There are rumours coming from all around the web that IBM will develop and manufacture the CPU for Microsoft?s next-generation game-console known as XBOX 2. The information is fully unofficial, but unexpected decisions may really come from Microsoft, as earlier this year the Redmond, Washington-based software giant changed its graphics and possibly core-logic partner ? now ATI Technologies will make the VPU for the XBOX 2, not NVIDIA, who produced the XGPU for the original XBOX. Even though the deal may be interesting for IBM, there are still a number of obstacles on the company?s way.
One of the trumps XBOX has is its PC-like architecture. It uses Intel IA32 microprocessor, NVIDIA NV25-based GPU integrated into MCH of the system, PC3200 memory, USB connections, Ethernet, conventional HDD as well as Windows operating system. Basically, XBOX is just a PC, it does not contain any special technologies developed for particular console from the ground-up, a paramount advantage of every Sony or Nintendo console. In short, XBOX is based on x86 architecture, works like a PC and may use various components from various suppliers.
Currently IBM supplies its Power processors for high-end servers, a special cut-down version of Power processors for desktop Apple computers, additionally, IBM developed the microprocessor for Nintendo GAMECUBE console, also based on Power architecture. The chips are 64-bit and do not support x86 in any way. This may not be the problem, as there unofficial claims about XBOX 2 incompatibility with XBOX games. However, in case IBM supplies a 64-bit processor for Microsoft?s console, the largest software creator will have to develop a special operating system for the XBOX supporting IBM?s 64-bit CPUs, while other companies involved in the project will probably have to write special drivers.
It is possible that IBM will develop a special processor for the XBOX based on some existing architectures, like x86-64, for instance. Though, historically IBM preferred to utilise its own Power architecture in almost all its processors, such as IBM Gekko designed for the Nintendo GAMECUBE.
I should point out that unless Microsoft and IBM started working on the XBOX 2 CPU back in 2001, IBM will hardly be able to develop a truly special version of its chip for the XBOX 2, as it took Nintendo and IBM about 3 to 4 years to tailor PowerPC micro-architecture for Nintendo GAMECUBE console and create the actual CPU.
To sum up, it is pretty hard to estimate the probability of IBM?s processors in the next-generation console from Microsoft. On the one hand, IBM may deliver a better solution from price : performance point of view than Intel due to some reasons, on the other hand, there are only two years left before the XBOX 2 should emerge, does IBM have enough time to develop that magnificent CPU?
Quote:
There are rumours coming from all around the web that IBM will develop and manufacture the CPU for Microsoft?s next-generation game-console known as XBOX 2.
Microsoft ditches Intel; to move Xbox to PowerPC like those found in Apple Macs
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:20 AM EST
_
"Microsoft's next-generation Xbox will ditch its Intel chip in favor of the same kind of chip used in Apple's Macs -- an IBM PowerPC processor -- IBM and Microsoft announced on Monday," Leander Kahney reports for Wired News. "At least one industry analyst thinks the choice may be the first crack in the so-called 'Wintel' partnership that has dominated the computer industry for decades. Richard Doherty, research director of Envisioneering Group of Seaford, New York, said the announcement could be the first in a more general shift by Microsoft away from Intel."
"For many years, the speculation has been that Apple may migrate to Intel chips to survive. But with the advent of the G5 and a state-of-the-art IBM chip plant in Fishkill, New York, it may be Microsoft that does the migrating," Kahney reports.
"'It's a very big win for IBM. It's a clear change of direction for Microsoft, and it's a very unfortunate surprise for Intel,' he said. 'There's quite a bit of irony here,' he added, referring to the fact that it has always been assumed that Apple would move to Intel, rather than Microsoft moving to the PowerPC, a chip technology co-developed by Apple, IBM and Motorola," Kahney reports.
"Doherty said the PowerPC is very secure and boasts great graphics. 'Intel doesn't have the security IBM does,' he said. He said he hasn't seen any specs, but he said he expects IBM to brief analysts in Silicon Valley on Wednesday morning. Whatever the details, he said the chip will likely perform much like the IBM PowerPC 970, better known as the G5 used in Apple's Power Macs, when it ships in late 2004 or early 2005. 'I think performance will be akin to a G5 today,' he said," Kahney reports.
Something else that people overlook -- the XBox is not a PC. MS used commodity PC parts to build it so that they could get to market quickly, but the business model for those parts is all wrong for the console market.
Actually, it was intended to be a sort-of PC, eventually a network/media PC. Steve Ballmer actually talked about that. The game console thing was the initial hook to get the platform started, but once networking was in place and adoption was up, MS would start adding capabilities.
