CONFIRMED: PS3 to use "Nvidia-based Graphics processor&

[wco81]

What does ATI do in India?

Anyways, this sounds like a case where the subsidiary has a loose cannon saying things which headquarters would never have approved.

 

[Dave Baumann]

What does ATI do in India?

Sells graphics cards. Plus, they have just bought a company of about 100 developers or so for their DTV / Consumer divisions.

 

[crystalcube]

What does ATI do in India?

Anyways, this sounds like a case where the subsidiary has a loose cannon saying things which headquarters would never have approved.

Reading the article actually suggests that nvda started it there by sending mailers to media and channel partners about some flaws in ATI chipsets. But wouldn't surprise me if HQ have never approved the statements. Are all statements approved by HQ even at zone/country level ?

 

[Mythos]

computerandvideogames.com is claiming that Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed at Silicon Valley conference that the graphic part Nvidia is working on is to be 50x more powerful than PS2 counterpart...

"... further details about just how powerful the chip will be have emerged.

Speaking at a Silicon Valley press conference, nVidia president Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed that the company has already been working on the chip for an extended time and suggested that it would be in the region of 50 times more powerful than the PS2's graphics chip.

This was backed up by nVidia's executive vice president of marketing Dan Vivoli in comments made to the San Jose Mercury. ``This chip is going to be far more powerful than anything we've done before," he said, before reinforcing that work has been in progress for around 18 months.

nVidia have years of experience producing advanced graphics chips for PC gaming. While the PS3 chip will incorporate many elements of nVidia's next-generation PC graphics technology, it is being designed as a standalone unit and is not based on existing PC architecture.

nVidia's previously developed the GPU (graphical processing unit) for Microsoft's Xbox. Despite rivals ATI securing the contract to develop the GPUs for Xbox 2 and Nintendo's next-gen console (catch up here) the PS3 contract could be hugely lucrative for nVidia as their technology will also be used in Sony's consumer electronics devices like DVD players and digital TVs..."

 

[GwymWeepa]

computerandvideogames.com is claiming that Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed at Silicon Valley conference that the graphic part Nvidia is working on is to be 50x more powerful than PS2 counterpart...

"... further details about just how powerful the chip will be have emerged.

Speaking at a Silicon Valley press conference, nVidia president Jen-Hsun Huang confirmed that the company has already been working on the chip for an extended time and suggested that it would be in the region of 50 times more powerful than the PS2's graphics chip.

This was backed up by nVidia's executive vice president of marketing Dan Vivoli in comments made to the San Jose Mercury. ``This chip is going to be far more powerful than anything we've done before," he said, before reinforcing that work has been in progress for around 18 months.

nVidia have years of experience producing advanced graphics chips for PC gaming. While the PS3 chip will incorporate many elements of nVidia's next-generation PC graphics technology, it is being designed as a standalone unit and is not based on existing PC architecture.

nVidia's previously developed the GPU (graphical processing unit) for Microsoft's Xbox. Despite rivals ATI securing the contract to develop the GPUs for Xbox 2 and Nintendo's next-gen console (catch up here) the PS3 contract could be hugely lucrative for nVidia as their technology will also be used in Sony's consumer electronics devices like DVD players and digital TVs..."

*tries to imagine the best ps2 games x50* Hmm, no sir I can't do it.

 

[wco81]

So if you had to quantify it, what is the performance delta between the state of the art PC GPU and the PS2 currently?

 

[Fox5]

Eh? Some crappy software based solutions have up to a 50% performance hit on modern cpus, and they're not even doing dolby digital encoding.

So you're actually saying that a software sound solution, that does not AC-3 encoding or the like, could eat up 50% of Modern CPU cycle?
I disagree, Fox5, I really do.

BTW read Dave's reply, if you don't believe me.

For 50% I'm assuming it is fully and extensively utilizing the latest version of EAX. And as far as modern goes, that could be anywhere from a 2ghz P4 to an FX-55. 50% drop may be due to poor implementation of EAX though, I think BF:Vietnam has an unreasonable performance hit for EAX even with creative cards.

So if you had to quantify it, what is the performance delta between the state of the art PC GPU and the PS2 currently?

I'd say that's at least 10x, but a 10x in the same way that dreamcast was 10x as powerful as the n64.(I don't think anyone would disagree that it was much more than 10x as powerful)
And I think xbox(or maybe only gamecube) is about 4x as powerful as dreamcast.

 

[Vince]

on an architectural level, where's the difference between an APU and the NV40 ALU's?

the number of them for starters.

