[MLID] Zen 6 Magnus Leak: AMD's MASSIVE APU for next gen console (+ Medusa Point Specs)
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- Rumor Hype
Loxus
Member
Have you noticed the ROG Xbox Ally?
It'll be the same way, it's not like Microsoft hasn't been supporting PC for years now.
Last edited:
awwr999999
Member
Zero excitement about anything built on x86.
Zero excitement for AMD/Nvidia APUs and GPUs.
PlayStation needs to use their lead to R&D their way back to SONY silicon.
Instead of AMD making APUs with HW dedicated to RT we need Sony making GPUs with HW dedicated to proprietary PlayStation visual effects.
viveks86
Member
I think it is safe to assume at this point that it won't be the same way. It will be a console that plays PC games. The converse (like ROG ally) will result in licensing issues and seems like a pointless endeavor with nothing to gain but something very important to the Xbox ecosystem (BC) to lose.
Proelite
Member
Not happening, next 1st party Xbox is just any Zen 6 CPU and RDNA 5 GPU chiplets that can be packaged together.
Proelite
Member
Why not. Xbox BC should be built into most if not all RDNA 5 gpus. There will be no more bespoke Xbox APU. It's just a discrete off the shelf CPU and a discrete off the shelf GPU put on one SOC via TSMC inflo Lsi bridge.
Last edited:
Loxus
Member
That's a pre built PC.
viveks86
Member
It's not. It won't boot to general purpose windows (until someone inevitably jail breaks it), you won't be able to access the console games outside of the Xbox VM specifically designed for it.
It will have a launcher for PC games that will (hopefully) boot right into the game in a pared down, purpose built Windows VM so the user navigation is seamless, as opposed to launching a storefront to launch the game.
So as far as user experience goes, it will be like the Xbox ally. But what's happening under the hood will be different.
Completely my imagination of what it would be like. But it's the only way Xbox will be able to pull this off without having 3rd parties sue/alienate them imo
Last edited:
Proelite
Member
I think you probably can install full Windows on it, especially the OEM builds, at the cost of losing Xbox BC.
Maybe.
There are still some unknowns related to Xbox BC and the level of requirements needed besides HW support in RDNA5.
Last edited:
viveks86
Member
Probably, but the Xbox VM(s) and console games will be locked down, encrypted and separate from anything else you do. BC would likely work the same way. Someone will eventually hack that too, like they would do any other console. But that wouldn't be Microsoft's responsibility and would void warranty.
PC is an open platform. Rockstar ain't putting out GTA to run on an open platform until they say so. Same goes for older Xbox games that run via BC.
The issue isn't software or hardware. It's licensing
bitbydeath
Member
There won't be a need to create new Xbox games next-gen as everything can be run through the Windows Store as Xbox PC.
Having both just creates unnecessary work for everyone, MS included.
Loxus
Member
It's supposed to use the exact same GPU chip that desktop PCs are going to use or have you not been paying attention?
How you think BC is supposed to work?
viveks86
Member
What GPU chip is used is irrelevant going forward. See my follow up response to
Proelite
. The issue I'm referring to is neither hardware nor software related. It's licensing. They've already figured out BC for current generation consoles. No need to do anything new on that front. It will just be locked away from the windows VMsThis is true and bound to cause some confusion (which version do I buy from which storefront?). But as long as MS wants to keep one foot in the console space and another in the PC space, they will have to deal with the overlaps and redundancies.
Again, I might be wrong about all this and MS has already negotiated a deal with all 3rd party publishers to make BC games and console games available on Windows. But a shitload of cash will have to exchange hands for publishers to agree.
Last edited:
Proelite
Member
What GPU chip is used is irrelevant going forward. See my follow up response to
Loxus
Member
So why can't it be a pre built PC like Strix Halo mini PCs?What GPU chip is used is irrelevant going forward. See my follow up response to
Colorful to launch SMART 900 Mini-PC with Ryzen AI MAX+ 395 "Strix Halo"
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Natively, hopefully. They (Sarah and AMD) did say it'll maintain your previous libraries.
