any news about RSX?

[Rangers]

Cyberia, Megarace, Seventh Guest, and many others would disagree.


That's a heck of a step up from last 15 years of consoles - prior to this gen, we've had consoles with CPU power that just sucked (theoretical or not).

You think for their times Gamecube and Xbox CPU sucked? (Yeah, they suck now).

It's funny, I think the Wii CPU may the most powerful at a glance out of all this generations CPU's..729 mhz beefy OOOE.

Although, long ago developers in article at Anand likened the Xenon to a 1.4 ghz Celeron (actually the y said, "it's only twice as powerful as Xbox CPU")..if he was talking about individual cores, maybe it is like 3 of such.
________
HOW TO ROLL A JOINT

 

[SugarCoat]

Xbox processor really was essentially a celeron so i dont think it was the best for its day. The same could be said about EE which was 3x more powerful then the best pentium IIIs and IIs of the time frame accroding to Sony PR. Personally i think we're quite far along in round two of propaganda wars. Obviously they've got alot of people fooled that their hardware is the best, most powerful thing ever made. In terms of consoles obviously they're correct, but this constant PC vs console stuff really gets on my nerves. People cant seem to face the simple fact that they're buying a closed box system using relatively cost efficient hardware on which to play games and movies, thats it. Its not some "super computer".


Devs make the games look great, play great, maybe even become memorable, not the stupid maximum ideal floating point output numbers or the amount of transistors.

Any time i happen to catch a glimpse of some random forum where consoles are a main subject for discussion my head wants to spin off with all the false stuff said. Did you know apparently 1080P is the "thing" to have now because of the limited titles the PS3 is coming out with to use it? Someone should really tell those people resolution isnt the most important aspect in terms of TV visual quality. Yet no one will. One little voice tries to they'll be flamed into oblivion. It really is a nightmare out there. Thankfully theres sane people here keeping this place in order.

Check out this awesome peice from a new gamespot preview of the PS3.

Sony will pair the Cell with a very powerful graphics processor based on advanced Nvidia technology. You may remember that Nvidia did the graphics for the first Xbox system, but with reports of contract disputes between Nvidia and Microsoft, few were surprised when both companies chose to change dance partners for the next console cycle. Microsoft went with ATI for the Xbox 360, and Nvidia hooked up with Sony on the PlayStation 3.

The end result of that collaboration is the PlayStation 3 RSX "Reality Synthesizer" graphics-processing unit, a massive 550MHz, 300-million-transistor graphics chip based on advanced GeForce graphics technology. According to a written statement from Nvidia, the RSX transistor count is "more than the total number of transistors in both the central-processing units and the graphics-processing units of the three leading current-generation systems, combined." During the PlayStation 3 E3 2005 presentation, Nvidia CEO and founder Jen-Hsun Huang explained that "the RSX has twice the performance of the GeForce 6800 Ultra, the highest performance GPU in the world today. Each of these GPUs retails for $500. There will be two of them, equivalent horsepower, in the RSX."

The PS3 will jump out ahead in hardware performance, but the PC isn't far behind. Nvidia replaced the GeForce 6800 Ultra with the much more powerful GeForce 7800 GTX last summer. It turns out that the RSX and GeForce 7800 GTX share a similar architecture, but the RSX is still slightly faster. Nvidia has since released its GeForce 7900 GTX refresh part, but the PlayStation 3 still has an advantage in that the entire system is built specifically for gaming instead of general processing.

 

[22psi]

Devs make the games look great, play great, maybe even become memorable, not the stupid maximum ideal floating point output numbers or the amount of transistors.

that's sig worthy

 

[Carl B]

Well, that whole 'Prefer a Celeron' mentality that was spawned last year (and has since died down) was definitely exaggerated as far as these IOE processors went, and frankly you only heard the PC devs complaining/grandstanding about their 'weakness.' Now I think you have a different environment altogether, and whether the same devs like them or not, I think every one of them will tell you they can get more done on XeCPU than the Celeron they wanted the year before.

There are two extremes in these debates - each one as wrong as the other. These extremes are that *any* OOE processor, no matter the vintage, would rock these IOE cores to the ground, and the other is that theoretical Flops potential is all that matters.

