Possible Xbox2 processor configuration?

[jvd]

I full well believe that if ms needs to have two cpus with 2 or 4 cores on the die they will do what they have to do. If at some point in the future of the consoles life they can then move to 1 cpu with the 4 or 8 cores on it they will to reduce costs .

I also believe if they need to they will add in two r500 or whatever the chip will be .


I see no reason why they wouldn't .

They haven't been affraid of loosing money and since this time with regards to the gpu (can't comment on the cpu) they are liscensing the ip not buying the chips they can go to new processes quickly perhaps even at some point combine things into fewer chips .

They will do it to stay on par or faster than sony .

 

[randycat99]

I just don't see what all the hubbub is about wrt what CPU needs to be in XBox2 to do the job, anyway. I figure the fastest P4 today shrunk down to whatever current process exists in 2005/6 with a decent L2 cache augmentation should be quite adequate to run your typical x86 game. Doesn't even need to be 2 of them. I mean, think about how far ahead a 3-4 GHz P4 is compared to the original Xbox 733 MHz Celeron? That seems like a respectable step up for a 2nd gen Xbox, IMO.

As per the traditional XBox philosophy, the console would lean hard on its fancy GPU hardware to render its visual glory. So what's the big deal? Why all the focus on the CPU, all of a sudden?

 

[Deadmeat]

...

With Power5, MS is free to take their business elsewhere. MS licensed the CPU architecture only and is free to choose its own fab. Likewise MS only licensed R500 core, and is free to choose its own fab.

There is no way Intel or AMD would license their CPU designs to MS for 3rd party fabbing...

 

[Fafalada]

I see no reason why they wouldn't .

I don't know, what if, hypothetically speaking, they are trying to do something stupid, like say... have a bussiness model that might actually make profit some day...?

So what's the big deal? Why all the focus on the CPU, all of a sudden?

The fact they are using multiprocessor solution strongly implies it's not there just to do nothing except running game logic. Even with just the vague rumoured spec out there it seems pretty obvious that XBox2 is shaping to be a bit different then just another PC in a smaller box.

 

[jvd]

I see no reason why they wouldn't .

I don't know, what if, hypothetically speaking, they are trying to do something stupid, like say... have a bussiness model that might actually make profit some day...?

So what's the big deal? Why all the focus on the CPU, all of a sudden?

The fact they are using multiprocessor solution strongly implies it's not there just to do nothing except running game logic. Even with just the vague rumoured spec out there it seems pretty obvious that XBox2 is shaping to be a bit different then just another PC in a smaller box.

They will need a powerfull system capable of displaying graphics on par or greater than the ps3.

If ty can't do that they wont be profitable .


Since they are liscensing the tech this time they can jump fabbing processes as much as possible and recoup more costs quicker .

 

[randycat99]

A very good point, Faf- so are you suggesting some traditionally GPU graphics functions may be moved over to the CPU this time around? Which ones, you think?

 

[oi]

They will need a powerfull system capable of displaying graphics on par or greater than the ps3.

If ty can't do that they wont be profitable .

That's an incredibly silly statement. You don't have to have the biggest baddest console to make a profit. I mean you just have to look as far as this generation to see how much the power of the console had to do with profit.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

The fact they are using multiprocessor solution strongly implies it's not there just to do nothing except running game logic. Even with just the vague rumoured spec out there it seems pretty obvious that XBox2 is shaping to be a bit different then just another PC in a smaller box.

I would disagree, the coding environment has changed a lot over the years.

In the old days, the OS was nothing but a file loader and the developers had full control(or the burden) of hardware. Nowadays, full-blown multi-processing is in thanks to modern kernels, and the processing burden is split between user process, TCP/IP stack, and system runtimes like DirectX. So that even the single-thread user process can take a good advantage of SMP.

 

[mondoterrifico]

Re: ...

In the old days, the OS was nothing but a file loader and the developers had full control(or the burden) of hardware. Nowadays, full-blown multi-processing is in thanks to modern kernels, and the processing burden is split between user process, TCP/IP stack, and system runtimes like DirectX. So that even the single-thread user process can take a good advantage of SMP.

Huh?

 

[jvd]

They will need a powerfull system capable of displaying graphics on par or greater than the ps3.

If ty can't do that they wont be profitable .

That's an incredibly silly statement. You don't have to have the biggest baddest console to make a profit. I mean you just have to look as far as this generation to see how much the power of the console had to do with profit.

This time there wont be a huge gap like sony had last time .

This time all 3 should be out with in 6 months of each other .

Graphics will be important to the casual just like allways .

 

[Vince]

This time there wont be a huge gap like sony had last time .

This time all 3 should be out with in 6 months of each other.

