xBox2's Power* CPU information

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    adamradamr Posts: 72member
    Off topic:



    I don't want to offend anyone, but I am sure I will ...



    The phrase is supposed to be "couldn't care less". "Could care less" doesn't make any sense, even if used in an ironic/sarcastic sense, because it does really carry any implication of the "degree of caring" at all.



    Simply put, the consensus of opinion on this subject is that "couldn't care less" is correct, and "could care less" is a (principally American) variant which, while common, sounds foolish. If you intend it in an ironic/sarcastic sense then make sure everyone realises that or you will be taken as foolish, wrong etc (especially in writing as the tone of voice which conveys the true meaning is lost).



    Personally, I would prefer if everyone conceded to logic and used "couldn't care less".



    By the way: "couldn't care less" was the original saying. See here.



    On topic:



    I have my doubts that Microsoft would allow IBM to sell the same chip used in the XBox 2 to Apple. I suspect that Apple will get a variant based on the same architecture so that it will be more difficult for people to run OS X on the XBox, or XBox games on the Mac.



    I predict Apple will get 2 dual-core chips per machine, rather than 1 or 2 triple core chips. The volume of XBox sales will be sufficient to warrant a separate fabrication line.
  • Reply 22 of 53
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    You know I am laughing hysterically reading what the non US citizens are saying. It's just way too funny how they get their panties in a bunch over this sh*t.
  • Reply 23 of 53
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by another_steve

    Later in the article, it appears to be Power5 based, with SMT, (including velocity engine) etc.



    People keep assuming this, but it is a bad assumption. Just because it is PowerPC and has SMT doesn't mean it is a POWER5. Think about this for a second -- do you really think that IBM's most powerful mainframe processor is going to have a core added, have its clock rate doubled, and have AltiVec unit(s) added in by the end of next year at a price point that will allow MS to put it into a game console, and with a low enough heat output that consumers will be able to buy it without a liquid cooling system? I mean DUH!



    Microsoft is not using IBM because they have some kind of magic available, they are using IBM because of the advanced automated design techniques and the way IBM is pushing custom processor design as a business model. Think about that: custom processor design.
  • Reply 24 of 53
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    Why can't Xbox 2 have a liquid cooling system? After all, XBox 1 is huge (so they're not averse to space) and IIRC the Dreamcast had liquid cooling.
  • Reply 25 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    People keep assuming this, but it is a bad assumption. Just because it is PowerPC and has SMT doesn't mean it is a POWER5.



    I think you're reading to much into the "Power5 based" comment. There are things that make the Power5 expensive such as the large cache, wiring built for higher reliability, etc. The PPC970 is POWER4 based, but it surely isn't a Power4. The point here is that the SMT capabilities seem to indicate a Power5 *based* core. I found this to be interesting because we're expecting a multi-core version of the PPC970 soon. If these specs are accurate, we may be seeing multicore Power5 *based* cores in Macs instead.



    Quote:

    Think about this for a second -- do you really think that IBM's most powerful mainframe processor is going to have a core added, have its clock rate doubled, and have AltiVec unit(s) added in by the end of next year at a price point that will allow MS to put it into a game console, and with a low enough heat output that consumers will be able to buy it without a liquid cooling system? I mean DUH!



    I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. Let's start with the facts. We do know that Microsoft is going to IBM for a Power* based processor for the xBox2. This much is fact and not disputed. Now, we're talking the 2005 timeframe, correct? There is nothing that leads me to believe that Microsoft will not be using a Power5 *based* chip in that timeframe. 3 Ghz certainly doesn't seem out of reach for that time frame either.



    Now, what does seem odd to me is 3 cores on one chip. 2 cores seems much more likely. Still, since IBM is into this custom chip thing, who knows...



    Now, in terms of price, you can't compare Apple to Microsoft. We already know that Microsoft loses money on every unit they sell. Apple stacks on a nice profit margin for every unit they sell. You couldn't build a cheap PC for $150 that has the same power of today's XBox, so, arguement regarding the price issue doesn't really hold. Besides, the CPU, look at the graphics processors that are going into the next generation consoles. When xBox shipped, they had a better chip than you could buy for your PC. It wasn't until the Geforce4 Ti came out that the PC had parity (or slightly better). Likewise, I'm no longer shocked to see such high end components in low cost consoles. Additonally, I'd imagine Microsoft will get a better deal on razor thin margins than Apple will, based on volume, etc.



