SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
That's because you are thinking too old fashioned. They've been embedded inside more advanced blu ray tracing units.
Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
- Status
That's because you are thinking too old fashioned. They've been embedded inside more advanced blu ray tracing units.
It's very unlikely, it would add a lot of heat and power suckage, and the 240 oldass DX9 gflops wouldn't be much graphical help if any, especially segregated.
Even though those 240 oldass DX9 gflops produce amazing looking games like Forza Horizon on their own, LOL. In next gen they wouldn't be anything.
It's funny how "last gen" consoles are now a graphical rounding error. Scott Wasson (Tech Repport) will sometimes casually mention in his reviews how this or that PC GPU "Adds another 6 xbox's worth of shader flops and texel fillrate over it's little brother" or something like that. Xbox's really are irrelevant amounts of processing power to todays GPU's.
I prefer the rumor of a $99 or $149 Xbox mini as the BC "solution".
(((interference)))
Veteran
Do you guys remember the backshot of the Durango alpha kit that we used to guess that there was a HD6870 or HD6950 - before bkilian came in and shot our expectations of 2+TF GPUs to pieces?
If you're still wondering what happened there, it was because that picture was leaked from a doc describing how to setup the alpha kit and was of a GPU that didn't actually ship in the kits (they were replaced just before shipping out to devs).
If you're still wondering what happened there, it was because that picture was leaked from a doc describing how to setup the alpha kit and was of a GPU that didn't actually ship in the kits (they were replaced just before shipping out to devs).
(((interference)))
Veteran
I don't know, maybe running Windows 8 and backgrounding apps will just require 2 cores? Kinect would use some CPU time too.
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Over here the 360 launched at €399 (actually about 429€ in Finland). Now you can get the 250GB model with Skyrim/Forza 4 for €199. edit: Sorry make that €179.
http://www.gigantti.fi/product/peli...SKY/xbox-360-250gb-pelikonsoli-skyrim-forza-4
Last edited by a moderator:
Michellstar
Regular
Why has to be a PPC?? Could it be a Power ISA compatible processor?
(How custom was just the processor of the 360, IBM shuld now)
(How custom was just the processor of the 360, IBM shuld now)
It won't be a PPC or Power. Durango will have x86-based processors, from AMD. We know this already.
It wasn't very custom at all. The basis of the 360 CPU (as well as the PPU in Cell) was a design that was a couple years old already at that time that IBM did for some previous project and then re-used for consoles. MS wanted some additional floating point performance so that was added, but no fundamental changes were made to the design.
Michellstar
Regular
Sorry for not made it clearer
I was talking about the supossed BC soc.
A modern PowerPC variant, with a more suited TDP
Very likely there won't be any hardware BC in durango (hasn't MS actually said outright it won't be BC?), and if you actually want to go that route it's typically very important that the hardware works as closely to the original machine as humanly possible, as otherwise you tend to run into bugs of all kinds of sizes and levels of obscurity.
I can particularly imagine this happening on a multicore system which has been programmed in a quick-and-dirty manner like the 360 where if the CPU was to change its performance characteristic you'd stumble on race condition bugs that didn't manifest on actual 360 hardware for example, causing games to hang or crash or generally just not work properly.
I can particularly imagine this happening on a multicore system which has been programmed in a quick-and-dirty manner like the 360 where if the CPU was to change its performance characteristic you'd stumble on race condition bugs that didn't manifest on actual 360 hardware for example, causing games to hang or crash or generally just not work properly.
Why? It was the first GCN card released and came out the same month the alpha kits. They could have downclocked it or disabled CUs via drivers, but they needed GCN to get as close as possible.
IMO, I doubt they could have used a 77xx card since it has fewer CU's than the rumored Durango so you either go with a 78xx or 79xx with disabled CU's.
