11 ms·

More like mid-2000s, even with the least charitable interpretation. There was a time when IBM dominated console CPUs for a massively successful generation (PS3

by pavlov 22d ago

More like mid-2000s, even with the least charitable interpretation. There was a time when IBM dominated console CPUs for a massively successful generation (PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii).

Retric 22d ago
Xbox 360 used an Intel CPU. PS3 used the Cell processor but it’s debatable how much that was an asset vs handicap. Total PlayStation sales dropped for that generation vs both PS2 and PS4. The manufacturing costs didn’t fall nearly as fast as expected and it was a poor fit in terms of cross platform development etc. PS4 moved to AMD.
- rbanffy 22d ago
  > Xbox 360 used an Intel CPU. No. It was a PowerPC based one called, IIRC, Xenon.
  - Retric 22d ago
    Wow, you’re right. Xeon vs Xenon I had always assumed with chip names that similar it was an Intel product. How on earth didn’t they get sued?
    - to11mtm 22d ago
      I'm guessing that they were safe in that it was more or less a 'codename' for a specific product's CPU that nobody else could buy, versus a product out on the market, left enough clear separation to avoid Trademark complaints. The combined might of IBM and Microsoft's legal teams, even (possibly even moreso?) then, was better than Intel's to be sure.
      - rbanffy 21d ago
        Not even the DoJ could make Microsoft bend its knee.
    - eschaton 22d ago
      Because simple similarity doesn’t usually result in a lawsuit? Especially if one of the words isn’t a public product name and also happens to be an existing word with no existing specific use in the industry.
      - Retric 21d ago
        Failing to defend trademarks for such similarity named and closely related products has extremely high risks.
        eschaton 21d ago
        “Xenon” is a pre-existing word. Intel’s not going to lose protection on “Xeon” for IBM using “Xenon” as an internal codename for their own CPU.
        Retric 21d ago
        Pre-existing word like “Word” “Excel” “Apple” etc. We know about “Xenon” because they used the internal name outside the company. There’s zero difference between an unofficial and official branding when you’re using it in press releases.
  - monocasa 21d ago
    And in fact it was basically a Cell PPE with a larger vector unit strapped to the side of it.
rbanffy 22d ago
Having a presence in the consumer market is not a requirement for being innovative. IBM stopped building servers based on x86 because the margins were too thin for their tastes, but they never stopped building on top of POWER and Z.
to11mtm 22d ago
It's a little more complex than that, IMO. For starters, IBM did also do the CPU for the GameCube, and that was likely a part of the Wii using an upgraded PPC arch for that. On the flipside, there is the theory (I think even Copetti brings it up in their XBox 360 Architecture breakdown [0]) that IBM using the Cell PPE for the 360's tri-cores left a sour taste in Toshiba, but more-so Sony's mouths. I think the big 'X factor' though, was that, for as much pain as it caused AMD in the short term, (it's so easy to forget their 'malaise' era, i.e. Early Bulldozer and the GloFo split pains to their margins[1]), AMD made all the 'right' choices to let the console vendors have their cake and eat it too. Namely, AMD was more than happy to do a custom core if there was a volume contract (similar to what IBM was willing to for the 360/GC/Wii) but also now had a capable, in-house GPU. (And thankfully had Bobcat as a stepping point towards Jaguar[2]) There's part of me that asks, if AMD had an ARM core, if we would have all Consoles powered by AMD chips now. Nintendo likely bought into Tegra because it was an ARM core, and for better or worse their mobile stuff by the time of making that choice had 15+ years of proven ARM success (GBA, DS, 3DS) behind it. (See also, Intel in the 2010s scrambling with half-assed promises of integrating custom functionality or FPGAs with x86 cores.) [0] - https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/xbox-360/ https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/xbox-360/ [1] - From what I recollect, the GloFo split and how the contracts were drawn up as far as their production, had a huge impact on their ability to produce due to yields and thermals, as well as the contracts for how GloFo got paid; it was at least part of them diversifying with TSMC as soon as they reasonably could. [2] - As a Rant, I am pretty sure, if Jaguar had Desktop/Mobile versions that included a Dual channel DDR controller, they would have cleaned up on the low cost laptop market. I had one with, I think it was an A5000 or A5200, and for how tiny the battery was it could last wayyyy longer than any of the intel laptops I had for the time, but churned if you were doing memory heavy stuff.
- wmf 21d ago
  I think Nintendo used Tegra because it was super cheap. AMD has access to the same ARM cores as everyone else (see Seattle and Sound Waves) but a semi-custom chip would have been more expensive than an overstocked Tegra.
  - 21d ago

by pavlov 22d ago

More like mid-2000s, even with the least charitable interpretation. There was a time when IBM dominated console CPUs for a massively successful generation (PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii).

