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

Both boxes MUST have bluray drives. Of course they have to. There's no way it can be acceptable that purchased games can't be run on the very platform they're intended to run on. Not to mention, if primary function of SKU 1 is as a media device and you can't watch DVD or BR movies on it... Epic fail! So no, they'd never allow something like that ever.

Please note that the internet infrastructure in large parts of the west just isn't ready for all-digital distribution, this includes much of the united states where transfer speeds are often low, and data caps may seem even lower. Downloading tens of gigabytes per game, streaming every movie you want to watch... It may be a MPAA and software CEO's wet dream come true, but it's not going to happen this generation. It's too soon.

 

Hypothetically, if they did double the APU's, they would have to increase memory size/bandwidth. And it's the type of thing that would have to be designed from the get go for it to work properly out of one memory pull.

1 APU with 8GB DDR 68 GB/sec (256-bit bus) => 2 APU with 6/12 GB on 102GB/sec (384-bit bus).

Doesn't seem cost effective at all, but perhaps if the yields are bad enough, maybe they have to do. The number of CPU cores and CU's and wouldn't have to be exactly 8 and 12 either, but something like 4-6 CPU cores and 10 CU's per APU.

 

The problem with SKU #1 is that it's basically the Xbox 360 we have today and plenty of people already own those. It's nothing new at all.

We need to separate talking about SKUs that have different hard drive sizes (which there's no point in debating) and SKUs that would have different chips in them. The former is basically guaranteed to happen, the latter is what everyone is skeptical on. My point that I keep trying to make is calling a box an "Xbox 720" that isn't able to play "Xbox 720" games is a marketing disaster waiting to happen. You can just see it now, little Timmy asks for an Xbox 720, his mother buys the cheap SKU1 in your scenario and a game, then on Christmas day, he realizes his mom absolutely bought the wrong one because a) there's no where to put the disc and b) even with digital downloads, it's restricted to XBLA games. And inevitably, there's always the "retard" SKU no one wants. #Fail.

 

If you can support a forward compatible model with a short upgrade cycle you can accommodate multiple SKU's at launch. I don't care for the idea, but lots of people do.

 

You would still need to move the data to ESDRAM from main memory for each of the chips doubling the draw on the already limited main memory bandwidth.
I would guess with the bandwidth they have 12CU's is more or less right at the knee in the performance vs ALU curve.

 

512bit DDR3 confirmed

J/k.

 

They all run W8 apps. The two consoles run the same programs just at different settings. The primary function of the x2 is to function as a server, i.e. 2 different durango games on two different screens or durango game on screen 1, netflix on screen 2, arcade game on the xbox surface, all while driving displays for fortaleza. Output of durango games can be dynamically scale from base durango to significantly better depending on the load on the system. Currently, durango seems underpowered to act as server.

 

I would be willing to wait another year if they did something like this:


2014 - Durango

• GPU at 2x current rumors, CPU at current rumors
• 12gb of DDR4(or DDR3 depending on costs, HMC if ready) if OS is truly taking away that much causing a developer parity issue. 8gb of ram if OS sub-system includes its own.
• OS sub-system to keep full specs open to games (maybe this is the Xbox TV chipset)
• 360 SoC included for BC (unless below has BC) - If this is included lets make it the OS sub-system. hehe
• This device can stream 360, and Durango games to the Xbox TV device.
• HDMI pass-through for Xbox TV or other devices, nothing more than a convenience feature (would allow for optical output as well).
• Hate to say this Kinect V2 included to allow developers to develop for it if they have a compelling reason, features better VC plus current V2 rumors. Required to be present for OS VC features, features a new privacy shutter to prevent overheating from towels.
• 120gb SSD, allows for use of external USB 2.0/3.0 drives
• $499 at launch

2013 (plan A) - Xbox TV:

• New 360 SoC design for reduce retail price and profits.
• OS refresh - Durango style plus adds ability for Win8 apps
• Media Center Extender - for those that wish to keep current HTPC setups running
• 720 Games Extender
• IPTV - MS works directly with networks for content/channels
• 500GB HDD for IPTV DVR (can stream to 720 and other Xbox TV's)
• Kinect Voice Commands only built into box, external Kinect V1 optional
• $99 retail

(Advantage - huge games library, no BC hardware needed in Durango itself)
or


2013 (plan B) - Xbox TV:

• Based around ARM no BC to 360
• Win8 apps
• 720 Games Extender
• Media Center Extender - for those that wish to keep current HTPC setups running (eliminates need for tuners/cable card)
• IPTV - MS works directly with networks for content/channels
• 500GB HDD for IPTV DVR (can stream to 720 and other Xbox TV's)
• Kinect Voice Commands only built into box, external Kinect V1 optional
• $99 retail

In this case a new 360 SKU with the aim of reducing costs to keep that platform selling for another 5-years. The 360SS basically.

