Can this SONY patent be the PixelEngine in the PS3's GPU?

j^aws

Veteran
Hi, my first post here. :D ...Thought I'd start off with this patent below. Dunno if it's been covered already but it does seem intrigueing...

Full Patent Here...

...BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The present invention relates to a serial operation pipeline suitable for an application requiring a discrete operation in which the amount to be operated on expands extemporaneously and explosively, for example, an application for expressing a frequently moving object by computer graphics, and structural elements thereof.

[0003] The serial operation pipeline sequentially conducts different operations, such as a command retrieve operation, a command decode operation or a command execute operation, at the same time, thereby increasing processing speed.

[0004] The pipeline comprises computing units that deal with a small number of command groups, and the units are connected to each other in a cascade fashion. The combination of the plural computing units to be used is appropriately changed so as to realize various processing, such as addition, subtraction and multiplication, a floating-point operation, comparison, Boolean algebra, or select (IF statement).

[0005] In making computer graphics, many kinds of discrete operations are normally conducted, such as operations within a two-dimensional pixel or between pixels, collision detection, object creation or composition, or geometry operation. In such an application, when only the main CPU of a computer is employed, a large amount of computing power is required which cannot be obtained by a computer having a single CPU. For example, a rendering process capacity of the order of several hundreds [Mpolygon/sec] and several tens [Gpixel/sec] is frequently required.

[0006] For that reason, a special-purpose processor into which an operation pipeline is installed has been employed up to now.

[0007] Most of the conventional processors of this type are made up of a single device, and a plurality of operation pipelines are installed in parallel into the processor in accordance with an estimated amount of operation. A given function is fixedly allocated to each of individual computing units that form the operation pipelines, referred to as so-called "one computing unit with one function". A pipeline using one computing unit with one function is very suitable for, for example, an application that processes the data size of a fixed length by a short throughput.

[0008] However, it is difficult to apply one computing unit with one function for various purposes. For example, in the case where the pipeline structure is changed in accordance with the intended purpose, it is necessary to additionally provide a selector (bus) for connecting a path of data to be subjected to an operation and an allocated function. For that reason, the computing units or the operation pipelines are restrictively disposed in parallel within a single device. Also, when at least a regular number of the computing units or the operation pipelines are disposed in parallel, they are prevented from being clustered, and a control and a data path (cash or bus) are required for preventing the cluster, respectively, thereby leading to the deterioration of the integration efficiency.

[0009] In order to cope with a variety of applications, it is proposed to structure a programmable data flow graph (DFG). However, the programmable DFG is relatively high in the occupied ratio of non-operation elements, such as the selector, with respect to the computing unit. It has been well known that the ratio becomes higher as the programmability of the operation becomes more enhanced. Also, it is difficult to always execute all the functions of the programmable DFG because the functions are divided into sub-functions. In order to enhance the execution efficiency, the functions must be brought into function blocks, the object of which are fixed to some degree, and become improper for applications that process various types of data.

[0010] On the other hand, it is proposed to arrange the computing units in parallel two-dimensionally from the viewpoint of ensuring higher operation capacity. Two-dimensional parallel means that the computing units are arranged in parallel and in a cascade fashion. That is, data flows are arranged in parallel due to deep pipelines. As a special implement, there are rendering pipelines that are disposed in parallel. In making the two-dimensional parallel, only necessary functions are supplied within the pipelines, and the programmability is removed as much as possible, thereby enhancing the efficiency by the cascade connection of the exclusive computing units.

[0011] In the future, the need for diversification of discrete operations is expected to grow. In such case, there is desired a general-purpose pipeline that realizes a complicated processing flow with an extemporaneous and explosive amount of operations with respect to various data sizes. In order to structure the general-purpose operation pipelines, it is required that the data path be simple (linear), and that cascade connections be made without uselessness. Also, a construction that can realize various operations by one computing unit is required.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0012] The present invention has been made under the above circumstances, and therefore an object of the present invention is to realize various operations by one computing unit without increasing the costs...

Checkout Fig.6 here...Describes an array of SALC/SALP (serial arithmetic-logic circuits/serial operation pipelines...).

Correct me if I'm way off, I'm definitely no expert, :? but could this potentially be the patent relating to the much vaunted PixelEngine in the PS3's GPU aka Visualizer? What do you experts think??? :D
 
[0005] In making computer graphics, many kinds of discrete operations are normally conducted, such as operations within a two-dimensional pixel or between pixels, collision detection, object creation or composition, or geometry operation. In such an application, when only the main CPU of a computer is employed, a large amount of computing power is required which cannot be obtained by a computer having a single CPU. For example, a rendering process capacity of the order of several hundreds [Mpolygon/sec] and several tens [Gpixel/sec] is frequently required.

It's a VS Patent.

Edit: Several tens of GP/S fillrate.... pffft imagine how fast this thing is going to be...

