PDA

View Full Version : IBM Producing 65nm Chips?


MacRumors
Jan 16, 2004, 06:04 PM
Team Xbox claims (http://www.teamxbox.com/news.php?id=5327) that IBM will be producing 65-nm chips for the upcoming "Xbox 2" and start delivering commercial parts in the next 12-18 months.

In November, Microsoft and IBM announced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031103121349.shtml) that the future Xbox would utilize IBM processors. Few details had been available.

IBM produces the PowerPC 970 for Apple's PowerMac G5 which were introduced at a 130nm process. Recently introduced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040106170203.shtml) Xserve G5s now utilize a 90nm process. Reducing the process size should allow future chips to reach higher speeds and potentially less heat production.

LimeLite
Jan 16, 2004, 06:06 PM
Maybe then we'll get them in the PowerBooks! :p

pimentoLoaf
Jan 16, 2004, 06:08 PM
Five (count 'em, 5) gigahertz desktops by Jan 2005, perchance?

aftk2
Jan 16, 2004, 06:09 PM
I wonder how this would work...would IBM be making PowerPC chips for the XBox 2? If that's the case, will their be backward compatibility between the current XBox and XBox 2? I don't see how there could be, since the XBox is built with a Celeron. Perhaps some kind of x86 compatibility layer? Backward compatibility was one big reason that the PS2 did as well as it did (of course, the PS1 was a huge success...so maybe it doesn't matter as much for the Xbox 2.)

I don't know...just thinking out loud. At any rate, keep'em coming, IBM.

Stoffel
Jan 16, 2004, 06:12 PM
I don't bother the xbox2 but hey! do you think that the g5 can make it into the powerbooks before fall 2004?

LimeLite
Jan 16, 2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by aftk2
I wonder how this would work...would IBM be making PowerPC chips for the XBox 2? If that's the case, will their be backward compatibility between the current XBox and XBox 2? I don't see how there could be, since the XBox is built with a Celeron. Perhaps some kind of x86 compatibility layer? Backward compatibility was one big reason that the PS2 did as well as it did (of course, the PS1 was a huge success...so maybe it doesn't matter as much for the Xbox 2.)

I don't know...just thinking out loud. At any rate, keep'em coming, IBM.
Well, it's microsoft, and they own VPC now, so I'm sure they could still make it backward compatible if they really wanted to.

Grimace
Jan 16, 2004, 06:21 PM
That would be weird if an Xbox could top a G5.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 16, 2004, 06:24 PM
Game cubes use the power Pc.

crees!
Jan 16, 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
Five (count 'em, 5) gigahertz desktops by Jan 2005, perchance?

Hehe, you're dreaming. That would be a complete waste of time, money, and R&D if you cut out the everything except for 5Ghz chips. I would say 2-3 years before 5Ghz chips with the flow of the silicon market.

SilvorX
Jan 16, 2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Game cubes use the power Pc.
I know more people who have xboxes than Game Cubes, game cubes were a sweet idea, but theres a lack of titles (compared to games I like thats available for xbox or whatever), and the optical drive is way too ***** small (so no dvd movies) but it reminds me of ye ol powermac cube in a way

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 16, 2004, 06:34 PM
IBM is the( fill in the Blank). everyone is getting on this boat & setting sail with this chip division. dont blame them a bit. IBM is just starting to rock give them a year or two and see what happens.:D Great move for Apple.

MacsRgr8
Jan 16, 2004, 06:38 PM
he he.. wouldn't it be gr8 if XBox 2 games were playable on a G5?

<can't imagine M$ ever tolerating that... but we can dream> :D

warcraftmaster
Jan 16, 2004, 06:38 PM
halo 2 and xbox 2 would be so sweet!
cant what for it he he
you know what if the xbox use the same chip as g5. i bet it would be eazy to port. to the mac:D :D :D :D then i can have halo 2 on my g5 and at 7ghz. plus nvidia*** is partern with ibm. so my gpu will have 3ghz with 200gb pipe line to the ram he he:cool: (dreaming).and i will have my 30 hd wide display form apple.(cant wait) i better save now and put all of my money in apple stock:p

ITR 81
Jan 16, 2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
Well, it's microsoft, and they own VPC now, so I'm sure they could still make it backward compatible if they really wanted to.
If they do that then they would have to develop DirectX for it then??

knoxer
Jan 16, 2004, 07:07 PM
People, no one has said anything about the XBox using PowerPC chips, only chips manufactured by IBM. I'm sure the Fishkill plant has enough room to run 'XBox' chips AND PPC's.

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 16, 2004, 07:18 PM
65nm isn't really a rumor, it's a pretty well known fact. The 90nm chips you're seeing today are from a fab designed for 90/65/45nm parts (the fab can be upgraded over time.)

Lessee... here's a link:
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=45921,00.asp

jwhitnah
Jan 16, 2004, 07:22 PM
I hope Xbox 2 is a G5. Economics of scale may lower the cost to apple for their version of the G5, and of course make a PowerBook G5 possible. Someone told me PS2 was 128 bit (I did not check on this-lazy). Funny that Xbox 2 would still only be 64 bit with a G5 (if true).

MorganX
Jan 16, 2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by aftk2
I wonder how this would work...would IBM be making PowerPC chips for the XBox 2? If that's the case, will their be backward compatibility between the current XBox and XBox 2? I don't see how there could be, since the XBox is built with a Celeron. Perhaps some kind of x86 compatibility layer? Backward compatibility was one big reason that the PS2 did as well as it did (of course, the PS1 was a huge success...so maybe it doesn't matter as much for the Xbox 2.)

I don't know...just thinking out loud. At any rate, keep'em coming, IBM.

They will be making PowerPC chips for Xbox 2. You should be able to find a quote from both sides somewhere. They would use VPC for backwards compatibility. They will also have to port DirectX to PowerPC. I don't think it will be a problem getting the OS on PowerPC since NT has run on PowerPC in the past, getting DirectX there will be interesting.

Some say the CPU will be a stripped down G5 with game performance enhancements like the current Celeron in the Xbox.

Sabenth
Jan 16, 2004, 07:31 PM
a couple of things that stick out are:

Xbox 2 or what ever there gona name the new Slab has to be backwords comatible. If not jeez its going to be a night mare for people and there games.

If it uses simliar chips to g5 ie PPC Based weer dose this put intel i mean Windows ms is always going on about its partnership with Intel.

I dont think this chip thing would allow us to use xbox games on g5 g4 g3 or any other form of Mac machine Bloody wish it would though.

Ibm seems to be the clear winner here at the moment as well

Trowaman
Jan 16, 2004, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by carletonmusic
That would be weird if an Xbox could top a G5.

I now give you the new #3 compter cluster, XBox Cluster.

I remain a strong Gamecue fan though. SMASH BROS MELEE and ROGUE SQUADRON!!!!

Snowy_River
Jan 16, 2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
Well, it's microsoft, and they own VPC now, so I'm sure they could still make it backward compatible if they really wanted to.

They wouldn't need the VPC technology, as they'll be writing the OS directly for the processor. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the MS has had versions of their OSes that run on PPC processors all along, just as Apple has Marklar. Just because they have it doesn't mean they'll use it... ;)

Vector
Jan 16, 2004, 07:52 PM
Wouldn't microsofts use of a ppc chip in the next xbox make it easier for companies to port games to the mac. since the companies would be writing the games for a ppc chip similar to the ppc 970 it seems this would make the job of porting far easier and possibly economically sound for the companies.

fatfish
Jan 16, 2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by knoxer
People, no one has said anything about the XBox using PowerPC chips, only chips manufactured by IBM. I'm sure the Fishkill plant has enough room to run 'XBox' chips AND PPC's.

I'm sure this is true, but what is interesting is that IBM are in a deal with Chartered semiconductore to produce 90 and 65 nm chips so IBM can dual source for their clients.

Whilst there is no talk of what chips they will be it is obvious the 90's will be PPC and although not impossible, it would be quite a feat to leap straight into 65's with a different architecture.

However, we all know how slow emulation is so the options are a new 65nm chip running CISC or a change in direction for xbox.

rdowns
Jan 16, 2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by knoxer
People, no one has said anything about the XBox using PowerPC chips, only chips manufactured by IBM. I'm sure the Fishkill plant has enough room to run 'XBox' chips AND PPC's.


No one except IBM and Microsoft:

Microsoft's next-generation Xbox will ditch its Intel chip in favor of the same kind of chip used in Apple's Macs -- an IBM PowerPC processor -- IBM and Microsoft announced on Monday.


http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,61065,00.html

nighthawk
Jan 16, 2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
They wouldn't need the VPC technology, as they'll be writing the OS directly for the processor. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the MS has had versions of their OSes that run on PPC processors all along, just as Apple has Marklar. Just because they have it doesn't mean they'll use it... ;)

They had a retail PPC version of Windows NT all the way up to NT 4.0. The problem was that there was so little software written for the PPC version, so few people bought it.

fatfish
Jan 16, 2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
No one except IBM and Microsoft:

Microsoft's next-generation Xbox will ditch its Intel chip in favor of the same kind of chip used in Apple's Macs -- an IBM PowerPC processor -- IBM and Microsoft announced on Monday.


http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,61065,00.html

Well according to the article neither have said this, but they havn't denied it and it sounds rather ominous that the G5 will power the next xbox

fatfish
Jan 16, 2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
They wouldn't need the VPC technology, as they'll be writing the OS directly for the processor. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the MS has had versions of their OSes that run on PPC processors all along, just as Apple has Marklar. Just because they have it doesn't mean they'll use it... ;)

They would if they wanted xbox1 games to run on xbox2's. Thing is the speed of the xbox2 would have to take one hell of a leap otherwise xbox1 games would run slow on the xbox2

fatfish
Jan 16, 2004, 08:30 PM
If the PPC goes in the xbox, this could mean a cheaper G5. Whilst RISC chips are theoretically cheaper to manufacture than CISC, this has not been the case because of volume.

If the volume market shifts toward the PPC then Apple may be able to reduce their costs because of cheaper PPC's

xDANx
Jan 16, 2004, 08:53 PM
if microsoft actually plans to use virtual pc to allow xbox owners to play their games on xbox 2...could we expect that some of that technology would make its way into virtual pc for os x? could it suddenly became feasible to run graphically intensive windows apps on a mac? and would that be a good or a bad thing? sure more available apps...but less actual mac software?

all this whole xbox 2/power pc/virtual pc thing does is make me ask questions...

if microsoft has some version of virtual pc software in every xbox 2, what's running it? there's no way it's some form of mac os...! i guess microsoft will probably take some of the technology that they acquired from connectix and make some proprietary xbox 2 only mash of it all... still, i feel like i must have missed something important because it all seems so improbable. i guess the best possible scenario out of all of this is that xbox 2 game developers decide to make a mac version as well because it's not too much extra effort...

...end of rambling mess.

mcs37
Jan 16, 2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
Five (count 'em, 5) gigahertz desktops by Jan 2005, perchance?

5 GHz is great, but I see the disparity between CPU and disk I/O continuing to increase.

Personally I don't really care about clock speed after around 2 or 3 GHz. Disk I/O, specifically seek time on hard disks, will continue to be a performance killer indefinitely. What we need is 100 GB of Magnetic RAM in a chip. MRAM promises to reduce power consumption and latency, increase storage capacity, and provide true on/off computing.

If only they could get past 4 megabits that they are currently producing. One can dream!

Dippo
Jan 16, 2004, 08:59 PM
According the wired.com article, we will probably expect to see chips that are close to the current 2.0Ghz G5's. If these were made with in 65nm, then that would cut down on the heat a lot.

As for emulation, the XBox only has a 733Mhz Celeron, which is nothing when compared to the 2.0Ghz G5. I think that any old XBox game should be able to be emulated with a G5.

