The only thing that's well worth the change from the rumored upgrade is 20CU, even if you have both 12gb ddr3 and 64mb ESRAM you would still get severely bottle necked by that 1.2tf weak sauce. That's how I see it. But reading from this thread it appears there are so many paradoxes for this to happen at all.
- Status
So from 1.2tf, 8gb ddr3+32mb esram we're now at 20CUs, 12gb ddr3+65mb esram.
Not far fetched at all
care to elaborate or to give contribution to the discussion instead?
Betanumerical
Veteran
Such changes would require a total redesign of the system and practically chucking out everything they have already done. This doesn't happen quickly.
Well, this kind of spec bump (as bkillian also said) at least sounds believable. Having two of the same GPUs would make for better yields then single big one. I still don't think its happening in a million years, but its much more plausible when compared to sudden GDDR5 and HD7970 inside.
Yeah, I think a dual APU is the only spec bump possible, outside of a small clock numb, but extremely improbable.
One thing sweetvar mentioned in his leak last year was that AMD employees referred to the Xbox as like a super computer. Perhaps that was a reference to scalability, if designed from the beginning perhaps Durango has provisions that would allow this type of scaling with mutilple APUs. Perhaps with the rumors that the games are running in a VM and no direct hardware access, it's possible to make the system look like one giant APU to the developer. Down the road, the two APUs can be merged into one after a node shrink or two.
I think the biggest hurdle to getting something like this working would be the independent pools of ESRAM, ideally you would want that memory to be shared.
Sorry just some crazy thinking out loud, I miss the "predict next-gen hardware" thread.
One thing sweetvar mentioned in his leak last year was that AMD employees referred to the Xbox as like a super computer. Perhaps that was a reference to scalability, if designed from the beginning perhaps Durango has provisions that would allow this type of scaling with mutilple APUs. Perhaps with the rumors that the games are running in a VM and no direct hardware access, it's possible to make the system look like one giant APU to the developer. Down the road, the two APUs can be merged into one after a node shrink or two.
I think the biggest hurdle to getting something like this working would be the independent pools of ESRAM, ideally you would want that memory to be shared.
Sorry just some crazy thinking out loud, I miss the "predict next-gen hardware" thread.
Yea, Sweetvar got everything exactly right. From CPU/GPU to codenames. He said that his friend and AMD think of Durango as supercomputer (yea yea sounds cliché) and that they are doing something special for it.
I don't have Durango papers with me, but someone mentioned comparison between Durango and 360 and noted that difference in FLOPs (GPU part) was quoted 8x (0.3 vs 1.2) and thats 2.4TF, not 1.2TF. I doubt they would simply double FLOP count based on architectural efficiency.
I don't have Durango papers with me, but someone mentioned comparison between Durango and 360 and noted that difference in FLOPs (GPU part) was quoted 8x (0.3 vs 1.2) and thats 2.4TF, not 1.2TF. I doubt they would simply double FLOP count based on architectural efficiency.
Betanumerical
Veteran
For starts the 360 GPU is 240GFLOPS.
But anyway.
if you take the GFLOPS of the 360 (240)
Multiply buy its average efficiency (72 + 240 [ops/clock] / 2) {156/240} <65%>
So far we have 360 GFLOPS (240) and its average efficiency (65%)
So if we take the 360 GFLOPS * 8. [1920] and times that by the average efficiency [65%] we get.
1920 * .65
1248 GFLOPS.
Or GCN 12 CU @ 800hmz and 100% efficiency ~= Xenos * 8 @ 65% efficiency.
The 1.2TF number doesn't make much sense. It is about 5x the 360. Yet the other document with slides had the 8x number.
The VG leak with Jaguar cores is probably Xbox TV that is now cancelled.
The supercomputer xbox chip might be Steamroller core based.
They quoted 0.3TF, not me. And no, it doesn't exactly work like that. If they did use that kind of math then thats something new, since it was never used in before generations even though every one of them had efficiency gains, its not GCN exclusive.
Betanumerical
Veteran
the math works out properly and it also comes to the correct number.
And compared to the 360 GCN is 100% efficient so...
This was a internal document that the public isn't meant to see, to show adjusted FLOP gains based on over all efficiency to developers kinda makes sense.
(((interference)))
Veteran
No, they were aiming for 6-8x and that is 1.2TF, the 60% efficiency of Xenos vs 100% efficiency of GCN are explicitly mentioned in one of MS's developer docs for the console.
Then its 5x jump, not 8. I don't care if they compare 66,7889% efficiency with 100%, its 5 times jump in raw numbers and thats how math always worked. If they think they can suddenly say that jump between OG Xbox and 360, and 360 and Durango is similar, I would tell them to start putting engineers to write tech papers, not marketing gurus.
If you're suggesting that an Xbox TV would need 1.2 TF, eSRAM and move engines, then there is nothing to do but make a sigh of disbelief.
Betanumerical
Veteran
So your saying that a 10TFLOP card that is 10% efficient has a higher power rating/jump then a 1TFLOP card that is 100% efficient?.
No, I'm saying efficiency gains were there every gen and they were never taken into context. Even if they were, FLOPS are not only metric that needs to be 8x jump, there are ROPs, texture units, bandwidth etc. Nothing that received anywhere near 8x jump. So we are still talking of console much closer to 5x jump, then 8.
And just to point out on the 100% thing...Again, it sounds more like marketing bull then actual fact.They talked about 95% utilization of Xenos, and 60-70% of RSX so the math does not really work in this case. Unless they went even further and got 8x jump compared to RSX
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky