HOw will MS counter the "1TFlop" PS3?

either will Nvidia or ATI have a VPU that makes up for the relatively simple CPU that will be in XBox2. a single ATI or Nvidia VPU wont be enough, even if its souped up NV50+ or R500+. only multipule VPUs together will be enough to make up for that lack of power. just IMHO. ATI/Nvidia will be stuck with whatever process TSMC can offer. probably wont design a single chip with over 1 Billion transistors.

They shouldn't have any problem with power, they would have problem with bandwidth though.

So they probably go with 512 bit bus, or something like that if they don't go with eDRAM.

By 2005, they probably hit 300+ million transistors, if they spend it wisely 1 TFLOPS shouldn't be a problem. I heard GeforceFX already has 32 FPU (Is that why the performance is not up to par with R350?), so chucking that up to 128 by 2005, shouldn't be problem at all.
 
One question that has been buggin me for the last week, does the 1Tflop figure include the GPU/VPu's speed?

No. this has been mentioned many times before. but i'll gladly answer it as best i can. the 1TFLops figure is for Playstation3's CPU alone. the CPU being the Emotion Engine 3 aka Broadband Engine.

the GPU/VPU, known as Graphics Synthesizer 3 aka Visualizer, has a seperate 256 GFlops performance, at least. it will depend on its final clockspeed and number of APUs/VUs.

this is all according to that sony patent & disagram.

so in total, the PS3 seems to have at least 1.25 TFlops, at least according to what has been circulating on the internet. what the actual, final PS3 has, might very well be somewhat different. perhaps slightly more, or slightly less.
 
Would it be plausible to say that Xbox2 will likely have a GPU that does a similar 250 GFLOPs combined with a CPU that does maybe 60 GFLOPs in the time window of 2005? So a predicted system total of 300-325 GFLOPs is a possibility for XBox2?
 
I find that about as plausible as Sony not being able to get 1 TFLOPs from a fully programmable EE sized chip in 2004/5.
 
thing is, Sony's CPU for PS3 might have 1 TFLOPs of peak theoretical performance. but sustained realworld performance might fall to say, 1/4th or 1/10th of that.
 
That might make sense if it were an Intel style processor with miniscule L2 cache and sipping straw like FSB to main memory. The PS3, OTOH, quite likely will have 64 MB of local EDRAM to achieve performances completely foreign to your typical desktop PC. The sustained performance may not look like the peak performance, but there is great potential for the difference to be far more favorable than ever observed previously on some Intel-style setup (if such an association can even be made).
 
Like the true rookie, you assume "64-bit" automatically means better performance. :oops: For a game, it quite likely could end up being a small liability. If it is to be in the XBox2, that puts even further doubt of backwards compatibility to the 32-bit CPU based XBox. At worst, a "64-bit game" will effectively make an already "small" cache twice as small, not to mention negative impacts upon bus bandwidths.
 
I was talking peak, and to clarify for those who mistake my sarcasm for poor wording ... I find both things plausible :)
 
randycat99 said:
That might make sense if it were an Intel style processor with miniscule L2 cache and sipping straw like FSB to main memory. The PS3, OTOH, quite likely will have 64 MB of local EDRAM to achieve performances completely foreign to your typical desktop PC. The sustained performance may not look like the peak performance, but there is great potential for the difference to be far more favorable than ever observed previously on some Intel-style setup (if such an association can even be made).

Mabye it will have 64megs and mabye that will be enough ram and that ram will mabye have enough bandwidth to let it hit its peak more often than not .
 
randycat99 said:
Yeah, "maybe"! ;) It's only a 500x better situation to warrant a "maybe". :p

Mabye its already only a 500x better chip and with the situation i posted its only 250x better but the graphics chip is only 50x better than whats in the ps2 and that will lower all the performance. Mabye ms will use a dual athlon 64 @ 3ghz each and quad r600s ... Of mabye nintendo will have a quantom chip ready for the gamecube2 . Mabye sega will come back with the dreamcast 2 using 16power vr chips from 2006 and it will do 15 tflops . Lots of mabyes . But for now i just say heh it be nice if it happens but idon't see any proof .
 
randycat99 said:
Like the true rookie, you assume "64-bit" automatically means better performance. :oops: For a game, it quite likely could end up being a small liability. If it is to be in the XBox2, that puts even further doubt of backwards compatibility to the 32-bit CPU based XBox. At worst, a "64-bit game" will effectively make an already "small" cache twice as small, not to mention negative impacts upon bus bandwidths.

