JP Morgan report on Xbox 2
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Megadrive1988
Veteran
there should be no debate about Xbox 2 needing or getting a GPU in the R5xx family. there is no way in hell R420 or another R4xx chip would be acceptable in 2006 and beyond. R420 and its refresh would be horribly outdated by 2006-2007, while still needing to last until at least 2009 until Xbox3 arrives. (if there is one!) There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft is looking to *at least* a R5xx-based GPU, if not R6xx. I think MS is wondering if R5xx will be enough to counter PS3. Since the current in-development R500 is supposed to be the original R400+ and the original R500 is now going to be R600 (unless i'm mistaken) I think MS should aim for R6xx.
remember the early speculation about the first X-Box in 1999 and early 2000 centered around the use of NV10 (GeForce256), I doubt anyone outside Nvidia & MS back then would have guessed that Xbox would ultimately use something beyond NV20.
remember the early speculation about the first X-Box in 1999 and early 2000 centered around the use of NV10 (GeForce256), I doubt anyone outside Nvidia & MS back then would have guessed that Xbox would ultimately use something beyond NV20.
Hehe, nice. I personally liked the original X-Box prototypes:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/business/20000328/index-01.html
http://www4.tomshardware.com/business/20000328/index-01.html
Quincy:
You know what Quincy? Unter normal circumstances, I wouldn't reply to such off-topic remarks that have absolutely no relevance to what Guden Oden said nor the topic at hand - but the remark that started this really got me thinking, let me requote:
Hard to tell what ones definition of a "high performance computer" is, though lets just take a look at this generation for a moment. Xbox marketed as being the 'most powerful' console has failed completely in matching Sony's PS2 in both profits or sales wise. One could even argue it's a complete disaster actually, though I note the fact that Microsoft obviously has the cash and is in it for the long run afterall. Still, recent reports and Microsofts latest public decision makings seem to confirm that they have wisend up and will try to make some money next generation - or at least, not as many losses. After this generation, they should have learned one important thing: Hardware wasn't the deciding factor, obviously. It is somewhat logical that they will shift their main focus with the next xbox. Currently, I think Microsoft has room for two main choices: an early launch with okay-ish hardware (perhaps end 2004 / beginning 2005) - still a powerful IBM CPU (3 dual cores?) and a r420 - OR a later launch head on or after PS3 with perhaps the r500 or higher variants. I really do doubt Microsoft could launch early with the "high end performance computer" you are arguing it to be. We'll see though - but until then, I will remain very skeptic. Personally I think MS will opt for the earlier launch window with more reasonable specs, as Gudon Oden is arguing - having high-end specs AND an early launch is just very unrealistic, unless you care to prove us wrong..
As for your reply to the above comment:
...
I think Sony is in a very different position in planing ahead, given that while MS is counting how many losses they made, Kutaragi & Co. are looking back at a VERY successful generation, not only beating their competition in the multiple millions combined but also making money at the same time. I would think that their projected sales for next generation is in a very different world compared to Microsoft that hardly got close a few times while loosing money at the same time.
In other words, since Sony also has a lot of control given they are fabbing their own chips, I think we can agree on them being in a very comfortable situation. In other words, even if they go for the risky high-end specs - they have the numbers on their side, unlike MS to pull it through while profiting - again!
Qroach said:
You know what Quincy? Unter normal circumstances, I wouldn't reply to such off-topic remarks that have absolutely no relevance to what Guden Oden said nor the topic at hand - but the remark that started this really got me thinking, let me requote:
Guden Oden said:
Hard to tell what ones definition of a "high performance computer" is, though lets just take a look at this generation for a moment. Xbox marketed as being the 'most powerful' console has failed completely in matching Sony's PS2 in both profits or sales wise. One could even argue it's a complete disaster actually, though I note the fact that Microsoft obviously has the cash and is in it for the long run afterall. Still, recent reports and Microsofts latest public decision makings seem to confirm that they have wisend up and will try to make some money next generation - or at least, not as many losses. After this generation, they should have learned one important thing: Hardware wasn't the deciding factor, obviously. It is somewhat logical that they will shift their main focus with the next xbox. Currently, I think Microsoft has room for two main choices: an early launch with okay-ish hardware (perhaps end 2004 / beginning 2005) - still a powerful IBM CPU (3 dual cores?) and a r420 - OR a later launch head on or after PS3 with perhaps the r500 or higher variants. I really do doubt Microsoft could launch early with the "high end performance computer" you are arguing it to be. We'll see though - but until then, I will remain very skeptic. Personally I think MS will opt for the earlier launch window with more reasonable specs, as Gudon Oden is arguing - having high-end specs AND an early launch is just very unrealistic, unless you care to prove us wrong..
