That's where you're wrong... Where is your proof that says you can't do 3d gaming... I just looked in some forums and found where people where able to run CounterStrike on a Mac... Granted it was something like 15 frames per second. Also if you look at http://www.connectix.com/ you will see no proof that it doesn't support 3D. You say to update it it would take a lot of work... but if it's already at a point of playing games then I can't see it needing A LOT of work... maybe some tweeking. They obviously already have something to work with.
once again? my question wasn't if there was software available. my question was if it could run in real time. which is doubtful. possibly unrealistic even
it matters because of the second thing you said. which is basically optimizations. which is a problem. which is why games made for dx9 have a hard time running on nvidia cards compared to ati (because as luck would have it, using hlsl is essentially optimizing for ati cards). which would further be a problem because nvidia didn't just do a gpu but the sound and network connections and memory controller as well.
not sure about your interpretation of events, but i do agree that nvidia was over stepping their partnership with msft. nvidia got nforce on top of xbox, but wouldn't lower chip prices and wouldn't release rights to design so msft could go off and try to make them cheaper. shoot, nvidia should have been the ones making the chips cheaper to make (or maybe they did, but weren't lowering chip prices fairly). anyhow they should have had more faith in xbox early on despite it initially selling lower than expectations.
no you're wrong. eug is right. VPC doesn't currently do 3d games (hardware acceleration) or G5. even if they have nvidia's design it would be difficult. but without it, they'll have to reverse engineer to keep it legal. take a look at connectix ps1 emulator if you're wondering how good they can get...
and i wish the press release was more clear. this could all be wasted discussion
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,165
- 1,809
- 126
IBM email:
From:
John E. Kelly III
Senior Vice President and Group Executive
IBM Technology Group
Subject: Today's Announcement -- Our Win with Xbox
Dear TG Colleague:
A few minutes ago we announced that we have won a deal to design, develop and make the processor for the next generation of Microsoft's Xbox game system.
Microsoft selected us for one very simple reason -- we are the leaders in the advanced technologies they need for Xbox.
This is a major win for us on several fronts:
It illustrates and capitalizes on our deep technology and service capabilities. The new Xbox technologies will be based on the latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors;
It is the single largest win for Engineering & Technology Services and a substantial foundry win for our 300 mm facility;
We've handed Intel another defeat. Earlier this year, we kept them out of the Apple G5 and now we've thrown them out of Xbox. (Not bad, considering one Intel executive recently called us "trivial");
We are now the undisputed leader in providing advanced chip technology for the gaming industry. We make the CPUs for Nintendo's GameCube systems. We are shipping in volume the GeForce FX advanced graphics processor for NVIDIA, the premier supplier of graphics chips for the gaming industry. We are working with Sony Computer Entertainment to develop the processor for its PlayStation3 system. And now we've won the next-generation Xbox.
Many of our major worldwide operations will be involved in this project including -- Rochester for design, Austin and RTP for development, East Fishkill for manufacturing and packaging, and Burlington for mask and test work. It exemplifies the type of deals we're starting to win and must continue to win -- deals that use our full capabilities.
More and more, companies like Apple, Intersil, Sony Computer Entertainment, Qualcomm and others are turning to us for advanced chip technologies and the expertise in applying them. And the list continues growing. Finding
more opportunities such as these, closing the deals and delivering on our commitments to our customers all are essential to returning our business to profitability.
So congratulations to everyone on winning this outstanding deal.
What is all this emulation talk about...the NT and CE systems were designed to be hardware agnostic, they don't care what is there, that is for the Windows Hardware Abstraction Layer to worry about. Will this require a port? Yes, but by design, thats it. The losses come in where certain applications have optimization hooks for certain processing units on CPUs (SSE, MMX, etc). But even that is a matter of more hooks for vector units.
The deal for VirtualPC was suspected because of their wish for more virtual users (which requires virtual hardware for each user, similar to Terminal Server, but they want more robust).
And the age old "Windows on a Mac" argument still holds no motive, because as nice as Macs are, they are not a segment MS is concerned about, and there is no reason to go back to federal court for trying to push another OS out of the market.
The deal for VirtualPC was suspected because of their wish for more virtual users (which requires virtual hardware for each user, similar to Terminal Server, but they want more robust).
And the age old "Windows on a Mac" argument still holds no motive, because as nice as Macs are, they are not a segment MS is concerned about, and there is no reason to go back to federal court for trying to push another OS out of the market.
