Slashdot Mirror
More On IBM's Next-Gen Xbox Chipset Win
Pieroxy writes "EE Times reports further details on Microsoft's use of IBM chips in its next generation Xbox game and consumer electronics devices, dealing a blow to Intel and providing a much needed boost for IBM's lossmaking chip business." An analyst claims that "IBM is likely to modify its most advanced G5 PowerPC silicon, which is being used in Apple Computer's fastest Macintosh desktops, for the embedded market, reducing the cache and cutting power consumption", and further comments: "This is likely to heat things up at Intel, but it is competition that is healthy for the industry. It's ironic that IBM, with its roots in the computer industry, doesn't supply the processors for the main portion of the personal computer industry. Intel does." We covered IBM's initial announcement as a section-specific story earlier today.
Are they not going to have backward compatibility? That seems like a big mistake in the game console market to me.
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
Forgive me if I'm being moronic about this, but if it's based off the G5, it has a completely different instruction set. Does this mean that the modified Windows 2000 kernel used with the current XBox will be upgraded and ported to G5, or that we might see a completely different and new kernel?
SEARCHING FOR SIG
SIG NOT FOUND ERROR
READY.
Who thinks that IBM is going to turn around and sell these things to Aplle as the CPU for the G5 laptop?
This bodes VERY well for IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and anyone else interested in low-power-draw PowerPC systems. It sucks for Motorola, but they lost my favor years ago, and they really charge ludicrous prices for their wares.
Also, Could IBM be developing their G3+AltiVec chip for this? It seems to me that if the G3 series was dead IBM would stop working on it, but there are 750GX CPUs due soon (just a 750FX with 1MB on-die cache), and rumors of a G3 with SIMD coming down the pipe. It seems to me that if IBM bastardized some of the SIMD logic from the 970 and strapped it to the 750 they'd have a pretty decent low-power SIMD chip that Apple could market as a 'G3', 'G4' or a 'G5.'
Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic, but the G3 was the CPU best-suited for what I do, and I hope it doesn't disappear. I have little use for SIMD, and I really appreciate running a CPU without a fan strapped to it, it's just so... elegant.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
It seems that it would be prudent for Microsoft to announce something about backwards compatibility if they're going to make such a dramatic platform change. That's one of the greatest things for early adopters of the PS2 - they could still play their PS1 games on 'em.
One of the few competitive advantages MS has with the XBox is that games created for it take little work to port over to the PC arena. By using a PPC chip much of that ease of porting is eliminated and along with it one of the few selling points for title owners.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It would be interesting to know exactly why they have picked an IBM chip rather than Intel or AMD. I wouldn't think the IBM (PPC?) chip would be more cost effective than the Intel/AMD but you never know...
This is just pure ignorance. Apparently going to Best Buy and buying a hard drive is now "piracy".
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Interestly enough, the reason IBM canned the personal powerpc systems was that OS2 for PPC completely blew its schedule several times over. IBM had a personal AIX edition for PPC ready but chose not to go with that. The reason. Unix would never make it as a mainstream operating system for PCs.
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
Yah, MS and IBM are stupid, you better call 'em and set them straight!
Some things to consider:
1) NT ran on PowerPC long ago, porting it wont be hard.
2) Wasn't IBM working on a new mega-chip that can run x86 and PowerPC codes side by side?
3) Perhaps making the Xbox so close to a PC blew up in MSFTs face, and they don't plan to do it again. You can turn your noses at "security through obscurity" all you want, but the Xbox, once initiall cracked, has been blown wide open - it's a no brainer to port PC emulators and apps to it. The GCN or PS2, however, have taken much longer, and are still an obfuscated mess to try and develop custom stuff for.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
as mentioned in Financial Times, Microsoft will likely be using their recently acquired Virtual PC software. This software is the way mac users run windows software on PPC chips. VPC technology will allow MS to provide backwards compatibility under Intel emulation.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Wasn't one of the "Benefits" for people making games for xbox the ability to code just like they did for pc games?
perhaps they are trying to lure developers away from GCN by offering a similar cpu architecture?
