ATI confirms Xbox 2 win

  • Thread starter Thread starter Radeon350
  • Start date Start date
R

Radeon350

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32341.html

ATI confirms Xbox 2 win

By Tony Smith
Posted: 14/08/2003 at 13:56 GMT

ATI has confirmed that it has won the contract to develop graphics
chips for the next generation of Microsoft's Xbox console.

The announcement ends speculation that the company had wrested the
Xbox gig from its arch-rival, Nvidia.

"We selected ATI after reviewing the top graphics technologies in
development and determining that ATI's technical vision fits perfectly
with the future direction of Xbox," said Robbie Bach, senior VP of the
Home and Entertainment Division at Microsoft, in the official
statement.

However, it's widely believed that Microsoft and Nvidia simply
couldn't reach an agreement over the direction the project would take.

"[Nvidia] didn't want to meet Microsoft's demands for the floating
design of Xbox Next. It didn't make sense to partner on the project.
At this moment in time, ATI is working with Microsoft," an Nvidia
staffer said in June, according to Spong.com, which first broke the
story.

The fact that Nvidia and Microsoft fell out over how much the latter
should have paid for the former's graphics and system chips may also
have played a part in the drama.

The highly competitive and price-sensitive nature of the console
market required Microsoft to be flexible on price. Nvidia is believed
to have been decidedly inflexible when it came to helping the software
giant achieve its pricing goals. Microsoft wanted to pay less for its
chips than originally agreed, but Nvidia (quite understandably) stuck
to its guns.

ATI already has a deal to provide Nintendo with graphics chips for
GameCube, but the fact that Xbox has the potential to out-sell the
Nintendo machine may well have persuaded ATI that it can risk
offending its Japanese partner by working with a direct competitor.

To date, Nintendo has shipped some ten million GameCubes since the
console's 2001 launch. By contrast, Sony has shipped over 51 million
Playstation 2s since 2000. Microsoft has sold nearly ten million
Xboxes since its launch in November 2001.

Nintendo's decision to suspend GameCube production until the autumn
suggests the console is in trouble, doubly so when accompanied by the
company's admission that it failed to secure a good line up of titles
for the machine. Production will only resume if Nintendo can sell off
a good proportion of its warehouse stock. ®
 
I've Got A Loverly Bunch Of Coconuts said:
Neato. Will Radeon zealots like yourself be crossposting this crap for the
duration of this console generation now? What is the fascination with
"wars" between ATI and NVidia, (or Microsoft and Nintendo), anyway?
Click to expand...

Nvidia has always edged ATI gaphically anyways.
 
I've Got A Loverly Bunch Of Coconuts said:
Neato. Will Radeon zealots like yourself be crossposting this crap for the
duration of this console generation now? What is the fascination with
"wars" between ATI and NVidia, (or Microsoft and Nintendo), anyway?
Click to expand...

While it's crossposting, it's obviously relevant to all groups.

Additionally, I see this as a great thing; as an XBox, PC, and GameCube
gamer, ATi's chips have always been more capable of churning out cleaner
textures, at least to my eyes. It's obvious when switching back and forth
between XBox and GameCube titles, additionally the XBox occasionally suffers
from some weird banding effect that the GameCube never does. I've seen it
on my PC nVidia cards also, so I know it's not just the XBox.
 
Neato. Will Radeon zealots like yourself be crossposting this crap for the
duration of this console generation now? What is the fascination with
"wars" between ATI and NVidia, (or Microsoft and Nintendo), anyway?
Click to expand...

I can't understand the console wars, and even less, the "chipset wars".
Most likely these are offshoots of the "gamers by specs" fanboys.

I have multiple computers(20+ and growing). I choose and use ATI for my
video cards. Why? Good support so far, works properly out of the
box(after installing the drivers, of course), is compliant with
standards and technology, is fast, stable, reliable and dependable. When
you have as many computers around as I do, you tend to stick with
certain brands as it limits where you have to go for technical support.

Although having said that, I also have a GameCube. I don't care for the
XBox or the PS or PS2. The ATI factor played no role in my decision
making process. I have been a fan of Nintendo since I got my first Game
Boy back in 1991 but had been playing Nintendo systems prior to that.

Chipset makers are free to make whatever deals they want. Should ATI go
with Microsoft's next console, then most likely Nintendo will have to go
elsewhere to find their chipsets since I am sure MS and Nintendo will
want "exclusivity contracts" with their chipset makers.

