Sony "helped design" 360 processor

By Oli Welsh Published 5 January, 2009

IBM chip designers claim Cell influence.

A new book has revealed how Sony's huge investment in the PS3's Cell processing unit may have helped Microsoft develop the Xbox 360.

The authors of the book, 'The Race For a New Game Machine', are former IBM microchip designers David Shippy and Mickie Phipps. According to the Wall Street Journal's review, they worked on the processors for both machines, and say that IBM's design for core components of the Cell directly influenced the work the computing giant did for Microsoft on the 360's processor.

To add insult to injury, the Microsoft chip was commissioned later and delivered sooner than the Cell. The 360 hit the market first and established a lead over the PS3 that Sony is still struggling to crack. Although the book's authors claim both companies were winners in the end, the Wall Street Journal calls the debacle "one of [Sony's] greatest business failures".

"In 2003, IBM's Adam Bennett showed Microsoft specs for the still-in-development Cell core," said the Journal. "Microsoft was interested and contracted with IBM for their own chip, to be built around the core that IBM was still building with Sony."

The Journal reckons this was a lack of foresight on Sony's part. "It does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary videogame-console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it."

In the book, Shippy, the chief architect of the Cell, says he felt "contaminated" as he worked with Microsoft engineers on the architecture for the 360's chip "with lessons learned from his earlier work on PlayStation".

The Journal reviewer contends that USD 400 million development of Cell was considered such a disaster within Sony that it led to PlayStation boss Ken Kuturagi being "fired" shortly after PS3 was released.

The extent to which the design of the Cell really influenced the more conventional PowerPC architecture of the 360 processor is debatable. But with Sony still selling the high-priced PS3 at a loss while Microsoft is able to slash the cost of its machine, there's no doubt that those "lessons learned" were expensive ones for the Japanese giant - and were picked up on the cheap by its competitor.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Razz #1 3 years ago

    Will no one learn lesso.ns from our history? It sounds similar to how Nintendos cd platform became the Playstation 1.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #2 3 years ago

    Typo: are former IBM microchip desingers David Shippy and Mickie Phipps.

    Edit: Vorlon: Why so aggressive?
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 11:20

  • superdelphinus #3 3 years ago

    sony need better lawyers

  • Dizzy #4 3 years ago

    IBM and MS, both US companies. Probably very likely some stuff was "thought up" during a nice dinner and a golf match :)

  • Weezer #5 3 years ago

    Wow, vorlon - you need to lay off the coffee.

    As facets of the PS3 story are gradually revealed it's becoming more and more of a clusterfuck. (Unless something really special comes out this year, I think I might sell my PS3. It's useful for attracting dust in the living room, but bugger-all else...)

    My mate's PS3 laser died just in time for Christmas so he couldn't watch is new Blu-rays. He was overjoyed as you might imagine. The thing is about 9 months old - probably less - and barely been used. So much for Sony's superior reliability.

  • polar #6 3 years ago

    "Will no one learn lesso.ns from our history? It sounds similar to how Nintendos cd platform became the Playstation 1. "

    What goes around comes around I guess. Sony really should have been more careful with this and been stricter in their rules when they contracted the work in the 1st place.
    Edited by 2 at 05/01/09 @ 12:09

  • parm #7 3 years ago

    vorlon-man might be a bit shouty, but he's broadly right. This mystical "core" of the Cell is a pretty standard Power core and they've been around independently of the Cell for quite some time. I'm not sure, other than trying to generate sensational headlines, exactly what the point of this story is.

  • Rash' #8 3 years ago

    i'm not sure how well this story stands up to scrutiny. as has been said other than the long serving powerpc cores, the two cpus don't share much in common. structurally it is well documented the two processors are very different and the real strength of cell, the spus are evidently exclusive to sony's design. how much of a success or failure the work on cell was to the japanese giant is the real contentious issue in this story. otherwise it all just seems like attention seeking to me.
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 12:21

  • bioreit #9 3 years ago

    vorlon-man - here's one:

    Why don't you follow that last line of your own advice. EG don't ask you to pay to read this, they didn't come round to wherever you are and force your eyelids open with matchsticks, threatening to hurt your loved ones unless you read this apparently offensive article - which quite clearly has QUOTED the damn thing from somewhere else anyway.

