ATI to roll out R500 GPU (90nm) for Xbox 2 in 1Q 2005
- Thread starter McFly
- Start date
Duckhuntdog
Member
it can only mean three things of Rev:
1)Rev GPU will be based off of something greater than R500
2)Rev GPU will be based off of something below the R500
3)Rev GPU is totally custom
I don't see ATI letting ATI West doing something fully custom just for Nintendo. I would go with 1 or 2.
1)Rev GPU will be based off of something greater than R500
2)Rev GPU will be based off of something below the R500
3)Rev GPU is totally custom
I don't see ATI letting ATI West doing something fully custom just for Nintendo. I would go with 1 or 2.
Well if compared to the scheduling that was done during the development of Xbox, they're ahead of schedule.
With Xbox the developers got their NV20s in December 2000/January 2001 and got their final kits with the NV2A around E3 2001. (6 months prior to launch)
With Xbox the developers got their NV20s in December 2000/January 2001 and got their final kits with the NV2A around E3 2001. (6 months prior to launch)
ravingloon
Member
Good news for Xenon. And good news for PC users waiting for ATI to finially release a graphics card with a new core.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I a bit out of the loop on this - was R500 always meant to be in Xbox 2, I mean was it always suspected? I remember Gigadrive started panicking about some of these chips the other day, when some report on Inquirer surfaced, but I don't even remember what the report said.
I had always heard R500 derivative for Xenon... but I don't know if that came from the leaked specs or just a general assumption of the natural progress of things.
Also, performance wise doesnt an R500 90nm = R500 65nm? I thought the smaller process just saved money and power (as in electricity).
Also, performance wise doesnt an R500 90nm = R500 65nm? I thought the smaller process just saved money and power (as in electricity).
jedimike said:
smaller process = less electricity = less heat = more transistors = more powerful card.
This, of course, only affects the chip design, so the same chip layout will perform the same no matter what the process building it is. That is, of course, unless the chip overheats.
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
Nerevar said:
that's OK cause they'll just tell the developers to worry about that problem
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Makes sense. That way they will, for a while, have better graphics chip than what is available on the PC front. Much like they had with Xbox.
gofreak said:
That's great... for a PC. But for consoles it doesn't matter one bit because specs are locked. I think some people on here were misinformed. They thought that because the GPU (or any processor) is not 65nm, then it somehow decreases the performance of Xenon.
For console purposes...
90nm = 65nm
The architecture is set, so there isn't a difference to me or you except maybe the 10-15 cents you might save on your yearly power bill.
seismologist
Banned
jedimike said:
The Bookerman
Member
Forget about xbox 2 being the top of the line console it is now.
revolution and Ps3 will both be probably more powerfull than xenon.
revolution and Ps3 will both be probably more powerfull than xenon.
Project Midway
Member
Me too! PS2 and Xbox feel so old... I need some new tech into my living room ASAP!! =)Mrbob said:
Kind of doubt it..if PS3 and Revolution hit around the same time (which is almost assured), PS3 will be the more powerful of the two, I think. Even if Rev came out 6 months after PS3, I still think PS3 would be more powerful. The way things are looking, PS3 will likely take the technology crown next gen, unless things change a lot..
Whether we'll see the difference...well that's another story.
Whether we'll see the difference...well that's another story.
gofreak said:
besides the fact that PS3s processors are being made before Xbox2s?
I dunno dude, I still believe Xbox 2 will end up taking the crown just as Xbox did. Though it might be very marginal when compared to last time, it will still have an advantage.
I think it's really difficult to beat Sony on hardware not having a temporal advantage.
The point is that I don't see a temporal gap between Xbox2 and PS3 that could advantage one of the two.
More over knowing Sony they will already have near final hardware by next E3.
I think that PS3 will be better than Xbox2 for what concerns the CPU and raw power in general while Xbox2 will have a more refined GPU with probably more advanced shaders and features thanks to the Ati's experience in this sector,but I could well be wrong.
The point is that I don't see a temporal gap between Xbox2 and PS3 that could advantage one of the two.
More over knowing Sony they will already have near final hardware by next E3.
