no one cares. In the latter case you've been burned before and you'll be burned again, because you love being the first to get the hot new toy too much to quit. In this case you're also irrelevant.

      Getting the picture?

    3. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by Frag-A-Muffin · · Score: 1


      Hopefully MS again recognizes its hardcore fans who acquired the 360 early in the production cycle will expect some sort of compensation for their willingness to purchase a console with apparent heat/performance issues.


      In other words, you want to be paid (instead of paying for) to be a Beta tester? :)

      --

      AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
    4. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by antime · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're acting as if this is the first time in history that a console's hardware has been tweaked. Sony were constantly improving the PS1 and PS2 (eg. the CPU and video processor were combined into one chip), there's a myriad of variations of the Saturn, the Megadrive went through three redesigns etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the 360 would undergo the same process.

    5. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Happens all the time in the PC world. Technology improves, and you get better hardware at the same price. Or maybe the manufacturer cuts prices because the competition has better stuff to offer than last year.

      Why should consoles be different?

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What the hell are you talking about? First, in relation to this thread... how is it any concern of yours that the next gen hardware is cheaper and runs cooler. Its perfectly reasonable to think that as time passes and technology improves, prices will drop and the units will improve. Should everyone who bought a PS2 five years ago kick and scream and demand a refund from Sony now that they're half the size and $129?


      I don't know why you seem to think that the 360 is intentionally crippled. You mention that the 360 requires MCE for PC interaction - untrue. The 360 requires MCE for MCE interation, which really makes sense when you think about it. The 360 can connect to any Windows XP machine and share videos, photos and music if you install the free Windows Media Connect addon onto XP off of Windows Update. It just can't play back live recorded television, because Windows XP without MCE doesn't have that capability.


      I honestly believe the 360 is a solid, solid product. I imagine future versions will eventually run cooler, run quieter and at a lower price point. That's a good thing. It means the company is continuing to improve their product. But games are rated against the original 360, so there will not be games that next year's 360 can play that this year's can't. Any new capabilities to the software or Live will be distributed to new and old 360's alike, and if new hardware capability is built into the console, peripherals will be made available to bring those capabilities to the people who have already bought one.

    7. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what the hell I'm talking about: Quake 4. Runs like a slideshow at times, not quite the steady 60fps MS claimed. I have a feeling that part of this move is to get a better running CPU.

      If you truly buy into this being just a "update" to make it cooler and cheaper, then your view is understood... but if you honestly believe that then you have been drinking the kool-aid.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    8. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      No, the point of the new CPU manufacturing process is to get the system cooler and cheaper. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a retard.

      The PS2 went through nine similar revisions, before the slim PStwo was released. Hell, later Xboxes got 10gb drives instead of the original 8gb drives, so what did Microsoft do? They disabled the extra 2gb so early adopters wouldn't feel cheated.

    9. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Hopefully MS again recognizes its hardcore fans who acquired the 360 early in the production cycle will expect some sort of compensation for their willingness to purchase a console with apparent heat/performance issues."

      They already have. You get to play the 360 for an extra year.

    10. Re:At least I have a real first name, J Allard by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they did it so users would feel cheated, but my guess is there's a much more pragmatic reason behind the disabling of the extra two-gigs: backwards compatibility. If the two gigs aren't there by default then game developers won't assume them to be there.

      Honestly, how much would it suck to pop in a game and be told "Woops, sorry. Your Xbox harddrive is too small. Please, buy a new Xbox."

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
  8. Beta Testers Take A Bow! by blueZhift · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All of the beta test...err customers should take a bow! This happens all of the time now, but I'm sure Microsoft knew that heat could be a problem, but you never really know how much of a problem it's going to be until a couple of million units hit the streets. The Playstations had heat problems early on too. So everyone take a bow, soon we'll hear less about overheating Xbox 360s. Hopefully they'll be able to reduce the size of the power brick too, eventually. In any case, I'm glad to see that they are taking steps to improve the product.

    1. Re:Beta Testers Take A Bow! by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      It always kills me to remember the crazy setup my buddy had for his original PlayStation. There were two encyclopedia's under each side. One side was 'S' and 'N'. The other side was 'A' and 'Y-Z'. This way there was air flow in the upward direction. A fan was later implemented. Guess it just doesn't occur to designers that heat rises.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  9. Forever Updating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's this sort of thing which makes me dislike the 360 more and more.

    I use consoles for gaming over PCs, because any games I get for the console work; I don't have to make sure my system is up to date like I do with PCs.

    What happens to the people that buy the 360 before this new chip? Is the performance worse for new games? Will they even be playable?

    This would be good news if the performance stayed constant on the platform, but power consumption, noise production, etc. decreased.

    1. Re:Forever Updating by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      "This would be good news if the performance stayed constant on the platform, but power consumption, noise production, etc. decreased."

