# Xbox Durango Packs 16-core PowerPC CPU



## btarunr (Apr 11, 2012)

A report in the the latest issue of Xbox World print magazine suggests that developer kits (devkits) of Durango (next-generation Xbox console), were implementing a "state of the art" 16-core IBM PowerPC CPU, its companion graphics processor is AMD-made, spec'd equivalent to AMD Radeon HD 7000 series, as previously reported. The 16-core CPU is said to have been implemented with a far-sight on the platform's longevity. "It's a ridiculous amount of power for a games machine - too much power, even. But remember, Kinect 2 could chew up four whole cores tracking multiple players right down to their fingertips, so it'll need a lot of power," the Xbox World article commented. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## HammerON (Apr 11, 2012)

Interesting...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163948


----------



## LDNL (Apr 11, 2012)

A 16 core for what? ~300€/$? Sounds too good to be true


----------



## NC37 (Apr 11, 2012)

So...multithreaded is in...good graphics is, on the sidelines? Oh well. Interested to see final specs. A lot of cores doesn't always translate to extra performance. Bulldozer showed us that.

Since Sony is going the APU route I'm sure they'll likely have to customize that a bit if they are facing 16 cores here. Wouldn't be surprised if AMD puts in a few new tricks for devs to take advantage of in the hope of offsetting that. 

Can't wait to see PC games in a few years.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 11, 2012)

HammerON said:


> Interesting...
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163948



Hey, that's me! 

But yea, I'm interested in seeing what exactly is under the hood of the "Orbis" and "Durango" at this point.  I'm sure performance will be close, but the exact tech is always interesting.  As I said in the topic, I wouldn't be surprised if this CPU were legit and was using a setup similar to Bulldozer, with a loose definition of cores, being something like a Quad-Core, each core allowing 4 threads, making it a "16-Core".


----------



## micropage7 (Apr 11, 2012)

16 core? so the console got the first one than desktop?


----------



## THE_EGG (Apr 11, 2012)

16 core hey? Maybe it will be like a year ago where fewer, more sophisticated cores (nvidia) were better than lots of less sophisticated cores (ati). I doubt this 16 core will be that fast tbh.


----------



## darkangel0504 (Apr 11, 2012)

GJ


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 11, 2012)

You are all forgetting that every Xbob 'durango' game will be optimized for these 16 cores, unlike PC where no game is really optimized because all PCs are different.

So If all Durango (god what a stupid name) games are optimized for 16 cores, it should be at least, what, 3-5 times better than 360 in CPU performance alone. Gaming wise.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 11, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> You are all forgetting that every Xbob 'durango' game will be optimized for these 16 cores, unlike PC where no game is really optimized because all PCs are different.
> 
> So If all Durango (god what a stupid name) games are optimized for 16 cores, it should be at least, what, 3-5 times better than 360 in CPU performance alone. Gaming wise.



Per Core performance would take a hit with this many cores, for sure.  You'd probably end up with 16 Cores where each core has 1/4 the performance of a traditional core.


----------



## Filiprino (Apr 11, 2012)

Bulldozer also has 16 cores, with a high TDP 

In Durango they also have to commit to a lower TDP, so things can be worse.

PlayStation 4 is rumored to have an AMD APU, probably Trinity based.


----------



## jigar2speed (Apr 11, 2012)

NC37 said:


> A lot of cores doesn't always translate to extra performance. Bulldozer showed us that.



Apologies to intervene but you really have no idea, bulldozer is not a 8 core processor. This was the main reason you saw marketing department getting fired left and right from AMD. All the false information of 8 Cores and 4 modules backfired on the face of AMD, which they could have avoided by keeping the things simple.


----------



## Filiprino (Apr 11, 2012)

jigar2speed said:


> Apologies to intervene but you really have no idea, bulldozer is not a 8 core processor. This was the main reason you saw marketing department getting fired left and right from AMD. All the false information of 8 Cores and 4 modules backfired on the face of AMD, which they could have avoided by keeping the things simple.



Bulldozer is an 8 core processor with 4 256 bit FPUs that can be split into 2 128 bit FPUs, totalling 8 128 bit FPUs.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 11, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Per Core performance would take a hit with this many cores, for sure.  You'd probably end up with 16 Cores where each core has 1/4 the performance of a traditional core.



Are you high?


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Apr 11, 2012)

Please note that the cores are PowerPC RISC cores. Clock to clock, their performance is way below the performance of x86-64 cores. But the 16 core CPU is nothing short of impressive. Too bad the GPU is similar to a 6670. And if it implements an always-online DRM, it's a no-buy for me.


