Specifications of Microsoft's upgraded Xbox 360 system

[parallax-scroll]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE FIRST DETAILS ON MICROSOFT'S NEXT XBOX

06/13/09 1UP recently posted a new article revealing details on
Microsoft's plans for their next XBox, we can officially confirm the
information found in that particular report was indeed correct.
However today FGNOnline would like to reveal Microsoft's planned
specifications of their new unit.

As mentioned in the 1UP piece the system shall indeed integrate the
motion sensing technology Natal into the actual device, however our
separate sources can now reveal the modest upgrade made to the actual
architecture of the new system.

GPU

Whereas the original XBox 360 used a Shader Model 3 GPU with on-board
10MB eDRAM for 720p acceleration, the new XBox has a Shader Model 5
capable GPU with 32MB of eDRAM for 1080p output. The GPU again is
designed by AMD and runs at a clock rate of 600MHz.

CPU

The IBM developed CPU shall have 6 cores instead of the 3 found in the
original model.
Each single core shall have the same processing throughput as each
single core from the XCPU. Meaning the chip is literally 200% as
strong and shall now be on equal footing with the PS3 CELL CPU in
GFLOPS performance.

MEMORY

The main system RAM has been upgraded from 512MB to 1024MB, and from
GDDR3 to GDDR5.
The system retains a Unified Memory Architecture.

OTHER

The platform integrates a 2.5" 32GB SSD (Solid State Drive) instead of
a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) as found in the original models. The system
also uses a standard DVD drive foregoing Blu-ray thus ensuring
backwards and forwards compatibility whilst simultaneously keeping the
bill of materials low. Internet connectivity is provided via WiFi.

RELEASE & PRICING

Microsoft plans on a Q4 2010 simultaneous worldwide release. The
company is targeting a sub $300 price point.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

WORLD EXCLUSIVE FIRST DETAILS ON MICROSOFT'S NEXT XBOX

What the hell kind of idiocy is this? Have you got so little to fanboi
nonsense to post that you now have to resort to posting baseless
rumors as if they were confirmed facts?

 

[WDS]

single core from the XCPU. Meaning the chip is literally 200% as
strong and shall now be on equal footing with the PS3 CELL CPU in
GFLOPS performance.

People who write this kind of stuff don't understand crap about CPUs
with multiple cores.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

No surprise here.

32MB? That's it? You would think that we could at least get 64MB these
days...

Yadda yadda, faster, more-er, core-ier - no surprise here.

Let's assume for a second that the first part of his conclusion ("the
chip is literally 200% as strong") is correct (it's not). The second
part of his conclusion (it will "be on equal footing with the PS3 Cell
CPU") is still pointless because it's comparing the next-generation
Xbox CPU with the current-generation PlayStation CPU.

That would have been like someone getting excited if Sony had
announced that the PlayStation 3's CPU would "be on equal footing
with" the GameCube's or Xbox's CPU. Whoop di ****ing doo.

Only 1GB? I'd like to see 2.

Only 2GB? I'd like to see 3. My PC has 4 and that sometimes isn't
enough.

SSD? Well, it's certainly more reliable than a hard drive, but also more
expensive. 32GB isn't very large, either. I wonder if Microsoft is going
to have options for adding storage with a hard drive?

Wifi was a given, but what's with the DVD drive? For a company whose goal
was to take over your entertainment center, it doesn't make sense to
release the next Xbox sans blu-ray drive.

Or with anything less than 100GB storage space. 32GB is paltry when
you want consumers to buy downloadable movies and television shows off
your network.

Really? 2010? I still find that to be too soon - especially since the
360 is still doing well and in this economy, I'd think a cheap 360 would
sell better than a shiny new 360^2 or whatever this thing is going to be
named. 2011 would make more sense to me, though that still feels to be
rather early.

2010 would rock but I know this is a bullshit story, anyway, from the
"sub $300 price point" statement. This is basically some moron who
decided to take all the suggestions of improvement from the Xbox 360
fanbase, throw in Natal and post it on a non-site as a "rumor."

