How to do Next-Gen Graphics

This is ridiculous.

Despite the xbx1 to xbx360 gap being quite significant(15nm->13nm->11nm->90nm), the visual gap is not as far as that would suggest in most [launch] titles. An xb360 to xb3-2k9 gap would most likely be a substantially smaller gap(90nm -> 65nm or 45nm).

Some dev.s are already saying the h/w capabilities of the ps3 are such that generating content that truly/adequately takes advantage of it would be cost/time prohibitive. So what would we get from an even more powerful console released shortly-after? a new supah expensive console that casuals cannot easily distinguish from the ps3, with a few cheap-ps3-ports.

The d@mned laws of physics have given us the short-stick again, by making things harder than they should be.

 

The area differential between 90nm and 45nm is actually larger than that between 150nm and 90nm. 180, 130, 90, 65, 45 are all major steppings, the other's are half-steps.

 

Hmmm, didn't notice.(quite obvious if you look at the numbers actually.)

In any case, it still stands with regards to the possibility of 65nm being used. After all 90nm mass production was already in use for about a year prior this new console cycle(and even ps3 next year is almost certain to be on it too.).

 

So your thinking that 65nm will last us over 3 years ? As intel is going 65nm early next year with the rest of the industry going 65nm by year end . Even if it takes 2 years to jump past 65nm that still gives us about a year on 45nm before a 4 year cycle xbox 3 happens

 

Ok thread over. You are just getting a little bit too crazy with this "MS can create a planet if they wanted too" talk.

 

If I'm not mistaken(which I might be...), first 90nm chips appeared on the market in early 2k3, even ps3 a 2k6 product appears to be using it. First 65nm chips are probably gonna arrive on the market sometime in 2k6, so a 2k9 product using such is not entirely out of the question(nor the possibility of ps3 being moved to such, if it's delayed to a late 2k6 world launch). Scaling further is also probably more difficult, so it will probably take more time to transition further (especially for cheaper lower quality fabs...).

 

actually i'm pretty sure late 2003
http://techreport.com/ja.zz?id=20171

And intel plans on shipping 65nm chips by quarter 1 2006 as a matter of fact i believe some reviewers have 65nm pentinums

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578

anand states that some were sent to partners already and he goes on to overclock the ones he got his hands on .

So we have end of 03 to start of 06 , less than 3 years .

 

Correct for intel. It means there's a chance for it to be so, not a certainty as the going gets ever tougher the smaller you get, if i'm not mistaken.

But unless I'm misreading(again possible), there was someone else who did manage to produce 90nm in early 2k3...
first 90nm?

Yet my second argument stands. If costs/time are said to keep some dev.s from taping this new gen of h/w, it's doubtful even better h/w would be properly tapped especially early on.

 

This quote got me going

BTW, I hate a 4 year gaming hardware life cycle, but I'm fine with a 6year+ cycle tho.

 

interesting i didn' tknow that , but then again it stands to reason that another smaller company can beat intel to 45nm


As for your point .

I stated at the start of the thread and a system that is easier to develop for will reach its potential quicker.

I fully expect things like xna and the consoles roots in dx 9 to enable developers to get to grips with the hardware in the xbox 360 much faster and the same with ps3 , cell and waternoose might be a little harder to tap. But then again that is a good for ms if they stick with a 4 year cycle. They can have a powerfull system out before devs tap into the cell chip heavly

 

Isn't that the whole reason behind MS yelling about XNA to sucker devs into next gen?

 

I seriously, seriously doubt this. I really don't think that the Xbox 3 will be out before the CELL chip is tap in a big way. If that's the case how are the devs going to figure out how to properly use the Xenos GPU? The 360 maybe easier to program for, but is it THAT much easier?

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think tapping Xenos really requires lot of innovation, they just have to do the work.

For example building your game engine to use predicated tiling, has been done before. A hardware tessalator has been done before(right?). The only thing I see them taking a while to 'tap' is all the extra vertex shading power. Granted it's not as straightforward as RSX, but most of the thinking has been done, it's just a matter of doing it.

On the other hand, the CELL as a game-cpu is uncharted waters, running a game engine across 8 asymmetrical cores with a master/slave relationship has never been done before. The thinking has to happen before the doing can even begin.

Also, if you listen to Carmack the dev tools are pretty terrible for PS3 compared to X360 right now, that's another factor that will slow PS3 development.

