Panajev2001a said:
HEHEHE... well he IS hot...
Was the "ATI got Xbox2 contract" rumor true?
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
HEHEHE... well he IS hot...
Notice the part that says:
"They [nVidia] simply didn’t want to meet Microsoft’s demands for the floating design for Xbox Next."
Notice the mention of "floating design". Vince, Paul, and Pana, Microsoft seems to be aware of cell's or whatever will be the PS3 cpu's massive fp processing power. Microsoft must be demanding that Xbox2 fp processing power exceed PS3's.
"They [nVidia] simply didn’t want to meet Microsoft’s demands for the floating design for Xbox Next."
Notice the mention of "floating design". Vince, Paul, and Pana, Microsoft seems to be aware of cell's or whatever will be the PS3 cpu's massive fp processing power. Microsoft must be demanding that Xbox2 fp processing power exceed PS3's.
The way they worded it, it seems like the Xbox next will have some sort of design to allow it to float around..... "floating design of the Xbox next..."
Maybe it'll be something in the style of the new Sony Wega plasma displays, the ones with the glass frame and 'floating design'
Riddlewire
Regular
Xbox 2 will feature the first implementation of anti-gravity technology.
Microsoft took to heart all the complaints about the weight of the first Xbox and decided to fix the problem for the sequel. Xbox 2 will also be fully powered by its own included Stirling Engine, just like the one that's supposed to eventually be in the Segway scooter. Now, you can have a high powered home console that's also infinitely portable!
Microsoft took to heart all the complaints about the weight of the first Xbox and decided to fix the problem for the sequel. Xbox 2 will also be fully powered by its own included Stirling Engine, just like the one that's supposed to eventually be in the Segway scooter. Now, you can have a high powered home console that's also infinitely portable!
Vince,
You're flat out wrong. You're making an ass of yourself.
I guess you haven't coded in a long time. The GPU is a black box, I give it inputs under some pre-conditions and expect certain outputs with some post-conditions. Simple as that, doesn't matter how the box works on the inside. The NV3x is retarded where you have to do all this fiddling to get decent performance. ATI's method is do everything internally at one percision, which means no useless legacy support and the output the values in the desired format. That's more than enough control on the developer front. This also means all executions resources can be the same and you're nevering going to have stuff idle because it doesn't support the data format.
In the future one could move all functional units upto 32bit internally and still be fine.
Sweeny is a putz. ANd I don't care about who he is servicing. His agenda is more money than say Carmack.
You're flat out wrong. You're making an ass of yourself.
I guess you haven't coded in a long time. The GPU is a black box, I give it inputs under some pre-conditions and expect certain outputs with some post-conditions. Simple as that, doesn't matter how the box works on the inside. The NV3x is retarded where you have to do all this fiddling to get decent performance. ATI's method is do everything internally at one percision, which means no useless legacy support and the output the values in the desired format. That's more than enough control on the developer front. This also means all executions resources can be the same and you're nevering going to have stuff idle because it doesn't support the data format.
In the future one could move all functional units upto 32bit internally and still be fine.
Sweeny is a putz. ANd I don't care about who he is servicing. His agenda is more money than say Carmack.
megadrive0088
Regular
yea.
ATi is ahead of nVidia in terms of raw geometry computational power (fp) its seems. because R3XX puts out more vertices clock for clock than NV3X
- ATi has 4 straight vertex shaders in parallel in R300/350 where as Nvidia only has 3 vertex shaders in NV30/35. not that means a whole lot now, but by the time we reach NV5X and R5XX, this difference could be much more significant. (just speculation) Also, David (or Dave) Orton said ATi would do everything it could to match or supass PS3. the Nvidia CEO did not. in fact the Nvidia CEO seems to be hinting that he is helping Sony.. but that is another discussion. so it seems right now, ATi has the best shot at beating PS3. or is at least the most willing to try.
I will make my one and only post on this subject. Please don't ask for any more info.
I still have some contacts in the graphics business(other than JPA) and a birdie told me that Microsoft has already selected a graphics partner. They wouldn't say who, but it was hinted it was someone other than NVIDIA and that I would be surprised to hear who. I have no other information and haven't figured it out, but I figured here are the possibilities minus NVIDIA for graphics...
1 hardware source:
CPU+Chipset+GPU: Intel, VIA/S3
2 hadware sources:
CPU+Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD
GPU: Intel, VIA/S3, ATI, 3Dlabs, PowerVR
or
CPU+GPU: Intel, VIA/S3
Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA
or
GPU+Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, ATI
CPU: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD
3 hardware sources:
CPU: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD
Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA
GPU: Intel, VIA/S3, ATI, 3Dlabs, PowerVR
1 hardware source would be more ideal considering the pricing problems with NVIDIA. So Microsoft may have decided to go with 1 supplier, but considering that only Intel and VIA/S3 are the only possible choices I'm thinking 2 hardware sources might make more sense. Or maybe that's the surprise? Who knows.
