PS3 to have 50x graphics power of PS2

[Shifty Geezer]

From CnVG
Speaking at a Silicon Valley press conference, nVidia president Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed that the company has already been working on the chip for an extended time and suggested that it would be in the region of 50 times more powerful than the PS2's graphics chip.
How can this be quantified when we know PS2's graphical performance was hampered by simplicity and lack of high-end features?
How does a contemporary high-end card compare? 50x PS2 doesn't seema lot to me, but with figures like 1000x being bantered around I guess I'm desensitized :shock:

Are there any Linux benchmarks that can be run on PS2 and PC to compare graphics performance?

[london-boy]

Hold on, let me open a thread on why i think PS3 will only be about 63.2 times as powerful as a dodo.

[[Brick_top]]

50x seems a lot to me :shock:

I guess the nvidia hype machine has just started :D

[rabidrabbit]

How many GS's were on the GS'Cube? less than 50?

[london-boy]

How many GS's were on the GS'Cube? less than 50?

The GSCube 16 had... sixteen.
And the GSCube 64 had... err.. sixty-four.

[Tsmit42]

Well 50 x 66 million polygons/sec = 3.3 billion polygons/sec

1920 x 1080(res) x 4(micropolys/pixel) x 60(fps) x 4 overdraw = ~1.99 billion.

Seems like doing the job to me, and that is with 1080p60(which is unlikely because of memory)

[Pugger]

There a term for that PR bluster... just can think of it, oh yeah b@~@*$~S.

Like talk in game number shall we? 66 million when in reality PS2 game are probably between 10-15 million at a stretch.

[Phil]

keep in mind that he is being quoted saying PS2 graphics chip. Would this indicate again that the workload between CELL and Nvidia's part is similar to how the work is being split between the EE and GS in PS2?

50 x GS can mean many things of course... if the workload is similar and Nvidia's part will be a more complex rasterizer... Maybe it's really a reference to rendering performance? Though how indicative of the systems performance (PS3) can it be if Nvidia is just talking about their unit within the system?

[eSa]

There a term for that PR bluster... just can think of it, oh yeah b@~@*$~S.

Like talk in game number shall we? 66 million when in reality PS2 game are probably between 10-15 million at a stretch.

Of course this is just PR talk, but the figure sounds reasonable... 15 million polys with PS2 * 50 = 750 million polys /sec. That is entirely possible.

A 0.065 micron part with some EDRAM and you have that performance.

Afterall Playstation 2 is rather slow/feature poor when it comes gfx. At least with today's standards.

[Druga Runda]

so 50x10 = 500 million, and we'll be lucky to get that in game too :D

1920 x 1080(res) x 4(micropolys/pixel) x 60(fps) x 4 overdraw = ~1.99 billion.
you cut the resolution and fps in half, and you get that... there you go, that might be optimistic realism.

[london-boy]

This could mean so many things, and the many things it could mean could be all wrong anyway so...

50x fillrate? 50x polygons? 50x pixel shading? Hold on, PS2 had zero pixel shading and multiplying a number to zero is zero so... TAHT MUST MEEN PSX3 HAS NO PIXELZ SHADIN'!!!111!11!!11












[Sorry, got carried away in the Trashing of Useless Thread(TM)]

[Tuttle]

From CnVG
Speaking at a Silicon Valley press conference, nVidia president Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed that the company has already been working on the chip for an extended time and suggested that it would be in the region of 50 times more powerful than the PS2's graphics chip.
How can this be quantified when we know PS2's graphical performance was hampered by simplicity and lack of high-end features?
How does a contemporary high-end card compare? 50x PS2 doesn't seema lot to me, but with figures like 1000x being bantered around I guess I'm desensitized :shock:

Are there any Linux benchmarks that can be run on PS2 and PC to compare graphics performance?

Need directions back to the pc forums? You seem lost.

[Titanio]

It's a pretty meaningless number without any context.

I'm surprised no other outlets picked up on that comment though.

But to add to the silliness, I'll add this: if you were to break the gap between PS2 and PS3 up into 6 month cycles, and if we take it that graphics cards double in power every 6 months, then PS3 should be over 1000x more powerful than PS2!!!1!one :roll: :wink:

[ultimate_end]

For fun, lets Put four Graphics Synthesizers on a chip and run it at 1Ghz.

