Next Gen XBOX to use AMD 28nm CPU/GPU Fusion chip - Rumor

[dunno99]

I would, however, not at all be surprised at it having a direct connection to the GPU, either both hitting the same memory management hardware, or even so far as each being able to directly manage a shared cache, maybe even with the CPU being able to manipulate GPU register files.

Hitting the same MMU or whatnot is very possible (since that's how the 360 is), but it's rarely useful, if not downright harmful, to be able to directly manipulate the GPU's register files. The whole reason why the GPU can be so parallel and fast is because it's decoupled from the CPU. If the CPU has access to the GPU's register files, and this feature is "taken advantage of", then that means the CPU and GPU are both running in lockstep, which is terrible for performance on both ends (as in, they'll be spending 99% of their time syncing with each other).

 

[dunno99]

Since PS3 launched November 11, 2006, and 7950GT launched around September 6, 2006, the GPU in the PS3 at the time (and Xbox360) was actually among the most powerful.

8800 series was launched November 8th, 2006, 3 days before the PS3 launched...and I don't think the 7950GT is as fast as the 8800?

 

[RussianSensation]

8800 series was launched November 8th, 2006, 3 days before the PS3 launched...and I don't think the 7950GT is as fast as the 8800?

No, G80 was 2x faster than a 7950. I realized that was for PCIe version of the 7950 I checked. The AGP version launched April 2nd. This would still mean the xbox360 will at least have a GTX580/6970 type of performance if it's not released for another 2-3 years if history repeats. Although maybe this time they will go for a cheaper GPU and price the console lower to gain market share. Who knows...

 

[lsv]

Except for Starcraft 2, apparently. After factoring in two expansions we're looking at ~= $140?

I paid $60 for SC2, an expansion will not be another $60. I'd imagine $40.

 

[Cerb]

Although perhaps if an IBM PowerPC CPU could deliver better performance per watt, they would just go with that.

But that is also an advantage, and a major one. IBM has quite a bit of experience designing custom CPUs, where Intel and AMD are both just warming up to the idea. The Xenon was and is pretty impressive, FI. Not something you'd want in your PC (it'd be like 3 HT-enabled Atoms with fast clocks, and worse memory), but it allowed for good single-application performance to be extracted, not long after it was out, and the .NET JIT performance was never bad, AFAIK.

Hitting the same MMU or whatnot is very possible (since that's how the 360 is), but it's rarely useful, if not downright harmful, to be able to directly manipulate the GPU's register files. The whole reason why the GPU can be so parallel and fast is because it's decoupled from the CPU. If the CPU has access to the GPU's register files, and this feature is "taken advantage of", then that means the CPU and GPU are both running in lockstep, which is terrible for performance on both ends (as in, they'll be spending 99% of their time syncing with each other).

Yeah, you're right. So let's go a step back: both being able to read and write to pre-allocated non-coherent shared cache, and lock it temporarily for each of their uses (I believe the Xenon has such functionality for CPU threads).

 

[tyl998]

I paid $60 for SC2, an expansion will not be another $60. I'd imagine $40.

Yeah, but after HoTS there will be "Shadow of the Progenitors*" Protoss expansion for another $40.





*The name is purely speculative, but based on what we know of the SC2 universe, it's probably not all that far off...

 

[Grooveriding]

I paid $60 for SC2, an expansion will not be another $60. I'd imagine $40.

Blizzard is on record as confirming expansions will be $40.

 

[taltamir]

to be fair, SC2 terran campaign was biggers then the entirety of all 3 star craft 1 campaigns (not including the expansion) and was much more creative and interesting (more varied maps and rules), with a more robust storyline, etc etc etc.
I am honestly not feeling "cheated" here. It was definitely worth the money and I hope the expansions do to...

what annoys me is their horrible DRM. (which, naturally, doesn't affect the pirates)

 

[Ancalagon44]

SC2 was a good game but not worth the price I paid for it. And yes, the DRM stinks, plus I'm over the multiplayer so not a good investment for me.

 

[Grooveriding]

SC2 was a good game but not worth the price I paid for it. And yes, the DRM stinks, plus I'm over the multiplayer so not a good investment for me.

I thought the campaign alone was worth the $60. I played a ton of the multiplayer as well until it got old for me. If the campaigns in the expansions match the length of what was included in the first one, it will be worth the $40 for me imo.