[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

They ought to mandate 60fps constant framerate. I don't want extra eye-candy at the expense of framerate. At the very least ensure every game has a fixed 60fps mode that loses some of the detail to keep the framerate up so we, the gamers, can decide which we prefer.

i could care less about 60fps, give me more eye candy any day. cod2 is 60fps, it still stutters if you spin and the GFX weren't great, halo wasn't 60fps and it was the best fps i've ever played, so why is FPS important?

as long as they can hit a solid 30fps that's fine. i think PC gamers really need to realize that most console gamers could care less about 60fps or 30fps. it's either good, or it's bad, and a solid 30fps is just fine.

[liverkick]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

i could care less about 60fps, give me more eye candy any day.

No thanks. Having the impeccable smoothness and consistently silky speed of movement 60fps brings to games is just as important to detail and immersiveness for me as any other form of "eye candy". Its literally twice as many frames being fed to your retina per second after all. Either way you're sacrificing one element of detail for the other. And personally Id much prefer the game world to move and animate at a much more realistic clip than "look" a little more realistic as the expense. And it has a much bigger impact on the actual gameplay than any extra shading, polys or shadows (or whatever).

Again, just my preference on the matter. I concede many gamers prefer a game look its best before it moves, animates and responds its best. But please dont assert that its "just fine" for every gamer.

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

cod2 is 60fps, it still stutters if you spin

I havent played CoD2 on 360 yet, but if it stutters as you scroll horizontally than it obviously isnt a consistent 60fps.

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by one

...And a more level-headed article
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=179100739

I thought this was at least a relevant part of that article, as far as PS3 is concerned:

"In the pursuit of reality through pixel-based technology, graphics on computer entertainment systems have reached the same level of quality as that of the latest movies," said Kutaragi, president and CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment (Tokyo). Kutaragi touted the Cell processor as the means for generating high-quality natural motion for moving objects, just as "pixilation" was used to improve computer graphics.

Natural motion requires vast amounts of physics simulation. Without it, overall graphics would differ little from existing PC entertainment systems. The multicore Cell processor—developed by Sony, IBM and Toshiba—has achieved single precision floating-point calculation performance equivalent to a 200-plus-Gflop supercomputer.

Whilst I'd disagree about graphics reaching the quality of the latest movies, the overall point rings true. Seems SCE is pushing physics and motion in a big way with PS3 (as we've seen already in the "free" AGEIA/Havok licences with dev kits etc.), and that they perhaps see it a as unique strength for them.

Originally Posted by MfA

The concept in and of itself isn't really helped by Cell though ... the rather arbitrary 128kb local storage makes developing applications in the form of "apulets" for network computing a bit of a pain.

It's 256KB, whether that helps or not

Non-local computation could be useful for perhaps something like physics in an online game - where you otherwise have each client doing the same calculations. Instead you could pass "events" or the like around the network, let a big "supercomputer" server do the common physics calculations, for example, and propogate the results around the network. IBM's server-side physics demo for Cell is a concrete example, I guess. It's relieve the clients of processing to allow them to focus on other things, and the "supercomputer server" could handle a lot more to boot - you'd no longer be limited by what each client could handle on their own.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Titanio

(as we've seen already in the "free" AGEIA/Havok licences with dev kits etc.)

Aren't these only evaluation copies? I can't remember what Sony are providing for free and which are included just for people to nose at. Or was it Havok comes as standard, and UE3.0 was an evaluation copy?

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Aren't these only evaluation copies? I can't remember what Sony are providing for free and which are included just for people to nose at. Or was it Havok comes as standard, and UE3.0 was an evaluation copy?

I always thought UE3 was the evaluation copy, but Havok and AGEIA were both fully licensed for each kit? Maybe I'm wrong on that, perhaps a dev can clarify.

Reading the original release, for Havok SCEI obtained "sub-licensing rights" and talked about including it in every kit, with SCEI also providing their own support for it. The AGEIA agreement is similar, but also allows SCEI to also engage with AGEIA in optimisation of their SDK for Cell.