    Calm down, shut up and leave the more intelligent and mature readers of EG (i.e. those actually old enough to hold a reasonable conversational debate about the merits of an article) to it.

  • NorfolkNClue #10 3 years ago

    Weezer, I guess your mate should have phoned up the sony replacement line. this happened to a friend on the 28th. He had a new one delivered to his door on the 1st. Not bad service, really.

  • Calgon #11 3 years ago

    What a load of complete bollocks...

    PPC has long been soley IBM's technology... nothing to do with Sony... is there anything they wont try and take credit for? Its pathetic IMO, like some bloke down the pub telling you he invented sliced bread.


    Also vorlon-man: both 360 and PS3s cores were based off the G5s which were out before either chip was completed, none of these chips are exactly the same though... 360 is custom tailored like the PS3s is(infact the 360 core easily has more features and hence is more powerfull since it was designed to handle more tasks without the need for PPEs).

    There will have been one influence(which is probably what they mean whilst being deliberately deceptfull about their wording) the 360 team would have known how high the bar was being set in terms of raw power/efficiency/real world performance maybe, so they knew what they were aiming for.
    Edited by 4 at 05/01/09 @ 12:24

  • Coughthulu #12 3 years ago

    Sony entered into business with both IBM and Toshiba to develop the Cell. There's no way such a business agreement would have said "Oh, and you can't use any of the tech you create in any other business", it'd cripple IBM's ability to use it for future products.

    If IBM did anything dodgy, surely Sony would be jumping up and down screaming "LAWSUIT!" by now?

  • BillyBrush #13 3 years ago

    Having a competitor see specs for the key part of your system as it was being developed? Nooooo, not news at all....meaningless!

    ha

  • Weezer #14 3 years ago

    @ Norfolk - I think they did, but got some numpty on the other end. Anyway, it's a couple of weeks before the replacement arrives.

  • mazzl #15 3 years ago

    this article is a bit off in my view.
    apple funded most of the powerpc development before switching to intel.
    it does seem that they (sony and ms) helped clocking the powerproc higher since it used to be a pretty slow processor. only after sony and ms funed research the powerpc got a pretty big perfomrance boost.


  • BillyBrush #16 3 years ago

    correct re the lawsuit stuff....it was always to be sold to other companies, however that's a bad move on Sony's part tbh as they let MS in to see what was going on and make their own chip, 400mil investment is probably too much for something 'exclusive' to one product however you never want the competition knowing where you'll hit, and they did

  • Gurgeh #17 3 years ago

    Sort of related to the 400 million dollar development cost:

    "Japan's Sony Corp (6758.T) is likely to announce closures of Japanese factories and major divisions early next month, the Times of London said on Monday, but the company denied any such plan existed"

    [link url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/technology-media-te lco-SP/idUKT36000820090105?feedType=RSS&feedName=technology- media-telco-SP
    ]http://uk .reuters.com/article/technology...[/link]

    This would be more serious than the job cuts already announced since it would mean Sony pulling out of entire markets like TVs.

  • superdelphinus #18 3 years ago

    it's not IBM's fault - it's whichever lawyer who drafted sony's agreement, although presumably IBM wouldn't agree to clauses that limit there right to sell their own technology to 3rd parties. A little sh1t company might do but not IBM. I don't know enough about the industry but i presume there are 100s of examples where a piece of technology is designed for a specific company but that r&d work leading up to that is sold to other people - one i can think of is Intel and Apple

  • Mawich #19 3 years ago

    Well if the engineers are saying that they felt they had been influenced by their work on Cell when designing the 360's chip... what am I saying. Of course they were. It's like with programmers - and oddly we were talking about this at work today before this story was published. Programmers move from company to company, and we always have contractual provisions to keep the code we write for them confidential etc. etc. But our ability to code comes from our experience, so there will always be similarities in our work for different people.

