PDA

View Full Version : nVidia loses XBox-2 contract to ATi


NV55
August 14th 03, 10:37 PM
nVidia is not going to make the graphics processor for XBox 2.

Apparently ATi is.


http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5063661.html?tag=fd_top
http://www.gamers.com/news/1443671
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030814/145156_1.html

chrisv
August 15th 03, 01:53 PM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:10:27 GMT, "Mark Leuck" >
wrote:

>Let em have it, I'm sure while they made tons of money at it Nvidia got a
>lot of headaches from Microsoft

Well, I'm sure that after the honeymoon was over, M$ tried to screw
them in the wrong hole, like they do all their "partners".

John Russell
August 15th 03, 01:56 PM
"Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Leuck" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Let em have it, I'm sure while they made tons of money at it Nvidia got
a
> > lot of headaches from Microsoft
>
> Maybe its the other way around?:-)
>
>
>
>

Microsoft want want is effectively a PC at the price of a gamestation. To
achieve this they expect the hardware supplier to subsedise the hardware and
recieve a porportion of the license game makers pay microsoft. I'm sure this
financial arrangement caused all kinds of headaches.

Courseyauto
August 15th 03, 02:25 PM
Nvidia doesn't need M$.........................

Crash7
August 15th 03, 04:38 PM
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:53:25 GMT, chrisv >
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 22:10:27 GMT, "Mark Leuck" >
>wrote:
>
>>Let em have it, I'm sure while they made tons of money at it Nvidia got a
>>lot of headaches from Microsoft
>
>Well, I'm sure that after the honeymoon was over, M$ tried to screw
>them in the wrong hole, like they do all their "partners".

The impression I got was that there was considerable attempted
screwing by both parties. :) Microsoft by trying to arbitrate a
lower price for the chips, and Nvidia by trying to use their influence
to steer DX9 towards their hardware.


Crash7
remove x's from address to email

Mark Leuck
August 16th 03, 06:00 PM
"Bill" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Leuck" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Let em have it, I'm sure while they made tons of money at it Nvidia got
a
> > lot of headaches from Microsoft
>
> Maybe its the other way around?:-)

I doubt it, look at the history of companies working with Microsoft and you
find much the same thing

jack
August 18th 03, 03:16 PM
Darthy > wrote:
:: --
: Remember when real men used Real computers!?
: When 512K of video RAM was a lot!
:
: Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Funny sig. You should go to the URL listed in my sig below, if you want
the real skinny on Palladium and it's big sibling, TCPA.

J.

--
--------
The end to "Personal Computing" as we know it is just around the corner.
TCPA will take away ALL rights from you, the consumer. Learn more
about it here: http://www.againsttcpa.com/what-is-tcpa.html

ELVIS2000
August 19th 03, 04:19 AM
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:06:08 GMT, Darthy
> wrote:

>The XBox2 may not be 100% compatible... especially if the games hit
>the hardware - which *IS* the point of a console.

Hrum? All XBox games are DirectX. They will be as compatible as
games are now on Nvidia and ATI hardware on PCs.

jw

Yousuf Khan
August 20th 03, 03:39 AM
"chrisv" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Aug 2003 11:15:56 -0700, (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
>
> >The original Xbox was supposed to use an
> >Athlon or Duron processor to power it rather than a P3; Intel stole
> >the contract out from under AMD at the last moment, much to AMD's
> >eventual joy.
>
> Explain this "joy" statement, please.

They didn't have to sell processors for a couple of bucks each to Microsoft
(literally).

Yousuf Khan

Tony Hill
August 20th 03, 03:46 AM
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:19:37 GMT, ELVIS2000 >
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:06:08 GMT, Darthy
> wrote:
>
>>The XBox2 may not be 100% compatible... especially if the games hit
>>the hardware - which *IS* the point of a console.
>
>Hrum? All XBox games are DirectX. They will be as compatible as
>games are now on Nvidia and ATI hardware on PCs.

They are DirectX to a degree, but you can not, for example, take an
XBox game and run it on a PC without porting it. The reason being
that the XBox allows some direct hardware access for performance
reasons. Since every single XBox out there has essentially identical
hardware, they can do this, while on a PC this is not possible.

However, the next generation of XBox will be different. The DirectX
stuff will be fine, but the direct hardware access stuff could be
problematic. Microsoft will probably try to accommodate this in
software, and likely they will be successful for 99%+ of all games,
but there may be the odd XBox game that just won't play on the XBox2.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

chrisv
August 20th 03, 02:44 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:39:10 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> wrote:

>"chrisv" > wrote in message
...
>> On 18 Aug 2003 11:15:56 -0700, (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
>>
>> >The original Xbox was supposed to use an
>> >Athlon or Duron processor to power it rather than a P3; Intel stole
>> >the contract out from under AMD at the last moment, much to AMD's
>> >eventual joy.
>>
>> Explain this "joy" statement, please.
>
>They didn't have to sell processors for a couple of bucks each to Microsoft
>(literally).

