In any case everybody seems to assume that these processors are going to the same ones that go into Mac's. They are not. This will be a different processor than you will be finding in your 2004/05/, or /06 Macintosh.
It is, but if you read my post again, you'll see that I was referring to strained silicon, not 90nm. ::/
As for Mac DX: afaik that is merely a translation layer, not a DX implementation for the Mac.
Plus it seems to be OS 9 only.
As for NT PPC:
The last and only version of Windows NT for PPC was version 3.5. It was never released to the broad public either, only a few select people ever got their hands on it.
Going from a 3.5 codebase to a XP codebase is almost rewriting everything from scratch, plus the people who developed the PPC version probably no longer work for MS or have lost all training in PPC programming. Not even talking about 64bit PPC programming for a G5.
The good thing about it: if they port DX to PPC, chances are somewhat higher the Mac will eventually also get it, which would be a terrific chance for having more games come out for the Mac.
I just don't see MS maintaining a DX build for 2 different hardware platforms all along.
In fact I could number a series of things that speak against moving away from x86, but aparently they already made that decision, so there's no point arguing about that anymore.
Where I see no problem is Xbox 1 backwards compatibility:
Assuming they get soem of VPC technology to run on such a 3 core setup, they really only have to find a way to tape into the graphics accelleration provided by the ATI chip and their problems will be solved.
My Dual 1.25GHz G4 already emulates a Pentium MMX 667Mhz+ under VPC 5. I really don't see any problems in a 3x2GHz, as some think it's going to be, emulating a meager P3 733, IF it doesn't have to do the graphics stuff.
This could also turn out to be a good development for VPC for the Mac. (graphics accelleration anyone?).
Still, I won't believe any of this "stellar-specs-hype" until I see some official press releases on it.
As for Mac DX: afaik that is merely a translation layer, not a DX implementation for the Mac.
Plus it seems to be OS 9 only.
Did you even follow the link I posted? Click it and the very first thing you notice is a prominent "X" icon in the top right corner. Look at the list of "Why MacDX" bullet points and you will find "Seamlessly Supports Mac OS 9.x
and Mac OS X".
I have to say, I hope you researched your other claims a little more deeply.
Geez, I haven't seen so many silly arguments since Motorola was supposed to ship the G5 in 2001.
Microsoft owns the source code to DirectX and they employ thousands of software engineers. You mean to tell me that they can't port it to PowerPC with months (or years) of development time?
IBM is designing PowerPC. Period. Microsoft is not tied to x86, and currently Intel & AMD are so focused on the PC/workstation/server markets that they have nothing appropriate for the game console market. The processor in the existing XBox wasn't particularly appropriate!
IBM has been making all sorts of noise about their "we'll help you design your own flavour of PPC and then fab it for you" program for a couple of years now. They did it for Nintendo. They are working with Sony & Toshiba. Why is it so hard to believe that Microsoft wouldn't take advantage of this? Not doing so can be seen as a disadvantage for them.
Do you really think Microsoft cares about backward compatibility? If you've got XBox games already then you've already got an XBox. If you don't, they'd rather sell you the new ones (and believe me, you'd rather have the new ones). And if there is an XBox game you really must have, don't you think that MS would rather sell you both systems? Most games only sell for the first 6 months they're on the shelves for anyhow. If MS wants to build the right machine for their target market, they will do so and then decide if it is possible (and desirable) to make it BC.
Do you really think Microsoft cares about backward compatibility? If you've got XBox games already then you've already got an XBox. If you don't, they'd rather sell you the new ones (and believe me, you'd rather have the new ones). And if there is an XBox game you really must have, don't you think that MS would rather sell you both systems? Most games only sell for the first 6 months they're on the shelves for anyhow. If MS wants to build the right machine for their target market, they will do so and then decide if it is possible (and desirable) to make it BC.
Sony cared about backward compatibility when they released the PlayStation 2, and Nintendo did with the GameBoy Advanced. Backward compatility makes initial cost of ownership in the upgrade more palitable for the consumer as well as bragging rights for more games available for the new system, therefore it is a good marketing stragegy. I would be willing to bet that the average consumer still purchased 2 or more games when they upgraded from a PS 1 to a PS 2, so Sony made just as much money off of the initial purchase as they did if they didnt have a system that was backward compatible.
