"four or more" IBM PowerPC processors in Xbox 2

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/conten...me=dev&aid=2897

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xbox 2 set to go multiprocessor; hard drive may not be built-in

Rob Fahey 09:47 02/02/2004
Microsoft's plans for next-generation machine include some major
surprises


A senior source at Microsoft has revealed that its next-generation
console is set to use multiple PowerPC processors in parallel - while
the hard drive may not be shipped as standard, being supplied as an
optional extra instead.

This information confirms reports received from developers over the
past weeks, with the first solid facts about the Xbox 2 slipping out
after Microsoft briefed a number of its key development partners on
the current state of the system.

Our sources indicate that the console will use "four or more" of the
IBM PowerPC processors, an architecture which will force game
developers to significantly rethink the way that games are programmed
in order to take full advantage of it.

It seems likely now that all three next generation consoles will
utilise multiple powerful processors - with Sony's PS3 expected to use
up to eight of its new Cell microprocessors, the Xbox 2 now known to
be a multi-processor architecture, and Nintendo's "N5" (about which,
admittedly, little is known) also likely to follow down the multiple
PowerPC route, as Nintendo also has a deal with IBM and will almost
certainly end up using very similar chips to Microsoft.

The real surprise in this leaked information, however, is that rumours
which circulated last week claiming that the Xbox 2 was not guaranteed
to have a hard drive installed as standard are, in fact, completely
true.

Although all aspects of the specification are subject to change at
this early stage (bear in mind that at this point in the lifespan of
the original Xbox, almost none of the specifications as announced made
it into the final product unchanged), our source confirmed that
developers have been told "not to bank on" having a hard drive as a
standard component of the system.

Although a final decision on whether to cull the hard drive from the
specification is thought to be still under discussion, Microsoft is
known to be toying with the idea of supplying the hard drive as an
add-on peripheral (not as part of an "Xbox 2 Live" kit, as some sites
reported last week, since such a thing won't exist - the console will
be sold fully online-enabled), while using extremely high capacity
flash memory cards for data storage.

If the company does go ahead with a basic specification that doesn't
include a hard drive, it's likely to be seen as a backwards step by
developers and consumers alike - especially since it's widely assumed
that the PlayStation 3 will include an internal hard drive, and may
even incorporate digital video recording functionality similar to the
recently released PSX.

Crucially, the removal of the hard drive will also make the provision
of backwards compatibility with Xbox games even harder - already a
major difficulty for the system, since the architecture is so
radically different to its older sibling. Many games use the Xbox hard
drive as a kind of "scratch disc" to improve load times and overall
performance, which means that it may not be possible to play a
significant number of Xbox titles on Xbox 2 without first investing in
the hard drive peripheral - if at all.

The decision to remove the hard disc is thought to be based at least
partially on the cost of the component, which has added significantly
to the overall cost of manufacturing the Xbox - a console which has
made major losses on each unit sold since its original launch. It's
also unlikely that it has escaped Microsoft's notice that both
Nintendo and Sony make significant profits from the sale of memory
cards for their consoles.

In terms of other specifications, much is still up in the air. It's
thought that a firm decision has not yet been reached regarding the
amount of RAM the system will have, while the graphics chipset, which
is being supplied by ATI, is expected to be "nothing revolutionary"
according to our source, but a significant leap in power over existing
PC graphics cards.

Although it's already briefed key development partners on the new
architecture, Microsoft is waiting until the Game Developers
Conference in San Jose at the end of March to raise the curtains on
Xbox 2 in front of the development community as a whole. A special
Microsoft conference event is thought to be pencilled in alongside the
GDC event itself.

However, comments from other sources close to Microsoft in the last
few days have suggested that what the company actually reveals at GDC
will depend largely on Sony, with the giant software company thought
to be prepared to change the Xbox 2 specification in order to avoid
losing ground to the PlayStation 3. It's likely, then, that if Sony
does not reveal more of its next-generation hand before GDC (and the
company has played its cards remarkably close to its chest so far,
with only broad details of the Cell processor being mentioned to
date), Microsoft may choose to reveal only broad outlines of Xbox 2 in
San Jose - leaving final decisions on matters such as the hard drive
and the RAM capacity of the system until after Sony has announced
equivalent details of the PS3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2 Feb 2004 13:10:19 -0800, radeonr420@yahoo.com (R420) wrote:

