RSX architecture and cost...

Would the system benefit from more bandwidth\memory or anything else thats better? Ofcourse, the PS3 (nor any other console) is perfect, there is allways room for improvement.

??? In which case, every game console released before and after PS3 will "need" more bandwidth. What is there to discuss ? ;-)

DeanoC's comment is "bandwidth hasn't proved yet to be a problem on PS3". I'd rather ask what has proved to be a problem... but no dev would probably say.
 
I dont see how you managed to interpret DeanoC statement as "there is no need for more bandwidth".


Where in any of my post did I post or interpret “there is no need for more bandwidth"? :rolleyes:

My statements dealt with developers not stating (at this time) in articles, press, news, etc... about PS3 having bandwidth issues with there current games.

So please don’t put words in my mouth…. ;)
 
patsu said:
DeanoC's comment is "bandwidth hasn't proved yet to be a problem on PS3". I'd rather ask what has proved to be a problem... but no dev would probably say.
Well history has shown that even when we do say, it doesn't exactly reach public ears much. After 6 years people still think PS2 was VRam limited, XBox UMA sucked, and DC hardware had no tradeoffs whatsoever :p
 
Ok sorry to bring this up again - Saw this odd reply on the Uncharted interview...and wondered what you guys thought of it.

"We know that Cell BE chip has 10 thermal sensors onboard it alone and a voltage regulator that can clock each and every core dynamically according to temperture, calculation complexity and other organic system demands between 3.2 and 6ghz! We know this, because of thermal imaging IBM has performed and how F@H Work Units vary their use of Cell on the PS3 (also 1st hybrid Cell was clocked to 5.6ghz before the on chip voltage regulator popped)!

Question: Since RSX has been said to be able to more than keep up with this variable FLOPS production of Cell, while having the capability to rasterize 4k (4096×2160)to a screen (capable, but we would need two HDMI 1.3 ports to carry that bandwidth off the FLEXiO to a Sony’s 4k SXRD projector). What the hell is the RSX, if it can do that on both the PS3 and Cell/RSX combo Computer Board??? No way is it simply a 7800 chip!!!

Let’s pull the lid off this bugger now! You have 256mgs EVRAM. What kind of bus is cooking code across an embeded setup under that cap? Why haven’t we seen a cross section or blowup pic of the RSX Silicon? Why does it cost more than both BluRay Player and Cell BE to build? Every single other chip in the world has a pic of it on the web bare naked. Including PS2 chips, Cell, Intel’s, AMD’s, Nvidia’s, ATI’s and even Xenos, so where in the hell is a pic and true specs for RSX? What does it have a mouse running in a cage to run it or what?

If it is based on the Nvidia 7800, what’s been added? Extra cache more processors or is RSX some kind of Cell Style Hybrid? We know Kutaragi wanted the most powerful system on the planet. Did he get it?

We’re all tired of these nasty secrets, if they were going to use a two Cell system to begin with, why did they decide to pay more than that in cost to build a simple, cheaper 7800 core into the RSX (if that’s all it really is, they juked). It doesn’t add up!

The only way it adds up (if they are truly using a 7800 core) is to build it like the Cell. With that 7800 taking the place of PPE as the core used as a controller along with 4 to 8 SPE vector cores to do the heavy lifting. You then have a traditional GPU core to ween the Devs off onto the SPE’s, similar to Cell with PPC core!

Having everything programmable along with a similar voltage regulator (on Cell) solves the “Upgradability” and projected “10yr Life Cycle” Riddles!

Then as the CoD4 Devs have said “Xenos being more powerful than RSX is a myth” is verified!

Do us gamers a favor, ask them. Get tricky if you have to, let’s find out exactly what’s under the hood of the RSX that can push out 4K!!!"
 
To be honest, I think very little of it ...

How would you either counteract his argument, or support it? It confuses me...either how can someone come up with so much bullshit and sound reasonable, or how can someone come up with so much interesting stuff that hasnt been looked at before?
 
Except bandwidth hasn't proved yet to be a problem on PS3, I haven't heard a single developer finding it a serious bottleneck.

Hypothetically, lets say I'm working on a sports game which has a user controllable instant replay camera :) The camera often ends up in situations with heavy transparency overdraw (many full screen passes) which we have no control over since its a user controlled camera. Time is frozen in instant replay so I need all detail preserved on all textures (including the transparent textures) because that mode gets the most scrutiny by reviewers and players alike (screenshots will be taken in that mode). We also need replay to progress at 30fps minimum when the user controls time. Do you feel there is enough bandwidth on PS3 to accommodate that kind of scenario?
 
Hoping that DeanoC or nAo answer this one, but in the meantime for my own curiosity:
are you handling the transparency the exact same way on PS3 and 360? I know that they are very different in how to best handle transparancy.

A completely different but related question - I seem to recall the framebuffer can live in XDR as well as GDDR3 for the RSX in the PS3. Is alternating between a framebuffer in XDR and in GDDR3 feasible and fast enough, and does it have bandwidth advantages? (since you're now spreading the data over 2x20) Does texturing from XDR offload the bandwidth use for GDDR3 freeing it up for other purposes?
 
It's full of nonsense, making it obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The RSX as some kind of super-GPU that has additional cores and what? Oh come on, it would've been known by now, assuming that something like that could exist in the first place.
 
Back
Top