Predicting the Xbox-2
- Thread starter qwerty2000
- Start date
jvd said:
It couldn't be too hot, a HSF to cool a video card that is extremely hot wouldn't work too well in a PC due to the limited space the AGP slot has. Of course they might have some new cooling solution that uses heat pipes filled with coolant or some other exotic cooler.
As for Xbox2, anyone think they might do what Sega did with DC when it first launched in Japan? It ran too hot so they had to use some sort of water cooling unit, by the time it launched in the US it was running cooler so they changed to a normal heatsink.
nondescript
Regular
megadrive0088
Regular
I subscribe to the multi-VPU approach as well. Instead of having one enourmous graphics chip like Sony's Cell-based Visualizer, which will likely break the 1 billion transistor mark, use multipule VPUs. The R300
has the capability to scale to 256 VPUs. Why not use this approach for XBox2. use two R500 or R550s. And would this not be cheaper than using a custom built XGPU2?
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
Dural said:
Mmm I think I once saw a water cooled Xbox on the I-net... not sure, but it was certainly three times the size of a normal Xbox, hence to the huge water reservoir
Modded offcourse http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/dreamcasthw/images/8.jpg look at how nice this design is .
Mmm, I do enjoy these guessing games.
Let's draw some broader outlines first, before going to performance numbers.
Okay, it's ATI this time. Full FP32 troughout. Not a clock speed monster, but a parallel computing power monster.
It'll have a very advanced HOS system. Capable of juggling at least 6 control point NURBS, coupled to dedicated tessellator vertex shader units.
The main vertex shader system is going to be beefy. Say at least 8 or 16 units. At least VS 3.0 capable (texture reads etc.), with dedicated hardware thrown at every operation imaginable, and with a large onchip F-buffer. (I don't know what's in for VS 4.0, otherwise I'd toss that in here.)
Then it'll have a scenegraphing system capable of multiple simultaneous scenegraphs.
The raw fillrate won't have to be ridiculously high for TV, but it'll have a big mama hierarchical-Z system (working very well because MS dictates a beficial rendering order in the API). It'll have at least 16X multisampling AA coupled to enough texturing power and caches to make it practically free always. It'll have, say, 16 pixel shader units, each at least 3.0 spec, and likewise very-heavy-duty computation-wise as the VS units (actually they'll be identical, and why not pooled together, all 32 units).
It'll have a dedicated post processor unit.
It'll all be on one chip, so that the VS/PS units can be pooled together. It'll share a 120mm slow-speed HSF with the CPU.
Right?
Let's draw some broader outlines first, before going to performance numbers.
Okay, it's ATI this time. Full FP32 troughout. Not a clock speed monster, but a parallel computing power monster.
It'll have a very advanced HOS system. Capable of juggling at least 6 control point NURBS, coupled to dedicated tessellator vertex shader units.
The main vertex shader system is going to be beefy. Say at least 8 or 16 units. At least VS 3.0 capable (texture reads etc.), with dedicated hardware thrown at every operation imaginable, and with a large onchip F-buffer. (I don't know what's in for VS 4.0, otherwise I'd toss that in here.)
Then it'll have a scenegraphing system capable of multiple simultaneous scenegraphs.
The raw fillrate won't have to be ridiculously high for TV, but it'll have a big mama hierarchical-Z system (working very well because MS dictates a beficial rendering order in the API). It'll have at least 16X multisampling AA coupled to enough texturing power and caches to make it practically free always. It'll have, say, 16 pixel shader units, each at least 3.0 spec, and likewise very-heavy-duty computation-wise as the VS units (actually they'll be identical, and why not pooled together, all 32 units).
It'll have a dedicated post processor unit.
It'll all be on one chip, so that the VS/PS units can be pooled together. It'll share a 120mm slow-speed HSF with the CPU.