... that backwards compatibility isn't part of Microsoft's game here? I suppose they could do like the PS2 did and use the original Intel processor to act as a controller or something, but somehow I doubt that'd be cost effective enough.
Emulator? Eck I hope not. Well.. maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Maybe they could do a combination emulator and wrapper. The emulator would be for the processor instructions, and the wrapper would be to send the graphics commands to the new GPU. Presumably, the difference between the two GPUs wouldn't be big enough as to prevent that from working.
Eh I dunno. Personally, I'm hoping Microsoft does something a little more interesting than just throwing next-gen hardware into a box as an upgrade. Pushing polygons around is nice, but I really like how small and cheap my GameCube is. *Hint hint*
"Derp de derp."
That's IBM... supplying Microsoft... with PowerPC processors... for a gaming console...?
If anyone needs me, I'll be conferring with my local pastor as to whether or not Hell has frozen over.
Emacs: for people who just never know when to
It's ironic that IBM, with its roots in the computer industry, doesn't supply the processors for the main portion of the personal computer industry. Intel does.
That's not ironic. It would be ironic if IBM declared the PC industry dead, and said that the embedded industry was all that was viable, made this processor for the embedded industry, and someone used it to revitalize the PC industry and put IBM back on top there. The fact that they are not on top of an industry that they helped start is interesting, but it's a far cry from ironic.
Not to pick nits, but misuse of the word "irony" is one of my pet peeves.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
The Gamecube has a 486MHz PPC 750CX/e, which is 32bits, has limited front side bus bandwidth and 256K L2 on-die cache. The XBox2 will likely use a variant of the PPC 970 or 980, which are 64bits, have plentiful bandwidth and 512K on-die L2 cache, plus an altivec unit, and run around 2GHz.
Of course it'll be better.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Intel went after Xbox originally so that AMD wouldn't get the win, but Intel still took it in the shorts, or so it is claimed, by offering a nutrageously low price to outbid AMD. Probably even at a loss given the timeframe.
Intel doesn't give a crap about PPC, as it isn't even a remote threat, what at 4% of the market. Intel could have EASILY played the same power-play and had another design win, but at the cost of lower ASPs for a niche market (compared to its $20b a year market, xbox isn't worth it).
just my $0.02.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
This is actually a very interesting move on MS's part. Not too long ago they purchased the premier x86 on PPC emulator. Now they are going with IBM's PPC as there next Xbox. Maybe they are ready to have a win-tel divorce and declare their independence from Intel, or maybe just shake the relationship up a bit.
Not long after the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer came out, we started designing the next-generation platform. The machine was to be PowerPC-based with true 3D rendering capabilities (triangle engine, MIP-mapping, perspective-correct textures, 32-bit rendering, etc.).
The CPU was supplied by IBM. What we ended up with was the PowerPC 602, which was essentially a 603 (?) with a smaller cache and single-precision floating point operations that executed in a single cycle, which were essential for 3D gaming. The part ran at 66MHz.
It was a really nice machine. Sadly, it essentially died on the vine, as Matsushita chose not to exploit its gaming potential, relegating it instead to "kiosk" activities.
IBM also manufactured the triangle engine. It was a five layer chip -- at that time, a rather sophisticated process -- occupying 144 square millimetres.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Actually, the earliest instance of easy backward-compatibility I can recall was the Atari 7800. It could read 2600 and 7800 carts, all from the same cartridge slot. Of course, the 7800 was so heavily delayed that Nintendo stole their market...
Even though the z80 hardware was built in to the Megadrive / Genesis, you had to shell out for the Master System Converter.
This, plus the fact that the Master System didn't sell too well, made it a losing feature.
When you sell millions of PS1s, and you can get an optical drive cheap that reads your old CD media, and your new DVD media, then you've got backward-compatibility that's a selling point.
ATARI and Sega did it first. Nintendo and Sony were the first companies to do it right.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Just as with the original XBox, there were plans to use AMD chips, at least that is what most of the speculation on the internet said, up until they announced the specs and low and behold Intel had "won" the contract instead.