I think that PS3 will be better than Xbox2 for what concerns the CPU and raw power in general while Xbox2 will have a more refined GPU with probably more advanced shaders and features thanks to the Ati's experience in this sector,but I could well be wrong.
DopeyFish said:
Absolutely disagree if these timeframes stick. Cell isn't ready for primetime yet..as soon as it is, it'll be in PS3 i.e. PS3 will be the first application of it. Cell will be very very new tech when PS3 emerges. The architecture going into Xbox2 doesn't look to be quite so "new" at all. Sony's engineering ambition is pretty freakin' high. I'm not a Sony fanboy at all (more a Nintendo one, to be honest), but in terms of raw processing power, I think Sony will take next gen.
Consider: Microsoft is launching earlier (potentially significantly earlier..there could be a 12 month gap). Microsoft appears to be more cost-concious now and don't appear to be willing to lose as much money per unit as with Xbox. Sony is still engineering with loose expense limits (see the inclusion of Blu-ray for the latest indication of that). Sony's architecture is pretty bleeding edge..Microsoft's is more traditional.
And PS3's processors have been developed before Xbox2's?
Yep. Never mind all the waxing lyrical about strategy etc.
At the moment, Xbox is attractive to consumers, as it has better looking games, more easily, than PS2. But people still want PS2, as its the market leader. So PS2 is leading the race even though ideally people would want the tech superiority of xbox.
If xbox launches first, and PS3 is more powerful, then Sony has both hands - biggest brand *and* tech superiority. I don't see how MS wins that battle.
Then again, maybe they don't have to. Maybe Sony is so reliant on PS revenues that simply making a bigger dent next time (which they are likely to), MS can inflict major damage on Sony, with the aim of a next-next-gen win?
Still, I'm not sure there will be a next-next gen. If the manufacturers are already talking up laws of diminishing returns, and the leap forward of pixel shaders bears fruit, then I see next generation potentially lasting longer than 5 years.
At the moment, Xbox is attractive to consumers, as it has better looking games, more easily, than PS2. But people still want PS2, as its the market leader. So PS2 is leading the race even though ideally people would want the tech superiority of xbox.
If xbox launches first, and PS3 is more powerful, then Sony has both hands - biggest brand *and* tech superiority. I don't see how MS wins that battle.
Then again, maybe they don't have to. Maybe Sony is so reliant on PS revenues that simply making a bigger dent next time (which they are likely to), MS can inflict major damage on Sony, with the aim of a next-next-gen win?
Still, I'm not sure there will be a next-next gen. If the manufacturers are already talking up laws of diminishing returns, and the leap forward of pixel shaders bears fruit, then I see next generation potentially lasting longer than 5 years.
DopeyFish said:
Yeah but no way they will beat the Cell CPU made by Sony-IBM-Toshiba.
Sony is really top notch for what concerns CPUs,it's sufficient to say that the Emotion Engine,a 1999 chip,is the most powerful single CPU of all the current consoles.
And Cell is not a Sony only affaire,it's also IBM future techology,while the Xbox2 CPU will be based on the current Power PC technology in the multi core form.I think the gap between PS3 and Xbox2 CPU could be really wide in favour of the form.
For the GPU it's a different matter,Ati has a great experience and I can't see Sony alone beating Ati on the feature list.
gofreak said:
Grrr. Microsoft isn't cost-concious, they are being cost effective. What this means is with Xbox, Nvidia/Intel made their parts and ended up selling them directly to Microsoft. What this means is there is more shipping, more middlemen, more money. Plus, remember that huge nvidia write-off? Now with ATI/IBM, Microsoft is getting access to the IP themselves, they work with ATI and IBM to design the GPU/CPU, then Microsoft waddles it's way to TSMC or whoever and gets them fabbed themself. Middlemen are out of the picture, un-necessary write-offs are downsized. Money is saved.
CELL is apparently gone to fab as of a few weeks ago. Xbox 2 parts should be going into fab very soon. By this point, both consoles specs are very close to final. There might be some tweaks here and there, but at this point I don't see either of them to make any drastic changes to their specifications.