Sure it is a risk to launch a year late, but if you think you long-term is solid you might few this as a small risk. Seeing as how we have such a lack of titles being released for 360 this year or next, I have to think that means the new Xbox is for 2013. Unless they surprise us and say that the first wave of Durgango titles will be released this year on 360, and you will get a free key for a direct download at launch.

 

I think arm make sense for xbox tv if arm powers the xbox surface. Just add a graphics chip and some memory to the xTV and slap it in a 7' tablet for $199.

 

There's no cut down Durango (or beefed up Durango either).

Just Durango and Xbox TV, basically what DF and the Verge report:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/21/3674802/xbox-tv-set-top-box-casual-gaming-streaming-2013

They're also going to keep 360 on like the PS2.

 

This is what you guys are going to get. Take it or leave it.

There will be Durango (all the leaks we have currently pertain to this console). It is MS's next gen gaming console competing with PS4 and Wii U.

Possibly, there will be XboxTV (basically low-power tablet/cellphone guts in a box for media streaming and xbla style games). It could be a MS's answer to AppleTV, etc.

Finally, there will be a refresh of the Xbox 360 (a la PS2 super slim). This will enable MS to continue to capitalize on last gen gaming in the budget-minded audience space.

All 3 will likely include some form of Kinect and some variety of the Metro interface by way of a custom version of W8 or WRT (depending on the device).

I would make a serious bet on the above happening.

A dual APU console, while interesting, does not remotely make any bit of business sense. The whole idea of a system on a chip is to take advantage of a reduction of system complexity and power utilization in every aspect of system design from power supply to box size to single, simplified cooling solution.

 

Well xbox tv sounds uninteresting, I'm not sure why MSFT tries outside of being able to tell investors they are doing something.
They don't have Apple brand strength neither they are free&open as Android.
Then there is the name, imo for that audience (if there is one looking at google/apple tv sales) windows might still be a stronger, more broadly acknowledge than "xbox". Not too mention that one should question the relevance of Xbox brand outside of gaming, "live" is more universal but I would still go with Windows.

For the 360 redesign I wonder if they really want the system to remain relevant to which extend they redesign the system vs shrink it.
The 360 still seems costlier than a wii to me:
It uses GDDR3 and I could see DDR3 being cheaper.
Was design at a point in time when GHz were the future.
To system is optimal only with a HDD.
Looking forward the system could use more RAM for services, OS, etc.
Then you have kinect (though may be it could be replaced by kinect 2 which could be cheaper to produce).
Quiet a challenge to have complete SKU at a low price, even shrinking to 32nm (for the SoC) and 40nm for the daughter die may be a significant expenditure, I wonder if it's worse it vs a redesign or keeping the system as it is.

 

Of course, but they think they can be like Apple so they're trying to do so

And make no mistake, they definitely think they're competing with Apple as much as they are with Sony.

Not really, since Xbox 361 will be targeted to more price conscious customers and poorer markets in developing countries.
Just look how much success Sony had with selling the PS2 after the PS3's launch, they definitely would have made far less profit if they only had the $599 PS3 available to purchase.

WRT to Xbox TV, not being a real Xbox device - that's true, but as others have said the Xbox brand has grown to encompass MS's entire music/video content service (replacing Zune) so that's not a huge issue anymore.

 

Agreed, not to mention the ongoing financial crisis; a lot people have to spend $400 to feed their families and cannot buy a new console anyway. In Greece, middle class people are left with 400 Euros a month after the taxoffice stops by.

From that perspective, multiple SKUs would be okay I guess but developers ofcourse target the systems that allow them to make a profit.

 

maybe it'll be Surface TV, running Windows Blue. Basically it could be a DLNA player with access to RT/Windows store apps and games.

