• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox2|Xenon CPU is dual-core, and not tri-core? (Toms Hardware - J Allard interview)

Tellaerin

Member
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Ram is MS trump card next gen..lets see if they'll use it. PS3 is pretty much stuck at 256mb.

How so? Launching after Xenon/Xbox 360 gives Sony leeway to respond to whatever MS does, spec-wise, and adding RAM is probably the easiest last-minute change they could possibly make. I'd also imagine that there would be pressure from developers to incorporate a comparable amount of RAM in the PS3 in order to make multiplatform development easier. (Trying to chop down PC/Xbox content to fit the PS2's more limited memory is not only a pain in the ass for developers, but it can also lead to some ugly results--like the PS2 version of Max Payne, to name an example. I'm sure nobody wants the extra hassle if it can be avoided, and the easiest way to do that would be to petition Sony to match the amount of RAM MS ships Xenon with.) Based on that, I'm pretty much inclined to believe that there'll be no memory advantage for MS, at least judging by what we know now.

EDIT: I see you posted a bit more on the topic while I was writing this. A single Cell processor can only address a 256 meg bank? Hm, interesting. I didn't know that. I'm still inclined to think that they'd have to do something to try to match the memory in Xenon, just for the reasons I stated earlier. As for whether or not they'll manage it, I suppose we'll know soon enough.
 
Tellaerin said:
How so? Launching after Xenon/Xbox 360 gives Sony leeway to respond to whatever MS does, spec-wise, and adding RAM is probably the easiest last-minute change they could possibly make. .

Again:

The maximum RAM a single Cell processor can access in the PS3 is 256MB. It's a hardware limitation, and the only way around that would be to include a second processor using a seperate bank of RAM.
 

Tellaerin

Member
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Again:

The maximum RAM a single Cell processor can access in the PS3 is 256MB. It's a hardware limitation, and the only way around that would be to include a second processor using a seperate bank of RAM.

I didn't see that until after I posted (there were a few posts that went up between when I started my reply and when I hit submit. :p ) I appended a note to that effect to my earlier post. Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I'd deliberately ignored what you were saying.
 

KickyFast

Member
Here's something on the 256MB cell limitation:

"Rambus XDR Memory System: Limited to 4 Devices, or Not?

In the previous article, the memory capacity of the XDR memory system was described as follows:

In the XDR memory system, each channel can support a maximum of thirty-six devices connected to the same command and address bus. The data bus of each device connects to the memory controller through a set of bi-directional point-to-point connections. In the XDR memory system, address and command are sent on the address and command bus at a rate of 800 Mbits per second (Mbps), and the point to point interface operates at a datarate of 3.2 Gbps. Using DRAM devices with 16 bit wide data busses, each channel of XDR memory can sustain a maximum bandwidth of 102.4 Gbps (2 x 16 x 3.2), or 12.6 GB/s. The CELL processor can thus achieve a maximum bandwidth of 25.2 GB/s with a 2 channel, 4 device configuration.

The obvious advantage of the XDR memory system is the bandwidth that it provides to the CELL processor. However, in the configuration illustrated in figure 9, the maximum of 4 DRAM devices means that the CELL processor is limited to 256 MB of memory, given that the highest capacity XDR DRAM device is currently 512 Mbits. Fortunately, XDR DRAM devices could in theory be reconfigured in such a way so that upwards of 36 XDR devices can be connected to the same 36 bit wide channel and provide 1 bit wide data bus each to the 36 bit wide point-to-point interconnect. In such a configuration, a two channel XDR memory can support upwards of 16 GB of ECC protected memory with 256 Mbit DRAM devices or 32 GB of ECC protected memory with 512 Mbit DRAM devices.