----------



## Rowsol (Apr 11, 2012)

So... high end cpu, crap gpu.  Yep, sounds like the current systems.  

I thought games benefited way more from a good gpu...


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Apr 11, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The 16-core CPU is said to have been implemented with a far-sight on the platform's longevity



But the 6670-ish GPU won't help the platform's longevity. PS4 also have similar GPU. 

Ten more years of dumbed down games for PC


----------



## Grings (Apr 11, 2012)

Does this mean we will need at least 16 core pc's to play bad ports properly now?


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 11, 2012)

CPU is imo not the problem. It's the gfx part that will get obsolete rather quickly. I mean, i still run Core i7 920 @ 3,8GHz and even though its fairly old CPU, it can churn out loads of power even today (like 3 years later). However, i'm not sure i could still play the same with a 3 years old gfx card. In my case, that would be what, HD4870 that i had 4 gfx cards back? I don't think so.
So, instead of stuffing gazillion of CPU cores in it, they should think about how to extend GPU life time without sacrificing compatibility, costs and just the fact that you'd have to eventually upgrade it or change the console.


----------



## Grings (Apr 11, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> CPU is imo not the problem. It's the gfx part that will get obsolete rather quickly. I mean, i still run Core i7 920 @ 3,8GHz and even though its fairly old CPU, it can churn out loads of power even today (like 3 years later). However, i'm not sure i could still play the same with a 3 years old gfx card. In my case, that would be what, HD4870 that i had 4 gfx cards back? I don't think so.
> So, instead of stuffing gazillion of CPU cores in it, they should think about how to extend GPU life time without sacrificing compatibility, costs and just the fact that you'd have to eventually upgrade it or change the console.



On the current consoles, memory was an even larger problem, loads of games run lower textures than they need to for there gpu due to other parts of the game using too much memory. I think both only had 512mb in total to use.

Memory is also probably the only part of a console it would be feasible to make upgradeable. A graphics card update for consoles would never work due to the high price an upgrade card would cost, only a small percentage would bother getting it.

A pair of empty DDR3 slots (or DDR4/whatever is out when released) would be the best upgrade option for this or Sony's console, though proprietary masters Sony would never do that when they can charge 3-4 times as much for their own product (see psvita's memory card prices in comparison to micro sd cards)


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Apr 11, 2012)

Rowsol said:


> So... high end cpu, crap gpu.  Yep, sounds like the current systems.
> 
> I thought games benefited way more from a good gpu...



I think console cpus (PS3/360) are geared towards graphical processing, sharing that workload with the gpu. Though as I understand it that makes them less efficient at AI and physics processing. The best solution is like in tegra where there's a bunch of specialized cores that are very efficient for a specific task. Which actual makes me wonder if these 16 cores might not be differentiated just like tegra. If they had the sense to do that it could make for a much more powerful console than we're expecting, and by giving dedicated hardware for things like AI and physics it should make future games have radically better gameplay.

That said I don't have much confidence in that ideal scenario.


----------



## Shihab (Apr 11, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The 16-core CPU is said to have been implemented with a far-sight on the platform's *longevity*.



Please, kill me now...


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Apr 11, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I think console cpus (PS3/360) are geared towards graphical processing, sharing that workload with the gpu.



Cell broadband engine used in PS3 has good graphics processing abilities. However, only a few games use this ability,mostly PS3 exclusives. The PowerPC processor used in xbox 360/720 lacks the streamlined coprocessing elements found in a Cell processor and hence lacks the graphics capabilities. X86-64 used in PS4 is also not good when it comes to graphics workloads : The main reason why Larrabee failed.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 11, 2012)

Give me a dual-socket C32 motherboard and a couple of 8-core Valencia chips and I too, could have a 16-core powerhouse. *You* can do it too!


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2012)

i just dont see this happening, 16 core CPU's are just too niche. supply problems, high TDP, low per core performance... none of this will help out a console.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 11, 2012)

Mussels said:


> i just dont see this happening, 16 core CPU's are just too niche. supply problems, high TDP, low per core performance... none of this will help out a console.



RISC CPU cores tend to be smaller than CISC's. Depending on when this CPU could come out, I could be on a smaller process that could cram a lot of processing power in a CPU. Not to say that a console needs this, but I don't see it being unreasonable. MS isn't saying this is coming out this year. I could easily see this in 2-3 years from now.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 11, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> RISC CPU cores tend to be smaller than CISC's. Depending on when this CPU could come out, I could be on a smaller process that could cram a lot of processing power in a CPU. Not to say that a console needs this, but I don't see it being unreasonable. *MS isn't saying this is coming out this year. I could easily see this in 2-3 years from now.*



thats a fair point actually, and not something i'd considered. for all we know they'll up the power of the GPU as well (crossfire? beefier model) before it comes out as well.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 11, 2012)

Maybe IBM's new optochip technology is a lot closer to prime time than we know.


