Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation

[(((interference)))]

My take on this was more along the lines of MS Active Directory / DC tombstoning. That a certain amount of cache was set aside for asset streaming from HD/storage and how long will those assets stayed cached in this location if not being used.

It seemed to be tombstoning for apps/games.

Guys it's time to let it go. This thread is for rumors of technical merit. Rumors of changing to a GPU 4x more power then the one they leaked 2 specs to have no technical merit they are nothing but noise. Rumors of a slight upclock or downlock or going to 12GB's of RAM fall under having technical merit and are up for discussion. Speed of the eSRAM has technical merit. Shape has technical merit though may better belong in the audio thread. Saying the that "This is not the SOC you are looking for" about the current config and coming out with some radically different config and then one or two new posters appearing out of nowhere to say yeah i heard that too does not equal technical merit. Let's try to keep everything in the technical thread at least in the realm of possibility.

Yes, any rumours about adding GDDR5 or changing the GPU etc are all complete bunk and are not possible if MS want to launch this year.

And I know for a fact that there were no alternative SoCs or more powerful designs that were developed in parallel with Durango (as per vgleaks) and that MS could switch to.

The only thing like that was Yuma/Xbox TV and that seems to have been put on the backburner (and was far weaker than Durango anyway).

 

[tunafish]

I've just been told that the 200GB/s is just the aggregate bandwidth of all the buses in the system, including the one between the GPU and CPU. So it's entirely a marketing figure, the real bandwidth is exactly as predicted, with 68GB/s to RAM and 102 GB/s to SRAM.

Can't name my source, so take it as you will.

 

[zupallinere]

The possibility of those rumours to be true is if we factor in what Penello said about a change of specs when he pointed out that he said that weeks before the E3.

The Xbox 360 doubled its RAM fairly close to release.

From Mark Rein on the subject.

Remember this was at a time where they had not decided on the final specifications for the machine - this wasn't a last-minute decision but way back then it was a gutsy one considering how expensive RAM was back them.

http://forums.epicgames.com/archive/index.php/t-553976.html

In multiple articles it seems the "doubling" happened in "2 years before" and those articles were in 2006.

I'm not saying MS wouldn't add 4GB but it seems quite late and unprecedented if they do. Also what would that say about their November launch date if they did ? Will they toss out a bunch of motherboards or have they not spun them out yet ??

 

[blakjedi]

I've just been told that the 200GB/s is just the aggregate bandwidth of all the buses in the system, including the one between the GPU and CPU. So it's entirely a marketing figure, the real bandwidth is exactly as predicted, with 68GB/s to RAM and 102 GB/s to SRAM.

Can't name my source, so take it as you will.

so lets count them up and see if it makes sense.

CPU -> DRAM = 68 GB/s* shared with GPU
CPU -> ESRAM = 30 GB/s + 102.4* shared with GPU
GPU -> DRAM =68 GB/s* shared with CPU
GPU -> ESRAM ~102.4 GB/s* shared with CPU

The shared pathways are singular so only count once. 68+30+102.4=~ 200 GB/s

 

[BeyondTed]

Guys it's time to let it go. This thread is for rumors of technical merit. Rumors of changing to a GPU 4x more power then the one they leaked 2 specs to have no technical merit they are nothing but noise.

It is confirmed by photos that some dev kits are GTX 680 and by word of quite a few that others are 7970.

It is reasonable to assume minimum 7970 architecture but more likely (since roughly 2 years between *launch* dates) that it is about 2 years or 1.5 generations more advanced. It isn't just process feature size and transistor count that drives advancement.

I say don't assume what was done was for no good reason. Maybe about $1,000,000,000 into this and lots of really bright people should suggest that forum quarter backs are not in a position to second guess the console designers.

This is the first time consoles start out with the CPU and GPU on the same die, with (de)compresion/move engines on the same die and very fast low latency local memory/scratchpad on the same die. The efficiency is not expected to be comparable to a discrete GPU.

You say it is time to let it go.

I say it is time for you to let go of the idea that the first APU consoles will be comparable to low-mid end discrete parts. They are not discrete and just about everything has changed since the previous consoles and their discrete parts. Comparing to discrete 7790 performance does not make sense.

This new batch of consoles will probably surprise people for years to come in terms of what they can do compared with discrete designs of 2012/2013.



I have noticed a lot of bashing and nay saying against everything from rumors to posts with sources/links. Yet when I ask the bashers and nay sayers for sources/links/quotes (when they say this or that is not possible) they usually ignore it or provide half a source for one of a dozens "no no no you can't do that" claims they make. I don't think it is reasonable to keep replying to links/sources/quotes with just "it can't be done". At least provide some links/sources/facts that back up the "oh no you can't do that".

Hold rumors to a certain standard. But also hold the bashers and nay sayers to a certain standard also. (Keep in mind that the "rumors" of 4-6 months ago held up pretty well. Wonder what will be said in 4-6 months from now.)



One example: "Oh no you can't change the ram size!". Non-sense. It can be as simple as changing a couple digits on the bill of materials from one Micron DDR3 chip to another higher density DDR3 chip. You don't need to argue anymore than that. History (360) shows that just such a decision was made. I don't think they did anything to the PCB. I think in that case they just switched one part number for the GDDR3.



I could go on about the clocks but if that isn't perfectly obvious from watching AMD and Nvidia and partners come out with all kinds of derivatives all day long in a few weeks to a month or two after reference then I am wasting my time trying to explain again and again.

 

[(((interference)))]

I've just been told that the 200GB/s is just the aggregate bandwidth of all the buses in the system, including the one between the GPU and CPU. So it's entirely a marketing figure, the real bandwidth is exactly as predicted, with 68GB/s to RAM and 102 GB/s to SRAM.

Can't name my source, so take it as you will.

