IBM's new Xbox2 role?

What do you believe IBM's new Xbox2 role will be?

  • AMD x86 CPU provider

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Transmeta x86 provider

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • x86 provider(not sure which company)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • other IC(Northbridge, Southbridge, communications, etc) provider

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Just a foundry partner

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • PowerPC CPU provider and GPU manufacturer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • x86 CPU provider and GPU manufacturer

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Manufacturer of all 3 major chips(CPU,GPU and other IC)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    350

AzBat

Agent of the Bat
Legend
Guys,

I don't know about you but I'm more confused about the Xbox2 CPU plans more than ever. This announcement is not real specific and gives so many different possibilities for the Xbox2 CPU. In my poll I gave what I believe to be a pretty good list of those possibilities. If you select OTHER, please post here in detail why you voted that way.

Here are some links to some articles...

http://www.teamxbox.com/news.php?id=5075
http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1067882060.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113233,00.asp
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/33741.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5101146.html?tag=nefd_top
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/7172185.htm
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5101146.html

Personally, I think going with a non-x86 processor is crazy, because it could mean no Xbox1 compatibility, but if they were able to pull off the compatibility with emulation and a non-x86 CPU, then that wouldn't be so bad. What would be even crazier(as one of ther articles hinted above) is that Microsoft may not provide Xbox1 compatibility at all. Sounds like a death sentence to me.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what you guys think.

Tommy McClain
 
Here is another article, that does a better job of justifying the move to a PowerPC processor...

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20031103S0060

It also includes the comment that Bill Gates will unveil the Xbox2 in January with a possible delivery for Xmas 2004. Doesn't seem possible to me, but interesting nonetheless.

Tommy McClain
 
Fall 2004 is possible to me.

Did anyone expect ATI to be in Xbox2?

Did anyone expect IBM to be in Xbox2 in some way?

Get what I'm getting at? Not to mention, MS swore that Sony would not get a head start next gen, maybe a Fall 2004 launch is the reality here.
 
Well I would love to think they have something more ambitious planned than simply buying a slightly adapted G5 and a chipset ... but it seems rather doubtfull at this point, no time unless R&D was started a long time ago. How much leeway do public companies have to get large R&D efforts underway without it showing up on the books?
 
IBM and ATI in Xbox and Nintendo.

100% Speculation mode on now:

Odds that Nintendo sells out to MS 5 years from now and produces software for the MS console? From what I've read, Miyamoto has always said that the reason he likes Nintendo is that they have control over their hardware. However, now that it seems MS and Nintendo are going down similar design routes, could this make sense?

100% Speculation mode off.

Yea I know that was BS, but hey, I warned. :)
 
I voted PPC CPU provider. Maybe IBM will manufacture the GPU but there's no particular reason to think that. It's also far less relevant IMO.

It's funny how some people see that as move to match Sony with Cell but I see it more as walking in Nintendo's footsteps. For a company that constantly talks shit about Nintendo they sure do know where to look for directions. It's quite simple really. Xbox is a financial disaster, it's not selling that well and while they have the press on their side it's obvious that it can't continue this way. They need a viable business model and where better to look for inspiration than Nintendo? GameCube may not be selling a lot better than Xbox but Nintendo knows how to run a viable business.

It's a bit puzzling though because it does create some confusion as to what M$' intensions are. Not going with Nvidia was a bit of a surprise but mostly because of the issue of backwards compatibility - and that can be solved. Going with IBM instead of Intel (or alternatively AMD - and no, this is not M$ announcing that they are using AMD cpus fabbed by IBM) is a real shock however as seriously diminishes the one big advantage for the Xbox (aside from M$' wallet): easy porting from PC. Now porting code from an Intel architecture to PPC is hardly an impossible task and they still have DX but it does remove that natural advantage. Unless this is somehow indicative of the future of Windows (wider platform support). Very odd.

An even bigger shock would be the rumored holiday 2004 release date. Not only would it be an admission that the Xbox is a failure but it would be an extremely risky move that could either be a stroke of genius or just incredibly stupid. Somehow I doubt it's true though. You also need software and all of Xbox' big games have been delayed to 2004 - why undermine some potentially great sales.



AzBat:

> Personally, I think going with a non-x86 processor is crazy, because it
> could mean no Xbox1 compatibility

They would need some kind of emulator or wrapper anyway because of the switch to ATI. Perhaps relevant is M$' acquistion of Virtual PC from Connectix earlier this year.
 
Yes, because Microsoft is a company which is perfectly happy playing second fiddle ... I dont see them consciously trying to emulate Nintendo to gain profitability, they arent interested being in a market position simular to Nintendo's.
 
MfA:

> they arent interested being in a market position simular to Nintendo's.

No, but they've already tried throwing money after consumers and that didn't work. They are clearly looking to change their business model. What they save on the hardware they can use to buy off more developers.
 
