With all the talk about the PS3(and some about Xbox2)......
- Thread starter Fox5
- Start date
Fox5
> It mentions NEC and Nintendo may co-develop a processor for their
> next system.
Yes, a graphics chip - not a CPU. NEC co-developed Flipper as well.
DeadmeatGA:
> This means Nintendo cannot not turn to ATI(Xbox2)
http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2003/4611.html
> and IBM(PSX3)
Don't you mean IBM(Dolphin)?
> It mentions NEC and Nintendo may co-develop a processor for their
> next system.
Yes, a graphics chip - not a CPU. NEC co-developed Flipper as well.
DeadmeatGA:
> This means Nintendo cannot not turn to ATI(Xbox2)
http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2003/4611.html
> and IBM(PSX3)
Don't you mean IBM(Dolphin)?
[/quote]cybamerc said:
I think NEC only produced Flipper, development was done by ArtX.
DeadmeatGA:
This means Nintendo cannot not turn to ATI(Xbox2)
http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2003/4611.html
and IBM(PSX3)
Don't you mean IBM(Dolphin)?
Actually he is talking about future consoles....thats why IBM->Cell->PS3.
Deepak:
> I think NEC only produced Flipper, development was done by ArtX.
Development wasn't entirely done by ArtX but nevermind that. My point is merely that "co-development" can mean any number of things and even if NEC is involved that won't rule out ATI, or another company for that matter, supplying the chip core.
> Actually he is talking about future consoles....thats why IBM->Cell->PS3.
I realize that. I also realize that he's just trolling which is why I didn't want to provide a serious answer. I was just pointing out that his logic is off. IBM announced it's Cell partnership before the NGC had even launched. If there is a conflic of interest now (which there isn't. IBM is a huge corporation) there would've have been one as well back then.
> I think NEC only produced Flipper, development was done by ArtX.
Development wasn't entirely done by ArtX but nevermind that. My point is merely that "co-development" can mean any number of things and even if NEC is involved that won't rule out ATI, or another company for that matter, supplying the chip core.
> Actually he is talking about future consoles....thats why IBM->Cell->PS3.
I realize that. I also realize that he's just trolling which is why I didn't want to provide a serious answer. I was just pointing out that his logic is off. IBM announced it's Cell partnership before the NGC had even launched. If there is a conflic of interest now (which there isn't. IBM is a huge corporation) there would've have been one as well back then.
Fox5:
G5 is entirely developed by IBM, it is not related to the previous G-processors, which were done by Motorola. Actually, G5 is an offshoot of the Power4 core and scales quite a bit higher compared to Moto's CPUs. The reason I see it as a likely candidate is that it has all the ingredients that would make it a great console CPU; really fast FSB, Altivec instructions (best SIMD implementation so far), high performance, and PowerPC compatible as well, hence possibility of backwards compatibility though I doubt Nintendo will actually do that (traditionally they haven't bothered with it). Continuing with PowerPC will mean familiarity for devs and easy porting of code from Gamecube, something Nintendo benefitted from when they moved from NES to SNES.
Deepak:
Why would NEC get royalties from Nintendo? If they did layout-related stuff on Flipper, they would have been paid a lump sum. They're also paid for each chip they fab, but that's a different story.
PC-E:
I remember when that watercooling module was announced, however, also remember it's sized for notebook CPUs, not 100+ watt desktop monsters. It might not be able to handle the load, it might also be outrageously expensive for a consumer device. Besides, watercooling merely displaces the heat, it doesn't get rid of it. We still need a radiator of some kind, and a fan to cool it. A heatsink and a fan will do just as good a job as long as we don't go for full-blown evaporation cooling (think nuclear powerplant here, rofl), and be far cheaper. I don't expect watercooling of any kind. Heatpipes, sure. Sony used them in the first iteration of PS2 after all.
DMGA:
You're off your rockers as usual if you think Nintendo is out of the console race. You're also off your rockers if you think conflicts of interest will keep Nintendo from partnering up with either ATI or IBM (one of which they've already announced a technology partnership with, and both of which they're ALREADY doing business with)... Really, I should just reply with one big, giant to anything you write, it would save me time and be just as informative as well.
