Was the "ATI got Xbox2 contract" rumor true?
- Thread starter bbot
- Start date
KnightBreed
Newcomer
You got all of that from the quote? Having secondary hardware choices is nothing new. From what I understood, Gigapixel was initially Microsoft's first choice, but the realization that they probably couldn't fullfill the request prompted them to move to nVidia... well that's the rumour anyway.Paul said:
You've been trumpeting the powerful Cell chip for some time now, but what else do we know about the system? Its graphics chip, memory subsystem, memory amount, operating system, developer tools? Knowing that the chip can supposedly process 1tflop means absolutely NOTHING until we know the specifics of the rest of the system.
And even if we did know the specifics of the system, things can and will change.
By all means let's look at the quote shall we? Assuming it IS true.
"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€
From the looks of things they are in a rukus, the short development process, them not knowing which company they will use, hell they don't even know if the company they are dealing with will even fulfil them at this point. Again this is all coming from this quote IF THE quote is acurate, which I doubt it is.
We know somethings about the graphics chip from the patent, we know that ps3 will use yellowstone ram, as well as eDRAM for the Cell it'self and most likely the GS3. OS wise we know Sony is looking towards a form of linux more than anything else, developers tools wise that's in the air.
And what is your point? Noone ever said things don't change, they will change, but I doubt for the worse. If anything things will go up from what is previously announced, look at the EE they increased the clock speed on the thing.
Tahir said:Now I doubt my own thoughts.. Im gonna abstain to what it means.Cos I no longer have a clue. Damn you doubt!
Don't doubt... your first answer is almost allways correct. I agree aswell, "floating specifications" are when they don't have a definiative part layed out, nor are their target specs set (which is almost disturbing) yet - thus their "floating" or perhaps in a state of "feature-creep" which can be very, very bad.
It would appear that Microsoft isn't leading the pack...
Joe DeFuria
Legend
KnightBreed said:
My take on the X-Box 1 matter is more like this:
MS 1st choice was nVidia...they just wanted a better deal than what nVidia was offering. So they bluffed with GigaPixel...to the point where even nVidia thought they lost the contract.
At that point, nVidia comes back with "OK...we'll do it for THIS (lower) price."
Same thing with Intel / AMD. Intel was probably MS's first choice, but the rumors said AMD. MS probably just used AMD to force a lower price than Intel initially offered.
Same thing could be happening right now. Rumors say that ATI has the deal. That could be more or less a bluff to get MS's first choice to lower its price.
AzBat said: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
VIA/S3 is an intresting alternitive to Intel. I could see them being a possibility based on price. VIA/S3 might do a deal for a bargin basement price compared to the Silicon Valley competition. What is the size of their 3d engineering staff these days? I would have guessed many would have migrated over to ATI and Nvidia.
3D Labs still makes sense to me to be in the running. They have the right type of chip design momentum with the P10 and the company that owns them, Creative Labs probably would benifit from a Microsoft contract. Also they have a strong sound chip/dsp (Sound Blaster Audigy) that they could throw into any deal at a dirt cheap price. Not a big deal, but they do own a lot of patents (The Aureal 3d sound chip patents plus all of the stuff they researched themselves).
Buggy as hell, late, slower than promised, poor support = recipe for disaster.
MS needs someone they can trust to execute.
IMO this rules out VIA (buggy) and S3 (slower than promised, poor support and late).
The only candidates IMO are PowerVR (highly unlikely), ATI (possibility) and NVIDIA (highly likely).
IMHO.. 3dfx may have a chance better than any S3 type deal
With that floating design quote it seems to me that MS are wanting to be technology leaders as well as price competitive and at this stage they may have been owned by the Sony hype machine. Me thinks MS is scared. If XBOX2 loses toooo much money too MS may quit the console market until they are in a position to truly counter on all fronts.
MS needs someone they can trust to execute.
IMO this rules out VIA (buggy) and S3 (slower than promised, poor support and late).