      That's exactly the point.

  10. Could be a little faster without problems by jandrese · · Score: 1

    Or it could actually be a bit faster (maybe 5-10%). Microsoft would have to remind the deveopers to target the original model (not that they should need the reminder, there are already millions of them out there), but for people who buy the newer system they may not get some of the minor slowdowns on some games that people with older systems report.

    Mostly, I think it'll just run cooler and put less load on the power brick though, which is a good thing.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Could be a little faster without problems by Detritus · · Score: 1

      You've just doubled the testing required for new X360 software. That is a big deal.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Could be a little faster without problems by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > You've just doubled the testing required for new X360 software. That is a big deal.

      Why doubled? Wouldn't they only need to test the parts of their software that could be affected by the chips' significant operational differences?

    3. Re:Could be a little faster without problems by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Why doubled? Wouldn't they only need to test the parts of their software that could be affected by the chips' significant operational differences?

      Ideally, yes. But it's rarely safe to make assumptions about what could or could not be affected by a change like that.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    4. Re:Could be a little faster without problems by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Eh, if you're going to test every possible hardware difference (this is just a slightly faster clockspeed on the main processor) you'll never get it out the door. I mean there are what, 16 different versions of the PS2? Somehow I doubt people run their full set of tests on every single model for each game.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:Could be a little faster without problems by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      You've just doubled the testing required for new X360 software. That is a big deal.

      Not really. I mean, I doubt the 360 dev kits use the exact same hardware as production 360's do, down to the revision numbers on each individual chip, and yet code written on the former runs flawlessly on the latter 9999 times out of 10000.

  11. Adjustable Turbo by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    The answer to that is an adjustable rate.

    I would venture to say most algorithms are simple. They check to see if the input is occurring faster than humanly possible and if so, ignore it.

    However, if you could adjust the rate of rapid fire, and add some small amount of noise to the period of the rate, you could probably fool most rapid fire detection algorithms.

    At least, that was the premise when I was building my hack of the DualShock 2 controller.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you've never seen the Turbo button on an old PC.

    2. Re:Adjustable Turbo by dorbabil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hah.

      I'm surprised that I didn't immediately assume "Turbo" meant "repeating button presses"

      He was refering to the turbo button on old computers. It was essentially a button that increased the clock multiplier. I think the one on my 486 made it go from 100 to 133MHz, or 50 to 66MHz or something. It was so long ago, I don' remember.

      And then there was the 286 I had. The turbo button switched it from like 10MHz to 12MHz. Or was it KHz back then?

    3. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is it was mhz.

    4. Re:Adjustable Turbo by dextromulous · · Score: 2, Funny
      - - - - - - - - -


      You must be at least ^this^ old to have gotten the joke. For further information, see here.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
    5. Re:Adjustable Turbo by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I remember those. I'm sort of surprised that you could just switch the clock multiplier while the CPU is on without causing any problems, though. But I guess if the pulses are just coming faster, it wouldn't be any wiser.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    6. Re:Adjustable Turbo by statusbar · · Score: 0

      I believe that most of those turbo switches on 386's and higher did not actually change the clock speed - they just disabled/enabled cache.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    7. Re:Adjustable Turbo by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      OIC

      Haha, it's been so long since I've seen one of those buttons, and with doing that controller project a year ago, the Recency Effect kicked in.

      I thought something seemed amiss about that statement...haha

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    8. Re:Adjustable Turbo by cixelsyd · · Score: 5, Informative

      They were actually used to clock the processor DOWN. i.e. "Turbo" meant the processor ran at the full 25MHz or whatever, whereas with turbo disabled the processor ran at something like 4.77MHz to allow old DOS games and the like to run properly.

      --
      Take a dollar, divide it by 100, take two and call me in the morning.
    9. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Echnin · · Score: 1

      People don't remember turbo buttons? Now I feel old, and I'm still in high school.

      --
      Lalala
    10. Re:Adjustable Turbo by blincoln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They were actually used to clock the processor DOWN. i.e. "Turbo" meant the processor ran at the full 25MHz or whatever, whereas with turbo disabled the processor ran at something like 4.77MHz to allow old DOS games and the like to run properly.

      Mod parent up, this is correct. A lot of really old software used the CPU timing instead of real-world time intervals. I remember in particular a biplane shoot-em-up that ran at ludicrous speed on a 486/33 in "turbo" mode.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Threni · · Score: 1

      > I remember in particular a biplane shoot-em-up that ran at ludicrous speed on a
      > 486/33 in "turbo" mode.

      I know a guy who wrote some PC games. He was told to leave them running too fast with turbo enabled (rather than make the guts of the game faster/better but not have the input that fast...if you see what I mean), but was told to leave it `too fast` as people who spent that much money on their PC wanted to see it running really fast.

