Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[Rangers]

"Bulldozer Fusion" is coming next year for PC, and features Bulldozer CPU cores and VLIW4 shaders. XBNext could use one custom designed to fit their needs, say, something equaling 800-1200 VLIW5's with 4 to 6 BD modules (1 BD module = 2 INT pipes + 1 shared FP-pipe (2x 128bit which can also work as 1x 256bit)

Well maybe, 800-1200 SP's is still kind of light for my liking, but it's something. But where is any evidence anything close to such a powerful part is on AMD's roadmap?

And a 800-1200 SP part is still way too weak for 2013+ imo. Supposed to last till what, 2020?

The problem is an integrated CPU/GPU is just by necessity going to be pretty low end because the die can only be so big. Whereas of course with discrete you have two big dies.

It's vaguely possible, but all kinds of things are vaguely possible at this point since we dont know anything. It could have 3X Intel Larrabee's, that's "possible" too. Just not likely.

Again, Hardocp said last week Xbox Next would have a Cell CPU, so, yeah.

Next Xbox will have an IBM CPU, and discrete relatively high end AMD GPU. That's the 90%-95%+ likelyhood.

 

[Squilliam]

The only way I can reconcile the idea of their using fusion bulldozer with the previous avatar statements if say for instance they have one fusion APU using AMD's next generation fusion part alongside a separate discrete GPU.

 

[function]

A big ass Fusion chip with a large bank of edram (possibly on a different chip on the same package) could be really fast, and nicely contained under one cooler, 360S style. 4 Bulldozer modules won't take up much space on 22nm, especially if you were to halve the (huge) amount of L2.

MS would be free to run the CPU cores slow (for great performance per watt) and run the shaders as fast they can. Maybe they could even let developers choose where they want to allocate the power, and at which point during the update cycle.

 

[Kaotik]

And a 800-1200 SP part is still way too weak for 2013+ imo. Supposed to last till what, 2020?

It's not "way too weak" if Sony and Nintendo don't have anything (much more) powerfull either

edit:

The only way I can reconcile the idea of their using fusion bulldozer with the previous avatar statements if say for instance they have one fusion APU using AMD's next generation fusion part alongside a separate discrete GPU.

The Avatar statements could easily mean just "it looks about the same", not that it's actually the same - after all the diminishing returns in graphics are just insane, you can get quite close to same results with far less powerfull hardware, especially if you "cheat" a bit

 

[Rangers]

The only way I can reconcile the idea of their using fusion bulldozer with the previous avatar statements if say for instance they have one fusion APU using AMD's next generation fusion part alongside a separate discrete GPU.

I think that's what it will be, if anything, pretty clearly. Fusion plus discrete GPU. The Fusion could then help the main GPU, be used even for physics perhaps but mostly graphics like Cell in PS3.

Not that any AND CPU is happening in next Xbox. Would be fun that way though, say 800 SP Fusion+ 2400 SP Southern Island GPU?

after all the diminishing returns in graphics are just insane, you can get quite close to same results with far less powerfull hardware, especially if you "cheat" a bit

Well if it's all the same to you then I'll let your favorite console be the far less powerful one with "close to the same results" I want a lot of power in mine.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The only way I can reconcile the idea of their using fusion bulldozer with the previous avatar statements if say for instance they have one fusion APU using AMD's next generation fusion part alongside a separate discrete GPU.

You don't have to reconcile them as the Avatar statement is clearly empty PR gobbledegook. It has no more relevance to the final hardware as Emotion Engine gave PS2 feelings.

 

[hoho]

Wouldn't 6-module BD (12 int cores) + 1.2k shaders make a chip of some 3-4B transistors? Wouldn't that be a bit much considering AMD just recently got their 32nm working? I could see them getting it down to somewhat reasonable size at 22nm (400mm^2-ish?) but I can't see them being able to produce them on massive scale before mid-2014, late 2013 will really be pushing it. Not to mention attaching at least quadchannel RAM to it to provide anywhere near enough bandwidth to the beast.