----------



## visz963 (Apr 11, 2012)

But can it play Crysis?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2012)

As I said in the other thread, how do we know these are 16 virtual cores like Xbox 360's 6 virtual cores?  That would imply it has 8 physical cores with SMP.  Considering Xbox 360 had 3 physical cores with SMP 7 years ago, that isn't unlikely.  Even 16 physical cores with SMP doesn't sound unreasonable because we're talking Power PC RISC processors, not x86 CISC processors.


----------



## arunmcops (Apr 11, 2012)

*16 threads not 16 cores...*

proof......

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6506/surferibm05s021512.jpg


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 11, 2012)

The proletariat does not need more cores.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 11, 2012)

Bullshit... it is a quad core with 4 threads on each core... I suspect a weak performer...

Slide


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 11, 2012)

thanks god, i hate consoles but that's mean new improvement in games graphics for PC.
no more crappy engine to force games run smooth on consoles.


----------



## Katanai (Apr 11, 2012)

No! It's gonna have forty cores, no wait, make that fifty. Why, you ask? Because I dreamed that last night just like the original source of this "article".


----------



## JrRacinFan (Apr 11, 2012)

Ferrum Master said:


> Bullshit... it is a quad core with 4 threads on each core.[/URL]



So, in reality, it's LIKE Bulldozer/Piledriver ..... 

Just a quick glance at the slide.


----------



## NinkobEi (Apr 11, 2012)

Well the 16core cpu is likely not the quality of an intel one. If each core is as powerful as AMD's ol socket 939 cpus then that sounds about right


----------



## faramir (Apr 11, 2012)

LDNL said:


> A 16 core for what? ~300€/$? Sounds too good to be true



That's because it 99.99% is (too good to be true that is); it's mostlikely a 16 *thread* CPU, with 4 physical cores.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Apr 11, 2012)

arunmcops said:


> proof......
> 
> http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6506/surferibm05s021512.jpg



Also it says TurboCore. Isn't that an AMD thing?


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Apr 11, 2012)

It is 16 cores, but not 16 conventional x86-x64 cores. I bet that the performance won't be that far away from "Orbis", which has a conventional quad-core.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 11, 2012)

Bull to the shit, that is all.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 11, 2012)

Grings said:


> Does this mean we will need at least 16 core pc's to play bad ports properly now?



Yes. Thats exactly what this means.


----------



## Delta6326 (Apr 11, 2012)

HAHAHAHAHA Thats funny they think they are going to put a 16 core Proc in a Box that is around 12" x 10"(just a guess) when *SERVERS* are starting to make a bigger move to 16Cores+ and can cost well over $600+...

Now if they meant to say 16 threads then this is a different story.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 11, 2012)

Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> It is 16 cores, but not 16 conventional x86-x64 cores. I bet that the performance won't be that far away from "Orbis", which has a conventional quad-core.



Facepalm...
one more time "It is 16 cores, but not 16 conventional x86-x64 cores. "
No...no it is not.  4 cores with 4 threads per core is not a 16 core cpu.
It is a quad core with 16 threads.
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6506/surferibm05s021512.jpg

Rather interesting that IBM is making it at GF though... guess that is due to the GCN gfx part.

AMD made their first "fusion" with IBM in the Xbox 360...I wonder what they will gain from this venture.


----------



## Grings (Apr 11, 2012)

Interesting that that slide shows a 'Blu Ray 3D hardware decoder' 

Guess it will have a Blu Ray drive after all


----------



## Patriot (Apr 11, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> HAHAHAHAHA Thats funny they think they are going to put a 16 core Proc in a Box that is around 12" x 10"(just a guess) when *SERVERS* are starting to make a bigger move to 16Cores+ and can cost well over $600+...
> 
> Now if they meant to say 16 threads then this is a different story.



meant or not...it the source says 4c/16t


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 11, 2012)

NC37 said:


> A lot of cores doesn't always translate to extra performance. Bulldozer showed us that.



That is like comparing apples to oranges!  Bulldozer is a desktop CPU, developers don't optimised most PC games.

Console hardware dates quickly so developers are forced and encouraged to utilise  the hardware, thus making your point invalid.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Apr 11, 2012)

And it will still be an underpowered lump of garbage.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 11, 2012)

Patriot said:


> Facepalm...
> one more time "It is 16 cores, but not 16 conventional x86-x64 cores. "
> No...no it is not. 4 cores with 4 threads per core is not a 16 core cpu.
> It is a quad core with 16 threads.
> ...