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

I'd like to see none at all. After all, why would you use GDDR (Graphics
Double Data Rate) RAM for "main system RAM"? The original statement is an
oxymoron which shows the lack of technical understanding of the author.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

It's common knowledge in the gaming world that the Xbox 360 uses GDDR3
memory in a shared memory architecture. While it's not necessarily
logical to use GDDR memory in this situation (can anyone verify that
it would be better to use "system memory" with a GPU than it would be
to use "graphics memory" with a CPU in a shared memory architecture?),
it's also not necessarily illogical for the next console, an upgrade
on the existing console, to follow in its predecessor's footsteps if
the predecessor has proven itself a worthy performer.

The post by parallax-scroll did not exhibit any lack of understanding
of the author to any degree. The "author" (if you could call someone
who created some baseless rumor that) made a relatively logical
statement based on the existing Xbox 360 architecture and parallax-
scroll made a comment on the size of the RAM. Nothing more, nothing
less.

 

[PBDepot]

RELEASE & PRICING

Microsoft plans on a Q4 2010 simultaneous worldwide release. The
company is targeting a sub $300 price point.

~~~
2010... why, that's perfect!

That's just about when my latest 3 year RROD/E74 warranty will be up,
and instead of buying yet another 360 I could just get the new one...
boy, those MS folks sure are smart. Þ

 

[Tom]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs The alMIGHTY N wrote:







It's really quite easy, especially if you read up-thread.



You can.


The author, as quoted by parallax-scroll, wrote:
*************************
GPU

Whereas the original XBox 360 used a Shader Model 3 GPU with on-board
10MB eDRAM for 720p acceleration, the new XBox has a Shader Model 5
capable GPU with 32MB of eDRAM for 1080p output. The GPU again is
designed by AMD and runs at a clock rate of 600MHz.

CPU

The IBM developed CPU shall have 6 cores instead of the 3 found in the
original model.
Each single core shall have the same processing throughput as each
single core from the XCPU. Meaning the chip is literally 200% as
strong and shall now be on equal footing with the PS3 CELL CPU in
GFLOPS performance.

MEMORY

The main system RAM has been upgraded from 512MB to 1024MB, and from
GDDR3 to GDDR5.
The system retains a Unified Memory Architecture.
***************************

Newsflash: It's either main system RAM or it's GDDR.RAM. It can't be both..
GDDR RAM is 'GRAPHICS Double Data Rate' RAM:
 http://www.reference.com/search?q=GDDR5&o=100074
 "GDDR5 (Graphics Double Data Rate, version 5) is a type of graphics card
memory the standards of which were set out in the GDDR5 specification by
JEDEC."

"Graphic card memory". It can't be GDDR *and* main memory at the same time.
If the CPU has access to it, then it isn't GDDR, by definition. (At leastby
every definition I can find on teh intarwebs.) If, as stated, the system
uses a Unified Memory Architechture then it's 'main memory', not GDDR. 5 or
otherwise.

Perhaps the author meant DDR5? However, after an extensive trawl of teh webs
the only mention I can find of DDR5 is either with 'G' in front of it of is
referring to graphics cards (which is essentially the same thing).

I think you read it wrong and Almighty is right. The OP doesn't
mention the different memory structures as being one. If you read it
again, it says, "The main system RAM has been upgraded from 512MB to
1024MB, and from GDDR3 to GDDR5. The system retains a Unified Memory
Architecture."

It isn't stated that GDDR3 or 5 and the system memory are one. I think
it can be read as the GPU memory structure is changing from GDDR3 to 5
separate from the increase in main memory (512megs to 1024mrgs). It
simply appears that both are combined.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs The alMIGHTY N wrote:







It's really quite easy, especially if you read up-thread.



You can.


The author, as quoted by parallax-scroll, wrote:
*************************
GPU

Whereas the original XBox 360 used a Shader Model 3 GPU with on-board
10MB eDRAM for 720p acceleration, the new XBox has a Shader Model 5
capable GPU with 32MB of eDRAM for 1080p output. The GPU again is
designed by AMD and runs at a clock rate of 600MHz.

CPU

The IBM developed CPU shall have 6 cores instead of the 3 found in the
original model.
Each single core shall have the same processing throughput as each
single core from the XCPU. Meaning the chip is literally 200% as
strong and shall now be on equal footing with the PS3 CELL CPU in
GFLOPS performance.

MEMORY

The main system RAM has been upgraded from 512MB to 1024MB, and from
GDDR3 to GDDR5.
The system retains a Unified Memory Architecture.
***************************

Newsflash: It's either main system RAM or it's GDDR.RAM. It can't be both..
GDDR RAM is 'GRAPHICS Double Data Rate' RAM:
 http://www.reference.com/search?q=GDDR5&o=100074
 "GDDR5 (Graphics Double Data Rate, version 5) is a type of graphics card
memory the standards of which were set out in the GDDR5 specification by