You have factual information on the price that Intel is getting from
M$ for the CPU's (PIII-733's, IIRC)?

Tony Hill
August 20th 03, 08:52 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:44:19 GMT, chrisv >
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:39:10 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> wrote:
>>They didn't have to sell processors for a couple of bucks each to Microsoft
>>(literally).
>
>You have factual information on the price that Intel is getting from
>M$ for the CPU's (PIII-733's, IIRC)?

No factual information, but I would doubt that it's much over
$20/chip, if even that. Fortunately for Intel, the chips used are a
rather low cost chip (it's a Celeron processor (PIII core with 128KB
of L2) running on a 133MHz bus speed), but I still don't expect that
Intel is making much money off the sale of these chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Keith R. Williams
August 21st 03, 03:37 AM
In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:44:19 GMT, chrisv >
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:39:10 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"chrisv" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On 18 Aug 2003 11:15:56 -0700, (Yousuf Khan) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >The original Xbox was supposed to use an
> >>> >Athlon or Duron processor to power it rather than a P3; Intel stole
> >>> >the contract out from under AMD at the last moment, much to AMD's
> >>> >eventual joy.
> >>>
> >>> Explain this "joy" statement, please.
> >>
> >>They didn't have to sell processors for a couple of bucks each to Microsoft
> >>(literally).
> >
> >You have factual information on the price that Intel is getting from
> >M$ for the CPU's (PIII-733's, IIRC)?
> >
>
> Hopefully, Intel's stock of P3-733 won't run out before Xbox 2,
> since both the part and the process are now obsolete.

I don't see how this is a problem. Intel still makes far more
"obsolete" products. Last I checked they still made '186/8
processors. The embedded market tends to lag several processes
behind. ...and there is money there.

--
Keith

chrisv
August 21st 03, 02:04 PM
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:02 -0400, Keith R. Williams
> wrote:

>> Hopefully, Intel's stock of P3-733 won't run out before Xbox 2,
>> since both the part and the process are now obsolete.
>
>I don't see how this is a problem. Intel still makes far more
>"obsolete" products. Last I checked they still made '186/8
>processors. The embedded market tends to lag several processes
>behind. ...and there is money there.

Gotta do something with those old machines... 8)

Keith R. Williams
August 22nd 03, 02:53 AM
In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:02 -0400, Keith R. Williams
> > wrote:
>
> >> Hopefully, Intel's stock of P3-733 won't run out before Xbox 2,
> >> since both the part and the process are now obsolete.
> >
> >I don't see how this is a problem. Intel still makes far more
> >"obsolete" products. Last I checked they still made '186/8
> >processors. The embedded market tends to lag several processes
> >behind. ...and there is money there.
>
> Gotta do something with those old machines... 8)

Sure. The point is that the P3-733 isn't as antique as was
pretended. Nor is M$ likely to run out of processors for it's
crappy X-box. ;-)

If there is a dime to be made the process will go on. Embedded
processors live until there are no longer any customers. The
8051 is still one of the largest selling processors, and has been
for over 20 years, despite the fact that it's the Bizaro of
processors.

--
Keith

7oast3dProfessor
August 24th 03, 09:42 AM
Actually I was pretty sure those were Celeron 733's. As far as the contract
it really didnt matter, nVidia wasnt making a ton of money on the deal and
they can now put those resources back into the PC market where they belong.
"chrisv" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:02 -0400, Keith R. Williams
> > wrote:
>
> >> Hopefully, Intel's stock of P3-733 won't run out before Xbox 2,
> >> since both the part and the process are now obsolete.
> >
> >I don't see how this is a problem. Intel still makes far more
> >"obsolete" products. Last I checked they still made '186/8
> >processors. The embedded market tends to lag several processes
> >behind. ...and there is money there.
>
> Gotta do something with those old machines... 8)
>

Yousuf Khan
August 24th 03, 02:53 PM
"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
.com...
> They are DirectX to a degree, but you can not, for example, take an
> XBox game and run it on a PC without porting it. The reason being
> that the XBox allows some direct hardware access for performance
> reasons. Since every single XBox out there has essentially identical
> hardware, they can do this, while on a PC this is not possible.

Do you know for a fact that Xbox games are directly accessing the hardware?
From what I know about it, the OS on Xbox is a variant of Windows 2000, so
it has a Hardware Abstraction Layer protecting all direct hardware access
channels. Even the DirectX API goes through HAL (albeit as a peer of HAL,
since they are both parts of the OS).

