SiS in Xbox

[demalion]

SiS Announces Technology Development Agreement with Microsoft for "future Xbox technologies".

This says (or confirms, rather) interesting things about both SiS and ATi, as far as their focus and direction, AFAICS. As well as MS and some differences in how they want to implement the next console hardware.

 

[RussSchultz]

Very strange.

SiS(chipset)+ IBM(processor?)+ ATI(graphics)= XBOX


Shaping up to be a very different beast than the original.

 

[chavvdarrr]

well, IBM will produce the CPU, I could not find any evidence it will design it ... or am I wrong?

 

[RussSchultz]

well, IBM will produce the CPU, I could not find any evidence it will design it ... or am I wrong?

AFAIK, they don't have any recent x86 designs. The last chips they made and marketed was the 486/100(or was it /75?) clones. They've got some ties with AMD to develop fab technology, but why say IBM if its an AMD part fabbed at IBM? AMD has their own fabs. I thought maybe a transmeta part fabbed at IBM, but Transmeta just yesterday announced they're dropping IBM as a fab.

It would suprise me if it wasn't an x86, but the current bits of information don't seem to be pointing that way.

 

[Fodder]

well, IBM will produce the CPU, I could not find any evidence it will design it ... or am I wrong?

From everyone's favourite and most trusted site, the Inq, is this little tidbit, supposedly from an email out of IBM.

It may be a cliché, but this is an "IBM Team" effort. Many of our major operations will be involved in the project, including -- Rochester, Minn. for design, our Austin, Tx. Advanced Microprocessor Development Center and Raleigh, N.C. Technology Park for development, East Fishkill, N.Y. for manufacturing and packaging, and Burlington, Vt. for mask and test work. It exemplifies the type of business that we're starting to win -- deals that use the full capabilities of IBM's many resources.

 

[AzBat]

well, IBM will produce the CPU, I could not find any evidence it will design it ... or am I wrong?

AFAIK, they don't have any recent x86 designs. The last chips they made and marketed was the 486/100(or was it /75?) clones. They've got some ties with AMD to develop fab technology, but why say IBM if its an AMD part fabbed at IBM? AMD has their own fabs. I thought maybe a transmeta part fabbed at IBM, but Transmeta just yesterday announced they're dropping IBM as a fab.

It would suprise me if it wasn't an x86, but the current bits of information don't seem to be pointing that way.

All great points Russ. I really thought IBM would release an x86-compatible processor and AMD and Transmeta were the only ones that could have been candidates. I was at Transmeta's site yesterday and although I didn't see that they dropped IBM, I did see that they have been using TSMC for quite some time.

As for your last comment, are you saying that you believe the current bits are saying PowerPC instead of x86? Hmm... To me, the selection of SiS for the southbridge screams x86 to me. However, I did find this nugget that might provide another puzzle piece that connects SiS to PowerPC...

SiS licenses IBM 'design and process' patents
07/03/2001
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/17393.html

Wow. I'm going to look to see if I can find more on this SiS/IBM deal.

Tommy McClain

 

[AzBat]

Looks like the IBM patent announcement was made on 3/6/2001...

http://www.sis.com/press/ibmpatent.htm

But 2 days later SiS announced a patent agreement with Intel too...

http://www.sis.com/press/intel_p4.htm

But since then SiS have made a few other Intel agreements...

SiS Announces to Extend the Long-term Chipset Licence Agreement with Intel
4/16/2003
http://www.sis.com/news/press/Intel_licence.htm

SiS Announces to Obtain the Pentium ® M Microprocessor License Agreement with Intel ®
9/8/2003
http://www.sis.com/news/press/PentiumM_Licence.htm

Interesting. I can see why Microsoft went with SiS. If the deal with IBM didn't work out then they could have selected Intel for the CPU and still use SiS for the chipset technology.

Looking over other SiS agreements you find these...

SiS Announces Licensing of CPU Technology from Rise Technology
10/12/1999
http://www.sis.com/press/rise.htm

Silicon Integrated Systems (SiS) Licences ARM Core for PC Logic Applications
8/06/2001
http://www.sis.com/press/arm.htm

Silicon Integrated Systems (SiS) Licenses RDRAM Technology from Rambus Inc.
11/12/2001
http://www.sis.com/press/rambus.htm

Interesting portfolio if you ask me.

