Do you have a reference to what products use this at the 28nm node? Most references I've seen don't mention the recent nodes, and reliance on that IP can constrain process choice.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.
Xbox One (Durango) Technical hardware investigation
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
- Status
No, I do not know who is using it. I also do not know who owns the IBM IP used in the 80MB in Power 7+. I assume that is IBM's own physical IP and likely available to AMD/MS and possibly all of the common platform alliance.
My assumption (I do not know) is that the chip is common platform alliance fabs based mainly upon capabilities and the triple sourcing rumors.
The Wii U 32MB is on die. Not apples and oranges. Many consoles and portables have used eDRAM, many of those used it on-die. Couple more examples are PS2 and PSP. It has a very solid console track record and makes a lot of sense in consoles.
I still do not agree that only 6T fits. It could be the answer but I think 1T could be the answer too.
Don't misunderstand me. I have made various argument about both 6T and 1T and against various incorrect information posted about both. But at this point I do not think there is enough information to say 6T for sure and 1T is out. I think the history, pros/cons and usage of 1T in consoles makes that the more likely bet. But no I would not be shocked if in the end it was 6T. But if it is 6T in the end I will not sustain arguments that old 6T SRAM (like L1/L2) is suddenly hard to do.
As far as a more powerful console than the rumors go I think the strongest argument against me is the power budget. If that 100W silent is also the maximum power then the arguments would need to center on power efficiency. I am not going to speculate on how far MS might have pushed that but I see potential if they did use 1T (since that 5B transistor count can then cover a wide range of possibilities).
Heck, Richland can use 100W with only 1.3B transistors? (Not sure if that is a dead-on transistor count.) So a 5 Billion transistor count SoC might certainly be apples and oranges compared with Richland or Temash/Kabini. PS4 might compare with Richland but I am not sure Xbox One does very well.
But I will argue for now that compared to prior consoles the size of the SoC, the size of the fan and the size of the power components (brick and buck converters) do not align with pulling a Nintendo or a weak console.
For example, comparing the 6 inductors on the Xbox One board for the SoC with the original Xbox 360 board (highest power version) you have what looks like the same number of total power components this time but they are much higher quality this time. Both the inductors and the caps are vastly better than the 360.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/system/microsoft/xbox360/mb.jpg
So it could be massive over engineering or perhaps we do not fully understand the power picture yet.
The 7970 GHz also uses six inductors. (The Xbox One uses five of the same type and one of a different type.)
Now before people jump all over me yes I know that there are different configurations on the 360, the One and the 7970 as far as numbers of power supplies. We are simply trying to make inferences based upon the little incomplete bits of info available. But the 7970 GHz edition is (I think) 250+ Watts. No, I am not saying 250+ Watts for Xbox One but I think it could be over 100W. (Unless that 100W silent is also the dead maximum which I think would be very unfortunate given the SoC size, cost, transistor count and potential.)
We are stuck with photos with angles, etc, but the power brick doesn't look any smaller than the original 360. (Maybe I am wrong but that is my quick guess, what do others think?)
Next look at the heatsink/fan. It has been stated it is designed to be silent at 100W. That could very well mean 100W is the maximum too. I think that would be an oddly low maximum given the $ spent on the SoC size and the size of the power brick. I think it is an oddly low maximum compared with the 360, PS3 and perhaps the PS4. I am not saying 100% that it will be different but I think there is enough questions marks to not be totally unreasonable to argue for a powerful console.
Doesn't the heatsink look rather big for a console that is pulling a Wii U 2.0 as some have put it? I looks bigger than the AMD heatsinks shipped for 140W. A fair bit bigger. Anyone else agree/disagree?
I have forgotten where the 100W was stated by MS. Can someone point me to a link so that I can review exactly what they said? And before people jump all over me I will gladly admit that I am very biased towards a powerful console.
So I think no one argued against the SoC being a record in die size/cost budget and transistor count. (In a console.)
