Ati on Xenos

[jpr27]

I do have a question about the original plans for the PS3 and the hopes of the Cell processor. Wasnt Sony basicly after a "Single chip" solution to the PS3 where the Cell would do both Core processing tasks as well as a majority of the graphics end? I thought I read that basicly and assitance in graphics would come from a very simple GPU processor (Toshiba at that time?) that did some of the graphics chores that were limited by the Cell but could help improve its weaknesses?

This in term would not only be cost effective but developers would be able to write straight to the hardware and thus help them utilize the PS3 capabilities easier?

With the entry of MS and the Xbox and its talk of their next gen console Sony sought out the assistance of a GPU manufacturer (ATI and NV being the majors) and decided on the assitance of NV not only for their GPU but because of adding another layer, using the NV CG would also help simpify development?

Again Im not 100% sure on the above information but referring to when the first specs of what the Cell were to be used for originally in the PS3. Is my memory that far off on this? I'll try to look up some old information to see just how far off I might be

 

[BOOMEXPLODE]

The obvious: for some reason or other Nvidia was able to provide the best solution for PS3, obvious because Sony as a company acts in it's own best interest (therefore going with Nvidia was in Sonys best interest). Some "possible" explanations:

- designing a complex GPU is expensive and requires alot of resources, and contracting that out to Nvidia was a more efficient use of resources for Sony than allocating massive financial and engineering resources to the job
- the design of PS3 needed to be finished and GPU development was taking too long
- Nvidia was able to offer a higher performance design than any other option

Of those I suspect the first explanation is the most relevant.

 

[Rockster]

I think you've under-estimated the importance of what Nvidia brings to the platform outside of the hardware itself.

 

[Carl B]

I take a decent interest in Cell and Sony/Toshiba's various patents and the would-have-been GPU (to the extent I started a thread dedicated to the topic awhile ago), and it's fairly clear that what they're doing now is not what they hoped to do when they set out to design PS3; still they probably had been pitched by NVidia and had the option on standby.

It's interesting to hear Kutagari talk about it in terms of one Cell as CPU and another as GPU, because if you look at the original patents, it would certainly seem their plans were a good bit grander than that - but they must have come to a realization that they wouldn't hit 65nm in time to go with their (I would assume) shifted launch schedule to challenge 360. And of course, as has been discussed in other threads, there was NVidia - waiting in the wings.

Not only that, but at the time of their supposed deal making, Microsoft was talking up XNA big time - with NVidia and their development tools, CG, and the rest of it, it seems the perfect marriage of convenience for Sony.

Anyway I remember some interviews in which in fact NVidia does praise some of the ideas in Cell, and there in the Kutaragi interview he mentions the same, so I'm hopeful once more is learned on the RSX maybe some surprising interplay between the two chips will be revealed afterall.

 

[[Brick_top]]

We will probably won't find out until later about How long Nvidia actually had time to develop RSX, but I think RSX wouldn't be so radically different even if they had extra time to develop. Nvidia is not really in love with unified shader and given that, I don't think RSX would be significantly different part anyways even if they had really long time to develop.

I guess nvidia must be as in love with unified shaders as ATI was with SM3.0 last generation of gpu/vpu's.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's interesting to hear Kutagari talk about it in terms of one Cell as CPU and another as GPU, because if you look at the original patents, it would certainly seem their plans were a good bit grander than that - but they must have come to a realization that they wouldn't hit 65nm in time to go with their (I would assume) shifted launch schedule to challenge 360.

Which might well explain the rapidity with which Next-gen has been forced. Perhaps MS spied Sony's Cell developments, saw the problem facing them if Sony's plans were realised, sopushed for an earlier launch of their system knowing either they'd get a long, strong lead, or force Sony into an earlier release before they could get 65nm solidly running and churning out 4 Cells per PS3.

Waiting an extra year, as Sony, Nintendo and devs seemed to want, would have benefited Sony a lot more than MS.

 

[Simon F]

I don't think you understand how Sony normally deals with software development aspects at all.

Doh beatme to it

Are you guys hinting that it usually involves an SEP field where S = The Dev... ?

 

[London Geezer]

I don't think you understand how Sony normally deals with software development aspects at all.

Doh beatme to it

Are you guys hinting that it usually involves an SEP field where S = The Dev... ?

That's how the modern world works. I mean, look at me, that's what i do all day. Sony are just trying to keep up with human progress

 

[gosh]

grrrr when is dave baumanns interview with ATI going to be approved

 

[AlNom]

grrrr when is dave baumanns interview with ATI going to be approved

When ATi's Grim Reaper cuts out 18 pages.

 

[London Geezer]

I think someone should tell Dave that he can just copy a text document on the website. The guy might be a wiz when it comes to 3D hardware but in the real world....



Dave, you don't need to print it all out, scan it and save it as jpg's!!

 

[JasonLD]

It's interesting to hear Kutagari talk about it in terms of one Cell as CPU and another as GPU, because if you look at the original patents, it would certainly seem their plans were a good bit grander than that - but they must have come to a realization that they wouldn't hit 65nm in time to go with their (I would assume) shifted launch schedule to challenge 360.

Which might well explain the rapidity with which Next-gen has been forced. Perhaps MS spied Sony's Cell developments, saw the problem facing them if Sony's plans were realised, sopushed for an earlier launch of their system knowing either they'd get a long, strong lead, or force Sony into an earlier release before they could get 65nm solidly running and churning out 4 Cells per PS3.

Waiting an extra year, as Sony, Nintendo and devs seemed to want, would have benefited Sony a lot more than MS.

I am sure they did a lot of testing and found out that cell as a GPU can never be as effective as dedicated GPU, and it would have been hell to develop for. I would definitely take Nvidia's offering over anything that Toshiba/Sony could offer..lol.

 

[London Geezer]

I am sure they did a lot of testing and found out that cell as a GPU can never be as effective as dedicated GPU, and it would have been hell to develop for. I would definitely take Nvidia's offering over anything that Toshiba/Sony could offer..lol.

Stating the obvious. Forcing the devs to get to grips with the PS2 architecture was OK and they got away with it for obvious reasons. This time, having a PC based GPU was pretty much the only way not to be boicotted in mass by devs who much rather spend their time putting leaves on trees than to fight with the hardware.