PDA

View Full Version : Xbox 360 Interview: Todd Holmdahl


Pages : [1] 2

overheat
06-23-05, 09:47 PM
http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/1190/Xbox-360-Interview-Todd-Holmdahl/p1/

AthlonXP1800
06-24-05, 04:51 AM
So far, developers working on both platforms tell us that hardware wise, the PlayStation 3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360. Are you confident that Microsoft’s advantage in the software and services areas can close any lead that Sony might have with its hardware?

Todd Holmdahl: First of all, I dispute the notion that the PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. We outperform where it matters, and our system is much more balanced, making sure we can actually harness all the power of the system, unlike Sony. We believe that their teraflop calculations are wrong, and we put them at a similar teraflop number as Xbox 360. So when you consider that the hardware is actually about equal, we absolutely believe that software and services will be a huge advantage for us in the next generation.

That not surprise Microsoft and ATI both are in denial, ignored developers clarify that they found PS3 more powerful than Xbox 360. I think Microsoft and ATI are very jealous of what the developers said, they both didnt have PS3 developer hardware up and running by side with Xbox 360 testing games to see which one are superior, only games developers do that, they found PS3 far more technical superior than Xbox 360, that mean PS3 will win the war. :D

killahsin
06-24-05, 05:51 AM
eh, consoles dont win wars developers win wars. so its just a matter of who releases 1000 crappy titles and 10 good ones first. lol

msxyz
06-24-05, 06:51 AM
True, computing power itself does not make a platform superior.

Plus, all these claims are pretty farfetched until we got our hands on the hardware.

Both Sony and Microsoft have a good record of overpromising and underdelivering but, I'm willing to believe more from Microsoft than Sony as they're in the bad position of being the challenger. They can throw only a limited amount of BS if they want to gain credibility in the market.

six_storm
06-24-05, 11:04 AM
Haven't we already went through this PS3 vs XBOX 360 discussion before? We WILL NOT know which one is better until we get the actual final consoles and games in hand and play them for ourselves. Geez . . . :D

Ruined
06-24-05, 03:47 PM
That not surprise Microsoft and ATI both are in denial, ignored developers clarify that they found PS3 more powerful than Xbox 360. I think Microsoft and ATI are very jealous of what the developers said, they both didnt have PS3 developer hardware up and running by side with Xbox 360 testing games to see which one are superior, only games developers do that, they found PS3 far more technical superior than Xbox 360, that mean PS3 will win the war. :D

Just like XBOX won the war last round because it was far technically superior to the PS2, right? ;)

Sony's machine looks good on paper, but IMO in practice I think it won't be much better than, or very possibly worse than the XBOX360. It does look unbalanced, and I think the PS3 would have been better off with the XBOX360 Xenon CPU than the Cell CPU. Plus the R500 looks like a better graphics chip for a console with fixed resolutions than the G70. Either way though, it's been shown in the past that tech specs do not determine who wins.

slick
06-24-05, 11:24 PM
I have yet to see anything that has really impressed as far as graphics go anyways. Chaos Theory for the regular xbox looks better than some of this stuff that these developers are showing.

Like said before, It's really up to the developers. They are both kickass machines, it's whoever harnesses them better.

AthlonXP1800
06-25-05, 01:18 AM
Just like XBOX won the war last round because it was far technically superior to the PS2, right? ;)

Sony's machine looks good on paper, but IMO in practice I think it won't be much better than, or very possibly worse than the XBOX360. It does look unbalanced, and I think the PS3 would have been better off with the XBOX360 Xenon CPU than the Cell CPU. Plus the R500 looks like a better graphics chip for a console with fixed resolutions than the G70. Either way though, it's been shown in the past that tech specs do not determine who wins.

No you got it all wrong, you didnt looked at the history of computers. First of all, Xbox didnt won the last round, it lost out to Sony because PS2 was outsold the Xbox more than 10 to 1. Based on technical spec, PS2 is superior but the Emotion Engine never showed the full potential because the developers found it very hard to develop what they want from Emotion Engine, Sony listened to developers' feedbacks so Sony finally got it right this time with PS3, the developers like Epic found PS3 the easiest and very quick to ported Unreal 3 engine than it did on Xbox 360.

