The Truth About Last Year's Xbox 360 Recall

chrplace forwards an article in which Gartner's Brian Lewis offers his perspective on what led to last year's Xbox 360 recall. Lewis says it happened because Microsoft wanted to avoid an ASIC vendor. "Microsoft designed the graphic chip on its own, cut a traditional ASIC vendor out of the process, and went straight to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he explained. But in the end, by going cheap — hoping to save tens of millions of dollars in ASIC design costs, Microsoft ended up paying more than $1 billion for its Xbox 360 recall. To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.)"

Comments

I'm Shocked....

[ZiakII]

Microsoft designed their own graphic chip and it crashed? I'm shocked... I tell you shocked!

Re:I'm Shocked....

[Creepy Crawler]

Crashed?

The Red Rings were a FEATURE! I tell ya!

Re:I'm Shocked....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked... I tell you shocked! ... probably burned is more like it. Might have gotten a shock if you licked it....

Re:I'm Shocked....

[Drinking Bleach]

It's no wonder why the BSOD displayed in the wrong colors....

Re:I'm Shocked....

[mrsteveman1]

Didn't you see the goatse troll above? you aren't supposed to be licking the red ring...

Re:I'm Shocked....

[aliquis]

No, you are only supposed to poke it a little in the middle to turn it on.

Re:I'm Shocked....

[ozmanjusri]

Red Rings are a feature of most people's interactions with Microsoft.

Re:I'm Shocked....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Microsoft forgot a crucial step in designing the chip. They forgot to steal the design. Had they just used their standard operating procedure of innovation, they'd have monopolized the console system by now.

Re:I'm Shocked....

[BigBuckHunter]

No, the article is rubbish. The part was designed by ATI. ATI was not a "US"company as the article states, it was Canadian company. I have personal knowledge of this.

BBH

Re:I'm Shocked....

[spamking]

One Red Ring to rule them all!

Re:I'm Shocked....

[elrous0]

Ah, Jesus. Those movies sucked. Just a lot of walking.

Re:I'm Shocked....

[elrous0]

If Canada wanted our respect, they wouldn't have bombed our Baldwins. Do you have any idea how many b-rated movies have suffered over the last ten years because of you fucking canucks?

Re:I'm Shocked....

[keithius]

No, really, the red ring IS a feature! It's better than the blue ring, after all!

Re:I'm Shocked....

[default luser]

The part was designed by ATI, that is not in-dispute.

What the article insinuates is that the fabricated part (the MASK) was designed by Microsoft.

Microsoft bought the IP for Xenos from ATI. They did this because of the poor relationship they had buying GPUs directly from Nvidia with the Xbox. Microsoft saw how Sony bought the IP for graphics parts for the PS2 (and now PS3), and created their own ASIC layouts. Microsoft figured they could do the same.

The only problem with that logic: Microsoft has never done a chip design as complex as Xenos, and they do so few chip designs that it's hard to hang on to personel. The kind of tricks you need to use to make sure a high-performance chip doesn't bleed power - those are exactly the kind of honed skills a newbie chip design house lacks.

Re:I'm Shocked....

[aliquis]

Or well, licking or not are up to you, I don't know what I was thinking when I said "No, ", you are encuraged to lick aswell.

yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems that every time some company tries to cut corners, it only ends up biting them in the a. my company does the same thing, and the kludgy results are nothing short of spectacular.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[boner]

well, it's the difference between an MBA making a business call based on cost/profit analysis and an experienced chip designer looking at the actual risks involved....

MBAs are good in cutting corners in traditional businesses, but generally have no understanding of technology risks....

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[CyberLife]

MBAs are good in cutting corners in traditional businesses, but generally have no understanding of technology risks.... This sort of arrogance is so common it's not even funny. I once presented a GIS plot to such a person. You know, the kind of thing that crunches so much data it takes a cluster of machines upwards of several minutes just to produce a single frame? Well this guy argued if I needed so much computer power to make a simple picture I must be doing something wrong.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[TripHammer]

well, it's the difference between an MBA making a business call based on cost/profit analysis All profit-seeking companies do this. This is not an inherently bad thing - you wouldn't have a job otherwise.

MBAs are good in cutting corners in traditional businesses, but generally have no understanding of technology risks.... So if you have business savvy you can't possibly understand technology risks? Oh please.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[HiVizDiver]

Not so sure about that... I would argue that very often when something breaks, it is because they used a cheap vendor, but that the logic doesn't necessarily apply backwards - that using a cheap vendor means it WILL break. I bet there are loads of examples of people doing things on the cheap, where it DIDN'T fail. You just don't hear about those.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you have business savvy you can't possibly understand technology risks? Oh please. Strawman. The problem is that MBA degrees are churned out as "one size fits all" managers, suitable (pun intended) for any industry by virtue of having no specific training for any of them.

You can have business savvy and technological expertise, but it's a roundabout path through today's educational system if you're not teaching yourself at least one. And I think we all know the proportion of people who are capable of serious self-education.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Anonymous Coward]

All profit-seeking companies do this. This is not an inherently bad thing - you wouldn't have a job otherwise.

I don't think you're getting it. Cutting costs is one thing. Cutting corners is another. Cutting costs is fine, but cutting corners implies the product is worse off because of it. Few engineers would say "It'd be cheaper to roll our own graphics chip," because they realize the immense technical challenges involved. Few MBAs are likely to understand that, however.

So if you have business savvy you can't possibly understand technology risks? Oh please.

There's a big difference between what you just said and what the OP said. Nobody said MBAs can't be tech savvy. However, the fact of the matter is, most of them aren't.

Also, just to be pedantic, having an MBA has little to do with having business savvy.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen it too. Obviously, you have only been with good managers who make sound decisions.

Only when problems hit critical mass do they start asking the important questions and gather acurate data.

I've seen groups crushed and the politicians move out before the axe falls. The problem is, they led the charge straight to hell and only got off the bus at the toll charge.

The trick is to yell louder then anyone else when problems are brought up. Scape goats are quite handy too.

I recommend keeping a portfolio of dirt so when it is time to jump ship you point out all of the other rats. This is of course only useful to the guy who is jumping ship. (please take note MBAs as this information is critical to your continued success)

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[MBraynard]

Your fallacy is that you think that this example of MS's bad decision is indicative of MBA's being bad decision makers.

Are you telling me that Intel, AMD, ATI, NV, etc. have never released a flawed chip?

Were the people at MS who made the chip really incompetent - or did MS just hire them from another ASIC company? There is no guarantee this wouldn't have happened if they did go to a ASIC.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[quanticle]

That's true, but, if the did go to an ASIC vendor they could have got a contract indemnifying them from taking losses when the chip turned out to be flawed. By doing the chip design themselves, they saved a little bit of costs, but also took on all the risks of having a bad design.

That's what the parent poster is alluding to. A manager with experience in technology would have understood that, while designing your own chip might have been cheaper, it would have also introduced significant downside risk, which ought to have been factored into the equation. Farming the chip design out to a third party, while more expensive in the short term, would have entailed less long-term risk.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

I dunno, the problem I have with MBA types as managers is that it's easier to learn the business stuff yourself than the technology.

And for balance the problem I have with engineers as managers is that it's possible to learn the people skills stuff but you have to understand why it's important and want to do learn it. It's all too easy to stay in the comfort zone where you basically sit in a dark corner somewhere and write code if that's what you enjoy rather than forcing yourself to talk to people.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Tsaot]

It's more like people who go for a MBA are wanting to avoid computers. I cannot tell you how many people I've tutored at my college who are going for business degrees on how to create a table in access, let alone how many have asked for help formatting an excel spreadsheet when the teacher has provided step by step instructions. It's like they're afraid of using a computer. I die a little inside each time when they ask which button bolds the text.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

I don't think you're getting it. Cutting costs is one thing. Cutting corners is another. Cutting costs is fine, but cutting corners implies the product is worse off because of it. Few engineers would say "It'd be cheaper to roll our own graphics chip," because they realize the immense technical challenges involved. They didn't "roll their own graphics chip" from what I can tell. They licensed the IP (the VHDL code or a synthesized core) from someone else. The plan from the start with the XBox360 was that they would do this and try to integrate it all eventually onto one chip. That's the reason they moved from x86 to PPC, because neither Intel or AMD would license their IP and let Microsoft make their own chips. Actually this is the difference between Risc and x86 these days - x86 vendors don't license their IP but Risc vendors do. Since consoles are sold at a loss initially and subsidized by games it's really important to reduce the build costs by doing this. Back in the XBox days most people thought that Microsoft lost out because they couldn't integrate the design into once chip in the way that Sony did with their console. And that was because they didn't own the IP for the processor.

The mistake seemed to be to let Microsoft's in house group do this rather than outsourcing.

But you've got to remember this is an article in EEtimes from an analyst with an agenda
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=51TYZYXYRWUZUQSNDLSCKHA?articleID=208403010
"System OEMs have no business designing ASICs any longer," said Lewis. The reality is that system companies are finding it hard to do enough ASIC designs to keep in-house design teams employed.

Basically he's trying to create business for ASIC design houses by telling people that putting a bunch of licensed IP onto a chip is rocket science and they shouldn't try to do it in house.

Is it really? I honestly don't know. I suspect it depends a lot on the quality of the in house people and the quality of the ASIC design house.

And it depends on what you're trying to do. In the embedded area lots of companies much smaller than Microsoft put an processor and a bunch of their own peripherals onto a chip and it works. I guess that console or PC graphics cores use a lot more power than that. But I don't know if "an ASIC design house" would have done a better job than Microsoft's ASIC group.

Or more to the point, maybe a $1B recall is the price you pay for learning about this stuff. Microsoft can afford it obviously and it will influence how the successor to the XBox360 is done. Whether they hire more engineers and do it in house or outsource it is a business decision it seems. I guess the in house people and the design house will both try to argue for the best option from their point of view and some manager will decide.

But if you're a cash rich company then the bias will be to try to do as much as possible in house, because that gives you more freedom to value engineer later.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

I've seen groups crushed and the politicians move out before the axe falls. The problem is, they led the charge straight to hell and only got off the bus at the toll charge. Ouch. This is a unique combination of a mixed metaphor (a charge to hell on a bus where the leader can get off?) and using charge to mean too different things in one sentence. Say what you like about MBAs, but I bet they wouldn't write like this.

;-) (Joking since I regularly write stuff that is flat out incomprehensible gibberish)

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[TheQuantumShift]

What exactly do they understand? From the decisions I've seen, "Master of Business Administration" is not a title I'd apply to most...

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Antique Geekmeister]

Some of us do. Have you ever tried to get a Winmodem working reliably under _any_ operating system?

