Rumor: Next Xbox Will Have ARM CPU, Windows 9 Core

[rohitbaran]

Windows core? Well maybe then the Xbox games be playable on PC as well? (Just guessing. Don't know if the OS is the only thing that decides how the game code will be, apart from the CPU and GPU.)

 

[ricdiculus]

[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom] I personally don't understand why blueray was ever even introduced. [/citation]

So i guess you still watch movies on an old 13" Black&White TV

 

[halcyon]

Consoles are good for us lowly Mac users...we don't have to game on our Macs...we can, but we don't have to buy them with that in mind. We can just waste even more money on console thinngys. Hey, maybe the graphics aren't so good on my Xbox and PS3 but I'm not complain'n.

 

[back_by_demand]

Rumour: Next Xbox may or may not have XYZ indeterminate componants and/or OS based on what people think is cool at the time of printing.

See how easy that was? I should write these articles, piece of cake.

 

[lockhrt999]

This is not a good news for PC gamers. Because now the developers will think twice porting a game to x86 based PC from ARM based console.

 

[jdwii]

Is arm powerful enough?

 

[molo9000]

[citation][nom]lockhrt999[/nom]This is not a good news for PC gamers. Because now the developers will think twice porting a game to x86 based PC from ARM based console.[/citation]

I don't think porting from ARM to x86 is any more difficult than porting from PowerPC to x86. (All current consoles use PowerPC).

Porting is going to more difficult if they use specialized coprocessors for AI, physics, etc.
I think that's why there were much fewer console ports back in the days of the N64 and PSX. Consoles back than used a lot of very specialized hardware and were too different from PCs to make ports viable.

 

[mchuf]

[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]I don't think porting from ARM to x86 is any more difficult than porting from PowerPC to x86. (All current consoles use PowerPC).Porting is going to more difficult if they use specialized coprocessors for AI, physics, etc.I think that's why there were much fewer console ports back in the days of the N64 and PSX. Consoles back than used a lot of very specialized hardware and were too different from PCs to make ports viable.[/citation]

EA and Eidos put out quite a few pc ports for the PSX. When Gamestop was closing out PSX games a few years back, I specifically looked for pc ports and was really surprised how many there were.

 

[zybch]

[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]Having several separate cores for AI, physics, etc. only makes development and porting between platforms more difficult.Keep it simple![/citation]

It ALL depends on how good the APIs are, and MS kicks it in this regard. Compared to the mess of the PS3 and the fact that PC and 360 gaming development are both based off Direct X and you'll have development tools that are (still) better than anything the competition has.

 

[zybch]

[citation][nom]Bri88[/nom]I understand some people dont know much abot computers, so like Companies do for Windows they could put "certified for xbox gaming", for ones theat have pc's MS could run a min. requirements test, if the pc dont meet the min specs, it would offer ideals. so with in the app a $1500 pc would be equal to a $500 pc. i dont know just a thought.[/citation]

MS did a 'min requirements' thing for companies to use the ready for Vista stickers and just look where that got them when Intel started sooking that their crappier chips weren't included, so MS had to fold an allow celerons and atom PCs to use the sticker when they could barely run XP let alone Vista. I had a compaq desktop PC with the Vista Ready sticker, but it was well below the minimum specs MS required for the sticker to be there. I think thats partly the reason many ppl hated vista, the OEMs put it on so many unsuitable PCs and people had a dreadful experience with it.
Do the same with a gaming standard that allow OEMs to create their own 'platforms' and it'll be way worse.

 

[zakaron]

Anyone else curious who these other 2 unnamed partners are? I'd laugh if one was Sony... but then again, the PS3 and 360 share a similar code base with PowerPC, so it wouldn't be out of the question for the next gen to again share similar processors for devs to work with. And look at the Vita - it is quad core ARM based. Developing for Vita and PS4 will be easier that way. See a trend here? Heck, maybe the other silent partner is Nintendo. After all, the 3DS (and subesquet DS systems) are ARM based.

