Could MicroSoft be a large CPU maker one day?

[WolfPac_Ite]

Read this, It's long but interesting:

Xbox 2 News
Intel, NVidia, ATI... out of the picture?

Recent news stories report that Microsoft may design their own chips for the Xbox 2 design. This means that the manufacturers of the current Xbox console may be out of the picture. For the Xbox 1, NVidia had won the bid to supply the graphics chips for the Xbox, and Intel won the bidding war against the CPU manufacturer AMD.


NVidia and MS... the end of a beautiful relationship

Nvidia's share price rose after they reported doing quite well even though worldwide Microsoft Xbox sales were below expection. Insiders report that Microsoft didn't like Nvidia's refusal to lower the cost of their chip set, and apparently Microsoft is getting ready for legal action against Nvidia, based on a breach of agreement between the two companies.


XBox 2 is a DIY for Microsoft

The main reason for this move is of course the cost for Microsoft for the use of these components in the Xbox, which are largely responsible for the high price of the console, making it extra-hard for MS to offer the console at a reduced price. The surprising news is that Microsoft aims not only to develop and produce their own graphics chips, but also the main CPU, by which Microsoft plans to shake off its dependency on X86 suppliers.

Sources say that Microsoft has posted a request for quotation for a DirectX9/10 microcode engine, the part of the chip that decodes and processes DirectX instructions.


Rather receive than pay license fees

Microsoft's move into chip development and production was foreshadowed by their recent acquisition of Silicon Graphics patents. This means that they can implement many features into their chips that otherwise would require licensing, AND it means that other chip manufacturers like ATI and NVidia will have to start paying Microsoft license fees.


MSIL all the way

The CPU for the Xbox 2 is rumoured to be designed to be a processor that can decode and execute instructions in Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) while at the same time being able to run x86 code, to remain compatible with Xbox 1.


Xbox 2, the real "home station?"

The Xbox 1 has underperformed in terms of projected sales. Forced to follow the price reductions of the Sony's and Nintendo's video game consoles, the Xbox price drop to $179 means that Microsoft is making at least $100 loss on each console sold. The plan is to subsidise this with increased software sales, but this calculation may only provide positive resuls in years to come, and perhaps only with Xbox 2. Not unlike Sony's drive to develop a "home station" that would function as the center of a home entertainment system, Microsoft plans to make the Xbox 2 the machine that will take over our living rooms, providing not only video game entertainment, but also online functions, and direct-to-disk digital TV recording. Microsoft has deep pockets and may venture on undeterred of the moderate success of Xbox 1, but it may take Xbox 2 or even Xbox 3 or 4 before Microsoft's plan for global domination of our living rooms becomes reality.


What I'm getting at here is, If this rumour is true, Then do you think MS will ever get the idea in there heads to start making CPU's for PC's in the future? Who knows, they might one day be a big competitor for Intel and AMD.

[i486]

HELL NO!!! I would never buy any of their crippleware, let alone hardware. Mickey$oft has a long way to go before it finds its way into my living room. Now that slackware 10 is out, XP has some competition.

[Force Flow]

I just cringe at the thought.

[Colonel Sanders]

If Microslop made CPUs, there is a 99% chance they would not let Linux run on their CPUs, if they are even x86 based (granted, it was probably take the Linux community minues to get Linux on a MS CPU if it were worth anything). I imagine if MS made CPUs they would ditch the ancient but good x86 standard and become more like apple. But currently, I see no reason for MS to make CPUs, especially not x86 CPUs.

As far as the X-Box 2, I hope MS has some good tricks up their sleeve. It's going to take an immensly powerful CPU (as far as I know, MS doesn't have the experience making CPUs and GPUs as toshiba, IBM, and ATI ), they will loose the advantage of being easy to code and port games to.

On the other hand, it will actually force console developers to learn to work with the power available, like now games are made for PC, ported to X-Box, then for the PS2 and GC version they just settle for something playable that looks close to what it should.