Of course, with Microsoft, I wouldn't be suprised if half the old games didn't work and the other half caused a reboot when inserting the disc :)

Dippo
Jan 16, 2004, 09:02 PM
Is this the return of the RISC?

jouster
Jan 16, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Sabenth
If it uses simliar chips to g5 ie PPC Based weer dose this put intel

Hmmm....well, where does this put Intel?

Probably still selling around thirty billion dollars' worth of processors per year to the various computing markets that it dominates. Did you assume that the Xbox was Intel's major source of income? It is a tiny fraction.

varmit
Jan 16, 2004, 10:01 PM
Everyone is speculating that its a PPC, the same used in the Mac. My question is, does IBM make other types of processors other than PPC, say an Intel compatable ix86 type, that would be powerful enought to power the xBox2? If IBM only makes the PPC, then we can say that the new xBox will be Mac compatable =).

As for the Idea of G5 laptops, I think summer, WWDC for that. 5Ghz will take about another more than 2 years. It will take a year to get to 3Ghz, just think that if you keep the dual cpus going, you wont need the 5Ghz for awhile.

Computer_Phreak
Jan 16, 2004, 10:03 PM
For all of you hoping that you will be magically able to run xbox 2 games on the mac... take a look at PCs and the current xbox.

The xbox has a 700 Mhz Celeron processor, plus the xbox runs on a stripped down win2k kernel.... and there are 0 working xbox emulators for the PC.

Frobozz
Jan 16, 2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Dippo
According the wired.com article, we will probably expect to see chips that are close to the current 2.0Ghz G5's. If these were made with in 65nm, then that would cut down on the heat a lot.

As for emulation, the XBox only has a 733Mhz Celeron, which is nothing when compared to the 2.0Ghz G5. I think that any old XBox game should be able to be emulated with a G5.

Of course, with Microsoft, I wouldn't be suprised if half the old games didn't work and the other half caused a reboot when inserting the disc :)

Yeah, considering that all it has to do is render it's graphics at NTSC or HDTV quality... I bet the graphics on one of those would be great. However, I hate the XBox. I think the PS3 will be much mroe compelling. Xbox 1 is a pretty big failure. Gamecube even out sold them this X-Mas.

AMDMACMAN
Jan 16, 2004, 10:39 PM
It could very well be a version of an amd 64 chip. It is well known that IBM is a big producer and partner with AMD. They are codevelopers of the AMD 64 technology.

I would love to see either chip(G5 or AMD64) in the xbox, just to spite intel. But i like it is more likely that it is and amd variation or a new chip design based on x86 tech. I do not think it is likely that MS will utilize any form of PPC tech.

AMDMACMAN
Jan 16, 2004, 10:47 PM
double post sorry

Blaaze
Jan 16, 2004, 10:52 PM
maybe a little off topic, but our very own mars rovers, opportunity and spirit, use PPC. Thought it was a little interesting...

45 nm now....it's amazing how these processors are being updated so fast

Richter
Jan 16, 2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz
Gamecube even out sold them this X-Mas. what do you expect? $99 vs $179

jimjiminyjim
Jan 16, 2004, 11:22 PM
When the "nm" factor was first pointed out, I saw it as another "Mhz" type thing. Slowly, bit by bit, growing. The rate of increase right now is incredible. Computers have to decrease in value, simply because at this rate, they won't keep their value! (Ducking flames and pointers that we haven't actually seen real change as fast as the rumors, and that the companies will manage the technology so that they still make money.....)

Impressive boosts in capability and technology.

Originally posted by Blaaze
maybe a little off topic, but our very own mars rovers, opportunity and spirit, use PPC. Thought it was a little interesting...

45 nm now....it's amazing how these processors are being updated so fast

VIREBEL661
Jan 17, 2004, 12:01 AM
M$ ditching intel for their high performance game box? The tech world gets more interesting by the minute... I expect to see many more 'gray' areas in the future with regards to processors, OS's, etc... wintel is NOT going to be the primary game in town in the future - and you can bet Macs will still be here!

VIREBEL661
Jan 17, 2004, 12:06 AM
I'm no processor manufacturer, or claim to be any kind of expert on that subject, however I've heard we were reaching the limitations of silicon as far as speed and smaller processes. I bet we'll see a revolutionary step in the next couple of years - something that makes current processor tech obsolete. I remember hearing something, but don't know where. For the sake of conversation, perhaps someone with a better memory than I can post some information on emerging processor technologies? Here's to G5 Powerbooks soon (hopefully) - I'll be buying one at that time!

Gyroscope
Jan 17, 2004, 12:07 AM
Of course that they gonna go with PPC. Would you like to stick that 150 W monster of P4 -> into small gaming device?

Bistroengine
Jan 17, 2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
For the sake of conversation, perhaps someone with a better memory than I can post some information on emerging processor technologies? Here's to G5 Powerbooks soon (hopefully) - I'll be buying one at that time!

The future of microprocessing lies with these two words "Carbon Nanotubes"

More information here...

http://www.ipt.arc.nasa.gov/carbonnano.html

and here...

http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~scsharip/tubes.htm

You can also do a search in google for more info...

dwhitnee
Jan 17, 2004, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
I'm no processor manufacturer, or claim to be any kind of expert on that subject, however I've heard we were reaching the limitations of silicon as far as speed and smaller processes. I bet we'll see a revolutionary step in the next couple of years - something that makes current processor tech obsolete. I remember hearing something, but don't know where.
For reference, if you lined up 400 carbon atoms, that's 65nm. So time is running out for conventional chips, but there's probably still 10 years left in current processes.

Molecular circuits (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/computers/article/0,12543,241609-3,00.html) are next, but it'll be a while before the iPodMolecule.

MacBandit
Jan 17, 2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
I'm no processor manufacturer, or claim to be any kind of expert on that subject, however I've heard we were reaching the limitations of silicon as far as speed and smaller processes. I bet we'll see a revolutionary step in the next couple of years - something that makes current processor tech obsolete. I remember hearing something, but don't know where. For the sake of conversation, perhaps someone with a better memory than I can post some information on emerging processor technologies? Here's to G5 Powerbooks soon (hopefully) - I'll be buying one at that time!

Think 3 dimensions. Current chips are currently manufactured in 2 dimensions. In the last few years I have heard a few blurbs about once they reach the smallest size possible that they can begin layering in the 3rd dimension. The reason they can't do it currently is heat dissipation and finding an appropriate material to do so.

I read something a month or so ago about them finding a way to imprint circuits on an inexpensive easy to make synthetic material. This would relieve the chip industry from the cost incurred by using Silicon which is expensive to grow in the fasion needed to make wafers for chips.

Sabenth
Jan 17, 2004, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by jouster
Hmmm....well, where does this put Intel?

Probably still selling around thirty billion dollars' worth of processors per year to the various computing markets that it dominates. Did you assume that the Xbox was Intel's major source of income? It is a tiny fraction.

Nope just thought id ask what they might do offer a chip to apple to make a console Lol :)

Sir_Giggles
Jan 17, 2004, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
I've heard we were reaching the limitations of silicon as far as speed and smaller processes. I bet we'll see a revolutionary step in the next couple of years - something that makes current processor tech obsolete.

The next revolutionary step in computing could possibly be computers that use photons instead of electrons.

The next step after Photonic Computers probably could be in the area of Quantum computing.

Mechanical computers with gears and punchcards were the first (if you also include the abacus). Then came the Silicon Computer Age, which we are in now. Give another decade or two before we reach the end of this technology.

Certainly greater things are ahead of us.

MacBandit
Jan 17, 2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Bistroengine
The future of microprocessing lies with these two words "Carbon Nanotubes"

More information here...

http://www.ipt.arc.nasa.gov/carbonnano.html

and here...

http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~scsharip/tubes.htm

You can also do a search in google for more info...

Thanks for the info. This is some truly amazing stuff. I can't wait for them to find a way to actually apply it and put it to use. Just reading about it and looking at the 3D models made me have flash backs to Star Trek.

Mr. MacPhisto
Jan 17, 2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by SilvorX
I know more people who have xboxes than Game Cubes, game cubes were a sweet idea, but theres a lack of titles (compared to games I like thats available for xbox or whatever), and the optical drive is way too ***** small (so no dvd movies) but it reminds me of ye ol powermac cube in a way

Well, GameCube just recently surpassed Xbox as the #2 game player behind PS2. Also, Nintendo will deliver their next gen before anyone else and feature backwards compatibility - which the next Xbox and PS are rumored not to.

I'd debate about the titles. Most of the titles available on PS2 and Xbox are on Gamecube, plus Gamecube has stuff no one else can get - Metroid, Zelda, Mario, F-Zero and many, many more properties exclusive to Nintendo. Metroid Prime and Zelda the Windwaker are two of the best games ever produced, IMHO, and Mario Sunshine was excellent as well. MarioKart is great (wish there were more features, but it's the best kart racer out there) and games like Mario Golf I find more satisifying than their "more realistic" counterparts.

And the tiny optical disc is great. Load times on the Gamecube are the lowest of the three systems, Piracy is more easily thwarted, AND not playing DVDs is a benefit. Anytime you allow a system to do something else it requires overhead - meaning the Gamecube is purely for gaming. DVD and CD playing on the XBox and PS2 - even when not in use - rob resources from the games. IMO, the Gamecube is a better console with better games. I find as many GCN titles as XBox - with PS2 getting the most always. However, I think the quality of the unique GCN titles is far greater than those of other systems (especially since Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy are coming back to Nintendo this year).

As to XBox2, there've been recent rumors that if the sales continue to slouch with the XBox (and it has been a very poor performer in Europe as well), that MS will pull the plug on the next console and get out of the market all together. The next 6 months will determine it, especially with Nintendo poised to strike first with the next generation of consoles - and likely strike with a new Mario title, a new Zelda, a new Metroid, and exclusive Metal Gear and Final Fantasy games.

Interesting thing is that it looks like IBM will be supplying chips for all three systems at this time. IBM's chip business is really picking up steam.

Mr. MacPhisto
Jan 17, 2004, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Richter
what do you expect? $99 vs $179

And the Gamecube was the only of the three systems that had an increase in sales this year - both PS2 and XBox decreased significantly. It follows the pattern of the last ten years with Nintendo. The SNES and N64 both really hit their strides closer to the end of their run - so it probably is a combo of price and trends. None of them come close to the sales of the #1 gaming system - Gameboy. Unbelievable how strong it is after all these years. With it and Gamecube, Nintendo holds over 50% of the world market in console gaming.

heuer007
Jan 17, 2004, 04:32 AM
OMG i cant believe one of my submitted articles got posted, this is UNBELIEVABLE!!!

silvergunuk
Jan 17, 2004, 04:35 AM
Does anyone remember a short while ago, it was mentioned that IBM would move from silicon to germanium?

lind0834
Jan 17, 2004, 05:22 AM
How did this become a Xbox vs. Gamecube vs. PS2 thread?

I thought the point of the article was that there was some confirmation that IBM's plant was making some smaller and smaller chips.

krassy
Jan 17, 2004, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by lind0834
How did this become a Xbox vs. Gamecube vs. PS2 thread?

I thought the point of the article was that there was some confirmation that IBM's plant was making some smaller and smaller chips.

*lol* this is a very crazy world ;)

ionas
Jan 17, 2004, 06:25 AM
but I guess thats not the case...
still I wonder why ;p

Maybe the G5 is too expensive for a console.

Besides I hope MS gets a foot into the console biz and I hope that all 3 (Nintendo, Sony, MS) will stay there for some nice low prices and good development in future.

It would be good to see MS there because they would have another Base to stand on.

The more MS does hardware and consumer **** the less we will see them producing windows. (the weight of windows will internally become lower to the management, that way they will more easy accept losses in that market)

and that is good afterall... imho.

