Will MS have two different performance SKUs next-gen? *spawn

I don't believe the theory in the slightest but it's fun to talk about the technical implications and how plausible things are. I personally could hardly care who has the best or worst console and for that matter only have a very mild interest in how powerful they are in general. It's just interesting technical discussion.

I don't know why people get so bent out of shape over this.

I think its fine now that it has its own thread. But the main threads got sidetracked constantly debating everything from "special sauce" to "highly efficient" to the current dual-apu theory

I wasnt trying to stop people from discussing it here, im entertained atleast ;)
 
Thurrott isnt a hardware guy though. Multiple Xbox versions is fairly vague and could even just mean different SKUs.

The problem with all these theories is that the existing evidence doesnt support it, is MS planning on releasing a more powerful Xbox without letting devs know it exists? bkillian said the dual apu theory is bs atleast up until 2 months ago when he left, did MS scramble this together at the last moment? I dont think their engineers are dumb, if they cared about the specs, they would have designed a console that would crush anything Sony could bring from the beginning, not half ass it

These theories suffer from confirmation bias.

In the dual apu scenario, there is no reason to expect that bkillian would have any exposure to it as he was an audio guy.
 
The long-rumoured model of '2 xbox skus' is:
1) a set-top-box with kinect interface.
2) a games machine - called 'Durango' which also contains that set-top-box.

Windows (blue?)/flash developers would target both boxes.
Games developers would target the second box.

Seems perfectly sensible - everyone gets '100% market with 1 target'.
---

Some people feel that it's actually:
1) set-top-box with kinect interface and games machine - 'Durango'.
2) super-duper games machine - 'Durango2'.

Games developers would need to build 2 versions of all their games, and debug/test/certify both copies separately.

This is considered by many people 'highly unlikely'.


You are mistaken. the 2 skus are durango and durango x2. STB is something different.

STB - probably arm based plus DSPs (possibly same internals as xbox surface tablet)
Durango - has STB for trust zone plus APU
SKU 2 - has a second APU or just GPU (could easily see just another 12 CU)

a game just detects which version of durango that you have and implements graphics adjustment. Same program different output just like with PCs today.
 
You are mistaken. the 2 skus are durango and durango x2. STB is something different.

STB - probably arm based plus DSPs (possibly same internals as xbox surface tablet)
Durango - has STB for trust zone plus APU
SKU 2 - has a second APU or just GPU (could easily see just another 12 CU)

a game just detects which version of durango that you have and implements graphics adjustment. Same program different output just like with PCs today.

I would speculate that most consumers couldn't tell the difference another 12CU's would add.
Given the system bandwidth you would be well past the point of diminishing returns on the ALU count vs performance graph before you had to cobble together some sort of interface and double the bandwidth usage from the main memory pool so that the ALU's could work together efficiently.
 
The long-rumoured model of '2 xbox skus' is:
1) a set-top-box with kinect interface.
2) a games machine - called 'Durango' which also contains that set-top-box.

Windows (blue?)/flash developers would target both boxes.
Games developers would target the second box.

Seems perfectly sensible - everyone gets '100% market with 1 target'.

This is what I'm expecting. If they're still planning on backward compatibility I could possibly see machine #1 having a new Xbox 360 SOC, but I'm not real confident that's going to happen(50/50 chance). I don't see more than 2 SKUs with different internals. If the new Xbox 360 SOC isn't happening I could expect a ARM solution, but I seriously doubt there are 3 different SKUs with 3 different internals. That's just too much.

Tommy McClain
 
A forward compatible 360SS released this year, with rumored DVR functions. 720p with good IQ, or 1080p with lower IQ. Released this holiday.

Durango in 2014 with hdmi pass-through for the 360SS, core games at 1080p full IQ/effects/particles.

360SS could then be used as a cheaper extender for those that game in multiple rooms, it would stream Durango games! Cheaper to multi-room deploy.

Easy to code for, indie/app devs would just use #If Durango vs #if Durango lite similar to how you code for Windows/phone/xbox now. Triple AAA devs could go further.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
 
I keep thinking why not just use poor yielding chips from Durango for th Xbox TV I stead of ARM. They will surely have many that can't be used in the proper console. I think something with 4 working cores, 192 shaders, no functional ESRAM, and maybe down clocked a little would have enough performance for a set top box.

Why make another SOC, when you can reuse some of the existing ones? They have all the kinect hardware already as we'll.
 
