Xbox 360 graphics processor codenamed: XENOS. some details

Discussion in 'Console Technology' started by Megadrive1988, May 19, 2005.

  1. Megadrive1988

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    155
    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzcxLDE=


     
  2. Shapeshifter

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Acert93

    Acert93 Artist formerly known as Acert93
    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,782
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Seattle
    I thought Dave said its internal name/number was C1?

    Btw, interesting name C1... i.e. #1 in a new series?
     
  4. Shapeshifter

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    or just a reversion. much like Nvidia often has diffrent core codes on the same model as time goes on.
     
  5. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    switzerland
  6. pc999

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,628
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    Portugal
    I had posted this on the other thread but once you are talking about it...

    Anyone wants to coment this

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzcxLDM=
     
  7. tEd

    tEd Casual Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    switzerland
    ...yes it's the same shit as nvidias 136 shader ops/sec

    If he at least would have explained how they count the shader ops but no , just a stinky number
     
  8. wireframe

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    33
    I think HardOCP mixed this one up and the number of shader ops the C1/R500/Xenos/<insert interesting name here> can do is 48 Billion per second. Let me explain why.

    48 Billion ops per second is what was first reported. However, if anyone took the time to compute the number of ALUs times cycles they would have arrived at a number of 48*500MHz= 24 Billion ALU ops per second. I think what ATI tried to clarify is that each of the 48 parallel processing units is capable of two ops per cycle. This gives us 48*2*500MHz= 48 billion ops per second.

    Of course I could be wrong and the total number of ops just doubled from what was known before. This would be significant because it would make the C1/R500 a theoretically more capable shader processor than Nvidia's/Sony's RSX.

    But I doubt they would give out the wrong number (48 billion) by mistake like that. Would be a major cock-up.

    Just want to sneak in a comment that these theoretical numbers may be very bad for comparing the two competitors. The same goes for their CPUs. Not only are these theoretical maximum performance numbers and what really matters with something like a console is how close to the optimum you can operate. Look at the Pentium 4 as an extreme example. It has very high theoreticals and can even back them up in specialized benchmarking tests, but when multiple types of code/data need to be processed and the CPU cannot dedicate itself to one task, look what happens. Performance plummets and a design like the Athlon 64 keeps on trucking. It will be very interesting to see how close these machines are and how close the software will be (noting that software will probably look and play very similarly unless one machine offers something substantial above the others).
     
  9. speng

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2002
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    5
    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzcxLDM=
    This sounds great. Why MS didn't tout these things I don't know..though E3 isn't done yet.

    Speng.
     
  10. pc999

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,628
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    Portugal
    Thanks wireframe.
     
  11. Acert93

    Acert93 Artist formerly known as Acert93
    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,782
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Seattle
    That past was in March, on May 18th he called it C1 as the code name. Not that it matters, just interesting.
     
  12. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,909
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    That's what makes this unbelievable. If MS could get a 2 terabit bandwidth figure, why aren't they shouting it from the rooftops?
     
  13. Jawed

    Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    767
    Location:
    London
    2 terabits is 256 gigabytes per second.

    Jawed
     
  14. arhra

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    30
    2 terabits = 256 gigabytes = exactly what the spec sheet says.
     
  15. Tim

    Tim
    Regular

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2003
    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Denmark
    2Tbit/s = 256GB/s and that number has been repeated like a million times, now they just using bits instead of bytes to make the number sound more impressive.
     
  16. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,909
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    Of course. My doofus oversight. Though I'm surprised one of the console companies at least hasn't switched to a bit-rate bandwidth to engineer bigger sounding figures! :D
     
  17. pc999

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,628
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    Portugal
    Well they did not show themshelfs very smart in creating hype, they only got because they showed first, look what they did with PD0 and other things....

    Really I dont know what we should think about it. :?
     
  18. Rockster

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    39
    Location:
    On my rock
    But, if the RSX is similar to previous Nvidia architectures where some ALU's and TMU's used shared resources, then RSX max shader ops would exclude any texturing, where the R500's max shader op count could be in parallel to texturing ops.

    And, by the same token, RSX shader op counts may exclude vertex resources, where the R500's don't. But, in an age of 16 pipe cards with better than 38GB/sec, a 24-32 pipe RSX with only 22GB/sec doesn't seem all that balanced. I know it can use it's Cell interconnect bandwidth for fetching textures and perhaps creating render targets in main memory at an additional latency penalty, but even that doesn't add up.

    We really don't yet know enough about both architectures to come to any conclusions, other than they are both extremely capable.
     
  19. pc999

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,628
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    Portugal
  20. Megadrive1988

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,642
    Likes Received:
    155
    guys, my internet connection went down right in the middle of making this thread. thats why it was incomplete, without the full article or link
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...