(btw: i dont like ms - but i would like to see them in the hw and gaming market, stuff they might do better than OSes ;)

Mord
Jan 17, 2004, 06:31 AM
just a minor point dreamcasts used a hitachi 200Mhz prossesor that used risc code.

It is pretty much proven that the dreamcast had better ghraphics the ps2 won because sony posted the maximum output the ps2 50m pologons a second and sega posted the acctual achived prefomence from there first games 6m pologons a second. The sony figure was ludicus it could never be achived it was theoretical. You can compare ecco the dolfin on the ps2 to the dreamcast version and the diffrence is obious (the same can be done with third party games such as RE code veronica.

it was a VHS Vs. Betamax Pr counts more than preformence

It's pretty much solid that the xbox will have a g5.

What I would like is for apple to buy nintendo and sega to make a super console that had games with sonic and mario ect.

how cool would a Nintendo Vs. Sega mele game be?

(Yes I know it will never happen)

ionas
Jan 17, 2004, 06:42 AM
u know if there are usable SVGA adapters to the dreamcast

i know there are not MANY games out, but if i get most of them there will be just enough for me.

but i dont have a crappy tv - just a 22" CRT monitor...

u got a dc yourself?

silvergunuk
Jan 17, 2004, 06:51 AM
Would be good if apple, sega and nintendo made a console. Apple designed it would be 1 sexy beast. Now virtua fighter using dual G5s .......drool...

sanford
Jan 17, 2004, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by lind0834
How did this become a Xbox vs. Gamecube vs. PS2 thread?

I thought the point of the article was that there was some confirmation that IBM's plant was making some smaller and smaller chips.

Good point. Each system has its merits. For professional reasons -- no, really -- I own all 3 systems -- really, for professional reasons -- and can give high marks to all of the consoles, some in the same areas, some in unique strengths.

Something that was mentioned awhile back, that because of new IBM chip technology, Xbox 2 would either not be backwards compatible (like PS2) or would require some sort of emulation to accomplish compatibility, emulation almost always being a dicey business. I disagree. The unit cost of the grade of Intel CPUs in the original Xbox was already favorable at the time of its release; by the time Xbox 2 goes to manufacturing, the unit cost on the same or equivalent Intel CPUs will be so low as to be inconsequential. There are other factors to consider, of course; but as long as new fixed and removable media storage, graphic subsystems, etc., will support original Xbox games, there's no particularly good reason Microsoft can't design a dual-CPU Xbox 2, doing compatibility in hardware: the next generation IBM chip for the new games; the Intel CPU for backwards compatibility.

sanford
Jan 17, 2004, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Hector
It is pretty much proven that the dreamcast had better ghraphics the ps2 won because sony posted the maximum output the ps2 50m pologons a second and sega posted the acctual achived prefomence from there first games 6m pologons a second.

PS2 didn't win because of disparity in calculations on performance; Sony won on marketing. Though they've slipped a bit lately -- yet apparently are climbing back up -- Sony as a brand had huge weight when it entered the market with PS1. Sega actually had a quite powerful console in the Saturn and they shipped it early -- too early, in fact, as the hardware design was a mess and it was incredibly complicated to program for, leading many developers and publishers to drop support for Saturn.

With Dreamcast, Sega was coming off the Saturn disaster. Word on the street was, Sega sucks! But Dreamcast was a superior console. Who cares? The brand had become associated with a dead-end platform and unfortunately that dead-ended Dreamcast, too. At PS2 introduction, the hype was fantastic and Sony was rolling on the stellar market performance of PS1: they hit one out of the park at their first at bat and were expected to do the same in the next rotation. And PS2 did indeed turn out to be a great console, though it lacked the full potential of Dreamcast.

Further, at the time of Dreamcast vs. PS2, the notion in the industry was that the console market was strictly a two-horse race (sorry, I'm heavy on the sports metaphor today) and the trailing horse always had to be half-lame and at least twenty lengths back. Now we have three major console vendors, all of them hanging in there, cutting prices, spinning marketing fantasies, vying to win or at least hold position. Add to that the fact that video gaming is becoming more and more a household entertainment and less a computer-based pastime -- no, I'm not declaring the death of the PC as a game platform, but it's not the juggernaut it once was for high-end games -- and you have a dramatically different market today than you did a few years ago.

ITR 81
Jan 17, 2004, 08:21 AM
Well maybe finally Apple will start seeing some games come down the line because thus far all 3 consoles are using a IBM processor of some type and ATi card of some type.

Sony is using Cell processor that they co-developed with IBM and Toshiba.

The GameCube 2 is said to be using PPC G5 type processor.

The Xbox2 is suppose to use either PPC or Cell type processor..but who knows yet.

The new console from Nintendo is suppose to debut in Japan sometime around this 4th qtr.

ITR 81
Jan 17, 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by sanford
PS2 didn't win because of disparity in calculations on performance; Sony won on marketing. Though they've slipped a bit lately -- yet apparently are climbing back up -- Sony as a brand had huge weight when it entered the market with PS1. Sega actually had a quite powerful console in the Saturn and they shipped it early -- too early, in fact, as the hardware design was a mess and it was incredibly complicated to program for, leading many developers and publishers to drop support for Saturn.

With Dreamcast, Sega was coming off the Saturn disaster. Word on the street was, Sega sucks! But Dreamcast was a superior console. Who cares? The brand had become associated with a dead-end platform and unfortunately that dead-ended Dreamcast, too. At PS2 introduction, the hype was fantastic and Sony was rolling on the stellar market performance of PS1: they hit one out of the park at their first at bat and were expected to do the same in the next rotation. And PS2 did indeed turn out to be a great console, though it lacked the full potential of Dreamcast.

Further, at the time of Dreamcast vs. PS2, the notion in the industry was that the console market was strictly a two-horse race (sorry, I'm heavy on the sports metaphor today) and the trailing horse always had to be half-lame and at least twenty lengths back. Now we have three major console vendors, all of them hanging in there, cutting prices, spinning marketing fantasies, vying to win or at least hold position. Add to that the fact that video gaming is becoming more and more a household entertainment and less a computer-based pastime -- no, I'm not declaring the death of the PC as a game platform, but it's not the juggernaut it once was for high-end games -- and you have a dramatically different market today than you did a few years ago.

I know one reason why the PS2 is #1 right now...A full lib of quality games.

One reason I won't buy Xbox is because most of their quality games can be counted on one hand. Who cares about graphics when the gameplay sucks.

One reason I love the Cubes is because 80% of the games are fun to play and have high replay value.

Another reason I wouldn't own a Xbox would be because I hate their controller layout. Both Sony and Nintendo have better controllers.
First it was too big which meant it never sold too well in Japan. They make them smaller...that helped but the buttons also suck because they all have that same glossed over texture.

Now back to the 65nm processor..

sanford
Jan 17, 2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
Well maybe finally Apple will start seeing some games come down the line because thus far all 3 consoles are using a IBM processor of some type and ATi card of some type.

You mean all 3 next generation or current generation consoles? Presently PS2 uses a graphics subsystem co-developed with SGI; Xbox uses NVIDIA -- GeForce 3; and GCN does use an ATI subsystem.

Is Xbox moving to ATI for Xbox 2? And, as far as I know, PS3 -- or whatever -- is again a proprietary graphics subsystem, not ATI.

And I think we're getting far enough down the line of computer to console gaming transition that availability of games for Mac will remain static. A few years ago, Apple threw some marketing weight in gaming and, indeed, it did bring about more ports of PC titles to Mac. But in the broad sense the industry mostly ignored Apple's efforts and Apple, perhaps wisely, sloughed off most of the push behind gaming. Apple is focusing on the digital hub, innovation like GarageBand.

There's also the problem of the ports: they lag significantly behind PC release or are bad or both. If you're going to wait for a PC game port, you may as well wait for a console port -- which likely stands a better chance of being a good job.

BenRoethig
Jan 17, 2004, 10:52 AM
The Athlon isn't a true X86 processor by itself. In fact, it is much closer in design to a PowerPC than it is a Pentium. To obtain x86 compatibility, it uses an x86 compatibility layer. IBM could in theory produce an X86 compatible 970/980 derivative. Using a normal PowerPC would not make sense for several reasons. First, you're telling everyone that Wintel PCs have an obsolete architecture. Second, you'd have to port Direct X to PowerPC. It could come up as an anti-trust violation and MS could be forced to port it to OSX. That would make it much easier for games to be ported to the Mac. Third, producing large numbers of G5 based chips (and maybe some of the support chips as well) could lead to lower Mac prices. This is all good for us, but doesn't make much sense for MS.

wdlove
Jan 17, 2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
Five (count 'em, 5) gigahertz desktops by Jan 2005, perchance?

Now we are really talking speed. That would be awesome a G5 dual 5 in '05. Also 5 just happens to be my favorite number. The problem is can I wait that long!

djdarlek
Jan 17, 2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by jwhitnah
Someone told me PS2 was 128 bit (I did not check on this-lazy). Funny that Xbox 2 would still only be 64 bit with a G5 (if true).

I don't think the PS2 is 128-bit in that sense. Thats like comparing the 64-bit N64 to a G5. lol, i'd like to see those stats.. ;)

MorganX
Jan 17, 2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
And the Gamecube was the only of the three systems that had an increase in sales this year - both PS2 and XBox decreased significantly. It follows the pattern of the last ten years with Nintendo. The SNES and N64 both really hit their strides closer to the end of their run - so it probably is a combo of price and trends. None of them come close to the sales of the #1 gaming system - Gameboy. Unbelievable how strong it is after all these years. With it and Gamecube, Nintendo holds over 50% of the world market in console gaming.

PS2 decreased significantly. I believe Xbox sales more or less remained the same during the Holiday Quarter.

Nintendo reached a new market, those who will buy whatever they can get for $99.

cubist
Jan 17, 2004, 11:52 AM
Did anyone hear about the head engineer for the Xbox leaving Microsoft? He said he was frozen out of the Xbox2 project.

I doubt that backward compatibility is much of a concern for Microsoft.

suzerain
Jan 17, 2004, 11:56 AM
this is great for us apple users.

see, they will be able to use MS as a guinea pig, and perfect the 65nm process on that XBox p.o.s., while they develop the more complex desktop CPUs (like the g5)

sanford
Jan 17, 2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by cubist
I doubt that backward compatibility is much of a concern for Microsoft.

In consumer operating systems, probably not if you weight your opinion mostly with their market share. In consumer game consoles that depend heavily on marketing campaigns that promote number of available titles? Consoles with subscription-based online services that promote number of compatible titles? Developers/publishers that will produce for your new platform if they can continue to crank out original-platform sequels at bargain prices for their high sales franchises? Different story.

The Xbox 2 will see a higher adoption rate among the consumers -- not the aficionados, they will pre-order the thing 6 months in advance -- if Microsoft can promote a larger library of compatible games -- even if those games are original Xbox titles. They will sell more online subscriptions if they can list more online-capable titles.

Sony did the same thing with the PS2. x number of titles available at launch for our new console with y total number of compatible titles.

sanford
Jan 17, 2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by suzerain
see, they will be able to use MS as a guinea pig, and perfect the 65nm process on that XBox p.o.s., while they develop the more complex desktop CPUs (like the g5)

Actually, IBM will likely put more money and more effort into chips that will make more profit. If Xbox 2 ships enough units to balance out the margins on its CPU against the higher margin desktop CPUs, like the G5, don't expect Apple's processors to be their primary concern. Pride in engineering factors in, but so does money.

And the Xbox is not a p.o.s. The Xbox is actually a quite capable, stable and advanced gaming console. Microsoft did a masterful job of creating a hardware manufacturing infrastructure where none existed before and turning out a console entertainment device that has unique strengths.

I believe the legend has it that Xbox began as "rogue" project among a few dedicated engineers and they fought mightily and madly to see it reach the retail shelf. If that's true, and the talent that designed the original Xbox is *not* leading the Xbox 2 project, expect perhaps to see bigger and faster only -- better being left behind with the designers.

