Microsoft moves into chip world with Xbox Next
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
Sony confirmed 65nm?! MS far outdated process!? proof? Talk without proof = .... thats right assumption! 
now now dont quote me those fancy sony PR, i like to see the real deal myself. not that it will never happen, but right not, your assumption is as good as mine.
whats your elegant/max specifications part trying to say? 
that PS3 is a confirmed maXxXed the X becoz is uses 65nm? even Pana, the Cell man, aint hot enough to make such bold claims! .. hmm..
And your last analogy...WTF??? kids? commandos? maybe if they are fighting at point blank, the commandos might be at a disadvantage(nothing stopping the coms from speedily snatching guns and breaking necks!). BUT never understimate the elites in a real fight!
now now dont quote me those fancy sony PR, i like to see the real deal myself. not that it will never happen, but right not, your assumption is as good as mine. You keep saying that, yet you have not touch on it in depth. and FYI, XboxNext = console.
And so....? Thank the software, i guess. hmmm..
whats your elegant/max specifications part trying to say?
that PS3 is a confirmed maXxXed the X becoz is uses 65nm? even Pana, the Cell man, aint hot enough to make such bold claims! .. hmm..And your last analogy...WTF???
kids? commandos? maybe if they are fighting at point blank, the commandos might be at a disadvantage(nothing stopping the coms from speedily snatching guns and breaking necks!). BUT never understimate the elites in a real fight!notAFanB said:er with all due respect they are rather different case with unique problems on each side, which the original point of my post.
and please for the love of god stop calling me a Sony fanny!
i am not calling YOU a sonny fanny. just sonny fanny in general of several members around. you can call me an Xfanny if you like!
anyway, didnt get your original point? what again? dont get it.
i was thinkg that, Nvidia likey the smaller die, decided to delay their NV30 core for 6months(?), yet the big die of R300 wins even it was earlier technology. hmmm..
they have the plant and are preparing it. whether they bring the thing up and running for production of PS3 is another point entirely.
MS has no process, they don't need one.
he means that the benchmarks and comparisons don't neccessarily translate well to console space, this includes but is not limited to:
different bandwidth requirements.
closed (balence?) platform
non legacy issues with transistor budget.
no, thank the drivers for not butchering the game in question.
god knows, the process used is only one element (an inportant one) that determines the final performence. it's actually pretty important.
yours
notAFanB
Go take a look at all the official PR by Sony, Sony is mass producing at 65 for Cell and related IC. ATI has already talked Lithography, and there was a topic about it here.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8218
And XBOX2's PowerPC will not be at 65, more like 90 or even 130.
But yea, this IS outdated compared to 65 no matter how you slice it Chap.
Being 'nifty' or 'crafty' means shit in the CMOS world where your opponent is using way more advanced lithography than you are, has years of R&D under their belt and have the balls to push their process to the extremes bordering to the point of bad yields.
But anyway Chap, tell me where I said PS3 would be of higher total power than Xbox2?
This is what I expect, In many cases PS3(because of SCE+Toshiba's extreme lithograpy) will have the higher raw specification, maybe in Polygon, bandwidth or fillrate.
Xbox2 will have really good features too, such as a big ammount of memory in a UMA structure.
Overall - Total power of both when added up will be the same, or like SNES to Genessis difference.
alright, but when you post something like:
I read that their an implication that 'only' those that claim the design was locked down early (and it was) ar by default Sony Fannys. you basically broadcast our assertation to alot of us.
that although the nVidia farce and the GS issue share some similarities their are very different case and are maybe not sutble to make a 'point' regarding fabbing prcesses and feature creep.
see above, honestly pop down to the 3D tech forums for some entertainment if you like
still assumptions.
I still dont get it.
any developer yeay talk? just what so different about console vs pc hardware? yeay, they are built for different purposes and ideals, but transistors are still transistors, you can pack as many but if your design suck or your software suck, still doesnt matter.
taking PC GPU vs GPU, one be good/big, one be bad/small, but at the core, its still up to design. hell, Xbox is very much a P3/GF4 and it kicks both PS2 EE/GS and Cube PPC/Flipper. Why cant you draw parallels with PC hardware and console hardware internals? I can understand if you are talking optimised software, but hardware is still hardware, still has to follow the laws of the atoms! (
)... packing more things in a 65nm console cpu doesnt automaticallly make it a more powerful snit. yeay? hmm...what more X2 = console.
i dunno...SimonF, mr DC designer speak forth?
drivers = software, yeay no? hmm..
Why are you such a broken record? You just keep spewing the same wrong stuff over and over again.
Design means little to nothing when it comes to raw performance, it's all about the technology your using. Sure if two GPU companies were using the same technology and one came up with a clever design then they could take the raw spec lead.
Sure design can affect efficiency(one IC can be more efficient then the other) but noone is talking about this, we are talking pure raw specification.
PS2 has Xbox beat in raw specification in a few areas, this despite the fact that yes Xbox is based off of both better technology and lithogarphy not to mention came out 18 months after.
Ok.
Let's forget everything and look at this.
Pretend you take two CPU's, both 200mm2. One CPU will have 65 nm transistors, the other 130 nm transistors.
Both will be comprised of 100% logic.
Since you can fit more transistors on the one using the 65nm node, there is more gates, more logic hence the one using 65 nm transistors is the more powerfull CPU. Hands down, nothing you can do.
mass production, PS3 ready to go, when?
proof?
IIRC, sony aint the only ones shooting for 65nm by 2004/5.
hey, if Xbox uses PPC thingie, it has more R&D time! Ati, of course, is also a long timer in 3D. you need not start from scratch sometimes. hmm...