Perhaps devs still have to pay a fee if they choose to use it, though, I'm not sure :? Either way, though, there's an obvious focus on physics middleware on the part of SCEI, and a more intimate involvement on their part than for other types of middleware.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Titanio

I always thought UE3 was the evaluation copy, but Havok and AGEIA were both fully licensed for each kit? Maybe I'm wrong on that, perhaps a dev can clarify.

Reading the original release, for Havok SCEI obtained "sub-licensing rights" and talked about including it in every kit, with SCEI also providing their own support for it. The AGEIA agreement is similar, but also allows SCEI to also engage with AGEIA in optimisation of their SDK for Cell.

Perhaps devs still have to pay a fee if they choose to use it, though, I'm not sure :? Either way, though, there's an obvious focus on physics middleware on the part of SCEI, and a more intimate involvement on their part than for other types of middleware.

I'm quite sure i remember DeanoC (or maybe it was someone else) saying they're all evaluation copies, if they want the full programs, they have to pay.

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by london-boy

I'm quite sure i remember DeanoC (or maybe it was someone else) saying they're all evaluation copies, if they want the full programs, they have to pay.

If that's true, Deano's word is good enough for me. Cheers.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Titanio

If that's true, Deano's word is good enough for me. Cheers.

Heh not if he just got back from the pub when he said that!

[rabidrabbit]

Would you accept a framerate comparable to 30 fps in games, in movies?
Now we all know 30fps in movies is not the same as 30fps in games, so no need to argue that again.

A movie with jerkier movement than you're gotten used to (the jerkiness not being the cinematographers intended artistic effect), but with some extra "eyecandy"... you'd rather take that?

The fluidity of movement and animation is part of that "eyecandy", and imo a much bigger part than some extra layer of shine. Games and movies are not just still shots you know

[Phil]

Anyone that has played two games side by side, one running at a constant 30 fps, the other at a 60 fps will notice that the difference is night and day. It's not that console gamers don't care - it's that the average console buyer is less tech-orientated than PC gamers and probably only notices differences in feel but can't put it down to framerate.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by rabidrabbit

Would you accept a framerate comparable to 30 fps in games, in movies?
Now we all know 30fps in movies is not the same as 30fps in games, so no need to argue that again.

A movie with jerkier movement than you're gotten used to (the jerkiness not being the cinematographers intended artistic effect), but with some extra "eyecandy"... you'd rather take that?

The fluidity of movement and animation is part of that "eyecandy", and imo a much bigger part than some extra layer of shine. Games and movies are not just still shots you know

Movies already suffer from visible framerate related stutter, best seen in the loooong panoramic movements in the LOTR trilogy. They do run at 24fps afterall and it really shows sometimes.
So i guess your argument doesn't really hold up, cause we do put up with that already in movies. Only some people are more sensible to it than others. Personally i always see it in movies and although i don't make a problem out of it (there is nothing i can do to avoid it so there's no point in bitching about it), i always wish movies were shot and displayed at 60fps.

Having said that, i wish everything was at 60fps, it would really make the experience so much better, especially in movies.

[rabidrabbit]

Well, as I said 30 (24) in movies and 30 in games is a bit different.

I really don't know the technical details of that, but I am sure you agree the movies generally feel much much smoother in motion than 30 fps games.

So what I ment with my failed analogy that comparatively, I'm sure one would not accept jerkier movement in films, like they seem to accept jerkier movement in games.

Right... you do agree? ..... You DO AGREE!!!!

Edit: If you like, I could try a car analogy instead, if that would be more succesfull in getting my point to your head.
- Would you rather like roads that are bumpier and shinier, where you would not be able to drive fast and comfortable, instead of even roads where you can drive full speed? -

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by rabidrabbit

Well, as I said 30 (24) in movies and 30 in games is a bit different.

I really don't know the technical details of that, but I am sure you agree the movies generally feel much much smoother in motion than 30 fps games.