    12. Re:Adjustable Turbo by statusbar · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was most definitely the case with the 8088 and 80286. But I BELIEVE that some intel processors utilized dynamic logic, and as such, had a minimum clock frequency. With these processors you could not just reduce the clock, so they would simulate the slowing of the clock by disabling the cache which is very effective in slowing down your system.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    13. Re:Adjustable Turbo by rar · · Score: 1

      I remember in particular a biplane shoot-em-up that ran at ludicrous speed on a 486/33 in "turbo" mode.

      Would that by any chance be 'sopwith'? http://sopwith.classicgaming.gamespy.com/
      I remember trying to actually play that game with turbo enabled -- that was some hardcore fps :-)

    14. Re:Adjustable Turbo by CamD · · Score: 1

      Same here. Except I think I only remember them because in 2001 (when I finished grade 6), the Elementary school still had 386's (or whatever they were). I'm quite sure my 486 didn't have one.

    15. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I remember "Magic Carpet". DOS based game, same problem. I'm currently setting up an old P3 that I will have to severely downclock to play it (along with some other old ones of mine).

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    16. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Chitlenz · · Score: 1

      OMG RED BARON!

      So scary that I know that =\

      jesus I'm old.

      --chitlenz

      --
      Imagination is the silver lining of Intelligence.
    17. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Medieval_Gnome · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you download DosBox, you can set the clock speed used to run old DOS games, and it works wonders. I know Magic Carpet works under it well, since just last week I helped my roommate get it up and running under it.

      --

      :wq

    18. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Tried that. On my comp, DosBox actually runs too slowly for some of them. The video and controls are too jerky to play. Or maybe (since I don't remember setting the CPU speed) it's by default set too low?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    19. Re:Adjustable Turbo by mcmaddog · · Score: 1

      So you skipped "Ridiculous Speed" and went straight to "Ludicrous Speed"?

      Barf: We better get out of here in a hurry
      Lonestar: Switch to secret hyper jets
      Barf: Switching to secret hyper jets
      Lonestar: Buckle up back there we're going to ... hyper-active

      Colonel Sanders: We're closing in on them sir. In less than a minute Lonestar will be ours
      Dark Helmet: Good. Prepare to attack
      Colonel Sanders: Prepare to attack
      Dark Helmet: On the count of three...One...Two...WAIT!? What happened? Where are they?
      Colonel Sanders: I don't know sir, they must have hyperjets on that thing
      Dark Helmet: And what do we got on this thing, a Cuisenart?
      Colonel Sanders: No sir
      Dark Helmet: Well find them, catch them
      Colonel Sanders: Yes sir. Prepare ship for Light Speed
      Dark Helmet: No no no, Light Speed is too slow
      Colonel Sanders: Light speed too slow?!
      Dark Helmet: Yes, we're going to have to go straight to Ludicrous Speed
      Crew: HUH!
      Colonel Sanders: Ludicrous Speed? Sir we've never gone that fast before, I don't if the ship can take it
      Dark Helmet: What's the matter Colonel Sanders, chicken?
      Colonel Sanders: [high pitched]Prepare the ship [clears throat] Prepare the ship for Ludicrous Speed. Fasten all seat belts. Seal all entrances and exits. Close all shops in the mall. Cancel the three ring circus. Secure all animals in the zoo.
      Dark Helmet: [taking microphone] Give me that you petty excuse for an officer. Now hear this...Ludicrous Speed
      Colonel Sanders: Sir, hadn't you better buckle up?
      Dark Helmet: Ah, buckle this. Ludicrous Speed...GO! Aaaaaaaaahhhh Aaaaaaaaaaahhhh What have I done? Aaahhh My brains are going into my feet

      Barf: What the hell was that?
      Lonestar: Spaceball One
      Barf: They've gone to Plaid

    20. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      milli-henry-what?

    21. Re:Adjustable Turbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, Redbaron. The trick was to run it under Windows. Dos programs ran so slowly under Windows 3.1 that the game actually ran at the correct speed.

    22. Re:Adjustable Turbo by rvw14 · · Score: 1

      Must have been the game "Sopwith."

  12. Or... by sterno · · Score: 0, Troll

    You buy a newer game that's designed for the uber hardware and then it turns out that it won't play on your slower version. Good plan Microsoft.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Or... by Threni · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I mean, it makes sense for non-games, so that the extra speed is nice but not important (ie you don't need to keep frame rates up to a certain level, or it's not unfair to one player in a multiplayer game). I'd imagine Microsoft will insist that games must run on all chips, but that's not going to satisfy everyone.