We've all been suspecting that, but good to have some confirmation

Certainly haven't heard anything contradicting that myself.

 

[Rangers]

We've all been suspecting that, but good to have some confirmation

Certainly haven't heard anything contradicting that myself.

Err, what about the new DF article? (192 GB/s, not 200, also, 133 GB/s practical usage, etc)

 

[(((interference)))]

Err, what about the new DF article? (192 GB/s, not 200, also, 133 GB/s practical usage, etc)

I don't know if it's in the article but he's told me that the 'peak unidirectional bandwidth is still 102.4GB/s which is still calculated as 128 byte blocks multiplied by 800MHz'

The higher figures refer to bidirectional? bandwidth

 

[Shifty Geezer]

obviously she's isn't going to go into technical problems but It's more than just that, you have the engineers still working memory speeds which is evident. If the system was up to par then you wouldn't need engineers messing with memory speeds.
http://gamerhub.tv/articles/xbox-on...en-running-on-windows-7-pcs-at-e3/2013/06/16/

Can you please clarify what exactly your intention of the last few posts are? you've kinda just listed facts without explaining what you think they point to. Are you suggesting that there's a completely new architecture in the retail XB1? Or that the retail hardware isn't fixed?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is not the effin rumour thread! Do not post any more crap about who said what. Discuss the viability of upclocks and RAM upgrades on their technical merits, or STFU. The rumour threads [strike]were killed for being shite[/strike] are open here [strike]and now there is no place on B3D to discuss rumours as rumours[/strike]. If all one has to post on rumours is 'he said, she said, don't believe in them...' then one has nothing to contribute to *this technical* discussion, so don't bother.

 

[Ekim]

Ok then - what interests me is the following:
I have heard that on the GPU slides from the Durango Developer Summit and especially on the Raw Numbers slide you can find the FLOP count compared to the 360. What's bugging me, is the multiplier you can find there says 8x but is annotated with an "*". The 360 had 0.24 and 8x0.24 would be ~1.9TFlops and not 1.2 - what does the "*" mean and why is the calculation off?

 

[Qroach]

Seems a bit weird, that you want to discuss the merits of a rumor without mentioning its a rumor wouldn't discussing the viability of something involve all facets of it being plausible or not?

 

[Qroach]

Ok then - what interests me is the following:
The GPU slides from the Durango Developer Summit and especially on the Raw Numbers 1/2 slide you can find the FLOP count compared to the 360. What's bugging me, is the multiplier you can find there says 8x but is annotated with an "*". The 360 had 0.24 and 8x0.24 would be ~1.9TFlops and not 1.2 - what does the "*" mean and why is the calculation off?

are these slides on the net?

 

[Ekim]

are these slides on the net?

errm don't think so, but a lot of people have them.

 

[Rangers]

Ok then - what interests me is the following:
The GPU slides from the Durango Developer Summit and especially on the Raw Numbers 1/2 slide you can find the FLOP count compared to the 360. What's bugging me, is the multiplier you can find there says 8x but is annotated with an "*". The 360 had 0.24 and 8x0.24 would be ~1.9TFlops and not 1.2 - what does the "*" mean and why is the calculation off?

well, the only obvious speculation would be esram latency=secret multiplier sauce?

 

[Michellstar]

Ok then - what interests me is the following:
The GPU slides from the Durango Developer Summit and especially on the Raw Numbers 1/2 slide you can find the FLOP count compared to the 360. What's bugging me, is the multiplier you can find there says 8x but is annotated with an "*". The 360 had 0.24 and 8x0.24 would be ~1.9TFlops and not 1.2 - what does the "*" mean and why is the calculation off?

It´s been discussed here, 360 gpu (pre GNC) was not much efficient compared to GNC parts.

I don´t remember exact figures, but Ms stated it was below 50% in certain codes vs durango gpu

 

[Ekim]

It´s been discussed here, 360 gpu (pre GNC) was not much efficient compared to GNC parts.

I don´t remember exact figures, but Ms stated it was below 50% in certain codes vs durango gpu

But TFlops are TFlops - efficiency shouldn't play into those numbers imho.

 

[Rangers]

Didn't you (on the last page or so) admit that since the thread has 'rumours' in the title we can discuss rumours related to the technical discussion.

I mean it's not like people are discussing rumours related to games or non-technical aspects of the console here.

Well, contrary to Shifty's statement both the PS4 and XB1 news and rumors threads seem open

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61635&page=207

I suppose we should discuss upclock/other rumor veracity in there from now on? If not in that thread, then the very thread titles here are a lie.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ok then - what interests me is the following:
I have heard that on the GPU slides from the Durango Developer Summit and especially on the Raw Numbers slide you can find the FLOP count compared to the 360. What's bugging me, is the multiplier you can find there says 8x but is annotated with an "*". The 360 had 0.24 and 8x0.24 would be ~1.9TFlops and not 1.2 - what does the "*" mean and why is the calculation off?

It means the slides are generalisations and there's no easy way to calculate the new console's power in relation to the old one, so they present devs with an overview figure. There's no technical comparison flops to flops in this case.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, contrary to Shifty's statement both the PS4 and XB1 news and rumors threads seem open

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=61635&page=207

Well waddya know. Why on earth were people posting non-technical rumour talk here then?!

Killed posts regenerated there.

I suppose we should discuss upclock/other rumor veracity in there from now on? If not in that thread, then the very thread titles here are a lie.

People seem to be having some trouble understanding the difference. This thread is Technical Hardware Investigation. It can address any rumour as a hypothetical design for XB1 and look at the pros and cons of that possibility from a technical viewpoint, such as whether higher DRAM capacities are available, or whether higher clocks are plausible. The other thread is where unsubstantiated gossip can be posted and people can tut their approval/disapproval.