XBox 2 - 3.5GHz PowerPC?

[MacRumors]

TheRegister reports (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/27/xbox_2_architecture/) on a leaked report from a Chinese forum that claims to detail Xbox 2 specs.

The specs seem to include three-core 3.5GHz CPU. This is presumed to be a PowerPC/IBM design, though it is not specifically reported to be a PowerPC.

Several other sites are referencing the chip as a 976 PowerPC. As far as we can tell, all references of PowerPC 975/976 appear to be the product of unreliable/fabricated rumor reports. As a result, the 975/976 is not considered to be an actual product (...yet).

[Veldek]

When is the Xbox 2 said to come out (assuming that it’s not delayed as much as Longhorn)? At that time we should have 3.5GHz processors if this rumor was true.

[stoid]

Already a thread. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=69431) But I guess this one's the 'fficial thread anyhow :cool:


I'm looking forward to seeing this thing in action!!

[guyute]

they must be planning on taking a large loss on everyone sold. That is a very nice chip to be able to play games on. I can't wait.

[dho]

If the get priority over apple for chips or fab time, im gunna be pissed

[Kid Red]

Damn, does a video console need that power? Will your power bill go up by playing Halo now? That thing will be huge or have a giant fan to keep it cool. I think 3.5ghz for a little gaming box is a tad extreme.

[BWhaler]

Well, I guess this officially kicks off the 18 months of "don't buy a PMac now. Wait until the 3.5 Ghz comes out" pieces of advice. ;)

[the_mole1314]

Most systems are half of the top speed of the computers, not just for cost, but also for heat, etc. I SERIOUSLY doubt that 3.5ghz PPC are made. It sounds like a PC fan's rumor that they think is true. "HEY! If the Intel procs are nearly 4ghz, then the PPC MUST be 3.5 alteast! Those Apple people just want to screw over their customers...."

[dongmin]

Seems pretty far-fetched.

Three cores of 3.5 ghz CPUs???

June delivery date? Even if that's June 2005, it seems too soon for a brand spanking new processor. Or is this the fabled 970fx-successor?

[otter-boy]

Damn, does a video console need that power? Will your power bill go up by playing Halo now? That thing will be huge or have a giant fan to keep it cool. I think 3.5ghz for a little gaming box is a tad extreme.

If the XBox2 doesn't get released until mid to late 2005, there is no reason to believe that 3.5 GHz will be at the top of the speed curve. When the first XBox was released, its processor was somewhere in the middle to upper range of the speed spread for Intel processors. The costs will come down over time and the process will probably go through a shrink during its lifetime which will bring down costs and heat and power requirements, though rumors already state that the XBox2 chip will be produced on the 65-nanometer process, so it should be reasonable to expect that power and heat will be mangeable. Remember, we're looking for a 3 GHz chip here in just a couple months. Imagine what IBM can do with an extra year to improve chip design and production.

[MorganX]

they must be planning on taking a large loss on everyone sold. That is a very nice chip to be able to play games on. I can't wait.

Since it's a single CPU allegedly at 65nm customized for games, it may not cost as much as it you might think. I really don't think MS can sell the next box at anywhere near the loss as Xbox 1.

[stingerman]

Most systems are half of the top speed of the computers, not just for cost, but also for heat, etc. I SERIOUSLY doubt that 3.5ghz PPC are made. It sounds like a PC fan's rumor that they think is true. "HEY! If the Intel procs are nearly 4ghz, then the PPC MUST be 3.5 alteast! Those Apple people just want to screw over their customers...."

Well, interestingly a three core PPC with 1MB L2 (according to diagram) will have about the same transistors than a 1MB single core Prescot. Though it will be able to handle 6 threads (with SMT) simultaneously.

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

[macnews]

This would have a lot more credibility if IBM had made a 2.5Ghz chip. Considering we have yet to see anything other than a 2.0 Ghz version, I am more concerned with IBM being able to get to 3.0, let alone 3.5. Then you bring up the issue of meeting supply which they have already have had problems with in their Fishskill plant.

Of course, to keep positive, a new Xbox might arrive on the scene in October for Xmas sales. Perhaps why IBM hasn't delivered was due to problems with production but have been able to bump up speed beyond the 3.0 range. One can always hope..... (come on IBM, don't be Moto, don't be Moto...)

[crenz]

65nm? Everybody's having problems with 90nm already. I don't think 65nm processors will be here so soon.

[MorganX]

65nm? Everybody's having problems with 90nm already. I don't think 65nm processors will be here so soon.

I think IBM has produce memory at 65nm. The dedicated use of the Xbox CPU may enable them to reliably produce that chip faster than they could a desktop chip.

Additionally, Intel is moving quickly (2005/2006) to produce Tejas and other dual core CPUs at 65nm. It will be interesting to see how much volume Intel can produce for Dothan (90nm Pentium-M).

[tristan]

Yeah, right.

"Hello? Ibm? Yeah, I'd like to order several million 3.5 ghz CPUs, each with three cores in each chip, low power enough to fit in a console, and cheap enough so I can sell the whole unit for under $199. We'll need them in about six to twelve months."

"Sure, no problem. Good thing we have that advanced alien chip manufacturing technology from the Roswell crash site. It really comes in handy for physically impossible orders like this."

[eSnow]

With a little bit of tweaking, this monster should be able to emulate XBox1 games easily.

[MorganX]

With a little bit of tweaking, this monster should be able to emulate XBox1 games easily.

I don't know why everyone thinks this chip is "all that." A single CPU G5 can't even compete with today's Pentiums. And because the 3 cores are sharing resources, it probably won't be 3x the performance of a 1.6Ghz single G5. It will be high performance for a console, expecially running a lean NT/XP kernel, but it won't be "All that."

I'm more interested in the OS and the graphics subsystem.

[ffakr]

Here's my analytic take on the chinese posting that sparced all this...

triple core, 3.5GHz cpu, each core with vector processing.
That's a TON of horse power. If each core supported SMT as they are claiming.. we could be seeing 2-3x the performance of today's Dual G5.

What's the performance going to be used for? It's a console that's going to be hooked up to a TV. I could only imagine two uses.. playing high detail video games on HD TVs. Though, it's clear now that you can play all current games at 1600x1200 pretty well with the upcomming Nvidia video chip (with a 2GHz Athlon64). Other possibility? Real time mpeg encoding so you could record movies and TV, or video camera streams to DVD? I suppose that you'd want a ton of power to compress video, especially HD video, at anything faster than real time (for the multi-speed DVD burners) but.. if you want to do mpeg compression you'd be able to do it a lot cheaper with a DSP[s] instead of building a triple core general purpose processor.

The diagram posted also notes a 500+MHz 16 pipe video core. That would be faster than the next gen video chipsets we're just now seeing.. like the NV40. Samples available now (clocked slower) play current games with FSAA 4x on 1600x1200 monitors with aplumb. In fact, the benchmarks I've seen with the NV40 are clearly held back by the performance of the 2+GHz Athlon64s and the 3.2+ GHz P4s that they are running in. I can see the video chipset being required for fast, steady, HD TV quality video gaming... but the cpu power proposed would be overkill since today's high end desktop chips (though slower than the video) already handle very high rez game play quite well.

Other odd point.. the diagram apparently shows 10 MB of video ram, possible attached directly to the video chip die. Though this would be fantastically fast.. it would not be nearly enough for running HD games. The vram is typically a frame buffer and a texture cache. I'd expect a game system like this, with this much power, presumably playing games on HD 1040i systems, would need a minimum of 128 MB of dedicated video memory.

I think it's a fake. but that's jmho
ffakr

[Kirkland]

I don't think this is so far fetched, the XBox2 isn't supposed to be released until late 2005. We're supposed to have 3Ghz chips in a few months (WWDC), whose to say next year Apple/IBM won't be at 4Ghz.

I don't think IBM just makes a chip and sits on their hands, they have 3.5Ghz, 4Ghz, 10Ghz etc. on their roadmap I'm sure.

[airmac]

Damn, does a video console need that power? Will your power bill go up by playing Halo now? That thing will be huge or have a giant fan to keep it cool. I think 3.5ghz for a little gaming box is a tad extreme.

Did you try FarCry?

...

[spud]

maybe IBM's made more progress than they're saying on the electron-spin–based chip architecture. 6 years, 6 months, what's the difference?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/technology/26ibm.html

[ffakr]

I don't know why everyone thinks this chip is "all that." A single CPU G5 can't even compete with today's Pentiums. And because the 3 cores are sharing resources, it probably won't be 3x the performance of a 1.6Ghz single G5. It will be high performance for a console, expecially running a lean NT/XP kernel, but it won't be "All that."

I'm more interested in the OS and the graphics subsystem.

That's a nice troll.
A G5 has a higher IPC (instruction per clock cycle) rate than an Athlon64. It has a much higher IPC than a Pentium 4.
OTOH, an Athlon64 has a much lower memory latency due to the on board memory controller, and it is a powerchip otherwise.
...

There are benchmarks where an Athlon will school other processors, as there are benchmarks with a P4 will school other processors.. and yes, there are benchmarks where a PPC 970 will school other processors (even if they clock at over 3GHz)
.. not that it's easy to benchmark cpus running different OSes and different instruction sets... Athlons used to be monster processors compared to PPCs and x86 cpus.. but they had a small instruction set. If you picked a benchmark with an operation that wasn't easily performed with the Alpha ISA, it benched very poorly because you needed to have an algorithm to work around that lack of functionality. Look at old RC5 benchmarks.

Only an idiot thinks that their pet processor is better than the competition in every respect. Are you an idiot?

The processor in question is presumed to be a triple core CPU based off the Power5 family. the PPC 970 is based off the Power4 family. the Power5 based processors will be more powerful per cycle, they will include IBMs implemention of SMT (simultaneous multi threading, aka. Hyperthreading)... IBM is saying that their SMT is much more efficient than Intel's. IBM has said that SMT on the Power5 is providing a 25-40% increase performance already (in design still) while the P4 HT generally provides maybe +15% to -10% performance boost.

The current PPC 970 core performs very favorably to current breed of CPUs (even with the crappy gcc code, we see 35% performance boosts when using IBM's xl compilers). The cpus that are 'claimed' to be in design will be more efficient, support SMT, and run 3 cores at nearly double the speed of today's PPC 970 chips.

That is why they are 'all that'.
None of the other desktop CPU vendors have anything on the roadmap for the next two years that would even marginally compete. Try to imagine a triple core P4 running each core at about 4.5GHz.. with a redesigned SMT.. that's what we are talking about. Unfortunately such a chip [that imaginary P4] would likely dissipate about 300 watts.

[ffakr]

Did you try FarCry?

...

yea, it runs nicely on my 2GHz AthlonXP with my Ti4200. With a Radeon 9800 and a similar CPU, my brother is able to max out every single setting and it still runs quite nicely.
The silly diagram that was posted in China has video subsystem that would be nearly 4x as powerful as a Radeon 9800 and a CPU that is probably half an order of magnitude more powerful.

[Frobozz]

65nm? Everybody's having problems with 90nm already. I don't think 65nm processors will be here so soon.

The problem is not with the 90nm process, it with the Strained Silicon on Insulator, which delaminated at high clock frequencies due to heat and production problems. At least, that's what the reports say. The transition to 90nm went without issue.

[MorganX]

That's a nice troll.

Only an idiot thinks that their pet processor is better than the competition in every respect. Are you an idiot?


Only and idiot relies on benchmarks as opposed to real world performance and applications. Are you and idiot. I've used a 1.6Ghz G5 (Photoshop, Keynote, Office X) and you and Steve Jobs can't convince me that it's superior to a 2.8Ghz Pentium IV in the same price range. Troll must = disagrees with me.

Regarding the alleged Xbox 2 CPU, I doubt that all 3 cores will be able to fully utilize each clock cycle, or bus bandwidth to support the notion that it will have the performance of 3 G5 cores running at 3x the current single processors. Just as dual CPU systems rarely if ever produce 2x the performance of their single CPU counterpart.

Furthermore, I doubt they will be full blown processors. With MS' customization, they won't need to be. They're not going to be running Office. They're going to be running games, media player, and XP very lite.

Based on that, the performance of the current 1.6GHz G5, and I think the only spectacular thing about this rumor is that IBM could be ready to produce multiple cores by the end of this year or early '05.

As for cost, MS has entered into a partnership with Taiwan Semiconductor who has a patent for PC on a chip, so who knows how cheaply MS may be able to manufacture this thing, especially since they are assisting with the chip design/optimization.

edit: BTW, where's the audio processor?

[JtheLemur]

Only and idiot relies on benchmarks as opposed to real world performance and applications. Are you and idiot. <clip>

Regarding the alleged Xbox 2 CPU <clip>

Furthermore... <clip>

Furthermore, I don't understand how someone can properly use the word 'alleged' and misuse the word 'and'. :D

[ffakr]

The problem is not with the 90nm process, it with the Strained Silicon on Insulator, which delaminated at high clock frequencies due to heat and production problems. At least, that's what the reports say. The transition to 90nm went without issue.

that's not true. Mac OS Rumors said it was de-lamination though they are usually dodgy on technical issues.