JEDEC."

"Graphic card memory". It can't be GDDR *and* main memory at the same time.
If the CPU has access to it, then it isn't GDDR, by definition. (At leastby
every definition I can find on teh intarwebs.) If, as stated, the system
uses a Unified Memory Architechture then it's 'main memory', not GDDR. 5 or
otherwise.

Perhaps the author meant DDR5? However, after an extensive trawl of teh webs
the only mention I can find of DDR5 is either with 'G' in front of it of is
referring to graphics cards (which is essentially the same thing).

I *know* what the author wrote.

Newsflash: The Xbox 360 includes 512MB of *GDDR3* RAM which is shared
between the CPU and the GPU.

This is common knowledge in the gaming industry that you can easily
find with a Google search. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll provide these
links for you free of charge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

"The console features 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700MHz with an
effective transmission rate of 1.4 GHz on a 128-bit bus. The memory is
shared by the CPU and the GPU via the unified memory architecture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3

"Microsoft's Xbox 360 is shipped with 512 MB of GDDR3 memory, and is
helping to pioneer the use of this memory as standard system memory
rather than only video memory."

You can even dig way back to the launch of the Xbox 360 for this
little tidbit of
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox360-memory,1798.html

"Running at 700 MHz, the 512 Mbit GDDR3 memory, organized in a 16 Mbit
x 32 configuration, is rated at a bandwidth of 5.6 GByte per second,
which is about 3.5 times faster than the memory used in the original
Xbox, Samsung claims."

Regardless of what you *think* you know about what GDDR memory can and
cannot be used for, the "author" of the rumor and parallax-scroll both
correctly communicated the *fact* that the Xbox 360 uses GDDR3 memory
as *both* system *and* graphics memory.

My guess as to why Microsoft chose to use "graphics" memory instead of
"system" memory in the Xbox 360 is that the console is a very
multimedia-focused system with relatively little "system" processing
going on most of the time so it's more important for the memory to be
suited to multimedia-related tasks.

Samsung's own announcement during the launch window seems to agree:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/techno...3_graphics_memory_powers_xbox_360tm_consoles/

"Running at 700 MHz, the Samsung 512megabit (16Mbx32) GDDR3 will
transmit data at 5.6GBps (gigabytes per second) per chip -- 3.5 times
faster than the memory used in the first Xbox -- enabling real-time
generation of near-cinematic animation in games. At a system level,
the 512Mb density will allow the Xbox 360 to provide eight times the
capacity of the first Xbox(R) to store highly detailed textures that
depict more life-like images. The higher transmission speed and
additional capacity also will accommodate expanded image processing
needs anticipated for storing electronically-formatted photographs,
movies, music videos and other compressed video files."

Microsoft's then-director of console development stated, "We're very
pleased that Samsung has been able to provide us with a majority of
the graphics memory needed during the Xbox 360's ramp-up stage. GDDR3
is a critical factor in enabling us to provide the best overall gaming
and entertainment experience."

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Tom wrote:






That's because, the way it's written, both ARE combined. They're in the same
sentence, seperated by a comma. In English, you do that if you're still
talking about the same thing.

You are actually incorrect in making that overgeneralization of the
usage of a comma in the English language. For example:

"The Xbox 360 is the best gaming console and the best multimedia
device on the market." This is correct.

"The Xbox 360 is the best gaming console, and the best multimedia
device on the market." This is incorrect.

What you should have stated is that the usage of the comma in the
original sentence was incorrect. The sentence is describing a list of
upgrades to the RAM.

"My house is red and blue." This is a correct sentence.

"My house is red, blue and green." This is also a correct sentence.

"My house is red, and blue." This is not a correct sentence.

"The main system RAM has been upgraded from 512MB to 1024MB and from
GDDR3 to GDDR5." This is the correct sentence. Had the author
described three upgrades, one comma to separate the first two upgrades
would have been needed.

In any case, the belief that there is separate "system" and "graphics"
memory in the Xbox 360 is simply wrong. The Xbox 360 only has 512MB of
memory and uses GDDR3 RAM. (Note that I did not include a comma before
the "and." )

 

[Eric]

The platform integrates a 2.5" 32GB SSD (Solid State Drive) instead of
a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) as found in the original models. The system
also uses a standard DVD drive foregoing Blu-ray thus ensuring
backwards and forwards compatibility whilst simultaneously keeping the
bill of materials low. Internet connectivity is provided via WiFi.

MS is making a big mistake on not going with a blu-ray drive. Blu-ray
drives are cheap now and they're permanently sticking themselves in
the past by not including one. This is as big a mistake as the mind-
blowingly dumbass move of not including a hard drive standard in the
360 (which was the rare case of a new console generation actually
stepping BACKWARDS). I guess at least they're including a standard
hard drive on this one. But they need to swallow their pride and
license a blu-ray drive. Downloaded games may be the future--but that
future is still waiting on broadband speeds which are still running
WAY behind the kind of capacity to support 25-50 GB games (the way blu-
ray can).

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

MS is making a big mistake on not going with a blu-ray drive. Blu-ray
drives are cheap now and they're permanently sticking themselves in
the past by not including one. This is as big a mistake as the mind-
blowingly dumbass move of not including a hard drive standard in the
360 (which was the rare case of a new console generation actually
stepping BACKWARDS). I guess at least they're including a standard
hard drive on this one. But they need to swallow their pride and
license a blu-ray drive. Downloaded games may be the future--but that
future is still waiting on broadband speeds which are still running
WAY behind the kind of capacity to support 25-50 GB games (the way blu-
ray can).

Ignoring the folly of treating this baseless rumor as if it were an
announcement by Microsoft, Microsoft has already stated that if there
was a demonstrated need for a Blu-ray drive, either for multimedia
purposes or for game storage purposes, they would include one in the
next-generation console. Microsoft is, at least publicly, still not
convinced that Blu-ray is the only way to move forward.

While I agree with the sentiment that the next console should include
a Blu-ray drive for the few added advantages it would bring, I can
certainly understand Microsoft's view of things.

Blu-ray is still an unproven technology in the mainstream market.
While the adoption of Blu-ray by consumers continues to increase, it
still is not at a level right now where it would necessarily make
sense for a console manufacturer without a personal stake in the
technology to include it in a console that is aimed at the mainstream
market.

There is significantly less "need" for an average consumer to upgrade
to Blu-ray than there was for an average consumer to upgrade to DVD
about a decade ago. The push by studios to support this new format is
not confidence; it's desperate hope.

Another factor to consider is that the areas where console
manufacturers can really improve to provide game developers with the
tools to produce truly next-generation games do not rely on greater
storage capacity. While higher resolution assets could certainly
improve the visual and aural quality of the gaming experience, greater
impact will come from an improvement in lighting, in clarity, in
physics, in artificial intelligence, etc. These improvements come from
smarter code that utilizes greater processing power and memory
bandwidth and not from 40 more GB of storage capacity.

 

[Eric]

Ignoring the folly of treating this baseless rumor as if it were an
announcement by Microsoft, Microsoft has already stated that if there
was a demonstrated need for a Blu-ray drive, either for multimedia
purposes or for game storage purposes, they would include one in the
next-generation console. Microsoft is, at least publicly, still not
convinced that Blu-ray is the only way to move forward.

While I agree with the sentiment that the next console should include
a Blu-ray drive for the few added advantages it would bring, I can
certainly understand Microsoft's view of things.

Blu-ray is still an unproven technology in the mainstream market.
While the adoption of Blu-ray by consumers continues to increase, it
still is not at a level right now where it would necessarily make
sense for a console manufacturer without a personal stake in the
technology to include it in a console that is aimed at the mainstream
market.

No, MS just doesn't want to swallow their pride and license a Sony-
backed technology. All that "the developers don't really need that
much capacity" and "blu-ray is unproven technology" crap is a bunch of
horseshit (as if it hasn't been "proving itself" in millions of
households for years now). I'm sorry, but 9 GB just DOESN'T CUT IT
anymore. Even in this generation, that's a hinderance--much less in a
next gen system.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

No, MS just doesn't want to swallow their pride and license a Sony-
backed technology.

Your mistake is in looking at things in too narrow a scope. The Xbox
360 is only one small cog in the giant wheel that is Microsoft.
Microsoft backed HD DVD because sales of those discs meant more
royalties in their pocket. It wasn't about "the Xbox 360 vs. the
PlayStation 3."

All that "the developers don't really need that
much capacity"

The developers *don't* need that much capacity. I think we can all
agree that games like Metal Gear Solid 4 and Uncharted, both of which
