IBM Producing 65nm Chips?

[Mr. MacPhisto]

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]

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]

OMG i cant believe one of my submitted articles got posted, this is UNBELIEVABLE!!!

 

[silvergunuk]

Does anyone remember a short while ago, it was mentioned that IBM would move from silicon to germanium?

 

[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.

 

[krassy]

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]

It would be DAMN funny if those where G5s ;-)

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]

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]

Question to Hector

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

guinea pigs

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]

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]

Re: guinea pigs

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]

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]

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 =(