Henriok
Jan 17, 2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by AMDMACMAN
It could very well be a version of an amd 64 chip. It is well known that IBM is a big producer and partner with AMD. They are codevelopers of the AMD 64 technology.

I would love to see either chip(G5 or AMD64) in the xbox, just to spite intel. But i like it is more likely that it is and amd variation or a new chip design based on x86 tech. I do not think it is likely that MS will utilize any form of PPC tech. Well no. This will NOT be an x86 chip, and no AMD design. Microsoft will not use IBM just for fabrication, they will use IBM for design AND fabrication. In their pressrelease they state "the new Xbox technologies will be based on the latest in IBM's family of state-of-the-art processors"

What family of processors is that? IBM doesn't have any other family of processors than PowerPCs. It doesn't say that the Xbox 2 will be PowerPC, but it will be based on PowerPC. I see no reason why the Xbox 2-processor won't be a PowerPC chip, but they very well might add some cool custom technology. I count on it. They will certainly add som obscure technology to make piracy harder.

geran
Jan 17, 2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by jwhitnah
I hope Xbox 2 is a G5. Economics of scale may lower the cost to apple for their version of the G5, and of course make a PowerBook G5 possible. Someone told me PS2 was 128 bit (I did not check on this-lazy). Funny that Xbox 2 would still only be 64 bit with a G5 (if true).

does that really matter? The Sega Dreamcast is (was) 128 bit, anyone remeber that one? One of the best consoles ever, great games such as Virtua Tennis, Ready to Rumble 1/2, Soul Calibur, Virtual On and so on, but sold bad... crapy marketing here in europe =(

Supa_Fly
Jan 17, 2004, 01:09 PM
WHat no credit for posting this info before Macrumors?? CHeck my last post and the time for it, my source was from ircspy.com. heuer007, not sure when you posted info on this cannot tell from your previous 5 posts, but hey you should get credit as well for finding out this info and bringing it here.

Now on topic, what I gathered from this was, smaller chips and relative heat problems solved as normally gaming systems don't get much cooling and run for hours at maximum performance. Also the technology that IBM learns from what goes into the neXT Box, and especially from the multi-core tech that is going into the PS3 the "Core" will more than likely go into the PowerPC for Macs. Or is all of this technology already from the hyped PowerPC 5??

I'm expecting faster 32-bit emulation, along with more efficient computations from slightly higher clock speeds, and inroads to see more recognition for Apple that their cpu (IBM) is the best way to go for game/office apps/research/music/security processing!! Yes I know that music and lately research has always been better on a Mac, but its about time analysts investors and programmers (web site, c++, etc) learn this and further port or start their projects first on Mac.

:rolleyes:

foniks2020
Jan 17, 2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Henriok
What family of processors is that? IBM doesn't have any other family of processors than PowerPCs. It doesn't say that the Xbox 2 will be PowerPC, but it will be based on PowerPC. I see no reason why the Xbox 2-processor won't be a PowerPC chip, but they very well might add some cool custom technology. I count on it. They will certainly add som obscure technology to make piracy harder.

Well it *could* be based on a Power4/5 chip but damn if that wouldn't be overkill and the heat diss.. would be impossible, so yeah PowerPC it is.

But IBM doesn't need to add anything funky to prevent piracy, look at Apple, they've never had a hacked ASIC ROM (I think that's the term) which is the chip on the MBoard that makes Apple Macs proprietary, in effect. SO M$ just has to do what they've already done and add their little chip that's already in the XBOX or an equivalent that works with PPC and all is secure.

ffakr
Jan 17, 2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Prom1
Now on topic, what I gathered from this was, smaller chips and relative heat problems solved as normally gaming systems don't get much cooling and run for hours at maximum performance.
wattage is just amperage x voltage. smaller ships should require lets current but the smaller processes tend to 'bleed' more electrons so they may not use significantly less power. This is why Intel's Prescott won't likely be any cooler P4 (and it will be bigger of course).
.065 micron _should_ be quite a bit cooler though, if they solve the problems associated with such a small process.

Also the technology that IBM learns from what goes into the neXT Box, and especially from the multi-core tech that is going into the PS3 the "Core" will more than likely go into the PowerPC for Macs. Or is all of this technology already from the hyped PowerPC 5??
Not much is known about the PS3 cpu yet, but I've heard that it may not be a multi-core processor in the traditional sense. Rather, Cell may have multiple specialized cores. This is oversimplifying.. but imagine an integer math processor that did int work really well.. and a vector processor (like supercomputers use) or a DSP for mpeg decoding... and then think of each of these cpu's tacked together on one die. Cell might be like this, but who the hell outside sony and IBM knows :shrug:

I'm expecting faster 32-bit emulation, along with more efficient computations from slightly higher clock speeds..
It's entirely possible that if the processor incorporates different 'cores' on the xbox2 cpu, it could add logic to speed the emulation of x86 code. Heck, it could even support some instructions natively.
Remember, IBM added hardware to the first PPCs to speed the emulation of Motorola's 68k code.. even though that was a CISC processor family like x86. Original PPCs often ran 68k code faster than the cpus they replaced and they weren't clocked significantly faster.
The xbox2 cpu will have to emulate a P3 733-800MHz (I've heard its actually a celeron). This wouldn't be too hard on a .065 micron PPC that would likely run at least twice that fast.. if it had hardware support for emulation that is.
It may even be easier to do hardware emulation now than when the first PPCs ship. To keep x86 alive, AMD and Intel actually design their CISC processors to function in a very RISC-like way at their cores. Complex CISC instructions are broken down into simple micro-ops inside P4s and Athlons. The 970 also breaks down PPC instructions into micro-ops. IBM could provide hardware support to decode x86 instructions into a compatible PPC micro-op so that it could run x86 code at nearly native speed.
How cool would that be?
That's something I'd like to see funnel back into the desktop processors. :smile:

tortoise
Jan 17, 2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Prom1
I'm expecting faster 32-bit emulation, along with more efficient computations from slightly higher clock speeds, and inroads to see more recognition for Apple that their cpu (IBM) is the best way to go for game/office apps/research/music/security processing!! Yes I know that music and lately research has always been better on a Mac, but its about time analysts investors and programmers (web site, c++, etc) learn this and further port or start their projects first on Mac.


Actually, the G5 is less than stellar for many types of research and high-performance computing purposes, and for a very specific reason. The PPC970 has mediocre memory performance (particularly compared to the top-notch memory performance of AMD64), and for any kind of large memory app or app that uses the memory subsystem hard, many x86 derived systems will run rings around the G5 because of this weakness in the PPC970 design. For our high-performance research systems, Opteron systems school the G5 clock-for-clock. Why? Because none of our apps require much in the way of DSP but they do require transforms on large and fine-grained data structures.

PPC970 rocks for DSP-like computations (e.g. audio, video, and useless benchmarks like LINPACK), and the AMD64 architecture has wicked fast memory. Pick the processor according to your actual needs. The G5 has strengths and weaknesses, and is clearly mediocre in some applications.

jero
Jan 17, 2004, 04:31 PM
i love how the ps1 outsells the xbox in japan.

Rocketman
Jan 17, 2004, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Team Xbox claims (http://www.teamxbox.com/news.php?id=5327) that IBM will be producing 65-nm chips for the upcoming "Xbox 2" and start delivering commercial parts in the next 12-18 months.


It seems that 65um is here. Apple is always 3+ months behind the curve on adoption due to testing and packaging.

Powerbook G5 soon. Microsoft having priority is not a problem as they tend to place full orders in advance and Apple more buys as it goes.

Rocketman

GregA
Jan 17, 2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
he he.. wouldn't it be gr8 if XBox 2 games were playable on a G5?

<can't imagine M$ ever tolerating that... but we can dream> :D I'm surprised MS doesn't sell "Virtual XBox" for Windows... and then of course next year "Virtual XBox2 for Mac". Surely they could sell some software that would make them some nice side profit.
Originally posted by nighthawk
They had a retail PPC version of Windows NT all the way up to NT 4.0. The problem was that there was so little software written for the PPC version, so few people bought it. Didn't the Alpha version run Windows-x86 Apps through emulation? Certainly, MS has the pieces to make emulation work now.

It would be very interesting if IBM (like Digital) subsidised Windows-for-PowerPC development, to sel their own PowerPC computers. IBM's PowerPCs, bundled with Windows XP (or MacOS X?).

AidenShaw
Jan 17, 2004, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by GregAussie
Didn't the Alpha version [of NT] run Windows-x86 Apps through emulation? Certainly, MS has the pieces to make emulation work now.

The Digital Alpha systems had a subsystem called FX!32.

It had an x86 emulator that ran 32-bit x86 apps on the Alpha NT systems. (16-bit apps were emulated by the NTVDM (or WOW) subsystem)

Even better, it had a translator, compiler and optimizer. When you first ran an app, it was emulated. After you exited, the translator looked at the code paths that you ran, and converted those to optimized native Alpha code.

The next time you ran the app, those code paths would run at native speed. When you hit new code, the emulator would kick in - but then later the offline optimizer would convert the new stuff to native code.

Another great optimization was the fact that you were running Win32 applications - when the application called a Win32 (or other NT) routine, there was no need to emulate or translate - FX!32 would just jacket the x86 call and do a direct transfer to the appropriate Alpha native NT function.

Unfortunately, the Pentium Pro was a big fraction of the performance of the Alpha systems, for a much smaller fraction of the cost of the Alphas. Running x86 code on the Alpha really sucked for price-performance, and there wasn't enough native Alpha NT code to compensate.

I'm not sure where the FX!32 IP ended up, but Intel bought Digital's compiler assets, and FX!32 was close to the compiler group. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Intel's new software "x86 on Itanium" offering is based on FX!32 technology.

Zech Marquis
Jan 17, 2004, 10:57 PM
I've seen a few people here bragging about the little Gamecube,oh please! It's a kiddie game console. No online gaming, no hard drive, and NO compelling grown up titles. And yes, I'm a proud Mac owner, as the Mac simply won't see the likes of Doom III until...? Halo 2--nope, althugh the mac Halo does have online play now. Xbox will soon have Ninja Gaiden, DOA Online Ultimate, Full Spectrum Warrior, Sudeki, Fable, Stacraft Ghost...you get the idea.

Now, back on th main topic--yes the Xbox 2 will have a variant of the G5--with some custo designed features IBM hasn't revealed to the public yet. 65 nm will be very helpful for the evetual Powerbook G5s ad iMac G5s.

A few more Cube talk--when Nintendo has something like Doom III, then we can talk. Until then, just enjoy your little Mario Gokart, and tell mommy you need some more milk and cookies. I'm going to hit the slopes in Amped 2!

sanford
Jan 17, 2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Zech Marquis
I've seen a few people here bragging about the little Gamecube,oh please! It's a kiddie game console. No online gaming, no hard drive, and NO compelling grown up titles.

Right, no hard drive. There is a network adapter for online gaming, though; just few online titles and only one that I know of outside Japan. And Eternal Darkness is one of the most compelling "grown up" titles ever created. Metroid Prime is no slouch, either.

GCN has an extremely solid if somewhat limited catalog of gaming titles, some specifically for children, some for adults and some that can be enjoyed by both.

That being stated, I do play my Xbox more than my GCN, likely due in large part to Xbox Live.

ffakr
Jan 18, 2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
Actually, the G5 is less than stellar for many types of research and high-performance computing purposes, and for a very specific reason. The PPC970 has mediocre memory performance (particularly compared to the top-notch memory performance of AMD64), and for any kind of large memory app or app that uses the memory subsystem hard, many x86 derived systems will run rings around the G5 because of this weakness in the PPC970 design. For our high-performance research systems, Opteron systems school the G5 clock-for-clock. Why? Because none of our apps require much in the way of DSP but they do require transforms on large and fine-grained data structures.

