65nm PowerPC Info?

[MacRumors]

The Register.co.uk points to this Team XBox post as possible information about the upcoming Xbox PowerPC Processor... but the information appears to be questionable.

Meanwhile Mercury News does report on some minor details of the upcoming Xbox.

 

[.a]

i read they are developping on g5 that sounds promising!
.a

 

[johnnyjibbs]

How much money is Microsoft going to throw at the next generation Xbox? I know that it'll be on a loss (profits are in software see) but 3 top-class G5/G6 processors in it and the newest pro video cards available?

Maybe Microsoft needs to learn that power isn't everything. Good games are not just about graphics.

That said, if we can believe any of this with a pinch of salt, it's exciting for the future of Apple and Macintosh.

 

[Stella]

Basically Microsoft are saying

"We will wait and see what Sony are going to do with PS3".

Microsoft have absolutely no vision or ability to innovate.

 

[lind0834]

Mercury News Article:

"Internally, Microsoft has begun developing game prototypes, and it is using G5 systems to do so."

I believe that to laughable at best.

 

[backspinner]

Now we now where those G5's are for that someone lost his job for when publishing a photo on his blog.

 

[crenz]

I'm curious to see how much truth is in these rumors. Three 64 bit PowerPC processors would make the hardware expensive and backwards compatibility next to impossible. (I don't believe Virtual PC could solve the problem.)

I think it is possible that Microsoft is considering the AMD 64-Bit CPUs. Together with Northbridge, that could allow for very good memory bus performance, which is important for games.

 

[spencecb]

One thing everyone has to remember is that just because this new XBox is using a PowerPC processor does not mean they are using Apple G5 systems to design it...I believe that is what one of the entries was implying. I'm sure the PowerPC can be modified to be able to run on other systems.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Originally posted by spencecb
One thing everyone has to remember is that just because this new XBox is using a PowerPC processor does not mean they are using Apple G5 systems to design it...I believe that is what one of the entries was implying. I'm sure the PowerPC can be modified to be able to run on other systems.

Yes, GameCube runs on a PowerPC (similar to IBM's G3 but with some alti-vec support I think). The articles and previous speculation suspect that the Xbox 2 is going to be powered by an IBM PPC970 (or its future derviatives), a.k.a. G5, or as good as.

 

[dguisinger]

Exactly. Microsoft has actually announced that they are going with an IBM 64-bit PPC processor and an ATI radion chipset in XBox 2. People in this forum like to keep saying its speculation, it is not.

What is speculation is what the capabilities of the two chips are. Let me say this, I don't beleive the article when it says 3 processors. You want to know why? Expensive and no need for that kind of power. The CPU barely does a thing on newer game systems... I expect to see voice recognition and better AI, but the first can be helped with AltiVec, the second can be helped just with a faster CPU....

 

[DeepIn2U]

Believe it or Not

well guess what. IBM has a PDF on their site stating the merits of the 970FX chip. There is some speculation that the 97x series, still G5, WILL have a dual core with both cores fully acting as a seperate cpu with seperate access to ram, as well as speed running at the "normal" cpu core speed. I want to see this manufacturing process technology further implemented into the Apple product line. That said I'm soooOOoo glad IBM was first to the 90nm finish line.

XBoxTeam leaders stating that IBM is so far ahead of Intel is just ammo against any Intel marketing for the desktop warriours. hehehe!

As for whether the current 60nm 970FX chips will be in the PowerBook line?? I'm still looking to purchase the 12"AlPowerBook with DVI. Its cute powerful and I need that particular size for mobility (when the G5 is purchased and setup, remote access to it via HotSpots or BT and GPRS/EDGE for administration!)

 

[wizard]

Well 3 or 5 Cpus it really doesn't make a differrence the reality is that MS has no choice but to go to a multiprocessor system. Its the wave of the future and no other boat can manage safe passage to the performance levels required.

