Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation

Well according to this, the dev kits have 12GB since the alpha kits:

http://www.vgleaks.com/whats-inside-durangos-alpha-kit-2/


BTW, whats interesting to me is that the 7790 has a much higher Gigaflop/W value than the 7770. (21 to 16)
So the XBox One GPU could be using as little as 58 W or as much as 76 W.

 

...or it is 12x8G modules on 3 channels (192 bits) instead of the wired photos of 16x4G modules on 4 channels (256 bits)...

...I hope they are not doing that (3 channels).

I seriously doubt it is a 384 bit interface being used at 256. It has the area for that I/O count, however.

 

My god why can you people accept the xbox one for what it is,there is not changes this late into the race period,one thing is changing a policy another adding 4GB more of ram or over clocking a GPU you people know this.

CBOAT never say anything about down clock,it was about yields problems.

And while you argue here that MS is looking dev feedback to increase ram size,the xbox one is been manufacture as we speak with 8GB,MS can't start making consoles on October to release on November or December is impossible.

The xbox one is been manufacture now,and it will not change hardware wise or even clock wise.

In fact i can believe more that MS shrink the OS by 1GB or 1.5GB than adding 4 more GB to a console that already has a set price of $500 dollars.

 

I agree if they do that they have to come with something that marks people memory.
Sounds stupid but I think that 1GHz GPU and 2GHz CPU is the way to go, it is "stupid" but that what I think it takes to reach the masses.
That should be a ~40Watts (or north of that) though starting what I think is a pretty low power system. Anything below might not be worse it, they should make their move public pretty late to late for Sony to react.

 

What is so implausible about an exec getting passed over for a promotion and then leaving the company for larger role somewhere else? This happens all the time.

I hope at some point the Sony faithful will realize that one console being 'weaker' than the other, only serves to reduce the quality of games on the stronger one. Nothing about Rangers' post implies he's looking to brag, just seeking parity in some aspects. Parity that will benefit everyone.

Everyone who will buy an Xbox has already happily accepted it for what it is. This is a technical thread on a technical forum discussing a rumor about the technical feasibility of new rumored specs. I don't know why it upsets you that people are having these discussions and what makes you better qualified on what can and cant be done in this day and age, especially since we don't know when any of these decisions may have been made.

 

That link mentioned it as 8GB plus 4GB. So perhaps 16x4G on 4 channels but two of the channels have a second set of modules (8x4G more)? I guess with Llano, Trinity, Richland, anything, you can have one or two modules... ...but some can't handle 2133 MHz (certified to 1333 MHz with two?) with more than one per channel. I have never tried one module on one channel and two on another. Does that even work?

This is one of the things which is annoying me about the arguments. One side argues that the GPU is small/weak and then argues with the next breath that it consumes so much power that it can't be overclocked. If it is that small and the SOC is only 100W and silently cooled then it should be possible pretty easily.

 

Sure anything is possible but you take the esram "upgrade" as fact yet it confirms the clock didnt change.

Silly season alright....

 

It is billions of dollars for both console companies and billions of dollars for the games.

That is why they spy on each other, put zebra strips on kits, change inclusion of camera (PS4), try to launch before the other, go up to 8GB, try to price under the other, etc. It is very competitive...

But four months to go... ...perhaps solder a different chip on (if you have those boards/chips from dev kits already, maybe) or change clocks a little. The stakes are big. We don't know what pre-order numbers look like. Might be fine, might not be. That can light a fire under them.

 

No one here knows what's been changed about the esram, if anything. Something was sent to devs from MS, but the reporting of the details is confused.

I won't be holding my breath for an extra 4GB of RAM. A small increase in clock speeds is possible, as long as their cooling solution can handle it, but I'm not sure what it really gains them to make it worth doing. I suppose developers will take any small improvement they can get, but I'm not sure it would significantly impact what we see on screen.

Edit: Stop killing this thread please. Sony and PS4 really don't need to appear anywhere in this thread, and only invite fanboy derailing.

 

Wow if true guys. Maybe this is why GS preorder allocations are set so low? Maybe they only expect to make 100k of these upclocked boxes this holiday season.

 

This is a speculation and investigation thread. Nothing is certain until a detailed tear down or official specs release. If you're uncomfortable discussing hypothetical scenarios and the plausibility of rumours, stay out of this thread.

 

I just look that set of pictures, nice to be down on earth there is no way they change the memory configuration this late.
The cooling solution looks quite solid though.

 

I dont see how the two are connected??

 

Well this has more to do with the alpha being a PC and triple channel memory means 6GB or 12GB. It doesn't say much about the dev kits with real XB1 hardware or the XB1 hardware itself which uses quad channel.

 

There's a dozen ways to reach 12GB, most of them are ugly.

Mixing 8gb and 4Gb (or adding 4Gb parts in dual rank), would cause a third of the address space to be effectively 128bit. That would be a very weird configuration, but they could use that space exclusively for the OS and any i/o buffers. Not elegant, but not stupid either.

The best would be adding 16 2Gb parts on the backside aligned with the 4Gb chips, that would keep the speed up for the whole address space, and these parts are comfortably in mass production (Micron D9PZN on top, D9PRW on the back). PCB size wouldn't change, but would need a truckload of vias to the backside chips.

 

Where is the 100k coming from? Why not 5 million, 2million, 500K, 50K or 27?

Sorry to nitpick, but with rumours of yield problems we still have no real estimates as to how significantly it would impact the initial supply. That's unless someone has a source that I could have easily missed.

 

Well, are the memory chip packages always the same size? If yes ignore
If no, I was thinking that reworking the mobo this late might not be an option.

 

@MrFox
Wouldn't that configuration affect the OS negatively?!

 

Not likely.

Hardware companies making stuff for cyclical products (i.e. typical Christmas electronic gifts) order millions of components in Aug/Sept (sometimes Oct!!!) totally ignoring factory lead times and their suppliers go nuts and their contract assemblers churn out tens of millions in Oct/Nov/Dec and ship it back and forth overseas.

MS might have two or three contract assemblers ready.

Now that is the real silly season and that happens every year.

I doubt it changes the SOC at all. Maybe the PCB (maybe not, maybe same pin out but different density modules).

The PCB might need to change for the VRM and the cooling solution. But PCB are changed all the time at the last minute and can be manufactured really quickly by the acre. You probably don't want to know what goes on at the last minute.




The PCB might not need to change at all in the sense that they might have a perfectly suitable version already.

Keep in mind that while you might only see one PCB design it is very likely that MS made and evaluated all kinds over the last couple of years. I have seen some products with literally dozens of different PCB and BOM (bill of materials) that evolved during the design, evaluation and qualification phases.

 

For the weird config, the OS would be limited to 34GB/s, but if it needs more than that, something's seriously wrong. I don't know what MS wants to do in the future, but why would an OS need that much bandwidth?

But adding 2Gb chips on the back would be ideal, no impact anywhere.