That might actually have been the XBox's problem: There was a little too much "big picture" in its development. But if you think about it, MS is trying to cater to the digital age by offering publishers a playback system that's absolutely locked down, in hardware and software, and the current commodity platform just isn't well suited to that goal. (Not to mention that the commodity platform can accomodate that other operating system family that just won't go away.)
Actually, it was intended to be a sort-of PC, eventually a network/media PC. Steve Ballmer actually talked about that. The game console thing was the initial hook to get the platform started, but once networking was in place and adoption was up, MS would start adding capabilities.
But that's not a PC. It was a console first and foremost.
I wonder if any one will put up a cash price to anyone who get OSX to run on the xbox2 like they did with linux. Just for the sake of it with the 3 major consoles running some sort of PPC, will we start to see top end games on the mac sooner?
I wonder if any one will put up a cash price to anyone who get OSX to run on the xbox2 like they did with linux. Just for the sake of it with the 3 major consoles running some sort of PPC, will we start to see top end games on the mac sooner?
I doubt, the Nintendo cube, dispite his PPC chip never bringed any games to the mac.
you will notice also that all this chips, even based on the PPC chip will be very differents. The sony one, the cell, will be a multicore chip, based on a simplified PPC core. The XboX2 one will be based upon a custom G5 code (perhaps with support of the little endian mode).
As I understand it much of the problems porting PC games to the Mac is do to PC game code written and optimized for x86 and ActiveX/DirectX/etc.
Obviously we don't know all the specifics of the PowerPC chips used in the competing game consoles, but it seems like ports of popular console games would now be ported to a Mac much more easily with ActiveX/etc. ported to PowerPC as well as the main code written specifically for PowerPC.
Is this the case?
This last question raises another in my mind.
I wonder if Microsoft is going to port ActiveX/etc to try and ward off OpenGL?
Has OpenGL been used in the other consoles game code? If so, the port of ActiveX/etc. to PowerPC may lead to the wider adoption of the architecture over the use of OpenGL, which Microsoft would love.
Ow, here's a conspiracy theory... over at www.powerpage.org, they end the article link with "Does this mean we'll soon be able to hack the XBox to boot MacOS X?"
Think about that.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Ow, here's a conspiracy theory... over at www.powerpage.org, they end the article link with "Does this mean we'll soon be able to hack the XBox to boot MacOS X?"
Think about that.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Ow, here's a conspiracy theory... over at www.powerpage.org, they end the article link with "Does this mean we'll soon be able to hack the XBox to boot MacOS X?"
Think about that.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Apple's revenue stream dried up completely.
Boom. Endgame.
Considering that the profit margin on consoles is razor-thin, and profit is mainly supplied by game sales, the thought that OSX would be bootable on the XBox is easy to dismiss. It wouldn't be in Microsofts best interest to provide cheap computers for Apple fans.
MS doesn't care about short-term losses when long-term gains can be had... their entire gaming console division is proof of that.
So they lose some sales for a couple of years. Big deal. If they force Apple to starve enough for them to be open to a buyout... Think long-term. MS does.
I suspect that unless they design the XBox to explicitly *not* be able to boot MacOS X, some enterprising hacker out there will enable it within time, and then it'll be interesting.
It's not a technical problem, at this speculation stage, and if XBox 2 folows XBox for features (ports, etc), and with Darwin being open source...
XBox/Linux didn't take that long, despite MS attempts to stop it.
XBox/MacOS X I would think would be an even more tantalizing tidbit for hackers to go for.
All MS has to do is shrug and say "Well, what can you do?", and let the open source community whittle away at Apple hardware sales.
If Apple put in a technical block, then they lose much of the good will they've garnered in the open source community. If they try a legal block, then they make it even more public, and every Linux geek out there will scream "See, we told you! They're just proprietary!" Bleah.
I'm not saying it *will* happen, just that it's a nasty path that *could* happen without much difficulty.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Apple's revenue stream dried up completely.
Boom. Endgame.
IF MS wanted Apple to falter, they could use more direct means to achieve this goal (like killing Office, developing iApps rip-offs, shutting out the Mac from windows networks etc.).
MS was furious that Linux developers hijacked their platform to run home servers on, no doubt they would be equally furious to see Aqua on the thing
This seems to be a decision to
a) get a really fast CPU for their gaming console
b) remind intel MS has options.
c) get a TCPA platform. We should not forget that IBM was one of the Fritz chips early adopters. No doubt they promised to refine the concept for MS.
