Microsoft leaks details on Xbox Next

[Deadmeat]

...

Except for the fact that PPC976 will cost something like $200 a piece(That's what Apple's paying now, and that's also what Apple will pay for G6); XCPU2 is indeed Power5 based, but MS will do whatever it could to keep the cost down, including minimal caching and lack of Altivec.

Think about it. Most computers are uniprocessor, while some servers come with dual processors. Very few machines contain more than two processors. Now why do you expect to see multiple chips on a low-cost consumer product like Xbox Next???

PS. That article was poorly written and contains many obvious errors. I say ignore it.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Regarding "cost". I think the cost at the beginning of the product lifecycle is not so much the issue, its the cost of the product over the course of its lifecycle. MS are buying "off the shelf" parts for XBox and they don't have very much room for manouver in terms of reducing costs for the main components outside of what they negociated (and altering vendors for the non-core elements such as disks and optical transports and the like), what they are looking for with this version is to know they will have some control over costs such that they can reduce them over time.

 

[Paul]

Think about it. Most computers are uniprocessor, while some servers come with dual processors. Very few machines contain more than two processors. Now why do you expect to see multiple chips on a low-cost consumer product like Xbox Next???

Why are you going out of your way to denounce Xbox2 using multicore/processors? I think I know why though.

PS. That article was poorly written and contains many obvious errors. I say ignore it.

Point out some of these errors that aren't limited to your viewpoint?

 

[Vince]

Could MS put the necessary guts in the XB2 for backwards compatibility, but leave it disabled? That way if consumers DID want to play XB1 games, they could buy the 'software' to enable it? That way NVIDIA would only be paid on a need-to-have basis.. think DVD playback kit, where MS left it disabled to avoid paying fees to the DVD consortium.

It could be as simple as a bootdisk or a controller adaptor or something.

I'm not saying it won't happen or it's a bad idea; but do you think putting hardware/"IP," which must be liecensed, into every XBox2 with just a fraction of them being activated is going to help their economics?

With the DVD charge, the hardware is there anyway - so the cost is masked.

 

[Guden Oden]

Re: ...

PS. That article was poorly written and contains many obvious errors. I say ignore it.

You have to forgive me for saying this, but I think that just about sums you up, not the article.

 

[zurich]

Could MS put the necessary guts in the XB2 for backwards compatibility, but leave it disabled? That way if consumers DID want to play XB1 games, they could buy the 'software' to enable it? That way NVIDIA would only be paid on a need-to-have basis.. think DVD playback kit, where MS left it disabled to avoid paying fees to the DVD consortium.

It could be as simple as a bootdisk or a controller adaptor or something.

I'm not saying it won't happen or it's a bad idea; but do you think putting hardware/"IP," which must be liecensed, into every XBox2 with just a fraction of them being activated is going to help their economics?

With the DVD charge, the hardware is there anyway - so the cost is masked.

Well this is assuming that MS can enable backwards compatibility in software via Connectix or something similar, without having to resort to a XBox-on-a-chip heh. In that case, I'm assuming they would be limited to licensing fees to NVIDIA on each 'Backwards Compatibility Pack' sold, rather than on each console sold (since it would be software).

 

[Vince]

Well this is assuming that MS can enable backwards compatibility in software via Connectix or something similar, without having to resort to a XBox-on-a-chip heh. In that case, I'm assuming they would be limited to licensing fees to NVIDIA on each 'Backwards Compatibility Pack' sold, rather than on each console sold (since it would be software).

Thats why I disagreed as I assumed they'd have to pay, say, nVidia for ever IC/"IP" they purchased to put into an XBox2 for backwards compatability.

Whereas the DVD fee is for a playable device, I doubtr nVidia cares if it's used or not... just that there's no way in hell they'd give away IC's for free in return for a small fraction which actually uses it.

 

[Guden Oden]

Vince,

What Zurich's trying to say is, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY IC:S.