>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/conten...me=dev&aid=2897
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Xbox 2 set to go multiprocessor; hard drive may not be built-in
>
>Rob Fahey 09:47 02/02/2004
>Microsoft's plans for next-generation machine include some major
>surprises
>
>
>A senior source at Microsoft has revealed that its next-generation
>console is set to use multiple PowerPC processors in parallel - while
>the hard drive may not be shipped as standard, being supplied as an
>optional extra instead.
>
>This information confirms reports received from developers over the
>past weeks, with the first solid facts about the Xbox 2 slipping out
>after Microsoft briefed a number of its key development partners on
>the current state of the system.
>
>Our sources indicate that the console will use "four or more" of the
>IBM PowerPC processors, an architecture which will force game
>developers to significantly rethink the way that games are programmed
>in order to take full advantage of it.
>
>It seems likely now that all three next generation consoles will
>utilise multiple powerful processors - with Sony's PS3 expected to use
>up to eight of its new Cell microprocessors, the Xbox 2 now known to
>be a multi-processor architecture, and Nintendo's "N5" (about which,
>admittedly, little is known) also likely to follow down the multiple
>PowerPC route, as Nintendo also has a deal with IBM and will almost
>certainly end up using very similar chips to Microsoft.
>
>The real surprise in this leaked information, however, is that rumours
>which circulated last week claiming that the Xbox 2 was not guaranteed
>to have a hard drive installed as standard are, in fact, completely
>true.
>
>Although all aspects of the specification are subject to change at
>this early stage (bear in mind that at this point in the lifespan of
>the original Xbox, almost none of the specifications as announced made
>it into the final product unchanged), our source confirmed that
>developers have been told "not to bank on" having a hard drive as a
>standard component of the system.
>
>Although a final decision on whether to cull the hard drive from the
>specification is thought to be still under discussion, Microsoft is
>known to be toying with the idea of supplying the hard drive as an
>add-on peripheral (not as part of an "Xbox 2 Live" kit, as some sites
>reported last week, since such a thing won't exist - the console will
>be sold fully online-enabled), while using extremely high capacity
>flash memory cards for data storage.
>
>If the company does go ahead with a basic specification that doesn't
>include a hard drive, it's likely to be seen as a backwards step by
>developers and consumers alike - especially since it's widely assumed
>that the PlayStation 3 will include an internal hard drive, and may
>even incorporate digital video recording functionality similar to the
>recently released PSX.
>
>Crucially, the removal of the hard drive will also make the provision
>of backwards compatibility with Xbox games even harder - already a
>major difficulty for the system, since the architecture is so
>radically different to its older sibling. Many games use the Xbox hard
>drive as a kind of "scratch disc" to improve load times and overall
>performance, which means that it may not be possible to play a
>significant number of Xbox titles on Xbox 2 without first investing in
>the hard drive peripheral - if at all.
>
>The decision to remove the hard disc is thought to be based at least
>partially on the cost of the component, which has added significantly
>to the overall cost of manufacturing the Xbox - a console which has
>made major losses on each unit sold since its original launch. It's
>also unlikely that it has escaped Microsoft's notice that both
>Nintendo and Sony make significant profits from the sale of memory
>cards for their consoles.
>
>In terms of other specifications, much is still up in the air. It's
>thought that a firm decision has not yet been reached regarding the
>amount of RAM the system will have, while the graphics chipset, which
>is being supplied by ATI, is expected to be "nothing revolutionary"
>according to our source, but a significant leap in power over existing
>PC graphics cards.
>
>Although it's already briefed key development partners on the new
>architecture, Microsoft is waiting until the Game Developers
>Conference in San Jose at the end of March to raise the curtains on
>Xbox 2 in front of the development community as a whole. A special
>Microsoft conference event is thought to be pencilled in alongside the
>GDC event itself.
>
>However, comments from other sources close to Microsoft in the last
>few days have suggested that what the company actually reveals at GDC
>will depend largely on Sony, with the giant software company thought
>to be prepared to change the Xbox 2 specification in order to avoid
>losing ground to the PlayStation 3. It's likely, then, that if Sony
>does not reveal more of its next-generation hand before GDC (and the
>company has played its cards remarkably close to its chest so far,
>with only broad details of the Cell processor being mentioned to
>date), Microsoft may choose to reveal only broad outlines of Xbox 2 in
>San Jose - leaving final decisions on matters such as the hard drive
>and the RAM capacity of the system until after Sony has announced
>equivalent details of the PS3.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cripes, all these multiple processors remind me of the Saturn
architecture, which is not, of course, a good thing.........