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[arivanov]

It would not be necessary if engineers knew a little bit of economics. I am sick of repeating the same two questions all over again: "Where is the money" and "What is the ROI". That is to both MBAs and engineers by the way.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[opinion8d]

With an MBA, you need to make a big impact to justify the big salary. If you make the wrong call, jump to another company and try again. The one home run that you hit may land you in the corner office.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[MadKeithV]

The most common form of it that I see is one of the business dudes telling me (the Software Development Consultant) that a particular piece of technology "will take about a week to develop". I've started replying with "so you will deliver to me next thursday then?". But seriously, I think management and planning by wishful thinking are becoming a full-on religion around these parts.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[servognome]

well, it's the difference between an MBA making a business call based on cost/profit analysis and an experienced chip designer looking at the actual risks involved....

Smart engineers may not have a complete view of the risks involved either. Who's to say the chip designers' hubris didn't get in the way such that they gave a wrong risk assessment. I've seen design groups who have worked on the same architecture for generations fail miserably when they attempt something different.

MBAs are good in cutting corners in traditional businesses, but generally have no understanding of technology risks....

A good MBA doesn't cut corners, they look at the whole picture and identify excess or improvements. It's the difference between an MBA from the University of Chicago and the University of Phoenix - not all MBAs are created equal.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[tftp]

Basically he's trying to create business for ASIC design houses by telling people that putting a bunch of licensed IP onto a chip is rocket science and they shouldn't try to do it in house. Is it really? I honestly don't know. I suspect it depends a lot on the quality of the in house people and the quality of the ASIC design house.

It is true. You should not unnecessarily muck with VHDL/Verilog and 3rd party cores even if you work with an FPGA. This will not kill you, but it will make you poorer. HDLs are notoriously kludgy, and it takes a lot of effort to do it right. Proprietary cores rarely work as documented, and you have no visibility into them. When multiple cores are used, it's one large fingerpointing game between vendors. And you need to have good, experienced HDL coders. And you need to have all the tools, they cost big bucks.

But that's with mere FPGAs, where you can update your design whenever you wish. However here they are talking about ASICs - where all the wiring is done with masks when the IC is made. You'd have to be certifiably mad to even think about a casual design like this. ASIC designs are done by very competent teams, using "10% coding / 90% verification" time allocation, because you can't afford /any/ mistakes. And even then you make mistakes; but experienced teams with good tools make those mistakes smaller, and they call them "errata" - something that is not right but can be worked around. When you make the F0 0F bug, though, you trash the whole run.

So Microsoft risked a lot when it went for an in-house design. I am not surprised that they failed. They should have counted all the successful 3D video companies on the market and asked themselves why there are so few, and why top gaming cards cost so much.

But if you're a cash rich company then the bias will be to try to do as much as possible in house, because that gives you more freedom to value engineer later.

I am not MS, but I don't really see much business value in rolling your own video controller. More likely the NIH syndrome kicked in, or some people were overly concerned about their job security.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[gtall]

The term for MBA graduates is Business School Product. They are taught business principles that should apply everywhere since they don't produce them for particular industries or companies. The problem is that a business is intimately tied to what they produce, so MBA programs are more or less built on a totally ignorant view of business.

Gerry

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[somersault]

And I think we all know the proportion of people who are capable of serious self-education. It's almost 100% of all literate people, right? Or do you mean the proportion of people who can be assed to do some serious self-education?

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[somersault]

So basically even someone with an MBA and no technical knowledge whatsoever should have known that it was a dumb thing to do, but did it anyway :p That's presuming that they are taught that the first generation of any complex product tends to need some kinks ironed out anyway..

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[mgblst]

Nobody said MBAs can't be tech savvy. However, the fact of the matter is, most of them aren't.

This isn't even the problem. There is nothing wrong with having no tech experience, and being in charge of a tech team, as long as you listen to the people in the team. It is when you start making decisions on your own that problems occur.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[indifferent children]

Are you telling me that Intel, AMD, ATI, NV, etc. have never released a flawed chip?

Why did you list of bunch of chip companies in your question? The issue at hand is more like WalMart executives feeling that their handheld-scanners are too expensive, and deciding to design a new chip in-house to reduce the cost. That decision is stupid, whether there end-up being bugs in the chip or not.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[umghhh]

It is maybe easier to learn the business stuff as it is presented in MBA curses but not in reality. In reality you must be good at what you do whatever schools you finished and whether you have management position or do things yourself. managing is not such a bad thing as some would like it to be - we need organizers and leaders. Only when these leaders and organizers have no f.ing clue to ask for technical advise and to use it properly things go wrong. OTOH if I as an engineer screw up there are others to correct me and possibly prevent shit hitting the fan (as long as QA is at place), if managers screw up there are a lot of people that will pay for their mistake. This of course is only statistical truth but still holds some validity. I personally do not see organizing and managing as bad thing only I hate constantly arguing with people too much to do it myself properly.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[mustafap]

>;-) (Joking since I regularly write stuff that is flat out incomprehensible gibberish)

You're a perl programmer then?

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

Basically he's trying to create business for ASIC design houses by telling people that putting a bunch of licensed IP onto a chip is rocket science and they shouldn't try to do it in house.

Is it really? I honestly don't know. I suspect it depends a lot on the quality of the in house people and the quality of the ASIC design house.

It is true. You should not unnecessarily muck with VHDL/Verilog and 3rd party cores even if you work with an FPGA. This will not kill you, but it will make you poorer. HDLs are notoriously kludgy, and it takes a lot of effort to do it right. Proprietary cores rarely work as documented, and you have no visibility into them. When multiple cores are used, it's one large fingerpointing game between vendors. And you need to have good, experienced HDL coders. And you need to have all the tools, they cost big bucks.

But that's with mere FPGAs, where you can update your design whenever you wish. However here they are talking about ASICs - where all the wiring is done with masks when the IC is made. You'd have to be certifiably mad to even think about a casual design like this. ASIC designs are done by very competent teams, using "10% coding / 90% verification" time allocation, because you can't afford /any/ mistakes. And even then you make mistakes; but experienced teams with good tools make those mistakes smaller, and they call them "errata" - something that is not right but can be worked around. When you make the F0 0F bug, though, you trash the whole run.

I know companies that are a lot smaller than Microsoft who've done ASICs and it has worked.

So Microsoft risked a lot when it went for an in-house design. I am not surprised that they failed. They should have counted all the successful 3D video companies on the market and asked themselves why there are so few, and why top gaming cards cost so much.

But if you're a cash rich company then the bias will be to try to do as much as possible in house, because that gives you more freedom to value engineer later.

I am not MS, but I don't really see much business value in rolling your own video controller. More likely the NIH syndrome kicked in, or some people were overly concerned about their job security.

Yeah, but they didn't. They licensed the IP from ATI. Whether it was VHDL or a hard core I don't know. But the whole Xenos chip is an ATI design. Microsoft had the chip layout done in house and talked to TSMC directly.

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IB2CS0JQTKT1SQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=199902345
Lewis pointed to the example of Microsoft which licensed for its Xbox 360 a graphics design from the former ATI Technologies and had it made at TSMC. The company considered a similar move for its Xbox 360 processor designed by IBM, but at the last minute decided to have IBM assume overall responsibility for making, packaging and testing the chip rather than buying raw wafers from Chartered Semiconductor.

When that didn't work they got ATI to do the layout.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208403010
To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.)

But now they presumably know the secret. Which will come in handy whem they want to start reducing the chipcount so they can cut the losses they make selling the things and/or cut the price.

So ASIC design is risky, but it means that XBox360's are no longer sold at a loss

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Fulg]

I am not MS, but I don't really see much business value in rolling your own video controller. More likely the NIH syndrome kicked in, or some people were overly concerned about their job security. For the original Xbox, MS licensed the chip from NVIDIA. This seems like the right thing to do, but now you're bound to the will of the IP owner. As such, MS could not disclose a lot of information about the GPU (register specs, etc) to registered game developers.

This is no longer a problem on Xbox 360. Because they own the IP, MS is allowed to share as much information as it wants about the GPU, which is really helpful for 3D programmers.

In this case I seriously doubt it is a case of NIH...

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[GleeBot]

Few engineers would say "It'd be cheaper to roll our own graphics chip," because they realize the immense technical challenges involved. Few MBAs are likely to understand that, however. Are you all so sure this was an MBA decision? Microsoft employs a lot of cowboy technical types that like to take on new and interesting projects, whether or not it makes sense to do them from a cost-benefit point of view. Poor judgment isn't just limited to managers, you know.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[apoc06]

"They should have counted all the successful 3D video companies on the market and asked themselves why there are so few, and why top gaming cards cost so much."

thank you. i've been waiting on someone to say this. as a corporation, you have to look at what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are. MS has always used software as their strength. their corporate culture revolves around this. it doesnt matter what the employees' specialities are, the corporate ideologies cater to the creation of "successful" software; this mantra is what drives the final managerial decisions. to switch gears and think that the same corporate philosophies will work with hardware is foolish.

the problem with their designs arent necessarily the chip itself, but with stupid choices regarding the design of the console. [placing the chipset underneath the drive bay, poor ventilation, shoddy soldering...etc] those are poor design choices that a relative newcomer to the industry is bound to make. those established in hardware design are less likely to succumb to foolish mistakes because through experience they know what to avoid.

MS has the cash to walk away from the crash unharmed, but for anyone else thats a newcomer to the hardware industry, this would total their business.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[randyest]

Basically he's trying to create business for ASIC design houses by telling people that putting a bunch of licensed IP onto a chip is rocket science and they shouldn't try to do it in house. Is it really? I honestly don't know.

No. It's much harder. Rockets are large, visible with the naked eye, and adhere to macro-level physics and mechanics. Nanometer-scale semiconductor design involves a lot more work to avoid many, many more possible modes of failure.

(BTW, it was almost certainly verilog code -- few people outside of the government use VHDL these days.)

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[randyest]

To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.)

The funny thing about this is: ATI is not an ASIC vendor! ATI does chip design and, since they're fabless (or were until AMD bought them,) they get them made at TSMC or sometimes Chartered, or, most often, use NEC Electronics Amertica as their ASIC vendor. ATI partnered with Microsoft to make an ASIC (first at TSMC, then later with NEC) but, in generall, you don't go to ATI to get an ASIC made. You go to NEC, or IBM, or Toshiba, or LSI Logic, etc. Those are ASIC vendors. ATI is a fabless design house specializing in graphics. Big difference.

I know companies that are a lot smaller than Microsoft who've done ASICs and it has worked.

Without an ASIC vendor? As in, taped out GDS2 directly to a fab like TSMC? What process node? If you say 90nm or lower (which is the kind of ASIC we're talking about here) I'd have to call bullshit and ask for the names of these companies.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.)