L J

[Hi Ho]

I still cannot understand why so many people hate Microsoft. I own an Xbox and I love it. It's a great console. What would be the problem if they made their own CPU? Also, Why do people still flame Windows? It's a good OS. Much better than it ever has been. If Xbox 2 is anywhere near as good as Xbox 1 I will be getting it. I also wouldn't mind if they started making CPU's for PC's. More competition is better. With only two companies competing prices and speed will only go so far. The same goes for video cards. I would in fact like to see Microsoft enter one or both of those markets. It would have the potential to really heat things up. Maybe I'm just biased because I have so many good friends that work at Microsoft and it is basically in my back yard but I do like many of their products and will continue to purchase and use them.

[WolfPac_Ite]

I know that I will be getting the GameCube-2, And the big N says that it will be revolutionary, Which I believe them. So if MS's rumor is true, And Sony has their power house entertainment center PS3, And Nintendo is going to have a revolutionary gaming console, This is going to be one heck of a generation.

[Hi Ho]

Well didn't Nintendo say the Gamecube was going to be revolutionary? I don't see anything revolutionary about it. It uses proprietory media (can't playe DVD's), the games, although some are very fun, are geared toward younger players, and is there even an online service for it? I do agree that this next generation should be really good. I hope all three console makers will come through and make good consoles. Microsoft would be making a HUGE mistake if they didn't put a hard drive in Xbox 2 which I have heard may happen.

[mb26]

intel is too expensive even for microsoft now eh?

'More competition is better' -sure, but u know if M$ entered the CPU market 10 years down the line they'd have driven AMD and Intel out of the market.
having said that.. judging by their peripherals (and their OS's too i guess), they'd be over-priced anyway..

i think MS should use AMDs geode or T-bred B CPU in the X-box2 i'm sure it'd be cheaper and more powerful than anything M$ could produce.

'Why do people still flame Windows? It's a good OS'
for me.. bloat, cost, trying to control everything and make everything proprietry- like wma (what was wrong with mp3 in the first place?). i'd like to add that it isn't really up to the job security wise either.

'It's going to take an immensly powerful CPU'
i would very much doubt that, the original x-box had a 733mhz pIII if you remember. and 'immensely powerful' is expensive- what M$ dont want. less than 2ghz i'd imagine- if they dont make their own CPU then it'd be an end of the line one from intel or AMD.. most probably intel again. i wouldn't be sure they'd go through with making thier own CPU? anyway the gpu is more important for gaming, so they should spend any 'spare' $ on that.

[Hi Ho]

bloat, cost, trying to control everything and make everything proprietry- like wma

Bloat means nothing on a modern system. What is proprietory in Windows? Yes, WMP encodes in WMA but what's wrong with that? 128kb WMA sounds better than 128kb MP3. Also, many devices support WMA so I could hardly call it proprietory.

[i486]

Geode cpus are very powerful for what they are. Most are fanless, and advantech makes geode boards that are 3.5" form factor.

[Sanguimancer]

"Microsoft's move into chip development and production was foreshadowed by their recent acquisition of Silicon Graphics patents. This means that they can implement many features into their chips that otherwise would require licensing, AND it means that other chip manufacturers like ATI and NVidia will have to start paying Microsoft license fees."

Sweet, now Microsoft has another way to put people out of business that it doesn't like, it simply patents something they are using and forces them to pay royalties.

And as for competetion being good in the console market, that is a lie. Generally I will agree that competetion is a great thing, but unfortunately creating games is more of an art than a business. Competetion in art is a bad bad thing indeed. The greatest console games of all arise from innovation and breaking away from standards, something that is very hard to do when you are competing against one of the largest corporations on the planet. Powerful hardware and awesome graphics don't make a good game, the SNES and Genesis still have some of the greatest games of all time.

[csp]

I wish they still used ibm g5's. Good prosesor and, if any one does not like apple, i could tell them to get rid of thier xbox. That would be funny.

[Hi Ho]

I wish they still used ibm g5's.

They haven't used the G5. Though there has been talk about it.

