Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation

[Rangers]

ESRAM was in that doc. (On the next page)

Kinect 2 being bundled was also in that document (with rough expectations of a wider FOV and 4 player capability)

Xbox mini is there too

The overall system design was way wrong and nonsensical though. "64 ALU's @ 1ghz" and stuff that didn't even make sense like that.

I forgot when the document was dated? If it was even 2010, I thought console lead times were so great, it's weird they completely went in another direction to that design.

Also ESRAM wasn't exactly entirely in there, the mention goes

Embedded Memory: eDRAM, option for eSRAM

 

[DopeyFish]

The overall system design was way wrong and nonsensical though. "64 ALU's @ 1ghz" and stuff that didn't even make sense like that.

I forgot when the document was dated? If it was even 2010, I thought console lead times were so great, it's weird they completely went in another direction to that design.

64 ALUs @ 1 GHz = 16 CUs at 1 GHz

and they didn't go in a different direction at all. they are almost following that nearly exactly except for some minor variations.

 

[Rangers]

64 ALUs @ 1 GHz = 16 CUs at 1 GHz

and they didn't go in a different direction at all. they are almost following that nearly exactly except for some minor variations.

Arguable moreso than I first thought, if you can reconcile the weird terminology. Not sure why you're equating "64 ALU's" to "16 CU's". Did CU's even exist back then?

I always read it as a terribly non technical writer's kludge at equating 4-8x in 360 terms. EG, 48 ALU's at 500mhz, plus 64 more ALU's at 1ghz, yeah that sounds about right! Super powerful!

Anyways the Durango rumors state 12 CU's at 800 mhz. Also 8GB DDR3 vs 4GB DDR4, no BC, 32 MB ESRAM vs ">32 MB EDRAM" etc.

It's closer than I thought at first blush if you can reconcile a few (big, huge) discrepancies I guess, though.

Heh, it's funny I went looking for that old doc for purposes of this discussion, and despite being removed with a takedown notice from a lot of smaller sites, it's still freely downloadable from that tiny fansite gameinformer.com. Way to go, lawyers.

 

[DopeyFish]

Arguable moreso than I first thought, if you can reconcile the weird terminology. Not sure why you're equating "64 ALU's" to "16 CU's". Did CU's even exist back then?

Anyways the Durango rumors state 12 CU's at 800 mhz. Also 8GB DDR3 vs 4GB DDR4, no BC, 32 MB ESRAM vs ">32 MB EDRAM" etc.

It's closer than I thought at first blush if you can reconcile a few (big, huge) discrepancies I guess, though.

16 CUs = 64 SIMDs (or in this case ALUs) - GCN architecture didn't even exist back then... Came out 2011 so AMD was still designing cores based on 360 architecture

The ESRam was on the page after "EDram (or ESRAM option)" or whatever

4GB DDR4 vs 8 GB DDR3 is very obvious- DDR4 isn't ready for prime time, Ram demands change. We seemed to have forgotten that at the time this doc came out... Our expectation was 2 GB... With a long shot hope at 4GB. Densities and mass cost have made 8 GB an affordable possibility

Though there are areas (OEM) that will likely never come true

 

[Lalaland]

DDR4 would be a much higher risk move than anything else discussed for Durango thus far and is that difficult. The issues of quantity w/GDDR5 != implementation and production issues with DDR4 in the RAM world. Even on the basis of that outlandish 'leak' I'd have swallowed 12GB DDR3 but a weird non-2^n quantity and a new RAM type that is years from mass-market does not sound like the commodity parts play both vendors are going for this time.

 

[Kaotik]

How old/new was XDR used by PS3 at the time of launch?

 

[aladin]

Missed it? How do you miss a whole APU or SoC?

It's obvious that they were clueless to it's existence even as they claimed to have full knowledge of everything related to the platform. As it stands, not everyone even believes what they're now claiming anyway.

It's just more proof that no source (no matter how credible) is infallible. They've enjoyed all the hits and source nods that everyone has given them these many months, but it could be that they ran out of relevant things to share some time ago.

