Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


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

Real Xbox Next Specs Leaked? 196

Posted by simoniker from the little-birdie-told-me dept.
maaaaac writes "Looks like Xbox-Scene might have been sent a copy of the alleged specs for Xenon, aka Xbox Next [Spong.com has a slightly longer version of the document, apparently from Microsoft's Xbox Advanced Technology Group.] Interesting tidbits -- CPU: A 3-core (on one die) 3.5+ GHz IBM PowerPC processor w/SMT and 1MB L2 (accessible by the GPU, no less); GPU: 500+ MHz DirectX 9.0+ part from ATI, 96 shader ops per clock cycle, 4+ gigapixels/sec, 500+ million triangles/sec, 10MB EDRAM; RAM: 256+ MB of unified memory with 22.4+ GB/sec bandwidth (EDRAM has 32 GB/sec); Misc: all audio done on the CPU, 10/100 Ethernet (no wireless?), USB 2.0, VGA out (!), 12x DVD, undecided on HD but definitely as an option, at least, and what I think is one of the better improvements, 'The Xenon console will be smaller than the Xbox console.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real Xbox Next Specs Leaked? More

Real Xbox Next Specs Leaked?

Comments Filter:

  • Heat? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:04AM (#9508088) Homepage
    And you can also use it to heat a two-story house!
    • the cpu sure sounds like a fantasy...

      where are these specs coming? from the "it would be nice" department of xbox-scene?

      three core 3.5Ghz. sounds like a fantasy for anything that would make to market even during the 2005? sure as hell sounds.

      like fuck, some serious power but if they can make it cheap enough to really slap into a console I'd be more intrested in what they can produce for a desktop!

    • Re:Heat? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bconway ( 63464 ) *
      And it will sell for only $150! Bwaahaahaa. Seriously guys, this rumor is so implausible it's laughable. Maybe it's just because I've been hearing the same twin-turbo H6 Legacy for under $30K rumor EVERY year...

  • Ugh Not Again! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wev162 ( 721318 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:06AM (#9508120)
    Quickest guaranteed way onto /. Games is to claim you have an "authentic" list of Xbox2 stats. I'll believe a list when I see something with a bit more evidence to back up its authenticity than just a couple paragraphs of assorted stats with no clue where they were obtained at. I'd don't want a name, just something to give me a little confidence before I get worked up over the capabilities.

  • Dame baby... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If that's the real specs for this thing I'll just buy one of them and run *nix and never buy a "real" computer againg. Long Live products that don't have to make a profit.

  • More Marketing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:11AM (#9508195) Homepage Journal
    Over the last week or so, there have been a lot of XBox 2 related stories and now this "leak". I wonder if Microsoft is leaking all of this information to A) keep XBox in the news during a quiet summer and B) get some free advice from the community of interested gamers. Given its PC roots, I'd be willing to guess that XBox gamers are more technically knowledgeable as a group compared to other console gamers. If this is true, then their opinions with respect to XBox 2 specs could be valuable.

    • Re:More Marketing? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Grey Ninja ( 739021 )
      Actually, most Xbox fans I have seen have just said that the Xbox is the most powerful without qualifying that in any way. Just looking at the specs and seeing higher numbers does NOT denote more power. GameCube is more powerful in some ways, and even PS2 is more powerful in a few areas.

      Now I am going to make myself look sort of like a hypocrite by not qualifying my statement in detail, but I will say that GameCube has more efficiency going for it than the Xbox could ever hope for, and THAT is where Ga
      • I don't think you can make meaningful comparisons between a 6-month-old game and a game that won't be out for another 4 months (and which we have seen very little of).

