Competiton over ?

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

OK, one thing I have to say about ATI and XBox2. Did the XBox1 deal help NVIDIA corner the high-end market? then why was NV3x such a goof?

rather, NVIDIA lost their crown in the high-end after XBox. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to ATI, but who's to say it won't either.

By the same logic:

"OK, one thing I have to say about ATI and Nintendo Cube. Did the Cube deal help ATI corner the high-end market? Then why was R3x0 so good?

Rather, ATI gained their crown in the high-end after Cube. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to Xbox2, but who's to say it won't either."

 

[Joe DeFuria]

OK, one thing I have to say about ATI and XBox2. Did the XBox1 deal help NVIDIA corner the high-end market?

In the DX8 era? (Same API as X-Box 1). Absolutely.

then why was NV3x such a goof?

Beause it's DX9....post X-Box era.

rather, NVIDIA lost their crown in the high-end after XBox. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to ATI, but who's to say it won't either.

I'm not saying it won't or can't happen. As far as post x-box2 era is concerned, it's a tos-up at the moment.

As far as PRE x-box2 and xbox-2 era, I'm saying ATI has the advantage.

 

[KimB]

By the same logic:

"OK, one thing I have to say about ATI and Nintendo Cube. Did the Cube deal help ATI corner the high-end market? Then why was R3x0 so good?

Rather, ATI gained their crown in the high-end after Cube. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to Xbox2, but who's to say it won't either."

ATI didn't invest anything in the Gamecube. They purchased the company that was essentially finished with the chip. Art-X brought along some excellent culture to the company that really helped ATI out.

However, we don't know what a second console deal will do. We haven't yet seen the effects of ATI allocating resources for a console deal.

I still stand by what I said before: console deals have traditionally been the death of graphics companies. Art-X got bought out. PowerVR's product was insanely late. nVidia almost went bankrupt after the NV2 was never used, and the NV30 became a lower shader performer than it should have been.

 

[jvd]

Ms is just liscensing the ip from ati. Most likely they will just take a modified version of whatever is top of the line from ati at the time . Nintendo will most likely want something specific and that is where ati will spend some extra resources . With nvidia they were just entering the motherboard market. Were moving to the console market and was trying to succed in the gpu market.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I still stand by what I said before: console deals have traditionally been the death of graphics companies. Art-X got bought out. PowerVR's product was insanely late. nVidia almost went bankrupt after the NV2 was never used, and the NV30 became a lower shader performer than it should have been.

ATI may have bought Art-X, but Art-X took over ATI. The R300 and the rise back to top flight success over the last year is the direct consequence of the changes the likes of Dave Orton made to ATI.

The Xbox 2 deal between ATI and Microsoft is reportedly very different from the XBox 1 deal between MS and Nvidia. Hopefully this has been influenced by ATI's previous experience of console chip design for Nintendo. That past experience is *more* likely to assure success, not less likely.

 

[incurable]

Those extensions are not part of the x86 ISA and btw usually not supported by AMD for years after their original introduction.

Whether or not that SSE and SSE2 are part of the x86 ISA is debatable. I would argue that after their incorporation into non-Intel processors, they are at least implicitly part of the x86 ISA. Before then they are only (certainly) part of the ISA of 'IA-32' processors. http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/manuals/

It is arguable that IA-32 processors define at least part of the x86 architecture (that part not defined by AMD in e.g. 3DNOW!).

AMD seems to get support in in 'the next chip after the Intel one comes out'. Which is probably about as fast as they can do it.

I would say x86 is a moving target - a slow-moving target, but a moving target nonetheless.

While I understand where you're coming from, IMO there's no denying that none of the mentioned ISExtensions is part of the x86 ISA. (yeah, I know, a pretty orthodox POV ) The P54 (and similar cores) still is a x86/IA-32 processor and btw, you can use x86 and IA-32 interchangably, IA-32 doesn't include any extensions either. (according to Intel and IIRC)

cu

incurable

PS: On AMD, yes, I think they're doing a reasonable job at keeping up with Intel's xNIs, though sometimes I wish they'd do better. (faster/higher performance)

 

[Vince]

In the DX8 era? (Same API as X-Box 1). Absolutely.

Saying the same "API" is wrong, very wrong due to intrinsic differences between programming methodologies that are used on the open PC verse the closed nature of a Console. I don't know of many developers that programmed to DX8 on XBox - most are a lot lower than that.

Something you didn't mention though, which there is no doubt in my mind, is that the concept of programming to "Shaders" was expedited due to Microsoft's almost cannibalization of PC gaming. In effect, XBox creating an artificial plateau which PC developers were confident that programming to would be economically viable. This then trickled back down to the PC ports which targeted the DX8 level, and as you somewhat stated was advantageous to nVidia.

The difference between Then and Now (something you didn't cover) is that DX8 was still catering to a large amount of fixed functionality and rigid hardware. Thus, having someone work exclusively with your microprogram/shader models was a huge boost as there was this big differential between each IHV's implementations of these more of less fixed functions.

DX9+ will see the creation of a nearly complete instruction set. The days of having this "feature" or that "feature" are quickly dying - and with it are many (not all) of the same perks of having 'your' implementation in a console. There will be no large differentials between supporting N hardware or M hardware that invoke the use of API dependent extensions or specific IHV centric DX derivatives that can be leveraged "back" to the PC arena - you'll support this one instruction set and it'll be standard. By the time the NGConsoles launch in 2005, I expect the industry to have moved in this direction in a big way*.

* As in, way past the NV3x’s DX8/DX9 duality that caused problems. We’ll be much further down the rabbit hole of offering computation power en masse and tapping it via extreme extraction – which is pretty hardware indifferent when all is said and done.

"OK, one thing I have to say about ATI and Nintendo Cube. Did the Cube deal help ATI corner the high-end market? Then why was R3x0 so good?

Also, you're overlooking the fact that unlike the XGPU, the Flipper chip didn't share any commonality with PC parts. It's a custom chip on a DX7 level that has 'perks'. nVidia got the XBox boost because programmers could become accustomed to their shading models and then port a game back to the PC with a high degree of ease when targetting the more advanced Nv25 level and PC that existed (eg. more RAM, CPU, IO, etc).

 

[Dio]

IMO there's no denying that none of the mentioned ISExtensions is part of the x86 ISA.

Well, we're back into 'when is the extension part of the architecture'? I'd say extensions to an architecture are part of an architecture as soon as they become standardised (e.g. ARB_ extensions in OpenGL) - so in 'x86' this is when they are implemented by multiple vendors. But maybe that's just that's the background I come from.

So I deny it! Of course, that's just my opinion too.

 

[micron]

Also, you're overlooking the fact that unlike the XGPU, the Flipper chip didn't share any commonality with PC parts.

Will the Xbox2 chip?

 

[RussSchultz]

Since microsoft is involved, I'd guess yes.

 

[cthellis42]

And since it's ATi's design from the beginning, and basically been revealed to be a modification of their R500 chip for PC's, I'd guess also yes.

 

[KimB]

Since microsoft is involved, I'd guess yes.

I don't think Microsoft's involvement has anything to do with it. ATI will, apparently, be responsible for producing the design of the chip. It will be far cheaper for ATI to carry PC technology over to their console part than to create new technology exclusively for the console part. So it will certainly be very similar to some PC part that will come out of ATI.