As for your reply to the above comment:
Qroach said:
...
I think Sony is in a very different position in planing ahead, given that while MS is counting how many losses they made, Kutaragi & Co. are looking back at a VERY successful generation, not only beating their competition in the multiple millions combined but also making money at the same time. I would think that their projected sales for next generation is in a very different world compared to Microsoft that hardly got close a few times while loosing money at the same time.
In other words, since Sony also has a lot of control given they are fabbing their own chips, I think we can agree on them being in a very comfortable situation. In other words, even if they go for the risky high-end specs - they have the numbers on their side, unlike MS to pull it through while profiting - again!
I don't agree .
Last gen there were more factors than just hardware .
If the xbox and ps2 both launched at the same time with the specs the both had then i really believe that the xbox would have been a much closer number 2 mabye even number 1 . The hardware was more powerfully and looking at the games the first generation games actually looked good and better than what was out from older systems at the time (dreamcast / ps2 ) Where as the ps2 games were at best on par with the dreamcast games .
That said if ms can not only keep the performance crown in the hardware but also have an easier to develop for console they will gain alot of market share this generation .
While programers are trying to figure out how to get the best performance out of cell others will be getting beautifull graphics out of the r500 or r600. Not to mention a ton of new pc games that could easily be ported to the xbox 2 .
It can be a whole diffrent game next gen for everyone .
Even nintendo can come out of no where and offer a very strong and polished line up and take first place .
Last gen there were more factors than just hardware .
If the xbox and ps2 both launched at the same time with the specs the both had then i really believe that the xbox would have been a much closer number 2 mabye even number 1 . The hardware was more powerfully and looking at the games the first generation games actually looked good and better than what was out from older systems at the time (dreamcast / ps2 ) Where as the ps2 games were at best on par with the dreamcast games .
That said if ms can not only keep the performance crown in the hardware but also have an easier to develop for console they will gain alot of market share this generation .
While programers are trying to figure out how to get the best performance out of cell others will be getting beautifull graphics out of the r500 or r600. Not to mention a ton of new pc games that could easily be ported to the xbox 2 .
It can be a whole diffrent game next gen for everyone .
Even nintendo can come out of no where and offer a very strong and polished line up and take first place .
randycat99
Veteran
Ahh yes, the "headstart" argument rewrapped anew once again... Also, if they did launch closer together, the Xbox would logically have less powerful hardware (than the one that exists as we know it today), as well. So you could just as well argue the implications would be a wash and we would have the exact same outcome we have today- MS coming in at a distant 2nd (or maybe even 3rd, behind Nin) because that is the way things were intended to happen.
Also, if they did launch closer together, the Xbox would logically have less powerful hardware (than the one that exists as we know it today), as well. So you could just as well argue the implications would be a wash and we would have the exact same outcome we have today- MS coming in at a distant 2nd (or maybe even 3rd, behind Nin) because that is the way things were intended to happen. Phil,
look, guden's comment of MS giving a high performance computer was basically foolish. I responded with a question just as foolish using SONY instead. The fact he replied back with a "sony has nothing to do with this discussion" really made me laugh, as he was the one that posted the high performance computer question to begin with. What does a high performance computers have to do with a discussion about the graphics chip in xbox 2? In reality, nothing.
To answer his question honestly, no I don't think MS is going to provide a high performance computer, but that really depends on what HE thinks is a high performance computer. Obviously since people were talking about a multi core power PC chip and a R500 class graphics chip, guden seemed to think this would make xbox 2 a "high performance computer" and that must have been the basis of his comment. Personally, I don't think these parts would classify as that at all..
Um, where is guden oden arguing this at all? I haven't been arguing launch time frames related to hardware costs, as i know the earliest Xbox 2 could launch is fall 2005. Guden isn't arguing about launch windows related to cost or parts used, he's arguing that a R500 no matter what the launch time (even fall 2005) is going to be too expensive to use. I've yet to see anything that supports that theory.