Ahh yes, that "Huge gap" of a year in North America and Europe. And after a year:

This "huge gap" argument is so frickin' tired, the math and dynamics behind the above numbers just don't support it as the rate of increase of PS2 is of such a frickin' larger magnitude than the competition that one year is [comperativly] insignificant without admitting that there are some amazingly strong non-linear dynamics behind the PS2 which just don't apply to the others - namely the popculture, games, and intangible consumer acceptance/demand aspects that the XBox and Cube just don't have.. aspects which a more normalized launch won't solve or address. Just let it rest already.

 

[randycat99]

Just a thought, but if MS has all the money in the world to pull off any feat and they really wanna get serious about being the dominant console platform, why don't they just give away 26 million Xbox2's? It could work, right?

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Huh?

It means the user code take up less percentage of CPU time than it used to.

 

[Psychogenics]

Just a thought, but if MS has all the money in the world to pull off any feat and they really wanna get serious about being the dominant console platform, why don't they just give away 26 million Xbox2's? It could work, right?

Because 10 million of those Xboxes will go to those who already got one....lets Face it the Xbox has hit Critical mass with the Mass market I doubt that they will continue to push the X hard since the core gamers already have one.

 

[randycat99]

Mind you, I did put a "2" at the end of Xbox.

 

[nobie]

Dual-GPU setups are quirky and have significant drawbacks.
Everything has to be stored in memory twice so it effectively cuts your memory in half. The processors are usually starved by excessive bus traffic. Each chip has to T&L vertices seperately. I'm pretty sure X-Box 2 will use a single GPU.

OTOH they could just take R500 and double the number of vertex/pixel engines, keeping everything on a single chip.

 

[Fox5]

I just don't see what all the hubbub is about wrt what CPU needs to be in XBox2 to do the job, anyway. I figure the fastest P4 today shrunk down to whatever current process exists in 2005/6 with a decent L2 cache augmentation should be quite adequate to run your typical x86 game. Doesn't even need to be 2 of them. I mean, think about how far ahead a 3-4 GHz P4 is compared to the original Xbox 733 MHz Celeron? That seems like a respectable step up for a 2nd gen Xbox, IMO.

As per the traditional XBox philosophy, the console would lean hard on its fancy GPU hardware to render its visual glory. So what's the big deal? Why all the focus on the CPU, all of a sudden?

But......but........the fastest cpu today would only be like 2.5x the power of the xcpu!

 

[Megadrive1988]

Dual-GPU setups are quirky and have significant drawbacks.
Everything has to be stored in memory twice so it effectively cuts your memory in half. The processors are usually starved by excessive bus traffic. Each chip has to T&L vertices seperately. I'm pretty sure X-Box 2 will use a single GPU.

OTOH they could just take R500 and double the number of vertex/pixel engines, keeping everything on a single chip.

I agree with what you're saying here.


like with Sega's NAOMI 2, instead of having two PowerVR2DC chips and a seperate T&L unit, they could have used a single *special* arcade variant of PowerVR3 with on board T&L (yes i know the PC versions of PowerVR3 lacked T&L, im just speaking hypothetically) or used an early PowerVR4 chip which was going to have T&L anyway.


for Xbox2, while I'd like the power of duel R500s, it makes no sense to have duel GPUs in a $300 box. just spend the R&D making a R500 varient with twice the vertex engines & pixel pipelines.

the realworld performance of effectively 2 R500s on a single chip should be better than 2 seperate R500s.

 

[Qroach]

Why focus on the CPU? Physics, AI, and other number crunching needs. With multiple CPU cores, in therory you could run a server on one and the game on the other without affecting performance of the game. This is something xbox just can't do well right now, it's one of the reason I've only seen one xbox game that supports up to 16 players. Of course internet bandwidth plays into that too...

 

[Guden Oden]

for Xbox2, while I'd like the power of duel R500s, it makes no sense to have duel GPUs in a $300 box. just spend the R&D making a R500 varient with twice the vertex engines & pixel pipelines.

You guys are nuts. Why on Earth do you expect MS to take a top-of-the-line graphics chip, DOUBLE it, and then stick it in a cheap piece of consumer electronics?

Not only is there no need for 2xR500 for a console working at TV resolutions, there's not a memory device on this earth that could keep up with something like that, and even if there was, there's no way in hell anyone would be able to afford a console kitted out with it!

R500 graphics boards will alone sell for more than the entire Box will, let alone CPU and chipset, optical drive, harddrive and all the extra fluff needed to build a complete system. To expect 2xR500 at a price any sane person can afford is NUTS. Plain and simple. Hell, you guys should be overjoyed to get "ONLY" a full R500, but probably, it will be something downgraded compared to what's available for the PC, just like with the original Box.