Xbox 2 preview at GDC may not feature hardware unveiling
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Given the contents of the article, two of those numbers would appear to be correct!
As for "reducing costs" you might want to think over the longer term of the console lifetime. However, having plenty of CPU power can offset some other costs straight away, and offer a number of flexabilities.
...
Just look at M2 with dual CPU chips and how it derailed the whole project...
I don't care how many physical processors are present, it is the logical processor count that matters, as this will decide the development complexity....
That's not what MS is planning. Look what MS has done until now, no HD, no backward compatibility, a simpler controller, etc. MS is clearly doing everything it can to cut cost and launch early, and having multiple CPU chips doesn't help to achieve MS's design objectives.
Just look at M2 with dual CPU chips and how it derailed the whole project...
Again. No. Cost at the start of the console is not the issue, costs over the duration of the console is the issue. Multiple CPU's give you increased flexabilities, with potential smaller cost reductions in other areas, but these can be further cost reduced later in their lifetime by moving more cores on to a single chip.
As for the talk of no HD - how do you know that the solid state storage they choose initially isn't more expensive than a HD solution, but is projected to get better cost reductions than physical media over a period of time?
DaveBaumann said:
I know what you're saying Dave, but IMHO there are simpler and more stable ways to reach the same ends. Introducing concurrent fixed costs with the only way to escape them to incur further fixed costs just to reduce them on a -specialized- product with the volume and history of XBox isn't something I'm thinking is smart. To even reach the region of profit-taking will necessitate volume...
If (note I'm just saying *If*) this thing pulls a Dreamcast, it won't be pretty.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
I think they might just cut some functions, to add them later on when the price cost drops... They could compete with a cheap launch price.
Vince said:
Personally I'd like to think there had been enough hints dropped in this thread...
Wunderchu said:the info about three CPUs has been mentioned before (i.e.: in this thread, here): http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10083 ... however, the "six cores" info has not been mentioned before, IIRC ...Phil said:I guess my being absent for a few weeks has definately amounted to not being that up to date, but
??? OMG. Seems like Microsoft has something in the works that is set to compete with PS3 one way or the other. Though speaking of 6 PowerPC cores does sound like the system will be costing quite a bit more than I probably was willing to give MS credit for (I guess I had nothing better to expect after the dumped money into Xbox and it being a very expensive jump into the gaming industry). Am I missing out on something or are others as puzzled as I am?
.... as I posted in this other thread (here: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9939&start=120 ):
I believe that the CPU of Xbox Next is a variant of the POWER5 processor , but there are 3 dual core chips [instead of 4 dual core chips, as in the server version of the processor ( http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10182 )]....
Dunno if this has been asked before, but could it be that they have 3 discrete cpus with a PowerPC version of HyperThreading, therefore they're able to claim "six cpus?" That would seem more cost effective than going with 3 dual core cpus imo, and still allow them their "we've got 6!" claim.
[EDIT]Seems like it has been asked/answered in prior threads that I'm not up to speed on. hehe.[/EDIT]
Panajev2001a
Veteran
Vince said:
Vince, are you saying that basically Microsoft would have such a low volume in your opinion that moving cores on the same chip and shrinking said chip with better manufacturing processes will not work ?
I do not think their sales volume will be that low, if low at all.
Panajev2001a said:
I'm just proposing - as I made it clear. Would it have made sense for Sega with Dreamcast? You know, it wouldn't take much to recreate that situation - EA alone is large enough to decapitate the Xbox2. Massive front-loading of costs work with volume and the inherient cost dilutation - and all it would take is, say, a disagreement over Live! to end any chance of that.
Well, atleast you understand what I was saying; I have no clue what Dave's getting at.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I should've worded it differently.
ATI did not design Gamecube's GPU, Flipper. ArtX did.
ATI did design its own Radeon (R100) and Radeon 8500 (R200).
ATI, with ArtX's help, designed the very sucessful and awesome
Radeon 9700 (R300).
nevermind.
Why would Xenon need 6 CPUs anyway? Is MS going to move the VS work back over to the CPU? That wouldn't make alot of sense if VS/PS are unified, but then again Xenon will probably be radically different from any DX10 PC system. Maybe instead of having a huge complex GPU, their will be a much simpler device that relies on seperate CPUs for alot of the computational work.
That's just a wild guess, but I'm certain that putting a "PC in a box" is not something MS will want to do again with Xenon. That hasn't been profitable and it never will be. I'd bet money that Xenon will not really share any similarities with X-Box, and is a different kind of system alltogether.
That's just a wild guess, but I'm certain that putting a "PC in a box" is not something MS will want to do again with Xenon. That hasn't been profitable and it never will be. I'd bet money that Xenon will not really share any similarities with X-Box, and is a different kind of system alltogether.
It's kind of interesting to see the way that rumours get distorted.
Initial leaks are accurate, but then various individuals on the net try to read between the lines, and interpret, data they really don't understand, and all of a sudden things are really confusing.
Anyway answering the question why would XB2 need mutiple CPU's, there are uses outside of Vertex shaders for CPU float power, but there are also certain "vertex shaders" that are probably better implemented on a general purpose CPU (skinned animation springs to mind).
Initial leaks are accurate, but then various individuals on the net try to read between the lines, and interpret, data they really don't understand, and all of a sudden things are really confusing.
Anyway answering the question why would XB2 need mutiple CPU's, there are uses outside of Vertex shaders for CPU float power, but there are also certain "vertex shaders" that are probably better implemented on a general purpose CPU (skinned animation springs to mind).
