X-bit Labs has an article on what looks like a preliminary system block diagram of the Xbox 2. It claims that they'll be using the 976 chips, which I suspected they might. Those are supposed to be dual-core chips, and they're using more than one of them? I dunno, but it is interesting to look at, even if it isn't true.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Xbox 2 architecture
- Thread starter Alexvrb
- Start date
It's seem WAY too expensive. I mean 3 dual core 3.5Ghz 64bit CPUs, 256MB of RAM, top of the line R4xx ATI graphics chip AND a 1GB flash storage device (assuming the rumors are true). MS either has alot of money to burn or they got some magical source for REALLY cheap parts.
Originally posted by gameboy900@Apr 28, 2004 @ 02:59 AM
It's seem WAY too expensive. I mean 3 dual core 3.5Ghz 64bit CPUs, 256MB of RAM, top of the line R4xx ATI graphics chip AND a 1GB flash storage device (assuming the rumors are true). MS either has alot of money to burn or they got some magical source for REALLY cheap parts.
We'll see. Don't assume any rumor is true, but the specs do look pretty much like we expected.
I would not believe this, first because it is pure speculation, and the information these "speculators" used to make such diagram is not something accurate or official, just rumors.
In the other hand, I know people who speculate about the PlayStation3 architecture basing themselves on very deep research on Sony's latest patents, and that is indeed a trustworthy source.
In the other hand, I know people who speculate about the PlayStation3 architecture basing themselves on very deep research on Sony's latest patents, and that is indeed a trustworthy source.
Don't forget, MS _does_ have a lot of money to burn and they also carry a lot of weight in the industry; it's anyone's guess what the final specs we'll be seeing are, but I have no doubt that they will be able to throw their weight around enough to be able to drive the price down on the system. They will most likely be selling at a loss again as well. My feeling is that, given that the Xbox didn't live up to MS's expectations, they'll try their best to produce a system that blows everything else out of the water and is still fairly affordable. If they can make Sony's hardware truly look sub-par, they will be able to push that advantage in marketing. Since they're mainly competing against Sony, who don't really market games either (unlike Nintendo), this is a viable strategy.
I also feel, however, that MS's hype machine is not that great -- despite their 'giant' status, they have never really been able to pull off great marketing for consumer products..most of their money comes from selling stuff to businesses. I think the PS3 will be in a great position when it launches, mainly due to brand familiarity and (hopefully) backwards compatibility. I'm not sure how big of a factor performance will be in the next console war, as it certainly isn't a large factor now -- most people who aren't into gaming don't really know or care which console is technically the most powerful.
Back to specs, though... I really don't understand why the manufacturers aren't pushing more RAM into their systems.. 256 megs is a decent amount, but with the price of RAM these days, it seems feasible to put 512 or more in, which would definitely be a big boost to next-gen games. It seems like a lot of console games these days are being held back by small levels, and those that have larger environments tend to suffer from repetitive texture syndrome (Halo is a good example of this).
I also feel, however, that MS's hype machine is not that great -- despite their 'giant' status, they have never really been able to pull off great marketing for consumer products..most of their money comes from selling stuff to businesses. I think the PS3 will be in a great position when it launches, mainly due to brand familiarity and (hopefully) backwards compatibility. I'm not sure how big of a factor performance will be in the next console war, as it certainly isn't a large factor now -- most people who aren't into gaming don't really know or care which console is technically the most powerful.
Back to specs, though... I really don't understand why the manufacturers aren't pushing more RAM into their systems.. 256 megs is a decent amount, but with the price of RAM these days, it seems feasible to put 512 or more in, which would definitely be a big boost to next-gen games. It seems like a lot of console games these days are being held back by small levels, and those that have larger environments tend to suffer from repetitive texture syndrome (Halo is a good example of this).
I believe this specsheet has been proven to be fake; however, not all of the purported specs are complete speculation. It has been confirmed that the processor will be coming from IBM and the graphics chip from ATI. The fact that the current devboxes are Dual G5 PowerMacs lends credence to the rumors that there will be multiple processors from the 970 family. I haven't seen any solid evidence that they will be using 976s or that there will be three of them. The fact that IBM seems to be having trouble with getting the 970 to a 90nm process casts doubt on the use of a 65nm process in the chips for the XBox 2.