Like I said before, MS is cutting costs by approaching the creation of the console differently and guden ignored this. Guden mention how MS went to a arbritrator with Nvidia ove rthe cost of the graphics chips in his argument. Despite the fact I already mentioned MS is completely going about the creation of graphics chips differently and will be in direct control of the cost per chip over time. With Nvidia MS never had the luxury becuase Nvidia was didn't have to lower thier price over time if they didn't want to.
THis time MS are handling the fabbing of the chips and licensing the technology instead of paying for fabbed chips delivered from Nvidia and intel. They are going to save quite a lot of money doing this compared to the original xbox/nvidia contract.
Yes MS is cautious about cost, that much is obvious, but I don't think they want to fall into the catagory of being less powerfull than the PS3 as Sony has already demonstrated how they can destroy a competitor on hype alone (R.I.P. dreamcast). MS tried this approach with xbox, but it's pretty difficult to utilize that when the compeition has a huge lead in game software and developer support (mainly EA as teh dreamcast never had them), no matter how good your specs are. This time around I can see MS launching before sony, but I don't think it will be long before sony. At most I can see it being 6 months.
Anyway, MS using a R500-ish chip in xbox 2 is certainly not out of the question when I'm sure it will cost less then the graphic chip they paid for in the current xbox. Phil, do you agree with that, or are you agreeing wit guden on his R500 is too expensive argument. Keep in mind, nobody was arguing on cost related to launch time frames in this discussion.
look, guden's comment of MS giving a high performance computer was basically foolish. I responded with a question just as foolish using SONY instead. The fact he replied back with a "sony has nothing to do with this discussion" really made me laugh, as he was the one that posted the high performance computer question to begin with. What does a high performance computers have to do with a discussion about the graphics chip in xbox 2? In reality, nothing.
To answer his question honestly, no I don't think MS is going to provide a high performance computer, but that really depends on what HE thinks is a high performance computer. Obviously since people were talking about a multi core power PC chip and a R500 class graphics chip, guden seemed to think this would make xbox 2 a "high performance computer" and that must have been the basis of his comment. Personally, I don't think these parts would classify as that at all..
Um, where is guden oden arguing this at all? I haven't been arguing launch time frames related to hardware costs, as i know the earliest Xbox 2 could launch is fall 2005. Guden isn't arguing about launch windows related to cost or parts used, he's arguing that a R500 no matter what the launch time (even fall 2005) is going to be too expensive to use. I've yet to see anything that supports that theory.
Like I said before, MS is cutting costs by approaching the creation of the console differently and guden ignored this. Guden mention how MS went to a arbritrator with Nvidia ove rthe cost of the graphics chips in his argument. Despite the fact I already mentioned MS is completely going about the creation of graphics chips differently and will be in direct control of the cost per chip over time. With Nvidia MS never had the luxury becuase Nvidia was didn't have to lower thier price over time if they didn't want to.
THis time MS are handling the fabbing of the chips and licensing the technology instead of paying for fabbed chips delivered from Nvidia and intel. They are going to save quite a lot of money doing this compared to the original xbox/nvidia contract.
Yes MS is cautious about cost, that much is obvious, but I don't think they want to fall into the catagory of being less powerfull than the PS3 as Sony has already demonstrated how they can destroy a competitor on hype alone (R.I.P. dreamcast). MS tried this approach with xbox, but it's pretty difficult to utilize that when the compeition has a huge lead in game software and developer support (mainly EA as teh dreamcast never had them), no matter how good your specs are. This time around I can see MS launching before sony, but I don't think it will be long before sony. At most I can see it being 6 months.
Anyway, MS using a R500-ish chip in xbox 2 is certainly not out of the question when I'm sure it will cost less then the graphic chip they paid for in the current xbox. Phil, do you agree with that, or are you agreeing wit guden on his R500 is too expensive argument. Keep in mind, nobody was arguing on cost related to launch time frames in this discussion.
Yes, I think we already know this and I mentioned it earlier.
Um, what point was proved exactly? So what if MS is fabless, we already knew this was the case. MS paying IBM to fab thier chips is still less costly then MS paying Nvidia or Intel for each individual chip since they are tacking on thier profit margins, and in the case of nvidia they are ALSO fabless and didn't want to pass on cost savings over time to MS.
MS is now in direct control of the fabbing as I already stated numerous times, and they can better control cost over time.
it may end up being more cost effected than having their own fab . After all it would cost billions to build it. millions to keep upgrading it and millions to maintain it .
