As I understood it, ATI designed the graphics chip but didn't manufacture it, they gave the design to MS who had to get it fabbed themselves. This was always the plan because with Xbox1 nVidia manufactured the graphics and chipset and refused to give MS a price cut. So this time, MS cut the graphics company out of the loop to avoid being shafted again. Presumably though, they didn't have ATI's expertise in the long term effects of high temperatures on system components and have had to go back to them to get the problems fixed.
It's hardly surprising the graphics chip is responsible for the failures, all modern GPUs pump out large amounts of heat, and anyone who has dismantled their 360 can tell you the GPU's heatsink is tiny, it's hidden under the DVD drive and is attached to the main CPU's heatsink. It's not surprising it can't dissipate heat very efficiently in that set up.
By Anonymous CowardPosted Wednesday 11th June 2008 11:00 GMT
was that they didn't need upgrading or replacing? Okay, you maybe need a new peripheral to play a racing game, or perhaps a larger storage card for all those saved games. But overall no change. At this rate you'll end up with Xbox owners in the classic PC upgrade scenario. OS upgrades are bad enough, but hardware changes as well?!
By James DelaneyPosted Wednesday 11th June 2008 12:26 GMT
The whole point of consoles is that you can play in the comfort of a massive sofa with mates and a big screen tv.
<rant>You only need to buy a new version of the hardware if you bought something that was designed badly and has an inherent fault. If you really want to of course you could buy one again after a few revisions so that you can have a slimmer case, lower power consumption etc. The key fact is that a game made for the 360 or the PS3 will work on any revision throughout the life of the console which is not the case with the myriad of options (that are constantly being replaced by manufacturers) with a PC build.
Although there have been several versions of the PS3, you won't need to buy another version (in theory) for up to 10 years. My guess is that you'll have upgraded your PC significantly by then and probably replaced it - which is fine if you can afford to do that and don't mind doing it every couple of years.
I've not yet made the jump to a next/current-gen consoles and am still using an original PS2 - the first revision - that makes it almost 8 years old and it still plays all the new games coming out for that platform. 8 years later. Can the same be said for the Pentium 3 at 766MHz with a Nvidia GeForce 2 or Radeon DDR (DX7!) and Windows Me? No?
Kinda makes 300 quid seem like a good deal.</rant>
By Daniel PalmerPosted Wednesday 11th June 2008 13:58 GMT
The article makes it sound like Microsoft designed the graphics core in-house and had it fabbed somewhere cheap... and then when that didn't work they went to ATI and bought a design? Wouldn't that make the two generations of chipset incompatible?
As one of the posters above mentioned; Microsoft licensed a design which is pretty common and then got a cheap vendor to produce the silicon. Which is a world apart from Microsoft cracking out the VHDL and wipping up a GPU.
By Geoffrey SummerhayesPosted Wednesday 11th June 2008 15:31 GMT
Totally agree, god forbid they ever got together to build something where the hardware and the software were designed together, from the ground up, as an integrated package. (Yeah, I know. Pigs fly, hell freezes over, etc.)
What would happen to all the support line people without the ability to pass the buck and blame it on the other company? They might actually have to solve the problem! Oh, the HORROR!!
By HighlanderPosted Wednesday 11th June 2008 16:14 GMT
ATI designed the GPU in the Xbox360 - to Microsoft's specifications.
What seems to have happened is ATI did the basic design, MS provided technical specs as to what they wanted. MS may have taken that ATI design and added/modified something at the fringe, but does anyone seriously believe that MS modified the ATI GPU core? One thing that comes to mind is the inclusion of the so called embedded RAM. It's not so much embedded as it is on the same daughter card. It's not part of he GPU core. Was this one of the key revisions to the design that Microsoft requested? Did Microsoft in their arrogance further tweak the design before manufacture?
Well in any case the damage is/was done, whatever causes the heat within the GPU package on the 360.
