Gartner Chief Analyst about Last Year's Xbox 360 'Recall' Options

[Xbox-Scene]

Gartner Chief Analyst about Last Year's Xbox 360 'Recall' Posted by XanTium | June 10 13:52 EST | News Category: Xbox360

From eetimes.com: [QUOTE] When Microsoft Corp. announced a mammoth global recall of its Xbox 360 a year ago, the software giant never disclosed the exact source of the game console's heat problem that led to the fiasco. Now, in an unlikely venue at Design Automation Conference here, Bryan Lewis, research vice president and chief analyst at Gartner, disclosed that the problem started in a graphic chip. Lewis offered this offhand revelation while discussing the changing ASIC and ASSP landscape for his DAC audience. The Xbox 360 recall a year ago happened because "Microsoft wanted to avoid an ASIC vendor," said Lewis. Microsoft designed the graphic chip on its own, cut a traditional ASIC vendor out of the process and went straight to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., he explained. But in the end, by going cheap--hoping to save tens of millions of dollars in ASIC design costs, Microsoft ended up paying more than $1 billion for its Xbox 360 recall. To fix the problem, Microsoft went back to an unnamed ASIC vendor based in the United States and redesigned the chip, Lewis added. (Based on a previous report, the ASIC vendor is most likely the former ATI Technologies, now part of AMD.) [/QUOTE] Full Story: eetimes.com

[bucko]

I think pretty much everyone on here with limited GPU hardware knowledge knew that months ago, lmao

This post has been edited by bucko: Jun 10 2008, 07:43 PM

[tutu]

LMAO A revelation? There having a laugh!!! Oh and there has never been a "mammoth global recall". It's left to the consumer to return when it breaks. Never seen such dodgy journalism.

So they are saying Microsoft designed their own GPU and ATI had nothing to do with it? So where is this "redesign". Or are they just referring to a 65nm die shrink. Idiots.

This post has been edited by tutu: Jun 10 2008, 08:06 PM

[halcyonx12]

Assuming the article is correct, ATI and Matrox are based in Canada, so they can only be talking about nVidia (unless S3 are still around, but they aren't exactly synonymous with speed and quality). So it doesn't look like they have their facts well researched anyway. Plus You can't just slap together an ASIC like that and have it work. My guess is the die shrink just improved the situation regarding the actual problem: overheating. So it was never really fixed, only mitigated.


All said, it sure would put MS in a sensitive position in trying to get various graphics manufacturers to divulge their secrets in order to get their features into the new versions of DirectX. If the manufacturers entered into any agreements with MS over that, they are probably really being taken advantage of now. With less focus around OpenGL, and less companies investing engine technology in OpenGL, it puts MS in a strong position to influence what graphics companies can do now.

So it would be a good move for MS to make on their part, but would it ever happen? It would put a bad light on MS's antitrust situation, that's for sure!

This post has been edited by halcyonx12: Jun 10 2008, 08:09 PM

[CesiumVirus]

Assuming the article is correct, ATI and Matrox are based in Canada, so they can only be talking about nVidia (unless S3 are still around, but they aren't exactly synonymous with speed and quality). So it doesn't look like they have their facts well researched anyway.

There's a reason it says FORMER ATI. ATI is now part of AMD which is an American company...
Also, since the chip is based on an ATI design, it makes sense that they would go back to them..

You're the one who needs to do some researching

[ImmortalZ]

This so called statement is very wrong.

Microsoft never designed the graphics chip on their own. They don't have the expertise for it. It has been known from day one (well, day one of launch) that the chip inside was designed by ATI to Microsoft's requirements, a derivative of it's R520 architecture with unified shaders. One can check the several articles on the web by technically sound websites like AnandTech or Beyond3D for this plain fact.

Microsoft did this while retaining all IP on the chip being designed. This was done so a repeat of the NV4X fiasco with the original Xbox won't be repeated. MS is free to die-shrink or use the IP for their own uses freely (if they want to create an MXM chip at 45nm incorporating the CPU and GPU on one chip, they can do it - they couldn't even do a die-shrink of the nVidia chips in the original Xbox).

In short, it's a made up report or said person is spewing bullshit.

[scuba156]

Microsoft never designed the graphics chip on their own. They don't have the expertise for it. It has been known from day one (well, day one of launch) that the chip inside was designed by ATI to Microsoft's requirements, a derivative of it's R520 architecture with unified shaders. One can check the several articles on the web by technically sound websites like AnandTech or Beyond3D for this plain fact.

that was said before the console was released, and im sure it can be found on xbox.com.

wat a complety crap, inaccurate (and late) article. i beleive the reason to the extended warranty was already known before there decision, i also beleive it was in the press release

[shodanjr_gr]

Wasnt the RROD issue more related to using that RHOS-compliant solder along with the xclamp design and less related to the actual HEAT the chips produced?

[Basin]

Wasnt the RROD issue more related to using that RHOS-compliant solder along with the xclamp design and less related to the actual HEAT the chips produced?

Indeed, it is a combination of poor soldering, high heat, thin motherboard, but mostly an appalling cooling design, especially the attachment of the heatsinks. This is why the x-clamp fix works so well. It has nothing to do with the internal GPU chip design, a design which most certainly was not done by microsoft, it was done by ATI. Microsoft lacks the employees and experience to create a graphics chip that could achieve even a fraction of what the 360's chip can.

[majik655]

Recall my ass!

Someone should tell this guy what "recall" means

tell him next time his car brakes are recalled, he has 3 year extended warranty on them and oh yeah you can't send your brakes in for repair until they break first! haha

see then if he notices what the difference is between recall and extended warranty.

[Martinchris23]

Agree with majik655. This was NOT a recall and should never be described as such.

A product recall would have been a whole different process. You would have been able to take your 360, regardless of fault/condition back to the store where you bought it for an immediate refund.

What MS did which everyone knows by now, is just increase the warranty to include this fault meaning you must ship it back to the for repair/replacement.

[PerfectGun]

Not sure how much this matters, but the wind bag used to be with Sony.

I'm not sure much more I can add that hasn't been said in the prior post's.

[mlapaglia]

anyway you look at it, they got pwned. i wonder with the company charged any extra on top of what they originally wanted?

[robo989]

anyway you look at it, they got pwned. i wonder with the company charged any extra on top of what they originally wanted?

Sorry that makes no sense at all?

[Slag Bag]

Agree with majik655. This was NOT a recall and should never be described as such.

A product recall would have been a whole different process. You would have been able to take your 360, regardless of fault/condition back to the store where you bought it for an immediate refund.

What MS did which everyone knows by now, is just increase the warranty to include this fault meaning you must ship it back to the for repair/replacement.

Actually you are wrong what MS did was a voluntary conditional recall. Unlike the old Xbox power supplies which were a mandatory safety recall, same with the 360 Steering wheel. If safety isn't an issue then they become voluntary and can be conditional. Thus if you have the RROD (the condition) it is your choice (the voluntary) to return it for repair.