The reason why people are doubtful about G5s being used in the Xbox is that a powerful desktop chip has never been used in a games console - at the same time being used in computers...
This is ridiculous when you take into account what has been used in consoles so far.
so we know apple had a hard time fitting 2x2GHz 90nm G5s into a 1U enclosure.
Now a console is about half, if not a fourth the size of a 1U rack. And you're telling me they're going to stick 3 (three, tre, trois, drei, golme, tri, etc.) into a box, approximately the size of an Xbox?
at what speed, I ask? at 500MHz?
Unless they want to make a howercraft that is so loud even a 7.1 sound setup won't be able to match it, they will have to think of something absolutely revolutionary, IF the rumors have ANY truth to them.
I think he means that the cores will be placed in a 2x2 matrix, where 3 slots are used by PPC-cores and the fourth are being used by the supporting ASIC.
Couldn't the cores be placed three in a row? Since yields aren't 100% it must be easier to find three working cores in a row, than the suggested 2x2 design.
I think he means that the cores will be placed in a 2x2 matrix, where 3 slots are used by PPC-cores and the fourth are being used by the supporting ASIC.
Couldn't the cores be placed three in a row? Since yields aren't 100% it must be easier to find three working cores in a row, than the suggested 2x2 design.
They don't have to be the same shape, and there are other options for the 4th corner... like a shared cache, for example. If you look at the existing XBox's design you'll note that the "system ASIC" is actually part of the GPU, which has a more pressing need for massive bandwith.
As for repeated comments about heat... the whole point of using the 9xx series design is that it is the most power efficient high-end processor available presently. Scaled down to a 65nm SOI process with IBM's cooling and PowerTune technologies, this thing's heat should be less of an issue than ATI's GPU.
I was imagining a large rectangular die with three cores arrayed like so:
Code:
----
|**|
|* |
----
Where * is a core. That leaves room for a good-sized ASIC's worth of stuff to be integrated on board.
I realize that this design is neither necessary nor inevitable - you could just have three cores in a rectangle, or something like that - but the first thing I thought of was a SoC design, and that was the layout that popped into my head.
Quote:
Games use around 99.5% of the available CPU, so you pretty much have to code the game to use it. Everything else that is expensive is in the GPU or DMA controllers.
Ah. In that case, you're splitting the game into three concurrent threads, which is not actually all that hard if you factor your code properly.
For the benefit of others, the main reason games aren't threaded now is that, with the main architectures consisting of single high-MHz CPUs, threading doesn't make a lot of sense. But the code can still be well-factored: For instance, even though the PC version of Giants was single threaded, they wrote clean enough code that Omni was able to thread it easily to run on DP PowerMacs.
so we know apple had a hard time fitting 2x2GHz 90nm G5s into a 1U enclosure.
Now a console is about half, if not a fourth the size of a 1U rack. And you're telling me they're going to stick 3 (three, tre, trois, drei, golme, tri, etc.) into a box, approximately the size of an Xbox?
at what speed, I ask? at 500MHz?
Unless they want to make a howercraft that is so loud even a 7.1 sound setup won't be able to match it, they will have to think of something absolutely revolutionary, IF the rumors have ANY truth to them.
Please excuse me 'cause I haven't read any of the previous posts.
Yes- I don't think the Xbox Next will be running 3 2GHz G5's. I'm thinking they'll be at a much lower clock speed (to keep heat and cost down).
How low do the 970's clock? Was it 1.4GHz? Maybe by late 2004 they'll be cheap enough.
I think this is a fake leak. Microsoft FUD, and tweaking Intel at the same time.
The Xbox2 will be a cheaper-to-make design than the current Xbox. It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Why didn't the Xbox take the market by storm? Because (a) the Playstation had more games and backward compatibility, and (b) both Nintendo and Sony engaged in a war of price-cutting attrition. Is Microsoft so stupid as to make a more expensive box which is not backward-compatible? Of course not... altho they may want people to THINK that.
The Xbox2 will be a cheaper-to-make design than the current Xbox. It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Now that IBM Semiconductor has been folded into the server group, and IBM committing to Linux over Windows, it appears that IBM is no longer doing the sort of bet-hedging that it used to. They're going to consolidate their efforts around POWER/PowerPC now that there is no pressing need to support Windows on the server side, and x86 offers no other advantage, and any number of disadvantages (including the simple fact that IBM owns the IP to PowerPC, the engineers to develop chips to that standard, and the means to fab them).
