Bluemercury
Member
Juice said:The real reason it won't make a difference is because rumor has it that it's L1 cache will be roughly the size of Texas.
???and that would be???
Juice said:The real reason it won't make a difference is because rumor has it that it's L1 cache will be roughly the size of Texas.
That's the big question. Would be great when true. Techies say it's possible when the launch is late enough, like Q3 2006.Gahiggidy said:Revolution == 65-nanometer chips?
Gahiggidy said:Revolution == 65-nanometer chips?
It refers to the manufacturing process of IC's (computer chips). In short, 65nm is packing the same stuff in less space (or more stuff in the same space) than the traditional 90nm process. Benefits are smaller size for the same power as well as lower power consumption and therefore also less heat.Oblivion said:I keep hearing that lingo. But what does it mean?
element said:That has to be the stupidest thing I've read. You think that they didn't want to condense the board? You think they wanted it bigger? Come on now. The board layout was developed with help from ATI, IBM, and MS new silicon group in San Francisco. So I would expect them to know how to make it smaller. The board itself is far superior in layout compared to the Xbox mobo.
Cosmozone said:It refers to the manufacturing process of IC's (computer chips). In short, 65nm is packing the same stuff in less space (or more stuff in the same space) than the traditional 90nm process. Benefits are smaller size for the same power as well as lower power consumption and therefore also less heat.
Wikipedia can help you more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65_nanometer
And you know this how? Oh yeah, American like big things, Japanese like small things. Forgot there was science behind this.not because they couldn't make it smaller, but because they didn't want it to be smaller
element said:And you know this how? Oh yeah, American like big things, Japanese like small things. Forgot there was science behind this.
I'm still just lost why people bring up PC stuff with MS, when MS builds software for PCs. Yet Sony makes computers, and builds them just like every other company on the planet. I've got a lot of wasted space in my Sony TV.
Actually MS had issues allowing them to make the thing smaller. One being that they didn't own the IPs for the CPU or GPU. So pretty much they had to take what Nvidia and Intel would give them. This didn't allow them to look for better ways to bring size down. Where PS2, all the chips were owned by Sony and could be redesigned. MS learned that was a huge mistake and now owns the IPs for the CPU and GPU in Xbox 360.the original Xbox could have been alot smaller than it was if they really wanted it to be, and the same goes for the 360
element said:Actually MS had issues allowing them to make the thing smaller. One being that they didn't own the IPs for the CPU or GPU. So pretty much they had to take what Nvidia and Intel would give them. This didn't allow them to look for better ways to bring size down. Where PS2, all the chips were owned by Sony and could be redesigned. MS learned that was a huge mistake and now owns the IPs for the CPU and GPU in Xbox 360.
Poor planning essentially.element said:Actually MS had issues allowing them to make the thing smaller. One being that they didn't own the IPs for the CPU or GPU. So pretty much they had to take what Nvidia and Intel would give them. This didn't allow them to look for better ways to bring size down. Where PS2, all the chips were owned by Sony and could be redesigned. MS learned that was a huge mistake and now owns the IPs for the CPU and GPU in Xbox 360.
Legend is that if you quote something enough times on the internet... it comes true.xexex said:it'd be sweet if Revolution chips could be launched on 65nm
Shin Johnpv said:yeah that's a BS excuse because while they didn't own the IPs they could have still ORDERED smaller chips, there's also the fact that they could have gone with a laptop style DVD drive and hard drive which would have shrunk the Xbox big time, it would have been probably as thin or thinner than the original PS2, but they didn't because they really didn't care about the system being small
Nvidia knows how to shrink chips, they have and had at the time Mobile video cards based on the Geforce line, if MS really wanted the chip shrunk so the system would be smaller Nvidia could have done it, and hell Intel had portable penitum 733 chips when the xbox came out so there you go theres another way the system could have been smaller, but they ordered the celerons instead, really MS had choices it could have made to make the system smaller and it decided not, not that Nvidia, Intel, and MS combined couldn't make it happen
element said:Heat does not give two shits if your American or Japanese, and since NVIDIA is making the GPU for the PS3, and IBM designed the CPU for all three consoles I would expect the chipsets to perform in heat distribution somewhat similar. Due to the size of the systems, if any of them have an internal PSU I'll be SHOCKED, just because of the amount of watts needed to power what is inside. This are systems that can be powered by 20 watts anymore. Xbox 360 has a 254w PSU, and PS3 should be similar.
Not if Nvidia or Intel won't make them smaller. Since MS didn't own the chips they had to work with one company. Where Sony or Nintendo who owned the IPs could just shop the design to the cheapest fab plant, as well as reduce size or go to a different chip size all together.because while they didn't own the IPs they could have still ORDERED smaller chips
The Xbox CPU is a mobile chipset. It is a hybrid chip with the core of a mobile chip at that speed with L2 cache from the celeron line.hell Intel had portable penitum 733 chips when the xbox came out
Yes, I think a lot of people will be surprised about their next electricity bill. In that way the 360 is a really really really bad entertainment hub that is meant to be on all the time. Keeping that thing running just to listen to mp3s/cds or watch a dvd is seriously wasteful.WindyMan said:I'm extremely pleased that Nintendo wants to keep the power consumption down. Also because they want it quiet. We're plugging in a lot of stuff and probably taking it for granted, and stuff that sucks up that much power isn't helping.
element said:If Sony has all this talent of making things small, why is the Vaio line just as large as HP or Dell machines?
VNZ said:
casesMihail said:Well Nintendo said the Rev. will be about the size of 3 DVDs and DVDs can hold A LOT i dont know if youve noticed.
Oblivion said:I thought of this as well, but thenI realized it would kinda cause problems if the Gamecube was rectangular.
element said:And you know this how? Oh yeah, American like big things, Japanese like small things. Forgot there was science behind this.
I'm still just lost why people bring up PC stuff with MS, when MS builds software for PCs. Yet Sony makes computers, and builds them just like every other company on the planet. I've got a lot of wasted space in my Sony TV.
kpop100 said:they could have tried to make it an even smaller cube
As has been stated before, the GameCube is smaller and cheaper, yet comparable to the Xbox. It does happen that sometimes smaller things end up being cheaper. Size does not always equal cost. I know it's an old example, but it's important to note.CVXFREAK said:The problem is, Vaios are more expensive. The Revolution is supposed to be cheaper.
Drinky Crow said:
Drinky Crow gives this thread 3 out of 5 meebles
Hey, cool. Keep on posting, guys. I hear 45nm is just round the corner as well.Gahiggidy said:Legend is that if you quote something enough times on the internet... it comes true.
Cosmozone said:I hear 45nm is just round the corner as well.
.. for the Revolution. They're still deciding between the already established 65nm and 45nm.Cosmozone said:I hear 45nm is just round the corner as well.