This way ibm pays all of that ms just pays for the chips. They can move to diffrent processes as ibm has them ready. They will get the chips cheaper as yields improve.
Its much better than the way it was under nvidia where nvidia could have kept charging the same prices even if if the chip cost half as much .
...
jvd has the situation accessed correctly.
In a way, this PSX3 vs Xbox Next situation is a repeat of Saturn Vs PSX fiasco of 90's. The Saturn was technically more powerful(PSX couldn't possibly do Shen Mue Saturn on its best day) than the PSX but the programmability issue tanked it. Likewise the PSX3 architecture raises the programmability issue to new extreme and Xbox Next benefits immensely from certain SCEI executive's poor judgement.
MS is playing its cards right this time. The Xbox Next will launch first, and its simplier architecture will allow games to improve quickly to the point where contemporary Xbox Next titles doesn't show any graphical difference from contemporary PSX3 titles. The only way MS could blow it again is if they run out of money like Sega did but money is not a question here, so the 5th gen race victory is MS's to lose.
jvd has the situation accessed correctly.
In a way, this PSX3 vs Xbox Next situation is a repeat of Saturn Vs PSX fiasco of 90's. The Saturn was technically more powerful(PSX couldn't possibly do Shen Mue Saturn on its best day) than the PSX but the programmability issue tanked it. Likewise the PSX3 architecture raises the programmability issue to new extreme and Xbox Next benefits immensely from certain SCEI executive's poor judgement.
MS is playing its cards right this time. The Xbox Next will launch first, and its simplier architecture will allow games to improve quickly to the point where contemporary Xbox Next titles doesn't show any graphical difference from contemporary PSX3 titles. The only way MS could blow it again is if they run out of money like Sega did but money is not a question here, so the 5th gen race victory is MS's to lose.
Quincy:
To be fair, it was JVD (not Guden Oden!) that started the high-end remark - I trust it is being perceived as such as it undoubtedly is the upcoming top GPU by ATi down the road. Obviously, I have no idea what the cost is to make these chips, not to mention the R&D that is required for one that is projected to launch 1+ year down the road - I assume you don't either, but given that it is the top GPU coming, I can only assume it's going to be more expensive as well (applying commonsense here). I do wonder however, is this chip really in the works already or is it pure hyperware at this stage? If it isn't, in which stages is it currently?
I was under the impression we were talking about an earlier launch, as speculated in the JP Morgan article linked in this very thread as well as other recent reports that indicate a launch earlier than expected:
We were discussing the above article, so I take this as a clear indication that we are speculating over the an early launch as soon as near end of CY04. Given the early launch, I wonder if speculation on a r500 or higher variants is all that valid? Surely, a r500 for that timeframe is quite unrealistic, don't you agree?
Of course, as I am aware now, you were obviously arguing with different timeframes at hand (fall 2005), though I ought to remind you that we were discussing the article which obviously caused some misunderstanding in the process. I think for a fall 2005 launch, a r500 or equivilant variant isn't far fetched - but if Microsoft seriously wants to beat Sony to the market, I am overly confident we won't be seeing such a GPU in the next Xbox.
True they are, though they are only controlling who is fabbing their chips. That basically means that they have more control on the place and the company behind the fabbing giving them a price advantage compared to this generation, but fabbing won't be for free by any means. Them licencing technology and fabbing it by IBM is still going to be more expensive then Sony's in-house strategy, I'm sure.
Personally, I doubt Microsoft is shifting much focus in a "who really has the most powerful hardware" strategy. CELL will have advantages and so will Xbox's in specific areas - may it be a r420 or something higher. In the end, it's all going to be a marketing fest being fought on the grounds of misleading numbers just to impress the consumer. In the end, I think it will matter very little who actually has the 'more powerful' hardware - which of course, will be all relative anyway since they all have their advantages, just like in todays consoles aswell.
Certainly, given that you are refering to a late 2005 launch. In speculation of the article though that states a launch as early as late CY04, I doubt will see much more than a r420 based on the reasons that it is far too early and cost is a valid concern for a date as soon as that.
Bah, definately time I get to bed now though - I have no intention of missing the formula 1 race in a little less than 6 hours!
Qroach said:
To be fair, it was JVD (not Guden Oden!) that started the high-end remark - I trust it is being perceived as such as it undoubtedly is the upcoming top GPU by ATi down the road. Obviously, I have no idea what the cost is to make these chips, not to mention the R&D that is required for one that is projected to launch 1+ year down the road - I assume you don't either, but given that it is the top GPU coming, I can only assume it's going to be more expensive as well (applying commonsense here). I do wonder however, is this chip really in the works already or is it pure hyperware at this stage? If it isn't, in which stages is it currently?
