Microsoft moves into chip world with Xbox Next

[Gerry]

And XBOX2's PowerPC will not be at 65, more like 90 or even 130.

You can be assured of this how?

Just what I was going to say. I think some people are making far too many assumptions.

I mean, really, does anyone actually think that the CPU powering an XBOX2 in two years time is going to be fabbed on a 130nm process? Whilst the STI partnership will undoubtedly have an advantage when it comes to lithography within the timescale these consoles are launched, nobody knows for sure what process will be available for Microsoft to use at this time.

Isn't AMD talking up a 65nm plant in 2005/2006?

 

[chaphack]

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.

WOOOaah!!!
What does that supposed to mean?
No respect? Baby language...? Play peace...? :? So just point out where i went wrong... :?
Maybe YOU should re-read certain participants post out loud YOURSELF. And i thought you were the more logical guys around.

+1 Dave and Gerry for bringing some semblance back to this topic.

 

[notAFanB]

And XBOX2's PowerPC will not be at 65, more like 90 or even 130.

Paul from what I understand MS will be farming out their design to a third party to manufacture. if MS decides to sink deeper into their pockets and/or 65nm yields are acceptable by (let's say) early to mid 2005 then whats the problem?

What does that supposed to mean?

it means the rolleyes for a start.

 

[London Geezer]

yay.. another next-gen-flame-thread... must be our lucky week....
...yawn...



(or maybe i should specify, *yawn... another next-gen-thread-turned-flame-trolling-thread...yawn*)

 

[chaphack]

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.

I know all about the PR TR.
Yes, but no confirmation of when and what. 65nm might just make it by late 2006/7. 65nm = big deal by then. see, too much assumptions once again.

we don't need developers to host an informed discussion on the differences.

But no one has explained why console vs pc hardware internals are night and day. remember what Paul said. again?

Comparing NV30 and R300 to this is just wrong. Cannot compare it to the console world Chap, it's like night and day. "

So why is it night and day? Like i said, yeay, in a console world, hardware/software are more optimised and targetted, but at the very base, it is still make up of silicons and transistors. Design is stil design. You are still going to push the 1s and 0s, rendering 3D in real time. You can get it right, you can get it wrong. It is not like Sony is packing some magical transistors that does 1-2-3-4-5-6 while rivals are just using the same ol 0-1 transistor logic..

do you get what me saying?

rue, but you flagrent dimissal of fabbing as a key contributer is puzzling to me

Since when...
im saying that fabbing, alone, shouldnt maketh super realtime 3D graphiX.

not so

Put that R300 NV30 to show that fabbing alone does not play the key. You still need to design a competent architecture to take advantage with good software. it is not about the performance tat for tit, but seeing that even in the same areana(GPU vs GPU), fabbing alone, does not maketh thee. I expect that law to apply for console vs console too.

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.

so i ask thee, having little wastage will automatically provide for really good design, capable of rendering bestest 3D? get what me asking now? PVR and NV2A are very much from the PC world, just some tweaks to incorporate into the console world. and both of em are very much capable so, comparing to the other console hardware. See, at the base, it is the darn silicon! Not what you put inside but how you put inside.

you can, but drawing parrelles is not the same as equating the two.

yeay thats what im doing. draw parallels //, not equating =. puzzling why Paul time and again dissmissed that w/o mucho real tech explanation. hmm..

Yeay know, it is not always that a larger speaker giveth the better sound, sure the extra area allows you to throw more things into it, but you still need to plan the thing well. you still need to observe the basis of how good audio works. A well planned smallish speaker can readily rock your house over one large and messy SPEAKOOOR!
A speaker in the theater and a speaker at home, might server different purposes, BUT at their core, both are to provide you with the best audio immersion. The laws of good sound will apply to both theater and your home. Just as the laws of how to provide good 3d render of a hardware, will apply to console and PC world. You can draw parallels with them.

yes but for a different (and specific) function only. I could have said equally

"no, it's the OS"

OS = software too. once again, too much semantics from you.

it means the rolleyes for a start.

why?

 

[Paul]

Unless MS wants X2 really early before PS3, what makes you think they are not going 65nm?

Because they aren't. Expect 90nm.

More colors, bigger sprites, more 2D effects, better sound. noticeable difference to me. why laugh?

Because there is no difference with the best looking games.

your analogy sucks.

Dare I say your argument sucks. You have none anyway, your defending what you cant.

Lets wait and see how "untouchable" Cell 3D is, yeay?

Noone is comparing Cell to a GPU, you are right now because you KNOW I'm right.

So it aint as "shocking" and "glorifing" and "special" as you put earlier. remember?

Like I said, crafty design means nothing when someone has better tech than you and aren't stupid.

