News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[SmudgeTheCat]

Ok it was super dae back in January on vg leaks. One "official" source. Even Albert Penello went on gaf and said specs could change. If I was Microsoft I would wait til the last minute to release the final specs so Sony cant do anything about it. None of us are computer engineer wizards. Who knows maybe altering the soc doesn't take that long considering the basic design is already done.

 

[dagamer]

Is Microsoft really going to make us disassemble a retail unit to get at this info? We will know eventually. Someone is always motivated to take one apart.

 

[SmudgeTheCat]

it was an MS engineer at the architect talk May 21... said it matter of factly and I do not think it was intentional

Didn't know that

 

[Brad Grenz]

Is Microsoft really going to make us disassemble a retail unit to get at this info? We will know eventually. Someone is always motivated to take one apart.

We basically know all there is to know, whether some people can accept that or not.

 

[Tap In]

Is Microsoft really going to make us disassemble a retail unit to get at this info? We will know eventually. Someone is always motivated to take one apart.

I really think they believe it is too early yet to give away that power and any changes that may come about ...why should they give specs now and give Sony another chance to beat them more with their own information as they did with DRM

 

[SmudgeTheCat]

Looked more into super dae.... Said himself the specs leaked were old. Microsoft engineer could just be covering with 768 comment. U never know

 

[pMax]

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.

LOL
Thanks for the nice morning

...point 4 reminds me all times why I got out of software development...

(btw you forgot 3.5: You fixed it now (as requested), but you had not a prioritized story for that... managers never end to be managers )

 

[Strange]

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)

This list is so incredibly funny it's sad to read. I glanced and saw 20 CUs and I simply stopped reading through everything else.

Doing all that and keeping it at $500? more like $800~1000 if you ask me.

You'd also think Microsoft would come out touting all of this as superior hardware and specs if any of this was true.

This wish list is simply take whatever the current specs are and double it or multiply by 1.5. Not very creative.

 

[Gubbi]

Jesus people, stop making shit up.

Cheers

 

[SmudgeTheCat]

This list is so incredibly funny it's sad to read. I glanced and saw 20 CUs and I simply stopped reading through everything else.

Doing all that and keeping it at $500? more like $800~1000 if you ask me.

You'd also think Microsoft would come out touting all of this as superior hardware and specs if any of this was true.

This wish list is simply take whatever the current specs are and double it or multiply by 1.5. Not very creative.

Ps4 has 18 and its a hundred dollars cheaper...
I know it's probably fake...but I bet specs have changed. Microsoft wouldn't want to lose software sales... That's where the money is at .. Not the hardware. If people start buying third party titles for ps4 then what's left for Microsoft? Die hard fanboys and exclusives.
If Microsoft was smart they would release the specs later to build up demand and justify the more expensive price. Kinect 2.0 is a hundred bucks lets say. With weaker hardware the price should be 450. Using ddr3 instead of gddr5 results in significant savings

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Ps4 has 18 and its a hundred dollars cheaper...

It doesn't have ESRAM. If we take the APU prices as being identical, that pastebin nonsense would see the area increase 50% with a greater than 50% increase in cost. Furthermore there's no way MS could design a whole new APU and system in a few months as a knee-jerk reaction to PS4 specs. It's an engineering impossibility. The only way that could have any feasibility is if MS invested in designing two complete systems up to manufacture, and are only picking the final choice in the final month before they have to commit to manufacturing. Furthermore, that nonsense says the changes were happening last year, yet we have confirmation of the specs from January this year. So unless MS has doubled their platform but not told anyone, and will release games running under the hardware's capability for 6-12 months after release so it doesn't demonstrate its hardware superiority, it's not happening.

This one is such a crock of nonsense, it would probably have been best if not posted. I'm almost inclined to ban PasteBin references on this board - what good has ever come from it? Sad little people use it to mess about with information, and the signal to noise ratio is so small (if there even is one. I'm unconvinced there's any signal within PasteBin) that it's effectively the same taking a dump in any thread it's linked to.

 

[BoardBonobo]

There's s reason MS have gone on record saying Sony releasing technical numbers e.g. 18 CU's etc is meaningless. They need to reduce the publics perception of hardware stats because they would come out, yet again, in a poor light.

Given their current PR nightmare and the hole they dug the xb180 into, if they had superior hardware tbey would be plastering that all over the media. Instead they started on the power of the cloud instead, but they seem to have gone quiet on that front. Probably because they realised that in the mainstream the 'power of the cloud' in meaningless and in some cases actively distrusted. People not knowing where or whom has their data etc.

In short I think this is all wishful thinking, but it may represent plans MS have to refresh the XB180 later down the line, say in 12 months should the sales figures not live up to even the meagerest expectations.

 

[Brimstone]

Considering recent events at Microsoft I think Xbox hardware upgrades are possible.

12 gigs of ram, 20 cu, and doubling esram to 64gigs would certainly improve the perception of the hardware.

 

[Gubbi]

Considering recent events at Microsoft I think Xbox hardware upgrades are possible.

12 gigs of ram, 20 cu, and doubling esram to 64gigs would certainly improve the perception of the hardware.

With a 2015 launch date.

Cheers

 

[Cjail]

Considering recent events at Microsoft I think Xbox hardware upgrades are possible.

12 gigs of ram, 20 cu, and doubling esram to 64gigs would certainly improve the perception of the hardware.

What recent events?
Mattrick probably decided to leave weeks if not months ago.
MS also would surely not have waited till now to make drastic changes like the ones you suggest.

