[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by french toast

Well fair enough on the shaders belong super scaler in r600..but the rest of the chip must also share design elements, your not telling me they have only unified shader resemblance and tesselator in name only? Being as r600 was incredibly late, I doubt very much they designed the xenos completely as a one off, the went back to the table and redesigned a whole new architecture with out carrying many of the ideas over are you??

They way I take it the xenos was a stepping stone onto dx 10, with many features in place, but also as you point out an over haul to the shaders and some other improvements, basically whilst not he same they are related in more than name only.

AFAICT, the development of Xenos and R600 took different paths earlier than you might think.
Apart from the tesselator, the Xenos' architecture seems to be as different from R600 as it is from nVidia's G80/G92.

I guess they realized the Xenos' Vec4+Scalar architecture was better for a lighter and more power-efficient form factor, whereas the VLIW5 proved better for more powerful PC usage.
For example, the OpenGL ES 2.0 Imageon chips were developed with the same Vec4+Scalar shader arrangement as Xenos.
The ATI Imageon Z460 has a single Vec4+Scalar ALU, where Xenos has 48 of those.
I also remember that this GPU at some point was called "mini-Xenos".


After Qualcomm bought the low-power Imageon GPUs+Video processors division from AMD, they renamed the branding to Adreno (which is an anagram for "Radeon"), so the Imageon Z460 became Adreno 200, with the latter's successors using the same name scheme.
I don't know for sure but the latest Adreno 320 may still be using the Xenos' Vec4+Scalar arrangement, although this time with DX11 + Halti compliance.

It might also have to do with each architecture's origins. The large eDRAM in Xenos suggests it may have more roots in BitBoys than ATI. Even though ATI officialized the BitBoys' purchase in 2006 (a year after X360 was released), there might have been previous cooperative work and the sale might have been planned years before that.

For example, the Gamecube had an ATI sticker in it, but AFAIK no one from ATI ever worked in Flipper during its development. That GPU was designed entirely by ArtX, which was bought by ATI right before the Gamecube launched.


That said, Xenos might have been developed mostly by BitBoys, which then were purchased by ATI to do the Imageon chips (which use the same shader arranjement as Xenos), and the were re-purchased by Qualcomm and are now working on the Adreno 3xx/4xx.

Possible proof of that is the large eDRAM (introduced by Bitboys) in Xenos and the Vec4+Scalar shader arrangement still being used by Bitboys (Adreno division) today, while ATI/AMD GPUs used VLIW5, then VLIW4 and then GCN.


Some people here know if this is true or not, but I don't know if they'll say something about it

[AlStrong]

I really don't see how using eDRAM is a sign of any BitBoys relation. Just because they were bought later doesn't mean they were involved in any way. Microsoft wanted bandwidth, and eDRAM was a natural choice.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

I really don't see how using eDRAM is a sign of any BitBoys relation. Just because they were bought later doesn't mean they were involved in any way. Microsoft wanted bandwidth, and eDRAM was a natural choice.

Were there other GPUs before Xenos, apart from Glaze3D, that used eDRAM?


So the Bitboys team inheriting the Xenos' shader arrangement for their mobile GPUs, being purchased by ATI near the release of X360 and Xenos using eDRAM are all just coincidences?

[upnorthsox]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

I guess they realized the Xenos' Vec4+Scalar architecture was better for a lighter and more power-efficient form factor, whereas the VLIW5 proved better for more powerful PC usage.

Was it that or did vliw5 give them the highest claimable peak FLOP rate in the run up to a TFLOP?

And now that they're beyond a tflop+, haven't they gone back to Vec4+Scalar for GCN?

Btw, that's not saying anything is bad about vliw5 or their choice in using it.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Were there other GPUs before Xenos, apart from Glaze3D, that used eDRAM?

PS2 and Gamecube...

So the Bitboys team inheriting the Xenos' shader arrangement for their mobile GPUs, being purchased by ATI near the release of X360 and Xenos using eDRAM are all just coincidences?

What do you mean inheriting their shader arrangement? Xenos ALUs are basically the Vertex Shaders from R300 (vec4+1 scalar) with expanded capabilities to comply with unified shading and updated DX specs. How do you figure that they go and make a high powered DX9+ GPU from Bitboys mobile GPU architecture? That's ludicrous.

You're jumping to conclusions.

