XBox One CPU upclocked to 1.75Ghz; Now in Mass Production

13567

Comments

  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BinaryDad wrote: »
    Why wouldn't they? If the deal makes more money than licensing at a premium cost, why wouldn't AMD do that? The goal of any electronics company is to make their products as cheap as possible so they can a) sell lots and b) maximize the profits.

    And with doing a deal with a console manufacturer, you have can almost guarantee point (a).

    I think perhaps that you're getting a bit confused by calling it a "flagship product" and thinking that this has anything to do with how AMD prices its products.

    Perhaps you should read up on "diluting the brand". You do not have a flagship product and then allow someone to sell it off cheaply.

    Manufacturing a product cheaply does not equate to selling it cheaply.
  • gds1972gds1972 Posts: 6,613
    Forum Member
    munta wrote: »
    The point is AMD would *NOT* licence their flagship product cheaply. Therefore MS could *NOT* afford to put it in the Xbox One regardless of how cheap it is to make.

    AMD as a company is struggling financially and signing deals to include there chips in tha latest generation of consoles will hopefully help with this.

    Although probably very unlikely I would not rule them out of doing this.
  • BinaryDadBinaryDad Posts: 3,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Perhaps you should read up on "diluting the brand". You do not have a flagship product and then allow someone to sell it off cheaply.

    Manufacturing a product cheaply does not equate to selling it cheaply.

    I don;t see how selling something as cheaply as possible, while making a good profit is brand dilution. Having a whole range of products doing roughly the same thing, for roughly the same price is brand dilution.

    Look...there are two factors in computing when it comes to components, and this is what people care about.

    1) Does it do the job well?
    2) Is it affordable/cheap?

    If number 2 doesn't work out, nobody will be interested. Being expensive isn't a mark of quality of a brand in the electronics industry - that's how Motorola, IBM et al used to think until MOS came a long and trumped them with a cheap as chips (pardon the pun) processor.

    Being able to sell a premium product in the millions, cheaply, would do far more for AMD's brand than selling a few thousand at a premium price could ever do.

    As I said; I think it's highly unlikely that MS will use anything but a proven product for the GPU. There are too many risks involved in adopting a new part so late in the product life cycle.
  • 2dshmuplover2dshmuplover Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    There are a lot of rumours about the APU & dGPU that stem back some time. It could go some way to explaining Albert Panello's comments a few weeks ago. on comparing console specs being meaningless and people talking about things they don't understand, and if you remember:
    "I would like to pose this question to the audience. There are several months until the consoles launch, and any student of the industry will remember, specs change.

    Given the rumored specs for both systems, can anyone conceive of a circumstance or decision one platform holder could make, where despite the theoretical performance benchmarks of the components, the box that appears “weaker” could actually be more powerful?

    I believe the debate on this could give some light to why we don’t want to engage in a specification debate until both boxes are final and shipping."

    The whole stickers over the unboxing vids at the request of Microsoft not wanting to reveal their specs is highly suspect at this point. The supposed NDA runs out on 29th September so we might find out more about it then if it is indeed true but there's enough rumours over this to make it viable.

    Here is a list of the rumours.

    It would be a brilliantly sly move by Microsoft to downplay the power of their machine while having an extra GPU nestled inside, we're talking about 8 year lifespans here so you can understand why a company would do that though. My personal feels are I get the impression MS aren't telling us everything that's in the box and there will likely be a few surprises to come. MS are a very rich company who know what they're doing, in either case I don't see them making competitive slip up's when market share is at stake.
  • He4rtHe4rt Posts: 5,379
    Forum Member
    I hope it's true (although i doubt it) not because of the effect on games, but because the internet would explode. NeoGaf would make for some excellent reading.
  • Red ArrowRed Arrow Posts: 10,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm doubting it too but would like it to be true. What does MS really have to gain at this late stage keeping it a secret? We know the PS4 is being mass produced now so they can't change the spec and even if they came out the other month and said there is a second GPU that wouldn't leave Sony much time to act.
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There are a lot of rumours about the APU & dGPU that stem back some time. It could go some way to explaining Albert Panello's comments a few weeks ago. on comparing console specs being meaningless and people talking about things they don't understand, and if you remember:



    The whole stickers over the unboxing vids at the request of Microsoft not wanting to reveal their specs is highly suspect at this point. The supposed NDA runs out on 29th September so we might find out more about it then if it is indeed true but there's enough rumours over this to make it viable.

    Here is a list of the rumours.

    It would be a brilliantly sly move by Microsoft to downplay the power of their machine while having an extra GPU nestled inside, we're talking about 8 year lifespans here so you can understand why a company would do that though. My personal feels are I get the impression MS aren't telling us everything that's in the box and there will likely be a few surprises to come. MS are a very rich company who know what they're doing, in either case I don't see them making competitive slip up's when market share is at stake.