Qroach said:
I was under the impression we were talking about an earlier launch, as speculated in the JP Morgan article linked in this very thread as well as other recent reports that indicate a launch earlier than expected:
JP Mporgan article said:
We were discussing the above article, so I take this as a clear indication that we are speculating over the an early launch as soon as near end of CY04. Given the early launch, I wonder if speculation on a r500 or higher variants is all that valid? Surely, a r500 for that timeframe is quite unrealistic, don't you agree?
Of course, as I am aware now, you were obviously arguing with different timeframes at hand (fall 2005), though I ought to remind you that we were discussing the article which obviously caused some misunderstanding in the process. I think for a fall 2005 launch, a r500 or equivilant variant isn't far fetched - but if Microsoft seriously wants to beat Sony to the market, I am overly confident we won't be seeing such a GPU in the next Xbox.
Qroach said:
True they are, though they are only controlling who is fabbing their chips. That basically means that they have more control on the place and the company behind the fabbing giving them a price advantage compared to this generation, but fabbing won't be for free by any means. Them licencing technology and fabbing it by IBM is still going to be more expensive then Sony's in-house strategy, I'm sure.
Qroach said:
Personally, I doubt Microsoft is shifting much focus in a "who really has the most powerful hardware" strategy. CELL will have advantages and so will Xbox's in specific areas - may it be a r420 or something higher. In the end, it's all going to be a marketing fest being fought on the grounds of misleading numbers just to impress the consumer. In the end, I think it will matter very little who actually has the 'more powerful' hardware - which of course, will be all relative anyway since they all have their advantages, just like in todays consoles aswell.
Qroach said:
Certainly, given that you are refering to a late 2005 launch. In speculation of the article though that states a launch as early as late CY04, I doubt will see much more than a r420 based on the reasons that it is far too early and cost is a valid concern for a date as soon as that.
Bah, definately time I get to bed now though - I have no intention of missing the formula 1 race in a little less than 6 hours!
randycat99 said:Ahh yes, the "headstart" argument rewrapped anew once again...
well said, though I deliberatly won't reply to his post, nor do I hope anyone else will bother either. If that does happen, god help us, as we'll have Lazy8s coming in with the Naomi2 again......
in much hope that we can finally leave such pointless debates that have been fought to no end in the past and just move on!
Megadrive1988
Veteran
I cannot imagine MS selecting anything less than a r500
does anyone think something less than a r500 (i.e. r420, r480) could possibly stand against PS3?
does anyone think something less than a r500 (i.e. r420, r480) could possibly stand against PS3?
well we do not know when the r500 will be ready. Most of us are talking about 2005 . But you never know. From what I understand most of the r400 has been turned into the r500. I'm also sure that ati now has a team working specificly on the version that will go into teh xbox 2 .
So i honestly think that the console version can be ready up to 6 months sooner than the pc version .
So i honestly think that the console version can be ready up to 6 months sooner than the pc version .
actually, JVD only mentioned a high end video chip. Guden mentioned a high end "high end computer".
ATI and Nvidia both work on multiple chips at once, and they typically work on designs for chips 2 or 3 versions ahead of what is released on the market. Of course R 500 is in teh works, ATi started work on it probably a 6 months to a year ago (possibly longer.
Anyway, you guys keep saying more expensive, more expensive then what exactly? the processors on the market today? Sure any chip is expensive when it first comes out, but that cost is driven down over time and as more chips are made.
No we weren't arguing about the article at all as it's already been dismissed as complete fiction. MS isn't going to launch xbox 2 tis year, if they did, they wouldn't have any software available for it. Not only that, they don't have final development systems yet. There are Xbox 2 specs out there, (not copletel, but they give a far more detailed picture then what the speculation in that article was giving. Not only that, but if the article writter knew the specs they wouldn't have been so in correct on specific area.
zidane1strife
Banned
Indeed, a modded-R-500 or R-500s with multi-core pPC chip, could very well be beyond a high-end pc of the time...
PS
As for ms, you play with fire, and you might very well get burned... I'm sure their nasty lw blow aginst lnx, will be kindly repaid by Ibm... either with yields or with da contract or maybe something much worse....