    2. Re:Or... by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt they'll run it at a higher clockspeed. They're implementing a die shrink, from 90nm to 65nm. This will run much cooler, resolving a lot of the 360s overheating issues. It also draws less power, potentially shrinking the 360's massive power brick.

      People are speculating about higher speeds simply BECAUSE a die shrink would probably ENABLE higher speeds. That doesn't mean that Microsoft will do anything with clockspeed. They probably won't.

      That said, they wouldn't be setting a precedent if they did raise clockspeed. Anybody remember the addon for the N64 that added more graphics memory? It enabled some games to run at higher framerates, with more detail. How is that any different from higher clockspeed in the 360? You have your "normal" mode that the game is targetted at, then you have your "enhanced" mode where more CPU power enables some more detail or features. That is no different than what Nintendo did with the N64.

    3. Re:Or... by Psiven · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the memory expansion segmented the market and was baiscally disastrous for Nintendo. I had a lot of friends who were pissed they couldn't play single player mode in Perfect Dark unless they had the memory upgrade. Nintendo learned a hard lesson there.

    4. Re:Or... by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      It seems quite a bit different to me. The memory expansion was, I believe, around $20 seperate or included with DK64. While this would require buying a whole new system. A side note, why didn't Nintendo put 8 MB of RAM into the DS if they ran into the 4 MB limit on the N64?

    5. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that Nintendo made the upgrade available to everyone who had a 64 already by making it available seperatly. If you have a 360 already, and they up the clock speed, that means they boned you out of $400.

    6. Re:Or... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Just to hazard a guess, but maybe because the N64 runs at a higher resolution than the DS? With that said, with the cost of memory nowadays, why not put the extra 4MB in?

    7. Re:Or... by Lave · · Score: 1
      That said, they wouldn't be setting a precedent if they did raise clockspeed. Anybody remember the addon for the N64 that added more graphics memory? It enabled some games to run at higher framerates, with more detail. How is that any different from higher clockspeed in the 360? You have your "normal" mode that the game is targetted at, then you have your "enhanced" mode where more CPU power enables some more detail or features. That is no different than what Nintendo did with the N64.

      Except it's completely different. Going out and buying a new memory upgrade that sits in you N64 is an option open to everyone (Except it fragments your audience because not everyone wanted to drop £30 on one). But with the 360 to get the better graphics you would need a new Xbox. Even Microsoft aren't that stupid to treat their early adopters like that.

      --
      http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
  13. Not Going To Help Anything But Manufacturing Costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The overheating defects in the 360 are:

    1) The faulty powersupply design

    2) The ATI graphics card overheating

    The CPU in the 360 is pretty much the only thing in the system that is not showing signs of defects or heat problems.

    This should help Microsoft to reduce the manufacturing cost of the system a bit. However, Microsoft needs to get a handle on the massive defects problems like yesterday if they want to have anyone still interested in the system by the time this updated CPU is ready to go.

  14. Historical by ClamIAm · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just thought I'd point out that a lot of consoles have had this happen. The PS2 has gone through a bunch of revisions, and I remember reading that when Nintendo redesigned the Super NES, part of the reason was to reduce the number of chips they had to put into it.

    1. Re:Historical by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "I just thought I'd point out that a lot of consoles have had this happen. The PS2 has gone through a bunch of revisions, and I remember reading that when Nintendo redesigned the Super NES, part of the reason was to reduce the number of chips they had to put into it."

      I was a video game salesman back in 95/96. The original PSOnes frequently went defective not long after the 90 day warranty, usually resulting in skipping etc. On top of that, there was a trick that involved booting the PSOne with the door open to play import games. At one point, Sony released a version of the Playstation that DIDN'T allow the region-free trick, plus it was improved so that far fewer machines went defective. Unfortunately, this seemed to cause compatibility problems with some games. He said that a lady brought a game back claiming it wouldn't run. He sent her home with another fresh, new copy. That one and the 3rd one that went home didn't run either. He ended up exchanging the system itself. He called Sony to talk about this and they angrily denied that any fiddled-with units were ever released. He asked them how that could be since the region-free trick didn't work anymore, and they just ended up angrier. (note: I should probably point out that the person he was talking too was probably just ill-informed, as opposed to Sony just generally being angry. Heh.)

      I'm starting to get the picture that putting out a mass-market game console is really really hard.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Historical by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      I'm starting to get the picture that putting out a mass-market game console is really really hard.

      I remember reading something before the US launch of the PS2 (it may have been EGM). The reporter was in a warehouse where all the launch-day machines were sitting, waiting to be shipped out. He said something like "I dunno if the logistics of moving all these machines is a bigger job than launching the space shuttle, but it's close".

  15. Even Sony and Nintendo do this!! by OK+PC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think some of you have been blinded by the fact the article mentions Microsoft, i.e. we must have a go at them! This is what console manufacturers do to reduce costs of their systems. How do you think Sony made the PSTwo, they sure as hell didn't put the original processor in it.

