Dave Baumann: Will ATI still go for the Xbox2 contract...
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
CeiserSöze
Newcomer
Dave Orton has already stated that ATi wants both contracts:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030304S0007
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030304S0007
Phil said:
how would they have the resources to build 2 different GPUs in one generations?!?!
or are they going to keep the same GPU for both consoles? if thats the case, how would that affect the next Xbox and GC???
thats quite interesting. we would have 2 consoles with exactly the same graphical power. the only thing to differentiate them would be the games. Porting of games would be pretty much a 5 minutes job. developing games would be quite straight forward as well, since the architectures would be very PC like...
then u'd have PS3. :?
im so looking forward to the next generation of console wars...
I don't think that there is any way possible Nintendo would sign a contract with anybody who is also going to be "sleeping with the enemy". That's just not how Nintendo does business.
And that story in the link posted above obviously came before the ATI-Nintendo agreement, as the story made absolutely no mention of it.
And that story in the link posted above obviously came before the ATI-Nintendo agreement, as the story made absolutely no mention of it.
CeiserSöze
Newcomer
bas1975 said:
That's not how Nintendo did business. Pigheaded Yamauchi isn't in charge there anymore, remember?
It seems that Orton wants a console-contract for both of their engineering-teams. The west coast team (the former ArtX-guys) is probably already working on the GCN2 technology and the original ATi-team in Canada would do the XBox2-chip if ATi gets the contract. I wonder if they have the resources to deliver two console-chips while at the same time executing their PC-, handheld- and set top box-roadmaps. Because NVIDIA obviously didn't...
It's not that difficult to get both contracts.
Each company states what they want, and how much money the plan to invest, then ATI develops them using 2 separate teams. There doesn't need to be any conflict of interest, since ATI can present each team with varying performance chips and they choose one based on their needs.
I wouldn't want to be either company though, I'd want ATI focusing completely on my chip.
Speng.
Each company states what they want, and how much money the plan to invest, then ATI develops them using 2 separate teams. There doesn't need to be any conflict of interest, since ATI can present each team with varying performance chips and they choose one based on their needs.
I wouldn't want to be either company though, I'd want ATI focusing completely on my chip.
Speng.
zidane1strife
Banned
Quality over quantity, my friend, quality over quantity...
megadrive0088
Regular
I'll bet ATI is doing some hiring of additional engineers right now or in the near furture, to beef themselfs up a bit, so they have enough engineers. however i think ATI can do this.
the GameCube2 and XBox2 GPUs would NOT be the same, as somebody suggested in this thread. they would EACH be tailored to what MS and Nintendo ask for, seperately.
XBox2 GPU would be the highest possible performance that ATI could offer, with enhanced DX10 or DX11 features. We are talking at least R500 as a base, perhaps a souped up varient of R500, like NV2A was a souped up NV20.
GC2 GPU would be more efficient, based more on what the Flipper was (and also maintain compatibility) maybe geared more toward OpenGL 2.0. it also might not have anything to do with R500 or R600 like the XBox2 GPU would. probably a completely different arch. based on the Flipper concept with on-chip memory.
the GameCube2 and XBox2 GPUs would NOT be the same, as somebody suggested in this thread. they would EACH be tailored to what MS and Nintendo ask for, seperately.
XBox2 GPU would be the highest possible performance that ATI could offer, with enhanced DX10 or DX11 features. We are talking at least R500 as a base, perhaps a souped up varient of R500, like NV2A was a souped up NV20.
GC2 GPU would be more efficient, based more on what the Flipper was (and also maintain compatibility) maybe geared more toward OpenGL 2.0. it also might not have anything to do with R500 or R600 like the XBox2 GPU would. probably a completely different arch. based on the Flipper concept with on-chip memory.
overclocked
Veteran
à dont think there´s any chance that two rivals would be using the ground/gpu from Ati.
Following the trend i guess Nintendo want a cheap chip, MS want the best chip and Sony has already invested tons of money and i dare to say that the day PS3 is realesed i will sit on a chair outside the store just to get one..
Would be fun if things turned around and MS went with 3Dlabs, nintendo with bitboys or soo..
Following the trend i guess Nintendo want a cheap chip, MS want the best chip and Sony has already invested tons of money and i dare to say that the day PS3 is realesed i will sit on a chair outside the store just to get one..
Would be fun if things turned around and MS went with 3Dlabs, nintendo with bitboys or soo..
So if one team is working on Nintendo's GPU, and the other team is working on MS's GPU, who is going to be working on the PC parts?
I may be wrong on this, but personally I don't think there is a chance in hell ATI will be providing the graphics technology for both Nintendo and Microsoft.
I may be wrong on this, but personally I don't think there is a chance in hell ATI will be providing the graphics technology for both Nintendo and Microsoft.
another thing could be . Nintendo and microsoft making a joint console ? Ms selling thier dvd player /mp3 player / whatever and nintendo makeing the smaller non dvd player aimed more for kids . Both systems would use the same games and hardware. This would help both companys take a smaller risk.
One thing to remember is that its very likely that Nintendo will probably go for the same route they did with the Gamecube, which is IP licensing. Likewise, I also think that this is the route that MS will go with the XBox2 as with IP licensing they can better have direct controls over the costs of the chips. This could mean that, dependant on the deal they strike, engineers may not be needed from the chip layout side of whichever company end up designing the 3D IP - in which case they could dump a current/under development core IP on the console manufdacturers and let them go away and do the layout, meaning that engineering resource will be less. This is the model that PowerVR have always run and ARTx did for the Gamecube.
Not sure if this is the case with MS though. Whereas NV2X was much the same as the NV20/25 design, MS might want something very different from what the 3D vendors have proposed. Last I heard MS had initially asked for vertex processors withing the CPU itself, however all the 3D vendors were going down the route of unified shaders which was completely different from MS's initial requests.
Not sure if this is the case with MS though. Whereas NV2X was much the same as the NV20/25 design, MS might want something very different from what the 3D vendors have proposed. Last I heard MS had initially asked for vertex processors withing the CPU itself, however all the 3D vendors were going down the route of unified shaders which was completely different from MS's initial requests.
RaolinDarksbane
Newcomer
Why are you guys assuming that what both MS and Nintendo wants in their chip would be different enough for them to use two seperate engineering team? It could be just the opposite though(that they both want similarly spec gpu) and wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
RaolinDarksbane said:
IT only be a problem if ati didn't tell both companys what was going on .
if both go for ati . It may come down to nintendo needing a card that is 100mhz less or mabye using a dual chip. Or micro soft going the dual chip route. Or nintendo going for the r500 and ms going for the r400
CeiserSöze
Newcomer
megadrive0088
Regular
now that's a good enough reason
(ive already know though, since i read the article days ago)
RaolinDarksbane
Newcomer
Ah... but that still doesn't address the issue of what will happen if the specs for the next gpu from Nintendo/MS are extremely similar? Even if they are using seperate teams and each team wouldn't share information which each other, wouldn't the one(MS or Nintendo) with the ArtX team likely to end up with a better gpu?? Wouldn't that still be some sort of conflict of interest?
