http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=576869

Remember this massive 142 page, 7000+ post thread on Neogaf all about doom and gloom for Xbox?

Some of the gems from GAF back then ...http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=576869

For everyone asking- this information is all pretty recent. Around the PlayStation Meeting the Xbox One was way behind (OS + hardware). Engineers were scrambling to get things sorted out.

It turns out, they didn't sort it out. The OS you saw was a complete and total lie. The current plan is to get the yields up, lower the clock rate, and to have enough units out for a sell out in the Fall.

For those asking how this affects performance- to be perfectly frank; it is nothing turning down features won't solve. The mass market will never notice a difference between 1080p and 900p; neither will they care about dynamic shadows / global illumination / or tesselation. Go to your PC - and turn shadows from Ultra to medium, disable tesselation, and lower the resolution to 900p; and you'll find games run totally fine.

Microsoft is purely behind and it's now time to make drastic decisions. I don't think any one is happy about the lower clocks, but no one is depressed about it either. The Xbox One is an all-in-on device; and that's how it will be marketed.

Originally Posted by StevieP

I've heard the same about the ESRAM (as I shared with another poster who mentioned as such in this thread), and truthfully I think that's where all of the yield issues are coming from. Whether they need to downclock something to improve yields is a different story, but MS' APU is much more complicated and required a lot more engineers at AMD/ATI for a reason.

Originally Posted by eastmen

choppy UI = Lower clocked parts and beta code. That would make sense.


MS is most likely waiting on a respin to come back to see whats going on. Rumors of yield problems have existed since last year so I'm sure they have something going on.

Xbox one uses APU which is a really big die that needs to house the cpu, gpu AND in xbox one's case also the ESRAM which takes up a huge amount of transistors and therefor physical space on the chip.
They end up with little hardware power yet a huge (5 billion transistor) die, so they have low yields.
Normally low end hardware only takes a tiny little die so yields are good, but for some reason that either MS engineers or suits/beancounters can only know they decided to go for this huge ass APU with esram.

Ironically, here is some pics of stacks of Xboxes today from neogaf

So, looks like Neogaf lied again...in other news Sun likely to rise in east tomrrow...

OS problems were a straight foward lie, in fact.

Yeild issues are a little harder to prove or disprove. MS could be spending a buttload of money in production, and we may never know unless AMD/Foundry disclaim there roports, which they won´t.

They need to be more worried on how to sell that big pile of xboz.

So where is the part that supports you title's claim?

low yields in chip production are more likely to result in higher component prices than in less units manufactured/shipped, as there is quite a good amount of chip production capabilities you can rent, but each chip is more expensive if you have a lower amount of working units per waver

it was a different situation with the PS3 back then, as low yields in blue laser diode manufacturing couldn't be compensated easily, as there were no additional plants capable of producing these at that time

so in conclusion, the fact that MS managed to ship enough Xbox One units is not conclusive evidence that "neogaf lied"

btw, personally I feel you start too many low-quality threads like this one

Why is the context irrelevant to the title of your thread, OP?

So xbox is sitting on the shelves and it proves the console doesn't have wield problems?

I'm missing something here.

Xbox One sitting on shelves is an even bigger problem than yield issues.

No one could tell if they have yield/production issues because they produce more than they can sell anyway.

ouch lol