The funny thing about this is: ATI is not an ASIC vendor! ATI does chip design and, since they're fabless (or were until AMD bought them,) they get them made at TSMC or sometimes Chartered, or, most often, use NEC Electronics Amertica as their ASIC vendor. ATI partnered with Microsoft to make an ASIC (first at TSMC, then later with NEC) but, in generall, you don't go to ATI to get an ASIC made. You go to NEC, or IBM, or Toshiba, or LSI Logic, etc. Those are ASIC vendors. ATI is a fabless design house specializing in graphics. Big difference. EETimes seems to think they are.

I know companies that are a lot smaller than Microsoft who've done ASICs and it has worked.

Without an ASIC vendor? As in, taped out GDS2 directly to a fab like TSMC? What process node? If you say 90nm or lower (which is the kind of ASIC we're talking about here) I'd have to call bullshit and ask for the names of these companies. Can't comment on that, NDAs and client confidentiality.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

No. It's much harder. Rockets are large, visible with the naked eye, and adhere to macro-level physics and mechanics. Nanometer-scale semiconductor design involves a lot more work to avoid many, many more possible modes of failure. Meh, what a load of bullshit.

I've had several clients that have done this stuff. They prototyped on a shitload of FPGAs and then moved to an ASIC built by a couple of fabs. And these were not simple designs. You need a roomful of people and a lot of cash - since it takes a few respins of the ASIC to get something usable and a respin is not cheap - but it can be done by an averagely disorganised medium sized company with decidedly average people. Most stuff you license e.g CPU cores, the rest you design in house.

Or you could pay someone in Taiwan to do the whole lot, since they have a lot of experience in this stuff.

And if you want to make money out of games consoles, you have to do this.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[MBraynard]

Your simile is a huge, huge stretch.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[indifferent children]

You're right; it is a stretch. WalMart doesn't have a long history of blowing their schedule and their budget to produce buggy products.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[randyest]

If you're respinning your ASICs you're not doing it right. You're also wasting $500k to $millions per spin, which would be far better spent on verification. I guess if you're picking a random roomful of people, and think it's a simple task to integrate and verify a cpu core or other IP, then trial and error is pretty much your only choice. Us professionals prefer to do it right the first time.

Call bullshit all you want Mr. Armchair ASIC Designer. When you've taped out a nanometer-level ASIC you'll have an opinion on the subject worth listening to.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[Hal_Porter]

If you're respinning your ASICs you're not doing it right. You're also wasting $500k to $millions per spin, which would be far better spent on verification. I guess if you're picking a random roomful of people, and think it's a simple task to integrate and verify a cpu core or other IP, then trial and error is pretty much your only choice. Us professionals prefer to do it right the first time.

Call bullshit all you want Mr. Armchair ASIC Designer. When you've taped out a nanometer-level ASIC you'll have an opinion on the subject worth listening to. Oh fuck off. I'm not an armchair designer, that description fits you far better with statements like 'us professionals prefer to get it right first time'. If you're so shit hot why do you waste time telling strangers about it on the internets? Don't you have better things to do, like save companies millions by getting it right first time. Fucking poser. I have worked with companies that have done it, not with random people but the best ones they could hire, which usually means rather mediocre people. And it's not that hard, just expensive.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[steveo777]

Do you think it was MS's fault or the fabricators fault? The story said they went BACK to the original supplier to the have chip designed, in stead of using the chips that MS designed. I'm willing to bet the fabricator did what was requested, but what was requested was a piece of crap.

At least that's what I understood from the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[randyest]

Hahaha, you're an angry little idiot, aren't you?

Re:yes, go cheap, that's the way

[HiVizDiver]

Sounds like the case, yes, but if I rephrase my statement more accurately, it should still stand - basically replace "cheap vendor" with "cheap route" (to include poor/cheap design, etc.), and I think the statement is still true.

Bleh...

[Anonymous Coward]

...hoping to save tens of millions of dollars in ASIC design costs, Microsoft ended up paying more than $1 billion for its Xbox 360 recall. I'm glad that I am not wealthy enough to be able to afford to be that incompetent.

When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[Udo Schmitz]

Shaking fists at ATI, yelling: "I'll design my own chip! With blackjack! And hookers! ... In fact ..."

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[The Ancients]

Shaking fists at ATI, yelling: "I'll design my own chip! With blackjack! And hookers! ... In fact ..."

You picture Ballmer?

Your therapy bill must be astronomical

Probably not too far off the truth, but still...you think they'd learn.

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[Fearless Freep]

Please don't equate Steve Ballmer with Bender

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[moderatorrater]

You can bite his shiny, metal head.

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not, they're both played by the same actor.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0224007/

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Well, this is /. so forget the err... hookers?
Here's my mancard :P

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[Joe The Dragon]

ATI video chips are used in WMS slot and Video poker / blackjack and other casino games.

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[CycoChuck]

Ballmer isn't Bender? I could of sworn that somewhere Ballmer was quotes saying "Cheese it" and then running out of the room when someone asked him about the xbox failures.

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[nigel_q]

Anyone else think it funny that the guy that played Ballmer in that Pirates of Silicone Valley movie is the guy that does the voice for Bender?

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[SaturnNiGHTS]

that played Ballmer in that Pirates of Silicone Valley movie

is that one of those techie porno movies i've never heard about?

Re:When I read that I pictured Ballmer:

[Tabernaque86]

Throwing chairs at ATI, yelling: "I'll design my own chip! With blackjack! And hookers! ... In fact ..."

There, fixed it for you.

Chickens are coming home to roost...

[Naughty Bob]

I know /. does like to stick the boot into MSFT whenever possible, but in the last 2 hours there has been 3 front page stories, real stories, about the nasty behaviour of MSFT coming back to bite them in their fugly corporate ass.

Or is it all just a hoax?

Hope not.

Re:Chickens are coming home to roost...

[ucblockhead]

Yeah, you're right, it is strange how the stream of Microsoft bashing has slowed so much lately around here.

Re:Chickens are coming home to roost...

[Naughty Bob]

General trolling of Microsoft (a la Twitter) is tedious, and only makes the troll's pet causes look worse for sure.

But this story is about a billion-dollar smack on the wrist. The previous ones concerned a delay, at least, to their hard-won (okay, paid for...) OOXML ISO certification, and the EU's competition commissioner putting a thinly veiled smackdown on them.

I realise that mob-style business practice has built MSFT into a giant, but as the public and their representatives catch up with the new paradigms of the digital age, said practices will become increasingly counter-productive. Which is a good thing.

Re:Chickens are coming home to roost...

[Maxo-Texas]

You are so droll, some may not get your ironic humor.

Someone mod parent + funny!

Re:Chickens are coming home to roost...

[adamofgreyskull]

I realise that mob-style business practice has built MSFT into a giant, but as the public and their representatives catch up with the new paradigms of the digital age, said practices will become increasingly counter-productive. Which is a good thing.

Quite. I was reminded of this story, more specifically this Douglas Adams-esque line:

"The Savior was a self-made billionaire who struck it rich doing the type of business that makes unregulated industries regulated."

Another Talisman CF

[rimcrazy]

I had the miss-pleasure of working on a graphics ASIC with MicroSquish back around the late 90's on a project called Talisman.

Never, and I say NEVER let a bunch of software engineers try to design a hardware chip. This was the biggest CF I'd seen in all my years (30+) as a chip designer. That they did it again, and with such stupidity again is no friggin surprise.

It is not that software engineers should not be involved, of course they should but when they drive the architecture in complete void of any practical chip design constraints..... and continually refuse to listen to any reason from the hardware designers..... well as they say, garbage in, garbage out.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[NeutronCowboy]

Interesting. I remember the hype about Talisman, and how it was going to revolutionize graphics generation. Thanks for that little bit of history there.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Chemisor]

> I say NEVER let a bunch of software engineers try to design a hardware chip.

Well, as a software engineer, I think I would do a pretty good job in designing a hardware chip. Could you please disillusion me in a more detailed manner?

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Dhar]

Never, and I say NEVER let a bunch of software engineers try to design a hardware chip. I've worked with software written by a hardware company, and I can say the same thing from my side of the fence...never let a bunch of hardware guys write software!

I suppose if we can all agree to stay out of the other guy's yard, we can get along. You do hardware, I'll do software. :)

-g.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[imsabbel]

Talisman _was_ decades ahead in its concept.

its just that brute force is _sooo_ much easier to implement....

Re:Another Talisman CF

[MicklePickle]

LOL. As a sysadmin I reckon I could do a pretty good job at brain surgery. Not as good, mind you, but I'd get great results.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that it was designed by only software engineers exactly?

I can tell you first hand that a lot of the people on the Xbox hardware team a extremely talented HARDWARE specialists. The way you talk you would think MS locked a bunch of IE developers in a room and didnt let them out until they had designed the chip.

And as for the argument of 'well if they are so talented, why is the chip such a POS?', it is not only software engineers that design shitty hardware. Look at AMD, with the TLB defect in the Phenom chips, is that the fault of the software engineers?

This response may be overkill, but somehow you were modded +5 interesting, but you completely miss the point.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Skrapion]

As a sysadmin I reckon I could do a pretty good job at brain surgery. I'm not sure "turn it off and on again" works in brain surgery >:)

Re:Another Talisman CF

[djcapelis]

If you have to ask...

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Cassini2]

I am a person that designs both hardware, and software, but not chips, At the risk of talking outside of my expertise, I will have a go at answering your question.

Firstly, there are things that software people really like, but it is often better to not do them in hardware. This category contains things like Read/Write I/O registers. From a software point of view, they are nice, but they can double your gate count. They can also increase your capacitive bus loading. DAC and ADC designs can also be affected this way. A software person might use a proper ADC and expect proper ADC registered results. A hardware person might select a resistor, capacitor, a voltage comparitor, and a couple of spare I/O pins. The cheesy R/C approach may save the hardware design from a whole slew of problems including cost. A software person may opt for a synchronous logic approach with all registers clocked every clock cycle. The hardware designer may opt for a much more asynchronous approach, that minimizes the number of clocked registers. This reduces power consumption, and potentially the number of registers too. Often the hardware designer will consider thermal, cost, electrical layout issues as part of his design process. The software person will not be as familiar with how to design a good circuit board and chip design in a cost-effective manner. A good software engineer can learn all of this material with time, but the hardware engineers will do them naturally.

The second category of problems is tools. The modern chip designer is working with a fairly advanced set of tools that the software person is likely to be quite unfamiliar with. This starts with the IC design tools, which are quite specialized. It ends with the hardware engineering tools. Have you ever X-Rayed a circuit board to analyze the cracks in the Ball Grid Array where it bonds to the circuit board? Are you familiar with thermal issues, and thermal images? How about EMI test results? Modern IC package design limitations? A good team of engineers will be familiar with these tools, and know how to use them to get good results.

