[Definitive] Xbox 360 Thread

[Susceptive]

its hard to guage how big the machine is from that pic, hope its not as big as the current Xbox.

[jerry]

MTV is going to be "eye candy" or "visual placebo"... E3 is more technical stuff... all the meat is there... ;)

585893681[/snapback]

There is going to be an 8 page article (technical aspect of Xbox 360) by Tuesday (May 17), who needs E3 ? :p You can have a look at it, but chances are your urges will be beyond control. I dont want them just yet.

[Laughing-Man]

The xbox uses a Pentium 3 while the xbox 360 uses a modified PowerPC.  What you suggest is not going to happen for the same reasons you can't run OSX on an x86 processor.  Unless the 360 uses an emulator, but that means the games will run slower as well.

585887533[/snapback]

Hardly, 3x 64bit Dual Core Multithreaded CPUs would emulate a lowly P3 733 fine.

585890048[/snapback]

Yes but the big question is, would Microsoft have to make an arrangement with Nvidia or Intel to have their instruction sets emulated on their new console? Since Microsoft will be selling this console to make money, I am sure Intel or Nvidia would want a slice of it since their products are being emulated on this console. That could cost Microsoft a pretty penny. This has yet to be seen, but if they are going to be releasing the Xbox360 at a loss like the original Xbox, paying off Intel and Nvidia could just add to that loss.

The other thing is, I do not know why people are so excited with the Xbox 360's hardware. I do not think there is anything special to it. It is basically the GameCube hardware with 2 more cpus, upgraded memory, upgraded video card, and it's still using the DVD. Even the Sony PR rep said this sounds more like Xbox 1.5. Usually consoles use cutting edge technology, but this seems like a hardware upgrade.

Edited May 9, 2005 by jmole

[jerry]

The other thing is, I do not know why people are so excited with the Xbox 360's hardware.  I do not think there is anything special to it.  It is basically the GameCube hardware with 2 more cpus, upgraded memory, upgraded video card, and it's still using the DVD.  Even the Sony PR rep said this sounds more like Xbox 1.5.  Usually consoles use cutting edge technology, but this seems like a hardware upgrade.

585895094[/snapback]

Then I presume that you would believe what Steve Ballmer has to say about Nintendo's Revolution. :rofl:

People are excited over Xbox 360 because:

a. Its nothing like the Gamecube.

b. Its got a completely new (different) architecture.

c. The graphics subsystem is anything unlike available on the PC platform. Even ATI went ahead and patented it. Probably the same would make its way to the PC by the time Longhorn is ready.

d. Microsoft is a HUGE player, bigger than Nintendo.

e. I'll let you figure out the rest.

[Laughing-Man]

Then I presume that you would believe what Steve Ballmer has to say about Nintendo's Revolution.  :rofl:

People are excited over Xbox 360 because:

a. Its nothing like the Gamecube.

b. Its got a completely new (different) architecture.

c. The graphics subsystem is anything unlike available on the PC platform. Even ATI went ahead and patented it. Probably the same would make its way to the PC by the time Longhorn is ready.

d. Microsoft is a HUGE player, bigger than Nintendo.

e. I'll let you figure out the rest.

585895441[/snapback]

a. They both use ATI GPUs and PowerPCs CPUs. How are they not similar?

b. I hope it does since it is a next gen console.

c. Every generation of new consoles always boasts their graphics. If what companies said were true then my PS2 would have Toy Story like graphics. Not until we actually see in-game videos is anything what they say is true.

d. MS huge player in the console market or gaming market? Maybe in the US, but definitely not elsewhere in the world. Sony has the console title by a long shot. And in terms of software, Nintendo is the second biggest game publisher in the world behind EA games. MS doesn't even come close to being the leader in either hardware or software.

[jerry]

a.? They both use ATI GPUs and PowerPCs CPUs.? How are they not similar?

b.? I hope it does since it is a next gen console.

c.? Every generation of new consoles always boasts their graphics.? If what companies said were true then my PS2 would have Toy Story like graphics.? Not until we actually see in-game videos is anything what they say is true.

d. MS huge player in the console market or gaming market?? Maybe in the US, but definitely not elsewhere in the world.? Sony has the console title by a long shot.? And in terms of software, Nintendo is the second biggest game publisher in the world behind EA games.? MS doesn't even come close to being the leader in either hardware or software.

