Xbox2 = 3x3.5 GHz PPC *confirmed*

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Look at THIS: http://bbs.gzeasy.com/index.php?showtopic=149175

The "confirmed" block diagram of the Xbox 2. It will have a tripple core PPC running at 3.5+ GHz, and each core seem to be hyperthreaded (POWER5 derived?). No integrated memory controller though. 84 GFLOPs per chip..
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    Look at THIS: http://bbs.gzeasy.com/index.php?showtopic=149175

    The "confirmed" block diagram of the Xbox 2.




    Those are brutal specs. If it comes out with anything like this next year, desktop PCs and Macs will positively look dated (for a while, at last).



    A-bomb simulations on your fingertips...
  • Reply 2 of 26
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    I say BS.



    \
  • Reply 3 of 26
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    Calling Mulder...
  • Reply 4 of 26
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Henriok

    ...84 GFLOPs per chip..



    . How is this possible? Dual XServes G5 2 GHz are capable for 9 GFlops in HPC LINPACK. What is the theoretical peak of the latest Pentium 4?
  • Reply 5 of 26
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    And whats this little puppy going to cost?
  • Reply 6 of 26
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,458member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by PB

    . How is this possible? Dual XServes G5 2 GHz are capable for 9 GFlops in HPC LINPACK. What is the theoretical peak of the latest Pentium 4?



    The theoretical peak of the 2 GHz G5 is roughly 32 GFLOPS (2 GHz x 2 cores x 4-way SIMD x multiple/add instructions).







    Just as a general observation: you folks should get used to this because it is the kind of thing that 65 nm will let the hardware guys do. The current 90 nm 970FX is only 60 million transistors and is considered quite small. 65 nm would allow (very roughly) >100 million in about the same area. Ignoring the L2 cache, the 970FX core is only about 30 million transistors.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    The theoretical peak of the 2 GHz G5 is roughly 32 GFLOPS (2 GHz x 2 cores x 4-way SIMD x multiple/add instructions).





    I bet the 84 Gflops/processor figure is theoretical peak too. Pretty impressive if true, given that the 32 Gflops of the G5 require 2 of them and takes into account the SIMD unit.



    Quote:



    65 nm would allow (very roughly) >100 million in about the same area.




    Is this going to be the mobile G5 for the Powerbooks? It has been rumored some time ago that Apple and IBM are working on a truly portable 64-bit solution, scheduled for next year. I don't remember if the report said 90 or 65 nm.
  • Reply 8 of 26
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    Just as a general observation: you folks should get used to this because it is the kind of thing that 65 nm will let the hardware guys do. The current 90 nm 970FX is only 60 million transistors and is considered quite small. 65 nm would allow (very roughly) >100 million in about the same area. Ignoring the L2 cache, the 970FX core is only about 30 million transistors.



    This trippe core processor would be about 1/3 smaller than one 970 processor. Even if it has three cores and the double the ammount of L2 cache. But not taking in account the added silicon for doing interconnects and the hyperthreading functionality.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    this is a joke. We've been waiting on 90nm for a while, and its proving to have more difficulties with signal crosstalk and such than the engineers anticipated. We won't see 65nm next year. Just like we won't see 3GHz G5's in a few months. It's just not in the cards at IBM. They made big claims when they built the state of the art chip plant at fishkill, NY. These claims are no more than wishful thinking at this point.
  • Reply 10 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Imergingenious

    this is a joke. We've been waiting on 90nm for a while, and its proving to have more difficulties with signal crosstalk and such than the engineers anticipated. We won't see 65nm next year. Just like we won't see 3GHz G5's in a few months. It's just not in the cards at IBM. They made big claims when they built the state of the art chip plant at fishkill, NY. These claims are no more than wishful thinking at this point.



    I'd never bet against Steve.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Imergingenious

    this is a joke. We've been waiting on 90nm for a while, and its proving to have more difficulties with signal crosstalk and such than the engineers anticipated. We won't see 65nm next year. Just like we won't see 3GHz G5's in a few months. It's just not in the cards at IBM. They made big claims when they built the state of the art chip plant at fishkill, NY. These claims are no more than wishful thinking at this point.



    90nm is here and only hit snags due to the implementation of new technology. These same issues are not expected at 65nm - which is due to begin fabbing by the end of 2004. You will see 3GHZ+ Power5 derivatives in a few months. I've got a very strong idea that they'll be introduced at WWDC.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    The Xbox2 is supposed to come out next year, correct? I wouldn't be surprised if it had a $400 price tag to start with. However, I don't see how it could even be that cheap with specs like these...
  • Reply 13 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    The Xbox2 is supposed to come out next year, correct? I wouldn't be surprised if it had a $400 price tag to start with. However, I don't see how it could even be that cheap with specs like these...



    From some googling, I found a comment by the head of Microsoft in Japan saying that he expects the new xbox to be released in 2006. It might change depending on when the offerings by Sony (PS3/PSP) are expected to ship.



    That said, 65nm triple-cores don't seem quite as far fetched if put in that time period. These consoles usually have to last quite a long time in the marketplace.
  • Reply 14 of 26
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Of course it can be cheap. Microsoft has 80 billion dollars to waste and they want destroy Nintendo and dethrone Sony. And they can. And probably will.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Just think! Virginia Tech's next supercomputer will be 5 XBox2's
  • Reply 16 of 26
    krassykrassy Posts: 595member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    Just think! Virginia Tech's next supercomputer will be 5 XBox2's



    *LOL* this one's very good
  • Reply 17 of 26
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    Yet another attempt to stretch the definition of 'confirmed.'



    oh, and IBL.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    You mean GTA 3 might not slow down when it rains now? Cool!



  • Reply 19 of 26
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    Microsoft looses $100 on each xbox sale currently. They can lose more if they want too with the xbox 2. It's all about driving market-share and I assume making up from the loss leader at some point through revenue from their gaming unit.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    This chip is going to have way more problems than the PPC 970 did I'll imagine. It's supposed to have 3 cores, and one of them an ATI designed GPU, or something like that. It sounds like a pipe dream got away from somebody. BIg time!
Sign In or Register to comment.