[Sonic]

I thought Xenos was primarily developed by the team that ArtX turned into, or was that R300?

[theLonely1]

Originally Posted by french toast

What about something like nova 3? That's got plenty of lighting and effects and it runs at 720p on smartphones very well...remember smartphones like pcs are not the most efficient things to program for, with terrible bloat,they don't spend a lot of time making them and they sell for a few quid..even so something like max payne 3 or GTA 3 would never run on a 3ds...even with its minimal over head and coding to the metal advantage.

Why do you think that?

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Sonic

I thought Xenos was primarily developed by the team that ArtX turned into, or was that R300?

At least according to the article, the group that worked on it was separate from ArtX. There was the R400 prototype (2003), which I think was scrapped when they got ambitious with the feature set then it later evolved into R500/C1.

[TheWretched]

GTA 3 barely runs on my (slightly overclocked) Samsung Galaxy 1... though I cannot compare the two, really... It does run... but in a lot of cases, it starts chugging along HEAVILY. And I guess sometimes it's the RAM/ROM (small RAM and slow-ish ROM) and sometimes the CPU/GPU in draw heavy scenes.

[3dcgi]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

AFAICT, the development of Xenos and R600 took different paths earlier than you might think.
Apart from the tesselator, the Xenos' architecture seems to be as different from R600 as it is from nVidia's G80/G92.

I guess they realized the Xenos' Vec4+Scalar architecture was better for a lighter and more power-efficient form factor, whereas the VLIW5 proved better for more powerful PC usage.
For example, the OpenGL ES 2.0 Imageon chips were developed with the same Vec4+Scalar shader arrangement as Xenos.
The ATI Imageon Z460 has a single Vec4+Scalar ALU, where Xenos has 48 of those.
I also remember that this GPU at some point was called "mini-Xenos".


After Qualcomm bought the low-power Imageon GPUs+Video processors division from AMD, they renamed the branding to Adreno (which is an anagram for "Radeon"), so the Imageon Z460 became Adreno 200, with the latter's successors using the same name scheme.
I don't know for sure but the latest Adreno 320 may still be using the Xenos' Vec4+Scalar arrangement, although this time with DX11 + Halti compliance.

It might also have to do with each architecture's origins. The large eDRAM in Xenos suggests it may have more roots in BitBoys than ATI. Even though ATI officialized the BitBoys' purchase in 2006 (a year after X360 was released), there might have been previous cooperative work and the sale might have been planned years before that.

For example, the Gamecube had an ATI sticker in it, but AFAIK no one from ATI ever worked in Flipper during its development. That GPU was designed entirely by ArtX, which was bought by ATI right before the Gamecube launched.


That said, Xenos might have been developed mostly by BitBoys, which then were purchased by ATI to do the Imageon chips (which use the same shader arranjement as Xenos), and the were re-purchased by Qualcomm and are now working on the Adreno 3xx/4xx.

Possible proof of that is the large eDRAM (introduced by Bitboys) in Xenos and the Vec4+Scalar shader arrangement still being used by Bitboys (Adreno division) today, while ATI/AMD GPUs used VLIW5, then VLIW4 and then GCN.


Some people here know if this is true or not, but I don't know if they'll say something about it

Bitboys had no involvement in Xenos and R600's development didn't start until Xenos was done. R600 started from the Xenos code base though the shader core was gutted to add VLIW5, instruction caching, etc. The Imageon part that became Adreno also started from the Xenos code base and didn't share code with R600.

Originally Posted by Sonic

I thought Xenos was primarily developed by the team that ArtX turned into, or was that R300?

R300. Xenos was developed on the east coast and Canada.

[Sonic]

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

R300. Xenos was developed on the east coast and Canada.

Thank you correcting me on this. It's been so long. Is Dave Orton still with them?

[3dcgi]

Dave Orton left AMD a year after the ATI acquisition.

[TheD]

Originally Posted by itsmydamnation

fact lack of evidence is NOT EVIDENCE any other conclusion is illogical.

NO!

It is not logical to assume something with no supporting evidence!

Originally Posted by Nightz

It's also now running two separate frame buffers.

Proof please? All I can find is what DF rumored to be going on,
Most games look fine when downsampled from 720 to SD (what the 360 does if playing with an SD screen), it would be pointless not to do the same for the WiiU pad.