Why did I still include NVIDIA as possibly providing the chipset? My theory is that it's possible Microsoft may still use the current MCP since they probably won't need any newer networking, audio and I/O functions. This could also explain the contract and pricing issues Microsoft had with NVIDIA and the need to straighten it out. What's the likelyhood of NVIDIA's MCP still being used? Probably not very high, but it is possible.
Anyway, please feel free to add, remove or update my list.
Tommy McClain
I still have some contacts in the graphics business(other than JPA) and a birdie told me that Microsoft has already selected a graphics partner. They wouldn't say who, but it was hinted it was someone other than NVIDIA and that I would be surprised to hear who. I have no other information and haven't figured it out, but I figured here are the possibilities minus NVIDIA for graphics...
1 hardware source:
CPU+Chipset+GPU: Intel, VIA/S3
2 hadware sources:
CPU+Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD
GPU: Intel, VIA/S3, ATI, 3Dlabs, PowerVR
or
CPU+GPU: Intel, VIA/S3
Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA
or
GPU+Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, ATI
CPU: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD
3 hardware sources:
CPU: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD
Chipset: Intel, VIA/S3, AMD, ATI, NVIDIA
GPU: Intel, VIA/S3, ATI, 3Dlabs, PowerVR
1 hardware source would be more ideal considering the pricing problems with NVIDIA. So Microsoft may have decided to go with 1 supplier, but considering that only Intel and VIA/S3 are the only possible choices I'm thinking 2 hardware sources might make more sense. Or maybe that's the surprise? Who knows.
Why did I still include NVIDIA as possibly providing the chipset? My theory is that it's possible Microsoft may still use the current MCP since they probably won't need any newer networking, audio and I/O functions. This could also explain the contract and pricing issues Microsoft had with NVIDIA and the need to straighten it out. What's the likelyhood of NVIDIA's MCP still being used? Probably not very high, but it is possible.
Anyway, please feel free to add, remove or update my list.
Tommy McClain
AzBat ms can go with power vr and have intel make the chips for them and thus one hardware source. Power vr liscences the chip. They don't actually produce them.
As for nvidia and thier 32bit fp. Well i believe its a waste at this point. They should have given us full 24bit fp like the spec calls for. Yes its nice but its kinda like the 16bit color days. Sure you can turn on 32bit but it wont be playable. So what was the point ?
As for nvidia and thier 32bit fp. Well i believe its a waste at this point. They should have given us full 24bit fp like the spec calls for. Yes its nice but its kinda like the 16bit color days. Sure you can turn on 32bit but it wont be playable. So what was the point ?
megadrive0088
Regular
I would like to see what
ATI could do with MS's CagEnt (former 3DO Systems) as a joint-effort.
MS has enough engineers that they could do their own GPU. how good it could be compared to ATI's best or Nvidia's best is something I've thought about. probably won't go it alone.
if PowerVR makes serious waves with Series 5, then Series 6 or Series 7 could be a major candidate. (thus would be Dreamcast 2!)
3Dlabs.... perhaps they could make a contribution to a MS designed GPU but I doubt an all 3DLabs part (P15, P20 etc.) would be able to fit the bill against PS3.
Intel/AMD CPU with a Via/S3 chipet with an ATI/MS GPU seems the most likely course. I just don't see MS going to one provider since the CPU * chipset providers (Intel/AMD/S3/Vida) don't do great graphics
(Intel's graphics suck) only MS, ATI, Nvidia, ATI/MS, Nvidia/MS or possibily PowerVR, PowerVR/MS, 3DLabs, 3DLabs/MS (or some other combination) could provide adaquate graphics, imho.
edit: YES Rendition Verite! oh yeah i like that thought. I always wished that Verite had beaten Voodoo. the Verite had a programmable RISC processor for setup or fp, iirc. the Verite 4000 or Verite 4 was to have 9-12 MB of eDRAM and was 100M-128M transistors, a true super-GPU. now think several generations beyond that, a billion+ transistor Verite with
48 MB or more memory. drool!
ATI could do with MS's CagEnt (former 3DO Systems) as a joint-effort.
MS has enough engineers that they could do their own GPU. how good it could be compared to ATI's best or Nvidia's best is something I've thought about. probably won't go it alone.
if PowerVR makes serious waves with Series 5, then Series 6 or Series 7 could be a major candidate. (thus would be Dreamcast 2!)
3Dlabs.... perhaps they could make a contribution to a MS designed GPU but I doubt an all 3DLabs part (P15, P20 etc.) would be able to fit the bill against PS3.
Intel/AMD CPU with a Via/S3 chipet with an ATI/MS GPU seems the most likely course. I just don't see MS going to one provider since the CPU * chipset providers (Intel/AMD/S3/Vida) don't do great graphics
(Intel's graphics suck) only MS, ATI, Nvidia, ATI/MS, Nvidia/MS or possibily PowerVR, PowerVR/MS, 3DLabs, 3DLabs/MS (or some other combination) could provide adaquate graphics, imho.
edit: YES Rendition Verite! oh yeah i like that thought. I always wished that Verite had beaten Voodoo. the Verite had a programmable RISC processor for setup or fp, iirc. the Verite 4000 or Verite 4 was to have 9-12 MB of eDRAM and was 100M-128M transistors, a true super-GPU. now think several generations beyond that, a billion+ transistor Verite with
48 MB or more memory. drool!
ZenBearClaw!
