All of these are just memory buffers with "tokens", that can be directly fed to GPU through CP. And obviously the access to that functionality exists in PS4 driver/SDK, it's pretty low level. Not low level enough to write your own byte-code inside these, but enough for forcing driver to do it for you.
Xbox One November SDK Leaked
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
All of these are just memory buffers with "tokens", that can be directly fed to GPU through CP. And obviously the access to that functionality exists in PS4 driver/SDK, it's pretty low level. Not low level enough to write your own byte-code inside these, but enough for forcing driver to do it for you.
BTW. I think the main problem of current GPU programming on consoles is that you don't have a good compiler, only the one that's built-in into driver and the language is also kind of crappy: too high-level and mixes "markup" with "code", it really resembles programming on HTML+JS for browsers.
liquidboy
Regular
When I went to \\build\ I had a few interesting conversations with some of the windows graphics guys, which included some from the Dx team and others from the Kernel team ..
D3d12 does away with the "immediate context", everything is "deferred" and all GPU rendering commands go into a "command queue" which is defined by an "order" and the "command list" is the "recording" of those commands (either one-time or multiple-playback).
A "command list" is optimized for a one-time generation of "commands" where as a "bundle" is as mentioned "Recorded" and thus optimized for multiple playback..
I myself believe in the architects and if they say they've customized it I believe them, just the devil is in the details (which we have none yet)..
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
Maybe we're looking at it the wrong way. If Microsoft and AMD's partnership, as I think we all assume, was a strong one in the build up to the Xbox One, it's entirely possible then that what is now seen as standard GCN, or not very much of a departure from that architecture, does in fact consist of important customizations that are a direct result of AMD and Microsoft's collaborative efforts? So maybe when they talk about customizations that were made, perhaps we shouldn't really be looking for anything that represents too big a departure from known and widely established facts on the GCN architecture. And AMD themselves have said they don't really take part in the GCN 1.0/1.1/2.0 naming policy, so any number of changes or refinements could be made to the architecture over time and between the different pieces of silicon.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
Think you got the wrong idea. I'm not referring to special sauce. I'm saying how do we know that what is now known as GCN not somehow representative of most, if not all, of the same "customizations" that Microsoft are referring to? I'm saying maybe they had a lot more influence on standard GCN than originally suspected. We were introduced to GCN well before either console ever launched, so maybe due to that fact we're viewing it from a perspective of well, It's just GCN, this released back in 2011, so they couldn't have customized much, if anything at all.
When Microsoft talks about heavily customizing the command processor, maybe that same heavily customized command processor is what's inside of all GCN GPUs, meaning the PS4 also? Get where I'm coming from now? And before I get an even more immature response, no, I'm not somehow trying to give Microsoft credit for building the GCN architecture. This, after all, is what AMD does.
When Microsoft talks about heavily customizing the command processor, maybe that same heavily customized command processor is what's inside of all GCN GPUs, meaning the PS4 also? Get where I'm coming from now? And before I get an even more immature response, no, I'm not somehow trying to give Microsoft credit for building the GCN architecture. This, after all, is what AMD does.
liquidboy
Regular
Just like Dx12 is the culmination of influence from Nvidia/AMD/Intel/Qualcomm etc to MS. I can also see a flow of influence from MS to these HW OEM's on their HW designs too... It's just common sense, BUT that's lost on many unfortunately..
I just don't see Microsoft giving their competitors a purposeful advantage. Why foot the bill and effort in collaboration and have your competitor take one of your off the shelf components and wreck your home.
MS and GCN is likely not strongly correlated if at all. Special feature sets may be the result of collaboration, if such features exist I expect XBO to have them and not PS4.
MS and GCN is likely not strongly correlated if at all. Special feature sets may be the result of collaboration, if such features exist I expect XBO to have them and not PS4.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
Really, why not? At the time they were brainstorming and putting their design together, if they had meaningful influence and expertise that led to the inclusion of a particular feature, or even led to specific architectural decisions being made that would go on to be apart of real hardware architecture, that in itself qualifies as the epitome of a customization, does it not? Would it matter that the Xbox One/PS4 didn't come out before GCN was made available on PCs? But I totally see where you're coming from about us entering territory where we're basically just arguing semantics.
SenjutsuSage
Newcomer
One other thing we need to keep in mind is that Microsoft, and I think to a large degree, Sony, generally talk about their consoles not so much from a perspective that these chips were already available for months or years already on PC, but as if they are totally brand new. Basically from a perspective of what makes it different, better, or a complete re-working or evolution from their last console.
"I have a custom motorcycle"
"That's amazing! What's unique about it?"
"Nothing. It's the same as everyone else's."
TheWretched
Regular
Actually mine is... it has no main stand... (well, it's a special edition without main stand
)My point is... even if they changed stuff around, it probably was nothing noteworthy in general, or AMD would've done it themselves already. AMD has a lot more expertise in that area than MS and Sony combined.
pMax
Regular
...actually, it is more likely that MS and Sony paid AMD to make custom design changes/additions, which basically meant free R&D for AMD to use later in their products (i.e. TruAudio looks similar to PS4 audio).
For what I have understood, current AMD APUs use Garlic/Onion bus, whereas XB1 uses a somewhat different approach - which we might see in future on AMD GPUs.
R&D costs, and most managers dont invest enough in it, trying to monetize in the short/mid term for their bonuses/division balance in health.
Only if everyone copied the original customisation. Let's say the guy had a custom motorcycle with...two-wheel drive. At the time of creation, it's custom. Then if every motorcycle company copies that design, it's no longer custom. But when talking about it, it was.
That's SenjutsuSage's suggestion, and it's not at all outlandish because we have the same thing happening with PS4. We have designs in Liverpool that are included in later GCN parts, IIRC. I don't see anything wrong with the idea of MS sitting down with AMD, suggesting x, y, z tweaks (customisations), and AMD saying, "Good call, we'll integrate that with our future GCN designs." A feature only won't be custom if it existed before XB1. If it features in GCN after XB1, it could be a customisation by MS.
AMD said as much already to investors. It's why they say they can get away with comparatively poor margins on semi-custom products, since the client foots much of the up-front cost.
The potential problem I see is that AMD is in a contested field where gains require a lot of high-end work that wouldn't benefit a consumer device or low-end project, so that "free" R&D is going to be more conservatively directed to the needs of individual clients whose product design points do not align with keeping AMD competitive long-term.
It seemed pretty close to the Garlic and Onion setup of older APUs, is there a feature you are thinking of? It's the PS4 that had the modified Onion+ bus that Kaveri adopted.
powdercore
Newcomer
Actually mine is... it has no main stand... (well, it's a special edition without main stand
My point is... even if they changed stuff around, it probably was nothing noteworthy in general, or AMD would've done it themselves already. AMD has a lot more expertise in that area than MS and Sony combined.
Actually mine is... it has no main stand... (well, it's a special edition without main stand
My point is... even if they changed stuff around, it probably was nothing noteworthy in general, or AMD would've done it themselves already. AMD has a lot more expertise in that area than MS and Sony combined.
It makes me wonder how MS was able to achieve 30 GB/s on the XB1 CPU-GPU bus while the PS4 is 20 GB/s assuming they are both GCN 1.1. Why is there a 10 GB/s difference using the same technologies from AMD?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
The memory subsystems of the two consoles are completely different.
That's a question of the on-chip interconnect, not the GPU. Microsoft paid to customize it, and the designers pointed to changes in the interface surrounding the CPU modules being modified.
The size, speed, or number of links through the northbridge can be modified without regard to the IP level of a GPU.
