Remember this post by Tommy McClain about XBox2?
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
bbot said:
False comparison. The "Cell" in PS3 will have the task of Transform and Lighting whereas on Xbox2 this will be performed on the R5XX. To compare specs, don't just look at one thing like the CPU but instead the look at the system as an integrated whole. Many people take this approach to PS2 and Xbox, they either say "Xbox sucks" since it has a "weak CPU," or that "PS2 sucks" since it has "no hardware T+L." These fallacies originate from performing a non-holistic analysis of the consoles.
Still, you are right, it does seem odd they would use a chip heavily optimised to run basic tasks at low power settings rather than one a little but better. Even on a lower power device such as a console, power (or conversely heat dissipation) can't be at that much of a premium.
The only stuff that's planned to use 65 nm and ship from Intel in 2005 will be a high-end desktop Pentium X, and just looking at what Intel sold MS for the X-Box, the best you could hope for would be a Dothan-derivative with 1 MB L2 or less running at roughly 2 GHz. (90nm 'Celeron-M')bbot said:
Not that that wouldn't be a nice CPU and with under 30W TDP, it would also fit the form factor very nicely and quitely.
cu
incurable, just speculating
PC-Engine said:
the news is not from the inquirer they only report it..
it's from a chinese website.
http://www.gzeasy.com/itnewsdetail.asp?nID=11444
zidane1strife
Banned
Two cups filled to the brim(yes, expect it sony to push the process to the limit.)... one cup filled to the brim...
edit
oops from another thread I think, anyway I'm leaving it here
JF_Aidan_Pryde
Regular
Pure speculation mode:
NVIDIA didn't want the contract probably because MS insisted on IP licencing other than buying chips. MS has probably realised that they'll never be competitive against Sony if they don't have the ability to integrate and own their own technology. MS insisted on this and NV quit, ATI comes in. ATI will probably still do hardware for Nintendo but just sell IP to MS. This way, no one gets screwed. ATI gets the sweetest deal.
NVIDIA didn't want the contract probably because MS insisted on IP licencing other than buying chips. MS has probably realised that they'll never be competitive against Sony if they don't have the ability to integrate and own their own technology. MS insisted on this and NV quit, ATI comes in. ATI will probably still do hardware for Nintendo but just sell IP to MS. This way, no one gets screwed. ATI gets the sweetest deal.
phed said:
ATI can always have a compatibility HAL of some sorts.. i guess?
In other news..
http://www.gamers.com/news/1444748
wtf? No BR, AOD, HD-DVD? Bleh.
Read the rest of the sentence - AFAICT, that's just confirming that it'll play DVDs (and CDs, but that should be a given), without requiring a DVD kit like the current xbox does. They probably haven't 100% decided on what format to use for games yet, plus iirc, the official HDDVD format hasn't been decided yet, has it?zurich said:
Megadrive1988
Veteran
yeah that's interesting speculation. I know you are not alone in thinking that too. MS owns all these patents, some of which they acquired when they bought the 3DO hardware team from Samsung in 1998. So MS has all the tech for the MX chipset, which was an evolution of the M2 that should have come out and smashed PS1 and N64. <sigh> but Matsushita
didnt have the balls to go against Sony, so they canned M2 in 1997. Anyway, if there was follow-on techology devolped to the M2 & MX, such as M3, M4, M5, etc., some of that could end up in Xbox 2, in some form. recall that the MX chipset was the first known gaming technology to have VRAM or RAM embedded into the graphics processor. years before the PS2's GS. I hope on-chip memory / eDRAM is put into XBox 2 GPU/VPU, among other things, like all these MS patents for graphics.
I just wanted to add a little of my own speculation to yours
I agree that MS needs to have its own technology integrated & implimented into Xbox 2, if it ever hopes to really compete with Sony.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Yep, I'm way behind on CPU tech. I don't follow it very closely. All I can say is, I hope Xbox2 does not use Pentium-M or some derivative of it.
Even a Prescott / Pentium 5 / Pentium X, or whatever, with HT and SSE3 is not going to match Cell. I know the idea of Xbox and most probably Xbox 2 is to let the GPU handle all the T&L, all the graphics work. but still, I hope the Xbox has a decent CPU. perhaps even a twin core CPU from AMD or Intel.
I've read that MS wants its own costom CPU, in addition to wanting its own costom MS-designed GPU.
I just would like a killer CPU in Xbox 2, not something lame for its time like the Intel 733 Mhz P3/Celeron with only 128K.
And also, is it impossible that Intel might have something to rival Cell, with many cores and APU-type processors?
questions, questions
Bombthroat
Newcomer
We can think way back to Microsoft's Fahrenheit Project and Talisman graphics to be able to see Microsoft has been researching graphics for quite a while.
I'm glad to hear Microsoft has licensed the IP from ATI and is going to be able to add some stuff from their portfolio of tricks. This will help differentiate the XBox 2 more from the PC than it is in it's current generation and help wage the battle against Sony and Nintendo.