 

Well the crisis is indeed to triple dip... I don't know but if MSFT wants to keep the 360 around for a long time, I wonder if they should more than shrink it, redesign it a bit like what Nintendo did for the Wii to the WiiU though to a lesser extend. An issue I see is that they may want to lower the clock speed of the CPU.

As it is the 360 is for me problematic, I would think that they may want to shift from IBM SOI process to TSMC 28nm. I mean Redwood on TSMC 40nm is ~100mm^2, the "same" GPU in llano on a SOI 32nm process is the ~same size.
Another reason I would see for a massive redesign is that if they want to keep the system around for a long while, extra power may ease porting from next gen to "current gen v2). The same applies for services /kinect.

I don't know haw far the 'emulation ninjas' can go, they got xbox games (some) to run on the 360, how many titles could they have to run on a significantly redesign systems? What MSFT would consider good enough? With the park of 360 being set to stay relevant for a while (and it is a pretty big one) I would think that they would that number to be big. There is also the issue of alienated the owners of a current 360, developing games for the 360, a 360++ and durango sounds like a nightmare. Even if they could get the system at 99$ kind of enforcing the upgrade from the 360 to the 360++ sounds like a disaster in the making.

If MSFT were to do that, I wonder if they could may be have bundle with games ala COD and take a loss to enforce upgrade on users that won't be able to afford Durango), think next CoD&361 @99$
Or they could buy back old 360 if you trade in for a new one (lowering the price of the system to the price of a AAA game). Or/and blending an engagement to gold for one year. They may give users a proper timeline, in one year the system will no longer be supported along with the presentation to their path to upgrade either toward durango or the 361.

It would be costly (at first) but I kind of like the last 3 solutions.
If the 360 is to have a "second life" there is things that need to be changed. For a shrink won't cut it.

Even without speaking of the silicon chips by self, to be cheap you may not want a HDD, DVD size are problematic=> you may want a BRD player and some flash for System and caching and let the costumers use their own solution for external storage. They may want to use the new kinect which could be cheaper to produce.

Wrt to "silicon" in the long run they may want to move from GDDR3, have CPU running at lower clock speed, more RAM would be welcome, removing the artificial (though implemented in hardware) limitation they introduce when they fused Xenon and Xenos, etc.

For the EDRAM I wonder to, is cheaper to have what could a tiny cheap @40nm or ultimately to include 10 of esram on a single chip along with the GPU and CPU (allowing may be extra perfs in non bc mode) that use a denser and cheaper process (you loose density by jumping from EDRAM to SRAM for the scratchpad memory but it is a win for the CPU and GPU).

On a TSMC 28nm Xenon cores should be in the same ballpark as Bobcat/jaguar cores in mm^2, let say really tiny (actually I would think that Jaguar cores should be a tad bigger).
The L2 is pretty tiny too (1MB would not take that much room).
The Xenos should be tiny too, really tiny. Cap verde is 123mm^2 that the fixed function hardware, 10 way more complex SIMD arrays (vs 3), 16 ROPs, the memory controller, etc.
That let the daughter die, the educated people here think that the 32MB of ESRAM in Durango could end up in the 65mm^2, gross guesstimate the daughter should be ~20mm^2, let say 25mm^2 is a worse case scenario.

Putting everything together we speak of something quiet tiny, the issue I see is the CPU that have to run @3,2GHz and how that affects transistor "density", it could also make a tiny chip pretty hot with a lot of Watts to be dissipate per mm^2.

I've no idea of the cost but shrinking is not trivial and I wonder about how that compares to a redesign. In both cases I think speak about lot of money (billions of $) but one option while cheaper doesn't bring anything new on the table.

Again if software guys can wrap their head around that I could see something like that being interesting:
Xenon cores and Xenos SIMD array would be mostly unchanged (fixing some issues with the CPU or including slight refinements could be fine if it doesn't make BC a even greater issue ala WiiU).
* CPU:
- 6 xenon cores 1.6 GHz < X < 2.4GHz (depending on power consumption target, though not dynamic fixed at design time) + 2MB of L2
- the L2 run at the same speed as the CPU cores (vs half speed)
- the cpu cores + cache can run at multiple clocks speed (though not individually, managed by software)
- simple power management cores can be "power" killed (individually) and half the L2 too (managed by software /OS)

* GPU:
4 SIMD (vs 3) and a bump in clock speed (+/- 650MHz)
-"low" latency communication between the game processor and GPU (not like in Valhalla). May be taking from AMD late APU and PS4. Could the CPU and GPU communicate through a "delayed queue" / software trick to recreate latencies in the original design?