It's like a Trained assasin with a knife vs someone with a gun, both of which are staring each other in the face.

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?

It's not enough to say, "I want this chip at 0.65 micon" The chip must be designed from the ground up from that process if you want to take advantage of the more transistors that process will offer you.

The GPU is already seen to use around 110 while Sony 65.

IBM says the 970 based on 90nm will clock to 3Ghz and beyond, perfect for an Xbox 2.

why dont you juz admit, that you, like me, aint no techie?

And I Guess those little over 6 years in college studying Networking and computer sciences mean't nothing huh?

You'll learn once you get out of high school.

66mpps must have made you warm and fuzzy.

Awwww a personal attack. Because you have nothing on me. It must have made you fuzzy inside too, after all, you were the one who took that 66 raw figure and went crazy with it. You then got disapointed because you hyped yourself to such rediculous expectations and now you are a anti Sony troll.

Stupid analogy +2

It's only stupid because you don't understand it, you understand nothing really.

 

[Paul]

So why is it night and day? Like i said, yeay, in a console world, hardware/software are more optimised and targetted, but at the very base, it is still make up of silicons and transistors. Design is stil design. You are still going to push the 1s and 0s, rendering 3D in real time. You can get it right, you can get it wrong. It is not like Sony is packing some magical transistors that does 1-2-3-4-5-6 while rivals are just using the same ol 0-1 transistor logic..

More logic transistors means more power always. Cute design cannot make up the difference(in raw spec) between a IC with 150 million transistors and 90 million transistors.

The PC game is different, the PC GPU game is let's see who can run which game at a faster frame rate.

Take a look at the Radeon 8500's vs the Geforce 3's.

In reality the 8500 WAS the better card, however poor drivers held it back. But now, with better drives; the 8500 performs higher than it in PC games.

PC GPU's have too many variables Chap. It just doesn't compare directly to dedicated IC, just because one card has a higher fps in games doesn't mean it's the higher spec.

 

[notAFanB]

Chap:

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.

I know all about the PR TR.
Yes, but no confirmation of when and what. 65nm might just make it by late 2006/7. 65nm = big deal by then. see, too much assumptions once again.

for the second time now, please do not put words in my mouth.

Design is stil design.

yup.

You are still going to push the 1s and 0s, rendering 3D in real time. You can get it right, you can get it wrong. It is not like Sony is packing some magical transistors that does 1-2-3-4-5-6 while rivals are just using the same ol 0-1 transistor logic..

do you get what me saying?

yes, but my point was only that given the same design constraints a better process by all means should yield better results.

Since when...
im saying that fabbing, alone, shouldnt maketh super realtime 3D graphiX.

an design alone means nothing without the process to implement it on, what's your point?

Put that R300 NV30 to show that fabbing alone does not play the key. You still need to design a competent architecture to take advantage with good software. it is not about the performance tat for tit, but seeing that even in the same areana(GPU vs GPU), fabbing alone, does not maketh thee. I expect that law to apply for console vs console too.

I don't want to mis-quote you here so can I clarify somthing.

are you inferring a production and design law from your assessment of the R300 vs NV30 case?

so i ask thee, having little wastage will automatically provide for really good design, capable of rendering bestest 3D? get what me asking now?

no, having little wastage means no excess capacity occurs (within tolerence).

PVR and NV2A are very much from the PC world, just some tweaks to incorporate into the console world. and both of em are very much capable so, comparing to the other console hardware. See, at the base, it is the darn silicon! Not what you put inside but how you put inside.

er, there a little more than just tweaks, it's not like they just installed the things onto the Mboard. I imagine they might have had testruns to see how the entire system would balence out.

OS = software too. once again, too much semantics from you.

my point entirely.

why?

very funny.

 

[chaphack]

Because they aren't. Expect 90nm.

I have asked, dave have asked, gerry have asked, i ask again, proof? or simply just another ass-umption?

Because there is no difference with the best looking games.

FF6, CT, Tales of Phantasia, Donkey Kong makes the best looking genny games cry moma. If you dont have both systems now, go play some emulator.

Dare I say your argument sucks. You have none anyway, your defending what you cant.

My arguement sucks when someone just dont get it and try to off tangent. Where the explanation why pc vs console hardware, in terms of proccess designs, are night and day and that no parallels can be drawn?

I hope SimonF or some tech dudes, can tell us more.

Noone is comparing Cell to a GPU, you are right now because you KNOW I'm right.

You just indirectly did.

"Tell me Chap, what is a better process; the 65 nm node or the 90/130 and 110."


In fact, why are you trolling you 65nm lovey love in an XB2 topic?

when someone has better tech than you and aren't stupid.

