XBox 2 - 3.5GHz PowerPC?

[stoid]

Advantages : Everyone on campus can play Halo with a seriously sick framerate.

Also, Cortana is so real looking that.... uhhh...... nevermind...

 

[Dippo]

I've read that Apple puts some sort of hardware in each box that OS X searches for in order to load the program. That's why they have to add support for computers to the OS when they update their hardware. So, no hardware marker, no OS X running on the machine.

I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be able to use OS X on the Xbox2, but Linux should work just fine, but it would be worthless if it doesn't have a hard drive.

I am just wondering how big the XBox2 is going to be, because it will probably get really hot at those speeds.

If the games play well on High Def TVs, that might be a reason to get a console, because bad TV resolution is one reason I would never get a console.

 

[shyataroo]

Well, interestingly a three core PPC with 1MB L2 (according to diagram) will have about the same transistors than a 1MB single core Prescot. Though it will be able to handle 6 threads (with SMT) simultaneously.

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

maybe OS X will finally have Direct X support and prettty soon the entire idea of windows being better because it has more compatible games will disapear and than we shall rule the financial world!

 

[mklos]

Assuming this IS real *cough* *cough*

How hard would it be to hack Mac OS X on to it and have spent only $300 on one bitchin' fast computer?

I'm not sure how it would boot without the Apple ROM chip installed. I could be wrong though!

 

[MorganX]

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

maybe OS X will finally have Direct X support and prettty soon the entire idea of windows being better because it has more compatible games will disapear and than we shall rule the financial world!

SDKs have already been sent to developers on Dual CPU G5s. The software appears to be well ahead of the hardware. NT already existed for PPC.

It is simply not going to be possible for MS to continue to take the loss per unit they are taking on the current iteration of Xbox. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at E3 '05. The actual CPU is just a rumor, all we know is it will be PPC, who knows, it could end up being a multi-core Tejas (which has sampled) and all of this is just red herring to get Sony to give up its plans. Naah, IBM wouldn't be telling everyone it's won the Xbox 2. Microsoft is bold but not that bold.

 

[Dippo]

maybe OS X will finally have Direct X support and prettty soon the entire idea of windows being better because it has more compatible games will disapear and than we shall rule the financial world!

That would be just be way *too* nice!

I just don't see any reason why Microsoft would be nice and do such a thing for the Mac, even if they already have DirectX written for PowerPC.

 

[stoid]

That would be just be way *too* nice!

I just don't see any reason why Microsoft would be nice and do such a thing for the Mac, even if they already have DirectX written for PowerPC.

Remember what company we're talking about here folks. Microsoft. Give away the only clear advantage they have? NEVER!

 

[Photorun]

Damn, this is so suspect in reporting authenticity it belongs on page 48!

 

[oingoboingo]

Well, interestingly a three core PPC with 1MB L2 (according to diagram) will have about the same transistors than a 1MB single core Prescot. Though it will be able to handle 6 threads (with SMT) simultaneously.

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but Microsoft already has versions of their Windows NT kernel which run on PowerPC. If you still have a version of Windows NT 4.0 lying about, take a look at what's actually on the install CD-ROM...NT 4.0 was supported on MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC in addition to x86. One of the original technical bragging rights of Windows NT was its microkernel based architecture, meaning that it was easier for Microsoft to port the relatively small kernel to different architectures.

Over time Microsoft has drifted from their original cross-platform vision, but I'm not sure they would need to completely re-write the core Win32 API...and if they were clever, DirectX would have been written in a cross-platform manner also.

 

[MorganX]

Remember what company we're talking about here folks. Microsoft. Give away the only clear advantage they have? NEVER!

I don't know why people talk about DirectX like it's an applicaiton and not a part of Windows. They're APIs. To port it to OS X would mean Microsoft was not writing a part of OS X.

They're similar to the Sprockets APIs in OS 8.5/9 I think.

 

[Analog Kid]

rumors already state that the XBox2 chip will be produced on the 65-nanometer process, so it should be reasonable to expect that power and heat will be mangeable.

65nm doesn't mean less heat. Remember what happened with Prescott-- smaller process more heat. Leakage is only going to get worse. With the SSDOI maybe power will still go down by a little but certainly not a factor of 3.

 

[Analog Kid]

dual cpu systems don't generally double performance, and one issue is cache coherence. They have to keep tabs on the status of data in the caches of other cpus in the same system. This processor would solve this issue (for the most part) by sharing a L2 cache. Also, the interprocessor latency is almost nil with a multi core cpu [compared to more common smp systems]. If this processor comes into being, it will be much more efficient than a system with 3 seperate CPUs in it.