    Quote:

    Microsoft is not using IBM because they have some kind of magic available, they are using IBM because of the advanced automated design techniques and the way IBM is pushing custom processor design as a business model. Think about that: custom processor design.



    Yes, exactly. Just as the PPC970 was really a custom design for Apple, based on the Power4, I see no reason to think Microsoft's upcoming Xbox2 chip won't be based on the Power5. The only thing I question is how many cores it will have.



    Steve
  • Reply 26 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by another_steve





    Yes, exactly. Just as the PPC970 was really a custom design for Apple, based on the Power4, I see no reason to think Microsoft's upcoming Xbox2 chip won't be based on the Power5. The only thing I question is how many cores it will have.





    Actually, the ppc 970 wasn't a custom design, other than that Altivec was added at Apple's request. IBM were developing it previous to Apple's interest for use in low end servers etc. Altivec was added quite late in the day because Apple had invested a large amount of time in promoting it previously - that's the only way in which the chip is a custom design for Apple.
  • Reply 27 of 53
    jrgjrg Posts: 58member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by another_steve



    "POWERx unifies both the POWER and PowerPC architectures in one BMF chip built using the most advanced chip-making technologies. It has POWER, because it has three 64-bit 3 GHz+ cores, making it the first videogame system processor with a multi-core design on a single die (also known as "SMP on a chip," or "system on a chip"). That is why we say the Xbox 2 will be a supercomputer in a box."



    Steve [/B]



    The first sentence of this quote makes the rest questionable.



    There is only the PowePC architecture. POWER is a marketing term to indicate it is for IBM's pSeries and iSeries servers. The recently released POWER 5 package is a PowerPC chip.



    I would bet the cores are not identical, each are specialised to some (significant) degree.



    And Programmer is right. To produce this chip at the price Microsoft is looking for it is going to be small, and will have to be conservative in design to be easy to manufacture. It won't hold a candle to a general purpose processor with large on chip cache hierarchy and significantly more execution resources.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by another_steve

    The PPC970 is POWER4 based, but it surely isn't a Power4. The point here is that the SMT capabilities seem to indicate a Power5 *based* core.



    <sigh>.





    Fine, replace POWER5 with PPC975 or PPC980 and exactly the same thing applies. All that the rumors tells us is that it is a triple core 64-bit PowerPC, the rest is baseless speculation. In fact if you look a bit deeper at some of the previous rumors they strongly suggest that it is NOT a 970/980/POWER4/POWER5. There is a lot more to the 970 than the fact that it is a 64-bit PowerPC -- the PPC620 was a 64-bit PowerPC but I don't see anyone claiming that it was a single core POWER4.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    You know I am laughing hysterically reading what the non US citizens are saying. It's just way too funny how they get their panties in a bunch over this sh*t.



    I'd begin a rant about how people in the US speak American, not English, but I couldn't care less right now.
  • Reply 30 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by onlooker

    Although from the sound of that XBOXs processors architecture (I've said this before, and been practically raped for it) I would think it would be easier for XBOX games to be ported to the Mac platform. Some people completely disagree with that.



    The XBOX2 development box is a G5 running an emulator. In a sense, they've already got the software running on a Mac.
  • Reply 31 of 53
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by audiopollution

    The XBOX2 development box is a G5 running an emulator. In a sense, they've already got the software running on a Mac.



    Huh?



    Got anything to back that up?? Last I read (little) about that is was some rumor posted to a blog or some such thing... Has anything new turned up that I'm not aware of?



    Dave
  • Reply 32 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JRG



    There is only the PowePC architecture. POWER is a marketing term to indicate it is for IBM's pSeries and iSeries servers. The recently released POWER 5 package is a PowerPC chip.







    WRONG!

    Read any decent history of IBM processors, or the PowerPC, or even CHRP / AIM, and you'll understand that the POWER archetecture existed prior to the development of PowerPC. They are actually different ISA's, but have converge in many ways since first inception...



