Xbox Next Specs

[Isaacav2]

Who wants to bet.... that all 3 will miss their launch date and be late by 6 months? I really don't see how anyone will pull this off this year, even if your name is MICROSOFT. Not one official game anounced yet, and so few work days left untill launch. I have never had an E3 live up to the hype yet either.

I'm ready to be disappointed, brace yourself people.

 

[WickedAngel]

They're saving everything for E3. I'm sure there are quite a few titles that have been in development for a while now.

It's easier on everyone to hold announcement until late in development. That way, they aren't pressed to prove anything. They can focus on building the game. All the energy that would be poured into making videos, granting interviews, and setting up demos can be focused solely on the game. Then, when the time is right, they can release all the information and media at once.

 

[brom42]

lol sales my friend tell all

Yup, since the gamecube dropped to $99 the sales quadrupled, doubling its market share. It now has 39% of the market share and is in the solid #2 spot. GBAs are still selling like crazy and the DS has sold over 2 million units. If sales tell all, then it the Xbox that is in trouble, not nintendo.

 

[RancidWAnnaRIot]

I think internet play is very veyr important.. i've pretty much have been a nintendo guy.. but if the next nintendo system doesn't have good online play.. i'm moving to PS or microsoft.. i just hope PS changes their controller.. i hate the dual shock controller.. microsoft is cool too.. i just don't want to pay an arm and a leg..

 

[brom42]

Who wants to bet.... that all 3 will miss their launch date and be late by 6 months? I really don't see how anyone will pull this off this year, even if your name is MICROSOFT. Not one official game anounced yet, and so few work days left untill launch. I have never had an E3 live up to the hype yet either.

I'm ready to be disappointed, brace yourself people.

I'll bet you that they are all late, just look at the track record. Microsoft is just horrible with missing release dates. Sony had to push their release date for the PSP. Nintendo is better with being on time, but the release the system with like only one game or three; but 2 of those will be remakes of older games.

 

[WickedAngel]

Yup, since the gamecube dropped to $99 the sales quadrupled, doubling its market share. It now has 39% of the market share and is in the solid #2 spot. GBAs are still selling like crazy and the DS has sold over 2 million units. If sales tell all, then it the Xbox that is in trouble, not nintendo.

They launched at $200, while Microsoft launched at $300; they're barely ahead of Microsoft. Sales supposedly quadrupled, yet they're barely ahead of Microsoft in worldwide sales. Why is that?

You also handily neglected to mention that Nintendo posted it's first losses ever after they dropped the price.

The DS and GBA have no competition. The PSP is going to take a huge chunk out of their ass, guaranteed.

 

[Tiny]

Yup, since the gamecube dropped to $99 the sales quadrupled, doubling its market share. It now has 39% of the market share and is in the solid #2 spot. GBAs are still selling like crazy and the DS has sold over 2 million units. If sales tell all, then it the Xbox that is in trouble, not nintendo.

Where is the current data on that? Didn't they drop it before Christmas in 2003?


Besides, Bear Sterns has released its prediction for 2005 and it stays the same...Sony, Xbox, Nintendo.

But this bit of news is interesting. Revolution is going to be backwards compatible with Gamecube games.

Microsoft might be the only one not to go that route.

Can anyone say SHOWDOWN AT E3!?

 

[brom42]

Where is the current data on that? Didn't they drop it before Christmas in 2003?

Damn it, why do they do this to me? I got linked from a current article on the DS to one about sales from December of 2003. I assumed 2004 but rechecked and saw last edited in 2003. runs away crying

 

[diehard]

Yup, since the gamecube dropped to $99 the sales quadrupled, doubling its market share. It now has 39% of the market share and is in the solid #2 spot. GBAs are still selling like crazy and the DS has sold over 2 million units. If sales tell all, then it the Xbox that is in trouble, not nintendo.

Where did you get this bs? If the GC is #2 with 39%, then the PS2 has at minimum 40%. So your saying the GC has almost three times the marketshare of the xbox at 11%? Please..

 

[mrgstiffler]

There was a rumor that Halo 2.5 would come preloaded on the hard drive version. 2.5 would sport better graphics, and a few "lost" levels. I'm VERY interested in seeing a launch title lineup. E3 is looking to be the best ever...

 

[brom42]

Where did you get this bs? If the GC is #2 with 39%, then the PS2 has at minimum 40%. So your saying the GC has almost three times the marketshare of the xbox at 11%? Please..

