Discussion in 'Xbox Forums' started by Squiffy, Apr 27, 2004.
Hehe, thats a big spec difference from the previous speculation of multi-processors.
In what way? 3 dual core processors is still a hell of a lot of CPU power. And at 3.5GHz that would stomp on any PC's due out next year.
The latest info on that diagram suggests that it's a drawing of the Xbox follow up MS were going to release in the run up to Christmas 2004.
The actual Xenon (Xbox2) which will probably launch in mid 2005 will probably be a bit more powerful!
it sounds a bit over the top for console, bet they'll want you to pluin a keyboard, mouse & moniter to use the copy of Microsoft office that comes with it
The original spec was that yes, this current spec is one triple core CPU...... a rather large difference I cannot see them employing a multi-processor approach: -
a) it is still too expensive
b) there is no current OS that really gets the most out of it for gaming
c) there is no current application apart from graphics rendering and DVD ripping that benefits from multi-processors
And Ghz really doesn't mean a lot, solid architecture that allows more instructions per cycle can make up for sheer brute speed (see AMD or ARM).
I am not saying that it is not impressive, but this latest info is not as jaw dropping as the original hype.
You're saying that as if it's a surprise, and you expected the hype to be reasonably true
Come on guys. Remember all the BS Sony came out with before PS2 launch?
I remember thinking that PS2 was a load of crap and was going to fall on its face, especially given that DC had so many superb games compared to 5 PS2 games, all but one of which were appauling.
They always lie.
Sony are the only ones that lie as badly as Microsoft do (although probably worse, IMO)
The CPU is allegedly based on the dual threaded PowerPC 976 chips. 3x2 would give us the much talked about 6 logical processors.
As for an OS what do you think multi CPU servers use?
Sony is going for the massively parallel approach with Cell so there must be something to the multi core/threads approach.
Serious clock speed doesn't hurt either. I'm an AMD and PPC user but I wouldn't mind my XP or G4 running at 3.5GHz.
The hype surrounding new consoles is always seriously overblown but considering all of the info we're discussing here is only rumors take it all with a pinch of salt. When MS start talking numbers we'll see just how much hot air they can blow.
Besides if the block diagram mentioned above is the late '04 Xenon things may get even more impressive.
MS's XNA idea is to make it easier to develop games so they must have a way to hide the parallel nature of the Xenon system. Sony better have something similar for the PS3.
I can't understand why people get so obsessed over technical figures and specs.
Let the games do the talking...I buy a console if it has enough excellent games that I'm interested in. I don't care if the console is 3 weeks old or 3 years old; if its games can entertain me then it's worth buying.
I quickly became sick of Microsoft's constant 'our console is so much more powerful' blah blah blah during this generation...then you look at their lineup of games and realise power isn't everything, or even particularly important.
listen to all you CUBE GIRLS lol this thread stinks of fanboys lol.
Neither can I but I still enjoy doing just that!
I think part of the excitment of each new generation of consoles lies in the anticipation. Wondering what kind of games can be produced on new hardware is often more fun than a lot of the dross that tends to appear at launch time.
Sorry yes, I should have really said for the home market.
You can run seriously powerful machines, which utilise multi-threads. However, for the home market and especially in terms of gaming there is no real current need for dual processor machines.
There is a big advantage to be gained from true parallel processing and it will happen. I am just not so sure that developers necessarily have the abilities to utilize it yet. You can see in the PC market that the capabilities of the hardware far exceeds the capabilities of the developers.
Regardless of specs, I think MS are slowly getting there and the next generation I am sure they will do much better. You can see the way their PC software market has developed and they are slowly (through economic brute force) buying good software houses and creating a solid library.
lol r u having a laugh?
informed discussion if you ask me the only post that isnt informed discussion is yours and now mine replying to your useless post
To get back on topic,
"And at 3.5GHz that would stomp on any PC's due out next year."
