Xbox Series X [XBSX] [Release November 10 2020]
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
-
- Tags
- microsoft xbox xbox series x xbsx
Megadrive1988
Veteran
This gives me more confidence that Microsoft is willing to listen when there's enough noise. Sure, it's mainly about the graphics but the grief Halo Infinite reveal got last month and continues to get this month is well deserved.
Aside from native resolution and frame rate, graphically, Halo Infinite doesn't even look that impressive for an Xbox One game, never mind something you want to show off your new 12TF console with.
Aside from native resolution and frame rate, graphically, Halo Infinite doesn't even look that impressive for an Xbox One game, never mind something you want to show off your new 12TF console with.
$299 XBSS
$499 XBSX
$499 XBSX
$299 XBSS
$499 XBSX
Then you do not believe MS will try to compete on price? They will be equivalent to the PS5 at the high end?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Publishers ought to know when a game needs more time to cook. Rockstar, Naughty Dog and CD Project Red are all habitual release date bumpers. It is disconcerting that someone, probably many someones, in the Xbox marketing team looked at the Infinite footage and screen shots and thought that was going to leave a good impression.
This situation was voidable and now we have to live with the Craig meme for years.
yeah we’re effectively down to “here’s a new console.”
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
$299 XBSS
$499 XBSX
MS is not go to be losing $100+ for each Lockhart unit, which is what this would do. $500 is probably at cost or even a tiny smidge. The real competition is between Lockhart and discless PS5, if Discless PS5 is $450, just $50 more than Lockhart is almost certain to be... and it has like, actual games... well I know which one I'd get.
Janne Kylliö
Newcomer
So we now know the price of PS5?
Janne Kylliö
Newcomer
Doesn't make sense to me.
If Lockhart (which should be very economical to manufacture) must be sold for $400 not to make loss, how PS5 digital edition could be sold for $450?
That's if you assume 499 dollars for the PS5 with disc drive. Highly doubt Sony is going to ask that much. The hardware simply wouldn't match the price i think.
Looks like a 399 console just like in 2013 to me. At 10TF it's a midranger, the CPU falls close to mid range too at it's max 3.5ghz. 825gb storage and 16gb ram.
Last edited:
Of course not. However people have roughly broken down component costs and the 2 systems should be withing shouting distance of each other in cost to produce.
Janne Kylliö
Newcomer
I think the SSD will make it more expensive than that, in addition to (high frequency capable chip) APU yields and cooling costs.
If it would be $399 we would know it by now.
It's still less then in the mid generation consoles, nand tech is more expensive but the average customer isn't going to view it like that. High frequencies are in the same boat. Cooling is important though, i'd pay more for a quiter and cooler PS5, the amount of sound emitting from my base ps4 at times is unbearable. A family members Pro is even louder and gets hot to the touch, up to the point they think somethings wrong with it.
Anyway, 399 is killer and Sony learned that 499 or even 599 didn't work out that well. A quick look at the hardware specs indicate they targetted 399 again. The SSD prices havent come down as much as MS and Sony hoped it seems.
For XSX it will be even harder to dive below 499 but we will see, perhaps thats why they need lockhart.
It depends on business strategy a lot more than BoM imo, if MS sees Lockhart as the mainstream gaming device $399 is a reasonable ask with that pricepoint letting them scale nicely across their range with XB1S $199 -> XBSS $399 -> XBSX $599. I'm guessing we're seeing PS5 at $499 so if MS decides that XBSX is to be the gaming device I could see Lockhart coming in quite aggressive at $349 for that $199/$349/$499 split. I can't see the $399 pricepoint holding however, the PR moves all seem to be pointing towards a higher price point than that to me
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm sure once people see third party games running on nextgen, the consoles will largely sell themselves to that segment of the market that appreciates, and is willing to spend, on better visuals. That and "load times? what are load times?" I think almost eliminating load times will get a lot of people who buy a new box, even if there are no nextgen-only must have games.
Following some interesting chat about the possible Lockhart memory configuration yesterday, I've been thinking about the series X and it's weird "asymmetrical" memory pool.
Unlike Sony, MS have gone for a wider bus and more chips, but still have the same total pool size (meaning more cost and power per GB). Long term, this could be a cost millstone around its neck, and they aren't even getting the benefit of 20 GB of ram for it. So what's MS's long term plan?