IBM recently said that they had experienced unforseen issues with signal integrity at .09 micron. Aligent and Toshiba are admitting to the same issue. They expected crosstalk issues, but not problems with signal integrity.. at least they didn't expect anything nearly this bad.

http://www.arstechnica.com has a piece on the issue, as to a number of other sites.

[NusuniAdmin]

load xbox 2 up with a 256 meg ati card with 8 gigs ram and ill be in heaven ;) (assuming i can load os x on it :P :P )

[ffakr]

Only and idiot relies on benchmarks as opposed to real world performance and applications. Are you and idiot. I've used a 1.6Ghz G5 (Photoshop, Keynote, Office X) and you and Steve Jobs can't convince me that it's superior to a 2.8Ghz Pentium IV in the same price range. Troll must = disagrees with me.
you insist on using the lowest end cpu in your comparisons. I understand this is what you have, but you are talking about the bottom of the barrel PPC 970. The underlying system isn't even the same as the other models.. different PCI bus, different memory bus, different FSB. You are also comparing a low end G5 to a mid range P4 and the P4 has the benefit of robust compilers. At the time of the G5 release, gcc didn't even know what a G5 was. They 'shimmed' in G5 support by duping the compiler into treating it, in some respects, like different architectures that functioned in similar manner to the PPC 970. Even now, your software is being compiled on sub-par compiler technology (GCC isn't even all that well optimized for the P4 yet since the gcc steering group puts way more value in cross-platform support than specific architecture optimizations). As I mentioned, we regularly see a 30+% increase in code performance when using IBMs XL compilers (which are optimized for the PPC 970, but which were just released a couple months back).

Regarding the alleged Xbox 2 CPU, I doubt that all 3 cores will be able to fully utilize each clock cycle, or bus bandwidth to support the notion that it will have the performance of 3 G5 cores running at 3x the current single processors. Just as dual CPU systems rarely if ever produce 2x the performance of their single CPU counterpart.
dual cpu systems don't generally double performance, and one issue is cache coherence. They have to keep tabs on the status of data in the caches of other cpus in the same system. This processor would solve this issue (for the most part) by sharing a L2 cache. Also, the interprocessor latency is almost nil with a multi core cpu [compared to more common smp systems]. If this processor comes into being, it will be much more efficient than a system with 3 seperate CPUs in it.
I think it comes down to this.. (if this is real) you have a system with three cores on the same die and a shared 1MB L2 cache. It's hooked to a HT like bus with 10.8 GB/sec up and 10.8 GB/sec down unidirectional bandwidth. It will perform MUCH better than a typical (think Xeon) style SMP box. Not only that, but since we assume M$ has input into the design.. do you really think they would build in so much silicon that it would be rendered usless by an insufficient bus?

Furthermore, I doubt they will be full blown processors. With MS' customization, they won't need to be. They're not going to be running Office. They're going to be running games, media player, and XP very lite.

what exactly is a non-full blown processor that runs xp, games, media player? do you think it won't support the full PPC (or Power) ISA? I find that fairly unlikely. I'm guessing that you mean that it will just be less 'wide' than something like a PPC 970? That a given core won't be able to support as many execution units? Maybe 1 FP, 1 Int, a Vector unit or two? this could be.. but then if you are lowering the potential IPC, don't you think that would decrease FSB bandwidth requirements? Also, even CPUs with very high max theoretical IPCs like a PPC 970 don't get close to that number in real world use. One more thing to consider.. .if IBM is providing CPUs that are already wide (lots of int, lots of fp units, multiple vmx paths), why would M$ choose to totally reinvent the wheel by first stripping the parallelizm out of an existing design to build it back in with a transisitor expensive multi-core design? That seems odd, unless the real goal is a system with a lot of virtual paralellism.. a somewhat simple processor that appeared as 6 virtual CPUs to the system. I don't know why this would be so much more favorable to what they are planning to use this box for.. but I don't work for M$.

Based on that, the performance of the current 1.6GHz G5, and I think the only spectacular thing about this rumor is that IBM could be ready to produce multiple cores by the end of this year or early '05.

you mean, based on my impression of the performance of the low end PPC 970 processor running fairly unoptimized code....

As for cost, MS has entered into a partnership with Taiwan Semiconductor who has a patent for PC on a chip, so who knows how cheaply MS may be able to manufacture this thing, especially since they are assisting with the chip design/optimization.
It is my impression that IBM is manufacturing the cpu for the xbox2, as well as providing the technology. In fact, there was early confusion from the AMD fans because it initially sounded like IBM was MANUFACTURING the chip.. but they were initially unclear about whether or not they were desiging it too [as in was it a Power or not]
I still don't think you've made your case as to why this isn't an impressive cpu.. if it is real. Even considering your experience with the 1.6 GHz, you'd have to realize that this is a 3 core cpu based off a new architecture that may be clocked roughly 3x as fast as your machine. Even with simplified cores, I'd be shocked if a box with this design wasn't 6-10x as powerful as your machine.


edit: BTW, where's the audio processor? yet another good question and another reason to think this is a fake.

[ITR 81]

I wonder how long it will be before a emulator comes out and allows for us to play all the nice new Xbox games?
Maybe even Cube 2 and PS3 games as well.

[cnladd]

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

Remember when Windows NT was available in MIPS, PowerPC and Alpha versions? They accomplished this through the use of what Microsoft called the "HAL", or the "Hardware Abstraction Layer". The bulk of the operating system was coded to the HAL and only the HAL itself was changed between the various versions of Windows NT.

Most people don't realize this, but that abstraction layer still exists in Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003. This is evidenced by the Itanium-specific builds of each--you don't think it's a simple recompilation on a 64-bit system, do you? It is, in fact, a recompile onto a separate HAL that was built specifically for 64-bit hardware.

Take a close look at the announcements and discussions that ocurred with Microsoft when Microsoft released Windows 2000. It was publicly disclosed that they still had the means to easily build Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC specific versions, but that the cost of supporting and qualifying the OS on that hardware platform was more than they'd receive. MIPS and Alpha have dropped off the map, but the PowerPC is still a viable platform. It's long been rumored that the Microsoft OS group has kept the PowerPC version up to date with the IA-32 and IA-64 versions--both as a means of qualifying development (much the same as Apple does with Darwin on IA-32) and as a hedge against Intel (who's development of the Itanium has long been considered a risky move, and one that still has yet to succeed in the marketplace.)

[ffakr]

I wonder how long it will be before a emulator comes out and allows for us to play all the nice new Xbox games?
Maybe even Cube 2 and PS3 games as well.
Your emulator will be out next month. Microsoft has VPC already and since they are contracting a processor from IBM with the PPC ISA (actually the Power ISA which includes the PPC ISA), the basic emulation engine already exist (the code to run x86 binaries on a chip with the PPC ISA).
What they'd need to do, however, would be to write bridge drivers for the hardware that 'emulated' the real hardware. right now, Virtual PC emulates a very old, very basic video and audio chipset. It doesn't matter if you have a Dual 1.42 G4 with a GF4 Ti video card.. when you install Windows in VPC, VPC reports the video hardware as being some nearly 5 year old video chip. You can't play any modern games in VPC because, not only is it too slow on compatible Mac hardware, but it emulates a video chipset that doesn't support any recent DX features.
MS also needs to wrap the core emulation code in a proper Windows Application. This will, after all, be Windows for PowerPC emulating embedded Windows for x86 so the Virtual PC application needs to be a Windows app too. This also shouldn't be a big deal since MS also bought VPC for Windows.

I think it's safe to say that, at this point, MS is already running xbox1 games in emulation on their test platforms. I would doubt that they play well.. because even emulating the performance of a Celeron 700 is tough... but it would be cake on a very high clocked multi-core, SMT PPC processor.

.. not that I believe the report. :p

[tgilbey]

This is the only board i've ever seen where people say awww....we don't really need ALL that power, give Apple (or IBM, etc) a little more time.
I would contend that in the console market (as with ANY of apple's power__ products) you can never have enough power.

The expected lifespan of consoles is comparitively large and they have to keep providing a wow! gaming experience over the whole 4+ years.
As MS are lagging sony by about 1 year in the lifecycle, one of their trump cards is more horsepower. And they desperately need a trump, as whilst XBOX was a success, sony still own the market.

Also (IMHO) previous console graphics chipsets appeared comparable to PC games due to the much lower resolution they had to drive. HDTV will be coming in during this next lifecycle and they need to have the horsepower to handle it.

so...engineering and cost issues aside, they will make it as powerful as humanly possible

this spec does sound a little beyond the possible tho.....
I am quite excited about XBOXnext as the previous one was pretty much a mid-spec pc in a box, whilst this one should demonstrate ground-up engineering and huge optimisation (crosses fingers)

[MorganX]

>>you insist on using the lowest end cpu in your comparisons. I understand this is what you have, but you are talking about the bottom of the barrel PPC 970.<<

I'm using that because 1) I've used it, and 2) It's single CPU. If I were to try to extrapolate performance based on the current high end, I would say roughly 50% over a dual G5 with significantly higher graphic performance.

>>why would M$ choose to totally reinvent the wheel by first stripping the parallelizm out of an existing design to build it back in with a transisitor expensive multi-core design? That seems odd, unless the real goal is a system with a lot of virtual paralellism.. a somewhat simple processor that appeared as 6 virtual CPUs to the system. I don't know why this would be so much more favorable to what they are planning to use this box for.. but I don't work for M$.<<

I don't know. They're wanting to optimize for DirectX and X86 emulation. Maybe we'll learn more in June.

>>I still don't think you've made your case as to why this isn't an impressive cpu.. if it is real. <<

I'm not implying it's not impressive. Just that I don't believe it's such a quantum leap in performance that's it's not feasible they can get it in a game console as has been suggested here.

Maybe audio will be a CPU function to reduce cost ... IBM is doing the CPU, but perhaps the rest of the box will be on the same piece of silicon, I don't believe ATI is manufacturing the video chip, I believe MS will have it fabbed by a contractor.

I'm very excited to have Xbox on PPC. Especially with IBM opening the architecture. I'd move away from Intel for Longhorn on the processor in a second.

I think when more is known about the performance of PS3's cell processor, it will make more sense to guess as to the performance of the Xbox 2s. They will probably be reasonably close to one another.

[ifjake]

i had thought developer kits had already been delivered (maybe it was a rumor) which makes me think what chips that will be in the Xbox 2 are already around. there's a game already kinda in development, Dark Sector, for some kind of next generation video game platform, Xbox2 most likely to me. clock-speed no longer means anything to me really. 3.5 GHz so what. there's a startup company, "Stretch, inc" i think, that has this spiffy new design. supposed to kinda rewire itself via software. i don't really get it, but it's like able to make it's own instruction sets or something like that. instead of having to pass data through multiple clock cycles to get stuff done, it can make one operation that does it all in one pass. i think they have a 300 MHz chip that outperforms some other 2000 MHz design. and you can imagine that a chip running at 300 MHz would be cooler heatwise than one at 2000. but i guess if you are making a gaming system you can custom tailor with certain operators and stuff, essentially doing the same thing, just permanently. man i really know what i'm talking about. :rolleyes:

[MorganX]

IGN claims (http://xbox.ign.com/articles/509/509465p1.html) to have one confirming source and more denying sources.

Michael Dougherty, head of Xbox Advanced Technology Group, has his name attached to the document, though that doesn't make it any more legitimate. However, the diagram was confirmed as the real deal by a developer close to Microsoft. "We were very surprised to see that leaked," a source, who wished to remain anonymous, told us this morning. "I'm sure Microsoft is freaking out because this is the same stuff [developers] have now."

Other sources have claimed that the document is not real and claim it is a fake. The main point of contention is that the document doesn't state what type of RAM will be used, something that's quite important for development considerations. A Microsoft representative stated, "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation." It's possible this is an older document never meant for the public eye and that the current look of Xbox 2 is quite different. We decided to take a look at the specs anyway. It's not certain if this is, in fact, the next Xbox, but if it is, well, we should all be very happy.


One thing is for sure, if MS is going to announce in June, they've definitely created buzz. I'm thinking this is real; and early prototype but fairly accurate. I also believe MS will release before PS3, they're losing too much money, right now XBox is hot and has killer games on the way and in development, why wait.

edit: If it is real, expect Intel to get the lead out of their rear. This is not good for Intel. As a matter of fact, more details about future Intel processors, and dual cores, started popping up this afternoon. Hmmmm. Rumors can be fun.

[ifjake]

here (http://news.com.com/2100-1006-5199930.html?tag=cd.top) it is. what do you make of it?

[bdkennedy1]

Unless we're going to see revolutionary graphics like in the Matrix Reloaded movie, I don't see any reason why a gaming console would need that much power. Even a 2ghz PPC would be a tad outlandish. I mean come on... I have yet to see graphics much better than the Sega Dreamcast these days.

[MorganX]

>>Unless we're going to see revolutionary graphics like in the Matrix Reloaded movie, I don't see any reason why a gaming console would need that much power.<<

x86 emulation, HDTV, XP Media Center, possibly DVD burning, broadband networking/multiplayer. And the big one, emulating the NVIDIA architecutre in Xbox 1.

>>I have yet to see graphics much better than the Sega Dreamcast these days.<<

Played Ninja Gaiden lately?