I could very easily see this deal with IBM as a backdoor sneaky tatic to get nVidia hardware under the hood again, especially with their cozy arrangements as of late. For that matter, AMD and IBM are also in bed so it wouldn't be surprising at all the see ATI booted and AMD/NV offering becoming the real guts of the console. IBM would be the fab for the chips and assembly for the mainboard... heck they might even just roll the whole thing and take a cool percentage.
Off the wall? Perhaps. But I think this xb0x0r war is far from over. There are no published specs and these talks of industry deals are by no means what the final product will necessarily be.
Most embedded CPUs are not x86-based. They're not PowerPC or ARM based either. It's just that most people aren't familiar with what CPUs are out there, only what's available for PC boxes.
That said, consider that the PlayStation 1 and PlayStation 2 use MIPS processors. The Sega Saturn used a Hitachi SH-2. The Dreamcast used an SH-4. The 3DO console was ARM based. The Nintendo 64 uses a MIPS. The GameCube uses a PowerPC. The Game Boy Color is Z80 based. The Game Boy Advance uses an ARM. The Nokia N-Gage also uses an ARM.
In short, non-x86 based game consoles are the norm, not the exception. You simply can't put a super hot P4 in an embedded environment. Intel knows this. That's not the market they're after with the P4. This is basic embedded systems design.
Except that if Microsoft uses the G5 (PPC970) chip, as everyone is speculating, they'll have to tweak the Virtual PC code base to run on the G5. Why? Because the G5 silicon lacks the special "virtual little endian mode" that the Virtual PC code from Connectix relies upon for performance on the G3 and G4 chips.
Of course, a highly optimal bit of PPC assembly could be written to replace the missing mode and instructions on the G5.
Then again, Microsoft could twist IBM's arm and get them to make a custom variant of the G5 that includes this mode, and maybe chops some cache for cost conservation. I sincerely doubt that the chip IBM winds up fabbing for the next Xbox is going to be identical to the version currently shipping in Apple's G5 desktops.
IBM microelectronics make custom asics with PPC cores in them, and IBM:s chip designing is in higher level stuff than AMD so they can modify that cheaper at expense of clock speed that they get... But now at 0.9u the PPC970 is supposed to be quite tiny so what ELSE they will put in there besides the CPU core and cache? Instead of using altivec they might go something more excess like putting 16 FMACS. Which would give microsoft both superiour numbers and performance but also guarantee that other chips wouldn't be compatible with it, as they would have instructions that no one else has, and in other way their developement package might be really only way to port software for it, and the customizations might even make reverse engineering the thing without full developement package from microsoft impossible. They could offer packaging with low latency mainmemory in the package, and something like 4-8 channels to the memory chip, inside the package. And only put outside interface to graphic chip outside the package and put all the other supporting logic in the same chip with CPU. Hey IBM has LOTS of options and modifications and stuff that they could have offered for microsoft besides price point. IBM could have made point hey we offer you 4 times as much memory bandwith and 4 times as many flops as our competitors in same price if you take the reduction of other chips in the system in account. And AMD and INTEL in their highly tuned hand optimized design methologies where not able to offer something even resembling the beast that IBM could customize for microsoft, at reasonable price. IBM makes great business selling G3:s with lots of custom stuff attached to it on single chip. They might even maker HARDWARE decryption on the processor chip for instructions stream, that could mean a LOT harder modifications for it than for original xbox.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
I wouldn't say there is a Gamecube "performance issue." It runs beautifully fast. 485 Mhz of PowerPPC goodness. It is right on par with the XBox CPU since the PowerPPC design is so much more efficient.
Frankly, what are you talking about? Performance issues?
The Gamecube is way more powerful than the PS2, most importantly with none of the jaggie aliasing problems nor the atrocious load times..
Yes, most of the time those 2 issues are no longer a big deal on the PS2 but it took a lot of developer cleverness to do it.
Don't be so sure. Don't be fooled by the clock speeds. The GCN is as powerful as the PS2, if not moreso, and is the superior of the two machines if actual output is a layman's comparison. Check out a comparison.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck