PDA

View Full Version : Xbox and PowerPC Technology


MacRumors
Feb 4, 2004, 10:50 AM
Mercury News reported (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/7849191.htm) that Microsoft had released some preliminary information about the upcoming next-generation Xbox.

An earlier announcement (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/11/20031103121349.shtml) from Microsoft and IBM indicated that IBM processor technology would be used in the upcoming Xbox successor.

This new article reports that the new Xbox will utilize "three IBM-designed 64-bit microprocessors".

Meanwhile, Sony will also be using IBM-based processor technology in their upcoming Playstation successor... and has recently invested (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281497108&p=1057562182635) in IBM's chip grop.

kansast
Feb 4, 2004, 10:53 AM
It would appear that IBM is on a roll ? I can only hope this bodes well for Apple and the use of PPC chips ? in the long run.

iGav
Feb 4, 2004, 10:53 AM
3 processors... :eek: :eek: :eek:

jderman
Feb 4, 2004, 10:57 AM
could this be a microsoft conspiracy to migrate their entire line over to ppc, thus eventually making a windows box and a mac box essentially the same thing. It could be just the beginning. I dunno, i kind of liked the idea that ms wasn't investing in ppc from the get go.

johnnyjibbs
Feb 4, 2004, 10:58 AM
We've heard a lot about this recently. I'm still skeptical of the need of 3 processors. Meanwhile get ready for the "OS X on Xbox" and "Windows on PPC" discussion...:rolleyes: :o

Mudbug
Feb 4, 2004, 10:59 AM
Looks like IBM hit a home run in the processor department... This is indeed great news for all the buyers of these chips - it means continued development of the processor and a healthly cash injection into the process.

Redboy
Feb 4, 2004, 11:01 AM
And presumably lower prices since the chips will be produced at such volume and the R&D costs can be spread out a little more.

stoid
Feb 4, 2004, 11:03 AM
Hmmm, what an interesting change..

Could it be because the x86 processor system is running out of steam really fast. This emphasized again by the unimpressive performance of the Prescott bricks Intel is pinching off now. As we see now, Steve's choice to go for the PowerPC instead of x86 architecture is paying off in the long run just like he thought. So, there is rumor that Apple has Mac OS X fully working on the x86, is it possible that Microsoft has Windows Longhorn developed to run on PowerPC chips just in case the x86 is out of the game by time Longhorn finally sticks it's head out the door.

If IBM makes the right plays right now, it could squish Intel and maybe again become the dominant chip maker with its awesome PowerPC line.

What do you all think the industry would be like in 10 years if the Wintel world switched to PowerPC in the next few years?

1macker1
Feb 4, 2004, 11:10 AM
What's so unimpressive about Prescott?
Originally posted by stoid
[B]Hmmm, what an interesting change..

Could it be because the x86 processor system is running out of steam really fast. This emphasized again by the unimpressive performance of the Prescott bricks Intel is pinching off now. B]

kkubaryc
Feb 4, 2004, 11:10 AM
Couldn't VirtualPC see some significant benefit from this? I mean, if MS is going to code to PPC iron, maybe they'll parlay some of that experience into optimizations for our favorite (and only viable) intel emulator...

eric_n_dfw
Feb 4, 2004, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by iGAV
3 processors... :eek: :eek: :eek: I wonder if they didn't mean 3 IBM designed processors - one (or two) of them being 970 derivatives and the other(s) being support chip(s).

I've never seen a 3 CPU machine. I suppose it is possible, but it always seems that (other than "1") CPU's always travel in even numbers.

rweidmann
Feb 4, 2004, 11:14 AM
O assume that the $2000 iMac that ships when the Xbox 2 shipt has more oomph than the $300 xbox. Bodes well for the iMac.

Diatribe
Feb 4, 2004, 11:14 AM
What do you all think the industry would be like in 10 years if the Wintel world switched to PowerPC in the next few years?

Haha, that would be a kinda funny. This would be bad for Windows, what are they gonna differentiate themselves from the mac platform by then? Now its the processor and the software... now if software would be able to use a ppc and windows eventually switches to unix kernel... the programms could be easily converted to osx. Which would then be Windows' death. Because we all know who has the better os, don't we? :D

andyduncan
Feb 4, 2004, 11:16 AM
I'm betting that a little game of telephone went on here.

I think it's much more plausible that someone said the system will contain three IBM chips, and that the processors will be based on the 64 bit 9xx line.

Somewhere along the line from source to publication this got twisted into three processors, when it might have meant two processors and a System Controller/Northbridge. Or even a dual-core chip plus northbridge.

3 chips isn't unheard of (Sun had some three chip machines), but it's not a common configuration.

Mac-Xpert
Feb 4, 2004, 11:18 AM
This could be a good thing for the development of the 97x processors. More use of IBM 97x chips, should mean faster development and lower costs. Also if http://www.teamxbox.com/news.php?id=5388 is right, the next G5 PowerMac should be a really impressive machine too with dualcore 976's.:)

Fukui
Feb 4, 2004, 11:20 AM
The details suggest Microsoft is far more concerned about keeping the cost of its Xbox Next console low than it is with including dazzling technological features or driving its rivals out of the business, according to a variety of industry sources.
Riiiiight, and thats why they are using 3 64 processors...if they are thinking that they'll put 3 G5's our even dual core G5's in a video game system and make it cheaply....this article is what you call first-grade BS.

I think thier "sources" are and Xbox forum...

Westside guy
Feb 4, 2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
We've heard a lot about this recently. I'm still skeptical of the need of 3 processors. Meanwhile get ready for the "OS X on Xbox" and "Windows on PPC" discussion...:rolleyes: :o

Well, given the type of folks you find in the Linux community, I would be surprised NOT to see a variant of OpenDarwin running on it at some point. I mean, there are currently projects that have Linux running on Xbox, Playstation (1 and 2), and even the Game Cube!

Heck, there's even a "Linux on iPod" project currently starting up over at SourceForge (http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/).

SpY2K
Feb 4, 2004, 11:22 AM
...and those FPS wintel gamers still think the Mac G5 isn't up to caliber with the wintel gaming machines... oh the irony. Soon, the processors at the core of the new gaming systems will be in the same family as the processors in our dektop machines... I like that :cool:

Stike
Feb 4, 2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Meanwhile, Sony will also be using IBM-based processor technology in their upcoming Playstation successor
As far as I know, the Cell processor is NOT IBM-based. Its a new design, conceived by Sony, built in cooperation with Toshiba and IBM.

willrb
Feb 4, 2004, 11:23 AM
*whistles* (http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2003/10/even_microsoft_.html)

Mac-Xpert
Feb 4, 2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I wonder if they didn't mean 3 IBM designed processors - one (or two) of them being 970 derivatives and the other(s) being support chip(s).

I've never seen a 3 CPU machine. I suppose it is possible, but it always seems that (other than "1") CPU's always travel in even numbers. If the chips are dual-core you would essentially have 6 processors, which would make it a even number again.

nagromme
Feb 4, 2004, 11:24 AM
Could the author's misunderstanding be simply this? 3 IBM chips: one PPC CPU, and two cheaper, custom supporting chips? Or, maybe one PPC CPU and two non-IBM GPUs? Seems like the kind of detail that could get muddled in the wording.

Also... I thought it was already known that the new Xbox would use a next-generation PPC; in other words, a G6. Considering the time frame, a G6 for them AND for Macs sounds possible at least.

Then again, what's a G6 and what's a new-improved G5? It's all marketing, and MS won't use the "G" names at all.

mrsebastian
Feb 4, 2004, 11:24 AM
that's pretty interesting for two reasons:

one, if ibm starts producing tons and tons of ppc chips, perhaps that will lead to cheaper costs for apple, and thus to us on a retail level :D

two, as i posted this on another thread, it seemed appropriate here too... "how about an entertainment center like device ... maybe be compatible with a gaming comsole like playstation..." with ppc chips, that should be possible.

0 and A ai
Feb 4, 2004, 11:25 AM
Umm why is this posted again? Just regurgitation of info from the other day.

AirUncleP
Feb 4, 2004, 11:29 AM
Can you say......miniCluster?

Omad0n
Feb 4, 2004, 11:33 AM
So with the switch over to PPC that basically wihpes out backwards compatibility right? Seem like a silly move to me, but I suppose I'm not a big company.

SiliconAddict
Feb 4, 2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by stoid
Hmmm, what an interesting change..

Could it be because the x86 processor system is running out of steam really fast.


:rolleyes: Ya people have been saying this almost as long as the people that have been claiming that Apple is dead. Reality time: x86 isn't going anywhere when you consider AMD's latest offerings are neck and neck, and in some cases a tad ahead, with IBM.

stoid
Feb 4, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Omad0n
So with the switch over to PPC that basically wihpes out backwards compatibility right? Seem like a silly move to me, but I suppose I'm not a big company.

This may be why they actually purchased VirtualPC from Connectix. And you thought that it was so they could make a better Windows emulator for the Mac.

eric_n_dfw
Feb 4, 2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Omad0n
So with the switch over to PPC that basically wihpes out backwards compatibility right? Seem like a silly move to me, but I suppose I'm not a big company. In console's backwards compatibility is over-rated, IMO.

The PS2 is the first one that allowed you to do it without some kind of add-on, like the GameCube - GameBoy addapter (which really is not a backwards compatibity device either)

Once people start playing the new games, the old ones start looking very bland. Besides, if you have a bunch of games for the older system, you probably have the old console - giving you perfect compatibility at the expense of having 2 consoles.

Head Wound
Feb 4, 2004, 11:56 AM
This makes alot of sense. Intels latest stuff is way, WAY too hot for any set top box product. Nobody wants a game system that sounds like a PC when you turn it on, and considering the size of an Xbox, it would sound like a jet engine. :P

Besides, IBMs chips are a more efficient choice for this type of aplication anyway, and their latest chips can emulate x86 faster then the previous Xboxes 733Mhz, so backwards compatability would not be to hard.

MorganX
Feb 4, 2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Omad0n
So with the switch over to PPC that basically wihpes out backwards compatibility right? Seem like a silly move to me, but I suppose I'm not a big company.

That may be a reason for 3 CPUs - to get decent emulator performance for backwards compatibility.

guyute
Feb 4, 2004, 12:38 PM
I really don't see a need for two g5 processors in a game system. If the xbox has a p3 in it and is able to run games like halo without hickup, why would you waste your money with three chips. I see it being feasible having a single 64bit chip when it launches but nothing more is really needed. Xbox needs an awesome graphics card and that is it. You have to realize that a game system only runs games, no printer drivers, no advanced os, etc. I think this is a hoax. It is true that ms is using ibm chip as its main cpu and ati as its graphics. But that is really about all the facts that are known right now.

Flynnstone
Feb 4, 2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
Could the author's misunderstanding be simply this? 3 IBM chips: one PPC CPU, and two cheaper, custom supporting chips?

I agree. How about :
- 1 PPC 970 derivative
- 1 System controller chip (memory etc)
- 1 Graphics GPU (ATI)

ATI has recently got into an arrangement with IBM. So ... all sounds quite plausible.

jZilla
Feb 4, 2004, 12:46 PM
Time for the Mac to start getting more FPS and eye-candy driven games methinks. How I'd love Half-Life 2 to debut/appear on the Mac.

Can't wait* to show PeeCee "gamers" my "can't play games" Dual G5 2.5gb Ram Radeon 9800 throw something like that about...

*although I have to!

Lanbrown
Feb 4, 2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I wonder if they didn't mean 3 IBM designed processors - one (or two) of them being 970 derivatives and the other(s) being support chip(s).

I've never seen a 3 CPU machine. I suppose it is possible, but it always seems that (other than "1") CPU's always travel in even numbers.

There was another thread about this article a few days ago. There is no way it will have three 970 based processors. The cost alone would push the price point high. It would be a real money loser to sell it. I could see one 970 and two auxiliary chips to handle other functions.

Look at the Cell processor. It will have multiple cores, but some core will be for different tasks.

Lanbrown
Feb 4, 2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Stike
As far as I know, the Cell processor is NOT IBM-based. Its a new design, conceived by Sony, built in cooperation with Toshiba and IBM.

People keep forgetting that point.

Lanbrown
Feb 4, 2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Mac-Xpert
If the chips are dual-core you would essentially have 6 processors, which would make it a even number again.

A similar article even stated that it could run dual threads, which would be the equivalent of 12.

mgargan1
Feb 4, 2004, 12:52 PM
I think it's quite funny how people are thinking that there's going to be three processors in the xbox2, or whatever they wanna call it. Think about it, why would MS make a machine that would be more powerful than an everyday desktop? Yea, it may have no Harddrive, but external Harddrives are not hard to come by. Why would one want to buy a new computer for gaming when they can buy an even faster xbox for gaming.

