IBM's new Xbox2 role?

[Fox5]

Remember that the majority of console software houses need kits 2 years prior.

Pretty sure xbox didn't have that.(I don't think gamecube did outside of a few key developers, otherwise why did factor 5 keep talking about a 9 month dev cycle for rogue leader?) It was ok then because it was similar to a PC architecture, and I guess allowed for quick change overs of already in production PC games, or they could just being producing a game for a PC and optimize it for xbox later. If xbox 2 still uses PC hardware, it could help a lot. Then again, powerpc would be fine too, as it is at least a well known architecture.


Hey, won't microsoft be about making a profit on xbox at $200 by 2004, how could they even think of breaking even on a new system at $200, and probably not $300 either.

 

[cybamerc]

Johnny Awesome:

> Change to a 3 year cycle, but launch at $200.

I don't think that will happen, at least not with the current business model. A 3 year cycle isn't much time to recoup the investment leaving little room for error. But more importantly 3 years is basically what it takes to to finish a medium to large production these days and it'll only take longer as we move forward. If you intend to mess with the standard 5 year cycle it would require a completely different set-up and a completely different product. At the very least it would require an almost transparent transition because there will be little time to optimize for the new hardware should you miss a cycle.

> No PC port has ever really helped the Xbox.

Halo and Splinter Cell. I don't care that they were partially redesigned for Xbox. They were PC games that were moved to Xbox. The Xbox being a PC by design is an undeniable advantage. It has attracted traditional PC developers to the platform and made Xbox the lead platform on many titles because of the familiar development environment.




Qroach:

> Cybermerc always talks like that.

While the virtual bond between you two is just adorable, personal chit-chat is better saved for PMs. If you have something relevant to say (ha! who am I kidding?) do so in a direct response.

> Well, if they copied nintendo right now, MS would be in a worse
> postition in thier two main countries.

As usual the point went straight over your head.

> Anyway, fall 2004 is possible, but for JAPAN and not anywhere else.

I doubt M$ will launch in Japan. The US is their main market and they need software to succeed. Launching Xbox 2 in Japan without a proper software line-up would be a recipe for disaster.




AlphaWolf:

> Well if xbox titles run on xbox2, how would the release of xbox2 hurt
> their sales?

Because sales on one platform would come at the sacrifice of sales on the other. People won't buy Xbox 2 to play Xbox 1 software.




Li Mu Bai:

> Why are we all operating under the assumption that IBM is providing
> Nintendo's next Cpu?

Because it's the most likely scenario. As I said at GA the NEC rumor was about a graphics controller, not CPU.




Fafalada:

> 98 was repackaged 95 OSR2 with a butchered GUI

Indeed! Win 95 shell forever!!! (until OS X on x86 that is. Or Adobe supports Linux... whichever comes first ).




Fox5:

> Pretty sure xbox didn't have that.

It didn't but going from PC to Xbox was/is almost trivial. With Cube you had emulators 1.5+ year in advance and hardware a year prior to release. PS2 was about the same AFAIK. Also, next gen development is going to be much more time consuming increasing the necessity of having access to hardware early on.





BTW, who are the people still voting for x86?

 

[GHost]

BTW, who are the people still voting for x86?

Well I did. And that's because:

1) MS can't launch by 2005 a Longhorn on x86, and that alone pretty much rules out a PPC port.
2) Haven't seen the actual agreement, but there was no PPC to see in the reports.

 

[wazoo]

a 3 year cycle, even if it makes sense on the paper and Johnny said clearly how and under what circumstances it could make sense, would be a terrible thing in reality because

1/ casual consumers do not count as we do and they do not like the idea of ever changing their console. They are perfectly fine with the 5 year cycle.

2/ from a game perspective, remove all games produced on any console in the past during its mast 2 year and you get only rushed games, depth lacking games, technical demos

3/ from a dev perspective it implies a ever learning new hardware scheme without the benefit of doing more arts and less technical at the end of the gen

 

[hey69]

taken from xbox-scene dot com

MS/IBM may still use x86 in Xbox2 ?
>> Yesterday wired.com launched the idea that as MS chose IBM to make the CPU for the 'Xbox Next' chances were high it would be a cpu based on the PowerPC 970 (similar to the G5 processor that powers Apple's developed jointly by IBM, Apple and Motorola).

More articles came out today with other possibilities.
From newsfactor.com:

Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds questioned whether the IBM supplied chip would be PowerPC architecture. Much of the Xbox software is based on Windows code, he said. "If Microsoft goes away from an x86 processor, they're going to have to maintain a separate code base, and that just doesn't make any sense," he told NewsFactor.
The IBM Xbox processor actually might be an x86 processor, he said. "IBM could get that license from AMD," he pointed out. "We know that IBM and AMD have a relationship, so it's possible that IBM could build the AMD architecture and deliver it in the Xbox package."
As a possible alternative, IBM may have an opportunity to integrate the functions performed by more than one of the Xbox's chips into a single chip, providing significant cost cutting, Reynolds said.

IBM will not actually need to rewrite the code for a PowerPC chip, but merely recompile it, Aberdeen analyst Russ Craig said. "My guess is that there's probably a fairly easy switch."
Craig speculated that IBM will supply Microsoft with the same processor it supplies to Nintendo, which is the PowerPC. Additionally, since IBM is developing an ultra-fast processor for Sony's Playstation, "it could be that IBM has done some tweaks to an architecture that may be better for game machines than a Pentium."

