Microsoft's CPU/GPU Combo Chip is Called 'Vejle'

[Darkerson]

[citation][nom]rocket_sauce[/nom]Sounds to me he is just talking about a console getting this tech before a PC.[/citation]
Yeah, thats all I meant really. It wasnt a sleight against MS/IBM or anything. Im just surprised it happened in a game console before it happened in a PC, considering how long they've been talking about consolidating things for PCs. But it does make sense in regards to what others have said, with the tech inside the 360 basically being old hat by nowaday standards. Anyway, its not a bad thing. As they said, they were able to cut power requirements by about 60% and it runs cooler. Just hope it finally does indeed improve the reliability of the 360.

 

[kerbe360]

[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]I guess you are like most who forget about things once they are obsoleate. I guess that you don't remember how they nearly screwed up the N64 and same for Sony. I still remember how devs had a lot of problems the N64's 4kb texture cache. Then the PS2 was help back by its meager 32mb of ram that left draw distances disappointingly low. The Xbox was the same way and people often modded the console for more system ram even though they fixed the size that the games could use but at least they loaded quicker which is much welcomed by any console gamer. Then the PS3 256mb system ram leaves much to be desired for those who still have linux support. The x360 has a unified approach and is dynamically shred between graphics and cpu. The only benefit to this is that it forces devs to make highly efficient games while reducing the cost of the console. However it cuts the overall life of the unit to ware they are no longer able to improve graphics of the game with out the loss of performance. Right now the only things that are holding back the PS3 is the RSX (pos on chip MCM) and the 256mb system ram however they did strip down the fat that was in the os and freed up 30mb. The X360's weaknesses is the cpu and it will benefit from more ram for quicker loading time like any other newt box while reducing work load on the hard and media drives. I have seen to many consoles with dead optical drives already.[/citation]


RAM has historically been an issue for the console market... there is nothing new there. Even bigger than the smaller texture capacity were the limitations and expense of using a cartridge instead of CDROM that kept the N64 back.... but give it its respect... it was the first console to introduce a 64bit processor... PCs werent even doing that on the mainstream yet. The PS2 was a different story because once developers learned the architecture they were able to find solutions within its limits to produce some of the most memorable games in gaming... I am looking at you God of War. I like the fact that Microsoft has not found a solution for X360 that appears to be working but this is a redesign not an upgrade. The lessons they learn on 360 will be put to use on the Xbox362. Consoles are not PCs so the solutions will be different. You want better performing games on your PC... upgrade the hardware. You want the same on your console... improve the games coding.... the hardware has to stay static. Its a blessing and a curse but I am always amazed to see what developers are able to squeak out the limited hardware of consoles. On the other hand I would like to see more RAM on these consoles. The textures could be a lot better and textures need RAM.

 

[husker]

Why are some people surprised that this tech would be in a console before a PC? It is natural for it to be that way, because a decent PC is going to demand a lot more performance than a chip like this can currently provide.

Besides, all they did was create a frankenstein chip by strapping an existing cpu and existing gpu onto one die. Nothing really revolutionary.

 

[dEAne]

desktop should be next.

 

[liquidsnake718]

ineresting 3 cores with a gpu, but not utilized to be overclocked and 500mhz is too low! The heatsink is tiny as well so this combo is probably not up to par with the H55 motherboard gpu combo... although im sure its better than an intel onboard integrated graphics controller

 

[iggybeans]

Cyrix Media GX processors, a lost cost competitor to Socket7 based systems (not socket compatible with any other CPU), had a CPU/GPU combo years ago.
Unless it offers a performance benefit, the only one it benefits is the manufacturer (as they lower their cost).
Also, this article is inaccurate. If you look at a diagram of this chip it show something labeled "FSB replacement" between the CPU and GPU. The chip is not throttled, it has an onboard bus that limits its performance to the same level as the discrete components.

 

[_Pez_]

this is a weird news wrote in a weird way. ja ja it is funny to me for what it says...

 

[ethaniel]

What about the Core i3? That's a CPU with integrated video. The title is confusing...

 

[martel80]

Why couldn't they throttle it just in case of legacy titles and run it full speed in compatible titles?

 

[chaos133]

I thought the Core i3 and Core i5 had an integrated GPU on them? Or am I wrong?

 

[rantoc]

Seriously, whats so revolutionary about a chip that has about 12% of the numbers of transistors compared to for inatance the nvidia 480 gtx and thats the GPU alone in a good PC system.

Sidenote: Its so fun to hear the console poeple trying to say the grafix is so good on their consoles. Its like a blind man trying to sell televisions with the sales argument that the "picture is great"

On a PC this chip would be laughable at best performance wise but then again - its for a console - The poormans PC where you in the end pay more (for less) considering the game prices - My 2 cents on gaming

 

[rantoc]

Wmartael80- Why couldn't they throttle it just in case of legacy titles and run it full speed in compatible titles?

I would guess one or two of the following:
1. They dont want to spend money on additional cooling.
2. They dont give a shit about the outdated console, only overhaul it to reduce failure rates and reduce production cost.

 

[Wheat_Thins]

[citation][nom]chaos133[/nom]I thought the Core i3 and Core i5 had an integrated GPU on them? Or am I wrong?[/citation]

You could argue that even though the die layout of this is much more efficient and productive. Not to metion even with Xenos being 5 years old it still will outperform the pathetic Intel graphics solution that is onboard the i3/i5 line.

 

[Guest]

Will it play a bluray?

 

[Guest]

Lets take all the console gamers.. and push them somewhere else!

 

[battlecarrysabot]

[citation][nom]amster[/nom]Does it have DirectX 11?[/citation]

noooooo

 

[battlecarrysabot]

How exactly did game console tech upped the pc tech?

What the person that wrote this article dont understand is that MS is using a four year old architecture of a 3 core cpu. They just shrunk the size and placed it on a single silicone. Instead of using 90nm they used 45 nm tech to print the CPU and GPU on a single silicon. You can see that from the images above.

Why dont they try doing that with an i5 CPU and and hd 5870 or GT480...

There is nothing revolutionary in this chip....

microsoft most stay with the current tech, because all software/game developers are building games for the current xbox, and if they where to make the xbox more powerful and developers were to take advantage of the added power, what would happen to the last gen xbox owners? there would be a huge performance dip, and everyone would want the new hardware, even though its there 10th xbox 360 they bought

 

[Guest]

You can't say Intel 'beat' AMD to a gpu/cpu combined chip, this is not at all comparable to the new AMD chips. We can expect twice as many transistors from AMD, with pc and laptop support, not specifically designed for a prehistoric gaming console!

 

[boofman]

More power efficiency and / or better batteries plus this thing could be the future of ultra-portable computing devices..