Nobody truly knows what Apple-IBM/Intel/AMD is going to in the future. Maybe Apple will go with an AMD/Intel processor (i doubt that highly and am not starting that thread) or maybe Apple will use a quad-core processor, (I saw an oct-(8) core Power5+) and that'll be faster than the xbox, who knows... but my point is, i don't see MS making a faster gaming machine than traditional computer.

pgwalsh
Feb 4, 2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by mgargan1
i don't see MS making a faster gaming machine than traditional computer. You're right.. .Maybe the author meant, faster than personal computers of today.

I could see a dual core in an xbox. Maybe that's why IBM didn't license SOI to Intel.. They wanted the xbox business and this would make it too expensive for Intel...

wPod
Feb 4, 2004, 12:58 PM
wait wait. . . so apple starts using this cool new chip (G5) and now M$ is probably going to start using it in some of their products? will longhorn run on the chips also? then everyone is using them and has no clue apple was the first? maybe apple's 'new' product that has been about a number of rumors will be a game console/TV-recorder/all-of-the-above-do-hicky and they will relase it now and then the new M$ x-box will be pointless and nowone will buy it!!!!

sorry a bit carried away, but still first used in apple machines now into M$ . . . i wonder where M$ gets their ideas?

crees!
Feb 4, 2004, 01:02 PM
Check out these excerpts from the Mercury News article. Seems like a lack of confidence on M$'s part.
In contrast with the current Xbox, the next one will have no hard disk drive -- unless Sony puts one in the PlayStation 3. Instead, the console will rely on flash memory to store saved games and permanent data, much like the current PlayStation 2.

The machine also will have about 256 megabytes of dynamic random access memory. But Microsoft will upgrade that to 512 megabytes if Sony puts in more.

I mean WTF right? I'm never going to deliberately buy any M$ products ever again.

evolu
Feb 4, 2004, 01:11 PM
This is my favorite line in the article:

Internally, Microsoft has begun developing game prototypes, and it is using G5 systems to do so

I can just picture all this MicroLimp geeks doing whatever they can to hide the puddle of drool at their workstation:

"Ah, yeah Bob, these Macs really suck. I don't know why anyone would buy one. No, no, you go home, poor me has to stay late again..."

I would like to officially welcome any new switchers from the Xbox development world. :)

Tulse
Feb 4, 2004, 01:12 PM
How I'd love Half-Life 2 to debut/appear on the Mac.

Not gonna happen -- HL2 has apparently ditched OpenGL in favour of DirectX, which means no Mac compatibility.

SiliconAddict
Feb 4, 2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by iGAV
3 processors... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Keep in mind that it probably isn't going to be doing SMP but will use the sep processors for sound, video, and AI/world geometry, etc. But I can't see MS using anything other then established vendors for video (nvidia, ATI, etc) So maybe 1 CPU for sound and 2 for AI/world geometry :confused:

TEG
Feb 4, 2004, 01:16 PM
Hey Guys and Gals,

So am I to understand that all three Major Video Gaming Systems are moving to IBM-64-bit-PPC. Anyone else thinking that someone will do any of the following;

1) Port Darwin to X-N, PS3, GCN2

2) Port OSX (or similar) to X-N, PS3, GCN2

3) Create Windows for PPC (ala WinNT4)

4) Abandon the x86 archetecture

5) Put Intel in Chapter 11 for supporting 3GIO instead of HyperTranport like IBM, TI, Apple, AMD

So is these good or bad?
What do you think the long term effects will be?
Will this help Apple gain stregnth on the consumer side of the computer world?

Ponder that please.

TEG

Frobozz
Feb 4, 2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by andyduncan
I'm betting that a little game of telephone went on here.

I think it's much more plausible that someone said the system will contain three IBM chips, and that the processors will be based on the 64 bit 9xx line.

Somewhere along the line from source to publication this got twisted into three processors, when it might have meant two processors and a System Controller/Northbridge. Or even a dual-core chip plus northbridge.

3 chips isn't unheard of (Sun had some three chip machines), but it's not a common configuration.

I agree. I think anyone that has a shred of insight can see this. I'm glad you pointed it out. There's simply no need to have more than one (future) G5 class processor in a machine that only has to pump out graphics at HD resolution.

Frobozz
Feb 4, 2004, 01:34 PM
I thought the MOST interesting part was that Microsoft is internally building prototype games for the Next-Box with G5's.

Sweet.

virividox
Feb 4, 2004, 01:36 PM
whatever sony comes out with microsoft is just gonna try to top. they have the money to, no need to innvovate here, just bump up the specs :D

MacNut
Feb 4, 2004, 01:49 PM
Doesn't the CameCube use a G3 processor now, so whats to say all three companies wont use IBM for their next generation consoles.

hulugu
Feb 4, 2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by crees!
Check out these excerpts from the Mercury News article. Seems like a lack of confidence on M$'s part.


I mean WTF right? I'm never going to deliberately buy any M$ products ever again.



Has Microsoft ever come up with an original idea, ever? MS-DOS from Q-DOS, the Windows GUI from Apple, Explorer from Netscape, MSN from Yahoo, Xbox from PS1 and the Dreamcast (I mean even the controllers)etc.
Bill Gates is the utilimate 'credit-taker.' Can anyone think of something that MS has invented or developed on their own that wasn't a derivative of another company's design.

MacsRgr8
Feb 4, 2004, 01:57 PM
To be honest, I kinda feel uneasy whenever I hear news of Microsoft willing to use the PPC.
It does seem that Windows on PPC could suddenly become more real.
The Mac is different to a PC in many ways, and one of those reasons is that Mac OS runs on PPC and not on x86.

Once Windows runs native on PPC, there might be a reason less to buy a Mac once the PPC would prove better in the cost-speed relation...
Maybe M$ is foreseeing trouble with x86 in the not-so-far future, and "embracing" IBM's PPC 970 as to get ready for the maybe PPC-jump.

Us Mac-enthousiasts would still want to use Mac OS X on PPC, even if Windows Longhorn suddenly becomes available for the "G5" or other IBM PPC 970.... But most normal users out there still have little idea that there is an option to Windows when it comes to a computer operating system.

