Why weren't more consoles developed with Intel Processors?

[theoakwoody]

I always wondered why console manufacturers never used intel processors in their designs. Okay, let me just say I'm not sure that there never was a console that used an intel chip but I'm specifically referring to all the systems that used the 68000, Z80, and 6502 or variants of them. Were intel chips too expensive?

[Hovoc]

I always wondered why console manufacturers never used intel processors in their designs. Okay, let me just say I'm not sure that there never was a console that used an intel chip but I'm specifically referring to all the systems that used the 68000, Z80, and 6502 or variants of them. Were intel chips too expensive?


generally.....


AMD processors are typically better for gaming and multimedia, where as intel processors are more for number crunching, or atleast thats what taught to me back in the day


personally, im an AMD fan

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

I'm not sure that there never was a console that used an intel chip
The Odyssey2 utilized a mighty Intel 8048 chip. Well, mighty frustrating, depending on who you ask. Check out this interview with Bob "RoSha" Harris (http://www.thelogbook.com/music/i_bob.htm) of Killer Bees! fame for more details. LOL The O2 may have put the gaming industry as a whole off of the idea of putting Intel inside.

[Kamino]

it could also have to do with the PRICE of intel chips.
Notice how AMD, VIA, Cyrix, and other shmucko brands of cpu's are always armloads cheaper?
I could see nintendo going cheap and putting a celeron in the next system. ::Screams blue murder::
Also, unless intel developed a new chip specifically for the console, you'd basically have a pc with a funky controller and none of the standard computer-functions besides gaming.
All in all....bad voodoo.

[Hovoc]

it could also have to do with the PRICE of intel chips.
Notice how AMD, VIA, Cyrix, and other shmucko brands of cpu's are always armloads cheaper?
I could see nintendo going cheap and putting a celeron in the next system. ::Screams blue murder::
Also, unless intel developed a new chip specifically for the console, you'd basically have a pc with a funky controller and none of the standard computer-functions besides gaming.
All in all....bad voodoo.

AMD shmucko? how dare you!

also, i wasnt aware via made CPU's, thought they stuck to mobo components

[morphx]

I think they make cpus for microATX boards don't they?

[Hovoc]

I think they make cpus for microATX boards don't they?

*shrug* ive been out of mainstream computers for 3 years now

[morphx]

how unl33t of you...

[Ze_ro]

I would also suggest that intel chips (the x86 line specifically) are better suited to multi-purpose computers than they are to dedicated/embedded machines such as consoles and arcade machines. I'd be much more inclined to build a console out of a 68000 chip than I would a 386.

--Zero

[Ed Oscuro]

Intel chips were indeed too expensive. A 386 was a few hundred dollars even a couple years after release - close to or perhaps even more expensive than brand new processors today, when you factor in a bit of inflation.

[Gamemaster_ca_2003]

Hey the X-Box Uses an Intel 733MHz processor (either Celeron or Pentium III I don't Know). and the Channel F was developed by the founder of Intel.

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey the X-Box Uses an Intel 733MHz processor (either Celeron or Pentium III I don't Know). and the Channel F was developed by the founder of Intel.
The XBox uses an Intel chip, but an older one (the Pentium 3 goes back many years indeed...mid/late 90s).

The reason for this is that people realized that as the architecture of personal computers has been dedicated for 3D games since 1995 that it wouldn't be hard to simply use existing components and strategy to make a console. The Pentium III has lots of 3D engine-friendly instructions baked right into the sillicon.

Back in the days of the 3DO, all this tech was new. Go figure.

[neuropolitique]

I would also suggest that intel chips (the x86 line specifically) are better suited to multi-purpose computers than they are to dedicated/embedded machines such as consoles and arcade machines. I'd be much more inclined to build a console out of a 68000 chip than I would a 386.

--Zero

Bingo, we have a winner! Microcomputer CPUs are general purpose processors. Being of a narrow focus gives custom chips many advantages over multi-purpose chips.

Another system using an intel proc. is the Game Boy, sorta. It used the Z-80, which is essentially a clone of the intel 8080, though it was an improved clone. Also, it was produced by Zilog, which was formed by former intel employees.