Performance is what it is all about, your simple wrong when you imply that the CPU is doing nothing on current machines. The fact is that the chip is often maxed out. Sure this varies a bit with game software but if one wants to deovier a machine that will support the next generation of software multiprocessing is an absolute requirement.

Now expenses are something else, lets face it the 970 is now the smallest, by a large margin, of all of the mainstream CPU's on the market. It should be rahter cheap, probally much cheaper than those $70 Athlons that are available around town. Ship the same CPU in both Apple and MS hardware and it becomes even cheaper.

Faster CPU's are not everything especially when there are multiple thread of execution going on. If even a couple of these threads require full CPU time then multiple CPU's can provide a significant advantage. To provide what you are asking for and what others want in their systesm is only possible, with current technology, with multiple CPU's. A processor that is fast enough on its own is simply not available and won't be in the near future.

Now that doesn't mean that I believe that there will be 3 chips in the new BOX , it just means that I don't see any other alternative other than to adopt some sort of multiprocessing, probally in a SMP arraingement. What is intersting though is that 3 dual core processors would give us 6 cpu's to execute 6 threads at once, if these CPU's support one extra thread through SMT, then we have the potential for 12 thread of execution happeing almost at once. That is power! For many games it owuld be awsome.

Originally posted by dguisinger
Exactly. Microsoft has actually announced that they are going with an IBM 64-bit PPC processor and an ATI radion chipset in XBox 2. People in this forum like to keep saying its speculation, it is not.

What is speculation is what the capabilities of the two chips are. Let me say this, I don't beleive the article when it says 3 processors. You want to know why? Expensive and no need for that kind of power. The CPU barely does a thing on newer game systems... I expect to see voice recognition and better AI, but the first can be helped with AltiVec, the second can be helped just with a faster CPU....

 

[gerardrj]

Huh?

Originally posted by dguisinger
The CPU barely does a thing on newer game systems...

Uh huh, and that's exactly why on UT2K I get about 1 to 2 frames per second with all the settings turned down on a G4/500: because the CPU does almost nothing on these new games. That 2fps is up from about .5 since I put the G4 upgrade in the machine.

Multiple CPUs will allow for multiple concurrent threads and MUCH better AI than just a single faster processor would allow. If you don't see that an entire dedicated processor would allow better AI than a single fast processor sharing load with all the other game demands, then I just don't know what to say to you.

The third processor? Real time terrain and map generation instead of static maps; more compression for network data, thus allowing more interaction between players; music that's composed/generated real-time instead of playing simple MP3 or MIDI files. Ex: Why store models of trees when you can build them real-time from fractal geometry.

The better question is why NOT 3 processors. If MS is indeed planning on using the chips stated, theres a simple reason to use 3: heat. If they have a ceratin heat dissapation threshold to hit a certain form factor, and one CPU option uses 90% of that threshhold, and another uses 30% but only has 90% the compute power of the first option, then three of the "B" processor starts to make a LOT of sense. You get in under your heat load limit, and you get about 2.5x the processing capacity. Ignoring any vendor affinities, this is nearly a no-brainer.

 

[dguisinger]

Originally posted by wizard


Now that doesn't mean that I believe that there will be 3 chips in the new BOX , it just means that I don't see any other alternative other than to adopt some sort of multiprocessing, probally in a SMP arraingement. What is intersting though is that 3 dual core processors would give us 6 cpu's to execute 6 threads at once, if these CPU's support one extra thread through SMT, then we have the potential for 12 thread of execution happeing almost at once. That is power! For many games it owuld be awsome. [/B]

Again, I think you are wrong. There is very little performance wise that dual processors adds to a game, when the game uses 3D Graphics and 3D Sound acceleration.

Transforms and lighting are now handled in the graphics chip. Dolby digital is handled in the sound chip. So whats left for the CPU? Loading/Saving data, network communications, input handling, and AI. Possibly voice recognition or text to speech. Yeah that really needs super fast CPUs *SARCASIM*. The AI could use a faster CPU than what they have now, and maybe a SMT/HyperThreading CPU would help....but they dont need dual cores.