The dual G5s effectively share their L2 caches also-- one of the cooler aspects of the design...

I think it comes down to this.. (if this is real) you have a system with three cores on the same die and a shared 1MB L2 cache. It's hooked to a HT like bus with 10.8 GB/sec up and 10.8 GB/sec down unidirectional bandwidth. It will perform MUCH better than a typical (think Xeon) style SMP box.

I think the big key is that this is a gaming box, and as far as I can tell gaming code should be nicely cacheable. MorganX seemed to think bus bandwidth was going to be a problem-- if most of the work is done in cache bus bandwidth becomes less of an issue.

Not only that, but since we assume M$ has input into the design.. do you really think they would build in so much silicon that it would be rendered usless by an insufficient bus?

Uh... MS isn't necessarily world renown for their microprocessor designs. On the contrary they are renown for arrogantly pushing their ideas regardless of protests from those who should know better.

One more thing to consider.. .if IBM is providing CPUs that are already wide (lots of int, lots of fp units, multiple vmx paths), why would M$ choose to totally reinvent the wheel by first stripping the parallelizm out of an existing design to build it back in with a transisitor expensive multi-core design? That seems odd, unless the real goal is a system with a lot of virtual paralellism.. a somewhat simple processor that appeared as 6 virtual CPUs to the system. I don't know why this would be so much more favorable to what they are planning to use this box for.. but I don't work for M$.

Think games. Think lots of little independent entities. Think thread per entity. Mmmm... parallel...


Anyway... still think it's bunk.

 

[Frobozz]

I don't know why people talk about DirectX like it's an applicaiton and not a part of Windows. They're APIs. To port it to OS X would mean Microsoft was not writing a part of OS X.

They're similar to the Sprockets APIs in OS 8.5/9 I think.

Quite true. DirectX is like ActiveX is like a million other API's on Windows. ON a side note, a senior member of Microsoft was quoted as saying Microsoft would have been dead in the water with Windows YEARS ago if it hadn't been for the strength of the Windows API set (intellectual property) and dominant market share. In other words, if they didn't bundle all their crapware with Windows he believed they'd be out of business.

But back to the point. I think a port of DirectX to the PowerPC would be good for gaming ports. In any event it's interesting news that I am watching.

 

[jhu]

SDKs have already been sent to developers on Dual CPU G5s. The software appears to be well ahead of the hardware. NT already existed for PPC.

It is simply not going to be possible for MS to continue to take the loss per unit they are taking on the current iteration of Xbox. I wouldn't be surprised to see it at E3 '05. The actual CPU is just a rumor, all we know is it will be PPC, who knows, it could end up being a multi-core Tejas (which has sampled) and all of this is just red herring to get Sony to give up its plans. Naah, IBM wouldn't be telling everyone it's won the Xbox 2. Microsoft is bold but not that bold.

sure they could. they have $50 billion cash in the bank. they'll likely have more when the xbox2 comes out. microsoft tends to dominate given enough time.

 

[Analog Kid]

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but Microsoft already has versions of their Windows NT kernel which run on PowerPC. If you still have a version of Windows NT 4.0 lying about, take a look at what's actually on the install CD-ROM...NT 4.0 was supported on MIPS, Alpha and PowerPC in addition to x86. One of the original technical bragging rights of Windows NT was its microkernel based architecture, meaning that it was easier for Microsoft to port the relatively small kernel to different architectures.

Over time Microsoft has drifted from their original cross-platform vision, but I'm not sure they would need to completely re-write the core Win32 API...and if they were clever, DirectX would have been written in a cross-platform manner also.

I'd be willing to bet that the cross-platform nature of the kernel has been repeatedly violated since it went to x86 only again. The HAL might still be there, but I'm sure there was no end of rationalizations for "optimizing" around it.

Worse yet, I'd bet that management thinks it's still cross platform and the engineers are afraid to say anything different...

How's this for an idea-- the reason MS needs all this horsepower is so they can emulate the entire environment in VPC. Connectix probably did a better job with VPC than MS can porting NT in a few months...

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm not sure how it would boot without the Apple ROM chip installed. I could be wrong though!

It would boot if Apple coded it to... It would rank pretty high on the dirty trick list, but imagine an OS X(box): Apple makes $129 per copy sold and MS loses $100 per Xbox sold.