are PlayStation 3 exclusives, look great. Neither game required
anywhere near 50GB. Metal Gear Solid 4 used up 50GB (and could have
used more) because Kojima wanted to include sound assets at a quality
higher than the sound systems of 99% of consumers could handle and a
pre-rendered high-definition cutscene that lasted for several minutes
and was impossible for the team to do in-engine and because the best
way to get around the performance hit caused by the slow speed of a
Blu-ray drive is to replicate data at various locations on the disc.

Metal Gear Solid 4 *could* have easily been done on two or *maybe*
three DVD-9 discs.

Uncharted? That game can fit on a DVD-9 disc. Heavenly Sword can also
fit when you remove all the superfluous language soundtracks.

and "blu-ray is unproven technology" crap is a bunch of
horseshit (as if it hasn't been "proving itself" in millions of
households for years now).

Exactly how has Blu-ray been "proving itself" and exactly where did
you get the idea that penetration is in "millions of households?" That
a household has a PlayStation 3 does not mean that the occupants of
said household buy or even rent many Blu-ray movies. Have you even
looked at sales data on standalone Blu-ray players?

You fail to consider that even now, several years after Blu-ray
arrived on the scene, penetration of the new technology is only about
10%. With no reliable incentive for consumers to upgrade to Blu-ray
(and many solid reasons why they don't need to), there really is no
logical way to conclude that Blu-ray as a movie format will be truly
relevant by the time the next generation of consoles arrives
especially considering that the movie industry in general now has to
contend with an economic crisis and the lack of consumer confidence to
go with it on top of an alarming trend of falling revenues.

I'm sorry, but 9 GB just DOESN'T CUT IT
anymore.

It most certainly does with the types of games that developers using
this generation of hardware are capable of producing.

And there's no need for you to apologize for your point of view.

Even in this generation, that's a hinderance--much less in a
next gen system.

That depends entirely on how developers are going to try to improve
the quality of the gaming experience. If we gamers are going to be
treated only to an improvement in graphics through increased texture
resolution, then developers truly and unquestionably do need more than
the space afforded by a DVD-9 disc. This assumes, of course, that the
majority of developers will go this route and build games with very
high resolution textures.

If developers are instead going to focus on truly next-generation
enhancements such as marked improvements in artificial intelligence,
physics, lighting, clarity, and such, the quality of components such
as the CPU, GPU and memory are important and the size of the optical
media is much less relevant.

Ultimately, it really does depend on what developers and the console
manufacturers intend to focus on in the next generation.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* WDS:

People who write this kind of stuff don't understand crap about CPUs
with multiple cores.

Even worse, they obviously know shit about the difference between a
symmetric multicore processor and an unsymmetric processor like Cell.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* ~misfit~:

I'd like to see none at all. After all, why would you use GDDR (Graphics
Double Data Rate) RAM for "main system RAM"? The original statement is an
oxymoron which shows the lack of technical understanding of the author.

It is your lack of understanding. The "Graphics" in GDDR just means that
this type of memory has originally been developed for graphics cards, it
doesn't mean it only can be used with graphics cards. There are lots of
applications (especially in the embedded computing market) where GDDR is
used as main memory.

Also, the current XBox 360 already uses GDDR as main system RAM. And it
is only connected to the Xenos because this thing is not only GPU but
also the Northbridge.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* ~misfit~:

Thanks for this, and your other reply. I should have mentioned that I'm
reading this from alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (I'm a PC man, I haven't
owned a console since the original Playstation / Nintendo 64 era.) and, as
far as I understand it, backed up by every definition that I can find, the
'G' in GDDR is for graphics.

Yes, because it originally has been developed for graphics cards. Not
because it can only be used with graphics cards as you believe.

To that end, if the Xbox is using it as main memory that is being accessed
by the CPU for non-graphics calculations then, by definition, it is no
longer GDDR. It might be fabricated in the same way as GDDR, originally
designed to be GDDR and have the bandwidth of GDDR but, in short, if the CPU
is using it for non-graphics tasks, it's *not* GDDR.

Then please go ahead and tell the JEDEC that they are all idiots because
they are using something that after your definition is not possible.

GDDR is a type of memory. This type doesn't change just because it is
used in a different application.

Benjamin

 

[Les Steel]

~misfit~ said the following on 18/06/2009 08:44:

Yes it does when the first letter of the acronym defines what application
it's used in.

Are you deliberately obtuse?

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* ~misfit~:

Yes it does when the first letter of the acronym defines what application
it's used in.

No, it doesn't. Following your stupid logic a toothbrush wouldn't be a
toothbrush anymore just because you use one to clean anything else (i.e.
cleaning small things).

From someone who according to one of your other posts has sooo many
years of experience with computers and overclocking and shit your actual
knowledge seems to be quite dim.

Benjamin

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs The alMIGHTY N wrote:















Thanks for this, and your other reply. I should have mentioned that I'm
reading this from alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (I'm a PC man, I haven't
owned a console since the original Playstation / Nintendo 64 era.)

A PC gamer? We all make mistakes. ;-)

and, as
far as I understand it, backed up by every definition that I can find, the
'G' in GDDR is for graphics.

That's exactly what it stands for.

To that end, if the Xbox is using it as main memory that is being accessed
by the CPU for non-graphics calculations then, by definition, it is no
longer GDDR. It might be fabricated in the same way as GDDR, originally
designed to be GDDR and have the bandwidth of GDDR but, in short, if the CPU
is using it for non-graphics tasks, it's *not* GDDR.

You're mistaking design for usage.

The term "GDDR" indicates that this particular double data rate memory
was *designed* to be used by a GPU. Should a system use it as system
memory at some point or another doesn't change that.

While it sometimes is not *used* as graphics memory, it still is GDDR
memory.

A rose by any other name perhaps? Please, allow me to elucidate;

If the sole purpose of all the processing units in the console were to
render graphics then the use of the term GDDR would be absolutely correct.
However, as there are other calculations required (such as AI) that seem to
utilise this RAM I say again, it simply cannot be correctly called
*Graphics* Dual Data Rate RAM.

Reading your posts, you seem to be a reasonable person, I'm sure that you
can appreciate this distinction. It may be merely semantics but the devil is
in the details. When I read the OP from a PC person's POV I thought "That's
not right".

<analogy>
If I were to modify an aeroplane engine to power my (Honda) car then it
would quite correctly still be called an aeroplane engine, even though it is
most definitely not in an aeroplane. However, if Honda were to do the same
thing, on the drawing board and the production line, then said engine
becomes a car engine regardless of what it was originally designed for.
</analogy>

Your analogy is not correct in two ways:

a) It implies that a modification was made to the memory when there
was none. The memory units *are* GDDR-3 memory. If you remove them
from the system, any expert who looked at them would say they were
GDDR-3 memory units. The modification was in the design of the system
itself, which introduces methods for the CPU to use GDDR-3 memory *as
if* it were plain ol' system memory.

b) Your conclusion is incorrect in that it is merging "application"
and "design" as if they were the same concept. If Honda were to take
an engine designed for an airplane and design a new car that could use
said engine without modifications to it, the engine is still an
airplane engine - it just happens that it is being used as a car
engine. The very fact that the engine itself cannot be used in a car
without modifications being made to either the standard design of a
car's system or to the engine itself confirms that the engine is
indeed *not* classifiable as a car engine.

Consider this analogy:

If there was technology that allowed a human being in need of a heart
transplant to use a cow's heart in place of a human heart, the
aftermath of a successful transplant would not be a human being with a
human heart but a human being with a cow's heart thanks to technology
that allows that heart to work in a human body.

Microsoft took memory that was originally designed for purely graphics use
and re-tasked it at the design stage so that it could be used as 'main
memory' as well. Ergo it is no longer correct to call it graphics memory.
Perhaps it's time for a new name for this class of RAM that doesn't include
the letter 'G' in the acronym?

It is absolutely correct to call it graphics memory. It is, in fact,
graphics memory being used as system memory at specific times during
the operation of the console.

Or I could be wrong..... It's been known to happen.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news...

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Benjamin Gawert wrote:








Yes it does when the first letter of the acronym defines what application
it's used in.

"Graphics double data rate memory" describes a *type* of memory that
was *designed* to be used in a certain way. If someone figures out a
way to use the memory for a different purpose, this does not change
the *type* and *designed purpose* of the memory.