MadRat-
No chance. Sony has spent too much money to allow it to happen not to mention that ease of development will not exist on the platform, something that MS needs to retain to keep third party support. Dealing with the compilers and dev environment for Cell is going to be a nightmare, MS wants to hit at the same time or earlier then Sony to gain an advantage, no use throwing that edge away by adding significant layers of complexity(although I'm sure MS would come up with much better dev tools then Sony, it still would take some time).
If they were going Cell, they would need significantly more then that. Sony is looking at 32 cores, a single Cell core is pretty weak in comparitive terms.
Heard the same about the first XBox. Microsoft isn't that stupid.
They will get obliterated if this is true on the technology front. Using antiquated tech on a new console will kill you. If they do use DX9 then Sony will handily whip them on the visual front, something MS may be willing to accept but I doubt it. They need DX10 level support or higher(particularly shared resources for shader units allowing increased flexibility).
As opposed to what?
Ya think?
Eug
Microsoft could do it. It's one thing to try and guess an emulation route for a finished product, it is quite another to do so using the source code of the API. I'm not saying they will, but they could.
There are a few different routes they could go on this front. It is possible that they could use VIA to pump out a low cost Cyrix based chip that performs in direct comparison to the Celery in the current Box. This chip could also be used for additional media functions when not running legacy titles. They also could have IBM make their own x86 based chip, IBM has full rights to make anything up to and including a x86-64 based part(although Cyrix would be cheaper), although a very low end part is all you would need. They also could get the emulation up and running full speed. This is actually much simpler then a lot of people might think.
If the XB2 is going to be fully Power based, then they will be porting a full version of DirectX, likely 10, over to the Power architecture anyway. Since that is the likely route they will go, all they need to do is include the ability for the system to emulate an abstraction layer and simply convert DX8 x86 calls over to their DX10 Power derivatives and then pass those on to the GPU for processing(port over the DX8 run time just as the prior DX runtimes are built in to the PC builds). In this setup, you actually wouldn't have close to the complexity of emulating D3D as you would on the Mac as you will already have a Power native build of DX8 supported by the Box, and can make custom adjustments to it(allowing all games to run in HDTV mode as an example). And, as this is a custom built processor, MS can have IBM include instructions on to the processor that could make emulation considerably easier then it is on a default Power chip.
No chance. Sony has spent too much money to allow it to happen not to mention that ease of development will not exist on the platform, something that MS needs to retain to keep third party support. Dealing with the compilers and dev environment for Cell is going to be a nightmare, MS wants to hit at the same time or earlier then Sony to gain an advantage, no use throwing that edge away by adding significant layers of complexity(although I'm sure MS would come up with much better dev tools then Sony, it still would take some time).
If they were going Cell, they would need significantly more then that. Sony is looking at 32 cores, a single Cell core is pretty weak in comparitive terms.
Heard the same about the first XBox. Microsoft isn't that stupid.
They will get obliterated if this is true on the technology front. Using antiquated tech on a new console will kill you. If they do use DX9 then Sony will handily whip them on the visual front, something MS may be willing to accept but I doubt it. They need DX10 level support or higher(particularly shared resources for shader units allowing increased flexibility).
As opposed to what?
Ya think?
Eug
Microsoft could do it. It's one thing to try and guess an emulation route for a finished product, it is quite another to do so using the source code of the API. I'm not saying they will, but they could.
There are a few different routes they could go on this front. It is possible that they could use VIA to pump out a low cost Cyrix based chip that performs in direct comparison to the Celery in the current Box. This chip could also be used for additional media functions when not running legacy titles. They also could have IBM make their own x86 based chip, IBM has full rights to make anything up to and including a x86-64 based part(although Cyrix would be cheaper), although a very low end part is all you would need. They also could get the emulation up and running full speed. This is actually much simpler then a lot of people might think.