SegaSnatcher
Member
No, it will only hold back devs and increase dev costs/time to go back to making exotic tech. You need to let that era go.
kevboard
Member
this is a great plan if you want another PS3 situation, but turned up to 11 in terms of developer frustration.
that would literally kill Sony
demigod
Member
Have you guys seen the prices on these? They're $1500!!!! That doesn't even include a controller and xbox licensing fees. I can definitely see them being double the price of a PS6.
Dural
Member
this is a great plan if you want another PS3 situation, but turned up to 11 in terms of developer frustration.
that would literally kill Sony
People on this board seem to think designing a gpu is some simple thing and Sony can design something better than companies dedicated to doing it.
thismeinteil
Member
While I was being generous with the $300, those manufacturers are probably also making a pretty penny off each unit, since that's where they make their money. I mean MS might try to, as well, but I honestly see them either selling at cost or making a little profit, since they are still selling SW. My honest guess is PS6 is going to be $599 and NeXbox is going to be $999.
Last edited:
foamdino
Member
I suspect that the XBox back compat will amount to a set of keys stored in the TPM module - if they are present then the hypervisor can load into XBox mode, if not it will be a PC and only boot windows/linux.
The actual back compat hw will be emulated by the much more powerful Zen6 etc - MS already support multiple revisions of hw & generations via the hypervisor/emulation layer. As folks have pointed out, the hard part is the licensing - but a TPM is literally designed to safely store keys and that could be used as the basis for if the thing will boot into console mode or not.
The actual back compat hw will be emulated by the much more powerful Zen6 etc - MS already support multiple revisions of hw & generations via the hypervisor/emulation layer. As folks have pointed out, the hard part is the licensing - but a TPM is literally designed to safely store keys and that could be used as the basis for if the thing will boot into console mode or not.
viveks86
Member
2 reasons. I think you know the first, but you may be overlooking the nuance with the second:
- Hardware compatibility: You can't run BC if BC doesn't even work properly. I don't know the specifics, but it looks like future hardware has addressed this (on the RDNA side of things at least). When i said it is irrelevant, it is because (2) remains as an overriding factor. Not because hardware compatibility is not a prerequisite. Thats's the obvious one. For the Strix Halo, the prerequisite may not be met. So that brings us to (2)
- Licensing: When any piece of software is distributed, there are 2 restrictions on distributors on how the software is sold. There is technically an end user license as well, but let's set that aside for now as publishers would usually not sue an end user for violating EULA (though they might use other means), unless they are engaging in actual piracy. For distributors:
- The game should only be hosted and sold through the licensed storefront
- The game should only be sold for the licensed platform or a future iteration of a licensed platform.
This is why emulation of any form on a different platform is always considered a violation. Emulation allows you to potentially run console software on platforms (such as windows or Linux PCs) that it was not intended to run on. The only exception to this is emulation done for the sake of technical compatibility on the same target platform. Xbox Series X uses emulation to run BC. They don't run natively. But it is acceptable because series X is still considered an Xbox, the platform for which the license was intended. MS is free to use whatever method they choose (software, hardware, vm etc) as long as there is an understanding with the publisher that the target platform is still an Xbox console.
Licenses are usually not meant to impose technical restrictions, such as gpu, os version, cpu etc. They are meant to impose business restrictions i.e the target platforms for usage and distribution. This gives publishers leverage on how, when and for how much to sell their software on which platform. They will never let go of this control, for many reasons that are legitimate. If I sold a game for $5 on console and $10 on PC, I don't want you to buy it for $5 and use it on PC. If you want to use it on PC, you need to pay the $10, regardless of your purchase on console. If MS allows you to do that just because they stick an Xbox label on a prebuilt PC, they just cost me $10 of lost revenue. The publisher can sue MS for unauthorized distribution. It's the reason "play anywhere" wouldn't work with the flick of a switch just because next gen RDNA can do BC natively. MS will have to negotiate deals for every individual game with every individual publisher, which usually involves a lot of time and financial transactions.