Unfortunately, rather than providing insights into the issue of the CELL processor's memory capacity, the statements above may have in fact contributed to the impression that the XDR memory system is currently constrained in some way. The truth of the matter is that the XDR DRAM devices themselves are capable of supporting the 72 device configuration that would allow each CELL processor to directly address 4 GB of ECC protected memory (given 512 Mbit XDR devices). However, in order to support the XDR DRAM device in such a configuration, specific support must be built into the XDR DRAM controller interface. To date, IBM has not released details on the memory controller interface indicating whether the current incarnation of the CELL processor can support a 72 DRAM device configuration in the XDR memory system, or a less amount, i.e. 36 DRAM devices. Fortunately, regardless of whether the current CELL processor can explicitly support the 72 DRAM device configuration in the XDR memory system, the ability to address 72 XDR DRAM devices would require at most a relatively minor design change for the CELL processor. As a result, even if a DRAM device-count limitation exists for the current incarnation of the CELL processor, future CELL processors can be easily designed to rectify that limitation. "

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT022805234129
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
xexex said:
512 MB is only 8 times as much memory as Xbox, obviously.
Most likely not - expect a sizeable amount of memory in these new consoles to be permamently occupied by OS services.
And it may not only be limited to just memory either.
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
Blimblim said:
Xenon is the development/code name, Xbox360 should be the final "marketing" name.

Are you serious? I really cannot see how "Xbox 360" makes sense, it sounds absolutely retarded. If they're worried about sounding less than PS3 if they use the name Xbox 2, then that is the worst logic ever.
 

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Again:

The maximum RAM a single Cell processor can access in the PS3 is 256MB. It's a hardware limitation, and the only way around that would be to include a second processor using a seperate bank of RAM.
Could you please provide a link to where this is explicitly said? Because the closest insinuation of such a thing that I've seen is what KickyFast just posted and there's nothing in what he posted from realworldtech that indicates its an absolute maximum.
 
Tellaerin said:
I didn't see that until after I posted (there were a few posts that went up between when I started my reply and when I hit submit. :p ) I appended a note to that effect to my earlier post. Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I'd deliberately ignored what you were saying.


no problem, it happens to me all the time.

on topic: MS could make Sony sweat by upping to 512 mb RAM.. even if PS3 edges xbox2 performance wise you may still see better looking games among other things on xbox2 by adding 512mb of ram..
 
GSG Flash said:
Are you serious? I really cannot see how "Xbox 360" makes sense, it sounds absolutely retarded. If they're worried about sounding less than PS3 if they use the name Xbox 2, then that is the worst logic ever.
everyday users might see 3>2 and thats who most consoes are sold too....not the internet geeks that know xbox 360 is xbox 2....if you didn't know shit about shit shit... xbox 2 vs ps3 might make you believe the ps3 was a level above the xbox 2.....
 
kaching said:
Could you please provide a link to where this is explicitly said? Because the closest insinuation of such a thing that I've seen is what KickyFast just posted and there's nothing in what he posted from realworldtech that indicates its an absolute maximum.

My post didn't mention anything about absolute maximum either.. just like KickyFast post, you will need to retool the design to add more ram to Cell, its not as flexible as what MS is using.. this would cause Sony to re-fabricate the cell design going into PS3 and I'm sure Sony is pass that stage.
 

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
The maximum RAM a single Cell processor can access in the PS3 is 256MB. It's a hardware limitation, and the only way around that would be to include a second processor using a seperate bank of RAM.
That, of course, is not true, as you can read in the article above. However, even if the 256MB stays unchanged, it tells nothing of how much video memory there will be and what kind of memory configuration will take place there. 256MB of XDRAM + 256 MB of video RAM is entirely possible option.

Sony would probably not come out alive of the backlash they would get if they at the very least don't match such important spec as the memory, after all the talk about hardware superiority they are giving.

you will need to retool the design to add more ram to Cell, its not as flexible as what MS is using.. this would cause Sony to re-fabricate the cell design going into PS3 and I'm sure Sony is pass that stage.
I think you should read it more carefuly. Even without changing anything on Cell, there are solutions, and the change involved on the Cell itself would be trivial, which at this stage (nothing being fabbed yet) is something that I don't see being a problem.
 
PS3 will have at least as much RAM as the XBox 2, possibly more.

Even if the single CELL core can only access 256MB, the Nvidia GPU can be given its own 256MB to play with.

