Wii, Xbox 360, PS3 and future revision + info!

[Rolf N]

Q: Based on past discussions (foggy), are there possible issues with the consolidation of memory chips as shown in the Xbox 360 chart? I know there was some negative vibes about consolidating the 8 chips into 4 due to some technical issues (like addressing and effective bandwidth?)

Anything thoughts?

Like the number of open pages? They probably have enough wiggle room to have that accounted for already.

This isn't a "classic" console anymore like the Gameboy where you can pretty much take a look at what your code is doing and then predict precisely what it'll be 1000 CPU cycles later and rely on that. The days of such pure and tightly specified single-task machines seem to be over. Everyone runs a multitasking OS now that can at any time throw little messages on the screen, download stuff, probe new USB devices etc.

It would be a surprise if any such small change in memory performance characteristics could break a game any more than an incoming message.

 

[Geo]

"Future console revisions. . ."

Since you guys are probably even less used to looking at the front page for something that might interest you. . . http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/futureconsole/

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

According to him there will be 2 process changes during the current console cycle -- 65nm in 2007 and 45nm in 2009

I've always wondered this, but why dont they just go straight to 45nm process on their next revision?

Is the technology not available yet? Is it a risk because the smaller gpu/cpu might become more faulty if rushed to the market this year?

I dont get it :|

Also, im sure 65nm already existed by the time PS360 were made, so why didnt they get manufactured with 65nm from the very beginning? Sorry, just wondered this stuff for a long time now.

 

[DeathKnight]

From what I understand the processes simply aren't mature enough, especially for such volume. You don't want to move to a smaller process unless you know you can get consistently good yields, otherwise you're going to be wasting a lot of money.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

65nm is still fairly new without production lines rolled out for most system. Who else apart from Intel has 65nm chips out yet? IIRC Sony said the were intending for 65nm from the beginning for PS3, but it just wasn't ready in time. XB360 obviously was too early for 65nm. Thus 65nm wasn't around for launch, and you certainly wouldn't wait for the next node as then you'd miss the savings of 65nm over 90nm. Thus you go with two shrinks. Each shrink can offer large savings, which is why PS2 went through about 5 or 6 process/half-process shrinks.

 

[dobwal]

I've always wondered this, but why dont they just go straight to 45nm process on their next revision?

Is the technology not available yet? Is it a risk because the smaller gpu/cpu might become more faulty if rushed to the market this year?

I dont get it :|

Also, im sure 65nm already existed by the time PS360 were made, so why didnt they get manufactured with 65nm from the very beginning? Sorry, just wondered this stuff for a long time now.

Intel has been producing 65nM products for some time now and AMD just start offering 65nM products within the last two months. Other than those two companies, I don't think anyone else is offering 65nM in terms of cpu and gpu products.

Intel has 45nM on the roadmap for late 2007, but I don't think we will see anything from anyone else on the 45nM front till late 2008 or early 2009.

 

[robofunk]

I seem to remember MS is using fabs all over the world. These smaller fabs will have a harder time transitioning to 45nm, hell AMD only just came out with 65nm.

Here's one example of a 65nm deal MS made. There seems to be a deal with IBM for 65nm SOI tech so maybe the fact that AMD has finally got 65nm out the door is a good sign.
http://www.charteredsemi.com/media/corp/2006n/20060420_microsoft.asp