What they could use is a multiple core graphics chip. If you had 4 graphics cores, you could give each one a quarter of the screen output. You would instantly quadrupal the capabilities of the machine. Remember 3DFX Voodoo 2 was able to work 2 cards at a time for high performance. One would render the current frame, while the 2nd would render the next frame...SLI I beleive it was called. I wouldn't be surprised if this is where MS pulls a dual core, because graphics power is really where consoles are growing on needs, not the CPU power.

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Huh?

Originally posted by gerardrj
Uh huh, and that's exactly why on UT2K I get about 1 to 2 frames per second with all the settings turned down on a G4/500: because the CPU does almost nothing on these new games. That 2fps is up from about .5 since I put the G4 upgrade in the machine.

I'm sorry, if you get that performance, then you have a serious issue with your machine. It sounds like you are getting no 3D acceleration what so ever. Maybe you don't have a modern graphics card. Thats not the CPU's fault you aren't up to date or your drivers don't work well.

I run Unreal Championship on my XBOX. Runs great. And oh yeah, its a P3 700MHz chip. Guess what, it actually has a real graphics processor, like all modern consoles do. I would have to bet your G4 processor is faster than this P3 in my XBox, so again, CPU IS NOT an issue on modern day consoles as much as GPU power is.

 

[Henriok]

Originally posted by dguisinger
Exactly. Microsoft has actually announced that they are going with an IBM 64-bit PPC processor

No they have not. They havn't stated anything of the sort. They have said that they are going to use processors from IBM's state of the art processor family. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by crenz
I think it is possible that Microsoft is considering the AMD 64-Bit CPUs. Together with Northbridge, that could allow for very good memory bus performance, which is important for games.

We probably were considering going for AMD but thay aren't any more. Thay are going to use IBM's technology. And.. integrating a Northbridge into a future PPC-design isn't that hard for IBM, the PPC cores are modular, IBM have great experience of doing custom SOC-chips, and they ARE the kings of memory bandwidth.. just look at the specs for POWER4 and POWER5. AMD is nowhere close.

Originally posted by spencecb
One thing everyone has to remember is that just because this new XBox is using a PowerPC processor does not mean they are using Apple G5 systems to design it...

_IF_ the Xbox Next will be using G5-like procesosrs, and it is two years away, people at Microsoft and game designers must get up to speed on how these processors work. The instruction set of the rumored processors will be quite similar to today's G5s. And, they are probably eager to make their new games multithreaded too. I see no reason why not to use Apple G5s to do early prototyping of software.

Microsoft must rewrite DirextX and whatever operating system they chose to use. That takes time, and if they are to be as optimized at they'd like it to be.. starting today would be too late.

 

[MorganX]

Re: Re: Huh?

Originally posted by dguisinger
I'm sorry, if you get that performance, then you have a serious issue with your machine. It sounds like you are getting no 3D acceleration what so ever. Maybe you don't have a modern graphics card. Thats not the CPU's fault you aren't up to date or your drivers don't work well.

I run Unreal Championship on my XBOX. Runs great. And oh yeah, its a P3 700MHz chip. Guess what, it actually has a real graphics processor, like all modern consoles do. I would have to bet your G4 processor is faster than this P3 in my XBox, so again, CPU IS NOT an issue on modern day consoles as much as GPU power is.

Or graphics bandwidth.

 

[backspinner]

Maybe someone translated something wrong and they meant one processor in the graphics part, and "like" two in the dual cored processor part.

On the other hand, three slow clocked cheaper processors could be within the price and thermal range.

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
How much money is Microsoft going to throw at the next generation Xbox? I know that it'll be on a loss (profits are in software see) but 3 top-class G5/G6 processors in it and the newest pro video cards available?