The third category of problems is mistakes from inexperience, or lack of experience in the correct field. I work with industrial electronics. I think from an industrial point of view. What happens when someone attaches 600 (VAC) to the ground wire of the computer? What happens to the remote sensors when the plant gets hit by lightening? In IC design, there are some known gray areas too. Does the chip reset properly on power up? Do metastable, astable, or self-oscillating states exist in the IC design? Can the chip survive with no cooling? Does the chip have an overtemp shutdown function? What happens if someone starts the chip up in sub-zero weather? Do the analog electronics have sufficient electrical separation from the digital electronics, while avoiding nasty things like ESD latchup conditions?

I've completed chip design courses before, but have never had to design a modern production gate array design. As a person that has done both software and hardware, I know that my skills are not good enough for the most modern IC design processes. My limit is FPGA work, and my preference is clever opto-isolation, power semiconductor, TTL and micro-proccessor based circuits. In analog, my expertise in analog is industrial sensing and survivability. You have to know where your field of expertise is, and what your limits are.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[emarkp]

Wow! You're an orphan of the Talisman project? I remember seeing the hype from that on the eve of my Uni graduation. I then went on to work at Intel, working on chip design tools.

No surprise, the hardware guys looked down on the software guys from a QA perspective. Probably because it's a lot harder to patch hardware once it's in the field, and software guys have a hard time learning that lesson.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[hedronist]

> never let a bunch of hardware guys write software

I testify, Brother, I TESTIFY!

30 Years ago, I ended up in therapy (literally) after dealing with an assembly program written by a hardware guy. The program emulated a CDC communications protocol that was originally done in hardware. This was on a Cincinnati Milacron 2200B, a machine that had both variable instruction length and variable data length. The hardware guy had implemented the protocol state changes by putting a label *on the address portion* of jump statements (he did this in 50 different places in the program) and then in some other area of the code he would change where the jump branched to next time through. It bordered on an implementation of the mythical COME FROM instruction. Of course, there was zero documentation and almost zero comments.

After one marathon debugging session I was so frustrated I was in tears. My manager came in and wanted to know what the problem was. I gave him the listing and left to walk around the building a few times. When I came back, he told me that it was, hands down, the worst piece of crap he had seen in 20 years. He had me rewrite it from scratch, which I did over a long weekend.

The program's name was RIP/TIP (Receive Interrupt Processor/Transmit Interrupt Processor) and I was in therapy for most of a year. (There were a few other issues, but this was the bale of hay that made me snap.)

Re:Another Talisman CF

[oldhack]

So... hardware design is a "real" engineering (deals with whole range of nastiness the physical reality slaps you with), unlike the hack that software "engineering" is... Is that what you're saying? :-)

Re:Another Talisman CF

[CycoChuck]

Wait, Microsoft has software engineers?? Where were they when Vista was being made? I guess they were busy trying to make chips and left the interns to code Vista.

I don't know why M$ would try to make chips. They do much better in hardware when they have someone else make it then slap the M$ logo on it.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is a more specific case of "Experience matters." Just because you intellectually can understand the idea of designing circuits does not mean you are aware of the obstacles, workarounds, traditions, and general practices of a field.

Engineers aren't stupid, and you can certainly cross-train one to do another's job. But you aren't going to do that overnight. If your product is overbudget/behind schedule/etc, you don't want to make it into a very educational failure by regularly having people operating outside their expertise.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[drinkypoo]

Which of the umpteen zillion companies involved with that did you work for? I was at SEI when it was going on and sat through a presentation, although I had nothing to do with chip design.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[CastrTroy]

Not really. I wouldn't have a mechanical engineer design a chip either. I also wouldn't have a hardware/mechanical engineer designing a software system. Let people do what they are good at, and stop trying to cut corners by substituting in people where they have no skills.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[i.of.the.storm]

Additionally, I had always heard that the GPU in the 360 was an ATI R500 core which was related to the R520 PC GPU cores. Doesn't sound like MS made that if it was an ATI GPU...

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Maury Markowitz]

Oh wow! Could you go to the wiki and add to the article there? I did all I could piecing together the fragments of information I was able to found out there (some required photocopying... PHOTOCOPYING!) but that's nothing like first-hand knowledge.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[dpilot]

> I suppose if we can all agree to stay out of the other
> guy's yard, we can get along. You do hardware, I'll do
> software. :)

Wrong. I'll agree with "You do the hardware, I'll do the software," but it's important that both of you visit the other's yard frequently. From experience, there are worse things than the hardware guy throwing hardware and documentation over the wall, and going away to let the software guy do his thing. (Such as throwing the hardware over the wall with no documentation, and then leaving the company...) But not many. It's a heck of a lot better for the hardware guy to clue the software guy in during the design process, even to take feedback from him about things that can make his job easy or hard. Then the software guy should check back with the hardware guy after delivery to make sure their visions of the whole thing still mesh.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[raddan]

You know, I find that most people who slap around "software engineering" like it's a non-entity really have no idea what they're up against with software engineering. Compare the problem domain with hardware engineering and the problem domain with software engineering. One deals with the physical domain, and the other with the logical domain. Guess which one we have a better understanding of? Depending on your field in traditional engineering, you are benefiting from anywhere from a hundred years of accumulated knowledge to several thousand years of accumulated knowledge. Computer science is a new field-- "software" wasn't even invented until the 1940's!

You can bet that "software engineering" will eventually mature to the level that traditional engineering has. But give it some time.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Roxton]

I find your glossy, sweeping metanarrative regarding a physical and logical dichotomy as it pertains to these two disciplines to be empty and offensive. For the love of God, keep it pertinent.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[quanticle]

Right. I think we can all agree on this, "Talk, yes. Do, no." That is to say, by all means have the hardware engineer communicate with the software developer and vice versa, but don't have the hardware person writing code, and don't have the software person slinging transistors.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[rimcrazy]

FWIW, The system architecture of Talisman was designed by some software/system types in a R&D group under Alchin. They wrote the model in C and threw it over the wall to a design group in San Diego (names withheld to protect the innocent) who wrote the verilog. Mind you .... wrote it not tested it. My design group of IC designers, yet in another company...... who's name rimes with Cirrus..... would simulated the verilog against the C model. Ever time we found problems with the C model and told Redmond, of course the problem was ours not theirs.....until of course they "discovered it themselves". They would then pass the changes to San Diego .... who would then pass the Verilog to us. All the time management in Redmond just couldn't understand why it wasn't just P&R. The fact that their friggin architecture didn't even work was a minor point.

Oh.... and yes, you can just imagine how long it took to try and coordinate 3 different design groups in 3 different locations all trying to work on the same devices. Cripe, I had enough challenges on previous designs I'd worked on when everybody was in the same building.

Needless to say, we all have seen how successful that endeavor was....I mean there are so many products that used it right?????????????

Re:Another Talisman CF

[vux984]

So... hardware design is a "real" engineering (deals with whole range of nastiness the physical reality slaps you with), unlike the hack that software "engineering" is... Is that what you're saying? :-)

Well... there's "real" software engineering too...stuff involving resource deadlock, race conditions, critical section synchronization, in applications like virtual memory management, network protocols, time sync, file systems, security, fault tolerance, etc that are subject to all sorts of 'physical reality nastiness'.

Its not all wizards and automatic code completion you know. :-)

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Comatose51]

I don't know what sort of software engineer you had the misfortune of working with but speaking as a software engineer myself, the one fo the first lessons we learn is to leave the details to the domain experts! How many software engineers have had unreasonable requests from program managers? The rule of thumb in the interaction between software engineers and PMs is that PMs state the needs and requirements and software engineers figure out how to implement it along with the cost of meeting those requirements. Then the process of negotiating starts and PMs have to make the trade off between various requirements until the cost comes inside the budget.

The same thing goes for other engineers. Backend and system engineers shouldn't tell the UI engineers how to to implement the UI but just what features to expose and the inputs needed from the user. Likewise the UI engineers tell the backend engineers about how easy it is to use the backend APIs to do something and request changes as needed.

Modularity and separation of concerns are applicable principles in other fields of engineering and management, one would think.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Antique Geekmeister]

Isolation of tasks can be overdone. When I have to ask my supervisor, to call their supervisor, to call their colleague, to call their employee, to call their intern, to answer a design question for me, it's gotten ridiculous. And this is not uncommon where personnel are encouraged to focus on their tiny part of the problem. It also pays quite a lot of my income to have to come in after the fact and clean up the resulting debris when tightly focused engineers are actively discouraged from sharing information with their colleagues in order to remain 'focused'.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[vigmeister]

I wouldn't have a mechanical engineer design a chip either Mechanical engineers design chips all the time. We concern ourselves with issues like structural/thermal stability and solder joint reliability and the like. We do not do it all by ourselves, but neither can a hardware or a software engineer.

Cheers!
--
Vig

Re:Another Talisman CF

[vigmeister]

Apologies for the double post... but this irked me as well:

I also wouldn't have a hardware/mechanical engineer designing a software system. Are you sure? Lockheed Martin has mechanical/aeronautical engineers designing the software systems for their military aircraft.

Programming and software development is not something that is the exclusive domain of 'software engineers'. You really think software engineers can develop a CAD system on their own? Mechanical engineers have done that BTW. Ever heard of MATLAB or Simulink?

Sure, software engineers design software. It is juvenile to boost your ego by claiming that no one else can do it. Software engineering is relatively new. New enough that people in other domains have mastered it through necessity.

Cheers!

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Anonymous Coward]

>The hardware designer may opt for a much more asynchronous approach, that minimizes the number of clocked registers.

Personally, based on my experience in teaching VHDL/Verilog to students, I believe that it is much more likely that a software engineer would choose to use a much more asynchronouos approach, and get it totally wrong :)

Most hardware designers would tend to avoid async logic as much as possible to reduce the verification time. Sometimes you have to do it when doing clock domain crossings, etc, but it is usually not something you are looking forward to.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[tftp]

who's name rimes with Cirrus...

You must have worked for Citrus Logic then!

Re:Another Talisman CF

[91degrees]

Speaking as a software engineer who worked in microchip architecture, I totally agree. I didn't have a clue on whta to focus on for optimisation.

Wasn't until we incorporated a RISC processor and I started working on a compiler and some test tools that I showed my worth.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Pichu0102]

What about unplugging it for a little while and THEN plugging it back in?

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Alioth]

Yes, I thought that too, when I took up electronics as a hobby (not designing chips, but making various devices). I'm just a hobbyist in electronics, and not an engineer by a long shot, and all my circuits are relatively low speed (the highest frequency I've had on one of my designs is the 31.25 MHz signalling speed of 100baseTX ethernet).

In software, you live in this lovely mostly ideal digital world, nicely fenced off from the real world.