So now MS go back to ATI and ask for help to fix the heat and move to 65nm. Anyone want to guess whether that BM of E-RAM makes it onto the same die as the GPU core this time? Perhaps with some ever so slightly redesigned custom gate work? I sure hope so, otherwise those Jaspers are going to be hot as well.
Going back to the story, I'd have to guess that this was indeed the order of events. ATI provides a core to MS, MS tacks on some extras, the GPU core is too large to include the E-RAM on-die and still be feasible to build. So a daughter card arrangement is hastily created. Heat problems are not seen in initial tests which are performed in nice controlled environments with good airflow and air-conditioning. Eventually real world testing by consumers shows that in anything less than ideal conditions, or extended play of games that push the video hardware, heat is a problem. Cue Microsoft going back to ATI with a tale of woe and asking them to help them, cue Jasper and a die shrink.
Unanswered questions that need answers. How many of the Xbox360s that Microsoft claim have been sold are replacements for systems that failed? Do they count the refurbs that are sent to consumers when their original system fails? Why does Microsoft think it can do hardware? When will people learn that Microsoft has high ambitions, but always delivers buggy versions that require at least one major revision to work properly? What in the GPU package is causing the meltdown? Who designed that? Who tested it? Is it really fixed in Jasper or are we just kidding ourselves again?
>>For more techno detail see: http://www.ps3news.com/X-Box360/the-truth-about-xbox-360-hardware-failures/
it may well be true, but www.PS3news.com (note the 'PS3' bit in there is significant) is hardly likely to be objective or positive about the Xbox now is it? LOL
By Anonymous CowardPosted Thursday 12th June 2008 06:57 GMT
I have two 5 year old gaming notebooks, both with identical ATI chips (Radeon 9000), both have had graphics card replaced in the last 18 months due to them simply blowing up. Heat could well be a factor as the heat buildup is considerable; the design uses the keyboard baseplate for dissipating heat. The new cards seem to have a different type of thermal pad on top of the GPU.
By Scott MckenziePosted Thursday 12th June 2008 08:03 GMT
I'd love to hear why "in theory" you'll not need a new PS3 for 10 years..... i'm sure it's got a good graphics chip and CPU, but 10 years ago i had a state of the art Voodoo 2 in SLI configuration, with a whopping 8Mb of video RAM, that was able to play any game in full resolution, frame rate etc..... so i'm guessing technological advances in the next 10 years may well render the current PS3 worth nothing more than a doorstop (which incidentally it does resemble rather well!)
Comments on: Microsoft's own chip design blamed for Xbox 360 RRoD
ATI designed it, someone else fabbed it #
By Si Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 10:50 GMT
I just love XBox 360 #
By Mark Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 10:54 GMT
you got this wrong #
By Christian Clark Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 10:55 GMT
I thought the point of consoles #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 11:00 GMT
Hardly worth responding.. #
By Mark Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 11:17 GMT
MS is a software company #
By paul Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 11:20 GMT
ATI #
By JonB Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 11:31 GMT
@Anonymous Coward #
By James Delaney Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 12:26 GMT
Have to agree with Paul... #
By Edward Rose Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 13:25 GMT
Badly written article #
By Daniel Palmer Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 13:58 GMT
Typical Microsoft #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 15:00 GMT
It's not as if the GPU revision is much of an everyday benefit #
By Rob Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 15:02 GMT
@ Edward & Paul #
By Geoffrey Summerhayes Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 15:31 GMT
Confirmation of another MS own goal? #
By Highlander Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 16:14 GMT
Re: MS is a software company #
By MikeS Posted Wednesday 11th June 2008 16:19 GMT
ATI overheating kills #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 06:57 GMT
@James #
By Scott Mckenzie Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 08:03 GMT
@Hardly worth responding.. #
By Mark Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 08:39 GMT
RE: I just love XBox 360 #
By Rich Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 09:00 GMT
GTA 4 #
By richard Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 10:24 GMT
@Software firms should stick to software. #
By Chris Cook Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 11:03 GMT
Those who want to come to my picnic #
By Mark Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 14:01 GMT
@ Rob #
By Abe Posted Thursday 12th June 2008 15:22 GMT