Ass-umption or Sony Optimisim. You choose.

It's not enough to say, "I want this chip at 0.65 micon" The chip must be designed from the ground up from that process if you want to take advantage of the more transistors that process will offer you.

The GPU is already seen to use around 110 while Sony 65.

IBM says the 970 based on 90nm will clock to 3Ghz and beyond, perfect for an Xbox 2.

I guess that Tokyo! "friend" of yours must have gotten insider info once again?

And I Guess those little over 6 years in college studying Networking and computer sciences mean't nothing huh?

You'll learn once you get out of high school.

Your posts betrayed you. 8)

Awwww a personal attack. Because you have nothing on me. It must have made you fuzzy inside too, after all, you were the one who took that 66 raw figure and went crazy with it. You then got disapointed because you hyped yourself to such rediculous expectations and now you are a anti Sony troll

Personal attack!?
Sorry, im just showing you my love for raw specs, same as you. If you still dont geddit, lets say raw staw, realworld > raw.

Anti Sony troll? If im one, then you are pretty much anti-MS troll. Need i point to you that topic when you go all crazy over the EVIL that MS is?

It's only stupid because you don't understand it, you understand nothing really.

It is stupid coz is the darn retarded analogy to boot. How old is SNES cpu? Even at max efficiency, i guess, it will never touch EE at 1%. I get the efficieny vs max power thing, but you saying Cell = EE, Xcpu2 = SNES? Wrong relation brudder. . :?

 

[notAFanB]

Because they aren't. Expect 90nm.

Paul what are you basing this, particularly since at this jucture we don't know zip.

The PC game is different, the PC GPU game is let's see who can run which game at a faster frame rate.

hang on that's not strictly true, the fps issue is a more of a result of the development cycle in PC VG space, than anything else.

 

[chaphack]

yes, but my point was only that given the same design constraints a better process by all means should yield better results.

Well hmmm.... you see we are in this topic, and since we aint know squat about X2, how can we say of the design constraints?

an design alone means nothing without the process to implement it on, what's your point?

proccess alone means nothing without an elagant design to make use of.
my point? cant you see all how forceful Paul is with his Cell > 65nm > lithography > performance > *

are you inferring a production and design law from your assessment of the R300 vs NV30 case?

taking out the PC/GPU/what-not, but just R300 vs NV30 as a bunch of core silicon, shows that smaller process doesnt neccessary equate gaurenteed better performance. i expect that basic law to follow the console world.

so any hardware dudes care to us THE TRUTH?

er, there a little more than just tweaks, it's not like they just installed the things onto the Mboard. I imagine they might have had testruns to see how the entire system would balence out.

Xbox is very much a PC.

 

[Paul]

I have asked, dave have asked, gerry have asked, i ask again, proof? or simply just another ass-umption?

Have any proof to prove me wrong with?

My arguement sucks when someone just dont get it and try to off tangent. Where the explanation why pc vs console hardware, in terms of proccess designs, are night and day and that no parallels can be drawn?

I hope SimonF or some tech dudes, can tell us more.

Better lithography always means higher raw specification. Even your "tech dudes" will admit this.

You just indirectly did.

Uhhh no I didn't. PS3 GPU is going to be produced at 65 too.

Ass-umption or Sony Optimisim. You choose.

Common sense. The better tech always wins the raw specs game.

Your posts betrayed you.

Like I said, you don't understand what anyone tells you unless it's dumbed down to a 3rd grade level, which is what I'm tryinig to do.

It is stupid coz is the darn retarded analogy to boot. How old is SNES cpu? Even at max efficiency, i guess, it will never touch EE at 1%. I get the efficieny vs max power thing, but you saying Cell = EE, Xcpu2 = SNES? Wrong relation brudder. .

You don't get it.

Read it again.

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?

hang on that's not strictly true, the fps issue is a more of a result of the development cycle in PC VG space, than anything else.

Yea I know, new PC GPU's all output the same visual quality onscreen(minus little IQ differences), the only deciding factor is the frame rate. Noone buys a GPU because it can do "more polygons than the next" they buy it because it performs higher in FPS in the latest PC game.

 

[Paul]

proccess alone means nothing without an elagant design to make use of.
my point? cant you see all how forceful Paul is with his Cell > 65nm > lithography > performance > *

Your a broken record.

Smart Design means shit in the raw performance game chap. It's all about the lithograpy and fab technologies.

 

[Gerry]

Because they aren't. Expect 90nm.

Whilst I'm not entirely disagreeing with the fact that at the moment, the likelihood is that the CPU will be fabbed at 90nm, I think it's far too early to tell for sure (ditto for an ATI chip @ 110nm). There have been no comments at all, except for the fact that the manufacturing of both chips will be up to Microsoft.