 

[Rangers]

You don't have to reconcile them as the Avatar statement is clearly empty PR gobbledegook. It has no more relevance to the final hardware as Emotion Engine gave PS2 feelings.

It suggests something reasonably high end. Not a glorified IGP.

 

[Rangers]

Wouldn't 6-module BD (12 int cores) + 1.2k shaders make a chip of some 3-4B transistors? Wouldn't that be a bit much considering AMD just recently got their 32nm working? I could see them getting it down to somewhat reasonable size at 22nm (400mm^2-ish?) but I can't see them being able to produce them on massive scale before mid-2014, late 2013 will really be pushing it. Not to mention attaching at least quadchannel RAM to it to provide anywhere near enough bandwidth to the beast.

It would also be way way CPU (transistor) heavy and way way GPU (transistor) light...pretty much the opposite of what you want your console.

 

[function]

Current Fusion chips don't have stupid amounts of cache. There's no reason to think that Fusion chips that use the Bulldozer arch instead of K10 will need to have stupid amounts of cache either. The next gen Xbox isn't going to be server.

A Fusion processor with a meatier GPU could be a great fit for a console.

 

[Heinrich4]

And now he's recanted his ridiculous "Next Xbox will have a Cell" rumor already? That lasted one whole week?



:

Just a thought and i know it's unlikely ... but if the MS and repeat what they did before?

Maybe they observed the efficiency of the Gamecube (in practice only 27MB RAM / EDRAM) with IBM cpu and gpu AMD and copied in a way in to the xbox360.

If repeat "copying" the cell from ps3 that has proved useful for many applications (sound, upscale, decoding video, even graphics) and combining AMD gpu southern island (hypothetical) could be a very interesting closed box.. even if have one or more PPUs really powerful (plan B if developers do not want to ... touch the SPUs).

And speaking about, if developers are now working with i7 quad cpu and Radeon HD 5870 (SIMD 1600 / stream processors) is very likely to be expecting something like a Trinity Fusion (a APU with 4 bulldozers cpu and maybe customised for gpu more powerfull in a closed box console).

 

[function]

Just a thought and i know it's unlikely ... but if the MS and repeat what they did before?

Maybe they observed the efficiency of the Gamecube (in practice only 27MB RAM / EDRAM) with IBM cpu and gpu AMD and copied in a way in to the xbox360.

I don't think this was the design process MS went through with the Xbox 360.

 

[Rangers]

Current Fusion chips don't have stupid amounts of cache. There's no reason to think that Fusion chips that use the Bulldozer arch instead of K10 will need to have stupid amounts of cache either. The next gen Xbox isn't going to be server.

A Fusion processor with a meatier GPU could be a great fit for a console.

Maybe, but it would have to be PS4 because we already know Nintendo's plans, and I just dont think MS will deviate from an IBM CPU as they seem to care about BC while Sony does not seem to.

 

[Heinrich4]

Maybe, but it would have to be PS4 because we already know Nintendo's plans, and I just dont think MS will deviate from an IBM CPU as they seem to care about BC while Sony does not seem to.

It is very likely and is perhaps the best way for Sony,as with launch the 40GB version of PS3 retired BC was not have impact on sales of the console, and the opposite in fact increased sales with lower price. They just kept the ps2 active, they only just do the same with the ps3.


And indeed unless there is a last-minute move, there are indications that Sony wants a closed box extremely friendly (see psvita) using AMD Fusion APU, perhaps repeating what he did with psone which opened consultations with the partnership Thirds (and today's internal studios).

 

[function]

Maybe, but it would have to be PS4 because we already know Nintendo's plans, and I just dont think MS will deviate from an IBM CPU as they seem to care about BC while Sony does not seem to.

Like you, I think MS would be wise to maintain BC too, but folks like AIStrong seem to think that emulating the 360s CPU might not be outside the realms of possibility. I still think IBM is most likely, but Fusion would be a good way to move back to x86 if they wanted to. And it might help Windows gaming too ...

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Apart from a handfull of people on the interwebs nobody gives a crap about BC. The only time BC should be in a home console is when it can be done for (near) free. Seriously, outside of those select few no early adaptor is going to buy a new console to play old games (you got the old box for that) and a year later when there is a decent amount of games nobody buying the console than will care about playing old games.

