SONY to present the PLAYSTATION 3 platform

[LunchBox]

I've always thought that the extra transistors will be used for parts that are expected for redundency?

Either way, it's quite exciting to hear that we can finally have some potential close examination on RSX...

I just hope that they would be nice enough to the tech heads and give the official specs for discussion...

 

[babcat]

The truth is that I want to play some of those PS3 games and *badly*. However, since I don't have one in my hands and can only watch the same videos about a few dozen times I'm facinated with the hardware of the Playstation 3. I too hope they release the official specifications, because part of my current facination about the PS3 is indeed the specifications. We pretty much know a lot about the Cell. We don't know all the cool ways they are going to program it in the future, but we know basically all the details and how it works. From the FCC report we even know that it's clocked at 3.2GHZ. However, the RSX is a little more of a mystery. It could very well be almost a clone of the G70 with a few little modifications thrown in, but I keep getting the feeling for there to be THIS MUCH SECRECY over what so many people say is a run of the mill GPU there must be something we don't know. I don't think it's something groundbreaking, but I think there is something in there that they want to keep secret.

I also believe that the extra transistors are for redundancy, but at the same time I can't get over just how much better PS3 games look than most 360 games. Also, I have read many interviews with developers mentioning vaguely that they are very impressed with the RSX, but they just can't say anything about it.

It's going to be facinating when they finally release the specs. They have an awsome machine and they should show it off.

 

[Rangers]

The cost of a chip increases exponentially with size, right? So reducing the transistor count by 10% will have a greater than 10% drop in cost. If RSX is costing $100 each at the moment, that'd be upwards of $10 saved per console. For the first 5 million consoles that'd be $50 million saved. That sound like a large percentage of the supposed investment in RSX. If they left PureVideo in to save engineering costs, the cost of removing a part of your GPU design must be astronomical!

I know you're just making a point, but I'd guess closer to $50.

It's a small chip with no dual die jumbo like Xenos (likely similar performance, too).

There's a lot of expensive stuff in PS3 (Cell, Blu Ray) but RSX isn't really one of them.
________
Gong Bongs

 

[babcat]

Lets look at it this way. If they put PS2 hardware in the PS3 where would they put it?

 

[Jesus2006]

I know you're just making a point, but I'd guess closer to $50.

It's a small chip with no dual die jumbo like Xenos (likely similar performance, too).

There's a lot of expensive stuff in PS3 (Cell, Blu Ray) but RSX isn't really one of them.

Err, isn't the RSX's transistor count on par or even higher than that of Xenos+EDRAM? So that should make them similar in overall costs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's a small chip with no dual die jumbo like Xenos (likely similar performance, too).
There's a lot of expensive stuff in PS3 (Cell, Blu Ray) but RSX isn't really one of them.

I don't know much at all about chip costs, but RSX is supposedly >300 MTransistors. It's a big chip, and estimates I've seen have always placed it >$100. At that size I think the PureVideo content would have quite a noticeable affect on die cost.

Regardless, inclusion of it is bound to amount to many tens of million of extra cost over the life of the platform. Can it really cost that much to remove it?

 

[London Geezer]

Err, isn't the RSX's transistor count on par or even higher than that of Xenos+EDRAM? So that should make them similar in overall costs.

Not really... EDRAM is easier and therefore cheaper to manufacture than logic transistors.

I'm not sure what the split is but think that we can say that if Xenos is 200M logic trannies and the EDRAM is 100M memory trannies, it should be cheaper than RSX which is 300M logic trannies.

But i could be wrong. Especially if we take into consideration that the second die needs interconnections which also cost a bit so in the end they might just cost around the same...

 

[Npl]

Lets look at it this way. If they put PS2 hardware in the PS3 where would they put it?

they`d use a seperate chip, the same they use in PStwo`s. Blowing up RSX die size is a bad idea, if the functionality aint used all the time and going to be removed someday. Why would they do anything else if they produce the PS2-Chips with good yields and in volumes that PS3 wont reach for a while...

 

[ban25]

For example, what if they replaced the older EDRAM with an ever faster bit of memory? What if they used SRAM instead?

That's 200 million transistors right there...

 

[Dunchan25]

Any Word Yet?

Have you guy heard any new details on PS3 GPU from this show?