IBM knows that Intel is stumbling, and they know better than to assume that Intel will stumble for very long before recovering. So they're moving aggressively. The contract with Microsoft - which is long since confirmed (not CONFIRMED!!!) - is a major coup in this strategy.
I think this is a fake leak. Microsoft FUD, and tweaking Intel at the same time.
The Xbox2 will be a cheaper-to-make design than the current Xbox. It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Why didn't the Xbox take the market by storm? Because (a) the Playstation had more games and backward compatibility, and (b) both Nintendo and Sony engaged in a war of price-cutting attrition. Is Microsoft so stupid as to make a more expensive box which is not backward-compatible? Of course not... altho they may want people to THINK that.
If I recall correctly the Cyrix's chip was not a "true" X86 chip, though compatible. They may have received some of the technical designs from early tech sharing agreements like AMD did. However, and someone will probably correct me here, I think that it was backward engineered. I'm not sure if IBM currently holds an agreement with Intel to manufacture chips that are compatible with the current crop of Pentiums, but I don't think that they do.
Please excuse me 'cause I haven't read any of the previous posts.
Yes- I don't think the Xbox Next will be running 3 2GHz G5's. I'm thinking they'll be at a much lower clock speed (to keep heat and cost down).
How low do the 970's clock? Was it 1.4GHz? Maybe by late 2004 they'll be cheap enough.
It is quite possible that even in the first revision of the 970's the yield at 1.6 was large enough that IBM didn't even bother offering a lower speed chip. If this is the case even if Apple downclocked the chips to make them work in a specific enclosure they would still cost the same as 1.6's. Along the same track of thinking IBM may not offer anything slower than a 1.8 or even a 2.0 in the 970FX's.
"Microsoft has licensed leading-edge semiconductor processor technology from IBM"
IBM has no leadning edge x86 technology of any sort.
"the new Xbox technologies will be based on the latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors"
The latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors is the PowerPC 970, or perhaps POWER5. Either way, it's a PowerPC-processor they are talking about. IBM doesn't have any other family of processors.
That could still be a whole host of different chips and clockspeeds. Could as well be a PPC 750xx at 1GHz, for all that is worth.
Quote:
Microsoft has licensed leading-edge semiconductor processor technology from IBM"
All this means is that IBM is going to fab them. Ie using their 90nm or 65nm process, with SOI and all that stuff.
If it wasn't for the second sentence you posted, it could as well be a totally proprietary chip nobody has ever seen before.
I keep seeing people argue that the chip will be "much cooler at 65nm". Look at the bloody Prescott core: it's hotter than Northwood, despite the smaller process. smaller dies get hotter too, yaknow. And then you'll have 3 of these beasts in a console, along with high speed ASICs, Memory and GPU?
That's going to require a bloody megaton of cooling, unless they want to make it a watercooled solution. And pardon me, if I doubt that.
Look at the Sony PSX One: that thing also had 3 RISC chips doing all the work, just that they were only clocked at 33MHz or so. I guess the Xbox2 is going to have a similar approach. Probably a special adapted low-cost, low-clockspeed version of the 97x chip, making a massively parallel system. But I don't see a massively parallel system with ultra-high clockspeeds.
That's too expensive, even for MS, to hot, especially for the living-room and too bloody overkill. They'll want to sell a third generation Xbox within 10 years maximum, they're not going to make one now that will last for the next 50 years.
And don't forget, this is not a Sony PS3 idea, where huge CPU power is needed because everything is done in the CPU, even the graphics. The graphics are going to be handled by an ATI chip, the CPU will hardly be stressed doing a little AI and a little data shoveling, let alone 3 of them.
Plus, rumorsites have had an extremely low hit-rate recently
I keep seeing people argue that the chip will be "much cooler at 65nm". Look at the bloody Prescott core: it's hotter than Northwood, despite the smaller process. smaller dies get hotter too, yaknow. And then you'll have 3 of these beasts in a console, along with high speed ASICs, Memory and GPU?