BC is just a waste of time money and effort.

 

[-tkf-]

Seriously.

Ohh at a point there i thought you were just making fun!

Seriously, one of the selling points of the Nintendo handhelds have been as still is BC, so seriously, come up with some numbers, quotes, stats, evidence, tap some phones, get some facts, create a bunch of fake blogs with BC as a speciality before you get serious about BC

I for one would LOVE BC on a PS4, just as i am buying a 2nd fat PS3 just keep that functionality.

 

[AlNom]

so seriously, come up with some numbers, quotes, stats, evidence, tap some phones, get some facts, create a bunch of fake blogs with BC as a speciality before you get serious about BC

According to the Xbox 360 Uncloaked book:

They had found that a tiny fraction of PS2 users had ended up actually using BC and they initially were not going to include it at all. Ed Fries and some others insisted and the concern over servicing customers who consistently used Xbox LIVE (with titles like Halo2 that were not on 360) became an important issue. They actually decided to pursue it forcefully after the chip decisions were made.

From that, it sounds more like they needed to bring Halo 2 gamers to next gen than any desire to accommodate your supposed gamer demand for such a feature. Next time around, they may be able to have a Halo or another Gears of War to bring people on board to next gen. Perhaps even exclusive next-gen Live features for Call of Duty etc to entice folks to jump instead of sticking to this gen.

2014 actually begins to make more sense for another Halo or Gears or even Mass Effect. 2013 on the other hand seems rushed.

At any rate, I'm sure they have collected a lot of stats on BC usage on 360 given the greater online connectivity. They did stop producing updates for BC at the end of 2007 as well, not that the updates were particularly frequent either. We also saw how quickly Sony got rid of BC in PS3.

 

[Rangers]

Didn't the BC updates cover most every major game by the time they stopped anyway?

I'm sure it became a cost-reward calculation as lesser titles were plumbed and low hanging fruit gobbled, though I remember plenty of whining on Neogaf that "my favorite niche game X isn't BC".

Oddly, I'm actually using 360 BC to play through Halo 2 right now.

On another topic about CPU's, I've been thinking more that these huge general purpose AMD and Intel CPU's with load of cache may just not be desirable for consoles. I mean you've got quad CPU's at a billion transistors but are they really pushing the extra performance over the 3 slim 360 cores to be worth it? Or are they built for extracting that tiny bit more performance out of generic ugly sloppy PC code? Another reason IBM may be best, not that a big OOE IBM CPU isn't possible I guess.

 

[function]

There's a saying that goes something like: generals always try and fight the last war again. I think by judging the value of BC by what they saw with the PS2, people may be doing a similar thing. The nature and persistence of content, and the value derived from online, social aspects of gaming has changed. Bridging the gap between a hardcore and casual console will also be tougher if the girlfriend's balance board won't work any more, or if everyone's favourite casual party games stop working.

"Don't worry guys I'll just go up to the loft and get the 360 out! Lets hope that's the one the DLC was on!!"

Nintendo are smart enough to see these issues coming I reckon. That's a discussion for a different thread though, and one that's already been had many times in the appropriate one.

On another topic about CPU's, I've been thinking more that these huge general purpose AMD and Intel CPU's with load of cache may just not be desirable for consoles. I mean you've got quad CPU's at a billion transistors but are they really pushing the extra performance over the 3 slim 360 cores to be worth it? Or are they built for extracting that tiny bit more performance out of generic ugly sloppy PC code? Another reason IBM may be best, not that a big OOE IBM CPU isn't possible I guess.

A quad core Athlon 2 X4 will trash Xenon in multi threaded games, even with all the overhead and inefficiency that the PC brings, and that gets by with only 2MB of L2 and no L3. Future Fusion processors will probably also forgo the huge amount of cache that server chips have, and further customisation may also be possible.

IBM may actually be able to provide better performance per watt, but they won't be able to integrate the parts as well. It'll be interesting to see what benefits Fusion processors bring down the line.