Yousuf Khan

7oast3dProfessor
August 25th 03, 02:12 AM
Actually yes the Operating System on the Microsoft XBox is a stripped down
version of Windows 2000.
"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:53:38 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
> > wrote:
> >"Tony Hill" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >> They are DirectX to a degree, but you can not, for example, take an
> >> XBox game and run it on a PC without porting it. The reason being
> >> that the XBox allows some direct hardware access for performance
> >> reasons. Since every single XBox out there has essentially identical
> >> hardware, they can do this, while on a PC this is not possible.
> >
> >Do you know for a fact that Xbox games are directly accessing the
hardware?
> >From what I know about it, the OS on Xbox is a variant of Windows 2000,
so
> >it has a Hardware Abstraction Layer protecting all direct hardware access
> >channels. Even the DirectX API goes through HAL (albeit as a peer of HAL,
> >since they are both parts of the OS).
>
> I've been told directly by XBox developers that you can definitely get
> some direct access to hardware if you so desire.
>
> Besides, it should be obvious that there is some incompatibility here.
> If it were straight DirectX you could run XBox games on a PC (and vice
> versa) without recompiling, which is definitely NOT the case. Based
> on DirectX and Win2K, yes, but it is NOT the same DirectX and Win2K
> that we use on PCs because it was designed for consoles, and one trick
> with consoles is allowing a certain degree of direct hardware access.
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

wogston
August 25th 03, 05:04 PM
> Do you know for a fact that Xbox games are directly accessing the
hardware?

I don't know if he does, but I do.

Blade
September 18th 03, 10:53 PM
On 14 Aug 2003 14:37:39 -0700, (NV55) wrote:

>nVidia is not going to make the graphics processor for XBox 2.
>
>Apparently ATi is.
>
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5063661.html?tag=fd_top
>http://www.gamers.com/news/1443671
>http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030814/145156_1.html

Tom
September 18th 03, 11:01 PM
"Blade" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Aug 2003 14:37:39 -0700, (NV55) wrote:
>
> >nVidia is not going to make the graphics processor for XBox 2.
> >
> >Apparently ATi is.
> >
> >
> >http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5063661.html?tag=fd_top
> >http://www.gamers.com/news/1443671
> >http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030814/145156_1.html
>

Wow - there's a big contract lost.

Have xbox sales reached double digits yet ? :P

Pug Fugley2
September 19th 03, 01:14 AM
"Tom" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
> "Blade" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 14 Aug 2003 14:37:39 -0700, (NV55) wrote:
> >
> > >nVidia is not going to make the graphics processor for XBox 2.
> > >
> > >Apparently ATi is.
> > >
> > >
> > >http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5063661.html?tag=fd_top
> > >http://www.gamers.com/news/1443671
> > >http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030814/145156_1.html
> >
>
> Wow - there's a big contract lost.
>
> Have xbox sales reached double digits yet ? :P

Well, it's kicking the crap out of the Gamecube, and it's taking a chunk of
PS2's market every day. Considering the PS2 had a 1 year head start (7 year
if you count the fact that PS2 plays PS1 games) and that's pretty damn
impressive. The Xbox is a FAR better machine.

Tom
September 19th 03, 02:16 AM
> > Have xbox sales reached double digits yet ? :P
>
> Well, it's kicking the crap out of the Gamecube, and it's taking a chunk
of
> PS2's market every day. Considering the PS2 had a 1 year head start (7
year
> if you count the fact that PS2 plays PS1 games) and that's pretty damn
> impressive. The Xbox is a FAR better machine.

Kicking the crap out of the gamecube in North America, perhaps - but last
time I checked they were both going to hit about 10 million sales worldwide,
and the gamecube had a slight lead. To put this in perspective even the
dreamcast almost sold that many. The PS2 is around 60 million worldwide so
it wouldn't appear as though the xbox *or* gamecube is taking much of a
chunk out of sales.

That being said, I'm not a PS2 fan as it has crappy hardware and drove my
poor dreamcast into the ground..


Tom

John Lewis
September 19th 03, 07:27 AM
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:14:25 GMT, "Pug Fugley2" > wrote:

>
>"Tom" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>>
>> "Blade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 14 Aug 2003 14:37:39 -0700, (NV55) wrote:
>> >
>> > >nVidia is not going to make the graphics processor for XBox 2.
>> > >
>> > >Apparently ATi is.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5063661.html?tag=fd_top
>> > >http://www.gamers.com/news/1443671
>> > >http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030814/145156_1.html
>> >
>>
>> Wow - there's a big contract lost.
>>
>> Have xbox sales reached double digits yet ? :P
>
>Well, it's kicking the crap out of the Gamecube, and it's taking a chunk of
>PS2's market every day. Considering the PS2 had a 1 year head start (7 year
>if you count the fact that PS2 plays PS1 games) and that's pretty damn
>impressive. The Xbox is a FAR better machine.
>
>


I'd better buy some nVidia stock tomorrow. Doesn't the Xbox use
nVidia chips ?

John Lewis

chrisv
September 19th 03, 01:32 PM
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:14:25 GMT, "Pug Fugley2" > wrote:

> The Xbox is a FAR better machine.

Thrill. It's being subsidized by the Evil Empire, using their
monopoly money to buy-into yet more markets.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---