xbox360 not hitting planned goals?

[Titanio]

No such luck, croc hunter! At e3 I doubt we'll hear MS saying anything about how they hit/missed their targets.

Though I've not read this entire thread but isn't it about the difference between the actual Xbox 360 spec and the leaked Xenon block diagram?

Kinda, but not entirely, in brief the claim is the cores are clocked at 2.8Ghz (at least for now), while MS was aiming for at least 3Ghz, and the cores are underperforming also because of certain design decisions made by either MS or IBM (or both together). So lower clock + some "cuts" = claimed lower performance. One thing he claimed was cut out at the design stage was "path forwarding".."forwarding", as mentioned above, relates to a common optimisation for in-order processors, which fits with the rumours we've had before of the X360 core being in-order.

Furthermore, it is claimed (i believe by a different person in that thread) that there are no just two cores in the CPU, not three, and this was apparently the price of 512MB of RAM.

I'm more inclined to believe the former than the latter, but who knows if this is true, it's not impossible of course..

 

[blakjedi]

I cant belive we are debating something that has no source and no proof. This same guy spammed this on many Xbox boards already too. I fully expect the cpus to be very powerful in Xbox 360.

You basicly have a guy who is not providing any credable sources and is mostlikely making it all up. Hey guys i got this inside info on PS3's CPU, i heard it will only be 45% of the power it was planned to be, this is what my l337 inside source says!


Does that sound beliveable?

If you look at IBM and what they are doing with CPUs, this really is not the least bit beliveable at all. Hes basicly talking about nothing and making up buzz words to make his story sound beliveable. It all amounts to nothing. All 3 console makers are using IBM, there is a reason for this.... None of them would be using them if they were not confordent in their abblites.

It might be ture, it might not, but after seeing all of the pre e3 stuff the press has seen so far, if the cpus are not as powerful as expected you can't tell the least bit in the games.... So i really do not belive this to be true at all, specially since the developers still do not have final hardware.

Except writing stable, secure, effecient, reliable operating systems, which is their primary area of 'expertise'

Give me a break, we are sooooo past the age when it was "cool" to bash MS and their software. I run XP 24/7 for months on end with out having to do a reboot. You dont get more stable then that. Yea there system might not be the most secure out there, but thats life. They do a great job of quickly fixing problems that come up, and are getting better at catching them before they are found. An OS with the features of windows is a massive batch of code, it's not easy finding every hole in it. If other systems like Mac OS were used by 90% of the worlds PCs there would be tons of flaws found for it too.

Most sensible post this thread.

If MS did remove one out of three CPU's without upping the specs of the remaining two...wouldnt that mean that the CPUs now perform at 66% or between 60-70% or the original target?

If they did remove one CPU why couldn't they have added a PPU? Its not like they design a motherboard first and say "if it doesnt fit here then it wont go in!" they probably had several refernce designs one with a PPU and one with three CPUs... whats so hard about that?

In that case yeah the CPU (unmodified) is 30-40% weaker but overall the system increased in power. But to ever think that that MS or IBM or Sony or Nintendo didnt plan for these eventually shows they are in business and making money and why we are talking about their decisions ona message board.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No. It's about 'is XenonCPU 60-70% of target performance', not based on any statistics for comparison.

 

[blakjedi]

No. It's about 'is XenonCPU 60-70% of target performance', not based on any statistics for comparison.

now if he meant 60-70% with all cores... thats different but i didnt take that away from the his statements...

 

[one]

There was a discussion about crossposting before. The main problem about crossposting is that we here can't argue with the person who wrote something in the other forum. Isn't it just easier to ask the person in the other forum WTF 'path forwarding' is than discussing it here? If the person has no clue, then

 

[Cobra101]

Well, IBM still has not gotten a dual core G5 for Apple yet.

I have always scratched my head how they would have a tri core chip shipping for MS before the end of the year. I know there are differences but are they that much?

Personally, I do not see Apple getting a dual core until this fall at best and I am fairly doubtful of that.

IBM did well to score all 3 design wins, I hope they can at least get within the ballpark of projected figures.

 

[PC-Engine]

If you look at the CELL chip, it has room for 4 PPEs. If MS is usng PPEs as cores and only include 3, there shouldn't be a problem IMHO.