MS would emulate the box1 components using software licensed from NV. You'd hardly expect NV to be able to exact license money from MS for the IBM CPU that could theoretically run NV ip code using emulation now would you?

Naturally, MS would not include NV chips in all boxes and then only enable them with some optional peripheral, if for no other reason they'd avoid that scenario because that approach might be hacked and enabled anyway by crafty buccaneer-engineers from the far east! Then there's the cost aspect too like you say, so most likely any box1 compatibility will be software only approach.

With 6 PPC cores, it should actually be feasible too, with power to spare even.

 

[PARANOiA]

I am doubting the validity of this article since I think the decisions not to include a HDD, for example, makes no sense at all. Is there a possibility that this article is all just hooey? Or am I the only one feeling this way?

Either way, I don't think anyone here has the right to tell Mircosoft how to make money They seem ok at it, even if the XBox was a big hole-in-the-pocket, so I'm sure their decisions are fairly well made.

 

[zurich]

Actually, scratch that.

Alot of Xbox games require the HD, and if XB2 is HD-less (or even is an optional peripheral), then that whole idea would bomb.

Somehow I don't think MS is going to give everything to gamers this time around (built in HD, XB1 compatibility, low cost, etc).

 

[bbot]

Actually, one of the staff at teamxbox.com is saying not to believe the rumor that xbox2 will not have a hdd.


http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?postid=3200995#post3200995

 

[marconelly!]

The weird thing is they may be on to something, how easy will it be to actually see the difference in the next gen. It's not like it's easy now so keeping the price low and the Specs "fair" may be a very smart move.

If PS3 ends up coming later, and having say 2X more memory and 2X more powerful CPU/GPU hardware (basically the situation with PS2/Xbox with now) it will be without doubt possible to see the difference, just as it's possible to see the difference between say Toy Story 1 and Finding Nemo. Now, it might not be a night-and-day improvement, but it will be there, with an important difference that Sony actually has market power to make people wait for that improvement, while Microsoft doesn't (as proven by the situation with DC/PS2/Xbox).

Just think about it, why would existing tens of millions of long time Playstation owners switch to a hardware that is not going to be as powerful, will not allow them to play their existing library of PS2 games, will not have many games they're interested in playing anyways, as all the important devs in the industry will be saving their breath for the launch of the 'true king'? There simply wouldn't be much reason to do a switch. Even worse for Microsoft, they'd lose some of their hardcore market that is with them because of the tech edge they offer, and will not do much to keep them by their side by not offering them the compatibility with their existing game library - in that scenario, they actually wold have pretty solid reason to switch.

 

[Guden Oden]

Re: ...

Usefulness of SSE is diminishing with each passing generation of DX.

I hate to kick a guy already lying down, but I just had to demonstrate what a LOAD OF BUNK THAT WAS <<--- Linkee! Clickee! (edit)

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. Hell, the Almighty Tim Sweeney, whom you worship the very ground he walks on, all but said you're flat-out wrong.

I direct your attention towards this tasty nugget of a quote for example:

Dot products are a fundamental operation in any sort of 3D programming scenario, such as BSP traversal, view frustum tests, etc. So it's going to be a measurable performance component of any CPU algorithm doing scene traversal, collision detection, etc.

Now tell me, do you do anything OTHER than just make up stuff that suits you and your bizarre opinions?

What ARE your qualifications anyway, once and for all? You speak out on microprocessor architecture, system/hardware design, programming etc as if it is second nature to you, but VIRTUALLY ALL YOU'RE SAYING IS JUST MADE-UP. You some kind of mythomaniac believing your own lies, or are you just getting your rocks off by bullsh!tting other people in your vicinity for fun until they can't stand it anymore? Either way, it is pathetic, IMO.

 

[marconelly!]

What ARE your qualifications anyway, once and for all?

If you want to see his qualifications, read them here (third post from above). He basically has none (except for some school, I guess)

 

[Megadrive1988]

If PS3 ends up coming later, and having say 2X more memory and 2X more powerful CPU/GPU hardware (basically the situation with PS2/Xbox with now) it will be without doubt possible to see the difference, just as it's possible to see the difference between say Toy Story 1 and Finding Nemo. Now, it might not be a night-and-day improvement, but it will be there, with an important difference that Sony actually has market power to make people wait for that improvement, while Microsoft doesn't (as proven by the situation with DC/PS2/Xbox).

Just think about it, why would existing tens of millions of long time Playstation owners switch to a hardware that is not going to be as powerful, will not allow them to play their existing library of PS2 games, will not have many games they're interested in playing anyways, as all the important devs in the industry will be saving their breath for the launch of the 'true king'? There simply wouldn't be much reason to do a switch. Even worse for Microsoft, they'd lose some of their hardcore market that is with them because of the tech edge they offer, and will not do much to keep them by their side by not offering them the compatibility with their existing game library - in that scenario, they actually wold have pretty solid reason to switch.

I am not responding directly to this post, but it just made me realize, that it seems Sony will always win no matter what, and nobody can stop em.
It also seems that Microsoft is damned if they do, and damned if they don't, no matter what.

the question the world wants to know is, how can Sony be brought down...


*ok, now back to tech-talk*

 

[Megadrive1988]

btw, Mercury News is the same outfit that reported PS3 would have 72 processors: 8 PPC cores each with 8 APUs.

 

[marconelly!]

I am not responding directly to this post, but it just made me realize, that it seems Sony will always win no matter what, and nobody can stop em.

Which is pretty much a normal thing to expect, unless they screw something up terribly. I mean, surely noone with a sane mind would expect that MS would slip from their home OS throne just because some other OS offers a bit more of this and that, right? For MS to slip from the Windows throne would involve them making some massive mistake in the market understanding and/or technology used, and let's face it, it's not happening anytime soon.

 

[Guden Oden]

it seems Sony will always win no matter what, and nobody can stop em.

Naah. This is BS.

Most companies that end up on top in their market space for a long time usually turn complacent, then inept. It happened to Atari, it happened to Nintendo, it happened to 3dfx, then Nvidia. It's happened IBM too, and to tons other companies in other markets also.

Remains to be seen wether Sony still has enough of a grip on the situation not to go the same way. That's what's so interesting about the next generation!

 

[cthellis42]

Actually, scratch that.

Alot of Xbox games require the HD, and if XB2 is HD-less (or even is an optional peripheral), then that whole idea would bomb.

They could potentially link the backwards-compatibility feature with an external HD sale of they go that route then, couldn't they? Or at least promise 100% compatibility that way, even if they provide it as well on the base box itself.

Somehow I don't think MS is going to give everything to gamers this time around (built in HD, XB1 compatibility, low cost, etc).

Quite possibly, but I don't think they seriously want to be in a similar situation to where they are now, where they have to fork out cash to keep the Xbox priced alongside the PS2 and counteract their profits elsewhere while their competition gets away with profiting from both hardware and software. (Though actually Nintendo put themselves back to losing a bit when they lowered to $99, but their extra software sales more than makes up for it.) Having more personal control over the box innards will certainly help (having IP from ATi as opposed to hardware produced by them, and likely starting on small processes from IBM and working process-shrinks into their deal for future savings), but being able to cut even more will make an appreciable difference.

The biggest difference comes from loss-of-face compared to features from this generation, and loss of marketing bullet points... But perhaps they feel if they can get to market appreciably ahead and are able to focus on the power of the machine rather than the features, this will make more difference in the long run?

 

[V3]

the question the world wants to know is, how can Sony be brought down...

Price wars, not just on hardwares, but also softwares and online services.
More exclusive high profile titles, good online services and good promotion to boot it all.

Of course high specification is also important, since leaders that buy early and informed 10 of their friends to do the same, is well aware of specifications.

Releasing earlier than Sony helps too. Especially if it makes Sony breakdown and scramble.