Playstation 3/Xbox 2 teaser

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-02 10:14pm

Here's a teaser for a next-gen game from Digital Anvil (the creators of Freelancer and Brute Force). It is not pre-rendered CG, but actual in game footage. Note that it isn't running on final hardware, so this is only a taste of what next-gen console games will look like. Have a look, it's quite interesting.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-04-02 10:19pm

Shinnnnnyyyyy but it looks Half Life 2 next gen not Quake 4 next gen or Ghost next gen

Still pretty

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-02 10:24pm

Mr Bean wrote:Shinnnnnyyyyy but it looks Half Life 2 next gen not Quake 4 next gen or Ghost next gen

Still pretty

Well, it IS using current gen hardware (probably NV40/R420) while the Xbox 2 and the Playstation 3 are going to use the next generation of graphics chips.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-04-03 11:18am

Actually XBox 2 and PS3 and GC2 will be using top of the line current advanced hardware- by the time it comes out it will not be exactly top of the line anymore.

As it is right now, the XBox has a 700 mhz Pentium 3 and GameCube has a 450 mhz G3 (does more calculations per hertz so its about as fast as the XBox). Both are outdated processors.

The XBox 2 is going to be using G5 processors (cracked me up that they're going to be using the IBM processors designed for Macintoshes) in the XBox 2. At the moment they are top of the line but by the time the XBox 2 comes out (late 2005 or 2006) there will be much faster versions of those chips (and dual processor as well).

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-03 01:14pm

Praxis wrote:Actually XBox 2 and PS3 and GC2 will be using top of the line current advanced hardware- by the time it comes out it will not be exactly top of the line anymore.

False.

As it is right now, the XBox has a 700 mhz Pentium 3 and GameCube has a 450 mhz G3 (does more calculations per hertz so its about as fast as the XBox). Both are outdated processors.

The processor does very little in a console.

The XBox 2 is going to be using G5 processors (cracked me up that they're going to be using the IBM processors designed for Macintoshes) in the XBox 2. At the moment they are top of the line but by the time the XBox 2 comes out (late 2005 or 2006) there will be much faster versions of those chips (and dual processor as well).

Wrong again. Xbox 2 will use a POWER5/POWER5+ derived G5 core that hasn't been released yet for the CPU. The graphics chip will be an R500 derived ATI unit which is ALSO not availible yet, and won't be until next year.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-03 07:52pm

If you're referring to the Team Xbox "news" story that the Xbox 2 will use a PowerPC 970 derivative, I'd take that information with a large grain of salt. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's totally and utterly false.

For reference, they claim that the Xbox 2 will use "three 65 nm G5-class dual-core SMT-aware PPC 976 processors and an ATI R500 derivative with on-chip DRAM."

Uh ... huh. So let's look at what we have here. Three, dual-core CPUs, each with SMT. That's six threads, in addition to SMT. That's a threading nightmare. Not only do you have to make sure each CPU is doing something, but you also have to optimize for the symmetric multithreading in each one. As I said, that's a threading nightmare, and no development house would want anything to do with such an architecture. Imagine what you'd have to do to port your game from the PS3 to the Xbox 2.

This stinks of fan wankery. They took every buzzword they could and crammed it into a single sentence. IBM has announced no "976" derivative; the next step for the G5 is the 980, according to their road map, which will have SMT.

And why does a console need a G5-class CPU? That's a lot of silicon for a console. Look at what the current Xbox can do with a 733 MHz Pentium III derivative. You think the current Xbox is a cash vacuum? Wait until the next one comes out with six cores. I don't think even Microsoft could tolerate that kind of expenditure when it's not required for what they want to do at all. I'd argue that even a single, dual-core processor would be overkill for the Xbox 2, but since everyone seems to be taking that direction, we may well see just that.

All we know about the Xbox 2 is that it will use a PowerPC CPU and an ATi GPU. That's it.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-04-03 08:38pm

You made a lot of assumptions about what he meant before attacking him, Durandal. Mayhap you should ask him to clarify before releasing the hounds?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-03 09:39pm

Durandal wrote:If you're referring to the Team Xbox "news" story that the Xbox 2 will use a PowerPC 970 derivative, I'd take that information with a large grain of salt. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's totally and utterly false.