To ensure backward compatibility, Microsoft reportedly will use the Virtual PC technology it acquired from Connectix last year, although using Virtual PC technology would be a performance detriment, Reynolds said.

Read more about it on newsfactor.com and also check out the article on theregister.co.uk

 

[zurich]

However if IBM did license K8 from AMD, most of the Xbox games would most likely use x86-64, and when they are ported to the PC, will actually take advantage of the ISA... this would be a huge win in support for AMD.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Because it's the most likely scenario. As I said at GA the NEC rumor was about a graphics controller, not CPU.

Cybamerc, simply because it's the most likely scenario does not mean it's a certainty by any means. Could you have even made a wild speculation that MS would dump Intel, dismiss AMD, for IBM? NEC has the technology & proficiency to be more than competetive, alter one of their numerous working design chips as well as fab them. It still remains a distinct possibility, whether it was initially for some form of a Gpu controller or not, you don't think they would rather possess the sole Cpu contract? I would have to disagree, also why no word by now? We have known about Art-X/ATi contract for quite some time now. All those Nintendo/NEC/ARM/Cray etc. rumors didn't materialize from nowhere.

 

[PC-Engine]

Li Mu Bai, thanks for mentioning the MP98. It's a very interesting processor especially for 2000. I also like the idea behind NEC's DRP (Dynamically Reconfigurable Processor). They have so many different working concepts and technologies to draw upon for designing a unique microprocessor solution for Nintendo's N5. BTW do you have any information on V.I.R.A.?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1154901,00.asp

 

[_phil_]

wazoo :

4/ maybe MS want to play the "Easy developpement" .On a 3 years cycle ,it would becomes even more cruxial.(quality/cost/time + better public perception)

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Li Mu Bai, thanks for mentioning the MP98. It's a very interesting processor especially for 2000. I also like the idea behind NEC's DRP (Dynamically Reconfigurable Processor). They have so many different working concepts and technologies to draw upon for designing a unique microprocessor solution for Nintendo's N5. BTW do you have any information on V.I.R.A.?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1154901,00.asp

V.I.R.A. links & info, these are its specs I believe:
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0302/1001.html

Technology: 0.18 mm CMOS, 7-Metal
Supply Voltage: 1.8V (Internal), 3.3V (I/O)
Clock: 100MHz(at 1.8V)
Number of Trs.: 32.7M
Area: 11mm x 11mm
Number of Pins: 332 (Signal), 500 (Total)
Power: 2.5W - 4W (at 1.8V)
Performance: 51.2GOPS (at 1.8V)
I-Cache: 32kB (2 Way Set Associative, 256B Line)
D-Cache: 2kB (2 Way Set Associative, 64B Line)
Image RAM: 256kB (2kB x 128)
Instruction Issue: Max. 4 issue x 128 Processing Elements
Data: 16 bit x 1, 8bit x 128
Bus Interface: 64b SDRAM, 32b PCI/CPU, I2C

 

[nondescript]

Li Mu Bai, thanks for mentioning the MP98. It's a very interesting processor especially for 2000. I also like the idea behind NEC's DRP (Dynamically Reconfigurable Processor). They have so many different working concepts and technologies to draw upon for designing a unique microprocessor solution for Nintendo's N5. BTW do you have any information on V.I.R.A.?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1154901,00.asp

Whoa, this is sweet...it'd be awesome if N5 used something like this. The power constraints of today's technology is pushing processor design away from super-pipelined x86 processors to alternative massively parallel architectures.

 

[AzBat]

As of 2:15pm CST today and 49 votes here's how the results look...

40.8% believe IBM will provide some form of PowerPC processor
26.5% believe IBM will provide some form of x86 processor
42.9% believe IBM will be providing more ICs than just a CPU

This doesn't include the 4 votes that specified 'Other'.

I myself initially selected 'x86 CPU provider and GPU manufacturer', but currently I'm not sure what to think. I was thinking that more details would have leaked out, but the only thing was the continuing "insider reports" of IBM manufacturing a PowerPC processor. I'm still not sold on the idea. Especially considering that my sources initially heard that AMD would be providing the CPU. Things change I know, but I keep thinking the PowerPC architecture makes things much more complicated for potential Xbox1 compatibility. I guess it all depends on when they expect to ship. If it's early, then they may go with something quick and easy(read: x86). However, if they decide to go with late 2005 release, then they may have enough time to choose and work on an different architecture(read: PowerPC). I don't know. Can't wait for Winter CES to see if Mr. Gates announces their plans.

Tommy McClain

 

[Megadrive1988]

All those Nintendo/NEC/ARM/Cray etc. rumors didn't materialize from nowhere

I've heard of these before, but where did they originate from?

if anyone could provide links to where the rumors came from, like message boards, websites, usenet posts, etc., I'd like to see them since i'm interested in anything on the N5 CPU.
like every gamer of course

 

[Dave Baumann]

news.com[/url]]"Manufacturing is not part of the agreement yet. It is up to them what they do with manufacturing," an IBM representative said.