Author Topic: MS Teams with IBM (Read 7921 times)

BigJim · « **on:** November 03, 2003, 11:30:28 AM »

Microsoft opts for IBM chip in redesigned Xbox

"Microsoft on Monday said it would use IBM chips in its next generation Xbox game and consumer electronics devices, dealing a blow to Intel and providing a much needed boost for IBM's lossmaking chip business."

"IBM will provide its PowerPC microprocessor technology and is expected to combine several other chips into one or two core chips for the next Xbox. This would most likely include graphics chip technology from ATI Technologies of Canada, which in August won the contract from Nvidia, of the US."

"Compatibility with older Xbox software could be provided by emulation technology Microsoft acquired in February from Connectix, which sells Virtual PC, allowing Intel-based software to run on PowerPC chips."

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2003, 11:54:53 AM »

Ya, we saw it coming, what else is new. IBM is a massive company, they could very well power 4 or 5 consoles.

Rob91883 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2003, 11:55:46 AM »

IBM is also working with PS2, and Nintendo. People thinking Nintendo, and Microsoft are togethor is some sort of way are just saying any kind of theory, so they can be heard. Each company is just looking for the best piece of hardware best suited for their next generation games, nothing more.

BigJim · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2003, 12:03:38 PM »

The Virtual PC emulation theory isn't very exciting... has anyone used it before? Slow as hell, IIRC. They better have some tricks if they'd want Virtual PC to keep up with graphic-intense apps like games.

Also, it's not certain that IBM is in fact working with Nintendo next time around. Sony, yes.

Funny though. IBM chip, ATI graphics... the XBox 2 sounds like a GameCube 2.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2003, 12:11:16 PM »

Nintendo has been rather quiet on the CPU front for a while. I heard rumors about IBM, but its been quiet for a while. If IBM did it, it wouldn't surprise me too much, as if Nintendo is looking for any backwards compatability, they are going to need some binary compatibility. If motorolla or IBM gets the job, don't act surprised.

Darc Requiem · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2003, 03:52:26 PM »

Yeah Manny I was thinking the same exact thing. When IBM was announced as a parter of Sony on the CELL processor, I immediately thought that Nintendo would be teaming up with Motorola. They may still use IBM, but I think Nintendo has to have backward compatibility at this point. Nintendo can't afford to have a continually eroding user base. They have to go all or nothing next time if they want to remain profitable.

Darc Requiem

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2003, 03:58:20 PM »

Isn't it kind of funny that all this generation Microsoft has touted how the Xbox's Intel CPU and nVidia GPU were so much better than the Gamecube's IBM CPU and ATI GPU, then for next generation follow Nintendo's exact lead? Huh.

BigJim · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2003, 04:29:49 PM »

True enough, Moto does have their own G5 and G6 roadmap so they could turn to them for the next round.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2003, 06:39:13 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Isn't it kind of funny that all this generation Microsoft has touted how the Xbox's Intel CPU and nVidia GPU were so much better than the Gamecube's IBM CPU and ATI GPU, then for next generation follow Nintendo's exact lead? Huh.

I'm actually just really curious about who Nintendo's new partners will be. Historically, Nintendo has chosen new partners every time. It's going to be mighty difficult to top the hardware design in the GameCube, and I am just drooling in anticipation of seeing what's going to be happening next time.

It is rather surprising to see MS go with a non-Intel CPU though. Maybe that has something to do with the 18 G5s that MS purchased a week or so ago.

But I found this while I was looking for the G5 article. lol

Darc Requiem · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:41:40 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Isn't it kind of funny that all this generation Microsoft has touted how the Xbox's Intel CPU and nVidia GPU were so much better than the Gamecube's IBM CPU and ATI GPU, then for next generation follow Nintendo's exact lead? Huh.

I'm actually just really curious about who Nintendo's new partners will be. Historically, Nintendo has chosen new partners every time. It's going to be mighty difficult to top the hardware design in the GameCube, and I am just drooling in anticipation of seeing what's going to be happening next time.

It is rather surprising to see MS go with a non-Intel CPU though. Maybe that has something to do with the 18 G5s that MS purchased a week or so ago.

But I found this while I was looking for the G5 article. lol

Well, it seems likely that Nintendo will have the same partners this time with the N5. Unless they choose Motorola over IBM. As I said earlier I think backwards compatibility is pretty much a must have at this point. While I never really saw much purpose in it, I think that Nintendo has to match the competition feature for feature and throw in a few extra if they want Joe Schmo gamer to take them seriously. Sigh....I miss when gaming was ruled by the hardcore gamers.....

Darc Requiem

Ymeegod · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2003, 03:12:55 AM »

Actually, ATI really didn't have much to do with GC's graphics processor, they bought artx after the inital design was already done.

And the GC uses a IBM power G3 chip, modified a bit with added instructions. Considering the mac's new G5 peformance, I wouldn't be surprised to see Big N stick with that processor.

ghostVi · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2003, 04:49:53 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ymeegod
Actually, ATI really didn't have much to do with GC's graphics processor, they bought artx after the inital design was already done.