One would have to truly be contemptuous of anything new or foreign though to think that Cell does not enjoy an appreciable advantage over standard OOE cores in many a useful task within a modern gaming environment, to say nothing of a 1.4GHz Celeron.

There's a lot of positive praise to toss at the OOE cores of our day as well mind you, and as much is highlighted in the 'Processors of the future' thread right outside here - and by the way that's got to be one of the best threads of the year... But honestly hype or no hype, to say that the CPU in Wii may be the most capable of this generation is to have subcribed *too* fully - and spectactularly incorrectly - to the [OOE > all] theory.

(Sugarcoat, are you sure that 'new' Gamespot preview you're putting up there isn't in fact quite ancient?)

 

[babcat]

To get back on the topic of the RSX does anyone here have any extra information on it's performance, it's efficency to read textures from the XDR, ability to read data directly from an individual SPE (lets say it was decompressing textures on the fly), and does anyone know what really makes the RSX so much more efficent than the same PC part?

 

[nAo]

does anyone know what really makes the RSX so much more efficent than the same PC part?

since it's going to work in a closed system developers can play its strengths and address its weak points once overtime they get to know more about it through experience, that's what it's going to make it more efficient than a common PC part.
Moreover on a console you don't really need to stick to a particular API, you have a low level access to the hw so that you can workaround some common pitfalls of DX9 and OpenGL.
As a very smart bloke told me today "we are more concerned about the amount of pixels we write than about how many draw calls we do" (though I not completely agree with him )

Marco

 

[babcat]

nAo,

If I ever go into game development (which I am considering) then console development seems much more challenging (in a good way) than PC work, because you have to constantly strive to get better and better performance from the same piece of hardware that never changes. Also, thank you very much for your response on here to my question about the performance of the RSX.

 

[archie4oz]

I dunno, I think PC development offers quite a bit of challenge too, just a different type (arguably a more frustrating challenge at that). Also the ease and cost of entry is a wee bit lower.

Personally, I think handhelds are probably the coolest area to be in now... Yeah sure it's not quite as sexy as a 360 or PS3, but you get the same experience and the potential to work with a much smaller team and thus have more direct input and influence on a title.

 

[Rangers]

Pc devs get to work with the big dog hardware, though (especially in years 2-5 of the console cycle as they lag further behind). That surely has it's own cache that shouldn't be discounted.
________
Club Royal Condo Wong Amat

 

[archie4oz]

Yeah but unless you're working for Id, Epic, or maybe Crytek, good luck getting a chance to actually take serious advantage of it on an actual project...

 

[babcat]

Lets stay focused on the RSX.

I have a very important question that I would like to see addressed.

It's known that the G70 has over 300 Million transistors. However, the RSX would be made on the 90NM process, have 8 ROPS removed, have some other stuff like Pure Video taken out, etc. Basically, I'm curious as to what these extra transistors have been used for on the RSX.

Obviously, we know there is a larger texture cache and post lighting and transform cache. Also, a few shading instructions have been added. But these don't sound like they would use up all these extra transistors. What could these extra transistors be used for in the RSX?

Are there other larger caches that we don't know about? Could the RSX have beefier ALU's with higher transistor counts than the G70? What about special buffers for the FlexIO interface?

Could the RSX have a multifunction programmable interpolator?

Basically, what are these extra transistors used for in the RSX?

 

[nAo]

Obviously, we know there is a larger texture cache and post lighting and transform cache. Also, a few shading instructions have been added. But these don't sound like they would use up all these extra transistors. What could these extra transistors be used for in the RSX?

you are taking for granted that what barbarian wrote is correct

 

[jobboy]

you are taking for granted that what barbarian wrote is correct

not confirmed yet?? i thought it was confirmed somewhere

 

[babcat]

nAo,

I think it's pretty clear to everyone on these forums that Barbarian is indeed a developer and someone who would be in the know. I also have no reason to feel that he would lie about the specifications of the RSX and on the other hand don't think he would throw a wild guess out there. If anything, he would remain silent or simply say he did not know. Honestly, I believe we can trust his numbers. Also, other developers online have not refuted his numbers and information.

You are a PS3 developer and since you have worked very closely with the RSX I would also assume you would know the specifications but more specifically in this case the internal architecture. I know all of you are walking a narrow line when it comes to giving information out without going so far as to risk getting into trouble by violating one of your NDAs. Because of that I respect those of you who do give out information, those of you who choose not to, and those of you who have to be vague. But if his information was wrong I don't think you would be making vague comments about the information and would just say it was incorrect. You would not have to give any numbers, give any specifics, but just say that the numbers were wrong.

He seemed very clear with the information and I think he is telling the truth, and don't think he was lying. It's pretty obvious he broke an NDA in doing so, but if he did then that was his choice to make. Even if he did brake an NDA I don't think it is anyone elses job to try to put that information "back in the box" so to speak. I'm not saying that is what you are trying to do. Heck, I don't know absolutely 100% what the truth is about the RSX. The information could indeed be incorrect and you are trying your best to impart that without risking breaking an NDA (even though I don't think you would break it by doing so).

All I am trying to get at is that I think Barbarian is telling the truth and the only other options are that he in some way decieved us. I just don't want to accuse anyone of that without evidence. Personally, I'm thankful for the information Barbarian shared.

And if you are trying to honestly tell us the information is wrong then I'm thankful to you as well, and honestly apologize for finding your comments suspicious.

 

[nAo]

Someone is going insane here

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I know all of you are walking a narrow line when it comes to giving information out without going so far as to risk getting into trouble by violating one of your NDAs.
Because of that I respect those of you who do give out information, those of you who choose not to, and those of you who have to be vague. But if his information was wrong I don't think you would be making vague comments about the information and would just say it was incorrect.

Officially they can't comment, to say correct or incorrect. Considering we don't just know who nAo is, but also where he works, it'd be suicidal for him to comment, whereas more annonymous developers can risk facts and figures.

As for the 'missing transistors' that came up many moons ago. I think the best guess was inclusion of hardware BC in some way or other. But basically all the things you asked, those that know won't say.

 

[babcat]

Then let me just say that I believe Barbarian was being honest with us and that those are the correct numbers. If nAo cannot say anything more that is fine and I respect that. But I just don't like the suggestion being spread around these forums that Barbarian was being anything but completely honest with us unless we have evidence otherwise.

 

[zed]

Devs make the games look great, play great, maybe even become memorable, not the stupid maximum ideal floating point output numbers or the amount of transistors.

true but more power == more posiblities
wether one takes them or not well....

 

[inefficient]

Then let me just say that I believe Barbarian was being honest with us and that those are the correct numbers. If nAo cannot say anything more that is fine and I respect that. But I just don't like the suggestion being spread around these forums that Barbarian was being anything but completely honest with us unless we have evidence otherwise.

No one was saying he is dishonest. nAo is just calling him out for making an error in his summary of the RSX and spreading misinformation.

Of course one of the main reasons to have an NDA is to prevent the spread of misinformation. And I think thats his main issue with the comment.

 

[babcat]

I'm going to be completely open with all of you for a moment. I might get some heat for this, but I'm willing to take the chance. I don't want to hide my feelings or "lie" about what is going on in my mind.

Quite frankly, Barbarian sounded very confident in his statement. I don't see why he would make such an error. Either he has the specs of the RSX or he does not. If he did not post the correct specs it would either be a lie or a typo/glitch that he could come back and correct to the right numbers. Since everything has remained the same in his post I honestly believe that he was telling the truth, but I could be wrong.

However, nAo's comments in one sense give me the feeling that those numbers of Barbarian's could have been accurate, and nAo is trying to downplay them and put doubt in people's minds if they are true.

I do NOT know if this is the case. It is a feeling I am getting. If I'm wrong I apologize ahead of time, and really do appreciate it if those numbers are wrong and nAo is trying to warn us.

I'm not attacking anyone at all here but just being honest about my feelings. I have no problem with nAo or Barbarian. They seem to both be cooperative, helpful, and contributing members of this community.