Ati on Xenos

[Shifty Geezer]

i read they had filed patents regarding using 3 cells in the ps3, 2 would act as the GPU.

So i think most of the speculation is based on the patents Sony filed.

Patents aren't blueprints or official plans. They're ideas. The idea of using 1 CPU and 1 GPU isn't new and patentable (well, ha ha ha, since when have patents needed to be patentably these days?). For Example, IBM files thousands of patents, but most never amount to anything. It's a case of registering the idea in the hopes someone will infringe and you can sue them

Regards PS3's GPU, we don't know the ins and outs. It could be Sony were hoping for Cell to work but it wasn't powerful enough. Or it was poerful enough but they couldn't afford 4 Cells in the first PS3. Or maybe it was perfect but without any API like OpenGL and useful tools, they'd pull another PS2, which'd be extremely bad next to the cutting visuals of XB360. Or maybe from the very beginning they were keeping their options open and seeing what ws going on elsewhere. Reports suggest Sony were in contact with nVidia years back. Maybe they were evaluating 3 options (Sony GPU, Toshiba GPU, nVidia GPU) and finally settled on nVidia's efforts?

Claiming RSX is a 'last minute' adoption seems a little extreme to me. Last minute in my mind is a few months before release, not a couple of years.

 

[Jawed]

I'm assuming that R400 was a unified architecture on a smaller scale (literally, say 150m transistors) which was canned because ATI realised that when you draw a curve for unified shader pool performance versus conventional VS/PS performance, the crossover point was "higher" than could be delivered in a 150m transistor part. Or maybe the crossover was close, but in DX8 or lower games, the crossover simply wasn't there.

That's assuming that R400 was intended to be a PC part.

Presumably at around the same time M$ asked ATI for ideas for a part in 2005 on a 90nm tech (perhaps, even, 65nm - since 65nm appears to be "late" judging by estimates of tech ramp-up from a few years back).

The writing on the wall for unified shader code has been up for a few years now (it seems to me) - and with a clean sheet approach M$ could make XB360 a "prototype" for WGF (unified shader code, GPU-tesselation, virtual memory model...). This gave ATI a platform on which to prototype a unified shader design, going one step further by constructing an ALU pool architecture with separated texturing.

It seems to me we won't find out how good or bad ATI's new architectural concepts are until R600 hits. With the consoles there's going to be an ever-present excuse that "we havent learnt to program it effectively yet" - whether that's XB360 or PS3.

Jawed

 

[scooby_dooby]

Patents aren't blueprints or official plans. They're ideas. The idea of using 1 CPU and 1 GPU isn't new and patentable (well, ha ha ha, since when have patents needed to be patentably these days?). For Example, IBM files thousands of patents, but most never amount to anything. It's a case of registering the idea in the hopes someone will infringe and you can sue them

That's fine, I was just stating that's where most of the speculation is coming from. That and the comments by an ATI rep at E3 saying sony had planned to use 2 cells, but it didn't work as well as they had hoped, and lest summer they began trying to secure a GPU.

Claiming RSX is a 'last minute' adoption seems a little extreme to me. Last minute in my mind is a few months before release, not a couple of years.

ATI announced work on the Xenos on Aug 2003. Nvidia announced the PS3 chip in Dec of 2004, maybe 12months before production must begin?

That's not 'last minute' but it's definately cuttin it very close.

 

[rabidrabbit]

As PS3 is to launch about 6 months later than xbox360, there's pnly a few month of difference between the "announcements".
I wouldn't say either of them are then "last minute adoptions".

 

[scooby_dooby]

As PS3 is to launch about 6 months later than xbox360, there's pnly a few month of difference between the "announcements".
I wouldn't say either of them are then "last minute adoptions".

ya just a few...like 14, take away the 6month later launch date that still gives ATI 10 months extra. The ATI team had nearly 2 full years, Nivida only had 1.

That's a big difference there, 12 months is not much time, especially when a good portion of that muct be used for quality control and testing.

 

[rabidrabbit]

You're forgetting that one of them is also going to launch earlier.

xbox360 is launching Nov2005.
PS3 is launching maybe May2006.

So, let's assume Ati started the xbox360 graphics chip design Aug 2003, and finisehd it Jun 2005. 5 months before launch.
That's 23 months of time they'd had for "Xenos"

nVidia started work for PS3 RSX chip Dec2004, if we assume they have the same the same 5 month before launch to design the chip,
that would give them time for 13 months.
10 months less than Ati had for xbox360 chip.

The times are based on what you gave, I have little idea if they are correct or not.

I don't think 10 months is that much considerably less time, moreso considering nVidia has been in development of their next gen PC chip longer than Ati has thei next gen chip.