[uzombie]

that's not true. Mac OS Rumors said it was de-lamination though they are usually dodgy on technical issues.

IBM recently said that they had experienced unforseen issues with signal integrity at .09 micron. Aligent and Toshiba are admitting to the same issue. They expected crosstalk issues, but not problems with signal integrity.. at least they didn't expect anything nearly this bad.

http://www.arstechnica.com has a piece on the issue, as to a number of other sites.

Here's another URL as of 4/26/04 :

http://www.eedesign.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=19201699

It confirms the "signal integrity" issue. I would expect that until this is resolved, no new "speedy G5" releases anytime this summer.

i am doubtful of 3-65nm Power64 chips in an Xbox. Maybe one, or a dual, but three? Software has yet to catch up to hardware. And what about the video gpu? That is rumored to be ATI x800?

[jared_kipe]

The original xbox proc. wasn't even half as fast as the best PC processors of the time. I believe the xbox chip is a Celeron 733MHz or something, considering the Celeron is Intel's version of a red-headed step-child, and the fact that Intel released a P4 1800MHz a couple of months before the release of the xbox, we can see that the current xbox doesn't really mirror a middle line PC from the end of 2001.

[musicpyrite]

Imagine what IBM can do with an extra year to improve chip design and production.

not much?
may i show you a chart of intels processer speeds?

[Analog Kid]

My opinion? Bunk.

[stoid]

Assuming this IS real *cough* *cough*

How hard would it be to hack Mac OS X on to it and have spent only $300 on one bitchin' fast computer?

[Hiroshige]

The Xserve single proc G5 is still showing 5-7 weeks on the Apple store...

[dizastor]

So does this mean my next Powermac will cost me $199 and run "Mac OSX-Box"?

[Kirkland]

Assuming this IS real *cough* *cough*

How hard would it be to hack Mac OS X on to it and have spent only $300 on one bitchin' fast computer?

About as easy as it is to hack Mac OS X on a GameCube right now, which uses a PowerPC processor. The difference is that it will be custom made (current GameCube and future XBox2, GameCube2).

[dizastor]

And in other news... Virginia Tech announced today that they would be swapping out all 1100 Macs in their supercomputer cluster in favor of X-Boxes.

Advantages : Everyone on campus can play Halo with a seriously sick framerate.

[otter-boy]

Assuming this IS real *cough* *cough*

How hard would it be to hack Mac OS X on to it and have spent only $300 on one bitchin' fast computer?

I've read that Apple puts some sort of hardware in each box that OS X searches for in order to load the program. That's why they have to add support for computers to the OS when they update their hardware. So, no hardware marker, no OS X running on the machine.

[stoid]

Advantages : Everyone on campus can play Halo with a seriously sick framerate.

Also, Cortana is so real looking that.... uhhh...... nevermind... :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :p

[Dippo]

I've read that Apple puts some sort of hardware in each box that OS X searches for in order to load the program. That's why they have to add support for computers to the OS when they update their hardware. So, no hardware marker, no OS X running on the machine.

I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be able to use OS X on the Xbox2, but Linux should work just fine, but it would be worthless if it doesn't have a hard drive.

I am just wondering how big the XBox2 is going to be, because it will probably get really hot at those speeds.

If the games play well on High Def TVs, that might be a reason to get a console, because bad TV resolution is one reason I would never get a console.

[shyataroo]

Well, interestingly a three core PPC with 1MB L2 (according to diagram) will have about the same transistors than a 1MB single core Prescot. Though it will be able to handle 6 threads (with SMT) simultaneously.

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.


maybe OS X will finally have Direct X support and prettty soon the entire idea of windows being better because it has more compatible games will disapear and than we shall rule the financial world!

[mklos]

Assuming this IS real *cough* *cough*

How hard would it be to hack Mac OS X on to it and have spent only $300 on one bitchin' fast computer?

I'm not sure how it would boot without the Apple ROM chip installed. I could be wrong though!

[MorganX]

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

maybe OS X will finally have Direct X support and prettty soon the entire idea of windows being better because it has more compatible games will disapear and than we shall rule the financial world!

SDKs have already been sent to developers on Dual CPU G5s. The software appears to be well ahead of the hardware. NT already existed for PPC.

It is simply not going to be possible for MS to continue to take the loss per unit they are taking on the current iteration of Xbox. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at E3 '05. The actual CPU is just a rumor, all we know is it will be PPC, who knows, it could end up being a multi-core Tejas (which has sampled) and all of this is just red herring to get Sony to give up its plans. Naah, IBM wouldn't be telling everyone it's won the Xbox 2. Microsoft is bold but not that bold.

[Dippo]

maybe OS X will finally have Direct X support and prettty soon the entire idea of windows being better because it has more compatible games will disapear and than we shall rule the financial world!


That would be just be way *too* nice!

I just don't see any reason why Microsoft would be nice and do such a thing for the Mac, even if they already have DirectX written for PowerPC.

[stoid]

That would be just be way *too* nice!

I just don't see any reason why Microsoft would be nice and do such a thing for the Mac, even if they already have DirectX written for PowerPC.

Remember what company we're talking about here folks. Microsoft. Give away the only clear advantage they have? NEVER!

[Photorun]

Damn, this is so suspect in reporting authenticity it belongs on page 48!

[oingoboingo]

Well, interestingly a three core PPC with 1MB L2 (according to diagram) will have about the same transistors than a 1MB single core Prescot. Though it will be able to handle 6 threads (with SMT) simultaneously.

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but Microsoft already has versions of their Windows NT kernel which run on PowerPC. If you still have a version of Windows NT 4.0 lying about, take a look at what's actually on the install CD-ROM...NT 4.0 was supported on MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC in addition to x86. One of the original technical bragging rights of Windows NT was its microkernel based architecture, meaning that it was easier for Microsoft to port the relatively small kernel to different architectures.

Over time Microsoft has drifted from their original cross-platform vision, but I'm not sure they would need to completely re-write the core Win32 API...and if they were clever, DirectX would have been written in a cross-platform manner also.

[MorganX]

Remember what company we're talking about here folks. Microsoft. Give away the only clear advantage they have? NEVER!

I don't know why people talk about DirectX like it's an applicaiton and not a part of Windows. They're APIs. To port it to OS X would mean Microsoft was not writing a part of OS X.

They're similar to the Sprockets APIs in OS 8.5/9 I think.

[Analog Kid]

rumors already state that the XBox2 chip will be produced on the 65-nanometer process, so it should be reasonable to expect that power and heat will be mangeable.

65nm doesn't mean less heat. Remember what happened with Prescott-- smaller process more heat. Leakage is only going to get worse. With the SSDOI maybe power will still go down by a little but certainly not a factor of 3.

[Analog Kid]

dual cpu systems don't generally double performance, and one issue is cache coherence. They have to keep tabs on the status of data in the caches of other cpus in the same system. This processor would solve this issue (for the most part) by sharing a L2 cache. Also, the interprocessor latency is almost nil with a multi core cpu [compared to more common smp systems]. If this processor comes into being, it will be much more efficient than a system with 3 seperate CPUs in it.

The dual G5s effectively share their L2 caches also-- one of the cooler aspects of the design...

I think it comes down to this.. (if this is real) you have a system with three cores on the same die and a shared 1MB L2 cache. It's hooked to a HT like bus with 10.8 GB/sec up and 10.8 GB/sec down unidirectional bandwidth. It will perform MUCH better than a typical (think Xeon) style SMP box.

I think the big key is that this is a gaming box, and as far as I can tell gaming code should be nicely cacheable. MorganX seemed to think bus bandwidth was going to be a problem-- if most of the work is done in cache bus bandwidth becomes less of an issue.

Not only that, but since we assume M$ has input into the design.. do you really think they would build in so much silicon that it would be rendered usless by an insufficient bus?

Uh... MS isn't necessarily world renown for their microprocessor designs. On the contrary they are renown for arrogantly pushing their ideas regardless of protests from those who should know better.


One more thing to consider.. .if IBM is providing CPUs that are already wide (lots of int, lots of fp units, multiple vmx paths), why would M$ choose to totally reinvent the wheel by first stripping the parallelizm out of an existing design to build it back in with a transisitor expensive multi-core design? That seems odd, unless the real goal is a system with a lot of virtual paralellism.. a somewhat simple processor that appeared as 6 virtual CPUs to the system. I don't know why this would be so much more favorable to what they are planning to use this box for.. but I don't work for M$.

Think games. Think lots of little independent entities. Think thread per entity. Mmmm... parallel...


Anyway... still think it's bunk.

[Frobozz]

I don't know why people talk about DirectX like it's an applicaiton and not a part of Windows. They're APIs. To port it to OS X would mean Microsoft was not writing a part of OS X.

They're similar to the Sprockets APIs in OS 8.5/9 I think.

Quite true. DirectX is like ActiveX is like a million other API's on Windows. ON a side note, a senior member of Microsoft was quoted as saying Microsoft would have been dead in the water with Windows YEARS ago if it hadn't been for the strength of the Windows API set (intellectual property) and dominant market share. In other words, if they didn't bundle all their crapware with Windows he believed they'd be out of business.

But back to the point. I think a port of DirectX to the PowerPC would be good for gaming ports. In any event it's interesting news that I am watching.

[jhu]

SDKs have already been sent to developers on Dual CPU G5s. The software appears to be well ahead of the hardware. NT already existed for PPC.

It is simply not going to be possible for MS to continue to take the loss per unit they are taking on the current iteration of Xbox. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at E3 '05. The actual CPU is just a rumor, all we know is it will be PPC, who knows, it could end up being a multi-core Tejas (which has sampled) and all of this is just red herring to get Sony to give up its plans. Naah, IBM wouldn't be telling everyone it's won the Xbox 2. Microsoft is bold but not that bold.

sure they could. they have $50 billion cash in the bank. they'll likely have more when the xbox2 comes out. microsoft tends to dominate given enough time.

[Analog Kid]

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but Microsoft already has versions of their Windows NT kernel which run on PowerPC. If you still have a version of Windows NT 4.0 lying about, take a look at what's actually on the install CD-ROM...NT 4.0 was supported on MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC in addition to x86. One of the original technical bragging rights of Windows NT was its microkernel based architecture, meaning that it was easier for Microsoft to port the relatively small kernel to different architectures.

Over time Microsoft has drifted from their original cross-platform vision, but I'm not sure they would need to completely re-write the core Win32 API...and if they were clever, DirectX would have been written in a cross-platform manner also.

I'd be willing to bet that the cross-platform nature of the kernel has been repeatedly violated since it went to x86 only again. The HAL might still be there, but I'm sure there was no end of rationalizations for "optimizing" around it.

Worse yet, I'd bet that management thinks it's still cross platform and the engineers are afraid to say anything different...

How's this for an idea-- the reason MS needs all this horsepower is so they can emulate the entire environment in VPC. Connectix probably did a better job with VPC than MS can porting NT in a few months...

[Analog Kid]

I'm not sure how it would boot without the Apple ROM chip installed. I could be wrong though!

It would boot if Apple coded it to... It would rank pretty high on the dirty trick list, but imagine an OS X(box): Apple makes $129 per copy sold and MS loses $100 per Xbox sold.

Evil...

[Analog Kid]

I don't know why people talk about DirectX like it's an applicaiton and not a part of Windows. They're APIs. To port it to OS X would mean Microsoft was not writing a part of OS X.

They're similar to the Sprockets APIs in OS 8.5/9 I think.

Is there any legal reason Apple couldn't provide the DirectX APIs as a Carbon framework? It wouldn't be binary compatible, but if a developer coded their app carefully they could recompile it to OS X.

[thatwendigo]

It would boot if Apple coded it to... It would rank pretty high on the dirty trick list, but imagine an OS X(box): Apple makes $129 per copy sold and MS loses $100 per Xbox sold.

Evil...

Yeah, it would be pretty evil, considering that Apple would also lose about $1,200-5000 per XBox sold, when people buy them instead of macs. Hardware is the cash cow, not the OS.

:rolleyes:

[freddiecable]

:D !!

thanx tristan - I had to bite my tounge not laughing out loud at my office - disturbing the excecutives ;)

Yeah, right.

"Hello? Ibm? Yeah, I'd like to order several million 3.5 ghz CPUs, each with three cores in each chip, low power enough to fit in a console, and cheap enough so I can sell the whole unit for under $199. We'll need them in about six to twelve months."

"Sure, no problem. Good thing we have that advanced alien chip manufacturing technology from the Roswell crash site. It really comes in handy for physically impossible orders like this."

[Analog Kid]

Yeah, it would be pretty evil, considering that Apple would also lose about $1,200-5000 per XBox sold, when people buy them instead of macs. Hardware is the cash cow, not the OS.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, if you think it would really displace that many Mac sales, which I don't think it would. Not many people want to use their TV as a monitor, for one thing. The hardware would be pretty limited for another. The OS could be limited in addition to that. At worst it would knock off a few eMac and iMac sales-- at best it would introduce new users to Mac OS with a minimal investment.

But then, that's a serious response to a cynical response to a vindictive joke...

