So far only the Inquirer has reported news about the possibility that MS is designing the CPU and GPU for the Xbox2. IS there any other news about this? And also we know that Nvidia and ATI are possible candidates to design the GPU for Xbox2. But what about S3/Via? They have a dx9 GPU, DeltaChrome.
MS designing their own CPU and GPU for Xbox2?
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
bbot said:
S3/VIA (Sonicblue) comes across as a potential partner to build the X-Box 2. The money from the contract would probably be more appealing to them than it is for nVidia. I haven't read anything about a possible connection though.
Also doesn't Microsoft have a lot of ex-3do hardware engineers working for them? So maybe they could design a GPU themselves.
randycat99
Veteran
What is the motivation for MS considering a custom CPU and GPU?
megadrive0088
Regular
Yes, MS did buy Cagent, the former 3DO hardware team that made M2, as well as the more powerful MX. MS has the MX technology i think. but i doubt its enough to make a state of the art GPU for XBox, not compared to what Nvidia or ATI can offer.
megadrive0088
Regular
"Yeah, the Power VR chip in the dreamcast rocked and it was made back in 1998, they could do something amazing with a large budget."
Actually the Dreamcast's PowerVR chip was finished in 1997. -it was based on the 2nd generation of PowerVR which entered development around 1995 IIRC, before the first PowerVR (PCX1/PCX2) made it out.
Actually the Dreamcast's PowerVR chip was finished in 1997. -it was based on the 2nd generation of PowerVR which entered development around 1995 IIRC, before the first PowerVR (PCX1/PCX2) made it out.
Brimstone said:
Just a little tidbit. SonicBlue is a separate company from S3/VIA. At one point they were the same company, but S3/DiamondMM sold the graphics card business to VIA and kept the consumer electronics side, while at the same time changed their name to SonicBlue.
(And I don't think Microsoft has the skills in house to do ASIC design)
megadrive0088
Regular
"What is the MX technology? I don't remember ever reading about it"
if you've heard of the M2 from 3DO - the MX is a beefed up M2. where as M2 could do 500,000~700,000 tectured polys/sec the MX could do 1~4M polys
the M2 used two PPC 602 CPUs, the MX used two 603s or 604s and added anti-aliasing and aniso filtering in addition to the more powerful polygon/pixel performance.
the MX tech almost got bought by Nintendo, and reworked to be used with MIPs CPUs, for Nintendo's sucessor to N64, to be launched in 1999, but the deal with Samsung (who owned 3D0 hardware team and MX) fell through. instead, Microsoft bought the 3DO team and the MX tech. they were incorperated into MS's WebTV devision to work on graphics for next gen Webtv's and possibly a console, but MS went with Nvidia for XBox and Nintendo had selected ArtX for Dolphin/GameCube.
if you've heard of the M2 from 3DO - the MX is a beefed up M2. where as M2 could do 500,000~700,000 tectured polys/sec the MX could do 1~4M polys
the M2 used two PPC 602 CPUs, the MX used two 603s or 604s and added anti-aliasing and aniso filtering in addition to the more powerful polygon/pixel performance.
the MX tech almost got bought by Nintendo, and reworked to be used with MIPs CPUs, for Nintendo's sucessor to N64, to be launched in 1999, but the deal with Samsung (who owned 3D0 hardware team and MX) fell through. instead, Microsoft bought the 3DO team and the MX tech. they were incorperated into MS's WebTV devision to work on graphics for next gen Webtv's and possibly a console, but MS went with Nvidia for XBox and Nintendo had selected ArtX for Dolphin/GameCube.
megadrive0088
Regular
"What is the MX technology? I don't remember ever reading about it"
if you've heard of the M2 from 3DO - the MX is a beefed up M2. where as M2 could do 500,000~700,000 textured polys/sec the MX could do 1~4M polys. the M2 used two PPC 602 CPUs, the MX used two 603s or 604s and added anti-aliasing and anisostropic filtering in addition to the more powerful polygon/pixel performance.
the MX tech almost got bought by Nintendo, and reworked to be used with MIPs CPUs, for Nintendo's sucessor to N64, to be launched in 1999, but the deal with Samsung (who owned 3D0 hardware team and MX) fell through. instead, Microsoft bought the 3DO team and the MX tech. they were incorperated into MS's WebTV devision to work on graphics for next gen Webtv's and possibly a console, but MS went with Nvidia for XBox and Nintendo had selected ArtX for Dolphin/GameCube.
if you've heard of the M2 from 3DO - the MX is a beefed up M2. where as M2 could do 500,000~700,000 textured polys/sec the MX could do 1~4M polys. the M2 used two PPC 602 CPUs, the MX used two 603s or 604s and added anti-aliasing and anisostropic filtering in addition to the more powerful polygon/pixel performance.
the MX tech almost got bought by Nintendo, and reworked to be used with MIPs CPUs, for Nintendo's sucessor to N64, to be launched in 1999, but the deal with Samsung (who owned 3D0 hardware team and MX) fell through. instead, Microsoft bought the 3DO team and the MX tech. they were incorperated into MS's WebTV devision to work on graphics for next gen Webtv's and possibly a console, but MS went with Nvidia for XBox and Nintendo had selected ArtX for Dolphin/GameCube.
