Microsoft moves into chip world with Xbox Next

DaveBaumann said:
Vince said:
Well if we 'just don't know' then how the heck can you question Paul?
Quite easily. He's set in the opinion that what we've seen from the vendor up until that point is whats going to occur here [Vince], but the fact is we just do not know that.

Actually.. you posted this article. Kinda ironic actually:

[url=http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=190254#190254 said:
DaveBaumann previously cited[/url]]
[url=http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5104656.html?tag=nefd_lede said:
news.com article which[/url]]The deal with ATI is similar to the relationship ATI has with Nintendo for providing graphics to the GameCube, said Chris Evenden, director of PR for ATI. ATI designed a customized chip for the Japanese giant, which then took the blueprints and found a manufacturing partner.

So, if we're to believe the article, which you quoted - why should we doubt that there is the commonality that Paul is proposing if ATI is saying the same thing itself?

Ok,and even if we look past your inconsistent argument and mentality and we agree that "we just do not know" (which I'm happy with) then you, or anyone else, doesn't have the ability to tell him he's wrong for believing what he does. If having a set-view of the world is worthy of a comment from you, then you'll have your hands full in the PC-3D forums for a few years.

DaveBaumann said:
Take a look at PowerVR and other IP licensing companies Vince - they do it all the time. MBX isn't inhernatly targetted at any single process.

And they're not high preformance, structured architectures. We can talk in general terms, and you'd be correct (eg. ARM, MIPS) but they're not going to scale with a process like a specific design would and won't be competitve - and I'd hope we won't see something like this.

DaveBaumann said:
Vince said:
Never before have I see such a design, shit... lets end the semantics, it's just not an intelligent decision to forgo ATI's expertise. Why not just have a patent cross-licensing deal or other alternative?

IP does not equal patents Vince.

It was an example. That's why I threw in the "or other alternatives" comment since I was proposing other, open-ended, alternatives.

DaveBaumann said:
How do you know they took a design that was targetted at a particular process?

There are only so many vendors with so many embeddedDRAM processes. It's not like they had any choice at that period but 180nm. The complexity of design locks them from going back to the older, >200nm, stepping.
 
WRT to what occured with Flipper, I decided to ask Eric Demers (sireric) who is around this forum quite a lot to see if he knew anything about Flipper, to which he replied:

"Yes. I Architected & designed a big chunk."

Feeling he may be fairly qualified to answer some questions on how it was implemented I asked if they sold something targetted at a particulr process, to which his responce was

"It's a pretty secret project, so I can't really tell you much. However, ATI and NEC worked closely on this project."

That didn't go very far, but it certianly seems to say that people aren't going to know exactly what happened with the IP and how it was sold - it also doesn't suggest that something was just handed over and that was implemented. So, trying a different tack I asked if IP has to be targetted at a different process should some be sold to a prospective console vendor.

"As a generalized comment, if one were to buy IP in the form of RTL code, then one could port it from technology to technology. If one were to buy netlists, then if one is porting from one tech to another, the tech have to be similar, otherwise the design will not meet timing."

I assume not many of you have more expericence with this sort of stuff than an ARTX/ATI engineer that designed part of Flipper and is probably working on either one of the next gen console parts?



DaveBaumann, that was an interesting read.

Flipper, being designed by ARTX, sold to ATI, manufactured and seemingly co-designed by NEC, was of course, former Silicon Graphics technology/IP, since ARTX was a fragment of Silicon Graphics.


Flipper, I guess, was designed in from 1997~98 to late 1999 ~ early 2000.


I also, assume the same team that made Flipper is part of / a major component of, the team building N5's graphics subsystem, ATI's Santa Clara office.
 
Vince said:
[url=http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=190254#190254 said:
DaveBaumann previously cited[/url]]
[url=http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5104656.html?tag=nefd_lede said:
news.com article which[/url]]The deal with ATI is similar to the relationship ATI has with Nintendo for providing graphics to the GameCube, said Chris Evenden, director of PR for ATI. ATI designed a customized chip for the Japanese giant, which then took the blueprints and found a manufacturing partner.

So, if we're to believe the article, which you quoted - why should we doubt that there is the commonality that Paul is proposing if ATI is saying the same thing itself?

This would prove Paul statements if you know that Flipper was designed and sold at a particular process, but we don't know that, as we've just proved.

Ok,and even if we look past your inconsistent argument and mentality

There is no inconsistency Vince. The only consistent element around here appear to have been the refuasl of a few here to open their minds a little instead of being so closed - they have already been proved wrong quite frequently on numerous assumptions they've made so far.

and we agree that "we just do not know" (which I'm happy with) then you, or anyone else, doesn't have the ability to tell him he's wrong for believing what he does. If having a set-view of the world is worthy of a comment from you, then you'll have your hands full in the PC-3D forums for a few years.