[gsdali]

IIRC the Xbox 2 processor was meant to be a custom derivation of the PPC 4xx series of processors for embeded systems, not a PPC 9xx series processor. I could be wrong. For what it's orth the simpler 4xx series were meant to go 65nm before the more complex 9xx series.

[MorganX]

Is there any legal reason Apple couldn't provide the DirectX APIs as a Carbon framework? It wouldn't be binary compatible, but if a developer coded their app carefully they could recompile it to OS X.

Apple has its own APIs. They're just don't perform as well. I think Apple is still into OpenGL. It's also harder to optimize drivers for OpenGL and the games tend to look the same.

I think the entire graphic subsystem would have to be rewritten. Someone else here may have a better anser.

[MorganX]

>>would have been dead in the water with Windows YEARS ago if it hadn't been for the strength of the Windows API set<<

You're basically saying Windows would have been dead in the water if it weren't so strong. OK.

Windows was actually dead in the water when it was created. DOS Ruled. DOS subsidized Windows development. Borland (Paradox), Wordperfect, Lotus (including the #1 Windows word processor Ami Pro), Dbase all dropped the ball not believe the GUI was the future. While Microsoft was honing it's GUI programming on the Mac (word, excel). It took years and simply better products for Office to become dominant. It took years for WinWord to displace DOS Word and Wordperfect. Lotus simply didn't bring a good product to Windows. Lotus 1-2-3 ruled the landscape. They just had no vision. So Excel came to Windows. You youngsters have no clue. Larry Ellison and Scott McNeally are taking advantage of that. Many Mac users don't have a clue about ProDOS, and how superior DOS was. ;> I think we all started on Apple's playing Zork and Choplifter. PR#6.

>>But back to the point. I think a port of DirectX to the PowerPC would be good for gaming ports. In any event it's interesting news that I am watching<<

It's going to happen. The Lonhorn kernel is coming to PPC in Xbox 2. That's the only way DirectX will be ported to PPC because DirectX is Windows.

[whafrog]

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

Interesting point. We all thought iPod might bring people to the Mac. Maybe MSFT is planning to use this as a bridge so they can sell Longhorn on Apple hardware natively...? :eek:

[tristan]

I smell troll! What are you arguing now, MorganX? I thought your first argument was that the "G5 isn't all that".

Oh yeah? Well, your Athlon 64 is wiggity wack, dog.

[sinisterdesign]

Well, I guess this officially kicks off the 18 months of "don't buy a PMac now. Wait until the 3.5 Ghz comes out" pieces of advice. ;)

yeah, but i think i'm going to hold out for the 3.5GHz Powerbook, thx... ;^)

[vannote]

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.
Note, The development kit for this already ships with a stripped down NT kernel on a G5.

I am the last person to side with Microsoft but I have gotten to know their development strategy pretty well over the years and they do have excessive R&D reserves to throw at such things.

I would be willing to bet that there is an Apple G5 somewhere in Redmond (or elsewhere) sitting on a Microsoft engineers desk running a full port of Windows XP today, or damn close to it.

Cheers

[MorganX]

I smell troll! What are you arguing now, MorganX? I thought your first argument was that the "G5 isn't all that".

Oh yeah? Well, your Athlon 64 is wiggity wack, dog.

The discussion moved to porting DirectX.

This is a discussion forum. Not an argument forum. If you have a question about something I said quote it and I'll be happy to explain it to you.

edit: Maybe it would help to know I get here via www.pcrumors.com. I don't feel the need to blindly agree with the all thing Apple are God's gift and all things MS are from Satan mantra. I love Xbox, Apple hardware design, and effecient OS' and UI's. I also love good discussion/debate/disagreement. Sorry, I don't do AMD, inertia and habit I guess. Loved iMac hardware, hated the speed and software. My last Intel processor will be a 2Ghz Dothan Widescreen Notebook next month. After that, it's Xbox 2 and we'll see what happens with IBMs PPC movement. 'scuse me whilst I download iTunes 4.5.

[MorganX]

Maybe MSFT is planning to use this as a bridge so they can sell Longhorn on Apple hardware natively...? :eek:

I doubt that. But IBM is trying to open the PPC platform and duplicate Intel's x86 industry and Apple isn't really interested in running OS X on anything other than Apple brand hardware.

[kettle]

Yeah, right.

"Hello? Ibm? Yeah, I'd like to order several million 3.5 ghz CPUs, each with three cores in each chip, low power enough to fit in a console, and cheap enough so I can sell the whole unit for under $199. We'll need them in about six to twelve months."

"Sure, no problem. Good thing we have that advanced alien chip manufacturing technology from the Roswell crash site. It really comes in handy for physically impossible orders like this."

he he, good effort, you'll think I'm taking the p1$$ but, this is the only sensible post in the whole thread. Thanks for making all this reading worth while :)

i suppose this is called macrumors, and it seems to be the best rumour we've had in a quite some time.

[dongmin]

People are focussed on porting Xbox to Macs on the software level but what about on the hardware level? What if Apple licensed the XBox (i.e. the internal hardware), repackaged it, added some new goodies like firewire, and sell it as a cheap Mac box? Would it be difficult to make it OS X compatible, assuming that Microsoft and Apple are in full cooperation? People would have the ability to run it in OS X mode or XBox mode. There is no reason for Miscrosoft to NOT do it, considering that it'll help them sell more of their games and also lower the hardware cost (through higher volume production).

Imagine it...the Apple OS XBox.

[thatwendigo]

Yeah, if you think it would really displace that many Mac sales, which I don't think it would. Not many people want to use their TV as a monitor, for one thing. The hardware would be pretty limited for another. The OS could be limited in addition to that. At worst it would knock off a few eMac and iMac sales-- at best it would introduce new users to Mac OS with a minimal investment.

I disagree, especially if the rumors about support for HD are true, and the XBox does play well with high-definition screens. HD TVs are expensive, but as with all consumer electronics, the price-to-performance ratio will come down over time. It could very well be the case that an affordable HD monitor will be out by the time the still-vapor XBox 2 is released, in which case $2000 on something that is revolutionary in its application won't seem so bad (ah, to convince people that macs are the same...) and a $300-500 XBox2 will look pretty paltry as far as expendutres go. At the same time, salespeople will be pushing all kinds of component upgrades that will allow your humble little console to act more like the media center that Microsoft probably really wants these things to be.

Every has a TV. Not everyone has a computer. When the prices get down to where you're easily combining the two with high-end technology, people will buy.

But then, that's a serious response to a cynical response to a vindictive joke...

Now there's a serious response to yours, too.

[thatwendigo]

People are focussed on porting Xbox to Macs on the software level but what about on the hardware level? What if Apple licensed the XBox (i.e. the internal hardware), repackaged it, added some new goodies like firewire, and sell it as a cheap Mac box? Would it be difficult to make it OS X compatible, assuming that Microsoft and Apple are in full cooperation? People would have the ability to run it in OS X mode or XBox mode. There is no reason for Miscrosoft to NOT do it, considering that it'll help them sell more of their games and also lower the hardware cost (through higher volume production).

Imagine it...the Apple OS XBox.

Or, you know, to be really different, Apple could create its own small formfactor device to brings computing to the rest of... Oh wait, that was the iMac, and people slam it constantly. :rolleyes: ;)

Seriously, though, I think that we're going to see something amazing out of Apple in the next three years. My guess at this point is that we'll see the death of the iMac as we've known it, as it undergoes a transformation that is necessitated by new hardware. The G5 isn't as cool as the G4, pulls more power than the G4, and performs faster at just about every task. That much is a fact.

I'm just waiting to see what happens when an iBox, or whatever the hypothetical "low-end" Apple machine (it won't be one) costs, and how much people will complain when it's not as expandable as they want. An XBox rebranded as an Apple machine would almost certainly have zero expandability, because it's going to be as small as MS can possibly crank the size down without it blowing up or melting. Anything that small is going to have issues with expandability.

[shyataroo]

I say we sacrife a couple of virgins to the gods and get a 12.0exahertz (1 exahert=1024*1024 Terrahertz) G20 that uses as much power as a 10 watt lightbulb... (since this thread seemed to have turned into random rantings)

[airmac]

yea, it runs nicely on my 2GHz AthlonXP with my Ti4200. With a Radeon 9800 and a similar CPU, my brother is able to max out every single setting and it still runs quite nicely.
The silly diagram that was posted in China has video subsystem that would be nearly 4x as powerful as a Radeon 9800 and a CPU that is probably half an order of magnitude more powerful.

Well, that's really interesting cause i'm playing the game on Pentim 2,66 ghz and geforce ti 4200 (8x agp) with 512 ram and i was force to use the "low" settings (1024x768) if I wanted the game to run smoothly (xp profesional is the operating system). I would like to run it at least on a "medium" settings. Maybe i'm low on a physical memory?

...

[geran]

I belive in this rumor, in the begining of this year I heard from a well know game dev company that held a lecture on my university that the next xbox would have ~9 ghz cpu, this is not the same as a cpu with 3 cores @ 3.5 gzh, but close enough. I think this is close to the real deal, but you never know.

I know this sounds like some crap like "I heard from a friend that has a cousine that is married to a dude who's sister sleeps with a another dude that works on apple and he heard that apple will announce the iNewton on WWDC, it will run a G5 @ 5 gzh and run OSX with ALL debug code removed" :) .

[MorganX]

Well, that's really interesting cause i'm playing the game on Pentim 2,66 ghz and geforce ti 4200 (8x agp) with 512 ram and i was force to use the "low" settings (1024x768) if I wanted the game to run smoothly (xp profesional is the operating system). I would like to run it at least on a "medium" settings. Maybe i'm low on a physical memory?

...

The NVidia ti 4200 is not in the same class with the Radeon 9800. With a 2.6Ghz, 512MB, and a Radeon 9800 you would be able to run with many more features a high settings.

[lewdvig]

The processor in question is presumed to be a triple core CPU based off the Power5 family. the PPC 970 is based off the Power4 family. the Power5 based processors will be more powerful per cycle, they will include IBMs implemention of SMT (simultaneous multi threading, aka. Hyperthreading)... IBM is saying that their SMT is much more efficient than Intel's. IBM has said that SMT on the Power5 is providing a 25-40% increase performance already (in design still) while the P4 HT generally provides maybe +15% to -10% performance boost.

Maybe this will be a three core CPU @ 1.2 GHz?

Actually probably not. If you play with HD video much, you know how that eats CPU cycles. The next gen consoles are all going to support all NTSC HD modes and not just 480 like the XBox.

You need a 2.5GHz CPU to handle smooth decode/playback of WMV HD files so the power of the XB2 might not be overkill, and that is from a video playback perspective. Not sure why, but the Radeon 9800 in my 3.2 GHz PC does nothing when I play these files - it is all CPU.

No one else noticed the hyperthreading ATI GPU in the spec?

[lewdvig]

Note, The development kit for this already ships with a stripped down NT kernel on a G5.

I am the last person to side with Microsoft but I have gotten to know their development strategy pretty well over the years and they do have excessive R&D reserves to throw at such things.

I would be willing to bet that there is an Apple G5 somewhere in Redmond (or elsewhere) sitting on a Microsoft engineers desk running a full port of Windows XP today, or damn close to it.

Cheers

My guess is that it is a version of Windows CE .NET. This is based on the NT kernal and the code is ultra portable (.NET). They probably have WMP and other key apps running on it already.

The .NET framework wraps up all sorts of important Windows APIs together like a run time.

[lewdvig]

yeah, but i think i'm going to hold out for the 3.5GHz Powerbook, thx... ;^)

Sad really, because in the case of the PM it is so easy to pop out the CPU and replace it.

[lewdvig]

Over time Microsoft has drifted from their original cross-platform vision, but I'm not sure they would need to completely re-write the core Win32 API...and if they were clever, DirectX would have been written in a cross-platform manner also.

.NET Framework dude.

[lewdvig]

Your emulator will be out next month. Microsoft has VPC already and since they are contracting a processor from IBM with the PPC ISA (actually the Power ISA which includes the PPC ISA), the basic emulation engine already exist (the code to run x86 binaries on a chip with the PPC ISA).
What they'd need to do, however, would be to write bridge drivers for the hardware that 'emulated' the real hardware. right now, Virtual PC emulates a very old, very basic video and audio chipset. It doesn't matter if you have a Dual 1.42 G4 with a GF4 Ti video card.. when you install Windows in VPC, VPC reports the video hardware as being some nearly 5 year old video chip. You can't play any modern games in VPC because, not only is it too slow on compatible Mac hardware, but it emulates a video chipset that doesn't support any recent DX features.
MS also needs to wrap the core emulation code in a proper Windows Application. This will, after all, be Windows for PowerPC emulating embedded Windows for x86 so the Virtual PC application needs to be a Windows app too. This also shouldn't be a big deal since MS also bought VPC for Windows.

I think it's safe to say that, at this point, MS is already running xbox1 games in emulation on their test platforms. I would doubt that they play well.. because even emulating the performance of a Celeron 700 is tough... but it would be cake on a very high clocked multi-core, SMT PPC processor.

.. not that I believe the report. :p

S3 Virge I think. Super common in 1996 was widely referred to as a video DE-celerator!

:)

[lewdvig]

So does this mean my next Powermac will cost me $199 and run "Mac OSX-Box"?