Well, the lead dude made a comment about getting around signalling issues (or something like that). But what signalling issues? I can only think he was talking about signal frequency at this point in time. But what about in the future?
I think those four small 8 Gbit / 1 GByte chips might be getting replaced by only two, larger 16 Gbit / 2 GByte chips in a future revision. This would allow the bus to shrink from 320-bit to 256-bit, but at the cost of needing 18 gHz memory chips (17.5 should do by the basic numbers, but a little extra to compensate for the narrower bus and all that wouldn't hurt). Typically a console wouldn't have dreamed of doing this, but MS are now on the next level in terms of hardware abstraction. The games don't even need to know so long as the worst case scenario is covered.
So basically I think MS needed 18 gHz on 256-bit to feed the beast, but that wasn't realistic so they went wider but used a mixed density configuration that might allow them to switch to that at some point in the future. At that point, they need fewer physical chips, a smaller and less complex board, less power for the memory subsystem, and they get to save on die area for a revision.
There might be some issues around losing some L2 GPU cache blocks, but maybe you could get around that by making other caches larger, or running everything a little faster. As long as the performance requirements are met I'm guessing it shouldn't matter - after all X1 games don't know or care that they're running on a faster system with a very different cache setup when they get plonked unpatched onto a X1X.
Anyway, just a thought!
Unlike Sony, MS have gone for a wider bus and more chips, but still have the same total pool size (meaning more cost and power per GB). Long term, this could be a cost millstone around its neck, and they aren't even getting the benefit of 20 GB of ram for it. So what's MS's long term plan?
Well, the lead dude made a comment about getting around signalling issues (or something like that). But what signalling issues? I can only think he was talking about signal frequency at this point in time. But what about in the future?
I think those four small 8 Gbit / 1 GByte chips might be getting replaced by only two, larger 16 Gbit / 2 GByte chips in a future revision. This would allow the bus to shrink from 320-bit to 256-bit, but at the cost of needing 18 gHz memory chips (17.5 should do by the basic numbers, but a little extra to compensate for the narrower bus and all that wouldn't hurt). Typically a console wouldn't have dreamed of doing this, but MS are now on the next level in terms of hardware abstraction. The games don't even need to know so long as the worst case scenario is covered.
So basically I think MS needed 18 gHz on 256-bit to feed the beast, but that wasn't realistic so they went wider but used a mixed density configuration that might allow them to switch to that at some point in the future. At that point, they need fewer physical chips, a smaller and less complex board, less power for the memory subsystem, and they get to save on die area for a revision.
There might be some issues around losing some L2 GPU cache blocks, but maybe you could get around that by making other caches larger, or running everything a little faster. As long as the performance requirements are met I'm guessing it shouldn't matter - after all X1 games don't know or care that they're running on a faster system with a very different cache setup when they get plonked unpatched onto a X1X.
Anyway, just a thought!
I figured it was for the refresh console. Refresh in 2024 with 20 gigs of ram 12 of it faster and 8 of it slower and a RDNA 4 gpu design with Ryzen 5 at that point ?
the 320bit setup still provides more bandwidth than this.
Memory is very expensive. The more compute you have the more bandwidth you need to feed it. 320 bit with 16GB asymmetrical setup was the most cost effective way to get a 560GB/s bandwidth. More memory was critical over more bandwidth given their compute size. If Big Navi 2 numbers are to be believed, running a 384bit bus, it will only be marginally higher in bandwidth with a 12GB setup 672GB/s. But it will be 80CU !
I figure if you're going for two generations on with the microarchitecture, you probably wouldn't be too worried about the same bus. XSX gave no fucks about the X1 basic memory bus setup.
I think this is about a shrink and maybe a slight bump (think Xbox 1S) rather than a mid gen turbo machine!
How so?
320 x 14 / 8 = 560
256 x 18 / 8 = 576
What's your maths on this on? I think the 560 is a decimal figure, not binary. Same with Sony's 448.
320-bit was the only way to get 560 (decimal, not binary) GB/s.
Big Navi will be interesting for sure! In its favour, it doesn't have to share with a fast Zen CPU. I also think they might push for 16 gHz / Gbpp memory on some models, and enthusiasts will try and overclock too. Think it will still be memory bound quite a bit though.
The 72 CU salvage parts might be a really good balance though. Kinda like with Vega 56.
Similar threads
- Locked