This is only true for the current iteration of the P4. If you look at the 90nm 970FX vs. the 130nm 970, the picture changes.
Where the original 970 used around 51W at 1.8Ghz, the revised chip takes only 24W at 2Ghz. This is because IBM has introduced new techniques (like SOI) to drastically cut leakage current - something intel has not done.
intel and AMD are currently locked into a full-throttle, pedal-to-the-metal death match about Ghz where IBM is much more conservative in order to be able to deliver more balanced chips.
We'll see at least one revision of the 90nm process resulting in power usage cuts before the 65nm chips on strained silicon are going to reduce wattage even further. Combined with more advanced power saving features, maybe a simpler bus interface (non-elastic), different cache layout etc., IBM should be able to reduce power dissipation to about 6 - 10W/core in late 2005. This might, incidently be the reason why MS chose to jump ship - intel would not be able to deliver the same processing power per Watt.
Don't forget further that 970 is based on Power4 (a 125W monster), whereas the future consumer PPCs might be based on Power5 (25 - 40W target).
This is because IBM has introduced new techniques (like SOI) to drastically cut leakage current - something intel has not done.
There's an awful lot of ifs and whens in there.
Experience with 65nm processes is very low, as is any information on strained silicon developments in this area.
Note that Prescott is currently the only chip using it, and it's hotter than Northwood.
Frankly, we don't know enough to make claims about what a future chip might or might not do.
Eitherway, if they want a triple core/chip version running at even nearly desktop CPU speeds, they'll have to resort to massive active cooling, resulting in a even noisiert box than the current Xbox.
Experience with 65nm processes is very low, as is any information on strained silicon developments in this area.
Note that Prescott is currently the only chip using it, and it's hotter than Northwood.
I thought Prescott is 90 nm...
Quote:
Frankly, we don't know enough to make claims about what a future chip might or might not do.
Sure, if we talk about processes below 90 nm. But at 90 nm, according to the available information about the new IBM and Intel chips, the situation is quite clear. The IBM PPC design is right now the winner, at least when we talk about power reduction.
That could still be a whole host of different chips and clockspeeds. Could as well be a PPC 750xx at 1GHz, for all that is worth.
Indeed it does but I think it's pretty certain that will be PowerPC based witch was the point I was trying to make.
To me it seems that Intel ****ed up greatly with their 90 nm fab. strained silicon an all, but IBM have given us no reason to doubt them. The excellent thermal performance of 970FX surprised us all. 50-60% reduced power consumption when moving to a new fab was prevoiusly unheard of. Shrinking it further, thus reducing the voltage needed, and applying strained silicon should reduce power consumption even further. By how much, I cannot say.
IBM said that strained silicon wouldn't make any difference at 90 nm while using SOI, but on 65 nm it's another story. Seems to me that IBM were right.
Look at the bloody Prescott core: it's hotter than Northwood, despite the smaller process. smaller dies get hotter too, yaknow.
Prescott also has double the number of transistors and a higher transistor density. One of the main reasons the PPC970 saw a decent drop with the die shrink is they didn't increase it's size and the transistor density is in fact lower. Had they done what Intel did and double the transistors it would have been another story.
Is it conceivable that the chip IBM will make for the XBox might be fast enough that the PPC instruction set could be used as a sort of microcode to run x86 software?
Presumably not since VPC performance is so abysmal, but I'd like to hear it from someone with authority.
After all, it would hardly be like Microsoft to aquire a small struggling company with interesting technology in order to avoid some hard work, would it?
Is it conceivable that the chip IBM will make for the XBox might be fast enough that the PPC instruction set could be used as a sort of microcode to run x86 software?
Presumably not since VPC performance is so abysmal, but I'd like to hear it from someone with authority.
I dont think that they would really need to. Microsoft did build a version of Windows NT for Power PC processors. Windows XP is a derivative of Windows NT as I recall, so part of the work is already done. All they would need to do is update the code neccessary for the games to run, and the effort to do this would probably be a lot less than trying to get the hardware and software "tuned" well enough to run the software through emulation, though that might be a good solution for legacy game compatability if the hardware is fast enough to match the Xbox 1 in performance under emulation.