Right... so far my negative 'feeling"

.....................................................

Now... the positive side:

More games for the G5????? :D

MorganX
Feb 4, 2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by evolu
This is my favorite line in the article:



I can just picture all this MicroLimp geeks doing whatever they can to hide the puddle of drool at their workstation:

"Ah, yeah Bob, these Macs really suck. I don't know why anyone would buy one. No, no, you go home, poor me has to stay late again..."

I would like to officially welcome any new switchers from the Xbox development world. :)

Doesn't mean they're running MacOS. And, if the Mac needs Dual top-o-the-line G5s to compete, why wouldn't Xbox2?

Frobozz
Feb 4, 2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by hulugu
Has Microsoft ever come up with an original idea, ever? MS-DOS from Q-DOS, the Windows GUI from Apple, Explorer from Netscape, MSN from Yahoo, Xbox from PS1 and the Dreamcast (I mean even the controllers)etc.
Bill Gates is the utilimate 'credit-taker.' Can anyone think of something that MS has invented or developed on their own that wasn't a derivative of another company's design.

As much as I completely, 100%, totally agree with you... I have to give credit to Microsoft where it is due. Just hear me out. I hate them, too.

If Apple had the business prowess of Microsoft and the innovation of, well, themselves, they would be in the position of 95% market share. Microsoft has PR to present it's self as innovative, but everyone know's it's just a facade. They're better business men. Period. Look at it this way: anyone that can sell an infamously complex quagmire of substandard crap in the volume that Microsoft has is a genious. And I don't mean genious in the "Apple Genius Bar" kind of way-- I mean genious in the Pinky and the Brain kind of way.

That's what worried me about the Next-Box making it to the market before my beloved Sony PS3. Microsoft is not stupid. They're smart. They may be a** faces, but innovation is not what they're interested in. for good reasons. It doesn't turn profits for them.

With all that said, I hope to h-e-double-hockey-sticks that the PS3 monkey stomps the XBox. And, frankly, I think it will for some time to come. I think Nintendo has a real chance to become obsolete fast. They're the middle child, in a sense... lost in the shuffle.

MorganX
Feb 4, 2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz
I agree. I think anyone that has a shred of insight can see this. I'm glad you pointed it out. There's simply no need to have more than one (future) G5 class processor in a machine that only has to pump out graphics at HD resolution.

It will also have to run Windows Media Center for Xbox.

Frobozz
Feb 4, 2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by MorganX
Doesn't mean they're running MacOS. And, if the Mac needs Dual top-o-the-line G5s to compete, why wouldn't Xbox2?

Well, your point is taken. Could just be G5's running proprietary or modified versions of Windows. But boil it down... PowerPC hardware will have a native port of DirectX. Weather we Mac heads will ever see anything out of that, or not, remains to be seen. I can bet if it means more money for MS, it means sales to us.

However a single G5, especially since it will be a dual core G5 at 65nm, would be WAY more than enough to push HDTV quality graphics when coupled with a Radeon XL XT ET 98000000. :-)

Dippo
Feb 4, 2004, 02:18 PM
This is all just part of Apple's plan to take over Microsoft

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57320

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 4, 2004, 02:20 PM
so lets see 3 970's in the xbox next year and we cant even get 1 into imac or a decent video card. maybe i should be waiting for a xbox next year and forget a iMac?

MorganX
Feb 4, 2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz
Well, your point is taken. Could just be G5's running proprietary or modified versions of Windows. But boil it down... PowerPC hardware will have a native port of DirectX. Weather we Mac heads will ever see anything out of that, or not, remains to be seen. I can bet if it means more money for MS, it means sales to us.

However a single G5, especially since it will be a dual core G5 at 65nm, would be WAY more than enough to push HDTV quality graphics when coupled with a Radeon XL XT ET 98000000. :-)

It'll be handling Multiplayer over broadband as well as 5.1 surround. I honestly don't think 3 CPUs are needed, especially with dual cores, but the box will be doing a lot and it will have to do it all without ANY performance hitches. This next round of XBOX has to be killer or even with its deep pockets MS may have to bow out. With games like Fable and Halo 2, I don't think they will take a chance on losing the foundation they're building.

I do think that 3 processors does not necessarily mean CPU.

I do a gree pushing HDTV quality graphics won't be that hard now that developers are finally realizing just because you can push a certain amount of polygons doesn't mean you need to. Normal mapping (hi-res textures around a low-med res model) should improve graphics performance and appearance for everyone in the next genenration of games (Summer '04).

I find the fact that MS is bringing Windows back to PPC with DirectX (which is a low-level Windows API, it will do nothing for OS X unless MS starts developing MacOS with Apple) more intriguing. No one bought NT on PPC before because the hardware and software performance got trounced by Wintel. May not be that way next time around. Is MS really worried about piracy or do they really want to expand their hardware base?

jouster
Feb 4, 2004, 02:23 PM
Why would one want to buy a new computer for gaming when they can buy an even faster xbox for gaming.?

Because MS hopes to make a lot more money selling that xbox than selling one more Windows license?

MorganX
Feb 4, 2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
so lets see 3 970's in the xbox next year and we cant even get 1 into imac or a decent video card. maybe i should be waiting for a xbox next year and forget a iMac?

Remember, MS is supposedly helping customize all of the chips in the Xbox 2 to optimize software performance. I doubt seriously that these are full blown G5s. I could be wrong, but seriously doubt it.

varmit
Feb 4, 2004, 03:10 PM
Do you think that people, MS, computer industry, are getting smarter and finding out that PPC can be faster than their intel eqivalents.

kansast
Feb 4, 2004, 03:15 PM
hard to believe that they would switch processors like this.. making old xbox games incompatible. ??

jettredmont
Feb 4, 2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by 1macker1
What's so unimpressive about Prescott?

I would assume he's talking about the fact that at the same clock speed it is significantly slower than the P4, and doesn't clock any higher than the high-end P4s yet.

OTOH, it has a hell of a lot more head room than the P4, which was the goal. Sucks that even with a process shrink it's running so damned hot (100W target last I heard ... I'm not sure what the final number is though) though.