And the GC uses a IBM power G3 chip, modified a bit with added instructions. Considering the mac's new G5 peformance, I wouldn't be surprised to see Big N stick with that processor.

Annnd....... didn't ArtX made ATI what it is today? Just from the inside... Just a thought.

Ymeegod · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2003, 06:27:00 AM »

Nope, it takes a few generations prior to the combined efforts--meaing you won't see the difference until the next "core" chip

. Should be very neat to say the least, hopefully I can hold out with this 9500Pro until then.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2003, 10:06:10 AM »

ArtX was involved in the R300 (9700Pro), ATi has bragged on it.

Also in the news SiS (Silicon Integrated Systems) Has been signed on to do the I/O for the console. I find this a bit odd personally. SiS, as far as I know, has never been away from x86 let alone AMD or Intel. Also odd is that they aren't exactly top notch in the sound or performance area, but oh well, its wait and see on that.

a4164 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2003, 10:44:30 PM »

It can be argued that ArtX has turned ATI from lingering in nvidia's shadows to being able to teach the once all capable graphiczilla a thing or two about 3d performance (see: DX9, R3xx vs NV3x).

Dave Orton, now CEO of ATI was also the founder and head of ArtX. Most of ArtX's engineers went to ATI's west coast, Santa Clara team. A few went to ATI's east coast, Marlborough team.

ATI's Marlborough team has worked on the R200 (Radeon 8500) and is currently working on the R500 and with MS on Xbox2. ATI's Santa Clara team did the R3xx (Radeon 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800 and all variations there of), they are also working on the upcoming R420 and with Nintendo on future products

The startup that saved ATI

"Leveraging the ArtX team in Palo Alto, Orton created a Silicon Valley base for ATI just a mile down the road from Nvidia's sprawling green-marble headquarters in Santa Clara. Engineers at the ATI site finished the GameCube graphics chip, then led the design for the R300 graphics core, ATI's first to execute Microsoft's DirectX 9 application programming interface."

ghostVi · « **Reply #15 on:** November 04, 2003, 11:19:49 PM »

I would guess N5 and XBX2 would be pretty much different on the inside, again, even if both are made in collaboration with IBM and ATI... At the very least I can't imagine MS going for PPC.

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2003, 02:17:12 AM »

Man, imagine that your console is in the hands of the chip makers who are making the competition's consoles.

*In a mock interview with IBM and ATi*
"We think that our chip for the new PlayStation will lead the world in interactive entertainment"
*MS glares at them*
"erm, sorry, the next Xbox"
*Nintendo glares*
"erm, sorry, the next Gamecube."

How can they say that with (insert company here) they are creating a superior chip that will blow away the competition, then turn around and say the same thing about the other companies?
There are other issues to be dealt with when ONE company is responsible for the development of your and your competitor's main product. It can lead to secret deals, sabotage, and bribes of a worldwide scale.
And since MS are the richest company of the three, they should be the one to watch. But then we should keep a critical eye on Sony and Nintendo too.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2003, 08:03:53 AM »

The GBA WLAN adapter was manufactured using Motorola parts.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2003, 08:32:54 AM »

Considering that the next jump in graphics and sound for the next console generation is going to be less noticable I wouldn't be surprised that if Nintendo added more memory, a hard drive, Dolby Digital support, bigger memory cards, and a better graphics chip that they could leave the CPU itself virtually unchanged and it wouldn't make a difference. Increasing the specs only goes so far. With PCs today it's getting to that point that adding more RAM and getting a faster CPU doesn't make as much of an impact to your system's performance as it used to. At work I just upgraded my RAM from 256 MB to 1 GB and there's almost no noticable difference. I think that if console makers weren't so competitive Nintendo could design a console that would realistically be sufficient for the next ten years in game design.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #19 on:** November 06, 2003, 10:16:08 AM »

Nintendo has basically had the same team to do its graphics chips for 3 generations now. A company called SGI did it for the N64, then later the founder of SGI and many of its employees left to start up ArtX, who did the graphics chip for the Gamecube, and shortly after that ArtX was bought by ATI, who is doing the graphics chip for Nintendo's next console.

As for the CPU, I thought I remember reading that Nintemdo was getting NEC to make it- I could be wrong, though.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 06, 2003, 12:00:18 PM »

I didn't even realize that NEC still made CPUs anymore, oh well, would be nice to see what is in their product line at the moment...

KDR_11k · « **Reply #21 on:** November 07, 2003, 02:54:48 AM »

I think it was NEC who recently made a breakthrough in Quantum Computer development.

ghostVi · « **Reply #22 on:** November 07, 2003, 09:04:46 AM »

Wow, I want a Nintendo GameQuant!

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 07, 2003, 12:01:39 PM »

Eh? there would be a big difference between solid state and liquid state processing...

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #24 on:** November 09, 2003, 03:31:37 AM »

The Nintendo Cray.
Yeah Baby

News:

Author Topic: MS Teams with IBM (Read 7921 times)