Edit: Corrected. I forgot to substract the 5 months from launch for PS3. That would indeed make the difference 10 months. Sorry

 

[scooby_dooby]

edited, ATI still had an extra year, nearly twice the amount if dev-time

 

[Titanio]

12 months is not much time, especially when a good portion of that muct be used for quality control and testing.

Do you think they only started working on it after the announced the agreement?

There'll have been at least 18 months or more between the time NVidia started working on this "seriously" and the time PS3 production begins, IMO. If you believe Kutaragi or NVidia, it was much longer than that still.

edit - on a slightly different note, Part 3 of the Watch Impress Kutaragi interview is up with some talk on the options they were evaluating for the PS3 GPU, including a Cell-based GPU, and why they went with NVidia. Also his comments on unified shaders and eDram. May be of interest (although you'll have to deal with babelfish for now )

 

[scooby_dooby]

nVidia started work for PS3 RSX chip Dec2004, if we assume they have the same the same 5 month before launch to design the chip,
that would give them time for 18 months.
5 months less than Ati had for xbox360 chip.
I don't know from where you twist that "extra year" for ATi :?

5 months before May, 2006 is DECEMBER 2005. 1 year after Dec 2004. Where are you gettin 18months from? So they had 12 months.

This is why the PS3 is getting a modified PC GPU and the X360 is getting a custom console GPU.

Anyways, some people think they kinda scrambled a little late to secure a GPU, ATI's reps included, others don't, we can leave it there. I tend to think ATI would know wha they're talking about because they probably had a bid on the table for PS3.

Tarantio - maybe nvidia started work before dec, maybe ati started before aug, all we really know is the offical announcements they made at the time.

Anyway you look at it, this short of a timeframe is not "normal" and I think any company would avoid such a rushed schedule if they could.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Yes, sorry. I corrected it and it's now about 10 months.
Still, there's little evidence on when nVidia actually did start the work on RSX.
Certainly it wasn't December 2004, when the official announcement was made, as I remember in that announcement it said they had already begun work on the chip.
Now did they just mean they'd begun work on their next gen PC chip, which would eventually be the basics of RSX... but that wouldn't nullify the time they had invested in the chip and technology that would also be incorporated in the RSX.
If so, one could argue that the RSX has been in development longer than "Xenos" (how long have nVidia been designing the G70??)

 

[Titanio]

Anyway you look at it, this short of a timeframe is not "normal" and I think any company would avoid such a rushed schedule if they could.

I don't know how rushed it's been at all. There may have not been as much time as ATi had for Xenos, but then they didn't have to do as many "new" things either. For what they were doing - a chip based on tech already being made - I don't think they were rushed. My guess is that they had 18-24 months of "serious" work. Which is quite enough time I think.

I think Sony was pitting various options off against one another from a fairly early stage (probably as far back as they claim to have been talking with NVidia), and then latterly became more serious about one of them and chose it to persue to completion (NVidia). There was probably a sliding scale from start to end re. how much "serious" work was being done on the chip..probably 18-24 months ago things started going ahead full steam. Obviously before that NVidia was already working on their next gen tech, which RSX benefits from (in a major way of course).

Just my guess.

 

[scooby_dooby]

If so, one could argue that the RSX has been in development longer than "Xenos" (how long have nVidia been designing the G70??)

of course.

My point is the timeframe forced them to adapt a current generation PC chip, G70, while ATI was able to engineer a completely new approach, that might be several generations ahead of current PC GPU's(according to anandtech.)

We'll have to wait and see how good both chips turns out to be of course.

p.s. It really seems like you guys are making excuses for Sony.

 

[Jawed]

Personally I don't think it matters how far back NVidia joined the PS3 development effort - in terms of hardware all NVidia has had to do is replace the PCI Express interface with a FlexIO interface.

Most of the effort has prolly gone into the software to bind Cell and RSX together. People see "50 engineers" and seem to assume that they're all hardware engineers.

The graphics API for PS3 will have to have been worked up from the ground. Irrespective of OpenGL and cg, there's still a fair gap from PS3 OS to those APIs.

And not to mention that there's prolly a list as long as your arm of NVidia-specific OGL extensions. That workload might be common to both PC and PS3, but those extensions still need to be weaved into the developer's platform for PS3 - Sony may well have had OGL running on PS3 OS for years now, but not the NVidia-specific parts of it

Jawed

 

[Carl B]

i read they had filed patents regarding using 3 cells in the ps3, 2 would act as the GPU.

Then last year they signed a deal with nvidia to make a GPU, and only went with 1 cell processor.

So i think most of the speculation is based on the patents Sony filed.

Where does this stuff come from? I swear I heard something similar from someone else recently and couldn't understand what they were talking about - is this some sort of rumor going around one particular forum somewhere?

I guess firstly, I'd like to see the patent you're speaking of, because all the patents of which I am aware, the 'Visualizer,' 'Broadband Engine,' etc, etc... do not contain a 1 Cell for CPU, 2 Cell for graphics, but some other configuration.

As for NVidia and Sony's relationship, not much is known, but what IS known is that David Roman claimed on that December 2004 date, that NVidia had been working on the baseline GPU for 18 months before that, and strongly implies that the relationship with Sony began before that announcement date.

The relevent quote:

Anna (X-bit labs): As far as I know NVIDIA may claim that there was not that much investment into the RND: only about 50 engineers. Is this the result of the fact that Sony’s own engineers contributed to the development of the GPU in a significant way?

David Roman: We do not disclose anything on the actual resources. Obviously there is a major economy of scale. This chip is a custom version of our next generation GPU. So we’ve been working on the next generation GPU for close to two years now, namely about 18 months. I don’t know the cost of this one but I know the cost of the last generation: it was 350 million dollars. These are expensive chips to develop. So, the fact that we didn’t have to do that development just for the Sony application obviously is a major economy of scale, because we are doing the development for the new chip anyway. The amount of work involved into customization, I don’t know. I know that we designed a new generic team, we had been working with Sony before on the actual development platform, we had actually been working on the details of the chip. We now have assigned an engineering team to work as a Sony engineering team. And the numbers? I don’t know what the numbers are but I am sure they are growing, but there is a lot of work that’s going on. As I have said we do not disclose the details, but there is certainly some economy of scale due to building it on the technology that we have been working on for a long time. So, it is the next generation of GPU.

Link to X-Bit

 

[jvd]

so they are saying about 2 years ? Well the r400 (which is what the xenos is based on ) was supposed to come out over a year ago for the pc which would place its developement to some where around 3-4 years ago. Ati most likely started to tune it for a console chip and to meet what ms wanted around a year and a half ago to two years .


I def have to say alot more work most likely went into the xenos. It seems to take a diffrent path from any of ati's previously released chips and even the upcoming ones . While nvidia went with a design slated for future use .

 

[Titanio]

of course.

My point is the timeframe forced them to adapt a current generation PC chip, G70, while ATI was able to engineer a completely new approach, that might be several generations ahead of current PC GPU's(according to anandtech.)

I would say they were adapting next-gen PC tech rather than one specific chip. I doubt they simply took a specific PC card, changed it a tiny bit and then shoe-horned it into PS3. Though I would agree that most of the work between Sony and NVidia probably was on the Cell/RSX link and relationship.

Also, I'd expect unified shaders to be available from the generation after the next on (if G70/R520 is the next generation, the one after that)..not quite "several" generations away unless something's gone horribly awry. I'd also expect Xenos to have performance much more akin to this coming generation than any coming after it, even if its architecture/approach is different

 

[jvd]

Also, I'd expect unified shaders to be available from the generation after the next on (if G70/R520 is the next generation, the one after that)..not quite "several" generations away unless something's gone horribly awry. I'd also expect Xenos to have performance much more akin to this coming generation than any coming after it, even if its architecture/approach is different

I agree that it will be the generation after the r52x tech . However how long that family of products will be made is the question. The r52x can easily last ati a year or so , I don't see either nvida or ati rushing to get a wgf 2.0 card out till at least the end of 06. I think this is the time we will see ati with unified shaders. Nvidia on the other hand i dunno

 

[Jawed]

I'd also expect Xenos to have performance much more akin to this coming generation than any coming after it, even if its architecture/approach is different

ATI is saying that Xenos performs like a 32-pipe conventionally architected part. We'll just have to wait and see, eh? But I don't believe that 32 pipes is going to be in the next gen of PC parts (G70/R520 or refresh).

Jawed

 

[Carl B]

ATI is saying that Xenos performs like a 32-pipe conventionally architected part. We'll just have to wait and see, eh? But I don't believe that 32 pipes is going to be in the next gen of PC parts (G70/R520 or refresh).

Jawed

I personally think that there will be an R520 derivative with 32 pipes, as all rumors indicate that R520 itself is a 32 pipe chip with 8 of those pipelines switched off for fabbing (or other) reasons. I'm just repeating the rumors though, so I guess we'll just have to wait until ATI's supposed July launch to get a clearer picture on what they're bringing this gen.

 

[Thegameman]

"We are thrilled to partner with Sony Computer Entertainment to build what will certainly be one of the most important computer entertainment and digital media platforms of the twenty-first century," added Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO, NVIDIA. "Over the past two years NVIDIA has worked closely with Sony Computer Entertainment on their next-generation computer entertainment system. In parallel, we have been designing our next-generation GeForce GPU. The combination of the revolutionary Cell processor and NVIDIA's graphics technologies will enable the creation of breathtaking imagery that will surprise and captivate consumers."

http://www.techseekers.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4227

Nvidia on december 7 2004,by that time they haved almost 2 years working already with Sony on the PS3,which put the RSX with more time on the making than the Xenos.

My 2 cents.