Make no mistake: Prescott is a nice chip. It's burdened by legacy problems, and favors high frequency and thus high power consumption over efficiency. But, for what it is, it is a damned nice little chip.

daveL
Feb 4, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by hulugu
Has Microsoft ever come up with an original idea, ever? MS-DOS from Q-DOS, the Windows GUI from Apple, Explorer from Netscape, MSN from Yahoo, Xbox from PS1 and the Dreamcast (I mean even the controllers)etc.
Bill Gates is the utilimate 'credit-taker.' Can anyone think of something that MS has invented or developed on their own that wasn't a derivative of another company's design.
You left out "The Network". MS had to be beaten over the head by Novell before they finally realized the utility of a Local Area Network. As far as Web browsers go, MS was very late to the Internet party altogether and probably the last company on earth to include TCP/IP in their product. Idiots with money.

MorganX
Feb 4, 2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
I would assume he's talking about the fact that at the same clock speed it is significantly slower than the P4, and doesn't clock any higher than the high-end P4s yet.

OTOH, it has a hell of a lot more head room than the P4, which was the goal. Sucks that even with a process shrink it's running so damned hot (100W target last I heard ... I'm not sure what the final number is though) though.

Make no mistake: Prescott is a nice chip. It's burdened by legacy problems, and favors high frequency and thus high power consumption over efficiency. But, for what it is, it is a damned nice little chip.

They should be able to refine their new 90nm process and reduce the power consumption over time. But, anyone who knows better won't buy one of the early 478pin chips. In April there will be the 775-pin LGA package which is when they'll really start making progress. Whatever 64-bit or dual core parts there are on the Prescott Silicon will probably never be enabled in teh 478-pin chips, they'd probably melt.

dernhelm
Feb 4, 2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
It does seem that Windows on PPC could suddenly become more real.The Mac is different to a PC in many ways, and one of those reasons is that Mac OS runs on PPC and not on x86.


You do know that microsoft NT 3.51 ran on PPC architecture ages ago, right?. If M$ wanted to get into the PPC space they are already more than 75% of the way there. I doubt that it would take that much time to port the "new stuff" since then (assuming they haven't already).

delton05
Feb 4, 2004, 05:48 PM
It's typical how Mac people now presume to 'own' the IBM 970. It only becomes a 'G5' when it sits in an 'Apple' computer.

Other companies, MS included, are just as free to use the IBM970 chip, or any other....it's childish to get upset because 'you were first' and they're somhow using an 'Apple' chip. They are considering using the IBM970 chip, NOT a G5. How very presumptuous and insecure of you to lay claim to the IBM chip.

I think it's high time you folk realised there is nothing much 'Apple' left in Apple computers now ... hardware-wise it's been designed by others. In the IBM970/G5 case, you're owners of IBM computers running Apple s/ware....but for you people, it would be like saying Jesus was a Jew before you'd concede that the G5 is an IBM.

windowsblowsass
Feb 4, 2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by jderman
could this be a microsoft conspiracy to migrate their entire line over to ppc, thus eventually making a windows box and a mac box essentially the same thing. It could be just the beginning. I dunno, i kind of liked the idea that ms wasn't investing in ppc from the get go.
i doubt it microsoft really just makes software and they wouldnt be the ones to really decide what chips will work i think theyll stick w/amd and intel
also if IBM did this im sure here would be hell to pay with apple

ps if it does happen we cant say wintel anymore what will we say wibm!

suzerain
Feb 4, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
:rolleyes: Ya people have been saying this almost as long as the people that have been claiming that Apple is dead. Reality time: x86 isn't going anywhere when you consider AMD's latest offerings are neck and neck, and in some cases a tad ahead, with IBM.

Hmmm...not to be argumentative, but i'd hardly call the Opteron an "X86 chip". It has X86 compatibility, to be sure, but that is there primarily for legacy compatibility...the core of the Opteron is significantly different enough, IMO, to differentiate it from other AMD and Intel chips.

Hell, the fastest performing current chip from Intel isn't even X86-based (Itanium2).

I think the original poster is right; the X86 family is finally losing steam. Both the Opteron and 970, neither of which I would classify as "X86 chips", are outperforming the X86 chips -- from both AMD and Intel -- by about 50% per clock. The Prescott chip -- the latest X86 chip -- is even less efficient per clock than the current Xeons and P4s, which will magnify this difference even further.

This means, for example, that when IBM brings to market 3 Ghz 970s later this year, they should be about on par with a 4.5 Ghz X86 variant. Ditto the Opteron, should it reach 3 Ghz this year.

And if they reach 5 Ghz, as the timetable suggests, it would be like a 7.5 Ghz current P4. Clearly, Intel is going to need to shift away from X86 in the near future, which is exactly why they are developing "Tejas", which takes an approach similarly to the Opteron.

X86 will be dead within 2-3 years. This does not mean, however, that Intel won't continue to dominate.

thogs_cave
Feb 4, 2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I've never seen a 3 CPU machine. I suppose it is possible, but it always seems that (other than "1") CPU's always travel in even numbers.

I've got a nice AlphaServer 2100 at home that has three 250MHz EV-5 CPU's in it. I've worked on several SMP systems with odd CPU numbers. But I agree that usually you see stuff in multiples of two.

windowsblowsass
Feb 4, 2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I wonder if they didn't mean 3 IBM designed processors - one (or two) of them being 970 derivatives and the other(s) being support chip(s).

I've never seen a 3 CPU machine. I suppose it is possible, but it always seems that (other than "1") CPU's always travel in even numbers.
I agree 3 ppc 970/980s seems like overkill for a gaming console

thogs_cave
Feb 4, 2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by delton05
It's typical how Mac people now presume to 'own' the IBM 970. It only becomes a 'G5' when it sits in an 'Apple' computer.
[...]
I think it's high time you folk realised there is nothing much 'Apple' left in Apple computers now ... hardware-wise it's been designed by others. In the IBM970/G5 case, you're owners of IBM computers running Apple s/ware....but for you people, it would be like saying Jesus was a Jew before you'd concede that the G5 is an IBM.

Huh? I think most of us "Mac people" are quite aware (and happy) that IBM and Apple co-developed many of the chips in the G5, and not just the PPC 970 CPU. It's pretty much the industry today. For example, the Sun E10000 supercomputer used system boards manufactured by IBM, as nobody else had the capacity to make a board that complex.

Don't kid yourself. Apple did the majority of the design of the G5, and worked closely with IBM on the 970 CPU and chipset. It's a very well-integrated system, and it's not "an IBM box running Apple software". Saying things like that proves you know little about the topic. Get over yourself already.