    It would be a daft move. All of these 180s and all they had to say was... "But we have dual GPUs. We can't say any more at the moment but all will be revealed in due course"

    That would satisfy the masses, the shareholders would be overjoyed and the NDA would remain in place.
  • Red ArrowRed Arrow Posts: 10,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh and if it were true, queue the comments (probably not from people on this forum):

    "Oh look another 180!!"
    "MS are obvisouly scared of the PS4 so had to shove in another graphics chip at the last minute"
    "Too little too late"
    "See, you can never trust what MS say"
    "I bet it's some CIA chip to spy on you"

    Maybe time to get out the Xbox bingo cards? :p
  • HotbirdHotbird Posts: 10,009
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He4rt wrote: »
    I hope it's true (although i doubt it) not because of the effect on games, but because the internet would explode. NeoGaf would make for some excellent reading.

    The arguments will be the same, just the people using them will have swapped places.

    At the moment though this seem like another wide claim like the Xbox 1 was suddenly going to have 16GB of ram.

    Time will tell I guess.
  • GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I do love the reaction from people on this forum...

    Apparently numbers didn't matter but now that the Xbox One has a mild CPU overclock it's great news!

    I know from PC gaming that the difference of having a CPU running 150MHz faster makes very little difference when gaming, it's probably more to do with the Windows OS than the Xbox OS.
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gormond wrote: »
    I do love the reaction from people on this forum...

    Apparently numbers didn't matter but now that the Xbox One has a mild CPU overclock it's great news!

    I know from PC gaming that the difference of having a CPU running 150MHz faster makes very little difference when gaming, it's probably more to do with the Windows OS than the Xbox OS.

    And for anyone who needs reminding of this
    Xbox head of planning Albert Penello hit out at Sony for proudly displaying its "numbers" but said discussions about which console had the better specifications were "meaningless."
    He said gamers will struggle to notice any real-world differences in hardware and that its really the games and connectivity experiences that'll decide the battle.

    I guess that could be seen as clarification that there is no second GPU :)
  • Flawed-TacticsFlawed-Tactics Posts: 3,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not on topic but I think MS should have stuck to their guns with the DRM stuff. Just read an article about how digital content is growing, with all the benefits that could have come with MS's orginal plan, they could have being leading the way in digital media.

    On topic, any speed increase of console components is of course good news which ever console it affects, so why all the scrutiny of people's comments. Both sides
  • BigFoot87BigFoot87 Posts: 9,293
    Forum Member
    Think about this from a Devs point-of-view. You work and work and work to get your games running at at decent frame rate, maybe at 1080p too. Then, MS turns around and say "SUCKERS! There's a 2nd GPU hidden away which could have made your lives so much easier! HAHHAAHA! HIDDEN POWWWEERRRRR!!"

    This rumour needs to be taken outside, kneecapped, and shot in the head. Sure, I can buy the talk about the co-processors (to take more workload off the existing GPU), but a 2nd GPU? No, sorry.
  • 2dshmuplover2dshmuplover Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    Not on topic but I think MS should have stuck to their guns with the DRM stuff. Just read an article about how digital content is growing, with all the benefits that could have come with MS's orginal plan, they could have being leading the way in digital media.

    On topic, any speed increase of console components is of course good news which ever console it affects, so why all the scrutiny of people's comments. Both sides

    Oh they wanted to but people were too busy crying about it to think of the potential benefits, You haven't forgotten the uproar already surely?
  • Flawed-TacticsFlawed-Tactics Posts: 3,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I remember it well, I was part of the backlash!

    Trouble is, people are afraid of change even if that change has potential to be beneficial in the future.

    The stupid thing about all that from my POV, I'm going to be downloading all next gen games, with the exception of the launch titles I'm buying on disc.

    I feel shortsighted and slightly stupid now, but hey, my voice alone wasn't responsible lol
  • GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I remember it well, I was part of the backlash!

    Trouble is, people are afraid of change even if that change has potential to be beneficial in the future.

    The stupid thing about all that from my POV, I'm going to be downloading all next gen games, with the exception of the launch titles I'm buying on disc.

    I feel shortsighted and slightly stupid now, but hey, my voice alone wasn't responsible lol

    I don't think any of us wanted them to do a total u turn. They had some good ideas and some terrible ones, like not being able to sell games or lend to a friend for an extended period.

    My only reason for downloaded games ATM is for a full install and I can half the cost with a mate. With the PS4 I will go back to buying discs.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,743
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    And for anyone who needs reminding of this





    I guess that could be seen as clarification that there is no second GPU :)
    But then is jumping for joy when they increase their own specs and release numbers....
  • HotbirdHotbird Posts: 10,009
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Oh they wanted to but people were too busy crying about it to think of the potential benefits, You haven't forgotten the uproar already surely?

    Maybe somebody should have explained the situation a bit better. Microsoft only have themselves to blame for people no thinking about the potential benefits, in fact people shouldn't have even needed to think about them because it should all have been laid out properly detailing all the advantages.

    All the thing MS were doing will likely happen over the course of the next generation and probably in a much more open way than was planned for the Xbox 1.
  • 2dshmuplover2dshmuplover Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    I remember it well, I was part of the backlash!

    Trouble is, people are afraid of change even if that change has potential to be beneficial in the future.

    The stupid thing about all that from my POV, I'm going to be downloading all next gen games, with the exception of the launch titles I'm buying on disc.

    I feel shortsighted and slightly stupid now, but hey, my voice alone wasn't responsible lol

    All is not lost, the fact is there's more incentive to buy digital content on X1 than physical. Installs are mandatory (which are a benefit) but now we need to swap disks every time we switch games, where as the original plan was to make it as seamless as possible. I'll probably end up buying a lot of digital games for this reason.

    Then of course there are the digital family share and other benefits that are supposedly making a comeback.
  • gamercraiggamercraig Posts: 6,069
    Forum Member
    All is not lost, the fact is there's more incentive to buy digital content on X1 than physical. Installs are mandatory (which are a benefit) but now we need to swap disks every time we switch games, where as the original plan was to make it as seamless as possible. I'll probably end up buying a lot of digital games for this reason.

    Then of course there are the digital family share and other benefits that are supposedly making a comeback.

    How much disk space roughly do you think games will take up, and what happens if we eventually fill the hard drive?
  • 2dshmuplover2dshmuplover Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    gamercraig wrote: »
    How much disk space roughly do you think games will take up, and what happens if we eventually fill the hard drive?

    Dependent on the game, I would think around 15gb would probably be the average with some games like Forza being over 20gb. It will take a while to fill that drive but external HDD's will be supported by the time that happens so don't worry about it.

    We'll always have that internal 500gb and anything you add with be additional so you could probably get away with just another 500gb external HDD.
  • GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dependent on the game, I would think around 15gb would probably be the average with some games like Forza being over 20gb. It will take a while to fill that drive but external HDD's will be supported by the time that happens so don't worry about it.

    We'll always have that internal 500gb and anything you add with be additional so you could probably get away with just another 500gb external HDD.

    My issue is you can't upgrade the internal drive if it breaks (as mechanical drives tend to do) or upgrade it to an SSD which will be the norm in a few years time. Also USB has increased latency times which could cause other problems, I would have thought MS would have at least put an eSATA port on the back for expansion.

    First thing I will do when I finally get a PS4 is upgrade the HDD to at least 1TB as I have in my PS3, hopefully 2TB by then.
  • 2dshmuplover2dshmuplover Posts: 8,271
    Forum Member
    Gormond wrote: »
    My issue is you can't upgrade the internal drive if it breaks (as mechanical drives tend to do) or upgrade it to an SSD which will be the norm in a few years time. Also USB has increased latency times which could cause other problems, I would have thought MS would have at least put an eSATA port on the back for expansion.

    First thing I will do when I finally get a PS4 is upgrade the HDD to at least 1TB as I have in my PS3, hopefully 2TB by then.

    USB 3.0 is up to 20x faster than USB 2.0 and yet I can happily play all of my 360 games like Skyrim via only USB 2.0.

    So long as the cables you use are USB 3.0 compliant then there won't be any latency issue. X1 doesn't need a SSD that's why it comes with an extra 8gb of internal Flash Memory. They're too expensive anyway and consoles generally don't make the most of them. With X1 you could just buy a high quality USB 3.0 flash drive (no moving parts/highly portable) which now come in 512gb sizes, they would be lightening fast, in fact that's probably what I'll do.
  • GormondGormond Posts: 15,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    USB 3.0 is up to 20x faster than USB 2.0 and yet I can happily play all of my 360 games like Skyrim via only USB 2.0.

    So long as the cables you use are USB 3.0 compliant then there won't be any latency issue. X1 doesn't need a SSD that's why it comes with an extra 8gb of internal Flash Memory. They're too expensive anyway and consoles generally don't make the most of them. With X1 you could just buy a high quality USB 3.0 flash drive (no moving parts/highly portable) which now come in 512gb sizes, they would be lightening fast, in fact that's probably what I'll do.

    USB 3 has higher latency, that's a fact, not an opinion.

    Flash memory is currently expensive but these consoles are built to last 10 years, in 5 years time a 1TB SSD will not be expensive.

    Also mechanical drives have a finite life span, what happens in 3 years time when the internal drive gives up.
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gormond wrote: »
    USB 3 has higher latency, that's a fact, not an opinion.

    Flash memory is currently expensive but these consoles are built to last 10 years, in 5 years time a 1TB SSD will not be expensive.

    Also mechanical drives have a finite life span, what happens in 3 years time when the internal drive gives up.

    To be fair, SSD have a finite lifespan too since each bit can only go through a number of read/write cycles
Sign In or Register to comment.