Actually, I'm not. I'm going from the Xbox2 dev kits which are PowerPC 970 based, which suggests a more current version of the PowerPC 970 (or a cache cutdown version) when it arrives.

As for the ATI processor, it is a FACT that the Xbox2 will be R500 derived; that is already set in stone. ATI has already put their hardware division on designing a special version of the R500 core, and their driver team already has emulators and tools for the new platform.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-03 10:31pm

SPOOFE wrote:You made a lot of assumptions about what he meant before attacking him, Durandal. Mayhap you should ask him to clarify before releasing the hounds?

Would you calm down? I wasn't attacking him.

The Kernel wrote:Actually, I'm not. I'm going from the Xbox2 dev kits which are PowerPC 970 based, which suggests a more current version of the PowerPC 970 (or a cache cutdown version) when it arrives.

That's not very indicative of anything. The Xbox 2 hardware isn't even final at this point. They're probably using G5s as the preliminary development kits because they're PowerPCs, they're fast and they're here now. It also allows developers to get used to the way the PowerPC does things, but that's it.

While the CPU used in the Xbox 2 might bear some resemblance to the PowerPC 970, I doubt it'll be a derivative of it. More than likely, it'll be a new CPU, maybe even designed with a lot of same philosophies as the 970. The development units are there to tell developers how to schedule and optimize their code properly for the Xbox 2, as well as how to properly make use of the AltiVec unit (should it be included in the Xbox 2). Nothing about the pre-alpha development units being G5s requires that the Xbox 2 CPU be a 970 or a 970 derivative.

One of the 970's big strengths is the way it handles poorly-optimized code. That was part of its design. So why would you use a processor designed to run poorly-optimized code very well in a system that's only going to be running very well-optimized code? That makes absolutely no sense. Sure, the 970 runs optimized code very well, too, but well ... duh.

But taking the Xbox 2 development kits as some sort of indication of the final hardware specs of the Xbox 2 is extremely premature.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-03 11:26pm

Well regardless, the CPU inside the Xbox2 will NOT be based on any currently availible CPU as Praxis said, which is the point I was trying to make.

Something similar to PowerPC 970 makes sense simply because it wouldn't require much extra work on IBM's part and Microsoft is trying to get the costs of the Xbox2 down from what they paid with the Xbox. Microsoft doesn't like to pay a lot for their CPU's (and neither does Apple incidentally) which means that they are better off going with a slightly modified off the shelf chip, rather than a custom design. There's little question that the Xbox2 CPU will be PowerPC based (we know that much from the dev kits) so it has to be some derivative of the Power5 architecture, which is what IBM will be basing all their PowerPC chips on when the Xbox2 shows up.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-04 01:24am

The Kernel wrote:Well regardless, the CPU inside the Xbox2 will NOT be based on any currently availible CPU as Praxis said, which is the point I was trying to make.

I think you're confused. First you say that the Xbox 2's CPU will not be based on any currently available CPU, then you say that you think that something similar to the PowerPC 970 will be used, even though it's readily available. Which is it?

Something similar to PowerPC 970 makes sense simply because it wouldn't require much extra work on IBM's part and Microsoft is trying to get the costs of the Xbox2 down from what they paid with the Xbox. Microsoft doesn't like to pay a lot for their CPU's (and neither does Apple incidentally) which means that they are better off going with a slightly modified off the shelf chip, rather than a custom design. There's little question that the Xbox2 CPU will be PowerPC based (we know that much from the dev kits) so it has to be some derivative of the Power5 architecture, which is what IBM will be basing all their PowerPC chips on when the Xbox2 shows up.

The Xbox 2's hardware specs will be finalized long before IBM starts basing all of its chips off the POWER5. You may be right, however, depending on how suitable the architecture proves to be. However, the 970 doesn't seem like an appropriate choice for consoles; then again, no desktop processor does, and Microsoft had no problem using the Pentium III.

But consider that they're dropping the hard drive in the Xbox 2, as well. They may very well be moving away from the "Let's build a PC and sell it for über-cheap to play games" idea and toward a specialized console with specialized hardware. Also consider that, this time, they're probably not gunning for easy portability to Windows of Xbox 2 games. The use of a PowerPC chip pretty much destroys that notion. So what motivation do they have to use an off-the-shelf desktop CPU, aside from money (which they have vast amounts of)? Sony and Nintendo don't seem to have a problem with having IBM design a custom chip for them, and in order to stay competitive with Sony and Nintendo, Microsoft would be wise to order up the same from IBM.