    I would imagine that CPU designers working on different projects even at the same company for different clients have the same sort of thing going on. You do one design, you learn things that then feed into another one. Simple.

    So of course Sony's R&D money contributed to the 360's chip... and every other chip IBM have designed since, probably.

  • teabagger #20 3 years ago

    Calgon - " nothing to do with Sony... is there anything they wont try and take credit for? Its pathetic IMO, like some bloke down the pub telling you he invented sliced bread. "

    Except the book is written by two ex-IBM guys, so saying that Sony or indeed anyone else is trying to take credit for anything suggests you haven't read the article properly.

  • Gurrah #21 3 years ago

    Wouldn't that be an infringement of the contract between Sony/IBM? I'd be pissed if I paid someone money to develop something and then they use that base to develop something for a competitor.

  • Freki #22 3 years ago

    I always thought the 360 core was just the next gen of the powerPC platform that Macs had been using for ages?

  • Doctor_What #23 3 years ago

    @ Weezer: that's bad luck for your friend. Running on the stats of people I know with the machines, of the 360 owners (around 100 people, give or take) around 85% have had to have a replacement due to RROD, some of them multiple times. So far none of the PS3 owners (around 40 people) have had a problem. Yep, it's not a scientific survey, but I think the numbers are still enough to speak for themselves. I use both machines regularly, the PS3 more than the 360, and the 360 has RROD'd once so far.

    Anyway, as for the article, if does sound like the relationship between the Cell and the 360 is being overblown. More startlingly though... $400 million on developing the Cell? What the hell were they thinking?

  • rhinoxious #24 3 years ago

    Cell wan't developed for Sony by IBM remember, it was a joint venture to create a new processor architecture that was ideally suited for certain kinds of applications (though not games sadly as it turned out), which all three companies would use and profit from.

  • Calgon #25 3 years ago

    teabagger Oh do shut up... they are based off the G5 which was released before either console core, have you even taken a look at the differences between them? I doubt it, unlike you I dont beleive everything I read so easily, especially when its something I have a little prior knowlege of. Its like I said there will have been some influence on a very basic level(ie how high do we aim) but its been exagerated to... well look at the headline... complete bollocks(they obviously have a book to sell, what better way to make something sound more interesting than it really is than to bend the truth a little... it reads like a pub conversation with Johnny-Bullshit), as someone said Apple helped design it too then and Nintendo and anyone else thats worked with IBM/PPC.

    Btw Sony needed IBM's expertise in the field to even get feasible blueprints for Cell, not the other way around, Sony aren't even on the radar in the chip industry.
    Edited by 5 at 05/01/09 @ 15:19

  • rumrum4444 #26 3 years ago



    Sony gets tricked again by microsoft



    same old same old !!


    .

  • Rash' #27 3 years ago

    teabagger, he probably hasn't. i suspect he partly read it and pretty quickly came to his predictable and unfounded conclusion that it was blasphemous sony's doing. the guy lost all credibility regarding objectivity a long time along. he's a self-righteous moron.
    Edited by 3 at 05/01/09 @ 14:28

  • Gurgeh #28 3 years ago

    "In the end, the WSJ writeup implies that Sony was a patsy because IBM sold a PPE-based chip to rival Microsoft... It was always my own impression that Sony was a patsy because it bought a floating-point coprocessor that was great for supercomputing workloads (IBM's target market for Cell) and shoehorned it into a hard-to-program game console. The fact that Microsoft was smart enough to demand something more traditional and easier-to-program is sort of a side issue, even if that "something" did use a major part of the Cell. "

    [link url=http ://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090104-new-book-from-ibme rs-sony-suckered-into-funding-xbox-chip.html
    ]http://ar stechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...[/link]

  • BadBoyBonner #29 3 years ago

    I think the real problem is that Sony invested $400 million in a bespoke design that nobody seems to derive much (if any) benefit from over and above the 360's design which is far closer to what had gone before it.