That i highly doubt, PCS will evolve much quicker than consoles and theres no way ANY console will launch faster than the latest PC out at the time.
Unfortunately all consoles get massively overhyped before launch. We saw it with the PS2 (figures were claimed that were in practice nonsense. Ok the individual parts could achieve what they suggested sepatetely but when all linked up the machine couldn't perform anyway near them) so we should always expect initial info to be overhyped I guess.
X-Box 2 will be a competent machine at launch, just like the X-Box was. They have built a degree of brand following so they should build on their success as well. IMO the only thing that may limit the X-Box 2's success is that it's captured a limited market. Playstation has the mainstream and X-Box is stuck firmly with the 'hi tech' end of the market (i.e. folk that must have the high end AV and technology stuff). I guess the majority of the population don't give a damn about how many cycles per second a cpu is doing, as long as they can play some fun games on a machine. IMO if X-Box is to build on it's market share, it needs to move away from it's current image and generate a more "fun" and fashionable image.
What's inside the box needs to be competent, but as far as sales and marketing go the shape and style of the case itself actually sells more consoles. The sad truth is that the vast majority of console owners get their console, and wire it to their tv with the standard composite lead. They have no idea about what the machine is capable of or what components are inside but they are chuffed when they can stick on some footie or racing game a stuff their mate over a 6 pack of fosters.
The final no no when it comes to marketing is the "fastest or most powerful console in the world" tag.
I think its a shame that we have to have another generation of consoles already, as I had my original snes in action for around 6-7years, now they bearly last 3 years
I guess it won't be until at least Q3 or 4 of 2005, maybe even 2006 until we see the consoles released over here though. The PS2 came out in 2000 so I guess it's around a 5 year gap.
Also back in the days of cartridges, a lot of the technology of the games could be housed in the cartridges themselves. This meant that the games developers could keep increasing the memory size of the carts as well as things like the Super FX xhip as used in starfox etc.
I also think that technological development has intensified and competition has become more fierce. Consoles are now a huge multimendia industry, not just a toy as they were more seen as back in the days of the earlier consoles.
Well they are still toys to me
Im going to Japan next year, so hopefully I can pick up one of the new consoles but it aint gonna be an XBox as ive already got a pc
Suffice to say it will wipe the floor with anything Sony and Nintendo have planned No ? Sounds pretty good for me and as for cost....MS dont care. They have lost $50 on every XB sold and what was there answer when asked what their xbox exit strategy was.....Spend another 20 billion dollars. And then another 20 billion dollars and so on until they have reached their objective (Ie destroy Sony).
They have bottomless pockets and a will to succeed. PS3 be afraid, be very afraid.
Do you work for microsoft harrisuk? I must say you do seem to be very proud of their exploits and financial wealth as a company. I personally have no affiliation with any toy/games/computer manufacture so i'm simply free to buy which ever machine has the best line up of games on it, or all three should I be able to afford them all
That kind of attitude is precisely why MS wont takeover, putting together the best hardware and throwing loads of money at it failed misrably with XBOX so why should it make a difference with XBOX 2?
Theres absolutlely nothing from the XBOX disaster (i say that in terms of sales and money spent) to say XBOX 2 will succeed everyone who says different its just guessing.
Unlike gthom3 i have a preference with Nintendo as a company so will buy there next console without thinking and that like this generation will go along side my new top end PC (when i buy it) which for me is the perfect combination
"That i highly doubt, PC's will evolve much quicker than consoles and theres no way ANY console will launch faster than the latest PC out at the time."
The PS2 had a 6.2GFlops processor long before Intel reached that kind of grunt. At 300Mhz.
And the PS2 had a 16 pipeline graphics chip with fillrate and memory bandwidth way beyond any PC part at the time. Only now 4 years later are we seeing 16 pipe PC video cards and they are very expensive. And still don't have embedded frame buffers.
Even though the Xbox 2 diagram mentioned at the start of this thread is supposed to be out of date a 3.5GHz CPU that can run 6 threads in parallel will likely be much faster than the fastest Athlon 64, say 4GHz, at certain types of task.
PC's are only just going 64-bit so whats your point? are you trying to say that my Nintendo 64 has more power than my 2gig PC?
In my opinion Betamac, Nintendo are a bit different and I fully understand you wanting to buy their machine. With Nintendo being a major developer of games it puts them in this position.
I presume you will be buying a Nintendo because you like Nintendo games and that's the only console you can play them on. I fully support this, what I find strange is where people buy a console or seem to support it for no other reason than it being the most technically competent. I buy a console for it's games. I am a big Sega fan and have always enjoyed Sega games. I have always bought Sega consoles in the past as that was the only place where I could play Sega games at home. Since they went software only things have changed and now I buy the console with the best range of Sega games on it. I also like the PES series and the Gran Turismo series. So with the PS2 having the best range of Sega games on it (the Sega 2500 series, VF4, the ESPN titles, Crazy taxi games, 18 wheeler, virtua tennis series etc), the PES series and Gran Turismo 3 I have stuck with that console.
PES4 is coming out on X-Box so the series will probably continue on X-Box 2 I presume. This means that when the new consoles come out I will simply make another informed decision as to which machine to buy (if i can't afford them all) as I did when they pulled the plug on the DC.
look theres someone who Sony got with there hype
Hype thats all it is, when the PS2 launched it was nothing compared to the top end PC in terms of gaming power and when XBOX 2 launches it will be the same situation that i gaurentee.
This year will see the biggest change to PCS in many many years and will be a huge boost in every aspect.
"PC's are only just going 64-bit so whats your point? are you trying to say that my Nintendo 64 has more power than my 2gig PC?"
Exactly the technical stuff is all jargon, you have look passed that
then you see how stuff performs in the real world
I agree it's all about the architecture of a system as well. IMO the PS2 has some impressive hardware in it but the architecture of the machine means that the hardware doesn't combine in th emost efficient way. There is not enough Graphic memory to start with (only 2mb) so this causes bottlenecks that reduce what the machine is capable of.
PC's can be put together for a certain purpose (i.e. gaming) and the machine can be optimised for this purpose by using the correct parts.
When it came out the PS2 was ok but didn't have anything over the PC or even the Dreamcast IMO. Infact (mainly due to the difficult to porgram E-Motion chip) it took some time before it's potential was even seen. Even then it was nothing special technically,
"look theres someone who Sony got with there hype"
Sony will never get me with any hype that's why I have only bought a PS2 in the last couple of years to play imported 2d shooters.
Think back to the PS2's launch and the kind of games that were around on the PC at the time. Stuff like Soul Calibur and Sonic Adventure on the DC made my far costlier PC look pathetic. And that was on the technically inferior DC.
"This year will see the biggest change to PCS in many many years and will be a huge boost in every aspect."
That would be what? The Athlon 64 will offer a nice boost once there is a 64bit version of Windows but x86 compatibilty and supporting older expansion formats is always going to hamper the PC. PCI-X should help a bit but overrall system bandwidth needs to be higher on PC's to make the most of all the new tech.
BTW The PS2 has 4Mb embedded memory on it's graphics chip which is loads for TV resolutions and the CPU is laughably called the Emotion Engine.
A PC cannot be optimised for gaming as it is a general purpose machine designed to cope, but not excel, at a variety of tasks.
Consoles on the other hand are designed from the ground up for gaming. And they are a lot cheaper to buy than PC's.
Let's see how the Xenon and PS3 really measure up before discussing this anymore.
Not possible...it seems like you can't say something objective about the Xbox/PS2 anymore without being called a Nintendo fanboy
RL123 your right about that. I admit to being a fanboy though. I'm a fan of good games wherever I find them.
Separate names with a comma.