[csp]

My bad. I thought thier prototypes were with g5's.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by mb26 'It's going to take an immensly powerful CPU' i would very much doubt that, the original x-box had a 733mhz pIII if you remember. and 'immensely powerful' is expensive- what M$ dont want. less than 2ghz i'd imagine- if they dont make their own CPU then it'd be an end of the line one from intel or AMD.. most probably intel again. i wouldn't be sure they'd go through with making thier own CPU? anyway the gpu is more important for gaming, so they should spend any 'spare' $ on that.

Your right the X-Box has a 733MHz Cele-mine, and reviews everywhere bragged about how much more power it had than PS2's and GC's, every single review quoted the MHz not the actual power. The PS2 has incredible power, have you seen Metal Gear Solid 3? A photo-realistic jungle. The PS3 will have even more power, the X-Box 2 is going to need a lot of power(not MHz) to keep up. Currently, the only advantage the X-Box has is hard-wire AA and 64Mb of RAM, Sony has already shown what it can do with only 32Mb, Sony would be stupid to not up the RAM and include hard-wired AA.

As for MS as a chip maker, or even console maker, MS can loose so much money they could easily take over the CPU and console market, and I hate that thought. MS's pricing isn't exactly great, and Windows is not perfect for much of anything. It works on PCs to browse the web but it's not ment to run a console, or be on a fridge... nor do I really want windows on a Pocket PC or a cell-phone unless MS really cleans up the OS.

L J

[Punked Out Comp]

[rant]I seriously hope we NEVER see a microsoft cpu. I HA TE microsoft and love thier OS's.
I think they have some good software but they are selfish pennypinchers desperate to monpolize the total computer market, OSs arent enough anymore. Bill Gates is already one of the richest if not the richest man in the world. Cant he let some other companies sell products, because their stuff is probably better than his anyway. He should just quit while hes ahead, Microsoft isnt a hardware companie, thier a software company.[/rant]

[Hi Ho]

Microsoft has been in the hardware business for quite a while and they happen to make some very nice hardware. Take the Sidewinder joysticks. They are the best I have ever used. Too bad they don't make them anymore. I can't find anything that comes close. They make very nice mice and keyboards as well. About Windows, I still don't see what has to be "cleaned up". No OS is EVER going to be perfect. Linux and Apple aren't perfect and never will be. Their flaws simply don't get as much publicity. Also, about Windows being bloated, the only thing I can think of is eye candy which I happen to like. It's not hurting anything and it can be turned off. Heck, look at Apple OS X. If Windows is considered bloated Then how can you not consider OS X bloated?

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho Microsoft has been in the hardware business for quite a while and they happen to make some very nice hardware. Take the Sidewinder joysticks. They are the best I have ever used. Too bad they don't make them anymore. I can't find anything that comes close. They make very nice mice and keyboards as well. About Windows, I still don't see what has to be "cleaned up". No OS is EVER going to be perfect. Linux and Apple aren't perfect and never will be. Their flaws simply don't get as much publicity. Also, about Windows being bloated, the only thing I can think of is eye candy which I happen to like. It's not hurting anything and it can be turned off. Heck, look at Apple OS X. If Windows is considered bloated Then how can you not consider OS X bloated?

Who ever said OS X was good? The number one reason apple is better than MS, is that apple can actually admit they are and want to be proprietary. OS X works because it runs good on Apple hard ware, it runs very well.

Windows is a OS that has some issues, just look at IE. That is horribly sloppy, and you pay for that! Linux, quite honestly, is near perfect. The only thing that Linux really has trouble with is dependencies (ie, download software A, it needs software B and C, B needs D and E...). *But you don't have to install everything with Linux, and odds are whoever made that software did it for free.* Whats really funny is Linux is not the worlds largest company, 90% of Linux developers probbably don't get a paycheck for their work, yet they put out a better product.

Mr. Gates IMO is getting far more $$$ than anyone deserves for what he put out. MS is trying to become a monoply, and making a ton of $$$ for a product that is not worth the money. That is what I have against Microsoft.