Evil...

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't know why people talk about DirectX like it's an applicaiton and not a part of Windows. They're APIs. To port it to OS X would mean Microsoft was not writing a part of OS X.

They're similar to the Sprockets APIs in OS 8.5/9 I think.

Is there any legal reason Apple couldn't provide the DirectX APIs as a Carbon framework? It wouldn't be binary compatible, but if a developer coded their app carefully they could recompile it to OS X.

 

[thatwendigo]

It would boot if Apple coded it to... It would rank pretty high on the dirty trick list, but imagine an OS X(box): Apple makes $129 per copy sold and MS loses $100 per Xbox sold.

Evil...

Yeah, it would be pretty evil, considering that Apple would also lose about $1,200-5000 per XBox sold, when people buy them instead of macs. Hardware is the cash cow, not the OS.

 

[freddiecable]

!!

thanx tristan - I had to bite my tounge not laughing out loud at my office - disturbing the excecutives

Yeah, right.

"Hello? Ibm? Yeah, I'd like to order several million 3.5 ghz CPUs, each with three cores in each chip, low power enough to fit in a console, and cheap enough so I can sell the whole unit for under $199. We'll need them in about six to twelve months."

"Sure, no problem. Good thing we have that advanced alien chip manufacturing technology from the Roswell crash site. It really comes in handy for physically impossible orders like this."

 

[Analog Kid]

Yeah, it would be pretty evil, considering that Apple would also lose about $1,200-5000 per XBox sold, when people buy them instead of macs. Hardware is the cash cow, not the OS.

Yeah, if you think it would really displace that many Mac sales, which I don't think it would. Not many people want to use their TV as a monitor, for one thing. The hardware would be pretty limited for another. The OS could be limited in addition to that. At worst it would knock off a few eMac and iMac sales-- at best it would introduce new users to Mac OS with a minimal investment.

But then, that's a serious response to a cynical response to a vindictive joke...

 

[gsdali]

IIRC the Xbox 2 processor was meant to be a custom derivation of the PPC 4xx series of processors for embeded systems, not a PPC 9xx series processor. I could be wrong. For what it's orth the simpler 4xx series were meant to go 65nm before the more complex 9xx series.

 

[MorganX]

Is there any legal reason Apple couldn't provide the DirectX APIs as a Carbon framework? It wouldn't be binary compatible, but if a developer coded their app carefully they could recompile it to OS X.

Apple has its own APIs. They're just don't perform as well. I think Apple is still into OpenGL. It's also harder to optimize drivers for OpenGL and the games tend to look the same.

I think the entire graphic subsystem would have to be rewritten. Someone else here may have a better anser.

 

[MorganX]

>>would have been dead in the water with Windows YEARS ago if it hadn't been for the strength of the Windows API set<<

You're basically saying Windows would have been dead in the water if it weren't so strong. OK.

Windows was actually dead in the water when it was created. DOS Ruled. DOS subsidized Windows development. Borland (Paradox), Wordperfect, Lotus (including the #1 Windows word processor Ami Pro), Dbase all dropped the ball not believe the GUI was the future. While Microsoft was honing it's GUI programming on the Mac (word, excel). It took years and simply better products for Office to become dominant. It took years for WinWord to displace DOS Word and Wordperfect. Lotus simply didn't bring a good product to Windows. Lotus 1-2-3 ruled the landscape. They just had no vision. So Excel came to Windows. You youngsters have no clue. Larry Ellison and Scott McNeally are taking advantage of that. Many Mac users don't have a clue about ProDOS, and how superior DOS was. ;> I think we all started on Apple's playing Zork and Choplifter. PR#6.

>>But back to the point. I think a port of DirectX to the PowerPC would be good for gaming ports. In any event it's interesting news that I am watching<<

It's going to happen. The Lonhorn kernel is coming to PPC in Xbox 2. That's the only way DirectX will be ported to PPC because DirectX is Windows.

 

[whafrog]

I doubt MSFT will be ready by 2005. They need to re-write the Win32 API and DirectX to PPC first, then have the games ported over to the new platform, etc. We'll probably see it in 2007 timeframe.

Interesting point. We all thought iPod might bring people to the Mac. Maybe MSFT is planning to use this as a bridge so they can sell Longhorn on Apple hardware natively...?

 

[tristan]

I smell troll! What are you arguing now, MorganX? I thought your first argument was that the "G5 isn't all that".

Oh yeah? Well, your Athlon 64 is wiggity wack, dog.