*G*
G5 is entirely developed by IBM, it is not related to the previous G-processors, which were done by Motorola. Actually, G5 is an offshoot of the Power4 core and scales quite a bit higher compared to Moto's CPUs. The reason I see it as a likely candidate is that it has all the ingredients that would make it a great console CPU; really fast FSB, Altivec instructions (best SIMD implementation so far), high performance, and PowerPC compatible as well, hence possibility of backwards compatibility though I doubt Nintendo will actually do that (traditionally they haven't bothered with it). Continuing with PowerPC will mean familiarity for devs and easy porting of code from Gamecube, something Nintendo benefitted from when they moved from NES to SNES.
Deepak:
Why would NEC get royalties from Nintendo? If they did layout-related stuff on Flipper, they would have been paid a lump sum. They're also paid for each chip they fab, but that's a different story.
PC-E:
I remember when that watercooling module was announced, however, also remember it's sized for notebook CPUs, not 100+ watt desktop monsters. It might not be able to handle the load, it might also be outrageously expensive for a consumer device. Besides, watercooling merely displaces the heat, it doesn't get rid of it. We still need a radiator of some kind, and a fan to cool it. A heatsink and a fan will do just as good a job as long as we don't go for full-blown evaporation cooling (think nuclear powerplant here, rofl), and be far cheaper. I don't expect watercooling of any kind. Heatpipes, sure. Sony used them in the first iteration of PS2 after all.
DMGA:
You're off your rockers as usual if you think Nintendo is out of the console race. You're also off your rockers if you think conflicts of interest will keep Nintendo from partnering up with either ATI or IBM (one of which they've already announced a technology partnership with, and both of which they're ALREADY doing business with)... Really, I should just reply with one big, giant
to anything you write, it would save me time and be just as informative as well.*G*
True..true...we'll just have to wait and see I guess. FWIW Hitachi has a laptop sold in Japan right now that uses a different water cooling approach. Anyway NEC says its unit can be used for servers and desktops too so...
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,86363,00.asp
It doesn't seem like a fan is needed at all. 8)
My guess is that if an Intel CPU is inside the next Xbox raw clockspeed will be moderate. It will probably be a dual core Tejas able to handle up to a maximum of 8 threads on the fly. Low latency memory will be a very important requirement because of Intels Hyper-Threading technology. So I speculate the CPU will be connect to a pool of RLDRAM II from Micron.
Tejas is not a dual-core chip. In fact, Intel won't have dual-core anything in the 2005 timeframe except maybe some future version of itanic to my knowledge, I'm not sure when they've scheduled to introduce dual core P4s since they seem to be betting heavily on hype-threading instead.
It's not as if you just order these things up from a menu you know... They have to actually be designed first.
Dual core CPU would be far too big in die size and transistors to be used in a consumer device like a console, and it's not as if it would actually be needed either. Expect around 50% larger than single-chip tejas, assuming same 1MB L2 which might be inadequate if it's supposed to handle 8 threads simultaneously. With the huge 128-byte L2 cache lines the P4 uses you might have cache thrashing galore going on there...
*G*
It's not as if you just order these things up from a menu you know... They have to actually be designed first.
Dual core CPU would be far too big in die size and transistors to be used in a consumer device like a console, and it's not as if it would actually be needed either. Expect around 50% larger than single-chip tejas, assuming same 1MB L2 which might be inadequate if it's supposed to handle 8 threads simultaneously. With the huge 128-byte L2 cache lines the P4 uses you might have cache thrashing galore going on there...
*G*
Grall said:Tejas is not a dual-core chip. In fact, Intel won't have dual-core anything in the 2005 timeframe except maybe some future version of itanic to my knowledge, I'm not sure when they've scheduled to introduce dual core P4s since they seem to be betting heavily on hype-threading instead.
It's not as if you just order these things up from a menu you know... They have to actually be designed first.
Dual core CPU would be far too big in die size and transistors to be used in a consumer device like a console, and it's not as if it would actually be needed either. Expect around 50% larger than single-chip tejas, assuming same 1MB L2 which might be inadequate if it's supposed to handle 8 threads simultaneously. With the huge 128-byte L2 cache lines the P4 uses you might have cache thrashing galore going on there...