Their use of G5s as very early development kits simply tells me that IBM made a lot of the same decisions with regards to chip design with Microsoft's custom CPU as they did with the 970. I just can't see Microsoft potentially sacrificing a performance gain from a custom CPU in the name of cost when they have a history of throwing away money until they have the marketshare they want.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-04 03:23am

Durandal wrote: I think you're confused. First you say that the Xbox 2's CPU will not be based on any currently available CPU, then you say that you think that something similar to the PowerPC 970 will be used, even though it's readily available. Which is it?

What do you think the 970's sucessors will look like? They aren't going to be much different then the 970 aside from a process shrink (90nm, then 65nm), although they may add some new features. POWER5 isn't all that different architecturally from POWER4, and thanks to the info we have about SMT threading in the Xbox2 (which is true, or else they wouldn't giving dual CPU G5's in the dev kits) we know that it will have to be POWER5 based.

The Xbox 2's hardware specs will be finalized long before IBM starts basing all of its chips off the POWER5. You may be right, however, depending on how suitable the architecture proves to be. However, the 970 doesn't seem like an appropriate choice for consoles; then again, no desktop processor does, and Microsoft had no problem using the Pentium III.

Consoles, especially the Xbox, don't need great efficiency out of their CPU's. The limiting factor in most consoles is the GPU (I know, I know, the PS2/PS3 is different, but that is a very unconventional architecture) so the requirements for the Xbox2 CPU will be based mostly on cost and thermal properties rather than raw performance (which means the PPC 970+ would be the perfect choice).

But consider that they're dropping the hard drive in the Xbox 2, as well. They may very well be moving away from the "Let's build a PC and sell it for über-cheap to play games" idea and toward a specialized console with specialized hardware.

They aren't dropping the hard drive per say, even if Sony doesn't decide to include one and put pressure on them to follow. Do you remember the M-systems guy that was blabbing on about the Xbox2 and his company's memory being used in it? It seems clear that Microsoft wants to use flash memory instead of a hard drive for the Xbox2. This has several advantages:

1) They can still get the chief benefit from having a hard drive (extra space for loading large data during gameplay and goood loadtimes) with flash memory.

2) They can start selling memory cards as requirements for playing, which was a HUGE loss for the Xbox as people didn't need to buy these highly lucrative items with their systems.

3) They can still ensure backwards compatibility. I know most people think that the hard drive being out makes this impossible, but it isn't true. The emulator can still treat the flash memory as scratch space for the games so that they wouldn't know the difference.

4) They can sell a hard drive as an add on with extra features not relating to gameplay (aside from a save area).

Also consider that, this time, they're probably not gunning for easy portability to Windows of Xbox 2 games. The use of a PowerPC chip pretty much destroys that notion. So what motivation do they have to use an off-the-shelf desktop CPU, aside from money (which they have vast amounts of)? Sony and Nintendo don't seem to have a problem with having IBM design a custom chip for them, and in order to stay competitive with Sony and Nintendo, Microsoft would be wise to order up the same from IBM.

You don't understand the situation here, Sony is co-developing Cell with IBM for use in other markets and Sony has invested several billions in the development. IBM isn't making the chips for Sony, Sony has a factory with Toshiba that will be manufacturing them, IBM is just a design partner. Cell is FAR more important to Sony then just the PS3 and it is far more important then the CPU's in either the N5 or the Xbox2 because it does most of the work in the system with the GS2 being a simple dumb renderer.

Nintendo's previous chip from IBM (in the Gamecube) is merely one of IBM's many G3 variants that they put inside of industrial routers (what, you didn't think Apple was IBM's only PPC client did you?

) and it is totally unmodified. Chances are that IBM will make similar chips for Nintendo and Microsoft for their next-gen consoles as well. The PowerPC 970 is not IBM's only POWER4 derived PPC chip either, and they may well strip out things like AltiVec like they did with the Gamecube CPU.