If the XB2 is going to be fully Power based, then they will be porting a full version of DirectX, likely 10, over to the Power architecture anyway. Since that is the likely route they will go, all they need to do is include the ability for the system to emulate an abstraction layer and simply convert DX8 x86 calls over to their DX10 Power derivatives and then pass those on to the GPU for processing(port over the DX8 run time just as the prior DX runtimes are built in to the PC builds). In this setup, you actually wouldn't have close to the complexity of emulating D3D as you would on the Mac as you will already have a Power native build of DX8 supported by the Box, and can make custom adjustments to it(allowing all games to run in HDTV mode as an example). And, as this is a custom built processor, MS can have IBM include instructions on to the processor that could make emulation considerably easier then it is on a default Power chip.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,165
- 1,809
- 126
Ben, I don't claim to understand the technology behind it, and I do believe that MS has the ability to include backwards compatibility for Xbox games with a PowerPC based solution, but I'm looking at it from a different perspective.
Yes they could do it, but at not an insignificant cost not only in terms of money, but just as importantly, in terms of time. Remember, the only console to support backwards compatibility so far has been the PS2, and there have been a lot of consoles on the market. So it's certainly not a make-or-break feature IMO.
So yes, it would be a bonus to have backwards compatibility, and yes MS could do it, but I don't think anyone should get their hopes up. Anyways, by then, Xboxes will be a dime a dozen. If you really want XBox game support you could always just buy... well... an Xbox. But presumably, if you already have Xbox games, you probably already have an Xbox.
Yes they could do it, but at not an insignificant cost not only in terms of money, but just as importantly, in terms of time. Remember, the only console to support backwards compatibility so far has been the PS2, and there have been a lot of consoles on the market. So it's certainly not a make-or-break feature IMO.
So yes, it would be a bonus to have backwards compatibility, and yes MS could do it, but I don't think anyone should get their hopes up. Anyways, by then, Xboxes will be a dime a dozen. If you really want XBox game support you could always just buy... well... an Xbox. But presumably, if you already have Xbox games, you probably already have an Xbox.
Just a wild thought, but would it be possible for IBM to create a chip that incorporated the X-Box's PIII 733 into it's architecture? Like, a dual core design, except they were CPUs of totally different architectures?
First off... I must thank all of you for participating... I have learned much from this thread... I'm not worried if I'm proved wrong... But it just seems almost too obvious what the intentions are. Maybe we really need another article from the horses mouth to set us right.
It's possible to do the dual core having an AMD (for example) chip running the X86 code when playing Xbox 1 games and then be an extra part to the overall design to power the likes of Xbox 2 games... the PS2 does this... The PS2 actually has the same exact processor as the PS1 and then some (more like a lot lol). I don't think they made it a part of the emotion engine chip but rather a chip on it's own... So even if it's not a dual core chip it's possible that the X86 chip could be in there somewhere....
And like someone was saying earlier... What's to say that IBM doesn't add a few instructions to their PowerPC based chip. Just add 5 instructions for example and already you could have a big part of the X86 incorporated into the PowerPC chip... making it that much easier to emulate. Sure it would be that much more instructions having to stay in L1 cache but what's to say they don't make that a bit bigger. What's the cache like on a PowerPC chip anyway?
they could do it, but at not an insignificant cost not only in terms of money, but just as importantly, in terms of time. Remember, the only console to support backwards compatibility so far has been the PS2, and there have been a lot of consoles on the market. So it's certainly not a make-or-break feature IMO.
So yes, it would be a bonus to have backwards compatibility, and yes MS could do it, but I don't think anyone should get their hopes up. Anyways, by then, Xboxes will be a dime a dozen. If you really want XBox game support you could always just buy... well... an Xbox. But presumably, if you already have Xbox games, you probably already have an Xbox.
Cost... I don't see how it could cost so much... look who we are talking about... it's Microsoft.... They spent 500 million in marketing/advertisement on Xbox alone... Why would they have to do even half as much when the name is already known. They could spend that money else where on this project assuming they setup the same type of budget. And why would it cost so much more to add a few instructions to an existing chip. In the end all it would be is a PowerPC/X86 combo chip... Prolly using the best of both worlds... maybe starting something new.
yeah, cause "time is money!" how could it take so long to do any of this... they do so much on existing computers to figure out how a chip will perform before it hits the 'assembly line'. They prolly could add the extensions on a Virtual version of PowerPC running on say an X86 processor... In the end it'd be like trying to emulate an X86 on the emulator for PowerPC on an X86. I hope I didn't lose anyone there... All I'm saying is it wouldn't cost hardly a thing except for the electricity used to power the computer that would do all the testing in a virtual world. All the hard work is done... the chips are there... just modify them... as simple as Intel adding the L3 cache to their Extreme Edition.