        All the consoles can be optimized to hell and all of them can be used badly by poor programmers. They are incredibly complex machines and the limits of their capabilities are not well-defined enough to rank them in a simple sequence or even say they are equal. However, in my personal experience, developers have described the PS2 as the hard
      • Now I am going to make myself look sort of like a hypocrite by not qualifying my statement in detail, but I will say that GameCube has more efficiency going for it than the Xbox could ever hope for, and THAT is where GameCube's true power lies. For a real world example, compare Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike with Halo 2. Rebel Strike pushes an insane number of polys and does it with pretty much every effect imaginable. Halo 2 pushes about half that. Granted, the frame rate will probably be better in Halo 2,

    • Re:More Marketing? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by king-manic ( 409855 )
      Over the last week or so, there have been a lot of XBox 2 related stories and now this "leak". I wonder if Microsoft is leaking all of this information to A) keep XBox in the news during a quiet summer and B) get some free advice from the community of interested gamers. Given its PC roots, I'd be willing to guess that XBox gamers are more technically knowledgeable as a group compared to other console gamers. If this is true, then their opinions with respect to XBox 2 specs could be valuable.

      Given it's tar

  • I somehow doubt this... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:21AM (#9508346)
    The development kits that Microsoft sent out to developers runs on a modded G5 running a modified NT kernel. I would bet that the dev environment is going to be faster than the actual console, and no current G5 even comes close to what is described....
    • Dev kits are rarely, if ever, faster than the final console. The dev kits for the first XBox are a notable exception because the XBox was essentially being built using currently existing off the shelf parts--although the custom GPU was higher spec than any IHV part out at the time. The CPU was certainly available, though.

      Any time you have custom GPU and CPU development going on for a console release you are going to have your game developers working in parallel to your HW development so you can get the co

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by OverDrive33 ( 468610 ) * on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:23AM (#9508366) Homepage Journal
    "The Xenon GPU is a custom 500+ MHz graphics processor from ATI. ... Xenon not only supports high-level shading language (HLSL) model 3.0 for vertex and pixel shaders but also includes advanced shader features well beyond model 3.0."

    ATI doesn't have (true) Pixel Shader 3.0 development done yet... (if they did I'm sure there'd be an X800 XT Turbo or something) let alone implemented into a processor, even more ridiculous is the "shader features well beyond model 3.0".

    Another thing is the technical limitations on have 3 CPUs and 1 GPU sharing the same L2 cache, while technically feasible, it's not a good idea, the bandwidth of the L2 cache would be severely taxed. It would make much more sense to have the smaller L2 cache for each processor. (Even this "locking down into segments" doesn't improve bandwidth...)

    a 3 core processor each running at 3.5Ghz is pretty unlikely on a PowerPC based technology... 2.0Ghz probably... 3.0Ghz maybe. And a dual core probably not. But a 3 core... come on...

    My money is on some lonely XBox fanboy made it up.

    • Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @12:02PM (#9508889) Homepage
      ATI doesn't have PS 3.0+ support in their released products. The work they are doing for MS (and Nintendo) may be well ahead of the X800, and may be the reason PS 3.0 support didn't make it into the X800 itself, if they are concentrating on their console development. The original Xbox also included features that went beyond MS's PC graphics standard at the time (DX8), after all.
    • Actually I read an earlier report posted on slashdot that mentioned the same 3.5GHz figure, whether the fanboy just read this and recycled it or not I don't know.

      But one thing was apparent in that report, the 3.5GHz figure was bollocks and it was really a 3 core CPU with each "core" running at 1.16GHz. And as we know, 3 cores @ 1.16GHz != 1 core @ 3.5GHz. This is a pretty reasonable assumption because the IBM G4/G5 CPU's don't have anywhere near the optimisations to run at 3.5GHz. I also like the 3x1.16

  • 3.5+ GHz IBM PowerPC processor? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by N4m0r ( 592310 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:28AM (#9508432)
    I'm no engineer but if Apple could only get up to 2.5 GHz in their big as a tank many fan G5 case why should we believe the new XBox is going to be able to house a 3.5+ GHz chip?
    • Because they're talking about a smaller process and a chip that won't even see the light of day for 15 months?
      • it would STILL place 3.5ghz+(three core?) cpu at the upper end of the cpu cost scale... which would mean that the cpu would either cost more than the whole console would be wise to cost or that we're going to have some cheap blazing fast(faster that can be anticipated) desktop computers in a year(for cheap)...

        the specs really do look somebody just pulled them out of their hat - and if they really seem like that then that's what probably happened. at least xbox-scene got a shitload of pageviews.
        .
        • My thoughts as well. No way that ends up being the cpu. Even in 15 months that will still be mucho expensive to produce, especially with 1MB cache. Sorry but unless X2 is going to retail at $750 these numbers are wrong.
    • By using the new Blue Gene [teamxbox.com] processors.