Newcomer
Fun... now i know why the console board gets picked on so much . No but really i feel kinda confused; am i the only person who read sweeny's (sp) comment and said oh, yeah ATI meets that spec? It really doesn't matter to him or anyone really what the internal precision of the chip is, his comments are about being able to output and recieve data in IEEE format. It looks to me that he is most interested in making sure that he doesn't have to F*ck with everyone's proprietary formats. So since the R300 outputs and recieves inputs in IE^3 format then its a moot issue.
If the unreal franchise was really as money grubbing and totaly unintersted in supporting tech as some people would have me believe then why was there support for the s3 METAL in UT? why have they always had a software renderer, and why were the one of the first games to support 32 bit color?
I do think that all the people sugesting dual VPUs are probably on the right track. The "captive audience" that you have with programmers when making a console could lead to some really awesome tech and some truly impressive use of shaders. Shaders have the really neat advantage that they don't appear to eat the memory bandwidth as much as other technologies allowing for more cool stuff on the screen with less memory thrashing.
As always please feel free to attack me and jump down my throat.
. No but really i feel kinda confused; am i the only person who read sweeny's (sp) comment and said oh, yeah ATI meets that spec? It really doesn't matter to him or anyone really what the internal precision of the chip is, his comments are about being able to output and recieve data in IEEE format. It looks to me that he is most interested in making sure that he doesn't have to F*ck with everyone's proprietary formats. So since the R300 outputs and recieves inputs in IE^3 format then its a moot issue. If the unreal franchise was really as money grubbing and totaly unintersted in supporting tech as some people would have me believe then why was there support for the s3 METAL in UT? why have they always had a software renderer, and why were the one of the first games to support 32 bit color?
I do think that all the people sugesting dual VPUs are probably on the right track. The "captive audience" that you have with programmers when making a console could lead to some really awesome tech and some truly impressive use of shaders. Shaders have the really neat advantage that they don't appear to eat the memory bandwidth as much as other technologies allowing for more cool stuff on the screen with less memory thrashing.
As always please feel free to attack me and jump down my throat.
Saem said:
Again, I can't help but feel that in a closed box enviroment that developers would rather have full control than not over the inputs your talking about.
A console, a closed-box, is an idealistic view for an PC developer. Nobody, myself included, will argue that the R300 isn't more usefull in the PC arena (for a developer) for the exact reasons your stated. Hell, it's like the Athlon - you just throw shit at it and it'll run it for you.
Yet, this has nothing to do with the underlying architecture and how advanced it is or it has nothing to do with which is better in a situation where developers can program directly towards that architecture.
If top-tier developers want the control over the precision on the PC (even with the inherient inter-IHV problems) what do you think Console developers would want?
Simon F said:
Heh, yeah. Was thinking about it but didn't use it - well you learn something everyday...
bbot, WHY do you continue to bring up Spong articles? Spong is trash, utter bullshit, it's reading entertainment not news.
You also forgot to mention this quote.
“Although Microsoft is working with ATi at the moment, the relatively short research and development process for Xbox 2 means that if ATi cannot fulfil, Microsoft may well decide to revert to nVidia, or even go it alone.â€
A few things I have to say. IF a big IF this "source" is true it means that MS is actually now taking Cell serious and practically shitting their pants and is desperatly trying to find a company that can make something that can stand up to PS3.
Just taking parts of the shelf isn't going to work this time, I hope they realize this.
I do think that ATI will get the contract though, Nvidia's CEO wasn't at all confident that they could best ps3, or maybe they are working together? A ton of things point to that at the moment.
You also forgot to mention this quote.
“Although Microsoft is working with ATi at the moment, the relatively short research and development process for Xbox 2 means that if ATi cannot fulfil, Microsoft may well decide to revert to nVidia, or even go it alone.â€
A few things I have to say. IF a big IF this "source" is true it means that MS is actually now taking Cell serious and practically shitting their pants and is desperatly trying to find a company that can make something that can stand up to PS3.
Just taking parts of the shelf isn't going to work this time, I hope they realize this.
I do think that ATI will get the contract though, Nvidia's CEO wasn't at all confident that they could best ps3, or maybe they are working together? A ton of things point to that at the moment.
megadrive0088
Regular
Paul, all good points you made there.
Floating design means it still hasn't settled which means that MS may change their mind, which means it isn't concrete.
Nothing to do with anti-gravity devices and floating point instructions.
Edit: where 'it' is equal to 'specification' (for the exceedingly slow minded)
Nothing to do with anti-gravity devices and floating point instructions.
Edit: where 'it' is equal to 'specification' (for the exceedingly slow minded)
Similar threads
- Locked
