IBM Xbox CPU Win

Microsoft Turns to IBM for Next Xbox Chip (thanks TeamXbox, who'd like to say they told you so) has word that Big Blue has scored the contract to supply CPUs for the next-generation Xbox in twist reminiscent of Intel's triumph over AMD to supply chips for the first version of the console. IBM manufactured or licensed chips are also used in the GameCube and will power the next generation PlayStation. Word is: "The next version of Xbox is expected to be announced in January by Microsoft founder and Chairman Bill Gates (news - web sites) and to be on sale next fall ahead of the holidays, according to [Richard Doherty, of Seaford, New York-based Envisioneering, a technology advisory company]."
View : : :
29 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
29.
 
Re: No Conspiracy
Nov 5, 2003, 23:06
29.
Re: No Conspiracy Nov 5, 2003, 23:06
Nov 5, 2003, 23:06
 
Looks like I'm not the only one thinking this. See this article, which was written later from the post below ... ^_^
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12523

Cheers.

28.
 
Re: No Conspiracy
Nov 4, 2003, 15:21
28.
Re: No Conspiracy Nov 4, 2003, 15:21
Nov 4, 2003, 15:21
 
Here is something else to think about -

IBM and AMD have some sort of agreement where they plan to share technology on 64-bit computing. Think may be AMD will some how, some way, end up providing the processor for XBox 2?

You cannot make anything fool-proof. The fools are too inventive

GW: Tr Gandhi (Ra), Shiva Sung (Mo), Mangal Pandey (Ne), Rana Pratap Singh (Wa), Boddhi Satwa (Ri), Bhagat Singh (De), Bahadur Shastri (Pa)
Avatar 11944
27.
 
Re: No Conspiracy
Nov 4, 2003, 13:28
27.
Re: No Conspiracy Nov 4, 2003, 13:28
Nov 4, 2003, 13:28
 
IBM made punch cards for the nazis.
Im Soupkin.
I hope i dont have aids.
http://users.ign.com/collection/Serious_Soup)
s{Postal 2 sucks.
26.
 
No Conspiracy
Nov 4, 2003, 09:54
26.
No Conspiracy Nov 4, 2003, 09:54
Nov 4, 2003, 09:54
 
IBM is just Fabricating the product no more. There just picking up new contracts thats it. IBM is one of the few that can manufacture some of these new technologies that been developed over the last couple years. The video game industry just happens to be a customer to these new technologies. If you need something done and there is only one place you can get it done you go there don't you??


25.
 
Re: IBM Xbox CPU Win ??? Conspiracy Theory..
Nov 4, 2003, 04:08
25.
Re: IBM Xbox CPU Win ??? Conspiracy Theory.. Nov 4, 2003, 04:08
Nov 4, 2003, 04:08
 
How about MS dropping the x86 architecture for the next Xbox because they don't want people hacking cheap linux box out of them?

Also, don't forget the new Xbox2 will basically be a Macintosh...wow !
Maybe this means more games on the mac in the future and less Xbox2 games ported on the PC ?
If the Xbox2 uses powerPC chip forget backward compatibility it is out of the question.
PowerPC is a RISC chip and Intel/AMD are CISC chips They'd have to emulate old Xbox games in software. That won't happen.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 04:15.
24.
 
IBM Xbox CPU Win ??? Conspiracy Theory..
Nov 4, 2003, 03:53
24.
IBM Xbox CPU Win ??? Conspiracy Theory.. Nov 4, 2003, 03:53
Nov 4, 2003, 03:53
 
I am guessing here but let's see here...
ATI manufactures the graphics components for Nintendo.
AIT is going to manufacture the graphics componenets for Xbox.
IBM manufactures the CPU and architecture for Nintendo.
IBM manufactures the CPU and possibly some of the architecture for PS3.
IBM is going to manufacture the CPU and possibly the architecture for Xbox2.

Question : Does IBM have the rights to use PS3 technology and GameCube for other things, possibly another competitor Xbox2 ?

Possible Outcome : IBM uses all these great technology or some amalgamation of these technology as well as their fabrication processes to manufacture a POWERPC processor for the Xbox2, which is not backward compatible to Xbox, thus informing the users that if they want to play new games, they will have to buy the new platform. Users being as they are will probably buy new platform to get the latest games, thus filling Microsoft's coffers.
Microsoft probably will buy over one of its competitors to get the games from that platform on to its own (read N...o).
Microsoft will probably sell a emulation kit with the latest Xbox2 to allow the playing of Xbox games on the new platform, ie. x86 on Apple via a daughter card ?

