The model without L3 cache has twice the transistors of Xenon, kind of obvious that it would win. Though I'm fairly certain it won't be twice as fast as Xenon.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
exactly. Early adopters who even give a crap about BC still will have their last gen console anyway. BC is a checkbox feature that many might whine about and few will actually use. Use whatever effort it would take improving the new box.
So the reason that Sony introduced BC in PS2 and PS3 and that Nintendo had BC in WII and that the Nintendo 3DS can play Nintendo DS games and that could play Nintendo Advance games that could play Nintendo GameBoy games is just a checkmark feature?
Someone clearly had an idea within Sony and Nintendo that it was worth the effort, for profit of course.
And the internet crying and bitching when BC was killed in the PS3 proves this as a fact, or should we consider that single bitching and crying incident about "removing a feature" void?
It'll very by game of course, and it's hard to tell for sure when console games are usually capped at 30fps and you can't tell whether the bottleneck is CPU or GPU, but there's stuff like Capcom's Framework engine games and Mafia 2 where I'd bet it's more than twice as fast, and that's even with all the Windows/driver/background/etc overheads.
My dual core Opteron normally came out ahead of my Xbox 360 on multiplatform games, and the X4 has twice as many cores and improved performance per core. In my really basic XNA stuff, the Opteron was about twice as fast per thread per clock as the Xbox, and there were situations where it was significantly faster still.
You don't think a Phenom 2 core minus L3 cach would be 50% faster than than a Xenon core clock for clock?
Which effectively would make a single, in order. 2 issue wide Xenon core as fast or faster than a single out of order, 3 issue wide P4 core.
Doesn't add up to me.
I've been wondering about the rumour about MS using a "new cell". Honestly I would be more than surprised if MS uses something that resembles Cell, I would also be surprised if IBM give it a successor.
From what I remember IBM wanted the cell to be based on power processor only.
For me the chip that from IBM that could the new cell is the Power A2/EN.
I remember KK speaking of a grid of cell, etc. The power a2 seems way more suited to deliver.
So assuming that networking will have a growing importance do you all believe that the power a2(or a derivative)
embarquing some network (and security) accelerators could actually give a manufacturer a significant edge in this area?
From what I remember IBM wanted the cell to be based on power processor only.
For me the chip that from IBM that could the new cell is the Power A2/EN.
I remember KK speaking of a grid of cell, etc. The power a2 seems way more suited to deliver.
So assuming that networking will have a growing importance do you all believe that the power a2(or a derivative)
embarquing some network (and security) accelerators could actually give a manufacturer a significant edge in this area?
Just a few thoughts:
- Nintendo, the most consistently profitable and penny pinching company in gaming history, have included and are pushing BC with the Wii for the WiiU.
- Lots of people used BC for Halo 2 on the 360, and paid $60 a year to be able to do so, bringing their later-adopting friends with them subsequently. The ability to continue playing, seamlessly, with Xbox 1 Halo gamers was great. Almost like using a new PC *cough*
- Having the old xbox DID NOT guarantee still being able to use old content, or valuable features such as online play, with the first Xbox. Still having your old system does not mean what you think it means!
- Having Live strong from day one contributed to the billions in pure profit MS have made from Live and the billions they are yet to make. Supporting their online ecosystem through BC has secured the greatest possible return for a tiny initial investment. You couldn't spent money any better than MS spent it on BC (except, maybe, on a better heatsink).
- The rewards will be even greater next gen.
From what I understand, [H] has retracted that rumour.
For serial spaghetti code that relies on low memory latency and can benefit from OoO execution P2 will most likely win. For SIMD stuff I wouldn't be so sure.
Though one thing that P2 has vastly better over Xenon is it's several times lower memory latency.
Llano is about 228 mm2 according to AnandTech, without about half of the space used for CPU cores. The 360 had about 500 mm2 of processors in it. Four Bulldozer modules (or what the hell put 5 in with one for redundancy) with 1MB of L2 each would take up a pretty small amount of a 500 mm2, 22nm budget.
And with enough redundancy built in, a large chip (say 350 mm2, Thuban size) shouldn't be too uneconomical to build, and would shrink well ... right??
And with enough redundancy built in, a large chip (say 350 mm2, Thuban size) shouldn't be too uneconomical to build, and would shrink well ... right??
More 'sources' confirming XBOX NEXT will be x86 again:
He works in one of Intel labs from what I understand. He has had some good info before about other products like SB.
All this together with Windows 8 news starts to make sense. Interesting times ahead!
few posts later ...