Their use of G5s as very early development kits simply tells me that IBM made a lot of the same decisions with regards to chip design with Microsoft's custom CPU as they did with the 970. I just can't see Microsoft potentially sacrificing a performance gain from a custom CPU in the name of cost when they have a history of throwing away money until they have the marketshare they want.

It's a cost issue here. They don't want to spend much money for a CPU, so they'll go with a slightly modified existing one. Nintendo did it for the Gamecube, Microsoft did it with the Xbox and now they are going to do it again.

Let me make this perfectly clear:

The absolute performance of the CPU is not that important for a game console designed as the Xbox is.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-04 03:30pm

The Kernel wrote:What do you think the 970's sucessors will look like? They aren't going to be much different then the 970 aside from a process shrink (90nm, then 65nm), although they may add some new features. POWER5 isn't all that different architecturally from POWER4, and thanks to the info we have about SMT threading in the Xbox2 (which is true, or else they wouldn't giving dual CPU G5's in the dev kits) we know that it will have to be POWER5 based.

What information about SMT in the Xbox 2? And how is using dual processor G5 development kits connected to SMT in any way? Having a second logical processor is a completely different beast from having a separate physical one. You do different optimizations for both. SMT is essentially of no value at all to a console application.

Consoles, especially the Xbox, don't need great efficiency out of their CPU's. The limiting factor in most consoles is the GPU (I know, I know, the PS2/PS3 is different, but that is a very unconventional architecture) so the requirements for the Xbox2 CPU will be based mostly on cost and thermal properties rather than raw performance (which means the PPC 970+ would be the perfect choice).

Actually, in terms of low cost, there's also the 440 to consider. I'm not sure it has the raw performance of the 970, but it's low-cost, low-heat.

They aren't dropping the hard drive per say, even if Sony doesn't decide to include one and put pressure on them to follow. Do you remember the M-systems guy that was blabbing on about the Xbox2 and his company's memory being used in it? It seems clear that Microsoft wants to use flash memory instead of a hard drive for the Xbox2. This has several advantages:

1) They can still get the chief benefit from having a hard drive (extra space for loading large data during gameplay and goood loadtimes) with flash memory.

2) They can start selling memory cards as requirements for playing, which was a HUGE loss for the Xbox as people didn't need to buy these highly lucrative items with their systems.

3) They can still ensure backwards compatibility. I know most people think that the hard drive being out makes this impossible, but it isn't true. The emulator can still treat the flash memory as scratch space for the games so that they wouldn't know the difference.

4) They can sell a hard drive as an add on with extra features not relating to gameplay (aside from a save area).

I'll focus on Number 3. Backwards compatibility is something that's been hinted at by a number of different factors, the first being simple demand. The second is Microsoft's acquisition of Connectix, makers of VirtualPC. VPC essentially emulated an x86 CPU on PowerPC. But the problem is that it still isn't working on the 970 because the 970 doesn't support a pseudo-little endian mode like the earlier PowerPC's did. There's some massive retooling required there, and I wouldn't say for sure if Microsoft has backwards compatibility as a guaranteed feature on the Xbox 2, because if they are indeed using the 970, they've got quite a few technical hurdles to overcome to make it work.

Also, backwards compatibility is about the one reason I can see for them to go the multiprocessor route, as well as a reason not to go with a straight 970 derivative. To effectively emulate the original Xbox on the Xbox 2, they're going to need some serious horsepower. Though, I don't think this is beyond the capabilities of a dual-core PowerPC 970 or 440, for example. It depends on how/if Microsoft solves the endian problem. They may have asked IBM for a processor like the 970 that supported the proper endian mode.

You don't understand the situation here, Sony is co-developing Cell with IBM for use in other markets and Sony has invested several billions in the development. IBM isn't making the chips for Sony, Sony has a factory with Toshiba that will be manufacturing them, IBM is just a design partner. Cell is FAR more important to Sony then just the PS3 and it is far more important then the CPU's in either the N5 or the Xbox2 because it does most of the work in the system with the GS2 being a simple dumb renderer.

Nintendo's previous chip from IBM (in the Gamecube) is merely one of IBM's many G3 variants that they put inside of industrial routers (what, you didn't think Apple was IBM's only PPC client did you? ) and it is totally unmodified. Chances are that IBM will make similar chips for Nintendo and Microsoft for their next-gen consoles as well. The PowerPC 970 is not IBM's only POWER4 derived PPC chip either, and they may well strip out things like AltiVec like they did with the Gamecube CPU.