Microsoft's plan to segregate the PC platform for business and the Xbox platform for games will use its clout in the industry to get all Computer Games companies to move to the new platform, eliminating one major source of headache for them which is to support performance ie. games on Windows platform.
Microsoft will revamp their whole windows platform to fight against Linux by eliminating unneeded stuff such as directX, audio, video, etc. which will move to Xbox2.

Anything else ???
Though this whole thing may hinge on the fact of licensing of the technologies.
Just my 0.01 cents worth of thought. Any constructive thoughts ???


23.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 20:29
23.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 20:29
Nov 3, 2003, 20:29
 
This explains the guy who lost his job at MS because he posted pics of a delivery truc unloading a couple of stacks of G5 on his web blog (online diary) or whatever you want to call those things! The guy was not very smart, their is a thing called industrial espionage that has been arround for decades, posting pics like those is asking to be fired.

Avatar 19242
22.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 18:15
JM
22.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 18:15
Nov 3, 2003, 18:15
JM
 
Oh yeah, I just built up Athlon 64 system this weekend, and it rocks! Don't have the 64-bit OS, but it is rocking fast even on 32-bit OS

Same here! I'm thoroughly impressed with 32-bit performance. I'm looking forward to getting hold of this http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html as a way to check out 64-bit.

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 18:15.
21.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 17:19
21.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 17:19
Nov 3, 2003, 17:19
 
hmm
i wonder how microsoft is going to price the new xbox now.
Im Soupkin.
I hope i dont have aids.
http://users.ign.com/collection/Serious_Soup)
s{Postal 2 sucks.
20.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 17:11
20.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 17:11
Nov 3, 2003, 17:11
 
Since the Xbox SDK uses a focused derivative of the DirectX API, most hardware differences should be abstracted away from the developer.

I agree. However, ask Valve how reliable that is. Imagine if, with XBox2, Halo ran like cr@p. People would freak.

In a perfect world, seamless translation works. However, the difference between ATI and nVidia is sometimes more than moderate.

"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
19.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 17:10
19.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 17:10
Nov 3, 2003, 17:10
 
I seriously doubt they'd spend the time to make anything backwards compatible if they don't have to.

Actually, if there is one thing Microsoft has strived for admirably, in my opinion, it's backwards compatibility. Many of my old crappy DOS games still work in Windows 2000. Not all of them, admittedly, but most of them I can still get to function.

So I would be seriously surprised if the Xbox2 wouldn't be backwards compatible with the Xbox, especially since Sony is already hinting that the PSX3 will be backwards compatible just as the PSX2 was.

As for MS releasing early hoping to "cash in", Sega tried that for approximately ten years, it never kept them afloat, so it would be a stupid strategy I would think.

Creston


Avatar 15604
18.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 16:38
18.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 16:38
Nov 3, 2003, 16:38
 
Every single piece of hardware and software released thus far on the PC has been backwards compatible for atleast one generation (that is, don't expect highend server software to run on DOS, but you can expect XP to run Win 98 and Win2k apps, for example). The success of companies like MS, Intel and others, and their market dominance/monopoly, has been due to backwards compatibility.

Why do you think AMD is hyping the Hammer processor so much?

Speaking of which, I am surprised MS did not turn to AMD and the Hammer for the next XBOx console and use the simultaneous 64 and 32 bit feature.

Oh yeah, I just built up Athlon 64 system this weekend, and it rocks! Don't have the 64-bit OS, but it is rocking fast even on 32-bit OS

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 16:42.
You cannot make anything fool-proof. The fools are too inventive

GW: Tr Gandhi (Ra), Shiva Sung (Mo), Mangal Pandey (Ne), Rana Pratap Singh (Wa), Boddhi Satwa (Ri), Bhagat Singh (De), Bahadur Shastri (Pa)
Avatar 11944
17.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 16:30
17.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 16:30
Nov 3, 2003, 16:30
 
Theoretically, backward compatability should be relatively easy for the Xbox. Since the Xbox SDK uses a focused derivative of the DirectX API, most hardware differences should be abstracted away from the developer.

Whoever took the shot below at backward compat being a weak area for Microsoft is either blinded by zealotry or is clearly uninformed - they have one of the best track records in the business. No file format changes in the last few versions of Office and they just demo'd Longhorn (nextgen Windows) running 20-year-old DOS software.

If Xbox2 is not backward compatible, that will be a huge mistake and they will not catch up with the PS2/3. That said, Fall 2004 seems like an extremely premature release date for Xbox2. We're just *beginning* to see titles that really exploit the power of the Xbox and it certainly has another year or two of advancement left in it before it begins to stagnate.