They could just use the PIII as an IO processor slaved to the Power4. That would be the same exact setup that the PS2 has, intel has a contract, and it'd be darn cheap to do on the .13 micron process. I mean, how big could a PIII chip on the .13 micron process with 128K of cache be? 60mm^2?
But if they aren't already making the PIII at .13, they would have to transition the core to that process, which is rarely as simple as it sounds...
Just a hunch
Xbox will use DX10, and a stripped down Longhorn Kernal, modified for use with IBM's processing technology. Xbox2 will be released before DX10 and Longhorn are avalible for the PC.
MS may say the deadline is 2006, but I still think they are shooting for November 2005. I still think they will announce the Xbox2 at E3 2004, and that they will have a prototype up and running(if they dont already).
Xbox will use DX10, and a stripped down Longhorn Kernal, modified for use with IBM's processing technology. Xbox2 will be released before DX10 and Longhorn are avalible for the PC.
MS may say the deadline is 2006, but I still think they are shooting for November 2005. I still think they will announce the Xbox2 at E3 2004, and that they will have a prototype up and running(if they dont already).
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,165
- 1,809
- 126
The PIII and Celeron Tualatin are already on 0.13, at up to 1.4 GHz. But remember, Intel is out of the picture. It would thus likely have to be AMD, and there has been no mention of AMD to date. Or I suppose VIA (with Cyrix), but there hasn't been a mention of VIA either.
Anyways, that would be especially ironic and amusing from the fanboi point of view, if Microsoft developed the Xbox2 with a G5 derivative, running an AMD x86 chip as it's slave, and with Intel completely left out in the cold.
If everything were that easy, you'd be running a $500 Pentium M 3 GHz laptop with Longhorn and Blu-Ray burner by now.
Anyways, that would be especially ironic and amusing from the fanboi point of view, if Microsoft developed the Xbox2 with a G5 derivative, running an AMD x86 chip as it's slave, and with Intel completely left out in the cold.
Originally posted by: Eug
The PIII and Celeron Tualatin are already on 0.13, at up to 1.4 GHz. But remember, Intel is out of the picture. It would thus likely have to be AMD, and there has been no mention of AMD to date. Or I suppose VIA (with Cyrix), but there hasn't been a mention of VIA either.
If everything were that easy, you'd be running a $500 Pentium M 3 GHz laptop with Longhorn and Blu-Ray burner by now.
Anyways, that would be especially ironic and amusing from the fanboi point of view, if Microsoft developed the Xbox2 with a G5 derivative, running an AMD x86 chip as it's slave, and with Intel completely left out in the cold.
Fanboy point of view... who's a fanboy around here!? I'm just looking at facts. All I'm in this whole deal is for the technological side of the whole ordeal... I really don't care what Microsoft does in the end... just so long as it changes the way things have been currently going and there is still someone for someone else to compete against... with out competition there is usually little need to make big advancements at a quick pace and little need to keep prices down. 'ha ha... I got the only one of it's kind and you have to pay (sticks pinky up by chin) 1 million dollars for it.' I'd hate to see NVidia pull something like this with their GPUs and knowing that NVidia has a lead on ATI because of their whole over doing the DirectX spec and the fact that they had inside info (pertaining to directX) due to working so closely with Microsoft. Now it's ATI's turn...
But Microsoft already said that the neXtBox would play Xbox 1 games so who ever keeps saying they doubt that will come to pass... yeah... you're wrong... Microsoft will do everything in it's power to see to promises made public are kept.
$500 PM 3GHz... That's a limitation of the micron process... .13 soon to be moving to .09 No one said EVERYTHING would be that easy. Computers can simulate how powerful they'd be, or what they can actually compute but they can't make the manufacturing process come any sooner.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 308
- 126
What will DirectX10 offer over DirectX9.0 for XBOX2?
Wouldn't it be too CPU-intensive for a Longhorn derivative? XBOX's CPU would have been a dog if it used a WinXP derivative. I thought XBOX used an encrypted CMOS derivative to drive their program launches using a propriety compact disc file format.
Eug-
That is true but they are obviously willing to spend considerable time on the software front anyway. They need to port DirectX to the Power architecture, money is a non factor as MS commited to billions of dollars in losses for the XBox1, getting an emulator running would be relatively speaking cheap. They also need to build all the development tools.