As for not wanting the 970 in other systems, I think very few people care. I, for one, am quite happy to see a solid RISC chip like the 970 in as many places as possible. Nothing stays static in this industry - I remember when IBM was "the enemy" 20 years ago. But, times change, and they are making some very good decisions. Bully for them.

windowsblowsass
Feb 4, 2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by daveL
You left out "The Network". MS had to be beaten over the head by Novell before they finally realized the utility of a Local Area Network. As far as Web browsers go, MS was very late to the Internet party altogether and probably the last company on earth to include TCP/IP in their product. Idiots with money.
yes they helped invent the modern computer virus by giving people an unsecure platform for them to attack

daveL
Feb 4, 2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by delton05
It's typical how Mac people now presume to 'own' the IBM 970. It only becomes a 'G5' when it sits in an 'Apple' computer.

Other companies, MS included, are just as free to use the IBM970 chip, or any other....it's childish to get upset because 'you were first' and they're somhow using an 'Apple' chip. They are considering using the IBM970 chip, NOT a G5. How very presumptuous and insecure of you to lay claim to the IBM chip.

I think it's high time you folk realised there is nothing much 'Apple' left in Apple computers now ... hardware-wise it's been designed by others. In the IBM970/G5 case, you're owners of IBM computers running Apple s/ware....but for you people, it would be like saying Jesus was a Jew before you'd concede that the G5 is an IBM.
I'm not really trying to jump on you here, but I can't make any sense out of your post. I've read this whole thread and, overall, folks seem to be very pleased that MS may use a 97x PPC in the next Xbox. Everyone knows that IBM also uses the 970 in their blade servers. There's nothing exclusive about Apple/PPC970/IBM. The sentiment is strongly biased toward the point of view that the more 97x's IBM sells to the market as a whole, the better it is for Apple.

Secondly, the G5 is NOT an IBM machine running Apple software. Apple designed the case, motherboard, system controller and IO controller. Even the 970 itself was a collaborative effort between Apple and IBM. The view you expressed here is simply wrong.

Lastly, I can't tell exactly what you meant, given the way you wrote your final sentence, but just in case: Jesus *was* a Jew.

rdowns
Feb 4, 2004, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by hulugu
Has Microsoft ever come up with an original idea, ever? MS-DOS from Q-DOS, the Windows GUI from Apple, Explorer from Netscape, MSN from Yahoo, Xbox from PS1 and the Dreamcast (I mean even the controllers)etc.
Bill Gates is the utilimate 'credit-taker.' Can anyone think of something that MS has invented or developed on their own that wasn't a derivative of another company's design.

The Butterfly?

i_am_a_cow
Feb 4, 2004, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Tulse
Not gonna happen -- HL2 has apparently ditched OpenGL in favour of DirectX, which means no Mac compatibility.


um obviously that wouldn't be a problem since DirectX is microsoft and this whole thread is about microsoft switching to PPC.

killmoms
Feb 4, 2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by i_am_a_cow
um obviously that wouldn't be a problem since DirectX is microsoft and this whole thread is about microsoft switching to PPC.

No, this thread is about Xbox 2 potentially using IBM PPC-based processors. "Microsoft" switching to PPC suggests that they'll be making Windows et al for PPC, which is incorrect.

--Cless

Snowy_River
Feb 4, 2004, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I wonder if they didn't mean 3 IBM designed processors - one (or two) of them being 970 derivatives and the other(s) being support chip(s).

I've never seen a 3 CPU machine. I suppose it is possible, but it always seems that (other than "1") CPU's always travel in even numbers.

Actually, I believe that for things like SMP to work at highest efficiency, it's not just a matter of even numbers of procs, but powers of two. So the most common configs would be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. procs.

Snowy_River
Feb 4, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
:rolleyes: Ya people have been saying this almost as long as the people that have been claiming that Apple is dead. Reality time: x86 isn't going anywhere when you consider AMD's latest offerings are neck and neck, and in some cases a tad ahead, with IBM.

Well, for the record, AMD doesn't run x86 architecture. They have their own RISC architecture, and have a hardware x86 adaptor on the front end of it. Regardless, if MS thought that Intel was having problems with newer chips, they very well could start looking at providing a PPC version of Windows. I have little doubt that they've had one running in the back room. After all, WinNT4 shipped a PPC version for a while. And XP has much of the same architecture under the hood. It would really be simply a matter of having kept it up as a back room project...

pwhitdog
Feb 4, 2004, 08:00 PM
what was the old rule:
" No one ever got fired for buying IBM"

my how things come full circle in 30 years


:D :D :D

dongmin
Feb 4, 2004, 08:16 PM
I wonder about the potential for an Xbox 2 emulator for the G5. Macs gain instant credibility as a gaming platform. MSoft can boast greater market-share for the Xbox platform and make money off games. Charge $99-149 for the emulator and there should be a lot of takers, assuming similar performance levels.

jettredmont
Feb 4, 2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, for the record, AMD doesn't run x86 architecture. They have their own RISC architecture, and have a hardware x86 adaptor on the front end of it.

Ummm, well, by that definition, Intel doesn't run x86 architecture anymore, and hasn't since the last 486 rolled off the assembly line. All Pentiums have just been RISC cores with an x86 translation layer.

[Note: I believe it was the Pentium; if not, it was Pentium Pro/Pentium2/Pentium3 which went full RISC core ... in any case, Intel has been doing RISC processors for a good long time now ...]

daveL
Feb 4, 2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Ummm, well, by that definition, Intel doesn't run x86 architecture anymore, and hasn't since the last 486 rolled off the assembly line. All Pentiums have just been RISC cores with an x86 translation layer.

[Note: I believe it was the Pentium; if not, it was Pentium Pro/Pentium2/Pentium3 which went full RISC core ... in any case, Intel has been doing RISC processors for a good long time now ...]
So, although I agree, it does seem that they're not doing it very well, lately.

Edot
Feb 4, 2004, 09:06 PM
If they are planning on using anything like the G5 how big is this thing going to be? I mean look at the heat-sinks in the PowerMac, and the wind-tunnels on the Xserve.

Flynnstone
Feb 4, 2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
...since the last 486 rolled off the assembly line.

Actually 486s are still coming off the production lines (also 386s , 186s)

wizard
Feb 4, 2004, 09:35 PM
What you are saying below is that you don't understand the term next generation and how that applies to software and hardware. MS could continue to use a single processor but it is not going to be able to contend with the competition as both of them are moving to multiprocessing.

