Rumored specs for Xbox Next (link to)

[bbot]

Someone posted the rumored specs of Xbox next on a xbox365.com forum. How does this compare to rumored specs of PS3?


http://forum.xbox365.com/ubb-data/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010170

 

[Blade]

They sound relatively reasonable, albeit it's possible that the CPU clock-speed may be slightly lower.

 

[bbot]

The xgpu will have a performance of 1.14TFLOPS. Competitive with PS3's TFLOP cell-based tech? Any comments? Vince?

 

[Vince]

The xgpu will have a performance of 1.14TFLOPS. Competitive with PS3's TFLOP cell-based tech? Any comments? Vince?

Looks like an extrapolation of current specs - eg. lets increase the nomenclature and make it look big.

Like, overall, it has some validity. I expect a Nv4x based GPU - around 1Ghz with normal cooling <stares at Nv3x's wind-tunnel>

The things like a primative processor that will be in the Nv35 most likely are left out. Just stuff like that. I'm hoping we'll see a much more elegent solution from nvidia - but I've already been burned by my Nv30 speculation, and I'm hesitent to play with fire again.

Some obvious mistakes, like the 70nm process - Intel is using 65nm, just like everyone else AFAIK, correct me If I'm wrong.

I also question if they can get Prescott it upto 8Ghz, or even 7Ghz. IIRC, it's suppose to launch at 3.2Ghz in 2H (most likely Q4) 2003. Possible, but unlikely IMHO.

The xgpu will have a performance of 1.14TFLOPS

Well, as I alluded to earlier - I suppose this depends on a plethora of factors, of which I know close to none!! For example, How programmable will the x^2GPU be? How will Cell's rasterizatio be handeled? Whats a Pixel Engine?

Too much speculation for me to talk

Also, the replies are so quick to say that it's faster than PS3... <shakes head> little early for that IMHO.

 

[marconelly!]

Please people... That's posted on friggin Xbox365.com, which has proven over and over to be the lowest of the low when it comes to rumor credibility. Their 'rumored' news posts are 99% of the time just wishful thinking of completely made up crap or some incredibly far fetched conclusions.

*edit* and this is not even posted on the actual site but in the forums...

 

[Vince]

Please people... That's posted on friggin Xbox365.com, which has proven over and over to be the lowest of the low when it comes to rumor credibility. Their 'rumored' news posts are 99% of the time just wishful thinking of completely made up crap or some incredibly far fetched conclusions.

HA! Um, yeah... what he said. <Vince sneaks off, deleting earlier post> Like I'd waste my time... um.. er... yeah...

 

[cybamerc]

Xbox365 is shit but it was one of the first sites to get detailed info on the Xbox. That said this is just some BS posted on a forum.

 

[V3]

Its a BS spec, the external bandwidth for 8 GHz P4 (if it reach that speed) will probably be abit higher than what stated on that.

Anyway, how does this compare to the spec of PS3 ? its about 1/10th of what PS3 is. 8)

 

[marconelly!]

Without even reading these 'specs', I can bet they are made up so it looks like new Xbox is vastly superior to those PS3 'specs' (8GHz CPU vs 4GHz on PS3, etc...)

 

[zidane1strife]

Also, the replies are so quick to say that it's faster than PS3...

Exactly... Not to mention that if sony does their job right, nothing that comes a year prior or later will be capable of significantly eclipsing the ps3... Some ps2 specs still remain unscathed....

 

[Fafalada]

Pshaw... 1.14 TFlops? that's like 6x weaker then PS3 will be !!!
My god, M$ lost before they even finalized the specs

8)

 

[Lazy8s]

zidane1strife:

Some ps2 specs still remain unscathed....

Specs of particular functions are pretty meaninless most of the time, considering they don't take into account the broader picture of how that element is implemented into the architecture. The PS2 might have 4MB of display RAM for instance, but looking at the system on a larger scale shows that you don't get a good understanding by isolating a spec like that.

It's the same with conditional fillrate or ops/instructions per second performance. The end result, and whether the graphics are impressive or not, is from the combination of all the specs and how well it all meshes together.

One isolated spec doesn't translate directly into something you see on screen; it's just a rating for how one apsect of the system operates. If, after taking everything else into account, a programmer can put the operation of that specific part to good use, then it can actually translate into something impressive.

 

[Lazy8s]

What I mean is - I think some people are too quick to forget that all of these specs are interconnected when considering actual performance.

It would be like having two race cars, Car A and Car B. Say that Car A has a more aerodynamic frame than Car B, but it was still slower than Car B when racing. The choice to include some exotic, super engine with an unwieldy shape in Car B, however, limited its frame to being less aerodynamic.

Now, there would always be some people that would harp on how Car A was unsurpassed in having the most aerodynamic frame, but that would be missing the point. The point of the frame in the first place was to contribute to making a faster car, and the manufacturer of Car B made a sacrifice in their car's frame design to achieve a better balance for racing and overall performance. In this way, those singular specs of engine choice and frame design were interconnected, so marveling at the qualities of each spec in isolation would be an exercise lacking in perspective.

 

[bbot]

Intel's "Tejas" will reportedly run at 8GHz.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

I'm also rather doubt that even by 2005 or whenever they plan to have this thing out, they'll be able to afford to put in a gigabyte of 256bit 500MHz DDR or whatever is equivelant for the 32GB/s of main memory bandwidth.

Certainly that kind of speed will be fairly easy to accomplish by then, but a gigabyte of it? I doubt that it'll be cheap enough to put in a ~$300 console.

Nite_Hawk

 

[wazoo]

I'm also rather doubt that even by 2005 or whenever they plan to have this thing out, they'll be able to afford to put in a gigabyte of 256bit 500MHz DDR or whatever is equivelant for the 32GB/s of main memory bandwidth.

Certainly that kind of speed will be fairly easy to accomplish by then, but a gigabyte of it? I doubt that it'll be cheap enough to put in a ~$300 console.

Nite_Hawk

512MB is a safe bet, like the ps2 has 10x the the ps1 memory.

 

[zidane1strife]

Lazy8s I know what u mean... but this is nearly like those specs in which the gf1 outdid the gf2... and the gf2 specs that surpassed similar specs in the gf3... it's just funny that stuff comes significantly later **cough***COUGH!!!!***FX**COUGGHHHH!!!!**cough** and still fail to surpass previous h/w in many areas.