Another Edit: I bet Pana is going absolutely nuts reading this, a sensory overload for him.
 
oooohhhh... tens of billions of pixels per second sounds a whole lot more like a large leap in fillrate over PS2's GS performance of 2400 Mpixels/sec untextured, 1200 Mpixels/sec textured and filtered, in comparison to the 4 to 8 billion pixels per second estimated for Visualizer from 4 pixel piplines clocked at 1 to 2 Ghz, assuming each VS PE had 1 pixel pipe per Pixel Engine.

sure, with Visualizer, everyone was expecting a lot more work to be done on each pixel, but still, the pixel fillrate (of 4 to 8 Gpixels) did not sound all that impressive concidering that NV40 and R420 are now in that range, in 2004.

several tens of Gpixels sounds 'more like it' 8)


ok lets see. 16 pipelines at 1 GHz would only give us 16 Gpixels. not enough. so we'd need at least around 1.5 Ghz with 16 pipes to get us several (meaning 2) tens of gigapixels. I'm thinking they mean at least 3 to 4 tens of Gpixels. 64 pipes at 1 Ghz sounds nice. or 32 pipes at 2 Ghz. I suppose we can assume now for certain that each Pixel Engine contains more than one pipeline.
 
ok lets see. 16 pipelines at 1 GHz would only give us 16 Gpixels. not enough. so we'd need at least around 1.5 Ghz with 16 pipes to get us several (meaning 2) tens of gigapixels. I'm thinking they mean at least 3 to 4 tens of Gpixels. 64 pipes at 1 Ghz sounds nice. or 32 pipes at 2 Ghz. I suppose we can assume now for certain that each Pixel Engine contains more than one pipeline.

You really expect a 64 pipeline gpu running at 1ghz to actually happen in the next 2 years ?
 
concidering that NV40 and R420 are now in that range, in 2004.
Do you know what exactly is their pixel fillrate?

You really expect a 64 pipeline gpu running at 1ghz to actually happen in the next 2 years ?
Well, frankly, if in year 1998, someone told you that PS2 would have a 16 pipeline GPU, and come out next year or year 2000, would that sound plausible to you? :p
 
NV40 - GeForce 6800 Ultra gets 6400 Mpixels or 6.4 Gpixels @ 400 Mhz

R420 - Radeon X800 XT gets 8400 Mpixels or 8.4 Gpixels @ 525 Mhz

obviously the fillrate changes as core clock goes up or down with the various iterations of R420 and NV40, and even more differences when you have less pipes with the non-XT R420 or the other NV4x chips.
 
Well, frankly, if in year 1998, someone told you that PS2 would have a 16 pipeline GPU, and come out next year or year 2000, would that sound plausible to you? :p

Right but all it was was 16 pipes other cards had many more features .

Are u expecting them to go down the lots of fillrate is better than advanced features built in again ? Then it might be possible. Of course it would have a hard time going up against other tech that has many bandwitdh and fillrate savings built into it alont with many other advance features .


Hopefully sony will come up with something better than supersampling for fsaa .
 
when PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was announced in March 1999 with 16 pipelines, PC graphics card chips had 1 to 2 pipelines. when PS2 was released in March 2000, PC graphics chips had 2 to 4 pipelines. of course the PC chip pipelines were much more feature rich than PS2 GS's pipelines.

by the time PS3 comes out around March 2006 in Japan, PC chips will have at least 32 pipelines. so I'd expect PS3 to have at least 2x the pipelines that PC chips have, and this time, the Sony GPU should be somewhat feature rich. probably comparable to year 02 or 03 PC chips. I mean in hardwired features. of course the PS3 GPU will be programmable so that custom software rendering effects can be done, that cant be done on PC chips. those who know more about PS3 than I, please correct me if I've said something in error.
 
Megadrive1988 said:
when PS2's Graphics Synthesizer was announced in March 1999 with 16 pipelines, PC graphics card chips had 1 to 2 pipelines. when PS2 was released in March 2000, PC graphics chips had 2 to 4 pipelines. of course the PC chip pipelines were much more feature rich than PS2 GS's pipelines.

by the time PS3 comes out around March 2006 in Japan, PC chips will have at least 32 pipelines. so I'd expect PS3 to have at least 2x the pipelines that PC chips have, and this time, the Sony GPU should be somewhat feature rich. probably comparable to year 02 or 03 PC chips. I mean in hardwired features. of course the PS3 GPU will be programmable so that custom software rendering effects can be done, that cant be done on PC chips. those who know more about PS3 than I, please correct me if I've said something in error.


IIRC in Nov. the original GeForce was out. Didn't it have 4 pipes?
 
jvd said:
Right but all it was was 16 pipes other cards had many more features .

Are u expecting them to go down the lots of fillrate is better than advanced features built in again ? Then it might be possible. Of course it would have a hard time going up against other tech that has many bandwitdh and fillrate savings built into it alont with many other advance features

With all due respect, can you stop repeating this argument? I've been repeating this same argument for over two years and it still happens. Tomorrow's hardware, as we're already starting to see with todays, is not going to have "advanced features' and PR friendly hardwired logical constructs in the same way as we did in the late '90s.