The people who were disparaging the size of the power brick in the photos might agree that it is tied in size (with 8 years newer tech) to the 360 and perhaps is even larger and the record for a console. Not sure, anyone with a good memory of the brick sizes over the years?
The fan/heat sink might not be a record for a console. What do people think? Record, tie or smaller than the revised version for the Xbox heatsink/mounting/brittle lead free solder bump issue?
How about the power components on the Xbox One board for the SoC? Just a tie for the biggest ever in a console? (Tie with original 360, but this time the components are more capable than used in the 360?)
First pixel peeping to determine resolution, now this!
Sorry for the cross-pollination here but this is just breathtaking:
From mrcteam:
No wonder there is so much interest in "special sauce hidden in watts" talk going on there.
Mind you I post this not to mock but praise as there has been several weeks of 'data' to back this up:
I understand to a certain extent that fans of the console want it to be a "better Google-TV"+ the bestest next gen console + windows 8-ish PC all in one package but as good as MS engineering is I just don't think you are going to get this SuperBox.
Choices were made to make a hybrid device that brings you a next gen console experience and they seem to be pretty good choices ( leaving aside the yield/clock issues ) when it comes to balancing "regular computer code" and gaming code all in the same package. Running a next gen game in a VM is gonna be quite a feat and I can imagine that they are going to cost the crap out it over time ( don't they say they want to sell a billion of these things ).
Let's not forget the power of the cloud.
Let's not forget the billion dollars spent on acquiring exclusive content for games, plus whatever big deals they can make with cable/movies/whathaveyou. MS is going up against Apple as much Sony at this point. Why can't the special sauce be Microsoft's marketing budget ?
or it could also be that the pictured motherboard isn't the final one but one that is populated with components that offer a very cushy power/heat envelope. Unless it was stated otherwise in the Wired article. MS signed off on using that picture why wouldn't they be aware that tech heads would be poring over it, looking for the next RROD issue. Think of it as a subtle advertisement that allays fears of overheating.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Or it could be that mistercteam is speaking out his ass as we concluded here months ago......
well ... yeah but to be able to keep the 2 GPU/APU dream alive AND double the ESRAM AND double the CPU frequency ... ya can't take it seriously but you can marvel at the accomplishment.
I agree with that.
I also wonder about the use of two gold plated SMA connectors. Those are not cheap. I would not expect to see those in the final either. And threaded connectors like that are a pain in assembly.
I am looking at gen 2 (IIRC) power brick on x360 ... it's pretty big. As with motherboard the packaging on the XB1 power brick may not be final at all.
The brick reminds of the fact that MS really pushed hard to get the 360 in the stores before the ps3. Mind you a forward thinking design on the GPU and the doubling of the RAM ( Sony saw some wisdom there ). That brick is kind of a hack, whether to reduce the cost of engineering an integrated one or to keep from busting the thermal budget or both, JUST to get enough computing power JUST in time to make a dent that generation of consoles.
Seemingly MS sees getting JUST enough computing power shoved into the ONE BOX to create a next gen experience as just another winning strategy. It's not foolish to think that cross-platform titles will perform close enough to any other console. Halo etc will look great and any exclusive titles will never be seen side to side with a PS4 version. MS is trying to ensconce itself into the living room rather than the hearts of the hard core gamer or JUST enough of the gamer's heart.
Orion
Regular
haha MS got it wrong or reporter hot it wrong? Chicken/egg
I don't think it would be easy to misquote so badly 40nm sounds very different from 28nm.
I'd say it's dead there has been 0 corroboration and about as good a denial as any corporation ever gives on a rumor. If there was really anything to it,more leaks would be springing.
IBM's eDRAM digs deep trenches through the oxide layer of a PD-SOI wafer. The chips using IBM's eDRAM are built on either a 45nm or 32nm PD-SOI process.
Whether or not the IP is available to all members of the Common Platform Alliance, that tech has so far relied on having a PD-SOI wafer available.
