Xbox and PowerPC Technology

[MacsRgr8]

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?????

 

[MorganX]

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]

Re: Re: Microsoft Again Playing Follow The Leader

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]

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]

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]

This is all just part of Apple's plan to take over Microsoft

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

 

[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?

 

[MorganX]

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]

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]

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]

PPC

Do you think that people, MS, computer industry, are getting smarter and finding out that PPC can be faster than their intel eqivalents.

 

[kansast]

hard to believe

hard to believe that they would switch processors like this.. making old xbox games incompatible. ??

 

[jettredmont]

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]

Re: Re: Microsoft Again Playing Follow The Leader

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Microsoft Again Playing Follow The Leader

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]

What?

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]

Re: Re: Microsoft Again Playing Follow The Leader

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?