Charlie: Nvidia out of the race for Next-Gen consoles

[spacemonkey]

An interesting thread on this subject at RWT

http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=96100&threadid=96100&roomid=2

Linus seems to think that you could achieve PS3 backward compatibility by emulation via a JIT engine.

IMHO the library of good PS3 games is tiny, so fortunately (or unfortunately) backward compatibility won't be as big a deal as it was with PS2.

 

[Ailuros]

Since Charlie wants to speculate out of the blue I'll stick my head out this time and say that my crystal ball says that Nintendo has a handheld deal with NV as well as SONY has a handheld deal with IMG for their next generation handhelds. Furthermore I'd be very and I mean VERY suprised if LRB would make it into either a SONY or Microsoft future console and that for a good reason.

I can give you at least 3 links hinting on SONY having a deal with IMG for the future PSP2 and there was not a single comment/reaction for it from either sides. Only IMG announcend an unnamed partner for a new deal, since as a public company they have to announce according to law their business moves.

The reaction from SONY's side was too quick and too radical for my taste and the rumours that circulate behind the curtains confirm that there's nothing alive to it, since any negotiations apparently failed.

Further to that if NV is supposedly out of any equasion I'd like someone to bother to explain where the hypothetical Nintendo handheld deal came from. It isn't hypothetical to me anymore since I heard it a couple of months ago from someone that doesn't have to do with either/or company and he's more than just reliable.

If you're really looking for a point to start any possible speculations, a good start would be what kind of performance a manufacturer like SONY would yield for. If you can yield a rough estimate the next best challenge is with how much power consumption each IHV could yield performance ratio X for timeframe Y.

Intel has released power consumption rates per core and it doesn't look to me either that they'll kill their chipset department either or stop licensing IP for small form factor devices either in the foreseeable future in order to scale down LRB for those.

My 2 speculative cents gentlemen.

 

[catisfit]

IMHO the library of good PS3 games is tiny, so fortunately (or unfortunately) backward compatibility won't be as big a deal as it was with PS2.

Yeah, there's no chance that there will be a "good" game released in the next x years that people might want to play on a BC PS4

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So it would be natural for them to plan PS4 as a PS3-compatible machine.

While it may seem natural to us that Sony would plan for PS3 compatibility in PS4 there's no guarantee and past practices aren't encouraging.

No PS is truly backwards compatible. PS1 compatibility is/was still done with dedicated hardware in both PS2 and PS3. Apparently it's now down in software emulation.

Although we can hope that Sony learned its lesson from PS3 that you cannot always rely on previous components for past machines becoming cheap enough that it's easy to include the hardware for it in new machines.

Regards,
SB

 

[eastmen]

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD got a cpu and a gpu in the next xbox. I'm sure amd would love another round of royalitys.

Quad core phenom 3 ?

 

[IdaGno]

I'm sorry, but debating console HW is like debating wooden vs aluminum crutches. It's all crippleware, no matter how ya slice it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I'm sorry, but debating console HW is like debating wooden vs aluminum crutches. It's all crippleware, no matter how ya slice it.

That's just not something I can really agree with. Sure the hardware stays static for multiple years but that's the whole beauty of a console.

It's a static target to develope for that you know will be around for a long time (assuming the console does well).

So any investment you make into that console generation will last you quite a while.

Compare that to past advances in computer technology and hardware that can change radically in the space of 2 years and you end up with something like...

Crysis. Which I'm going to guess was coded with the assumption that computer technology would continue at the pace it was going when Far Cry was popular. Unfortunately, CPU gains were mostly modest compared to speed gains leading up to Far Cry. GPUs had a bit of a roller coaster but that probably stayed about on track with performnce boosts in the past (with the exception of R600).

And end result is a game that was incredibly CPU bound for a long time (and still is to an extent).

Compare that to planning for a game on console that is slated to be in developement for 2-4 years and it's nice not to have to take a stab in the dark as to how powerful and capable your target platform is going to be.

The flip side of that is that, well, you're stuck with the same hardware for multiple years. And PCs will continue (in general) to get more powerful and more capable. However trying to plan a game 2-4 years out for a moving target is a huge gamble... Do you play it safe or do you try to be cutting edge?

It's no wonder game devs flock to consoles.

And as for player experience. Well, in general (not always) you can always rely on a relatively smooth gaming experience with visuals always at the max. Well considering you have no choice in the matter.

Regards,
SB

 

[Ailuros]

And as for player experience. Well, in general (not always) you can always rely on a relatively smooth gaming experience with visuals always at the max. Well considering you have no choice in the matter.

I wouldn't mind better texture filtering on consoles in general, while MSAA could be somewhat of a moot point considering how large LCD TVs are today and their according resolutions. I tried playing the other day on a 47" 1080p TV; let's just say that at my age there's not much hair to pull out

 

[DegustatoR]

Although we can hope that Sony learned its lesson from PS3 that you cannot always rely on previous components for past machines becoming cheap enough that it's easy to include the hardware for it in new machines.

That's why the smarter way is to be binary compatible (like Wii with NGC for example) or to have some kind of broad h/w-assisted emulation.
Here's another thought: maybe they should try to map Cell's 1PPE+7SPE on homogenous many-PPE CPU in PS4? Is it doable via some kind of SIMD extensions to PPE cores if this CPU will have 8+ of them? This way they would escape the strangeness of Cell+modern_GPU scheme and have a somewhat solid b/w compatibility with PS3.
As for GPU -- i do believe that it may be anything right now. LRB is DX10+ compatible and that means that it's compatible with RSX already. The main problem with GS was that GS is completely proprietary GPU which isn't DX/OGL-compatible at all. With RSX it's different. Sony may well go the same way MS went with NV2A->Xenos transition.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

As for GPU -- i do believe that it may be anything right now. LRB is DX10+ compatible and that means that it's compatible with RSX already. The main problem with GS was that GS is completely proprietary GPU which isn't DX/OGL-compatible at all. With RSX it's different. Sony may well go the same way MS went with NV2A->Xenos transition.

The question then becomes, does RSX use Nvidia specific hardware calls similar to Nv2a in XBOX. And if so, do they retain the rights to it, thus maintaining the legal right to block any compatibility mode that must translate those calls to whatever new GPU would be used.

Or does PS3 just use generic OpenGL calls only and no RSX Nvidia specific calls? Or some other graphics layer not reliant on such?

Regards,
SB

 

[Panajev2001a]

The question then becomes, does RSX use Nvidia specific hardware calls similar to Nv2a in XBOX. And if so, do they retain the rights to it, thus maintaining the legal right to block any compatibility mode that must translate those calls to whatever new GPU would be used.

Or does PS3 just use generic OpenGL calls only and no RSX Nvidia specific calls? Or some other graphics layer not reliant on such?

Regards,
SB

I think Sony licensed all the rights needed as far as RSX is concerned... and it was late but nVIDIA ended up licensing NV2A's IP to MS not long before the Xbox 360 launched.

 

[DegustatoR]

Microsoft has an agreement with NV about Xbox emulation, i don't see why Sony can't reach the same agreement. Plus Sony licensed IP from NV (unlike MS who simply bought GPUs from NV for Xbox) and this license may well cover all future use of this IP.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's the whole point though. In a market segment that relies heavily on price to attract customers every added cost is a burden.

MS made adjustments to move away from this with X360 by making deals to own as much of the IP as they could for hardware that cannot be obtained from multiple vendors. Nvidia on the other hand will most likely continue to have to license from Nvidia with PS4 similar to how MS has to with X360.

Moving on to whatever the next XBOX will be, MS will be free and clear of licensing deals for backwards compatibility unless they continue to support XBOX on whatever the next one is.

That would already potentially give them a leg up in cost of production/margins/ability to adjust end user prices.

Although I'm sure if Sony continued to use an Nvidia GPU, the licensing would be cheaper/included in whatever the new deal would be, so it may not be an issue unless they decide to use someone else.

Regards,
SB

 

[DegustatoR]

SB, you're missing the main point: Sony has a license on RSX, that may cover all future emulation needs already. Sony always worked the way MS is now working with X360 -- they license all the external tech and produce it themselves. Essentially, RSX is Sony's tech now.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

SB, you're missing the main point: Sony has a license on RSX, that may cover all future emulation needs already. Sony always worked the way MS is now working with X360 -- they license all the external tech and produce it themselves. Essentially, RSX is Sony's tech now.

It's not quite the same. MS outright owns the design and/or IP for the X360 GPU. Sony licenses it's use and must periodically renew that license.

How much of a factor that is, we'll never know as I'm sure they won't be publicly disclosing it. Just like we'll never know quite how much MS has to continue to pay Nvidia to license the tech for backwards compatibility for XBOX games.

Regards,
SB

 

[LunchBox]

IMHO

I thought that the reason why Nvidia seem to not be in any news regarding game consoles is because it's too busy courting Apple.

I don't think Nintendo will ever use a Nvidia product be it on a console or in a handheld.

 

[Squilliam]

Just to throw a spanner in the works here. Is there any reason why Sony would have any problems getting their chips from ATI instead of Nvidia or Intel? All three console manufacturers sourced their processors from IBM this generation and I don't see any problem with them all going to the same GPU manufacturer as well.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I think it's always a possibility. We've seen MS shift from nVidia to ATI last gen. And ATI has more console experience than nVidia. I think it's in all three big Console maker's interest to explore relationships with Intel, IBM, nVidia and AMD/ATI to ensure they have options.

 

[Blazkowicz]

That's why the smarter way is to be binary compatible (like Wii with NGC for example) or to have some kind of broad h/w-assisted emulation.
Here's another thought: maybe they should try to map Cell's 1PPE+7SPE on homogenous many-PPE CPU in PS4? Is it doable via some kind of SIMD extensions to PPE cores if this CPU will have 8+ of them? This way they would escape the strangeness of Cell+modern_GPU scheme and have a somewhat solid b/w compatibility with PS3.

the whole point of SPEs is their local storage and the bus ring, bandwith might be a problem. you might end up making hybrid PPE/SPE cores if that's possible at all given the different instruction sets.

Another way could be, 8 new PPE cores with 7 SPE for legacy.