cool, thanks
it sure sounds like there is resistance there from people who have tried it
Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
- Status
cool, thanks
it sure sounds like there is resistance there from people who have tried it
I initially thought it was about the sticks, but realised later that it was actually about the triggers ... Either I wasn't paying attention or the message was confusing (in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if I just wasn't paying attention).
They did some good refining, but I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get anything really new, or even bring the controller up to speed with gyros. They're so cheap, and they could be really nice for some games.
They did some good refining, but I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get anything really new, or even bring the controller up to speed with gyros. They're so cheap, and they could be really nice for some games.
Given lack of support for gyros in PS3, I can understand seeing them as an irrelevant additional cost.
The gyros on the PS3 controller were pretty noisy, the gyros on the PS4 controller are a lot more accurate, it'll be interesting to see if they get used
(((interference)))
Veteran
I don't know why they reduced the force required to move the sticks.
For people playing shooters competitively that's a bad thing, you want to have more tension in the sticks so you can use higher sensitivities while maintaining the ability to easily do slight stick movements.
This is the whole reason Razer's Onza and Sabertooth 360 controllers work so well (user adjustable tension for each stick).
For people playing shooters competitively that's a bad thing, you want to have more tension in the sticks so you can use higher sensitivities while maintaining the ability to easily do slight stick movements.
This is the whole reason Razer's Onza and Sabertooth 360 controllers work so well (user adjustable tension for each stick).
SedentaryJourney
Regular
I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask what concrete information do we have about Xbox One anyhow? Have MS even confirmed 1.2 tflops? The only information we have on that front afaik is 768 operations per clock, but we don't know what it's clocked at.
Which means that IF the clock speed was lowered, it would have been a while ago and third party developers would have been well informed by now. I know that yield rumours for Xbox One go back as far as September.
Which means that IF the clock speed was lowered, it would have been a while ago and third party developers would have been well informed by now. I know that yield rumours for Xbox One go back as far as September.
Wasn't really my point.
It's more if a decision like this was made this late, then MS would want to communicate it to developers as soon as the decision was made. You're looking at developers mastering probably in August, delaying the communication an only hurt the software.
Having said that I would be surprised if there were anything to this rumor, only because if developers had been recently been broadly told this, I'd expect more leaks than a couple of insiders at GAF.
I'm currently waiting for my wife in a car with not much to do... I was reading yesterday a couple of posts on the RWT forum about Crystal Web. At some point a guy pointed out something when comparing Edram and SRAM especially when you speak of large amount of memory: whereas SRAM is overall faster (latency, clock speed) once you speak of large amountdue to their bigger size the SRAM cell requjre significantly longer wiring.
32MB is a lot, we hear rumors about issues whereas SRAM by self is nothing special (you would think it is a well mastered piece of silicon could issue be related to wiring one way or another?
From burning more power than expected to may be timing issues between the different banks of SRAM or what not?
32MB is a lot, we hear rumors about issues whereas SRAM by self is nothing special (you would think it is a well mastered piece of silicon could issue be related to wiring one way or another?
From burning more power than expected to may be timing issues between the different banks of SRAM or what not?
We are not discussing the downclock as a rumour here! I've just moved the Major Nelson tweet discussion from this thread. It's an ambiguous answer with room for interpretation. Wait until real, unambiguous confirmation, or discuss it in the rumour thread.
You should change the thread name then.
We're discussing the rumour, but as a technical investigation, not a "he said this, well she said that, well she's a liar, no you're the liar, stupid fanboy always spreading FUD about XB1, blah blah" discussion. The discussion about the rumour that revolves around characters on GAF and whether to believe them or not clearly doesn't belong here.
In simple terms, in this thread the question is: "There's a rumour that the ESRAM is causing heat issues and has resulted in a significant downclock for XB1. Is this plausible given what we know about SRAM? Have we any technological points of reference for this supposed problem?"
I'll post this here, although it seems unlikely at this point...
On-chip thermal gradient analysis and temperature flattening for SoC design
"Important results obtained here are 1) the maximum temperature difference increases with higher memory area occupancy and 2) the difference is very floorplan sensitive."
Paper is here, but I certainly haven't read it:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1466526
As I understand it, this problem depends usage of chip components - it seems plausible that such a problem would only appear when the system is fully optimized (e.g. when as move engine usage increases/toolset improves etc).
But I think it's rather a long-shot
.
On-chip thermal gradient analysis and temperature flattening for SoC design
"Important results obtained here are 1) the maximum temperature difference increases with higher memory area occupancy and 2) the difference is very floorplan sensitive."
Paper is here, but I certainly haven't read it:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1466526
As I understand it, this problem depends usage of chip components - it seems plausible that such a problem would only appear when the system is fully optimized (e.g. when as move engine usage increases/toolset improves etc).