Why do you think PS3 are better off with PowerPC CPU than Cell CPU? That is very foolish way to do it, PowerPC didnt give great performances, IBM knew of this for more than 5 years ago, that actually the real reason why Apple dumped PowerPC for Intel because PowerPC never gave more performances what Apple wanted to catch up with faster x86 CPUs. IBM wanted to moved on from PowerPC like it did from Motorola 680x0 to Motorola PowerPC in the early 1990s, 5 years ago IBM joined with Sony and Toshiba to created PowerPC's successor which became Cell processor that are many many times more powerful than PowerPC and x86 CPU.

Tech specs in the past did determinded who won:

1982-1986: ZX Spectrum VS Commodore 64

Commodore 64 feature MOS Technologies 6510 CPU, 16 colours graphics and 64K RAM, it far superior to ZX Spectrum's Zilog Z80A CPU and 8 colours graphics but due to flawed and still incompleted Sinclair ROMs, it only displayed horrified 2 to 4 colours in all games. Commodore 64 won the war, outsold Spectrum and it became the biggest best selling home machine in the world.

1987-1989: Atari ST 520 VS Commodore Amiga 500

Both computers used the same Motorola 68000 processors but the Amiga's technical spec is far superior with more advanced custom graphics chipset and have first ever multi-tasking Amiga OS for a home computer, Atari ST dont have a multi-tasking OS. 2 years on, Amiga 500 was biggest best selling home computer and Atari ST 520 was send to the early grave.

1992-1995: Commodore Amiga A1200 VS PC

A1200 have AGA graphics chipset that matched PC's 256 colours VGA graphics but soon afterward, Commodore realised 486 processors are no matched to Motorola 680x0, it time to departed Motorola 680x0 family, the PCs getting more and more powerful with faster graphics and display 640x480 resolution in games while the Amiga stuck with very slow CPUs and only display 320x240 resolution in games. Commodore engineers went to the drawing boards and developed next generation Amiga that will be the most powerful 64 bit RISC based machine 10 years ahead of PCs, it able to run Amiga OS as well as Windows NT 5 times faster than fastest Pentium, it used HP PA-RISC CPU with full programmable 2D & 3D graphics embedded with the CPU. Sadly in 1994, creditors had refused lend Commodore a loan and the company filed for bankruptcy, RISC based Amigas was only 6 months from launched and it opened the door for takeover bids ongoing for years led the Amiga to abandoned the games market.

It no secret that Sony was one of Amiga's bidders for 2nd times, they wanted the Amiga technology first back in 1984 but Commodore bought the company so 2nd attempted was backed out because the liquidators didnt accepted very high bids, Sony wanted to bid $150m to $250m to acquired Amiga assets to use the Amiga OS and new custom chipsets in Playstation so without Amiga RISC technology, Sony went and designed their own API and custom chipsets for Playstation.

PC ended up takeover the Amiga market with no competitors.

It seem like history do repeat with Xbox 360 with slower PowerPC triple CPUs and display 1080i VS PS3 with twice more powerful Cell CPU, more advanced RSX GPU and display very crispy 1080p and Sony win in the end. :)

evilchris
06-25-05, 02:56 AM
:lol2:


"very crispy 1080p" ROFLMFAO

kev13dd
06-25-05, 03:16 AM
No you got it all wrong, you didnt looked at the history of computers. First of all, Xbox didnt won the last round, it lost out to Sony because PS2 was outsold the Xbox more than 10 to 1

And I guess they outsold why... because they were first to the market? The games? The experience they've had in the console industry? All things that Microsoft will now have?

Why did you leave out examples of the opposite happening?... like Dreamcast vs PS1? Or X-box vs PS2? Notice how the trends of the less powerful consoles winning are happening RECENTLY opposed to 1982?

Times have changed, so have consoles, games, developers, and technology. Save your breath until next year

K

kev13dd
06-25-05, 03:25 AM
That not surprise Microsoft and ATI both are in denial, ignored developers clarify that they found PS3 more powerful than Xbox 360. I think Microsoft and ATI are very jealous of what the developers said

Heck, if I was running a console company, I'd actually ask developers to say that the opposing console was more powerful (before launch that is) so that when I came out with a more powerful one, it would blow everyone away and catch more eyes than one that was meeting expectations

K

ArturNOW
06-25-05, 05:21 AM
Sony has sold so far about 90 mln PS2 when M$ sold more then 20 mln...

"No you got it all wrong, you didnt looked at the history of computers. First of all, Xbox didnt won the last round, it lost out to Sony because PS2 was outsold the Xbox more than 10 to 1" - it's bull**** what's more M$ was a new player in console world and Xbox was released about 1,5 year later...

msxyz
06-25-05, 06:31 AM
The success (or lack of) will be decided by the games, particulary the "exclusive titles"

With an installed user base of 90M consoles, Sony has a good headstart, regardless if its launch 6-9 months later. Having the most powerful piece of hardware in our living room is nice and cool but if the games are not fun, then it's a worthless piece of plastic.

The 20 milion units sold of Xboxes rapresent quite a success for a firm that came out of nowhere on the gaming scene but it was not the superior hardware or the promises of "toy story" graphics that sold it. Games like Halo, Kotor, Morrowind (first "western style" RPG to sell more than 1 million copies on a console) sold the hardware more than any marketing BS.

If Microsoft is willing to throw huge amount of cash to secure many more exclusives for this generation, the public will pick up a Xbox 360 at the store rather than a PS3, regardless of the million of flops made by the Cell. Bluray support is also a big question mark. Right now the industry is split between supporters of the Bluray and HD-DVD. Meanwhile the market is not so happy about leaving the good "old" DVD when it has just started to enjoy it. This stagnation may hurt both standards and convince the industry that they should try to push a different format to please all. At this point having a Bluray reader won't be a selling point for Sony anymore.

As for Microsoft, maybe it should have pushed HD-DVD, not only because 9GB are looking small these days, but as supporter of the format it would have helped its adoption. Considered that the supposed cost of HD-DVD technology is much lower than Bluray a few more dollars thrown into a better mass storage system would have paid both in terms of image and of console capabilities.

killahsin
06-25-05, 07:05 AM
The success (or lack of) will be decided by the games, particulary the "exclusive titles"

With an installed user base of 90M consoles, Sony has a good headstart, regardless if its launch 6-9 months later. Having the most powerful piece of hardware in our living room is nice and cool but if the games are not fun, then it's a worthless piece of plastic.

The 20 milion units sold of Xboxes rapresent quite a success for a firm that came out of nowhere on the gaming scene but it was not the superior hardware or the promises of "toy story" graphics that sold it. Games like Halo, Kotor, Morrowind (first "western style" RPG to sell more than 1 million copies on a console) sold the hardware more than any marketing BS.

If Microsoft is willing to throw huge amount of cash to secure many more exclusives for this generation, the public will pick up a Xbox 360 at the store rather than a PS3, regardless of the million of flops made by the Cell. Bluray support is also a big question mark. Right now the industry is split between supporters of the Bluray and HD-DVD. Meanwhile the market is not so happy about leaving the good "old" DVD when it has just started to enjoy it. This stagnation may hurt both standards and convince the industry that they should try to push a different format to please all. At this point having a Bluray reader won't be a selling point for Sony anymore.

As for Microsoft, maybe it should have pushed HD-DVD, not only because 9GB are looking small these days, but as supporter of the format it would have helped its adoption. Considered that the supposed cost of HD-DVD technology is much lower than Bluray a few more dollars thrown into a better mass storage system would have paid both in terms of image and of console capabilities.

yah pretty much hit the nail on the head, its developers who win console wars, not the consoles themselves. And usually it all has to do with xmass lineups lol.

oldsk00l
06-25-05, 11:11 AM
Todd's a freakin spinner, and it's going to be when the things are in shelves and what kinds of games we can get for them that decides thing.

If Halo3 ships with another cliffhanger ending, that franchise is going to tank bigtime and Sony will get a huge lead. As for these semantics on hardware it's conjecture.

It's conjecture coming from both MS and Sony. The whole "We're faster where it matters" line is just pure BS. When statements like that are made it just gives Revolution a fighting chance.

kev13dd
06-25-05, 09:23 PM
If Halo3 ships with another cliffhanger ending, that franchise is going to tank bigtime and Sony will get a huge lead. As for these semantics on hardware it's conjecture.