From several places, but here is the most reliable source.

Just to make this public, I in no way want to see the Xbox2 fail. Personally I would like to see Nintendo and Microsoft kick sonys ass out of the market. But I don't think that will happen any time soon.

 

[bonkrowave]

From several places, but here is the most reliable source.

Just to make this public, I in no way want to see the Xbox2 fail. Personally I would like to see Nintendo and Microsoft kick sonys ass out of the market. But I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Im sorry but the math just does not add up.

 

[Tiny]

From several places, but here is the most reliable source.

Just to make this public, I in no way want to see the Xbox2 fail. Personally I would like to see Nintendo and Microsoft kick sonys ass out of the market. But I don't think that will happen any time soon.

psst. that is 2003 data.

 

[MH Knights]

One reason why MS has to wait to reveal the XB2 specs (and make sure they stay secret) is because of the GPU. The XB2 GPU is based off the next gen ATi chip....which hasn't been revealed yet. I am sure ATi would be unhappy if those specs got leaked.

And about the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing, MS may not be using either because it wants to know who will win before commiting to a format. Besides, there are tons of games and movies that do not come close to filling up a DVD. Personally I thought MS would play the sides against each other to get a better deal on hardware (Optical drives/HDDs/RAM).

Liscensing fees could be the reason the XB2 is not backward compatible. Though MS could work around that by selling a seperate kit like they do with the DVD remote currently. Those that want backwards compatibility can either buy a dongle that plugs into a controller port (like the current DVD player) or a disk that installs a program on the HDD (most likely as you will need a HDD to play XBOX games). That would cover the liscensing fees to NV and whoever else without raising the cost for everyone.

 

[brom42]

psst. that is 2003 data.

I already said that in a previous post



OK, switching gears; I had kind of an interesting thought. We now know that the PS3 and Revolution will be backwards compatible and the Xbox with almost certainty won't be. I think this might actually help Microsoft this year.

This is how I look at it. I don't own a PS2, but there are some PS2 games that I want to play. I can A) buy one now; B) wait until the PS3 comes out and buy the PS2 after the price drop; or C) buy a PS3 and be able to play all the PS3, PS2, and PS games I want. I was going to choose option A, but now that I know that the PS3 is backwards compatable I would definately go with option C. One less PS2 sale for Sony.

Xbox doesn't have this problem. The probably minor price drop after the release of the new consoles isn't worth the wait IMO. You have to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games, for the other systems this won't be true at the end of the year. As the market slows in anticipation for the new releases, I think the Xbox will fair much better that the others.

What do you guys think? Am I alone on this idea, or does this make some sense?

 

[Isaacav2]

I already said that in a previous post



OK, switching gears; I had kind of an interesting thought. We now know that the PS3 and Revolution will be backwards compatible and the Xbox with almost certainty won't be. I think this might actually help Microsoft this year.

This is how I look at it. I don't own a PS2, but there are some PS2 games that I want to play. I can A) buy one now; B) wait until the PS3 comes out and buy the PS2 after the price drop; or C) buy a PS3 and be able to play all the PS3, PS2, and PS games I want. I was going to choose option A, but now that I know that the PS3 is backwards compatable I would definately go with option C. One less PS2 sale for Sony.

Xbox doesn't have this problem. The probably minor price drop after the release of the new consoles isn't worth the wait IMO. You have to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games, for the other systems this won't be true at the end of the year. As the market slows in anticipation for the new releases, I think the Xbox will fair much better that the others.

What do you guys think? Am I alone on this idea, or does this make some sense?

lol ???

 

[UnMinded]

The first Xbox is fine as it is i think they are just money hordes.

 

[Rune75]

Ok... I read through this thread from 1st to 5th page to be sure no one already said this.

In my mind, the best reason to have backward compatibility is *drum roll* Broken xbx units. I've had my xbx since almost day one and its getting old. I got 33 games in my collection. Not massive, but deffinately a decent chunk of cash invested. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to replace that massive black chunk of electronics?

 

[Praxis]

I already said that in a previous post



OK, switching gears; I had kind of an interesting thought. We now know that the PS3 and Revolution will be backwards compatible and the Xbox with almost certainty won't be.

Do we actually know this about the PS3? Sony hasn't given ANY information about it. The only things we know for sure is that it's using the Cell processor and an NVidia graphics card. They won't even confirm the NAME. At least Nintendo ADMITS that the Revolution exists (and has wireless and backwards compatability).

