[Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Tysan

So now you need experience in the console market to make good GPUs?

Thats new to me

[And btw ATI has never done a console graphic chip!! And is designing the Gpu for bot Rev and Xenon!!! Shocker news!!!]

Do you think the GPU NVIDIA made for the xbox was a good console GPU?

[Mulciber]

Originally Posted by Tuttle

Do you think the GPU NVIDIA made for the xbox was a good console GPU?

do you think it was MS who set the target design specs for the entire system or nVidia?

edit: what the hell is a console gpu anyways?

[Megadrive1988]

Hahaha, I allready know it, but fact is that theres no ATI technology in the flipper, ArtX couldnt take advantage of ATIs Ips because the chip was allready finished when ATI bought ArtX.

They did put a nice sticker though Wink

Of course ArtX crew now works at ATI, my comment just was an ironic reply to Nvidia/expensive/xbox/chip bit.

all true. ATI didn't make Flipper at all.

Flipper's roots began in 1997 or 1998, when Nintendo's deal with Samsung over CagEnt (3DO Systems) for the MX technology (beefed up M2) fell through. ArtX was a group of SGI engineers who broke away from SGI, for the main purpose of winning the Nintendo console contract. when Nintendo's deal for MX which would have been used with MIPS CPU in N2000 launching in fall 1999 in Japan, fell through, Nintendo turned to ArtX. by mid 1998 ArtX was fully underway with their console GPU for Nintendo. working with Nintendo to select a CPU provider. in May 1999 Dolphin is announced with IBM as the CPU provider. Flipper is finished by early 2000 to mid 2000. in April 2000 its announced that ATI is acquiring ArtX for $400 mil. ArtX finishes anything more remaining on Flipper. August 2000 the Gamecube is revealed and hardware is done or about done. meanwhile ArtX team inside ATI is working on R300. that's about all i know, but its clear that ATI didn't make Flipper, only they put their logo on every Cube by 2001 or at the latest 2002, an ATI with a far better engineering base thanks to ArtX and part of Real3D is working on nextgen Nintendo graphics for console and probably handheld also. and also Xenon graphics.

[rendezvous]

Originally Posted by McFly

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20034

Fredi

Did you even read the whole post i made?
I stated that it was a rumour from the inq.
That means that i don't want a quote of the very same rumour.

[bbot]

Originally Posted by McFly

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20034

Fredi

Just like ATI canned the original R400 so it could use it to design the Xbox2 vpu, did Nvidia can the NV50 so it could use it to design the PS3 gpu?

[Mulciber]

Originally Posted by McFly

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20034

Fredi

wow, now we're quoting theinq for truth

in Faud we trust....

[Tim Murray]

Just like ATI canned the original R400 so it could use it to design the Xbox2 vpu, did Nvidia can the NV50 so it could use it to design the PS3 gpu?

no, because this has been in the works for a lot more than the time since NV50 was delayed/cancelled/whatever you want to call it.

[loekf2]

Originally Posted by McFly

They completly canceled their next GPU (NV50) not long ago, so this new (Cell?) GPU will be their real new GPU.

Fredi

Hmm... could it be a last minute action.. so NV50 = PS3's GPU ?

[McFly]

Originally Posted by rendezvous

Did you even read the whole post i made?
I stated that it was a rumour from the inq.
That means that i don't want a quote of the very same rumour.

Damn! :?

Sorry, I've read it elsewhere as well, but google found me the inq and I was a bit lazy. Of course the question now is if the other news sources just quoted the inq or not.

Fredi

[Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Mulciber

edit: what the hell is a console gpu anyways?

Is that a serious question?

[Titanio]

gofreak at GAF says:

OK, I chanced my arm again with NVidia's PR, and was told this:

"Although we cannot comment on technical details, I can tell you that the
GPU is a custom version of NVIDIA's next generation GPU, which is not
Cell based."

edit:

I asked him to clarify if he meant both Nvidia's next-gen GPU and the PS3 GPU would not be cell-based and he replied:

"I can just comment on NVIDIA's next generation GPU which is not cell
based."

Which presumably still leaves the door open to cell tech making its way into the GPU. Although NVidia's PC cards won't be cell-based, at least not for the immediate future.

I also asked about whether any nvidia chip was included in the cell workstations which had been delivered to developers, but he said he couldn't answer that.

[MaximilianSWE]

..... and the MS counter attack is...: DUAL VPU CORE... *bwa ha ha*..

What Im wondering is how much the PS3 will retail for..
Let´s see.. we have a "alleged" (or supposed) power of 1 TFLOP for the CPU, an Nvidia GPU, add some XDR memory to it and other stuff.. and let us say that PS3 is released in Mars 2006 (if its true that it will follow a similar release-schedule that od PS2)... how much would this cost?
We can forget an 299 dollar price mark, or maybe Sony will take that loss (plus the loss for every PSP)...

The pricing will be important as well... but I must say that this news puts some pressure on Microsoft....

[function]

Given the similar timescales involved, has anyone considered the possibility that this could be the same GPU (or variant of) that MS chose not to use for Xenon (for either licencing or technical reasons)?

I have no idea how likely that could be, but if it were to be the case it would make the next generation battle interesting on even more grounds.

[Xenus]

Damn it that is almost as cryptic as Dave. :?

[function]

Originally Posted by bbot

Just like ATI canned the original R400 so it could use it to design the Xbox2 vpu, did Nvidia can the NV50 so it could use it to design the PS3 gpu?

Is that why ATI canned the R400? That's not the impression I got from reading B3D - more features than were needed vs too little performance was what I'd come to understand as the reason.

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by function

Given the similar timescales involved, has anyone considered the possibility that this could be the same GPU (or variant of) that MS chose not to use for Xenon (for either licencing or technical reasons)?

Doubtful. If NVidia has been working with Sony on this for the past 2 years, I doubt they showed anything of it to Microsoft during any potential Xbox2 negotiations.

NVidia was also being less than enthusiastic about any potential Xbox2 business, for a good bit before MS tapped ATi as their partner.

I'd say Microsoft pretty much closed the door on NVidia due to licensing/cost issues with the original Xbox's GPU, rather than for technical reasons.

[DopeyFish]

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how this "crushes" Xbox2. They both are beasts in all areas.

[GwymWeepa]

Originally Posted by DopeyFish

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how this "crushes" Xbox2. They both are beasts in all areas.

Well, let's see...ps2 sells 70 million units despite more powerful competition...and now its announced they are in bed with Nvidia, nearly guaranteeing at the very least, graphics capability on par with Xbox2...I count that as a crushing blow to MS.

[DopeyFish]

It doesn't guarantee anything. For all we know they're putting their next-gen MX chip in there :P

We don't have enough details on either chips to really give any sort of qualified statement.

[Tysan]

Originally Posted by Tuttle

Do you think the GPU NVIDIA made for the xbox was a good console GPU?

Not a very specific work, but they did deliver the fastest graphic chip and the most feature rich one so IMO they did get the job done well enough taking in account Xbox rushed development cicle.

[wco81]

A big part of the Xbox's marketshare is based on the perception that Xbox has superior graphics (in practice a lot of Xbox gamers grouse that the Xbox ports of a lot of EA games are inferior to the PS2 versions in many ways).

So what happens if the Xenon is no longer perceived as the best hardware? People planning to stick with MS better really love Halo, right?

[GwymWeepa]

Originally Posted by DopeyFish

It doesn't guarantee anything. For all we know they're putting their next-gen MX chip in there :P

We don't have enough details on either chips to really give any sort of qualified statement.

If the Nvidia GPU isn't as powerful or nearly as powerful as the Xbox2 GPU I'd be shocked. If all they were getting was a next-gen MX chip Sony would have stayed with an in house design.

[jvd]

Originally Posted by wco81

A big part of the Xbox's marketshare is based on the perception that Xbox has superior graphics (in practice a lot of Xbox gamers grouse that the Xbox ports of a lot of EA games are inferior to the PS2 versions in many ways).

So what happens if the Xenon is no longer perceived as the best hardware? People planning to stick with MS better really love Halo, right?

Well its going to be hard for ms even fi they truely have the best tech .

We know sony loves to embelish about hardware 66 million polygons on the ps2 ? FF ballroom scene real time graphics ?

We know nvidia loves to embelish . 250 gflop in a fx board ? geforce fx being a dx 9 card ? Toy story real itme graphics on a geforce 2 board ?


So i'm very scared to see the press releases from these two companys regarding performance (WE already have the 1 tflop figure)

But i think you will see that dispite the xenon launching 6 months earlier it will have very competive tech and in some cases will be more powerfull .

[Fafalada]

Originally Posted by ERP

It'll be interesting to see how they distribute the workload CPU/GPU given the massive stream/fp resources the processor has, my guess, is that the CPU will still be responsible for "Vertex shading" or the equivalent.

Well it makes sense now more then ever. After all with this announcement, it's like the S|APU power and local storage has suddenly doubled - what with all the memory and processing we'll save by not having to distribute the clipping APUlets around

[speng]

Originally Posted by wco81

A big part of the Xbox's marketshare is based on the perception that Xbox has superior graphics (in practice a lot of Xbox gamers grouse that the Xbox ports of a lot of EA games are inferior to the PS2 versions in many ways).

So what happens if the Xenon is no longer perceived as the best hardware? People planning to stick with MS better really love Halo, right?

Exaclty, this has a huge impact. Most of my friends who bought an Xbox, was because it would have superior graphics, that is all.

PS2 had more games, the same games and better quality games. But some of the games just look way better on XBox, so they bought that too and would buy an Xbox game over PS2 for the graphics. Even though they had both systems.

Speng.