Im finding the shared with gfx 80mb edram interesting, its allmost sounding like a conflab between Amd and Ibm , and im half thinking that if this isnt made SOC ,its being designed to become SOC at a later point 

just with the blu ray decode mentioned plus the shared memory it almost sounds like they maybe putting the cores and gpu in the same silicon, which is quite doable since these arent 16 cores just 4 overprovisioned(ALA BD PD) plus a gpu element would fit ,hang on that config has a name 

all just ramblings and speculation obv


----------



## ZoneDymo (Apr 11, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> That is like comparing apples to oranges!  Bulldozer is a desktop CPU, developers don't optimised most PC games.
> 
> Console hardware dates quickly so developers are forced and encouraged to utilise  the hardware, thus making your point invalid.



You know there is more then "gaming" right?
NC37 comment still stands, you are the one who has no point.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Apr 11, 2012)

Mussels said:


> i just dont see this happening, 16 core CPU's are just too niche. supply problems, high TDP, low per core performance... none of this will help out a console.



Yeah i think the rumor of a 6 core CPU sounds a lot more realistic. I am more concerned with vram and ram amount.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 11, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> And it will still be an underpowered lump of garbage.



It depends on how they implement the extra logical threads, we're not talking Bulldozer here. It's a completely different architecture running on a completely different processing paradigm.

I think everyone needs to stop comparing this to standard desktop CPUs unless you happen to be running a RISC processor on your tower, which I seriously doubt.

Basically it works like this.

Reasons for RISC:
• Small, heavily optimized instruction set executable in single short cycle
• All instructions same size
• No microcode = faster execution
• Extra speed more than offsets increased code size, reduced functionality
• Better compiler target

Reasons for CISC:
• Fewer instructions per task
• Shorter programs
• Hardware implementation of complex instructions faster than software
• Extra addressing modes help compiler

Source for lists since I'm lazy.


----------



## Dent1 (Apr 11, 2012)

ZoneDymo said:


> You know there is more then "gaming" right?
> NC37 comment still stands, you are the one who has no point.



In what respect, consoles primary function is gaming.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 11, 2012)

A quad-core RISC...that sounds disappointing.  I don't know how well PowerPC's 4-way SMP works but that is a crapload of data being piped to a small engine.  I hope Microsoft knows what they're getting into.


----------



## faramir (Apr 11, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> It depends on how they implement the extra logical threads, we're not talking Bulldozer here. It's a completely different architecture running on a completely different processing paradigm.



Um, actually Bulldozer's implementation of multiple threads per full core is awesome - waaaaaaaaay better than that of Intel (it can actually execute two threads simultaneously on the same core; Intel's version ca only switch register banks and therefore execute one thread at a time). It's AMD's maerkting lingo that screwed up Bulldozer, calling those modules "two cores", which they aren't. 



> I think everyone needs to stop comparing this to standard desktop CPUs unless you happen to be running a RISC processor on your tower, which I seriously doubt.
> 
> Basically it works like this.
> 
> ...



LOL ?! Can you actually point out a single existing chip with performance in the range of the upcoming console that does everything squoted above ? No, you can't, because there isn't one. Some of your poionts are downright silly ("No microcode = faster execution" ... ROTFL ... do you have any idea how a modestly recent x86 CPU works ?!).


----------



## douglatins (Apr 11, 2012)

Hey don't have us pc elitists have a console beat us, we will never believe ans will doubt it to our graves!
I bet it does exist, but then creating multiple risc and cisc procs in a console would be kickass, say a risc for antialising, one for color, one for physics, etc and the ciscs for game normal code


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 12, 2012)

faramir said:


> Um, actually Bulldozer's implementation of multiple threads per full core is awesome - waaaaaaaaay better than that of Intel (it can actually execute two threads simultaneously on the same core; Intel's version ca only switch register banks and therefore execute one thread at a time). It's AMD's maerkting lingo that screwed up Bulldozer, calling those modules "two cores", which they aren't.



Did I bash Bulldozer? All I said is that IBM's POWER architecture isn't Bulldozer and that implementation of multi-threading varies on implementation and that some are better than other with different goals in mind.

Bulldozer has extra resources for multi-threading.

Intel uses unused resources for multi-threading.