* Integrated daughter die:
10MB of ESRAM, same number of ROPs, bump in clock speed to match the shader core throughput, no changes outside of the shift from EDRAM to ESRAM. Linked to Xenos v2

* Misc:
Include an up to date video processing unit.
A sound DSP could be nice.
May be support for display plane as in Durango.
may some encoding hardware if they are to stream video output to other devices.

* IO, memory, storage, peripherals
128 bit bus to DDR3, ~33 GB/s of bandwidth (/half of durango /same memory type => more volume while ordering). 2GB of RAM, 512MB reserved for OS
16GB of Flash
x2/3 BRD
Support for external storage through USB 3.
Integrated wifi
Support of the "new" kinect and durango controller (as well as existing controller).

If software side is doable, that hardware should be pretty cheap to produce, at least every bit as cheap as a shrunk 360, using either 2 chips (they keep the daughter on a separate chip) or one chip on a more expensive (and less dense) process that allows for the use of EDRAM.

I guess they could have to stick to IBM which might be reluctant to design something on a non proprietary process whereas they have free fab capacity, though even if they go with IBM 32nm process they should imo redesign significantly the system (making the L2 out of EDRAM could make sense if they are using a process that allow for that, win in power and make up for some density lost elsewhere).

I would hope they were not stuck to such a process as density of their last revision is pretty awful imho (+400 milions transistors => ~180mm^2 ).
May have something to do with money and time and effort as Power a2 looks better in this regard.
I also wondered a few times if it could have something to do with power, CPU (worst offender) and GPU still burn their fair amount of power and a too tiny chip generating the same amount of heat could have create more problems (and generates costs) than it would have solved (I wonder if that affect AMD APU too).
Actually if they were to stick to IBM and its process I wonder if modding a Power a2 would be an better idea (and use of time and money) than reimplementing Xenos on a new process, disable 2 threads (hardware of software), stick a VMX 128 unit to it. If the Emulation were to be able to deal with the type of change I'm speaking about they could possibly handle 'that' too.

 

Wow I feel really lone now

Anyway I do agree that the post above is extremely hypothetical, some may say on the verge of nonsensical but I still don't see how MSFT could sold a standard 360, even after a shrink, at 99$ without a subscription.
As for Xbox tv, imo I don't see why the product would get any traction without games, there are a lot more games available on iOS than on windows rt 8 and that can't be changed that fast (especially looking at windows RT "success").
I do get than MSFT can see people using their 360 for netflix, but I know a significant amount of people in the US using Netflix, though their account works on many devices, some may use the 360 but there are many other HUB, that is a selling for Netflix not for the 360 or an hypothetical Xbox TV.

If people were interested in that type of products, the matching Google and Apple would have been more successful, actually if that type of devices was to get more traction, I would actually see Google and Apple get the lion share. Long story made short, MSFT still need the (aaa) gaming part to have a competitive advantage vs Apple and Google, without "proper games" they are actually at a disadvantage vs both iOS and Android.

So I'm kind of stuck in a loop (pun intended), no matter how I look at it, MSFT needs the 360 bc and they also need a redesign to extend the system life and have a better support for non gaming functionality (and a boost in game would not hurt either).
Oops stuck in a loop again, they need more RAM, lower power CPUs (but overall more CPU power), more hardware support for media decoding, they need extra storage for games but HDD is too expansive for a 99$ system, etc. etc.

EDIT
Even with a redesign 99$ sounds tough to reach without 1 year subscription to live.

 

The problem I always saw with the two box strategy is that at some point you do want your users to have access to the improved features the larger box would have without buying new hardware. It's the whole point if a subscription: give people access to stuff they normally couldn't afford if they had to buy it at once. And the key here is with digital distribution of games, even the most casual of users will occasionally browse the game store and find something of interest.

A $99 Xbox TV is really more an accessory than a primary item, much like its almost guaranteed anyone who owns an Apple TV has an iOS device, even though its fully functional on its own.

 

This won't be an issue with Xbox TV as it should only have access to the Win 8 app store (and possibly other XboxTV exclusive apps/games) and not to the regular Durango games store.