The triple-sourcing rumor would need to be reconciled with the fact that Samsung does not use this, and Globalfoundries has not publicized a 28nm PD-SOI process. (edit: For that matter, neither has IBM.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I see. I am under the impression that the MoSys 1T-SRAM is more portable. Do you know/can you confirm? I am not sure how they achieved that.
So is the Wii U 32MB eDRAM built in one of those two PD-SOI processes?
I found this about the five companies of the Common Platform Alliance:
(Dated 23 May 2007, 32 nm Process)
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21592.wss
IBM, Chartered and Samsung, as Common Platform technology manufacturers, will be able to use the jointly developed
32nm process technology and design kits to synchronize their manufacturing facilities. This helps facilitate the flexibility to produce nearly identical chips for their respective high-volume OEM clients, who require a multi-sourcing model and expect early access to process technology.The five companies will work together to deliver industry-leading technology for high-performance and low-standby power products through:
- a focus on low cost and minimum complexity while retaining performance leadership
implementation of new materials such as high-k/metal gate, advanced stress engineering, and extreme low-k films in the back-end-of-line (BEOL)
- state-of-the-art immersion lithography to achieve competitive density and chip size
- a focus on quality analog models for the digital communications marketplace
- providing a platform for derivative technologies such as RF CMOS and
embedded DRAM, or eDRAMGlobalfoundries' Fab 8 Begins to Produce First Commercial Chips for Customers.
Interesting article just posted on Semi Accurate forums:
Look at what they said about gaming! [The date is 2012 for this article.]
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/...uce_First_Commercial_Chips_for_Customers.html
Globalfoundries' Fab 8 Begins to Produce First Commercial Chips for Customers.
The chips are based on IBM's 32nm silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology, which was jointly developed with Globalfoundries and other members of IBM's process development alliance. The technology vastly improves microprocessor performance in multi-core designs and speeds the movement of graphics in gaming, networking, and other image intensive, multi-media applications.
The new chips also will feature IBM's eDRAM (embedded dynamic random access memory) technology, which improves on-processor memory performance in about :smile: one-third the space with one-fifth the standby power of conventional SRAM (static random access memory).
Interesting article just posted on Semi Accurate forums:
Look at what they said about gaming! [The date is 2012 for this article.]
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/...uce_First_Commercial_Chips_for_Customers.html
Globalfoundries' Fab 8 Begins to Produce First Commercial Chips for Customers.
The chips are based on IBM's 32nm silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology, which was jointly developed with Globalfoundries and other members of IBM's process development alliance. The technology vastly improves microprocessor performance in multi-core designs and
speeds the movement of graphics in gaming, networking, and other image intensive, multi-media applications.The new chips also will feature
IBM's eDRAM (embedded dynamic random access memory) technology, which improves on-processor memory performance in about :smile: one-third the space with one-fifth the standby power of conventional SRAM (static random access memory).
Last edited by a moderator:
Per IBM, the CPU is built on a 45nm SOI process.
I haven't found an official statement as to the exact process the GPU uses, other than a non-descript 40nm process. There are eDRAM or similar memory types for that node besides IBM for those nodes, and no SOI process. The type of eDRAM wouldn't match what IBM uses for its processors.
A few things have changed since six years ago.
Chartered was acquired by Globalfoundries, and Durango was confirmed to be manufactured on a 28nm process.
This is alliance I'm speaking of, with a copyright date of this year.
http://www.commonplatform.com/
Apologies for the double-post:
This LinkedIn page indicates Oban is a 32nm port of the Xbox360 SOC. Using eDRAM on SOI to finally get the daughter die on the same chip sounds like a good fit.
I believe that was posted somewhere back in the thread you got your link from.
The linked article is a year and a half old, and there is evidence that it isn't Durango, besides it being confirmed with the Xbox One release that the SOC is on 28nm.
This LinkedIn page indicates Oban is a 32nm port of the Xbox360 SOC. Using eDRAM on SOI to finally get the daughter die on the same chip sounds like a good fit.
I believe that was posted somewhere back in the thread you got your link from.
- Status
