"falcoln" 360's on their way..

Gerard · 28 Aug 2007 at 23:45

Well the cpu's at least

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8586

Nismo · 29 Aug 2007 at 06:15

Oldish news so guess that site isnt too up to date?

Anyway, cant really see the new CPU's making that much difference, it's the GPU that churns out all the major heat and that is the one they should have been revising IMO.

blueshift · 29 Aug 2007 at 07:50

i cant see what all the fuss is about either?

Nismo · 29 Aug 2007 at 08:21

It will still make sense to do it for MS though, doesn't it reduce manufacturing costs? Not a completely pointless task.

It's just that I think reducing the CPU size makes squat-all difference to the end user.

JBeck · 29 Aug 2007 at 11:07

Teletraan-82 said:
Oldish news so guess that site isnt too up to date?

Anyway, cant really see the new CPU's making that much difference, it's the GPU that churns out all the major heat and that is the one they should have been revising IMO.

It's recently been reported that the 65nm now applies to both the CPU and GPU.

Nismo · 29 Aug 2007 at 11:13

JBeck said:
It's recently been reported that the 65nm now applies to both the CPU and GPU.

That's not what I had read, but if its true then that's great news

wannabedamned · 29 Aug 2007 at 12:10

JBeck said:
It's recently been reported that the 65nm now applies to both the CPU and GPU.

Where was that said? Last I read said, better cooling for GPU, better cooling and new cooler running processor as CPU

JBeck · 29 Aug 2007 at 12:27

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17770599&highlight=65nm