You know, Halo 1 didn't really have a cliffhanger, and it solds MILLIONS

Halo 2 did have a cliffhanger ending, and it sold MILLIONS

If Halo 3 does/doesn't have a cliffhanger ending, it will sell MILLIONS

The console race isn't ganna be decided by one game's ending. Especially Halo. If a system tanks because of one bad game, the PC should have tanked more times than France lost a war

K

AthlonXP1800
06-26-05, 05:30 AM
Why did you leave out examples of the opposite happening?... like Dreamcast vs PS1? Or X-box vs PS2? Notice how the trends of the less powerful consoles winning are happening RECENTLY opposed to 1982?

:lol: None of less powerful consoles won the wars in the last 13 years since 1993.

1993-1995: Amiga CD32 VS Sega Mega CD

Sega launched Mega CD, it was £299 add on for the 16 bit Megadrive console and Commodore launched world's first 32bit Amiga CD32 console, Amiga CD32 is very advanced standalone £299 console with the same technical spec as A1200 computer but without keyboard and floppy drive. CD32 had the ability to expand with add ons such as keyboard, FMV card to watch MPEG1 movies, hard drive, CPU, FPU and memory upgrades as well as access to Internet with a modem connected to CD32's Serial port. Only 400,000 CD32 was made during Commodore International demise, Commodore UK were very proud of Amiga CD32 outsold Sega Mega CD by 3 to 1 at the end of 1994.

1995-1997: Playstation 1 VS Saturn

At that period, Amiga are no longer a player without Commodore, it left a huge hole in games console market and Sony came up with the launched of Playstation 1 with more advanced technical spec, their custom graphics chipset was as good as Amiga's AGA chipset, it made more impressive graphics that Saturn cant matched. Playstation outsold Saturn easily, more than enough to send Saturn to early grave.

1999-2001: Dreamcast VS Playstation 2

After Saturn failure, Sega went to developed Dreamcast with PowerVR graphics and 128bit 200MHz Hitachi SH-4 CPU and launched the console 6 months in advanced of Playstation 2 launch. Playstation 2 came out with far more superior technical spec with faster 300MHz 128bit CPU, Sega realised their graphics are much slower and no matched with PS2 superior graphics chip. Sega totally underestimated the power of PS2 graphics chip and quitted the console business with 9 years of heavy losses, PS2 outsold Dreamcast very easily, send Dreamcast to the grave less than a year after the launch.

2002-2005: Playstation 2 VS Xbox

Microsoft came into the console market to picked up pieces Sega left behind and filled the hole with Xbox console with Nvidia NV2A graphics chipset and 32bit Intel Celeron 733MHz CPU, the CPU is hopeless to matched the power of PS2's superior 300MHz 128bit CPU that performed 6.2 GFLOPS, 32bit 733MHz Celeron cant do that, it performed less than 1 GFLOP. Playstation 2 had surpassed 90 millionth last month from 70 million at the end of last year, it outsold Xbox's 20 millionth on 1st Jan 2005 and Microsoft celebrated the first ever quarter profit in 3 years due to Halo 2 sales but after that things not gone well as Microsoft expected, the 2nd quarter turned the profit into big losses just like every losses quarters of 3 years. Nvidia will supply the last of NV2A chipsets by 1 August to Microsoft to assemble the final production of Xbox consoles. By the end of 2005 Microsoft's goal to achieve between 21 and 23 million Xbox consoles and Sony are now on course to smash between 100 to 120 million Playstation 2 consoles.

History will alway repeat with Playstation 3 will still win with more powerful 3.2GHz Cell CPU and Nvidia more powerful GPU (than it did original on developer system with 2.4GHz and RSX GPU) outsold underpowerful Xbox 360.

npras42
06-26-05, 06:55 AM
:lol: None of less powerful consoles won the wars in the last 13 years since 1993.
....

2002-2005: Playstation 2 VS Xbox

Microsoft came into the console market to picked up pieces Sega left behind and filled the hole with Xbox console with Nvidia NV2A graphics chipset and 32bit Intel Celeron 733MHz CPU, the CPU is hopeless to matched the power of PS2's superior 300MHz 128bit CPU that performed 6.2 GFLOPS, 32bit 733MHz Celeron cant do that, it performed less than 1 GFLOP. Playstation 2 had surpassed 90 millionth last month from 70 million at the end of last year, it outsold Xbox's 20 millionth on 1st Jan 2005 and Microsoft celebrated the first ever quarter profit in 3 years due to Halo 2 sales but after that things not gone well as Microsoft expected, the 2nd quarter turned the profit into big losses just like every losses quarters of 3 years. Nvidia will supply the last of NV2A chipsets by 1 August to Microsoft to assemble the final production of Xbox consoles. By the end of 2005 Microsoft's goal to achieve between 21 and 23 million Xbox consoles and Sony are now on course to smash between 100 to 120 million Playstation 2 consoles.

History will alway repeat with Playstation 3 will still win with more powerful 3.2GHz Cell CPU and Nvidia more powerful GPU (than it did original on developer system with 2.4GHz and RSX GPU) outsold underpowerful Xbox 360.

All this proves to me is that if the XBOX had lower GFLOPS performance than PS2 then the GFLOPS value means nothing. And the same is therefore true of PS3 as well (TFLOPS). Whether the XBOX had lower FLOPS than PS2 means nothing because anyone with the slightest bit of sense can see which is a more powerful console. The XBOX had better graphics across the bored and at higher frame rates too, as well as 5.1 sound.

I still think the PS3 will be more powerful because Sony are spending more time developing it. i.e. as far as I can tell MS has had its XBOX360 design finalised for months. Everything from CPU to GPU and memory was already complete a long time before E3. Sony say they have still to finalise the design of the RSX with NVidia, and everyone has seen how long they spent designing the Cell and when that was announced to be "complete". Overall it just seems that Sony have had a bit longer to design their console and with technology advancing so quickly these days even a few months of extra dev time will mean they are probably a bit ahead of X360.

msxyz
06-26-05, 09:45 AM
1999-2001: Dreamcast VS Playstation 2

After Saturn failure, Sega went to developed Dreamcast with PowerVR graphics and 128bit 200MHz Hitachi SH-4 CPU and launched the console 6 months in advanced of Playstation 2 launch. Playstation 2 came out with far more superior technical spec with faster 300MHz 128bit CPU, Sega realised their graphics are much slower and no matched with PS2 superior graphics chip. Sega totally underestimated the power of PS2 graphics chip and quitted the console business with 9 years of heavy losses, PS2 outsold Dreamcast very easily, send Dreamcast to the grave less than a year after the launch.



Dremcast didn't fail because it was less powerful, it failed because most consumer and developers didn't have faith in it and preferred to wait for the PS2 which was heralded as the second coming of Jesus by clever Sony marketing. (it looks like we're the same situation 6 years afte: let's see this time how much confidence the consumers are willing to give to M$)

I can trade all the millions of polygons the Graphic Synthetizer is capable of display for the superior rendering quality of the PowerVr chip inside the Dreamcast. PS2 games are a low resolution jag-fest.

When you compare the Xbox to the PS2, you forget to mention that the vast majority of the computational power of the Emotion Engine is used for transform and lighting which is entirely done on the CPU while the Xbox has dedicated vertex shading units (the same of GeForce4) offloading the main processor. FYI, when using the SSE instructions the p6 architecture can push up to 4 floating points calculations per clock cycle: that is 2.9 Gflops @ 733Mhz. Peak values, no doubt, but so are the figures claimed by Sony.

Your argument is flawed. Power has nothing to do with the success. Perceived power by the consumer is more important but above all is industry support with lots of good games and exclusives (as I said before).

Just look at the current PSP situation. It's more poweful than DS, yet there's a definite lack of AAA titles slowing down the sales compared to Nintendo handheld

six_storm
06-26-05, 05:51 PM
History will alway repeat with Playstation 3 will still win with more powerful 3.2GHz Cell CPU and Nvidia more powerful GPU (than it did original on developer system with 2.4GHz and RSX GPU) outsold underpowerful Xbox 360.

