Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games Hardware

Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox 64

Posted by CowboyNeal from the console-upgrades dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A stock Microsoft Xbox has a 733 MHz Intel CPU with 128KB L2 cache. On Valentine's Day, Friendtech will launch the DreamX-1480, a modified Xbox with a 1.48 GHz Tualatin-core CPU with 256KB L2 cache, promising better framerates and more stable network gaming. FiringSquad has the review."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox More

Putting a 1.48GHz Tualatin CPU in an Xbox

Comments Filter:
  • is slashdot friendtech or what. FIX THE LINK.

    otherwise though, can't imagine ms letting them do this on high profile..

  • so (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cft ( 715198 )
    so when are we going to see some consoles with 1MB level1 cache? that would totally improve performance, more than upping processor speeds

    • Re:so (Score:5, Funny)

      by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @12:54PM (#8226648)
      so when are we going to see some consoles with 1MB level1 cache? that would totally improve performance, more than upping processor speeds

      And put in a better processor! How about an AMD Athlon 64 FX-51? Up the paltry 10 gig drive to a 72GB WD SATA Raptor... granted all this is gonna get pretty hot so it'd need a bigger case and some more fans. Oh, let's not forget a good modern video card.. maybe an NVidia GeForce FX 5900. Get rid of the goofy controller though while we're at it and repace it with a nice keyboard and trackball. Also, it should run the full version of Windows XP Pro. I wish someone would make a version of the X-Box with those specs. I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

    • Re:so (Score:5, Informative)

      by philthedrill ( 690129 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8226704)

      You won't see 1 MB L1 caches, at least not in the forseeable future. The reason there is a memory hierarchy is to reduce access time due to address decoding and (especially) wire delays while keeping costs low since cache is expensive in terms of transistors... 1 MB is simply too large for the L1 to have a reasonable access time. L1 is performance critical, so a large L1 could hurt performance more than it helps, regardless of the hit rate. Plus, if you plan on implementing multiple processors (Xbox Next?), it may be a good idea to have inclusion (where data in L1 is guaranteed to also reside in L2) to shield the L1 from remote probe requests. This in turn means that your L2 should be much larger than your L1 (or else your L2 really doesn't serve much of a purpose).

      • Re:so (Score:2, Insightful)

        by keesh ( 202812 ) *
        All those high-end non-x86 CPUs out there beg to differ.
      • 1 MB is simply too large for the L1 to have a reasonable access time.

        At first I was thinking this was a troll, but my better senses prevailed. CPUs really do have small L1 caches (like 32KB). The grandparent post was thinking of the big L2 caches in the higher end CPUs, leading to a confusion of terms. I often drool over the 8MB put into "big iron" CPUs, but then I look into my wallet and decide otherwise (sigh).

  • Isn't this kinda pointless? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PedanticSpellingTrol ( 746300 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @12:46PM (#8226575)
    If all of the games are designed for the stock hardware, is upgrading really going to make the slightest difference? Who cares about the framerate anyway? NTSC is only 60Hz interlaced refresh. Also, I'm pretty sure I heard about a company in Hong Kong that was already doing this.
    • Oh, it was a taiwanese company. In fact, it was this taiwanese article. Why oh why did I ever go back and RTFA? Ignorance is bliss
    • because it's crappily made(it raises the system realtime clock to 2x too? stupid stupid stupid, but i guess the cheapest and easiest way to get the 1.48ghz.) it just makes it a pain in the ass apart from the cache increase.

      -
      • but i guess the cheapest and easiest way to get the 1.48ghz

        Cheapest?? The article said this thing is going to be $500 [firingsquad.com]. That aside though, I can't see why anyone would actually want this. It increases the frame rate for a couple of games but because MPEG-2 playback is dependent on the 733 MHz clock the article says that most in-game movies will pause every 3-5 seconds, and most DVD play back has similar problems. Granted, it has a switch on the front to knock it back down to 733 but the article also sa

        • cheapest for _them_. I would applaud it if it kept the real time clock thats used to sync the programs into real time at it's normal 100% of time. now it's just a half assed proof of concept that you can change the cpu and play around with the timing circuits. (no i'm NOT willing to believe that the videoplayers would be dependand on the cpu speed for their sync into 'real world', hell you wouldn't rely to that on even mobile devices nowadays and certainly not with xbox's architechture, well I wouldn't an

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2004 @12:48PM (#8226595)
    Will this void your X-Box warranty?