Comments
This is ridiculous when you take into account what has been used in consoles so far.
heat
so we know apple had a hard time fitting 2x2GHz 90nm G5s into a 1U enclosure.
Now a console is about half, if not a fourth the size of a 1U rack. And you're telling me they're going to stick 3 (three, tre, trois, drei, golme, tri, etc.) into a box, approximately the size of an Xbox?
at what speed, I ask? at 500MHz?
Unless they want to make a howercraft that is so loud even a 7.1 sound setup won't be able to match it, they will have to think of something absolutely revolutionary, IF the rumors have ANY truth to them.
Originally posted by Programmer
And what space would that be? What 4th core?
I think he means that the cores will be placed in a 2x2 matrix, where 3 slots are used by PPC-cores and the fourth are being used by the supporting ASIC.
Couldn't the cores be placed three in a row? Since yields aren't 100% it must be easier to find three working cores in a row, than the suggested 2x2 design.
Originally posted by Henriok
I think he means that the cores will be placed in a 2x2 matrix, where 3 slots are used by PPC-cores and the fourth are being used by the supporting ASIC.
Couldn't the cores be placed three in a row? Since yields aren't 100% it must be easier to find three working cores in a row, than the suggested 2x2 design.
They don't have to be the same shape, and there are other options for the 4th corner... like a shared cache, for example. If you look at the existing XBox's design you'll note that the "system ASIC" is actually part of the GPU, which has a more pressing need for massive bandwith.
As for repeated comments about heat... the whole point of using the 9xx series design is that it is the most power efficient high-end processor available presently. Scaled down to a 65nm SOI process with IBM's cooling and PowerTune technologies, this thing's heat should be less of an issue than ATI's GPU.
Originally posted by Programmer
And what space would that be? What 4th core?
I was imagining a large rectangular die with three cores arrayed like so:
----
|**|
|* |
----
Where * is a core. That leaves room for a good-sized ASIC's worth of stuff to be integrated on board.
I realize that this design is neither necessary nor inevitable - you could just have three cores in a rectangle, or something like that - but the first thing I thought of was a SoC design, and that was the layout that popped into my head.
Games use around 99.5% of the available CPU, so you pretty much have to code the game to use it. Everything else that is expensive is in the GPU or DMA controllers.
Ah. In that case, you're splitting the game into three concurrent threads, which is not actually all that hard if you factor your code properly.
For the benefit of others, the main reason games aren't threaded now is that, with the main architectures consisting of single high-MHz CPUs, threading doesn't make a lot of sense. But the code can still be well-factored: For instance, even though the PC version of Giants was single threaded, they wrote clean enough code that Omni was able to thread it easily to run on DP PowerMacs.
Originally posted by G-News
let me bring up a new point:
heat
so we know apple had a hard time fitting 2x2GHz 90nm G5s into a 1U enclosure.
Now a console is about half, if not a fourth the size of a 1U rack. And you're telling me they're going to stick 3 (three, tre, trois, drei, golme, tri, etc.) into a box, approximately the size of an Xbox?
at what speed, I ask? at 500MHz?
Unless they want to make a howercraft that is so loud even a 7.1 sound setup won't be able to match it, they will have to think of something absolutely revolutionary, IF the rumors have ANY truth to them.
Please excuse me 'cause I haven't read any of the previous posts.
Yes- I don't think the Xbox Next will be running 3 2GHz G5's. I'm thinking they'll be at a much lower clock speed (to keep heat and cost down).
How low do the 970's clock? Was it 1.4GHz? Maybe by late 2004 they'll be cheap enough.
The Xbox2 will be a cheaper-to-make design than the current Xbox. It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Why didn't the Xbox take the market by storm? Because (a) the Playstation had more games and backward compatibility, and (b) both Nintendo and Sony engaged in a war of price-cutting attrition. Is Microsoft so stupid as to make a more expensive box which is not backward-compatible? Of course not... altho they may want people to THINK that.
Originally posted by cubist
The Xbox2 will be a cheaper-to-make design than the current Xbox. It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Now that IBM Semiconductor has been folded into the server group, and IBM committing to Linux over Windows, it appears that IBM is no longer doing the sort of bet-hedging that it used to. They're going to consolidate their efforts around POWER/PowerPC now that there is no pressing need to support Windows on the server side, and x86 offers no other advantage, and any number of disadvantages (including the simple fact that IBM owns the IP to PowerPC, the engineers to develop chips to that standard, and the means to fab them).