No but it might mean ecomonies of scale will help Apple when XB2 hits the stores. Maybe that is when we will see a Mac STB.

[MorganX]

No one else noticed the hyperthreading ATI GPU in the spec?

DirectX Next (10) is supposed to among other things, support virtual memory for the GPU and allow the GPU to process more than just graphics. Don't know too much about it though.

[MorganX]

I belive in this rumor, in the begining of this year I heard from a well know game dev company that held a lecture on my university that the next xbox would have ~9 ghz cpu, this is not the same as a cpu with 3 cores @ 3.5 gzh, but close enough. I think this is close to the real deal, but you never know.

I know this sounds like some crap like "I heard from a friend that has a cousine that is married to a dude who's sister sleeps with a another dude that works on apple and he heard that apple will announce the iNewton on WWDC, it will run a G5 @ 5 gzh and run OSX with ALL debug code removed" :) .

We do know a few things enhanced by rumors:

*The CPU will be developed by IBM, though it's not for sure they will produce it and it will be a POWER derivitive. Intel has sampled dual core Tejas' the rumor part is that they're 65nm, IBM can't be far behind and rumor is they've sampled functional 65nm CPUs but won't have a certified product for 12-18months. AMD is boasting their dual core will fit in current sockets. And Toshiba and Sony have announced they've made 65nm fab breakthroughs.

*The SDKs have gone out running an NTish Kernel (using Longhorn DirectX Next) on Dual G5 Powermacs. (As someone else pointed out, the Apex PC console will be using CE 5.0 and this could be CE or XP/LH embedded).

*Microsoft is taking too much of a loss on the existing box and want to ditch it as soon as possible. Most likely they won't wait for Playstation 3 to launch.

*ATI will be designing the GPU w/MS based on ATIs latest GPU technology.

And keep in mind regarding the CPU, with current competition, no one is going to announce too many details about how far along they are with 65nm. I really think the CPU won't have any more transistors than absolutely necessary to run Xbox2. Even MS can't continue to sustain the losses they're taking. So when Xbox drops to $99, buy one to be nasty ;>

[airmac]

The NVidia ti 4200 is not in the same class with the Radeon 9800. With a 2.6Ghz, 512MB, and a Radeon 9800 you would be able to run with many more features a high settings.

ffakr sad it runs nicely on 2GHz AthlonXP with Ti4200. Farcry on a 2.66 pentium with 512 ram and Ti 4200 runs like crap. I was forced to use the "low" settings.

[MorganX]

ffakr sad it runs nicely on 2GHz AthlonXP with Ti4200. Farcry on a 2.66 pentium with 512 ram and Ti 4200 runs like crap. I was forced to use the "low" settings.


I think his idea of nicely may be what you're saying is crap. With a similar CPU going from a Ti4200 to Radeon 9800 made dramatic difference. You would see the same. The CPU difference is only 1-3fps. The GPU is proably 10-30fps.

[airmac]

thx morgan

[oingoboingo]

Well, that's really interesting cause i'm playing the game on Pentim 2,66 ghz and geforce ti 4200 (8x agp) with 512 ram and i was force to use the "low" settings (1024x768) if I wanted the game to run smoothly (xp profesional is the operating system). I would like to run it at least on a "medium" settings. Maybe i'm low on a physical memory?

...

Unless people are posting frames per second counts, and listing exactly the resolution and detail settings they're running, statements like 'it runs nicely' aren't worth the pixels they're printed on. Some people consider 'runs nicely' to be 80fps at 1600x1200, maximum details, while others are happy if they can run it at 15fps at 640x480 in black and white. Subjective measures of application performance are utterly pointless.

[minstryoffunk]

Since it's a single CPU allegedly at 65nm customized for games, it may not cost as much as it you might think. I really don't think MS can sell the next box at anywhere near the loss as Xbox 1.

keep in mind that MS has the resources to run the entire company at full bore without any profit for five years. They could feasibly ship the xbox2s for free and they could come standard with a wad of $20s

granted they won't, but MS has near unlimited flexibility in pricing, and they'll take a loss again if the software revenue scheme worked

[ffakr]

I think his idea of nicely may be what you're saying is crap.

That's probably close to true. I think I said that I can't run it super high, but it does fun fine at acceptable resolutions. I can't, however, max out all the settings by any means. It looks fine to play, but Farcry can certainly use all the horsepower of a 9800.. which is about 4x as powerful as my 4200ti.

[Analog Kid]

I disagree, especially if the rumors about support for HD are true, and the XBox does play well with high-definition screens. HD TVs are expensive, but as with all consumer electronics, the price-to-performance ratio will come down over time. It could very well be the case that an affordable HD monitor will be out by the time the still-vapor XBox 2 is released, in which case $2000 on something that is revolutionary in its application won't seem so bad (ah, to convince people that macs are the same...) and a $300-500 XBox2 will look pretty paltry as far as expendutres go. At the same time, salespeople will be pushing all kinds of component upgrades that will allow your humble little console to act more like the media center that Microsoft probably really wants these things to be.

Every has a TV. Not everyone has a computer. When the prices get down to where you're easily combining the two with high-end technology, people will buy.

Now there's a serious response to yours, too.

I don't see people using their TVs as computer monitors. There are usually either too expensive or too big. They're usually in the wrong room. Back when computer monitors were about the same resolution as current TVs, people may have hooked them up to play but if they got serious about the computer as a computer then there was a separate TV or monitor in the office specifically for the computer.

On the other hand if this is simply going to be used as a "media center" then why not running Apple code? Apple doesn't have a product in that market segment, and I really don't think that would cannibalize many Mac sales. It certainly hasn't cannibalized PC sales... By the time the price/performance ratios come down to what you think is a danger zone, current products would be obsolete and Apple could decide if this was a good strategy or not and pull out if they chose to.

In the end, an Xbox won't compete with Macs because it's too limited and too focused. Media center, maybe. But certainly not general applications. People don't word process on their TVs. Yes, they could, but they don't. They might run a slide show on their TVs, but they're not going to do image manipulation that way. Fundamentally different markets.

The market that would likely use OS X on an Xbox is the same market that runs Linux on an Xbox now, which is decidedly very, very small. They also probably have another computer already, and generally do things like this because they think it's clever not because it's useful... Letting those folks play with OS X wouldn't be such a bad thing IMO. Giving the early adopters a taste of candy could bring some of them into the candy store.

[bcsimac]

Wow, if its true.....that is some processor. Only problem is that most of the time when it sounds too good to be true.....it usually is.

[thatwendigo]

I don't see people using their TVs as computer monitors. There are usually either too expensive or too big. They're usually in the wrong room. Back when computer monitors were about the same resolution as current TVs, people may have hooked them up to play but if they got serious about the computer as a computer then there was a separate TV or monitor in the office specifically for the computer.

Convergence.

You may not see people using their TV as a monitor, but I quite frequently see people using their computers as a TV/DVD/Music playback unit. Steve has spoken against this being something Apple wants to pursue, but that doesn't mean that other companies won't try to exploit a potential market. Also, given the size and definition of HD TV, well...

HDTV - 16:9 aspect, 1920x1080 or 1280x720 pixel pattern,
HD-ready monitors - Oddly similar.

An interesting note: By 2006, the FCC has declared that NTSC must be shut off. All content will be digital.

On the other hand if this is simply going to be used as a "media center" then why not running Apple code? Apple doesn't have a product in that market segment, and I really don't think that would cannibalize many Mac sales. It certainly hasn't cannibalized PC sales... By the time the price/performance ratios come down to what you think is a danger zone, current products would be obsolete and Apple could decide if this was a good strategy or not and pull out if they chose to.

The iPod was such a success because Apple made it easy to use, appealing, and seized a market that had not been effectively exploited yet. Digital media through set-top boxes is about to get very, very crowded, with Sony, Microsoft, and others all leaping into the mix.

In the end, an Xbox won't compete with Macs because it's too limited and too focused. Media center, maybe. But certainly not general applications. People don't word process on their TVs. Yes, they could, but they don't. They might run a slide show on their TVs, but they're not going to do image manipulation that way. Fundamentally different markets.

Convergence...

See above. HDTV monitors are spreading, and they're encouraging device convergence for multiple purposes, and there's a nice market in all-in-one formfactor media center PCs at the moment. It doesn't cost a whole lot to get
a decent machine with built-in Tivo or Tivo-like functionality on top of its normal functions, and you can just slap one of those nice, big HDTV monitors onto it in order to increase functionality.

People play games on bigscreen TVs. The only reason that they don't do other things on them is limitation of technology and lingering habits.

Before 1984, people didn't use mice, either.

So what?

[airmac]

That's probably close to true. I think I said that I can't run it super high, but it does fun fine at acceptable resolutions. I can't, however, max out all the settings by any means. It looks fine to play, but Farcry can certainly use all the horsepower of a 9800.. which is about 4x as powerful as my 4200ti.

Thx, I think I got my answer. But really, the game is worth upgradng in my opinion.

...

[uzombie]

I am doubtful of Xbox2 having such a powerful processor. The current generation has a P3 700mhz. It's cost-saving factor is undeniable, even though M$ is losing $ on it, the price fixing/licensing of software titles is the key here.

And about HDTV, we do need to get a game machine that has the HD-DVI connector out, along with optical. Even it is an optional adaptor. I'd love to use a ?32" LCD HDTV with a game machine at 720/1080i res.

Tell me, what is the cost of a single G5 @ 3Ghz? Triple that and I still bet its double what the current model sells for ($199). I will not pay $+400 for a game system. I can build a XPC for that (sans AGP video card).

Point is, I believe hardware is now significantly beyond software. The time it takes programmers to code, test, debug, re-code, test and GM a title, the hardware is already outdated. (ok, graphics keep evolving...but so do the engines..)

OT- Halo2 was due this past April. It was postponed to possibly November. if they don't hit the market with halo2 by December (a big snafu), wil lthey hold it up to release with Xbox 2 (likely Mid 2005).

Gotta love rumors... (and what is up with "Tiger" .. or should I say Tigger!)
G5 3.0ghz..where are yooouuuuuu?

[dieselg4]

Convergence...

See above. HDTV monitors are spreading, and they're encouraging device convergence for multiple purposes, and there's a nice market in all-in-one formfactor media center PCs at the moment. It doesn't cost a whole lot to get
a decent machine with built-in Tivo . .


Convergence, at least for the next few years in my opinion, is a dead fish. Gateway doesn't tout it media PC's in nearly the same way they used to, there has been little marketing success in Windows Media Center Edition, and, well people just don't type sitting movie-distance away. It seems to make sense that for most functions, eps. where you're relating print material next to you to something your doing on a screen, it makes sense to have them all in a similar viewing plane.

[dieselg4]

I am doubtful of Xbox2 having such a powerful processor. The current generation has a P3 700mhz. It's cost-saving factor is undeniable, even though M$ is losing $ on it, the price fixing/licensing of software titles is the key here.

And about HDTV, we do need to get a game machine that has the HD-DVI connector out, along with optical. Even it is an optional adaptor. I'd love to use a ?32" LCD HDTV with a game machine at 720/1080i res.

Tell me, what is the cost of a single G5 @ 3Ghz? Triple that and I still bet its double what the current model sells for ($199). I will not pay $+400 for a game system. I can build a XPC for that (sans AGP video card).

Point is, I believe hardware is now significantly beyond software. The time it takes programmers to code, test, debug, re-code, test and GM a title, the hardware is already outdated. (ok, graphics keep evolving...but so do the engines..)

OT- Halo2 was due this past April. It was postponed to possibly November. if they don't hit the market with halo2 by December (a big snafu), wil lthey hold it up to release with Xbox 2 (likely Mid 2005).

Gotta love rumors... (and what is up with "Tiger" .. or should I say Tigger!)
G5 3.0ghz..where are yooouuuuuu?

For those of you who have acess to a copy, there is an excellent article this week in Time about Microsoft. THey specifcally mention the loss lead of the XBox - it's gaining momentous marketshare but a a price to Microsoft. They also point out the winners in the XBox sage are the gamemakers, like Sony. Playstation 2 makes much more money off game sales than unit sales, just as the XBox money coems from game sales. Sony should be glad they didn't have to fork over R&D and marketing money for this thing.

[meta-ghost]

I don't see people using their TVs as computer monitors. There are usually either too expensive or too big. They're usually in the wrong room. Back when computer monitors were about the same resolution as current TVs, people may have hooked them up to play but if they got serious about the computer as a computer then there was a separate TV or monitor in the office specifically for the computer.

In the end, an Xbox won't compete with Macs because it's too limited and too focused. Media center, maybe. But certainly not general applications. People don't word process on their TVs. Yes, they could, but they don't. They might run a slide show on their TVs, but they're not going to do image manipulation that way. Fundamentally different markets.

hey kid, i don't have time to go through the thread so excuse me if it has already been said. but, in addition to "fundamentally different markets" there are "fundamentally different cultures". we do have to look at the global picture on occasion. france for instance (for reasons i won't go into) has only 10 percent of it's homes with equipped with a computer. i'm willing to bet that the use of the tv to do many of the things you and i would prefer to do on a computer will be much higher there. possibly being "le solution".