"Oh yea and being 'elegant' means nothing when your talking about the max specification game. A group of inexperienced kids can win against 4 military commando's if the kids have guns and the commando's knives"
Didnt really get your funny commando analogy, but it seems to me you are suggesting PS3 is like a large groupie(aka more) kiddies taking out the fewer(aka lesser) but smartie commandos.
"This is what I expect, In many cases PS3(because of SCE+Toshiba's extreme lithograpy) will have the higher raw specification, maybe in Polygon, bandwidth or fillrate."
OOps! again...
so raw != total Paul's definitions? you should have said so, coz both sound awfully similar to me.
So which will be SNES and which be Genesis? I see a good difference between them 2. hmm...
Ooh-videogames
Regular
I don't understand why some seem to believe that MS would know what the PS3 GPU will be capable of, Sony may decide to release specs only 6 months before launch leaving MS and Nintendo no room for improvement. Only thing we can no for sure is that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are going to spend billions of dollars just to get you to buy their console.
So is design important or not?
realworld > raw. +1 efficiency.
DC has PS2 beat in a few elagant areas. 18 months earlier, 199. hmm...
So you are just reiterating Vincey lithography talkie talk..
How does PS2 EE logic count compares with SH2/P3/PPC720(whats that called again?
)?With this investment, SCEI will manufacture the new microprocessor for the broadband era, code-named "Cell", as well as other system LSIs, to be used for the next generation computer entertainment system.
Cell and system LSI at 65 nm, to be used in PS3. When PS3 will arrive, 05 or 06 is up to speculation.
Go take a look around.
And?
Doesn't matter, it won't touch Cell either way. Even your buddy Deadmeat agree's.
Not my fault you read it wrong, this isn't the first time. Higher specification maybe in polygon badnwidth or fillrate.
As far as what was actually put on screen taking each's best games? Don't make me laugh.
Smart Design means nothing comparing raw spec. This has been the argument all along.
But oh, even if a SNES processor was more efficient(it could max out closer to it's numbers) than a EE, does this make the SNES processor better? I'm not suggesting anything between PS3 and X2, I'm just saying this so you don't run away with the wrong ideas.
Stop changing the subject.
DC has NOTHING on PS2 when it comes to raw spec, this is what we have been talking about, RAW SPEC.
I'm dumbing down the talk and giving examples so you can keep with me here.
Unless MS wants X2 really early before PS3, what makes you think they are not going 65nm?
"Manufacturing is also uncertain. "
" Manufacturing is not part of the agreement yet. It is up to them what they do with manufacturing," an IBM representative said. "
"Microsoft, which announced the IBM and SIS deals last week, refused to comment further on its plans"
doesnt sound like anything much is know bout X2 tech...so how can you be soo certain? again, not saying 110/65/whacaca, but wheres your certainty from?
So it aint as "shocking" and "glorifing" and "special" as you put earlier. remember?
"Being 'nifty' or 'crafty' means shit in the CMOS world where your opponent is using way more advanced lithography than you are, has years of R&D under their belt and have the balls to push their process to the extremes bordering to the point of bad yields. "
Lets wait and see how "untouchable" Cell 3D is, yeay?
your analogy sucks.
More colors, bigger sprites, more 2D effects, better sound. noticeable difference to me. why laugh?
Paul said:
Yes, but raw spec tends to mean nothing compared to the Big Picture(TM). Why are you guys back-and-forthing it like it's something really meaningful right now?
Chap, you and I had a nice exchange a few days ago that was almost completely bereft of the baby talk you've liberally spewed across this topic. The only rationale I can think of for the change in your manner and language is that you have no respect for this topic and/or certain participants.
Now, what I don't understand is how that fits your claim that you merely try to present another perspective, balance things out and "play peace". Playing peace by significantly altering your language to indicate a lack of respect? How does that work exactly?
And if you're confused by what I mean, why don't you try reading *out loud* all of your posts from this thread to someone.
Now, what I don't understand is how that fits your claim that you merely try to present another perspective, balance things out and "play peace". Playing peace by significantly altering your language to indicate a lack of respect? How does that work exactly?
And if you're confused by what I mean, why don't you try reading *out loud* all of your posts from this thread to someone.
your not serious are you, or maybe you misread me. that the plant and preparations for 65nm fabs are underway 'but' whether they will meet the PS3 lauanch is still in question.
DO NOT put words in my mouth thank you.
we don't need developers to host an informed discussion on the differences.
one is fixed and the other is not (tho that is chanign somewhat). what design considerations do you think went into developing these products?
true, but you flagrent dimissal of fabbing as a key contributer is puzzling to me.
not so
yes with design consideration taken into account for the closed system. very little is wasted which is what you see alot of in a good console.
you can, but drawing parrelles is not the same as equating the two. thus if your not careful some rather bizarre conclusion come to the front.
hardware/software are 'always' desgined with constraints based upon the host platform/enviroment.
any comparisons you want to make are fine, but be careful when drawing conclusions to support any case without taking this into consideration.
luckily we still don;t have to worry about that yet
comparitively yes the chip with better fabs shoul be smaller and/or faster. the initial layout should have kept this in mind.
yes but for a different (and specific) function only. I could have said equally
"no, it's the OS"
but that infers a different set of problems.
Paul said:
What does this have to do with the XBox 2? As the reports have already stated, so far MS have bought IP, not silicon so those reports mean nothing to the XBox 2 as far as we know.
You can be assured of this how?