MS as a hardware maker? Do you know what could happen? MS could call up Michael Dell and say "here is out CPU, running at 4GHz, for $40", Intel would suffer tremendously. MS would loose money on CPU sales for a while, but once Intel and AMD are gone, MS would be making more profit than anyone could imagine. Sadly, MS has the power to "erase" AMD and Intel, even if they made a horrible CPU, and Mr. Gates would not care one bit. Look at the console market, MS looses money on every X-Box sold, they claim it has more power, and eventually MS could get rid of Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo has already lost their lead... Simple fact- MS can loose a ton of cash, because in the end everyone will have to hand over cash to MS.

Anyways, do you see how much damage is possible? Too many PC users settle for a pre-built PC with Windows, and could not care one bit about the hard-ware. I do believe MS could kill AMD and Intel.

I want freedom of choice, I don't want to be forced to use microslop.

L J

[WolfPac_Ite]

Originally Posted by Colonel Sanders Your right the X-Box has a 733MHz Cele-mine, and reviews everywhere bragged about how much more power it had than PS2's and GC's, every single review quoted the MHz not the actual power. The PS2 has incredible power, have you seen Metal Gear Solid 3? A photo-realistic jungle. The PS3 will have even more power, the X-Box 2 is going to need a lot of power(not MHz) to keep up. Currently, the only advantage the X-Box has is hard-wire AA and 64Mb of RAM, Sony has already shown what it can do with only 32Mb, Sony would be stupid to not up the RAM and include hard-wired AA. As for MS as a chip maker, or even console maker, MS can loose so much money they could easily take over the CPU and console market, and I hate that thought. MS's pricing isn't exactly great, and Windows is not perfect for much of anything. It works on PCs to browse the web but it's not ment to run a console, or be on a fridge... nor do I really want windows on a Pocket PC or a cell-phone unless MS really cleans up the OS. L J

True, The X has a modified Celeron(faster FSB), And tech wise it is more powerful then the GameCube but performance wise it's not always, For instance, The part of the reason games like Metroid Prime and the upcoming gorgeus looking game Resident Evil 4 look so realistic is because of the crap loads of detail(look at trailers of RE4), Which the X-Box CPU cannot handle, While the GC's CPU can process more detail at a time then the X's Pentium.

[Punked Out Comp]

Originally Posted by Colonel Sanders Who ever said OS X was good? The number one reason apple is better than MS, is that apple can actually admit they are and want to be proprietary. OS X works because it runs good on Apple hard ware, it runs very well. Windows is a OS that has some issues, just look at IE. That is horribly sloppy, and you pay for that! Linux, quite honestly, is near perfect. The only thing that Linux really has trouble with is dependencies (ie, download software A, it needs software B and C, B needs D and E...). *But you don't have to install everything with Linux, and odds are whoever made that software did it for free.* Whats really funny is Linux is not the worlds largest company, 90% of Linux developers probbably don't get a paycheck for their work, yet they put out a better product. Mr. Gates IMO is getting far more $$$ than anyone deserves for what he put out. MS is trying to become a monoply, and making a ton of $$$ for a product that is not worth the money. That is what I have against Microsoft. MS as a hardware maker? Do you know what could happen? MS could call up Michael Dell and say "here is out CPU, running at 4GHz, for $40", Intel would suffer tremendously. MS would loose money on CPU sales for a while, but once Intel and AMD are gone, MS would be making more profit than anyone could imagine. Sadly, MS has the power to "erase" AMD and Intel, even if they made a horrible CPU, and Mr. Gates would not care one bit. Look at the console market, MS looses money on every X-Box sold, they claim it has more power, and eventually MS could get rid of Sony and Nintendo. Nintendo has already lost their lead... Simple fact- MS can loose a ton of cash, because in the end everyone will have to hand over cash to MS. Anyways, do you see how much damage is possible? Too many PC users settle for a pre-built PC with Windows, and could not care one bit about the hard-ware. I do believe MS could kill AMD and Intel. I want freedom of choice, I don't want to be forced to use microslop. L J

Thats my point not that all thier hardware is definatly bad but i have a feeling if they made items that arent peripheral they would be haribble and drive good companies out of buissnes.