So you can see into the future? And do you actually have both the XBOX 360 and PS3 in your house right now comparing the two? Just because one console is technically "more powerful" does not mean that it will sell more. Maybe that's what has happened in the past but that doesnt mean it's going to happen again.

Do you really think the majority of gamers in the world really give a flying hoot about what's really inside the console? Seriously, more people decide on which console to buy based on games more than anything else, not how much bandwidth is between the CPU and GPU. Give me a break.

No offense dude (and I'm saying this for the millionth time), wait until both consoles debut and THEN you can make a fair judgement.

evilchris
06-26-05, 07:51 PM
nuclear holocaust of BS snipped

:inform:

AthlonXP1800
06-27-05, 03:53 AM
Your argument is flawed. Power has nothing to do with the success. Perceived power by the consumer is more important but above all is industry support with lots of good games and exclusives (as I said before).

Just look at the current PSP situation. It's more poweful than DS, yet there's a definite lack of AAA titles slowing down the sales compared to Nintendo handheld

Well my arguement are not flawed, power has to do with the success. I almost had Atari ST 520 in 1987 because it had 100 exclusives games bundle for £299, it had lots of good games with industry support. But when Commodore launched Amiga 500, here was lots of press from games developers praised Amiga 500 as superior machine with mind blowing graphics put Atari ST 520 to shame. In 1988, Amiga was gained industry support with more games written and I had Amiga 500 on Xmas 1988, I played the first game called Pacmania on the Amiga, the game was perfect arcade conversion with full screen with overscan and Atari ST had the game running with big black borders. After Xmas, the games developers dropped support of Atari ST in favour of Amiga, the consumers included me chosed the Amiga because of superior power and graphics, it outsold Atari ST and a few months after that the sales crashed and killed Atari ST 520.

Sony still not launch PSP in Europe yet, they postponed it because it have hardware issues with LCDs, it have common problems with dead pixels, Sony decided to stop production and resume until they resolve the issues with LCDs.

AthlonXP1800
06-27-05, 04:14 AM
No offense dude (and I'm saying this for the millionth time), wait until both consoles debut and THEN you can make a fair judgement.

It all down to the games developers who write games for the consoles had their first judgement, they are in favour of PS3 becasue it better than Xbox 360 on the same games they compared and us the consumers will have the final judgement and most will agree with the developers judgement.

I did the same with games developers judgements in the past on Commodore 64, Amiga 500, Amiga A1200, PC, Playstation 1 & 2, I agreed with the judgements when I saw all these machines in the shops display to comparsions and bought these machines. :)

six_storm
06-27-05, 11:10 AM
It all down to the games developers who write games for the consoles had their first judgement, they are in favour of PS3 becasue it better than Xbox 360 on the same games they compared and us the consumers will have the final judgement and most will agree with the developers judgement.

Well the developers would be making a crap judgement due to the fact that the developer kits aren't as powerful as the final product. Take the 360 for example. At E3, they were displaying the games on Power Macs for crying out loud. That's (supposively) only 1/3 of the final 360's true power and performance. What I'm saying is that the final hardware hasn't been "set in stone" for that long and that parts of both consoles aren't even finalized yet. (Both GPUs from ATI and NVIDIA). Developers make a risk in (pretty much guessing) which console will sell more and they go with that. Also, if history repeats itself :D then most games will be made for both systems.

I did the same with games developers judgements in the past on Commodore 64, Amiga 500, Amiga A1200, PC, Playstation 1 & 2, I agreed with the judgements when I saw all these machines in the shops display to comparsions and bought these machines. :)

When the PS2 and XBOX were first launched here in town at EB Games, I was trying to decide between the two systems. I thought that the XBOX had WAY better graphics, performance and features but I bought the PS2 because of GTA. Turns out that I traded in my PS2 about a month ago for an XBOX anyways. :D

evilchris
06-27-05, 12:10 PM
Developers also said the PS2 was a "piece of cake" to code for during the pre launch hype where Sony said the Emotion Engine would simulate REAL HUMAN EMOTION inside a computAr machine!!

Developers aren't Mother Teresa, to believe what they say during PRE LAUNCH HYPE whilst being PARTNERED with Sony, is sheer idiocy.