Right?
megadrive0088 said:
I'm not sure about the size of the Sony Visualizer in the PS3, but one thing that would be really bad for Microsoft is if Sony ups the ante. I would advocate to Sony to increase the base unit price of the PS 3 to $399 dollars and put two Visualizers along with more Ram in the console to reflect a sustained $399 retail price tag for at least 12 months. Right now Sony has so much momentum in the console market, I think they could capitalize on an increased cost for the PS3 with good marketing. Sony's public releations people would say "we wanted to give more power to owners of the PS3 while increasing the consoles life span". Before they offical unveil the PS3, have a couple of months in advance some details leaked, but only half the performance level is told. Then at the offical press confrence the truth is revealed and the PS3 is twice the power of the leaked numbers. The PS3 design schematics are updated to show two processors and more Ram. Anything Microsoft counters with would look like damage controll.
Of course Microsoft could put more silicon in a potential X-Box 2 and increase the price. In my opinion, Sony would have an easier time convincing the public their $399 console is worth the price.
Josiah said:
Sony wouldn't have any problem. In Japan alone Sony sold over a million at launch didn't they? Wasn't the console $375 at launch?
My point is for Sony to design the console for a sustained price level of $399 for all markets. The actaul cost to Sony to manufacture each console would be around $475. Sony could lay the foundation for the acceptance of the higher price by smart PR statements. Not only do the statements justify and hype the machine, but they also help maintain the image Sony is the leader in the console market.
How could Microsoft respond to a $399 console? They would be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the X-Box 2 launches at $299 they will be underpowered by a large margin. Remember the momentum is on Sony's side right now, so having a machine that is weaker in my opinion hurts Microsoft X-Box 2 image a lot. As it is right now Microsoft can't even sell anywhere near the number of consoles as Sony and they have a more powerful machine. The hype would be all Sony.
XBox 2 at $299 vs PS 3 at $399 ='s PS 3 victory
Lets say Microsoft increases their console target price to match the PS 3 at $399. Then you have 2 machines going head to head at $399 dollars. To get the X Box 2 to equal the performance of the PS 3, Microsoft would have to have to with a multi chip solution if they are depending on a .09nm fabrication process.
As long as Sony has plenty of software support from Square-Enix and Electronic Arts, Sony will be in a good postion to maintain its leadership postion. EA makes great profit of its releationship with Sony and I don't see this changing in the future. Unless Microsoft gets some killer game on its platform, the PS 3 goes on to become the dominate console again in the $399 vs $399 situation.
first off a cell chip is not going to be cheap. Esp not at launch. The ram will not be cheap. Esp since there is no other format that is set to use the new rambus ram . The graphics chip will not be cheap if its coming from nvidia . Also the ram for the graphics chip will be expensive. I highly doubt you'd see two cell chips in the system or two gpus in the system.
I figure ms would go with a modified moble version of the r500. Clocked higher though but with most of the pwoer saving features found in the moble market. Like clock throttling. While playing mp3s or whatnot it would run cooler. I believe they will use two moble chips running at fairly agressive speeds . (yes i know its more expensive to produce the card but i don't really see ms caring. They know they need to at least equal if not surpass the ps3 specs and they will do it no matter the cost. ) I also believe that ati will liscense the chip to ms for ms to produce . That way ms can reap the rewards of new process shrinks and bug fixes and better yields.
I really want them to go with power vr though. From what i hear of thier new chip its a beast . They have the talent , they have the knowledge , they have the experiance of making a console and arcade chip. Not only that but they will def liscense the chip to ms .
I know your going to jump on powervr but you shouldn't . They produce great chips. They liscense the ip though. They don't produce the chips and boards themselves. That is what is causing the bad time to market problems .
I figure ms would go with a modified moble version of the r500. Clocked higher though but with most of the pwoer saving features found in the moble market. Like clock throttling. While playing mp3s or whatnot it would run cooler. I believe they will use two moble chips running at fairly agressive speeds . (yes i know its more expensive to produce the card but i don't really see ms caring. They know they need to at least equal if not surpass the ps3 specs and they will do it no matter the cost. ) I also believe that ati will liscense the chip to ms for ms to produce . That way ms can reap the rewards of new process shrinks and bug fixes and better yields.
I really want them to go with power vr though. From what i hear of thier new chip its a beast . They have the talent , they have the knowledge , they have the experiance of making a console and arcade chip. Not only that but they will def liscense the chip to ms .
I know your going to jump on powervr but you shouldn't . They produce great chips. They liscense the ip though. They don't produce the chips and boards themselves. That is what is causing the bad time to market problems .
Similar threads
- Locked