Microsoft owns the source code to DirectX and they employ thousands of software engineers. You mean to tell me that they can't port it to PowerPC with months (or years) of development time?
I don't doubt they CAN, I doubt they want to.
Frankly, it would be like a second platform they'd have to maintain, unless they wanted to make it a 100% closed system with no way to update or implement new stuff. Actually looking at it from this perspective, it makes sense.
Still, it makes more sense if you think about IBM making a custom chip for them, not a 976 based one. Custom chip would mean closed system that nobody would hack a linux distro for and that nobody would use to make a true PPC DirectX of, to use it, for example on Mac OS X or Linux PPC. (Maybe I'm totally wrong when I think that Microsoft has absolutely no interest in bringing DX to either of these platforms and will do whatever they can do prevent that from happening).
So, assuming they're aiming for a custom, proprietary closed system platform, why does everyone think they're going to use the 976 chip that is going to have so many cores it's going to outperform a small-sized serverfarm?
It might as well be a very custom chip-fabric similar to the earth simulator, just several thousand times smaller and slower.
That would make tons more sense than having it based off 3 enterprise level high-end server CPUs working in tridem, causing the machine to melt.
basically what I'm trying to argue about is that this "article" is the wet dream of some geeky journalist, while the reality is going to be entirely different, such as pictured above.
I don't doubt MS is going with IBM or moving to PPC. I said I see several things that would have spoken against it, but aparently the egg-heads at MS beg to differ. Probably for a good reason we don't know yet.
Actually we know almost nothing anyway:
-IBM is going to fab a chip of their own design for MS
-ATI is going to fab a chip of their own design for MS
-Xbox2 will be more performant than Xbox1
That's about all we know for sure.
Now make of that whatever you want. Some will make it a 3 core, SMT enabled monster PPC 976 cluster with ATI R500 core and the option to bake bread while playing, luring millions of readers to their website, while others might take a more traditional (and imho sensible) approach and look more towards a mix of a PS1-Gamecube design with custom PPC chips working together with a custom ATI chip to provide excellent performance for specific uses (which is what games are all about). I'm sorry if I'm the only person not seeing a 3 core SMT PPC 976 solution as a "specific use solution". A brute force approach, rather, uneconomic by definition, expensive and overkill.
And everyone who thinks MS is going to spend an extra 1000$ on an Xbox2, just to satisfy the customer, hoping to make up for it in game sales, simply has no clue, really.
The last and only version of Windows NT for PPC was version 3.5. It was never released to the broad public either, only a few select people ever got their hands on it.
Sorry, no. My Windows NT 4.0 CD includes i386, PPC, Alpha, and MIPS, and it is not some special ?select? release.
I started a thread about this in the Software Forum but I dunno if you make it over there as much as here.. anyway... In the Merc news article I saw the following quote: "Internally, Microsoft has begun developing game prototypes, and it is using G5 systems to do so.". IF this was true... could anything be extrapolated about the quantity of QUALITY games that might be made available for the G5/OS X platform in the future?
I just thought that IF (a big IF I know) that statement is true then some of the same games that were made for the XBOX2 might be MORE EASILY be made to run on a G5 box too.. At least more easily than any current XBOX game.
Or am I just kidding myself... Something that most Mac users are pretty go at. (including me)
It is 90nm, but Prescott is a different beast. It has over 100M transistors instead of ~50M in a regular Northwood because of the extra on-die cache and a few other design changes.
I started a thread about this in the Software Forum but I dunno if you make it over there as much as here.. anyway... In the Merc news article I saw the following quote: "Internally, Microsoft has begun developing game prototypes, and it is using G5 systems to do so.". IF this was true... could anything be extrapolated about the quantity of QUALITY games that might be made available for the G5/OS X platform in the future?
I just thought that IF (a big IF I know) that statement is true then some of the same games that were made for the XBOX2 might be MORE EASILY be made to run on a G5 box too.. At least more easily than any current XBOX game.