Originally Posted by Kaotik

your "conclusions" are illogical and without anything real to back them up

No, they are logical.
You are just clutching at straws.

[Grall]

Not sure you're serious or not, but he's right. Lack of evidence is not in of itself evidence, so you can't state for sure that Wuu is of a particular level of power simply from the games shown so far.

[TheD]

Originally Posted by Grall

Not sure you're serious or not, but he's right. Lack of evidence is not in of itself evidence, so you can't state for sure that Wuu is of a particular level of power simply from the games shown so far.

We can only go on what we know, to claim the WiiU is more powerful with nothing to back it up is illogical.

I just said that everything we have seen thus far does not show the WiiU being more powerful than the 360 or PS3, but some posters are attacking me due to a lack of understanding the words "we have seen"!

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by TheD

Proof please? All I can find is what DF rumored to be going on,
Most games look fine when downsampled from 720 to SD (what the 360 does if playing with an SD screen), it would be pointless not to do the same for the WiiU pad.

Wii U GamePad doesn't share the same image with the screen in most if any cases, so downsampling isn't a solution. In some games it's completely "separate" as in, inventory, map, you name it, in some cases it's completely different viewpoint to same scene than the mainscreen (as example, the trampoline or something in Nintendoland, mainscreen shows sideways view which shows the height you get to, Gamepad shows from directly above for easier aiming for next jump)

No, they are logical.
You are just clutching at straws.

Completely false statements and lack of proof for anything makes your conclusions illogical, there's no proof of anykind to support your claims.

By those "standards" you used for your "conclusions", it would be logical to say XB720 and PS4 are less powerfull than GameCube, PS2 or XBox, simply because there's no proof saying otherwise.

edit:
And we've seen it do equal quality multiplatform games with gamepad view added which already is more than PS360

[french toast]

I'm not seeing it peeps, wuu is current gen, it may try to use some gpgpu capabilities, but I cant see there being enough shaders or performance to really make it work, and it sure as hell isn't gcn...else the games would have looked much better than that already.

Devs were probably complaining because nintendo decided to low ball the gpu with old tech, and then suggested they try and squeeze some compute out of it to try and make it better.

I sense performance gap will be even higher ethos generation compared to last.

[Kaotik]

Where have devs complained about Wii U performance exactly?
And you can't draw conclusions from E3-builds half a year before launch

[french toast]

I only commented on someone else's post.
Of course you can comment on things that have been shown, what else can we talk about then??

we don't know the specs, but for instance if it was running cayman gpu we would certainly be able to see the difference even 1 year out from launch.

[itsmydamnation]

Originally Posted by TheD

NO!

It is not logical to assume something with no supporting evidence!

.

umm comprehension fail, your the one making assumptions here.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by french toast

we don't know the specs, but for instance if it was running cayman gpu we would certainly be able to see the difference even 1 year out from launch.

No should about it, the difference would be absolutely massive and instant. (Hope you understand Cayman was the 6900 cards)

[french toast]

Originally Posted by Rangers

No should about it, the difference would be absolutely massive and instant. (Hope you understand Cayman was the 6900 cards)

Agreed there wouldn't even be a debate on the issue, thanks for pointing that out I was actually pointing to a hd 6870..which is totally optimistic and nigh impossible.

My guess is a hd 4570 underclocked to match tdp, the second screen would take power, but probably only 20-30% right?

[tunafish]

Originally Posted by upnorthsox

Was it that or did vliw5 give them the highest claimable peak FLOP rate in the run up to a TFLOP?

Vec4+scalar has the exact same claimable peak flops as VLIW5, and VLIW5 is much more expensive to implement. The difference is probably the load. Vec4+scalar is actually pretty good when you are running old, fixed-function type code or the light first-generation programmable code. The more elaborate your shaders become, the more inefficient it becomes. Hence the road from it through VLIW5 to VLIW4 to scalar.

And now that they're beyond a tflop+, haven't they gone back to Vec4+Scalar for GCN?

No. GCN is pure scalar x 64 wide simd.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by tunafish

No. GCN is pure scalar x 64 wide simd.

No it's not

[babybumb]

You can put money on it: There will be no advantage shown over current-gen in Wuus lifetime.

Wii U will get C-level efforts/ports like the Wii did. Most big budget devs/publishers dont see "business case" on Wii U like Crytek put it.