Eddie Edwards(Genious) said that software rendering seemed to be what was up. Although he says that Sony could throw in a GPU if the performance wasn't great, which is what VS is basically. Built off the Cell structure but designed to crunch graphics. Be great running shaders off those APU's on VS.
ATI Talks Lithography
- Thread starter Vince
- Start date
Ok this discussion is a little beyond me 
but I was wondering, what is known about the GPU in PS3? And would any of you be willing to guess how far in the "software rendering" direction is Sony willing to go for the GPU? Will it only do basic filtering (and be extremely fast at it) or will it be more feature driven like conventionnal GPUs? I ask because recently there were talks about Nvidia having some kind of role in the design/production(?) of the GPU. btw, was there any truth to that?
but I was wondering, what is known about the GPU in PS3? And would any of you be willing to guess how far in the "software rendering" direction is Sony willing to go for the GPU? Will it only do basic filtering (and be extremely fast at it) or will it be more feature driven like conventionnal GPUs? I ask because recently there were talks about Nvidia having some kind of role in the design/production(?) of the GPU. btw, was there any truth to that?zidane1strife
Banned
Fig6... I think it could likely exceed what's shown in fig 6.
The ps2 ingame text lit vert numbers are near the peak(likely raw numb.), of the geforce2, , numbers that the gf2 never reaches due to the fact it has no embbd ram.
The ps2 still exceeds top of the line, modern gpus, in vram b/w...
I wonder... nah... time will tell...
Clem,
Well Visualizer is widely concidered to be a "GPU" of PS3, in reality it is only a Rasterizer.
It has APU's meaning it can be programmed to run programs, most likely shader's.
My guess is that it will support your basic functions such as filtering, but the shaders would be programed and run right on VS's APU's.
As for Nvidia, it really all blew over. Some sony exec came out and basically bashed the idea proving it wrong.
Well Visualizer is widely concidered to be a "GPU" of PS3, in reality it is only a Rasterizer.
It has APU's meaning it can be programmed to run programs, most likely shader's.
My guess is that it will support your basic functions such as filtering, but the shaders would be programed and run right on VS's APU's.
As for Nvidia, it really all blew over. Some sony exec came out and basically bashed the idea proving it wrong.
and there are many things that the geforce 2 is able to do that the ps2 can't do. But at the end of the day they both put out close to the same image when a game is coded for just that hardware. That is what my point is. I wasn't saying one was better than the other. I was just pointing out that the video game systems are on the same lvls as the pc hardware out at the time . The only reason why the console games look better at the start is because games are made for that specific hardware where as it may take years for a game to come out to target the pc hardware and by that time we are talking about the newest hardware .zidane1strife said:
See now this is a personal attack. I will let another mod delete this. But why do you feel its okay to personaly attack me when I have never attacked you and you have never attacked anyone. Why do you feel it was alright to post that comment to my post yet when I posted it back at you , you went off and labeled it acting like a 12 year old .Paul said:
Why is it whenever we compare gpus and ps2 you claim only polygons and fillrate are important while leaving out many things that the geforce 2 can do that improve image quality and make up for its lack of polygon pushing power and provides and image quality on par with the ps2 . Why ? All features are important to a system. Polygons are a feature and so is fillrate. Those two are not more important than any other feature on the hardware .
Now to settle this as adults . Why don't you post the full specs of the emotion engine and I will post the full specs of the radeon 64 meg and the geforce 2 as soon as I'm able to find them since none of the sites seem to have it .
David_South#1
Banned
Vince said:David_South#1 said:
Whoa, you sure its [as defined as any manifestation of it's pipelines] that fast this early?
David_South#1 said:At this time I believe is has only 4-APU. (I bet you were thinking of 32.
I was figuring less, couldn't you tell by my comment?!. It's quite irrevelent at this early stage. Just that the design is functional is all that matters at this point, they have 2 years to take this most-likely buggy "IP" and make a 65nm IC out of it for PS3.
Oh, and a dual-chip solution isn't what I'd consider an economically intelligent long-term decision - heat be damned.
Vince,
At the time it was performing 64 operations per cycle at 550MHz.
No silicon details were provided. But can be interpreted a few ways. 32bit / 64bit
4 ops per cycle unit = 16 units / 2 ops per unit = 32 units
An APU is composed of 4 or 8 total units = 2IU + 2FPU / 4IU + 4FPU
So a guess of 2-8 APU
In terms of pipeline, 512bit is easier so the 2+2 idea is easiest.
From there I guesses 4 operations a cycle per unit. = 4 APU
Also that would be about 35.2GigaOPS (It stated the 64 as ops.)
Anyways in regards to the pipelines I was figuring 512, not 1024 you seem to have thought.
What dual chip are you referring to? XGI and ATI? Yes, with Dual core in the future.
STI is a different design all together. Multiple-dies w/Multiple-cores on/in one module.
Other comments around here suggest 65-45nm production?
Considering the only business their Fab will be doing is PS2 before the PS3 is ready,
Pushing TO START in 65nm is more than excessive. I understand how you all see it over time.
But I’ve never agreed beyond 90nm. Shin`ichi may have indeed been trying what ya’ll are thinking.
(He’d have to for 1024bit bussing) Course he is no longer with Sony.
Let’s save this for another thread.
I’d rather know or discuss real details about ATI. They rock!
jvd said:
Plenty of comparison charts for the basics. Full feature sets are harder to come by...
Anand usually did an in-depth analysis, though. You might find what you need here and here.
I mean, if we're going to REALLY dick-wave, we should do a lot of research, right?
Noone said IQ and the likes weren't important.
Your stating that PC GPU's is the same as console hardware at a time of a console's release.
This is wrong as PS2 was more powerfull then a PC GPU in area's. If the GPU rivaled the ps2 completely? It would be different.
Can a dedicated GF2 provide similar graphics to that of a ps2? Yes, can ps2 do things a GF2 can't? Yes. They aren't the same.
I will agree with all that but you forget that the geforce 2 can do many things the ps2 can't . I don't see what the big deal is to admit that . So when you compare the hardware and the final image the two can produce they are equal with each surpassing the other in diffrent area's . Its like when you compare the 3 consoles . Well anyway I will let you respond to this but then I wil ldrop it since this isn't the thread to talk about it in .Paul said:
Similar threads