DopeyFish said:
Cell chips, or Sony's Emotion Engine 3/Graphics Synth 3? There is a difference you know. Like the first PowerPC chips going into fab vs later PowerPC chips. I don't expect Sony to tape out on actual PS3 chips till next year.
That asides, the PowerPC architecture being used in Xbox2 isn't as new as Cell. It is a more traditional architecture. Cell is something far different and with the potential for far more power.
And I agree on your first points about cost - they are saving most money by changing their business model. However I can't help but feel they'll also be more conservative regarding specs and features..
Anyway, if there's a 6-12 month gap, there's absolutely no way Microsoft will out-spec Sony. Whether or not they'll keep up in practice, in real games, is another matter.
edit - regarding microsoft's attitude to specs/cost etc., things definitely HAVE changed since Xbox1. I remember reading an interview with a Microsoft guy (i think it was J Allard) and it was like reading an interview with Nintendo. The phrase "good enough" came up a lot in reference to technology in next gen systems...that's not something you would have heard in the "best of everything" days of Xbox1. I can try dig up the actual quotes if you want.
McFly said:
It's based on the Power5. It's not a Power5 itself. the Xbox CPU has less cores and waaaaaaaaaay less cache, but it's still derived from one. Understand? It's the architecture they're using.
Elios83 said:
That's because it will be highly scalable. Eventually they'll have more processors within a die, at a higher clock speed. Since PS3 will be one of the first units to ever have these processors, it's gonna be near the bottom end of the CELL applications.
Here's the quote I referred to in the edit of a previous post from J Allard. It's taken from an article in Edge magazine on XNA following on from the GDC announcement.
"However, MS's emphasis on software, coupled with its unwillingness to confirm any Xbox2 details, suggests that what it has to show many not be all that impressive. After the heavy cost of Xbox's technical superiority over its rivals, is it fair to assume that Xbox2 will have less of a performance advantage? "That's a great question" laughs Allard, "but I'm not going to answer it. I'm not going to talk about our next-generation plans and what they might look like. A couple of things are happening. Technology is getting good enough. There are diminishing returns on having better graphics than what we demonstrated at GDC for a console you buy at Dixons (!). Why would you throw more money at those problems when the consumer can't perceive the difference, and the creators can't even take full advantage of it?"
Sounds like a more "nintendo" approach to me. And heh, they may be right. Gamecube didn't work out too badly for Nintendo, tech-wise, afterall.
"However, MS's emphasis on software, coupled with its unwillingness to confirm any Xbox2 details, suggests that what it has to show many not be all that impressive. After the heavy cost of Xbox's technical superiority over its rivals, is it fair to assume that Xbox2 will have less of a performance advantage? "That's a great question" laughs Allard, "but I'm not going to answer it. I'm not going to talk about our next-generation plans and what they might look like. A couple of things are happening. Technology is getting good enough. There are diminishing returns on having better graphics than what we demonstrated at GDC for a console you buy at Dixons (!). Why would you throw more money at those problems when the consumer can't perceive the difference, and the creators can't even take full advantage of it?"
Sounds like a more "nintendo" approach to me. And heh, they may be right. Gamecube didn't work out too badly for Nintendo, tech-wise, afterall.
Well we still don't know the final specs of PS3 and what it can deliver. So I am not going to say it's several times more powerful than Revolution or the Xenon. We might be surprised and see that the Revolution is the one wich kept it promises. Anyway too early to say right now. But going 90nm instead of 65nm is definitely not a good sign for Xenon. Btw is PS3 definitely going 65nm?
IBM's current and next big thing is Blue Gene: http://www.eetimes.com/at/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=48800214
Fredi
Fredi
I was talking in terms of next-generation as in it's not out yet, but it is coming out and it's the next generation of the POWER platform.
I wasn't trying to state the power5 being their most robust platform, because IBM has even better ones in existence today.
I wasn't trying to state the power5 being their most robust platform, because IBM has even better ones in existence today.
Shompola said:
Yes. I did a google search for that press release, but found something else of interest: http://www.ferrago.com/story/2831
lol, never believe what you read in a non official press release.
Fredi