While it seems likely the PS3 should have backwards compatability, I can't be sure. The PS1 used a MIPS processor. The PS2 used a MIPS processor. The PS3 is going to use Cell, which has one PowerPC core and multiple SPUs.

Although I believe MIPS and PowerPC are pretty similar and not as hard to emulate (does anyone know if MIPS uses big-endian or little-endian? x86 is little-endian, PowerPC is big-endian, thats one of the things that makes emulation so much slower between those architecutres).

So PS3 being backwards compatible is much more likely than XBox 2 (especially since XBox 2 has no hard drive).

But its not confirmed.

I think this might actually help Microsoft this year.

This is how I look at it. I don't own a PS2, but there are some PS2 games that I want to play. I can A) buy one now; B) wait until the PS3 comes out and buy the PS2 after the price drop; or C) buy a PS3 and be able to play all the PS3, PS2, and PS games I want. I was going to choose option A, but now that I know that the PS3 is backwards compatable I would definately go with option C. One less PS2 sale for Sony.

Xbox doesn't have this problem. The probably minor price drop after the release of the new consoles isn't worth the wait IMO. You have to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games, for the other systems this won't be true at the end of the year. As the market slows in anticipation for the new releases, I think the Xbox will fair much better that the others.

What do you guys think? Am I alone on this idea, or does this make some sense?

It makes some level of sense, but I don't think it will work out.
Microsoft's official word is that they're still figuring out whether backwards compatability is possible or not. Most people don't understand that single-threaded x86 binaries (such as XBox 1 games) cannot run on PowerPC processors and cannot use more than one processor at once (being single threaded and all).

As a result, there are still a lot of XBox !!!!!!s that are dead certain the XBox 2 will be backwards compatible, JUST because the PS2 was (ignoring the fact that PS2 and PS1 used the same processors), and the fact that they want it to. Oh, and it has XBox in the name. I know, I debated the dolts

Since there is no official word on backwards compatability, some people think it has it, and by the time it comes out and people finally figure out, "Oh, it's NOT backwards compatible"...
See where I'm going?

Besides, let's say what you are saying is true.
For every person who buys an XBox 1, thats one less person buying an XBox 2 (and remember, because of the HD and all MS takes a loss on every XBox 1 sold). Thats less money MS makes.

If someone buys an XBox 1 just before MS stops making XBox 1 games, that means:
1) They buy the XBox, so MS loses some money on that.
2) Most games they will buy will be used or cheaper games, since they're not making many new XBox 1 games anymore, meaning MS doesn't make up for the money lost.

That means MS loses more money on people doing that.


Oh, and first post! Hello!

 

[Praxis]

Ok... I read through this thread from 1st to 5th page to be sure no one already said this.

In my mind, the best reason to have backward compatibility is *drum roll* Broken xbx units. I've had my xbx since almost day one and its getting old. I got 33 games in my collection. Not massive, but deffinately a decent chunk of cash invested. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to replace that massive black chunk of electronics?

Oh, definitely. But it's not a question of, "Will they do it?" but a question of, "CAN they do it?"

Current Virtual PC performance isn't fast enough to emulate a 733 MHz Pentium 3 w/3d graphics, even on a dual 2.5 GHz PowerMac.

It's even worse for the XBox 2.
Three processors, remember? XBox 1 games are single threaded, meaning designed to use only one. Therefore, only ONE of the XBox 2's processors can be used for the emulation.

And the XBox 2's processors are extremely slow, I should point out. I'll flesh this out in my next post.

 

[Hate_Bot]

Im surprised the graphics arn't Nvidia, Considering that it has always been (I BELIEVE NOT SURE)

Nvidia and Intel

and

ATI and AMD

not sure though, I know when Nvidia was demonstrating new tech, they were partners with ATI...

 

[Tiny]

Xbox360....blech!

I like XboxNext, or neXtBox.

 

[Praxis]

lol nintendo there funny,they openly say they dont go for good graphics

I think you're completely confused here.

They NEVER said they don't go for good graphics. This is a complete misquote. They said that with the modern consoles, the graphics are ALREADY so good that developers need to concentrate on having new and better GAMEPLAY instead of having the best graphics, because they're already photo realistic.

and it sure as hell shows

Are you joking? Do the math.

PS2 at launch: $300. But it was one year ahead of the other consoles.
PS2 rendering capabilities: 6 million polygons per second.