Actually, the PS2 isn't the first console to have backwards compatibility, besides the Atari 7800(which sold significantly better then the 5200 in no small part due to the fact that it could play the enormous amount of 2600 games) there was also the GBA. I do think it is a make or break feature as of this point. MS is trying to take markethsare from Sony, right now worldwide Sony has outsold them roughly five to one, they need to not only match what Sony is doing, they also need to exceed it. When the PS2 first hit, the 'killer app' for it was considered by many to be The Matrix movie on DVD, not any of the games they had available for launch. Despite the fact that they didn't have the PS2 games, it could play the PS1 titles in an improved visual mode, MS offering people a chance to play Halo/Halo2/KOTOR running 1080i on their new XB2 could be a major selling point and reduce the need to rush titles out for launch. In some ways, you could say backwards compatibility would save them effort for the launch of the XB2.
And you may be one of those people who have a Xbox, PS2 and GameCube all hooked up to your TV along with a DVD player and a cable box, you know it can clutter up an entertainment center pretty d@mn quick just keeping the current gen consoles hooked up
MadRat
For starters it will combine Vertex Shader and Pixel Shader hardware in to a flexible design allowing developers to utilize resources more effectively. I'm hoping for an effective 3D texture compression format also, and of course the usual expansion of the existing feature set and a move over to FP32(required when combining VS/PS functionality).
XB uses a stripped down Win2K build. A lot of people talk about how bloated MS code is, but if you look at some of the full installs of Linux they can take up multiple GBs on your HD before you start installing apps. MS is fully capable of creating a very lean OS on their kernels. I'm not saying they will use Longhorn, but I'm certain they are capable of making it work quite nicely on the XB2(although it may be more of an issue of how far in to development LH is when they need to port it).
That is true but they are obviously willing to spend considerable time on the software front anyway. They need to port DirectX to the Power architecture, money is a non factor as MS commited to billions of dollars in losses for the XBox1, getting an emulator running would be relatively speaking cheap. They also need to build all the development tools.
Actually, the PS2 isn't the first console to have backwards compatibility, besides the Atari 7800(which sold significantly better then the 5200 in no small part due to the fact that it could play the enormous amount of 2600 games) there was also the GBA. I do think it is a make or break feature as of this point. MS is trying to take markethsare from Sony, right now worldwide Sony has outsold them roughly five to one, they need to not only match what Sony is doing, they also need to exceed it. When the PS2 first hit, the 'killer app' for it was considered by many to be The Matrix movie on DVD, not any of the games they had available for launch. Despite the fact that they didn't have the PS2 games, it could play the PS1 titles in an improved visual mode, MS offering people a chance to play Halo/Halo2/KOTOR running 1080i on their new XB2 could be a major selling point and reduce the need to rush titles out for launch. In some ways, you could say backwards compatibility would save them effort for the launch of the XB2.
And you may be one of those people who have a Xbox, PS2 and GameCube all hooked up to your TV along with a DVD player and a cable box, you know it can clutter up an entertainment center pretty d@mn quick just keeping the current gen consoles hooked up
MadRat
For starters it will combine Vertex Shader and Pixel Shader hardware in to a flexible design allowing developers to utilize resources more effectively. I'm hoping for an effective 3D texture compression format also, and of course the usual expansion of the existing feature set and a move over to FP32(required when combining VS/PS functionality).
XB uses a stripped down Win2K build. A lot of people talk about how bloated MS code is, but if you look at some of the full installs of Linux they can take up multiple GBs on your HD before you start installing apps. MS is fully capable of creating a very lean OS on their kernels. I'm not saying they will use Longhorn, but I'm certain they are capable of making it work quite nicely on the XB2(although it may be more of an issue of how far in to development LH is when they need to port it).
Have you seen how badly the EPIA systems FPU sucks? They can barley manage full speed DivX compression. I doubt they'd be an optimal substitute for a PIII in a gaming system..
Well, I don't consider the GBA a console, and the Atari 7800... well... I had never seen one. It seemed to me the Atari console market essentially died after the Atari 2600.[/quote]
Never heard of the Atari Jaguar?
MDE
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 13,199
- 1
- 81
Never heard of the Atari Jaguar?[/quote]
That system crashed and burned upon impact.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used an AMD chip in place of the current Intel in Xbox2, seeing that AMD and IBM have cross-licensing agreements, etc and IBM is supplying the main processor for Xbox2.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter