Microsoft to Design Its Own Chips, Xbox 360 Successor Already in the Works

[X2]

Both Peter Moore, corporate VP of the Entertainment and Devices Division of Microsoft, and Chris Lewis, the Regional VP of Xbox Europe, confirmed in an interview with Kikizo that the software giant is already working on the successor to the Xbox 360.

"As soon as you develop something, it's old", Lewis told Kikizo: "Of course we're thinking about that... we're constantly thinking about the next thing, we have to. It's my point about complacency - you can't sit back on your laurels in this business - the consumer won't let you, the developers certainly won't let us. So that's happening right now."

While these two Xbox executives confirm that development on the next Xbox has started, the New York Times reports in today’s edition that Microsoft plans to design its own processors at its Silicon Valley campus. The newspaper informs:

The design effort will initially be split between research labs at the company’s headquarters in Redmond, Wash., and its Silicon Valley campus here. Tentatively named the Computer Architecture Group, the project underscores sweeping changes in the industry.

One reason for the effort is that Microsoft needs to begin thinking about the next-generation design of its Xbox game console, said Charles P. Thacker, a veteran engineer and Microsoft engineer who will head the Silicon Valley group. Voice recognition may also be an area where the research could play a significant role.

Could this mean that the next Xbox would be powered by a Microsoft-designed CPU? Not necessarily, but there’s certainly a trend in the evolution of the Xbox platform.

From 2001’s Xbox, which used standard off-the-shelve parts provided by Intel and nVIDIA, to the Xbox 360, which made use of custom silicon designed by IBM and ATI for Microsoft, it is highly probable that the Xbox 360 successor will feature a higher level of custom hardware to set the console apart from a personal computer. We’ll have more on the next Xbox as it develops.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12043/...-in-the-Works/

This pretty interesting. MS CPU, hmmm.

[CompGeek]

I, personally, would be more interested in an MS-made CPU than one by Sony.

Think about it, in the console market, Sony has always been the one that forces the devs to conform to their hardware, and MS has always been the ones that try to conform their hardware for the devs wants. I think a custom-made Microsoft CPU will be a very good solution.

That's just me.

[JordanL]

I, personally, would be more interested in an MS-made CPU than one by Sony.

I wouldn't, simply because MS has been... less than considerate for their consumers with the "suggestions" they've given PC CPU makers recently. I would hate to see them start deciding everything from chip to ship.

They are a software company, and they look at hardware from a software perspective... I think it could be bad to remove the counter-balance.

[CompGeek]

I wouldn't, simply because MS has been... less than considerate for their consumers with the "suggestions" they've given PC CPU makers recently. I would hate to see them start deciding everything from chip to ship.

They are a software company, and they look at hardware from a software perspective... I think it could be bad to remove the counter-balance.

Care to elaborate? Your say-so isn't quite good enough for me. What kind of advice?

The Cell almost completely lacks multi-purpose abilities, Sony put some nice floating point power in there, but I think the Cell is fundamentally lacking.

[Bitbydeath]

MS aren't even good at making software let alone hardware... i sure wish they'd just leave it to the professionals

[Stewie Skywalker]

It should be good MS with all that money can come up with some crazy thing. I think the CELL is perfect actually for what SONY wants it to do. If used correctly it can potentially be the difference maker this gen in terms of raw power. From a design standpoint I think its a perfect fit for gaming. I'd love to see what MS will do though.

[CompGeek]

It should be good MS with all that money can come up with some crazy thing. I think the CELL is perfect actually for what SONY wants it to do. If used correctly it can potentially be the difference maker this gen in terms of raw power. From a design standpoint I think its a perfect fit for gaming. I'd love to see what MS will do though.

It would have been a perfect fit had they put a decent general purpose core on it.

[paranoia13]

MS aren't even good at making software let alone hardware... i sure wish they'd just leave it to the professionals

I guess thats why bill gates is the richest man alive, because he doesn't leave it to the professionals


There is no one out there who knows more about software then Microsoft, and hey, if they did, guess what? Microsoft would buy them.


Thats how they play the game.


I think such a software company making there own processor could be huge, they could develop both hardware and software hand in hand and have on of the most efficient consoles to date.

[X2]

As far as I'm concerned it is the software that brings out the best in the hardware. So I think they know what they are doing.