PPC970 rocks for DSP-like computations (e.g. audio, video, and useless benchmarks like LINPACK), and the AMD64 architecture has wicked fast memory. Pick the processor according to your actual needs. The G5 has strengths and weaknesses, and is clearly mediocre in some applications.
Both AMD64 and the 970 systems produced by Apple have more cpu bandwidth than the memory contained in them. A dual proc G5 has 2 independent CPU buses each comprised of 2 unidirectional 32bit wide buses at 1GHz (16GB/sec) while the dual channel DDR 400 has 6.4 GB/sec of bandwidth.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
The Athlon64 has an on-die controller so the memory bus runs at CPU speed.
I think what you are trying to refer to is the decreased latency of the Athlon64 compared to the G5 system, not bandwidth... since both architectures have more than enough bandwidth with existing memory technologies.
Saying the G5 has mediocre memory performance is fud and crap and you should know this if you rely on machines for research.
From what I've seen ( http://www.fftw.org and BigMac and work done in house ), the PPC 970 seems to do just fine as a high performance research machine.

Could you possibly tell us why, exactly, you've come to believe that a) the G5 has a mediocre memory subsystem, and b) what you've done to try and optimise your benchmarks on the G5?
One of our unix admins are currently evaluating machines to run in a cluster. He's told me that they've seen a 35% increase in performance on the G5s after trying out Beta 6 of IBMs xlf compiler (compared to F77). He's also said that they are currently having a lot of trouble benchmarking the Opteron which may be a bug in x86 GCC (generating faulty code - underflow issues??)

BTW, Linpack solves linear equations... yet the G5 excellent linpack performance isn't relevent to its use in research?
huh? Maybe you were thinking about the Pro-PC benchmarks of MS Word when "useless benchmarks" come to mind.

ffakr
Jan 18, 2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by AidenShaw
Unfortunately, the Pentium Pro was a big fraction of the performance of the Alpha systems, for a much smaller fraction of the cost of the Alphas. Running x86 code on the Alpha really sucked for price-performance, and there wasn't enough native Alpha NT code to compensate.
FX!32 was cool stuff. I remember reading about it back in the day. I'd always heard that it never fully lived up to it's promise though.... I don't remember if it generated flaky code or if it just didn't run as fast as hoped.
I don't recall PPros being all that cheap though. I do remember them being quite a bit more than Pentium systems, even though they didn't run all that great unless they had 32bit clean systems (they ran 16bit code like crap, which Win95 contained). As a result, it was NT or Linux only for PPros. .. but I'm getting OT...
I'm pretty sure you could get single proc Alpha's back then for not much more than high end single proc PCs.. like $2500. I remember because I wanted one to play with and I was surprised that it wasn't totally out of my range. :-)

speaking of 'where is it now?'. If you think about it, the Transmeta chips act a lot like FX!32. They translate from one ISA to another, and they optimise the translation as the code is run.

ffakr
Jan 18, 2004, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by jero
i love how the ps1 outsells the xbox in japan.

well, to be fair, Sony has a cult following in Japan. This is true of a lot of 'retro tech'.
Also, XBox games tend to be developed for the US market. There are a lot of Japanese only PS/PS2 games but that's not true the other way around. Also, I don't think that Japan is as big into the architypal US games (First person shooters and such).

iMeowbot
Jan 18, 2004, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by ffakr
FX!32 was cool stuff. I remember reading about it back in the day. I'd always heard that it never fully lived up to it's promise though.... I don't remember if it generated flaky code or if it just didn't run as fast as hoped.

Honestly I think the biggest problem is that it was too good at what it did! It allowed ISVs to be lazy; since the IA32 version of a program ran well enough on AXP, even if not up to full potential, why bother running the code through a native Alpha compiler and have to support an additional set of binaries? This, IMHO, is what made Alpha NT not worth the bother for DigiPAQ to continue developing.

sanford
Jan 18, 2004, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by ffakr
well, to be fair, Sony has a cult following in Japan. This is true of a lot of 'retro tech'.

Oh, ffakr, but you can't be fair because anything Microsoft does most be monopoly-grinding garbage! Seriously, you're right: just as Nintendo's Super Famicom once held the hearts and minds of millions of Japanese, now does Sony. And developers continue, even stateside, to produce new games for PS1 -- usually at bargain prices compared to top-tier current generation titles. Why the Intellivsion Lives and Midway Arcade Treasures nostalgia collections aren't PS1 rather than PS2 titles is beyond me. Creating the Sony console versions for PS1 would have made the product compatible with both systems (PS2 being backward compatible with PS1, of course).

You're also right about retro-tech being de rigeur in Japan. Space Invaders is not a video game so much as it is a mark, a mission, a brand, a scar... Hmm... Apparently a Dashboard Confessional record. Anyway, I wouldn't quite yet classify PS1 as retro-tech as it is not only still in production but still has active developers. In video games, the Japanese have rather consistently been less impressed than the West with wowser graphics effects as they have gameplay, keeping the PS1 a viable option for the Japanese household: tiny, simple and a huge library of games. The Japanese go for all the hot cutting-edge tech in their mobile phones!

Note that in the odd hours of the day, it's not unusual to find yourself playing Crimson Skies on Xbox Live with a match full of Japanese opponents. Skies is the sort of game that has Japanese appeal. Xbox is making inroads in Japan. It's the only US-made console to have ever done this well in the East. It's hardly a failure.

It would be somewhat pleasant if a) all posters to this forum could look at Microsoft as a developer of technology -- some good, some bad, some ugly; and b) the current crop of video game consoles as having their unique strengths and weaknesses and not all bad except the particular unit one owns.

Photorun
Jan 18, 2004, 09:19 AM
However, XFlops was such an initial disappointment in Japan for sales of units, M$ had supposedly predicted selling 3 million in the first month or something but it wasn't even 1/6th that, at one point M$ was thinking about pulling it from the shelves (which I wish they would have so I could have done a Nelson "Ha Ha"). I tend to think of Xbox's mediocre at best welcome and still by Microcraps estimation underwhelming sales in Japan is just proof that the Japanese have more taste, sense, or brains than Americans/world, at least as far as electronics, and they know their electronics. Any right minded person would see anything with Microsh** on it, in it, or running it and take a sledge hammer to it.

sanford
Jan 18, 2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Photorun
I tend to think of Xbox's mediocre at best welcome and still by Microcraps estimation underwhelming sales in Japan is just proof that the Japanese have more taste, sense, or brains than Americans/world, at least as far as electronics, and they know their electronics. Any right minded person would see anything with Microsh** on it, in it, or running it and take a sledge hammer to it.

The Japanese personal computer market is overwhelmingly Windows on Intel-compatible just as the rest of the first world, and the second and third worlds for that matter. Following your logic, Linux/Mac OS/Solaris would predominate in Japanese personal computing. They don't, Windows does. QED.

Henriok
Jan 18, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by foniks2020
Well it *could* be based on a Power4/5 chip but damn if that wouldn't be overkill and the heat diss.. would be impossible, so yeah PowerPC it is.Actually.. ever since Power3 all Power-chips are PowerPCs too, so.. For the time beeing, the only other processor-technology IBM have is the one that they use in their zSeries mainframes. But.. It seems that they'll get their share of Power/PowerPCs with the introduction of the Power5.

Come to think of it, the PowerPC 970 (aka G5) is also a Power-chip.

Originally posted by foniks2020
But IBM doesn't need to add anything funky to prevent piracy, look at Apple, they've never had a hacked ASIC ROM (I think that's the term) which is the chip on the MBoard that makes Apple Macs proprietary, in effect. SO M$ just has to do what they've already done and add their little chip that's already in the XBOX or an equivalent that works with PPC and all is secure. I didn't mean someone would pirate the actual Xbox hardware (make clones), I meant that they could implement stuff to hinder software piracy and stop folks from installing any other OS than whatever Microsoft wants, ie, make it harder to mod them to run Linux and such.

And.. of course implement the Palladium security plattform.

sjonni
Jan 18, 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by VIREBEL661
I'm no processor manufacturer, or claim to be any kind of expert on that subject, however I've heard we were reaching the limitations of silicon as far as speed and smaller processes. I bet we'll see a revolutionary step in the next couple of years - something that makes current processor tech obsolete. I remember hearing something, but don't know where. For the sake of conversation, perhaps someone with a better memory than I can post some information on emerging processor technologies? Here's to G5 Powerbooks soon (hopefully) - I'll be buying one at that time!

Its called biological cpus. It will not be sillicon but some sort of living cpu. A BOI CHIP! And then it will all end like in the movie T3.:cool:

eric67
Jan 18, 2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Stoffel
I don't bother the xbox2 but hey! do you think that the g5 can make it into the powerbooks before fall 2004?
yes it will be in PowerBook by Fall 2004, for the 2004 education market in September

Supa_Fly
Jan 18, 2004, 02:45 PM
Tortoise,

I'm just curious of the cpu speeds of the Opterons and the PowerMac G5s that you use. Are they comparable, in the sense that your Opteron's are all Dual 2.2 cpu systems using EEC 333Mhz memory, and the G5's are dual 2.0Ghz?

It was my understanding that a memory intensive app, like say MS Office (I say this because speeds between a P3 1.2Ghz and a P4 1.6Ghz showed no significant increase in performance, actually it was reduced when the P4 debutted) would need faster ram to put/pull instructions in and out of the memory. Hence even if the on core memory controller on AMD Opterons and Athlon64s ran at cpu speed, the latency would still be inherent because the Error Correction of bytes and the access to the actual memory would reduce this reduce latency you speak of on the memory controller.

I see this as a runner still making faster steps on the track, but not getting anywhere faster than the next runner taking longer strides; like runner A (Opteron) takes strides at 1/2 a meter will actually take 2 steps per meter (on board memory controller), yet is no faster than runner B (PPC970), because runner B takes strides at 1 meter (1step per meter). If runner A takes steps twice as fast as runner B, then whom will win a race at say 50/100meters? Both will because the pace will be the same, and this is the reason why the debate is still ongoing by many in the know.
yes a sad analogy but I tried.

cheers

tortoise
Jan 18, 2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Prom1
I'm just curious of the cpu speeds of the Opterons and the PowerMac G5s that you use. Are they comparable, in the sense that your Opteron's are all Dual 2.2 cpu systems using EEC 333Mhz memory, and the G5's are dual 2.0Ghz?


They are all dual 2.0GHz systems. The RAM in the G5 is theoretically faster, though I'm not sure if this is the case in practice.

Your analogy doesn't work. What typically happens is that the CPU spends a lot of its time doing nothing while waiting for a memory request to be fulfilled. These clock cycles are essentially wasted but the processor is still "busy". The number of clock cycles an Opteron wastes while waiting for a memory request to be fulfilled is much less than a G5 on average. For memory intensive apps that make a lot of memory requests, fewer wasted cycles per request means more work is done and the processor will appear to be faster even though the cores have roughly identical throughput in theory. As is often the case with modern systems, the CPU is starved much of the time and only lives up to a fraction of its theoretical potential outside of ridiculously narrow cases. It isn't that the Opteron has an intrinsically faster core, it is that it wastes fewer clock cycles waiting for work to do. There isn't a computer made today that doesn't have a bottleneck in its memory systems, and performance in the general case is often defined by the depth and width of this bottleneck.

For most applications, there won't be a significant difference between an Opteron and a PPC970, so choose whichever suits you. For DSP applications, the PPC970 will be significantly faster. For large memory intensive applications, the Opteron will be significantly faster. For workstations, there are usually more important factors than these as to which is better. I don't do DSP at work, but I still prefer OSX workstations.

w0nt0n
Jan 18, 2004, 05:07 PM
Was'nt a version of Window's NT written for loads of other processors sometime ago before the project got canned.