    --
    Did you get that thing I sent ya?
    1. Re:Even Sony and Nintendo do this!! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yes but usually these revisions don't come until years later. Nintendo does exactly one revision of their home consoles, though considering what they did with the GBA and DS that might change with the Revolution.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Even Sony and Nintendo do this!! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Yes but usually these revisions don't come until years later.

      The 360 was launched in 2005, and they're talking about a new hardware revision to come in 2007. That doesn't qualify?

      Nintendo does exactly one revision of their home consoles

      The initial release of the 8-bit Famicom in Japan was so plagued with hardware problems that Nintendo actually had to recall them for repairs. The second Famicom model fared much better. Then, another revision came with the front-loading NES released in the United States and elsewhere. Later, another revision was the top-loading NES. That's four revisions by my count, and I probably even missed some.

    3. Re:Even Sony and Nintendo do this!! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The NES and the Famicom were for different markets so I wouldn't call the NES a separate revision, no buyer would see both of them.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Even Sony and Nintendo do this!! by antime · · Score: 1
      Yes but usually these revisions don't come until years later.
      The old-shaped PS2 went through some twelve revisions, and the new model has already had at least three versions. Other consoles have also undergone a significant number of revisions.
      Nintendo does exactly one revision of their home consoles
      There's three versions of the Gamecube: the original, one without the second expansion port and one with both the expansion port and digital A/V-out removed.
  16. Changing specs by Jerf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some people have commented negatively about a change in specs in the middle of the production run. There's prior art for this, though: apparently the Playstation 2 has two processor speeds, 294MHz and 299MHz.

    The fact that this has had so little impact that nobody realizes it has already happened speaks to the fact that it can be done without a whole lot of problems.

    The days of being able to count cycles and depend on the timing that way are long gone anyhow. Console games need to use timers and handle the fact that sometimes the game will bog down anyhow. Tweaking the clock speed a little is something that everything ought to be able to handle in stride, or they're going to have big problems as soon as there's one too many polygons on the screen.

    On the topic of changing specs mid-stream, it has occurred to me to wonder if Nintendo's HD solution for the Revolution will be to release an HD-capable Revolution about two years after the initial release. 3D games up-sample pretty well, even if the first-gen games won't look quite as good as dedicated HD games, but on that note, even XBox 360 games need to work at SD, as well. They'll be able to still release that console at most likely the original price-point, and they'll be selling into a market where more people have HD displays than today. It'll be tricky, but since they could design the graphics card with the explicit purpose of having the same capabilities as the old one, just with the ability to do all the old stuff in HD in the same amount of time, it should be doable.

    If this is their plan, they may be right; jamming all that expensive hardware into the PS3 and the XBox 360 may not be cost effective if you lock out a lot of people who would otherwise have purchased one.

    1. Re:Changing specs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something I thought was a possibility for awhile;

      If you remove the need for developers to modify certain settings (like Screen Resolution / Aspect Ratio) you can upgrade the hardware to take advantage of higher resolutions and different aspect ratios without having any effect on existing games (except to allow these features to be taken advantage of).

      Basically, what this would be like is producing a game that played at 30fps at 800x600 today (on a high end graphics card), buying a new graphics card 2 years from now and playing the same game at 1600x1200 at 60fps.

      (Essentially, you can produce a game with the pixel-based effects from 2 years in the future today)

  17. Re:Friends don't let friends buy xbox 360's by Osty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this is yet another huge misstep by the Xbox team. Non-technical people don't traditionally do well with different but very similar products. I'm sure they'll get all games to work on both models, but I have a feeling some will recommend running on the faster one only.

    As others have pointed out, don't expect to see a speed increase from this process change. Instead, this will allow for more stable and cheaper consoles (cheaper for Microsoft; who knows when they'll give us a price drop?).

    However, with the xbox 360, propietary everything, the people with first rev 360's might feel frozen out, and might feel forced into buying a new version. You don't want to alienate your customers, especially when you have competion in the future.

    What does proprietary vs. non-proprietary have to do with it? The original Xbox was "proprietary", even though it was based on standard parts (the CPU was a one-off design, the GPU was a one-off design, and everything was surface-mounted. You couldn't swap the CPU, GPU, or add more memory unless you were awesome with soldering). Anyway, you do realize that the original Xbox went through eight different "versions" ("revisions" may be a better word), right? Aside from getting screwed with a Thompson DVD drive (the version had little bearing on what drive you'd get, but that Thompson drives stopped shipping with later versions), all versions work exactly the same. In fact, the only reason you'd care about what version you have is if you need to do repairs yourself and need specific parts, or if you want to mod the box and need to make sure you get the right modchip package.