I just have that instinct feeling they are right and Microsoft vision of xbox rather than performance in games is more towards other forms of entertainment. It perfectly fits the bill. Microsoft might prove me and many others wrong Let us wait and see what happens next month

 

[Key]

How old/new was XDR used by PS3 at the time of launch?

Is this it?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/memory/display/20050126030743.html

If so, it went into mass production nearly 2 years before the PS3 launched.

Has DDR4 began volume production or planned to anytime soon? If not, wouldn't it be too expensive to include in a console. I believe there is an article from around mid last year where it was mentioned that a single 4Gbit chip of DDR4 costs $30.

 

[Grall]

Came out 2011 so AMD was still designing cores based on 360 architecture

Architecture previous to GCN was VLIW5/4, so not the same as what AMD used in the 360. Not sure any desktop chip launched after the 360 used anything similar actually. From what I recall reading, 360 GPU shares some aspects with the chips created prior to the radeon HD line, but not really with those that came after.

 

[Kaotik]

Architecture previous to GCN was VLIW5/4, so not the same as what AMD used in the 360. Not sure any desktop chip launched after the 360 used anything similar actually. From what I recall reading, 360 GPU shares some aspects with the chips created prior to the radeon HD line, but not really with those that came after.

Closest thing in AMD/ATI PC GPUs to Xenos would be R5xx's, the unified shaders in Xenos are more or less little improved Vec4+1 vertex shaders from R5xx
VLIW5, later 4 and GCN are all different at least on that front.

 

[Lalaland]

How old/new was XDR used by PS3 at the time of launch?

I think the more pertinent question is 'Why would MS copy the launch PS3s high BoM? Or 'What benefits did that investment yield for Sony vs MS?'. MS cleaned up this go around with their cheaper to produce box, I can't see them swapping horses for Sony's strategy given their performance against that strategy w/360.

A DDR3 controller comes for 'free' from AMD, they could pay AMD beaucoup dollars to make and debug a DDR4 controller and then further pay through the nose to a DRAM house to commit a fab to making DDR4 chips just for them. None of those steps sounds like MS this gen let alone the noises about MS for next gen. MS heard the GDDR5 rumours about Orbis a long time ago, quantity went up and down but we all knew it was GDDR5, no-one aside from this 'leak' is claiming DDR4 in the last two years.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

First, Crucial is not a memory supplier, it's a client.
Second, the final specs was published September 2012.
http://www.infoworld.com/t/computer-memory/adoption-of-ddr4-memory-facing-delays-216439

That's called risk. That's where the risk is.

Small correction. Crucial Technology is just a brand name of Micron Technology that is used to sell finished products (memory sticks, SSDs, etc.) to consumers. Micron Technology does in fact manufacture memory components and modules. Including SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, DDR3 SDRAM, LPDRAM, RLDRAM, PSRAM, and multi-chip packages.

Basically all memory chips that are used in Crucial branded products are manufactured by the parent company Micron Technology. Up until relatively recently all memory chips were also manufactured in the US.

It's quite likely they'll also be manufacturing DDR4 SDRAM chips as well. But as mentioned they are late to the party compared to Samsung.

Now, this doesn't at all go to say it'll be used in Durango. And highly unlikely that Micron manufactured memory would be used. It tends to be higher priced than the equivalent Samsung manufactured memory.

And while Micron may be a bit slow compared to Samsung with regards to implementation of DDR4, they are quite a bit ahead in other things like high density MLC NAND flash memory.

Regards,
SB

 

[MrFox]

But Samsung have been making samples 2 years before the standard was finished, while Micron demoed modules only 3 months after the standard was published. How can anyone use the samsung samples and not take a risk that they wouldn't be standard two years later?

That happened with Vita, they used WideIO before the standard was published, and they ended up with non-standard parts. They are stuck with a custom memory. (only 128MB though, so it's not a big expense, at least according to iSuppli)

I thought the whole point of using a standard memory was that volume and competition drives the price very low. DDR3 is lower cost and will be until 2015/2016, so what's the point using DDR4 now? Why not wait for the next SoC for the "slim"?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yes, if you use the parts before the standard is finalized you certainly take a risk on having a non-standard implementation compared to the final standard.

