I'm really hoping that they throw in a seprate chip for sound processing. Free 5.1 encoding should be standard, as it is on the current Xbox.
GigaDrive said:I agree completely with you. Xbox 2 should have a seperate audio processor. I don't like the idea of audio processing being done on the CPU like with Nintendo64.
Pimpbaa said:The difference is the Xbox2 will have many times more cpu power than the n64. The performance hit should be insignificant.
Error Macro said:Yeah, but the thing is that the CPU will have to emulate the functions of a dedicated Dolby Digital encoder, which ain't exactly light on the CPU in terms of processing those functions. If it took 10% of the CPU's capacity to encode a DD stream, think of what that 10% could be doing otherwise. Like ensuring a faster framerate, better A.I., just more calculations in general. I don't want the main CPU compromised by having to perform such extranenous features as sound processing.
dts, on the other hand, is so cheap, the PS2 can encode it in software.Error Macro said:Yeah, but the thing is that the CPU will have to emulate the functions of a dedicated Dolby Digital encoder, which ain't exactly light on the CPU in terms of processing those functions.
:lol:3rdman said:So the Saturn design was really ahead of its time.
I agree, the first thing I thought when reading the specs is that it resembles very closely the PS2 architecture:kaching said:So the PS2 design really was ahead of the times.
pcostabel said:I agree, the first thing I thought when reading the specs is that it resembles very closely the PS2 architecture:
3 RISC CPU - check
limited VRAM - check
no dedicated DSP for sound - check
HD as an add-on - check
high speed bus - check
Kudos to MS for designing a multimedia architecture instead of stuffing a PC into a box and call it a console.
Why? Just so you can add more cost by forcing in another different programmable processor(s) into the system and make programmers work with yet Another different paralel unit in the system, not to mention imposing an arbitrary limit on processing available to sound?Gigadrive said:I agree completely with you. Xbox 2 should have a seperate audio processor. I don't like the idea of audio processing being done on the CPU like with Nintendo64.
Like with graphics, there are parts of sound pipeline that lend themselves to fixed hw implementation - ie. you don't really need to throw programmable power at it. In this case they mention hardwired compression codec, it stands to reason that encoding could be done by dedicated hw too.Error Macro said:Yeah, but the thing is that the CPU will have to emulate the functions of a dedicated Dolby Digital encoder, which ain't exactly light on the CPU in terms of processing those functions. If it took 10% of the CPU's capacity to encode a DD stream, think of what that 10% could be doing otherwise.
Why? Just so you can add more cost by forcing in another different programmable processor(s) into the system and make programmers work with yet Another different paralel unit in the system, not to mention imposing an arbitrary limit on processing available to sound?
With the kind of CPU power we're talking about here you can do hundreds of channels mixing with a tiny fraction of it, and without having to deal with limitations of a custom sound DSP.
The
shader core has 48 Arithmetic Logic Units (ALUs) that can execute 64
simultaneous threads on groups of 64 vertices or pixels. ALUs are
automatically and dynamically assigned to either pixel or vertex
processing depending on load.
The GPU has a peak pixel fill rate of 4+ gigapixels/sec (16
gigasamples/sec with 4× antialiasing). The peak vertex rate is 500+
million vertices/sec. The peak triangle rate is 500+ million
triangles/sec.
The ALUs are shader units - they execute shader ops.GigaDrive said:to me, being not a real techhead, this does not make sense. If we have 48 ALUs that can be assigned to process either vertex/geometry or pixel processing, then why the limit of 4 billion AA pixels/sec?
It's far more an issue of licensing and availability of DTS libraries. If PS2 devkits shipped with DTS libraries in '99, it would have been standard too.Lazy8 said:The real issue is the end result in-game. As an example, 5.1 encoding may be only a small hit for the PS2's EE, but that hasn't made it commonplace in-game for the system
shpankey said:::smoke rises above head from confusion::
Brain overload. Quick, someone smart break it down for us common folk.
Duckhuntdog said:Sure: Ahem! This thing is going to get owned by the PS3 and N5.
Duckhuntdog said:Sure: Ahem! This thing is going to get owned by the PS3 and N5.
I know this could probably derail this thread into a great big HD debate, but:shpankey said:As much as I don't want that to happen... I can't help but think Microsoft is really fucking up with Xenon. And if Microsoft doesn't include a hard drive, I may have to agree with you.
I tell you what, I'm already at the point now, out of frustration with all the problems with Xenon (no HDD, no BC, launching a year early) that I'm going to sit out the first year and see what PS3 and GCN 2 can come up with. If one of them comes with a HDD by default in the system, well, I found my new system (I'm a one system guy for the most part). The hard drive is *THAT* important to me.
I don't care what excuse anyone can make up.. I just plain and simple will not buy a console without a hard drive in it ever again. Period. And I refuse to reward a company taking such a monumental step backwards by removing it. It's more than that though... I want to PUNISH any console maker who doesn't include it next gen. I am just that fanatical about a hard drive now.
One of these consoles is going to have a hard drive (my guess is PS3) and that's where I'll make my home. And I know it's all about the games, but come on, be honest, all three of them are going to have awesome games... so it'll be the intangibles (like HDD) that make it for me (and 1080p would be nice, although unlike a HDD I can live without it).
JJConrad said:What's the big deal about a hard drive? Other than custom sound tracks, it has had very little use on the Xbox.
5xwhat is the speed of the DVD drive in the Xbox
Fafalada said:5x
Mind you 12x DVD transfer speed is quite a bit faster then current XBX hdd.
Fafalada said:5x
Mind you 12x DVD transfer speed is quite a bit faster then current XBX hdd.
shpankey said:Also, games can take advantage of it... by streaming data in off the HDD, it allows game world to be infinitly larger. Lots of games on Xbox already take advantage of this (Halo, Morrowind, Rallisport Challenge 1 & 2, Blinx etc etc). Developers want a HDD for a reason.. and if they want it, I want them to have it! Because in the end, if they have one, they can do great things with it that will make better games for me.
Loading times. With a HDD, loading times are cut down a great deal in a lot of games. I hate loading times and anything to help get rid of them I'm all for!
pcostabel said:You can have huge levels with no load without a HD. It just takes a bit more effort on the programming side. Ever played Jak/Jak II?
nitewulf said:Soul Reaver for dreamcast streamed off the GD IIRC.