What would you do if you were in charge of Xbox 360 design?
- Thread starter shaderguy
- Start date
Karma Police
Regular
Two things:
1. eDRAM to fit 1080p!
2. PPU!
1. eDRAM to fit 1080p!
2. PPU!
Launch it at 100$ with 64PPU rack and 16-way RAID array of 500GB drives.
Possibly include 5-6 8Core Power5's for the database users amongst gamers.
Oh... and replace the eDram on R500 with SRAM of course. The chip transistor count is way too small right now.
Possibly include 5-6 8Core Power5's for the database users amongst gamers.
Oh... and replace the eDram on R500 with SRAM of course. The chip transistor count is way too small right now.
That would barely make it as big as 2Cell's you should really go with more then that. 8MB sounds nice, will run those SQL queries a lot better too.jvd said:
I am new here so excuse me if i do some mistakes in my first post.
I think that M.S should have taken more time to develop the Xbox 360 and release it in 2006.
The Xbox has some momentum now,momentum which would have grown from now to a 2006 Launch and thus giving an even bigger momentum to the Xbox360 Launch.
Moreover the additionnal R&D time could have enabled M.S to come with an even better design and specs at least equal to Sony.
I would have liked that M.S come with this design in 2006:
*A true WGF 2.0 G.P.U with enough EDRAM to avoid tiling even at a 1080i resolution
*An OOOE C.P.U dealing efficiently with "normal" C.P.U tasks and A.I ,with one core and 2 hardware threads,512 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache
*A multi core C.P.U highly optimised for physics,animation and sound with a lot of L2 cache(at least 2 MB) accessible by the G.P.U
*A bus similar to the FlexIO between all the P.U
*A second pool of much cheaper RAM,let say 512 MB(or more) of 128 bits 400 Mhz DDR2 RAM which can be used by the OOOE C.P.U and as virtual memory instead of using the disk as cache[
I think that M.S should have taken more time to develop the Xbox 360 and release it in 2006.
The Xbox has some momentum now,momentum which would have grown from now to a 2006 Launch and thus giving an even bigger momentum to the Xbox360 Launch.
Moreover the additionnal R&D time could have enabled M.S to come with an even better design and specs at least equal to Sony.
I would have liked that M.S come with this design in 2006:
*A true WGF 2.0 G.P.U with enough EDRAM to avoid tiling even at a 1080i resolution
*An OOOE C.P.U dealing efficiently with "normal" C.P.U tasks and A.I ,with one core and 2 hardware threads,512 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache
*A multi core C.P.U highly optimised for physics,animation and sound with a lot of L2 cache(at least 2 MB) accessible by the G.P.U
*A bus similar to the FlexIO between all the P.U
*A second pool of much cheaper RAM,let say 512 MB(or more) of 128 bits 400 Mhz DDR2 RAM which can be used by the OOOE C.P.U and as virtual memory instead of using the disk as cache[
Welcome. 
But do you really think that 4-6 + mouths would be enough to do that, especially if they already do have prototypes since some time ago?
Probably a solution like, already sugested, of adding a PPU (not by me) would creat a really beast and the transsistor count would not go up that much as in your sugestion.
Just my opinion, others are better than me to this.
But do you really think that 4-6 + mouths would be enough to do that, especially if they already do have prototypes since some time ago?
Probably a solution like, already sugested, of adding a PPU (not by me) would creat a really beast and the transsistor count would not go up that much as in your sugestion.
Just my opinion, others are better than me to this.
dukmahsik said:you must have owned an xbox this gen then
I know you were responding to a different point, but now that you mention it, I can well see how someone who did really like Xbox may not be so enamoured with its next generation. X360 really isn't in the same mould as the original Xbox - they're taking a different approach. Sure, there's still Live and the key games - Halo et al - and that's great and I'll enjoy it, but X360 seems a little less of a "hardcore" console to me for one. They've also ceded the power advantage, which was a big defining factor in terms of Xbox's personality, if you like, and was one of the main reasons I bought it at least.