[Bitbydeath]

I'm just saying looking at Windows for example is a bad system. Bugs bugs and more bugs. I would not like to see the same thing in the next Xbox system. They got plenty of money to pay people and tell them how they want their dream machine i think they should just stick with that

[paranoia13]

I'm just saying looking at Windows for example is a bad system. Bugs bugs and more bugs. I would not like to see the same thing in the next Xbox system. They got plenty of money to pay people and tell them how they want their dream machine i think they should just stick with that

Difference being between Microsoft making a PC OS and console software, PC software has to work with MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of hardware and software configurations, even apple doesn't have to do this(to the extent Microsoft does)

OS for a console needs to work with one uniform non changing piece of hardware.


Xbox 1 had perfectly fine software(best of last gen) and Xbox 360s is great too(arguably the best this gen)

[Bitbydeath]

yeah i'd agree with that. What the devs have been given to work with is great software and was created by Microsoft but in all fairness this has been perfected over time. Taken from PC, modified to Xbox and further adjusted for the 360

The next xbox will not have such luxary as it will be created likely 7 years at the most

[LaOMaN]

I'm just saying looking at Windows for example is a bad system. Bugs bugs and more bugs. I would not like to see the same thing in the next Xbox system. They got plenty of money to pay people and tell them how they want their dream machine i think they should just stick with that

do you know why? because hackers. if theres no such things as hackers all systems would have no problem.

[dead_zen]

It would have been a perfect fit had they put a decent general purpose core on it.

It's getting there.

It's still a baby, give it time to grow and you could have a significant boost in general purpose processing power, it could even devote multiple SPU's to doing just that, multiple cell chips running 8 or more SPU's, coulld handle more then enough general processing power.

The thing with MS getting in to hardware, is it's going to have a lot to live up to, and it's just going to further Microsoft monopoly complaints. This is a risky move on their part. I just don't see how making a chip in a few years versus the money and man power and time that I-T-S has devoted to the cell processor, it also I'm sure makes Intel and AMD raise an eyebrow or two.

[JordanL]

Care to elaborate? Your say-so isn't quite good enough for me. What kind of advice?

The Cell almost completely lacks multi-purpose abilities, Sony put some nice floating point power in there, but I think the Cell is fundamentally lacking.

Fundamentally lacking... for desktop use?

Let me explain something. As an engineer, you dont design something to be the best. You design something to meet the requirements of what you need it to do. Sony at the very least did that. They needed a multimedia processor which could outperformt he competition and last a while without upgrades. They engineered it to fit those needs. The Cell is most certainly not lacking for the purpose it was designed. If you take a hammer and whine about how useless it is with a screw, people call you ignorant. If you take a processor, can call it sub-par at performing calculations which it has unoptimized logic for, people say you bring up a good point.

As for what I was talking about with Microsoft, early in Vista development, they "recommended" some requirements to Intel and AMD which would have allowed Vista to at a hardware level, on PCs, sign software at the CPU, which would have effectively ended Freeware and Shareware. Microsoft ended up backing down because:

1: It was somewhat of a technological headache.
2: It would invalidate a huge amount of legacy Windows software.
3: Microsoft was working on WGA.
4: Consumers generally don't like DRM. Much less hardware DRM.

Microsoft absolutely loves DRM. I don't. I bought it, it's mine, now I own it. Not them. They no longer get to tell me what I can and can't do with what I bought, plain and simple. Whether it's a song, a movie, a program, an OS...

I have no doubt Microsoft would get very agressive with DRM if they made chips.

[CompGeek]

Fundamentally lacking... for desktop use?

Let me explain something. As an engineer, you dont design something to be the best. You design something to meet the requirements of what you need it to do. Sony at the very least did that. They needed a multimedia processor which could outperformt he competition and last a while without upgrades. They engineered it to fit those needs. The Cell is most certainly not lacking for the purpose it was designed. If you take a hammer and whine about how useless it is with a screw, people call you ignorant. If you take a processor, can call it sub-par at performing calculations which it has unoptimized logic for, people say you bring up a good point.

As for what I was talking about with Microsoft, early in Vista development, they "recommended" some requirements to Intel and AMD which would have allowed Vista to at a hardware level, on PCs, sign software at the CPU, which would have effectively ended Freeware and Shareware. Microsoft ended up backing down because:

1: It was somewhat of a technological headache.
2: It would invalidate a huge amount of legacy Windows software.
3: Microsoft was working on WGA.
4: Consumers generally don't like DRM. Much less hardware DRM.