*G*
I don't think the cpu is important in the xbox 2 . A 3ghz athlon 64 , p4 , celeron , or even athlon (if they can get it that high) would b e more than enough. Its the gpu that they need to worry about .
Re: ...
Eh....didn't both PSX and Nintendo both use chips from SGI, and from the same line of SGI chips?
BTW, with how cheap small harddrives are, I doubt microsoft would completely drop a harddrive in the next system.
Geez, 2005 really doesn't seem that far away, I hope the new consoles don't turn out to be just slightly better versions of the graphics we have now/soon.(on PC, like slightly better than Doom 3..which kind of looks like claymation) Then again, I haven't been impressed by a console's graphics since the n64 but I have had fun with the games.(yeah, Wave Race and Super Smash Bros! oh yeah, and pikmin)
DeadmeatGA said:
Eh....didn't both PSX and Nintendo both use chips from SGI, and from the same line of SGI chips?
BTW, with how cheap small harddrives are, I doubt microsoft would completely drop a harddrive in the next system.
Geez, 2005 really doesn't seem that far away, I hope the new consoles don't turn out to be just slightly better versions of the graphics we have now/soon.(on PC, like slightly better than Doom 3..which kind of looks like claymation) Then again, I haven't been impressed by a console's graphics since the n64 but I have had fun with the games.(yeah, Wave Race and Super Smash Bros! oh yeah, and pikmin)
Re: ...
well, i think you can rest assured that next generation graphics will be a lot more than "only slightly better" what we have now. dont raise your expectations TOO high, but a good deal of improvement will be seen.
u will NEVER see a game that looks like DOOM3 on the next generation of consoles simply for the fact that i expect them to push so many polygons that the octagonal heads syndrome in DOOM3 will completely disappear.
oh, and if u've never seen anything to tickle your fancy on this generation of consoles, then i dont know what will.... seeing SH3 in progressive scan made me play the thing for like 10 hours straight this weekend (finished it twice)... gonna make a thread about this actually, it really deserves...
Fox5 said:
well, i think you can rest assured that next generation graphics will be a lot more than "only slightly better" what we have now. dont raise your expectations TOO high, but a good deal of improvement will be seen.
u will NEVER see a game that looks like DOOM3 on the next generation of consoles simply for the fact that i expect them to push so many polygons that the octagonal heads syndrome in DOOM3 will completely disappear.
oh, and if u've never seen anything to tickle your fancy on this generation of consoles, then i dont know what will.... seeing SH3 in progressive scan made me play the thing for like 10 hours straight this weekend (finished it twice)... gonna make a thread about this actually, it really deserves...
well, real-time graphics IS reaching a point of diminishing returns....if you have one console that can do 1 billion PPS, and another that can do 2 billion PPS, the 2x difference in speed translates to very little visual difference (I know it's a stupid example, but you get my point)
Panajev2001a
Veteran
I will go out on a limb and say 65-90nm ( prolly 90 nm ), IPF processor, probably a derivative of Deerfield...
The speed is there
The speed is there
I'm quiet certain that everyone will be using 65nm, and the all the major next-gen consoles will launch in 2006. I believe this since using a totally new fab process for a low end product like a console will be too difficult (rumor has it that the prescott is going to product something around 100W in heat disapation at launch, and if intel, who probably have the best fabs in the world, have trouble with a new fab process, then I'm not expecting much better from Toshiba/Sony or anyone else). Everyone will probably be using 65nm since PS3 is using it, and Nintendo and MS wants to be competitive in performance.
Also, anyone else think that the XB-"2" will use an Athlon 64 other than jvd? I do since the A64 is a lot cooler than the Prescott and MS has show an unusual amount of interest in x86-64. As for the limited fab capacity of AMD, they can simply license the chip to MS and MS can fab it elsewhere.
Also, anyone else think that the XB-"2" will use an Athlon 64 other than jvd? I do since the A64 is a lot cooler than the Prescott and MS has show an unusual amount of interest in x86-64. As for the limited fab capacity of AMD, they can simply license the chip to MS and MS can fab it elsewhere.
Similar threads
- Locked
