Hi,
Apologies if this has already been posted but The Register has reported the Xbox 2 specs have been revealed, if you believe the post on a Chinese bulletin board. It's here: http://bbs.gzeasy.com/index.php?showtopic=149175
Includes: 3 3.5Gz PowerPC cores (G5's), 256MB RAM, 500Mhz GPU yaddda yadda
cheers
zibba
Seems kinda bullshitty to me if you think about it...
There's not enough video ram in the box - unless that's *just* ram for displaying the final image to the TV...
The 3 processors would be a bit of an overkill - probably including price wise, and you'd be better off using one or two general processors and then some extra more specialised processors with created APIs for them.
But then again how reliable would a chinese message/bulletin board be?
Sounds pretty dodgy, however, 10Mb of video memory is not neccessarily too little. (Now this is just pure speculation...) That 10 Mb (although being a very strange number, would expect power of 2), may be very very fast "cache-like" memory which the application developer doesn't have direct access too, while the 256Mb of main memory is UMA, similar to the current xbox. 10Mb is a lot of cache, but maybe thats one of MS's features for improved gfx...
Also, the number of cpu's is quite reasonable, it has been stated fairly often that xbox2 would feature a multi-cpu powerpc (G5 equivalent?) architecture. The numbers i've heard previously were 4-6 cpu's.
Fluffy, i think at one stage they were in talks with AMD, but it's been known for a while now that they definitely will be using IBM PowerPC cpu's. They will also be using an ATI graphics processor, i don't think it's decided/public knowledge what chip it will use though??
If you look around you should be able to find some info on hardware/specs sent to developers that contained not the exact hardware, but a "similar" configuration to what might be in the end product.
I hope they up the RAM to 512 though, by the time it is released, the standard RAM in PC's will be around 1024Mb... However, MS don't seem to interested in leading the way as they did with the first xbox... we can only hope.
CYer, Blitz
quote:Originally posted by bullet21
I think it's bullshitty as well. 10mb of video memory sounds stupid, my old card had 6 megs more and ran like shit. and yeah as Daemin said 3 x 3.5 Ghz sounds way, way, way, way over the top.AHBULLSHIT!!
With any luck the 10mb is missing the 24. Mmmm 1024MB video Ram.
that could be a reasonable assumption Blitz, however that memory would only really be used to store pixel and vertex shaders IMO, and possibly one or two framebuffers, but that's it...
It wouldn't nearly be enough for most modern graphics processes (the numerous different texture maps etc).
However another thing to consider is that the PowerPC processors are RISC in nature, meaning that 3.5 GHz would be much faster than today's processors, however they'll require several instuctions to do the same thing as a single instruction on the PC. Although I guess this all comes down to teh pipeline that they use.
Sounds like bullshit... IBM are apparently already having enough trouble as it is manufacturing enough viable 970fx's for xServe G5's - and they top out at 2.25GHz. That being said, it was said last year that they hope to hit 3GHz within the next few months. But still - 3 cores? I thought multiprocessor systems, like most things in computers, went by powers of 2?
That RAM you see on the GPU is most probably EDRAM/cache. (Think of something like the PS2's GS or BitBoys' fabled designs.) The future direction for GPU's is resource virtualisation, so it would be used to page in pieces of textures, geometry, code, etc. as needed - groovy stuff.
If anything one of the processors will be the controlling processor, which will delegate tasks to the others as it sees fit. Possibly the developers won't really be able to access all three processors, but just create a multithreaded system where the processor and operating system take care of the details.
And with the GPU ram being just a cache, well I just hope they pack in enough system ram to ensure that the games can actually run. I mean without a hard drive everything will really need to be kept in ram or on the dvd. And dvd reading speeds are notoriously slow compared to ram or a hard drive. I'd say at least a gig would be required.
I'm calling in sceptical on this one...just sounds a bit off, especially 256Mb of RAM and the processors being clocked at 3.5Ghz - multi-general purpose-processor systems aren't necessary for console/pure gaming systems either - of course I realise the PS2 is a multi-processor architecture, but it is actually well thought out (mostly) compared to just chucking 3 G5s into a box.
More Xbox2 spec leaks, possibly indicating that these specs (from first post of this thread) are indeed accurate.
This is what gamasutra had to say about the recent document:
quote:A document has leaked onto the Internet purporting to have been authored by Pete Isensee of the Xbox Advanced Technology Group (ATG). The document seems to contain the technical specifications for the next-generation Xbox and is more believable than previous such revelations largely because of what it leave outs, with many of the components being listed as ?subject to change? and the question of the hard drive as standard remaining unanswered.
Here is a copy of the document: [url]http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=231928[/url]
Sounds like these specs could be true.
Those specs are detailed enough i'm willing to believe them. It's a very interesting read nonetheless! The graphics unit having direct access to the L2 cache almost sounds crazy, but it seems now that instead of offloading processing onto the graphics unit to free up the CPU, we will now be offloading processing from the graphics unit onto the CPU :) I'll be expecting some pretty fancy graphics on this unit considering the power of the gfx (20 billion vert/pixel instructions per second?!!!) plus the possibility of using the cpu for graphics processing with effectively no extra overhead, or so it seems.