MS doesn't care about short-term losses when long-term gains can be had... their entire gaming console division is proof of that.
So they lose some sales for a couple of years. Big deal. If they force Apple to starve enough for them to be open to a buyout... Think long-term. MS does.
I suspect that unless they design the XBox to explicitly *not* be able to boot MacOS X, some enterprising hacker out there will enable it within time, and then it'll be interesting.
You're quite wrong about that. They do, in fact, care about the short-term losses. Their gaming division was projected to reach a much higher level of penetration.
Expect much tighter security controls on the XBox 2, and certainly a non-standard hardware configuration.
While I don't doubt the tenacity of some hackers, the advantages of hacking a console to run OSX are few (other than bragging rights).
IF MS wanted Apple to falter, they could use more direct means to achieve this goal (like killing Office, developing iApps rip-offs, shutting out the Mac from windows networks etc.).
Yes, but direct gets you bad PR, and a seat with the DOJ in front of a judge...
There would be nothing direct about this. They just produce a gaming console, and sit back, perhaps whining a bit about hackers, but effectively shrugging it off.
Some more info on the XBox 2. According to Cnet, SiS will be making the chipset. It would be great if SiS used this or made other PowerPC chipsets to be used in motherboards you could buy and then build your own PPC970 systems with. Even if it didn't run OS X you could still build a kickass linux machine.
Could MS also be contemplating a Mac version of Longhorn? Probably not, but wouldn't that be interesting.
No, but my thought was that they certainly could create a VirtualXbox. With their Connectix tech, and the DirectX libraries ported to PPC, writing a wrapper that runs in OSX would be easy. Why would they do it? Well, sell the app for $99 bucks, and then collect royalities on people buying games for mac.
Of all places, shouldn't people here realize that the Connectix VPC angle is a dubious proposition for Xbox x86 emulation? Seriously, it's no secret that VPC (while great at enabling basic PC functionality) sucks up far too much resources to even hope to do x86-based videogames.
Well, maybe it could happen, but my hunch is to exercise extreme pessimism toward the possibility. We're talkin'bout VPC here- demanding videogames have clearly not been its domain.
Comments
I started a thread about this almost one month to the date posted back on 10-03-03.
I'll just re-post it to throw it in the mix.
General Discussion Topic: IBM to Make CPUs for Microsoft XBOX 2?
Ah, Mouy intreesante!
IBM to Make CPUs for Microsoft XBOX 2?
IBM to Make CPUs for Microsoft XBOX 2?
PowerPC, AMD64-based XBOX 2?
by Anton Shilov
10/03/2003_|_04:33 AM
There are rumours coming from all around the web that IBM will develop and manufacture the CPU for Microsoft?s next-generation game-console known as XBOX 2. The information is fully unofficial, but unexpected decisions may really come from Microsoft, as earlier this year the Redmond, Washington-based software giant changed its graphics and possibly core-logic partner ? now ATI Technologies will make the VPU for the XBOX 2, not NVIDIA, who produced the XGPU for the original XBOX. Even though the deal may be interesting for IBM, there are still a number of obstacles on the company?s way.
One of the trumps XBOX has is its PC-like architecture. It uses Intel IA32 microprocessor, NVIDIA NV25-based GPU integrated into MCH of the system, PC3200 memory, USB connections, Ethernet, conventional HDD as well as Windows operating system. Basically, XBOX is just a PC, it does not contain any special technologies developed for particular console from the ground-up, a paramount advantage of every Sony or Nintendo console. In short, XBOX is based on x86 architecture, works like a PC and may use various components from various suppliers.
Currently IBM supplies its Power processors for high-end servers, a special cut-down version of Power processors for desktop Apple computers, additionally, IBM developed the microprocessor for Nintendo GAMECUBE console, also based on Power architecture. The chips are 64-bit and do not support x86 in any way. This may not be the problem, as there unofficial claims about XBOX 2 incompatibility with XBOX games. However, in case IBM supplies a 64-bit processor for Microsoft?s console, the largest software creator will have to develop a special operating system for the XBOX supporting IBM?s 64-bit CPUs, while other companies involved in the project will probably have to write special drivers.
It is possible that IBM will develop a special processor for the XBOX based on some existing architectures, like x86-64, for instance. Though, historically IBM preferred to utilise its own Power architecture in almost all its processors, such as IBM Gekko designed for the Nintendo GAMECUBE.