Tomorrow's ICs are targeting two major subsets of problems, those with bounds that are arbitrarily high and arbitrarily fluid, like the demand for floating point computation; and those who are bounded by linear or near linear scaling, such as rasterization tasks. The former is 'solved' by having an inordinate percentage of your area devoted to float logic and the latter is solved by your fixed functionality and such set-piece constructs.

The concept of "advanced features" is dying. Everything we know about Cell points to it being well beyond any SM2.0/SM3.0/SM4.0/DXNext or related derivative in regards to flexibility and open-ended computation. You're trivial games of pointing out PS2-esque flaws just won't apply to the extent they did - you're going to need a new argument that makes sence my friend.
 
With all due respect, can you stop repeating this argument? I've been repeating this same argument for over two years and it still happens. Tomorrow's hardware, as we're already starting to see with todays, is not going to have "advanced features' and PR friendly hardwired logical constructs in the same way as we did in the late '90s.
What argument. I was just stating fact. Your the one who has to argue something that doesn't need to be argueed.
 
jvd said:
What argument. I was just stating fact. Your the one who has to argue something that doesn't need to be argueed.

What fact? You're the one talking about this horrid, "lots of fillrate is better than advanced features built in again" argument. The statement is illogical at best, ignorant at worst.

Again, if you wish to talk about Advanced Features perhaps you should be more worried about Microsoft and their DX Shader Models being a limiting aspect? As Dr. Kirk stated, the percentage of a contemporary IC's die devoted to rasterization is ~<5% IIRC. Think about it.
 
Vince said:
jvd said:
What argument. I was just stating fact. Your the one who has to argue something that doesn't need to be argueed.

What fact? You're the one talking about this horrid, "lots of fillrate is better than advanced features built in again" argument. The statement is illogical at best, ignorant at worst.

Again, if you wish to talk about Advanced Features perhaps you should be more worried about Microsoft and their DX Shader Models being a limiting aspect?

The fact is the tnt line and up had more feature rich pipelines than the gs and more features period.

You see fixed function things dieing. I see them being augmented. Sure the cell chip may be able to do everything a radeon 420 can do but do it in software. But how effecient will it be, how fast would it end up being. Is general power worth the cost of fixed function .

You seem to want everything done with software where I want both since sometimes things would be faster done hardwired than through software and other times the perhaps not .

But thats all I'm going to say here. DOn't feel like argueing with you as your views wont ever change but will start to throw insults soon.
 
The fact is the tnt line and up had more feature rich pipelines than the gs and more features period.

You see fixed function things dieing. I see them being augmented. Sure the cell chip may be able to do everything a radeon 420 can do but do it in software. But how effecient will it be, how fast would it end up being. Is general power worth the cost of fixed function.

I thought ATI drop fixed function back in R300. Did they added fixed function back to R420 ?
 
Jaws said:
but could this potentially be the patent relating to the much vaunted PixelEngine in the PS3's GPU aka Visualizer?
Taking a guess based on what I've read so far, this strikes me as an attempt at a fast and compact programmable replacement for conventionally hardwired circuitry (eg. rasterization, filtering, primitive setup etc.).

If I'm right, implications would be interesting - how about a programmable primitive processor? And jvd and co. should jump for joy about idea of having a configurable pixel feature set :p

That said, I don't think this is a patent related to entire Visualizer, just the blackbox parts previously thought as fixed hw yeah. (Then again that may have something to do with me refusing to accept any idea of having multiple ISAs for geometry and fragment computation parts... In my dream world we're still using APUs for all shading ops :p ).
 
These days even patents sound like marketing papers:

complicated processing flow with an extemporaneous and explosive amount of operations

;)

Can we even talk about pipes in that patent? From my impression there are 256 SALC (serial arithmetic logic circuit?) connected together in 8 blocks (each block with it's own bus), but each of them can be accessed individually. The output happens over 32 serial output lines. Is that right?

Fredi
 
This talk about featuresVSfillrate made me think about something. Around the time GS was released, there were anarguably PC GPUs which were more feature rich. Now, how many of those GPUs were able to use any of those features without a hit on performance? We know what the answer is.
Not much different from the performance hit GS takes for implementing features that are not exaclty "hardwired".
At least on PS2, when one doesn't use and of the so called "advanced features", they have all that fillrate to spare, to be used as they wish. On those other GPUs, the resources are allocated already. If you don't use one, you don't get a freebie in fillrate like on GS.
Sony could have supported other blending modes and made life easier to the developers in general, but i think the "principle" was great.

So therefore i think Sony should keep the VS as feature "poor" as possible, only including basic filtering features in hardware and leave the rest to the developers.
All they need to do is make it easy for the developers to use the resources and i don't think any developers will be complaining about hardware features not being there.

Oh, there was another article in the papers today about Cell. More of the same really, same "100x PC power, $1bn chip supercomputer" crap as usual. Not sure why they would publish it today though....
 
Back
Top