Xbox 2 is an IBM & SGI supercomputer

this was good read, even if somewhat unprofessional. The Inquirer made
an article out of some letter they recieved about Xbox 2. basicly what
it's saying is, Xbox 2 will be sort of like an IBM supercomputer, with
SGI-based supercomputer / visualization system graphics (from ATI)

some choice parts from the article:

quote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Now let's put the pieces all together. Microsoft has chosen IBM, a long
time maker of mainframes and supercomputers to manufacture the XBOX 2's
CPU...a variant of the Power4 CPU known as the G5. It is high performance
and highly efficient, and thus much cooler than any X-86 chip which allows a
multi-CPU design to be put into a much smaller form factor than a comparable
multi X-86 design. The G5 has embedded in it a Vector Math unit which
processes multimedia instructions much like Intel's SSE instructions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--






quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The GPU will also employ technology culled from the world of mainframes
and supercomputers such as dynamic logic for much higher performance and
vector math processing like the G5's Altivec multimedia units. Plus the
Fast14 process allows for this much higher performance of dynamic logic
without the once associated heat buildup. Once again, an important design
criteria when building a small form factor console. Helping to make the new
ATI Fast14 GPU that much cooler will be the Black Diamond low-K dielectric
insulating process that ATI and its foundry partner TSMC uses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--






quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Without a doubt the Xbox 2 will be the world's first consumer
supercomputer ever. Everything about it reeks of supercomputer....Multiple
Power4/G5 RISC CPU's processing in parallel and employing vector math
processing. Those CPU's designed by supercomputer manufacturer IBM. Graphics
processor employing dynamic logic and vector math processing from the world
of supercomputers, manufactured by ATI which is now primarily run by ex-SGI
engineers, again a manufacturer of supercomputers. Can't wait until someone
hacks into it and installs 64 bit Linux. Can you imagine a Beowulf Cluster
built of multiple Xbox 2s ?!!!
_____________________________________________________________


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14050


my take on this is:

In terms of floating point performance and graphics muscle, the Xbox 2
should outdo a 16-pipe SGI InfiniteReality2 or IR3 machine from the late
1990s.

Even Silicon Graphics themselves have turned to ATI for the highend
Onyx4 UltimateVision systems, which will employ upto -32- ATI R3XX VPU
cores.

I am guessing Xbox 2 should have at least 5-10 times the graphics muscle
of a R300 / Radeon 9700. or perhaps 3-4 times that of the upcoming R420.

"mosys" <mosys1tsram@lowlatency.net> wrote in message
news:SsPVb.4777$PY.3816@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com...
> this was good read, even if somewhat unprofessional.
> <SNIP>
> I am guessing Xbox 2 should have at least 5-10 times the graphics muscle
> of a R300 / Radeon 9700. or perhaps 3-4 times that of the upcoming R420.
>
>
> Yes But can it make you a cup of coffee on those long nights when playing
Midtown Madness 3 Live against the best and the worst.

I don't think so

Jud
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:30:26 GMT, "mosys" <mosys1tsram@lowlatency.net>
wrote:

> this was good read, even if somewhat unprofessional. The Inquirer made
>an article out of some letter they recieved about Xbox 2. basicly what
>it's saying is, Xbox 2 will be sort of like an IBM supercomputer, with
>SGI-based supercomputer / visualization system graphics (from ATI)

The hype surounding the PS2 said that would be a "supercomputer". That
was as much BS as this is.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"mosys" <mosys1tsram@lowlatency.net> wrote in message
news:SsPVb.4777$PY.3816@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com...
> this was good read, even if somewhat unprofessional. The Inquirer made
> an article out of some letter they recieved about Xbox 2. basicly what
> it's saying is, Xbox 2 will be sort of like an IBM supercomputer, with
> SGI-based supercomputer / visualization system graphics (from ATI)

Such a shame it will boil down to a bunch of pretty games with little
substance and no replay value...

--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.