But in hardware, even in low speed circuits where the real engineers have done all the hard work and packaged up nice ICs for you, you run into the real world all the time. Things from parasitic inductance/capacitance issues. Amplifiers that look right on paper working as oscillators, and oscillators that look right on paper working as amplifiers (usually because of some real world constraint you didn't think about). Glitches, overshoots, noise in ADC, ground bounce - you name it, all these real world things are waiting to get you in circuits that otherwise look like they should work perfectly. It's not merely enough to wire up stuff in the right order - for instance, if you're making a switch mode power supply, you can have all the right components connected in the right order but the damned thing won't work, or runs 20% less efficient than it should, or regulates badly, or inteferes with every AM radio within 20 feet - because you borked the PCB layout.

Or that CPLD design or FPGA design that works perfectly in simulation, but falls over and dies randomly in the real world because of PCB layout issues.

This is just some of the things I've encountered in _hobby_ electronics, i.e. stuff engineers find straightforward. There is a _lot_ to know. A software engineer can learn hardware, but they have to do all the hard work that the hardware engineer did to learn it; knowing software already is no short cut to being even a hardware hobbyist let alone an engineer!

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Anonymous Coward]

As a sysadmin I reckon I could do a pretty good job at brain surgery. I'm not sure "turn it off and on again" works in brain surgery >:) He said sysadmin, not MSCE.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[raddan]

Oh the irony. Speak for yourself.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[dpiven]

Sure it does.

Sysadm: Okay, power-cycle the patient and see if he reboots.
Asst: Uh, he's not powering back up.
Sysadm: Okay, that's a hardware problem. Shitcan him and install a new one.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[CastrTroy]

Yes, you are right, most software engineers, or people making software, aren't certified software engineers. That wasn't what I was trying to say. What I was saying was that you don't take a mechanical engineer, who's never programmed a thing in his life, and ask him to design a CAD program. He would probably get the interface and concepts right, but I don't think the code would work without bugs, nor would it be easily maintainable. There are mechanical engineers, hardware engineers, and electrical engineers who are really good at designing software. This is specifically because they have had to learn it on their own, because it was necessary, and because there was nobody else who could do it. However, I would never assume that a mechanical engineer knew how to design a software system. And unless he had extensive experience in it, I wouldn't hoist a large software project on a him if I knew I could get someone better qualified to do the job.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[SuiteSisterMary]

Asst: His heart-drive isn't spinning up!
SysAdmin: How long had it been running?
Asst: Oh, forty-two years.
SysAdmin: Ah, the bearings are shot, won't take a cold start. Listen, stick him in the freezer for, oh, call it overnight. Then, take him out, lift him about a foot off the ground, and drop him. THEN turn on the juice.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[elrous0]

Just make the hardware guy and software guy Thunderdome for it. If a disagreement can't be solved by Thunderdome, it can't be solved by anything.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[erple2]

... What I was saying was that you don't take a mechanical engineer, who's never programmed a thing in his life, and ask him to design a CAD program. He would probably get the interface and concepts right, but I don't think the code would work without bugs, nor would it be easily maintainable.... Holy Cow! If your standards of good design is that the software is easily maintainable, and contain no bugs, then apparently NOBODY is a Software Engineer for any project beyond the trivial.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Roxton]

Dude, seriously. There's a perfectly serviceable point to be made about how software engineering is a deep, rich field where we've only scratched the surface. It's a field with budding communities around different schools of thought. It's got heroes like Eric Evans positing approaches to design. The field is still immature, and things will only get richer.

You know what the next step in the logical domain is? Getting people to the point where they have good reasons for thinking what they think, and have a good understanding of what constitutes such reasons. People get through highschool just developing cognitive habits that work for them. Heck, I probably didn't learn to start thinking critically until I was 20. (Having a self-consistent world view and criticizing ideas in that context isn't critical thinking.)

Your empty narrative is a clear demonstration of bad thinking.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[randyest]

I'm confused: You're an ME and you design the semiconductor die? Or just the package? You do digital logic design? Analog design? What?

Re:Another Talisman CF

[Anonymous Coward]

The way you talk you would think MS locked a bunch of IE developers in a room and didnt let them out until they had designed the chip.

Well, it explains why development of IE stagnated for 5 years so it must be true.

Re:Another Talisman CF

[raddan]

What, specifically, do you have a problem with? Speaking in generalities? Your first paragraph reiterates my point. So if you don't have a problem with your own first paragraph, what exactly is your problem with what I said? Or are you just trolling? Excuse me if I don't feel like writing an essay about software engineering in response to someone's off-color remark.

Feb. 2008 SquareTrade found a 16.4% failure rate

[Paul Pierce]

in my experience more like 100%. It doesn't seem to be a matter of if it would break, but when.

Every original 360 that I know of has now managed to die (at least once).

US-based vendor...

[bomanbot]

I would also think the first guess for the ASIC vendor would be ATI, but isnt ATI a Canadian company? Sure, of course they have US facilities, but wouldnt US-based mean that the man location should be in the US? Because then, NVIDIA would be my guess, as they have their main location in Silicon Valley, I think...

Re:US-based vendor...

[k-macjapan]

They we're a Canadian company. However they were still operating out of Markham(Toronto), Ontario Canada when the initial design for the xbox360 was conceived. AMD bought them lock stock and barrel on July 6th 2006.

Re:US-based vendor...

[bobbozzo]

AMD bought ATI in 2006, and AMD is in Silicon Valley.

Re:BSA?

[BiggerIsBetter]

I'm sorry... I appear to be lost. Is this the place where I can bash the boy scouts? No, I think you're looking for banniNation.

keywords "his perspective"

[Anonymous Coward]

next up rumour and hearsay

that is all

Ridiculous

[smackenzie]

ATI and Microsoft developed this chip together over a period of two years. The XBOX 360 GPU has been known since conception as an ATI GPU.

Furthermore, the recall was for overheating in general which -- though unquestionably affected by the GPU -- is a more comprehensive system design failure, not just a single component. (Look at the stability success they have had simply by reducing the size of the CPU.)

I'm looking forward to "Jasper", the code name for the next XBOX 360 mother board that will include a 65 nanometer graphics chip, smaller memory chips and HOPEFULLY a price reduction.

Re:Ridiculous

[gbelteshazzar]

Thats exactly what I thought. MS might be able to develop the ancilliary chips but the GPU? give me a break. The chip is ATI, surely everyone knows that. And a recall? No, there has never been a recall ... MS has acknowledged they may spend towards $1 billion on fixing issues but this is just through returns and they've extended the warranty. ./'ers you've let yourselves down.

Re:Ridiculous

[ximenes]

There was even quite a bit of press at the time about how Microsoft had decided to dump NVidia in favor of ATI after being so buddy-buddy with them on the original Xbox.

Re:Feb. 2008 SquareTrade found a 16.4% failure rat

[TeraCo]

Welcome to consumer electronics, where they are designed to fail just after the warranty expires. The real mistake that Microsoft made was having them fail within the warranty period. (And of course the RROD, which got enough bad press to force them to extend the warranty on that specific issue only)

What's going on.....

[ryszards]

Microsoft didn't design the GPU, ATI did, and everyone knows ATI have always been fabless. TSMC are the manufacturer of the larger of the two dice that make up the Xenos/C1 design, and while that die has been revised since for a process node change, it doesn't even appear if that new revision has been used yet (despite it being finished by ATI a long time ago).

Lewis seems to be just plain wrong, which is kind of upsetting for "chief researcher" at a firm like Gartner, especially when the correct information is freely available.

While the cooling solution for the GPU is the likely cause of most of the failures, that's not necessarily the GPU's fault, or ATI's, especially for a fault so widespread.

Re:What's going on.....

[Anonymous Coward]

A variety of problems will contribute to a 3 red ring failure. In my case it appears to have been failure of the video scalar chip. What's odd about it is the magic smoke didn't just escape and fail. No it would occasionally work fine, work broken, and not work. Suggesting a problem from the lead free solder being incorrectly applied. Ultimately leading to failure from thermal fatigue.

Given the lead free solder doesn't have a forgiving (nearly idiot proof) eutectic, and the companies producing the 360 were unfamiliar with lead free solder, it's easy to see how massive defects like this might happen. In retrospect I wonder how the enviromental impact from the increased entropy caused by the design choice of lead free solder would have stacked up against just using solder with lead and avoiding all the mess.

Re:What's going on.....

[afidel]

Now scaler chip makes a LOT more sense to me than the GPU. Everyone knows ATI was the partner for the GPU and there would be few people in the industry that would call a GPU an ASIC. A scaler chip is very much an ASIC and I can see where MS might decide to do their own scaler chip, but they had no chance of doing their own modern GPU without a partner.

Re:What's going on.....

[mabhatter654]

emphasis would be that ATI partnered on the design they didn't sell the chips, just helped. Last Xbox, Nvidia provided the finished chips just like any other video card for a PC. This round Microsoft cut out Nvidia and only paid ATI for "help", then cut a deal with TSMC themselves for production costs.

Microsoft left a trail of bad mojo with Nvidia over pricing of chips when Microsoft intended to lose money and kept beating them up... then they didn't cut Nvidia in on the new (profitable) one. I'm sure ATI took that with a grain of salt that they would get cut out of the credit just as soon as possible. Hence Microsoft engineers didn't stick around to listen to thermal requirements which ATI is usually better at.

I'd expect guys at Garter to be privy to such deals as it's the kind of thing the Street LOVES when you can brag about cutting out profit for your partners when a product is successful. It's more of a "oops" than a show stopping problem... other than that design error (most of the problems were because of the thermal design) the product is a wild success and microsoft "owes" no partners credit for the win. Note they don't put the IBM Power technology on the OUTSIDE of the box either. Nintendo got beat up by both companies for not giving credit for Wii versus Gamecube (that had both stickers) but both companies rolled over for the M$.

Re:What's going on.....

[gripen40k]

Yeah, I would have to concur that the scaler chip is a much more likely candidate for this mystery ASIC than the GPU.

I'm sure proprietary IP for scalars can be bought up cheap and thrown into a design in under a year, but a GPU? I would say that's bordering on impossible to accomplish in that time period.

Re:What's going on.....

[i.of.the.storm]

everyone knows ATI have always been fabless

Hmm? What can you say about that though? Just curious. I agree, it is not that big of a problem. Hmm, both my Wii and my Gamecube have ATI stickers but I think only the Wii box has an IBM sticker. Dunno if the actual Wii itself has one to be honest.

Re:What's going on.....

[Ritchie70]

Dunno why Lewis being wrong is upsetting.

Everything I've ever heard as a "Gartner opinion" got one of two reactions from me:

1. Well duh.
2. No, that's obviously wrong.

Looks like this is #2.

Re:What's going on.....

[perpetual pessimist]

Lewis seems to be just plain wrong, which is kind of upsetting for "chief researcher" at a firm like Gartner, especially when the correct information is freely available.