585895533[/snapback]

a. So my PC which has a Dual core Intel processor and Geforce 6800 Ultra is similar to the Xbox ? You must be kidding.

c. So you buy only "select" stories from Sony. Isnt that hypocritical.

d. I believe Microsoft is trying to sign up as many developers as possible for Xbox 360. As for the hardware part, they are relying on its capabilities other than being a gaming console to target a bigger audience. Sony had a headstart with the PS2, Microsoft is trying to do the same thing.

And that was very slick of you to sidestep the question I asked you: Do you believe what Ballmer has to say about the Revo:rofl: ? :rofl:

[Spartan_X]

There is going to be an 8 page article (technical aspect of Xbox 360) by Tuesday (May 17), who needs E3 ? :p You can have a look at it, but chances are your urges will be beyond control. I dont want them just yet.

585894333[/snapback]

do you realize that the date you mentioned is the day when E3 starts? anyways, the document you speak of is the one that will be given to the media during the E3 pre-show... :ninja: :whistle:

[jerry]

do you realize that the date you mentioned is the day when E3 starts? anyways, the document you speak of is the one that will be given to the media during the E3 pre-show...  :ninja:  :whistle:

585896324[/snapback]

That is exactly what I meant. The peeps attending E3 wont get any headstarts :p

[Acezo]

The other thing is, I do not know why people are so excited with the Xbox 360's hardware.  I do not think there is anything special to it.  It is basically the GameCube hardware with 2 more cpus, upgraded memory, upgraded video card, and it's still using the DVD.  Even the Sony PR rep said this sounds more like Xbox 1.5.  Usually consoles use cutting edge technology, but this seems like a hardware upgrade.

585895094[/snapback]

Assuming the general idea of what the Xenon/Xbox 360's hardware will be is true...

The PPC chips in the Gamecube/Xenon are very different (seeing as to how Gecko's based on PPC 440, and the Xenon's is probably based somewhere around the PPC 970). The Xenon chip(s) are clearly going to be much more powerful (3 chips, 2 threads per core, 1MB L2 cache). Much of the only way they are alike is in the manufacturer's name. I can't run out and buy Powermac G3 and with an ATi card in there and say "Check this out...it's so similar to Gamecube and Xbox 360, they must not be making any progress!!" :huh:

The same goes for the memory, video card, and pretty much everything else. Totally different architectures, much faster.

And since when have consoles been on the cutting edge, where they were able to surpass PCs clock-per-clock? This is the first time in at least two generations where console hardware will be faster than the general high-end PC. To say that either Sony or Microsoft aren't on the cutting edge with their consoles coming up is ridiculous (as is calling the thing Xbox 1.5).

[planetik]

the xbox 360 will be smaller than the original...

Size Comparison

Taken from NovacaineX from the unfiction forums.

[Laughing-Man]

Assuming the general idea of what the Xenon/Xbox 360's hardware will be is true...

The PPC chips in the Gamecube/Xenon are very different (seeing as to how Gecko's based on PPC 440, and the Xenon's is probably based somewhere around the  PPC 970). The Xenon chip(s) are clearly going to be much more powerful (3 chips, 2 threads per core, 1MB L2 cache). Much of the only way they are alike is in the manufacturer's name. I can't run out and buy Powermac G3 and with an ATi card in there and say "Check this out...it's so similar to Gamecube and Xbox 360, they must not be making any progress!!" :huh:

The same goes for the memory, video card, and pretty much everything else. Totally different architectures, much faster.

And since when have consoles been on the cutting edge, where they were able to surpass PCs clock-per-clock? This is the first time in at least two generations where console hardware will be faster than the general high-end PC. To say that either Sony or Microsoft aren't on the cutting edge with their consoles coming up is ridiculous (as is calling the thing Xbox 1.5).

585896338[/snapback]

I was not saying they are exactly the same thing. I said they were similar in that they are both using PowerPC processors and an ATI GPU, which they are. Its not wrong in saying that the Xbox 360 is basically using what the Nintendo GameCube has, but with this genrations hardware.

Processors of the same family usually have a core set of architectures that do not change. All the Pentium chips have a core set of similar instruction sets. With each interation of the processor they and more and more fuctionality as the processors become more powerful. I can only assume that the PowerPC no matter what iteration of the chip has some set of similar instruction sets or features. If each PowerPC processor is a complete redesign of its predecessor then there is no reason to keep the PowerPC name, they should be naming each chip something other then the PowerPC. But speaking in general terms, the GameCube is using a PowerPC with an ATI GPU and so is the Xbox360.