[Joeberg]

Microsoft is not bad in my opinion. They have good software, and I like the Xbox, although I favor the PS2. However, If they branched out producing CPU's, and later on other PC components, I'd fear PC's would end up like Macs. Totally proprietary, and way too overpriced.

[TennBikeBerk]

I would rather choose from three brands, than two. Bring on the competition!

[Hi Ho]

and Mr. Gates would not care one bit

I don't know if he is that kind of person. I have never met him but my grandma has. She was, in fact, his secretary in the late 80's. That, of course, was before MS was so big but from what I hear he is a nice guy and didn't seem to want to take over the world. Of course that could have changed but since I know so many people that work for Microsoft I guess I am biased. They are all nice people that I know. They don't want to kill all the competition. They like their job and they are paid well... very well.

[Redfallon]

. . . ugh . . . if you don't like the bloat, or bill gates, or believe linux is much safer, or M$ is too slow with patches, or think m$ forces it's software down people's throats, whatever it may be, that's fine. . . There's got to be reasons why HP, Dell, E-Machines, etc, use Windows on their PC's. . . Linux is free, they could increase their profit margin, so why wouldn't they use it? Maybe if company A used linux, the majority of people would go buy from company B because they prefer windows???

Now for the real question, should I replace my rig with an AMD running linux so I will get better performance in games?

As for the article, I say if microsoft wants to build CPU's, let em, if they're better, they'll sell, if they're overpriced garbage, a few people may buy em, that's the great thing about free enterprise.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by Redfallon . . . ugh . . . if you don't like the bloat, or bill gates, or believe linux is much safer, or M$ is too slow with patches, or think m$ forces it's software down people's throats, whatever it may be, that's fine. . . There's got to be reasons why HP, Dell, E-Machines, etc, use Windows on their PC's. . . Linux is free, they could increase their profit margin, so why wouldn't they use it? Maybe if company A used linux, the majority of people would go buy from company B because they prefer windows???

I do hate Windows, and do believe Linux is safer, possibly a faster, deffinatley a lot less bloated, but it's also harder to use. 90% (the average people, not us) of the computing would not know how to use Linux, which is why prebuilt companies have not switched to Linux.

Games- if such games were wrote for Linux, yes, they probbably would preform better. But as is, most games are for Windows because that is what 90% of the population uses.

L J

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by WolfPac_Ite True, The X has a modified Celeron(faster FSB), And tech wise it is more powerful then the GameCube but performance wise it's not always, For instance, The part of the reason games like Metroid Prime and the upcoming gorgeus looking game Resident Evil 4 look so realistic is because of the crap loads of detail(look at trailers of RE4), Which the X-Box CPU cannot handle, While the GC's CPU can process more detail at a time then the X's Pentium.

I comptetley agree with you. Games that are developed for one platform will have better graphics than multi-platform games. But currently, the X-Box is a PC so all the developer is make a PC game, port it X-Box, then write something playable that sorta resembles the final product for GC and PS2.

The GC and PS2 in my opinion are the two most powerful consoles. But sadly you read reviews and all I have read say "X-Box has a 733MHz CPU and PS2 has a 400MHz CPU so the X-Box is better." Wait, have these people ever thought there is more to a CPU than MHz? Another reason I hate X-Box is the simple fact MS claims a GeForce 3, which in a PC with more RAM, and faster CPU only puts out 25M polygons per second, but in the X-Box it magically puts out 130M polygons per second? Sorry, not possible.

[Colonel Sanders]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho I don't know if he is that kind of person. I have never met him but my grandma has. She was, in fact, his secretary in the late 80's. That, of course, was before MS was so big but from what I hear he is a nice guy and didn't seem to want to take over the world. Of course that could have changed but since I know so many people that work for Microsoft I guess I am biased. They are all nice people that I know. They don't want to kill all the competition. They like their job and they are paid well... very well.