If we think it will be at least 2-3 years before Dev's fully master the 3-core XeCPU, which is an extremely conventional approach, it's logical to think it will be a couple years beyond that they realy get to grips with CELL. That puts you around 2009 or 2010.

 

the chip is firmly based in dx 9 . The only thing really diffrent is the edram. But then again even that has been done in the gamecube and ps2 .

 

Was it not widely known that the dev kits for the PS3 at that time did not have all the software that will be in the regular SDK's? And what exactly is fully master? Did the devs fully master the Xbox yet? I think fully master is too loose of a statement to make. I doubt it will take 3 to 4 years to see what big things the CELL will be able to do.

 

Will developers can always do the PGR3 hack if the rumor is true about it.

Besides, xbox 360 fans don't care about devs taking advantage of the hardware. Since they'll just buy a new system within 4-5 years, if they think 4 year life cycles are fine with them.

 

To JVD:

The console manufacturer would have less time to lower its cost. When a new console is launched the old would still be expensive and with such a remarkable difference compared to the newer console that sales would hurt a lot.

If the console with the 4 year cycle was released with less cutting edge technology (compared to todays releases) and thus cost less that would fit into the cycle better as it wouldnt cost as much to upgrade for customers. It wouldnt have to have the most expensive tech either because it doesnt have to be around for that long. And with shorter cycles the likelyhood of being able to reuse old tech would increase (eg same processor(s) with bumped speed). With similar tech being used developers would have an easier time to move onto a new platform.

It isnt like all devs take 4 years to develop a game. If info on the new console was disclosed earlier good middle-ware could appear earlier, games could begin to develop earlier and devs would just have to adopt to the shorter cycle. Thus allowing them to reuse tech atleast once during the life of the console.

If console cycles were 100 years long the development cycles would increase too, because it is possible to develop for a longer period of time, because it is one way to differentiate ones games from other devs and because it would be necessary to compete with others. It would of course be supported by the ever growing install base.

Since it is 5 AM Ill just say the following and hope that everything in this post makes sense. With longer cycles everyone makes more money and if shorter cycles means they make less money that must come from more competition. Thus shorter cycles (up to a point) is a good thing.

 

Way I understood the comment, wasn't with regards to difficulty in dealing with the h/w, but with regards to content creation time/costs. If achieving the highest quality content, allowed by next gen consoles ,for a full game requires too much in terms of costs/time, it's only going to be worse for a machine that allows even higher quality content.

Even nowadays we can see enemies/areas are being recycled in many a game, and dev.time and costs've gone up(ps2/xbx/gcn generation).

 

Not allways true. While they have less time it doesn't mean it can't be done. Ms has removed alot of stuff from the xbox 360 that cause the xbox 1 to scale in price so slowly .

We really don't know how much the xbox 360 costs to make , but if it does cost 375$ as one anylist said its already 50$ less than the xbox 1 to make . The xbox 360 should also see more price cuts due to 1) 80nm 2) edram/logic + logic as a single die no longer 2 dies in the chip 3) 65nms 4) 45 nm

At 45nm they may even be able to do a single chip for the cpu gpu/edram . The hardrive is no longer part of the equation and wont be a fixed cost included in it .

So realisticly 4 years into the xbox 's life its at 150$ . The xbox 360 is starting at a cheaper price so realisticly it cna be 100$ in 4 years .

Why ? Why can't ms release a console that is cutting edge in 4 years ? What prevents them. They were able to release a cutting edge xbox 360 this year with only a 4 year gap .

It would still need to go against a ps4 which could likely be 2 years newer and will still need enough grpahical powe to not be completely left behind for the 2 years it has to live with sonys offering .

As for reusing old tech , they don't have to , they can simply base it on the current tech. I see no reason why they can't use a similar xbox 360 cpu with more cores and clocked higher and a new direct x ati part .

Also with bc support planed from the start a hardcore user can move to the new platform and still enjoy the newest xbox 360 releases .

mabye , with more middleware dev times can go down . Its really art work that will be the most costly .

People will tire of the graphics and new companys will enter the market .

I believe ideal console life is 4-5 years . Both from a tech pov and a buyers pov .

400$ every 4-5 years isn't bad at all . It equates to 100$-75$ a year fpr the early adopter .

 

It's funny because it's always the same people regurgitating the same Sony vs Xbox debate. I can't believe people have actual conversations like this...

People are already debating about Xbox 720 or 1080 when Xbox 360 hasn't even launched.