[Mobius1aic]

Originally Posted by ERP

I'm not sure Nintendo hasn't shown us the way forwards with Wii.
I think MS and Sony will try to promote something other than raw performance as a differentiator.
I'm not sure I know what that is, and it clearly doesn't precludes a significant leap in technology, but I think the better graphics/MFlop train is pretty much at the end of it's tracks as the sole driver of a new platform.
I've always considered perifierals like Wii, Move and Kinect as gimicks, but looking at the ammount of hardware that they have shipped, they clearly appeal to people.

Since the 360's launch and it's importance of Live integration, I look at the future of consoles as like phones services. You pick a "carrier" because they have the features you want in their online service and go with it. Hardware is obviously part of the equation, but the software clearly is important too. Yes, people will nitpick over technical specifications and to which system can output better graphics or whatever, but clearly the future successes of the PS3 and Xbox 360 as well as their successors will ride on their online integration. The same argument has been made for all the different home electronics integrations systems that use specific brands that all readily interact with each other just about flawlessly. Case in point: Apple products. Buy a Mac, iPhone, AppleTV, etc.......

"We have the games, we have the service, we just don't have competition."

I should trademark that lol.

[bomlat]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Yes. Remember EA's Next-gen Madden 'trailer'? We are a long way from that, and there's plenty of room for improvement in how games look that makes them more fun to play. The cost issue the same as any generation - you pick a pricepoint and develop for it.

I just wandering:is there any,statistical correct analysis about the perceived effect of the improved graphics on the spending behaviour?
I mean some experiment,to see that the same game,but with different visual content how affect the perceived value? (in nutshell,it has to be more complicated)


I think the guy ho actually decided the release of the BR never did similar trial.

[MfA]

I disagree, the online integration is the easiest to replicate. As I said, if a company really can't figure out how to design it right it right they can just copy the competition. The programming is basic, and the knowhow for setting up the server infrastructure is widespread and can be bought (not fundamentally different from media serving). All the important media services (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube etc.) are third party and non exclusive. Getting the online components right only requires competency.

The prime differentiator will still be in the ability to do what consoles are supposed to do ... gaming. Here hardware rather than software makes the difference, so here you can differentiate and rely on the difference to survive for a while.

PS. well apart from marketing of course ... sigh.

[Mobius1aic]

Originally Posted by MfA

I disagree, the online integration is the easiest to replicate. As I said, if a company really can't figure out how to design it right it right they can just copy the competition. The programming is basic, and the knowhow for setting up the server infrastructure is widespread and can be bought (not fundamentally different from media serving). All the important media services (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube etc.) are third party and non exclusive. Getting the online components right only requires competency.

The prime differentiator will still be in the ability to do what consoles are supposed to do ... gaming. Here hardware rather than software makes the difference, so here you can differentiate and rely on the difference to survive for a while.

PS. well apart from marketing of course ... sigh.

Between the 360 and PS3, it's how well integrated Live was to the 360 that I think made it ultimately successful. While PSN is just fine for most of us, for the common consumer, I'm sure they prefer Live, especially when all their friends are probably on it. Yes, Live has existed since 2003 (or 2002?) and the 360 launched a year ahead of the PS3, but it was so important to the 360's launch and package.

The Wii is in a way held back by it's terrible hardware (in comparison) and lacking online features, but I think it could've held a candle on that regard had Nintendo not botched it and actually encouraged the higher end developers to actually cater towards the Wii and online multiplayer.

Way I look at it with the 360, you're not buying a console as much as you're just getting Xbox Live. Yes, hardware can and will make a difference next time around, but if the same multi-platforming mayhem happens again (especially if Nintendo is on technical parity with MS and Sony - at least feature set wise) people I'm sure will take a very good look at how online integration is panned out just like I'm sure many do currently. But I will concede to that fact that the Xbox 360 has the better end of the deal as far as software exclusives go (at least when I consider everyone but myself) when compared to the PS3, and the Wii is on it's own with what happened to it.

