How does MS feel about ATI's GPU problems

[Burrbaby]

I'm a believer in Nvidia products and love the fact that ATI has kept up a consistent level of competition in the GPU field for the last few years.

I am a little worried about the XBOX360 though. If ATI is actually having as many problems as you all say they are, is Microsoft getting an inferior product for their new console? Will the GPU the Nvidia is currently shipping for PC's make ATI's XBOX360 solution look like a joke.

It certainly is an important question considering ATI's console GPU is supposed to be out in only a few months and be competitive for a few years.

I was totally looking forward to another round of competitive consoles(XB360,PS3,Rev) but it looks like ATI might have inadvertenly hindered Microsoft before their product even launches.

Any thoughts?

 

[kylebisme]

I think I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[rbV5]

If Xbox 360 has issues, it wont be with the ATI graphics.

 

[McArra]

ATi only designed it so yields are only Microsoft's problem. ATi isn't producing the chip, just designing it from what I know.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: McArra
ATi only designed it so yields are only Microsoft's problem. ATi isn't producing the chip, just designing it from what I know.

I've also seen it posted 1 or 2 times that ATI "designed" the chip for MS who will then arrange for production of the chip for XBox360.

IF this is truely the case...IMHO, MS really messed up (i.e., trying to save money...may cost them LOTS more money in the end).

Being the "guy in the middle" stinks when there's problems. If the above is true, and there are any problem which may be graphics related to the 360, ATI and the manufacturing firm (TSM?) will be pointing fingers at each other while weeks and/or months may pass and MS tries to figure out who's really to blaim for any problems.

I've been the "guy in the middle" before;-)

 

[rbV5]

I've also seen it posted 1 or 2 times that ATI "designed" the chip for MS who will then arrange for production of the chip for XBox360.

IF this is truely the case...IMHO, MS really messed up (i.e., trying to save money...may cost them LOTS more money in the end). .

MS messed up by having a graphics chip company design their graphic chip? Yea, too bad they didn't just go with one of their in-house hardware designs instead.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Mr./Mrs. believer of nVidia doesn't seem to have a clue as to what's going on here. The GPU ATI is working on for desktop PCs is not the same thing as the GPU they designed for Microsoft and their XBox360. This situation isn't the same as the GF3/XBoxGPU, where the parts were very similar.

Even if the products were the same, according to current events, it seems as if ATI would be ahead of schedule for the XBox360 if the R520 was going to be powering that system as is.

 

[mwmorph]

yup. another stupid post by someone who has no clue what they are talking about.
R500(Xbox360) is next gen gfx chip with unified shaders, the RSX is a G70(current gen) which has 24 fixed pipes/8 fixed vs(PS3).
not competitive my a55.

I guess you'll be next talking about 1+7 cores is better than 6 cores huh since the cell has better flops numbers than the Xbox360 cpu?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Microsoft is trying to make money with the XB360- that is something that you should keep in mind whenever thinking about how they are handling this console versus how they handled the first generation XBox.

In terms of fabrication issues that they may or may not be running in to, they don't need to have a perfectly smooth ramp up for launch, they can be fabbing the chips now with relatively very low yields and retape out numerous times until they hit a yield point they like. The console model works nothing like the PC model- this chip will be in production for several years after the R520 has been discontinued- higher initial costs tend to end up being considerably lower per chip when scales of economy have been taken into account.

In terms of them being in trouble in terms of lower power levels then the competition- the PS2 is closing in on 100 Million installed base versus the XB/GC which are still trying to hit the 60 Million mark combined. That is with the PS2 at a very large disadvantage in terms of power. What the PS2 did have was a large head start over the others- MS is trying to exploit that this generation instead of shipping later with superior hardware.

Also, Sony is fabbing all of their chips themselves. MS has to rely on other to fab their chips for them. While Sony can force their entire foundry to focus on one chip if the complexity of their chips causes problems, MS needs to have a part that can be dealt with by a team at a foundry they do not have control over.