Gartner is always wrong. I have never seen them get anything right, unless it's about as obvious at what direction the sun will rise in the morning.

I do enjoy Gartner's existence, though, as it's helpful to know where some of the morons are stockpiled.

Re:What's going on.....

[MagikSlinger]

Gartner gets something wrong? Say it ain't so!
</sarcasm>

Re:What's going on.....

[SuiteSisterMary]

One of the ways that consoles drop in price over the years is the manufacturer re-engineering the chips; the classic example is a 1st generation Playstation 1; crack one open, and it's literally stuffed. Open a last-generation Playstation One (in the same case design; not the PSOne) and it's an itty bitty circuit board with an itty bitty chip or two and a cable to the CD-ROM.

Or the entire PS1 then being used as the controller input chip in the PS2. And the PS2 then fitting, on a chip, in the PS3.

With the Xbox, Microsoft didn't have the ability to do this. The CPU was a OTS Celeron, and the graphics chips was being supplied, as-is, by Nvidia. Hence, the price could never really drop, as Microsoft couldn't come up with cheaper ways to manufacture.

Nor could they come to, shall we say, 'terms' with Nvidia.

They wanted to avoid this problem with the 360; hence, they made it a specific requirement that all rights for the chips (GPU in this case; I'm not sure about the CPU) go to Microsoft.

Re:What's going on.....

[randyest]

there would be few people in the industry that would call a GPU an ASIC

Huh? I'm in the industry, and I'd call a GPU an ASIC. ASIC means Application-Specific Integrated Circuit. A GPU is application specific, and it's an integrated circuit, is it not? I mean, GPUs aren't full custom designs, nor are they ASSPs (Application-Specific Standard Product) so what are they if not ASICs? (Note: I work for an ASIC vendor and have been involved in designing many GPUs!)

Re:What's going on.....

[afidel]

I'd argue that modern GPU's aren't application specific, hence things like gpgpu. I'd say they are their own category like CPU's. Perhaps I'm not enough into the hardware side to understand the usage but I think of ASIC's and ASSP's as purpose built chips which are distinct from parts like CPU's, GPU's, FPGA's and programmable DSP's which tend to be more flexible in their abilities.

Re:What's going on.....

[randyest]

A great number of ASICs include CPU cores! Many have DSP cores too! What now? ;) GPUs certainly are application-specific; they process graphics! CPUs that most people think of when they hear "CPU", like an Intel x86, are standard products (ASSPs) but they tend to be made as "full-custom" because the volumes are high enough to justify expensive and time-consuming hand-layout of every transistor to get a smaller die (lower piece-price) and better performance. But anyone can buy them, which makes them "standard products.". ASICs, on the other hand, tend to be made for one customer only. ASSPs are ASICs made to be generic enough to appeal to more than one customer. And there are far, far more CPUs inside ASICs than Intel and IBM has ever sold. Ever hear of ARM?

Some Terminology Definitions

[omar.sahal]

I remember when Microsoft kept saying ATI are our partners to everyone. It all ends the same way though (with Microsoft ending up with very similar technology and the partner relationship never being herd of again). They should never have got mixed up with Microsoft. How many companies have they done this to before
P.S
ASIC
ASSP

Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[dfsmith]

Consider: would you rather spend $10M on a platform that may flop and not make a dime

OR

Spend $1B on a platform that has made multi-billions.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[Nossie]

xbox 360 turns a profit - JUST

still got a while to pay back for the original xbox sink hole

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[PJ1216]

I'm not sure of the numbers, but finally turning a profit one quarter does not mean you've finally made up all the money you lost all the past quarters from selling the systems at a loss. It just means they're no longer selling them at a loss. They had already dug a hole, but finally started to climb out instead of going deeper. It doesn't necessarily mean they are out of it though. They *could* be at this point, but that article says nothing the platform making up the billions it had already lost. Eventually they will and maybe they have at this point in time, but that article is a red herring. It just means they stopped losing money.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[Ucklak]

Income of $524 million
Loss of $423 million
Equals a spread of $947 million, almost 1 billion.

Add the $1 billion recall, still looks like Vista and Office are paying for the XBOX 360.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[JKatan]

Dont think that really applies in this case. MS makes Billions every quarter. 10 million is a very small percentage of their earnings to investment ratio. really its just greediness that came back to bite them in the stink hole.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I'm missing something in your math, but wouldn't one *subtract* the loss from the income to get the spread?

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[aliquis]

It indeed have lost multi-billions, just because it have just recently started to earn them some money don't make all the old losses go away.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[Hal_Porter]

Income of $524 million
Loss of $423 million
Equals a spread of $947 million, almost 1 billion.

Add the $1 billion recall, still looks like Vista and Office are paying for the XBOX 360. Yup, just goes to show you that engineering elegance is not the same as profitability.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[AmigaMMC]

I'm not sure about you guys maths (or Microsoft's for that matter) but typically when a company turns a profit it means it has covered all previous losses.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[goose-incarnated]

He didn't say "profit" above, he said "income'.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[Cornelius the Great]

Typically, the accounting news only covers a specific period of time (for public companies like MS, they're posted every quarter). It's not uncommon to operate at a loss for several quarters only to receive a few quarters of profitability in the future. There's a reason why publicly-traded tech companies don't pay out dividends to shareholders- they're expected to save and reinvest their profits later to finance new projects.

The original article started that the Xbox360 just started posting a profit for the quarter, which leaves several previous quarters in the red (since Fall '05, anyway). So it may still be a while before Microsoft's investment (or losses) are paid back in full. Or in the original Xbox's case, it might just remain a total loss this generation. Similarly, Sony has posted nothing but losses on PS3 and recently announced they may start seeing gains within the year.

As it stands, Nintendo is the only console maker in the black for this generation.

Re:Going cheap may well be the sensible way...

[AmigaMMC]

My bad

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ

[renegadesx]

Actually Goatse Troll is on topic for once! Red Ring of Death! Get it?

apology

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Meta-modding until I get an apology for being rtbl'd.

I apologize for you getting rtbl'd.

Re:apology

[TeraCo]

Woohoo. I'm still not going to metamoderate though. Time to change my sig I guess.

Obligatory Simpson's Quote

[johnny cashed]

Ha ha!

Penny wise - Pound foolish

[rainer_d]

'Nuff said.
But it's the effort that counts, isn't it? ;-)

Re:Feb. 2008 SquareTrade found a 16.4% failure rat

[brkello]

It doesn't seem to be a matter of if it would break, but when.

This is true of all products. Nothing lasts forever. In this case, not forever is a few months :) But I haven't had a problem with mine.

Vote parent up

[imsabbel]

The article is COMPLETE, UTTER bullshit.

Years before the xbox360 has been released ATI was already announced as the system parter for the GPU. No "secret unnamed ASIC vendor" anywhere.
The recall, again, was thermal problems.

Do you really think a completely different GPU by a completely different company could have been designed in a year _and_ totally compatible with the original one?

Re:Vote parent up

[i.of.the.storm]

Seriously, I thought it was common knowledge that the GPU was ATI. Don't know how this article even got here.

Re:Vote parent up

[Pete Brubaker]

Both of you are completely right. The alpha dev-stations were Mac G5s with a special ATI reference board in them. Basically a PS_3_0 chip with more registers and instructions. Plus there wasn't even a recall. They only replaced/repaired units that had problems.

Re:Vote parent up

[vipz]

Maybe it's the tri-core PPC CPU instead of the ATI GPU?

Re:Vote parent up

[randyest]

If this is true, then you should know the name of the ASIC vendor that manufactured the chip for ATI (and helped with the physical design.) Do you know the name of that company?

What Recall?

[cjjjer]

Funny I don't recall a recall only a 3 year warranty extension covering the RoD.

True to /. form allowing an article to spread false truths...

News for Nerds.... Stuff that may or may not be true...

this doesn't seem accurate, it was solderability

[YesIAmAScript]

Look at Bunnie Huang's analysis.

The problem wasn't any chip at all. It wasn't even heat. The problem was the chips were not soldered to the board.

http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=223

Doesn't matter who designed or made the chips. If they aren't soldered down, they won't work. And that's what the problem was. That's why X-clamps (mostly) work.

Heat is semi-tangential. If the chip is soldered down, heat won't pop it off and if it isn't soldered, any kind of movement will break it loose, even when cold. This is how MS could ship you replacement units that were RRoD out of the box. They were fine before they were shipped and were broken loose during shipping.

Most of the problem appears to be solderability problems, not a problem with chip design or manufacturing.

Re:More info please

[Vectronic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems

When a Microsoft Xbox 360 console experiences a "general hardware" failure or "Core Digital" failure, three flashing red lights appear on the power switch's "Ring of Light" in the front of the console. This is commonly referred to as the "Red Ring of Death" ...

The General Hardware Failure error could be caused by cold soldering. The added mass of the CSP chips (including the GPU and CPU) resists heat flow that allows proper soldering of the lead-free solders underneath the motherboard. ...

Another General Hardware Failure is shown by the ring of light flashing one red light, and an error code E 74. This too renders the Xbox unusable. ...

The Nyko Intercooler has also been reported to have caused a general hardware failure in a number of consoles, as well as scorching of the power AC input. ...

An update patch released on November 1, 2006 was reported to "brick" consoles, rendering them useless. ...

In June 2008, the EE Times reports the problems may have started in a graphic chip. The last one is what this article is (mostly) about...

Microsoft: Jack of all trades...

[Socguy]

...master of none.

From what I understand

[DaveCBio]

The issue was a combination of factors. The mounting for the HS on the GPU was cheap and flimsy. Over time with heating and cooling cycles that the GPU would go through the expansion and contraction fatigued the mounting arms which ceased to apply proper pressure. That lead to inadequate contact with the GPU which caused the temp to rise. This eventually melted the GPU solder between the package and the board to the point where some of the connections were broken. That's why the towel trick works. Apparently it heats the solder to the point that it flows again and will often restore the connection. This eventually fails for the same reason the initial failure happened. So, I am not sure WTF the article is talking about.

Re:From what I understand

[YesIAmAScript]

Nothing in that case got hot enough to melt solder. Putting a towel around is not going to heat solder enough to melt it. It's lead free solder even, it doesn't melt until 750F.

Re:From what I understand

[DaveCBio]

Good point. Then how do you think the towel trick works?

Re:From what I understand

[SuiteSisterMary]

At a completely off-the-cuff guess, thermal expansion bringing contact points back into contact.

Re:From what I understand

[DaveCBio]

Right, but what breaks the contact in the first place if the solder doesn't melt? Or does the heat weaken the solder to a breaking point?

Re:From what I understand

[SuiteSisterMary]

Although the technical details are interesting, they're ultimately irrelevant; for whatever reason, a part fails where it shouldn't, and the two most likely reasons both boil down to 'design flaw.'