The only candidates IMO are PowerVR (highly unlikely), ATI (possibility) and NVIDIA (highly likely).
IMHO.. 3dfx may have a chance better than any S3 type deal
With that floating design quote it seems to me that MS are wanting to be technology leaders as well as price competitive and at this stage they may have been owned by the Sony hype machine. Me thinks MS is scared. If XBOX2 loses toooo much money too MS may quit the console market until they are in a position to truly counter on all fronts.
keegdsb said:I KNEW IT! It has to be Rendition/Micron!!! All of these years of waiting have paid off!!! Verite 10000 here we come!AzBat said:
Does the Rendition group still exist as a part of Micron? It is intresting to speculate on some sort graphic core with lots of embedded dram.
megadrive0088
Regular
Microsoft's real graphics options for the next Xbox are:
Nvidia (has 3Dfx+GigaPixel)
ATi (has ArtX, some Real3D)
MS (has CagEnt)
PowerVR
3DLabs
or some frankenstine combination of some of the above. most likely, one of the major players plus some of their own CagEnt stuff.
Nvidia (has 3Dfx+GigaPixel)
ATi (has ArtX, some Real3D)
MS (has CagEnt)
PowerVR
3DLabs
or some frankenstine combination of some of the above. most likely, one of the major players plus some of their own CagEnt stuff.
Yes, there is the fact that it's not as tweakable and console devs might want that.
The thing is if you can rapidly get it up and working and running that's great. Then you just do whatever optimisations to make it run faster and all this needs less work. I"m sure console developers wouldn't mind that at least for the rapid prototyping.
Then there is the fact that on a less process we have the R3xx basically categorically wiping the floor with the NV3x. If this is any indication, scaling execution resources and clock rate should keep the need for optimising for increased computational power isn't as big a deal as say bandwidth external to the chip.
The thing is if you can rapidly get it up and working and running that's great. Then you just do whatever optimisations to make it run faster and all this needs less work. I"m sure console developers wouldn't mind that at least for the rapid prototyping.
Then there is the fact that on a less process we have the R3xx basically categorically wiping the floor with the NV3x. If this is any indication, scaling execution resources and clock rate should keep the need for optimising for increased computational power isn't as big a deal as say bandwidth external to the chip.
megadrive0088 said:
If Micron has continued research on their VPU core, it's certainly possible they could produce a VPU core with lots of embedded dram. Micron is a big company with its own fabs. They already researched chipsets. If Micron was chosen they could provide System Ram, Chipset, and VPU. Microsoft would just need to pick a CPU then as far as major design choices go.
Micron demoed a rendition with 12megs of eDRAM, the thing would be GF1-GF2 level during the TNT-TNT2 days. Pretty damn kewl if you ask me. Especially, considering their architecture was pretty damn flexible, well fed it would really kick some serious butt.
In anycase, the thing ran very hot, but a process shrink would cool it, run faster and give it a bit more eDRAM.
In anycase, the thing ran very hot, but a process shrink would cool it, run faster and give it a bit more eDRAM.
megadrive0088
Regular
hehe, Simon, I totally did think of them, but I was listing only real graphics options, obviously
Although if Pyramid3D had come out, from TriTech, and had been sucessful with one or two chips, I would have listed them. I was so much looking forward to Pyramid3D, the one with the geometry processor...they could've had the first GPU long before Nvidia.
Although if Pyramid3D had come out, from TriTech, and had been sucessful with one or two chips, I would have listed them. I was so much looking forward to Pyramid3D, the one with the geometry processor...they could've had the first GPU long before Nvidia.
megadrive0088
Regular
Yes, agreed. I listed what I did before Micron/ former Rendition Verite team was brought up. definitally include them.
ATI (has ARTX, some Real3D)
Nvidia (has 3DFX + GigaPixel)
MS (has Cagent/MX)
PowerVR
Micron (has Rendition)
3DLabs (has some Real3D?)
Similar threads
- Locked