If we take the GS (1.2 Gpixels/sec textured fillrate - one texture) and multiply the number of pixel pipelines by four, then give each pipeline a proper TMU and run this hypothetical chip at 950Mhz, we would get a textured fillrate of over 60 Million pixels per second.

Thats 50 times the textured fillrate of the GS.

60/1.2=50

This satisfies the "tens of Gpixels" hopes.
According to Moore's Law, we could put 16 GSs on a chip for PS3 :roll: .


I know this is a pointless calculation, but this thread is kinda strange anyway isn't it?

[london-boy]

It's a pretty meaningless number without any context.

I'm surprised no other outlets picked up on that comment though.

But to add to the silliness, I'll add this: if you were to break the gap between PS2 and PS3 up into 6 month cycles, and if we take it that graphics cards double in power every 6 months, then PS3 should be over 1000x more powerful than PS2!!!1!one :roll: :wink:


1024 times actually, if we assume a 5 year difference. :wink: !!!onehundredeleven!!11!

[j^aws]

2 + 2 = 4

nVidia +Sony = 5 ;)

[Xenus]

No Nvidia + Sony = 10.
See you add up all the letters and you get ten.
Try to get the full effect of the PR will you. :P

[london-boy]

No Nvidia + Sony = 10.
See you add up all the letters and you get ten.
Try to get the full effect of the PR will you. :P

Oh they'll have lots of material.
"MS will NV Sony..." for example... :lol:

[Fafalada]

How does a contemporary high-end card compare? 50x PS2 doesn't seema lot to me
Well you can spin it many ways.
For example:
50xGS = 120GPixel/s.
Current PC cards are ~6-8GPixel

*gives ERP a naughty wink* :lol:

[wazoo]

Does it mean, Pixar have to start working on TOY Story III to have a decent benchmark for the ps3 :roll:

[Megadrive1988]

Graphics Synthesizer in PS2:

75 million flat shaded triangles/sec draw rate * 50 = 3.75 billion flat shaded triangles/sec

25 million triangles/sec with texture, g-shade, alpha * 50 = 1.25 billion triangles/sec

2.4 billion pixels/sec raw fillrate * 50 = 120 billion pixels/sec raw fillrate

1.2 billion pixels/sec textured fillrate (+bilinear) = 60 billion pixels/sec textured fillrate

48 GB/sec bandwidth * 50 = 2.4 TB/sec bandwidth


okay say PS2 games are getting 10-15 million polygons/sec * 50 = 500M to 750M polygons/sec in PS3 games ???


remember that GSCube (GScube 16) was pushing around 65 million textured & *fully featured* (?) polygons per sec in the realtime Antz demo (bar fight scene). also, in-house at Criterion, GSCube was pushing around 300M polygons/sec (fully featured?) in tests. the 300M figure is about 1/3 the max theoretical performance of GSCube of 1.2 billion polys/sec:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.video.sony/msg/036f50116a3ff28a?dmode=source



ok back to PS3

tens of billions of pixels/sec have not been ruled out by this announcement. seems like there is room for it. and notice I did *not* say that PS3 GPU *will* push tens of billions of pixels/sec. :)

hundreds of millions of polygons/sec with textures, shaders, features on, seems to be within reach, hopefully in games. that might put PS3 (GPU) on a similar level as Xenon GPU.

and what I'm really hoping for is that PS2 GS's 48 GB/sec eDRAM bandwidth gets a 50x boost too! to over 1 Terabyte/sec 8)

please note that I gave no absolutes. I really have no idea how PS3 will perform. I'm just comparing info from PS2, GSCube and what Nvidia is saying about PS3 GPU. that is it.

[GwymWeepa]

Graphics Synthesizer in PS2:

75 million flat shaded triangles/sec draw rate * 50 = 3.75 billion flat shaded triangles/sec

25 million triangles/sec with texture, g-shade, alpha * 50 = 1.25 billion triangles/sec

2.4 billion pixels/sec raw fillrate * 50 = 120 billion pixels/sec raw fillrate

1.2 billion pixels/sec textured fillrate (+bilinear) = 60 billion pixels/sec textured fillrate

48 GB/sec bandwidth * 50 = 2.4 TB/sec bandwidth


okay say PS2 games are getting 10-15 million polygons/sec * 50 = 500M to 750M polygons/sec in PS3 games ???


remember that GSCube 16 was pushing under 100M polygons/sec in realtime demo Antz (bar fight scene) and also around 300M polygons/sec in tests.

Alright...so do you guys expect the ps3 to be more powerful than the GSCube?

[Megadrive1988]

lright...so do you guys expect the ps3 to be more powerful than the GSCube?

in processing power? yes, it would seem so

in main memory bandwidth and eDRAM bandwidth? most likely, or maybe

in rendering features, pixel shaders, etc? yes

in amount / size of RAM memory? no

[loekf2]

Does it mean, Pixar have to start working on TOY Story III to have a decent benchmark for the ps3 :roll:

Actually I thought that their "friends" at Disney already did one or plan to do one themselves, only to cash-in on DVD sales.

I was more thinking about a remake of Final Fantasy. God, I loved Akira ;-)

Or am I saying something wrong here ? I remember some graphics company tried to proof you could stuff like in that movie with some graphics card.... *cough* *cough* FX5800 ?

[nAo]

I hope it's not 50x in the shading 'power'!! NG graphics needs much more than that..
GS was quite lacking in that department.. ;)

[loekf2]

lright...so do you guys expect the ps3 to be more powerful than the GSCube?

in processing power? yes

in main memory bandwidth and eDRAM bandwidth? most likely, or maybe

in rendering features, pixel shaders, etc? yes

in amount / size of RAM memory? no

Uh ? Do you think Sony would be silly enough to limit the graphics output to SD resolution or maybe 480P@60Hz ? I think there's no way they can get around 720P... at least. More and more people get LCDTVs, which mostly (at least in the US and Asia, not in Europe) have a "PC input" (= DVI or VGA connector).

[Megadrive1988]

well IIRC, it has been said that Xenon/Xbox2 VPU will have '100x' the shading power of Xbox GPU. forget where I read that. maybe the leaked Xenon document.

[GwymWeepa]

well IIRC, it has been said that Xenon/Xbox2 VPU will have '100x' the shading power of Xbox GPU. forget where I read that. maybe the leaked Xenon document.

Wasn't it EA that said that? I read the same thing someplace.

[DemoCoder]

Well if true, and if we weight the "1000x PS2" claim to be 1/2 graphics and 1/2 CPU, then CELL only needs to be ~510x more powerful than the PS2 EE. :)

[nAo]

510x more powerfull than the PS2 EE? no way.. :o

[Megadrive1988]

loekf2 wrote:

Uh ? Do you think Sony would be silly enough to limit the graphics output to SD resolution or maybe 480P@60Hz ? I think there's no way they can get around 720P... at least. More and more people get LCDTVs, which mostly (at least in the US and Asia, not in Europe) have a "PC input" (= DVI or VGA connector)


what?

I do not understand your reply *in context* to what I said. I was comparing GSCube to the clues we have about PS3.

[Megadrive1988]

rabidrabbit wrote:

How many GS's were on the GS'Cube? less than 50?


london-boy wrote:
The GSCube 16 had... sixteen.
And the GSCube 64 had... err.. sixty-four.



true.

but the GSs in GSCube 16 and GSCube 64 were the GS I-32 variant. these had 32 MB of eDRAM, each. compared to the 4 MB eDRAM in the PS2's GS.

thus GSCube 16 had 512 MB (MegaBytes) of eDRAM from its sixteen GS I-32s. on top of the 2048 MB (2 GB) of RDRAM main memory.

the GSCube 64 had (or would have had) 2048 MegaBytes of eDRAM from its sixtyfour GS I-32s. on top of the 8192 MB (8 GB) of RDRAM main memory)


in other words, GSCube had a fuckload of memory that PS3 cannot possibly hope to match. where PS3 might be superior to GSCube (from what i gather) is in PS3s on-chip memory bandwidth (LS, eDRAM, Image Cache), in sheer fp & ops performance, rendering features, and HOPEFULLY memory latency. among other things.

now, the more knowledgable programmers and techies might be so kind as to point out where i am wrong.

[Urian]

I believe that they are talking about the geometric part and from the power of PS2 doing DOT-3 graphics quality (If my memory don´t fails PS2 loses 4 render cycles for do a DOT-3 effect in software mode).