Sony would never friggin' bring the machine to market after XBox 2 with less RAM, not to mention developers would bug the shit out of them if they did with complaints (just like they did with PSP).
 
Tellaerin said:
EDIT: I see you posted a bit more on the topic while I was writing this. A single Cell processor can only address a 256 meg bank? Hm, interesting. I didn't know that. I'm still inclined to think that they'd have to do something to try to match the memory in Xenon, just for the reasons I stated earlier. As for whether or not they'll manage it, I suppose we'll know soon enough.

Perhaps Sony can come up with something..

Since everyone saying that all next gen consoles will be indistinguishable graphically, Ram is MS trump card.

Better Graphics, textures, AI etc
 

xexex

Banned
soundwave05 said:
PS3 will have at least as much RAM as the XBox 2, possibly more.

Even if the single CELL core can only access 256MB, the Nvidia GPU can be given its own 256MB to play with.

Sony would never friggin' bring the machine to market after XBox 2 with less RAM, not to mention developers would bug the shit out of them if they did with complaints (just like they did with PSP).


hell yeah. RAM is good. as is competition :D
 

op_ivy

Fallen Xbot (cannot continue gaining levels in this class)
xexex said:
keep in mind, that 512 MB of RAM is not gobsmackingly awesome. it is just decent, and just saving Xenon from being completely crippled as far as memory.

512 MB is only 8 times as much memory as Xbox, obviously. still a smaller leap than from PS1 to PS2

i'm no tech head, and wont even try to play that game (like some of you...), but i seriously doubt that if MS is considering 256 that it would come even close to "being completely crippled as far as memory" because of that decision. something tells me the combined brains behind xbox 2 know a bit more about what they are doing then the vast majority (if not obviously all) of GAF :p

though, its obvious that 512 would only make the deal sweeter :)
 
op_ivy said:
i'm no tech head, and wont even try to play that game (like some of you...), but i seriously doubt that if MS is considering 256 that it would come even close to "being completely crippled as far as memory" because of that decision. something tells me the combined brains behind xbox 2 know a bit more about what they are doing then the vast majority (if not obviously all) of GAF :p

though, its obvious that 512 would only make the deal sweeter :)

I hope you're right :)

256mb is so 2001...1024mb is becoming the norm in PCs now.. I want xbox2 to at least have half that..
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
My post didn't mention anything about absolute maximum either.. just like KickyFast post, you will need to retool the design to add more ram to Cell, its not as flexible as what MS is using.. this would cause Sony to re-fabricate the cell design going into PS3 and I'm sure Sony is pass that stage.

This is what I've been thinking for some time - the time gap (and thus technology gap) between the PS3 and Xenon really won't be that long, if Sony follows their past release schedules. The launch windows will only be ~5 months apart, if MS launches in NA in November (as expected) and Sony launches in Japan in March (as expected). That's a blink of the eye in the development cycle of a console.
 
The Xenon has not been bumped to 512 meg YET. MS is still debating this. For all intents and purposes it is currently 256 megs. That is the target right now. Blim is correct that developers are asking for 512 and MS is currently looking at it. But MS relenting and giving into the demands is still up in the air.

I wouldn't go around saying total system memory is anyone's trump card at this point. That's counting chickens before the eggs are even laid. The bottomline is that MS will announce the final spec soon and Sony and Nintendo still have time to look the Xenon over and decide if they want to up the RAM on their machines.

In the end it's MS game to set the bar, then Sony and Nintendo can decide to match it or out do it. Those are the pitfalls of coming first out of the gate, you are playing your whole hand, while the other guys are still holding their cards.
 

Kleegamefan

K. LEE GAIDEN
Yeah, keep in mind that PS3 most likely will not have a unified RAM pool, like Xenon and Xbox before it...

I believe it is correct that a single Cell can only address 256MegaBytes of XRDRAM but that is not to say this will be the only Ram in the system....

You will probably have a decent chunk of embedded RAM on the nVidia GPU as well as some other ram that may not be as fast (and therefore, as expensive) as XRDRAM.....

You could see even more than half a Gig of overall ram in PS3 for all we know...
 
