Shifty said:
I wasn't caricaturing Xenos fans
Dictionary.com said:
To represent or imitate in an exaggerated, distorted manner.
Shifty said:
You took what he said, exaggerated it to the 10th degree, set up a straw man position to contrast it, and limited the "arguement" to these two positions when infact the initial question to start this thread is as much in tune with your "Jawed parody" was ignored.
Shifty said:
The argument here is..[followed by Xenos Rules vs. Moderate Position]
That may be your position and point of view of the debate, but that is not the theme of the thread and only represents 2 of a number of positions presented. And honestly, your assessment of the arguement is grossly exaggerated.
As for Jawed's "bad" comments"
Jawed said:
It's simple: RSX is NV40 with some tweaks (symmetrical ALUs in each fragment pipe being the most obvious) and running faster on 90nm. Started back in 2002.
Xenos was started back in 2002 as well, but is about 2 NVidia generations ahead. NVidia won't have anything this advanced until after G80. Call it G90, if you like - 2007.
Put in the "performance vs. features ["advanced"]" framework this seems to be a decent summary (with guestimation of G80/G90 from NV's own words) of the ATI and NV roadmaps. You are right it could use more fleshing out and explaination, but I am not reading the "2 generations ahead in power".
G80 wont be a USA based on what David Kirk has said, and likewise we should not expect MSAA with FP16 blending either if his comments in this regards are to be taken as a summary of their development strategy. Further, it has appeared from things NV has said that the financial investment in G70 is aimed at the payoff in 2006.
NV themselves has said they feel the current architecture has more legs on it and it is not time, in their opinion, for a new architecture. So I can understand where Jawed gets his summary from.
The stipulations I would add (and Jawed's comments were short and RSX focused, not a commentary on the complete preview of future technologies) is that 1. an existing architecture may kick butt in performance and may not require a new architecture (the contrast in ATIs and NVs positions) and 2. "advanced" can be a relative term. It depends what you are comparing. e.g. Jawed has suggested in the GPU forums that R520 is a hybrid, part R600, part
On a side note: JH from NV is pretty famous (or infamous, depending on where you are from!) in regards to his comments about R420, specifically how it was an "3 year old" architecture compared to NV40.
JH: "all consumers want to have the next gen architecture, not a three year old one".
Architecturally he is correct to a degree. Obviously R420 was a progression of R300, but not a lot, fundamentally, was changed to the archtecture.
The result? NV40 (which I own BTW) had more features. SM3.0, Geometry Instancing (
R300 has this but not exposed in the API), FP16 blending, etc.
So yes, it is a more advanced architecture. It also has more features (partly because of this). Yet R420 was competitive. With that perspective I see nothing wrong with what Jawed said. Architecture and Performance are, as Dave would say, orthogonal!! On the reverse Jawed has noted that the table has been turned. NV is now progressing and advancing an older architecture while ATI is presenting a totally new one. The difference of course is Xenos is a completely new way of dealing with issues. If you read Dave's Xenos article it becomes pretty clear that Xenos is the most "exciting" thing to happen to GPUs since programmable shaders.
Architecturally Xenos is the most advanced GPU we have seen. G80 will obviously perform better and will have obviously have advances as well that will increase performance effeciency AND features. I would expect a Fall 2006 G80 to have a lot of the same DX10 features (and then some).
I made the same mocking of Cell fans if you didn't notice.
That is neither here nor there. Yes people troll CELL/Xenon threads as well, but we are not dealing directly with that issue. The difference is that those comments were not directed toward any specific ideas/people in this thread (your parody was) and you made sure to qualify your CELL comments.
whereas a sweeping generational claim implies two generations worth of performance.
We already covered the "architectural generation" != "performance generation" earlier in the thread. I don't see how it is fair to come back to that same arguement when that is not what is being said. You can choose to ignore that but it does not aid discussion.
The only one implying that Xenos will be faster than anything NV has until G90 is you.
That's why I mocked both Xenos claims of sweeping superiority
Which is ironic because
1. The thread started off with the assumption that "
PS3 should be at least one step ahead of the 360" because NV is ahead in GPU technology and
2. The counterpoints defending Xenos were a.) primarily in architecture and how it was not "behind" as claimed and b.) no one has claimed it is 15 years more advanced than NV technology or NV tech wont surpass Xenos until G90
3. I don't see much mockery of the RSX superiority assumption
4. You admitt to
mocking!