[dieselg4]

hey kid, i don't have time to go through the thread so excuse me if it has already been said. but, in addition to "fundamentally different markets" there are "fundamentally different cultures". we do have to look at the global picture on occasion. france for instance (for reasons i won't go into) has only 10 percent of it's homes with equipped with a computer. i'm willing to bet that the use of the tv to do many of the things you and i would prefer to do on a computer will be much higher there. possibly being "le solution".

I would think a big reason would be cost redundancy, but most of the emdia PC's I've seen advertised cost more than an emachine or an emac. . .

at least in France the cost of real estate means the TV will be alot closer to your face, though i guess the same could be said for NYC . .

[Mac_Max]

"Additionally, Intel is moving quickly (2005/2006) to produce Tejas and other dual core CPUs at 65nm. It will be interesting to see how much volume Intel can produce for Dothan (90nm Pentium-M)." (first page)

Actually Tejas has been canceled. Instead the Pentium M's core will become the new architecture for all or Intel's Desktop chips. A step back yet forward.

[MorganX]

Actually Tejas has been canceled. Instead the Pentium M's core will become the new architecture for all or Intel's Desktop chips. A step back yet forward.

It's actually a step forward. Dothan's (Pentium M's) outperform the Prescott core clock for clock and produce less heat. Perfect for dual-core.

But Prescott isn't dead. They already have disaled 64-bit extensions and in Q4 will get 2MB cache and a 1066 bus. No price increase. They will be hot, literally.

Intel is already sampling dual core Intaniums with 24MB cache. I'm not counting out Itanium yet either. It's got Windows, it's got apps. With everyone doing 90nm now and sampling 65nm, it's going to get cheaper and faster. Nothing like competition to wake up Intel and MS.

[desertboy]

It would boot if Apple coded it to... It would rank pretty high on the dirty trick list, but imagine an OS X(box): Apple makes $129 per copy sold and MS loses $100 per Xbox sold.

Evil...

Apple would have a hard time getting OSX to boot on the xbox2 even if this was the real specs.

The xbox won't boot unsigned code M$ are not going to release the xbox2 without decent copy protection. Yeah sure you can mod an xbox reasonably easily (No software mod for new xbox's and the software mod was very unreliable) but that means soldering a modchip or performing complex steps (some of which can damage hardware if you solder bad or try the HD boot trick). So essentially you are going to have to take the xbox2 apart to mod it so you can boot your os as if Apple are going to run the risk of porting an OS that M$ would try to sue them for and the end user had to rip the unit apart and invalidate the warranty to get it to boot. They would also have to rewrite the compilers, reverse engineer sound, video, 3d card support, usb, ethernet, etc. Apple makes it's money on hardware that's why in the OS license agreement it says you're not allowed to boot this on no apple hardware (This would never stand up in a court in the EU)

Check
http://www.xbox-linux.org/docs/projectboverview.html
For the protection steps taken in the xbox, Mac on Linux might work if (When) they get linux to boot.

If this is real it similar processors are going to be made available to apple.

What this spells for intel only remains to be seen. Wouldn't take M$ much to port windows to another architecture and cobble on a processor emulator for backwards compatibility like apple did with the 68000-powerpc transition.

At these specs you'd even get reasonable performance using pearpc on linux.

M$ has a hell of a lot deeper pockets than most of you give them credit for and they know this is where the future lies. I'm sure Apple would be going this route if they had the cash.

I own an xbox (Chipped), a Windows XP machine and a G4. I like OSX a lot but XP is ridiculous stable I get 3 months between reboots on it (And then only for updates). OSX hangs probably once a month or so. On the other and of course XP is more vunerable to viruses than OSX (Only because of poularity). I think both OS's have there good and bad points but sooner or later I'll have to use linux as both companies will give the US government backdoors into their OS's for "security" reasons where as linux being Open Source won't suffer the indiginity.

[Krevnik]

An interesting note: By 2006, the FCC has declared that NTSC must be shut off. All content will be digital.

This is a bit off-topic, but this isn't true... this is one of those things that got blown out of proportion (especially by the slashdot crowd who wouldn't even read the article summary). What is happening is that all TVs made after 2006 must include a digital receiver which would replace most people's digital cable/satellite boxes. VHF/UHF transmissions aren't scheduled to be 'cut-off' for at least a decade after that.

On topic: this is bunk... The basic concept is probably good, but the clock speed, the VRAM size, and the 'tri-core' just doesn't make any engineering sense. I would LOVE to see reasonable 3D HD content rendered with a 10MB VRAM buffer... :rolleyes:

[ffakr]

On topic: this is bunk... The basic concept is probably good, but the clock speed, the VRAM size, and the 'tri-core' just doesn't make any engineering sense. I would LOVE to see reasonable 3D HD content rendered with a 10MB VRAM buffer... :rolleyes:

well, if we assume for a second that this is true (I'm not taking the position the report is accurate)..
There is no indication that the 10MB of integrated vram is the only video memory to be available. If we assume it is just the frame buffer and we look at what that would deliver... 1024 x 768 resolution at 32bit is precisely 3MB of data.

I'm not sure why they'd go through the trouble of building what seem to be described as on-die frame buffer. It's be faster than you'd ever need for a frame buffer. Perhaps it's something new.. a L2 like cache for a GPU where normal VRAM is the L3.

I think the processor info lends just as much or more doubt as the vram. It's supposedly a 3 core PowerPC with HT. It would appear as 6 virtual processors. Each processor (or virtual processor) would have a relatively low IPC so it looks like they will be simple cores compared to the PPC 970.
So, here's the big question. Since Games are notoriously difficult to code as highly threaded applications, why would you design a game console that appeared to the OS as a 6-way system? It would be very difficult to code on. If current game code was run on it, most of the processor would sit idle. Even supposedly smp aware games like UT 2004 run the audio in one thread, and the rest of the game in the other.
In short.. the Xenon Xbox2 is designed exactly the way you wouldn't want a game console to be designed.

That said, if the leaked specs are accurate, the system would be fabulously powerful for a console. It could easily do multiple things, even while playing games. it could, for example, play a video game and record as a pvr and serve music on your internal network all at the same time.

[sambo.]

"I think both OS's have there good and bad points but sooner or later I'll have to use linux as both companies will give the US government backdoors into their OS's for "security" reasons where as linux being Open Source won't suffer the indiginity."

it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this is already the case. one of the more surprisingly sane decisions by the US congress in recent years was knocking the "clipper chip" on the head. the US' attitude to encryption code is already quite frightening, basically the NSA doesn't want any encryption software to be used that it can't break. many pieces of encryption code are already classified under ITAR, which regulates (among other things) the dissemination of knowledge about nuclear weapons.

Linux is the way of the future, of this I have no doubt. not being a 'puter geek myself is the only reason I don't use it now. but four or so years time, i prolly will, and not only because i don't want to send any more money to Redmond (or Cupertino for that matter). :eek:

[Krevnik]

well, if we assume for a second that this is true (I'm not taking the position the report is accurate)..
There is no indication that the 10MB of integrated vram is the only video memory to be available. If we assume it is just the frame buffer and we look at what that would deliver... 1024 x 768 resolution at 32bit is precisely 3MB of data.

I'm not sure why they'd go through the trouble of building what seem to be described as on-die frame buffer. It's be faster than you'd ever need for a frame buffer. Perhaps it's something new.. a L2 like cache for a GPU where normal VRAM is the L3.

I think the processor info lends just as much or more doubt as the vram. It's supposedly a 3 core PowerPC with HT. It would appear as 6 virtual processors. Each processor (or virtual processor) would have a relatively low IPC so it looks like they will be simple cores compared to the PPC 970.
So, here's the big question. Since Games are notoriously difficult to code as highly threaded applications, why would you design a game console that appeared to the OS as a 6-way system? It would be very difficult to code on. If current game code was run on it, most of the processor would sit idle. Even supposedly smp aware games like UT 2004 run the audio in one thread, and the rest of the game in the other.
In short.. the Xenon Xbox2 is designed exactly the way you wouldn't want a game console to be designed.

That said, if the leaked specs are accurate, the system would be fabulously powerful for a console. It could easily do multiple things, even while playing games. it could, for example, play a video game and record as a pvr and serve music on your internal network all at the same time.

Here is the problem, once you start getting into HD resolutions, the 10MB is barely enough to handle the framebuffer alone. If they are using ATi hardware like rumored earlier, then there is a lot more VRAM needed beyond 10MB. It needs texture buffers and depth buffers for rendering. Putting that information in system RAM would seriously hamper the power of the video card (which is slower than the DRAM used in video sub-systems). L2 cache of that size would become horrendously expensive to produce as well (even at 500Mhz). The XBox already has HD resolutions available, so sticking with 1024x768 is a little low for checking how much VRAM something uses. 1600x1400 uses over 7MB, and a depth buffer is going to be the same size. L2 cache just doesn't make much sense in terms of cost/effectiveness, especially when you can have external DRAM that keeps up with a 500Mhz graphics processor for less money.

The reason why I say the processor is bunk is that 3.5Ghz is not going to be magically hit anytime soon... not soon enough for developer prototypes to float around in quantity anyways. Plus the chips would be the cost of an XBox is now, even in bulk. Not to mention the fact that nobody has developed a 3-core chip because it is simpler (and more feasible in an engineering sense) to keep things in powers of 2. That is why you see dual-processor and quad-processor designs, and no 3-processor designs. The same engineering reasons go for chips... it just isn't feasible to slap 3 cores into a chip and get them communicating and synchronized at higher speeds (not without some sort of sacrifice).

And you even said a multi-core chip just isn't the way you design a console. As for PVR ability, MS does seem to be thinking about leaving the HD out in the XBox 2 (unconfirmed), and if that is true, then PVR ability is a non-issue. ;)

[stevehaslip]

i didnt put much thought into this rumor when i saw it a few months back, but there was more information on a gaming site recently about it. can you seriously imagine how much heat a 3 core 3.5Ghz power pc chip would give out? i get pissed off when i watch a dvd and the playstation hums along in the background. how can they seriously make an xbox with that much heat inside??? it will be like a hairdryer in your living room!

and how much does a g5 chip cost to put in your powermac? im gonna guess at around $300+ each if you loook at current intel/amd prices. so we're talking of maybe $600 for a console, how can micro$oft sell a console for $600??? thats not exactly gonna be mass market appeal there if it costs that much!

i'd love for it to be true and as awesome as it sounds from the specs but i honestly can't see it happening. and they want to release this before sony's PS3? they want to beat them to the punch and get a large market share right at the start, how can they do this if the machine costs mega bucks? based on what i've read about xbox's marketing i cant see some of the rumored specs being true. fingers crossed though!

[macsrus]

The reason why I say the processor is bunk is that 3.5Ghz is not going to be magically hit anytime soon... not soon enough for developer prototypes to float around in quantity anyways. Plus the chips would be the cost of an XBox is now, even in bulk. Not to mention the fact that nobody has developed a 3-core chip because it is simpler (and more feasible in an engineering sense) to keep things in powers of 2. That is why you see dual-processor and quad-processor designs, and no 3-processor designs. The same engineering reasons go for chips... it just isn't feasible to slap 3 cores into a chip and get them communicating and synchronized at higher speeds (not without some sort of sacrifice).

The other reason the processor is complete HOGWASH is.....
A power 4+ running at 1.9 GHZ costs $10000 and the 3 core PPC specs everyone is quoting here are better than the power 5
This is just a load of manure

Also to think that IBM is going to produce a 3.5 GHZ power based multicore CPU anytime soon is pure fantacy....

[maxvamp]

I personally cannot see the XBOX with three 970s. I mean, why would we need a supercomputer in a box just to run a MS OS and one game???? Wait, Scratch that..

It is well published on IBM's PowerPC page that they are willing to make custom fabrications for manufacturers using the PowerCore, and an add on engine of some form. In Apple's case, it is altivec. for Sony and Nintendo, it is surely something else.

I could see Microsoft taking three 400 or 700 cores, and adding thier own engine to it, coupled with an NVidia ( another IBM partner of sorts ), and making this three core design people keep taking about. The engine could be altivec, or it could be some other SIMD design. If it were a custom design, it might reduce the incompatibility with older games.

Think about it... A PowerPC with SSE3?

We shall see.

Max.

[maxvamp]

Chris Tom told me....

Nevermind <grin>

Max.

[wizard]

well, if we assume for a second that this is true (I'm not taking the position the report is accurate)..

Well that is an issues but it does key in with the way future hardware will be delivered.

I think the processor info lends just as much or more doubt as the vram. It's supposedly a 3 core PowerPC with HT. It would appear as 6 virtual processors. Each processor (or virtual processor) would have a relatively low IPC so it looks like they will be simple cores compared to the PPC 970.
So, here's the big question. Since Games are notoriously difficult to code as highly threaded applications, why would you design a game console that appeared to the OS as a 6-way system? It would be very difficult to code on. If current game code was run on it, most of the processor would sit idle. Even supposedly smp aware games like UT 2004 run the audio in one thread, and the rest of the game in the other.

I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. Yes on the Apple platoform SMP is primarily used to support audio. It doesn't have to be that way.