Or am I just kidding myself... Something that most Mac users are pretty go at. (including me)
Dave
If MS were using Apple G5 machines to develop game prototypes on (big IF), they would most likely not be running MacOS X. Even if they were MS wouldn't take the games beyond the prototype stage on MacOS X and you'd never see any sign of them on the Mac platform. Sorry.
Now make of that whatever you want. Some will make it a 3 core, SMT enabled monster PPC 976 cluster with ATI R500 core and the option to bake bread while playing, luring millions of readers to their website, while others might take a more traditional (and imho sensible) approach and look more towards a mix of a PS1-Gamecube design with custom PPC chips working together with a custom ATI chip to provide excellent performance for specific uses (which is what games are all about). I'm sorry if I'm the only person not seeing a 3 core SMT PPC 976 solution as a "specific use solution". A brute force approach, rather, uneconomic by definition, expensive and overkill.
And everyone who thinks MS is going to spend an extra 1000$ on an Xbox2, just to satisfy the customer, hoping to make up for it in game sales, simply has no clue, really.
I think you're under a serious misapprehension of what a 3 core 9xx-based PPC on a 65nm process is likely to cost next year. And remember that nVidia shipped their leading edge nv25 on the XBox before an equivalent was available on the PC.
Sorry, no. My Windows NT 4.0 CD includes i386, PPC, Alpha, and MIPS, and it is not some special ?select? release.
Interesting, that is total news to me.
Anyone have any info on that? will that only run on IBM Systems (RS6000 etc) or will it also install and run on a Mac?
Because if the later is true, that is really absolute news to me (and I bet several others too).
Ever bothered to install that build?
As for Programmer:
things may be much cheaper in a year, but I doubt it's going to be as cheap as YOU seem to think.
let's assume a 50%, maybe 60% price decline over the next 12 months.
Let's also assume a 2GHz chip costs around 200 maybe 250$ in quantities of 1000. Let's assume a triple core chip with all the interconnects etc costs around three times as much.
Now subtract 60% of the price: that's still a 250$ chip, GPU not included, RAM not included, connectivity not included, case, cooling, software, PSU etc not included.
I don't see that Xbox2 coming in at less than 400$ and that is a VERY steep pricetag for a console, especially in 1 year. And that is with very optimistic assumptions.
Waiting and seeing is what I've been proposing all the time now.
Anyone have any info on that? will that only run on IBM Systems (RS6000 etc) or will it also install and run on a Mac?
Because if the later is true, that is really absolute news to me (and I bet several others too).
Ever bothered to install that build?
I was running it (NT4) on a PPC by Motorola a few years back. It would not install on a Mac, but that's just a minor issue. If MS wanted it to, they could get it to fairly quickly.
If MS were using Apple G5 machines to develop game prototypes on (big IF), they would most likely not be running MacOS X. Even if they were MS wouldn't take the games beyond the prototype stage on MacOS X and you'd never see any sign of them on the Mac platform. Sorry.
I think you're misunderstanding the general idea. I don't think anyone necessarily expects MS to port Xbox2 games to the Mac, but other companies that make Xbox2 games could.
I think you're misunderstanding the general idea. I don't think anyone necessarily expects MS to port Xbox2 games to the Mac, but other companies that make Xbox2 games could.
No, the only people that will be doing XBox2 work right now are MS people. By the time 3rd party developers start MS will have a fully Windows-based solution which communicates with a dedicated developer box. No Macs involved. Some of the work would slightly help bring product to the Mac, but that's true of the GameCube as well and its such a trivial improvement that it doesn't actually matter in practice.
I could be wrong, but as I understand it, the cores themselves don't require the bulk of the transistors. So, 3 cores wouldn't in an of themselves drastically increase transistor counts. Maybe registers, cache etc. might balloon a bit though and those little itty bitty wires connecting stuff may increase somewhat(more layers of silicon?).
Someone with more knowledge please correct me, I sure am out on a limb here with my limited knowledge.
Quote:
G-News
I don't see that Xbox2 coming in at less than 400$ and that is a VERY steep pricetag for a console,..
maybe they'll add some surprise additional capabilities?
