Whoops: XB360 at 2.8GHz

[fouad]

It this the same PM/doc that was floating around earlier regarding the differences between the G5s in the alpha kits and the Power cores in the Betas? Although I didn't receive that PM/doc, no one ever mentioned at the time anything about CPU clocks, and I figure that would have been the bigger news to mention..

The first thing that I noticed when reading the paper destined for developers and under NDA is the downgrade of the CPU...and I said not only the CELL is twice more powerful than the |XBOX 360 CPU but also will have higher clock speed ( for marketing purposes )

Now there is 2 choices :
1/ people when reading didnt notice this, or they dont want others to know this ( bad news for xbox360 especially if they are xbox360 fan boys ) or they underestimate the importance of this change.

2/ the paper is not the final one and the final technical paper for xbox360 will arrrive sometmes in the near future ( i doubt this )

 

[Vince]

Some parts of the GPU also were under powered, some other were improved, same thing for the CPU...

I'm just a bit perplexed at what this means, namely that at this stage any microarhitectural changes are pretty well impossible without altering the launch window. What I'm trying to say is that outside of respinning the design to fix a problem in a metal layer or, say, optimizing the timing, what else can you change? Anything more substantial -- where your "underpowered" and "improved" fits in -- requires a pretty substantial investment in time.

 

[fouad]

I'm contacting a specialist ahead of time since I know I am prone to roling eyes attacks...

Not at you of course but at MS if they weakened the CPU from this point of view without some good improvement elsewhere.

To be honest what you claim about Xenos is both scarier and possibly more excitng...stop playing with my head you! Just because you can doesn't make it the right thing to do.

...rolls-eyes...oops...that one got away from me...

If its 3.00 GHZ, do you think this will have an impact on xbox360 sales ? will you buy xbox360 ?

 

[Titanio]

A MS dev at GAF says the 2.8Ghz issue is a "quality control issue at IBM, and it is being taken care of".

He says the 3Ghz final hardware claim is untrue, and that dev kits with 3.2Ghz Xenons are out there

 

[fouad]

I'm just a bit perplexed at what this means, namely that at this stage any microarhitectural changes are pretty well impossible without altering the launch window. What I'm trying to say is that outside of respinning the design to fix a problem in a metal layer that effects, say, optimizing the timing, what else can you change? Anything more substantial -- where your "underpowered" and "improved" fits in -- requires a pretty substantial investment in time.

Its not the xbox360 GPU that was underpowered or improved, but the radeons GPUs of development kits compared to the final GPU of xbox360, for example in PCs dev kits there were no 10 MB of memory embedded, BUT other parts of the GPU were better.

 

[fouad]

A MS dev at GAF says the 2.8Ghz issue is a "quality control issue at IBM, and it is being taken care of".

He says the 3Ghz final hardware claim is untrue, and that dev kits with 3.2Ghz Xenons are out there

Do you mean the paper under NDA that I read was untrue ? or there were aan error in typing the number ? 3.00 instead of 3.2 GHZ ?

 

[Titanio]

Do you mean the paper under NDA that I read was untrue ? or there were aan error in typing the number ? 3.00 instead of 3.2 GHZ ?

I've no idea about this doc you are talking about, I never received it unfortunately. I know there was a "transition" doc from alphas to betas, but again I never received it.

I would tend to believe this guy, though.

 

[Mefisutoferesu]

Why would MS give their developers information stating their CPU is half the power of their competition? "Hey guys, we suck. Sony rocks!! kthxbye" Really, I imagine this is just some random memo sent out about beta dev kits. If that!! More than likely this is just garbage some fan made up. I'm a bit warry of you as well faoud, you haven't exactly been a source of unbiased accuracy.

 

[fouad]

I've no idea about this doc you are talking about, I never received it unfortunately.

I would tend to believe this guy, though.

Can I have please a link to the page where you read the comment of this guy ?

 

[swaaye]

Does it bother anyone else that they get the hardware working weeks before launch? I mean, what does that say for reliability? LOL. I can see some engineers hand wiring some traces on the board on every machine going out the door on the last day...... But I suppose my Day 1 Xbox still works, and Gamecube, and my N64 was fine....

 

[Titanio]

Can I have please a link to the page where you read the comment of this guy ?

Here you go: http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?p=1906006#post1906006

Also, the same poster says the "simplified" explanation is that someone simply picked up the wrong box of CPU i.e. the CPUs themselves are clocked at 2.8Ghz, it wasn't a old part somewhere else in the system.

 

[Jawed]

According to my source, some of their equipment is running at 3.2GHz, i.e. they can keep it instead of sending it back.

Jawed

 

[scificube]

If its 3.00 GHZ, do you think this will have an impact on xbox360 sales ? will you buy xbox360 ?

Heck yeah I'm getting an X360! What are you crazy? I know the difference between games and tech specs.

However...when thinking less about how I would act but others, this would not be a good thing to do on MS's behalf so I'm inclined to go with the school of thought that suggests this is document is in reference to beta kits or something.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Do you mean the paper under NDA that I read was untrue ?

No, quite likely you read it wrong.

If you did not read it wrong then yes, it is untrue.

 

[Carl B]

Also, the same poster says the "simplified" explanation is that someone simply picked up the wrong box of CPU i.e. the CPUs themselves are clocked at 2.8Ghz, it wasn't a old part somewhere else in the system.

Well, it *has* to be the CPU's; nothing else would result in a frequency shift like that other than a clock multiplier. Still, for a bunch of beta dev kit CPU's to have been used by accident in the final dev kits - that's just sloppy.

As for this 'mystery document' of Fouad's, I have seen what I *think* is the NDA doc in question, and it indicates a core clock of 3.2 GHz for the XeCPU. This would have to be another document he's talking about, because the dev doc I've seen indicates 3.2.

Fouad, does yours include a bunch of up and down arrows?

 

[fouad]

Fouad, does yours include a bunch of up and down arrows?

YES, the arrow is RED if there is a downgrade, and its green if there is an upgrade, plus the percentage of change is mentioned, all this in detailed technical tables, with some paragraphs to explain.

 

[Carl B]

YES, the arrow is RED if there is a downgrade, and its green if there is an upgrade, plus the percentage of change is mentioned, all this in detailed technical tables, with some paragraphs to explain.

I think you misread it then. The CPU - though not all green arrows - does go to 3.2 GHz in the frequency indication. I mean I'll look over it when I get home (in three hours) and re-confirm, but I'm 99% sure if we're talking about the same doc - for which I will provide the partial title later as well so there is no confusion - then you misunderstood the CPU portion (which starts the doc off, if we're talkng about the same one).

 

[doob]

And all of this "those are @ 3.2Ghz but those other ones are at a lame omfg so outdated 2.8Ghz DEVkits" will have any impact on what game devs are already aiming to develop their product for the final? I Think not.

 

[blakjedi]

NDA??!? I thought everyone saw those docs....

 

[scooby_dooby]

Faoud, here I though you had some sort of real source, but you're just quoteing the same Doc everyone else recieved?

To the best of my memory I saw nothing about a 3.0 Ghz clock in that document.

Raisin the BS flag....