Of course that has no bearing here as the standard was finalized in Sept. 2012. So that in itself wouldn't be a barrier to its use in Durango.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2034175/adoption-of-ddr4-memory-facing-delays.html

That does a good job of speculating on why DDR4 adoption has been slow. Basically what it comes down to is that no one wants to pay a premium for DDR4 and memory manufacturer's don't want to make DDR4 without a premium (over DDR3).

Mass adoption won't happen until AMD or Intel push for its adoption by making it the standard memory for their platforms.

What is interesting is the following...

AMD is working closely with memory partners to support memory transitions and expects to see the benefits of DDR4 in its graphics products, a spokesman said.

That could have interesting implications. And it may or may not have any bearing on how Durango launches. But may be why it was originally rumored to be used in Durango.

As well, that means that if AMD moves aggressively to DDR4 with graphics products later this year and/or their computing platform later this year or more likely next year that the price premium for DDR4 won't stay high for very long. At least if Intel also follows suit later this year or next. And if Microsoft were also involved by adopting it in the next Xbox, that would serve to get the premium down faster as well.

As well, it appears that even Micron was sampling DDR4 chips back in 2011. So they aren't behind Samsung after all.

And as usual, a standard disclaimer that none of this is me saying that DDR4 will be used in the next Xbox. I haven't got a clue whether it will or won't be.

Regards,
SB

 

[GrimThorne]

I just have that instinct feeling they are right and Microsoft vision of xbox rather than performance in games is more towards other forms of entertainment. It perfectly fits the bill. Microsoft might prove me and many others wrong Let us wait and see what happens next month

That instinct feeling? Perfectly fits the bill?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

What I think is just crazy is how everyone is assuming, just because Microsoft may not have a more powerful console than Sony, that this somehow instantly means Microsoft isn't interested in performance in games. I don't get it, can't a company have a different peak performance target without being accused of not really caring about games? Did the original Xbox being more powerful than the PS2 mean that Microsoft had a stronger commitment to games than Sony did at the time?

I think we all know better than that.

 

[GrimThorne]

What I think is just crazy is how everyone is assuming, just because Microsoft may not have a more powerful console than Sony, that this somehow instantly means Microsoft isn't interested in performance in games. I don't get it, can't a company have a different peak performance target without being accused of not really caring about games? Did the original Xbox being more powerful than the PS2 mean that Microsoft had a stronger commitment to games than Sony did at the time?

I think we all know better than that.

Even though more doesn't automatically mean better (even with gaming hardware), bigger performance numbers can still have an enormous psychological impact on people. If by and large the perception is that Microsoft's console is weaker than the PS4, then that's all some people need to hear to render a decision.

It doesn't even have to be true, and next month Microsoft could show us gaming performance that the PS4 is incapable of matching even with lower/higher hardware numbers. It might not matter at all to some gamers or even lesser informed consumers. All that might matter with them is that it looks prettier and plays better.

Sometimes it's not just about telling people what you've got, but showing them what you can do with it.

 

[Bagel seed]

Did the original Xbox being more powerful than the PS2 mean that Microsoft had a stronger commitment to games than Sony did at the time?

I think we all know better than that.

Yes you could say they had comparatively stronger commitment at that time. Easy to program x86 and powerful. Sounds much better for making games than PS2 does. But it was also at a higher level of power appropriate for the time too.. you know Xbox came out over 1 year later after PS2, right?

 

[french toast]

Yes you could say they had comparatively stronger commitment at that time. Easy to program x86 and powerful. Sounds much better for making games than PS2 does. But it was also at a higher level of power appropriate for the time too.. you know Xbox came out over 1 year later after PS2, right?

Wasnt that also true of ps360?

 

[blakjedi]

Here is a really stupid question. Would it easier to enable bc for original Xbox titles on Durango considering they are both x86 architecture? Just crossed my mind.