So what I ment with my failed analogy that comparatively, I'm sure one would not accept jerkier movement in films, like they seem to accept jerkier movement in games.

Right... you do agree? ..... You DO AGREE!!!!

I think people accept the jerky pans in movies because that's just the way they're made and there's nothing anyone is gonna do about it in a long time. Plus, i'm not sure how many people actually see the effect enough to get bothered by it.

In games there is a choice over what framerate to use, and generally games will know more about framerates than normal people going to the movies.

30fps in movies is different from 30fps in games, fair enough, but on fast long movements they look equally awful.

[Panajev2001a]

Originally Posted by london-boy

I'm quite sure i remember DeanoC (or maybe it was someone else) saying they're all evaluation copies, if they want the full programs, they have to pay.

I remember them saying that UE 3 was an evaluation copy while the other two were not (I mean DeanoC and Faf on these very forums too). Hopefully I remember it correctly.

[Jabjabs]

I would also think that things like motion blur help out with movies as well as it is less harsh and easier to view.

[Squeak]

I recently had the opportunity to see some of movie at 60fps (think it was Spiderman 2). And what a difference! At first I didn't like it because it reminded me of videotaped/live TV, that also runs at 60fps (although in fields), but after a couple of seconds of adjustment I could see how much more live and "fresh" everything seemed.
60fps is very important, but there are a few games where it was a wise choice to go with 30 instead and have better effects, such a game is SotC.
30fps in a racing game though, is completely unacceptable to me, no matter how much eye candy or motionblur.

[one]

Some coverages at Tech-on (Japanese)
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...060207/113091/
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...060207/113092/

According to Kutaragi, ISSCC is the conference he's visited most often since 1980s, though lately he couldn't attend it as he'd been too busy. Apparently it's something to muse upon for him to do the keynote speech. Instead of a tutorial-like speech often seen at ISSCC, this time he tried to focus on proposing future vision. He suggested presenting his future vision at ISSCC may lead to collaboration with other disciplines such as cybernetics/cyborg in medical science.

Ken Kutaragi
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...700situmon.jpg
Next Computing
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article..._Computing.jpg
Keywords for Future Computing
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...gi_keyword.jpg
Formula 1

Final Word

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Titanio

Non-local computation could be useful for perhaps something like physics in an online game - where you otherwise have each client doing the same calculations. Instead you could pass "events" or the like around the network, let a big "supercomputer" server do the common physics calculations, for example, and propogate the results around the network. IBM's server-side physics demo for Cell is a concrete example, I guess. It's relieve the clients of processing to allow them to focus on other things, and the "supercomputer server" could handle a lot more to boot - you'd no longer be limited by what each client could handle on their own.

As I said, the only application for which it really makes sense to have non local computing is games ... it's the only consumer application there is with unsatiable demand for computing power. For anything other than games it both doesn't make much sense, and Cell is a nasty architecture to develop to.

[function]

Originally Posted by Phil

Anyone that has played two games side by side, one running at a constant 30 fps, the other at a 60 fps will notice that the difference is night and day. It's not that console gamers don't care - it's that the average console buyer is less tech-orientated than PC gamers and probably only notices differences in feel but can't put it down to framerate.

Yet when I play PC games I don't set the visual quality and resolution so they are always running > 60fps with vsync...

Take the FEAR option that to helps you judge system settings. With a GeForce 6 ultra I had to drop below my LCD native resolution, and settled for a low of 30 something fps and an average of about 50 or 60 (can't remember). On a console that would mean setting to 30fps.

I'd hate to see a situation where developers were forced to stick 60fps, regardless of what they were trying to acheive in game because someone picks an arbitrary frame rate number as being "correct". Developers should be able to select a target frame rate based on what they want to acheive. And with real time temporal blurring now becoming a real possibility the situation is even less black and white than it was before.

[Shifty Geezer]

Though I would hate to see 60fps options sacrificed for eyecandy just because it makes better promo shots in magazines. Low framerates make for bad games.