Comments
(on top of that you could run MOL)
I thought Prescott is 90 nm...
It is, but if you read my post again, you'll see that I was referring to strained silicon, not 90nm. ::/
As for Mac DX: afaik that is merely a translation layer, not a DX implementation for the Mac.
Plus it seems to be OS 9 only.
As for NT PPC:
The last and only version of Windows NT for PPC was version 3.5. It was never released to the broad public either, only a few select people ever got their hands on it.
Going from a 3.5 codebase to a XP codebase is almost rewriting everything from scratch, plus the people who developed the PPC version probably no longer work for MS or have lost all training in PPC programming. Not even talking about 64bit PPC programming for a G5.
The good thing about it: if they port DX to PPC, chances are somewhat higher the Mac will eventually also get it, which would be a terrific chance for having more games come out for the Mac.
I just don't see MS maintaining a DX build for 2 different hardware platforms all along.
In fact I could number a series of things that speak against moving away from x86, but aparently they already made that decision, so there's no point arguing about that anymore.
Where I see no problem is Xbox 1 backwards compatibility:
Assuming they get soem of VPC technology to run on such a 3 core setup, they really only have to find a way to tape into the graphics accelleration provided by the ATI chip and their problems will be solved.
My Dual 1.25GHz G4 already emulates a Pentium MMX 667Mhz+ under VPC 5. I really don't see any problems in a 3x2GHz, as some think it's going to be, emulating a meager P3 733, IF it doesn't have to do the graphics stuff.
This could also turn out to be a good development for VPC for the Mac. (graphics accelleration anyone?).
Still, I won't believe any of this "stellar-specs-hype" until I see some official press releases on it.
Originally posted by G-News
As for Mac DX: afaik that is merely a translation layer, not a DX implementation for the Mac.
Plus it seems to be OS 9 only.
Did you even follow the link I posted? Click it and the very first thing you notice is a prominent "X" icon in the top right corner. Look at the list of "Why MacDX" bullet points and you will find "Seamlessly Supports Mac OS 9.x
and Mac OS X".
I have to say, I hope you researched your other claims a little more deeply.
Microsoft owns the source code to DirectX and they employ thousands of software engineers. You mean to tell me that they can't port it to PowerPC with months (or years) of development time?
IBM is designing PowerPC. Period. Microsoft is not tied to x86, and currently Intel & AMD are so focused on the PC/workstation/server markets that they have nothing appropriate for the game console market. The processor in the existing XBox wasn't particularly appropriate!
IBM has been making all sorts of noise about their "we'll help you design your own flavour of PPC and then fab it for you" program for a couple of years now. They did it for Nintendo. They are working with Sony & Toshiba. Why is it so hard to believe that Microsoft wouldn't take advantage of this? Not doing so can be seen as a disadvantage for them.
Do you really think Microsoft cares about backward compatibility? If you've got XBox games already then you've already got an XBox. If you don't, they'd rather sell you the new ones (and believe me, you'd rather have the new ones). And if there is an XBox game you really must have, don't you think that MS would rather sell you both systems? Most games only sell for the first 6 months they're on the shelves for anyhow. If MS wants to build the right machine for their target market, they will do so and then decide if it is possible (and desirable) to make it BC.
Originally posted by Programmer
Do you really think Microsoft cares about backward compatibility? If you've got XBox games already then you've already got an XBox. If you don't, they'd rather sell you the new ones (and believe me, you'd rather have the new ones). And if there is an XBox game you really must have, don't you think that MS would rather sell you both systems? Most games only sell for the first 6 months they're on the shelves for anyhow. If MS wants to build the right machine for their target market, they will do so and then decide if it is possible (and desirable) to make it BC.
Sony cared about backward compatibility when they released the PlayStation 2, and Nintendo did with the GameBoy Advanced. Backward compatility makes initial cost of ownership in the upgrade more palitable for the consumer as well as bragging rights for more games available for the new system, therefore it is a good marketing stragegy. I would be willing to bet that the average consumer still purchased 2 or more games when they upgraded from a PS 1 to a PS 2, so Sony made just as much money off of the initial purchase as they did if they didnt have a system that was backward compatible.
