The Whipitcher Wild Goo 472 Posted April 8, 2012 Author Share Posted April 8, 2012 It's not my "view." It's a Report from Xbox World. You can choose to believe it or not. I do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
720p 0 Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Look, technically it IS possible to have 16 cores. It's not too impractical. They'd have to downclock it to keep power budget within limits and to make sure they don't need a wind tunnel to keep the thing cooled, but it won't be 64 threads. It won't. It won't be hyper threaded either. That would completely create a cluster fuck for board complexities. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
puertorock_papi 2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I believe this is what the "OBAN" CPU in the 720 will be based on... Each "A2" is a "core" It's possible they may use less cores in an attempt to improve yields, if they are a problem. Now you're no longer arguing that th 720 will have 16 cores. 720 could easily get a 4 core cpu based on the A2 architecture which is exactly what the article talks about when it states the 18 core design was too costly. Ultimately you can forget about consoles getting a cpu designed for super computing servers. The closest we came to that was the cell qnd you see how that turned out. MS should focus on beastly GPU and RAM. I no longer believe cpu is as important as the other two components. I even except sony reusing the same exact cell chip to save cost if that would help them go all out on gpu and ram. Sony should just use a modified PowerXCell 8i and spend most money on GPU and RAM IBM is no longer making the 8i so it would be too costly for Sony to start up manufacturing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robert Lutece 124 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 It's not my "view." It's a Report from Xbox World. You can choose to believe it or not. I do. lmfao I'm gonna have to take the logical path and take any report from "Xbox World" with an entire shaker full of salt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
puertorock_papi 2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Yes, that's right. And you don't. Puerto seems to think it'll only have 4. 4 to 8 and the 8 is if they go with AMD 8 core architecture. If MS sides with IBM, 6 at the most. 16 cores were designed at this point for top of the line super processing servers. Not normal business servers but top of the line high processing servers. MS is not going to put that type of tech into a console. Next gen is going to be three keys 1. Powerful tech 2. Day one profitability 3. Off the shelf components. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Whipitcher Wild Goo 472 Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 I can see MS going for Numbers 1 and 3. I believe Microsoft will go batshit insane on the hardware side meaning an expensive subsidized console. I have a difficult time imagining Sony not doing the same but it's possible their hand has been forced. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beheaded Kamikaze 206 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 It's not my "view." It's a Report from Xbox World. You can choose to believe it or not. I do. lmfao I'm gonna have to take the logical path and take any report from "Xbox World" with an entire shaker full of salt that is too complex for whipit Quote Link to post Share on other sites
puertorock_papi 2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I can see MS going for Numbers 1 and 3. I believe Microsoft will go batshit insane on the hardware side meaning an expensive subsidized console. I have a difficult time imagining Sony not doing the same but it's possible their hand has been forced. I don't see MS going batshit crazy. It would be insane of them, to have their competitors make day one profit off of hardware and they be the only ones losing money off of every console sold. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Whipitcher Wild Goo 472 Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) I can see MS going for Numbers 1 and 3. I believe Microsoft will go batshit insane on the hardware side meaning an expensive subsidized console. I have a difficult time imagining Sony not doing the same but it's possible their hand has been forced. I don't see MS going batshit crazy. It would be insane of them, to have their competitors make day one profit off of hardware and they be the only ones losing money off of every console sold. If they are the only one of the three who is either willing or able to pump out a monster console then doing so would provide other benefits. It's too early to know for sure what will happen. I REALLY like speculating about rumors. Even more than that I like piecing together the puzzle based on existing chipsets and trying to figure out which reports are credible and which aren't . We can learn that they are basing their system on a certain chipset and assume A B and C but then at any time it can be revealed they they took that chipset and modified ____, added ____ and updated ____ so A B and C is now really E D and F I can't wait for the speculation on what ____ hardware will be capable of Glavin Edited April 9, 2012 by The Whipit Scrolls Quote Link to post Share on other sites
puertorock_papi 2 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 No benefit is great enough to provide a good console where they can make money day one. I don't see Sony and MS going as cheap as Nintendo but I don't see them repeating with what they did with 360 and PS3 creating custom chipsets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Whipitcher Wild Goo 472 Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 I don't think MS has ever gone with anything truly unique ( like the cell ), They just buy and modify existing chipsets. They went from a 733mhz celeron and a GPU ( NV2A ) based on the same chipset as the GeFores 3's ( NV20 ). Then the 360 had an IBM PowerPC and a GPU based on ATI's r500(?) or r520(?) chipset. They'll all be going with that approach next gen and it's all gonna come down to how much they're willing to spend, when they want to launch, and any contractual obligations if they apply. I can't help but wonder if both Sony and Microsoft wanted to use the same chipset, if that would be allowed or if there are some kinds of "I got here first and have an exclusive contract" sort of factors. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
720p 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Well MS used Sony's PPC they developed with IBM. IBM was big enough jews to let MS use that design that Sony funded. Surprised there was no lawsuit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brownwalrus 13 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 M$ is the greediest company ever and its ok if they steal like shit Sony designed like bluray or PPC but not the other way around Stupid faggots. No wonder whipit likes ms so much; it caters to angry and confused little racist boys. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PuNKy_LeMmInG 172 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 microsoft didnt steal a design both chips were made in the same place, with different designs lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spicalicious 128 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 devs had a hard enough time programming for cell and you think this 64 thread cpu is gonna look good?? lmao 16 core cpu not 16 thread cpu 16 core cpu with 4 threads each is 64 threads lmao pretending that this still isn't amazing technology. rofl Quote Link to post Share on other sites
720p 0 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 microsoft didnt steal a design both chips were made in the same place, with different designs lol PPC in both machines is the same design. http://www.amazon.com/The-Race-New-Game-Machine/dp/0806531010 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spicalicious 128 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Plus all current cpu's had two threads per core so they've already figured out how to develop . It's just adding extra cores and threads per core. Cell is a different cpu altogether and isn't even close to pc standards. It has 1 core +spe's. The gen cpus and pc gaming will only increase in cores and 4 threads is just an evolution of a perfected technology which was 2 hardware threads per core currently. The main difference is that there are more cores and extra threads. When have any of you ever said that a dual core with two threads per core was better than quad core with two threads per core. The only difference is that MS is going with monster 16 core. 4x the current standard cpu and two extra threads per core. It's a big difference but anyone who thinks it's gonna hinder dev doesn't know shit about hardware. A 16 core power pc is a whole lot differenct than a sony custom cell processor. lmao Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PuNKy_LeMmInG 172 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 microsoft didnt steal a design both chips were made in the same place, with different designs lol PPC in both machines is the same design. http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0806531010 the ppc but not the rest, microsoft asked ibm to make them a cpu,ibm used there experience and rushed one out lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remij_ 5 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) I'm leave this here Edited April 9, 2012 by Rylen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spicalicious 128 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 microsoft didnt steal a design both chips were made in the same place, with different designs lol PPC in both machines is the same design. http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0806531010 the ppc but not the rest, microsoft asked ibm to make them a cpu,ibm used there experience and rushed one out lol MS did just this last time. Back when 360 first came out most pc's were running a single core and some enthusiasts were running dual core. MS came out with a tricore cpu with two hardware threads per core. They paid extra for future technologym that wasn't yet available to consumers off the shelf. Same with the gpu at the time. MS paid ati a boatload of money for the new technology of the time which was a unified shader architecture which wasn't yet available to consumers. What did sony do? Oh they cam out with their own cell which nobody knew how to code for. And they used a two year old gpu architecture. 360 was way ahead of it's time at release and pc gamers should recognise that MS facilitates pc gaming development by giving devs incentive to use the hardware which translates to better looking games on pc because MS got the ball rolling with future tech in their console. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.