[EnemyZero]

AMD are are better and cheaper than intel, they spend less time advertising to they can sell there products at a lower price without loosing money ^_^

[Berty]

RISC based cpu's are better suited to consoles than CISC due to the fact that RISC cpu's can be suited and streamlined towards specific apps.

The cpu in the xbox is not a PIII but a celeron. Why? because a PIII has 256Kb of L2 cache where a Celeron and the Xbox only use 128Kb. Even though the xbox shares the same FSB speed of the PIII (133Mhz) the lower L2 cache cripples it a fair bit.

Seibu Kaihatsu (Raiden etc) used a 386 CPU for their raiden arcade boards (i forget which one) but this was suplemented with a texas instruments DSP chip.

Another thing to keep in mind is that CISC chips from intel often feature varied bus widths which isnt conducive to the movement of large floating point intergers. Floating point operations are most commonly associated with 3D graphics.

on a personal note, intel should have stuck with the PIII core instead of reverting to a speed-up version of the 486 for there pentium 4 architecture. Bassically, if you clock a PIII to the same speed a s P4 then you will notice that the PIII whipes the floor with the P4.

LONG LIVE MOTOROLLA!!!

[Ed Oscuro]

I would also suggest that intel chips (the x86 line specifically) are better suited to multi-purpose computers than they are to dedicated/embedded machines such as consoles and arcade machines. I'd be much more inclined to build a console out of a 68000 chip than I would a 386.

--Zero

Bingo, we have a winner! Microcomputer CPUs are general purpose processors. Being of a narrow focus gives custom chips many advantages over multi-purpose chips.
I've noticed a lot of this truism-spouting nonsense going about on the forums. Why is it that somebody always goes "BINGO!!! WINNAR" and then essentially restates a narrowly focused obvious truth? Yeah, "being of a narrow focus" makes a DSP chip better suited for sound processing than an Intel chip, after cost analysis. A CD-ROM used for read-only applications will be cheaper and more effective if you cut out write-related functions. Jam is better on toast than caviar, and the reverse is true on crackers. SO WHAT?

Finally, I've already shown that - in today's world only, of course (things WERE different in the past, and will possibly be different again soon), late 90s-era Intel design proved good enough for Microsoft's purposes for a number of reasons:

1.) Complexity of modern code. Think of the applications being run on a single processor in PC games: sound displacement and filter types, fractal geometry and generated textures, AI. Many of these applications can be offloaded, but instead of being a "must-do" point, that allows me to segue into my next point -

2.) Availability/cost analysis. First off, Microsoft has to give somebody a good reason to create something new, and that good reason might be a cash prize of some sort. In this case Microsoft decided that the old Celeron was a Good Enough processor for their purposes.

3.) Creating a coherent design. The Saturn scared the industry away from having lots of small processors doing things, I think, but for good reason. When you have one strong general purpose processor, that allows people to come up with a wide range of solutions for their problems. Nobody wants to limit a console's functioning out of the gate these days.

Before I continue, it seems that there's some misunderstanding about RISC versus CISC. RISC was a specific type of processor, but the general idea was that the instruction set was reduced to the bare minimum, not expanded. CISC, of course, is the complex version. There's nothing RISC at all about a modern video card's processor and techniques - the complexity of any single architecture is about as baroque as you can find.

RISC has had its heyday. As applications of all sorts are relying more heavily on brute force these days, CISC processors take the guesswork out of a hardware developer's solution.

In fact, the classic example of a tightly focused application running on narrowly focused hardware - polygonal rendered graphics on 3D accelerators - is starting to OPEN up to a CISC approach, NOT go the other way around. The amount of RAM on a new graphics card dedicated to providing program space for creating custom shaders is still far below the 1MB mark (and will likely be there for a while), but the fact is these features aren't being added for laughs - this increase in processing power reflects the need for specialized applications to borrow techniques from traditional CISC computing.

[Ed Oscuro]

I should also mention that with the PentiumPro, Intel started designing chips which break many different instructions back into simpler bits that are recombined upon demand for more complex instructions. Sound like RISC? It is!

People like to bitch a lot about how it was bad Intel went with core X, abandoned core Y, and that AMD's Z is better, but the fact is that the best designs sacrifice bits to keep the core on budget for transistors. They're locked in, and both Intel and AMD have to decide which features are best for their processors. Been going on since time eternal. Either the 386 or 486 (don't remember which one exactly) bumped a few instructions down in complexity and DEcreased their operating speed, since they weren't a particularly critical part of the opcode mix in programs at the time and the speed was needed elsewhere.