Bottom line: a good system is a good system. PS2, XBox and GameCube are
all good systems. People need to enjoy their consoles and knock off the
flame wars.

Younger brother in law had a birthday party last weekend. They asked me
to bring over my Cube for them to play for the party, They also had a
PS, a PS2(borrowed), an N64, a Dreamcast, a SNES. They couldn't find a
friend who wanted to bring over an Xbox and if they wanted my Genesis or
my N64 and games for that, they could have asked for that. They also
used multiple TV's, sometimes using my Intec screen for the GameCube as
a monitor for the GameCube.

Turned out the GameCube ended up getting the most play, followed by the
DreamCast. SNES, PS and N64 never got powered up, and the PS2 was only
used for some light DDR. Everybody had a blast. Seems the secret to
enjoying video games is to simply enjoy playing video games regardless
of the platform. That's a big hint. It does not matter that the GameCube
got the most game time, it only matters that people enjoyed playing
whatever game they played on whatever platform they played it on.

--
The Deadbeats' Hall of Lame: http://www.studio42.com/kill-the-spam/
Where spammers are exposed for the deadbeats they truly are.
California Resident says: We've upped our standards, so now UP YOURS!
Don't respond to this address. It's invalid and I own the domain.
Studio42 hates spam. Do not send spam to Studio42. My property, my rules.
 
Nvidia has always edged ATI gaphically anyways.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention for the last year, then. ATI is
beating the shit out of NVidia in terms of technology.
 
Turned out the GameCube ended up getting the most play, followed by the
DreamCast. SNES, PS and N64 never got powered up, and the PS2 was only
used for some light DDR. Everybody had a blast. Seems the secret to
enjoying video games is to simply enjoy playing video games regardless
of the platform. That's a big hint. It does not matter that the GameCube
got the most game time, it only matters that people enjoyed playing
whatever game they played on whatever platform they played it on.
Click to expand...

Heh, I was hooked on Nintendo games after experiencing SM3, Double Dragon
and Bubble Bobble, and that has changed since 1990. I myself tried Sony and
a bit of Xbox(never owned a Sega system), but in the end those systems seem
stale and lifeless, give me good old Mario or Zelda any day of the week...

With ATI, I did remember them signing a new contract with Nintendo earlier
this year, and I don't remember reading about any exclusive deals for MS.

Hopefully this issue will be cleaned up soon.
 
Nvidia has always edged ATI gaphically anyways.
Click to expand...

Some Geforce cards might have been faster, yes...

But for *quality*, no...

The only cards that have better visual quality than ATI are Matrox, or
high-end CAD cards...
 
Nvidia has always edged ATI gaphically anyways.

-Not true anymore. Radeon 9800 kicks nVidia butt, even GeForce 5900 can't
beat that. And since Radeon runs much cooler, has better picture quality and
still offers all the same features...no competition.
 
Additionally, I see this as a great thing; as an XBox, PC, and GameCube
gamer, ATi's chips have always been more capable of churning out cleaner
textures, at least to my eyes.
Click to expand...

In a days of original Radeon vs. GeForce 256/2, Ati cards had better
output. Today it's not so big issue.
Didn't noticed any difference between Xbox/GC. Both consoles have very
decent TV output. And Gecko has nothing common with Radeon series so you
can't draw parallels between GC vs. Xbox and Geforce vs. Radeon so easily.

It's obvious when switching back and forth
between XBox and GameCube titles, additionally the XBox occasionally suffers
from some weird banding effect that the GameCube never does. I've seen it
on my PC nVidia cards also, so I know it's not just the XBox.
Click to expand...

I guess somebody forget to enable Vertical Sync function.
It is common "problem" in Serious Sam on Xbox, somebody intentionally left
it off in that game.
It is a feature available on all video cards. It is not issue of bad
GeForce/Xbox design. On PC you can switch on/off that function.
 
Radeon350 said:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32341.html

ATI confirms Xbox 2 win

By Tony Smith
Posted: 14/08/2003 at 13:56 GMT

ATI has confirmed that it has won the contract to develop graphics
chips for the next generation of Microsoft's Xbox console.

The announcement ends speculation that the company had wrested the
Xbox gig from its arch-rival, Nvidia.

"We selected ATI after reviewing the top graphics technologies in
development and determining that ATI's technical vision fits perfectly
with the future direction of Xbox," said Robbie Bach, senior VP of the
Home and Entertainment Division at Microsoft, in the official
statement.