Neither of which is bad, because Intel doesn't have to add much of anything to add HyperThreading but AMD gains extra full powered threads at the cost of single-threaded performance (which can be improved,) and die space. (Poor IPC is due to the slower cache and poor branch prediction on a long pipeline in comparison to Intel's current offerings.)



faramir said:


> LOL ?! Can you actually point out a single existing chip with performance in the range of the upcoming console that does everything squoted above ? No, you can't, because there isn't one. Some of your poionts are downright silly ("No microcode = faster execution" ... ROTFL ... do you have any idea how a modestly recent x86 CPU works ?!).



Sun Microsystems (now owned by Oracle,) has the SPARC CPU, which runs RISC and multiple threads. In fact the SPARC T4 has 8 cores, each of which can run 8 simultaneous threads per core and runs at 2.8ghz to 3ghz iirc. Now, this isn't a desktop chip, it is designed for servers and server workloads, but it shows that it is possible to run multiple cores and multiple threads per core. Now, unless you have any facts instead of criticizing what I have to say, I recommend that you stop trolling and only post if you actually have something useful to contribute.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 12, 2012)

its not like it dosnt make some sense either as Ibm need the Ip  revenue and are probably more then capable of putting a worthwile processor forth , could be BS might not be , the ps3's 5/6cell design seemed OT Back in the day


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 12, 2012)

Rowsol said:


> So... high end cpu, crap gpu.  Yep, sounds like the current systems.
> 
> I thought games benefited way more from a good gpu...



How?? The 7800GT and ATI 1800 were great GPUs at launch.  What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## xenocide (Apr 12, 2012)

arunmcops said:


> proof......
> 
> http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6506/surferibm05s021512.jpg



Fucking, CALLED IT.


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 12, 2012)

*PC Nerd Denial*



Ferrum Master said:


> Bullshit... it is a quad core with 4 threads on each core... I suspect a weak performer...
> 
> Slide





NinkobEi said:


> Well the 16core cpu is likely not the quality of an intel one. If each core is as powerful as AMD's ol socket 939 cpus then that sounds about right





faramir said:


> That's because it 99.99% is (too good to be true that is); it's mostlikely a 16 *thread* CPU, with 4 physical cores.





Yellow&Nerdy? said:


> It is 16 cores, but not 16 conventional x86-x64 cores. I bet that the performance won't be that far away from "Orbis", which has a conventional quad-core.





ZoneDymo said:


> Bull to the shit, that is all.





[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> And it will still be an underpowered lump of garbage.





FordGT90Concept said:


> A quad-core RISC...that sounds disappointing.  I don't know how well PowerPC's 4-way SMP works but that is a crapload of data being piped to a small engine.  I hope Microsoft knows what they're getting into.



   Never saw so many elitist whiners in one site.    A quad core would not bottleneck a high-end GPU so stop talking so stupid.  It says 16 cores.  In 2005 triple core seemed exotic.  
   Seems alot of people here want to bash the new systems because they will not be dual octo-core Xeons running HD 8990 GPUs.  No crap!  Get over yourselves.  Consoles will always be favored by the majority of casual AND hardcore gamers for so many reasons.


----------



## alexsubri (Apr 12, 2012)

With 16-cores you will need more power...will this be enough to run the new Xbox 720?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 12, 2012)

due to people not reading, i think we need an edit to the first post stating its 16 thread, not 16 core.


----------



## camoxiong (Apr 12, 2012)

WOW 16 cores, BEAST


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 12, 2012)

camoxiong said:


> WOW 16 cores, BEAST



Someone didn't even read the last post...


----------



## camoxiong (Apr 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Someone didn't even read the last post...



Oh, I just read it and it said 16 cores


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Never saw so many elitist whiners in one site.    A quad core would not bottleneck a high-end GPU so stop talking so stupid.  It says 16 cores.  In 2005 triple core seemed exotic.


Some games can already give quad-cores a run for their money.  In a few years, that processor is going to be a bottleneck.




Nihilus said:


> ...hardcore gamers for so many reasons.


Uh, what?  "Hardcore gamers" know computers can do everything consoles can do and more, much more.  Consoles are "favored" by the masses for one reason and one reason alone: it's cheaper.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 12, 2012)

Filiprino said:


> Bulldozer also has 16 cores, with a high TDP
> 
> In Durango they also have to commit to a lower TDP, so things can be worse.
> 
> PlayStation 4 is rumored to have an AMD APU, probably Trinity based.


The PS4 should be based on Kaveri which is based on Steamroller Cores and Sea Islands based GPU (HD 8000 series). 

As for this Durango rumour, sounds more like 2 x 8-Core CPU's working in tandem along with 2 x GPU's most likely based on the HD 7900 series. 