Re:this doesn't seem accurate, it was solderabilit

[Whiteox]

In the early days my son, it was called 'socket creep'.
Just take the cover off and press down firmly with a little wiggle....

The small case and the lack of cooling is part of

[Joe The Dragon]

The small case and the lack of cooling is part of it as well. This is want happens when look and cutting down on fan noise comes over what the engineers say is needed for the system to work right and not over heat. The mac mini and the mac cube has some of the same trade offs in this area. The Xbox is like to used in a small space so don't cut out the cooling and a bigger size will also put the PSU in side of the box cutting down the small fanless psus from Craping out as well.

Indeed.

[Xest]

Quite why an article could be titled "The truth about..." when it's well, not actually the truth but just mere speculation.

Speculation that is well known to be false and could've been showed up as such with a quick look at the XBox 360 specs which are available in many places that I'm sure Google would oblige to discover.

The issue has already been outed as being to do with cheap solder iirc that simply couldn't stay put under the heat of the system over extended periods of time.

Re:this doesn't seem accurate, it was solderabilit

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, for those who don't know who Bunny is, he is critical to the hacking of the original XBox... he was the one who first discovered that (an old version of) the Secret ROM was written to the boot flash, he was the first to sniff hypertransport to read the Secret ROM, and if I remember correctly, he was the one to discover where the Secret ROM was (Though after the secret rom in boot flash was discovered to be non-functional, which is another thing Bunny was responsible for, it was pretty obvious).

Re:The small case and the lack of cooling is part

[DanJ_UK]

Have you heard the fan on a 360 compared to say, a PS3?

A PS3's fan cools the workhorse of the machine as well as the power circuitry, no?

I'm curious as to why the 360 struggles to keep itself cool + manages to make more noise when the PSU isn't even part of the main console...

Anyone?

Isn't the power supply of a computer one of the main contributors to heat after the processor(s)?

-D

Recall?

[llZENll]

What is this idiot smoking? MS didn't issue a recall, they simply won't charge you $200 to fix your 360 when it breaks due to their design flaw.

Re:Feb. 2008 SquareTrade found a 16.4% failure rat

[roguetrick]

I know one out of about 13 owners that never had to get a refurb. Not all Red Ringers, however.

Re:this doesn't seem accurate, it was solderabilit

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed Bunnie's point completely. When the motherboard rolls of the assembly line, they test the motherboards to ensure that the chips are properly soldered. The manufacture has ovens that monitor the temperature of the cpu/motherboard while the bga chip is melting. You have to make sure that the solder melts all the way, yet you don't want to damage the cpu. After that, they inspect the motherboard with x-rays to ensure that the soldered components are properly aligned and the soldered melted.

Bunnie's point is that the bga joints cracked over time. Different materials expand at different rates when they heat up, the coefficient of thermal expansion. The fiberglass motherboard expanded at different rates than the silicon/epoxy cpu and gpu. Since the Xbox overheated, and was poorly engineered (so Microsoft could beat the PS3 to the market), the motherboard warmed up, and expanded at a different rate than the cpu soldered to it. As a result, the solder joints were under stress, and thus cracked. You can see this in the red die that leaked between the solder pads when Bunnie pried of the cpu.

Inaccuracies Abound

[WinBreak]

Hours before this got Slashdotted, I blogged the inaccuracies... the fact that there WAS NO ACTUAL RECALL, for starters...

Truth vs Opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder this place is turning less and less serious and more and more left wing so to speak..

The title is "The Truth About Last Year's Xbox 360 Recall" where as the editor's note says "an article in which Gartner's Brian Lewis offers his perspective on..."

I know this is slashdot, but do we have to stoop to White House levels of spin?

Some Facts...

[TheNetAvenger]

1) ATI is NOT in the United States. (Yes I know AMD/ATI blah blah) The main point to this is the fab plant and who owns it?

2) Microsoft did design the GPU in concept, but worked with some bright people from ATI and other GPU gurus for the specifics. People can make fun of MS design a GPU, but this isn't their first time around the block, and also gave them the intimate change of pairing GPU hardware and OS technologies.

Look at the PS3, in addition the 'cell' processor that 'didn't need' a GPU to the shipping PS3 with the 'cell' and full Geforce 7800 in it, and yet between the two technologies it still can't hold framerates or do anti-aliasing like the Microsoft designed XBox 360. (See recent games like GTAIV where it runs at lower resolutions on the PS3.) (And I won't even go into how slow Blu-Ray makes the device for a game player being significantly slower than DVD and why MS refused to put HD-DVD or Blu-ray in the console as the primary drive. Gamers hate load times and crap framerates.)

3) The 3 Rings of Death is about the Thermal sensor plate and flexing due to high heat. 99.9% of the time. (Also the 3 Rings does not always mean death, most units continue to work once they cool down, etc.) (Google It)

4) As for MS Saving Money for using a non US fab plant and then having to move back to one, sure this is possible, but technically there would be little to no difference UNLESS Microsoft also changed the specification of the chip between the move process. I don't care if the fab plat has Donkeys and a Mule pulling carts out front, the silicon is created according to specification, and you don't get much more exact than this level of specificatinos.

The real story here would more likely be the plastic/plate fab company that was creating the inner X plate/case holder that was warping and causing the 3 Ring problem, a) it was the real problem not the chip and b) would more likely fail specs easier than silicon.

Re:Some Facts...

[Renraku]

The reason GTA4 runs at a lower resolution on the PS3 is because they can do all kinds of nifty effects with the card that aren't all geometry, textures, and shading. They can do a slight motion blur, for example, and have almost everything 100% bump-mapped. In reality, you don't notice that the resolution is slightly lower.

The PS3 COULD run it in 360-resolution, but it might have to sacrifice some of those filters and special effects. I'd rather have a special effect laden game run at slightly lower resolution myself, as long as its hard to notice.

Re:Some Facts...

[TheNetAvenger]

The reason GTA4 runs at a lower resolution on the PS3 is because they can do all kinds of nifty effects with the card that aren't all geometry, textures, and shading. They can do a slight motion blur, for example, and have almost everything 100% bump-mapped. In reality, you don't notice that the resolution is slightly lower.


Um, this is what PS3 owners like to tell themselves before they start crying at bed time maybe...

However, the PS3 is using a virtually off the shelf core Geforce 7800 GPU. The XBox 360 is using a variant of an off the shelf ATI 2600 (prior to the 2600 GPU ever existing.)

The XBox 360 GPU is a unified GPU and handles all DX10 features and effects, the 7800 GPU DOES NOT. (See DX10 and the specifications for Vista came from the XBox 360 team, this is why Vista can kick some serious FrameRates for games and still be a general consumer OS.)

Sure the PS3 could run in the XBox 360 resolution. However, it would lose FPS, and also increase load times.

Don't forget your precious blu-ray that is so freaking slow the game has to be copied to the PS3 Hard Drive to keep up with the XBox 360 DVD player. (Mircrosoft even kindly gave Sony a heads up the slow nature of both HD-DV and Blu-Ray would be a serious issue for fast playing games that load large worlds virtually. (Most games have 'load screens' which are just hell longer on PS3, GTAIV doesn't have that luxury)

The 'blur' effect you are referring to is what they used on the PS3 title to help 'reduce' how noticeable it was there was no anti-aliasing. (See the XBox 360 is not only doing HD resolutions, but anti-aliasing the scene as well.)

The same 'blur' effect has been used in many other games for a long time when Video cards couldn't handle anti-aliasing, especially PC games. Take City of Heroes even on the PC, nice game, has two direct blur settings for distant objects, as they artifact REALLY BAD when there is no anti-aliasing. So if your card can't do it the right way, you flip on the distance blur and the non-aliased distance artifacts are smudged on the screen. Almost anti-aliased quality, but only works well on distant scenes or where detail can be smudged away.

Now if you really want to try to argue the 'blur' effects are something the XBox 360 can't do, I suggest you go grab a whitepaper on the GPU differences between the 360 and the PS3, and even pick up the whitepapers on the consumer counterparts, the NVidia 7800 and ATI 2600 - trust me when I say there are more than a 'few' features the XBox 360 GPU will do that the older NVidia chip just can't handle.

PS I'm a fan of NVidia, run them in every laptop and most desktops I own, even my old beat around traveling laptop is from 2005 simple early dual-core P4 w/HT and has a 7950GTX mobile GPU... Oh, the funny thing is, that 2005 laptop can run games at a higher FPS than the PS3, and even do it at full 1920x1200. Since even though it is a Mobile GPU, the 7950GTX w/512mb is FASTER THAN THE GPU in the PS3. Hope this makes you sleep better at night... :)

Re:Some Facts...

[king-manic]

However, the PS3 is using a virtually off the shelf core Geforce 7800 GPU. The XBox 360 is using a variant of an off the shelf ATI 2600 (prior to the 2600 GPU ever existing.)

The XBox 360 GPU is a unified GPU and handles all DX10 features and effects, the 7800 GPU DOES NOT. (See DX10 and the specifications for Vista came from the XBox 360 team, this is why Vista can kick some serious FrameRates for games and still be a general consumer OS.)

The unified shaders are slower on the XENOS then the non-unified shaders on the RSX. The fact they are unified simply makes it much easier from a programming perspective to keep the Shaders busy. DX10 doesn't add all that much over DX9, which is irrelevant concerning graphics on consoles as DX only specifies an API that must be supported by hardware. Many Console Studios code to the metal, circumventing the API all together.

Don't forget your precious blu-ray that is so freaking slow the game has to be copied to the PS3 Hard Drive to keep up with the XBox 360 DVD player. (Mircrosoft even kindly gave Sony a heads up the slow nature of both HD-DV and Blu-Ray would be a serious issue for fast playing games that load large worlds virtually. (Most games have 'load screens' which are just hell longer on PS3, GTAIV doesn't have that luxury)

Most references to drive speeds of the PS3 vs the 360 are misleading. The DVD standard lists the peak throughput while the BD standard lists the Average throughput. In real life the BD x2 of the PS3 is around 80% of the 360's DVD x12 speeds. The difference is negated by disc caching / installing.

PS I'm a fan of NVidia, run them in every laptop and most desktops I own, even my old beat around traveling laptop is from 2005 simple early dual-core P4 w/HT and has a 7950GTX mobile GPU... Oh, the funny thing is, that 2005 laptop can run games at a higher FPS than the PS3, and even do it at full 1920x1200. Since even though it is a Mobile GPU, the 7950GTX w/512mb is FASTER THAN THE GPU in the PS3. Hope this makes you sleep better at night... :) ...

trust me when I say there are more than a 'few' features the XBox 360 GPU will do that the older NVidia chip just can't handle.