It will still be a pity if xbox2 doesn't ship with HD as standard :(
CYer, Blitz
I don?t think it would really be a big deal if the HD were an optional extra. Most people wouldn?t mind paying the bit extra to upgrade to a HD, while people that don?t care or need it would get by with just a memory card with no worries (and save a few bucks).
The PS2 has a HD as an optional extra, yet hardly anyone seemed to bother getting it. Yet the PS2 was still kinda successful. :P Though maybe the HD is important for online gaming?
The other thing with the add on hard drive, is that article says that it has USB 2.0 for external devices. Meaning that if you have an external HDD, you could just plug it into the xbox2. That could prove to be quite useful. A hard drive that isn't only intended for the xbox. That is of course depending on file formatting options and so forth :)
Here?s an interesting article about how MS rushing to next-gen could backfire catastrophically.
[url]http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=pub&aid=3635…]
He makes some good points. I particularly like this sentence:
quote:Herein lies the arrogance; Microsoft isn't used to making decisions as an industry small-fry, and it's trying to act like an industry leader in an industry it simply doesn't lead.
MS seems to be so concerned with the Xbox2. What about the xbox1 and all the players who bought one? what a shame they dont seem to care anymore. First in with the new console wont necassserly mean they will win.
Technology wont win the console war, great games will.
edit: should have typed win, not in
tis Microsoft, they will and always have 'run with their fastest horse' so to speak.
That will never change, which is a shame.
Getting a jump will help them in the short term, but I think theyve got a little more sense than to just pump out a premature shitbox, that wont stand a chance against sony / nintendo next gen.
At least they bought up the Dreamcast, how it failed with it's lead release. A shame as it had some really kick arse games.
It hasn't actually been said that the Xbox2 will not have backwards compatability, so hopefully Microsoft will see how pissed people are getting that rumor and include backwards compatability. I don't think that backwards compatability is a major thing for me, but I was looking at getting a PS2, just so I could get all the re-releases of the Final Fantasy games on PS1.
I don't really like the idea of pudhing it out roughly two years earlier than the other for reasons they stated in that article. The only way Microsoft will be able to manage it is if they can actually sign some good early exclusives and have them released either at, or very close to launch. The Xbox had/has some fantastic games, but not enough of them and not enough variety. With any luck, Microsoft will stick some people over in Japan, watch for some small RPG developer to do something really cool, and then offer them a shit load of money to make something for the Xbox2 :)
The other bad thing about this, is it sounds like the Xbox is going the way of the N64. All the decent games towards the end didn't do well, as people were hanging off for the Gamecube. It does sound like Microsoft have some good games coming out this year, and news of the Xbox2 will only cause people to wait off on purchasing games in case a better version or sequel is released for the Xbox2.
I also agree with makk about the first console out not beeing the best. Tak a look at the dreamcast, it was an absolute flop compared to the other consoles of that generation. But yet Sega was the first to release it.
All this excitment over the Xbox 2 (or is it called the Ybox?) might just lead to the downlfall of xbox 1, which would be a pitty as i just got one ;)
"Xenon" is the working name for the Xbox 2. I sure hope they think of something better then ?Xbox 2? or ?Ybox? or whatever. They may as well just call it the ?MS Shitbox?...
The thing about releasing it early, unlike Sega, MS have the ability to properly support it (because they have lots of money!), so it should do a hell of a lot better then the Dreamcast.
Good call on the Xbox/N64 comparison. If the "Xenon" is out next year, I wouldn't expect developer support for the Xbox to last much beyond 2005.
And although I totally agree it?s the game quality that's important, it's usually the graphics quality that sells games. So if they bring out a handful of visually stunning games on the "Xenon", then it could do very well. I'll probably buy one, anyway.
Though from the specs document, it doesn't look like it will be much fun to develop for!
Many developers have said that the power involved in ANY of the Next gen consoles is basically void. They'll all be so fast/powerful (or pushed to be) that you could hardly tell the difference as long s the hardware is used properly.
I think the big thing for Xbox 2 that makes there focus interesting is XNA, and how well Microsoft has setup Xbox Live. I'm hoping the former is a way to allow developers what Microsoft say it is, a tool to allow for more creativity in gaming rather than to spend half the time in tech development. One can only hope :)
My only fear is it will just allow for MORE crap games. I'm a big fan of the xbox, it has some great games and I'm a big supporter of it. And how they have gone about things seems to be pretty solid so far, although they seem to be shifting a LOT of their ideas now that they are 'in' the race.
PC compatibilty for one, with the first one they tried to steer clear of it like the plague, now I believe they have embraced it with open arms. This could be a good thing. Imagine the amount of players in a MMORPG quadripling due to it's PC base as well etc.
But just the IDEA that they were so willing to go back on their process is intereesting. Hopefully it works out for them.
The head honchos have already downplayed the "leaked spec". Check this out: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=3364
Interesting nonetheless ;)