      To quote:

      Compared with today's fastest supercomputers, it will be six times faster, consume 1/15th the power per computation and be 10 times more compact than today's fastest supercomputers.
      -Team XBox (see link above)

      1/15th the power consumption is a heck of a lot of heat that doesn't need to be dissipated. Supposedly can be run without CPU fans, too, but it's still very experimental and that may change when they crank the speed up (the heatsink-and-fanless one fo

  • Just my opinion... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nege ( 263655 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:33AM (#9508498) Journal
    As far as the size of the box, I dont think that is an issue for me, personally. The xbox looks about the size of a stereo component, and I find it looks nice on an entertainment center. Unless you are carrying it around (why? its not a DS or PSP or GBA), size is the least important factor to me.

    Actually...I would rather have a larger box the remains cooler than a small box that has a potential to run really hot.

    • Re:Just my opinion... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Apreche ( 239272 )
      Large size dimishes gameplay possibilities. Sure, the XboX is not a portable system, you aren't supposed to play it while you are walking around. But you are going to transport it. Bring it over to your friends house who has a bigger TV. In order to play that halo thing you people like so much I'm pretty sure you need to get more than one of these things in the same place at the same time. The gamecube definitely excels in this area because it is a party system. four players, lan gaming, it has a handle.
      • You don't need multiple Xboxes to play Halo, it supports 4-player splitscreen just like the GC.

        The Xbox is really not excessively large or heavy at all; anyone in good shape can pick it up with one hand. it's a joke dating back to before its launch that has long since been beaten into the ground.

        • The only consoles that have ever been larger (in terms of volume) than the Xbox have been the Philips CD-i and the largest of the Neo-Geo systems*. I think there's still ground to pound that joke into. Even the colecovision is smaller than the Xbox.

          * Systems with internal monitors such as the vectrex don't count.

          • I agree, I make that joke all the time :) But anyone seriously listing it as a deficiency of the platform is either a dumbass or a troll.
            • The fact is that selling something depends on marketing, marketing depends on perceptions and distortion thereof, and the Xbox is large and heavy enough to distort local space-time. Or at least, that's how it appears :)
        • I think everyone's referring to system link capable games. 16 player Halo is, of course, a bigger experience than 4 player split screen Halo. It's a big deal in college dorms and apartments, and vastly more popular than 4 player Halo obviously. Still, the Gamecube is much better suited for party games with wireless controllers and a smaller console (if you've ever had to untangle 8 or more controller wires to switch one controller to a different Xbox, you'd appreciate the wavebird).
    • This is an anti-GameCube post, so I'll be modded to hell...

      But I really prefer the XBox having the same form-factor as a stereo or video component. It's about the same size as my 5 disk DVD changer, or surround, slightly bigger than my VCR, etc. But the main point is that it fits in EVERY entertainment center you'll ever see and looks nice. The Gamecube doesn't.
      • The Xbox is pretty gaudy. A PS2 looks like a steroe amp. The Gc looks liek... a toy block. For it's target demographic thats fine. the Ps2 as well. The Xbox looks like a bade pop-up ad for the XFL.

  • BS? (Score:2)

    by arrow ( 9545 )
    I like how they refer to Microsoft in the first paragraph as "MS Corporation", from what I know of Microsoft, they don't like being called anything but "Microsoft Corporation" or just "Microsoft". Even on internal docs.

    If your trying to shorten it to save on typing, the proper useage would be "MSFT". But why anyone would tpye "MS" then type out "Corporation"...

  • believe it when... (Score:4, Informative)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:35AM (#9508522) Journal
    we see it. That does sound might impressive but then again the xbox 2 or next or whatever you wanna call it, is how far away? Seriously these specs if even from M$ are probably still speculation to some degree. While next gen consoles (we need a new name for them) will need more power they also need to maintain reasonable prices. Giving it power and making the system cost $600 isn't exactly going to make them sell.