 

[SPM]

Could the final secret of the RSX be that whatever is included to help with backwards compatibility is also able to be used by the PS3's graphical rendering system for PS3 games as well?

This might make sense. I was wondering why Sony would want to keep any functionality of RSX secret - protected by NDAs. Surely they would want to boast about RSX's capabilities, particularly not that the XBox 360 design can't change. A possible explanation (if indeed Sony is keeping something secret) might be that Sony wants to keep some features secret because they haven't yet decided what is going to be removed later on and what is going to be kept in. In that case they would not want anyone to use the feature, and would therefore want to keep it secret with NDAs until they have figured out the utility of leaving some features in.

 

[Dunchan25]

This might make sense. I was wondering why Sony would want to keep any functionality of RSX secret - protected by NDAs. Surely they would want to boast about RSX's capabilities, particularly not that the XBox 360 design can't change. A possible explanation (if indeed Sony is keeping something secret) might be that Sony wants to keep some features secret because they haven't yet decided what is going to be removed later on and what is going to be kept in. In that case they would not want anyone to use the feature, and would therefore want to keep it secret with NDAs until they have figured out the utility of leaving some features in.

Yeah you may be right because there's nothing secret about the G71 So what's so hush hush about the RSX?

 

[kimg]

Hmm. ok. Sony choosed Scarborough to unveil the RSX for general public, with details? or did they not? Anyone who can confirm or deny what is now public info, or, whats up with it? no news?

More curious: why havent i found any info about the thing going on in scarborough? or is it a joke?

 

[ban25]

They've already said it is based on NV47, what else is there to tell? This reminds me of the people who think the Wii is really some super-system with vast hidden technology.

 

[Arwin]

They've already said it is based on NV47, what else is there to tell? This reminds me of the people who think the Wii is really some super-system with vast hidden technology.

Yep, agreed. The most important part of all this is that the Cell is capable of taking care of a lot of Geometry work so that the RSX can concentrate more fully on the physical drawing and shading and the overall architecture and bandwidth between the different memory pools, etc. But that kind of thing goes 'woosh' over the top of most people who are way too focusses on PC like specs. They want to see what the RSX does in 3D Mark, I'm sure.

 

[cthellis42]

I mainly want to see how it performs in "KickinAssInHeavenlySwordMark"

 

[Dunchan25]

They've already said it is based on NV47, what else is there to tell? This reminds me of the people who think the Wii is really some super-system with vast hidden technology.

Yeah, but we want the details!!!! I know you want the details as bad as we do! So stop playing like you don't Developers shouldn't have all the fun!

 

[kimg]

They've already said it is based on NV47, what else is there to tell? This reminds me of the people who think the Wii is really some super-system with vast hidden technology.

I dont EXPECT new tech, i want a reference for what is in the machine(even if its "based" on NV47). All i know, is its based on NV47, and is not a NV47. Who means, i dont know whats in a PS3.

Lets same some hobbyists where to make a Linux free game for PS3: what is they do do? build a game for a NV47 cpu, and hope for the best?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Lets same some hobbyists where to make a Linux free game for PS3: what is they do do? build a game for a NV47 cpu, and hope for the best?

Since when did Linux games ever target a particular hardware? It'll be no different to writing a PC game. You write to the GPU through a graphics library (OpenGL for Linux) and don't need to worry about what the hardware itself is. For shaders I presume you'd use nVidia's tools.

 

[kimg]

Since when did Linux games ever target a particular hardware? It'll be no different to writing a PC game. You write to the GPU through a graphics library (OpenGL for Linux) and don't need to worry about what the hardware itself is. For shaders I presume you'd use nVidia's tools.

And since WHEN is "you just use OpenGL", and just trowing it inside it, and just wishing for nice graphics, actually a good idea? hobby coders is fully capable of sucking upp ALL capacity of a Linux game, too, even one running inside a linux shell in a PS3.

Why persuade homebrew, if none of us gets a good introduction to the game's GPU? im of the kind who demands, a good, nice, introduction. I dont want to hack and dissasemble low level stuff, to actually FIGURE out what im actually working on. The oldest non documented Linux versions was so horrible, i dont want to code in blind, trying to find the magical pinata at the end of the rainbow.