[ERP]

I agree that online is insufficient as a differentiator, although I'm not sure that replicating others service is really a viable way to go, people really underestimate the investment in designing/building Live that MS made.

I think 3D might be a viable differentiator, although not just displaying 3D games, though that's predicated on widespread adoption.
Given the success and cost of Kinect, I have to wonder if it couldn't be more radical. The whole Wii/move/kinect thing smacks a lot of a move back to the VR/AR focus of the early 90's.

[acaeus]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

Since the 360's launch and it's importance of Live integration, I look at the future of consoles as like phones services. You pick a "carrier" because they have the features you want in their online service and go with it. Hardware is obviously part of the equation, but the software clearly is important too. Yes, people will nitpick over technical specifications and to which system can output better graphics or whatever, but clearly the future successes of the PS3 and Xbox 360 as well as their successors will ride on their online integration. The same argument has been made for all the different home electronics integrations systems that use specific brands that all readily interact with each other just about flawlessly. Case in point: Apple products. Buy a Mac, iPhone, AppleTV, etc.......

"We have the games, we have the service, we just don't have competition."

I should trademark that lol.

I think the importance of online/DD/integration is a bit overplayed around here. I don't have (would like to know either way) the data to back my point (then again who does around here), but I can speak for myself and a a number of people I know that live/online is used only sporadically--especially for RPG/adventure/strategy type of games.

Take the very popular Dragon Age for example: it's got no online and the DD add-ons are absolute crap. Actually, I'd say the Awakening expansion is also crap, but that's a diff discussion.

Now, if in the *future* online/live turns out being the widely used way to play as well as to acquire content, I'm damn sure games will not cost $60 a pop (the actual inflation-adjusted value of course).

[MfA]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

While PSN is just fine for most of us, for the common consumer, I'm sure they prefer Live, especially when all their friends are probably on it.

The common consumer doesn't care that much about multiplayer gaming ... and as for communicating with friends, the facebook juggernaut is probably going to make that a third party non exclusive part of the online experience as well.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by MfA

The common consumer doesn't care that much about multiplayer gaming ... and as for communicating with friends, the facebook juggernaut is probably going to make that a third party non exclusive part of the online experience as well.

Facebook won't be integrated into every game.

FPS games are well into the mainstream and therefore so is multiplayer. It might not be for everybody, but the best selling games are always seem to have it.

[MfA]

Originally Posted by ERP

I think 3D might be a viable differentiator, although not just displaying 3D games, though that's predicated on widespread adoption.
Given the success and cost of Kinect, I have to wonder if it couldn't be more radical. The whole Wii/move/kinect thing smacks a lot of a move back to the VR/AR focus of the early 90's.

Motion controls are all about party and physical training games (excercise, dancing, martial arts). They are successful in that, it's effective in pushing hardware at least, but the consumers who buy into it I don't think are the same people looking for VR. Of course a smart tech guy could sell VR to management and pretend it's just an extension of motion controls ... a little white lie.

Even though Sony has already presented a HMD, I still think Nintendo is the most likely to go this way.

[Squilliam]

Does anyone have a reckoning on how fast an ARM based system could be when fitted to a home console? If the NGP is as powerful as it is on a handheld based platform, what could be designed and fitted to a home console to give it similar performance?

Im just thinking Nintendo here, if they choose to go for a form factor <25W for the entire system again then would ARM be a good choice to maximise perf/watt and perf/cost given the seemingly favourable licencing terms?

For instance, how would say a Power VR 6 with quad core Cortex 15 perform in comparison to AMD fusion in a <25W formfactor and how would the costs compare? The entire system on a chip integration seems to suit Nintendo from a spacing and cost perspective as they probably don't want the ancilliary ports that a PC based chipset doesn't have. Im also certain that there will be a number of new chips targetting this power bracket given the announcement of Windows 8 for ARM.