IBM knows that Intel is stumbling, and they know better than to assume that Intel will stumble for very long before recovering. So they're moving aggressively. The contract with Microsoft - which is long since confirmed (not CONFIRMED!!!) - is a major coup in this strategy.
Originally posted by cubist
I think this is a fake leak. Microsoft FUD, and tweaking Intel at the same time.
The Xbox2 will be a cheaper-to-make design than the current Xbox. It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Why didn't the Xbox take the market by storm? Because (a) the Playstation had more games and backward compatibility, and (b) both Nintendo and Sony engaged in a war of price-cutting attrition. Is Microsoft so stupid as to make a more expensive box which is not backward-compatible? Of course not... altho they may want people to THINK that.
If I recall correctly the Cyrix's chip was not a "true" X86 chip, though compatible. They may have received some of the technical designs from early tech sharing agreements like AMD did. However, and someone will probably correct me here, I think that it was backward engineered. I'm not sure if IBM currently holds an agreement with Intel to manufacture chips that are compatible with the current crop of Pentiums, but I don't think that they do.
Originally posted by tacojohn
Please excuse me 'cause I haven't read any of the previous posts.
Yes- I don't think the Xbox Next will be running 3 2GHz G5's. I'm thinking they'll be at a much lower clock speed (to keep heat and cost down).
How low do the 970's clock? Was it 1.4GHz? Maybe by late 2004 they'll be cheap enough.
It is quite possible that even in the first revision of the 970's the yield at 1.6 was large enough that IBM didn't even bother offering a lower speed chip. If this is the case even if Apple downclocked the chips to make them work in a specific enclosure they would still cost the same as 1.6's. Along the same track of thinking IBM may not offer anything slower than a 1.8 or even a 2.0 in the 970FX's.
Originally posted by cubist
It probably won't even use a PPC - IBM can make X86 chips, they used to make Cyrix's.
Enough of this! Again I quote from the pressrelease:
"Microsoft has licensed leading-edge semiconductor processor technology from IBM"
IBM has no leadning edge x86 technology of any sort.
"the new Xbox technologies will be based on the latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors"
The latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors is the PowerPC 970, or perhaps POWER5. Either way, it's a PowerPC-processor they are talking about. IBM doesn't have any other family of processors.
Microsoft has licensed leading-edge semiconductor processor technology from IBM"
All this means is that IBM is going to fab them. Ie using their 90nm or 65nm process, with SOI and all that stuff.
If it wasn't for the second sentence you posted, it could as well be a totally proprietary chip nobody has ever seen before.
I keep seeing people argue that the chip will be "much cooler at 65nm". Look at the bloody Prescott core: it's hotter than Northwood, despite the smaller process. smaller dies get hotter too, yaknow. And then you'll have 3 of these beasts in a console, along with high speed ASICs, Memory and GPU?
That's going to require a bloody megaton of cooling, unless they want to make it a watercooled solution. And pardon me, if I doubt that.
Look at the Sony PSX One: that thing also had 3 RISC chips doing all the work, just that they were only clocked at 33MHz or so. I guess the Xbox2 is going to have a similar approach. Probably a special adapted low-cost, low-clockspeed version of the 97x chip, making a massively parallel system. But I don't see a massively parallel system with ultra-high clockspeeds.
That's too expensive, even for MS, to hot, especially for the living-room and too bloody overkill. They'll want to sell a third generation Xbox within 10 years maximum, they're not going to make one now that will last for the next 50 years.
And don't forget, this is not a Sony PS3 idea, where huge CPU power is needed because everything is done in the CPU, even the graphics. The graphics are going to be handled by an ATI chip, the CPU will hardly be stressed doing a little AI and a little data shoveling, let alone 3 of them.
Plus, rumorsites have had an extremely low hit-rate recently
Originally posted by G-News
I keep seeing people argue that the chip will be "much cooler at 65nm". Look at the bloody Prescott core: it's hotter than Northwood, despite the smaller process. smaller dies get hotter too, yaknow. And then you'll have 3 of these beasts in a console, along with high speed ASICs, Memory and GPU?