Where have I said he's wrong? I have questioned how he can have such faith in some of the thing he states because at present there jus doesn't appear to be any facts to back them up. Whats up with that?
 
Megadrive1988 said:
I also, assume the same team that made Flipper is part of / a major component of, the team building N5's graphics subsystem, ATI's Santa Clara office.

Eric Demers is a part of the Santa Clara team, to which is formed from the mainstay of ARTX.
 
DaveBaumann:

> ... an ARTX/ATI engineer that designed part of Flipper and is probably
> working on either one of the next gen console parts?

Unless he joined the east coast team or is working on a PC part he's doing work for the GameCube 2.
 
DaveBaumann said:
Paul said:
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.

How many times does it have to be said before you unerstand it - MS haven't bought "built" parts, they have bought IP. At present it is up to MS to choose the process in which to build them, not the respective suppliers of the IP.

Is that a difficult concept to understand?

Dave doesn't a die shrink require some modification on an engineering level? If this is the case (which I believe it is looking at what I know about CPU evolution) and ATI claiming that R300 is designed and successful on .15nm due to extremely low level placement of logic, isn't it best left to the engineers selling the IP to 'redesign' die shrinks of the same core?

I don't think MS or Nintendo has the expertise on its own to do this so the agreements reached do still need to have the target process knowledge during the design stage.

To further backup my argument if you look at the Northwood to Prescott transistion the cores are basically the same with a few extensions however the layout of the various functions has been re-ordered to make more efficient. It looks like Intel has gone low level as well to maximise efficiency. If you look at the AthlonXP transistion from .18nm to .13nm you will see (on Throroughbred I believe) some parts of the core are without any logic or RAM, making that part of the die totally redundant.

[/i]
 
Dave doesn't a die shrink require some modification on an engineering level?

A die shrink does, yes. The point being we are not talking about a "die" in the first place. Its not established what is being sold in the first place and how much work will be required by any party to put it in a process they may wish to target.

All we know is that "IP" is being sold, and depending on what state that IP is sold in it will require varying degree's of support to target a particular process - how "IP" is far from a die in the first place so the work required for a die shrink is not directly related here.

I don't think MS or Nintendo has the expertise on its own to do this so the agreements reached do still need to have the target process knowledge during the design stage.

No, they probably don't (although we don't know about MS'd WebTV team), they are reliant on their engineering partners for this. That quite obviously why Eric stated that ATI worked closely with NEC for Flipper.

To further backup my argument if you look at the Northwood to Prescott transistion the cores are basically the same with a few extensions however the layout of the various functions has been re-ordered to make more efficient.

Again, as Eric is stating, if you go from RTL then you haven't even got as far as a layout.
 
I am just speculating at best but I can envisage where a great IP could be badly managed to make a poor product. I am sure this is one of the reasons why IBM are so entwined in the next gen of consoles.

As you said though, 'we don't know' [what's happening]!
 
Tahir said:
I am just speculating at best but I can envisage where a great IP could be badly managed to make a poor product. I am sure this is one of the reasons why IBM are so entwined in the next gen of consoles.

As you said though, 'we don't know' [what's happening]!

Microsoft is a rich and powerful company that is managed by very smart people. It's safe to assume something wicked this way comes.
 
Brimstone said:
Tahir said:
I am just speculating at best but I can envisage where a great IP could be badly managed to make a poor product. I am sure this is one of the reasons why IBM are so entwined in the next gen of consoles.

As you said though, 'we don't know' [what's happening]!

Microsoft is a rich and powerful company that is managed by very smart people. It's safe to assume something wicked this way comes.

Rich and smart, they have learnt the lessons well from XBOX... even rich and smart companies make mistakes. No one is infallible.
 
saw this on Rage3D:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=2534

Microsoft turns to technology licensing for Xbox Next

Rob Fahey 16:33 10/11/2003
Are off the shelf components hurting MS' pocket too much?


Recent agreements signed by Microsoft with a variety of companies to supply technology for the successor to Xbox reveal that the company is switching to the manufacturing model preferred by its rivals.

While the Xbox is formed of off the shelf components supplied by leading technology firms such as Intel and NVIDIA, the contracts for technology for the next generation console, codenamed Xenon, indicate that the company's attitude to manufacturing has changed considerably.

Rather than buying devices which are effectively PC components from manufacturers, Microsoft's next generation plan revolves around licensing technology designs from key suppliers such as ATI, IBM and SIS Technologies, and then arranging for the manufacture of these chipsets itself - effectively becoming a full-scale chip maker, albeit one without a fabrication plant of its own.

This new approach means that rather than selling components to Microsoft, as NVIDIA and Intel do, ATI and IBM will be receiving royalties for the use of their technology - but Microsoft will have ultimate control over the manufacturing and final use of that technology, effectively giving the company far more control over its own platform, and the ability to make significant cost savings on manufacture.