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:17:52 +0000, CM <chris.geller@angelfire.com> wrote:

>On 2 Feb 2004 13:10:19 -0800, radeonr420@yahoo.com (R420) wrote:
>
>>http://www.gamesindustry.biz/conten...me=dev&aid=2897
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Xbox 2 set to go multiprocessor; hard drive may not be built-in
[el snippo!]
>
>Cripes, all these multiple processors remind me of the Saturn
>architecture, which is not, of course, a good thing.........

Neither is reposting 104 lines just to add two...

Wait a minute?

didn't all the Xbox fan girls say that Sony's design sucked?

ROFL

CM <chris.geller@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:<4jft10t4ma7en25s00orl3tdkoq84ntp8o@4ax.com>...

> Cripes, all these multiple processors remind me of the Saturn
> architecture, which is not, of course, a good thing.........

The problem with the Saturn (and to a certain extent the PS2) is that
you had multiple processors with differing archetectures. Having
multiple identical processors could only be a good thing and it's been
done in the PC world for years now.

- Jordan

"NutJob#2" <nutty@jobs.org> wrote in message news:<bvnit3$hqi$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> Wait a minute?
>
> didn't all the Xbox fan girls say that Sony's design sucked?

Yes, but for a different reason... The multiple processors in the PS2
aren't a problem. The VRam bottleneck is.

The reason multiple processor consoles have a bad rap is because from
the start (Atari Jaguar) the processors have been of wildly differing
hardware design. When it's done well, typically with processors of
like design (as it is on PCs), the result is phenomenal.

If it's true (and this early on I take all hardware spec with a grain
of salt) that Microsoft is going with multiple G5 processors then the
end result could be something like this (only dedicated for gaming):

http://www.apple.com/xserve/

- Jordan

In article <92dbefbe.0402030941.28923bb2@posting.google.com>,
lundj@earthlink.net says...
> CM <chris.geller@angelfire.com> wrote in message news:<4jft10t4ma7en25s00orl3tdkoq84ntp8o@4ax.com>...
>
> > Cripes, all these multiple processors remind me of the Saturn
> > architecture, which is not, of course, a good thing.........
>
> The problem with the Saturn (and to a certain extent the PS2) is that
> you had multiple processors with differing archetectures. Having
> multiple identical processors could only be a good thing and it's been
> done in the PC world for years now.

Saturn had 2 SH-2 CPUs. CPUs were identical. Every cpu had its own VPU
(visual processing unit).

Saturn was "complicated" in comparison to PSX and older consoles (SNES,
NES, Genesis etc.) Biggest problem with it was lack of multiprocessing
experience of majority game programmers at that point of time. It was
completely new territory for them, kind of shock.

PSX was easier to master. Simpler architecture and coding in C. Saturn
needed at least few lines in assembler to achieve good performance.

PS2 is much more complicated when compared to Saturn (or anything else
created with gaming in mind). However unskilled ps2 programmers can and
do enjoy benefits of middleware software; something which was rare on
Saturn.

48GB is not a bottleneck.

GS stalls are the bottleneck, partly due to DMA transfers, limited cache for
microcode, and C library un-optimizations.

www.scea.com


Sony has been perfecting the cell design since the PS1 and the PSP will be a
nice little test bed for PS3 technology.

MS doesn't have a chance in hell. It may be able to make a more powerfull
console but not for less than $300.

Top poster. Deal with it. I think it's all fine and dandy but I don't
currently see any benefits from running Hyperthreading on my P4 2.6c. I
don't believe it gives any advantage in games currently. It does seem to
help with video encoding and stuff like that but the PC world seems to still
be waiting for games to take advantage of Dualies.


"NutJob#2" <nutty@jobs.org> wrote in message
news:bvpm2i$be6$1@news.chatlink.com...
> 48GB is not a bottleneck.
>
> GS stalls are the bottleneck, partly due to DMA transfers, limited cache
for
> microcode, and C library un-optimizations.
>
> www.scea.com
>
>
> Sony has been perfecting the cell design since the PS1 and the PSP will be
a
> nice little test bed for PS3 technology.
>
> MS doesn't have a chance in hell. It may be able to make a more powerfull
> console but not for less than $300.
>
>
>