If the game is CPU bound, that might be awkward. If it's GPU limited to <60 fps, there should be the option for simpler shaders and such to elevate the framerate. And certainy if I was in charge I'd mandate a smooth 30 fps minimum for games.

[function]

Given the nature of the PC platform, it's unlikely you could prevent >= 60fps games given the options normally available. Likewise, it's hard to see how you could prevent games that dipped below 30fps (all you could do is fiddle around with the minimum recommending specs on the back of the box and hope later driver revisions didn't negatively affect performence I guess ...).

I've certainly played games where the frame rate dropped below 30fps for some bits given the settings I've chosen (Doom 3 on a 9600 Pro!), and it's not stopped me from really enjoying them. I think most PC gamers spend much of their gaming lives well below 60fps.

On consoles, I think frame rates are selected pretty naturally by what consumers choose. A stable frame rate is valuable of course, but given the success of games like Halo and Grand Theft Auto, it's clear that detail vs frame is a balancing act and not something that should be forced on anyone.

[Bobbler]

Curious:

Kutaragi predicted the Cell processor connected to a broadband network could eventually dominate the market. "If you follow the course of computer history, you see how the quest for constant semiconductor scaling and the equal quest for ever higher performance have led to where in 2006 a single chip such as the Cell is one-sixth the size of the original two chips brought out in 1998," said Kutaragi.

Is he saying that the Cell currently is 1/6 the size the original PS2 chipset was? (although that includes both EE + GS, it seems). Wouldn't that imply the PS3 chipset (Cell + RSX) is likely still smaller than the original PS2 chipset? Wonder how costs, comparatively speaking, are for PS2 at launch vs PS3 at launch...

[Carl B]

Not sure if the chips were on a larger node when they were introduced in 1998 or what the deal was, but this is the evolution of the chip sizes from the PS2's launch forward:

[Bobbler]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

Not sure if the chips were on a larger node when they were introduced in 1998 or what the deal was, but this is the evolution of the chip sizes from the PS2's launch forward:

I can't see the picture (work blocks it), but I can only imagine they didn't change the node from development to before launch -- seems like too much extra work to do that.

If what he says is right, then Cell + RSX might actually be cheaper for Sony to make than EE+GS was originally (if Cell is 1/6th the size of EE + GS, then Cell + RSX should probably be at most 1/2 the size?). I didn't realize that EE + GS was actually really quite large in size at launch... and if thats the case then wouldn't it be logical to assume that PS3 might not actually be much different in price (assuming that BR eats up any money saved from Cell + RSX not actually taking up as much space as the PS2's chipset originally did at launch) compared to launch PS2?

We've constantly been assaulted by analysts saying PS3 will cost Sony 3 unborn children for each PS3 manufactured. But it seems possible the PS3 will probably cost about as much as launch PS2 to manufacture (and will likely scale like PS2 did -- BR should drop in cost real fast, and Cell/RSX shrinks to 65nm will be a rather nice savings). Not sure though, maybe he didn't mean what that quote said, but that's what it sounds like.

[Carl B]

Well, if you can't see the picture you're missing a lot of context I'm afraid, but I'll lay it out for you.

Basically the EE at PS2's launch was 240mm^2, and the GS was 279mm^2. So not sure where he got that 1/6 thing to tell you the truth unless a) the '98 evaluation dies were on a larger node or b) Cell is down on 65nm now.

Anyway just pretending Kutaragi slipped and said 1/6th when he meant a 1/3rd, I agree that in terms of the costs of the major chips, Cell and RSX should cost Sony a fair bit less than did EE and GS in PS2 at launch. I've been saying this on and off for some time now actually, and I'd point also to the fact that these chips will enjoy production on 300mm wafers (will RSX at the beginning? - not sure) and enjoy the benefits of 'redundancy' on-die, whereas the EE and GS did not - defect on the die and the whole thing would get tossed.