GameCube at launch: $200. Released 3 DAYS before the XBox.
GameCube rendering capabilities: 15 million polygons per second.

XBox at launch: $300. Released 3 days after GameCube and a year after PS2.
XBox rendering capabilities: 17 million polygons per second.

Eh? It shows? XBox and GameCube launched at almost the same time. GameCube is nearly $100 cheaper (33% cheaper) but only 12% slower than the XBox, and blows the PS2 out of the water.

Do your research.

. i think if any consel dies in this round its going to be nintendo unless they have something extremly revolutionary

Yeah, right we know the Revolution is going to have better graphics than the XBox 2. Why can I say this?
A) Revolution is coming out later by several months. Look at the massive gap between the PS2 and XBox/GC. Historically, the first is ALWAYS slowest.
B) Revolution is using IBM chips (just like XBox 2) and ATi graphics cards (just like XBox 2), except newer versions of them.

 

[Circuitbreaker8]

Oh, definitely. But it's not a question of, "Will they do it?" but a question of, "CAN they do it?"

Current Virtual PC performance isn't fast enough to emulate a 733 MHz Pentium 3 w/3d graphics, even on a dual 2.5 GHz PowerMac.

It's even worse for the XBox 2.
Three processors, remember? XBox 1 games are single threaded, meaning designed to use only one. Therefore, only ONE of the XBox 2's processors can be used for the emulation.

And the XBox 2's processors are extremely slow, I should point out. I'll flesh this out in my next post.

Lol Tri-3ghz CPU is slow? I dont think you know what you're talking about..

 

[mrgstiffler]

Lol Tri-3ghz CPU is slow? I dont think you know what you're talking about..

Slow as in, they only do 2IPC per core. Which means you're getting 6IPC at 3GHz. Which is about as fast as a P4. Keep in mind, this doesn't take into account optimizations and other tricks...

 

[Hate_Bot]

to bad MS didnt do an AMD processor, better game performance, But I guess they have contracts with Intel and stuff...

 

[Praxis]

Alright, I'm ready to take the XBox 2 apart now. This should be the last in my flurry of new posts

I ran into you guys on Google, and wanted to correct some things I spotted (and was looking for a good discussion, one of the boards I go to has a bunch of !!!!!!s and the other got spammed to oblivion- you guys seem pretty intelligent).


Alright, within five minutes of looking at the XBox 2 specs, I was shaking my head in DISMAY. I looked at the forums I go to and there were people shouting "Hallelujah, XBox 2 is incredibly super powerful, wow, its going to win the console wars, blah blah, hype hype!"

It's really sad just how good MS is at hyping.

This all has to do with the MHz myth. Bear with me...

http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/microsoft-xbox/594331p1.html?fromint=1

Here are the specs. I'll go through this bit by bit.

And btw, its ALL TRUE, and it ALL makes sense. Just for you guys thinking, "3 x 3 GHz? No way, not possible! Too expensive!"

Just keep reading


1) CPU.

# CPU - Xenon's CPU has three 3.0 GHz PowerPC cores. Each core is capable of two instructions per cycle and has an L1 cache with 32 KB for data and 32 KB for instructions. The three cores share 1 MB of L2 cache. Alpha 2 developer kits currently have two cores instead of three.

Okay, the first thing most people see is, "three 3.0 GHz PowerPC cores". They assume they're normal G5s (PowerPC 970s), and think this must be incredible performance.

Guess what? They're not.

Keep reading.

"Each core is capable of two instructions per cycle".
TWO INSTRUCTIONS PER CLOCK CYCLE!
That's...two calculations per Hz. Less than a Pentium Pro got.

Lets do the math. 2 calculations per Hz x 3 billion clock cycles per second (GHz) = 6 billion calculations per second, or 6 gigaflops.

6 gigaflops per processor x 3 processors = 18 gigaflops.

So, the theoretical maximum is 18 gigaflops.
How does this compare?
A quick Google reveals that a dual 2 GHz G5 XServe is listed at 30 Gigaflops, and dual 2.3 is listed at 35.

Some quick math reveals that each 2 GHz G5 must be 15, so a 1 GHz G5 must be 7 gigaflops, so a normal G5 must get 7 calculations per clock cycle and a 1 GHz G5 gets 7.

18 divided by 7...
In terms of maximum theoretical capability, the three 3 GHz processors in the XBox 2 are equivilant to a SINGLE 2.6 GHz (rounded up) G5.