Microsoft absolutely loves DRM. I don't. I bought it, it's mine, now I own it. Not them. They no longer get to tell me what I can and can't do with what I bought, plain and simple. Whether it's a song, a movie, a program, an OS...

I have no doubt Microsoft would get very agressive with DRM if they made chips.

First good point you've made is DRM.

[Sufi]

Care to elaborate? Your say-so isn't quite good enough for me. What kind of advice?

The Cell almost completely lacks multi-purpose abilities, Sony put some nice floating point power in there, but I think the Cell is fundamentally lacking.

For example, what kind of multi-purposes?

[Makagoto]

For example, what kind of multi-purposes?

guess what he means is the usual code divided into instructions and data, instructions divided further into branches and calculations. from this standpoint the cell definitely lacks branch oriented logic. in certain cases the lonely ppe could become cells bottleneck. so while the graphics will make a huge improvement other areas of the game may lack and just give us more of the same. i think only time will tell how limited the cell and the devs are.

[Roco]

yay,now we can expect xbox 720 in 3-4 years!!!
hope they dont kill off 360 like the 1st one.

[Sufi]

guess what he means is the usual code divided into instructions and data, instructions divided further into branches and calculations. from this standpoint the cell definitely lacks branch oriented logic. in certain cases the lonely ppe could become cells bottleneck. so while the graphics will make a huge improvement other areas of the game may lack and just give us more of the same. i think only time will tell how limited the cell and the devs are.

but wouldn't graphics be a problem if Cell was dedicated more than usual to the graphics in a game? That's what the RSX is there for I assume.

[Makagoto]

but wouldn't graphics be a problem if Cell was dedicated more than usual to the graphics in a game? That's what the RSX is there for I assume.

actually i think graphics are one of cells purposes. i am just expressing some thoughts though. this is a discussion after all. truth is sony is very silent about rsx's capabililties, so that it leads to many guesses. i wonder how good a strategy game like starcraft will look on the ps3, because that should be an application that requires some heavy branching as far as i know.

[Tetsu]

I guess thats why bill gates is the richest man alive, because he doesn't leave it to the professionals

I think a monopoly might have a little something to do with it. But that's just me, and a few million other people.

PC software has to work with MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of hardware and software configurations, even apple doesn't have to do this

Actually, this is Apple's strong point. They have ONE motherboard family, ONE architecture, and ONE CPU type to deal with. On top of that, they went with an ultra-stable Unix/Linux OS solution, rather than an OS built on top of a 1986 technology foundation. Apple's technological evolution made more sense. These are the reasons I wish Apple had taken over the world. Things would be so much simpler.

That's why I told my friend that Mac was the answer to his software based studio.

[Jabjabs]

Actually OSX technically is practically built on top of 1986 tech actually. OSX was built off Nextstep (First came out in 1987) OS which was built on top of Unix as well. They just simply had the better technology due to this fact.
They have been able to add features like crazy while keeping stability due to this decision and the idea of keeping the system closed.

When Apple was building to the original Mac OS, they had to go down to the kernel level every time they wanted to add a major new feature and it was very time consuming.

I'm glad that they ditched the old system for something that actually worked much better because the massive growth in OSX features is purely because of this.

[cirrus]

M$ making hardware? Oh brother, the first time in history..."hardware virus..."


Might be a good idea, kinda like what Sony did with the Cell.
I think that M$ would put out better products if instead of being scared of competition and copying them, that they would actually sit down and look at problems and try to solve them.

M$ isn't good in any department where they have to compete, Windows/Office has no competition. The PS2/PS3 and iPod is putting them in their place.

[cirrus]

I think a monopoly might have a little something to do with it. But that's just me, and a few million other people.


Actually, this is Apple's strong point. They have ONE motherboard family, ONE architecture, and ONE CPU type to deal with. On top of that, they went with an ultra-stable Unix/Linux OS solution, rather than an OS built on top of a 1986 technology foundation. Apple's technological evolution made more sense. These are the reasons I wish Apple had taken over the world. Things would be so much simpler.

That's why I told my friend that Mac was the answer to his software based studio.

I totally agree with you. Most M$ crap is sh1t besides the 360.