The Next Xbox May Use AMD Chips

[JPForums]

Oh, and the PS3 could actually eat the 360 for a late night snack. The 360's processor is actually a dumbed down (and ripped off) PS3 cell processor. Get your facts straight.

I'm going to keep things relatively simple while providing (hopefully) enough detail to illustrate my point. So please forgive any oversimplifications.

The 360's CPU is a tricore PPC. The cell is 8 SPE's (one disabled for the PS3) + one PPE (similar to the PPC cores of the 360) largely for task scheduling. Both run at 3.2GHz. In theory, the PS3's Cell can execute 10 simultaneous threads (1 per SPE + 2 per PPE), while the 360's CPU can execute only 6. In reality, one of the SPE's are disabled, and the PPE of the PS3 is mostly relegated to task scheduling. This drops the usable thread count to 7. Even then, the PS3 only nears it's maximum performance with parallel matrix multiplication. The 360's CPU also has architectural limitations to reaching its maximum performance, but it isn't as much weaker in practice as you might think.

The PS3 certainly has more potential to execute physics calculations. I would argue, however, that the 360 makes up for this (at least in part) with a superior graphics capabilities. The PS3's RSX GPU is effectively a Geforce 7800 series chip. The 360's Xenos GPU is effectively an X1900 series chip. Without going into an ATI vs nVidia battle, I'll just state simply that the X1900 series was clearly superior than the GF7800 series.

I would surmise that the 360s architecture is better balanced for current games than the PS3. I base this off the fact that the PS3 has yet to release a title that makes the 360 feel obsolete. The argument that the PS3 is harder to program for is hardly relevant. That simply means that the hardware was too specialized to be adapted (with in a reasonable amount of time) to the task. The 360's more generic (even if weaker) architecture has allowed developers to make better use of the hardware. It seems that, by the time the PS3 is fully exploited, a new, much more powerful Xbox will likely be available.

Ok, that didn't quite come out right...
What I mean is that it is a good idea to keep up so you aren't seen as a just some idiot spamming the comments.
Ok, that wasn't much better, but I tried. :-D

Don't go getting all politically correct on me. Contrary to popular belief, having strong opinions of your own is a good thing. People constantly riding the fence never get to play in the field. Though, it is usually more helpful to be specific with comments (politically correct or otherwise).

Disclaimer: I own none of the current consoles myself, but, I've seen more than enough game play on all three. My gaming systems have been and will remain the PC due to superior hardware and more control options. I was gaming at 1080P+ before HD consoles ever hit the market. :')

 

[hixbot]

This was a bussiness decision, people it has nothing to do with who has currently the fastest GPU in the pc market! Other Nvidia/ATI fanboy arguements are completely irrelevant.

Nvidia scammed MS for the first Xbox. MS will unlikely work with Nvidia again. They switched to ATI for the 360s GPU (xenos), so why are people talking as if they only now switching? They are STAYING with ATI for their GPU, because MS continues to have a good working business relationship with them.

Why the hell are people arguing about PS3 vs 360 vs PC here?! It is completely unrelated, and all the arguments have been exhausted a million times over.

 

[cryogenic]

The problem with these consoles these days is that they are the lowest common denominator for game technology. Most games use the consoles as a base for game engine capabilities (with slight tweaks here and there for PC versions) so most PC hardware sits there unused at full, because nowadays the consoles are primary targets for game developers.

The sooner they release the next gen consoles the better, that will raise the bar for game technology and PC hardware will get more use.

 

[nelson_nel]

[citation][nom]supertrek32[/nom]ATI is embracing DirectX while Nvidia has repeatedly downplayed new versions. Not suprising that microsoft has a better relationship with ATI.[/citation]

Not sure if you realize this, but there is bad blood inside of MS in regards to Intel, so this I'm sure plays a good role as well. It's win win and I think closer collaboration between the two will mean good things for all PC consumers as the console stuff is just derivitive from PC tech anyways...

 

[matt_b]

[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]No surprise about the potential switch to AMD, they're totally kicking ass in the graphics department lately. [/citation]
AMD = ATI
Xbox 360 is powered by ATI

Did I miss something with your post?