That's not all though. SMP (Symetrical Multi Processing) overheads means that you won't get the full performance- with multi-core processors, you always lose a significant percentage. So its more like a 2 GHz G5 in actual performance.

No sound card means that one of the processor cores will have to fill in for that, reducing the performance further. And there is no mention of AltiVec support, FURTHER reducing it.

So remember, in total, this 3 core 3 GHz processor is about equivilant to a single 2 GHz G5 in real-world speed.

Microsoft made a brilliant marketting decision by ramping up the clock speed to 3 GHz while dropping the calculations per clock cycle so low that you get a fraction of the performance, because the numbers look MUCH bigger than they are.


2) GPU.

Okay, good for it. Remember, though, being a generation beyond doesn't mean its the most powerful of that generation. A Geforce 2 MX 400 can outperform a low end Geforce 3. A high end Geforce 4 can actually outperform a low end Geforce FX (5). So it might not actually have a $600 Radeon X800

Either way, it should have a nice GPU. The Nintendo Revolution will have a 6-months-newer version of the same GPU (sorry MS ), and the PS3 will have a much-newer NVidia card as well. Thats what MS gets for rushing to the market.

3) System Memory.

256 MB is not bad at all, though it might be a problem in emulation, which likes to eat RAM. Further problems with backwards compatibility, making it more unlikely.

4) Optical Drive.

M$ rushed it again. The XBox 2 can't hold a BYTE more data than XBox 1 games could hold (some XBox 1 games were single layer DVD's and some were dual layer. The XBox 2 is still dual layer). Heck, it only has 7 GB of usable space instead of the full 9.4 GB!

The Revolution is rumored to have HD-DVD (30 GB for a dual layer disk), and PS3 to have Blu-ray (50 GB for a dual layer disk).

7 GB vs 30 GB vs 50 GB, when we're talking about using High-Definition quality textures and videos? Ouch. MEGA ouch. This is a huge let down.

5) Memory Units.

1 GB memory cards. Cool.

6) Hard drive.
No stock hard drive, absolutely preventing any type of backwards compatability unless you buy the optional hard drive (and even then it seems unlikely). More reason not to have backwards compatability. This seems like a step backwards...

7) Camera.

Terrible idea. People are going to start putting porn pictures on the sides of their tanks in game.

8) Sound chip. No sound card means the processor has even more work to do, even further slowing down the system.

9) XBox Live. You STILL have to pay, while Nintendo is offering it free.


OUCH.
The processor is seriously overhyped. It's a very good speed (a 2 GHz G5 is nothing to scoff at! It beats my current computers, a 2.5 GHz P4 and a 1 GHz G4), but its not mind blowing like people think.

If Microsoft had waited a couple of months, and gotten HD-DVD, they could have done MUCH, MUCH better. But nooo, they have to be first to the market.

Be wary of the XBox 2. It may be a serious let down.

 

[Praxis]

Lol Tri-3ghz CPU is slow? I dont think you know what you're talking about..

I just explained it. The numbers look big, but the performance is only about equivilant to a 2 GHz G5. See the post right above this one.

Slow as in, they only do 2IPC per core. Which means you're getting 6IPC at 3GHz. Which is about as fast as a P4. Keep in mind, this doesn't take into account optimizations and other tricks...

Yep, but...
It also doesn't keep in mind SMP overheads (a major limiting factor), lack of AltiVec that normal PowerPC's have, and the fact that it has to do the sound processing due to lack of sound card.

to bad MS didnt do an AMD processor, better game performance, But I guess they have contracts with Intel and stuff...

Actually, they're using an IBM PowerPC processor, not Intel. The PPC's generate a tad less heat and get similar performance to the AMD's.

 

[Circuitbreaker8]

I just explained it. The numbers look big, but the performance is only about equivilant to a 2 GHz G5. See the post right above this one.



Yep, but...
It also doesn't keep in mind SMP overheads (a major limiting factor), lack of AltiVec that normal PowerPC's have, and the fact that it has to do the sound processing due to lack of sound card.




Actually, they're using an IBM PowerPC processor, not Intel. The PPC's generate a tad less heat and get similar performance to the AMD's.

Ok, but you have to understand, games are going to be optimized just for these processors. One CPU will handle AI, one will handle the physics, and the rest will go towards whatever else it needs. You cant compare Tri 3ghz cpu to a single CPU..