  • Not all that it seems... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sirmikester ( 634831 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @01:00PM (#8226711) Homepage Journal
    While upgrading the processor in an xbox sounds like a great idea, the artice makes it perfectly clear that it doesn't make everything better. I don't know if I could live with only some of my games being faster and with some not working properly. Plus, I think that Xbox live is one of the Xbox's major selling points, so taking that away would really make buying an xbox pointless. But its an interesting modification nonetheless.
    • You're exactly right. The only purpose for this is to service people who TRULY only want to use the Xbox for running Linux, MAME and the rest; and who don't realize that they can probably get better performance and customizability for similar prices by staying in the PC world. Even people interested in playing stolen games want their games to work right, so those folks are left out as well.
    • i think its more a "see what we can do" thing than anything else.

  • Not good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @01:07PM (#8226761) Homepage Journal
    As soon as this type of thing starts happening, you can kiss goodbye to the concept of consoles as being a set/fixed architecture. Say hello to tweaking your FPS/performance settings a'la PC gaming.. Might as well just buy a PC and stick windows on it because in the long run there aint going to be a lot of difference.

    I dont want to have the inconvenience of sifting through games in a store to check if my console meets the minimum gaming requirements, and neither do a great deal of console gamers. I really dont like the sound of this at all.

    I wonder what the opinion of a game developer would be on this one...

    • Re:Not good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hawkstone ( 233083 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @01:15PM (#8226854)
      I don't see this ever becoming common.

      First, developers would hate it. The beauty of consoles has always been that you know, as a developer, whether the game will work on everyone's system based on a single data point: whether it works in the exact same console you have sitting in your office. They don't want to have to worry about varying systems, and gamers don't want to have to worry about system specs.

      It is absolutely in the developers best interest to target the lowest common denominator (i.e. the base system) to have the widest market, even if there ever did get to be a significant percentage of people with upgrades in the wild.

      Not only that, it most certainly would void your warranty with MS, so I don't see the average customer ever being interested in it. How many console owners (including XBox owners) are less tech savvy than TiVo owners, and what percentage of TiVos have been upgraded? My guess is that the percent of modded TiVos is actually quite small, and the percentage of modded XBoxes (where the benefit of upgrading is even less apparent) will be even smaller.

      • Re:Not good idea. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Lightwarrior ( 73124 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @02:14PM (#8227531) Journal
        > The beauty of consoles has always been that you know, as a developer, whether the game will work on everyone's system based on a single data point: whether it works in the exact same console you have sitting in your office.

        Except, of course, that console developers get special Development Kit versions of the consoles, that are more powerful and capable of outputting higher resolutions.

        I'm sure they have access to the "normal" consoles as well, but it's an important distinction to make.

        I always thought the "consoles are better for developers because it's a single target" was specious reasoning. Not only do the majority of games come out for multiple platforms, but they have several built-in limitations that are impossible to get around without forcing the player to spend more money (Final Fantasy:Crystal Chronicles, for an example). Consoles have limited graphics capability (due to the extremely poor resolution of the standard television) and a very limited control set (even the Xbox's 4-axis 10 button controller pales in comparison to a mouse with a wheel, and a 102+ keyboard), as well as a nonexistant mod base.

        That's like saying Children's Books are better for Authors because children have a lower common denominator.

        -lw

        • Re:Not good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hawkstone ( 233083 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @02:43PM (#8227875)
          > Except, of course, that console developers get special Development Kit versions of the consoles, that are more powerful and capable of outputting higher resolutions.

          You're right, I glossed over that point. The development consoles need to be different, at least to handle debug code at close to a reasonable speed. The point still stands, though, that they have a single target, even if intermediate development is on a different platform. Even with three consoles, three targets is an easier thing to deal with than, say, 5 video cards speeds X 5 cpu speeds = 25 "speed" configurations.

          And even then, I've simplified the picture for PCs. Do we keep using DX8, or switch to DX9 now that it's out? Am I going to have an issue with ATI cards if I use pixel shaders? What glitz can I drop for a slow video card -- can the CPU take over some of that work? How about giving more work to the graphics card for a machine slow CPU? When the game is finished a year from now, what will be the base CPU speed we can allow? Not only do I have to worry about different speed configurations, I need to worry about different brands now, too!

          > Consoles have limited graphics capability (due to the extremely poor resolution of the standard television)

          True, but the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder. You may be able to do less with that resolution, but damnit, you know what that resolution is going to be and you don't have to worry about someone who wants to run at 2048x1440 and someone who wants to run at 640x480! Anyway, that is passing with HDTVs becoming more common. Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).