I'm glad to hear Microsoft has licensed the IP from ATI and is going to be able to add some stuff from their portfolio of tricks. This will help differentiate the XBox 2 more from the PC than it is in it's current generation and help wage the battle against Sony and Nintendo.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
can someone please explain Talisman to me? as a piece hardware i mean.
from the little I know of it, Talisman was going to be a chip-set with seperate chip components coming from several different companies. this was to be a Microsoft controlled 3D concept to kill off all other PC 3D hardware and APIs. it didnt have a frame buffer or pixel pipeline (correct me if im mistaken here)
one of the key pieces of silicon in the original Talisman chip-set was the MSP or Media Signal Processor, sort of a geometry processor, the front end of the hardware. (something called the Escalante? it was a major component of Talisman also, or, a nearly full Talisman chip-set) ....basicly I remember reading Talisman was some sort of deffered renderer or non-traditional render, like PowerVR. Talisman, back in 1996-1997 was ment to do something like 1.2 or 1.5 polygons. and it had several other major processing pieces, besides the MSP, including chips from Samsung, Philips, Cirrus Logic and Fujitsu. (maybe?) Then later several companies came up with their own single-chip, modified versions of Talisman, like Trident and Fujitsu, but nothing really happened and it just put on the back burner, the cost was too high, companies couldnt or wouldnt work together, there were
problems, it didnt work right, etc.
That's my microscopic understanding of Talisman, a hardware & software design for 3D graphics and multimedia from MS, that was ment to be a smarter, more effiecient, less brute-force approach to 3D.
can anyone add to what i said, or correct something ive almost certainly got wrong?
and, how could Talisman influence Xbox 2, if at all?
from the little I know of it, Talisman was going to be a chip-set with seperate chip components coming from several different companies. this was to be a Microsoft controlled 3D concept to kill off all other PC 3D hardware and APIs. it didnt have a frame buffer or pixel pipeline (correct me if im mistaken here)
one of the key pieces of silicon in the original Talisman chip-set was the MSP or Media Signal Processor, sort of a geometry processor, the front end of the hardware. (something called the Escalante? it was a major component of Talisman also, or, a nearly full Talisman chip-set) ....basicly I remember reading Talisman was some sort of deffered renderer or non-traditional render, like PowerVR. Talisman, back in 1996-1997 was ment to do something like 1.2 or 1.5 polygons. and it had several other major processing pieces, besides the MSP, including chips from Samsung, Philips, Cirrus Logic and Fujitsu. (maybe?) Then later several companies came up with their own single-chip, modified versions of Talisman, like Trident and Fujitsu, but nothing really happened and it just put on the back burner, the cost was too high, companies couldnt or wouldnt work together, there were
problems, it didnt work right, etc.
That's my microscopic understanding of Talisman, a hardware & software design for 3D graphics and multimedia from MS, that was ment to be a smarter, more effiecient, less brute-force approach to 3D.
can anyone add to what i said, or correct something ive almost certainly got wrong?
and, how could Talisman influence Xbox 2, if at all?
bbot said:
BBot,
Sorry for the delay. Only have access at work, but lately I've been having to spend a lot more time in the field than usual.
I have no idea what Microsoft is planning to do. The information I've been receiving was not specific. In fact, I was never told who would get the graphics contract. Only that I and others would be surprised to hear who was finally chosen. Plus, I don't go asking my sources these kind of questions. I usually let them tell me what they want to say.
Want my best guess? Well, I have a suspicion that Microsoft will just select whatever CPU that fits their target for beating or meeting their PS3 expectations. I doubt very seriously they will choose a processor that doesn't look as good on paper versus the PS3. If they don't, then they wil loose mindshare with the public before it's even released. I also think it's a crap shoot which company provides the processor. I highly suspect they will tie it in with whomever they get to manufacturer the graphics processor. It's even possible that they will just license their own x86 processor technology from Intel, AMD, VIA or hell maybe even Transmeta. At this point I think anything is possible.
Tommy McClain
AzBat if that is true I have good guess as to the xbox2 case, it is going to be one huge heatsink.
In theory some of the smaller x86 cores with SIMD have decent Watts&area&computation per core, but they just dont have the time to design a multicore x86 design with lots of cores (although they might be able to get a dual core from AMD, if they already have it in development). It would need too much R&D. The best they can do is take the most monstrous P4 derivative Intel has to offer ... realistically they can not afford that though, neither in the budget for manufacturing cost nor the budget for power consumption. In peak performance it will almost certainly still lag a massively parallel design by something like an order of magnitude.
They are tied to existing cores with minimal modification, unless Sony fucks it up again they will be FUBAR.
In theory some of the smaller x86 cores with SIMD have decent Watts&area&computation per core, but they just dont have the time to design a multicore x86 design with lots of cores (although they might be able to get a dual core from AMD, if they already have it in development). It would need too much R&D. The best they can do is take the most monstrous P4 derivative Intel has to offer ... realistically they can not afford that though, neither in the budget for manufacturing cost nor the budget for power consumption. In peak performance it will almost certainly still lag a massively parallel design by something like an order of magnitude.
They are tied to existing cores with minimal modification, unless Sony fucks it up again they will be FUBAR.
MfA said:
OK, I guess I should have clarified that by saying "Microsoft will WANT TO choose a processor such that the Xbox2 overall performance will look as good or better on paper versus PS3 overall performance." That better? Personally I can't see how they can release a successful console if the public perceives the Xbox2 is not as fast or faster than the PS3. If it hadn't been for the better performance of the current Xbox, I seriously doubt Microsoft would have sold as many as they had.
Tommy McClain
Similar threads