The ArtX team is the one that handled the R500 for MS, they have proven themselves multiple times in the console world and have shown that they can make parts competitive with far more expensive offerings under a tight budget.

It isn't just MS that is trying to keep costs under control either. Sony could have opted for dual RSXs, that would have had them with a staggering power advantage over MS and Nintendo, but they opted not to as Sony needs to make money of the PS3(versus MS really wanting to with XB36). While the PS3 will have a clear edge in theoretical power- how much of that is going to be seen in end product remains to be seen. The XBox has a clear edge over the GC in theoretical power but comparing the best looking titles for both platforms you would be hard pressed to be able to tell(although obviously the PS2 is much weaker and clearly so compared to the other two).

 

[Hacp]

Is the RS500 90NM? If it is, then I can understand why MS went with ATi. Also, notice that Microsoft didn't announce officially the specs of the graphics card. They do this so in case that the yields aren't that great, they can just push the pipes down a little and use higher frequency memory.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: rbV5

I've also seen it posted 1 or 2 times that ATI "designed" the chip for MS who will then arrange for production of the chip for XBox360.

IF this is truely the case...IMHO, MS really messed up (i.e., trying to save money...may cost them LOTS more money in the end). .

MS messed up by having a graphics chip company design their graphic chip? Yea, too bad they didn't just go with one of their in-house hardware designs instead.

I don't think you understand my statement. Let me explain my point so you MAY understand...MS paid nVidia for the "end" product with the original XBox in that they contracted nVidia to design, produce and deliver a final graphics solution for the XBox for a set price. The fact that nVidia subcontracted the actual production of the chips makes no difference...nVidia was responsible for anything which may have gone wrong with the chips be it design or manufacturing problems. nVidia would "own" ANY problems with the chips.

MS apparently believes they will be able to take ATI's design and "shop it" to manufacturing firms. In essence, cut out any markup ATI would add for working the design all the way through the manufacturing process.

I say MS may have made a mistake because they seeming would be far more knowledgeable in designing software than hardware (i.e., ATI is the expert in graphics hardware and knows everything regarding the manufacturing process whereas MS may know very little).

Nuff said.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Budarow

Originally posted by: rbV5

I've also seen it posted 1 or 2 times that ATI "designed" the chip for MS who will then arrange for production of the chip for XBox360.

IF this is truely the case...IMHO, MS really messed up (i.e., trying to save money...may cost them LOTS more money in the end). .

MS messed up by having a graphics chip company design their graphic chip? Yea, too bad they didn't just go with one of their in-house hardware designs instead.

I don't think you understand my statement. Let me explain my point so you MAY understand...MS paid nVidia for the "end" product with the original XBox in that they contracted nVidia to design, produce and deliver a final graphics solution for the XBox for a set price. The fact that nVidia subcontracted the actual production of the chips makes no difference...nVidia was responsible for anything which may have gone wrong with the chips be it design or manufacturing problems. nVidia would "own" ANY problems with the chips.

MS apparently believes they will be able to take ATI's design and "shop it" to manufacturing firms. In essence, cut out any markup ATI would add for working the design all the way through the manufacturing process.

I say MS may have made a mistake because they seeming would be far more knowledgeable in designing software than hardware (i.e., ATI is the expert in graphics hardware and knows everything regarding the manufacturing process whereas MS may know very little).

Nuff said.

They did it so they don't have problems down the line like the did with nVidia, where nVidia wanted more money/didn't want to release the tech to MS, because nVidia owned it, this way, MS get more control over everything than they did with nVidia, which is why they decided to go this route AFAIK.
Also, a lot of issue will probably be worked out by ATi, since I would assume MS want a working, decent yield chip, and not just a design which doesn't work well/doesn't get good yields. They will also both (MS and ATi) be working with the 3rd party fabs to make the chip get good yields.


