Huh, likelihood of that happening is pretty big since Durango should have one big SOC. Hopefully there is no delays, but if there are, than thats obviously a big problem, and one of the things (with RROD) that MS is scared to death of.
Huh, likelihood of that happening is pretty big since Durango should have one big SOC. Hopefully there is no delays, but if there are, than thats obviously a big problem, and one of the things (with RROD) that MS is scared to death of.
Well, yea, but MS showed that they would rather rush then release it later. Sony was more laid back last gen, don't see them repeating that of course.You just listed two issues that pretty much anyone that designs PCBs is scared of: component shortfalls, thermal
The design to "maximize efficiency" could severely increase complexity (production and programming wise). That could be another type of inefficiency.I'm merely using QoS to describe performance guarantee.
Not in the sense of automation of guided degradation- I'm saying just by what I've seen and what little nuggets I've read from MS people here and there... they appear determined to make almost everything super efficient, tightly integrated but removing as much anomalous and unpredictable performance downfalls. One thing that rings in my mind is a quote roughly like "The one things developers want from hardware is the knowledge of what they have that's available to them". You sit and think about that and you wonder. You look at spec sheets... and that's all they are. Spec sheets. It basically only tells you what you can probably do if it was only doing that one task, at least that's usually how it pans out. What happens if you can guarantee (for the most part) everything on the spec sheet if every feature was operating at the same time?
It doesn't sound fancy. But, in theory, developers could push the hardware a lot harder a lot quicker. The less "tricks" you have to perform to maximize efficiency (because of downfalls in the systems design), the less time you're chasing a potentially unattainable perf target. You know what you have, you can plan towards using that and if you fail to achieve your goal, the fall should be a lot gentler.
It may be brilliant in the end. We have to see... I could be off on my assertions, too. It just sticks out to me, is all.
The design to "maximize efficiency" could severely increase complexity (production and programming wise). That could be another type of inefficiency.
Well, yea, but MS showed that they would rather rush then release it later. Sony was more laid back last gen, don't see them repeating that of course.
Its the version in which MS had billion dollar loss on OG Xbox, very little brand recognition and sales, wheres Sony was riding high on success of PS2 thinking being late won't do them much damage.This is a weird version of history, but whatever floats your boat.
And BluRay diode issues didn't exist and Sony were leisurely lolloping along instead of missing their release dates by months and struggling to get a box together to actually sell to people. If Sony weren't worried and didn't have an HD format war to stress over, they could have aimed for a release 6 months after PS3 actually released with superior specs and cleaned up.Its the version in which MS had billion dollar loss on OG Xbox, very little brand recognition and sales, wheres Sony was riding high on success of PS2 thinking being late won't do them much damage.
From my untrained eyes it appears to be 6+6 Shader Cores setup, 6 SC for graphics and other 6 for Computing?The most interesting thing is there appear to be distinct graphics and compute schedulers (like Orbis?).
From my untrained eyes it appears to be 6+6 Shader Cores setup, 6 SC for graphics and other 6 for Computing?I know this is a very noobish guess
GSM is the Global Data Share. Command Buffer, Dispatch Buffer, Vector Shader Processor. They've just renamed all the GCN parts. I don't think it can be VLIW4 or 5 because the L1 cache is twice what those used.
The most interesting thing is there appear to be distinct graphics and compute schedulers (like Orbis?).