Doesn't Sony own Connectix?
Bleh, anyhow, I don't think it'd be wise for any console to come out in 2004, many people wouldn't see a big enough difference in graphics ot think it's worthwhile. The difference would almost certainly be smaller than n64 to dreamcast, and the absolute best the console could probably have is a 4x increase over last gen, which would be like going from dreamcast to xbox, some people still don't see a big enough difference. Ok, maybe it would be big enough, but I still would like to see a larger step in between consoles.

BTW, wouldn't it be something if all those big xbox games delayed till 2004 are actually going to be xbox 2 launch titles?
 
Fox5:

> Doesn't Sony own Connectix?

No. Sony acquired Virtual Game Station from Connectix back in 2001 but that was it. M$ acquired a bunch of other stuff earlier this year but not the actual company AFAIK.
 
Paul said:
Fall 2004 is possible to me.

Ok, I agree it's possible. Guess I should have said "not probable" instead.

Paul said:
Did anyone expect ATI to be in Xbox2?

I did.

Paul said:
Did anyone expect IBM to be in Xbox2 in some way?

No.

Paul said:
Get what I'm getting at? Not to mention, MS swore that Sony would not get a head start next gen, maybe a Fall 2004 launch is the reality here.

I understand where you are going and you are right: anything is possible. With Halo2 and a variety of big name games coming out next year, I just think it's a little too early. They have the potential of pulling an Osborne on us(I used to have one).

Tommy McClain
 
So far with Xbox2, the opposite has happened with what most people expected. I wouldn't be surprised if we do see a Fall 2004 launch, even though I do think it is insane. But hey, it's possible.
 
cybamerc said:
AzBat said:
Personally, I think going with a non-x86 processor is crazy, because it could mean no Xbox1 compatibility

They would need some kind of emulator or wrapper anyway because of the switch to ATI. Perhaps relevant is M$' acquistion of Virtual PC from Connectix earlier this year.

DaveB as always stated that backward compatibility was a non-issue for Xbox2 and ATI graphics. I got the impression an emulator was not necessary. Now a small wrapper could be easily done.

As for Virtual PC, hadn't heard about that. I wonder how well that works? If it works well, then that possibly could be tuned to emulate Xbox. Man, this is crazy that we're talking about this!! :D

Tommy McClain
 
Fox5 said:
BTW, wouldn't it be something if all those big xbox games delayed till 2004 are actually going to be xbox 2 launch titles?

Possible? Yeah, but totally insane. I know I would be pissed to hear that I have to buy Xbox2 just to play Halo2. I won't be able to afford Xbox2 till drops below $200, in other words, not any time soon. ;)

Tommy McClain
 
cybamerc said:
It's funny how some people see that as move to match Sony with Cell but I see it more as walking in Nintendo's footsteps

Yes, look at the division with IBM that this deal was reached with. Although, I must confess I don't like the possibility of that the sales cycle getting shortened by such a large extend as was proposed/rumored. That is the most frightening aspect, IMHO.
 
Vince:

> Although, I must confess I don't like the possibility of that the sales
> cycle getting shortened by such a large extend as was proposed/rumored.

I won't rule out a holiday 2004 release. It's an interesting prospect though not very likely. That said, cycles are determined by the success of the system and noone is going to wait for Sony just because PS2 is selling great. It think it will be a much bigger issue next gen where the normal 5 year cycle won't be enough to fully exploit the hardware. If the cycle isn't extended you'll see lots of development teams only release one project in an entire generation. But again, if a system fails the manufacturer of that system will have to release a new one to keep the business going.
 
DaveBaumann said:
Another report:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565587439

IBM will provide its PowerPC microprocessor technology and is expected to combine several other chips into one or two core chips for the next Xbox. This would most likely include graphics chip technology from ATI Technologies of Canada, which in August won the contract from Nvidia, of the US.

Might open up the possibility of some architectural innovation. Interesting speculation stuff if so. The bed seems made for it. Although I have to say that the thought of IBM and Microsoft beancounters getting all chummy and friendlylike is about as scary a scenario I can picture.
 
While I still believe M$ is looking at ways to improve the economy behind the Xbox project another possible benifit of mimicking Nintendo could be to edge them out of the market.. If both manufactures have graphics by ATI and CPUs by IBM but M$ has the more powerful variations why would anyone go with Nintendo? When the chips are supplied by different vendors there's more room for argument whereas two chips from the same vendor allow for more direct comparisons. Of course this assumes that M$ will indeed get the more powerful hardware and that Nintendo will indeed choose IBM as its CPU partner (highly likely but not confirmed).

I don't mean to imply that hardware is everything or that M$' sole reason for going with ATI and IBM is tactics. But as I said, it could be "nice" side effect.
 
cybamerc said:
While I still believe M$ is looking at ways to improve the economy behind the Xbox project another possible benifit of mimicking Nintendo could be to edge them out of the market..

The basic STFT game strategy... Microsoft are teh evil communists. Mario can overcome this by teaming with an entity that allways chooses the devious path. :)
 
Back
Top