    Investing less into a more traditional design, that was cheaper to produce it seems was the way to go i.e. 360.

    In fact - Sony may very well have been better off doing a Nintendo - re badge the PS2 with a better controller and "over-clocked" the chips with a larger memory footprint.

    So did the $400 million investment return good value? A resounding No.

  • Calgon #30 3 years ago

    Rash' doesnt really know what he's talking about most of the time he's just a closet fanboy(PS3 obviously) that feigns objectivity and maturity when he posses neither... case in point he spent about 2 weeks crying in 360 review threads about the 9 out of 10 LBP got before he'd even f***ing played it... and he talks about credibility? Pffft!

    As for me reading the whole article, the headline I pointed out in itself was worth the response. :/
    Edited by 2 at 05/01/09 @ 14:34

  • Rash' #31 3 years ago

    Gurgeh, i don't know how accurate that quote is. as i said it's well documented that cell's most important components are the spus.

    edit. i just read that article and the only thing patsy is the suggestion sony "bought" the design. the chip was co-developed by sony, IBM, and toshiba. it was a collaboration not a purchase. somebody needs to do their research. that's basic knowledge. boy standards have dropped on that site.
    Edited by 2 at 05/01/09 @ 14:49

  • Rash' #32 3 years ago

    Bannerboy, i think sony privately would agree with you on the bad investment count. whether the chip comes good in the end is still a long way from certainty .
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 14:36

  • metalnut #33 3 years ago

    Newsflash - technicians work on one thing, learn, work on more things. How exactly is this news? There's nothing dodgy about this, no matter how many lawyers you throw at things, you can't wipe the memories of engineers every time they move projects, nor would you want to.

    However, Sony's lessons have been clear irrespective of this 'revelation' - don't overengineer, don't make things more complex than they need to be, and don't assume lots of people will pay top dollar for highly custom technology. The top prizes rarely go to the people who make the cleverest, most complex technology, they go to the people that make slightly less revolutionary ideas work well, simply, for a good price.

  • Garulon #34 3 years ago

    This is just laying the groundwork so in a few years time the tiny shrill hardcord of PS3 fans can whine that Microsoft "stole" the PlayStation or something. Apple does this all the time. Microsoft aren't allowed to innovate, despite the 360 being the most innovative console released, well, ever.

  • Xerx3s #35 3 years ago

    Bill Gates: We are in your companies, stealing ur cells!

  • Stretch #36 3 years ago

    Metalnut - "Newsflash - technicians work on one thing, learn, work on more things. How exactly is this news? There's nothing dodgy about this, no matter how many lawyers you throw at things, you can't wipe the memories of engineers every time they move projects, nor would you want to. "

    That was the point I was about to make, but put alot better than I ever could have worded it. People learn and then apply what they have learned on new projects, its the way of the world.

  • Rash' #37 3 years ago

    Garulon, more specifically, 360 has the most innovative software to back up it's pretty standard PC derived architecture.

  • teabagger #38 3 years ago

    Calgon - I don't believe I made any comment regarding the processor designs, so trying to shoot me down over that is rather silly. Indeed I really don't know a great deal about processor design. I was simply taking issue with your anti-Sony comments which don't seem justifiable given that this whole article is based off a book by ex-IBM employees and, as far as I know, Sony haven't at any point said anything along the lines of "Whaaaaa! we part designed the 360 chip".

    Of course, that would be obvious if you were here for any other reason that having a go at people. First ignore of 2009. Well done indeed.

  • Calgon #39 3 years ago

    Teabagger well thats fair enough ignore me, I hadnt read the article before commenting, I read Eurogamers headline and their take though so it seems as though EG didnt read it properly either.

