Xbox Series... M?

[Deleted member 13524]

They would probably use cheaper LPDDR4X for those speeds, trather than downclocking 5500MT/s LPDDR5. Though eventually we'll see LPDDR5 working at 8533MT/s, meaning the same bandwidth could be reached with a 64bit bus.

Quick follow-up to this: JEDEC just published the LPDDR5X standard, which clocks at no less than 8533MT/s:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16851/jedec-announces-lpddr5x-at-up-to-8533mbps

With this, Microsoft could make a portable Xbox One S console using just 64bit LPDDR5X, as long as they enabled the same 32MB ESRAM into the SoC.

 

[LiveGamer]

What would be the benefit of going 64bit vs 128bit? Cheaper to make? Better battery life?

 

[Proelite]

What would be the benefit of going 64bit vs 128bit? Cheaper to make? Better battery life?

Less power due to less amount of chips and traces, smaller apu.

Cheaper would depends on how much a LPDDR5X dimm cost.

 

[Proelite]

So I did more exploration on what a Xbox handheld would look like.

MS needs a custom 8-9" 1080p LCD / OLED as all common options in those ranges are 1920 x 1200. There are options in the sub 7" and over 10" ranges, but one extreme is too small and the other extreme is too big.

They also need a custom solution for the display MCU to enable VRR.

They can remove the touch capabilities from their display because no games will support it and the OS will need non-trivial rework to support touch. This should solve BOM costs as they don't need a digitizer or a screen with integrated touch.

So summarize the specs:

8 core Zen at 1.8+ghz. SMT disabled in BC mode.
6 WGP (7 total, 1 disabled), 12 CUs at 1-1.3ghz
8GB of LPDDR5 / LPDDR5X, 68GB/s. 12GB if devs really push for it.
32MB LLC
512GB SSD / flash solution with the lowest TDP that delivers at least 600MB/s uncompressed. Perhaps Sata 3?
8-9" 1080p OLED / LCD. No touch capability. VRR range 48-60hz.

Since the screen is already so large, I think the below form factor makes sense. The home button will be moved to the bottom piece so the top can be one piece.

Although looking at it, the expectations would be that the screen is touch capable. Perhaps we remove the power button altogether. The opening and closing of the unit is the power button.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

So I did more exploration on what a Xbox handheld would look like.

MS needs a custom 8-9" 1080p LCD / OLED as all common options in those ranges are 1920 x 1200. There are options in the sub 7" and over 10" ranges, but one extreme is too small and the other extreme is too big.

They also need a custom solution for the display MCU to enable VRR.

They can remove the touch capabilities from their display because no games will support it and the OS will need non-trivial rework to support touch. This should solve BOM costs as they don't need a digitizer or a screen with integrated touch.

So summarize the specs:

8 core Zen at 1.8+ghz. SMT disabled in BC mode.
6 WGP (7 total, 1 disabled), 12 CUs at 1-1.3ghz
8GB of LPDDR5 / LPDDR5X, 68GB/s. 12GB if devs really push for it.
32MB LLC
512GB SSD / flash solution with the lowest TDP that delivers at least 600MB/s uncompressed. Perhaps Sata 3?
8-9" 1080p OLED / LCD. No touch capability. VRR range 48-60hz.

Since the screen is already so large, I think the below form factor makes sense. The home button will be moved to the bottom piece so the top can be one piece.

Although looking at it, the expectations would be that the screen is touch capable. Perhaps we remove the power button altogether. The opening and closing of the unit is the power button.

IMO, the Series M is either:

1 - Capable of running XB One games in a Switch-like handheld form factor, it has the bare minimum specs to run them and is priced accordingly. For this to work, it'd need to release ASAP;

or

2 - Capable of running Series S games, getting ISO specs but much higher price, with a large tablet form factor closer to the Razer Edge.




IMO it would be a terrible idea for Microsoft to introduce yet another target spec for devs to worry about, considering they're most probably adding a mid-gen upgrade to the Series X in 2023-2024..

 

[Proelite]

IMO, the Series M is either:

1 - Capable of running XB One games in a Switch-like handheld form factor, it has the bare minimum specs to run them and is priced accordingly. For this to work, it'd need to release ASAP;

IMO it would be a terrible idea for Microsoft to introduce yet another target spec for devs to worry about, considering they're most probably adding a mid-gen upgrade to the Series X in 2023-2024..

The R&D and cost of shrinking Xb1 chip down to 6/5nm is likely as expensive as making a custom one since 16nm to 5/6nm might not be a straight port and the APU that I proposed will be dual purposed in a Surface device.

It's also possible you get worse performance AND battery life with the old architecture, especially since it was designed for a 110 Watt console originally.

As for the release date, I think releasing it before the next gen only games arriving en masse makes sense. That means latest Q4 2022 / early 2023. Until then, it should still play the majority of new games natively because the cross gen period will likely last for a while.