    Granted the companies are already losing money on the consoles but you cannot expect it to all be made up for on games. Especially when you are M$ and you have a hard time selling your console outside the US. If they cannot win over console gamers in another country then they will always be playing 2nd or 3rd fiddle behind those boys at Sony and Nintendo.

    ---

    "Friends don't let Friends play FPS's on consoles"

  • Also (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hythlodaeus ( 411441 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:39AM (#9508584)
    It also features a cold-fusion power supply, egg beater, clothes washer, monopole magnet, a 50" plasma display, and platinum coated interconnects.

    Seriously, I'm skeptical of these specs, as MS's supposed objective is to lose LESS money per unit sold.
    • either it's not coming out in 2005, or these are way higher than the actual specs. One or the other.

      In 2005, 3.5 GHz G5-equivalents ALONE will be going for more than the $300 presumed price of a new console. Add in the price of a high-end graphics card and MS will lose money hand over fist.

      I can see them being willing to lose $100 per unit but $300? No way.

  • No Wireless? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joinder ( 658925 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @11:56AM (#9508797)
    I guess Microsoft is enjoying getting the extra $80-$100 they are charging for the wireless adapter for the current Xbox. Where it would be really, really nice to have as an included feature, I can see where MS are trying to way the bottom line, although arguably by including it they could boost Xbox Live acceptance. In any event, I've been curious as to whether the current wireless adapter would likely work with future incarnations of the Xbox. (and if there are any other practical, cheaper wireless solutions outside of the linksys game adapter?)
    • The LinkSys wireless adapter will work with any device that has a 10/100 ethernet port.
      it'll work with your PC with onboard 10/100(/1000), it'll work with the neXtBox( provided it still has onboard ethernet), it'll work with your 10 year old machine with the ISA 10mbps ethernet card, it'll work with your laptop's 10/100 ethernet port, etc.

      I'd strongly expect the official MS branded product to behave the same way. (particularly since their short-lived networking line was pretty solid, all said)

      Cheaper than

    • by including it they could boost Xbox Live acceptance

      Wha-huh? How would including a wireless adapter boost XBox Live participation?

      1. If you currently have an XBox and are not using XBox Live at all, then you still wouldn't use it under XBox2 regardless of the type of connection.
      2. If you currently have an XBox and a wireless network, just unplug the wireless adapter and plug it into the XBox2 machine. See? You're already saving money with "backwards compatibility"! Chances are these folks would alread

    • Re:No Wireless? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Creepy ( 93888 )
      This may have something to do with the new standard. If they make the wireless adapter 802.11g and the demand is for the 802.11n by the time the new XBox is released, they're stuck with an old standard. 10/100 Ethernet has been around forever, but wireless is still developing rapidly. 802.11n will supposedly have between 100Mbps and 320Mbps, which puts it equal to or better than standard ethernet, as well as increased reliability, or so I hear (this is a real problem in my 900MHz and 2.4GHz noisy area).
  • The Xenon console will be smaller than the Xbox console.'
    Yeah, like that's saying something? Any bigger and they might as well have made it a mini-tower.

  • eh? what'd he say? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KE1LR ( 206175 )
    I just hope it's quieter than the current one.

    With no HD it should be a big improvement but my Xbox is wayyy too loud when the disk is chattering away and the DVD is spinning.

    It's even louder than my (modded with extra fan) Tivo which is right next to it in the entertainment center.

    • YOU MUST NOT PLAY WITH--

      *switches off A/V receiver*

      Sorry, I meant to say that you must not play with your receiver pumping out loud explosions all the time. I don't think I could hear a semi coming through my front window the way I play Halo...
  • Finally! A macintosh that people can actually afford!

  • That's great but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fiz Ocelot ( 642698 ) <baelzharon@NOSPaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:04PM (#9509701)
    Just to keep things in perspective, I don't really care how powerful "any" game platform is, console/pc/other. I think we are past the point of the "bit wars", or that is comparing hardware.

