Originally posted by: FishTankX
That is *So* not going to happen. You know the current X-box? Part of it's advantage is SMA. It can dedciate RAM to either the GPU or the CPU.
Using the Athlon64 would complicate things *immensley* becaues the graphics chip would have to go through the CPU for all of it's RAM requests, slowing down the whole console. The thing couldn't even *texture* without talking to the CPU.
Unless ofcourse, it has it's own dedicated RAM pool. Which will cost Microsoft *alot* of money, in combination with the already expensive Athlon64.
Originally posted by: hjo3
Originally posted by: FishTankX
That is *So* not going to happen.
Originally posted by: FishTankX
That is *So* not going to happen. You know the current X-box? Part of it's advantage is SMA. It can dedciate RAM to either the GPU or the CPU.
Using the Athlon64 would complicate things *immensley* becaues the graphics chip would have to go through the CPU for all of it's RAM requests, slowing down the whole console. The thing couldn't even *texture* without talking to the CPU.
Unless ofcourse, it has it's own dedicated RAM pool. Which will cost Microsoft *alot* of money, in combination with the already expensive Athlon64.
Why would it slow it down. The xbox2 will have to have more memory anyway. 64mb isn't going to cut it. What difference does it make if they allocate seperate memory for video and system.TextUsing the Athlon64 would complicate things *immensley* becaues the graphics chip would have to go through the CPU for all of it's RAM requests, slowing down the whole console. The thing couldn't even *texture* without talking to the CPU.
Originally posted by: FishTankX
rectalfier - If you disable the onboard memory controller, you've got a big complicated AthlonXP with 64 bit support and very little advantage over normal Athlons.
Originally posted by: FishTankX
rectalfier - If you disable the onboard memory controller, you've got a big complicated AthlonXP with 64 bit support and very little advantage over normal Athlons.
And then there's still the question mark of the IBM/AMD alliance.Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I agree with what you say in terms of manufacturing capacity and the lack of reason for AMD fabbing chips for MS Wingz, but it may be possible that MS could license the A64 tech and have them fabbed elsewhere.
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Doesn't it cost AMD like $50 to make an Athlon64? Well if it gets made into 0.09µ form, it would only cost around $30... no? If MS would offer $80 per chip... AMD would make a lot more than selling to them for PCs.
Though good for AMD... I personally don't think it's going to happen either.
XBox was designed so that the CPU doesn't do any of the graphics rendering and just needs to calculate stuff like physics, while the graphics chip does all of the rendering. That's why a P3 700MHz was sufficient for XBOX.
I think something like the Pentium-M would be the perfect solution for XBOX.