Now personally, I haven't a clue what other processes the foundries outside the STI partnership will have available around mid 2005. I'd probably bet on 90nm for both chips if I had to, but Microsoft have a lot of cash, and seem in the mood to pull some surprises for Xbox2, so we'll have to wait and see how their discussions with potential manufacturers go.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Xbox is very much a P3/GF4 and it kicks both PS2 EE/GS and Cube PPC/Flipper.

I would agrue Xbox is a slightly less than a P3/GF4.

It's CPU is less than a full P3 (only 128K cache, P3s have 256K)
the GPU is less than a full GF4 (no GF4 AA unit, no LMA II, ect)

sorry to nit-pick

 

[Paul]

But if both CPU and GPU aren't built around 65 tech?

If both are built let's say around 90 but MS wants to put them on 65 there is no advantage in terms of performance.

 

[notAFanB]

Well hmmm.... you see we are in this topic, and since we aint know squat about X2, how can we say of the design constraints?

because I'm not disputing the possible performence of Xbox-next.

maybe that should've been. to illustrate the importence of fab process for any 2 competently implemented architectures, the one with a better fab will yield better performence. (assume a relative vacumm here if you like).

by constraint I only meant 'within the limits of it's design', that is all.

proccess alone means nothing without an elagant design to make use of.
my point? cant you see all how forceful Paul is with his Cell > 65nm > lithography > performance > *

okay, I'm confused. please restate you position on fabbing so I can get a clearer picture.

taking out the PC/GPU/what-not, but just R300 vs NV30 as a bunch of core silicon, shows that smaller process doesnt neccessary equate gaurenteed better performance. i expect that basic law to follow the console world.

whether that is true or not, I cannot see how you could infer that law from this particular case (even if we don;t take into account all the factors in your specific case).

in fact we can dispense wih your example altogether since what you have effectively said is:

there is some case where a product (GFX card in our discussion) which is fabbed on a higher process does not outperform a competitive alternative on a lower process.

which doesn't really tells us much. we could always construct a really simple microprocessor which does almost nothing but rasterising (albeit really quickly) to satisfy the above.

so any hardware dudes care to us THE TRUTH?

there is no truth, only opinion formed from experience.

Xbox is very much a PC.

heh, by that margin so is th GC 8)

still it's differntly purely by it's fixed devlopment nature. you wouldn't really want ot shove a 9800 pro in there and waste all that silicon.

 

[chaphack]

Have any proof to prove me wrong with?

Why should i when i aint the one insisting the 65nm whacaca.

Better lithography always means higher raw specification. Even your "tech dudes" will admit this

Raw staw again. Better? Proof?

Uhhh no I didn't. PS3 GPU is going to be produced at 65 too.

Sure you did. Your follow on posts insisted that PS3 CPU/GPU = 65 while XCPU2 = 130/90 and XGPU2 = 110. Coincidence?
* trollin trollin * whistles

Common sense. The better tech always wins the raw specs game.

True, BUT what makes you so sure Cell is going to be the better tech?

Like I said, you don't understand what anyone tells you unless it's dumbed down to a 3rd grade level, which is what I'm tryinig to do.

Your post betrayed you. 8)

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?

Dude i get what your trying to say.... no need to repeat.

BUT do you geddit that you shouldnt draw such quirky parallels...SNES ARM(right?) cpu is soooo last generation that any maxx efficiency wouldnt touch EE. The gen-gap between R300 vs NV30 and PS3 vs X2 aint gonna be THAT big, so having lo-eff-hi-raw and hi-eff-lo-raw arent gonna to be THAT damning.

Its like RDRAM in PS2, specs wise its rawy, but latency harms it and that allows that less rawy DDR/1T Ram to match well with better efficiency.



I say we need more qualified guys to talk about all this snitch snatch.

 

[notAFanB]

If both are built let's say around 90 but MS wants to put them on 65 there is no advantage in terms of performance.

Paul, that made no sense. what do you mean?

Yea I know, new PC GPU's all output the same visual quality onscreen(minus little IQ differences), the only deciding factor is the frame rate. Noone buys a GPU because it can do "more polygons than the next" they buy it because it performs higher in FPS in the latest PC game.

I'd add that it's so that they can do more fps with AA, and whatnot to that.

 

[chaphack]

I would agrue Xbox is a slightly less than a P3/GF4.

It's CPU is less than a full P3 (only 128K cache, P3s have 256K)
the GPU is less than a full GF4 (no GF4 AA unit, no LMA II, ect)

sorry to nit-pick

yesy yesy. mobile celeron + nforce mobo + gf3 w/ 2 VS. but its very much PC tech inside.