Could be more RSX info...

I've always thought the RSX would be something close to a cell-like multi-core processors. Sony has a way about them that always pushing the limits of what's new. the EE in PS2, the Cell, blueray, and the RSX. Most people feel that Sony is simply allowing Nvidia to custom build a GPU based on current GPU tech. However, that goes directly against Sony way of doing things. I also feel that current GPU tech setup can not allow Cell's processing power to be properly tap into.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Looks like they're talking about a patent, that's old news and unlikely to represent RSX IMO.
Click to expand...

Do you really think Sony going to spend time developing their patented GPU design only to place it in the trash to simply put an nearly off the self PC based GPU in their console (something which they ever do before)? Dude, I know your smart an that!
 
Why?

Are most of you put off by RSX possibly being based on Sony's patent? What you think it's to good to be true, too hard to make, to hard to program for - what?
 
Who's put off? I just honestly think you'll find your thread covered in full in that other topic I linked to.
 
xbdestroya said:
Who's put off? I just honestly think you'll find your thread covered in full in that other topic I linked to.
Click to expand...

No, because this has yet to be answered so this discussion can take on many different forms until the facts are public. sometimes it's pipes, sometimes it ram, sometimes it's cores. We are still waiting for facts. So the topic is current and should be discussed.
 
Alright well, I'll say this: Sony doesn't have a way they do things, they have a way they've done things before. Things can always change, so I don't see the idea of a G70 derivative being ruled out simply because it's not 'Sony-like' as being a valid vein of thought.

That said, I agree research and ideas wouldn't just get tossed, but that's not the same as saying you're *going* to make the old ideas work with the new ones, just out of some sort of weird neurosis that the old ideas absolutely must be put to work.

I myself would love to see this Cell/SPE/GPU hybrid come true - I just like anything daring and novel. But I'm not expecting it or holding out hope, because there's just no evidence to support it's existence at this time.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy. If I'm right, I'm not dissapointed. The theory is valid, but the indicators lead nowhere right now.
 
Patents ARE NOT neccessarily real world technologies in development. They are ideas. They may be ideas being used, or be ideas being patented to stop other people using them even when you've no intention of using them yourself. The fact that there's a patent on this idea does not mean any silicon or research time was given over to evaluating it at all. It could be that some engineers got together, said to themselves 'here's an idea for a different take on the GPU' and the big corporation files it just for the sake of having another patent, just incase it proves useful. IBM (I heard from a friend who worked there years back) has a whole department for taking employees ideas and patenting them, just to get IP, without ever really considering if what they're patenting is of any worth to them as a company.

Do you really think Sony going to spend time developing their patented GPU design only to place it in the trash to simply put an nearly off the self PC based GPU in their console (something which they ever do before)? Dude, I know your smart an that!
Click to expand...
Even if Sony did build this thing and try it out, they may very well have trashed it and grabbed an off the shelf component if the off the shelf component works better than this design. You don't stick with a design just because you've spent lots on it. At each step of evaluation you determine overall long-term costs to overall long-term gains. Spending $10 million on developing a GPU and scrapping it is smarter if in the long run using an alternative saves you >$10 million, or gains you >$10 million worth of benefits elsewhere.
 
xbdestroya said:
Alright well, I'll say this: Sony doesn't have a way they do things, they have a way they've done things before. Things can always change, so I don't see the idea of a G70 derivative being ruled out simply because it's not 'Sony-like' as being a valid vein of thought.

That said, I agree research and ideas wouldn't just get tossed, but that's not the same as saying you're *going* to make the old ideas work with the new ones, just out of some sort of weird neurosis that the old ideas absolutely must be put to work.

I myself would love to see this Cell/SPE/GPU hybrid come true - I just like anything daring and novel. But I'm not expecting it or holding out hope, because there's just no evidence to support it's existence at this time.

If I'm wrong, I'm happy. If I'm right, I'm not dissapointed. The theory is valid, but the indicators lead nowhere right now.
Click to expand...

Well I would say their is much info available to support RSX being a multi-core GPU and that patent is formost. I recall when STI were making cell that Toshiba wanted cell it be based off of one its core design but IBM countered and introduced their power core which turned out to be a better fit or Cell. Maybe Sony got suck with their core design for a GPU and bought Nvidia in to help build and smarter core design?
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Patents ARE NOT neccessarily real world technologies in development. They are ideas. They may be ideas being used, or be ideas being patented to stop other people using them even when you've no intention of using them yourself. The fact that there's a patent on this idea does not mean any silicon or research time was given over to evaluating it at all. It could be that some engineers got together, said to themselves 'here's an idea for a different take on the GPU' and the big corporation files it just for the sake of having another patent, just incase it proves useful. IBM (I heard from a friend who worked there years back) has a whole department for taking employees ideas and patenting them, just to get IP, without ever really considering if what they're patenting is of any worth to them as a company.