    More importantly, this kind of product revision has always happened with consoles. Even Nintendo did it, way back with the NES. Sony does it, and obviously Microsoft does to. Expect to see a number of revisions of the 360 over the years, and unless they really screw something up (like Sony did with the PSTwo revision) you should expect all consoles to be equivalent.

  18. I'd be wary of faster processors by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    You remember the old days of games? When processor speeds changed rarely and the climb of generations was a slow one?

    Back then, game developers often clocked their games to the CPU speed. You could more or less rely on it. By the time the processor speed outmatched the routines you had to take care of "too fast" models, your game was outdated anyway.

    Anyone who tried to run Wing Commander on a 486 or faster knows the result.

    Now, game devs for PCs have wised up. They use time as the measurement now to calculate how "fast" the game may run.

    I'm not sure if devs for console games, who (at least until now) could rely on a fairly uniform platform, take that into account. Your old games might start running a tad bit fast.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:I'd be wary of faster processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we relied on clockrate to time our games, we would be fired. You should really think of a modern game engine as an asynchronous network of discrete signal processors. They aren't designed to fill while loops in single-user single-process un-networked DOS games.

    2. Re:I'd be wary of faster processors by tepples · · Score: 1

      Now, game devs for PCs have wised up. They use time as the measurement now to calculate how "fast" the game may run. I'm not sure if devs for console games, who (at least until now) could rely on a fairly uniform platform, take that into account.

      Vertical retrace happens at 60 Hz on all NTSC models of the NES, the Super NES, the N64, the GameCube, and the Nintendo Revolution, and in all models of Game Boy or Nintendo DS system in all regions. Console games have based their timing on vertical retrace since the Intellivision. (Incidentally, this is part of why Europe and NZ/Australia get shafted for console-exclusive games: their TVs run at a different speed, which is unfamiliar to console developers used to expecting a consistent 20 Hz, 30 Hz, or 60 Hz clock.)

    3. Re:I'd be wary of faster processors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering almost all games are developed on PCs now anyway, this is a moot point. Developers aren't stupid*, to even get the game to the system they would have already had to accomodate this.

      * - Some exceptions aside... I'm looking at your Peter M.

    4. Re:I'd be wary of faster processors by Manmademan · · Score: 1
      You remember the old days of games? When processor speeds changed rarely and the climb of generations was a slow one?
      Generations haven't really climbed any faster than they ever have: its been a steady 5-6 year gap between significant hardware jumps.

      Atari 2600- 1977

      NES- 1983 (japan) 1984 US

      Genesis- 1988 (japan) 1989 US

      Jaguar- 1993 (ok, so the jag tanked HARD, but it WAS a 32/64 bit system)

      DC- 1998 (japan) 1999 US

      360- 2005 (worldwide)

    5. Re:I'd be wary of faster processors by Kredal · · Score: 1

      he was talking more about computer generations. When for a long time, a 486/66 was the fastest you could get. Game developers took that in stride, and tied the game speed to the clock speed. With consoles, you still can do that, for the most part. Every PS2 in the world runs at the same clock speed, and developers know that. Why tie "timed" events to a time-of-day, when the system clock speed remains constant?

      Even every 360 in the world right now has the same feature. But when this new "faster" chip comes around, that won't be the case. So any games that were using the system clock to time events will be thrown out of whack, assuming the use the smaller process for a faster chip, and don't make sure to keep it the same speed, just more efficient.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    6. Re:I'd be wary of faster processors by Scorchio · · Score: 1

      It's been a long time since games relied on processor speeds for timing. Consoles typically use the video hardware vertical sync. Poorly written region conversions don't compensate for the 50Hz/60Hz difference between PAL and NTSC, but the majority do.

  19. Great... by dalmiroy2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But how about *integrated* HD-DVD player and a smaller power supply, all for the same $400?
    That would be some update!

  20. That would be cool by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

    What would really be sweet is if you could buy the new cpu for $100 or so and install it yourself. Then you wouldn't have to buy a new console and it would appeal to the uber-geeks who love to take stuff apart and upgrade anyway.

  21. Re:wonderful...Same thing with Apple by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So the few "lucky" ones who own a 360 right now get snowed and end up with a totally inferior product within months.

    I could say the same thing about early adopters of Apple Intel-based Macs. In a few months (Q3 latest) a much improved processor with 64-bit processing and Virtualization Technology will replace the current Core Duo models, at likely the same price. It happens all over.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  22. Re:wonderful...Same thing with Apple by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, this might be a complete shock to PowerPC-oppressed Apple Users, but Intel routinely comes out with new-and-improved CPUs. The people that buy Mermon in Q3 will be "snowed" by whatever comes out in 2007.

    Also, I have to say most of the posters on this story are idiots. A CPU die-shrink is hardly worthy of all the stupid conspiracy theories posted here.