I should point out that unless Microsoft and IBM started working on the XBOX 2 CPU back in 2001, IBM will hardly be able to develop a truly special version of its chip for the XBOX 2, as it took Nintendo and IBM about 3 to 4 years to tailor PowerPC micro-architecture for Nintendo GAMECUBE console and create the actual CPU.
To sum up, it is pretty hard to estimate the probability of IBM?s processors in the next-generation console from Microsoft. On the one hand, IBM may deliver a better solution from price : performance point of view than Intel due to some reasons, on the other hand, there are only two years left before the XBOX 2 should emerge, does IBM have enough time to develop that magnificent CPU?
There are rumours coming from all around the web that IBM will develop and manufacture the CPU for Microsoft?s next-generation game-console known as XBOX 2.
First I've heard of it!
Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 11:20 AM EST
_
"Microsoft's next-generation Xbox will ditch its Intel chip in favor of the same kind of chip used in Apple's Macs -- an IBM PowerPC processor -- IBM and Microsoft announced on Monday," Leander Kahney reports for Wired News. "At least one industry analyst thinks the choice may be the first crack in the so-called 'Wintel' partnership that has dominated the computer industry for decades. Richard Doherty, research director of Envisioneering Group of Seaford, New York, said the announcement could be the first in a more general shift by Microsoft away from Intel."
"For many years, the speculation has been that Apple may migrate to Intel chips to survive. But with the advent of the G5 and a state-of-the-art IBM chip plant in Fishkill, New York, it may be Microsoft that does the migrating," Kahney reports.
"'It's a very big win for IBM. It's a clear change of direction for Microsoft, and it's a very unfortunate surprise for Intel,' he said. 'There's quite a bit of irony here,' he added, referring to the fact that it has always been assumed that Apple would move to Intel, rather than Microsoft moving to the PowerPC, a chip technology co-developed by Apple, IBM and Motorola," Kahney reports.
"Doherty said the PowerPC is very secure and boasts great graphics. 'Intel doesn't have the security IBM does,' he said. He said he hasn't seen any specs, but he said he expects IBM to brief analysts in Silicon Valley on Wednesday morning. Whatever the details, he said the chip will likely perform much like the IBM PowerPC 970, better known as the G5 used in Apple's Power Macs, when it ships in late 2004 or early 2005. 'I think performance will be akin to a G5 today,' he said," Kahney reports.
Originally posted by Programmer
Something else that people overlook -- the XBox is not a PC. MS used commodity PC parts to build it so that they could get to market quickly, but the business model for those parts is all wrong for the console market.
Actually, it was intended to be a sort-of PC, eventually a network/media PC. Steve Ballmer actually talked about that. The game console thing was the initial hook to get the platform started, but once networking was in place and adoption was up, MS would start adding capabilities.
That might actually have been the XBox's problem: There was a little too much "big picture" in its development.
Originally posted by Amorph
Actually, it was intended to be a sort-of PC, eventually a network/media PC. Steve Ballmer actually talked about that. The game console thing was the initial hook to get the platform started, but once networking was in place and adoption was up, MS would start adding capabilities.
But that's not a PC. It was a console first and foremost.
Originally posted by cybermonkey
I wonder if any one will put up a cash price to anyone who get OSX to run on the xbox2 like they did with linux. Just for the sake of it with the 3 major consoles running some sort of PPC, will we start to see top end games on the mac sooner?
I doubt, the Nintendo cube, dispite his PPC chip never bringed any games to the mac.
you will notice also that all this chips, even based on the PPC chip will be very differents. The sony one, the cell, will be a multicore chip, based on a simplified PPC core. The XboX2 one will be based upon a custom G5 code (perhaps with support of the little endian mode).
So how does this help Mac gaming?
As I understand it much of the problems porting PC games to the Mac is do to PC game code written and optimized for x86 and ActiveX/DirectX/etc.
Obviously we don't know all the specifics of the PowerPC chips used in the competing game consoles, but it seems like ports of popular console games would now be ported to a Mac much more easily with ActiveX/etc. ported to PowerPC as well as the main code written specifically for PowerPC.
Is this the case?
This last question raises another in my mind.
I wonder if Microsoft is going to port ActiveX/etc to try and ward off OpenGL?
Has OpenGL been used in the other consoles game code? If so, the port of ActiveX/etc. to PowerPC may lead to the wider adoption of the architecture over the use of OpenGL, which Microsoft would love.
Originally posted by Programmer
But that's not a PC. It was a console first and foremost.
For suitably vague definitions of "first" and "foremost," yes.