Multi thread games are not by nature difficult to program, but that doesn't mena that old code bases easily make the jump to multithreaded code. If someone today was to produce a competitor to UT, it would be a very smart move to build that game as a multithreaded application.

In short.. the Xenon Xbox2 is designed exactly the way you wouldn't want a game console to be designed.

This is the statment that caused me to respond to this posting in the first place. The alleged Xenon XBox2 is exactly what you would want to produce to enable future software products. This should be no mystery to anyone as there is little choice ot improving game performance, thus projects like CELL. Now one could argue about how well this will all work and it can be stated plainly that there is likely to be teething pains, but Multi processors are not going away. In fact in a few short years buying anything other than a multiprocessor chip for a PC will be very difficult.

Sure there are some apps that will never realize much benefit from SMP but it is foolish to use current game results as a indicator of future performance. There are games that have proven to make use of SMP today, it will only get better as the technology matures.


That said, if the leaked specs are accurate, the system would be fabulously powerful for a console. It could easily do multiple things, even while playing games. it could, for example, play a video game and record as a pvr and serve music on your internal network all at the same time.

While what you describe above is certianly possible I don't think it will be long before game developers fully saturate the system. It certainly will take longer than the old XBox, but is likely to happen none the less.

Dave

[ifjake]

yeah developers will eventually saturate the system, but as systems become more complex it becomes increasingly hard to do so. only now are developers beginning to fully utilize the potential of the xbox, particularly with Doom III and the Riddick game. so anything microsoft can do to make it easier and quicker and cheaper to develope for the next xbox is of utmost importance. i think it's XNA that they're currently working on as a set of developer tools specifically designed for game makers.

on another note, cheap access to awesome processing power might classify this thing as a weapon. i remember when they were afraid of PS2s being used for missile guidance. plus i'm sure networking capabilities will be built in to this thing.

[Dr. Dastardly]

When this comes out it will probably have to come up against the Play Station 9 with its electronic spores to induce a more euphoric gaming experience.

Tri core 3.5ghz... give me a break. :rolleyes:

[wizard]

Two comments here.

First there is certainly a need for a change in the mindset of the developers. Since inertia is a problem in any field I expect the games that really take advantage of this sort of design would be from developers fresh to the field. In any event if the new xbox is to use a version of NT there will be services making use of the multiprocessing capabilities right off the bat. NT could provide a platform to simplfy the demand on the developers.

As to the issue of computing hardware getting into the hands of ignorant people that is a very real problem. Frankly I wish we had a better choice than Bush but it appears that he is the best we got running at the moment. Ultimately I think WE will have to apply this sort of technology on a massive scale within the military. The problems in this world are far from over.

Dave


[QUOTE=ifjakeso anything microsoft can do to make it easier and quicker and cheaper to develope for the next xbox is of utmost importance. i think it's XNA that they're currently working on as a set of developer tools specifically designed for game makers.

on another note, cheap access to awesome processing power might classify this thing as a weapon. i remember when they were afraid of PS2s being used for missile guidance. plus i'm sure networking capabilities will be built in to this thing.[/QUOTE]

[Jastheace]

That's probably close to true. I think I said that I can't run it super high, but it does fun fine at acceptable resolutions. I can't, however, max out all the settings by any means. It looks fine to play, but Farcry can certainly use all the horsepower of a 9800.. which is about 4x as powerful as my 4200ti.

Thx, I think I got my answer. But really, the game is worth upgradng in my opinion.

...
the 2ghz Athlon is most likely an athlon 3000+ (200/400FSB), while your P4 is a (133/533) FSB......
In addition not all video cards of the same model are built equal. If you have a bottom of the barrel ti4200(core+mem clock+ram) and he has a much better version of the same card, between the two you could see a significant performance difference. As for the 9800 vs the ti4200, I would say depending on which 9800 you get, you could be looking at a much higher number than 4x...

[XboxEvolved]

Such power is not needed in the Xbox 2. It will definately probably be a PowerPC, but probably along the lines of 1.6 or 1.8 ghz. Look at the Xbox, it uses a 733 Mhz Celeron and it still can handle the tasks a computer nowadays handles when it comes to games.

[Sun Baked]

Such power is not needed in the Xbox 2. It will definately probably be a PowerPC, but probably along the lines of 1.6 or 1.8 ghz. Look at the Xbox, it uses a 733 Mhz Celeron and it still can handle the tasks a computer nowadays handles when it comes to games.Dual core usually mean slower clocks, but the voltage/reliability issue that surrounds the current incarnation of the PPC970FX -- no hope right now for 3.5GHz or even 3.0GHz in single core, much less dual-/tri-cores.

In PC math, by adding 3 1.5GHz cores together you'd get a 3.5GHz XBox2. ;)

[PPC970FX]

I don`t think that it is so imposible as some people think. And they can use the exstrem power one on thing that is looking like going to be BIG the next 5 years. The demand for IA on a new level, that can use all that power. The graffik is not that important in games, just look at the most popular game in history Counter Strike, has bad graffik but is a very good game.

[cloud 9]

rumors are that the xbox 2 will be a media center, it should be able to record movies, burd dvd's, cd's, store your music, pics, films, on an hd, download...

so probably yes, it will have more than one processor, so you will be able to program it to record something of tv while you are playing your favorite game with others...

it won't be a three-core processor, there will be at least two single processors, at maximum a dual and a single... :)

rumors always exaggerate...

[CholEoptera36]

Dual core usually mean slower clocks, but the voltage/reliability issue that surrounds the current incarnation of the PPC970FX -- no hope right now for 3.5GHz or even 3.0GHz in single core, much less dual-/tri-cores.

In PC math, by adding 3 1.5GHz cores together you'd get a 3.5GHz XBox2. ;)

Yeah. Even AMD doesn't plan to release their quad-core FX chips till 2007 and they are the closest to creating reliable multi-core chips which so far are only dual-core.(exception of servers) The mass release of all dual-core FX-55 and FX-57 chips won't even be till Q1 and Q2 of 2005. I don't even see anybody bringing tri-core into the picture any time soon. JMO

-Although the dual-core FX-53 chips do exist, still nobody is even close to saying dual-core is in every home computer yet... Considering the FX-53 can run you about a solid $800 for the CPU alone, I don't see this X-box thing as being true at all. No way. I can see it now, $1,200 for a tri-core x-box! right.

[MorganX]

Even AMD doesn't plan to release their quad-core FX chips till 2007 and they are the closest to creating reliable multi-core chips which so far are only dual-core.


I don't think that is correct. IBM is producing multicore CPUs and Intel has sampled. Even motorola is producing multi-core CPUs for cell phones already.

[MorganX]

Such power is not needed in the Xbox 2. It will definately probably be a PowerPC, but probably along the lines of 1.6 or 1.8 ghz. Look at the Xbox, it uses a 733 Mhz Celeron and it still can handle the tasks a computer nowadays handles when it comes to games.

Keep in mind the Xbox is only doing 640x480.

[iJon]

This is looking like good news. This software is going to be used in the XBox 2 for backwards compatibility. Now if they could get this into Virtual PC we will be in real good shape.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64914,00.html

iJon

[itsa]

This is looking like good news.iJon

I'm sure Apple will mess this up!

[jackieonasses]

a guy above me was talking about how it will be a media pc thingy...i read something that everntually cell phones,ipods,consoles, will all be so powerful that they will do the same as a "computer" so then everything will be equal. the lines are definatly blurring.

[ijimk]

Any release expected on the xbox 2? I know nintendo has 2005 date expected to release nintendo revolution. Which will come out 1st?

[Gee4orce]

XBox 2 will never be a media-convergence-digital-lifestyle-entertainment-centre-thing, unless they work out a way to get rid of the fans. The XBox 1 sounds like a vacuum cleaner when it's turned on - there's no way I could leave mine running whilst I was trying to watch TV or listen to music.

I don't see why XBox 2 would need anywhere near this kind of power. A 1.6 GHz or 1.8GHz G5 is probably near the mark. My dual G5 1.8 barely breaks above 25% when running Halo at 1024x786 with 16 players. Unless MS are gunning for HDTV compatibility or something.

[bartelby]

OS X on the XBOX

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~ranma1/mac_install.html

[MagnusDredd]

AMD is by no means at the lead of Multi-core processsing.

IBM has been shipping dual core Power 4 chips for quite some time. Sun has already shipped dual core Ultra Sparcs, HP has shipped Dual-Core PA-RISC, and IBM has shipped a ton of Power 4 chips, with Power 5 chips shipping now. Sun's new niagra processors have a ridiculous number of cores. Supposedly there should be an Itanium or two showing up sometime too.

AMD is only seemingly ahead when you look at the professional/consumer market with x86 chips as opposed to the enterprise which has had dual-core aviable for some time now. Hard to say whether they'll get a dual core out before IBM releases a dual core PPC 970 variant tho. IBM already has produced _two_ enterprise level dual core chips, whereas AMD is working on their first. The dual core x86 is vapor as far as I am concerned, until it ships.

Real programmers ship - Steve Jobs.
Real engineers have available parts - Me.

[NNO-Stephen]

I don't see why XBox 2 would need anywhere near this kind of power. A 1.6 GHz or 1.8GHz G5 is probably near the mark. My dual G5 1.8 barely breaks above 25% when running Halo at 1024x786 with 16 players. Unless MS are gunning for HDTV compatibility or something.

actually, MS is going for High Def. they already have 480p and 720p in some games.

and it doesn't need mroe pwoer if all it's trying to do is run games of today... it is going to run games over the next five years. requirements will grow drasticly and they had better be prepared or it will hurt the quality. look at PS2 games compared to XBOX or even GameCube games. it simply doesn't have the power. processing power though, it has it, but it can't graphicly putt it off. it can run some nice AI, but no pretty pictures.

not very balanced at all.

anyway, return to your discussion now.

[Jaz]

actually, MS is going for High Def. they already have 480p and 720p in some games.

Agreed, have you seen sales of Plasma, LCD, HD CRT televisions? They are growing rapidly.

Next gen consoles must support HD (480p, 720p, 1080i) as a selling point. Current generation graphics cards can push that now (just about for 1920*1080 res) and computer displays are natively progressive. The hard part is figuring out what is the lowest level to support.

I've always found that pushing the limits is a given in gaming hardware, the hard part becomes what legacy stuff do you support.

For example, Counter-Strike:Source will support Geforce 4 MX video cards using a DirectX 7 path. That's pretty good legacy support, but it's simply because CS is so popular and there are a lot of people who never upgraded to play DOOM 3 because they were happy with CS performance.

It's a bit easier with consoles, closed loop environment, but still a tough question. Guess that's where two G5's would be handy in order to power emulation easily.

[ixus]

actually, MS is going for High Def. they already have 480p and 720p in some games.

and it doesn't need mroe pwoer if all it's trying to do is run games of today... it is going to run games over the next five years. requirements will grow drasticly and they had better be prepared or it will hurt the quality. look at PS2 games compared to XBOX or even GameCube games. it simply doesn't have the power. processing power though, it has it, but it can't graphicly putt it off. it can run some nice AI, but no pretty pictures.

not very balanced at all.

anyway, return to your discussion now.

480p = 640x480, 720p = 1024x768 + chopped screen.
That's not a high resolution compared to PC.

No way Xbox 2 will be using a PPC processor. Do you believe that Microsoft will write a OS from scratch just for the xbox market? Wait til I see they rewrite the buggy windows os first.

[BornAgainMac]

Xbox is a more mass produced product than a Mac. How will IBM ever be able to keep up with the demand? And I am surprised Microsoft dumped Intel. I thought they were tight.

[Mike Teezie]

Xbox is a more mass produced product than a Mac. How will IBM ever be able to keep up with the demand? And I am surprised Microsoft dumped Intel. I thought they were tight.

This is an extrememly important question - one I have often wondered myself after all the G5/Xbox rumors began.

[Jaz]

No way Xbox 2 will be using a PPC processor. Do you believe that Microsoft will write a OS from scratch just for the xbox market? Wait til I see they rewrite the buggy windows os first.

Windows NT4 OS already had PPC capability. NT4 was the last PPC native version. XP and 2000 are both based on components of NT; you can dig into DLL's and other items and still see NT4 build numbers.

The PPC path was dropped for 2K/XP, along with DEC Alpha, a while back. However to get a micro-kernel of the current win32 codebase back on to a current PPC would not require writing an OS from scratch. It would be complex, but with the major increase in horsepower and the advantage of an exact known configuration for a console it would definitely be possible. Also gcc compilers for PPC in the Win32 environment are around. Finally, remember that PPC (970 included) is fully backwards compatible with earlier PPC implementations, and runs 32 bit natively.

[ffakr]

Windows NT4 OS already had PPC capability. NT4 was the last PPC native version. XP and 2000 are both based on components of NT; you can dig into DLL's and other items and still see NT4 build numbers.

The PPC path was dropped for 2K/XP, along with DEC Alpha, a while back.

The architecture that Windows NT based OSes run off of is mostly irrelevant. The OS was designed from the start to run on a variety of architectures. The kernel is seperated from the main OS by a HAL [Hardware Abstraction Layer]. The idea is, you can modify the underlying hardware significantly yet you only really need to change the HAL. It's kind of like the black box mentality of objective programming.. all you need to do is get an expected result back from the HAL when you feed a request in. It doesn't matter to the upper layers of the OS whether or not there is a SPARC, a PPC, or a Pentium running under the HAL. (intergraph actually helped NT port to SPARC but it was never released)

[GFLPraxis]

rumors are that the xbox 2 will be a media center, it should be able to record movies, burd dvd's, cd's, store your music, pics, films, on an hd, download...

so probably yes, it will have more than one processor, so you will be able to program it to record something of tv while you are playing your favorite game with others...

it won't be a three-core processor, there will be at least two single processors, at maximum a dual and a single... :)

rumors always exaggerate...

I HIGHLY doubt it.
From Microsoft, it's most likely that the XBox 2 won't even have a HARD DRIVE anymore.

And btw, Sony released a version of the PS2 thats just like you described, and it costs like a thousand bucks or so ;)

They might release a special edition XBox, but I HIGHLY doubt the standard XBox 2 will be able to do all that unless its unbelievably expensive.

[Jaz]

The architecture that Windows NT based OSes run off of is mostly irrelevant. The OS was designed from the start to run on a variety of architectures. The kernel is seperated from the main OS by a HAL [Hardware Abstraction Layer]. The idea is, you can modify the underlying hardware significantly yet you only really need to change the HAL. It's kind of like the black box mentality of objective programming.. all you need to do is get an expected result back from the HAL when you feed a request in. It doesn't matter to the upper layers of the OS whether or not there is a SPARC, a PPC, or a Pentium running under the HAL.

Thanks for the follow-up. I agree with you completely, and that is kind of the point I'm making, but probably not as clearly as I wanted too. As we both are saying, implementing win32 on PPC is not a complete rewrite. It's a concerted effort at the HAL and optimisation level, because a console is a specific config and so the inherent flexibility in HAL (and performance loss) can be reduced. I still maintain that the micro-kernel would be modified/optimised because it's a closed loop, so why not eke out all the performance you can.

[2A Batterie]

any idea when Xbox2 will be released? I'd like to buy some sort of game console, like Xbox or PS2, but I'm afraid something new is going to come out in the next few months or so. Isn't Nintendo coming out with a new system (beside DS) too?

[Jaz]

any idea when Xbox2 will be released? I'd like to buy some sort of game console, like Xbox or PS2, but I'm afraid something new is going to come out in the next few months or so. Isn't Nintendo coming out with a new system (beside DS) too?

Odds are that all the new consoles will be intro'd and demo'd at E3 next May. Microsoft and Nintendo are keen to avoid giving Sony a 1-2year headstart like last time. Likely to go on sale Oct 05 or Mar 06.

In terms of buying a console? No-one has said backwards compatibility is for certain yet, but look how it benefitted PS2. HOWEVER, there is *always* a gap from the launch to when great titles start appearing regularly.

I just bought a new Xbox to play Halo 2 from next month, which looks awesome. I picked up Halo, GTA double pack, Project Gotham Racing 2 all for AUD$50 each (about US$30). Next up in the coming months are Jade Empire, KOTOR 2, Starcraft: Ghost, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, Brothers in Arms, Conker:Live and Reloaded etc.

That's benefit of buying in the middle to end of console's lifespan. Existing AAA titles are cheap, new titles are great as developers have had time to explore and figure out all the consoles features, and even if a new console appeared tomorrow it would be max price again and several great games are at least six months to a year away.

[9hundred]

I think that in order to take advantage of the high resolution a plasma screen would be suitable. Normal tv's have crapy resolution and using plasma is the only way to beat a pc or maybe mac for gaming.

[Xtremehkr]

It should lower the price of high end G5 processors. Is Apple waiting for the benefit of it's loyal buyers? (through economies of scale). Introducing higher speeds at the same or a lower price would be somewhat of a coup.

[Jaz]

I think that in order to take advantage of the high resolution a plasma screen would be suitable. Normal tv's have crapy resolution and using plasma is the only way to beat a pc or maybe mac for gaming.

Many Plasma/LCD screens have not yet solved the problem of ghosting, so for high speed games they may not be the best. Maybe in a year or two when all the next-gen are out that might not be the case, but from what I have seen it is still very much so for the majority of screens except the high-end where it seems to be solved. Also Plasma is much more susceptible to burn in.

"Bigger is better" is not always true and at least one big manufacturer is betting that people want something else:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041104-4370.html

I use HD in my work, but for general viewing I would only buy a high quality HD CRT (Toshiba make excellent ones, progressive plus full 1080i/720p, 36" widescreen) or Projector (very nice, but major price increase for a true 1080i and native 16:9 with great brightness). LCD and Plasma are still developing to solve these and other problems

[Pixeled_Apple]

In the Video Games world (In which I hate...) I was a Sony Person. And a Basher. Not Any more... Halo 2, PowerPC = Me Buy :D

[jared_kipe]

I can't believe this thread is still around. I think it is laughable that people were actually debating weather or not a 3.5GHz ppc chip would be used in the XBOX 2, I can't imagine what such a machine would cost, firstly. And secondly, who is going to make such a chip? This was a bad rumor from the start. And if it happens, which I doubt, then I will go out and buy the $1500 monstrosity.

[slooksterPSV]

The first time I heard about the Xbox 2, it was a chinese site and it had some english text on it, it was saying that it would use a 3.5GHz G5 IBM Processor. it would have 2GB of RAM, a 120GB HDD, and a 512MB Video card. Well, we don't have 3.5GHz and we don't have 512, I think this will be released (if it does release) in 2006 or 2008 between there.

[torayama]

I can't believe this thread is still around. I think it is laughable that people were actually debating weather or not a 3.5GHz ppc chip would be used in the XBOX 2, I can't imagine what such a machine would cost, firstly. And secondly, who is going to make such a chip? This was a bad rumor from the start. And if it happens, which I doubt, then I will go out and buy the $1500 monstrosity.

I have heard from a very reliable source that the new X-box will feature 3 3,5Gig G5s. Whether that is a triple core or three single core, I don't know, but the guys I have it from are game developpers here in DK.
I believe them. When, - I don't know.

[slooksterPSV]

Now to be honest, that will cost more than most people will buy. The would probably cost upwards of about $3000 if not more. I really, honestly, don't believe Microsoft could do that and still make a profit.

[Jaz]

I can't believe this thread is still around. I think it is laughable that people were actually debating weather or not a 3.5GHz ppc chip would be used in the XBOX 2, I can't imagine what such a machine would cost, firstly. And secondly, who is going to make such a chip? This was a bad rumor from the start. And if it happens, which I doubt, then I will go out and buy the $1500 monstrosity.

Jared, you miss two points that about consoles and CPU's.

1. CPU's and any type of chip have a big fall off in price. Say on day one they cost $500 each in 1000 unit lots, by day 1092 (three years into a consoles life they are costing $45 each in 1000 unit lots. Don't believe me? Read this article for example:
http://zdnet.com.com/2102-11_2-500953.html
Sony sold 75 million PS2 units so I think it was a non-issue. Sony or MS will amortise the cost difference across the life of the console so even if it costs a lot to make the chip that is simply a cost of being in the console business with its consumer price point, which leads to my second point ...

2. Consoles are a loss leader. Get them into homes at a marginal profit (Nintendo) or a loss (MS, Sony) THEN sell them GAMES routinely for the next 3-5 years. For every game sold, they get a licence fee as they own the platform. We pay for it (got an Xbox, sold my Gamecube a while back) as its part of the price of a game. Consoles even if they cost twice what they sell for are a land grab in order to become the biggest software publisher on the market. MS know this and that is why that they are persevering, sales of Halo 2 show what happens to a mature console with great games; lose on the hardware, make it up BIG on the software.

If "Xbox 2/XBox Next/Xenon" has 3 PPC at 3.5Ghz, then you can be sure that MS have it backed by a business plan to get to market first, sell a lot of consoles at whatever price, then move an absolute ton of software over the following years to justify the upfront risk of a loss leader.

[Krevnik]

I have heard from a very reliable source that the new X-box will feature 3 3,5Gig G5s. Whether that is a triple core or three single core, I don't know, but the guys I have it from are game developpers here in DK.
I believe them. When, - I don't know.

Okay, I have one huge problem with your 'reliable source'... 3 3.5Ghz processors on one motherboard? No. As someone finishing up my degree in the field of electrical engineering and system design, this is not something that makes any sort of engineering sense. The bus chipset for such a device would have to be custom-made and be at least as expensive as a chipset designed for 4 processors (due to the nature of digital design, powers of 2 are a more efficient use of transistors, thus money and power). I don't see a console pushing the type of technology to break out of classical engineering design by taking existing processors and adding on a whole different method of running the bus (which is a possibility to make it cheaper, but not for the first run of the chipset, it would still be far too expensive).

To do this they would have to take an entirely different tack to designing the system bus beyond something like HyperTransport which is expensive enough as it is now. A dual G5 console? I could see that, it would be expensive as all get out unless it started manufacturing in 2006-2008, especially at speeds not publicly available (average chip costs for a new PPC processor per unit in bulk are 200$ I believe, so 2 processors in a new generation would be 400$) yet. I don't think even microsoft would be willing to eat nearly 400$ per console (since you also need to consider the cost of the other parts), that is a lot of money to make up in software licensing fees.

[corywoolf]

I can't believe this thread is still around. I think it is laughable that people were actually debating weather or not a 3.5GHz ppc chip would be used in the XBOX 2, I can't imagine what such a machine would cost, firstly. And secondly, who is going to make such a chip? This was a bad rumor from the start. And if it happens, which I doubt, then I will go out and buy the $1500 monstrosity.


i agree, it will be at tops 1.8 ghz, tops!!! ;)

[ACED]

Guys, this is Big Bill's master plan...the PC/OS war has been fought and won. Now it's Sony and Nintendo, and Dell and co.

Arguing over CPU type, speed, OS nicities is soon going to be pointless. Buying any sort of PC, or Mac, will seem expensive in comparison to buying a Xbox2, 3, etc...

I think Bill wants the entire PC hardware market, the Apple (Mac & iPod) market, the small business workstation/LAN market ( think of the moral boost if staff could play networked games on their office Xbox2s- in their lunch time) and the Hollywood movie market!

We're being told that the games industry is far bigger than Hollywood ... People increasingly want to play the starring roles in their own movie, away from noisy and expensive cinemas in their own home with optimal surround sound, their own selective interuptions, with fresh home made popcorn and beer/coke - at the right price, without the threat of your not-so-friendly neighbour terrorist/s intent on blowing you and your family to tiny pieces...for the Glory of God.

M$ is big enough, and shrewd enough to carry huge losses on a KICK ARSE gaming console (that makes all other PCs look sick and obsolete), just to get it into everyones homes to sell and hire them KICK ARSE games, with internet access, and spinoffs. Taking on all these markets will open these otherwise untapped markets to make it enormously viable. Throw in a optional copy of Office and Longhorn to do the paperwork, and with a worthy adversory like Sony (no anti-trust issues), M$ will achieve world domination, again.

This IS the next killer app. There is no future in endless upgrades of OSes, browsers, word, & spreadsheet apps ... it all been done, to death.

Look at the fact that MS Office is still 2003, XP is still, 2002. No I think MS is throwing it's efforts into Xbox2, 3, etc. the real home media centre. Even the development of PC games has taken a back seat.

Apples iPod, whilst looking like a world beater at the moment, will become obsolete I believe, once M$ bring out their own proprietry docking unit with music and video and photos, maybe even phone.

Wonder if OSX will run on it, wonder if it will matter...

[iJon]

I think Microsoft would have already put out Apple if they could. They tried and failed, now they are back to the drawing boards along with every other company.

There is a quite a big difference with Apple being big with the iPod and them being big with computers just to be beat out by Microsoft back in the day. iPod is simply just music and Apple has the market wrapped around their finger. There was so much more the computer and Apple screwed up and Microsoft dominated. Apple is in the lead now and I don't think this will be a history repeat.

jon

[ACED]

No, I think Apple has, once again, just primed the market for M$.

If you think Apple has the music market all sewn up, that is what people thought when IBM and MS entered the PC market. I believe it is still very early days.

The fact that iPod won't be able to dock to the new Xbox will be it's death knell, IMHO.

[stevehaslip]

No, I think Apple has, once again, just primed the market for M$.

If you think Apple has the music market all sewn up, that is what people thought when IBM and MS entered the PC market. I believe it is still very early days.

The fact that iPod won't be able to dock to the new Xbox will be it's death knell, IMHO.

? no docking to the xbox will kill the iPod? well not everyone has an xbox or will get the new xbox? I don't think it will kill the iPod but i do agree with you that it is still early days. Sony and Microsoft keep talking up the next generation consoles saying that they'll be this, that and the other. They will be soooo powerful etc, I just wanna play cool games?

maybe the new xbox or ps3 will make toast or scramble eggs?

Anyway only a very small percentage of the people who own a ps2 or an xbox will buy a next gen one straight away, and no one will choose them over a pc if they cost the earth. The pc gaming market isn't exactly on its arse is it? half life 2 anyone?
they will have to have a sensible price point. There really won't be that much of a revolution.

It's HYPE people!!