I find it exciting that as of now we basically have most of all the important information about the RSX. It's good to know exactly what it *is* and what it is not. I'm just fine with what we have found out. It's nice to know that they (NVIDIA) did some nice customization work to help it be more efficent in the environment of the PS3.
any news about RSX?
- Thread starter jobboy
- Start date
I know the most simple basics of that. For example, you can store textures in the XDR and the data can go across the Flex IO bus to feed the RSX. Apparently, some extra logic in the RSX helps with the process and the extra texture cache helps cover up some of the latency.But I am sure there is much more involved, and I obviously don't have any performance data or latency numbers.
If there is anything else you can share about the process I would love to hear it. I'm the first to admit I am NOT an expert in these matters, but I am doing my best to learn.
If there is anything else you can share about the process I would love to hear it. I'm the first to admit I am NOT an expert in these matters, but I am doing my best to learn.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
RSX is most definitally NOT a match for the 7950GT.
Your right. Because the 7950GT is clocked at 550MHZ for the Core and 700 for the memory which is faster than the RSX. Also, it utilizes a 256bit bus to 512MB of RAM. However, the number of pixel and vertex pipes are the same as the RSX. Just for the record, are you saying that the RSX is more or less powerful than this chip. (Pretty much I'm guessing less, but then again sometimes small adjustments in internal architecture can create significant performance gains.)
That's ridiculous. Xbox 360 is no more reliant on Xenos than PS3 is on RSX and I've seen nothing to indicate there's a tighter relationship between Cell and RSX than Waternoose and Xenos. Cell and RSX have some extreme amounts of bandwidth connecting them, but then Cell has a lot of execution resouces to feed and can kick out a lot of data to RSX.
The interelationship between CELL and RSX affords the viability of composite frame rendering techniques, that is CELL and RSX alternating adding elements to a frame before it is rendered. No other current system will really be doing this to the extent PS3 will be. That is the differentiating factor graphically, in my opinion, from a technical standpoint, aside from the robust shader power afforded by RSX.
The CELL's ability to run a great number of simulation programs in parallel will also differentiate the PS3 to some extent. The quality of animation, physics, lighting, ai, and all types of effects will be affected by CELL.
Last edited by a moderator:
ROG27,
I have a question I wonder if you can answer. Did these more robust shader pipelines with the few extra shader instructions Barbarian mentioned, are they from added mini-ALUs (does the RSX architecture still include these) or from the main shading units just being more complex, larger, robust, etc?
I have a question I wonder if you can answer. Did these more robust shader pipelines with the few extra shader instructions Barbarian mentioned, are they from added mini-ALUs (does the RSX architecture still include these) or from the main shading units just being more complex, larger, robust, etc?
There was talk suggesting cache-coherency and stuff between RSX and Cell. I think the relationship could be more than just passing data between them, but zip is known for sure.
Intresting, where did you get that from?
Who knows?! It was just one of those things passing around a year or so ago. I think it was Kutaragi talking about the relationship between the two processors, but I'm hazy. Anyway, the main point was that there's been noises that it's something a little tighter than just 'Cell passes RSX data'. Never anything official. Never anything more than a squeak. All these nises mean IMO is that we can't categorically say the Cell<>RSX relationship is the same as the Xenon<>Xenos relationship.
Subtlesnake
Regular
The 7950 GT also happens to consist of two GPUs, where as the RSX only has one.
The 7900 GT would be a much closer comparison.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
here's what i've read about RSX recently. no way is this confirmed, just something I read, and it sounds believable
20 pixel shaders
7 vertex shaders
(recall Kutaragi said last year RSX would have built-in redundancy (re: units deactivated) like the CELL to keep yields high)
add to that the info already known:
8 ROPs
128-bit bus
500 MHz core clock, 650 MHz memory clock
if true, it makes RSX baseline specs less than that of the G71 or G70. that said, add in the beefed up caches and other tweaks, and it shouldn't be too bad, but nothing spectacular
20 pixel shaders
7 vertex shaders
(recall Kutaragi said last year RSX would have built-in redundancy (re: units deactivated) like the CELL to keep yields high)
add to that the info already known:
8 ROPs
128-bit bus
500 MHz core clock, 650 MHz memory clock
if true, it makes RSX baseline specs less than that of the G71 or G70. that said, add in the beefed up caches and other tweaks, and it shouldn't be too bad, but nothing spectacular
Just one question: do you think G7x has not built in redundancy?
According to Barbarian and other developers the number of pipelines in the RSX are what we expect them to be. We will be seeing 24 Pixel Pipes and 8 Vertex Pipes. The only thing that might be up in the air is the number of ROPS which is pretty much estimated to be eight instead of sixteen.
Also, it's nice to know that no shading instructions were removed from the vertex or pixel shading pipelines and that a few extra ones were added!
Also, it's nice to know that no shading instructions were removed from the vertex or pixel shading pipelines and that a few extra ones were added!