    Really though it wouldnt be beyond Sony to play this game, they have made similar remarks before in their playstation business, so my suspicions arent/werent totally unfounded.
    Edited by 2 at 05/01/09 @ 15:35

  • Dizzy #40 3 years ago

    "Garulon, more specifically, 360 has the most innovative software to back up it's pretty standard PC derived architecture. "

    Errr... PCs do not use PowerPC chips.

  • roz123 #41 3 years ago

    "This is just laying the groundwork so in a few years time the tiny shrill hardcord of PS3 fans can whine that Microsoft "stole" the PlayStation or something. Apple does this all the time. Microsoft aren't allowed to innovate, despite the 360 being the most innovative console released, well, ever."



    Are u serious?

  • GamesConnoisseur #42 3 years ago

    Of course the headline is very leading in sense where 'Mwhaha fool Sony invested in something that MS profited from' and the implication that X360 processor is more on or less on parity with The Cell!

    The lesson here is that $400 million investment off the back of PS2 dominance havent yet yielded much benefit, especially when X360 is much capable of holding its own and Wii's runaway success off the back of old gamecube hardware with some frills!

    /Where is Apologie?

  • Rash' #43 3 years ago

    dizzy, come now, you know exactly what i'm implying.

  • Garulon #44 3 years ago

    "Garulon, more specifically, 360 has the most innovative software to back up it's pretty standard PC derived architecture."

    3x PowerPC inorder cores and a custom-built GPU with 10mb of smart eDRAM is PC derived now? Erm, are you thinking of the XBox 1?

  • Dizzy #45 3 years ago

    >dizzy, come now, you know exactly what i'm implying.

    Nope.

    Sarcasm? Whining? Crying? Anger?

  • The-Bodybuilder #46 3 years ago

    >"Errr... PCs do not use PowerPC chips. "

    So why are they called power PCs, huh? HUH?

    /knows nothing about processor engineering or design.

  • Zelos #47 3 years ago

    @Calgon

    I doubt much of the 360's CPU is based off the G5 at all. It's the same ISA, but that doesn't mean it's the same architecture.

    The G5 is a complex general purpose, out-of-order execution CPU designed for general desktop/server workloads. The cores in the 360's CPU are simpler: no out-of-order, simpler branch prediction, they're designed for streaming media workloads like games. If Arstechnica's article is correct, the Cell's PPE and the Xenon's three cores are basically the same thing, so presumably that's the part of the Cell's design that MS got so cheap.

  • Rash' #48 3 years ago

    dizzy and Garulon, it's common knowledge that 360 is easy to develop for because it shares similar assets to the pc. that's fundamentally my point. so while 360 certainly has innovated on numerous fronts, hardware design is a dubious claim, and frankly judging by accusations of bad investment not one that MS would care much for.

  • Garulon #49 3 years ago

    "dizzy and Garulon, it's common knowledge that 360 is easy to develop for because it shares similar assets to the pc. "

    But it doesn't though - fundamental XBoxey things like predicated tiling and unified shaders don't really have any analogue to the PC. I think I know what you're getting at - that they're familiar from a developer's standpoint - but that's mainly because the same company makes the development kit for both. You can develop using Visual Studio on the PS3 these days, though, surely? You're not stuck on that horrible Collabra shit still?

  • Garulon #50 3 years ago

    "Are u serious? "

    Yeah, first console with wireless controllers as standard, first console with cross-game-gaming features like GamerScore and acheivements (or indeed the whole GamerCard concept where you, for example, set your Y-axis inversion settings once and every game respects it) frst console you can buy games online for, first console to be sold at a range of SKUs rather than one box, first console you can rent movies on, first console to allow additional game content to be added online, there's probably hundreds more I've forgotten but yeah, I can't think of a console with as many innovations in as the 360. I honestly can't. Can you?

  • Garulon #51 3 years ago

    "So why are they called power PCs, huh? HUH?"

    Boring mode on!

    PowerPC is a specification standing for POWER Performance Computing, based on the POWER risc chipset designed by IBM way back, POWER is also an acronym standing for Performance Optimised With Enhanced Risc.