The difference I believe is the ability for MS to release the new XBOX with an approximate 12 to 14 months head start over the PS4.

The benefits, the XBOX having processing power via the CPU's where as the PS4 having the newer GPU(s).
Of course, this is all speculation based on a number of rumors.



Mussels said:


> due to people not reading, i think we need an edit to the first post stating its 16 thread, not 16 core.


http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26730-durango-to-pack-16-core-cpu

16 physical cores, but oh can build on, and outperform 16 threads. CPU's are Cheap now, 16 cores sound a lot more reasonable, especial. When trying to somewhat future proof a console.


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 12, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Some games can already give quad-cores a run for their money.  In a few years, that processor is going to be a bottleneck.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, what?  "Hardcore gamers" know computers can do everything consoles can do and more, much more.  Consoles are "favored" by the masses for one reason and one reason alone: it's cheaper.



Show me real evidence of this, and I am not talking the difference between 200 FPS and 250 FPS.  I'm not being a snob, I just wanted to see where a 6 core processor has a real advantage vs. a quad core running similiar speeds.  Something 1080p related.  Again, I'm not being bull headed and anticipate i am wrong, but I just want to see it.

(part 2) This is simply not true and you know it.  I can easily afford a powerful rig, but after a hard days work, I like to sit back on my comfy couch, grab my controller and throw on my XBL headset.  It takes just a minute to get in a match with friends and I can sit back with the controller.  I know everybody here has a boner for keyboard and mouse, but it is simply not practical with that set up.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 12, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Show me real evidence of this, and I am not talking the difference between 200 FPS and 250 FPS.  I'm not being a snob, I just wanted to see where a 6 core processor has a real advantage vs. a quad core running similiar speeds.  Something 1080p related.  Again, I'm not being bull headed and anticipate i am wrong, but I just want to see it.
> 
> (part 2) This is simply not true and you know it.  I can easily afford a powerful rig, but after a hard days work, I like to sit back on my comfy couch, grab my controller and throw on my XBL headset.  It takes just a minute to get in a match with friends and I can sit back with the controller.  I know everybody here has a boner for keyboard and mouse, but it is simply not practical with that set up.



battlefield 3, or any other DX11 engine, the difference is pretty large.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 12, 2012)

Mussels said:


> battlefield 3, or any other DX11 engine, the difference is pretty large.



Don't bother Mussels.


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 12, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Don't bother Mussels.



Why?  I trust he did his research.  In any case I am confused on why one article says 4-6 core and the other says 16 core Durango.  Even if they meant 16 thread, that is still 8 core, right?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2012)

Nihilus said:


> Show me real evidence of this, and I am not talking the difference between 200 FPS and 250 FPS.  I'm not being a snob, I just wanted to see where a 6 core processor has a real advantage vs. a quad core running similiar speeds.  Something 1080p related.  Again, I'm not being bull headed and anticipate i am wrong, but I just want to see it.


Run PhysX calculations on CPU instead of GPU (e.g. Crazy Machines II).  Any game can be made to use 100% CPU and I do mean any.  The thing is, that means no one can play it smoothly with a computer with lesser power.  As such, games (especially on computers) are always designed to achieve the game designer's goals with as little hardware as possible.

Effectively, you're asking me to show you a game that is really unoptimized, like Saints Row 2.


Edit: It is easy to scale graphic features according to GPU but it is not easy to scale game logic according to CPU.  The CPU handles tasks that are essential so to increase CPU load in a meaningful way often means changing how the game plays in some major way (like lots of AIs, scientific phsyics calculations instead of guesstimates, updating more objects in the game, etc.)






Nihilus said:


> (part 2) This is simply not true and you know it.  I can easily afford a powerful rig, but after a hard days work, I like to sit back on my comfy couch, grab my controller and throw on my XBL headset.  It takes just a minute to get in a match with friends and I can sit back with the controller.  I know everybody here has a boner for keyboard and mouse, but it is simply not practical with that set up.


I have a comfy $400 office chair.  I have an Xbox 360 controller, mouse, and keyboard always plugged in to my computer--I pick which tool is best for the game and use it.  I got my Razer Carcharias headset too.  I can get into a match in a minute with any game installed as well (currently 55 titles).  If I really wanted to, I could grab that controller (yes, it is wireless) and play virtually any game from my bed.

In truth, the controller collects dust 95% of the time.  It only really beats keyboard/mouse in racing and platformer games and I do little of either.