Microsoft owns the source code to DirectX and they employ thousands of software engineers. You mean to tell me that they can't port it to PowerPC with months (or years) of development time?
I don't doubt they CAN, I doubt they want to.
Frankly, it would be like a second platform they'd have to maintain, unless they wanted to make it a 100% closed system with no way to update or implement new stuff. Actually looking at it from this perspective, it makes sense.
Still, it makes more sense if you think about IBM making a custom chip for them, not a 976 based one. Custom chip would mean closed system that nobody would hack a linux distro for and that nobody would use to make a true PPC DirectX of, to use it, for example on Mac OS X or Linux PPC. (Maybe I'm totally wrong when I think that Microsoft has absolutely no interest in bringing DX to either of these platforms and will do whatever they can do prevent that from happening).
So, assuming they're aiming for a custom, proprietary closed system platform, why does everyone think they're going to use the 976 chip that is going to have so many cores it's going to outperform a small-sized serverfarm?
It might as well be a very custom chip-fabric similar to the earth simulator, just several thousand times smaller and slower.
That would make tons more sense than having it based off 3 enterprise level high-end server CPUs working in tridem, causing the machine to melt.
basically what I'm trying to argue about is that this "article" is the wet dream of some geeky journalist, while the reality is going to be entirely different, such as pictured above.
I don't doubt MS is going with IBM or moving to PPC. I said I see several things that would have spoken against it, but aparently the egg-heads at MS beg to differ. Probably for a good reason we don't know yet.
Actually we know almost nothing anyway:
-IBM is going to fab a chip of their own design for MS
-ATI is going to fab a chip of their own design for MS
-Xbox2 will be more performant than Xbox1
That's about all we know for sure.
Now make of that whatever you want. Some will make it a 3 core, SMT enabled monster PPC 976 cluster with ATI R500 core and the option to bake bread while playing, luring millions of readers to their website, while others might take a more traditional (and imho sensible) approach and look more towards a mix of a PS1-Gamecube design with custom PPC chips working together with a custom ATI chip to provide excellent performance for specific uses (which is what games are all about). I'm sorry if I'm the only person not seeing a 3 core SMT PPC 976 solution as a "specific use solution". A brute force approach, rather, uneconomic by definition, expensive and overkill.
And everyone who thinks MS is going to spend an extra 1000$ on an Xbox2, just to satisfy the customer, hoping to make up for it in game sales, simply has no clue, really.
Originally posted by G-News
As for NT PPC:
The last and only version of Windows NT for PPC was version 3.5. It was never released to the broad public either, only a few select people ever got their hands on it.
Sorry, no. My Windows NT 4.0 CD includes i386, PPC, Alpha, and MIPS, and it is not some special ?select? release.
Just a random question for you...
I started a thread about this in the Software Forum but I dunno if you make it over there as much as here..
I just thought that IF (a big IF I know) that statement is true then some of the same games that were made for the XBOX2 might be MORE EASILY be made to run on a G5 box too.. At least more easily than any current XBOX game.
Or am I just kidding myself... Something that most Mac users are pretty go at. (including me)
Dave
Originally posted by Socrates
I have to say, I hope you researched your other claims a little more deeply.
Originally posted by FotNS
Sorry, no. My Windows NT 4.0 CD includes i386, PPC, Alpha, and MIPS, and it is not some special ?select? release.
So that'll be a "no" then
Originally posted by PB
I thought Prescott is 90 nm...
It is 90nm, but Prescott is a different beast. It has over 100M transistors instead of ~50M in a regular Northwood because of the extra on-die cache and a few other design changes.
Originally posted by DaveGee
Programmer,
Just a random question for you...
I started a thread about this in the Software Forum but I dunno if you make it over there as much as here..
I just thought that IF (a big IF I know) that statement is true then some of the same games that were made for the XBOX2 might be MORE EASILY be made to run on a G5 box too.. At least more easily than any current XBOX game.
