Developers Discontent With PS3 Development Tools

[Powderkeg]

'Cell based GPU,' in my opinion, is a real-world attempt at trying to implement the 'visualizer' patent. And it means that Sony intended to use a derivative Cell design - co-developed with Toshiba - as the basis of the GPU in the PS3. A successor to the GS, and yes with rasterization capabilities.

Well, that was pretty much announced on day 1 when they said Cell would be used for a variety of home consumer products by both Toshiba and Sony.

Unless you can tell me precisely what products Toshiba makes that they would sell to consumers which would use Cell yet not have a display.





Here, from 2003:

The Cell Chip Set is composed of the Cell processor, a Super Companion Chip—the interface between Cell and external audio/visual input/output equipment—and a power supply system chip optimized to drive the Cell microprocessor.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_09/pr2001.htm


Would you count that as your "Cell based GPU".

 

[Carl B]

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_09/pr2001.htm


Would you count that as your "Cell based GPU".

No, I would call that Toshiba's 'Super Companion Chip,' which they recently revealed by the way. (In August)

Like I said, the Cell GPU is 'The Visualizer.' Look up the patent.

 

[Titanio]

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_09/pr2001.htm


Would you count that as your "Cell based GPU".

AFAIK, that's just a IO chip, which does little or no processing of its own? Can't be sure, but that was the impression I got.

I'm sure there probably was a Cell-based GPU in development, but ultimately that says nothing about other parts. It's not uncommon, for example, for a company to persue multiple options to a certain point before choosing one. I'd say that's probably what happened with Sony and PS3. They weren't quite sure which they wanted from the start, and put themselves in a position from fairly early on so that they could make a choice.

 

[Edge]

> "@Edge: I guess you can help point it out to me in that doc as well!"

I refuse to even look at the doc.

 

[Mmmkay]

First tell me the precise difference between a "Cell based GPU" and Cell designed to render graphics.

Hang on a minute, this isn't even my argument. I only stepped in because you called xbdestroya out on something which didn't remotely disprove his claim. Just posting a link to the CELL announcement was way too vague and that was my only beef.

Super Companion Chip: Cell's peripheral LSI, which houses audio and image interfaces supporting Cell's super high-speed data transfer capability. The chip also supports a group of interfaces for various systems (video, audio input/output, digital AV interface, IEEE1394, digital tuner interface) and a group of interfaces that make it easier to connect standard input/output devices (standard bus interface, high speed network interface and storage device interface.)

The SCC appears to be a special Southbridge with FlexIO. Looking at the PS3 architecture it could technically still be part of it. Or at least something sounding a lot like what the SCC does needs to be there.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

First tell me the precise difference between a "Cell based GPU" and Cell designed to render graphics.

Sorry, but that's crazy talk. That's like saying when AMD announced development of a 64 bit processor, they were also thinking of an AMD based graphics processor. What has development of a new CPU got to do with development of a new GPU?

I think you're confusing the patents and forum talk with promises of a Cell based GPU for PS3. Sony never announced any graphics solution for PS3 other than nVidia's. Prior to then by accounts they were evaluating several possible solutions, and chose the one that worked best for them. Sounds more to me like smart management than a terrible blunder followed by a shameful admission half-disguised with fancy words.

 

[c0_re]

Sorry, but that's crazy talk. That's like saying when AMD announced development of a 64 bit processor, they were also thinking of an AMD based graphics processor. What has development of a new CPU got to do with development of a new GPU?

I think you're confusing the patents and forum talk with promises of a Cell based GPU for PS3. Sony never announced any graphics solution for PS3 other than nVidia's. Prior to then by accounts they were evaluating several possible solutions, and chose the one that worked best for them. Sounds more to me like smart management than a terrible blunder followed by a shameful admission half-disguised with fancy words.

Exaclty putting the RSX inot the PS3 was the smartest thing ever did, imagine how much developers would be complaining if it didn't have a GPU as most poeple recognise them.

 

[fireshot]

Search any populated game community, you are bound to come across topics about Patents, Graphics Visualiser, Reyes and all the shit.

They sounded so real, must have left a scar in scooby and powderkeg.

In reality, Cell gpu was a byproduct of wishful thinking by annoying fans, or sony marketing people posing as fans.
RSX is a good but painful lesson in reality.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why do people like to make Sony look like they don't know what they are doing? They did it this gen too. Why do people always say that $ony R teh liars!!11?? When most of the time it's the internet folks that are actually saying most of the stuff for Sony.

 

[_phil_]

Why do people like to make Sony look like they don't know what they are doing? They did it this gen too. Why do people always say that $ony R teh liars!!11?? When most of the time it's the internet folks that are actually saying most of the stuff for Sony.

Mostly by cognitive dissonance caused by too much media spooned-fed overmixed up approximation of reality ?

 

[Edge]

> "Why do people like to make Sony look like they don't know what they are doing? They did it this gen too. Why do people always say that $ony R teh liars!!11?? When most of the time it's the internet folks that are actually saying most of the stuff for Sony."

Don't pay too much attention to those people. If these people were so caught up in ethics, they certainly would not be buying anything from MS, the company found guilty in court of illegal business practices.

Too me, I don't really care what internet people, or the marketing droids of each company says. It's the GAMES:GAMES:GAMES.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Not sure it's been posted yet.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/27/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/?cnn=yes

Yes, I went back in time and posted that article in 2003. Just more lies from Sony.

Well, that article tells us that as of Sep 2003, nVidia was not working with Sony on a GPU for the PS3 and at that time the possibility of them doing so was put at less than 50%.

 

[Edge]

> "It would certainly stand to reason that both 360 and Revolution will have far more customized GPUs from ATI then Sony will have for the PS3, correct?"

1) You don't know the level of customization.

2) More customization does not mean a more powerful GPU.

That would be like me claiming CELL is superior to X360 CPU, simply because it's a more customized part. I would not do that.

 

[Carl B]

Well, that article tells us that as of Sep 2003, nVidia was not working with Sony on a GPU for the PS3 and at that time the possibility of them doing so was put at less than 50%.

Yes, but in the end it obviously turned out to be 100%

 

[Powderkeg]

Sorry, but that's crazy talk. That's like saying when AMD announced development of a 64 bit processor, they were also thinking of an AMD based graphics processor. What has development of a new CPU got to do with development of a new GPU?

A "Cell based GPU" would still be Cell, correct? Only modified for graphics, correct?

So, Toshiba's version of the Cell processor that made to display graphics specifically would be a "Cell based GPU." Correct? And Toshiba announced their plans for that pretty much on day 1.

I think you're confusing the patents and forum talk with promises of a Cell based GPU for PS3. Sony never announced any graphics solution for PS3 other than nVidia's. Prior to then by accounts they were evaluating several possible solutions, and chose the one that worked best for them. Sounds more to me like smart management than a terrible blunder followed by a shameful admission half-disguised with fancy words.

And you think I'm confused?

I do believe it was TOSHIBA's "Cell based GPU" that we were discussing, not Sony's.

 

[Carl B]

A "Cell based GPU" would still be Cell, correct? Only modified for graphics, correct?

So, Toshiba's version of the Cell processor that made to display graphics specifically would be a "Cell based GPU." Correct? And Toshiba announced their plans for that pretty much on day 1.

And you think I'm confused?

I do believe it was TOSHIBA's "Cell based GPU" that we were discussing, not Sony's.

Powderkeg nobody agrees with you - get over it. Even if what you're saying makes sense in your own world, it's not at all what any of the rest of us have been talking about. The Cell GPU != Cell. Did you look up that Visualizer patent yet?

 

[Powderkeg]

Powderkeg nobody agrees with you - get over it. Even if what you're saying makes sense in your own world, it's not at all what any of the rest of us have been talking about. The Cell GPU != Cell.

Then what precisely is a "Cell based GPU"?

Don't tell me I'm wrong if you cannot tell me what right is.

Did you look up that Visualizer patent yet?

You mean the Sony's patent?

How would that apply to the "Toshiba based GPU" which you said was only a rumor, despite them having stated that their reason for being involved in Cell was to produce a processor for their multimedia systems, which includes graphics rendering?




Look, here is what I can show.

Toshiba did have a "Cell based GPU" in the works in early 2003. It was a publically announced product. So, it is quite possible that Sony was indeed working with Toshiba on a "Cell based GPU" for the PS3 at that time.

Prior to mid-2003 Nvidia's expenses and earnings had been fairly constant for 2 years. They had increased sales which resulted in increased earnings, but there was no extra income, nor extra expenses beyond the norm during that period.

About mid-2003, Nvidia had a sudden increase of $24 million with no additional sales or investments to explain the income. The quarter immediately following that they increased their R&D spending by $17 million.

Now, does that prove anything? No.

But it certainly does add a lot of circumstantial evidence to the theory that Sony was working with Toshiba for a "Cell based GPU" up until mid-2003, and then went to Nvidia for a GPU after that.

Notice that at no time have I made any definative claims. I am only pointing out that the evidence that we have does indicate that this is the most likely case.

 

[Carl B]

Powderkeg - stop the madness.

It's out of control. Did you read the patent or did you not? THAT's what people were expecting from a 'Cell-based' GPU; Toshiba, Sony - doesn't matter who. The rumors were always for a joint effort anyway, rather than Toshiba doing the majority of the work. As for the 'Super Companion Chip,' just tell me in your own words - would you qualify that chip as a GPU? Because I can tell you that I wouldn't, and neither would most people.

 

[Powderkeg]

Powderkeg - stop the madness.

It's out of control. Did you read the patent or did you not? THAT's what people were expecting from a 'Cell-based' GPU; Toshiba, Sony - doesn't matter who. The rumors were always for a joint effort anyway, rather than Toshiba doing the majority of the work.

And I don't have debates based on rumor.

I stick to what is known, or what can be found out. What is known is that Toshiba did have a product that fit the needs at the time, and soon after the deal was made with Nvidia.

What is also known is that no matter how you look at it, the PS3 was planned since 1999, but Nvidia didn't get involved until sometime in 2003-2004, which means for the first 4-5 years of development, an Nvidia GPU was NOT part of the plan.

As for the 'Super Companion Chip,' just tell me in your own words - would you qualify that chip as a GPU? Because I can tell you that I wouldn't, and neither would most people.

It's capable of real-time 3D rendering. That's a GPU in my book. Graphics Processing Unit. It processes graphics, so it's a GPU.

If you have a different definition, I rather suspect it's custom tailored specifically so you don't look like you are wrong here.

 

[Carl B]

And I don't have debates based on rumor.

I stick to what is known, or what can be found out. What is known is that Toshiba did have a product that fit the needs at the time, and soon after the deal was made with Nvidia.

What is also known is that no matter how you look at it, the PS3 was planned since 1999, but Nvidia didn't get involved until sometime in 2003-2004, which means for the first 4-5 years of development, an Nvidia GPU was NOT part of the plan.

It's capable of real-time 3D rendering. That's a GPU in my book. Graphics Processing Unit. It processes graphics, so it's a GPU.

If you have a different definition, I rather suspect it's custom tailored specifically so you don't look like you are wrong here.

Dude, the SCC is just a cool I/O chip. Please come to terms. Find me one place after it's unveiling recently where it's refered to as a GPU.

And Powderkeg you obviously have debates based on rumors, else why are you in this thread?