So, we are supposed to believe Microsofts hype, but not Sonys? We heard it
all before. We won't fall for it again. I couldn't care less how powerful a
console is. Okay, I DO care, but only to a certain extent. What good is
perfect hardware if there are noone to utilize it and turn it into great
games? I'm hoping the Xbox 2 will have good games, and have a few times
better power than the Xbox (if it didn't, what's the use of upgrading to an
Xbox 2?).

The hardware companies only hype their machines with hightech terms and
specs. I'm waiting to see the games, THEN and only then can I be impressed
(if there's something to be impressed by).

Tommy

Actually, every performance enhancing feature of modern processors have
evolved from supercomputer CPU design in one way or another. That's why I
laughed at that Inquirer story when I read it early this morning.
Besides, if I were seller of the future Xbox 2 i would be more worried about
the rumour that it has no backwards compatibility with the first Xbox. I
suppose microsoft think there aren't enough good games so why bother?

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:<qtjf209nkdt0ns1r7bubut21c4unqaefrs@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:30:26 GMT, "mosys" <mosys1tsram@lowlatency.net>
> wrote:
>
> > this was good read, even if somewhat unprofessional. The Inquirer made
> >an article out of some letter they recieved about Xbox 2. basicly what
> >it's saying is, Xbox 2 will be sort of like an IBM supercomputer, with
> >SGI-based supercomputer / visualization system graphics (from ATI)
>
> The hype surounding the PS2 said that would be a "supercomputer". That
> was as much BS as this is.

NO technically it was a super computer then as far as the law was
concerned and that could've caused problems for Sony had said
regulations not been updated.

On 10 Feb 2004 03:00:40 -0800, ps2isnumber1@hotmail.com (Phil) wrote:

>NO technically it was a super computer then as far as the law was
>concerned and that could've caused problems for Sony had said
>regulations not been updated.

What is the definition of supercomputer then? It was less powerful
than my PC was when it was released, and my PC isn't within 1% of a
real supercomputers processing power.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Phil" <ps2isnumber1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e789946.0402100300.24573046@posting.google.com...
> Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message
news:<qtjf209nkdt0ns1r7bubut21c4unqaefrs@4ax.com>...
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:30:26 GMT, "mosys" <mosys1tsram@lowlatency.net>
> > wrote:
> > The hype surounding the PS2 said that would be a "supercomputer". That
> > was as much BS as this is.
>
> NO technically it was a super computer then as far as the law was
> concerned and that could've caused problems for Sony had said
> regulations not been updated.

Get Real. If that was the case then every NVidia and ATI graphics card
available at the time (2000) would have been a supercomputer. You are
propagating more of the Sony propaganda machine bs. There are SOOOOO many
reasons why a single PS2 game console would not be considered one, common
sense not the least thereof.

There has been an attempt (at NCSA at that) to create what would qualify a
supercomputer from PS2 shells, but it takes 70 (yes, 70) consoles to
qualify. For the record, it takes less PCs to reach the same threshold.
The major reason the PS2 was used is because of the Linux kit (which
thankfully allows access to the vector units) and cheap hardware, NOT
because of extremely powerful hardware.

There are quite a few good resources on the web about super computing, not
the worse of which is from the projects here at the University of Tennessee
and Oak Ridge National Laboratories - but then you are probably not familar
with BLAS or LAPACK, are you? At least check out the LINPACK tests on
common computing hardware to become familiar with how things really rank
from a simplistic linear equation standpoint. Check out this PDF if the
topic of performance interests you WITHOUT the hype:

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/performance.pdf

I think we all know what any new console is going to be like - crap
apart from one or two good games, which typically outshine and outlast
almost everything for at least the first year. It takes so long to
manufacture a really good game, as the power and complexity increases,
(depending also on the quality of the API) that by the time the really
cool stuff appears, everyone is talking about the next console. And
so the cycle continues...

As for the graphics, they will appear pants in a few years compared to
what's coming, and the Supercomputers of the day will be far superior
by the time the technology trickles down to the console market for
199.99.

Me, I'll wait until things have settled before I jump.