I'm not too worried though - we all know how accurate some of this "inside" reporting can be.

16.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 16:14
16.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 16:14
Nov 3, 2003, 16:14
 
You know, I completely agree. However, PC and console is completely different.

Do you remember the new system that didn't use any of the conventional architecture by Jobbs and a few IBM guys? I forget what it was called --- Was years beyond what was currently possible, but flopped. It didn't support anything; no backwards-compatibility.

While Backwards-compatibility does hurt current architecture, you will be hard pressed to make a profit by going away from current architecture. It will eventually have to be done, for our current architecture is very flawed.

So, the point is while not making XBox backwards compatible would help them out in their architecture by improving it, I think it would really hurt the XBox in the long run.

I applauded when PS2 was backwards compatible. That was a brilliant move by Sony.

I think the next generation will have to move on though, to make sure they keep ahead of Microsoft. However, we will have to see.

15.
 
Keyboard / mouse support?
Nov 3, 2003, 16:09
15.
Keyboard / mouse support? Nov 3, 2003, 16:09
Nov 3, 2003, 16:09
 
If they don't have this, I'm not buying it. Why? I'm a FPS fan and nothing beats a kb/mouse for speed of reaction.

My HALO experience on XBOX was a complete bust because of that damn controller never moving fast enough, always a second behind my reaction time.

14.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 16:08
14.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 16:08
Nov 3, 2003, 16:08
 
Changing video cards should not effect compatibility, and neither cpu/mobo architecture.

Unless, of course, you write code that is specific for that particular instruction set in order to optimize performance on a low-cost, low-power platform.

Which is exactly what occurs on all of the consoles. The PS2 is able to play PS1 games purely because they fully emulate the hardware in a single chip on the PS2. If you had to do pure software emulation you'd fail miserably.

IBM creates PowerPCs but they still function the same way.

If you mean that they use transistors and electricity the same way every other chip does, then yeah. If you mean they work just like x86 PCs you'd be very wrong. The PPC ISA is completely and totally different from the x86 ISA. Sure, you can do emulation, but it's slow and buggy.

That said, IBM could certainly produce an advanced x86 chip themselves, or produce a chip that does x86 emulation in hardware (which, technically, is all the P3/P4 and Athlon chips do anyway -- their internal cores do not run x86 ISA), but that wouldn't be very cost effective for IBM seeing as how they've been out of the x86 game for a long time now. They flirted with it briefly when the PowerPC series first debuted, but it went nowhere fast.

13.
 
2004 or 2005?
Nov 3, 2003, 15:41
13.
2004 or 2005? Nov 3, 2003, 15:41
Nov 3, 2003, 15:41
 
2004's next Fall? Thats kinda early as I think the current XBOX has lots of potential left. But it wouls sure beat the PS3 to the game and that may be a good thing, especially if it has extra features like TIVO and PLA support.

12.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 15:37
12.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 15:37
Nov 3, 2003, 15:37
 
Actually aguita one could argue that *ensuring* backward compatibility has hindered MS and the PC in the past. Think how much faster and more reliable Windows and the PC in general would be if MS had not wanted to make sure people could still run their old DOS apps and maintain compatibility with older hardware as well. The popular conception that one reads on /. and some other sites that MS got where they are today by screwing the user is just that, a myth.

11.
 
No subject
Nov 3, 2003, 15:34
11.
No subject Nov 3, 2003, 15:34
Nov 3, 2003, 15:34
 
Yes, but this is Microsoft. I seriously doubt they'd spend the time to make anything backwards compatible if they don't have to.

It only makes sense for them to include backwards-compatibility. Think about it...

X-Box sales (units and games) have been so-so. Likewise, their game-library is FAR less than the PS2 and maybe even the GameCube. Starting over from scratch at this point would be pointless for them.

Sure, they're greedy, and it would be an "MS" thing to do to make them non-backwards compatible, and re-release the old XBox games for the XBox 2, but that would hurt them a lot more than it would help.

Getting the people to upgrade would be key, so they'd have to release game exclusively for teh XB2, but they'd still want to milk Halo and Panter Dragoon for every cent they can.

"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
10.
 
Re: Backward Compatibility
Nov 3, 2003, 15:25
10.
Re: Backward Compatibility Nov 3, 2003, 15:25
Nov 3, 2003, 15:25
 
Yes, but this is Microsoft. I seriously doubt they'd spend the time to make anything backwards compatible if they don't have to.

29 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older