Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
This is a part of CPU though. Anyway, whoever made this had to have a solid knowledge on these things because not many people have heard of PSRAM so its either legit target spec or someone trolling but not making himself looking like complete idiot (ala 20GB XDR2 thing).
I'm leaning towards legit, although alot has changed since. Its interesting he knew of the name Surface before it was announced, plus Tom Warren posting it...Well, he does have sources at MS that much is clear.
I'm leaning towards legit, although alot has changed since. Its interesting he knew of the name Surface before it was announced, plus Tom Warren posting it...Well, he does have sources at MS that much is clear.
Last edited by a moderator:
(((interference)))
Veteran
A 380W will be a beast, that's for sure - didn't the original 360 only ship with a 200w power brick?
This leaked doc also ties in with why Charlie from semiaccurate was '99.9' percent certain that the next 720 would have PowerPC cores, before the 'longshot' AMD x86 CPU came true
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/01/18/xbox-nextxbox-720-chips-in-production/
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/04/microsoft-xbox-next-delay-rumors-abound/
This leaked doc also ties in with why Charlie from semiaccurate was '99.9' percent certain that the next 720 would have PowerPC cores, before the 'longshot' AMD x86 CPU came true
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/01/18/xbox-nextxbox-720-chips-in-production/
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/04/microsoft-xbox-next-delay-rumors-abound/
Last edited by a moderator:
No x360 used 200W, power brick was larger.
The original Xbox 360 used a 203W power brick.
From The Verge:
And the image leaked from June:
Maybe the "Stationary Computing Device" is the Next Xbox.
EDIT: 16MB PSRAM sound like "pseudo-static DRAM": http://www.micron.com/products/dram/psram-cellularram
HDD: 2,5" SCSI 10K tpm…
Don't trust these specs to much…
I strongly disagree. The specs are not credible at all. They look like what someone with google and the idea "server HW is good, let's look at what servers use" would cobble up.
To start with, the least credible first:
- LRDIMM. WTF. LRDIMM is not useful at all unless you are running very high memory amounts. It's a server tech that's used to make >100GB memory pools more reliable. In a console with 5GB, all it would add above a normal DIMM is cost. However, even that is stupid because consoles have no reason to use dimms. It's much cheaper to just stuff the chips on the board -- a dimm socket is only useful if you want your ram to be configurable.
- 2.6MB of L3 *and* 16MB of PSRAM on the CPU. What use could it possibly have?
- 10k RPM scsi. WTF? what use would it be in a console? You don't put 10k drives in the living room, they are noisy. Even more, they cost a lot more than cheapo drives, and are typically more failure-prone. Just why would you ever want that? If you want speed, in late 2013 at <256 sizes flash is better than HDDs in every way, including cost. The price trend is long-standing and predictable.
No need to emulate xenon, you just recompile for the new hardware.
Of course, it would help A LOT if said new hardware has at least three cores/six hardware threads, as otherwise some threads would be competing with each other for the same execution resources, and that would require a sufficiently fast processor to carry the load. This would be difficult in the case of floating-point tasks, as xenon is pretty fast at that stuff.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Well, people did say MS were going 'batshit crazy'.
And these specs do explain why semiaccurate was so certain that it had a PowerPC CPU and AMD graphics at one point.
And these specs do explain why semiaccurate was so certain that it had a PowerPC CPU and AMD graphics at one point.
This is not just batshit crazy. This is no chance in hell ever crazy. This is not a real leak, this is just BS.
Maybe are "off the shelf" server component used by ibm to test the cpus in an earlier revision
tunafish is right. The specs make zero sense. They are made up nonsense, taking big-sounding parts and putting them into a document to get people excited. Rather than repeat the Wii U thread with people trying to explain a POWER7 as used in Watson in Wii U, let's put this one back on the shelf (until it has some substantial evidence to prove MS's insanity in building a server as a console!).
Prophecy2k
Veteran
That spec sheet was posted in this very thread and on NeoGaf months ago. It was someone fanboy wet dream about what MS was gonna announce at E3 for the Xbox Surface (i.e. Xbox branded tablet). We already know what they announced.
My guess is that someone just took that faux-spec sheet and chalked over the specs with a new set of nonesense, as IIrc the old one had an Intel Core i7 as the CPU for the proposed fantasy tablet.
My guess is that someone just took that faux-spec sheet and chalked over the specs with a new set of nonesense, as IIrc the old one had an Intel Core i7 as the CPU for the proposed fantasy tablet.
Hmmm...
RSX
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
4.4 GPixel/s
13.2 GTexel/s
19.2 GB/s
7660D ( GPU inside the A10 5800K )
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
6.40 GPixel/s
19.2 GTexel/s
29.9 GB/s
HD 6670 ( Rumoured to be working along side the 7660D )
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
6.4 GPixel/s
19.2 GTexel/s
64.0 GB/s
66w TDP
7660D + 6670
48 TMU's - x2 over RSX
16 ROPS - x1 over RSX
12.8 GPixel/s - x1.9 over RSX
38.4 GTexel/s - x2.9 over RSX
93.9 GB/s - x4.8 over RSX
7660D + 7850
88 TMU's - x3.6 over RSX
40 ROPS - x2.5 over RSX
30.2 GPixel/s - x4.3 over RSX
71.2 GTexel/s - x5.3 over RSX
183.5 GB/s - x9.5 over RSX
RSX
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
4.4 GPixel/s
13.2 GTexel/s
19.2 GB/s
7660D ( GPU inside the A10 5800K )
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
6.40 GPixel/s
19.2 GTexel/s
29.9 GB/s
HD 6670 ( Rumoured to be working along side the 7660D )
24 TMU's
8 ROPS
6.4 GPixel/s
19.2 GTexel/s
64.0 GB/s
66w TDP
7660D + 6670
48 TMU's - x2 over RSX
16 ROPS - x1 over RSX
12.8 GPixel/s - x1.9 over RSX
38.4 GTexel/s - x2.9 over RSX
93.9 GB/s - x4.8 over RSX
7660D + 7850
88 TMU's - x3.6 over RSX
40 ROPS - x2.5 over RSX
30.2 GPixel/s - x4.3 over RSX
71.2 GTexel/s - x5.3 over RSX
183.5 GB/s - x9.5 over RSX
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that it matters at all (because we won't see it anyway 
), but you had a few wrong numbers for Trinity's GPU part (in runs at 800 MHz) in there. Just to be correct:
), but you had a few wrong numbers for Trinity's GPU part (in runs at 800 MHz) in there. Just to be correct:- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