But I think it's rather a long-shot
.Tech Argument Against Jaguar (Or Jaguar Only)
Over at Semi Accurate Forums someone posted what I think could be a pretty good technical catch from looking at the Xbox One mainboard (the wired photos).
So jeff_rigby pointed out the size of the GPU and CPU power planes and specifically that the size of the CPU power plain copper plus the associated buck converter components look *way* too large for the power consumption of jaguar.
So take a look at both this photo (zoomed out) and then also go look at the zoomed in photo which you can see over at the Semi Accurate Forums:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/05/xbox-one-development-photos/#slideid-138498
In short the CPU power plane and buck converter looks like it can power some much larger bigger cores or other blocks than the lower power jaguar cores.
So based upon die size, transistor counts, power consumption (as suggest by the CPU power plane copper cross section and the buck converter components) and MS's trends in the original and 360 I doubt it is jaguar. My bet and hope is that it is far removed from jaguar at the other end of the power spectrum.
Or I could have some fun and suggest that there are "additional powerful blocks" attached to the CPU power supply. Back to the dual APU rumors or the ray tracing block? (I am mostly just kidding but I would like to see revolution and serious power instead of evolution and jaguar cores.)
Maybe W8-lite runs on Jaguar and games runs on Power8 custom or K10.5+ enhanced/customized husky cores or steamroller-like customized cores.
So it might have jaguar but for the W8-lite and the constant on. Not for the games at all. The two get stitched together through the display planes which might involve the eSRAM.
Not sure which power plane the eSRAM is attached to. I would guess GPU.
Over at Semi Accurate Forums someone posted what I think could be a pretty good technical catch from looking at the Xbox One mainboard (the wired photos).
So jeff_rigby pointed out the size of the GPU and CPU power planes and specifically that the size of the CPU power plain copper plus the associated buck converter components look *way* too large for the power consumption of jaguar.
So take a look at both this photo (zoomed out) and then also go look at the zoomed in photo which you can see over at the Semi Accurate Forums:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/05/xbox-one-development-photos/#slideid-138498
In short the CPU power plane and buck converter looks like it can power some much larger bigger cores or other blocks than the lower power jaguar cores.
So based upon die size, transistor counts, power consumption (as suggest by the CPU power plane copper cross section and the buck converter components) and MS's trends in the original and 360 I doubt it is jaguar. My bet and hope is that it is far removed from jaguar at the other end of the power spectrum.
Or I could have some fun and suggest that there are "additional powerful blocks" attached to the CPU power supply. Back to the dual APU rumors or the ray tracing block? (I am mostly just kidding but I would like to see revolution and serious power instead of evolution and jaguar cores.)
Maybe W8-lite runs on Jaguar and games runs on Power8 custom or K10.5+ enhanced/customized husky cores or steamroller-like customized cores.
So it might have jaguar but for the W8-lite and the constant on. Not for the games at all. The two get stitched together through the display planes which might involve the eSRAM.
Not sure which power plane the eSRAM is attached to. I would guess GPU.
Arent we running into transistor limitations here though? We can guess there's more than just jaguar in there all we want, but with 5 million transistors - 1.6 billion for ESRAM - 12CU GCN core - 4 module Jaguar arent we only looking at a few hundred million unaccounted for, at best?
I do not think so due to my arguments for the use of 1T-SRAM. So others might not agree but I consider 1T-SRAM more likely than 6T or 8T. 80MB 1T is is use at much higher freq in Power 7+ (and later Power 8). 32MB 1T is in Wii U die already, as someone pointed out.
1T-SRAM is a pseudo-static random-access memory (PSRAM) technology introduced by MoSys, Inc., which offers a high-density alternative to traditional static random access memory (SRAM) in embedded memory applications. Mosys uses a single-transistor storage cell (bit cell) like dynamic random access memory (DRAM), but surrounds the bit cell with control circuitry that makes the memory functionally equivalent to SRAM (the controller hides all DRAM-specific operations such as precharging and refresh). 1T-SRAM (and PSRAM in general) has a standard single-cycle SRAM interface and appears to the surrounding logic just as an SRAM would.
Due to its one-transistor bit cell, 1T-SRAM is smaller than conventional (six-transistor, or “6T”) SRAM, and closer in size and density to embedded DRAM (eDRAM). At the same time, 1T-SRAM has performance comparable to SRAM at multi-megabit densities, uses less power than eDRAM and is manufactured in a standard CMOS logic process like conventional SRAM.
MoSyS markets 1T-SRAM as physical IP for embedded (on-die) use in System-on-a-chip (SOC) applications. It is available on a variety of foundry processes, including Chartered, SMIC, TSMC, and UMC.
Some engineers use the terms 1T-SRAM and "embedded DRAM" interchangeably, as some foundries provide Mosys's 1T-SRAM as “eDRAM”. However, other foundries provide 1T-SRAM as a distinct offering.- Status
Similar threads