And the R520 for desktop has issues, that does NOT mean necessarily the R500 has issues as well (it could, obviously, but they 2 things are not necessarily related since the 2 chips are TOTALLY different)

 

[5150Joker]

RSX=beefed up 7800 GTX so it won't be a problem for the graphics chips on the xbox 360 to match. Fab issues are MS's problem.

 

[kman79]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

In terms of them being in trouble in terms of lower power levels then the competition- the PS2 is closing in on 100 Million installed base versus the XB/GC which are still trying to hit the 60 Million mark combined. That is with the PS2 at a very large disadvantage in terms of power. What the PS2 did have was a large head start over the others- MS is trying to exploit that this generation instead of shipping later with superior hardware.

If theres one big advantage Sony has, it's brand loyalty! And for those who are not "enthusiasts" or "in the know" in terms of electronics, if they see two similar products and one is a sony, they'll choose sony. In terms of gaming market, Sony has had the backing of production companies making big titles for them. Even to this day where the current Xbox walks all over the PS2 in terms of performance, Sony is still there selling systems and new titles.

Even if MS comes out first with their system at a cheaper price, I still think Sony will do better overall. I'm sure just like the first Xbox, MS will be loosing money on every unit sold, and hoping to make it's money back with games. Sony feel confident that they can sell their systems at a higher cost than XBOX360, at a price where they won't loose money per unit sold. I already have my mind set in purchasing the PS3, even at a higher premium than the XBOX. I payed the full retail cost of the PS2 when it first came out, and mind you I still have the same unit going strong. I got my money's worth for it.

Right now the only reason why I want to pick up an XBOX is cause it's pretty cheap now, and there's only a few titles that I want that is available for it.

 

[biostud]

the problem was with the r520, not the X-BOX GPU.

 

[DarkKnight]

Originally posted by: biostud
the problem was with the r520, not the X-BOX GPU.

 

[Budarow]

They did it so they don't have problems down the line like the did with nVidia, where nVidia wanted more money...etc.

For the record...nVidia didn't want "more" money, they simply wanted what MS promised to pay via their contracts. nVidia had to sue MS for payment and MS did pay up...eventually.

Bud

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: Budarow

Originally posted by: rbV5

I've also seen it posted 1 or 2 times that ATI "designed" the chip for MS who will then arrange for production of the chip for XBox360.

IF this is truely the case...IMHO, MS really messed up (i.e., trying to save money...may cost them LOTS more money in the end). .

MS messed up by having a graphics chip company design their graphic chip? Yea, too bad they didn't just go with one of their in-house hardware designs instead.

I don't think you understand my statement. Let me explain my point so you MAY understand...MS paid nVidia for the "end" product with the original XBox in that they contracted nVidia to design, produce and deliver a final graphics solution for the XBox for a set price. The fact that nVidia subcontracted the actual production of the chips makes no difference...nVidia was responsible for anything which may have gone wrong with the chips be it design or manufacturing problems. nVidia would "own" ANY problems with the chips.

MS apparently believes they will be able to take ATI's design and "shop it" to manufacturing firms. In essence, cut out any markup ATI would add for working the design all the way through the manufacturing process.

I say MS may have made a mistake because they seeming would be far more knowledgeable in designing software than hardware (i.e., ATI is the expert in graphics hardware and knows everything regarding the manufacturing process whereas MS may know very little).

Nuff said.

ATI doesn't manufacture anything. TSMC does it. Microsoft manufactures the X-Box through Jabil and Solectron and they provide a lot of engineering support.

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: biostud
the problem was with the r520, not the X-BOX GPU.

Excactly, they are not the same GPU people, Ati only designed the chip, MS signed off on the design. It's between MS and the foundry now.

Besides, I dont think X-box360 is being held back because of GPU problems is it?

 

[BionicSniper]

no the only problem that ms is having now is with the hd-dvd. They may have to just go out on a limb and wing out a whole new next gen drive.... or license blue-ray from samsung.
another thing to think about is that the extra seven smp's on the cell chip cant do any code prediction so thay are more than useless for things like AI and
think of it like this.

the cell chip can do one thing really really well but it cant do other things anywhere near as well
the tri cored ppc processor can do anything pretty dam well

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: BionicSniper
no the only problem that ms is having now is with the hd-dvd. They may have to just go out on a limb and wing out a whole new next gen drive.... or license blue-ray from samsung.
another thing to think about is that the extra seven smp's on the cell chip cant do any code prediction so thay are more than useless for things like AI and
think of it like this.

the cell chip can do one thing really really well but it cant do other things anywhere near as well
the tri cored ppc processor can do anything pretty dam well

Eh, no the tri cored PPC processor can't, it can just do some things a bit better than Cell, but that doesn't make it "pretty damn well" or even "well."

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Budarow

Originally posted by: rbV5

I've also seen it posted 1 or 2 times that ATI "designed" the chip for MS who will then arrange for production of the chip for XBox360.

IF this is truely the case...IMHO, MS really messed up (i.e., trying to save money...may cost them LOTS more money in the end). .

MS messed up by having a graphics chip company design their graphic chip? Yea, too bad they didn't just go with one of their in-house hardware designs instead.

I don't think you understand my statement. Let me explain my point so you MAY understand...MS paid nVidia for the "end" product with the original XBox in that they contracted nVidia to design, produce and deliver a final graphics solution for the XBox for a set price. The fact that nVidia subcontracted the actual production of the chips makes no difference...nVidia was responsible for anything which may have gone wrong with the chips be it design or manufacturing problems. nVidia would "own" ANY problems with the chips.

MS apparently believes they will be able to take ATI's design and "shop it" to manufacturing firms. In essence, cut out any markup ATI would add for working the design all the way through the manufacturing process.

I say MS may have made a mistake because they seeming would be far more knowledgeable in designing software than hardware (i.e., ATI is the expert in graphics hardware and knows everything regarding the manufacturing process whereas MS may know very little).

Nuff said.

Umm thats why ATi are getting royalties on every Xbox360 sold. No matter how much the prices fall on the console the royalty payment will stay the same.

nVidia and MS had problems because MS wanted to reduce the prices of the original Xbox and nVidia didnt want to reduce the prices on its GPU. Thats why they had that argument.

So the royalties is actually beneficial to both companies. The same is happening with the Revolution too.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

.....

The ArtX team is the one that handled the R500 for MS, they have proven themselves multiple times in the console world and have shown that they can make parts competitive with far more expensive offerings under a tight budget.

The Gamecube team and the Xbox360 GPU team operate completely independently because that would be a serious conflict of interest to have the same team working for two competiting console vendors.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The Gamecube team and the Xbox360 GPU team operate completely independently because that would be a serious conflict of interest to have the same team working for two competiting console vendors.

The team that created the GPU for the XBox was the same team that created the graphics chip for the Sega Saturn and are now creating the graphics chip for the PS3. GameCube and XB360 are two different generations- it doesn't mean anything at all that the design team working on the XB360 is the same team that worked on the GC and the N64.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: BionicSniper
no the only problem that ms is having now is with the hd-dvd. They may have to just go out on a limb and wing out a whole new next gen drive.... or license blue-ray from samsung.
another thing to think about is that the extra seven smp's on the cell chip cant do any code prediction so thay are more than useless for things like AI and
think of it like this.

the cell chip can do one thing really really well but it cant do other things anywhere near as well
the tri cored ppc processor can do anything pretty dam well

Eh, no the tri cored PPC processor can't, it can just do some things a bit better than Cell, but that doesn't make it "pretty damn well" or even "well."

Your telling me that the Cell processors can calculate over 30000 physics objects at one time?

Cell is still based around a general processing unit. While the PPC chip is based solely to do exactly one thing and thats Physics.