As for target spec, it'll be optional for devs unlike the situation with the S.

They can always default to Xb1 or to streaming.

However if you're shipping on XB1, 1X, S, X, PC using the GDK, it should be trivial to add optimizations for the Series M by either scaling up from XB1 version, or scaling down from the S version.

I completely agree that the Series M should be ballpark power wise either in the previous gen, or around the S.

I think it needs to be substantially stronger, not accounting for new architecture, than the Xbox One in order to smooth out the performance issues that games had on Xb1.

 

[LiveGamer]

Rumored upcoming GPU specs:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519900707112988677

Could we be seeing a portable Series S sooner then with think? I'm guessing the memory bandwidth would be the last piece to the puzzle?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Could we be seeing a portable Series S sooner then with think? I'm guessing the memory bandwidth would be the last piece to the puzzle?

This is surely going to be very expensive and there will be high demand for this process, which generally indicates ICs for premium-priced products where that cost can be passed on to the consumer.

Unless this saves Microsoft a significant money over the long haul, as in it negates the entirety of the cost of redesigning, fabbing and changing anything else in production, they're not gong to be doing this.

 

[AzBat]

Never say never.

Tommy McClain

 

[orangpelupa]

If they made an xbox series handheld, then it'll basically destroy steam deck, aya neo, etc for gaming and emulation. As Microsoft has been allowing (ignoring?) retroarch, etc to be installed

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If they made an xbox series handheld, then it'll basically destroy steam deck, aya neo, etc for gaming and emulation. As Microsoft has been allowing (ignoring?) retroarch, etc to be installed

So it'll be like the SteamDeck minus the massive Steam library and Windows?

But given Microsoft's experience with hardware, I think they could do a decent job at hardware.

 

[BRiT]

The hardware isn't there for a portable Series S handheld. Microsoft would not create a lower performance profile for developers to target. They need to meet or exceed Series S performance.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I can't see Microsoft doing this as there's no profit incentive for it unless it's expensive (profit on each hardware sale versus profit based on sales of software/games), but they could do something like a portable Microsoft Surface X (XB?) gaming handheld that runs Windows. Then it wouldn't lack for games.

They could also market it as a purpose built portable Xbox Cloud gaming handheld.

Perhaps they could do a co-marketing deal with Steam to allow it to dual boot Steam Deck OS.

And since it would be a Surface device they could charge a premium for it and then include a display that supports VRR and other things. I'm thinking something in the 1-1.5k USD range.

Design wise it could be a "chunky" (thick profile) 7"-8" "tablet" with detachable controller handles like the NSW. Then you could also market it as a Windows tablet that could be used for "work".

Regards,
SB

 

[LiveGamer]

I think it could easily be XB1 powerwise with form factor between Switch and Steamdeck.

The same SOC could be used for the streaming puck.

 

[orangpelupa]

Btw performance wise, I wonder if Microsoft can hack the games on system level to make them render at 720p or even lower

 

[see colon]

Btw performance wise, I wonder if Microsoft can hack the games on system level to make them render at 720p or even lower

BC games that are resolution boosted change the resolution by altering the API. If they can do that to quadruple the resolution of titles logic suggests they can do it to quarter it as well. 1080p games would render at 540p, but 720p games would render at 360p. That might be too low.

 

[fehu]

unless it's expensive

The perfect recipe for mass adoption

 

[eastmen]

The hardware isn't there for a portable Series S handheld. Microsoft would not create a lower performance profile for developers to target. They need to meet or exceed Series S performance.

Well

Xbox Series S
Cpu Zen 2 8/16 @ 3.4-3.6ghz
Gpu RDNA 2 - 20 CUs @ 1.565ghz = 4.01Tflops
Ram 10GB 8GB @ 224GB/s and 2GB @ 56GB/s

Steam Deck
Zen 2 4/8 2.4-3.5ghz
Gpu RDNA 2 - 2Cus 1.0-16ghz = up to 1.6tflops
Ram 16GB LPDDR5 @ 88GB/s

Both of these are 7nm.

Amd Ryzen 7 6800u
Cpu Zen 3+ 8/16 @ 2.7-4.7ghz
Gpu RDNA 2 -6 cu @ 2.2ghz

This is on 6nm

So there are a few questions that come to my mind. How compatible would a zen3+ drop in for a zen 2 be for the xbox series os to handle? We know its faster clock for clock than the zen 2 and we known its more power efficent. So can you simply drop in the zen 3+ and all the games work with no issue?

The second question would be on the gpu. Will the gpu care if your running 20CUs @1.565ghz or 10cus @3ghz or in some configuration of clocks and cu counts to give the same 4tflop performance ? If we look dropping from 7nm to 6nm allowed amd to not only add an additional 4 cus but also increase teh clock speeds by 600mhz. Would a drop to 5nm allow them to double to 12cus and clock them closer to 2.5ghz ? Or considering they tripled the cus from 7nm to 6nm could they triple again and hit 18cus at still keep clocks up ?