    Boring mode off!

  • Rash' #52 3 years ago

    Garulon, i'm just talking about the bigger pic. i'm sure there are differences, but fundamentally the architecture is known. the gpu is derived from dx 10 pc gpus, the cpu is an in order variant of the powerpc and the unified ram are all exponents of pc design. the 10mb of edram is the only unique design choice i know of.
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 17:21

  • Rash' #53 3 years ago

    Garulon, come now. don't you think you're slightly sugar coating it. some of those "firsts" are by virtue of default i.e. because they were first to market rather than real innovation in forward thinking ideas.

  • Ryze #54 3 years ago

    Hey - has nobody said it yet??!?!?!?!?!?

    PS3LOL

    Read the following Tom Kalinske interview about Sega:

    [link url=http://www.sega-16.com/feature_p age.php?id=214&title=Interview:%20Tom%20Kalinske
    ]http://ww w.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?...[/link]

    Sony had invested a lot of money in Mega CD games development, and Sega of America had begun discussing collaborating with Sony on a games console in the early 90s (before the Nintendo Playstation).

    Sega of Japan wouldn't go for it and the rest is history...

    ...except that Sony appears to have taken the Mega CD blueprint and used it to make the PS3.

    - new optical medium

    - slow access and seek times

    - underperforming gfx hardware

    - lack of RAM

    - lack of unique or outstanding games

    - embarrassed by the 'inferior' competition

    - expensive hardware

    - no need to purchase this, as the games are on the 'other' console

    - predecessor was a runaway success (Mega Drive)

    Shame they forgot the backwards compatibility bit - infact - Sony should try releasing a model of the PS3 that can sit on top of the slim PS2, allowing the PS3 play the PS2 games with the DS3 pads and 1080p HDMI.

    Maybe....not.
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 17:39

  • Dizzy #55 3 years ago

    "dizzy and Garulon, it's common knowledge that 360 is easy to develop for because it shares similar assets to the pc."

    That is just because MS managed to make an SDK and tools that are the same on PC. That is smart thinking and, for MS, rather necessary since they get a nice cross pollination between PC devs and console devs.

    The hardware of the 360 is just as much a PC as is the PS3.

    Or are you somehow suggesting that hardware that seems to perform well according to specs is PC-like and totally unknown, under performing and complex hardware is "not-PC-like".?
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 17:45

  • Rash' #56 3 years ago

    dizzy, no i'm suggesting that Garulon's claim that 360 hardware is innovative is a dubious one. the similarities in their architecture i've outlined in my other posts above. i've not made any comparative claims.
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 18:00

  • Rash' #57 3 years ago

    Dizzy, we can get into comparative claims if that floats your boat. i think design philosophy also ties 360 and PC together. both are memory reliant architectures, while PS3 is about speed of data management. not surprising really considering MS's pc heritage and kutaragi's similar engineering on PS2.
    Edited by 1 at 05/01/09 @ 19:29

  • roz123 #58 3 years ago

    Garulon none of those things are innovations except for the achievements, the rest are just improvements on other peoples ideas and catching up with whats already available on a PC. Putting the "first console" in front of something dosn't make it innovative.

    i really thought you were joking but now i see you are just deluded

  • AOFanboi #59 3 years ago

    Conclusion: EG full of morons, and IBM the real winner of the console wars (having tech in all three of them)

  • Skurmedel #60 3 years ago

    I've never seen so much speculation in a comments thread.

  • Calgon #61 3 years ago

    Zelos there is a little confusion on this... what is said is that both 360 and the G5(970) were based on the Power4 but both 360 and PS3 are in-order variants(before 360 was released they had dev kits running on G5s IIRC so we know G5s came first, so its pretty much a given that 360 will be atleast partially based on the G5 too, along with whatever the IBM/360 team did with it), the PPU in the PS3 is based around the G5-Power4 too(which came the latest... are they trying to tell us G5 is what Sony's money helped design?), you are correct about them being in-order, a descision which you'll find pretty much every dev thinks was the wrong decision.