I'm sure Microsoft had versions of NT ported to run of PowerPC Risc processors aswell as MIPs and DEC's Alpha processor.

Because of this i'm sure theres probably alot of code that could easily be updated to run Xbox 2.

I'm presuming that Xbox 1 is running some version of Window's, but I don't really know alot about the console.

cspace
Jan 18, 2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by w0nt0n
Was'nt a version of Window's NT written for loads of other processors sometime ago before the project got canned.

I'm sure Microsoft had versions of NT ported to run of PowerPC Risc processors aswell as MIPs and DEC's Alpha processor.


not only did they have these ports, they actually sold these versions of NT (v3.5)

eclipse525
Jan 18, 2004, 06:04 PM
Doesn't really matter....I believe 5 years Apple will move on to chips made from carbon Nanotubes! http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/emergingtech/0,39020357,39118949,00.htm

I believe....I believe....OR shall I dare say, laser, crystal and hologram processors.....don't blink, they'll be here before you know it.

Which one do you think will actually become a reality through the industry?


~e

jero
Jan 18, 2004, 07:01 PM
when it comes to games, no one and i mean NO ONE innovates like japan does. and sony and nintendo both being japanese companies will have the best innovative games go to their consoles. if you want a fps, a tom clancy games, or hell if you want any computer pc games buy an xbox. or buy a pc. just pick one theyre in essence the same. most people that initially bought a damn xbox were pc gamers haha.

the microsoft/xbox spin is so obvious here in the us. g4 tv and even tech tv all big up and hype up the xbox so much its pathetic. all these channels and people all hype up like the xbox is the game console to have but in actuality the number of people that own a ps2 is like quadruple the number of people that own an xbox last i checked.

i own all three systems so i have a free pass to talk ****** on which ever one i choose. and the system ive bought less games for is the xbox. ive owned one and what game is that? you gussed it! halo. once i beat it, i sold the system. why? cause i couldnt find any games for it. or games i liked at least. im not too into fps, or tom clancy games, or games with JUST PRETTY GRAPHICS(and no, graphics alone does not make the system as much as xbox/pc gamers would like to try to convince you)

consoles for life...(no support for pc's that tries to pass itself off as a console)

f the xbox.

jero
Jan 18, 2004, 07:14 PM
http://maddox.xmission.com/xbox_suckit.html

7 reasons why the xbox xan suck it:

"1. Piss-poor design.
The system is the brain child of Seamus Blackley, a 32-year-old red-haired jazz pianist and nuclear physicist. To quote him: "I was flying back from visiting [my girlfriend] and I had just got a new laptop and I was trying it out on the plane and I was thinking about graphics cards and I realized that we could make a machine that had much higher performance than anything else in the industry." Yeah, it's called PC dumbass. Real revolutionary idea. Take existing hardware, throw it together in a big clunky box and call it a console. Everything about the system reeks of poor design. Rather than getting a hand full of the most talented game developers in the world (here's a hint: YOU WON'T FIND THEM MAKING PC TITLES IN THE US A--HOLE--GO TO JAPAN) and designing a system around the games from the ground up, Blackley comes along with an unlimited supply of stupid ideas about the gaming industry and designs a system that he himself admitted to being "little more than exposed cards with processors and graphics chips hooked to a monitor." No ******? I couldn't tell from how HUGE the case is. It's almost as if it was thrown together with pieces bought off of a store shelf--oh wait. What more, once he senses the impending fizzle of the launch, he bails from the company to work someplace else--where he'll inevitably spawn more stupid ideas.

2. The games suck.
It's been almost one full year since the launch of the Xbox and so far the only game that doesn't suck as much as everything else on the system is Halo. Everything else is either out on another console, mediocre or a boring PC port. Even Halo doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. The first person shooter (FPS) genre is best done on PC, period (just because some genres have been represented best on PC doesn't mean I'm biased towards PC, if anything I'm biased towards consoles so quit emailing me). As good as Halo is, it's not even the best in its genre (an honor reserved for Half Life as far as I'm concerned). The Xbox library of games is flooded with ****** titles like "Azurik": games that seem more like projects for computer science majors in their senior year at college than professional products. I would rather be shot than have to play one more uninspired ho-hum platform title starring some stupid cat or some random guy that runs around bumping into other vague uninspired objects. Throw that ****** away.

Here are some examples of the ************ games on the Xbox:


Max Payne - Wait, so not only do I lose the ability to adjust my resolution and system specs to improve performance, but I get a game that's been out for months on PC already? Where do I sign? The game's not too bad, but why bother with it on Xbox when it's on PC already?


Nightcaster - How original, a rushed third-person RPG title with four magic types: light, dark, fire and water. But wait, here's where the strategy comes in: use water against fire, light against dark enemies, etc. Brilliant.


Blood Wake - I liked this game better when it was called Twisted Metal and you drove cars instead of boats. Unoriginal, uninspired.


Azurik: Rise of Perathia - Would have been more aptly titled "Azurik: Onset of Paralysis." Bad gameplay, poor camera, muddy textures, lame characters. Does the fun ever start?


Star Wars: Obi-Wan - More like "Star Wars: Obi-Wanna-Play-A-Different-Game." Poor AI, poor controls, boring environments. Any non-geeks care to play this? Doubtful.


Bruce Lee: Quest of the Dragon - Broken gameplay, bad camera work, cheesy voice acting, and the game crashes. All this crap for just $50? It's a win/win situation for publishers: put a lackluster effort into development and make boat-loads of cash off of suck-er.. customers.



Sure, every console has its share of s--tty games but the Xbox has a disproportionately higher percentage of them. In fact, I think only the N64 rivals the Xbox in the s--tty to good title ratio. When all is said and done, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks about the games, the fact is that the games just aren't selling. All you cry-baby, whining, sniveling b--ches can stop emailing me with "HAY MADDOX YOU IDIOT YOU DIDN'T MENTION DEAD TO RIGHTS LOL!!!" Because here are some cold hard facts:

For the entire month of July, only 2 games made it into the top 20 highest sellers (based on units sold), and only 1 in the top 10: Halo at #10 and NCAA Football 2003 at #11. For the month of June, only 3 games made it into the top 20, with only 2 in the top 10. Same for the month of May 2002, and only one in the top 10 in the month of April 2002. Even when the Xbox newly launched, their best month ever has only yielded 4 games in the top 20 with only 2 in the top 10, and don't even bother looking at Japan's stats where the Wonder Swan system is outselling most Xbox games (Source: NPD TRSTS Video Game Service). Compare this to Sony's healthy 15 titles and you can see the big picture. I don't favor Sony's platforms, but these are facts. Any other systems sell this poorly in recent memory? Oh yeah, the Dreamcast and where is the DC now? The DC was by far my favorite system in its prime, but the only difference between me and all you whining Xbox pu--ies is that I can see the same thing happening here. It doesn't matter how good anyone thinks the games are, because they're just not selling which should tell you dumbasses something. That's not to say that good games always sell, but there's no excuse for Microsoft to have this kind of piss-poor performance because they have all the marketing muscle in the world to make it happen and they're screwing it up.

3. The controller is almost as big as my n-ts.
This has to be by far the s--ttiest controller packed with a home console ever. What were they thinking? Over 25% of the surface area on the controller is wasted by a giant green Xbox jewel--you know, in case you forget what system you're playing in between loading screens. You can seriously drop the controller onto a cat from 5 feet and break its back... so I've heard.

What Microsoft should have done was team up with Sega to buy all their unsold Dreamcasts and just use them as controllers for the Xbox. It probably would have been smaller than the 8 lb atrocity that they have now.

4. People who own the Xbox don't play video games.
The average Xbox owner attends Microsoft SQL Server release parties, reads books on database theory and hates games like Super Mario because they're too old for "kiddie" games since everyone knows that it's graphics, not game play that makes a great game. I mean, why play a game that's actually fun when you can waste hours watching rendered, uninteractive intros instead? Ask the typical Xbox owner what other video games or consoles he likes and you'll draw a blank stare. The reason they bought an Xbox was because it's by Microsoft and they're blindly devoted to the company, not because of the games (being as there aren't any).

5. No Soul.
You'll never see games like Metal Slug, Radiant Silvergun or Castlevania come out for the Xbox because Microsoft hasn't made the system attractive to the Japanese market. Capcom, Konami, SNK and a slew of other big game developers have turned their backs towards the Xbox except for a cursory presence with a half-hearted title port. There is light at the end of the tunnel, however. Sega is working on a Panzer Dragoon title as well as Toe Jam & Earl III. Regardless, the Xbox is still a PC at heart, right down to the hard drive and buggy software.

6. S--tty philosophy.
Blackley thought he had the formula for a great system because all the components were there for a great system (and they are): a powerful graphics chip, a beefy hard drive, a fast processor and DVD capabilities. What he failed to realize was that just because you have all the raw material to make a great system doesn't mean it's going to be great. Saying the Xbox is a good system because it's powerful is like saying you made a great painting because you used the best set of paints.

The Xbox is designed by people who think they know a joystick from their a--holes. The problem is that they're mostly fat boring business men and not gamers. They're out to make a buck and it's painfully obvious in how poorly they're marketing the system (I think they've cornered the market on middle-aged men who buy one or two sports titles per year for their system).

7. Too expensive.
The last figures I heard were that Microsoft was eating $150 on every Xbox sale because they had hoped to subsidize the hardware cost with software sales. Too bad that all their software is ******, otherwise their plan might have worked. Unfortunately, Microsoft has deep pockets so we'll probably have to endure a couple more years of mediocre Xbox titles until Microsoft's share holders decide they've had enough. Don't buy an Xbox. Or if you do, wait until something worth buying comes out for it first.

For all you inevitably offended Xbox owners and developers, quit bitching. I'm not hell bent on the ruin of the Xbox, and I'll eventually buy one, but not until some 'decent' **** comes out for it (ie, more than one game worth purchasing). The point of this article is that there are a lot of dumb c--ks out there who buy systems out of blind devotion to the company rather than the games.

A lot of people email me asking which console I prefer. The console I prefer is the console with the most games that I want to play, and right now Gameboy Advance and PS2 have the most games that I want to play.

biased a--holes still love their Xbox despite the fact that everything out for the system is ******."

amen. dated but the message is just as relevant today.

winmacguy
Jan 19, 2004, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by eclipse525
Doesn't really matter....I believe 5 years Apple will move on to chips made from carbon Nanotubes! http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/emergingtech/0,39020357,39118949,00.htm

I believe....I believe....OR shall I dare say, laser, crystal and hologram processors.....don't blink, they'll be here before you know it.

Which one do you think will actually become a reality through the industry?


~e

I would have to agree with that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, January 18 Next Update: 1.19

IBM 9xx processor shakeup could benefit the Mac: Multiple sources have now corroborated much of our recent reports about future IBM G5/G6 processors, as well as some of the details we have not yet shared.

Among the highlights:
*PowerPC 975 - POWER5 core, 90-nanometer/11-layer CMOS process, Hyperthreading, 3GHz+ (previously planned as PPC 980)
*PowerPC 976 - POWER5 Dual Core, 65nm SSOI (Strained Silicon On Insulator) process, VMX2 instructions, 4GHz+
*PowerPC 980 - POWER6 core, 65nm/11-layer FinFET/SSOI process, VMX2, 5GHz+
*PowerPC 985 - POWER7 Dual Core, 45nm, 9GHz+
*PowerPC 990 - POWER8 Multi-Core, 32nm, 15GHz+

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is as yet no finalized delivery date for any of the above processors, as IBM is currently rolling out its initial 90-nanometer 970+ with the new Xserve G5, soon also the PowerMac G5 and later in the year the Powerbook G5. The 975 will follow roundabout September, when Apple follows through on its promise to break the 3GHz barrier within the G5's first year.