Even if Sony did build this thing and try it out, they may very well have trashed it and grabbed an off the shelf component if the off the shelf component works better than this design. You don't stick with a design just because you've spent lots on it. At each step of evaluation you determine overall long-term costs to overall long-term gains. Spending $10 million on developing a GPU and scrapping it is smarter if in the long run using an alternative saves you >$10 million, or gains you >$10 million worth of benefits elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Shifty Geezer, do you really think Sony RSX is solely based on the G70?
 
leechan25 said:
Well I would say their is much info available to support RSX being a multi-core GPU and that patent is formost. I recall when STI were making cell that Toshiba wanted cell it be based off of one its core design but IBM countered and introduced their power core which turned out to be a better fit or Cell. Maybe Sony got suck with their core design for a GPU and bought Nvidia in to help build and smarter core design?
Click to expand...

But those moves (and patents) are from like four/five years ago. Waaaay before any of this NVidia stuff. And that's nto to say that the NVidia thing was a plan B either *or* to say that they aren't using any of the Cell tech in RSX. But for you to feel so convinced of it based on some patents and discussions from 2001... I mean, don't you think your position lacks evidence here?

Your entire conclusion is based on arguments to the effect of 'Sony is smart enough...'

Smart enough to what?
 
xbdestroya said:
But those moves (and patents) are from like four/five years ago. Waaaay before any of this NVidia stuff. And that's nto to say that the NVidia thing was a plan B either *or* to say that they aren't using any of the Cell tech in RSX. But for you to feel so convinced of it based on some patents and discussions from 2001... I mean, don't you think your position lacks evidence here?

Your entire conclusion is based on arguments to the effect of 'Sony is smart enough...'

Smart enough to what?
Click to expand...

I would say my arguments are based of Sony's Patent. I'm sorry, but I think the patents are strong enough evidence to consider the possibly of this design. We have no data saying Sony change their minds about this patent. it just been assumed. Everyone just dismiss it will they saw that Nvidia was working with Sony. Now should I take everyone's assumption as fact when there's clearly a lack of data supporting Sony gave up on this patent?
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Looks like they're talking about a patent, that's old news and unlikely to represent RSX IMO.
Click to expand...
That's correct, and not only "in your opinion". ;)
 
It seems to me that people who think RSX much have some basis in cell forget why RSX was chosen in the first place.
 
leechan25 said:
I would say my arguments are based of Sony's Patent. I'm sorry, but I think the patents are strong enough evidence to consider the possibly of this design. We have no data saying Sony change their minds about this patent. it just been assumed. Everyone just dismiss it will they saw that Nvidia was working with Sony. Now should I take everyone's assumption as fact when there's clearly a lack of data supporting Sony gave up on this patent?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: Sony has a patent that would tie a blu-ray game to the owners console and their console only.

Do you think that they are going to go with that, even though it's in a patent? I most certainly do not - and I suspect you don't either.

My point is not that all patents are equal, it is simply that their existence does not mean that they are automatically acted on, much as Shifty said.
 
xbdestroya said:
Let me ask you this: Sony has a patent that would tie a blu-ray game to the owners console and their console only.

Do you think that they are going to go with that, even though it's in a patent? I most certainly do not - and I suspect you don't either.

My point is not that all patents are equal, it is simply that their existence does not mean that they are automatically acted on, much as Shifty said.
Click to expand...


Look, the same point can be made about cell. It is not exacting designed to the specs of their patents becuase we know cell been improved upon . however, the patent are foundations to consider when developing future applications. You all know that! Sure every patent won't produce something or be developed but where can you point to stating that Sony patent was dropped for a completely Nvidia based GPU design? Or as that been assumed so long that it's view at closer to fact as Vyser stated? Nobody has harder evidence than the patent and stated specs of the GPU. That's we got right now. Only those under NDA have more than that. So what your info better than mine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Clarkdale IGP benchmark
2 3
Replies
40
Views
18K
Simon F
Simon F
B
PS3 OS/Interface
16 17 18
Replies
340
Views
52K
mckmas8808
M
J
Itagaki interview: Talks about PS3 / XBOX 360 / DOAX2 etc
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
cthellis42
C
Back
Top