Duckhuntdog said:
The Xenon has not been bumped to 512 meg YET. MS is still debating this. For all intents and purposes it is currently 256 megs. That is the target right now. Blim is correct that developers are asking for 512 and MS is currently looking at it. But MS relenting and giving into the demands is still up in the air.


I hope MS isn't that stupid.. 512mb is needed if xbox2 is going to last until 2010!

Its the HD era!!!! :lol

I wouldn't go around saying total system memory is anyone's trump card at this point. That's counting chickens before the eggs are even laid. The bottomline is that MS will announce the final spec soon and Sony and Nintendo still have time to look the Xenon over and decide if they want to up the RAM on their machines.

This is MS trump card if they decide to use it.. which is what I said.

In the end it's MS game to set the bar, then Sony and Nintendo can decide to match it or out do it.

Sony is going to have harder time reaching that bar if MS decides to go with 512mb...if at all.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
this would cause Sony to re-fabricate the cell design going into PS3 and I'm sure Sony is pass that stage.
Cell design going into PS3 is not the ISSCC Cell, so you have no means of telling how close the configuration is to being locked down. And until IBM says more, we don't known whether the aforementioned limitation exists in the first place, let alone whether it would still exist in PS3 version of the chip.

Anyway, hypothetically, if kernel reserved something like ~64MB in Xenon, we'd definately be looking at a problematic memory situation at 256MB. Same goes for PS3 of course.
 

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
1024mb is becoming the norm in PCs now.. I want xbox2 to at least have half that..
Keep in mind that 200-400MB of that memory in the PC probably goes to OS and all kinds of resident junk everybody is running nowadays (firewalls, virus checkers, anti-spyware).

512 MB Is really enough for consoles that use present day optical drives for their game delivery. 1GB memory would take way too much time to fill from a DVD/HDDVD/BluRay, and most devs would go for faster loading times and less memory use.
 
Fafalada said:
Cell design going into PS3 is not the ISSCC Cell, so you have no means of telling how close the configuration is to being locked down. And until IBM says more, we don't known whether the aforementioned limitation exists in the first place, let alone whether it would still exist in PS3 version of the chip.

It's by no means a hard, insurmountable limit. But they'd have to go with either a different version of Cell than we've seen or they'd have to put the RAM in a less than optimal position. The barriers are not absolute, but they present enough of a challenge that most expect them to not be overcome.
 
Marconelly said:
Keep in mind that 200-400MB of that memory in the PC probably goes to OS and all kinds of resident junk everybody is running nowadays (firewalls, virus checkers, anti-spyware).

512 MB Is really enough for consoles that use present day optical drives for their game delivery. 1GB memory would take way too much time to fill from a DVD/HDDVD/BluRay, and most devs would go for faster loading times and less memory use.


I agree 512mb is a acceptable amount, after hearing developers complaints about the 256mb in xbox2 I hope MS adds 512mb.

It's what developers want. I thought at GDC J. Allard said he listen to what the developers wanted..
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
But they'd have to go with either a different version of Cell than we've seen
That I kinda expect anyhow, regardless of whether the memory configuration will differ or not.

Anyway, IMO, memory cost is the primary problem with going 512 (for both MS and Sony), and not so much for the starting price of the console, as for the pricing few years later.
 
Fafalada said:
TIMO, memory cost is the primary problem with going 512 (for both MS and Sony), and not so much for the starting price of the console, as for the pricing few years later.

In sony case its a little bit more expensive..

Sony uses XDR Rambus RAM..on top they would need to re-fabricating the cell design going into PS3.

Yes, this would add more money to MS bottomline but no way near as much it would cost Sony.
 

MrSingh

Member
Fafalada said:
Most likely not - expect a sizeable amount of memory in these new consoles to be permamently occupied by OS services.
And it may not only be limited to just memory either.

OH NO it's no longer 1:8... or even 1:7!!!!
 

nitewulf

Member
Fafalada said:
Anyway, IMO, memory cost is the primary problem with going 512 (for both MS and Sony), and not so much for the starting price of the console, as for the pricing few years later.
in a way. but won't it be more problematic for sony due to the more expensive type of ram they are going with?
i see it as a way MS would force sony's hand, if they decide to go with 512MB, sony would have no choice but to go with 512MB, adding more cost to the production of ps3s.
i mean it's not really an issue of just slapping in as much memory as they want, it's really a balancing act with every component working optimally at the lowest possible price.
 

thorns

Banned
If Sony does go with 512mb, how are they going to make any money off PS3? Billions of dollar r&d into cell, royalties to rambus, royalties to nvidia, blu-ray, cell, gpu, ram etc..
Sounds like a very costly solution to me.

And I hope that MS does NOT include a camera, even if it costs them 0$. It's all about the perceived value of the device. Most people don't care about the camera and will think "MS is making me paying for a camera, even if I don't want to". Having a barebones console gives the impression to the consumer that all the money you're paying is for the best hardware. Marketing works in strange ways.
 

peedi

Banned
thorns said:
If Sony does go with 512mb, how are they going to make any money off PS3? Billions of dollar r&d into cell, royalties to rambus, royalties to nvidia, blu-ray, cell, gpu, ram etc..
Sounds like a very costly solution to me.

Who cares? As long as the games look and play great, why should that be of any concern to you?
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
thorns said:
If Sony does go with 512mb, how are they going to make any money off PS3? Billions of dollar r&d into cell, royalties to rambus, royalties to nvidia, blu-ray, cell, gpu, ram etc..
Sounds like a very costly solution to me.

And I hope that MS does NOT include a camera, even if it costs them 0$. It's all about the perceived value of the device. Most people don't care about the camera and will think "MS is making me paying for a camera, even if I don't want to". Having a barebones console gives the impression to the consumer that all the money you're paying is for the best hardware. Marketing works in strange ways.

A CAMERA???????????
 

garrickk

Member
With this much memory, the resolution of textures that will be used next gen, and no HDD, the hardware "Trump" card (if there is one) will be the rate at which data can be streamed off the optical drive.

16x DVD spins at 10,000 rpm and is TOO LOUD for a console. Sounds like a jet engine. 8x would be horribly slow. I hope the rumors about a standard DVD drive in Xenon are wrong - they must be.

A 4x BRD drive would slaughter it - and be much quieter.
 
garrickk said:
With this much memory, the resolution of textures that will be used next gen, and no HDD, the hardware "Trump" card (if there is one) will be the rate at which data can be streamed off the optical drive.

Just as the 512mb, HDD hasn't been confirm..but there will be some kind of internal massive storage device.. enough for in-game cache anyways.
 

Ryudo

My opinion? USED.
Kleegamefan said:
I am hoping either a 2x or 4X BRD-ROM drive...

BTW

1X BRD-ROM =54Mb/sec

2X BRD-ROM =108Mb/sec

4X BRD-ROM =216Mb/sec

So it can read data at this speed ? or write ? Thanks.
 

Kobold

half-wit retard monkey's ass
Seems kinda clumsy not to take a fast optical media, since streaming 'can' be a major part in producing these seamless games they all mention.

Edit: Sarcasm, it's of course unmissable. :)
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
DCharlie said:
what is the current expectation for the BRD Driver speed for PS3?
I don't have a particular expectation, but I know what would be needed for decent load performance...

With a 256MB system, 3xBRD should get us around 12-15s for clean load(more or less filling entire memory) and yes I'm assuming a bunch of factors like compression here, not just raw-data reading speed.
4xBRD would be under 10s, so 3x is adequate, 4x as close to ideal as you can hope for.

If we get 512MB, clean loads will be Very slow on DVD, and average to slow on 4xBRD, so you'll have to go with loading less data and complicating your data management more(games with good loading schemes), or make people wait 30-60seconds betwen loads (EA games for the first 2 years).

Ironically, 512MB is probably bad news for loadtimes in early PC ports too :p
 
Fafalada said:
Ironically, 512MB is probably bad news for loadtimes in early PC ports too :p


:lol yes, thats one way of looking at it, but thats up to the developers.. Have seen Half Life 2 run on a 512mb pc than swap out to a 1024mb?.. the difference is amazing :)

Everything runs smooth as silk and looks awesome..don't worry, you can up the resolution now.
 

SpokkX

Member
are the supposed 256 meg for Xenon shared RAM between gfx, sound and the rest.. (like in xbox)?

or is there any hint to there being specific ram for the gfx?
 

Pug

Member
The rumours regarding the ATI gpu are just that but most seem to suggest 256MB of on board Ram on the GPU and 10MB frame buffer. Having 512 MB of main memory would seems a bit overboard to me and as Fafalda said loads times would me increased, unless a Hard Drive came into play. By the way Faf's made an interetsing points regarding the OS and how much memory that sucks up, its especially intersting regarding the PS3.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
How do you work out that Xbox 2 needs 512MB because 1024MB is becoming the norm for PCs?

Firstly, 512MB is still very much the norm for anything other than 'extreme' PCs.

Secondly, how much RAM did PCs have when PS2 came out? I'm guessing more than 64MB (double PS2s 32MB).

There is no correlation, just wishful thinking.
 

Kobold

half-wit retard monkey's ass
Pug said:
Having 512 MB of main memory would seems a bit overboard to me and as Fafalda said loads times would me increased, unless a Hard Drive came into play.
I don't understand that...

I think the optical media will decide loading times not the RAM. With more ram, you can store more, therefore have more time in between that the optical media needs to stream, so you would compensate slow optical media with more memory I'd think...

There are numerous system processes that are loaded in the memory, the texture throughput can easily be smartly managed on whatever amount of memory it will have. :)

Thats what I'm thinking anyways. Maybe it'll matter for ports, true.
 
mrklaw said:
How do you work out that Xbox 2 needs 512MB because 1024MB is becoming the norm for PCs?

No, Developers are asking MS to bump up the ram.

Firstly, 512MB is still very much the norm for anything other than 'extreme' PCs.
No one ever said it wasn't.. but Games are all ready asking for 1024mb and by 2010 i'm sure we'll be talking about 2048mb.

Secondly, how much RAM did PCs have when PS2 came out? I'm guessing more than 64MB (double PS2s 32MB).

Ironically 256mb..
 
Kobold said:
I don't understand that...

I think the optical media will decide loading times not the RAM. With more ram, you can store more, therefore have more time in between that the optical media needs to stream, so you would compensate slow optical media with more memory I'd think...

There are numerous system processes that are loaded in the memory, the texture throughput can easily be smartly managed on whatever amount of memory it will have. :)

Thats what I'm thinking anyways. Maybe it'll matter for ports, true.

PS3 fans responding with 'MS doesn't need to put 512mb in xbox2... lol

Like I said this is MS trump card.
 

Pug

Member
Kobold, what i was try to say if you have a 12speed DVD and 256MB of memory, it takes X time to fill it, if you have double the Ram same speed DVD is going to take twice as long. I'd certaintly rather XB2 having 512MB of main memory and 256MB of GPU memory but it just looks a bit overboard to me. As I said theres other issues that have been brought up in this thread that are far more interetsing, sorry faf.
 

Kobold

half-wit retard monkey's ass
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
PS3 fans responding with 'MS doesn't need to put 512mb in xbox2... lol

Like I said this is MS trump card.
Who's a PS3 fan? :) I don't understand how that refers to my question..

Also, I don't understand what 'trump card' means? Does it mean the part of the system that will be a deciding factor, or part that's going to be the big surprise?

Pug said:
Kobold, what i was try to say if you have a 12speed DVD and 256MB of memory, it takes X time to fill it, if you have double the Ram same speed DVD is going to take twice as long. I'd certaintly rather XB2 having 512MB of main memory and 256MB of GPU memory but it just looks a bit overboard to me. As I said theres other issues that have been brought up in this thread that are far more interetsing, sorry faf.
Okay sorry, misunderstood! :)
 

Pug

Member
kobold is it you that used to post over at Bizarre creations? If so Heard anything on the grapevine regarding PGR3?
 
Top Bottom