Of course not. IBM is in every major next-generation console. Also, Sony's spending this past year, if memory serves, went to IBM's Fishkill plant. It would make sense for them to use it in the manufacturing of Cell. I wasn't aware that Sony would be doing the fabbing themselves.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-04-04 05:31pm

Durandal wrote:What information about SMT in the Xbox 2? And how is using dual processor G5 development kits connected to SMT in any way? Having a second logical processor is a completely different beast from having a separate physical one. You do different optimizations for both. SMT is essentially of no value at all to a console application.

The Xbox2 will mostlikely feature the .NET framework. Its a fairly integral part of the framework to use threading which can and should be offloaded onto another processor on a multi-processor system.

This still doesnt explain the massive computing power they are putting into the console. But still, I'm sure the games will expand to fit

They may have asked IBM for a processor like the 970 that supported the proper endian mode.

This would be the logical thing todo, it should be a trivial feature to add to the ISA and support in hardware for it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-04 06:56pm

Durandal wrote: What information about SMT in the Xbox 2? And how is using dual processor G5 development kits connected to SMT in any way? Having a second logical processor is a completely different beast from having a separate physical one. You do different optimizations for both. SMT is essentially of no value at all to a console application.

SMT still uses multiple threads in the same application much like SMP and the OS sees two logical processors. The only real difference is in optimization, but since the function calls and the resource limits of the SMT PowerPC's are probably already well known to the developers, this really shouldn't be a big issue.

Actually, in terms of low cost, there's also the 440 to consider. I'm not sure it has the raw performance of the 970, but it's low-cost, low-heat.

Not likely--it's a fixed 32-bit CPU and it's clock scaling isn't all the great. If the rumor about six cores is true (which I doubt) then I can believe that they'll use a low-cost, low performance chip like the 440, but if they are going for a single/dual core solo chip, then something from the desktop family makes more sense.

Of course not. IBM is in every major next-generation console. Also, Sony's spending this past year, if memory serves, went to IBM's Fishkill plant. It would make sense for them to use it in the manufacturing of Cell. I wasn't aware that Sony would be doing the fabbing themselves.

Sony and Toshiba both have indeed invested money in East Fishkill for Cell, but it has nothing to do with PS3. PS3 Cells will be manufactured at the new Sony/Toshiba fab, while the IBM East Fishkill will make Cell chips for other markets.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-04 07:22pm

ggs wrote:The Xbox2 will mostlikely feature the .NET framework. Its a fairly integral part of the framework to use threading which can and should be offloaded onto another processor on a multi-processor system.

This still doesnt explain the massive computing power they are putting into the console. But still, I'm sure the games will expand to fit

The emulation possibility alone might explain it. I have to wonder why they need a 64-bit CPU in there, as well.

The Kernel wrote:SMT still uses multiple threads in the same application much like SMP and the OS sees two logical processors. The only real difference is in optimization, but since the function calls and the resource limits of the SMT PowerPC's are probably already well known to the developers, this really shouldn't be a big issue.

"Well known"? There are no existing PowerPCs with SMT, at the moment.

Not likely--it's a fixed 32-bit CPU and it's clock scaling isn't all the great. If the rumor about six cores is true (which I doubt) then I can believe that they'll use a low-cost, low performance chip like the 440, but if they are going for a single/dual core solo chip, then something from the desktop family makes more sense.

You don't need a huge clock rate in a console, nor do you need a 64-bit CPU. Honestly, if Microsoft is going through all the trouble to completely change architectures (though will this only require dropping in a new compiler?) in the first place, I don't see it out of the realm of possibility that they're just having IBM design them a new chip. Of course, it's not like use of a heavily-modified 970 isn't impossible either.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-04 07:26pm

Durandal wrote: "Well known"? There are no existing PowerPCs with SMT, at the moment.

Sure there is: the POWER5.

EDIT: Oh, and the PPC 980 as well, which already has plenty of samples in the wild. In fact, the dual G5-tower dev kits may very well be shipping with 980's since they are pin compatible.