The issue is simply this, to be able to affer new and novel gaming experiences the hardware manufactures have no choice but to go the multiprocessing route. There is not a CPU made today that can handle everything a game designer could throw at the system. Single CPU machines are not seeing the performance growth they need for the desk top or the game market, so alternatives must be found. I'd be surprised if in a year and a halfs time, you would be able to purchase any Mac with a single processor. There are just to many advantages, as can be seen in Apples dualie sales numbers, for Apple to ignore this.

As in all things the trick is for pricing to be acceptable. Here Apple is going to have a majore advantage as a dual core PPC will probally be smaller than the competitions single core units.

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by guyute
I really don't see a need for two g5 processors in a game system. If the xbox has a p3 in it and is able to run games like halo without hickup, why would you waste your money with three chips. I see it being feasible having a single 64bit chip when it launches but nothing more is really needed. Xbox needs an awesome graphics card and that is it. You have to realize that a game system only runs games, no printer drivers, no advanced os, etc. I think this is a hoax. It is true that ms is using ibm chip as its main cpu and ati as its graphics. But that is really about all the facts that are known right now.

thies
Feb 5, 2004, 05:21 AM
And are you guys going to have a heartattack when the CPU in that box is faster than a G5, vastly cheaper and MS turns a profit?

Look at it like this: It might very well turn out that MS will use this as cheap ammo against Apple when they can sell "G5" boxes vastly cheaper and still be profitable than Apple does.

Apart from that, to most it will be absolutely meaningless what is inside an Xbox2. Does anyone give a damn about the current CPU? How many use it for anything but gaming? Do you really believe MS will allow good ports of games to Macs?

Do you believe that G5 CPUs are going to be cheaper when this starts rolling? certainly not. These are branched of versions of the chip, not G5s. No benefit for you.

Dream on. As far as Apple is concerned this is absolutely meaningless.

ionas
Feb 5, 2004, 07:11 AM
1. Computers (and Macs are just computers in the end) consist of many parts.

The CPU still takes a bunch of the total value, but not as much as in the past.

This is one reason we won't see much difference, cause there just IS not much difference.

1899 instead of 1999 - oh yeeah wow.. still a lof of money; noone will claim that it was the CPU (even if it was)

2. Apple has a high margin but overall (compared to other direct pc sellers like dell or hp) a low volume.

sure, they would like to welcome a higher volume, but not if overall profit shrinks.

So apple will invest the money the get from lower costs on CPUs on other techniques and R&D, or even on higher clockspeeds.

In the end there will be no difference in price policy, but if, then only in technology.

either apple keeps the extra margin, but as far as i guess they are not that stupid again, or they reinvest it.

result: machines will stay the same price.

3. what it will help to us (apple customers)

if ibm produces, devilers and develops more cpus of the type apple needs (and so we want, or should want), the cpu development and process innovation will go on - and apple will profit from it; and intel (and so wintel) will NOT profit from it.

remember the rumors how much ibm wants to charge from intel?

the jump onto ibm's ppc from nintendo, sony(somehow at least) and microsoft will make sure that there will be ibm cpus in apple systems for the next few years for sure, and that we wont see a drop down like it happend to motorola; and to apple as well cause of that.


just my thoughts

;)

wizard
Feb 5, 2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by thies
And are you guys going to have a heartattack when the CPU in that box is faster than a G5, vastly cheaper and MS turns a profit?

First you have to realize that Apple willbe running faster 970's and derivatives in the future. Besides, no one besides a few linux hackers, even takes notice that the current xbox can pass as a PC.


Look at it like this: It might very well turn out that MS will use this as cheap ammo against Apple when they can sell "G5" boxes vastly cheaper and still be profitable than Apple does.

I don't think we are going to see the word profitability and game console hardware used in the same sentence anytime in the near future. The profits are in the software.


Apart from that, to most it will be absolutely meaningless what is inside an Xbox2. Does anyone give a damn about the current CPU? How many use it for anything but gaming? Do you really believe MS will allow good ports of games to Macs?

Well you are right about the users point of view about what is inside the XBOX.

Do you believe that G5 CPUs are going to be cheaper when this starts rolling? certainly not. These are branched of versions of the chip, not G5s. No benefit for you.

Yes I do believe that they will be cheaper. There are a number of reasons for that but one is utilization of plant equipment. Besides no one has yet indicated that they are branched versions or that Apple wouln't use them to gain competitve advantage. PPC is a very flexible standard, a great deal of functionality may be added to the chip and still keep it compatible with yesterdays hardware and software.


Dream on. As far as Apple is concerned this is absolutely meaningless.

Well this may very well be somones dream but if there is any reality at all in the proposed machines this is very good news for Apple. Number one advantage beyond hardware costs is that game designers would have to take into consideration optimizing for the G5/970 or the PPC in general. Currently very few games are ever optimized for Mac hardware. There probally won't be enough compatability to optimize the software equally between the XBOX2 and the Mac but there will be enough to make a differrence.

Dave

pjkelnhofer
Feb 5, 2004, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by rweidmann
O assume that the $2000 iMac that ships when the Xbox 2 shipt has more oomph than the $300 xbox. Bodes well for the iMac.

Of course, by that time the iMac will have a 42" plamsa monitor hanging on that little arm so it will still cost $2000+
:p

pjkelnhofer
Feb 5, 2004, 10:56 AM
It is far too early to say what (if any) effect this will have on Apple. More people using IBM PPC's could either mean that IBM will be able to start producing chips in such quantities that the price per chip would go down (which would probably only have a minimal effect on an Mac's price).
On the other hand, if everyone wants PPC's because the are the best chip out there (not saying they, just for arguments sake), isn' t there the possibility that demand could outweigh supply and Apple's price per chip could go down.
Heck even if the whole windows world went to PPC that does that mean that you would be able to run OS X on a PPC based Dell or LongHorn on a G5?
I do not profess to be in expert in such matters, but it is my understanding that there is a lot more to it than just the processor. After all, otherwise couldn't anyone who could get PPC970s build a Mac Clone?

singspiel
Feb 5, 2004, 01:27 PM
Here is an article that analyses how Microsoft would end up with some sticky situation on their next generation XBox

http://www.1up.com/article2/0,4364,1511179,00.asp

benpatient
Feb 5, 2004, 02:57 PM
I can't belive those people actually believed that BS.