So even if RDNA 5 solved technical compatibility, the licensing issue remains. And the only way to not deal with every publisher on every single game for BC is to design Magnus in a way that it still behaves like a closed Xbox console as far as the licensed console game is concerned. MS can do as they please with it behaving like a PC for PC games. But the 2 worlds cannot merge without blowback. And the technical solution for that (which I can think of. Don't know what MS has actually done) is to build dedicated VMs that handle the PC and console licenses separately. The PC games are stored and run in the PC VM and the console games are stored and run in the console VM. And there is some sort of hypervisor that switches between VMs, and a front end UI that hides all of this from the user so their experience is seamless.
Hope this clarifies. There is too much focus on (1) when people are not thinking as much about (2). This isn't just an engineering problem
Last edited:
Proelite
Member
Bingo. Exactly. They will have to use VMs. The current Xbox already runs three VMs. As for the concept of Xbox platform, I doubt just having MS releasing a closed console is it either, because otherwise current Xboxes since Xb1 should be completely bc with OG Xbox and 360. I think SW/HW emulation of any code is an automatically disqualifier.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
Literally no one on Earth wants this. No one. Dev's would shift focus to PC, which greatly benefits Xbox, while dropping bare-minimum ports for PlayStation lacking support for those "PlayStation proprietary visual effects" (wtf does that even mean?). Their first parties would be decimated by forcing them to redevelop their pipelines from ground up for one piece of hardware that abandons decades of x86 work, none of which translates to Sony's multiplatform strategy. Custom silicon means custom manufacturing, meaning higher than the already insane prices we're seeing with zero chance of cost reductions.
And the benefit of all of this insanity would be... ?
viveks86
Member
It is not an automatic disqualifier if the target platform is already licensed for use. The series X already does it and there are no legal issues because it is still an Xbox console. It would be an issue only if it is a windows PC. Now technically, the windows software components may or may not be shared between the two platforms, but the fact remains that from a licensing standpoint, the PC version of a game is a different SKU and console version is a different SKU. They cannot be licensed to be used interchangably without publisher consent. And for the thousands of BC games, it's an impossible task to navigate. MS would be silly to even attempt that. For the future, "play anywhere" needs to get universal adoption for an alternative approach to work. We just aren't there yet.
The reason for lack of full BC can be manifold: older games were built with all kinds of dependencies that make 100% hardware or software emulation hard. Just weird quirks and timing/loading issues. Another possibility is licensing within the game, like music which may have been limited specifically to a console or a time period. There are lots of such dependencies. But MS is free to emulate on their own platform.
Last edited:
dgrdsv
Member
They are put together thus they are split from the start, no need to do anything. Whether a G7 CPU could be used for something other than a console is an open question however. I don't see any other market for that.
There is no point in making "tiers" of any devices which would be close to one another.
There are even less reasons to make anything like pre-built PCs as MS would just lose in pricing against that.
I'm still fully expecting the next Xbox to just be an Xbox, possibly with the ability to dual boot into Windows for those who would want to play PS games on it or something.
All the talk about Xbox going into "a new direction" is fun and all until you realize that there's nothing new in this direction, it was tried many times and time and time again was proven to be fruitless for the platform owner.
The only way that would work is if MS would close off Windows on PC. And that would lead to a huge outrage and fast switching to SteamOS among PC gamers.
It really wouldn't.
Consoles are not limited by CPUs and there is no point in putting an even faster and a lot more expensive CPU into them.
Code being made to the console CPUs specifics wouldn't benefit as much from more cache either.
I mean it's AMD's tech... Why wouldn't AMD make "other versions" of their own products for other markets? What's this have to do with Xbox or MS?
Why? The "64CU" part will have ~200W TDP which is basically the same as XSX.