If I remember correctly the MX hardware was also meant to feature memory on the die ala GS or Flipper. I doubt that the processes availible back then, just after N64 launched, could have coped.
When did Samsung get involved with the MX hardware? I thought that Matsushita had the rights to use that as well as M2?
If M$ want to control the design and rights of the Xbox 2 they need to go the Power VR route. Here's hoping.
Mind you 3DO tried something similar and ended up with a fairly slow CPU from ARM but I assume that was the best they could afford.
When did Samsung get involved with the MX hardware? I thought that Matsushita had the rights to use that as well as M2?
If M$ want to control the design and rights of the Xbox 2 they need to go the Power VR route. Here's hoping.
Mind you 3DO tried something similar and ended up with a fairly slow CPU from ARM but I assume that was the best they could afford.
megadrive0088
Regular
Yes indeed. the MX was (or at least one possible version of MX) was going to feature on-die video memory. I read that in Intelligent Gamer. Very surprised that someone remembers MX having on-die video memory.
they said such an MX might be capable of upwards of 20 million polygons.
where as the "standard MX" (my phrase not their's) would do the said 1~4 million polys. i think the idea of an on-die video memory version of MX was scrapped, since the failure rate would have been so high back in 1997-1998.
I didnt know Samsung was involved in MX or 3DO hardware until i read the Next Generation Online article about Nintendo N2000, and Nintendo's problems finding a chipset provider.
Here's what I remember reading (no doubt some errors along the way) M2 was sold to Matsushita for $100M in 1995 as we all know. 3DO kept the rights to build future hardware (MX, M3, M4, etc) but eventually 3DO got out of console hardware and sold their hardware design team, called
3DO Systems, to Samsung, who renamed it CagEnt. the MX was further developed I believe. Samsung just owned all of it, it seems. Samsung then wanted to sell Cagnet. CagEnt was visited by all the 3D hardware companies and the console providers. Nintendo. Sega. 3Dfx. Nvidia. etc. Nintendo almost bought CagEnt and MX. together, they started working to redesign MX around MIPs CPU, instead of PPC. Nintendo didnt want PPC CPU, they wanted MIPs. this didnt work out though, IIRC, because MX like M2 was based on PPC CPUs. Nintendo and CagEnt also could not decide on what format to use for the console that would use the MX chipset. The deal fell through, and CagEnt was bought by Microsoft in 1998. Its very possible, i suppose, that XBox could have been a next-gen WebTV machine with MX chipset.
here's a couple links with far better recounts of what supposedly happened with MX, CagEnt, and Nintendo's effort to get a console together back in 1997.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=C...7475200.NAA04515@ladder01.news.aol.com&rnum=1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=C...8&selm=6k3soj$d7r$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=3
really cool article that starts (they didnt do part 2) to get into Nintendo's relationship with the MX technology and then to ArtX:
http://www.vortexonline.com/rants/032300.html
"This time Matsushita had a very viable solution for Nintendo, the MX console. What was the MX? Well, details are sketchy, but it was supposed to be the successor of the M2. Sporting two Power PC CPUs that each alone had several times the power of the M2, and pushing a lot more polygons, this system was designed for speed. Nintendo actually entered into negotiations with Matsushita about using the technology. However, Nintendo was still a fan of MIPS CPUs and wanted to use them. The architectures where not compatible, and the MX went down just like its younger brother. Or did it? Perhaps, part of it lives in the Dolphin. Rumors persist that some of the foundations of the Dolphin are based of early MX designs. Only Nintendo knows for sure."
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cach....com/xbox.html+CagEnt+Nintendo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
"As ZDNN revealed on Tuesday morning, the X-Box hardware is likely being developed by WebTV engineers - the same crew that originally worked on the failed 3DO hardware and the cancelled M2 project. After a period of lackluster sales with its 3DO console, 3DO sold its hardware division to Samsung, which then named it CagEnt. After negotiations fell through on a project with Nintendo, Samsung then sold the group to Microsoft's WebTV division. "Those guys are still there," said Hugh Martin, former CEO of 3DO Systems. "They are inside WebTV in Palo Alto (Calif.)." Martin went on to say, "I guarantee you that if there's a group that knows how to build a video-game machine, it's the one inside WebTV."
(but then goes on to mention Nvidia and GeForce256)
they said such an MX might be capable of upwards of 20 million polygons.
where as the "standard MX" (my phrase not their's) would do the said 1~4 million polys. i think the idea of an on-die video memory version of MX was scrapped, since the failure rate would have been so high back in 1997-1998.