Today's G5 core x3 in less than two years for under 200 dollars, in a system, with a gfx solution "much faster" than R400 (which will still be in the mid-level range of ATI products (150-250 dollars per card) in two years), a hard drive AND a blue-laser DVD?

Right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt...


If the projected release date was 2007, and the cost was 300 without a controller, I might just buy into this "rumor."

Here's another, more likely rumor, though: The G6 will be released in sufficient quantity to take 50% of the marketshare in July 04.

You heard it here first!

Idiots...

Snowy_River
Feb 5, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by benpatient
...You heard it here first!

Idiots...

Uh... geeze... this is a rumor site... Please don't be insulting...

:rolleyes:

takao
Feb 6, 2004, 04:26 AM
powerpc in the next microsoft xbox ?
why not ?

nintendo is using a modified powerpc in their gamecube... when they were selling them for 200 $ without a game they made money with it...without even selling 1 game...microsoft made a loss of 100$ when they selled the xbox for 400$ without a game ..

those 'cheap' intel/nvidia components were actually more expensive than custom made chips by ibm,nec and ati

benpatient
Feb 6, 2004, 11:11 AM
dude, the GameCube PPC chip isn't 64 bit.

Look, i'm all for rumors, but when a "news" site like mercury posts this information as being "leaked" from MS, that's a bunch of crap.

Processors work much better in pairs, not trios. The current G5 processors are hardware limited to a dual-processor internal bus, so the 3rd processor would have to be out on its own and just "in communication" with the other two like it was in a computer cluster...

I've been coming to this site for a couple of months, and so far, the only thing that has been "rumored" and actually come out to be correct was the one thing i was hoping wasn't correct—the mini iPod.

Apple may be working on a lot of things, but let's just say that i haven't been impressed by the direction they've taken in the almost 9 months since the (still fastest available dual 2.0) G5 was released. If they really want to play hard ball with intel and AMD, then it's going to need 3-6 month increases in speed, and i don't mean motorola 1% increases...

Anyway, i just think its sad that you guys are believing anything about this article. The most likely part of it is the blu-ray DVD drive, which is the part they cite as "questionable."

And just to let you know, nintendo is most certainly NOT making money with the gamecube. It's a cool machine, but its not a moneymaker!

MorganX
Feb 6, 2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by benpatient
dude, the GameCube PPC chip isn't 64 bit.

Look, i'm all for rumors, but when a "news" site like mercury posts this information as being "leaked" from MS, that's a bunch of crap.

Processors work much better in pairs, not trios. The current G5 processors are hardware limited to a dual-processor internal bus, so the 3rd processor would have to be out on its own and just "in communication" with the other two like it was in a computer cluster...



If they are dual core, this may not be a limitation. Having said that, 3 CPUs are extreme and doubtful. Even if it is a derivitive CPU, IBM would destroy their CPU pricing. Of course, if MS drops the hard disk, they could add a CPU without increasing the cost. perhaps IBMs 65nm can go fanless? Who knows.

I do believe these are leaked rumors from MS, in an thinly veiled attempt to get Sony to tip their hand. Sony responded only by saying, were' going to spend over a billion on infrastructure to develop the next gen device(s).

takao
Feb 6, 2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by benpatient
dude, the GameCube PPC chip isn't 64 bit.

And just to let you know, nintendo is most certainly NOT making money with the gamecube. It's a cool machine, but its not a moneymaker!

1. i said gamecube uses a _modified_ powerpc chip ...never mentioned 64bit

2. they _were_breaking even/very small win per sold machine in the beginning when they sold them for 200/250$
_now_ they have losses per sold unit but they don't have to sell the same amount of games like others

microsoft had losses with their console here when they were selling them for 479 $ !!

nintendo always undercut competitors before in price ..because they could it without drastic losses...until the playstation 1 where they couldn't because they used the old cartridges instead of cds like sony

nintendo never had the best hardware ...they use rather ceap hardware... look at old gameboy vs. gamegear
NES vs. others back in the 80ties in the long run they won with their 'inferior' hardware

Mav451
Feb 7, 2004, 12:53 AM
haha inferior hardware...if i recall, the sega genesis had to be shut down every 2 or 3 hours because it would over heat easily...

I remember one time that i left the SNES in the basement on for a few days. I came back down fer some classic Mario Kart...lo and behold it's already at the Character Select Screen (I'm like...oops).

The SNES wasn't even hot to the touch :)
'course those are the golden days when everyone developed for SNES, and then the turn down of the CD-based system...and the rest is history (ugh).

Mav451
Feb 7, 2004, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by SpY2K
...and those FPS wintel gamers still think the Mac G5 isn't up to caliber with the wintel gaming machines... oh the irony. Soon, the processors at the core of the new gaming systems will be in the same family as the processors in our dektop machines... I like that :cool:

Nah the irony is that most people (well the smart ones anyway :) ) already understand that the G5 is the Opteron/FX-51 equivalent on the Apple side. Yeah it's better in some things, the Opteron in others. The difference is games/ports. Until Apple gets simultaneous game launches for its platform, it will not be the FPS platform that the PC is. All they are missing now are the games. The hardware is certainly there...

When they can get Half Life 2 or Doom 3 type of big releases w/o constantly resorting to a petition, then Apple is there

takao
Feb 7, 2004, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Mav451
I remember one time that i left the SNES in the basement on for a few days. I came back down fer some classic Mario Kart...lo and behold it's already at the Character Select Screen (I'm like...oops).

The SNES wasn't even hot to the touch :)
'course those are the golden days when everyone developed for SNES, and then the turn down of the CD-based system...and the rest is history (ugh).

yeah the SNES is still one of the best ever made... "super mario land" is even nowadays still a first class jump and run... on the GBA

as for the G5/developer discussion:
the microsoft console switching away from x86 is a very good thing: the question is: will keep microsoft directX for their console ? if _not_ the chance of faster release on mac etc. will go up _perhaps_

Snowy_River
Feb 7, 2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
haha inferior hardware...if i recall, the sega genesis had to be shut down every 2 or 3 hours because it would over heat easily...

Well, that never happened to me with my genesis. I used to play that thing for hours, and it would only slightly warm. There was one time a bunch of friends and I played from 6PM to about 3AM. When I finally unplugged it and put it away, it was not too hot to the touch...