I really don't want to sound like a broken record, but it makes little sense to have multiple physical SKUs, simply because in an ideal world, you would want people to own the gaming SKU so that they can buy games, which is where the "real" money is made. If there is a media-only SKU, there's a good chance that Microsoft will never be able to recoup the cost from selling a low-end machine. You also have to start thinking about how a low-end SKU would compete with having less functionality than even an Xbox 360 today (can't play graphically-intense games), and a price of $299 just sounds like the end customer is being ripped off, compared to something like a Roku or Apple TV at $99.

The simplest idea to get more people on board is to subsidize the box by $200 and requiring a 2-year contract, so you'd turn a $399 console into a $199 box (magical price point), give maybe a free movie on Xbox Video every month, Xbox Live Gold, and $5 credit for $20 a month or something. As has already been thoroughly proven with cellphones, you can make swallowing a $600 item easy if you make the initial price low and spread out the cost over time. Thus, you avoid having to deal with yield issues of multiple chips, avoid having to keep up production with multiple SKUs to stores, avoid having "retard" SKUs clearly designed to upsell the customer, avoid having to convince someone to buy a "real" 720 after they already have the "cheap" one (a huge hurdle) and every system you sell is capable of playing $60 games (again, that's where the real money comes from).
 
I really don't want to sound like a broken record, but it makes little sense to have multiple physical SKUs, simply because in an ideal world, you would want people to own the gaming SKU so that they can buy games, which is where the "real" money is made. If there is a media-only SKU, there's a good chance that Microsoft will never be able to recoup the cost from selling a low-end machine. You also have to start thinking about how a low-end SKU would compete with having less functionality than even an Xbox 360 today (can't play graphically-intense games), and a price of $299 just sounds like the end customer is being ripped off, compared to something like a Roku or Apple TV at $99.

The simplest idea to get more people on board is to subsidize the box by $200 and requiring a 2-year contract, so you'd turn a $399 console into a $199 box (magical price point), give maybe a free movie on Xbox Video every month, Xbox Live Gold, and $5 credit for $20 a month or something. As has already been thoroughly proven with cellphones, you can make swallowing a $600 item easy if you make the initial price low and spread out the cost over time. Thus, you avoid having to deal with yield issues of multiple chips, avoid having to keep up production with multiple SKUs to stores, avoid having "retard" SKUs clearly designed to upsell the customer, avoid having to convince someone to buy a "real" 720 after they already have the "cheap" one (a huge hurdle) and every system you sell is capable of playing $60 games (again, that's where the real money comes from).


The reason for the higher SKU is streaming - both games and media around the house. Durango doesn't seem to have enough umph for the that.
 
And you have proof of this where?

Tommy McClain

Well, I've actually heard that myself ;) , but DF did an article that mentioned XboxTV:

An Apple TV-style unit based on ARM architecture, running Windows RT and perhaps featuring Xbox branding is under discussion. This would be a very basic games machine running Windows 8 apps, but geared more towards streaming video services like Netflix.

This piece of kit could operate as a standalone unit of course (an Apple TV competitor if you like), but it could also work just as well as a media extender on a home network, linked to Durango. In essence, the strategy here would be a reversal of Valve's ideas for its entry-level Steambox bringing remote PC gameplay into the lounge: Durango would take centre-stage in the living room, but the ARM box would allow for media - and gameplay - to be transmitted around the home. It sounds like an intriguing idea in theory, the only stumbling block we can think of being Microsoft's strong push for developers to integrate Kinect functionality wherever possible into next-gen gameplay. Replicating camera functions on an extender would be problematic, not least in terms of streaming all the data from a secondary camera back to the host console in the lounge.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-the-cloud-is-coming-home

I keep thinking why not just use poor yielding chips from Durango for th Xbox TV I stead of ARM. They will surely have many that can't be used in the proper console. I think something with 4 working cores, 192 shaders, no functional ESRAM, and maybe down clocked a little would have enough performance for a set top box.

Why make another SOC, when you can reuse some of the existing ones? They have all the kinect hardware already as we'll.

I thought they would use a cut down Durango APU too, I don't know why they went for ARM, probably cost.

It shouldn't be seen as a weaker Durango though, in fact the 360 will probably be a better games machine. The Xbox TV device is very much an Apple TV style device that MS can sell for cheap (say $99) to be used as a set top box for streaming media and will play Win8 games and apps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
STB - probably arm based plus DSPs (possibly same internals as xbox surface tablet)
Durango - has STB for trust zone plus APU
SKU 2 - has a second APU or just GPU (could easily see just another 12 CU)
Although the hardware geek in me is delighted by such prospects, the cynical realist it has to share space with in my head tells that that's probably the most unlikely idea that has been presented on these boards since Chaphack claimed that Xbox 360 would have an intel tejas processor @10GHz as a CPU, 8-ish years ago...