250 milions of polygons per second seems a more realistic number to me.

[Spidermate]

Graphics Synthesizer in PS2:

75 million flat shaded triangles/sec draw rate * 50 = 3.75 billion flat shaded triangles/sec

25 million triangles/sec with texture, g-shade, alpha * 50 = 1.25 billion triangles/sec

2.4 billion pixels/sec raw fillrate * 50 = 120 billion pixels/sec raw fillrate

1.2 billion pixels/sec textured fillrate (+bilinear) = 60 billion pixels/sec textured fillrate

48 GB/sec bandwidth * 50 = 2.4 TB/sec bandwidth


okay say PS2 games are getting 10-15 million polygons/sec * 50 = 500M to 750M polygons/sec in PS3 games ???


remember that GSCube (GScube 16) was pushing around 65 million textured & *fully featured* (?) polygons per sec in the realtime Antz demo (bar fight scene). also, in-house at Criterion, GSCube was pushing around 300M polygons/sec (fully featured?) in tests. the 300M figure is about 1/3 the max theoretical performance of GSCube of 1.2 billion polys/sec:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.video.sony/msg/036f50116a3ff28a?dmode=source



ok back to PS3

tens of billions of pixels/sec have not been ruled out by this announcement. seems like there is room for it. and notice I did *not* say that PS3 GPU *will* push tens of billions of pixels/sec. :)

hundreds of millions of polygons/sec with textures, shaders, features on, seems to be within reach, hopefully in games. that might put PS3 (GPU) on a similar level as Xenon GPU.

and what I'm really hoping for is that PS2 GS's 48 GB/sec eDRAM bandwidth gets a 50x boost too! to over 1 Terabyte/sec 8)

please note that I gave no absolutes. I really have no idea how PS3 will perform. I'm just comparing info from PS2, GSCube and what Nvidia is saying about PS3 GPU. that is it.

It's a really good thing you weren't serious about that; because if you were, you would be deluding yourself. I have pointed it out many times before that it does not matter when a console is released; an inferior or superior advantage point is not always the case. A console could release two years, six months, or even a few days apart from one another and it could show little or unexpectedly powerful results. It all depends on the company. But, if what you say was true, then the PS2 would not be able to keep up with the others, or Sony's handheld would show little results in performance to Nintendo's handheld. Although I do hate to be optimistic, There's more than a known fact that Sony does know this area a whole lot better than the others. Combining their knowledge with other outside sources could prove much better results than what is currently on the market.

[Vince]

While the PS3 chip will incorporate many elements of nVidia's next-generation PC graphics technology, it is being designed as a standalone unit and is not based on existing PC architecture.

[bbot]

The R500 is supposed to have a tri/sec rate 10X that of the X800, about 5.2 billion tri/sec. 5.2 billion versus 3.75 billion. And the Nvidia part will come out much later than the ATI part. What's going on with Nvidia?

[Spidermate]

The R500 is supposed to have a tri/sec rate 10X that of the X800, about 5.2 billion tri/sec. 5.2 billion versus 3.75 billion. And the Nvidia part will come out much later than the ATI part. What's going on with Nvidia?

Little is known about that, I'm sure. But, we do know that Sony is helping them build it.

Oh, and I wish they would set links (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=113056) for the topic so that others can get a few view of the story. :roll:

[Megadrive1988]

it has not actually been confirmed by ATI that R500 for Xenon has 10x the tri/sec performance of R420/Radeon X800. I highly doubt that. more like 2~3x ...that is more reasonable.

[Mythos]

that is..5.2 billion tri's versus 3.75 billion polys.

[london-boy]

This thread is mind dumbing.

[bbot]

And 4X the fill rate.

[Megadrive1988]

4x the fillrate would be 9.6 raw Gpixels/sec - 4.8 textured Gpixels/sec

PS3 will beat that :?

[Nyo_S23]

+ 2 = 4

nVidia +Sony = 5 + toshiba+ IBM=????
_________________

[AlStrong]

a hundred trillion bajillion cubed to the infinitum

[london-boy]

a hundred trillion bajillion cubed to the infinitum

That's not possible, a Genesis already does that with its Blast Processing. :twisted:

[AlStrong]

ah... thanks, I forgot all about that :wink: