Why not? Quaz wasn't measuring the HUD when he started posting game resolutions. I don't see how 1080p health bars will affect the stair-stepping on a diagonal edge.
- Status
Yes, although it will be always open to abuse, I guess. Competitive games, especially sport games, are the most complex in order to keep things under control. Sometimes people give you bad rep just because you won a match or a similar inane reason.
I have many many flaws but being a bad loser isn't one of them.
Afaik that's the case in every game out there. There are games -Alan Wake comes to mind- where the HUD and the actual graphics render at different resolutions.
Nothing I've ever read in Pastebin was the truth in the end. I don't care about how powerful these consoles are, I am interested in seeing the games in motion. Both the PS4 -which is more powerful- and Xbox One -which has an interesting architecture- seem very capable and DF articles are going to be the most fascinating to date, imho.Pastebin Halo Xbox One "leak" - well at least it sounds reasonable. Some interesting HW things in it:
http://pastebin.com/qW6LVdFx
Well it's pastebin, so take it with a truck of salt.
Btw: first post here.
I can't wait for the next generation to start. It could be the best generation ever.
If you need a DF face-off to tell the difference then it already doesn't matter. The only time it matters is if someone has bought both consoles and is wondering which system.
In that sense, I liked Peter Moore. He was humble and seemed a very nice guy.
Julie Larson is a very interesting change. ( http://www.microsoft.com/about/technicalrecognition/julie-larson-green.aspx )
I consider that having a woman leading the console business would add a lot freshness to the Xbox division and new ideas --ideas that would be more in touch with everyone, not just focused on a male audience.
Sony have Cerny, which imho was a very good and wise choice -he seems a bit subdued sometimes but he does great overall-, Microsoft would have a woman who is very valued as an employee and Nintendo have Iwata, which is the most antiquated thing there is.
Having someone who has been an advocate for Windows 8 to be useful and also fun to use is good, in my opinion.
My only worry is what ERP pointed out, that mixing the Windows division with the Xbox department isn't a good idea, so I hope they know how to keep both divisions isolated from each other. I wonder why he said that though. Why have you said that, ERP?
Other than that I couldn't be happier with having her leading the Xbox division, and as dagamer mentioned, perhaps that could open up new possibilities for other people to join.
Last edited by a moderator:
Windows and Xbox divisions isolated? Are you forgetting that the Xbox One is running on Hyper-V with a Windows 8 core as well? Perhaps it was a good idea with the 360, but definitely not so with the Xbox One. That system is totally dependent on several divisions from Microsoft: server and tools providing Windows Azure, Hyper-V and Visual Studio, client providing Windows 8 core and WinXRT (Xbox One frameworks), Skype with audio and video messaging, Bing with search and voice, and MGS for publishing and games market expertise. It truly is the most integrated product they have.
Isolation? There is no point anymore.
SmudgeTheCat
Newcomer
From paste bin
Durango Final Specifications Development (Reasons and Considerations):
The Original Target Specs which were issued in Feburary 2012 to developers were inline with the one u probably heard from Eurogamer etc.
Of course developers werent happy with them.
The 3 areas of complaint were:
1. Low Peak perfomance of GPU
2. Memory Bandwidth
3. System reservation
MS listened (mainly to Epic and EA) and increased the Compute Units (Remember mid-last year when some User on NeoGAF posted that the Team at AMD for Durango was bigger and that they considered it better than Orbis? Well there was truth to that, because they were upping the chip at that moment)
With the increase of the Compute Units the bandwidth became an even bigger problem for MS. At that time GDDR5 wasnt feasible for MS , so they decided (or in other words AMD recommended) to increase the bus width of the memory controller AND increase the amount of memory at the same time. The resulting 384-bit memory controller was a custom created one, simply because DDR3 MCs in normal consumer PCs only allow 64, 128 or 256-bit controllers.
After the increase in bandwidth and size of the main memory, they had to do something about the embedded SRAM on the die.(there wouldnt have been an apparent advantage in using eSRAM with the same bandwidth as the main memory pool)
This resulted in the "doubling of the eSRAM".
All those changes took place April/Mai 2012. In September 2012 the first sampling of the chip took place.(Remember the design of the system hasnt changed)
At the same time, the original APU (Specifications from Feb 2012) was being fabbed for usage in 3rd Party Development Kits. (Beta Kits V1 December 2012/January2013; Beta Kits V2 in March 2013 contained the final chip, though many developer experienced heating issues, so downclocking for final retail kits can be expected)
The yield rates of the chip have been worse than expected (personal note: This is such a Microsoft thing; last minute spec upgrade and then expecting it to have good yield rates...); as of April 2013 Microsoft still expects enough units for a global release at the end of the year, but expect shortages or even a push to early 2014.
Upgrades (in short):
1. GPU: 12 to 20 CUs; 16 to 32 ROPs; 48 to 80 TMUs
Peak Performance: 1,2 TFlops to 2,0 TFlops
Low Level Changes:
Register Read (GB/s): From 7372 to 12287
LDS Read: 1228 to 2047
L1 Read: 615 to 1025
L2 Read: 307 to 512
Die size (part of the APU for GPU): 145 mm2 to 215 mm2
2. Main Memory: Size from 8GB to 12GB; bus width from 256 to 384; bandwidht from 68GB/s to 102,4GB/s
3. eSRAM on die: size from 32MB to 64MB, bus width from 1024 to 2048, bandwidth from 102,4GB/s to 204,8 GB/s
(personal note: eSRAM is NOT 6T-SRAM; its 1 transistor per bit
Die size: from 18 mm2 to 40mm2 (estimates)
4. whole APU: die size from 300 mm2 to 400mm2/450mm2 ( personal note: this one is weird, but there were conflicting reports in the doumentation); TDP: 100 W to 160 W (personal note: those are power usage numbers for the APU alone; for comparision the Orbis APU wont draw more than 145; the efficiency of those parts is by the way much higher than those found in the 7000 Radeon series)
Durango Final Specifications Development (Reasons and Considerations):
The Original Target Specs which were issued in Feburary 2012 to developers were inline with the one u probably heard from Eurogamer etc.
Of course developers werent happy with them.
The 3 areas of complaint were:
1. Low Peak perfomance of GPU
2. Memory Bandwidth
3. System reservation
MS listened (mainly to Epic and EA) and increased the Compute Units (Remember mid-last year when some User on NeoGAF posted that the Team at AMD for Durango was bigger and that they considered it better than Orbis? Well there was truth to that, because they were upping the chip at that moment)
With the increase of the Compute Units the bandwidth became an even bigger problem for MS. At that time GDDR5 wasnt feasible for MS , so they decided (or in other words AMD recommended) to increase the bus width of the memory controller AND increase the amount of memory at the same time. The resulting 384-bit memory controller was a custom created one, simply because DDR3 MCs in normal consumer PCs only allow 64, 128 or 256-bit controllers.
After the increase in bandwidth and size of the main memory, they had to do something about the embedded SRAM on the die.(there wouldnt have been an apparent advantage in using eSRAM with the same bandwidth as the main memory pool)
This resulted in the "doubling of the eSRAM".
All those changes took place April/Mai 2012. In September 2012 the first sampling of the chip took place.(Remember the design of the system hasnt changed)
At the same time, the original APU (Specifications from Feb 2012) was being fabbed for usage in 3rd Party Development Kits. (Beta Kits V1 December 2012/January2013; Beta Kits V2 in March 2013 contained the final chip, though many developer experienced heating issues, so downclocking for final retail kits can be expected)
The yield rates of the chip have been worse than expected (personal note: This is such a Microsoft thing; last minute spec upgrade and then expecting it to have good yield rates...); as of April 2013 Microsoft still expects enough units for a global release at the end of the year, but expect shortages or even a push to early 2014.
Upgrades (in short):
1. GPU: 12 to 20 CUs; 16 to 32 ROPs; 48 to 80 TMUs
Peak Performance: 1,2 TFlops to 2,0 TFlops
Low Level Changes:
Register Read (GB/s): From 7372 to 12287
LDS Read: 1228 to 2047
L1 Read: 615 to 1025
L2 Read: 307 to 512
Die size (part of the APU for GPU): 145 mm2 to 215 mm2
2. Main Memory: Size from 8GB to 12GB; bus width from 256 to 384; bandwidht from 68GB/s to 102,4GB/s
3. eSRAM on die: size from 32MB to 64MB, bus width from 1024 to 2048, bandwidth from 102,4GB/s to 204,8 GB/s
(personal note: eSRAM is NOT 6T-SRAM; its 1 transistor per bit
Die size: from 18 mm2 to 40mm2 (estimates)
4. whole APU: die size from 300 mm2 to 400mm2/450mm2 ( personal note: this one is weird, but there were conflicting reports in the doumentation); TDP: 100 W to 160 W (personal note: those are power usage numbers for the APU alone; for comparision the Orbis APU wont draw more than 145; the efficiency of those parts is by the way much higher than those found in the 7000 Radeon series)
(personal note: eSRAM is NOT 6T-SRAM; its 1 transistor per bit
Personal request: Which foundry and process?
If they ship that as Xbox One I will buy two and Ballmer will be wondering why he got that strange thank you letter in the mail.
SmudgeTheCat
Newcomer
I'd like to believe an up clock tho. There has to be some strategy by Microsoft for not saying too much on specs... Unless they re going the Nintendo route and not saying shit at all
They could be doing the normal stuff that management does these days:
1. Tell engineers to do X "AND ONLY X".
2. Engineers do "X" - Management has a cow and says "How could you do this to me? How could this happen?!?"
3. Beat the engineers. Management says to engineers "You fix!!! YOU FIX NOW!!!"
4. Engineers run around like crazy at the last minute and pull off a series of minor miracles.
5. CEO shows up on stage and says "It was difficult to pull this off but fortunately our VP's are top talent".
Bogus.
seriously. let's just believe they completely redesigned the entire APU and were able to prefab/test/etc. in a few short months.
little hope of a miracle point though, if it did happen...it'd explain the yield issues lol
and at least the move to 12GB and upclocking the GPU doesn't sound completely ridiculous anymore.
Certainly would explain why the Xbox One is bigger than the PS4 and why the cooler is so massive as well as why it costs more. And as far as we know, MS has barely ever talked official specs.
Question isn't if the pastebin is fake or not but if it passes the B3D sniff test regardless of timing or not. If someone randomly decided to troll everyone and just said "double everything hahaha!" there would be obvious mistakes.
Question isn't if the pastebin is fake or not but if it passes the B3D sniff test regardless of timing or not. If someone randomly decided to troll everyone and just said "double everything hahaha!" there would be obvious mistakes.
SmudgeTheCat
Newcomer
My question is when did the semi official specs get leaked anyway? How do people know its 6t SRAM but not 1t. I heard rumors that a new Nda was signed by developers.
the past bin is fake as hell
Sad thing is everything is fake until its confirmed to be real.
we dont know for sure, but 5 billion transistors is hard to make work otherwise, given 768 shaders virtually confirmed.
SmudgeTheCat
Newcomer
Iirc one developer let that 768 shaders slip. Is it possible he was talking about alpha dev kit? No one is sure about anything. Leaked specs all seem to come from the original dev kit.
it was an MS engineer at the architect talk May 21... said it matter of factly and I do not think it was intentional
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky