IBM and Microsoft -- together again?

Intresting.

What does IBM get out of the CELL deal anyway? I don't think they make any profit off of each CELL processor manufactured by Sony or Toshiba, or do they?



Some non-serious speculation if Intel is out of the picture.

CPU: IBM
VPU: ATI fabricated by Micron
RAM: Micron
Motherboard: Micron
Chipset: Either ATI or Micron
DSP: Former 3do hardware team with a Micron Yukon style design?
 
ChryZ said:
Well, at least they've quoted Bloomberg ...

That's the distant analyst firm I was talking about. There's no reason to believe they have any real info whatsoever, if they did it means somebody blabbed when (s)he should not have blabbed.

Dodgy info. I choose to remain sceptical until official word comes. I mean, it's not as if analysts in general or bloomberg in particular have never been wrong, heh! ;)

*G*
 
Grall said:
ChryZ said:
Well, at least they've quoted Bloomberg ...

That's the distant analyst firm I was talking about. There's no reason to believe they have any real info whatsoever, if they did it means somebody blabbed when (s)he should not have blabbed.

Dodgy info. I choose to remain sceptical until official word comes. I mean, it's not as if analysts in general or bloomberg in particular have never been wrong, heh! ;)
Fair enough ...
 
TXB pulled down that 'rumor' a few hours after posting it. It's no longer on their site.
Either they discovered that somebody fed them bad information (played a joke on them), or they were contacted by MS/IBM and told to stop spreading rumors around since they haven't made any formal announcements.
 
Brimstone said:
What does IBM get out of the CELL deal anyway? I don't think they make any profit off of each CELL processor manufactured by Sony or Toshiba, or do they?

Revenue and IP from mutual STI R&D. They get an architecture for use in their server line. They get a flagship processor. Most of all, they're moving into the massive and yet unexploited consumer electronics marketplace and corner it from the likes of Intel.

Ohh, and I call Bullshit on this rumor. Especially talk of using Cell, it's kind of ironic in fact. I think Intel has enough of a vested interest (that Andy Grove and Co realize) to make it worth while. :)
 
Either they discovered that somebody fed them bad information (played a joke on them), or they were contacted by MS/IBM and told to stop spreading rumors around since they haven't made any formal announcements.
I think TXB has a no-rumor policy in their news (yes, I'm serious :p) I was very surprised that they published hat rumor to begin with. That's very unlike them. It doesn't surprise me that they pulled it from the site.
 
Ina Fried, Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: September 30, 2003

IBM on Tuesday announced a design that it says paves the way for cell phone chips that use only one-fifth as much power as today's processors.

To make those chips possible, the company is marrying several manufacturing advances that previously were seen as incompatible. Under its new process, IBM said it can build silicon germanium bipolar chips on a special type of thin wafer, known as silicon on insulator (SOI). Previously, SOI was primarily used for making traditional CMOS chips that use complementary metal-oxide semiconductor technology.

The technique should allow chip designers to mix many more types of circuits on a single wafer than had been possible before, said Tak Ning, a fellow at IBM's Watson Research Lab in Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

"We are challenging the circuit designers to come up with novel circuits," Ning said.

IBM said chips made with the new process could be coming off production lines in about five years. The new chip design could eventually find its way into a variety of uses, IBM said, such as providing cars with "smart cruise control" and collision-avoidance systems or boosting the power of a cell phone to handle tasks such as video playback.

Advancing the state of the art in power management has been a key goal for chipmakers such as Intel and IBM. While a long-running PC processor war has been all about cranking clock speed up to the next gigahertz, much of the chip industry is focused on how to create chips that run at more modest speeds but consume low amounts of power.

Earlier this month, for example, Advanced Micro Devices showed off an experimental transistor with three gates. Intel outlined plans for a similar transistor in June.

IBM is presenting details of its design at the 2003 Bipolar/BiCMOS Circuits and Technology Meeting in Toulouse, France.
 
or maybe this too

In its latest step toward utility computing, IBM is offering to let customers use the Internet to tap into the horsepower of servers that run a variety of operating systems.

The company's new "virtual server services," announced Tuesday, involve letting customers access the computing power of IBM xSeries, pSeries and iSeries machines. These servers run, respectively, Windows; AIX, IBM's version of Unix; and OS/400, another IBM operating system.

Utility computing refers to a push to harness computing power as though it were a traditional utility service such as electricity, in which users pay for the amount they consume and don't have to worry about the underlying technology.

In keeping with IBM's on-demand initiative, customers who sign on for the offering will pay only for the computing power and capacity they need, IBM said. Businesses could cut their costs 30 percent by using the service rather than installing an in-house computing system, according to IBM.

The new service involves having companies share IBM server computers, said Mike Riegel, director of marketing in IBM's services wing. That can raise concerns about keeping critical company data secure. But Riegel said that customer agreements address that worry and that Big Blue offers tools to let customers verify the security of their data. Although some clients prefer to have some of their computing infrastructure on IBM machines that are dedicated to them alone, the lower cost of the shared, totally "virtual" method is a big seller, Riegel said.

"Invariably, when they see the cost savings, they get pretty excited about the all-virtual approach," he said.

The announcement builds on a previous IBM offer to let customers access mainframe computers that run Linux. It demonstrates that IBM is serious about its utility computing efforts, said David Tapper, senior analyst at research firm IDC.
 
...

Well, if IBM is fabbing the Xbox2 CPU, then whose CPU is IBM fabbing anyway??? Transmeta? Via??? While IBM does hold an X86 license, it surely doesn't have an updated inhouse core to compete with Intel or AMD, so they must be fabbing someone else's design.

Since the only X86 processor IBM currently fabs is Transmeta, seems that Xbox2 will be having a Transmeta...
 
I was under the impression TSMC was doing Transmeta's fabbing, did this change recently or did i just miss something?
 
Interesting that IBM might have a hand in all 3 next-gen consoles.

no more interesting than the fact that ATI might have a hand in all 3 next-gen consoles.

-ATI is designing the Nintendo GPU
-ATI is designing the XBox 2 GPU
-ATI might possibily be working with Sony on shader technology for PS3
(Sony will have its own GPU for PS3, regardless)

Well, if IBM is fabbing the Xbox2 CPU, then whose CPU is IBM fabbing anyway???

good question.


I would say though, dispite this rumor, it is 95% percent certain that XBox 2 will use either an Intel or AMD CPU of some sort.
 
The old NEC rumor was about a graphics controller (or at least something directly related to visuals - it was poorly worded), not a CPU.
 
Brimstone said:
VPU: ATI fabricated by Micron

If IBM were doing the CPU, why not involve them with some engineering efforts and fabbing the VPU as well? Would seem a good opportunity to make them complimentary as possible.
 
Speaking on Transmeta.....

NEWZOR Efficeon CPU!!!!1 :oops:
efficeon_sysblock.jpg


Integrated features of the Transmeta Efficeon processor include:

-On-chip HyperTransportâ„¢ bus interface, for increased input/output efficiency.
-On-chip Double Date Rate 400 (DDR-400) SDRAM memory interface.
DR-400 SDRAM substantially increases throughput over earlier DDR-266 interfaces.
-On-chip AGP-4X graphics interface for industry standard, high performance graphics solutions.
-On-chip industry standard Low Pin Count (LPC) bus, allowing it to communicate with new, high-density LPC Flash memories

http://www.transmeta.com/efficeon/
 
cthellis42 said:
Brimstone said:
VPU: ATI fabricated by Micron

If IBM were doing the CPU, why not involve them with some engineering efforts and fabbing the VPU as well? Would seem a good opportunity to make them complimentary as possible.

I mainly mention Micron for the two reasons, cost and technology. Right now Micron has to be close to being desperate to find revenue. This need for revenue and having world class technology makes them a good canidate for fitting in with Microsoft desires.

If this rumor is true, I doubt Microsoft would get a CPU cheap from IBM. I'd think IBM would probably be more expensive than an Intel or AMD alternative. How much cheaper could IBM offer a CPU to Microsoft for? Not much if at all. Also the problem with it being non-x86 would just be a headache they don't need. An IBM CPU would probably be chosen for the raw performance it would offer in comparison to an x86 CPU. As long as an IBM CPU had a great performance advantage, I don't think Microsoft would mind the hassle of dealing with x86 legacy problems.
 
...

I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that MS might attempt to port NT kernel to Transmeta native code and compile Xbox2 titles as native binaries instead of going through the translator? This way, you can guarantee near 100% backward compatibility for legacy titles, while enjoying a substantial performance gain under native titles???
 
You would still need to do code morphing for current Xbox titles: you are not required to use the Windows 2k kernel nor DirectX, all programs run in ring 0 and can bypass system calls where the programmers see it fit.
 
Has anyone considered that TeamXbox.com's source might have meant GPU instead of CPU? Think about it for a second. Microsoft has licensed the IP (intellectual property) from ATI which means Microsoft is responsible for getting the GPU fabbed. Considering IBM has some great fab technologies and plants, I think this makes for a good match.

I can't see Microsoft going with any other CPU architecture other than and x86 derivitive. Not that IBM couldn't fab that, just seems more likely that they might be fabbing the GPU instead.
 
Back
Top