    --
    Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  23. This is true of almost all consoles by Nazmun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    During a console's 5-6 year life almost all of them that have had any measure of success have had chip reductions.

    This includes both of the playstations and most certainly the ps3 as well, not sure about nintendo, but definately the genesis and older systems.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  24. The 360 GPU, Not The CPU Is The Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The overheating problems most people are having, ignoring the power supply crash, the system software or game crashes, all look like they are GPU overheating crashes. GPU overheating crashes have a pretty distinctive look to them. CPU crashes usually just freeze the screen.

    At least that is my experience. Perhaps others are seeing different overheating problems, but I would lay the blame from what I've seen on ATI and not IBM.

    1. Re:The 360 GPU, Not The CPU Is The Problem by RevWhite · · Score: 0

      But at the same time, if the CPU is producing less heat, there is less heat to evacuate out of the case, so the GPU might produce less heat-related errors. That's just my thought, and I'm probably wrong. However, my roommate had one and we had to have a fan on it at all times, but it still started getting errors. I can't wait for one that runs any cooler at all.

      --
      Hey, can I bum a sig?
  25. Re:Yet More Evidence That MS by F_Scentura · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "...doesn't have a fucking clue what a "console" is.

    The XBox360 is just a limited PC."

    Neither do you, apparently. All consoles are "limited PC"s.

    "How far can you actually get if you don't have an internet connection for all the bugfixes?"

    US broadband penetration is at 64% of households, but you don't need bugfixes to play games either, only for fancy features that you're not going to use, as you're online. For the games that aren't backwards compatible out of the box, you can burn the updates to CD. New dashboard revisions will likely be included in newer games (and demo CD/DVDs) as they're rolled out.

  26. Re:Friends don't let friends buy xbox 360's by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    (cheaper for Microsoft; who knows when they'll give us a price drop?).

    I don't know if it counts but stores are already selling the XC premium bundled with King Kong for 380 Euros. Since the XC itself would cost 400 Euros that seems like a minor pricedrop to me, though it may have been motivated by slow sales rather than any official changes (as these stores really have large piles of XCs sitting around unsold).

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  27. Re:Yet More Evidence That MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet more evidence that Slashdotters are just out to bash MS and have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

    Every other console out there has done this sort of thing in the past. Only MS gets bashed for it.

    Smacktard.

  28. My 360 is great, so it makes no nevermind to me by Vesuvias · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bought a 360 in March and I can honestly say that it is one of the best 400$ entertainment decisions I have made in a while. Say what you want, it is a blast. It's not perfect but it is well worth the money.

    Xbox Live Marketplace provides a ton of demos and free stuff, the Achevement system is addictive (but meaningless like it should be), worldwide and friends sorted leaderboards are great (expecially for those live arcade titles), and the games are are a blast. Oblivion is one of the best games I have played in years.

    I am not a fanboy but I certianly like my xbox enough to call myself a fan. If the PS3 and Revolution are this much fun I will buy those systems too, in a heart beat!

    Hell a high end PC graphics card costs about as much as a 360 (and you will need a decent one to run Oblivion).

    If MS wants to make the thing cooler and cheaper in the next year why do I care? I have my gaming goodness right now and I am happy.

    Ves

  29. Re:wonderful...Same thing with Apple by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 0

    Well of course it happens everywhere, but in areas where it is EXPECTED like the PC industry as you have pointed out. I don't buy a PC today and NOT think that in 3 months something better won't come out. But when I buy a console system, especially a BRAND NEW product that is billed as the coming of the next messiah, now that is a problem.

    Microsoft suffers from a complete lack of focus and direction mixed with a total lack of customer service and greed. Yet they thrive, so they have no need to do otherwise.

    What kills me is how otherwise educated people get sucked in along with Joe Sixpack and get screwed over and over again. Must feel good.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  30. Turbo - That way at first... by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That was the idea at first, but then the two clock speeds seemed to be chosen almost at random once it became mainstream, although as games progressed to newer hardware, the speed they generally tried to clock to may have changed.

  31. Re:wonderful...Same thing with Apple by Pope · · Score: 1

    Timely CPU upgrades? Inconceivable!!

    (I can only dream of what I'll see in a year or two when my Dual G5 is due for replacement :)

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  32. Re:meh by Doomstalk · · Score: 1

    Not yet. Microsoft's DRM is akin to trusted computing- only signed code runs, so there's no way to get a virus to run.

  33. Re:meh by wed128 · · Score: 1

    so there's no way to get a virus to run.

    ...yet.

  34. Re:Friends don't let friends buy xbox 360's by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go open up a first-run Playstation 1. The inside is a giant two-sided silicon board jam packed with chips and bits.