To be honest I don't think the issue is the APU . I think the issue would come down to ram speed. I would think they would need to add in some sort of infinity cache to the apu. 64-96mb to even hit bandwidth requirements unless there is ram out there for a mobile device that would let them hit 224GB/s


I think however they would have to figure out the battery issues. I love my steam deck but I know a lot of main stream consumers would hate to get 1-2 hours of battery on the newest games. But perhaps 5nm would allow MS to get better battery figures. Or maybe with 5nm MS will have access to zen 4 and that could be more efficient than even zen 3+ ?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

The perfect recipe for mass adoption

Surface devices were not originally meant for mass adoption. They were meant to be premium devices that generated a large, relative to PC OEM, hardware profit margin.

A powerful handheld console (XBS-S or better performance level) just is not possible within the cost envelope that traditional console buyers would accept or the power envelope that a handheld would require. And going lower performance than that risks alienating developers who would not be asked to provide a multiplatform game that would run on a 3rd Xbox hardware profile that's lower than the XBS-S when there are already some developers that are complaining about having to release an XBS-S version.

Releasing a handheld gaming device that instead caters to PC gamers sidesteps both the cost issue as well as the game developer issue. You would be marketing to gamers who are far more willing to spend double, triple, quadruple or more dollars on a gaming device than a console gamer would. You also instantly gain access to an incredibly large gaming library that already scales to hardware that is less performant than the XBS-S.

Making the design similar to the NSW with detachable "controllers" also makes the device actually useable for non-gaming tasks as well without having it look too "gamey" in a working environment.

Basically, just like normal Surface devices are just more premium versions of OEM offerings, a Surface gaming device would be just a premium version of the Steam Deck and other PC gaming handhelds. The cost would also allow for use of a more powerful mobile CPU/SOC than the Steam Deck. Still not as powerful as the XBS-S (power consumption limited), but again, that isn't a problem like it would be for an Xbox Series handheld since you already have access to games that can scale down to its level, especially if it's also equipped with a VRR capable display.

And they can still market it as being capable of playing your entire Xbox gaming library if they wanted to via Game Pass or Xbox Cloud gaming.

Regards,
SB

 

[eastmen]

Surface devices were not originally meant for mass adoption. They were meant to be premium devices that generated a large, relative to PC OEM, hardware profit margin.

A powerful handheld console (XBS-S or better performance level) just is not possible within the cost envelope that traditional console buyers would accept or the power envelope that a handheld would require. And going lower performance than that risks alienating developers who would not be asked to provide a multiplatform game that would run on a 3rd Xbox hardware profile that's lower than the XBS-S when there are already some developers that are complaining about having to release an XBS-S version.

I disagree see my other post. But a 5nm zen 3+ or Zen 4 with RDNA 2 would come in at roughly xbox series s specs and should fit into the 15w envelope for the apu

Releasing a handheld gaming device that instead caters to PC gamers sidesteps both the cost issue as well as the game developer issue. You would be marketing to gamers who are far more willing to spend double, triple, quadruple or more dollars on a gaming device than a console gamer would. You also instantly gain access to an incredibly large gaming library that already scales to hardware that is less performant than the XBS-S.

Making the design similar to the NSW with detachable "controllers" also makes the device actually useable for non-gaming tasks as well without having it look too "gamey" in a working environment.

Basically, just like normal Surface devices are just more premium versions of OEM offerings, a Surface gaming device would be just a premium version of the Steam Deck and other PC gaming handhelds. The cost would also allow for use of a more powerful mobile CPU/SOC than the Steam Deck. Still not as powerful as the XBS-S (power consumption limited), but again, that isn't a problem like it would be for an Xbox Series handheld since you already have access to games that can scale down to its level, especially if it's also equipped with a VRR capable display.

And they can still market it as being capable of playing your entire Xbox gaming library if they wanted to via Game Pass or Xbox Cloud gaming.

Regards,
SB

I think they could easily make an aya neo or steam deck however I think the consumers would rather a xbox portable. I have shown off my steam deck to some friends and while some really want it , others were like oh you have to play around with settings to get this game to work ? Oh that is too much I just want to play the game.

I don't think the surface brand is right for a gaming device. I think if you look at the steam deck and windows 10/11 on it vs steam os you can see the cost of having windows on a portable gaming machine.

With an xbox protable you lock a person into an ecco system and so taking a small loss or even breaking even would be alright. A surface has to make money as itself because the secondary revenue streams for MS would be smaller.

With steam deck again we see that a $400 handheld device with the same generation of cpu and gpu as the next gen systems is already possible on 7nm in a price point that works for consumers. $400 is just $50 more than oled switch. Drop down to 5nm and series s specs should be possible .