What you're proposing is 3 different xboxes, all called xbox but not all of them capable of running the same software. This is a brand manager's nightmare, major; MAJOR customer confusion. In short; epic no-no. Aunt Emma buys "xbox game" for her niece's birthday, but it's a game for the wrong xbox and won't work. Tears, anger, recrimination and gnashed teeth result, most of it directed at microsoft which is seen as unable to communicate properly with its customers (arguably correct analysis.)

Also, a "durango x2" or whatever SKU that is the same as durango except faster/shinier...no. I seriously doubt something like that would ever get further than the proposal stage over at MS. It would be seen as the same as plain durango, only more expensive; a hard sell in difficult economic times and when mobile platforms are stealing more and more market share.
 
Although the hardware geek in me is delighted by such prospects, the cynical realist it has to share space with in my head tells that that's probably the most unlikely idea that has been presented on these boards since Chaphack claimed that Xbox 360 would have an intel tejas processor @10GHz as a CPU, 8-ish years ago...

What you're proposing is 3 different xboxes, all called xbox but not all of them capable of running the same software. This is a brand manager's nightmare, major; MAJOR customer confusion. In short; epic no-no. Aunt Emma buys "xbox game" for her niece's birthday, but it's a game for the wrong xbox and won't work. Tears, anger, recrimination and gnashed teeth result, most of it directed at microsoft which is seen as unable to communicate properly with its customers (arguably correct analysis.)

Also, a "durango x2" or whatever SKU that is the same as durango except faster/shinier...no. I seriously doubt something like that would ever get further than the proposal stage over at MS. It would be seen as the same as plain durango, only more expensive; a hard sell in difficult economic times and when mobile platforms are stealing more and more market share.

If there is a separate $99 unit, it might be branded Xbox TV or something, but I expect it to be completely unrelated to Durango and as such not really a "two SKU" strategy, but a companion box. And it's got to be stupidly clear there's a difference between the two. It'll be more of an accessory for multi-room viewing more than anything else.

Question of course is if you can leverage local streaming such that the main box might be used for TV with the parents while a game is being streamed to a $99 box or even a Windows 8 app on a tablet. With a hardware encoder, the sky would be the limit.
 
Has there been anything reliable to suggest that two SKUs just means anything other than 500gb and 750gb HDD versions?
 
What is absolutely certain in my mind is that MS will go for a two sku strategy. It has worked well for them with the Xbox 360 so I don't see them abandoning it. A very likely scenario could be

SKU1
Primary function as a media device
Digital Distribution Only
No Blu-Ray
Kinect 2.0 included
Plays XBLA type games
99$ + Monthly Sub
Competes with Apple TV/Google TV/ Ouya

SKU2
Primary function as media device and games console
DD + Retail games
Blu-Ray
Kinect 2.0 - (Optional/Bundled not sure)
Plays XBLA and retail games
Competes with PS4/Wii U
$399-$499
 
I would speculate that most consumers couldn't tell the difference another 12CU's would add.
Given the system bandwidth you would be well past the point of diminishing returns on the ALU count vs performance graph before you had to cobble together some sort of interface and double the bandwidth usage from the main memory pool so that the ALU's could work together efficiently.
If we assume a doubling of the Durango APU, the second chip would have the eSRAM and 100 GB/s working bandwidth. The DDR3 would be a severe bottleneck for scaling, but it wouldn't be as bandwidth starved as just another 12 CUs added onto the current 8+12 CPU+CU chip.

seems a waste to have 3 different platforms when a single platform can scale to do all 3
The Arm platform would be very cheap and provide hardware synergy with mobile devices. If MS have to already create Win RT/8 for tablets and phones, a box that is progressive designed on that architecture makes more sense than a box designed on a 7 year old custom console design. So I see the sense in separating the Xbox TV from the console segment. Offer a cheap 360 for entry-level gaming and Kinect, a TV box which can play Windows Appstore content, and the Durango console. I certainly wouldn't build an XBox TV box around XB360 or some old console as sourcing parts and manufacturing has your hands pretty tied. A more generic design based on standard components would be far more flexible.

What is absolutely certain in my mind is that MS will go for a two sku strategy. It has worked well for them with the Xbox 360 so I don't see them abandoning it. A very likely scenario could be
The thread is specifically about a different internal hardware configuration, with a second SKU have more overall performance than the Durango we currently know about. Variations on the Durango as you describe are probably a given in terms of reaching different segments at different price-points, but the internals will still be 8 CPU cores and 12 CUs and 32 MB eSRAM and 8 GB DDR3 regardless of what else is there.
 
I think it's far more likely that if a second SKU exists it's going to be lower power then the Durango then there being one higher.
 
Back
Top