Posted by ajaidev @XS
He works in one of Intel labs from what I understand. He has had some good info before about other products like SB.
All this together with Windows 8 news starts to make sense. Interesting times ahead!
Most likely? It seems a dead certainty to me, and that's just on a core per core basis not accounting for the greater number of cores in the X4.
Regarding the SIMD question, I'm not really sure how important it is when we talk about gaming code but I've certainly never seen a 3.2 Ghz quad core (of any architecture) in a PC fail to provide framerates equal to those of the consoles in any game. In fact they're almost always able to provide vastly greater framerates (which I know doesn't say much since the consoles will often be GPU limited) so either this extra SIMD power doesn't mean much in the real world or it just isn't there at all in a useful sense.
Microsoft concerned about cross platform development with the PC? If true I'm amazed! Good news though.
More 'sources' confirming XBOX NEXT will be x86 again:
few posts later ...
Posted by ajaidev @XS
He works in one of Intel labs from what I understand. He has had some good info before about other products like SB.
All this together with Windows 8 news starts to make sense. Interesting times ahead!
Sounds like pure bunk.
PC gets most console games ported right now, what is the obsession on forums (I've heard similar on Hardocvp) with X86 in xbox to "help" PC gaming about? It would mean nothing, but perhaps slightly easier ports, and not even that really (I doubt the CPU being X86 is going to help that much when the memory is 1/4 and the GPU is 1/4 of PC's a few years into the generation, X86 will be the least of porting worries). But what difference does that make, PC gets most major games ported to it right now anyway? Is MS really interested in saving third party devs a few buck and making major architectural decisions about it? That makes no sense. Anyway we already hear a lot that 360-PC ports are easy as is, making the whole thing even more dubious, X86 doesnt seem to be needed for easy porting in the first place.
PC gaming is crippled mostly because of piracy anyway, duh. Consoles not being X86 has nothing to do with it in any wild imaginations.
And besides that, unless Sony goes X86 it wont help either,. You still likely have to port your game to their console too.
Also the part about some "layer" between 360 and software sounds horribly inefficient as well, doesn't it? Like an API, which PC devs are complaining API slows down PC by a factor of two relative to console? Definitely not true for that reason.
Blazkowicz
Legend
please. I thought it was written as if a joke.
or does $important_microsoft_person say to random internet people "I tell you bro, this shit needs a layer"
the exemple given for use of the "layer" is complete nonsense.
doesn't require to use an API or even an OS.
managed code : doesn't that make processor architecture even more irrelevant than with C/C++?
or does $important_microsoft_person say to random internet people "I tell you bro, this shit needs a layer"
the exemple given for use of the "layer" is complete nonsense.
doesn't require to use an API or even an OS.
managed code : doesn't that make processor architecture even more irrelevant than with C/C++?
I am just assuming that if you were building the hardware you wouldn't use such hyperbole if the chip was weak or low to mid range.
Unifying the platforms would make sense, and fits with a lot of Microsoft's recent actions and rumors. Perhaps the aim is that there isn't a port - the game code is common to both platforms.
The way I see it, there could be three types of game:
* Platform native games
* XNA games with xbox live branding. Compatible with 360, XboxNext, Phone, DX10 x86 and ARM Win8 PCs
* Games with XboxNext branding. Runs only on XboxNext and certified Win8 PCs that reach a minimum spec (x86 + DX11 + special optical drive?)
Unifying xbox as the gaming brand for windows and xbox live as the service would make a lot of sense.
The way I see it, there could be three types of game:
* Platform native games
* XNA games with xbox live branding. Compatible with 360, XboxNext, Phone, DX10 x86 and ARM Win8 PCs
* Games with XboxNext branding. Runs only on XboxNext and certified Win8 PCs that reach a minimum spec (x86 + DX11 + special optical drive?)
Unifying xbox as the gaming brand for windows and xbox live as the service would make a lot of sense.
There also launching with a cheaper lower powered box against 2 already HD competitors.
-I've been a live subscriber since 2005, I've never paid more than $40. I also really don't think halo or live really carried the 360 for the first year.
This isn't going to be a transition like xbox to 360. The 360 isn't going anywhere with a new product launch.
Live can be strong without BC, just make sure you have some solid launch titles.
cuz why?
If they want to bring a few popular games forward there's nothing to stop that, and I fully expect that will happen (ala games on demand), but aiming for full BC is a needless expense. They'd be better off money hatting devs to get them quality launch titles. If BC is going to be completely trivial than no problem, by all means include it, but I don't think they should include any hardware for the purpose.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