However, it's widely believed that Microsoft and Nvidia simply
couldn't reach an agreement over the direction the project would take.

"[Nvidia] didn't want to meet Microsoft's demands for the floating
design of Xbox Next. It didn't make sense to partner on the project.
At this moment in time, ATI is working with Microsoft," an Nvidia
staffer said in June, according to Spong.com, which first broke the
story.

The fact that Nvidia and Microsoft fell out over how much the latter
should have paid for the former's graphics and system chips may also
have played a part in the drama.

The highly competitive and price-sensitive nature of the console
market required Microsoft to be flexible on price. Nvidia is believed
to have been decidedly inflexible when it came to helping the software
giant achieve its pricing goals. Microsoft wanted to pay less for its
chips than originally agreed, but Nvidia (quite understandably) stuck
to its guns.

ATI already has a deal to provide Nintendo with graphics chips for
GameCube, but the fact that Xbox has the potential to out-sell the
Nintendo machine may well have persuaded ATI that it can risk
offending its Japanese partner by working with a direct competitor.

To date, Nintendo has shipped some ten million GameCubes since the
console's 2001 launch. By contrast, Sony has shipped over 51 million
Playstation 2s since 2000. Microsoft has sold nearly ten million
Xboxes since its launch in November 2001.

Nintendo's decision to suspend GameCube production until the autumn
suggests the console is in trouble, doubly so when accompanied by the
company's admission that it failed to secure a good line up of titles
for the machine. Production will only resume if Nintendo can sell off
a good proportion of its warehouse stock. ®
Click to expand...

Basically I take this cross posting as an in your face to Nvidia fan boys. I
have seen and read all the arguments about who is best and what not. When
ATI was able to catch Nvidia and surpass them in technology. The Nvidia fan
boy would say "that doesn't mean anything. Nvidia has a better market value
and OEM customer base and XBOX. Nvidia is bigger and better blah blah
blah..." Heh, well looks like things are changing a bit.
 
Nvidia has always edged ATI gaphically anyways.
Nvidia have had some good cards, but they have not always been the best on
the market.

The competition is good though - it means better graphics cards for our PC's
and future consoles.
Click to expand...

Far better than ATI though.
 
The temperature of the GPU, as long is it is within operating parameters,
has NOTHING to do with picture quality you moron.
Click to expand...
MS didn't say it did, try learning the rules of the English language.

Andrew.
 
ec said:
The temperature of the GPU, as long is it is within operating parameters,
has NOTHING to do with picture quality you moron.
Click to expand...

Well, moron, had you actually ever compared the picture quality between
nVidia cards and ATI cards...I replaced my GeForce 4800 with Radeon 9800
three months ago, and ATI is clearly better. Not to mention that it's a lot
faster. A friend of mine has GeForce 5900 Ultra, and my Radeon (not even
ultra!!) beats it in 90% of benchmarks.

The fact that it runs cooler also means that it (and the cooling fan) will
last longer, XBox will run cooler, and this might mean that we'll get a
smaller case.

So try using you brain (if you got one) next time.
 
ec said:
Yes it has.
Click to expand...

Compare the first Geforce FX cards to the Radeons that were out at the time.
There's no way you can convince me that Nvidia had the edge graphically.
 
ec said:
The temperature of the GPU, as long is it is within operating parameters,
has NOTHING to do with picture quality you moron.
Click to expand...

He said:

"Since Radeon runs much cooler, has better picture quality ..."

This is equivalent to:

The radeon runs much cooler.
*And* the radeon has better picture quality.

Not:

The radeon runs much cooler.
*Therefore* it has better picture quality.

Learn english moron, before you call people a moron, you moron.

:p
 
He said:

"Since Radeon runs much cooler, has better picture quality ..."

This is equivalent to:

The radeon runs much cooler.
*And* the radeon has better picture quality.

Not:

The radeon runs much cooler.
*Therefore* it has better picture quality.

Learn english moron, before you call people a moron, you moron.

:p
Click to expand...


Well he said:
"Radeon 9800 kicks nVidia butt, even GeForce 5900 can't beat that. And
since Radeon runs much cooler, has better picture quality and still offers
all the same features...no competition."

He stated that radeon has same features while it runs cooler and has better
quality, so is better choice. His English is just fine, you just
misunderstood him.
 
Back
Top