Was the rumor that ATI got the contract to design the GPU for Xbox2 true after all? FIrst, Dave Baumann, who has many connections within the UK game developers community (he's from UK, you know), posts the spong.com article. The the stock market react to the news. There has to be something to it. I seriously doubt the market would react to the speculations of a small gaming website. (Dave B., tell us what you know about it)
Was the "ATI got Xbox2 contract" rumor true?
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
Psychogenics
Newcomer
Yeah I don't think that Nvidia is on MS good side or vice versa....Nvidia is mad at MS and if you ask me ATI will be too...anyway I believe that ATI
will come up with a dual gpu chip for x2.
will come up with a dual gpu chip for x2.
Im sure MS will do whats best for MS. Given that, they will make sure ATI has someone to compete for the contract, so dont rule NV out yet. A one sided bidding war isnt likely to get MS a good price. 
later,
later,
I think what has MS mad at Nvidia isn't only the prices but when Nvidia and MS weren't seeing eye to eye on the pricing, Nvidia made it very public about their dislike for Ms's practices. With Nvidia bad mouthing MS I'm sure they don't want to be associated with each other.
If this post doesn't make cense, I'm tired and aren’t spelling correctly.
If this post doesn't make cense, I'm tired and aren’t spelling correctly.
zurich said:
I disagree. nVidia's architecture is more forward looking and elegent in design than ATi's. It's easy to look at absolute preformance and not take things such as future scalability into account. I feel that nVidia's much better positioned in the marketplace.
ATi might be doing good right now with their traditional architecture outputting Fp-24, but I don't feel it's going to last very long.
Vince said:
Sweeny has already got on the record (somewhere..) that by full FP32 will be required for the next Unreal game, due sometime in 2005ish. So while yes, NVIDIA's implementation is more forward looking, currently its a big of a dog. The real surprise was looking at the shader benchmarks being done over in the 3D Hardware forum, in many cases the R300 arch is over twice as fast.
marconelly!
Veteran
I don't know about that. NV30 with it's monster cooling solution didn't looked very elegant to me :\
That is most definitely true. I honestly don't think ATI will ever overtake nVidia where it really matters - in the market/units sold.
megadrive0088
Regular
Although one would think nVidia is the most obvious choice for XBox2, ATI seems to be the frontrunner at the moment. but ALOT could change in two years, the time that the graphics provider has to be selected
(early 2005) assuming XBox2 launches in 2006.
(early 2005) assuming XBox2 launches in 2006.
megadrive0088
Regular
if I had to make XBox2 for a 2003 release, using current technology, I would definitally go with ATI VPUs.. either R350 or R360 (not RV) - I'd use two of them, with 256 MB of DDRII each. 512 MB total. a Pentium4 could sip off of the graphics memory as the Intel 733 does in Xbox.
the ATI R3XX line is better than the NV3X line right now, from a cost/ performance point of view. sure, nVidia has more advanced/lengthy shaders. but they are slow as ____ right now, and they're not being used in games. it's probably less used than PS 1.4 was.
though again, this is only 2003. the graphics landscape could look mightly different in late 2004 / early 2005 when the decision has to be made.
the ATI R3XX line is better than the NV3X line right now, from a cost/ performance point of view. sure, nVidia has more advanced/lengthy shaders. but they are slow as ____ right now, and they're not being used in games. it's probably less used than PS 1.4 was.
though again, this is only 2003. the graphics landscape could look mightly different in late 2004 / early 2005 when the decision has to be made.
jvd said:
Oh God here we go
Look at the actual underlying architectures and then tell me which is better suited towards a time when there are unified shaders and which will scale easier?I'm tired of this nearsighted talk and playing of semantics that so many use in favor of ATi. For example, "playable" FP-16? Give me a break, they have the ability to call multiple precisions in the pipeline for a reason - just because ATi's hardware is lacking, plain and simple, shouldn't be overlooked. I fought this battle back in 2000 with 32-bit color and I now see my faults, I was nearsighted and ignorant - I won't make this mistake again.
PS. The cooling solution is more due to TSMC's problems with 130nm low-K dielectrics AFAIK.
Vince said:jvd said:
Oh God here we go
I'm tired of this nearsighted talk and playing of semantics that so many use in favor of ATi. For example, "playable" FP-16? Give me a break, they have the ability to call multiple precisions in the pipeline for a reason - just because ATi's hardware is lacking, plain and simple, shouldn't be overlooked. I fought this battle back in 2000 with 32-bit color and I now see my faults, I was nearsighted and ignorant - I won't make this mistake again.
PS. The cooling solution is more due to TSMC's problems with 130nm low-K dielectrics AFAIK.
actually ati was following the specs of dx9 which requires at least 24bit fp . By rendering at less than 24bit fp nvidia is pushing a card that is not dx 9 . I'm all for pushing the boundrys . Its good that nvidia has 32bit in the card. It would have been much better if they offered it at a playable speed. But you know what it would have been even better if they offered the dx9 spec instead of having games using 16bit fp and less.
Similar threads
- Locked