Maybe Microsoft needs to learn that power isn't everything. Good games are not just about graphics.

That said, if we can believe any of this with a pinch of salt, it's exciting for the future of Apple and Macintosh.

The implications, to me, are that Windows could run on a PowerPC Architecture. Now THAT is interesting. Granted, it's not a fully blown Windows environment on the current XBox, but the API's are the same to speed up development of games. That would means a couple of potential things:

1) Windows, or at least the DirectX API's, would run natively on a PowerPC.
2) Re-compiling software from x86 binaries to PowerPC architecture.

... this, in turn, could mean that games would be easier to port to the Mac. It could also mean VirtualPC would run a lot faster, and would be able to emulate games.

Granted this is all wild speculation, but it boils down to the possibilities that an x86 port to PowerPC would provide.

 

[Frobozz]

Re: Re: Huh?

Originally posted by dguisinger
I would have to bet your G4 processor is faster than this P3 in my XBox, so again, CPU IS NOT an issue on modern day consoles as much as GPU power is.

I'm just adding to this discussion, not taking a side. I agree with your statement. I do think there are a lot of factors to consider when a game is brought to a computer.

To be fair, the XBox only has to pump out graphics at 768 x 480 (max) for NTSC video (640 x 480 with overscan). I'm not sure if it does HDTV, but even that is only about 1280 x 1024... but I don't think it does for games. (Correct me if I'm wrong).

There is a good reason why consoles can produce relatively great looking graphics... because they only have to pump out 25% of the pixels per second that your average computer would have. 1280 x 1024 is 4 times the spatial density as 640 x 480. That, in turn, is the reason why good computers can really out shine a console, too. At 1280 x 1024, with FSAA on, I'd have to have a great computer... but a game would look much better than a console because the geometry density _can_ be higher on a computer's CPU. Doesn't mean it is, but it can be.

The computer's CPU determines what you see, then the GPU renders it. So, in a way, the two are tied. Depending on how modern the graphics card, and how the routines are done in the game, the load can be greater on one than the other. For example, Unreal is heavily dependant on the CPU as compared to some other FPS games. This is straight from the developer's mouth.

And graphics are not the only thing to consider. AI and Physics are large computational tasks that must occur simultaneously with the visual sub-system. So not only is the CPU determining what the person can see, but it's calculating the moves of any BOT AI's, any physics, and the general game mechanics. When games are ported to a computer, they literally loose a bit in the translation. They also get new features most of the time. all of this adds up.

Again, I'm just thinking outloud to spur a little discussion on the point.

One last thing I'd like to mention-- there are now programming languages being ported to run on GPU's. GPU's on many computers can be FAR more effective at crunching numbers, vectors, etc. than the CPU. I find that very interesting. Why not use the GPU to process some vector math or even general task computing?

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Henriok
No they have not. They havn't stated anything of the sort. They have said that they are going to use processors from IBM's state of the art processor family. Nothing more, nothing less.

We probably were considering going for AMD but thay aren't any more. Thay are going to use IBM's technology. And.. integrating a Northbridge into a future PPC-design isn't that hard for IBM, the PPC cores are modular, IBM have great experience of doing custom SOC-chips, and they ARE the kings of memory bandwidth.. just look at the specs for POWER4 and POWER5. AMD is nowhere close.


_IF_ the Xbox Next will be using G5-like procesosrs, and it is two years away, people at Microsoft and game designers must get up to speed on how these processors work. The instruction set of the rumored processors will be quite similar to today's G5s. And, they are probably eager to make their new games multithreaded too. I see no reason why not to use Apple G5s to do early prototyping of software.

Microsoft must rewrite DirextX and whatever operating system they chose to use. That takes time, and if they are to be as optimized at they'd like it to be.. starting today would be too late.