MS is most likely satisfied with the Xbox One as it is now but of course that is not nearly as fun as speculating about specs upgrades.

 

[goonergaz]

Isn't it odd how selective MS have been with their spec?

MS: "We have comparable Transistor, RAM and HDD size to PS4"
The Net: "ok, what other specs do you have for me, you know, like bandwidth?"
MS: "the cloud gives you infinite power,moing the XBO from 8x X360 to 40x the power"
The Net: "ok, but how about those specs, you know, like the ones Sony have given, shaders etc?"
MS: "specs are not important"
The Net: "ok, so why did you cherry pick stats that are comparable to PS4 but miss off half the data?"
MS: "erm...we have found a way to make our bandwidwith faster than PS4"
The Net: "wait...your bandwidth was slower? first I heard (officially)"

etc

Or am I missing something?

No doubt next spec released will be "our GPU runs at 900Mhz".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Considering recent events at Microsoft I think Xbox hardware upgrades are possible.

12 gigs of ram, 20 cu, and doubling esram to 64gigs would certainly improve the perception of the hardware.

Of course it would, but how exactly does MS engineer and produce that design for a Christmas 2013 launch, and how do they price the product? Massive loss-leader?

 

[Cranky]

It doesn't have ESRAM. If we take the APU prices as being identical, that pastebin nonsense would see the area increase 50% with a greater than 50% increase in cost. Furthermore there's no way MS could design a whole new APU and system in a few months as a knee-jerk reaction to PS4 specs. It's an engineering impossibility. The only way that could have any feasibility is if MS invested in designing two complete systems up to manufacture, and are only picking the final choice in the final month before they have to commit to manufacturing. .

Sigh! Now before I get on my soap box let me state that the pastebin post is highly likely to be bullshit. Also this isn't meant to be negative towards you shifty, more like a general commentary regarding a personal pet peeve.

Now soapbox time - where oh where has our reading comprehension gone. There has been a serious decline in general reading comprehension online over the last several years. I blame twitter! It seems that everyone skims things and responds quickly. As result, details are getting lost that dramatically alter the meaning.

For example, above comment has no relevance to the pastebin. The pastebin CLEARLY states that the change occurred 15 months ago, with first samples occurring 9 months ago, and NOT a few months ago. In the meantime, they continued down the old path in case the new design wouldn't make it, including having beta kits issued this year with old specs.

 

[dagamer]

It doesn't have ESRAM. If we take the APU prices as being identical, that pastebin nonsense would see the area increase 50% with a greater than 50% increase in cost. Furthermore there's no way MS could design a whole new APU and system in a few months as a knee-jerk reaction to PS4 specs. It's an engineering impossibility. The only way that could have any feasibility is if MS invested in designing two complete systems up to manufacture, and are only picking the final choice in the final month before they have to commit to manufacturing. Furthermore, that nonsense says the changes were happening last year, yet we have confirmation of the specs from January this year. So unless MS has doubled their platform but not told anyone, and will release games running under the hardware's capability for 6-12 months after release so it doesn't demonstrate its hardware superiority, it's not happening.

This one is such a crock of nonsense, it would probably have been best if not posted. I'm almost inclined to ban PasteBin references on this board - what good has ever come from it? Sad little people use it to mess about with information, and the signal to noise ratio is so small (if there even is one. I'm unconvinced there's any signal within PasteBin) that it's effectively the same taking a dump in any thread it's linked to.

Mostly accurate leaked specs of the PS4 have been on the Internet since May 2012. And I would assume MS has better channels to gather that info than us.

I'm not commenting on the pastebin, I'm simply pointing out that we find out about a change from a leak several months after it happened depending on the level of secrecy. Positive changes can be hidden, negative changes cannot. That is all.

 

[Rangers]

Isn't it odd how selective MS have been with their spec?

MS: "We have comparable Transistor, RAM and HDD size to PS4"
The Net: "ok, what other specs do you have for me, you know, like bandwidth?"
MS: "the cloud gives you infinite power,moing the XBO from 8x X360 to 40x the power"
The Net: "ok, but how about those specs, you know, like the ones Sony have given, shaders etc?"
MS: "specs are not important"
The Net: "ok, so why did you cherry pick stats that are comparable to PS4 but miss off half the data?"
MS: "erm...we have found a way to make our bandwidwith faster than PS4"
The Net: "wait...your bandwidth was slower? first I heard (officially)"

etc

Or am I missing something?

No doubt next spec released will be "our GPU runs at 900Mhz".

Here are specs MS gave (That I know):

8GB RAM, 8 core CPU.

768 shaders, though I dont really count that as it's one hidden mention.

32 MB ESRAM? I'm assuming they said that at some point, dunno.

5 billion transistors

Here's specs Sony gave:

8GB GDDR5
1.84 TF GPU
8 core x86 CPU
18 CU's
176 GB/s BW.

So Sony still withheld some key specs, CPU model, CPU clock speed, GPU clock speed (we know from CU's/TF), transistor count (kinda nonstandard spec yes, but MS did give this one)

I guess to say yes indeed Sony gave much more of relevance, but they were not totally forthcoming either.

Anyways as has been discussed to death, clearly MS released the thinnest of specs that they aren't clearly deficient on.

As Panello said, it's unclear their plan about releasing specs going forward.

The fact MS withheld clocks has at least led to plenty of wanton speculation opportunities on our part. Sony less so cause the GPU figures and Shadowfall dev slides at least ostensibly established clocks.