ATI seeks to expand Microsoft partnership

[Megadrive1988]

http://www.reuters.ca/locales/c_new...sNews&localeKey=en_CA&storyID=8660833

TAIPEI (Reuters) - ATI Technologies Inc. is seeking to expand cooperations with Microsoft Corp. after supplying the graphics chip for the next generation of its Xbox game console, said the Canadian firm's CEO on Wednesday.

"Our view is that when we enter a partnership like Xbox with Microsoft, it's not a one-shot. It's really a launch on a long-term partnership," ATI Chief Executive Dave Orton told Reuters in Taipei.

"So the opportunity is to do much more together in a range of devices, and that's what we want to do because we believe this technology is ultimately redeployable in different forms," Orton said in an interview on the sidelines of a technology seminar.

"That's what we hope ultimately Microsoft will decide," said the executive from the Markham, Ontario-based company.

ATI has said it expects XBox 360 royalties to be similar to its deal with Nintendo's GameCube console, in a range between US$2-US$5 per console.

Orton said personal computer graphics chips, which account for 85 percent of revenue, will still be ATI's foundation in the next several years but that would be well balanced by its cellphone graphics and digital television businesses.

"When you just look at what's going to happen in the digital TV market and the cellphone market, and ATI's position in those markets, and the investment we're making, we expect to see high double-digit growth -- 50, 70, 80 percent kind of growth rates, not just for the market itself but ATI's growth rates in those markets," he said.

"So when you do the math over the next three to four years, you're going to balance. The company starts to look much more like a PC/digital consumer company, not a PC company that's dabbling in digital consumer," Orton said.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9272

ATI wants to continue working with Microsoft


Tom Bramwell 13:43 02/06/2005

But the decision rests with Microsoft for various reasons

ATI has hinted that it wants to partner with Microsoft for the long haul following its involvement on the company's next-generation games console, Xbox 360, which is due to ship later this year with an ATI graphics part at its core.

Orton said he sees ATI starting "to look much more like a PC/digital consumer company, not a PC company that's dabbling in digital consumer" - from which it's easy to infer that ATI would like to produce the next round of graphics technology for Microsoft whenever the latter next decides to iterate its gaming platforms.

naturally, ATI wants Microsoft to use ATI chips in anything Microsoft does beyond Xbox2/360. such as a handheld 'Xboy' portable gaming platform, maybe sometime this decade. as well as any hardware products from Microsoft that need graphics, be they gaming related or not.

Plus of course, Xbox 3 in the 2010-2011 timeframe-- a console that would most certainly be using technology developed during *this* decade.

pure speculation:
I wonder if ATI is looking into hardware based raytracing technologies that it can either develop itself, or acquire in an ArtX-like buyout. what is going on with SAARC lately? would be interesting if ATI and those guys hooked up, especially since Nvidia seems to have rejected them.

 

[EndR]

I think that this sounds interesting.. the Xenos-gpu is a impressive piece of technology and it should be very interesting how much more they can to together. Can we assume that they will begin to draw some guidelines for Xbox3 at the end of this year?

 

[_xxx_]

hardware based raytracing technologies

F###in' Ö@*%&$§"!!!!!

 

[London Geezer]

hardware based raytracing technologies

F###in' Ö@*%&$§"!!!!!

WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*HEAD EXPLODES*

 

[nelg]

The way I see it is if the 35W power consumption figure is correct for the R500 then ATI looks to be the provider of choice for the mobile market.

 

[London Geezer]

Personally, i wouldn't be happy at all if only one player were in any market. Competition is always good and if ATI and MS make it hard for NVIDIA to sell their products, that's bad news.

People should buy ATI products cause they're better than NVIDIA, not because they have no other choice.

If MS were to just go with ATI on the Xbox720 (!?) without even considering NVIDIA (or anyone else's) ideas, it might restrict them instead of favouring them.

Same for Sony, if they were to decide today what company will provide the PS4 GPU, i'd start worrying. Sure they'd have lots of time to perfect and architecture, but i always steer way clear of traditionalism. Some businesses need to move quickly, not make long term deals which might not turn out for the best.

Sony and MS should put themselves in the position to be able to drop either ATI or NVIDIA in case they don't like their ideas in 4 years time. Anything is possible.

 

[Carl B]

Well, time to start worrying then since ATI is pursuing now something NVidia seems to have already been pushing with Sony for a while; ie an expanded role as a graphics solutions provider for a diverse range of Sony products, and supposedly Kutagari made an allusion to their likely role in PS4 as well.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I disagree. There is a big benefit in establishing long-term partnerships.

 

[London Geezer]

I disagree. There is a big benefit in establishing long-term partnerships.

Of course there are big benefits, but there are also disadvantages.

 

[AlNom]

Of course there are big benefits, but there are also disadvantages.

Such as...?


To me the benefits would be a much much better chance of backward compatibility as well as providing a familiar coding environment ->"reduced" costs.

I'm also kind of assuming they'll stick with IBM...

 

[Acert93]

If MS were to just go with ATI on the Xbox720 (!?) without even considering NVIDIA (or anyone else's) ideas, it might restrict them instead of favouring them.

Welcome to the business world :?

I do not see MS too hip with working with NV in the short term. They just cancelled Xbox GPU production with NV (ends in like Aug I believe) and MS blames NV for some of the Xbox price issues. NV has in the past refused IP based deals, but that is basically what NV has done with Sony. Basically the Xbox was a stepping stone to a bigger pond, to MS biggest competitor, and I doubt MS likes that much. Further, *if* Sony and NV had been in talks about a PS3 deal in Dec 2002 (2 years before the RSX announcement) that all too conveniently dovetails with the MS/NV pricing tift. Toss in all the issues of hitting performance targets with the original Xbox GPU design and I can see why they have a "rocky" relationship. I am sure some of the tension regarding DX9 and WGF 2.0 and unified shaders, and the different philosophies, and MS insistance that DX only have open IPs probably does not sit well either.

But there is always two sides to the story. Basically NV has been the market leader in the GPU market and has wanted to go their own way. I am sure they did not feel it was a good idea licensing their IPs to MS when MS was willing to pay for chips--and selling those chips to MS really helped NV's bottomline during the FX fallout. NV also has a lot of IPs and absolutely believes they ARE the market leaders. And for many many years they have been unquestionably the trend setter. They also have great engineers and a lot of IPs, and as long as they are big enough to dictate a path that is friendly for them they will. This is one of the big benefits of their developer programs. And who needs MS when you are sitting in a console that outsold MS's 4:1 last generation?

And in the NV-Sony PS3 GPU press release it was hinted at that this was not a one off deal, but a long term business arrangement.

So if the NV-Sony deal is long term and includes PS4 I can see a long term ATI-MS deal. It is one thing for MS to share a GPU maker with Nintendo (who they consider a niche player), but sharing a CPU and GPU maker with Sony for the Xbox 3 does not seem likely. So far IBM has been heads and shoulders above everyone else in the realm of CPUs, so there really is no choice there. I am not sure drawing MS-ATI / Sony-NV lines would stagnent innovation, but probably the reverse. It would really draw some clear lines and add even more emphasis on performance and features in the PC market.

Total conjecture... but I wonder if MS would use the PC / DX API as a way to railroad NV some? If NV gets really cozy with Sony, and ATI with MS, it obviously benefits MS to tailor their API to their partner's strengths and thus aid their sales/market position.

With how important both see the living room, and MS obviously leveraging its PC strength to get in there, I am interested to see if MS's roadmaps become much more ATI friendly. We saw how ATI was more than happy to adopt the DX9 spec and we saw what happened there. I wonder if that will repeat itself?

 

[Fox5]

So far IBM has been heads and shoulders above everyone else in the realm of CPUs, so there really is no choice there.

Intel and NEC?

BTW, didn't Microsoft decide the DX9 spec based on what ATI had to offer?

 

[Acert93]

So far IBM has been heads and shoulders above everyone else in the realm of CPUs, so there really is no choice there.

Intel and NEC?

BTW, didn't Microsoft decide the DX9 spec based on what ATI had to offer?

pps: When I said that I meant that IBM is offering the best Console CPUs for priceerformance, specifically performance where it matters for games.

Intel charges a premium and lacks some of the power needed for a console (good general purpose processors though), not to mention their desktop chips have use a lot of power and push out a lot of heat. Even with a Pentium M, how many cores would they need to match the XeCPU performance? And how much would Intel charge for that? And would Intel license the IP so MS can make their own chips and make their next console backwards compatible? I doubt it. Intel chips are also currently married to slower memory architectures. I have no doubts Intel COULD make a killer CPU that performs well and is cost effective. But they are making a killing on the PC market (they have over 80% of that market and PCs have like 200M sales a year--with pretty big marketup compared to razor thin console sales). I always had the feeling Intel pushed for the Xbox deal to stop AMD from getting it.

I saw on Intel's general roadmap that after multicore they do plan to offer solutions with more specialized chips. I would like to see Intel get competitive in this area because it would be nice next gen if there was more than 1 CPU maker. Although with MS going with a PPC core going BACK to x86 may not be worth it. Anyhow, I see nothing that Intel is doing that would make a good console chip that would be competitive right now in priceerformance. Ditto AMD. They are great chips for their market, but CELL and XeCPU look like better console fits. The fact all three console makers went with IBM backs up this idea.

Have not heard anything interesting out of NEC in a while.


As for the DX9 spec, I had heard that as a rumor. Do not know if ti is true... but it does seem MS has been siding some with ATI.

 

[jvd]

I disagree. There is a big benefit in establishing long-term partnerships.

Of course there are big benefits, but there are also disadvantages.

Its not a big deal esp if sony continues on with nvidia . I think sony will see that the rsx is a great chip for the time frame nvidia was given and they will work with nvidia for a custom chip in the ps4 . There is just so much more that nvidia has acess too than toshiba in the gpu field

 

[Fox5]

Even with a Pentium M, how many cores would they need to match the XeCPU performance?

I don't know, find me some benchmarks of the XeCPU's real world performance.
Even still, I don't think either the Athlon or the Pentium M designs are well suited to consoles, I think the Pentium 4 probably would be the best option of the major PC cpus for a console.(if power per cost is the only concern)

Intel charges a premium and lacks some of the power needed for a console (good general purpose processors though), not to mention their desktop chips have use a lot of power and push out a lot of heat.

Last I heard, they sold the XCPU to microsoft very very cheaply. And do we know yet how the triple core xecpu compares in power and heat? Plus, the latest Prescotts, especially at slower speeds like 3ghz, aren't as bad.

And would Intel license the IP so MS can make their own chips and make their next console backwards compatible? I doubt it. Intel chips are also currently married to slower memory architectures.

Well, assuming it's still using the x86 architecture(and not Itanium and not cutting off the x86 front end and compiling right into the cpu's microcode) then they'd only have to emulate that instruction set. Also, how are intel's chips married to slower memory architectures? AMD is the one with the integrated memory controller, Intel's cpus can use any memory controller you feel like designing for them. Oh, if you're referring to the FSB of the P4 and Pentium M, well it's certainly not that bad, I haven't seen anything yet that beats the quad pumped bus in bandwidth, though I believe the hypertransport bus, even without an integrated memory controller, is supposed to have lower latency.

I always had the feeling Intel pushed for the Xbox deal to stop AMD from getting it.

I've heard heat cited as a reason, though honestly I think it just came down to cost. Actually, one story I heard was that Intel wasn't selling as many chips as planned because of the success of AMD's Athlon and Duron cpus, so Intel was able to dump a bunch cheaply onto microsoft since they weren't selling anywhere else. Hmm, would have been interesting to have a Duron in the Xbox, but would the Xbox have had enough memory bandwidth to really make use of it? I guess devs could have chosen between graphics and cpu performance.

Have not heard anything interesting out of NEC in a while.

Well, just like Intel, I believe they're working on a Cell-like architecture.
I'm not sure if AMD has a cell-like architecture planned though, I think they may have preferred the idea of symmetrical multi core.

As for the DX9 spec, I had heard that as a rumor. Do not know if ti is true... but it does seem MS has been siding some with ATI.

Didn't the DX9 spec change a few times? I don't think FP24 was originally part of it.

 

[jvd]

As for the DX9 spec, I had heard that as a rumor. Do not know if ti is true... but it does seem MS has been siding some with ATI

the story i heard was that with nvidia controlling alot of the market they tried to push things to thier side with the geforce fx but when ati brought out the r300 it was the ideal dx 9 card at the time and the nv30 which was late was lackluster . So the main development platform for dx9 is the r300

 

[_xxx_]

Of course there are big benefits, but there are also disadvantages.

Such as...?

Being tied to a partner with inferior tech (down the road a few years), for instance.

 

[PC-Engine]

I disagree. There is a big benefit in establishing long-term partnerships.

Of course there are big benefits, but there are also disadvantages.

I think it depends on the company and their expertise. If you have longterm partnerships with industry leaders, then it's safe to say that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[London Geezer]

I disagree. There is a big benefit in establishing long-term partnerships.

Of course there are big benefits, but there are also disadvantages.

I think it depends on the company and their expertise. If you have longterm partnerships with industry leaders, then it's safe to say that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Of course of course, i mean it's not like they just partnered with Matrox, but still... I like to be a free agent myself, these pre-nuptial agreements always scare me.

 

[jvd]

well l-b look at it this way .


You have two major players in the 3d add in board market .

Ati and nvidia


Now nvidia already burnted ms in the console sector and really cause huge problems and microsoft to loose alot of money from the console . So we can rule them out most likely unless nvidia offers a very very tempting offer .

We have ati who is suppling them with the xenos and it seems like the relationship is going extremely well for both companys .


Then i Guess we have

matrox who is basicly a niche player now and hasn't put out a capable card in many many years

We have s3 ? who hasn't put out a capable card period

Then we have video logic .

They would be a good choice , very powerfull hardware both in the console sector and mobile sector and have console experiance.


So really we have two players ms can turn too . In the end it would be more of a benfit for them to go with ati . Ati is in the x360 which would mean easier bc than if they went for pvr next gen . Ati is continuing to work closely with ms even on the off years on major pc part releases and ms can harness that synergy between the markets