Edited May 10, 2005 by jmole

[magik]

Yes but the big question is, would Microsoft have to make an arrangement with Nvidia or Intel to have their instruction sets emulated on their new console?? Since Microsoft will be selling this console to make money, I am sure Intel or Nvidia would want a slice of it since their products are being emulated on this console.? That could cost Microsoft a pretty penny.? This has yet to be seen, but if they are going to be releasing the Xbox360 at a loss like the original Xbox, paying off Intel and Nvidia could just add to that loss.

585895094[/snapback]

They wouldn't need to make any "arrangements". It's Microsoft's software, it's their XBE's, the only complication arises when trying to run a 32bit XBE in 64bit architecture. The emulator would be required to overcome this software-based complication, it has nothing to do with the brand of the processor or the motherboard.

Eh, anyway, we'll find out in a few days, don't get your panties in a bunch!:p :p

[Laughing-Man]

They wouldn't need to make any "arrangements". It's Microsoft's software, it's their XBE's, the only complication arises when trying to run a 32bit XBE in 64bit architecture. The emulator would be required to overcome this software-based complication, it has nothing to do with the brand of the processor or the motherboard.

Eh, anyway, we'll find out in a few days, don't get your panties in a bunch!  :p

585900372[/snapback]

The problem I was stating above is what if game developers for their games did lower level programming using instruction sets specific to the P3 or Nvidia card.

I don't want to get technical or anything. For example, what say if one the instructions in the game was: CREATE_FOG (X,Y). Say this is an Nvidia instruction that Nvidia copyrighted to make their special fog effect. It can be anyting, I am just using fog as an example. The Xbox 360 translator would have to have a statement that says IF(INSRUCTION = CREATE_FOG) then the rest of the function would have to dissect the Nvidia instruction to create fog and translate it into something the ATI card can do. If this is the case then Nvida could say MS would have to pay them to even translate their instructions into something ATI can use because they own that method to create a fog.

Edited May 10, 2005 by jmole

[jerry]

I don't want to get technical or anything.? For example, what say if one the instructions was:? CREATE_FOG (X,Y).? Say this is an Nvidia instruction that Nvidia copyrighted to make a fog effect.? The Xbox 360 translator would have to have a statement that says IF(INSRUCTION = CREATE_FOG) then the rest of the function would have to dissect the Nvidia instruction to create fog and translate it into something the ATI card can do.? If this is the case then Nvida could say MS would have to pay them to even translate their instructions into something ATI can use because they own that method to create a fog.

585900453[/snapback]

^ Completely absurd.

The instruction sets you are referring to are a part of DirectX, the original Xbox was based on DirectX8, Xbox360 is based on WGF (DirectX) and we all who owns DirectX & WGF.

[Laughing-Man]

^ Completely absurd.

The instruction sets you are referring to are a part of DirectX, the original Xbox was based on DirectX8, Xbox360 is based on WGF (DirectX) and we all who owns DirectX & WGF.

585900468[/snapback]

I was using fog as a generic function. Nvidia has features on their card that ATI cards don't have and visa versa. They could have like some intelligent shading or some special kind of lighting functions that Nvidia could have patented for their cards.

[jerry]

I was using fog as a generic function.  Nvidia has features on their card that ATI cards don't have and visa versa.  They could have like some intelligent shading or some special kind of lighting functions that Nvidia could have patented for their cards.

585900492[/snapback]

Are you referring to PS3.0 ? :rofl: You are still wrong. ;)

[Laughing-Man]

Are you referring to PS3.0 ? :rofl: You are still wrong. ;)

585900498[/snapback]

I am not talking about a specific feature or function. I am just making up generic copyrighted features video card can have! E-gads.

Here's an example: For my job, every companies' products I use have instruction sets specifically for their products. If I use a Motorola microcontroller in a project, I can't dissect a copyrighted feature that an Intel microcontroller uses, have a Motorola emulate it, then sell it for a profit. "Hey I am using Intel's patented memory management by emulating this function on this Motorola microcontroller and then selling it for a profit!" Microsoft can't say "Hey we are emulating Nvidia's copyrighted tru lighting feature (just making up a feature) that games were programmed with without paying them for it!" Do you understand yet?

Edited May 10, 2005 by jmole

[jerry]

I am not talking about a specific feature or function.? I am just making up generic copyrighted features video card can have!? E-gads.

Here's an example:?  For my job, every companies' products I use have instruction sets specifically for their products.? If I use a Motorola microcontroller in a project, I can't dissect a copyrighted feature that an Intel microcontroller uses, have a Motorola emulate it, then sell it for a profit.? "Hey I am using Intel's patented memory management by emulating this function on this Motorola microcontroller and then selling it for a profit!"? Microsoft can't say "Hey we are emulating Nvidia's copyrighted tru lighting feature (just making up a feature) that games were programmed with without paying them for it!"? Do you understand yet?

585900523[/snapback]

You are making it more conf:Ding. :D

What you are trying to say is that Microsoft will have to pay Nvidia royalty for emulating its gpu (from the original Xbox), and I agree with you on that. But you are wrong in saying that a feature set (from DirectX) belongs to either Nvidia or ATI.

[magik]

I am not talking about a specific feature or function.  I am just making up generic copyrighted features video card can have!  E-gads.

Here's an example:  For my job, every companies' products I use have instruction sets specifically for their products.  If I use a Motorola microcontroller in a project, I can't dissect a copyrighted feature that an Intel microcontroller uses, have a Motorola emulate it, then sell it for a profit.  "Hey I am using Intel's patented memory management by emulating this function on this Motorola microcontroller and then selling it for a profit!"  Microsoft can't say "Hey we are emulating Nvidia's copyrighted tru lighting feature (just making up a feature) that games were programmed with without paying them for it!"  Do you understand yet?

585900523[/snapback]

jmole, you're missing the point that everyone else is trying to make. Games developed for the Xbox use Microsoft's XDK for Xbox, based on an Xbox architecture modified DirectX and thus independent from any processor or motherboard. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what graphics card or motherboard it is running on, as long as the machine can execute DirectX based applications, it can run the games developed for the Xbox.

Again, the only complication arises when trying to run this 32bit Xbox game on a 64bit architecture, which can easily be emulated. It's up to Microsoft if they want to do it or not, but as I said, there were several reports early on (before all this spec leaks and whatnot) about Microsoft working on a "VirtualPC" flavor for the next-gen Xbox. :happy:

[Laughing-Man]

jmole, you're missing the point that everyone else is trying to make. Games developed for the Xbox use Microsoft's XDK for Xbox, based on an Xbox architecture modified DirectX and thus independent from any processor or motherboard. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what graphics card or motherboard it is running on, as long as the machine can execute DirectX based applications, it can run the games developed for the Xbox.

585900612[/snapback]

The is the thing though, are you sure that all the XDK functions that MS gives developers do not further break down into Nvidia/P3 instructions? I have never seen the XDK before, but if it gives developers the ability to program in C or C++ or any high level programming language do those C/C++/etc. functions break down to any specialized Nvidia/P3 instructions? Edited May 10, 2005 by jmole

[magik]

The is the thing though, are you sure that all the XDK functions that MS gives developers do not further break down into Nvidia/P3 instructions?  I have never seen the XDK before, but if it gives developers the ability to program in C or C++ or any high level programming language do those C/C++/etc. functions break down to any specialized Nvidia/P3 instructions?

585900674[/snapback]

No, because look at the PC version of DirectX. Games programmed under DirectX for PC for example have not been processor specific. Age of Empires graphics were developed in DirectX and I can run it on my nVidia machine just as easily as I can on my ATI machine, likewise my Intel vs AMD . I don't see why Xbox's DirectX would be any different.

[Laughing-Man]

No, because look at the PC version of DirectX. Games programmed under DirectX for PC for example have not been processor specific. Age of Empires graphics were developed in DirectX and I can run it on my nVidia machine just as easily as I can on my ATI machine, likewise my Intel vs AMD . I don't see why Xbox's DirectX would be any different.

585900746[/snapback]

I see what you are getting at, but can Xbox game developers program outside of DirectX and access the hardware directly? Can they use assembly type instructions or lower level programming to access the hardware? I have been trying to imply this whole time is can developers use lower level instructions that only a P3 or Nvidia card would recognize unless if they were translated?

This is a stupid example, but say a PC game developer wanted his game to use some Intel P3 Error Checking (made this feature up) Intel patented and the way to use that feature is to use the assembly instruction "P3_ECC 1" in the games code, which turns the feature on. So if they ran the game on a AMD it would not know what that instruction is. Some translator would have to dissect that instruction and emulate that on a AMD. Remember this is an example.