More details to follow...big things are in store for MOSR this week including multiple updates daily, so stay tuned!

eric67
Jan 19, 2004, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by winmacguy
I would have to agree with that!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, January 18 Next Update: 1.19

IBM 9xx processor shakeup could benefit the Mac: Multiple sources have now corroborated much of our recent reports about future IBM G5/G6 processors, as well as some of the details we have not yet shared.

Among the highlights:
*PowerPC 975 - POWER5 core, 90-nanometer/11-layer CMOS process, Hyperthreading, 3GHz+ (previously planned as PPC 980)
*PowerPC 976 - POWER5 Dual Core, 65nm SSOI (Strained Silicon On Insulator) process, VMX2 instructions, 4GHz+
*PowerPC 980 - POWER6 core, 65nm/11-layer FinFET/SSOI process, VMX2, 5GHz+
*PowerPC 985 - POWER7 Dual Core, 45nm, 9GHz+
*PowerPC 990 - POWER8 Multi-Core, 32nm, 15GHz+

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




well there is nothing new, just look the english translation of a new french macuser web site : http://croquer.free.fr/
On the 11th of January the info regarding dual core PPC970 was already releases including info on the renaming of the PPC series.
Of interest is also a report on Apple/IBM false info releasing plan to trace out the person from whom are those info/rumors leaking out.

Henriok
Jan 19, 2004, 05:14 AM
The roadmaps I've seen concerning the Power processors indicate an introduction of Power 6 in 2006/7 and Power 7 in 2009. I havn't seen any indication of any Power8 on any roadmap from IBM yet. With that in mind I don't think that MOSR is correct in what they state.

I havn't seen any data on when IBM will go past 45 nm either, and the frequencies seem a bit large when comparing to what IBM have planned fot Power6 and Power7.
The fabrication process seems a bit optimistic too, but since they havn't indicated any timeframe its hard to say anything about that.

If I would revise the table based on what I know and some speculation then the table would be something like this:
975 - Power5 - 2004 - 90 nm
976 - Power5 - 2005/6 - 65 nm
980 - Power6 - 2006/7 - 65 nm
985 - Power6 - 2007/8 - 45 nm
990 - Power7 - 2009/10 - 32 nm

Photorun
Jan 19, 2004, 08:43 AM
First off, I loved Jero's post about why the xbox "sux" which, well, it does, royally, more than people could imagine. Thanks for that.

Secondly people have to realize Microshaft isn't 100% in bed with Intel, they're not the same company. When I lived in Seattle and worked for the other major software company with a base there at events and little get togethers it was apparent that some brass at Intel and [br]ass at M$ did not get along. In fact, they'd take swipes at each other. It's more important to realize it's a match of convenience more than anything, sucky Microcrap has become known by the dumbass consumers that buy their bile heaped on them as synonymous with the inferior craptacular chips of Intel. It's NOT because they're perfectly made for each other or in it together... er, well, they are, but they aren't. They're in it to champion mediocrity, greed of course, and to push chum on the masses... but that's about all they're in it together for, not for love.

j_maddison
Jan 19, 2004, 09:06 AM
Just to be contentious, I love my 12" rev A Powerbook, dislike having to use a PC at work and try to avoid their use as much as possible, but i have to say i love my x box!! Yes i've used a playstation and quite frankly they suck :P The hardware is just so completely outdated its unreal. Bring on the xbox 2 thats what i say, cant see my self switching to a playstation especially now that teh xbox two will use a PPC chip which might drive down costs for Apple. And just to think im helping M$ lose money at the same time!! woo hoo:cool: Now that is what i call a win win situation :D

Oh and by the way i remember when the playstation first came out, good games and good graphics but absolutely dire gamplay in comparison to my then saga.

Lanbrown
Jan 19, 2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Well, GameCube just recently surpassed Xbox as the #2 game player behind PS2. Also, Nintendo will deliver their next gen before anyone else and feature backwards compatibility - which the next Xbox and PS are rumored not to.

Sony has the PS2 on a single chip, so adding in backwards compatibility is very easy for them.

Lanbrown
Jan 19, 2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Hector

It's pretty much solid that the xbox will have a g5.

How is it solid? Where's the proof? The G5 is not the only PPC chip that IBM has, what about the 750 series?

crees!
Jan 19, 2004, 10:04 AM
I would like to hear more thoughts about IBM's roadmap than about the XBox, PS2 or any other gaming system. Stick to the topic and how it benefits Apple, please ;)

Krevnik
Jan 19, 2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by xDANx
if microsoft actually plans to use virtual pc to allow xbox owners to play their games on xbox 2...could we expect that some of that technology would make its way into virtual pc for os x? could it suddenly became feasible to run graphically intensive windows apps on a mac? and would that be a good or a bad thing? sure more available apps...but less actual mac software?

all this whole xbox 2/power pc/virtual pc thing does is make me ask questions...

if microsoft has some version of virtual pc software in every xbox 2, what's running it? there's no way it's some form of mac os...! i guess microsoft will probably take some of the technology that they acquired from connectix and make some proprietary xbox 2 only mash of it all... still, i feel like i must have missed something important because it all seems so improbable. i guess the best possible scenario out of all of this is that xbox 2 game developers decide to make a mac version as well because it's not too much extra effort...

...end of rambling mess.

Actually, I think MS is developing the advancements needed in the PC/Mac versions of the software FIRST so that the tech is there by the time they have to make it in the Xbox 2. However, this will not mean easier ports of games, because you are still porting from the Windows platform to the Mac platform. Whole different API set that means it doesn't matter what your chip is, it is just as expensive to port as if from a PC.

ffakr
Jan 19, 2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by tortoise
Latency IS speed. The G5 isn't just marginally higher latency, it has about TWICE the latency of the Opteron. Bandwidth is the theoretical throughput to the CPU, latency is the primary factor in determining what memory access patterns show anything close to this.

Hey, if your code is bound by memory access, you have to go Opteron. I've always said that Operons are great chips and that their latency is their shining grace.
My perceptions of memory 'speed' may or may not agree with that of an engineer or CS person, (I was MCS, slightly different emphesis). I hate to use the hackneyed old comparison, but I think of bandwidth and latency in terms similar to cars. Fuel injection is often typically quicker off the line... you get less latency between foot down and torque in the rear, but that doesn't mean that a Fuelie has to be faster (bandwidth). You can have less latency and less bandwidth and you may perform better or worse depending on the task. Opteron has less latency and more than enough bandwidth so at best, the 970 can 'keep up'. The 970 should be, however, more powerful when memory latency isn't a bottleneck.. since the 970 has a higher IPC.
Unfortunately, being able to push large volumes of data doesn't help if you need to access many many small bits as fast as possible. I suppose this would be why you see great performance from DSP like tasks though.

oh well. Personally, I'm not sure I'd like to have an on board memory controller for the 970 right now. It would bring performance up to another level, but it would make dual proc desktops more difficult to manage since you'd likely have to go the route of dual memory banks like on the Opteron. I don't think that most people would like to have to add memory 4 DIMMs at a time in their Mac.
Maybe if we go dual core with the next revision of the PPC.. they could put an on die memory controller for both cores.

yamabushi
Jan 19, 2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by sanford
The Japanese personal computer market is overwhelmingly Windows on Intel-compatible just as the rest of the first world, and the second and third worlds for that matter.

NEC sold their own OS in Japan that ran some Windows applications. They bundled the OS with most computers that they sold for a few years. While it was not a very good OS, the user base grew rapidly and worried Microsoft. Lawsuits from Microsoft eventually killed it. NEC thereafter bundled slightly modified versions of Windows that were intended to add features and improve stability. More lawsuits from Microsoft. NEC eventually submits and Microsoft is free to dominate the OS market in Japan.

jero
Jan 19, 2004, 01:05 PM
ps3 WILL have backwards compatibility for ps1 and ps2 games.

sorry for getting off topic again folks haha.

Mord
Jan 19, 2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
How is it solid? Where's the proof? The G5 is not the only PPC chip that IBM has, what about the 750 series?

look at any xbox site they all say that it will be the ppc970 It's known what factory they are made in and microsoft says it will put the most advanced ibm chip in it i.e. the 970 definetly not the 750

as for the apparent lack of good games on the xbox:

crimson skies and knite of the old republic are both fine games (xbox live rules (my gametag is Mordeci Mecator))

for me an xbox is good because of the online play for a ps2 you have to get a tonne of stuff costing more than the price of the console.

johnthemiracle
Jan 19, 2004, 01:43 PM
last thing i read about the new consoles coming out soon - apart from this thread here - is that they all employ some kind of g3 (!) derivative, not a g5.
i think that sounds more realistic.

silvergunuk
Jan 19, 2004, 03:13 PM
Hey jero you talk total bollocks. The xbox may not have great games like radiant silvergun but neither will the ps1 or 2. Infact Treasure tried to convert it to the original ps and it looked so bad they had to cancel the project halfway through. As for the ps2. Ikaruga wasn't even concidered for the ps2 because of its lack of vram and shoddy hardware. "emotion" engine or not, it's a terribly overhyped machine. The only game worth buyin on the ps2 is virtua fighter 4 evolution and that's not even arcade perfect..strange as sony claims their machine can do 75 million polygons where as segas naomi 2 board (virtua fighter 4 arcade board) can only handle 10 million at most. Don't believe all the **** sony tells you. I am in noway a microsoft fan but I do think the xbox has it's merits. Best hardware, best use of internet, dvd playback thats actually half decent, cheaper than ps2 and better ports of multiplatform titles.

By the way the S Type controller on the xbox is much better than anything sony has to offer. Playing beat em ups like virtua fighter or capcom titles is a waste of time on a ps2 pad.

Henriok
Jan 19, 2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Hector
look at any xbox site they all say that it will be the ppc970 It's known what factory they are made in and microsoft says it will put the most advanced ibm chip in it i.e. the 970 definetly not the 750 I agree that the Xbox chip will be more of a 970 chip than a 750 chip, but there are really _no_facts_ indicating either way. Just because they are building the chips in East Fishkill doesn't mean that they must be 970 based. They are probably using that plant for making new G3 class chips.. like 750GX and the future 750VX. And really! These Mac centred boards really have more of a clue than the equivalent Xbox boards.

If they don't do some crash course studying into IBM fabs and technologies we have several years on them in educated guesses. Some of us even have proven insider sources in IBM. The average Xbox board member probably couldnt tell a G4 from a G5.. they are all "Mac processors" to them. Codenames like GP-UL and Mojave means nothing to them. The G3 series is indeed one of IBM's state of the art processors, and some 750 type chip would do very well in a console. For instance I find it hard to believe that a console really would need all the floating power in a G5 type processor
Gekko was based on PPC 405, and Sony Cell will probably have its base in one of the embedded cores that IBM have. 440 och the new PowerPC 300 series. Why would Xbox 2 use the 900?

One thing is very certain, even though it isn't confirmed. The Xbox 2 WILL NOT use the PowerPC 970. That processor will be more than three years old when the Xbox 2 hits the streets and severely under powered. And.. if this report on the Xbox 2 using 65 nm technology, then it really can't be 970. A chip called 970GX maybe, but three years of further development.. not a chance.

I'd expect the Xbox 2 chip to have integrated North bridge, Palladium security, and, if they do intend to use an emulator, that pesky pseudo little-endian mode that 970's sorely missing.

And why not some cool Active X accelerating hardware just like in GPUs? Apple got AltiVec strapped in, Microsoft migth just have some silicon of their own to put in to speed things up.

VIREBEL661
Jan 19, 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Sir_Giggles
The next revolutionary step in computing could possibly be computers that use photons instead of electrons.

The next step after Photonic Computers probably could be in the area of Quantum computing.