Tommy McClain

 

[euan]

Maybe it won't be an X86? Dreamcast V2?

 

[AzBat]

We've all heard the rumors about how the Xbox2 will be wireless. In fact a lot rumors state it will be a wireless gateway using 820.11b and/or 820.11g. I find it interesting that SiS has provisions for that. In fact, here's there latest announcment about it...

SiS Marches into Wireless Market, Eyes On Wireless Life, Unlimited Possibilities
7/3/2003
http://www.sis.com/news/press/wireless.htm

In addition to notebook computers, SiS will also extend the development to include related information electronic products, such as Thin-Client, projector gateways, digital video recorders, etc, which will become the main stream of consumer electronics in the future.

Interesting stuff.

Tommy McClain

 

[bloodbob]

Microsoft originally wanted a .net chip to be developed for the XBOX 2 so they didn't want a anything on the market. Really it doesn't matter all that much they only thing microsoft would have to redeveloper is the core of the kernal and the compiler technology it would not effect the developers. As far as X86 cpus go I believe IBM do most of AMDs R&D research these days anyway so they aren't completely devoid of knowledge of that market.

 

[Vince]

As far as X86 cpus go I believe IBM do most of AMDs R&D research these days anyway so they aren't completely devoid of knowledge of that market.

I think IBM's actual work for AMD is/was centered around their process technology, especially SOI which proved troublesome for AMD.

There are other reports it'll be based on the PowerPC core. Which isn't surprising considering the projected launch window is 2H2005. Once you factor in the leadtime necessary for a console, they're about 1.5 to 2 years too late to do anything architectually which is altered significantly.

 

[AzBat]

As far as X86 cpus go I believe IBM do most of AMDs R&D research these days anyway so they aren't completely devoid of knowledge of that market.

I think IBM's actual work for AMD is/was centered around their process technology, especially SOI which proved troublesome for AMD.

There are other reports it'll be based on the PowerPC core.

That article was originally posted on ExtremeTech.com...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1371393,00.asp

I've seen similar news items that posted the same thing.

Which isn't surprising considering the projected launch window is 2H2005. Once you factor in the leadtime necessary for a console, they're about 1.5 to 2 years too late to do anything architectually which is altered significantly.

You don't consider going from an x86 architecture to a PowerPC architecture "altered significantly"? I do. The OS, DirectX and tools have to be re-written or at least re-complied for the PowerPC architecture. Like you said there's not a lot of time left considering they're wanting to release Xmas 2004 to Xmas 2005.

As for your projected launch window, I'm sure everybody is expecting that(myself included), but I'm starting to see reasons why Microsoft would want to release earlier than that. If you go by precedence, Sony will launch in Japan first and it could come anytime between December 2004(PS1 launched 12/94) and March 2005(PS2 launched 3/00). This means Microsoft needs to plan for a Xbox 2 launch in the same time frame. Not sure if they would both launch in Japan or US(or both), but I bet Microsoft is not going to let Sony launch before them in any region.

Tommy McClain

 

[Mariner]

Well, as it appears that IBM and AMD collaborate closely on the development of technology, it would seem likely that there could be an AMD64 based chip in the next XBox. As I understand things AMD has a shortage of fab capacity compared to Intel. I'm sure that AMD would like to have the CPU of XBox2 but this would undoubtedly be lower-margin than the rest of their mainstream CPUs. It would work out great for AMD if they designed an AMD64 chip in collaboration with IBM who could then produce it using their fabs - AMDs fab space could still be used for their main CPU market while they still got royalties from the XBox contract.

This would be good for AMD because:
Royalties + Kudos from having the XBox CPU

This could be good for IBM because:
Royalties + Kudos + Integrating with other XBox chips perhaps (?)

This would be good for Microsoft because:
No need to change from x86 + "64-bit chip!" + reliable supplier of chips (IBM)

If IBM are really still looking for customers for their fabs, you could even see them producing the ATI chips for the XBox, too.

After all that speculation one thing is obvious, though. Whoever produces each part of the XBox is likely to screwed on pricing by Microsoft!

 

[RussSchultz]

Microsoft originally wanted a .net chip to be developed for the XBOX 2

That makes the most sense to me so far.

 

[cthellis42]

You don't consider going from an x86 architecture to a PowerPC architecture "altered significantly"? I do. The OS, DirectX and tools have to be re-written or at least re-complied for the PowerPC architecture. Like you said there's not a lot of time left considering they're wanting to release Xmas 2004 to Xmas 2005.

They altered the innards of their Xbox significantly, but they don't have the time to work through and get an entirely custom chip for their use. It would compound the work they already need to do on the software side, and require a LOT more development time from IBM and communication between all ends in the process. Vince said "architectually which is altered significantly"; it is basically a given that they will be getting a somewhat-modified-for-their-purpose existing PowerPC design.

 

[AzBat]

Microsoft originally wanted a .net chip to be developed for the XBOX 2

That makes the most sense to me so far.

I did a Google to see where I had heard this before and found the following Inquirer article...

Microsoft may have Licence to Kill CPUs
April 2, 2002
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3101

It's mainly talking about how Microsoft wants a CPU that runs Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL). Interesting to say the least. If you search for Xbox and MSIL, you'll find a few articles on it, but I think most of them are just using Inquirer's article. I wonder if Microsoft just licensed the processor technology from IBM to allow them to design a processor that does exactly this?

Tommy McClain

 

[AzBat]

You don't consider going from an x86 architecture to a PowerPC architecture "altered significantly"? I do. The OS, DirectX and tools have to be re-written or at least re-complied for the PowerPC architecture. Like you said there's not a lot of time left considering they're wanting to release Xmas 2004 to Xmas 2005.

They altered the innards of their Xbox significantly, but they don't have the time to work through and get an entirely custom chip for their use. It would compound the work they already need to do on the software side, and require a LOT more development time from IBM and communication between all ends in the process. Vince said "architectually which is altered significantly"

OK, I see how it's worded now. I understand where he's coming from. Sorry Vince.

it is basically a given that they will be getting a somewhat-modified-for-their-purpose existing PowerPC design.

If they go with PowerPC, then I'm sure that would be the case, but I'm still having a hard time believing PowerPC is a given.

Tommy McClain

 

[Quitch]

I'm not overly familiar with the PowerPC architecture. Is there anywhere that gives a quick rundown of the main differences (pros and cons) between it and x86?

 

[Tim]

I'm not overly familiar with the PowerPC architecture. Is there anywhere that gives a quick rundown of the main differences (pros and cons) between it and x86?

The main difference between PowerPC and x86 is that PowerPC is Risc and x86. You can find a PDF about IBM's current PowerPC chip (the 970/G5) here:

http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780

This chip is basicicly a cut down Power4.

 

[Gubbi]

Speculation ahead:

I think IBM has been hired to do the SOC design for XBox 2 (much like they designed Gamecube's Flipper) and maybe to act as a foundry.

To really compete on cost in the long term I think MS will go after shrinking the entire XB2 system into one big fat IC, much like Sony has done with the PS 2 chips. This means MS has to have deals that grants them access to the different parts as cores.

They've already secure ATI to provide the GPU core, signed SiS for the supporting chipset, IBM to do the SOC design (my guess).

What they need is a high performance CPU core. If they are going to provide backwards compatability they need either 1.) A x86 CPU 2.) A CPU that is fast enough to emulate x86 @ 733 P3 speeds. I think 1) is more likely.

I consider the most likely candidates to lease a x86 CPU core to MS as:
1.) AMD - K7/8 core, either with it's own integrated memory controller or with a big fat HT pipe to the GPU/chipset
2.) Transmeta - Efficion (correct spelling?)

Both of these companies are in less than stellar financial shape and therefore more likely to be bought than Intel (who also has a tradition of providing Si and not IP).

I find 2) interesting in particular if there was a way to directly generate code for the 8-way VLIW CPU that it really is underneath the x86 JIT-layer.

Cheers
Gubbi