I hope I am not confusing you.

Edit: @jerry, those features I made above were just something I made up. I am talking on a lower level of programming then DirectX. Some hardware has features enabled or accessed at the assembly level.

Edited May 10, 2005 by jmole

[oceanmotion]

Nice Perfect Dark Zero art from Our Colony.

[Acezo]

jmole, you're missing the point that everyone else is trying to make. Games developed for the Xbox use Microsoft's XDK for Xbox, based on an Xbox architecture modified DirectX and thus independent from any processor or motherboard. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what graphics card or motherboard it is running on, as long as the machine can execute DirectX based applications, it can run the games developed for the Xbox.

Again, the only complication arises when trying to run this 32bit Xbox game on a 64bit architecture, which can easily be emulated. It's up to Microsoft if they want to do it or not, but as I said, there were several reports early on (before all this spec leaks and whatnot) about Microsoft working on a "VirtualPC" flavor for the next-gen Xbox.  :happy:

585900612[/snapback]

That's really not right at all. First (let's forget about emulation right now), with the processor, x86 instructions can only be ran by an x86 processor, regardless of the Xbox XDK. There isn't an instruction set between the software and the processor to translate across different architextures (like DirectX). DirectX layer or not, x86 instructions won't run on PPC.

As graphics goes it's easier since both systems use DirectX, but Xbox games were still developed with middleware nVidia libraries. This is where nVidia will want royalties from MS. The graphics instructions weren't totally generic.

To solve this (again assuming Xbox 360 is backwards-compatible) MS created a version of DirectX (which I'll guess handles emulation of sound, input, etc. also) for PPC, and has an emulation layer between the software and the processor. I'm guessing they bit the bullet and have emulation for nVidia's libraries, and will be giving them a slice of each Xbox 360 sold (but from what I understand, royalties are only charged on version of the Xbox 360 with the harddrive included).

[magik]

@jmole:

I doubt developers bothered to program 'outside the DirectX environment' due to the fact that it is probably much more work and its benefits didn't outweigh the effort needed to do so. Also, keep in mind, developers generally port games from console to console and creating machine/assembly code specific to the Xbox would entail more work when porting. Either way, I have not had the opportunity to work with the XDK so I wouldn't be able to tell you for sure, but I understand what you were trying to say. Cheers mate :cool:

That's really not right at all. First (let's forget about emulation right now), with the processor, x86 instructions can only be ran by an x86 processor, regardless of the Xbox XDK. There isn't an instruction set between the software and the processor to translate across different architextures (like DirectX). DirectX layer or not, x86 instructions won't run on PPC.

As graphics goes it's easier since both systems use DirectX, but Xbox games were still developed with middleware nVidia libraries. This is where nVidia will want royalties from MS. The graphics instructions weren't totally generic.

To solve this (again assuming Xbox 360 is backwards-compatible) MS created a version of DirectX (which I'll guess handles emulation of sound, input, etc. also) for PPC, and has an emulation layer between the software and the processor. I'm guessing they bit the bullet and have emulation for nVidia's libraries, and will be giving them a slice of each Xbox 360 sold (but from what I understand, royalties are only charged on version of the Xbox 360 with the harddrive included).

585901512[/snapback]

What you claim here is simply speculation as none of this has been confirmed yet. We don't even know if the Xbox 360 will be backwards compatable or not. Either way, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft developed the XDK or the Xbox flavor of DirectX with specifics to nVidia's libraries. Why would they restrict themselves so much? (Even if your claim is ture, Microsoft most likely anticipated backwards compatability and enacted a legal agreement with all outside parties involved (read: nVidia) stating that such royalties would not be possible, but thats a legal issue unto its own.)

Also, if what you say is true then how do you explain PC DirectX games being able to run on several different machines provided that any specific machine has the DirectX Engine installed. That is all that is needed, there is no such thing as ties to a specific graphics card's libraries, it all relies on the DirectX Engine.

Additionally, how would you explain the upcoming XNA from Microsoft? For those who don't know what that is, it is basically an SDK which will allow game developers to develop games (in this XNA Architecture, which also utilizes a next-gen version of DirectX) that will be able to run on Xbox 360 as well as on PC (much like Java applications are operating system independent).

Anyway, my point is that having ties to specific graphics card libraries seems highly impracticle and inefficient and I doubt that is the case.