Mechanical computers with gears and punchcards were the first (if you also include the abacus). Then came the Silicon Computer Age, which we are in now. Give another decade or two before we reach the end of this technology.

Certainly greater things are ahead of us.

Thanks for the great info everyone! I'll search that stuff when I get a chance - my apologies for taking so long to post a reply!

VIREBEL661
Jan 19, 2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by yamabushi
NEC sold their own OS in Japan that ran some Windows applications. They bundled the OS with most computers that they sold for a few years. While it was not a very good OS, the user base grew rapidly and worried Microsoft. Lawsuits from Microsoft eventually killed it. NEC thereafter bundled slightly modified versions of Windows that were intended to add features and improve stability. More lawsuits from Microsoft. NEC eventually submits and Microsoft is free to dominate the OS market in Japan.

Although I heard or read somewhere that Japan's gov and manufacturers were going to push an open source model in the future for their tech devices, with less emphasis on windoze...

cuneglasus
Jan 19, 2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Henriok


One thing is very certain, even though it isn't confirmed. The Xbox 2 WILL NOT use the PowerPC 970. That processor will be more than three years old when the Xbox 2 hits the streets and severely under powered.

I cant agree with this on a number of levels.Was a 733 celeron the hotest cpu available when xbox came out? Of course not.Consoles dont need the greatest cpu available-they are much more bound by their gpu.

jero
Jan 19, 2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by silvergunuk
Hey jero you talk total bollocks. The xbox may not have great games like radiant silvergun but neither will the ps1 or 2. Infact Treasure tried to convert it to the original ps and it looked so bad they had to cancel the project halfway through. As for the ps2. Ikaruga wasn't even concidered for the ps2 because of its lack of vram and shoddy hardware. "emotion" engine or not, it's a terribly overhyped machine. The only game worth buyin on the ps2 is virtua fighter 4 evolution and that's not even arcade perfect..strange as sony claims their machine can do 75 million polygons where as segas naomi 2 board (virtua fighter 4 arcade board) can only handle 10 million at most. Don't believe all the **** sony tells you. I am in noway a microsoft fan but I do think the xbox has it's merits. Best hardware, best use of internet, dvd playback thats actually half decent, cheaper than ps2 and better ports of multiplatform titles.

By the way the S Type controller on the xbox is much better than anything sony has to offer. Playing beat em ups like virtua fighter or capcom titles is a waste of time on a ps2 pad.

*yawn*

oh *wah-wah*. calm down a second. what makes you think i give a rats about whether ikaruga is on ps2 or not? i did have it for the dc and currently have it for the gc. but what in the hell does one treasure game(great game developer) have to do with what i said? i dont see treasure making any games for xbox live now do i? i never said that ps2 is the best when it comes to graphics. it ranks 3rd right behind gc and xbox at first. i never refuted that. but in defense the ps2 did come out first before the other two consoles, i mean what do you expect? the gc and xbox come out with weaker consoles? the had the opportunity to see what sony had to offer first, the saw the hand sony was holding. both nintendo and ms had an extra year to make their systems a little better graphically and STILL lost the console wars.

and big deal sony hypes up their machine, what are they suppose to do? talk ****** about the product theyre trying to sell? what company does this? i dont knock ms or any company hyping up theirs, im talking about everyone ms pays off to hype up their stuff to give a false spin on whos winning the console war even though its been over from the start. haha i know ps2 is the weakest graphically, what you think i believe the whole emotion engine thing? please.

haha and you last statement is just laughable. the ps2 controller is the best controller period. why do you think they didnt change it from the ps1? haha and ms had to release the s type controller so everyone that got an xbox with the original monstrosity of a controller had to shell out more money to buy a new one? lol. sweeeeet. and lets not even talk about the size of the xbox console itself haha, you can eat thanksgiving dinner on that damn thing. the only thing that xbox has done right is with xbox live. but i HAVE TO KNOCK IT though. cause for one you gotta have broadband for it and two, ea sports isnt even down with it.(no madden)

"dvd playback thats half decent"-you

oh yeah at least you can watch dvds right out the box with a ps2, with the xbox you gotta shell out MORE money for dvd playback kit!!! haha.

im done with this, sorry for the rambling everyone but when someone steps like this its necessary.

but yeah, i talk alot of "bollocks" haha.

crees!
Jan 19, 2004, 04:49 PM
How about we move this thread to the gaming section? I don't know about the rest of you but I subscribed for the topic of computer processors.

Henriok
Jan 19, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by cuneglasus
Consoles dont need the greatest cpu available-they are much more bound by their gpu. I disagree. That might be true in the past when there were essentially no competition.. The climate has hardened, and I don't suspect that neither Sony nor Microsoft are risking being outgunned by the other (Nintendo is playing on another playing field imo).

Sony's CEO has said that they would want to increase the computing power in the PS3 systems a thousandfold! Think about that..

And.. who knows? The Xbox 2 may not be just a game console, it migth be the future hub for the complete home entertainment system doing recordings of several live HDTV streams at once while playing Halo 2..

MacBandit
Jan 19, 2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by crees!
How about we move this thread to the gaming section? I don't know about the rest of you but I subscribed for the topic of computer processors.

I agree and have asked the mods to correct the off topic posting. You might do the same just by clicking on report post to mod and then explaining the problem.

djdarlek
Jan 19, 2004, 05:45 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jero
http://maddox.xmission.com/xbox_suckit.html

1 part of my 7 reasons why the xbox xan suck it:

"Here are some examples of the ************ games on the Xbox:


Max Payne - Wait, so not only do I lose the ability to adjust my resolution and system specs to improve performance, but I get a game that's been out for months on PC already? Where do I sign? The game's not too bad, but why bother with it on Xbox when it's on PC already?

HMMM but its so much more convenient sitting infront of the telly.


Nightcaster - How original, a rushed third-person RPG title with four magic types: light, dark, fire and water. But wait, here's where the strategy comes in: use water against fire, light against dark enemies, etc. Brilliant.

yes, but for every **** game, the Xbox has an increadible game. And sometimes one's you can't play on other systems. For example, Shenmue 2. (i have the UK DC version, but still...)

Blood Wake - I liked this game better when it was called Twisted Metal and you drove cars instead of boats. Unoriginal, uninspired.

yes, but why concentrate on these **** piece of crap games which cost 5, when there are so many amazing driving games. those who've played Project Gotham 1/2 would punch you.

Azurik: Rise of Perathia - Would have been more aptly titled "Azurik: Onset of Paralysis." Bad gameplay, poor camera, muddy textures, lame characters. Does the fun ever start?

Boring!

Star Wars: Obi-Wan - More like "Star Wars: Obi-Wanna-Play-A-Different-Game." Poor AI, poor controls, boring environments. Any non-geeks care to play this? Doubtful.

wake me up at the end

Bruce Lee: Quest of the Dragon - Broken gameplay, bad camera work, cheesy voice acting, and the game crashes. All this crap for just $50? It's a win/win situation for publishers: put a lackluster effort into development and make boat-loads of cash off of suck-er.. customers.

yes, lets concentrate on this **** beat-em-up.. i mean all fighting games on XBOX are like this right>? wrong. dumbass. Soul Calibre 2 anyone, DOA3? and as for the whole pc vs xbox ****, how many 3d fighting games, even to the poor standard of Bruce Lee above.. can u get on PC?? How manY? NONE !

You seem to concentrate on the few many crap games on XBOX, and fail to remember that the knowledgeable games buying doesn't have the money or time to buy 100 games a year. There are some truely unique games on XBOX, games i love dearly (Jet Set Radio/amped/panza dragoon aeorta/project gotham/Shenmue 2/Brute Force/Metal Gear Solid 2/Splinter Cell/soul Calibre 2/UFC/Nightfire/Time Splitters 2/Red Faction 2/Halo/Gun Valkerie/GTA3 double pack/freedom fighters will all keep my thumbs happy for a long while yet.)

Rower_CPU
Jan 19, 2004, 07:13 PM
Last chance to get back on-topic folks. If the console wars keep raging here, it's gonna get closed.

Start a new thread in the gaming forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=18) if you want to continue this line of discussion.

GregA
Jan 19, 2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by crees!
I would like to hear more thoughts about IBM's roadmap than about the XBox, PS2 or any other gaming system. Stick to the topic and how it benefits Apple, please ;) Does anyone know what proportion of IBMs PowerPCs go to Mac?
Are we at 50%? 10%?

If XBox2 sells the same number of consoles as XBox did, is it significant? (PS2 & Nintendo are also with IBM right?)

IBM is going to focus development where they're getting $ from. If that becomes games consoles and IBM servers... could it lead to greater technological investment for iBox and PowerMacs but not as much investment in the iMac & Laptop area?

(edit: XBox sentence didn't make sense)

jero
Jan 19, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Last chance to get back on-topic folks. If the console wars keep raging here, it's gonna get closed.

Start a new thread in the gaming forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=18) if you want to continue this line of discussion.

no problem. sorry again haha.

w00master
Jan 19, 2004, 11:43 PM
First, all of this talk of XBox 2 using the G5 chip is that... talk. It's ALL speculation. No one knows for sure what the next XBox will use.

That being said. What I REALLY find interesting (which, funny enough, no one has brough up) is that IBM is the real winner here. For PS3, XBox 2 (whatever they call it), AND GameCube 2 (whatever they call it), guess who's makin'/developing the processor for all THREE consoles? That's right... IBM.

Big blue keeps crawlin' back.

w00master

Henriok
Jan 20, 2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by GregAussie
Does anyone know what proportion of IBMs PowerPCs go to Mac?
Are we at 50%? 10%? I couldn't say, but I did some calculating when Motorola said that they'd sold their 6 millonth G4 processor. That indicated that Apple had bought 2/3 och even 3/4 of all G4s made.

Apple doesn't currently buy any other chip from IBM than 970 and I guess they get 90-95% of those.

But I think IBM sells quite a lot of their embedded chips, like 405 and 440 series, and there's a lof of G3s going into printers and such.

ionas
Jan 20, 2004, 03:38 AM
You are sure that AAPL doesnt get anything but the PPC970 from IBM?

Maybe they get some G3s too.

And if they got "vectorized" G3s they (AAPL) could also call them G4 for marketing reasons (and put them in iBooks and iMacs ;)...

But I know there are ways to identify the CPU buy its real CPU name...
rumors would have spread fast that the G4 had been a altivec'ed G3 by IBM if that had been the fact.

so... I don't know

Still I do ask, are you sure, that the G5 is the only CPU IBM delivers to AAPL?

Henriok
Jan 20, 2004, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by ionas
You are sure that AAPL doesnt get anything but the PPC970 from IBM?No.. They get samples of yet undisclosed chips and probably some older G3s just to have for spare parts, but this would be such a small volume that it probably doesn't count. Lets say that they have 1000 processors of the future 750VX that's still around 0.1% of the total amount of 970s they've bought.

When the Xbox 2, PS3 and Gamecube 2 goes into production they will probably all be larger customers of PowerPC-processors than Apple is.

hayesk
Jan 20, 2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by silvergunuk
Would be good if apple, sega and nintendo made a console. Apple designed it would be 1 sexy beast. Now virtua fighter using dual G5s .......drool...

Uhm... I hope not. Remember the Pippin?

eclipse525
Jan 20, 2004, 10:57 AM
I would love to see an off shoot of the iPod as a mobile gaming device. Sorta like the GameBoy but better. Gaming and Music is a good marriage.

~e

fr0ntside
Jan 23, 2004, 08:15 PM
could this be the start of an alliance between ibm, microsoft, apple and amd?
I mean, if they all start working together with the same processor tech, then ...

MacBandit
Jan 23, 2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by eclipse525
I would love to see an off shoot of the iPod as a mobile gaming device. Sorta like the GameBoy but better. Gaming and Music is a good marriage.

~e

Can you say Sony PSP? It will also have the ability to play movies.