----------



## Nihilus (Apr 12, 2012)

I'll submit.  Cheers


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 12, 2012)

i got a feeling one core will be for the OS and background tasks/apps along with processing Kinetic related stuff... leaving the rest for the games. this would leave 3 cores (12threads) for games. seems to make sense to me, the other 3 cores could be shut down when not gaming, leaving the one to handle the OS and basic tasks like browsing menus, netflix, always on DRM, etc. would be a good way to save on power. (and maybe less overheating problems?)


----------



## Shihab (Apr 12, 2012)

xBruce88x said:


> the other 3 cores could be shut down when not gaming, leaving the one to handle basic tasks like browsing menus, netflix, etc. would be a good way to save on power. (and maybe less overheating problems?)



*cough* always-on DRM*cough*


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 12, 2012)

lol good point, fixed


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 12, 2012)

Shihabyooo said:


> *cough* always-on DRM*cough*



You have nothing to hide if all of your games and software are legit. :shadedshu


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2012)

If you don't have internet, game is worthless.  If you happened to buy it used, game is worthless.  If you like selling your used games, it is worthless.  If you value your privacy, it makes your console an open book.  If it malfunctions (or the publisher decides to revoke your access for any reason) and locks you out, you own a $40-60 coaster.  If you bought the game from another country (big problem in Europe) and brought it home to play, it likely won't work.

The list goes on and on.  Legitimacy has little to do with it because pirates know it isn't legit and will find a way around it anyway or simply not play it.  It's the "legit" customers that consistently get shafted by DRM.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 12, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you don't have internet, game is worthless.  If you happened to buy it used, game is worthless.  If you like selling your used games, it is worthless.  If you value your privacy, it makes your console an open book.  If it malfunctions (or the publisher decides to revoke your access for any reason) and locks you out, you own a $40-60 coaster.  If you bought the game from another country (big problem in Europe) and brought it home to play, it likely won't work.
> 
> The list goes on and on.  Legitimacy has little to do with it because pirates know it isn't legitate and will find a way around it anyway or simply not play it.  It's the "legit" customers that consistently get shafted by DRM.



I can't remember the last time I didn't have Internet and my Xbox together. Also, I don't tend to sell my games because I only buy games if I really like them, otherwise a demo is fine with me so I guess this just doesn't impact me much and honestly. What kind of data are companies going to gather from my gaming console? That I like to play video games at night and not in the morning? If you have Cable with a company cable box, they monitor when you turn your cable box on and off and what channel you're on, so privacy is relative. Honestly, how people use Twitter and Facebook is worse for your privacy than a little bit of DRM data gathering from a *gaming console*.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> What kind of data are companies going to gather from my gaming console? That I like to play video games at night and not in the morning?



That you devote most of your playing time to a certain type of game.




Aquinus said:


> If you have Cable with a company cable box, they monitor when you turn your cable box on and off and what channel you're on, so privacy is relative.



They monitor when you turn your lower classes' gaming contraption on and off and what you are doing with it, and if you are playing, what game it is you are playing.



Aquinus said:


> Honestly, how people use Twitter and Facebook is worse for your privacy than a little bit of DRM data gathering from a *gaming console*.



Comparing apples to oranges there. Twitter and Facebook is dangerous because of how much information can be gathered there, depending on how much information the users put in there. In the latter case, it is dangerous because there's only really one kind of information they could gather, and they could gather it easily, because there would be no way to avoid supplying the information, unless you stop playing.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 12, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> In the latter case, it is dangerous because there's only really one kind of information they could gather, and they could gather it easily, because there would be no way to avoid supplying the information, unless you stop playing.



It's only gaming habits, I wouldn't call that incredibly sensitive information.


----------



## Shihab (Apr 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> You have nothing to hide if all of your games and software are legit. :shadedshu



Because Always On DRM has proven effective to thwart piracy...Not.
The restriction such kinds of DRM places on genuine owners is MUCH more than it does on pirates (if it did at all).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> It's only gaming habits, I wouldn't call that incredibly sensitive information.


Knowledge is power.  Expect targeted advertisements which 7/10 browsers that notice they have been targeted do not like them (hence, opt-out services).  They can sell any and all information collected on you to third parties which could be used in any number of ways.  Likewise, if the Department of Justice were to subpena Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo, all the information collected could be used against you (e.g. charged with murder, had a nasty chat with someone you knew that ended up dead, oh boy: motive).  Use your imagination.  The possibilities are virtually endless.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> It's only gaming habits, I wouldn't call that incredibly sensitive information.



when they have access to your spending habits, credit cards (for DLC), address, IP address, gaming (and estimated work habits outside those hours), as well as acess to microphones and webcams, always on DRM could get quite worrisome.

a virus/succesful hack could really cause damage with a console designed to be always on.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Apr 12, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Knowledge is power.  Expect targeted advertisements which 7/10 browsers that notice they have been targeted do not like them (hence, opt-out services).  They can sell any and all information collected on you to third parties which could be used in any number of ways.  Likewise, if the Department of Justice were to subpena Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo, all the information collected could be used against you (e.g. charged with murder, had a nasty chat with someone you knew that ended up dead, oh boy: motive).  Use your imagination.  The possibilities are virtually endless.