Finally if they went in this direction, would it at all be beneficial to bring both their handheld and home console lines onto the same architecture?

[Gitaroo]

if MS want the next xbox to have BC, does that mean they need edram setup again?

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by Gitaroo

if MS want the next xbox to have BC, does that mean they need edram setup again?

Possibly, however GDDR5 already provides more than enough bandwidth I believe to emulate ED-RAM successfully.

[MarkoIt]

THQ said that they are expecting a Wii successor shortly. 2012 seems fair.

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Possibly, however GDDR5 already provides more than enough bandwidth I believe to emulate ED-RAM successfully.

With a large MC yes. Xenos to edram bw it's in the order of 250 GB/s or am i wrong?

I think they will still use a form of off-die cache next-gen. If the power/die-size budget it's more constrained than the current generation, they will stick with a 128bit MC for the GPU, as it will be around or under 200 mm^2.

Will a 4Q@2013 console be able to use the 22nm process for the CPU side and the 20nm for the GPU side? GF sets at end of 2013 the production start for 20nm.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by MarkoIt

With a large MC yes. Xenos to edram bw it's in the order of 250 GB/s or am i wrong?

Yes but the bandwidth to the ED-RAM is only 32GB/S IIRC.

I think they will still use a form of off-die cache next-gen. If the power/die-size budget it's more constrained than the current generation, they will stick with a 128bit MC for the GPU, as it will be around or under 200 mm^2.

They may go with on die cache actually, the current GPUs even on the PC side are going for ever increasing levels of cache as a substitute for bandwidth. It just means one fewer chips to fab especially as the power density of chips is increasing they won't be pushing any reticle limits or yields by having that chip on the same die as the GPU.

Will a 4Q@2013 console be able to use the 22nm process for the CPU side and the 20nm for the GPU side? GF sets at end of 2013 the production start for 20nm.

Give it another year for a console to come out on a particular node. If 22nm comes out in 2013 then expect to see it on consoles in 2014. The high margin server and desktop chips get first dibs at a new process. It may happen the other way, but it is safer to expect a bigger node than to assume they will release on a bleeding edge node.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Yes but the bandwidth to the ED-RAM is only 32GB/S IIRC.

To emulate 360 effectively without eDRAM, you'd need enough framebuffer bandwidth to cope with the same workload that 360 is using in its eDRAM. Now on paper that's hard as you have 250 GB/s to use, but in real terms games rarely hit that peak as I understand it. Unless you go out of your way to saturate that internal bus with work, the bandwidth consumption of 360 is no different to a PC of similar spec. Thus for BC reason any conventional GPU could probably be used, with perhaps a bit of slowdown if a game was very heavy on this internal eDRAM BW. That may be true of some titles with masses of transparency.

[fehu]

dumb question

considering that maybe this time sony and microsoft will go for a relatively small chip, and that a wide memory controller can generate pin layout problems on a small chip on smaller process technology

there's the possibility of a fused (not fusion) cpu + gpu to put all the silicon in a bigger chip?
i'm not thinking anything too much elaborate like shared cache etc, only use the same node and technology for both the components and then say to the gpu guys "this is the cpu, attach it like a lego brik"
in this way tou can eliminate the (small) interconnection silicon, and implement a 256bit unified mc
can i have this pony?

and another question, this time less dumb
To increase memory bandwidth you can increase the memory controller's width, or use faster memory
I know that it's difficult to make a memory controller capable of reaching huge speed, and to do it the mc become bigger, more complex, hotter and such
A wider mc it's easier to develop, and you can use more relaxed memory chip to reach hight bandwidth, but take a lot of space too, and the traces on the board plus additional memory chip increases the cost
but if i understand, it's the only way to go 4GB of gddr5 (an appreciate feature by me)

what is the best option to make a fast cheap system?