Just to add some fuel to the IBM fire... a birdie told me that IBM is going to be cooling their chips and boards by incorporating it into the systems directly instead of externally. They will be building cooling pipes into the chips and boards. No one else is even considering this. Why? Because they have no way of producing such a thing. Intel and AMD don't. To translate, I would expect future PPC chips to include inner-chip cooling technology.

IBM is also able to tell a enterprise customer the EXACT MINUTE that a chip or board will fail. No one else does this. Why? Again, no one else CAN do this because they don't have the infastructure in place.

IBM is the right behemoth to be partnered with. They are a LONG way ahead of the curve in true innovation. There are some wacky things coming in the future from them-- including bio chips and quantum computers. Not just fiction... actual prototypes.

 

[Dippo]

I don't really care what the exact type of processor the XBox2 uses, because I just want to put Linux on it and use it as a webserver.

The old XBox still works pretty good, I just wish it had a little more RAM and a bigger Hard drive would be nice too.

 

[johnnyjibbs]

All 3 current consoles have largely the same power, give or take, and can run the same games. The graphics level of the machine is not what wins the console war, it is only part of the story (e.g. PS2 is the least powerful of the 3 and still sells the strongest).

Generally, we can assume that Nintendo's, Sony's and Microsoft's next offerings will roughly have similar graphics and computing power (they will generally try to match each other's specs as happened with the current generation). Therefore, one of the main things will be cost. Even though Microsoft can afford for Xbox 2 to run at a loss, they are still a business and will be looking for ways to make it profitable. This isn't going to happen if each machine has 3 of the latest processors on the market plus the world's fastest graphics card at the time. Even the most cost-effieciently produced consoles run at a loss. They have to minimise this loss.

My take: if Microsoft focuses solely on producing by far the most powerful games console on the market for its next iteration Xbox console, it will fail. That said, they've done a pretty decent job at getting the current Xbox into the market, even if I do prefer Nintendo...

 

[Gyroscope]

Im just curious. What if XBox2 takes off big time. Dare I predtict Longhorn for PPC ;P. It does make sense to me.

 

[DeepIn2U]

dguisinger, If what you say regarding cpu's do not affect graphic performance at all except when it comes to AI then I have to strongly disagree.

I dont care which cpu you have, be it a P2/P3/P4 or even G3/G4/G5, cpu speed and alti-vec does affect graphic performance. Given that the cpu's being compared all have close to equal FSB performance along with the SAME graphics card (ie Radeon 9600 for PC/Mac being 4xAGP) in the same databus AGP slot (2x/4x/8x) then cpu speed WILL affect FPS frames per second; a measurement of graphic performance.

look at all Quicksilver PowerMacs or even 2nd generation Dell Optiplex's (Pentium 3's with MMX technology) with both systems having the same generation & brand video card on AGP 4x slots; say Radeon 7600 and each cpu running at 733mhz you WILL find that fps was better with increasing cpu speed ALONE. Even with current p4 systems @ 2.6Ghz with 800mhz FSB with Radeon 9800 Pro's on 8x AGP slots will still lag behind a P4 with the same setup except for a new P4 at 2.8 or even 3.0/3.2Ghz. Now can you explain why is that without conflicting your earlier post??

If this was fact then most gamers wouldn't be going for the latest and greatest cpu after first upgrading their memory. Furthermore Intel wouldn't have sold as many cpu's based on previous claims of increased multimedia & game performance that mainly included graphics.

Oh yeah by the way maybe not in this article, but Microsoft HAS formerly announced that they WILL be using IBM PowerPC 970/97x cpus in their next gen XBox.

Lastly, Microsoft has announced that the current XBox is being sold/made/marketed at a LOSS!! probably just to satisfy game title producers and get their name out there (which has increased of lately during the past 3&4th Qtrs). Reminds me of the first PPC licensing, where they began the first half of the year at a LOSS as well.

Personally, I'm still gonna be going PS3 or even the next Nintendo system (if they make a sensible controller configuration; like PS2).