The PS3 is not a general purpose computing unit and is likely cheaper then your Laptop. It does certain things much faster then your lap top (Floating points) and has dramatically better memory bandwidth. These things may come into play later. Notice how many 360 games have massive hardware requirement when ported to the PC despite using a variant of Direct X? Mostly due to difference in how the hardware works. Operation which are fast and almost free on a console would require more time from a graphics card. Conversely things like copious ram which is common on a computer are harder for a console. Thus games Designed for consoles are designed differently then those designed for a PC. It seems you are aware of that but still make the comparison?

Objectively GTA4 on the 360 or PS3 vary by minuscule degrees. Both the PS3 and the 360 are very capable machines for the money and a good competitive run for both would be in the best interest of all gamers.

Re:Some Facts...

[Renraku]

Personally, I don't care if my system is superior to the 360. If I were losing sleep over if I got the best console or not, I'd have more problems to worried about (like if the increase-your-penis-size company I sent $500 in unmarked bills to is legit..since that'd be something else I'd worry about if I were that materialistic)

I have the resources to purchase and maintain them both, if I wanted. At no point did I ask myself, "Which system is better?" Because I knew the differences weren't great enough to say, lock out a bunch of exclusives (like MGS4, and FF13, or Halo 3 and the Forza series). The main reason I'll never get a 360 is because I've seen how much Microsoft cares about supporting their customers. At least two of my friends received replacement 360 systems that were pre-banned from Live, and Microsoft refused to do anything about it. Not to mention the hardware problems.

But guess what? If it weren't for all that, I would own both systems. Then I'd REALLY sleep well at night.

Re:Some Facts...

[TheNetAvenger]

The main reason I'll never get a 360 is because I've seen how much Microsoft cares about supporting their customers

And I would argue the same, but against Sony... I have seen how they treat their SOE customers, and my spouse was directing manager (and store manager) at GameStop for several years.

Sony treated customers like crap from my spouse's point of view, and would slap me if I brought home a Sony product. From 'still smoking' PS2's being returned that burst into flames, to features removed from consoles without even telling the retail market. The return rate on PS2 compared to Xbox was over 10 to 1, and 30% of PS2 returns were due to fire or smoke.

Sony buried these stories and would often even say it was the user's fault and just deny any recourse for repair. This is why GameStop and GameCrazy were selling the hell out of replacment warranties.

Also look at crap they do, like the PS3 and the software emulation they slipped into the PS3 after touting full hardware level emotion engine compatibilty with PS2. (Some units have it, some don't, nice...)

Microsoft screwed up on the 360 replacement of the 3 rings of death. It was a design error, but the techs handling the calls at the call center level were the first level of problems with this, as upper level people at Microsoft had assumed the customers were being taken care of, no matter what.

With the original XBox, even out of warranty, if your system died (usually HD or DVD failure), all you had to do was call them. There was an unspoken policy to get working units back in customers hands as soon as possible, warranty or not.

When the upper brass (like Robbie) got word the tech response team for XBox was not doing this for 360 customers, shit hit the fan on several levels in the company. This is when the 3yr warranty was turned on and all previous jilted customers were not only compensate but also given everything but a hand job.

Sony to this day will still not fix PS2s that are still exploding, less than a month old. (Go talk to a Game store manager, they will have stories for you that will make Sony seem a lot less nice to the user than you could ever imagine Microsoft to have been.)

Sony oversold the capabilities of the PS3, and still try to do that, instead of being honest and explaining the extra cost is for blu-ray, and it may or may not meet the 360 in graphics or performance.

Their whole TWO HDMI ports and dual 1080p displays at the run up to their release was nothing but massive lies, and people still think the PS3 can do this stuff, and it can't.

Microsoft never lied about the 360, the project manager of the 360 team is someone that has a lot of street and professional credibility, so the 360 marketing was cautious to not even imply something out of the range of the product. (Even the XBox emulation was down played, as only being a few titles, and don't expect less popular games to ever run, yet their emulation is transparent to the player 99% of the time, and keeps adding tons of OBSCURE even game titles all the time. I was playing a couple of games last week on a 360 that are not even on the official list, so it better than adverstised even.)

(My personal preference is based on the games I play, and from the original Buffy (ya corny) to Halo and MechAssualt on Live, the PS2/PS3 doesn't offer the same quality of gaming experience, especially for the $5 a month Live fees. Live is top notch, and the 360 features and Blade/Dashboard are simple, but powerful, being everything from a media extender for media center pcs to a great online video store for HD movies.

PS3 Home looks interesting, but after having been burned by SOE from SWG, to EQII, to Matrix, (and the list goes on.), I would like to see a social MMO experience on consoles outside of GamePlay, I just no longer have faith in SOE/Sony doing the concept any justice. (Especially since the Home features keep getting reduced the longer it is delayed. (Smaller environments, less people in shared areas, more instancing of social areas, etc etc.)

That is why I avoid the XBox 360

[Orion Blastar]

First it was that HD-DVD that never got off, then the optional hard drive, and then the red ring of death, and then the recalls.

I just hope the XBox 720 is a lot better. :)

P.S. I still have an Atari 2600 that works great, that 1970's technology was built to last!

Re:That is why I avoid the XBox 360

[Orion Blastar]

So how much did Microsoft pay you to write that anonymous post?

Testing ?

[matt_martin]

This is an interesting spin on a complex problem, and smacks of a bitter "told you so" vendetta.

At a glance it looks like MS forgot to consider the heat dissipation of their GPU, or grossly underestimated it.
YES, this could be a symptom of design inexperience (ASIC or system).
Is it possible/likely that a third party chip could tape out over spec on power dissipation ? You bet.
It still shouldn't have mattered much if somebody had NOTICED the power consumption while testing out the chip and compensated with more heat dissipation hardware.

Even with the chip-level issue unnoticed and given the high failure rates posted all over the web, it would seem that even a small amount (by industry standards) of system-level testing should have identified this problem.

Of course, such testing (and any redesign) takes time and everyone was in a rush to release their latest console...

So you've got to wonder if this is a more general problem of a software company well accustomed to shipping buggy (famously under-tested / under-developed) products moving into the hardware arena than a specific choice of chip designer X vs Y vs in-house ,etc.

Re:More info please

[Raenex]

But there was NOT a recall -- you can't send your box in and get a new one unless it actually breaks:

http://www.xbox.com/en-CA/support/systemsetup/xbox360/resources/warrantyupdate.htm

Not a recall!

[Sockatume]

A recall would be, "hey, these are all completely borked, please send them in for replacements", not the RROD situation which is "hey, these are all completely borked, if yours does go wrong we'll honour our warranty period a bit longer than usual and get you a replacement in maybe 4-8 weeks".

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ

[somersault]

ah, I'd never actually seen what that was meant to be before! Perhaps that was a good thing though.

Re:IGNORE PARENT

[somersault]

We all make mistakes. Cut 'em some slack Sure everyone makes mistakes, but companies are meant to do this thing called 'testing' and have Quality Assurance depts and the like. Everything Microsoft makes seems to start off as a steaming heap, then improves slightly over time as they throw massive amounts of money and lies (or should that be 'marketing') at it.. I wouldn't be surprised if everything MS ever designed - rather than bought in - sucked, to be bluntly honest.

Never happend

[dc ike]

The Xbox 360 was never recalled.

On my XBox, load down seemed to be the issue.

[bohnman]

I received an XBox for Christmas. To my dismay, I began getting the red ring early on. Most often, it would occur when a game began to load, which also seemed to be the point when the more intense graphic sequences would initialize. Usually, if I could proceed beyond this point, I was in the clear and could play. On my rig, the problematic "red ring" did not appear to stem from excessive heat generated from intense rendering. However, from time to time, during gameplay, the graphics would freeze and upon reboot, I would get the red ring. Based on this, I support the theory that the problem stems from a manufacturing issue, such as poor soldering, and not a design issue as was indicated above.

FWIW

[mark72005]

This guy could have been full of it, but I had someone who works for a gamestop tell me that by his store's estimates, at least 30% of the Xbox 360s they sold were defective.

Now, I'm pretty sure people past a certain time frame wouldn't be returning them to the store, so you have to wonder if they don't ALL die eventually from overheating.

Glad I ebayed mine and got a PS3 while it was still working.

Now there's a thing you don't see every day...

[pandrijeczko]

..."truth" and "Microsoft".

Re:More info please

[antek9]

How is the parent posting -- wording aside -- a troll, exactly? TFA and the Slashdot article are indeed wrong about this: There never has been a recall from Microsoft, all they did was to extend the warranty and _set_aside_ one billion dollars to cover for that. Not all consoles out of the first 11 million sold have been sent in and exchanged/fixed yet (whereas some people have (had) to send in their replacement units just the same because the same problem occurred again), so that sum of money obviously hasn't been used up just yet.

Whereas of course some formal recall would have used up a larger percentage of that money on the spot. So let me conclude that their way of handling this is actually better for both Microsoft and the consumer, provided the warranty applies to each and any replacement unit as well. Anyhow: what does happen to Xboxes breaking after the 3-year-warranty has finally run out?

Also a problem with the heatsinks

[halcyon1234]

Looks like there's a few things that can be blowing up inside the ole Box of X. Graphic cards, and also the heat sinks

My Home Theatre equipment guy started doing XBox repairs on commission not to long ago. He just put out a DIY guide for fixing XBox, mostly for if the problem is a heatsink.

Theory of the failure

The common consensus of the cause of the 'red ring of death (RROD)' and 'no video' problems is that there are two main chips on the circuit board of the Xbox that overheat and lift off the PC board. These chips are glued onto the PC board, and each chip has 64 or 128 contact points on the underside of the chip. These contact points are not accessible, as they are directly under the chip.

Over time, heat buildup causes the PC board to warp slightly, and if even one of the contact points between the chip and PC board is broken, the RROD occurs, the box freezes, or you get a black screen with no video.

The Cure

It's pretty common knowledge that the 'X' shaped clamps that hold the heatsinks to the chips cause the warping of the PC board, so the common cure is to replace the spring loaded X clamps with bolts to provide more even pressure between the chip and PC board. Over time however, the PC board will continue to warp slightly, and the failure may return after a few hours, weeks or months of game play. Some Xboxes appear to be permanently repaired and do not fail again after the first repair.

We here also put the multispeed fans into full speed mode which makes the Xbox a bit noisier, but the Xbox runs cooler, and we also modify the air ducting within the unit to redirect more air over the video processor chip, that seems to run hotter than the main CPU.

The Re-Repair

We have found that most re-repairs simply consist of changing the tension of the bolts that hold the heatsinks in place, to change the pressure between the chip and the PC board. Here's how to do that:

(Instructions and several pictures follow)

http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10957

it's ..

[rs232]

It's people like you that give trolls a bad name ..

please mod me up +5, or if I said something to upset you, mod me down =5 .. :)