I can see it using a Windows 8 core. After all, Windows 8 is being designed to homogenize all platforms with a common OS and user interface, from mobiles, tablets, laptops, and desktops.

And if that's the case, maybe they will be trying something like a hybrid console/handheld, in which case the ARM processor is proven as an efficient chipset in this area.

Nintendo fired the first shots with Wii U. I'm curious how the others respond.

 

[Guest]

@zakaron

if i were a betting man i say Samsung and AMD/nVidia

 

[Guest]

eliminate hdd and odd all at once with sd cards. Done.

 

[krinkles619]

[citation][nom]dickcheney[/nom]New Xbox, still slower than a GTX 8800 from 4 years ago...[/citation]
no, actually the 360 equals an sli'd pair of 9800GT's... i have a couple games on both pc and xbox and i've compared them side by side, it's pretty much identical. lol, guess i need to upgrade my graphics soon

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]Is ARM really that much more efficient than x86? or is MS going to experiment with a new architecture? I understand that it doesn't perform as well as x86, but enough small things can make a big thing, though it'd be crazy if it was able to use many parts to achieve greater speed and still use less power than, say, an intel cpu capable of doing the same thing by itself (mostly). What do you guys think?[/citation]
ARM processors use a RISC based architecture. Due to this architecture type, they are considerably more efficient than an x86 processor. The performance of RISC based processors is heavily dependent on coding. Sloppy coding has a greater impact on RISC based processor performance than it does CISC (x86, x86-64, IA64) based processor performance.

 

[Guest]

It's the PC who's days are numbered IMO. Consoles with web and email would eliminate the need for PC's altogether. You are all backward.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]Having several separate cores for AI, physics, etc. only makes development and porting between platforms more difficult.Keep it simple![/citation]

Only way to do demanding tasks with an arm chip, its primary designed to be power and performance comes into second place unlike most other computer cpu's. So it have to utilize dedicated logic for the more demanding tasks (pretty much anything in a console - gfx, sound ect). So its more like a bunch of cores glued together by an arm chips if this rumor is true.

 

[QEFX]

So if they call it XBox 720, will that be because they have 720 1GHz arm cores?

 

[Shin-san]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]Is ARM really that much more efficient than x86? or is MS going to experiment with a new architecture? I understand that it doesn't perform as well as x86, but enough small things can make a big thing, though it'd be crazy if it was able to use many parts to achieve greater speed and still use less power than, say, an intel cpu capable of doing the same thing by itself (mostly). What do you guys think?[/citation]
The largest advantage of ARM is how little power they need compared to the Core i7. That's a good part of the reason why Microsoft didn't go with x86 in the Xbox 360. The chip in the 360 was the best combination of performance and power consumption they could find.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Like ARM will any better than a Fully fledge 2500K. I bet my 2500K + GTX570 will still hold the raw speed over next gen console. Seems they arent ready to sell expensive console that they gonna lose $100 every console they sell. They going nintendo way.[/citation]I highly doubt the next Xbox is going to lose to your rig. Just because they said "ARM" everyone immediately thinks "Oh gee it's like them thar cell phone chips. Whatcha call em... Smopdraggins and Tergas?". At the end of the day, ARM = instruction set. ARM does reference designs, but not everyone follows them.

So other than compatibility, there's very little stopping someone from making a custom-built ARM-compatible processor that is built on a high-performance process (instead of LP) that is both fast AND has lots of cores. Couple that with a custom or semi-custom GPU and you're already off to a good start.
[citation][nom]lockhrt999[/nom]3G is nice feature to add, but what's the ping on 3G network in states?[/citation]If they went this route, LTE would be a more likely candidate for a 2013 timeframe. Pings on LTE are actually tolerable, all things considered. But I doubt they would intend for you to game over the wireless. Wireless would make more sense for a portable device.

Although they may use wireless for things like free-with-purhcase delivery of games and patches, similar to how it works on a Kindle 3G. That would solve the issue of delivering updates and content to those living in somewhat remote areas or who otherwise don't have decent internet access.