Durango To Feature 16-Core CPU?

[xenocide]

Ars Technica is reporting the upcomming Xbox 360 replacement--codenamed Durango--may feature a 16-Core PowerPC-based CPU. The source also confirmed previous rumors that the new console would feature an HD7xxx-based GPU.

Originally Posted by Ars Technica

The rumor comes from Britain's Xbox World magazine (via sister site Computer & Video Games), which cites information from unnamed developers that reportedly got their hands on Durango development kits last month. Those kits are reportedly "powered by a state of the art 16-core IBM Power PC CPU," alongside the same kind of Radeon HD 7000-series graphics cards that had been previously rumored for the upcoming system.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...-cpu-cores.ars

Update:

[Vulpesveritas]

So if the PS4 has an 8 core CPU and the Durango has a 16 core... does this mean games will finally be heavily multithreaded on PC?

I hope so.

[1Kurgan1]

Pretty sure all info I have seen has said it was going to be AMD APU's, I think 4 cores.

[Vulpesveritas]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

Pretty sure they said it was going to be AMD APU's, I think 4 cores.

Really depends on what rumor you hear. I've heard both for the PS4.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Considering the excessive core count was a great contributor to the difficulty of programming on the PS3 I find it hard to believe they'd want to expand on that. I mean proper multithreading is still an issue on PCs. Quadrupling core counts isn't going to magically make programmers better at multithreaded programming. It just means it'll be a rarity that a dev efficiently utilizes the hardware. Basically exactly how it is now with the PS3 even after all these years. There's still multiplatform games coming out that look worse on the PS3 than the 360.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by Vulpesveritas

Really depends on what rumor you hear. I've heard both for the PS4.

This is the only one I have seen mentioning something with such a large core count. I agree with what LAN said above me. Also teamed with the fact that it sounds like the PS4 will feature a 7670 (which is basically a 6670), and is not a very impressive card. I just don't buy them teaming up a budget card with a CPU that has more cores than any desktop processor on the market at this time. It makes no sense for them to use a GPU thats basically a 2 - 3 year old design with a CPU thats probably better than anything on the market right now. Then to fit it in a box and make millions of them for release in 1.5 - 2 years.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Vulpesveritas

So if the PS4 has an 8 core CPU and the Durango has a 16 core... does this mean games will finally be heavily multithreaded on PC?

No.

[Vulpesveritas]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

This is the only one I have seen mentioning something with such a large core count. I agree with what LAN said above me. Also teamed with the fact that it sounds like the PS4 will feature a 7670 (which is basically a 6670), and is not a very impressive card. I just don't buy them teaming up a budget card with a CPU that has more cores than any desktop processor on the market at this time. It makes no sense for them to use a GPU thats basically a 2 - 3 year old design with a CPU thats probably better than anything on the market right now. Then to fit it in a box and make millions of them for release in 1.5 - 2 years.

I haven't seen anything but that dual-gpu rumor say anything that would allude to a 7670. Unless you have info I haven't seen.

[lilhasselhoffer]

One question; are you high?


1) 16 core CPUs aren't out in any real way. To include one in the next Xbox would be costly, not to mention a very substantial (physical die size) chunk of silicon.
2) We all want multi-threaded applications, but when 4 is still a hard to use number why in Hades would Microsoft introduce quadruple that? It doesn't make sense to give developers power that they will never get to use...
3) Why work with an IBM Power PC core? AMD has developed and proven the APU concept. Not utilizing the APUs decreased cost and complexity means MS is going to throw money away. The accountants on the dev. team would never allow that to happen, not even considering how much easier an APU would be for the fabricators and designers.

And the biggest point of all:
4) MS is not stupid; well, not that kind of stupid. A 10+ year console is not possible, without taking a financial bath for nearly half a decade. As this will not happen again, thanks in no small part to the PS3 drama, MS isn't going with a 16 core CPU. Put simply, the idea is bad on paper. I wish it was true, but MS wouldn't waste money on something that isn't likely to have a decent return on investment. Maybe the 1080 will have a 16 core processor in 6 years...

[hellrazor]

OT, but everytime I see your avatar I think of this.

[FordGT90Concept]

Xbox 360 has a tri-core with SMP. An octo-core with SMP is not unrealistic.

[ShiBDiB]

I heard that it all the new xbox's will actually be transformers.. No joke


Any rumors going around now are just that, rumors.

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by Vulpesveritas

I haven't seen anything but that dual-gpu rumor say anything that would allude to a 7670. Unless you have info I haven't seen.

It's better than no info at all. And like I mentioned before, the systems suppose to be out around 2014, to finalize hardware so close to release doesn't make a ton of sense. To use a processor thats not even on the market or one they haven't bragged out having specially made doesn't make a ton of sense.

[Vulpesveritas]

Originally Posted by 1Kurgan1

It's better than no info at all. And like I mentioned before, the systems suppose to be out around 2014, to finalize hardware so close to release doesn't make a ton of sense. To use a processor thats not even on the market or one they haven't bragged out having specially made doesn't make a ton of sense.

no, but I wouldn't completely rule out GCN given it's compute functions, tesselation performance, and that it's out too. But we simply don't know.

In any case hoping for more multithread than X 4 seeing as the 360 had a tri-core.

[LiNKiN]

Finally, something legitimate to replace my PC forever!

[phanbuey]

PPC based?

Interesting.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by lilhasselhoffer

One question; are you high?


1) 16 core CPUs aren't out in any real way. To include one in the next Xbox would be costly, not to mention a very substantial (physical die size) chunk of silicon.
2) We all want multi-threaded applications, but when 4 is still a hard to use number why in Hades would Microsoft introduce quadruple that? It doesn't make sense to give developers power that they will never get to use...
3) Why work with an IBM Power PC core? AMD has developed and proven the APU concept. Not utilizing the APUs decreased cost and complexity means MS is going to throw money away. The accountants on the dev. team would never allow that to happen, not even considering how much easier an APU would be for the fabricators and designers.

And the biggest point of all:
4) MS is not stupid; well, not that kind of stupid. A 10+ year console is not possible, without taking a financial bath for nearly half a decade. As this will not happen again, thanks in no small part to the PS3 drama, MS isn't going with a 16 core CPU. Put simply, the idea is bad on paper. I wish it was true, but MS wouldn't waste money on something that isn't likely to have a decent return on investment. Maybe the 1080 will have a 16 core processor in 6 years...

For starters, I never said I thought this was true, only that it was a rumor worth posting and discussing since it's an interesting twist on things. As for your objections, I have some possible responses;

1. IBM has a lot of experimental tech that would make a 16-Core CPU a reality, but it is a very ambitious number. I was just thinking it may even be something like Bulldozer, where it's 2/4/8 cores split up with shared resources. That would cut costs and allow them to make a CPU with a high number of cores that is easy to work with (unlike Cell). And 16-Core CPU's do exist, just not to consumers, and not in the traditional sense. I have heard reports of Cell-esque CPU's with upwards of 64-Cores.

2. I wouldn't say 4 is hard to use, but when a good number of people still use Dual-Core's, why offer such heavy threading? It would definitely pave the way for PC Games to be more heavily threaded when they are just console ports.

3. AMD has proven APU's, but IBM has also been doing the same thing for longer. They just weren't hyping it up as revolutionary products. IBM made the SOC that is in the newest revisions of the Xbox 360, which featured the CPU, GPU, and more on a single die, so they are definitely capable of doing things just as well as AMD, but they have a major advantage--they can actually manufacture on a large scale. AMD will alwas be hindered by 3rd party foundries, but IBM owns its own foundries, and can handle everything themselves.

4. These companies want to push console life cycles as long as they can, nobody expected a 7-8 year life cycle on the Xbox 360 and PS3, but here we are :P

[KainXS]

the un-named developer is a

[FordGT90Concept]

Evil monkey!

[1Kurgan1]

Originally Posted by Vulpesveritas

no, but I wouldn't completely rule out GCN given it's compute functions, tesselation performance, and that it's out too. But we simply don't know.

In any case hoping for more multithread than X 4 seeing as the 360 had a tri-core.

I don't think core count matters so much, as many have already said, people have a hard time writing code to even use 4 cores. More is nice, but for a console running only 1 task, I think making the best 2 - 4 core they can will be the best solution.

[Lionheart]

I'm more interested in the WiiU right now , mainly cause it's going to be released this year (Hopefully) and I'm curious to see what it's capable of

But Nextbox & PS4 tech rumours are always fun to read

[lilhasselhoffer]

Originally Posted by xenocide

For starters, I never said I thought this was true, only that it was a rumor worth posting and discussing since it's an interesting twist on things. As for your objections, I have some possible responses;

Let me clarify, I do not want to criticize you or this discussion. What I want to ask is if the author that published this is high. There is no information source, beyond the hear-say of a vague source twice removed. The official stance from MS is that we are looking at winter 2013 release at earliest, but probably longer.

On top of all of this, there is little evidence that MS has gone the route of higher core counts. Sony proved that more cores is not better, and MS is not going to make that same fiscal blunder.

SOC is not new by any standards. What I am stating is that AMD has finally managed to pair a decent GPU with a CPU on a reasonably sized die. Previous SOC implementations generally had large die sizes or compromised performance. If you remember, the Gamecube had an SOC which wasn't exactly IBMs most impressive feat...

Wake me for a discussion when there's something to actually look at in 6-8 months. Until then this is a circle-jerk; everyone gets off, but nothing really goes anywhere.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Why is this about to become tpu front page news? Isn't it bs?

[bostonbuddy]

Nice, if the gpu is 7970 or even 7990 equivilent this consul should be able to handle all home gaming and media server needs.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by bostonbuddy

Nice, if the gpu is 7970 or even 7990 equivilent this consul should be able to handle all home gaming and media server needs.

Not sure if serious...