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by fehu

in this way tou can eliminate the (small) interconnection silicon, and implement a 256bit unified mc

Well, it's not a question of whether or not they can make a big enough chip. Chip cost is directly related to the size of the chip by way of the number of chips that are successfully produced and useable from a single wafer. There are power and thermal considerations as well, but more importantly, the whole goal is to eventually reduce the size of the chip, and a 256-bit bus would make life extremely annoying down the road. As it is, you're doubling the number of trace paths to the memory chips -> more signal noise, more complex motherboard (than it would have been), what if they want to halve the number of memory chips to further reduce material cost...

All the little things add up.

If you look at the current die sizes of the 360 slim chips, you wouldn't get to that on a 256-bit bus. So there goes potential power/thermal reductions and chip cost savings. It's a cascading issue that extends to the motherboard components, the case size, the power supply....

It's possible that they could go with 256-bit now and wait for some mythical/unannounced RAM tech that let's them double the bandwidth per bit, but that's years down the road and high risk. The chip memory controller would also need to be updated. In theory, it's something that could happen at a full process node transition, but they already need to deal with making the signalling 100% identical to the previous node since you're dealing with smaller transistors and potentially shorter paths between chips and memory. So it really depends on how much money they're willing to spend on a process meant to save money.

but if i understand, it's the only way to go 4GB of gddr5 (an appreciate feature by me)

The density of the memory chips will be the main factor in hitting higher memory capacities just by way of the number of chips they are willing to solder to the motherboard's surface. I suppose DIMMs are an option, but that'll have it's own caveats with the space taken up within the console as well as with signalling/latency/performance.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

The density of the memory chips will be the main factor in hitting higher memory capacities just by way of the number of chips they are willing to solder to the motherboard's surface. I suppose DIMMs are an option, but that'll have it's own caveats with the space taken up within the console as well as with signalling/latency/performance.

Would it be of any cost to benefit improvement to fit the RAM chips to the respective packaging of the CPU/GPU or CGPU whatever it may be? I always wondered why Sony had their GDDR3 chips on package whereas Microsoft never did (I know the ED-RAM complicates things). Would it be easier or harder to do things that way? If everything is on the same package I would think that the overall simplifying of the motherboard would make up for the more complicated pacage, but is there something im missing?

Edit: Assuming that they are going to use no more than 4 32bit chips overall or for either the CPU or GPU.

[corduroygt]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

It's possible that they could go with 256-bit now and wait for some mythical/unannounced RAM tech that let's them double the bandwidth per bit, but that's years down the road and high risk.

XDR2 has more than twice the bandwidth of GDDR5 per pin, but it's unfortunate that everyone else have shunned them.

[MarkoIt]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Would it be of any cost to benefit improvement to fit the RAM chips to the respective packaging of the CPU/GPU or CGPU whatever it may be? I always wondered why Sony had their GDDR3 chips on package whereas Microsoft never did (I know the ED-RAM complicates things). Would it be easier or harder to do things that way? If everything is on the same package I would think that the overall simplifying of the motherboard would make up for the more complicated pacage, but is there something im missing?

Edit: Assuming that they are going to use no more than 4 32bit chips overall or for either the CPU or GPU.

Maybe because it's shared, where in PS3 each chip has its own ram pool.

Any chance that Nvidia or AMD will design a specific architecture, maybe using some of their current tecnhology, for next generation? For example, take Cayman and replace the 4-ways ALU with 16-ways ones. It should be smaller right? (less redundant transistors).
I was reading that some developers are asking for Vec16 ALUs.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by corduroygt

XDR2 has more than twice the bandwidth of GDDR5 per pin, but it's unfortunate that everyone else have shunned them.