          > very limited control set (even the Xbox's 4-axis 10 button controller pales in comparison to a mouse with a wheel, and a 102+ keyboard)

          That's true. However, there are many games -- entire genres -- where a mouse+keyboard doesn't make sense. Even so, that is simply another hardware restriction, which makes it easier to handle because there is less variety. You don't have to worry about supporting mouse+kbd and a joystick.

          > That's like saying Children's Books are better for Authors because children have a lower common denominator.

          Not sure I see the analogy. A book for a 2-year old and a book for a 6-year old bear absolutely no resemblance to one another, and trying to make one book (game) to appeal to (work on) all children (configurations) is virtually impossible.

          • Re:Not good idea. (Score:4, Informative)

            by Lightwarrior ( 73124 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @03:46PM (#8228728) Journal
            > Even with three consoles, three targets is an easier thing to deal with than, say, 5 video cards speeds X 5 cpu speeds = 25 "speed" configurations.

            Except the three consoles have vastly dissimilar architecture. Coding for a PS2 != GCN != Xbox. And once you make an Xbox version, there's not much stopping a developer from jumping to the PC. Coding for different _types_ of hardware requirements (CPU speeds, graphic cards) is significantly different than coding for entirely different hardware.

            > And even then, I've simplified the picture for PCs.

            You paint a much bleaker picture than is actually the case. DX8 code is forward compatible with DX9, and DX has gotten significantly more cleaned up over the years. It's much easier to support _additional_ functionality now, including detecting the capabilities of the graphics card and offloading anything that it can do in hardware off from DX's software.

            It's as easy as coding for a baseline - like picking a target console - and then adding additional effects as you see fit.

            > ...the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder.

            We're looking at the same thing from different angles. The number of pixels you can display information on in 480i is _significantly_ lower than the number of available pixels in 1600x1200. PCs are able to present a much, much higher quality image - with the baseline of 480i, you have the additional headache of trying to present your image in an extremely limited environment.

            Regardless, the number of pixels available is only part of the problem. The other part is the limited hardware - how many polys with different effects you can display, and how good they look. There's also multisampling (AA), which consoles have only barely scratched the surface of (Xbox supports 2xAA).

            > Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).

            The PS2 & GCN support 480p, the Xbox supports 480p, 720p, and 1080i. There are very, very few games that support 1080i (3?), and a mere handful that supports 720p (10?). HDTV is not even remotely standard, and that is highly unlikely to change in the immediate future. I think that if the next round of consoles assumes HDTV will be standard, that they are in for a rude surprise.

            > ...[fewer controls is] simply another hardware restriction, which makes it easier to handle because there is less variety.

            Except fewer controls means that it is more difficult to require certain tasks of the user. FPSes are a great example of a really rough transition onto consoles. With the Xbox and Halo, your traditionally button-pressing right thumb is stuck on the right thumbstick, halving the number of buttons available to you. The PS2 has four shoulder buttons, so it's _slightly_ better. Still, 4-6 non-movement buttons for a FPS?

            And don't even start with RTSes.

            More options does not equal more restrictions - it's the opposite. And since functionality is often duplicated amongst the multiple control types (mouse, keyboard, joystick), we're not talking about huge amounts of effort. Shoot = mouse_1, joy_1, Ctrl.

            > Not sure I see the [Children's Books] analogy.

            I'm saying that targeting a simpler audience doesn't necessarily make it easier for the targeter to tell a really great story. We have books for adults as well as kids because adults have different, more complex tastes. I'm not reading Green Eggs and Ham in my spare time.

            Developing games for a console has its own problems, quirks, and issues. It's not as simple as "consoles have set hardware, therefore it's easier". That's just one tiny part of the whole picture.

            -lw
            • I think you're correct; we're talking about different facets of the same problem.

              You're right -- it's easier to make a game (especially a good one) if you can target better hardware. And I'm exaggerating the complexities of development, especially concerning Windows of recent years. (I won't bother to include Linux varieties here, and Windows used to be worse than it is today.)

              But at the same time, my point is that it is easier to target fewer varieties of platforms -- sure, GC/PS2 are quite different,
            • HDTV is not even remotely standard, and that is highly unlikely to change in the immediate future. I think that if the next round of consoles assumes HDTV will be standard, that they are in for a rude surprise.

              They're not going to assume that "HDTV will be standard" in the sense of only supporting HDTV, but they'll almost certainly support HDTV by including 720p/1080i output in virtually every game - the inevitable increase in graphics processing power will make it silly not to do so.

              • Of course, you're absolutely right. I expect the next gen of consoles to support commonly used HD resolutions, as well as whatever might be on the local horizon.

                But since one of the arguments on "coding for consoles is easier" is that you have a fixed display resolution, the inclusion of said additional resolutions makes for additional effort (and detracts from "the simplicity").

                I think it's fascinating that, over time, consoles are approaching pre-fab computers. Hopefully, us PC gamers will be able to
            • I had a long rebuttal to this, but I'm so sick of having this PC-vs-console argument.

              You keep playing your 1337 PC games on your uB3r machine. I'll/we'll keep playing good games on whatever platform they come out on.

              I can't believe that people are so petty that they have to argue "but my game system is so much better than yours!" as if anyone with a clue actually cares.

              --Jeremy
              • You totally missed the point of the discussion.

                To catch you up, we've been talking about which group would be "easier" to develop for. 1337-ness has not entered the discussion.

                We've decided that each system has strengths and weaknesses, and that game development is not as easy as picking a target platform and starting to code.

                Personally, I own five computers, a PS2, a Xbox, a GCN, and a GBA:SP. I'm also learning DX9/OGL, so I can try some of this myself. I've currently been playing BG:DA2, Metroid Pri
          • True, but the limited resolution makes it easier to develop for, not harder. You may be able to do less with that resolution, but damnit, you know what that resolution is going to be and you don't have to worry about someone who wants to run at 2048x1440 and someone who wants to run at 640x480! Anyway, that is passing with HDTVs becoming more common. Many PS2/XBox games have support for progressive scan (e.g. 480p/720p).

            So much for a identical systems, eh? Now developers have to start deciding whether or
            • Now developers have to start deciding whether or not to support higher resolutions, and if they do, what to sacrifice for the increase in calculations required at those higher resolutions.

              Yep. Which is why so few games actually support it, even new ones. Disappointing for those of us with HDTVs, but I can understand why so few developers go through the extra effort.
        • The only reason developer consoles are usually faster is so that you can test and debug unoptimized code. I'm sure all of the final play testing and such is done on a standard console.

        • Re:Not good idea. (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Except, of course, that console developers get special Development Kit versions of the consoles, that are more powerful and capable of outputting higher resolutions.

          As a developer, I know your statement is absolutely wrong.

          The Xbox development kits have double the memory of a retail machine (128MB, but this can be turned off so that the machine only sees 64MB) - and a SCSI interface that enables emulation of a DVD-ROM disk on a host PC (so that loading off a disk can be tested). CPU and graphics chipset
    • Insightful? This isn't Microsoft doing this, it's a hack. This isn't a trend toward customizable consoles, where you'll have to make sure you meet specs. The Sega Dreamcast and Atari Lynx were also speed-hacked. But, again, not by their manufacturers. Manufacturers of consoles enjoy economies of scale when they stick to ONE console with NO options. It won't change and how you got that it would from this article blows my mind.

  • DUPE! DUPE! DUPE! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This story is a dupe [slashdot.org].

  • And on the following Monday (Score:3, Funny)

    by aztektum ( 170569 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @01:38PM (#8227093)
    They'll be sued out of existence
  • Ok, now this is getting a bit pointless. games cant use it, only thing that could be would be Linux on it (maybe a emulator) i mean, i thought MS should do a small cd w/ keyboard that is just a net pc-console, make the font a little bigger and use it for email and internet, and wow, cheap pc that is all most of america needs. putting a new cpu in it just seems wasteful to me. at the point you are doing that, just go buy a farking pc! *sigh*

  • But does it support (Score:3, Funny)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @03:04PM (#8228160)
    The Green Screen of Death? [activexbox.com]
  • The average /. reader (with the exception of the mac people) knows his rubber booties from his rambus and I am assuming has a PC. So do we really need to upgrade an xBox? I have an xbox and think its groovy but I would rather spend time and geld trickin' out my PC and plugging it into my TVs DVI input. Faster machine, better online play and no credit card rape from xbox live. Come on, from $50 for a year to fiddy a month!? I guess BG needs a new pair of gold plated shoes. My god but I am rambling. I apologi
    • Sorry all, I don't know where I got that Xbox live number from. Cough, my roommate.. cough. I just looked at the live site..

      ... in the 50 U.S., D.C., Puerto Rico and Canada only. At the end of your two-month trial subscription period, $5.99USD/$8.99 CDN per month or the then-current price for Xbox Live service will be automatically charged to your major credit card

  • uh (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kanasta ( 70274 ) on Monday February 09, 2004 @08:10PM (#8232467)
    a faster CPU. doesn't that just mean any instabilities will appear faster?

Slashdot Top Deals

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.

Close