I didnt know Samsung was involved in MX or 3DO hardware until i read the Next Generation Online article about Nintendo N2000, and Nintendo's problems finding a chipset provider.
Here's what I remember reading (no doubt some errors along the way) M2 was sold to Matsushita for $100M in 1995 as we all know. 3DO kept the rights to build future hardware (MX, M3, M4, etc) but eventually 3DO got out of console hardware and sold their hardware design team, called
3DO Systems, to Samsung, who renamed it CagEnt. the MX was further developed I believe. Samsung just owned all of it, it seems. Samsung then wanted to sell Cagnet. CagEnt was visited by all the 3D hardware companies and the console providers. Nintendo. Sega. 3Dfx. Nvidia. etc. Nintendo almost bought CagEnt and MX. together, they started working to redesign MX around MIPs CPU, instead of PPC. Nintendo didnt want PPC CPU, they wanted MIPs. this didnt work out though, IIRC, because MX like M2 was based on PPC CPUs. Nintendo and CagEnt also could not decide on what format to use for the console that would use the MX chipset. The deal fell through, and CagEnt was bought by Microsoft in 1998. Its very possible, i suppose, that XBox could have been a next-gen WebTV machine with MX chipset.
here's a couple links with far better recounts of what supposedly happened with MX, CagEnt, and Nintendo's effort to get a console together back in 1997.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=C...7475200.NAA04515@ladder01.news.aol.com&rnum=1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=C...8&selm=6k3soj$d7r$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=3
really cool article that starts (they didnt do part 2) to get into Nintendo's relationship with the MX technology and then to ArtX:
http://www.vortexonline.com/rants/032300.html
"This time Matsushita had a very viable solution for Nintendo, the MX console. What was the MX? Well, details are sketchy, but it was supposed to be the successor of the M2. Sporting two Power PC CPUs that each alone had several times the power of the M2, and pushing a lot more polygons, this system was designed for speed. Nintendo actually entered into negotiations with Matsushita about using the technology. However, Nintendo was still a fan of MIPS CPUs and wanted to use them. The architectures where not compatible, and the MX went down just like its younger brother. Or did it? Perhaps, part of it lives in the Dolphin. Rumors persist that some of the foundations of the Dolphin are based of early MX designs. Only Nintendo knows for sure."
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cach....com/xbox.html+CagEnt+Nintendo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
"As ZDNN revealed on Tuesday morning, the X-Box hardware is likely being developed by WebTV engineers - the same crew that originally worked on the failed 3DO hardware and the cancelled M2 project. After a period of lackluster sales with its 3DO console, 3DO sold its hardware division to Samsung, which then named it CagEnt. After negotiations fell through on a project with Nintendo, Samsung then sold the group to Microsoft's WebTV division. "Those guys are still there," said Hugh Martin, former CEO of 3DO Systems. "They are inside WebTV in Palo Alto (Calif.)." Martin went on to say, "I guarantee you that if there's a group that knows how to build a video-game machine, it's the one inside WebTV."
(but then goes on to mention Nvidia and GeForce256)
Mega:
Do you know why MS decided to go with Nvidia's chipset (XGPU and XMCP) rather with the in-house CageEnt design? And is it possible, now that MS seems to have been burnt with its dealings with Nvidia, that MS will decide to use the in-house design team to design the Xbox2 chipset?
Do you know why MS decided to go with Nvidia's chipset (XGPU and XMCP) rather with the in-house CageEnt design? And is it possible, now that MS seems to have been burnt with its dealings with Nvidia, that MS will decide to use the in-house design team to design the Xbox2 chipset?
megadrive0088
Regular
Bbot: I cant really say for sure. im not inside the industry or anything. however its pretty obvious that it's because Nvidia was much larger and much more sucessful than the 3DO Systems/Cagent. Nvidia had proven technology on the market. several generations of sucessful PC chip families (Riva128, TNT, TNT2, GeForce) where as CagEnt/3DO had none. (original 3DO failed, M2 never made it to release, MX was unproven) Nvidia had alot of tech & engineers from SGI Infinite Reality. MS needed the best stuff they could get at the time to go up against PS2.
While its a possibility that MS could go with its own in-house CagEnt team, along with any tech they acquired since then, for Xbox2, i truly doubt they will. I doubt very much that they could come up with GPU technology that would even come close to comparing with what Nvidia and ATI can offer, especially now, since Nvidia and ATI have grown tremendously from engineering and technology acquisitions from 3DFX+GigaPixel and ArtX respectively.
While its a possibility that MS could go with its own in-house CagEnt team, along with any tech they acquired since then, for Xbox2, i truly doubt they will. I doubt very much that they could come up with GPU technology that would even come close to comparing with what Nvidia and ATI can offer, especially now, since Nvidia and ATI have grown tremendously from engineering and technology acquisitions from 3DFX+GigaPixel and ArtX respectively.
Similar threads