This is the same system that Nintendo and Sony operate, and it's one ATI and IBM are familiar with - since they've worked with Nintendo and Sony respectively on console projects. ATI provides the graphics hardware for Nintendo's GameCube under broadly the same terms as its new deal with Microsoft for Xenon, while IBM is one of Sony's development partners on the Cell microprocessor for the PS3.

Another benefit for Microsoft is that this form of technology licensing will make the Xenon platform into a far more proprietary system than the Xbox, thus making it far less likely that people will be able to hack the system to run PC software. This has been a major problem for the Xbox to date - the inclusion of PC components in the box was a red flag to a bull as far as software hackers were concerned, and it's thought that many Xboxen are now used as home media centres and emulators rather than as games consoles as a result.

The technology licensed from ATI is likely to be based on that used in the company's Radeon cores, but will probably be modified significantly to fit a games console's requirements. Similarly, it's expected that the CPU core licensed from IBM will be a PowerPC core, but it may be modified to fit into the Xenon platform - in much the same way that the PS2 runs a MIPS architecture core which has been modified with a new instruction set to make it more useful for console gaming purposes.

Although this will probably deter the hackers to some degree, and the business and manufacturing model open to Microsoft will almost certainly save it significant amounts of money (with actual physical manufacture of the chips likely to be outsourced either to the Far East or back to IBM itself), it has its drawbacks. The company touted the Xbox as the easiest platform of its generation to develop on because it was so similar to the PC; this will not necessarily hold true for Xenon, which won't be based on an x86 architecture like the Xbox and the PC. Making life tougher for the hackers may also make it tougher for legitimate developers - and there are also major question marks over how this console will manage to maintain backwards compatibility and play Xbox games, with rumours abounding that Microsoft has approached emulation specialists Connectix with a view to solving this thorny issue.
 
No, they probably don't (although we don't know about MS'd WebTV team),

The kewl thing is, within that WebTV team is CagEnt, the former 3DO Systems and thus, the M2 and MX guys & related IP. :) much like how ATI has ArtX. 8)

If ArtX / ATI Santa Clara is not building or contributing to Xbox 2, which would make sense since it's being made by east coast team, the MS WebTv team might be colaborating~combining resources & IP with ATI east. that would make up for not having ATI west/ARTX team, who built Flipper, 9700 and are doing N5.
 
Eh, weren't the 3do systems and the m2 systems major underperformers? ArtX I believe had its share of weak hardware as well, but I don't know if microsoft would entrust something so important to a group who never made a terribly successful piece of hardware, but more importantly, haven't made one in years. I mean, I guess they could try to help, but I think ATi would have a lot more to teach them than they would have to teach ATi.
 
I think having too many cooks in the kitchen ruin the broth.. (or something).


maybe, maybe not.

Sony IBM Toshiba are all collaborating on Cell & PS3.

Also, I have a reasonable worry about ATI's east team doing XBox 2's graphics all alone. their last two main efforts, R200 (good chip but not the R300 by an means) and the scrapped R400, leaving me a bit concerned. with Xbox 2 being GPU/VPU dependant, most likely, I believe MS's trump card is the amassing of alot of combined talent from both companies (MS & ATI).

anyone else agree?
 
I don't believe R400 is "scrapped".

[Best Indications Suggest]
R400's technology was fundamentially flexible enough for the directions DirectX Next are taking, but would have been overkill for the PS/VS3.0 generation. Its thought that R500 is still the same basic platform that R400 was to be, but its in the process of being "beefed up".
[/Best Indications Suggest] ;)

As a note, someone has already stated on these forums that ATI had started hiring people directly as a result of already working on the XBox 2 way back in March - this was about the same period that things went quiet on R400 as it was and R420 started to emerge. Given that ATI and MS were obviously well underway with negociations and ATI were already working on the technology MS obviously knew the lay of the land. Its also quite possible that the R400 roadmap was shifted as a direct result of the XBox 2 deal.
 
Megadrive1988 said:
I think having too many cooks in the kitchen ruin the broth.. (or something).


maybe, maybe not.

Sony IBM Toshiba are all collaborating on Cell & PS3.

Also, I have a reasonable worry about ATI's east team doing XBox 2's graphics all alone. their last two main efforts, R200 (good chip but not the R300 by an means) and the scrapped R400, leaving me a bit concerned. with Xbox 2 being GPU/VPU dependant, most likely, I believe MS's trump card is the amassing of alot of combined talent from both companies (MS & ATI).

anyone else agree?

So you're worried about the east coast team's ability, yet you want to bring in some guys who worked for 3do? There's a very negative stigma associated with that company, as well as the hardware it produced.(oh yeah, and the hardware sucked)
Besides, doesn't the east coast team have some real3d people? While the price of their most famous hardware may put it on the same level as the m2 in quality, they have a positive image at least.
 
Back
Top