 

[wild9]

Who are those girls in the picture? When I saw them the last thing I was thinking about was AMD, Intel or ATI!

 

[ssalim]

Where's the xbox bashing, Kevin?

 

[ssalim]

I like this pic better
http/media.bestofmicro.com/xbox-au-japon,Y-E-56966-3.jpg

 

[captaincharisma]

well hopefully the CPU will be cooler to make up for how badly designed the new Xbox will be just like the 360

 

[dman3k]

[citation][nom]JPForums[/nom]I'm going to keep things relatively simple while providing (hopefully) enough detail to illustrate my point. So please forgive any oversimplifications.The 360's CPU is a tricore PPC. The cell is 8 SPE's (one disabled for the PS3) + one PPE (similar to the PPC cores of the 360) largely for task scheduling. Both run at 3.2GHz. In theory, the PS3's Cell can execute 10 simultaneous threads (1 per SPE + 2 per PPE), while the 360's CPU can execute only 6. In reality, one of the SPE's are disabled, and the PPE of the PS3 is mostly relegated to task scheduling. This drops the usable thread count to 7. Even then, the PS3 only nears it's maximum performance with parallel matrix multiplication. The 360's CPU also has architectural limitations to reaching its maximum performance, but it isn't as much weaker in practice as you might think.The PS3 certainly has more potential to execute physics calculations. I would argue, however, that the 360 makes up for this (at least in part) with a superior graphics capabilities. The PS3's RSX GPU is effectively a Geforce 7800 series chip. The 360's Xenos GPU is effectively an X1900 series chip. Without going into an ATI vs nVidia battle, I'll just state simply that the X1900 series was clearly superior than the GF7800 series.I would surmise that the 360s architecture is better balanced for current games than the PS3. I base this off the fact that the PS3 has yet to release a title that makes the 360 feel obsolete. The argument that the PS3 is harder to program for is hardly relevant. That simply means that the hardware was too specialized to be adapted (with in a reasonable amount of time) to the task. The 360's more generic (even if weaker) architecture has allowed developers to make better use of the hardware. It seems that, by the time the PS3 is fully exploited, a new, much more powerful Xbox will likely be available.Don't go getting all politically correct on me. Contrary to popular belief, having strong opinions of your own is a good thing. People constantly riding the fence never get to play in the field. Though, it is usually more helpful to be specific with comments (politically correct or otherwise).Disclaimer: I own none of the current consoles myself, but, I've seen more than enough game play on all three. My gaming systems have been and will remain the PC due to superior hardware and more control options. I was gaming at 1080P+ before HD consoles ever hit the market. :')[/citation]thank you for education.

 

[fatkid35]

to me it just sounds like another win for amd/ati. good for them. nvidia it getting they're ass handed to them on a regular basis now. carma's a bitch.

 

[nachowarrior]

project pre-natal! it's going to knock up all your girlfriends!!! ruuuunnn!!!

 

[yang]

[citation][nom]fatkid35[/nom]to me it just sounds like another win for amd/ati. good for them. nvidia it getting they're ass handed to them on a regular basis now. carma's a bitch.[/citation]
Karma you mean.
I agree with you nonetheless

 

[invlem]

This news isn't overly surprising,

The original xbox had an nvidia GPU, Microsoft had quite a few run-ins with nvidia over the GPU pricing which was eventually settled through arbitration.

The 360 on the other hand has be extremely successful so far and the partnership between ATI (or AMD I suppose now) and Microsoft has been a good one. Toss in the fact that the XBox 360 launched a full year ahead of the PS3, and the ATI GPU inside it has been rated as better than the RSX shows something for ATI's ability to engineer a good product.

ATI is the obvious choice for the next generation console. Honestly nVidia should learn from this, ATI has provided nintendo with the GameCube and Wii GPU's, and now has MS in their pocket.

If nVidia doesn't learn to play nice with its console partners it may see itself pushed completely out of the console market, a very lucrative market at that.

Considering the sales figures:
52 million Wii's sold.
31 million 360's sold.
ATI is doing well for itself in the console sector.