Retric 22d ago

Xbox 360 used an Intel CPU. PS3 used the Cell processor but it’s debatable how much that was an asset vs handicap. Total PlayStation sales dropped for that generation vs both PS2 and PS4. The manufacturing costs didn’t fall nearly as fast as expected and it was a poor fit in terms of cross platform development etc. PS4 moved to AMD.

rbanffy 22d ago
> Xbox 360 used an Intel CPU. No. It was a PowerPC based one called, IIRC, Xenon.
- Retric 22d ago
  Wow, you’re right. Xeon vs Xenon I had always assumed with chip names that similar it was an Intel product. How on earth didn’t they get sued?
  - to11mtm 22d ago
    I'm guessing that they were safe in that it was more or less a 'codename' for a specific product's CPU that nobody else could buy, versus a product out on the market, left enough clear separation to avoid Trademark complaints. The combined might of IBM and Microsoft's legal teams, even (possibly even moreso?) then, was better than Intel's to be sure.
    - rbanffy 21d ago
      Not even the DoJ could make Microsoft bend its knee.
  - eschaton 22d ago
    Because simple similarity doesn’t usually result in a lawsuit? Especially if one of the words isn’t a public product name and also happens to be an existing word with no existing specific use in the industry.
    - Retric 21d ago
      Failing to defend trademarks for such similarity named and closely related products has extremely high risks.
      - eschaton 21d ago
        “Xenon” is a pre-existing word. Intel’s not going to lose protection on “Xeon” for IBM using “Xenon” as an internal codename for their own CPU.
        Retric 21d ago
        Pre-existing word like “Word” “Excel” “Apple” etc. We know about “Xenon” because they used the internal name outside the company. There’s zero difference between an unofficial and official branding when you’re using it in press releases.
- monocasa 21d ago
  And in fact it was basically a Cell PPE with a larger vector unit strapped to the side of it.

rbanffy 22d ago

Having a presence in the consumer market is not a requirement for being innovative. IBM stopped building servers based on x86 because the margins were too thin for their tastes, but they never stopped building on top of POWER and Z.

to11mtm 22d ago

It's a little more complex than that, IMO. For starters, IBM did also do the CPU for the GameCube, and that was likely a part of the Wii using an upgraded PPC arch for that. On the flipside, there is the theory (I think even Copetti brings it up in their XBox 360 Architecture breakdown [0]) that IBM using the Cell PPE for the 360's tri-cores left a sour taste in Toshiba, but more-so Sony's mouths. I think the big 'X factor' though, was that, for as much pain as it caused AMD in the short term, (it's so easy to forget their 'malaise' era, i.e. Early Bulldozer and the GloFo split pains to their margins[1]), AMD made all the 'right' choices to let the console vendors have their cake and eat it too. Namely, AMD was more than happy to do a custom core if there was a volume contract (similar to what IBM was willing to for the 360/GC/Wii) but also now had a capable, in-house GPU. (And thankfully had Bobcat as a stepping point towards Jaguar[2]) There's part of me that asks, if AMD had an ARM core, if we would have all Consoles powered by AMD chips now. Nintendo likely bought into Tegra because it was an ARM core, and for better or worse their mobile stuff by the time of making that choice had 15+ years of proven ARM success (GBA, DS, 3DS) behind it. (See also, Intel in the 2010s scrambling with half-assed promises of integrating custom functionality or FPGAs with x86 cores.) [0] - https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/xbox-360/ https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/xbox-360/ [1] - From what I recollect, the GloFo split and how the contracts were drawn up as far as their production, had a huge impact on their ability to produce due to yields and thermals, as well as the contracts for how GloFo got paid; it was at least part of them diversifying with TSMC as soon as they reasonably could. [2] - As a Rant, I am pretty sure, if Jaguar had Desktop/Mobile versions that included a Dual channel DDR controller, they would have cleaned up on the low cost laptop market. I had one with, I think it was an A5000 or A5200, and for how tiny the battery was it could last wayyyy longer than any of the intel laptops I had for the time, but churned if you were doing memory heavy stuff.

wmf 21d ago
I think Nintendo used Tegra because it was super cheap. AMD has access to the same ARM cores as everyone else (see Seattle and Sound Waves) but a semi-custom chip would have been more expensive than an overstocked Tegra.
- 21d ago