I think Microsoft will fare much better this round. They're already showing signs of learning from their mistakes with the first XBox and its clear they see the value of courting developers from their new devkit which is designed to make things easier for developers. This is particularly important as if the initial reports are true, the PS3 will be a major pain to program for.
I think Microsoft will fare much better this round. They're already showing signs of learning from their mistakes with the first XBox and its clear they see the value of courting developers from their new devkit which is designed to make things easier for developers. This is particularly important as if the initial reports are true, the PS3 will be a major pain to program for.
Originally posted by it290@Apr 28, 2004 @ 06:32 AM
Back to specs, though... I really don't understand why the manufacturers aren't pushing more RAM into their systems.. 256 megs is a decent amount, but with the price of RAM these days, it seems feasible to put 512 or more in, which would definitely be a big boost to next-gen games.
What memory prices are you talking about? Do you think they'll be using the cheapest, slowest memory available? They can't afford to spend tons of money on just main memory. Besides, you don't need as much memory with a console.
For the life of me I can't remember where I read this yesterday but Hideo Kojima (Mr. Metal Gear) said that his programmers are masochists since they enjoy programming for the PS2.
As for the new Xbox I find that the specs in that pic are probably closeish to the final but most likely not dead on. I don't see the need for more RAM, I mean imagine the load times with more. But none of it matters in Japan where they are too stupid to realize that something foreign can actually be good and is worth taking a chance on. They'll just eat up the next Sony crap no matter what it is, and completely ignore anything else even if it is superior.
As for the new Xbox I find that the specs in that pic are probably closeish to the final but most likely not dead on. I don't see the need for more RAM, I mean imagine the load times with more. But none of it matters in Japan where they are too stupid to realize that something foreign can actually be good and is worth taking a chance on. They'll just eat up the next Sony crap no matter what it is, and completely ignore anything else even if it is superior.
What memory prices are you talking about? Do you think they'll be using the cheapest, slowest memory available? They can't afford to spend tons of money on just main memory. Besides, you don't need as much memory with a console.
Obviously not, but anything decently fast is still a helluva lot cheaper than 1 gig of flash . People often say it's not needed on consoles, but I think it's even more needed, given the general lack of fast access times. I think it'll be essential for moving past the limited environments of current 3d games.
The flash has an advantage of being non-volatile. Meaning that they can use it for saved games and stuff like that, just like the current Xbox uses the hard drive for. With 256MB of ram even a fast 10X DVD drive would still take a good 20-30 seconds to fill it all.
As he pointed out, flash is for keeping all that good stuff we use the HD for. Who knows what the final size will be, and if they make an external iPod-like device, you've got an optional HD. I think that with a decent DVD drive, if they put much more than 256MB of memory, it becomes overkill. I mean, look at what they can do with a DC and a little streaming.
Anyway, gameboy... I agree with you, they'll buy the next Sony console pretty much no matter what. However, a lot of people here will do the same, too.
Anyway, gameboy... I agree with you, they'll buy the next Sony console pretty much no matter what. However, a lot of people here will do the same, too.
From pricewatch.com
1GB Compact Flash - $149
1GB PC3200 DDR - $147
Granted the RAM will be considerably faster than the Compact flash, but obviously they serves a different purposes.
1GB Compact Flash - $149
1GB PC3200 DDR - $147
Granted the RAM will be considerably faster than the Compact flash, but obviously they serves a different purposes.
My point is merely that loading from a DVD is quite slow, and since there is not going to be an internal storage device for game data, I think more RAM would be beneficial (although it would be beneficial with a HD as well). I fail to see how 1 gig of flash is any more 'overkill' than 512mb of main memory.. especially considering 1 gig is not enough to 'do all the stuff you use the HD for' .. it's not enough for what people use the HD for now (and I'm just talking about the MS-sanctioned stuff). It also can't be used for cache in the same way a HD can.
Streaming is great as well, but as texture quality is continuously increasing, I don't think it's practical for the quantity of textures that are required in large, diverse environments. If you take into account the fact that next-gen games will likely have a lot more to load than just color maps, I don't think streaming is going to be all that feasible in a lot of situations.
Streaming is great as well, but as texture quality is continuously increasing, I don't think it's practical for the quantity of textures that are required in large, diverse environments. If you take into account the fact that next-gen games will likely have a lot more to load than just color maps, I don't think streaming is going to be all that feasible in a lot of situations.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 550
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 3K