Hmmm... come to think of it...
There were these games "Dead or Alive Xtreme [Beach Volleyball]" & "Dead or Alive Xtreme 2" for X[] and X[]O, respectively. Now, if people payed these games for what I think, then, if another sequel would be made, this time for Durango, I suppose may people who would buy this game would end up thinking:
"I bought this game, yet, I can't get myself to play it. The thought that "the ceiling cat" is always watching..."


----------



## lyndonguitar (Apr 15, 2012)

16 core + crap GPU = LOL

What if they put a cheap i5-like proc and some 6870-ish GPU. yeah that would be good.


----------



## Kantastic (Apr 15, 2012)

lyndonrakista said:


> 16 core + crap GPU = LOL
> 
> What if they put a cheap i5-like proc and some 6870-ish GPU. yeah that would be good.



Yeah, so they can both not bother optimizing anything and be able to charge a $250 premium for the processor and a $300 premium for the GPU right?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2012)

lyndonrakista said:


> 16 core + crap GPU = LOL
> 
> What if they put a cheap i5-like proc and some 6870-ish GPU. yeah that would be good.



its a quad core and a mindrange GPU.


if they put an i5 and a 6870 they'd overheat and die worse than the first gen 360's, consoles need to be mass produced cheaper, cooled with less, and last longer with possible 24/7 use off a cheap, compact PSU.


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 15, 2012)

Well, think about it. The 360 has a 3-core processor. We know that Xbox games are topping out the that hardware. Remember when nobody could possible need more than 16k of memory? I think if the hardware is there, game software companies will do their best to take advantage of the hardware that is there, maybe not all of it, but enough to do what they need to do, and as the platform is out longer and used more, games will take more advantage of it. It takes time to adopt changes in hardware. You didn't see 64-bit software come out before the 64-bit hardware was actually being used...


----------



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Well, think about it. The 360 has a 3-core processor. We know that Xbox games are topping out the that hardware. Remember when nobody could possible need more than 16k of memory? I think if the hardware is there, game software companies will do their best to take advantage of the hardware that is there, maybe not all of it, but enough to do what they need to do, and as the platform is out longer and used more, games will take more advantage of it. It takes time to adopt changes in hardware. You didn't see 64-bit software come out before the 64-bit hardware was actually being used...



think pentium D vs conroe. dual core, tri, etc means next to nothing. if the IPC goes up, ram goes up, and GPU goes up even by 50% - they'll make the most of that 50% on a console.



this isnt PC where 50% faster gets us 5% better visuals, consoles get every last percent eked out of them for every model, shader effect, and level.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 16, 2012)

Yup, the advantage of programming for one platform.  You can test the game on one and you have effectively tested it on all.  If it plays smooth, dial up the detail or resolution, if it does not, dial back the detail or resolution.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 16, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Well, think about it. The 360 has a 3-core processor. We know that Xbox games are topping out the that hardware. Remember when nobody could possible need more than 16k of memory? I think if the hardware is there, game software companies will do their best to take advantage of the hardware that is there, maybe not all of it, but enough to do what they need to do, and as the platform is out longer and used more, games will take more advantage of it. It takes time to adopt changes in hardware. You didn't see 64-bit software come out before the 64-bit hardware was actually being used...



The 360 isn't really constrained by the CPU.  The biggest problem with consoles is no VRAM\RAM.  The 360 has 512mb of shared RAM, and like 16mb of eDRAM specifically for the GPU.  The PS3 has 256mb System RAM, and 256mb VRAM.  With PC's these days having 1-4GB VRAM, and 4-8GB System RAM, it's a pretty massive disparity.  If consoles could handle higher resolution textures alone the game would look better.  Adding a better GPU and substantially more RAM (especially for the GPU to access SONY >.>) should be the biggest concern.  

Most people can still play games well on the PC with a very good Dual-Core, so adding even an entry-level Quad-Core (think Phenom II X4 with a better IMC-aka Llano with L3 Cache) will be more than enough on dedicated hardware that they can allocate most of the load to the GPU.


----------



## Vendor (Apr 16, 2012)

i thought it was going the named 720, but it still is xbox 720 (technical wise).


----------