Or am I just kidding myself... Something that most Mac users are pretty go at. (including me)
Dave
If MS were using Apple G5 machines to develop game prototypes on (big IF), they would most likely not be running MacOS X. Even if they were MS wouldn't take the games beyond the prototype stage on MacOS X and you'd never see any sign of them on the Mac platform. Sorry.
Originally posted by G-News
Now make of that whatever you want. Some will make it a 3 core, SMT enabled monster PPC 976 cluster with ATI R500 core and the option to bake bread while playing, luring millions of readers to their website, while others might take a more traditional (and imho sensible) approach and look more towards a mix of a PS1-Gamecube design with custom PPC chips working together with a custom ATI chip to provide excellent performance for specific uses (which is what games are all about). I'm sorry if I'm the only person not seeing a 3 core SMT PPC 976 solution as a "specific use solution". A brute force approach, rather, uneconomic by definition, expensive and overkill.
And everyone who thinks MS is going to spend an extra 1000$ on an Xbox2, just to satisfy the customer, hoping to make up for it in game sales, simply has no clue, really.
I think you're under a serious misapprehension of what a 3 core 9xx-based PPC on a 65nm process is likely to cost next year. And remember that nVidia shipped their leading edge nv25 on the XBox before an equivalent was available on the PC.
Tell you what -- let's just wait and see.
Sorry, no. My Windows NT 4.0 CD includes i386, PPC, Alpha, and MIPS, and it is not some special ?select? release.
Interesting, that is total news to me.
Anyone have any info on that? will that only run on IBM Systems (RS6000 etc) or will it also install and run on a Mac?
Because if the later is true, that is really absolute news to me (and I bet several others too).
Ever bothered to install that build?
As for Programmer:
things may be much cheaper in a year, but I doubt it's going to be as cheap as YOU seem to think.
let's assume a 50%, maybe 60% price decline over the next 12 months.
Let's also assume a 2GHz chip costs around 200 maybe 250$ in quantities of 1000. Let's assume a triple core chip with all the interconnects etc costs around three times as much.
Now subtract 60% of the price: that's still a 250$ chip, GPU not included, RAM not included, connectivity not included, case, cooling, software, PSU etc not included.
I don't see that Xbox2 coming in at less than 400$ and that is a VERY steep pricetag for a console, especially in 1 year. And that is with very optimistic assumptions.
Waiting and seeing is what I've been proposing all the time now.
Originally posted by G-News
Interesting, that is total news to me.
Anyone have any info on that? will that only run on IBM Systems (RS6000 etc) or will it also install and run on a Mac?
Because if the later is true, that is really absolute news to me (and I bet several others too).
Ever bothered to install that build?
I was running it (NT4) on a PPC by Motorola a few years back. It would not install on a Mac, but that's just a minor issue. If MS wanted it to, they could get it to fairly quickly.
Originally posted by Programmer
If MS were using Apple G5 machines to develop game prototypes on (big IF), they would most likely not be running MacOS X. Even if they were MS wouldn't take the games beyond the prototype stage on MacOS X and you'd never see any sign of them on the Mac platform. Sorry.
I think you're misunderstanding the general idea. I don't think anyone necessarily expects MS to port Xbox2 games to the Mac, but other companies that make Xbox2 games could.
Originally posted by bunge
I think you're misunderstanding the general idea. I don't think anyone necessarily expects MS to port Xbox2 games to the Mac, but other companies that make Xbox2 games could.
No, the only people that will be doing XBox2 work right now are MS people. By the time 3rd party developers start MS will have a fully Windows-based solution which communicates with a dedicated developer box. No Macs involved. Some of the work would slightly help bring product to the Mac, but that's true of the GameCube as well and its such a trivial improvement that it doesn't actually matter in practice.
Originally posted by G-News
things may be much cheaper in a year, but I doubt it's going to be as cheap as YOU seem to think.
Okay, but you might want to take into account that I'm the one under NDA.
(bad assumption that a 3 core chip would cost 3 times as much, by the way)
Someone with more knowledge please correct me, I sure am out on a limb here with my limited knowledge.
G-News
I don't see that Xbox2 coming in at less than 400$ and that is a VERY steep pricetag for a console,..
maybe they'll add some surprise additional capabilities?