This is only true for the current iteration of the P4. If you look at the 90nm 970FX vs. the 130nm 970, the picture changes.
Where the original 970 used around 51W at 1.8Ghz, the revised chip takes only 24W at 2Ghz. This is because IBM has introduced new techniques (like SOI) to drastically cut leakage current - something intel has not done.
intel and AMD are currently locked into a full-throttle, pedal-to-the-metal death match about Ghz where IBM is much more conservative in order to be able to deliver more balanced chips.
We'll see at least one revision of the 90nm process resulting in power usage cuts before the 65nm chips on strained silicon are going to reduce wattage even further. Combined with more advanced power saving features, maybe a simpler bus interface (non-elastic), different cache layout etc., IBM should be able to reduce power dissipation to about 6 - 10W/core in late 2005. This might, incidently be the reason why MS chose to jump ship - intel would not be able to deliver the same processing power per Watt.
Don't forget further that 970 is based on Power4 (a 125W monster), whereas the future consumer PPCs might be based on Power5 (25 - 40W target).
This is because IBM has introduced new techniques (like SOI) to drastically cut leakage current - something intel has not done.
There's an awful lot of ifs and whens in there.
Experience with 65nm processes is very low, as is any information on strained silicon developments in this area.
Note that Prescott is currently the only chip using it, and it's hotter than Northwood.
Frankly, we don't know enough to make claims about what a future chip might or might not do.
Eitherway, if they want a triple core/chip version running at even nearly desktop CPU speeds, they'll have to resort to massive active cooling, resulting in a even noisiert box than the current Xbox.
Originally posted by G-News
There's an awful lot of ifs and whens in there.
Experience with 65nm processes is very low, as is any information on strained silicon developments in this area.
Note that Prescott is currently the only chip using it, and it's hotter than Northwood.
I thought Prescott is 90 nm...
Frankly, we don't know enough to make claims about what a future chip might or might not do.
Sure, if we talk about processes below 90 nm. But at 90 nm, according to the available information about the new IBM and Intel chips, the situation is quite clear. The IBM PPC design is right now the winner, at least when we talk about power reduction.
Originally posted by G-News
That could still be a whole host of different chips and clockspeeds. Could as well be a PPC 750xx at 1GHz, for all that is worth.
Indeed it does but I think it's pretty certain that will be PowerPC based witch was the point I was trying to make.
To me it seems that Intel ****ed up greatly with their 90 nm fab. strained silicon an all, but IBM have given us no reason to doubt them. The excellent thermal performance of 970FX surprised us all. 50-60% reduced power consumption when moving to a new fab was prevoiusly unheard of. Shrinking it further, thus reducing the voltage needed, and applying strained silicon should reduce power consumption even further. By how much, I cannot say.
IBM said that strained silicon wouldn't make any difference at 90 nm while using SOI, but on 65 nm it's another story. Seems to me that IBM were right.
Originally posted by G-News
Look at the bloody Prescott core: it's hotter than Northwood, despite the smaller process. smaller dies get hotter too, yaknow.
Prescott also has double the number of transistors and a higher transistor density. One of the main reasons the PPC970 saw a decent drop with the die shrink is they didn't increase it's size and the transistor density is in fact lower. Had they done what Intel did and double the transistors it would have been another story.
Presumably not since VPC performance is so abysmal, but I'd like to hear it from someone with authority.
http://www.coderus.com/
After all, it would hardly be like Microsoft to aquire a small struggling company with interesting technology in order to avoid some hard work, would it?
Originally posted by Socrates
Is it conceivable that the chip IBM will make for the XBox might be fast enough that the PPC instruction set could be used as a sort of microcode to run x86 software?
Presumably not since VPC performance is so abysmal, but I'd like to hear it from someone with authority.
I dont think that they would really need to. Microsoft did build a version of Windows NT for Power PC processors. Windows XP is a derivative of Windows NT as I recall, so part of the work is already done. All they would need to do is update the code neccessary for the games to run, and the effort to do this would probably be a lot less than trying to get the hardware and software "tuned" well enough to run the software through emulation, though that might be a good solution for legacy game compatability if the hardware is fast enough to match the Xbox 1 in performance under emulation.