There's nothing in this rumor suggesting that these next gen consoles would be any more powerful in relation to the rest of the gaming h/w landscape at the moment of their launch than the previous generation was.
64CUs is ~9070XT which is ~4070Ti which is ~3090 from 2020, and these are supposed to launch in 2027. This isn't some insanely high level of performance, it is very reasonable for next console gen if anything (which makes it believable tbh).
Last edited:
viveks86
Member
Of course. AMD would indeed use their tech for other projects. Which is why I was surprised to see DF speculating OEMs jumping in already for Xbox variants. I thought it was rumored to be the longer term direction, not right away. But if people in the know think it's going in that direction right away, the chiplet design is a natural fit. And i haven't found a reason to doubt the rumors, yet. It makes sense and is inline with MS' strategy with other business divisions. So I'm going to accept it at face value until evidence to the contrary shows up
Last edited:
Proelite
Member
KeplerL2 seems to disagree with this. He has stated he believes 32CUs RDNA5 can best the 9070XT.
dgrdsv
Member
In some particular workloads like path tracing? Sure.
On average? Not going to happen.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Will it be possible to adjust settings on it, like a PC.
Would like to play some ps4 era games at unlocked framerates at 120fps+ on it.
Also assuming keyboard mouse support will be system level, allowing for top down rpgs and rts titles to be played properly.
Proelite
Member
Maybe. Might be a chance scaling is already built into series games at the sdk level.
vaibhavpisal
Member
What about pc versions?
Only if RDNA 5 performs exactly like RDNA 4.
Loxus
Member
Could be through software emulation, which Microsoft are really got at.
Loxus
Member
Those devices are probably aiming to sale a total of 100,000.
Microsoft would be aiming for at least 50 million.
In bulk, it'll be much cheaper.
Loxus
Member
This doesn't make any sense when the pre built PC would be considered an Xbox as well.
DrKeo
Member
The ROG Xbox Ally is just a PC, its a marketing play. I don't think the next Xbox will be that.
I doubt the next Xbox is just any PC, and even if it were, MS will never bake BC exclusively for AMD-only GPUs. The PC market is controlled firmly by Nvidia; excluding them will be insane. I can't see that happening.
If I had to guess, the next Xbox is just like the XSX, a dedicated console with a unique SOC (or chiplets) that runs Xbox games natively. This time around, it will likely allow any DX game to run, making life easier for developers and enabling third-party stores. MS will likely sell the SOC to OEM manufacturers to create their own version of Xbox, but it will still utilize the same SOC (or one of multiple SOC designs), so developers will only need to target a handful of fixed SKUs.
Last edited:
viveks86
Member
When I said Xbox, I meant an Xbox game console. That is what an Xbox meant until recently. A game console has a specific meaning and licensing reflects that meaning. The whole industry is built on platform specific revenue and licensing models. It can't automatically adapt because MS is trying to differentiate their product. If MS decides to rebrand what an Xbox is, that's their prerogative. But that doesn't retroactively apply to licenses already sold. Which is why MS is already making a distinction between Xbox and Xbox PC. You get to classify as one or the other. Not both. If it is technically both as it appears to be, then licensing will have to be done for each separately until licensing terms explicitly change via "play anywhere". So if rockstar releases GTA for Xbox, it will have to run within the confines of the closed Xbox console environment and not the open Xbox PC environment. Allowing the game to run on a Windows based Xbox PC, without releasing it for general purpose Windows PC, makes the game extremely vulnerable to unauthorized distribution. Rockstar won't risk that. May be MS can overcome that by demonstrating an impenetrable DRM solution. But that stuff won't just automatically be accepted without explicit approval. And for BC, that DRM won't even exist, so games that were meant for a closed platform will be sitting on a windows environment DRM free, ready to be copied by anyone with basic IT skills.
From a marketing standpoint, sure, they can call anything an Xbox. But only a certain device (or devices) can be an Xbox game console.
If you believe the next device is an Xbox PC and not an Xbox console, then all the games previously sold for Xbox console are not explicitly licensed to run on it. BC will effectively be dead. My understanding is that's not the case as MS has already confirmed BC for the next device. So it's necessarily not an Xbox PC. It's an Xbox console.
I hope we don't have to debate the difference between a console and a prebuilt PC. If we agree that the PS5 is not a prebuilt PC, then neither is the next Xbox console. Everything is technically a prebuilt PC (even TVs and watches these days) but not from the standpoint of a platform specific licensing model.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If it's software emulation the caliber of how they emulate X360 games on One/Series, that'd be fine.
All second revision of PS3's onward also used software emulation for PS2 BC instead of having the actual emotion engine chip in it and people were none the wiser, in terms of the quality of emulation at least.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
The first sku coming is a console
Side note and sorry if its been discussed to death as I haven't been following this thread super close but what does this change in chipset do to Xbox launch cadence?
viveks86
Member
Correct. Emulation is never frowned upon as long as it is within the confines of the licensed class of device. They can go either way (native or software) and they will choose whichever works best. May be series X games can just run natively while the older 360 ones continue running via emulation. It wouldn't matter.
Technically, the chiplet design certainly makes it lot more flexible to mix and match and churn out SKUs as they adapt to the market needs. But from a business standpoint, wouldn't planning launch cadence be putting the cart before the horse? Hope the thing even takes off and doesn't become a niche that MS abandons after their first attemptThe first sku coming is a console
Side note and sorry if its been discussed to death as I haven't been following this thread super close but what does this change in chipset do to Xbox launch cadence?
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
But from a business standpoint, wouldn't planning launch cadence be putting the cart before the horse? Hope the thing even takes off and doesn't become a niche that MS abandons after their first attempt
So how Xbox has been flying lately you're telling me there is a good chance this is exactly what will happen
viveks86
Member
Sshhhh.So how Xbox has been flying lately you're telling me there is a good chance this is exactly what will happen
adamsapple
is reading this. Let's be a bit more discreet.
memoryman3
Member
It could lead to more exclusive games from first and, most critically, third parties…
Loxus
Member
If you put all the pieces together, then you'll see it.The first sku coming is a console
Side note and sorry if its been discussed to death as I haven't been following this thread super close but what does this change in chipset do to Xbox launch cadence?
1) Microsoft is planing on bringing Steam (PC library) to the next Xbox.
2) The next Xbox GPU is use for desktop as well.
3) Xbox backwards compatibility is done through software. And the piece about them talking about forward compatibility.
4) Microsoft is exploring OEM with Xbox Ally, instead of making there own handheld.
This seem to me as if it will be a pre built PC.
Last edited:
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Let's see if Xbox game licensors agree
viveks86
Member
Damn. Seems like I didn't get through at all. Hope my walls of text were useful to someone, at least. Point 1 appears to be the case and can run as a separate sandbox within the console to avoid licensing issues. You have already set your mind on the picture and are putting the pieces to fit said picture while ignoring the rest that don't fit. I give up... :/
viveks86
Member
If they are making PC game storefronts (like steam) available, then it would absolutely be possible to adjust settings as there is no Xbox specific version of that SKU where the settings are hidden. I'm expecting some confusion as a result (should I buy the console version or the PC version?), but that's no different than choosing to buy a product that is offered on different storefronts with their own advantages and disadvantages. It might be advantageous in scenarios where the console port of a game is terrible with no options to change settings, while the PC version runs well at lowered settings. Pros and cons.
So assuming the claim about multiple storefronts is true (it has to be as Sarah Bond already said it), all your points should be possible. The real debate here is how they actually pull it off.
The other remote possibility is that when she said store fronts, she didn't mean PC storefronts but a new set of storefronts run by different vendors that sell Xbox specific SKUs. Just different apps where you get different promotions, exclusives etc. This wouldn't make any sense as Valve, Epic, GoG etc. wouldn't be bothered to build something like that just for Xbox. So I'm going to assume regular PC game storefronts.