In terms of video cards, the same truths hold. Sure video cards aren't general purpose cards - but inside any of the newest generation of cards are registers and instructions for shaders which are more powerful and flexible than the early computers' respective capacity, and video cards are borrowing heavily from "CISC" ideas.

[Jorpho]

Another system using an intel proc. is the Game Boy, sorta. It used the Z-80, which is essentially a clone of the intel 8080, though it was an improved clone. Also, it was produced by Zilog, which was formed by former intel employees.

Wasn't Zilog owned by Exxon? The Z80 was also used in the Sega Master System (and various Sega computers), ColecoVision (and ADAM), and of course the whole MSX line.

Other consoles that used Intel chips include the Tandy/Memorex VIS (the only device to ever use Microsoft's early Modular Windows product) and the FM Towns Marty, but it can be argued that both were derived from more sophisticated copmuter systems.

Now, the PowerPC is a RISC chip, right? Hasn't it only been used in the Pippin and the GameCube at this point?

[Ed Oscuro]

Other consoles that used Intel chips include the Tandy/Memorex VIS (the only device to ever use Microsoft's early Modular Windows product) and the FM Towns Marty, but it can be argued that both were derived from more sophisticated copmuter systems.
I wouldn't say either were derived from computer systems. The Marty WAS a computer system from the start - just with most of the I/O ports and keyboard taken away. It's still got a floppy drive, though, and the fact that it's in console form doesn't mean it was a mere derivative.

As for the VIS, well, that was a parallel development with PCs at the time in some ways. Supporting Modular Windows and having some I/O doesn't automatically make a device a PC derivative, and it undoubtedly had more in common with the CD-i and other disc based systems of the time, certainly in terms of a pedigree. (As if that means anything anyways LOL )


Now, the PowerPC is a RISC chip, right? Hasn't it only been used in the Pippin and the GameCube at this point?
Nope on both counts...but bear with me. The PowerPC (Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC) started out as a "RISC" processor, but just as the Pentium Pro line and its successors have adopted bits of RISC strategy, PowerPC has adpoted bits of the CISC strategy.

PowerPC was in the Pippin only because Apple had created a wide line of (sometimes incredibly awful, i.e. my Performa 6290cd - those numbers are seared into my memory) computers using the PC.

The instruction set for PowerPC was developed by Motorola, IBM, and Apple around '91. Turn the letters around and you've got AIM, the name of their initiative. You can guess why they wanted to create a new instruction set! At the time RISC was a great idea, but since then it's become something of a moot idea as transistor "budgets" in chip design have increased rapidly.

Since then IBM has been trying to get their own line of computers onto PowerPC architecture, as the continued use of Intel processors on *their own machines* harms the sale of their PowerPC processors, and has been a rather huge embarassment for the company. Nothing yet, but I'm sure IBM will be able to do SOMETHING with it. Next up (no pun intended): PowerPC on the NeXtBox.

Now why do I say the PowerPC isn't considered RISC anymore? RISC vs. CISC is DEAD AND BURIED. Now there's still a difference between the two, a simple one:

RISC chips traditionally didn't have addressing modes - to "load and store" addresses from memory requires the intervention of another unit farther down the chain. Hence RISC is now called "load-store architecture."

CISC chips have many addressing modes with lots of functionality - and as a counterpart to "load-store" people use the term "register-memory" as a reference to the use of registers that hold pointers to memory. Very different.

[Ze_ro]

Now, the PowerPC is a RISC chip, right? Hasn't it only been used in the Pippin and the GameCube at this point?
Well, it was also used in a lot of Macs, and some of the higher end Amigas (mostly through third-party accellerator cards... Commodore never actually sold any Amigas based on the PowerPC).

Frankly, I never liked RISC processors... I remember having to program one in university (I think it was the PIC16F877), and the lack of instructions felt very restrictive. I much preferred working with the 6800, 6502 or 68000. One thing that that I did like about the PIC was that it had ram and flash rom built right into the same package as the processor, so we could burn our programs right into the chip and stick it into a breadboard without any extra steps or evaluation boards... very convenient. This is getting a little off-topic though, so I'll stop reminiscing :)

--Zero