Originally posted by tink
So how does this help Mac gaming?
It doesn't. You're correct that most of the problem there is dependence on MS libraries, not the CPU the game happens to run on.
It helps Apple indirectly by strengthening the PowerPC.
Think about that.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Apple's revenue stream dried up completely.
Boom. Endgame.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Ow, here's a conspiracy theory... over at www.powerpage.org, they end the article link with "Does this mean we'll soon be able to hack the XBox to boot MacOS X?"
Think about that.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Apple's revenue stream dried up completely.
Boom. Endgame.
Don't worry, this won't happen.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Ow, here's a conspiracy theory... over at www.powerpage.org, they end the article link with "Does this mean we'll soon be able to hack the XBox to boot MacOS X?"
Think about that.
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Apple's revenue stream dried up completely.
Boom. Endgame.
Considering that the profit margin on consoles is razor-thin, and profit is mainly supplied by game sales, the thought that OSX would be bootable on the XBox is easy to dismiss. It wouldn't be in Microsofts best interest to provide cheap computers for Apple fans.
So they lose some sales for a couple of years. Big deal. If they force Apple to starve enough for them to be open to a buyout... Think long-term. MS does.
I suspect that unless they design the XBox to explicitly *not* be able to boot MacOS X, some enterprising hacker out there will enable it within time, and then it'll be interesting.
Originally posted by Programmer
Don't worry, this won't happen.
Care to explain why not?
It's not a technical problem, at this speculation stage, and if XBox 2 folows XBox for features (ports, etc), and with Darwin being open source...
XBox/Linux didn't take that long, despite MS attempts to stop it.
XBox/MacOS X I would think would be an even more tantalizing tidbit for hackers to go for.
All MS has to do is shrug and say "Well, what can you do?", and let the open source community whittle away at Apple hardware sales.
If Apple put in a technical block, then they lose much of the good will they've garnered in the open source community. If they try a legal block, then they make it even more public, and every Linux geek out there will scream "See, we told you! They're just proprietary!" Bleah.
I'm not saying it *will* happen, just that it's a nasty path that *could* happen without much difficulty.
Originally posted by Kickaha
MS ships a box that geeks can boot MacOS X on, which they *really* want to do but don't want to buy Apple hardware for, seeing it as too expensive.
Apple's revenue stream dried up completely.
Boom. Endgame.
IF MS wanted Apple to falter, they could use more direct means to achieve this goal (like killing Office, developing iApps rip-offs, shutting out the Mac from windows networks etc.).
MS was furious that Linux developers hijacked their platform to run home servers on, no doubt they would be equally furious to see Aqua on the thing
This seems to be a decision to
a) get a really fast CPU for their gaming console
b) remind intel MS has options.
c) get a TCPA platform. We should not forget that IBM was one of the Fritz chips early adopters. No doubt they promised to refine the concept for MS.
Originally posted by Kickaha
MS doesn't care about short-term losses when long-term gains can be had... their entire gaming console division is proof of that.
So they lose some sales for a couple of years. Big deal. If they force Apple to starve enough for them to be open to a buyout... Think long-term. MS does.
I suspect that unless they design the XBox to explicitly *not* be able to boot MacOS X, some enterprising hacker out there will enable it within time, and then it'll be interesting.
You're quite wrong about that. They do, in fact, care about the short-term losses. Their gaming division was projected to reach a much higher level of penetration.
Expect much tighter security controls on the XBox 2, and certainly a non-standard hardware configuration.
While I don't doubt the tenacity of some hackers, the advantages of hacking a console to run OSX are few (other than bragging rights).
Originally posted by Smircle
IF MS wanted Apple to falter, they could use more direct means to achieve this goal (like killing Office, developing iApps rip-offs, shutting out the Mac from windows networks etc.).
Yes, but direct gets you bad PR, and a seat with the DOJ in front of a judge...
There would be nothing direct about this. They just produce a gaming console, and sit back, perhaps whining a bit about hackers, but effectively shrugging it off.
Oliver Stone would love it.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Could MS also be contemplating a Mac version of Longhorn? Probably not, but wouldn't that be interesting.
No, but my thought was that they certainly could create a VirtualXbox. With their Connectix tech, and the DirectX libraries ported to PPC, writing a wrapper that runs in OSX would be easy. Why would they do it? Well, sell the app for $99 bucks, and then collect royalities on people buying games for mac.
Well, maybe it could happen, but my hunch is to exercise extreme pessimism toward the possibility. We're talkin'bout VPC here- demanding videogames have clearly not been its domain.