 

[Praxis]

Ok, but you have to understand, games are going to be optimized just for these processors. One CPU will handle AI, one will handle the physics, and the rest will go towards whatever else it needs. You cant compare Tri 3ghz cpu to a single CPU..

Actually, a single CPU would be faster. When dealing with multiple processors, there are overheads because the processors have to communicate with each other. You actually lose a significant percentage (usually 25 to 50% of the second processor- a dual 3 GHz system only gets the performance of a single 4.5).

But if you want me to put the tri 3 GHz CPU in terms of multi CPU's, I can do that.

Each of them gets 6 gigaflops, right? A 1 GHz G5 gets 7. 6/7 = 0.857. Each processor is the equivilant of a .857 GHz G5, or an 857 MHz G5.

So this is the equivilant of a tri-857 MHz G5 in terms of raw calculations per second.

And remember, SMP overheads reduce the real-world performance.

Still nice speeds, definitely. I would love to have a Mac that fast (look up the prices for the dual 1.8 systems, $2000, woah). But not the mind blowing numbers its made out to be.


Using your example, you could certainly have one processor handle physics, and one handle AI, and one handle sound. But then, you could have one processor 3 times more powerful doing all three at once *shrug*. Which is better? That's debatable.

But 3 processors will be hard to code for, because every game console in history before required developers to write single-threaded code. Now code will have to be multithreaded with at LEAST 3 threads to actually run well.



Now, consoles ALWAYS are optimized. That's why the GameCube with its little 450 MHz G3 processor blows away my PowerBook with a 1 GHz G4 in terms of 3d graphics. That's for sure

 

[mrgstiffler]

Praxis: We dont have enough information on the architecture of the cores to make those kind of determinations. Microsoft has stated they the system will be able to push over 1 Teraflop....

 

[mrgstiffler]

But 3 processors will be hard to code for, because every game console in history before required developers to write single-threaded code. Now code will have to be multithreaded with at LEAST 3 threads to actually run well.

I just read that. Multiple cores are actually going to make game developer's job EASIER. On the PC front, Microsoft has been working with game developers to get ready for dual-core CPUs for quite some time. J Allard's keynote, he said that with Microsoft's Game Studio software, game devs are going to be able to write PC and Xbox compatible code very easily because of this.

 

[Praxis]

Praxis: We dont have enough information on the architecture of the cores to make those kind of determinations.

Yes, we do. Microsoft released the official numbers to game developers (3 cores, 3 GHz each, 2 calculations per Hz, PowerPC architecture). There may be other factors that make the performance better or worse, but it'll be 18 gigaflops and the real world performance will be in the general ballpark I estimated.

Microsoft has stated they the system will be able to push over 1 Teraflop....

Not true. This hasn't been stated officially, ANYWHERE. This was only rumored.

And it's utterly silly. A teraflop? 1000 gigaflops? When the fastest PowerPC on the market out there (2.3 GHz) only gets 17.5 gigaflops? And this is going in a console THIS YEAR?

Even a 9 core Cell gets 256, and THIS is considered incredible performance.

Heck, the third fastest supercomputer in the world, made of 1,1000 $2500 dual 2 GHz PowerMac G5's, that cost several million dollars to build, that has 2,200 processors, gets 9 teraflops. Are you telling me that 9 XBox 2's are going to outperform the third biggest supercomputer cluster in the world? That's just insane.

Heck, THE fastest supercomputer in the world only gets 26 teraflops! And it cost BILLIONS to build! And Microsoft will spend $10,000 to build 26 XBox 2's and outperform it, right?

It's another peice of hype.

I just read that. Multiple cores are actually going to make game developer's job EASIER. On the PC front, Microsoft has been working with game developers to get ready for dual-core CPUs for quite some time. J Allard's keynote, he said that with Microsoft's Game Studio software, game devs are going to be able to write PC and Xbox compatible code very easily because of this.

Uh...huh?
Perhaps developers will learn to develop for multiple cores, so it won't be any HARDER. But it certainly won't be EASIER.

 

[mrgstiffler]

Yes, we do. Microsoft released the official numbers to game developers (3 cores, 3 GHz each, 2 calculations per Hz, PowerPC architecture). There may be other factors that make the performance better or worse, but it'll be 18 gigaflops and the real world performance will be in the general ballpark I estimated.



Not true. This hasn't been stated officially, ANYWHERE. This was only rumored.

And it's utterly silly. A teraflop? 1000 gigaflops? When the fastest PowerPC on the market out there (2.3 GHz) only gets 17.5 gigaflops? And this is going in a console THIS YEAR?

Even a 9 core Cell gets 256, and THIS is considered incredible performance.

Heck, the third fastest supercomputer in the world, made of 1,1000 $2500 dual 2 GHz PowerMac G5's, that cost several million dollars to build, that has 2,200 processors, gets 9 teraflops. Are you telling me that 9 XBox 2's are going to outperform the third biggest supercomputer cluster in the world? That's just insane.

It's another peice of hype.



Uh...huh?
Perhaps developers will learn to develop for multiple cores, so it won't be any HARDER. But it certainly won't be EASIER.

That's wrong. J Allard specifically said in his keynote that the next Xbox would achieve a teraflop. A transcript is here:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/news/events/gdc05/gdc-jallard-20050309.htm

 

[Arkanian]

That's wrong. J Allard specifically said in his keynote that the next Xbox would achieve a teraflop. A transcript is here:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/news/events/gdc05/gdc-jallard-20050309.htm

Yep. We just don't know how this system is setup or the actual Architecture for the core itself. Remember these chips were engineered for the Xbox 2.

 

[Drakensoul]

For some reason, people seem to be living under the illusion that more discreet units is immediately faster.

It's like giving two small children the same amount of cookie, but one of them getting one large piece and the other getting two smaller pieces. The recipient of two smaller pieces is immediately angered by the 'unfair' situation of having received less, even though he got exactly the same amount.

People, 18gflops is 18gflops. It doesn't matter if it's 18gflops through one processor or over three--it's still 18gflops. That's as fast as it gets.

So, who's hyped for Revolution? Resident Evil 5 awaits.
XBOX360 can kiss it. I wonder if my XBOX still turns on... I haven't tried in so very long.

 

[Praxis]

That's wrong. J Allard specifically said in his keynote that the next Xbox would achieve a teraflop. A transcript is here:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/news/events/gdc05/gdc-jallard-20050309.htm

Firstly, what does "a teraflop of targetted computing performance" mean? Could it be a play on words?

Okay, this just seems impossible. I ran the math based on the official specs, and it is 18 gigaflops.

One teraflop is simply an IMPOSSIBILITY at this point in time.

The fastest supercomputer in the world is 26 teraflops and cost several billion dollars to build. The XBox is going to to cost $300, and 26 of them can outperform the most expensive supercomputer in the entire WORLD?

Besides, do you think they were LYING to the developers when they released the tri-3 GHz @ 2 IPC spec?

If MS got up in their keynote and said that pigs would fly, would you believe them? 1 teraflop is simply not possible at this point in time. Sounds to me like Hype. Remember, Sony claimed the PS2 would outperform modern supercomputers.

In fact, Sony had stories going around that Saddam Hussein had purchased a large order of PS2's to build a supercomputer out of that would outperform everything we had!

http://millimeter.com/mag/video_future_workstation/

Funniest article ever. The PS2 outperforms a $200,000 workstation from a couple years ago. The PS2 might replace workstations altogether. The PS2 is capable of HD resolutions in full 1080p (yeah, RIGHT!), or 1920x1080 at 60 FPS. The PS2 is capable of one billion polygons per second according to the Sony President (it actually was 6 million). Sound familiar?

 

[Praxis]

For some reason, people seem to be living under the illusion that more discreet units is immediately faster.

It's like giving two small children the same amount of cookie, but one of them getting one large piece and the other getting two smaller pieces. The recipient of two smaller pieces is immediately angered by the 'unfair' situation of having received less, even though he got exactly the same amount.

People, 18gflops is 18gflops. It doesn't matter if it's 18gflops through one processor or over three--it's still 18gflops. That's as fast as it gets.

ty!

So, who's hyped for Revolution? Resident Evil 5 awaits.
XBOX360 can kiss it. I wonder if my XBOX still turns on... I haven't tried in so very long.

*raises hand*

Online Super Smash Bros, baby!

 

[mrgstiffler]

All we know is what they tell us. If you're saying that Microsoft is lying about 1 teraflop, then you also have to assume that they're lying about everything else. What I see, though, is they are saying the system pushes 1 Teraflop as a whole. All the math and speculation that you do cannot disprove what they are saying until we have more information.

 

[Tiny]

Why prey tell would having HD-DVD be an upside over Nintendo's mini DVD or Sony's Blu-ray?

I am getting one as soon as they hit shelves in October.