    Linky-poo



    Linky-poo two



    also, replace the "G1.html" in the above link with G2.html, G3.html, and G4.html for some really great info about processors that never made it into Macs, including talk of dual-core designs. Fascinating read....
  • Reply 33 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    Fine, replace POWER5 with PPC975 or PPC980 and exactly the same thing applies. All that the rumors tells us is that it is a triple core 64-bit PowerPC, the rest is baseless speculation. In fact if you look a bit deeper at some of the previous rumors they strongly suggest that it is NOT a 970/980/POWER4/POWER5. There is a lot more to the 970 than the fact that it is a 64-bit PowerPC -- the PPC620 was a 64-bit PowerPC but I don't see anyone claiming that it was a single core POWER4.



    Hmmm... baseless speculation. That's pretty much the hallmark of this forum. I'll grant you that we don't know if it would be equivalent to a PPC9xx that we'd see in a Mac that's based on a Power5, etc. However, the fact that fact that it has Altivec (or whatever IBM's calling it these days), SMT, 64bit and expected to be extremely powerful at floating point performance, what exactly do you think will be missing? Either the information presented is completely false, or Microsoft will be using a true Power5 based chip, ala PPC980, etc.



    As for the PPC620, no, nobody claimed it was a single core Power4 because the timeline wouldn't make sense, not to mention the difference in architecture.



    Steve
  • Reply 34 of 53
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by another_steve

    Hmmm... baseless speculation.









    That's funny. Unfortunately I can't tell you why.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by audiopollution

    I'd begin a rant about how people in the US speak American, not English, but I couldn't care less right now.



    Actually some of us speak both, but I think we all speak American 9 times out of ten. No need to rant. We already know genius
  • Reply 36 of 53
    jrgjrg Posts: 58member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by concentricity

    WRONG!

    Read any decent history of IBM processors, or the PowerPC, or even CHRP / AIM, and you'll understand that the POWER archetecture existed prior to the development of PowerPC. They are actually different ISA's, but have converge in many ways since first inception...



    Linky-poo



    Linky-poo two



    also, replace the "G1.html" in the above link with G2.html, G3.html, and G4.html for some really great info about processors that never made it into Macs, including talk of dual-core designs. Fascinating read....




    You are right, but so am I. It is undeniable that POWER existed first and was the original architecture, but POWER now only exists in the PowerPC architecture.



    And read this link, written by Frank Soltis who is chief scientist for the iSeries and knows more about this stuff than anyone on this board.



    A quote:

    "AIX originally used the 32-bit PowerPC architecture but now uses the 64-bit PowerPC architecture. Linux also originally used the 32-bit PowerPC architecture, but with the introduction of the 64-bit Linux kernel, it too can use the 64-bit PowerPC architecture." AIX and Linux both are written to execute on PowerPC hardware of which POWER5 is the latest incarnation.
  • Reply 37 of 53
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    not worth it
  • Reply 38 of 53
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JRG

    You are right, but so am I. It is undeniable that POWER existed first and was the original architecture, but POWER now only exists in the PowerPC architecture.



    And read this link, written by Frank Soltis who is chief scientist for the iSeries and knows more about this stuff than anyone on this board.



    A quote:

    "AIX originally used the 32-bit PowerPC architecture but now uses the 64-bit PowerPC architecture. Linux also originally used the 32-bit PowerPC architecture, but with the introduction of the 64-bit Linux kernel, it too can use the 64-bit PowerPC architecture." AIX and Linux both are written to execute on PowerPC hardware of which POWER5 is the latest incarnation.




    I don't think you really understand what the POWER and PowerPC instruction sets are. PowerPC is based on POWER but there are differences. A PowerPC chip does not necessarily run all the POWER instructions and a POWER doesn't support all the open endianness of PowerPC, this is part of what broke Virtual PC on the G5 since it actually is a POWER chip and not a PPC.



    It isn't hard to find out the differences if you really care but there are certainly quite a few especially when you start looking at op code and how the different chips implement some stuff.
  • Reply 39 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by audiopollution

    I'd begin a rant about how people in the US speak American, not English, but I couldn't care less right now.



    Clever.
  • Reply 40 of 53
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by monkeyastronaut

    I wish. Wouldn't you like to be a monkey astronaut too?



    "The probe was inserted approximately 8 inches into the rectum and held in place by tape applied to the buttocks."
Sign In or Register to comment.