    Lets not be silly here though this doesnt mean the two are exactly the same because they arent, obvious differences anyone whos bothered to take a glance at them will have seen are; 360 has a custom version of VMX128(PS3 has the older version ie not 128 IIRC) for example(from what I've read no two versions of these have been the same... and it sounds like theyve had this even further customised than normal for gaming/360), dot product computation is also a feature of the 360 core(there will be plenty more differences that arent so well documented too I'd wager)... please dont just argue for the sake of arguing, they are similar since they are based(this doesnt mean they are the same... like the SPEs are based off toshibas DSPs for example with IBMs VMX influence) off the PPC architecture or more specifically Power4-G5.

    Either way... 1) Sony didnt design anything to do with PPC, they arent chip vendors they paid for IBMs expertise to get the SPUs in a useable state never mind redesigned the PPC core with them. 2) MS paid for their own R&D and had their own input too, it just looks like MS had the better timing and made the smarter choices.
    Edited by 11 at 06/01/09 @ 04:51

  • Calgon #62 3 years ago

    What is Rash' talking about? Any graphics will be memory reliant, bandwidth and footprint is an area where MS showed they know what works better than Sony do this gen. Also if either GPU is closer to an off the shelf PC part its the RSX.

  • Dizzy #63 3 years ago

    >What is Rash' talking about?

    I have no idea. I lost most of his trains of thoughts years ago. Basically he is always saying the same.

  • NorfolkNClue #64 3 years ago

    "its just a shame they didn't factor in the lead-time coders would need to adapt to an architecture that isn't at all tolerant of scrappy code and sloppy data-design."

    Aha! I think you might have hit a very interesting point - namely instead of making code tighter and more efficient, programmers tend to rely on the hardware's muscle and bandwidth to push the instructions faster through a fatter pipe.

    In my day, people commented and wrote code properly, all this was fields etc. [/whinge, moan] :E
    Edited by 2 at 06/01/09 @ 13:53

  • Rash' #65 3 years ago

    Dizzy, "no i'm suggesting that Garulon's claim that 360 hardware is innovative is a dubious one."

    What don't you understand? I've been as simple and explicite as I can be. You've just sat there with your paranoia assuming I have some deep rooted agenda.

  • Ryze #66 3 years ago

    ^ tRash' guy chats shit
    Edited by 1 at 06/01/09 @ 19:14

  • Chupakun #67 3 years ago

    OMG now that is some delicious industrial intrigue.

  • SniperZoz #68 3 years ago

    This book is creating sensationalism in a ploy to sell !!

    MS (after having a "bad" experience with intel on xbox 1) approached ibm ... they wanted a core which was simple to produce, gave a high yeild and could be clocked high (past 3Ghz). Removing the OOP from a powerpc gives you higher yeilds (hence cheaper prices) and makes way for better clocking!

    Now - IBM being in the business of making money simply reused a design (or part) from another project! This happens in all the businesses. You don't reinvent the wheel! Had MS been first to approch IBM, then ppl would be saying that Sony "stole" their design - which would be completely STUPID!

    All in all the real pity is the removal of the OOP - had x360 retained that it would be a monster!!

  • Rash' #69 3 years ago

    Ryze, and you're a moron. opinions, huh?

  • Rash' #70 3 years ago

    OOP is prime for general purpose processing though, so it's application in a device used primarily for media content would've been a waste.

  • Calgon #71 3 years ago

    By media I hope he means movie playback and not games... because otherwise he's an idiot OOP is exactly what the devs will tell you they should have done with PS3 and 360(Carmack for example said this from day one), sounds like he thinks general purpose = "word processing and PC type stuff" (it is as equally important as floating point for games and always will be) and it equates to more than just "general purpose" it would mean more acheivable performance out of both chips in pretty much every regard.
    Edited by 3 at 07/01/09 @ 05:47