I think we would agree that Xenos is more advanced architecturally than G70, the payoff in performance is an uknown (but conjectured to be on the positive side compared to existing
ATI hardware for numerous obvious reasons); Xenos has more features than
G70 (FP10/16 with MSAA, geometry tesselation, etc I had a long list earlier in the thread; as I noted then we cannot say for certain in regards to RSX, that is why I keep saying G70); each architecture will have situations where it has relative strengths; the GPUs are part of a complete closed system and will be treated as such; ultimately it is how developers use the hardware and how willing they are to expose and maximize the hardware features (history says with porting being so important to the industry that this is rarer than we like to think); and that it is a sensative issue where people misunderstand eachother, read into what they are saying, and
I do appreciate you have taken up my party line though
No where in the thread did I say "Xenos pwns RSX in performance!" or even hinted that direction. I consider them a "class" of hardware with archtectural benefits that can be minimized or exploited to a certain degree. Why? It is really pointless in regards to the end product => Console Games. If I can defend NV30--a really messed up chip on many levels--within a hypothetical console environment like I did earlier in the thread, I think I can find room to appreciate RSX (a MUCH more capable chip relatively) in a console. RSX, IMO, is the biggest strength in the PS3. Not only because of its power, but because of the tools (Cg) and the general architecture is established/popular among developers. There will surely be areas where RSX excells compared to Xenos... Now obviously GPU bottleneck issues are well understood within general scheme of things. Unlike a CPU which has to handle all types of codes, balances, and situations, GPUs are far more limited. So, theoretically, on a CPU you may have to choose between better FP or Interger performance (or higher theoretical performance versus OOOe), on the GPU it seems there are solutions to problems while minimizing the side effects. If that makes sense? GPUs basically do the same work over and over again in a very parallel environment--this is one of the reasons we have seen such MASSIVE strides in this market in performance.
Btw, one things probably NOT discussed in this thread is...
Why now?
Why Xenos now. If the architecture is so "great" why not on the desktop now? The simple answer is:
API.
These advanced are worthless on the PC without support from an API that can utilize the hardware in games. Close the platform and create a customized API and those hurdles dissappear to a degree. So the tension between RSX and Xenos is more than a performance issue. It is a philosophical one as well. How that plays out in the games has FAR FAR FAR more to do with game budgets, time, dev talent, tools, etc. than the actual hardware. The last time I checked, the best on the GCN (RE4, Zelda) and the best on the PS2 (GoW, GT4) were as pretty as the best Xbox titles--and the Xbox had its own bunch of uglies.
Hardware is a means to an end, not the end itself.
I can understand being uppety--I did not even want to read this thread this morning because I expected it to explode! But I think you are reading too much into comments... but your motive is good. I think it is good to talk about archtectural strengths, but but them within contexts. I think that has been totally lost in the CELL discussions, and has been at times in the Xenos/RSX discussions (e.g. the "RSX numbers are soo much higher and we can dismiss the ATI PR" or the "Xenos pwns performance with a 10 year advanced architecture" or whatever silly fanmess). Remember, there have been some pretty prominent threads from Sony fans praising RSX, this is not a one way street.
It is frustrating, and I don't like it either. Having undergone a recent rash of bad mouthing by Sony and MS fans I have noticed an undeniably strong trend in the forum. Same people who get defensive about Xenos will do the same aggressive speech in regards to CELL. And vice versa.
It is very much political and it is very annoying/boring. DeanoC, Dave, ERP, nAo, Faf, Panjev, Jawed, etc... all have opinions, but have a good understanding of the issues they discuss and rarely have an axe to grind (but obviously have a perspective). And there is a solid group of "fans" who I think are really fair and honest about their opinions without being rabid defenders. These are the people who keep me coming back here and enjoying one of my fav hobbies. There is a lot of rhetoric that goes on in the forum. It would be easier to take people more seriously if they were not so abashedly for/against things.
But hey, console forums, 1 new console and 1 super computer are being released in the next 6 months. I see this forum descending into the pits of Hades! And my prediction? In 5 years we will say,
"Man, those consoles were close! The GPU/CPU designs kind of balanced them out, respectively, and all that fighting was over nothing! Yeah, some games really shined in certain areas due to the differences, but it was tit for tat! And while they each had advantages, the tradeoffs in other areas really balanced it out. It really was about the game developers after all!" That is how I see it playing out after all
There are differences to discuss, but really, in the grand scheme of things, what does it matter that Xenos can do FP10/16 with MSAA??
Last time I checked, the BEST selling game this generation--GTA--looks like CRAP!
As far as graphics, Art > Tech. So a lot of this stuff is pointless anyhow. Intersting and fun if kept in perspective and banning the trolling system advocates, but in the end pointless.
