Possible specs for xbox 2?

:rolleyes: oh boy here we go :)

What they say in the article regarding nvidia is totally wrong. They are/were NOT out of the running for Xbox 2. The court case had zero impact on MS wanting to use Nvidia again.
 
Who knows, it might be out in 2004 (depending on how well the first Xbox does) But I seriously doubt it will be available in North America or Europe in that time frame. My bet is that Japan will be the first place to get it.
 
Just for argument's sake, if this thing comes out in 2004 (I think 2005 is more likely) the CPU and RAM doesn't seem that far off but the GPU will most likely be beyond the NV30. NV40 or better I would think.
 
those idiot websites have no clue. Nv30 will not be used in XBox 2, as it will be far too old by the time a new MS console would be coming out.

more like NV4X~NV55 - A varient of NV40 at the very, very least.
 
The way I see it, they are going to keep swapping it for the latest/fastest Nvidia CPU right up until it comes out officially.

this is just what they did with the current Xbxo. It once had a geforce 2, and then a geforce 3 before they settled on the NV2A. So they'll use the next fastest chip ready to arrive...
 
Didn't Carmack say he'll be basing his next engine around the NV 30 and CG language? It may be Microsoft saying get a head start by coding in CG with the NV 30, and as things progress (The NV 40 comes out) it will be fairly easy to take advantage of new features.
 
Read the article people. The make it very clear that is a guideline for early dev and that the specs are definitely not final(not even for the dev kit). Remember that the XB dev kits were using GF2's until very shortly before the XB release(in comparitive terms).
 
I think MS has learned a lot this time around, and I dont think they are just going to go with PC parts again, I am betting on the rumors saying they will make thier own graphics chipsets. That way they could keep costs down, make a mad powerful sleek unit, and actually make money on it.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I think MS has learned a lot this time around, and I dont think they are just going to go with PC parts again, I am betting on the rumors saying they will make thier own graphics chipsets. That way they could keep costs down, make a mad powerful sleek unit, and actually make money on it.
I don't get what exactly Microsoft is supposed to have learned "this time around", what should have convinced them to completely change their console hardware approach and develop chipsets off their own from now on?

IMHO these are the lessons MS probably learned:
- It was a good choice to work with proven technology leaders of the PC industry, specialists who have a lot more experience in their specific field than any single company could ever have, much less aquire in a few years.
- This way they can design a console system more powerfull than any other out there in their first try and do so in half the time their competitors traditionally require.
- They can put their experience in working with all kinds of PC architecture, Windows OS, DX and software based off those in general to good use, saving themselves the trouble of reinventing the wheel and spending huge loads of unneccessary R&D in software and hardware development.
- The technology behind the platform is very well known, easy to work with and loads over loads of documentation and tools exist already. Developers don't need to learn to master their architecture, most already know pretty well how the hardware behind the platform works and the lerning curve is small compared to some other systems out there.
- They should negotiate a bit harder and make smarter decisions about their hardware partners to optimize production costs. The initially high hardware costs definitely held them back.
- They should have learned their lessons not to screw with Europe, see the european launchprice of the Xbox for a perfect example of how MS had apparently no clue of what to expect here.
- Japan is an even harder market to get into, keep working on it but no friggin' cafe is gonna help you sell hardware there.

Apart from the hardware costs I don't see how the design of the Xbox is flawed, at least not to a degree that should cause MS to reconsider their approach. Xbox is able to produce the best visuals and audio of all console systems out there, while having enough computing power for the kind of AI and physics common today and in the near future. Its certainly not the hardware that's the XBox's problem, its the games, or rather a lack of recent AAA titles...

Now I'm gonna go back to thinking about which console to get for myself this winter, narrowed it down to GC and Xbox for now (a friend has a PS2, that's enough for me), I'm probably gonna throw a dice or something... ;)
 
Gollum said:
Apart from the hardware costs I don't see how the design of the Xbox is flawed, at least not to a degree that should cause MS to reconsider their approach. Xbox is able to produce the best visuals and audio of all console systems out there, while having enough computing power for the kind of AI and physics common today and in the near future.

The hardware is not flawed, but the xbox launch was 1year and half later (comparing with ps2), costed more at launch (now, I do not know) and did not produce visuals "signiificantly" different from the ps2. What will happen when they will launch at the same time or before its competitors next time ?

I did not talk about GC, since nintendo goals were not performance over cost.
 
[qutoe]What will happen when they will launch at the same time or before its competitors next time ? [/quote]

They will be much more prepared and have MORE software that makes good use of the system. Just watch...
 
A couple Xbox launch titles like DoA3 displayed noticably better visuals than PS2 games of the time, at least enough that even a casual gamer could spot the difference. In comparison the PS2 was humiliated by the Dreamcast when it launched, not only were there no good games, but most Dreamcast games at the time looked almost as good or even better (better textures, better AA). Should Sony reconsider designing their own hardware too, after all they didn't manage to clearly distinguish themselves from 1+ year older hardware and were much more expensive too? Take away the huge PSX Image-bonus and the PS2 launch would have been a huge flop, it too was much too expensive for what little it offered.

On a different note, I think the time and age of "significant" improvements in IQ are pretty much over, at least the hardware won't be bringing us a whole lot of "free" or "easy" improvements anymore (full time FSAA is one of the few that is left). 3D technology is out of its infancy and new dramatic steps are not likely to happen in a timeframe of only a year or two, most importantly they don't happen only on the hardware side, but need a lot of developer support and depend on the quality of artwork. The big step of "software rendering look" to "hardware rendering look" was done with this concole generation, the next step to "offline rendering look" will be harder and take longer simply because it requires a lot more human resources (artists, coders, designers) to exploit. Things as basic as true transparency, texture filtering, more polygons and so on did the most to enhance the overall IQ compared to previous generation consoles (maybe except N64).

Today's consoles share a lot of charactersitics (or rather features) and mainly differ through texture memory, polygon throughput and advanced shading methods. These are more subtle differences and arguably less dramatic, most importantly though they're harder to notice as Art direction is of increasing importance and some effects one console doesn't have can often be convincingly faked or a limitation worked around.

This brings me back to the software, its the games that show off a system! All three current consoles share similar enough features, while Xbox is arguably the most powerfull (while GC has the best cost/performance balance), good art direction could make a PS2 or GC game "appear" better looking than a technically superior Xbox title. I expect this will be even more true in the next generation of consoles - Xbox2/PS3/GC2 - all major players cook with the same ingredients, they just mix them differently. Even though each system will have strengths and weaknesses, I don't expect the hardware is going to be the reason for success or failure. That decision is going to be handled by Developer support, Games, Marketing and Image IMHO... :)
 
NV30 might not even be the baseline for starting development. I'm sure CinFX/Cg will, but not the NV30 chip itself. back when XBox was rumored/reported on in 1999, it was ment to use an Athlon 500 and GeForce256 (GF1/NV10) -

development didn't actually start until the GeForce2GTS/NV15 arrived.

It will most likely be the same senareo again. I'm guessing XBox 2 development will start on no less than Nv35. Then as newer chips come along (Nv40, NV45, NV50) XBox 2 development kits will switch to those until the final version of the final selected chip is ready. The same thing would happen if MS decides to use ATI instead of Nvidia.
 
Back
Top