    Now go open a last-run Playstation 1. It's a big empty shell with an itty bitty circuit board.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  35. Microsoft screws early adopters again. by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Not that they're the only ones who are guilty of screwing early adopters--what company doesn't?

    This article, A Fanboy Intervention, talks pessimistically about the Revolution, but really it can be applied to any new console. See step 10: No console is worth buying on launch day. Or, as the case would see, launch year.

    All of the angst over the new generation of consoles makes me want to buy a PS2 and pretend it's still 2002.

  36. This is totally normal. by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 1

    What's with all the gnashing of teeth, and wringing of hands? This happens all the time in the console world. The Playstation purchased on launch day in 1995 was not the same beast as the Playstation bought in 1999. Chip consolidation and improved manufacturing techniques let Sony lower the price on the Playstation as they put the hardware through different revisions. But you wouldn't know if if you didn't read the model numbers.

    Similarly, Nintendo has done this with the GameCube, dropping the component/progressive output video port from later models. Sony's continued the process well into the Playstation 2's lifecycle, even before the radical re-design of the PS Two (and for that matter, the 2000 re-design of the PS One). In fact, Nintendo's been doing this since at least the SNES, and Sega's been doing it since the Master System. This kind of thing is old hat.

    Microsoft was never able to do this with the original XBox because they didn't own all the silicon inside. Improvements in manufacturing techniques meant Intel and nVidia could sell XBox CPU's and GPU's to Microsoft at a higher margin, but Microsoft didn't directly reap the benefits of improving technology as the component pieces of its system got cheaper.

    Not so this time. Microsoft made sure they owned the entire XBox 360 end-to-end, and they're going to leverage it to make the product more profitable as market forces drive the retail price of the machine down. This is all about manufacturing cheaper XBox 360's. It's not about stepping up the CPU speed, it's about cheaper consoles and higher margins, and it's nothing that every other player in the market hasn't done before.

    So chill out, y'all. There's no conspiracy, and nobody's getting screwed.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
  37. I don't see why that's an issue. by Corngood · · Score: 1

    I'm not an expert on this, but aren't the bugs in the design, not from the manufacturing process? It's just like writing software, they find design errors and declare them shippable if they are minor enough. Switching the manufacturing process shouldn't change the errata at all.

    Same goes for the timing, sure they might be able to run the new version at a higher clock rate, but they won't. Since it's the exact same design, the timing will be the same when run at the same rate.

    1. Re:I don't see why that's an issue. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      IANAEE

      I belive that a die shrink often involves changes in the physical layout of a chip, due to various electrical/thermal/spooky effects. But you're right in that the logic of the chip shouldn't change...

      Can someone who knows more comment on this?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  38. Re:Friends don't let friends buy xbox 360's by scdeimos · · Score: 1
    More importantly, this kind of product revision has always happened with consoles. Even Nintendo did it, way back with the NES.
    Console revisions predate even the NES. Atari 2600 boards were grossly divided into "Type A" and "Type B" (which included a chanel switch on the board) and were manufactured under license by a number of companies including: Atari, Inc. CA; Atari Ireland, Ltd., Ireland; Atari Taiwan Manufacturing Corp, Taiwan; Atari-Wong Ltd., Hong Kong; Dimerco Electronics, Taiwan; and TRU Electronics Company, Taiwan;
  39. Was it Sopwith... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or am I too old? Sopwith .

  40. No, it won't be faster by The_Incubator · · Score: 1
    Of course new 360s using a shrunk CPU will have the same clock speed as the current model.

    Console manufacturers refactor hardware all the time. They do it to make the hardware better, cheaper, slimmer, cooler but NOT faster. Oh you thought the GBA, GBA Micro, GBA SP and the DS's GBA support were identical? Ditto the original PS2 vs the slim model? The Playstation vs. PSOne?

    Don't you guys remember what consoles are? It's bad enough that both Sony and Microsoft have gone down the dark path of firmware and game patches, there's no way they'll start changing the core hardware platform after shipping.

    Sometimes I have to remind myself this is a tech enthusiast site with the wild speculation and lack of rationality. I can't believe how the OP has been indulged.

    Nick

    1. Re:No, it won't be faster by PhotoBoy · · Score: 1

      Actually, during the lifespan of the PS1 a slightly faster and better graphics chip was put into the PS1, also featuring better gouraud shading. For some reason this isn't common knoweledge, I can only assume it's because Sony didn't hype this feature for fear of annoying existing PS1 owners and potentially making people think they would have to upgrade.

  41. Wrong! by Voltageaav · · Score: 1

    PS2s shipped with two diffrent clock speeds. The original had 294MHz and later versions had 299MHz. It's not new, it produced no issues when Sony did it then, why would it now with the newer 360? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS2#Technical_specifi cations

    --
    Someone save me from this sanity.