It'll be interesting to see how MS reposition X360. But I can certainly see why a Xbox fan may not be feeling X360 quite as much.
I voted to launch in 2006 with more power/features. If any console can hold out another year, technically at least, it's Xbox. There's no need to expedite X360's launch for any reason but marketing. Launching in '06 with better technology and features would make it a purer successor and more in keeping with the original's spirit IMO. Not to mention the impact of launching in 06 with Halo 3
I dont think waiting for 2006 technology is a good idea. I think MS has done good, they've designed gamecube style hardware and launching it in a ps2 style timeframe. I think the machine's specs sound very balanced. I think the difference between 360 and ps3 will be similar to difference between GC and xbox1. (if the gamecube had 64 megs of RAM). I don't think 1080p will be a concern until 2008. I also think they'll be able to out price Sony and be able to do a psTwo style redesign alot sooner than Sony.
pahcman said:
With the original Xbox MS seemed more focussed on the hardcore gamer. They've admitted that they're broadening their focus now, for better or worse. I don't think MS is the "gamer's friend" anymore, as they appeared to be with Xbox. Xbox was a money-is-no-object, no holds barred box of power, brawn and features, for games..it was about what MS was giving the gamer. Now the strategy seems more like what they can get back out of the gamer - counting the pennies more closely with the hardware, mixing in general MS interests beyond games (because they think they've "proven themselves" now), their focus on microtransactions etc. At the very least I don't think there as nearly product-orientated now as they were before (and I completely understand that from a business perspective, but from a consumer perspective..).
pahcman said:
Granted, we don't have full details on either system, particularly PS3. That said, I think most would bet that the best case scenario for X360 is that PS3 is only a tad more powerful than X360 in most cases. Big difference or small difference, they're giving up a large part of Xbox's "personality", for want of a better word, which is particularly jarring for me given that I think there's still a lot of power left in Xbox, and there's much less technical need for its successor so soon than any of the other systems. (And yes, I'm a tech/graphics whore - I think most on this site probably are to one degree or another
)These are really just my own personal feelings on the matter, I don't expect everyone will share them. MS is definitely playing a different tune this time around..better for their business perhaps, but I'm not as convinced of the (relative) value for their fans. I say relative, because I'm sure X360 will be a great console, but I'll always wonder how things might have been different and better.
nelg said:
That would be a hard thing to finesse.
If they spring this new version unexpectedly, a lot of people who bought at launch will be pissed.
If word got out that there is a new version coming (and look at how much info. was leaked on the X360 before they unveiled it), then it could retard adoption of this configuration.
And to come up with a new edition so soon could repeat the Sega experience with SegaCD, 32X, Saturn. That is, you're giving the message that you're putting out stuff without any coherent 5-6 year console strategy, that you're just putting stuff out and hoping it sticks. And if it doesn't, you obsolete it with newer products.
Titanio said:
I don't think it's a great secret.
MS wanted to:
a) Get a head start on Sony, particularly have one Holiday season before the PS3 launched.
b) Expand beyond hardcore gamers. They want the Velocity Girl and other causal gamer types so they can get out of the hardcore gamer ghetto. They're not shy about saying they expect to have the market share lead, not just close the gap.
All engineering considerations were subordinated to these goals. Get great hardware design, not for the sake of great hardware design but to control costs and get it completed to meet the deadline.
The only reason to push the envelope on design would be to make it competitive against Sony. If they thought performance didn't matter and it was only important to get out of the gate first, they would have designed a less-powerful box, since it would save costs. So it seems like they were more interested in getting in the ballpark, not necessarily in hitting more home runs or hitting longer HRs.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I would've doubled the 48 ALU shader pipes to 96 and increased the EDRAM to 20 MB. but that would probably make the GPU too large, too hot, to expensive to manufacture.
Similar threads