Mr. Gates might actually be a perfect citizen, he might be a very nice person. But for the past few years the rest of the world has portrayed him a little bit satanic... because of what his company has done.

Consider this, people might blame Michael Dell if Dell releases a faulty PSU, but in truth they know Michael didn't personally mess up the PSUs or even authorize said PSUs to be in Dell PCs, but people would still blame Michael Dell.

L J

[WolfPac_Ite]

Everywhere you look you look there are slightly different specifications, So here are some from an Xbox site, They should be close to the actual specs

Graphics Processor Unit 250 MHz Custom-Designed NV2X
Max Polygon Performance 125 M/sec
Simultaneous Textures 4.8 G/Sec
Pixel Fill Rate 12w
Compressed Textures Yes (6:1)
Maximum resolution 1920 x 1080 (HDTV Required)
MPEG 2 Support Yes (Standard DVD)
HDTV Game Support Yes (HDTV Cable Required)
DVD Movie Playback Yes (DVD Remote Control Required)
Media Comm. Processor 200 MHz Processor Custom
Designed By NVIDIA
Controls Hard Disk & DVD
Controls High-Speed Ethernet
Controls Proprietary USB Game Ports
Controls Advanced Audio which uses:
licensed technology from UK's Sensaura 3D


And here a copy&paste of the specs for the Xbox CPU that make it different but similar from the Pentium-3 and the Celeron:

Xbox CPU
Manufacturer: Intel
Clock Speed: 733MHz
L1 Cache: 32KB (16KB Instruction Cache + 16KB Data Cache)
L2 Cache: 128KB
FSB: 133MHz
Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE)
Pentium III 733
Manufacturer: Intel
Clock Speed: 733MHz
L1 Cache: 32KB (16KB Instruction Cache + 16KB Data Cache)
L2 Cache: 256KB
FSB: 133MHz
Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE)
Celeron 733
Manufacturer: Intel
Clock Speed: 733MHz
L1 Cache: 32KB (16KB Instruction Cache + 16KB Data Cache)
L2 Cache: 128KB
FSB: 66MHz
Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE)
As you can see, the Xbox CPU is a cross between P3 and Celeron. It uses a 133MHz bus (FSB), but only has 128KB Level 2 Cache. However, Xbox CPU performance will be closer to a Pentium III than a Celeron. Celeron processors are greatly crippled by their low FSB speed. The latest Celeron processors (800+ MHz) for PC now use 100MHz FSB.

NOTE: The information given here for the Xbox CPU is based on reliable sources, but there still exists a chance for errors.

[WolfPac_Ite]

Xbox 2 Main Specs Confirmed?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mmedia/...627030133.html

The Xbox 2’s central processing unit is a custom processor based on PowerPC technology. The CPU includes three independent processors (cores) on a single die. Each core runs at 3.50GHz speed of faster. The Xbox 2 microprocessor can issue two instructions per clock cycle per core. At peak performance, Xenon can issue 21 billion instructions per second.


If this is true that would mean the Xbox-2's CPU is going to have THREE CORES RUNNING AT 3.5GHz OR FASTER. Does having three cores make it like having three CPU's in one?

[Colonel Sanders]

3.5GHz? Impresive. 2 instructions per clock? Not impressive. 6 IPC total, thats equal to a Pentium 4. However, that is not very high, an Athlon XP does 9.

Another thing is when they have 3 CPUs, sharing only 1MB of L 2 cache, that could do some more damage.

Really, MHz doesn't matter, performance matters. The current PS2 CPU though running at only 400MHz is able to do amazing things because it is essentially 2 CPUs, it is 128-bit, and it processes something like 9Gigaflops.

It looks as though X-Box 2 will have some power, but what will PS3 have? So far, all I think I know is it will have a 4GHz CPU, most likely 128-bit again. What will Nintendo release?

I just want to know how they are going to cool these things... Watercooling in a console?

L J