    Today in order to survive as a console you need great games, and a large overall library. IE: if MS got something like a GTA4 as an exclusive launch title, that would do far more than just impressive hardware. It's all about the software today, and I will buy a system on the basis of where the great games are.

    • Just to keep things in perspective, I don't really care how powerful "any" game platform is, console/pc/other. I think we are past the point of the "bit wars", or that is comparing hardware.

      Someone should mod this up; it is an excellent point! In the whole history of game-dom, hardware has never been an indicator of a system's success (except maybe once with the PS1, more on that later). The Sega Master System was more advanced than the NES. SNES was more advanced than the Genesis. Hell, the 3DO was

  • 256 in ram? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aka_big_wurm ( 757512 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @01:10PM (#9509775) Homepage
    Dident I read a story the other day about UT2k4 using up 2 gigs of ram.

    Memory is cheap now a days thow a gig of ram in the box.
    It will look good on paper even if it is not used, or devs can use it as a ram drive.
    • Memory might be cheap, but when you're into a mass market device even cheap components add up.

      Let's say Microsoft aim to have a PS2 level of success, and sell 50 million of these things. And let's suppose that they throw in an extra $20 worth of RAM into each box. Boom, that's one billion dollars right there. Who picks up the tab for that?

      Do they pass it on to customers, driving the price of the console up? Do they up the royalties they charge for each game? Do they just eat the cost? All of those are pos

  • All PowerPC chips are NOT created equal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sam_van ( 602963 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @02:00PM (#9510465) Homepage
    I'm seeing a lot of incredulous posts regarding the ability of Microsoft/IBM's ability to put three cores on a die, etc. feasibly for power and/or cost reasons. However, IBM develops a number of lines of PowerPC family processors, not just those for Apple and RS-6000 workstations. My understanding is that these cores are some sort of hybrid between 4xx and 7xx (G) series processor cores. The 4xx cores are low power devices (with set-top box, printer, router applications) and are already in multi-core chips. I imagine that with a stripped down 7xx core and some of the low power features, the brains of Xenon will not melt the unit or break the banks of those poor, struggling artists at Microsoft.

  • Windows for PPC? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by isophage ( 669539 )
    Whats next? Mac OSX for the x86? (C'mon Apple!)

  • I think its a fake (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JediSB ( 674749 ) on Wednesday June 23, 2004 @03:45PM (#9511681)
    After some investigation I think it is fake. And my reasoning has nothing to do with the specs, etc. In the supposed "leaked document" the author, Pete Isenee, uses the letter 's' in spelling 'maximise' (second bullet point under "Hardware Goals".) That is not the way that word is spelled in the United Sates. It is spelled 'maximize'. The British use 's' where we use 'z'.

    I found the guy's personal web site here:
    http://www.tantalon.com/pete.htm

    On that page he spells a similar word, 'optimize', with a 'z' and not a 's'. There would be consistency in the way he used 's' or 'z'. It looks to me that this was faked by someone in Britain.

  • Isn't Xenon the name of Intels big Cache Server/workstation version of the PII/PIII/P4 chip?
    Also if you where going multi core wouldn't you do 2 or 4 cores and not three? Why tie the GPU to the L2 cache? wouldn't that make the whole system run slower? How ofter will the GPU and CPUs be fetching the same data or code?
    All seems kind of fishy to me. Now running the NT kernel on a PPC is not strange. NT was supposed to run on the PPC, MIPS, and Alpha from the start as well as Intel. Also the PPC should give you

    • Re:Xenon? (Score:3, Informative)

      by tc ( 93768 )
      Intel's server class processors are called Xeon not Xenon.

      Why would 2 or 4 cores be more logical than 3? I mean, I know it feels like it should be a power of two, but I honestly can't think of a good technical reason why 3 isn't just as rational a choice. Doesn't it just come down to a tradeoff between how much power you want, what you can put on a die, and how much it will cost? Maybe 3 is the number that pops out when you optimize for whatever they wanted to optimize for?

      The L2 cache thing does seem wei

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close