The 79xx cards are the only ones that have sufficient memory bandwidth to simulate the ESRAM+DDR3 bandwidth. A 79xx with only 12 CU's enabled would be a better representative of the performance than a 78xx series with only 12 CU's enabled.
No, Microsoft has said absolutely nothing publicly about next gen.
upnorthsox
Veteran
So Durango is now the Rain Man of game consoles..................
To which extend do you think that MSFT may have succeed in "virtualizing" Durango?
I've been wondering if their path toward price reduction could be through indeed a virtual machine that can be moved on any hardware that meet its requirements.
For example instead of swallowing the massive cost of redesigning durango on those 14nm process, MSFT may use new off the shelves block to put together a new system that meet their virtual machine requirements while leveraging new technology (not really trying to get better perfs, more wrt to cost and power). For example they may use only 6 cores (jaguar cores successor) clock higher with better perfs per cycle, better SIMD (FMA support), a GPU that has less SIMD, but a more efficient architecture and run a tad faster, no embedded ESRAM but something more akin to what Intel is doing for Haswell, a lesser bus with faster RAM, etc. and have the "virtual machine" to run on that quiet different system.
The system would map the virtual memory associated to the ESRAM in the DRAM pool, may some other renders targets that should have been in ram could be move there too, etc.
If durango is a "fully" virtualized system (/black box for devs with no access to the metal at all), presenting devs with guaranty wrt Quality of Service instead of hardware resources, it should be pretty flexible and the hypervisor could map the different memory pool to different pool of memory than in the original system as long as the requirement for the quality of services are met.
I've been wondering if their path toward price reduction could be through indeed a virtual machine that can be moved on any hardware that meet its requirements.
For example instead of swallowing the massive cost of redesigning durango on those 14nm process, MSFT may use new off the shelves block to put together a new system that meet their virtual machine requirements while leveraging new technology (not really trying to get better perfs, more wrt to cost and power). For example they may use only 6 cores (jaguar cores successor) clock higher with better perfs per cycle, better SIMD (FMA support), a GPU that has less SIMD, but a more efficient architecture and run a tad faster, no embedded ESRAM but something more akin to what Intel is doing for Haswell, a lesser bus with faster RAM, etc. and have the "virtual machine" to run on that quiet different system.
The system would map the virtual memory associated to the ESRAM in the DRAM pool, may some other renders targets that should have been in ram could be move there too, etc.
If durango is a "fully" virtualized system (/black box for devs with no access to the metal at all), presenting devs with guaranty wrt Quality of Service instead of hardware resources, it should be pretty flexible and the hypervisor could map the different memory pool to different pool of memory than in the original system as long as the requirement for the quality of services are met.
Can the VM be applied to BC? there are some VM's, as QEMU, that can virtualize another hardware (PPC in x86).
GrimThorne
Newcomer
What do mean now? This has been going on for months. If there is anything (and I mean absolutely anything) negative or pessimistic about the next Xbox, you can be sure that it will be posted and recycled everywhere. So if perceptions are gloomy it's because readers have been saturated with this stuff for quite awhile. And if there's even a hint of any positive speculation about the console, you'll have a whole army of people immediately rushing in to crush it or drown it out as soon as it appears.
The reason why I've gone neutral to all of this negative claptrap that we're hearing and reading about all over the place is that no matter what they're claiming, it's simply impossible for any one person or any one source to have all of the answers. And it honestly doesn't matter what they're saying either because none of it is first hand information. Their information has probably been spanked and passed through several interpretational filters before it even came to them. Posting that information as fact doesn't make it so, but in the absence of real information, these speculations have wildly taken on a life of their own. lol.
It's clear that in the way most of these speculations are shared and reported that some people have an agenda. But it's STILL just recycled speculations at this point. Until we hear something official, until we have final silicone..............there's no reason to believe any of it.
I'm pretty sure they said Kinect would deflower your children and then upload the video of the act onto youtube (Internet connection required), or the console won't even turn on. I may be wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