There are probably some very important reasons why they 'just don't use it'. It may cost a lot more, it may involve a lot more board complexity or maybe they just hate RAMBUS as a company in general and prefer not to deal with them. I don't think if the deal was 'pay slightly more and get a far better technology' they would shelve it for no good reason. Maybe the fact that GDDR5 is very difficult to get to the rated speeds without high board complexity is a clue to this based on what Dave has said in the past regarding traces. Fewer traces may just mean it is even harder by another order of magnitude to produce especially within the constraints of a typical GPU PCB.

[Squilliam]

Originally Posted by MarkoIt

Maybe because it's shared, where in PS3 each chip has its own ram pool.

I wouldn't think that'd make any difference, personally. Whether it is shared on not at a chip level doesn't change the basic memory interface architecture.

Any chance that Nvidia or AMD will design a specific architecture, maybe using some of their current tecnhology, for next generation? For example, take Cayman and replace the 4-ways ALU with 16-ways ones. It should be smaller right? (less redundant transistors).
I was reading that some developers are asking for Vec16 ALUs.

Well... Since Nvidia uses something entirely different I don't think they'd do it. As for AMD, well they reduced the width to 4 rather than increased it beyond 5. I think that may be a clue as to the current direction of the shader workloads. AMD said that the average lane utilisation was infact 3.5 I believe which shows that 5 wide was indeed far too wide.

[corduroygt]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

There are probably some very important reasons why they 'just don't use it'. It may cost a lot more, it may involve a lot more board complexity or maybe they just hate RAMBUS as a company in general and prefer not to deal with them.

Rambus, a US-company, sues taiwanese memory manufacturers for patents that they questionably obtained in US court, which they're very likely to win. Therefore, the taiwanese companies collude to sell their memory very cheaply, pricing Rambus out.

Techwise, XDR works just fine in the PS3 and I have very little doubt that XDR2 wouldn't work fine too. It's all about Rambus and their legal team and how they alienated themselves from everyone else. I'm sure if Sony and MS approached Rambus for XDR2 IP licensing, they'd get good deals since there are no other customers. If nothing else, it might force GDDR5 suppliers to give better prices.

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by Squilliam

Would it be of any cost to benefit improvement to fit the RAM chips to the respective packaging of the CPU/GPU or CGPU whatever it may be?

mm... hard to say. The whole packaging process will be automated anyway. It's just the wire tracing that will be the main issue, and I'd worry about signal noise with such a packed configuration, particularly with higher frequency RAM.

I always wondered why Sony had their GDDR3 chips on package whereas Microsoft never did (I know the ED-RAM complicates things). Would it be easier or harder to do things that way? If everything is on the same package I would think that the overall simplifying of the motherboard would make up for the more complicated pacage, but is there something im missing?

Originally Posted by MarkoIt

Maybe because it's shared, where in PS3 each chip has its own ram pool.

I'd wonder if the eDRAM was the sole reason for not packaging the GDDR3 next to Xenos considering that's where the memory controller is, and Waternoose necessarily goes through the GPU to access memory anyway. However, signal noise would be something to consider as well because you'd be packing all these high frequency components near one-another. I have to wonder if that played a role in the mem clock reduction for the PS3.

Thermal dissipation would be another concern as they'd more than likely be using heat spreaders; were it up to me, I'd cool the chips separately, but space is limited too.

Originally Posted by corduroygt

XDR2 has more than twice the bandwidth of GDDR5 per pin, but it's unfortunate that everyone else have shunned them.

But IIRC, each bit requires a second wire trace anyway for the signalling. I'd have to look it up again.

[3dilettante]

Originally Posted by MarkoIt

Any chance that Nvidia or AMD will design a specific architecture, maybe using some of their current tecnhology, for next generation? For example, take Cayman and replace the 4-ways ALU with 16-ways ones. It should be smaller right? (less redundant transistors).
I was reading that some developers are asking for Vec16 ALUs.

The 4-way ALU clusters are part of a 16-wide SIMD.
A 16-ALU cluster would have 256 units in the SIMD.
It would also be more challenging to connect 16 units to the per-cluster register file.