Ok, not the answer I was looking for, but of what concern is it which dimensional axis the computation lies? If in timeframe t, the units are capable of processing N calulations, who cares it it's temporal or spatial? It shifts in favor of ISSCC Cell when you factor in clock speed and bandwith, doesn't it?

Now, what's the 'rest' that you appearently were incapable of posting and instead had to turn to posting just a single sentence that we all knew and had moved away from...

 

[Megadrive1988]

yeah, I'd agree that Dreamcast was at least 10x the performance of Nintendo64. in some ways, 20x.

N64: 160,000 polys/sec vs DC: 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 polys/sec


Gamecube and Xbox are roughly 4x the performance of Dreamcast. more or less.

 

[Fox5]

yeah, I'd agree that Dreamcast was at least 10x the performance of Nintendo64. in some ways, 20x.

N64: 160,000 polys/sec vs DC: 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 polys/sec


Gamecube and Xbox are roughly 4x the performance of Dreamcast. more or less.

Well, if we were to talk peak numbers ever achieved on n64 or dc I believe the n64 achieved up to 500,000 in a tech demo(possibly 1 million, or at least I found a nintendo press release bragging about it), and dc around 10 million.
Highest in a game I think would be 350,000 versus 5 million, or at least I'm guessing some of n64s better games made that much and trusting that test drive le mans made the 5 million number. Soul calibur was under a million, and many people consider that one of the dc's best looking games.(I don't though, artistically I suppose it is but it never looked to me to be pushing the system hard)

 

[Megadrive1988]

I don't think any Nintendo 64 game ever reached anywhere near 350,000 polygons/sec that's more like Sega Model 2 or 3DO M2 territory. if you're talking about texture mapped polygons. I personally think all N64 games were well below the 200,000 mark, with textures and effects. unless you are talking flat shaded polys with little or no features.


N64's peak transform figures are between 500,000 and 1,000,000. which compares to PS1's 500,000. Dreamcast's SH-4 is between 10,000,000 and 20,000,000. PS2's EE is between 66,000,000 and 100,000,000 something.

 

[Farid]

N64's peak transform figures are between 500,000 and 1,000,000. which compares to PS1's 500,000. Dreamcast's SH-4 is between 10,000,000 and 20,000,000. PS2's EE is between 66,000,000 and 100,000,000 something.

That's completly OT, but ERP, recently repeated this:

I've said this on here before.

Using the original Fast3D graphics code you' be lucky to hit 100K polygons on an N64.

Using the Turbo3D code you'd get about 500-600K PS1 quality polygons (Nintendo never allowed this uCode in a shipping game).

If you are looking at pure transform rate it was possible to do sugnificantly more than that. However the uCode was also responsible for triangle setup, and that always dwarfed the transform time.

The last couple of N64 games I worked on used custom uCode, which distributed the work between the processor and the RSP somewhat differently than any of the SGI uCode, and would pretty easilly push >100K on screen polygons.

 

[Fred]

Im more interested in how much this PS3 is going to cost, and if Sony is adept enough to front huge losses on hardware. Everyone knows Nvidia likes to mantain constant revenue, so we'll see how the price war plays out.

 

[London Geezer]

ARGH!!! We finally got this thread to go down, and up here it is again!!

 

[Guden Oden]

You sound like an adolescent, talking about his you-know-what, lol!

 

[Xenus]

I've got a question.

Could the Geforce 6200 TC as The Inq is calling it be a sign of things to come. A gpu with embeded memory and a fast connection sharing ram from on main memory pool. With the Redwood interface and even faster main memory could this be part of what Nvidia adds to the PS3. :?

 

[overclocked]

I've got a question.

Could the Geforce 6200 TC as The Inq is calling it be a sign of things to come. A gpu with embeded memory and a fast connection sharing ram from on main memory pool. With the Redwood interface and even faster main memory could this be part of what Nvidia adds to the PS3.

That´s a lowend gpu this gen(nV44).
The GPU that will be in the PS3 will be a custom HIGH-end NextGen GPU from nVidia.

 

[Xenus]

Just because it is low end now doesn't mean it wonn't be highend later. New techs are usually tested on the low-end and you could add a lot more eram for the high end. 8)

 

[Dave Baumann]

I'm not entirely convinced there is any eDRAM in there, or even much of a cache.

 

[Xenus]

Okay so if it is true take this with a grain of salt would it be a trend for the future and quite reasonable for the PS3. :?