Dont blame me. Blame Dave Kosack of GS and those at GDC. :oops:
 
I'm not making a chip processing comparison. I'm saying that 64 MB is 500x more memory to do your "quick work" than in a 128 kB cache Celeron that you may be comparing to with regard to peak vs. sustained performance. Yeah, it's meaningless hashing of numbers with regard to determining actual performance, but it certainly indicates an advantage in the PS3 side (though I know it is criminal around here to give anything from Sony such credit as that).
 
randycat99 said:
Like the true rookie, you assume "64-bit" automatically means better performance. :oops: For a game, it quite likely could end up being a small liability. If it is to be in the XBox2, that puts even further doubt of backwards compatibility to the 32-bit CPU based XBox. At worst, a "64-bit game" will effectively make an already "small" cache twice as small, not to mention negative impacts upon bus bandwidths.


Well if they use a 3ghz athlon 64 it would have no trouble running apps that a 700mhz celeron can do. Its just that it would do everything 64bit 30% faster. Sorry 30% faster than it can do 32 bit stuff. Which is faster than an athlon xp can do 32 bit faster , which is faster than the athlon thunderbird can do it , which is faster than the p3 can do it , which is faster than the celeron can do it. So yea no problems there. The main problem would be a 3d card. But I'm sure that any dx7 card should be able to do it. Let alone a dx 11 or 12 card
 
chaperone said:
Dont blame me. Blame Dave Kosack of GS and those at GDC. :oops:

Yes, blame you. Stand by the crap you shovel. ;) It was your choice to post the link, as you thought it was relevant to the discussion. Either you know what the implications are or you do not. You posted regardless. So what does that say of you?
 
The Pentium or Athlon PC that you’re most likely viewing this article on is based off of a 32-bit architecture, using a 32-bit operating system. (“32 bit†is a measurement of the size of instructions that the processor accepts). But the mavens of silicon are trying to usher in a new 64-bit era, as evidenced by a presentation at the 2003 Game Developers Conference sponsored by AMD. It’s a significant jump! PC processors made the transition to 32-bit way back when the 286 chipset gave way to the 386, and Windows made the transition when Windows 95 became Microsoft’s new flagship consumer OS.


AMD Engineer Mike Wall talks about the upcoming AMD 64-bit processors. But what will this technological leap mean to you, the gamer? What’s it mean for the gaming industry, historically seen as the engine that drives advancement in PC design? The short answer is that it may take a couple of years for end-users like us to really feel the results, but the generational leap in technology has already started to impact game production and it’s going to lead to bigger and better things down the road.

64-Bit PC Processors Mean Better Game Development Tools

There’s a speed benefit that comes from upgrading to a 64-bit system, but more importantly the new architecture allows people to build PC workstations with more RAM. Current 32-bit systems top out at 4GB of RAM, but 32-bit Windows only allows 2GB. As Epic’s Tim Sweeney (lead engineer of the Unreal engine) said on a recent Slashdot thread, “On a daily basis we’re running into Windows’ 2GB memory limitations.â€

It’s in the creation of complex 3D worlds that that extra memory is key. Maps or models or animations will render faster. The turnaround time for creating, compiling, testing, and changing code or levels will be much faster. Although, it’s more likely that developers will just suck up the extra resources to create bigger, more detailed environments. Either way, the gamer will soon start seeing results. Epic is already excited about the 64-bit development systems they’ve been testing, and Sweeny has said that their next-generation engine will require 64-bit systems for all of their development tools.


Eric Johnson and Don Ledford from Valve described the advantages of porting their Counter-Strike servers. 64-Bit PC Processors Mean Better Game Servers

Game servers are another place where the additional memory will have a big impact. New 64-bit processors can support up to 16GB of RAM per CPU, and that number is rising. That means that servers can be more efficient. You’ll be able to get more players on each server, and players can be enjoying bigger and more interactive worlds. Plus, for those of us who run game servers, there are cost benefits: large servers will require fewer CPUs, which keeps costs down.

For a case study, Valve’s Eric Johnson and Don Ledford stepped up on stage to talk about their experience porting over Counter-Strike’s Linux server to 64-bit. Counter-Strike, the most popular online action game, is a great acid-test. It’s responsible for 4.5 billion player-minutes per month worldwide, and has over 35,000 servers. In their experience, simply porting over the server code to take advantage of the new hardware and 64-Bit Linux OS gave them a 30% performance gain. That’s before adding (and taking advantage of) the extra memory. Their next step is to port over their memory-intensive development tools.

64-Bit PC Processors Mean Better Games on Your Desktop

As developers take advantage of the new hardware, they’ll be able to create better games. But we’ll really start to feel the impact of the new processor architecture as it’s rolled out on consumer systems and new 64-bit Operating Systems are released, anywhere from several months to a year or more down the road. The transition won’t be immediate, but it’s going to be big.

The extra power will enable games to render more realistic physics on the fly: Better dynamics and collisions, for example. We’ll also see more realistic simulations of effects like cloth, smoke, or water. As you’d expect, the processor will also have more power to handle things like AI. But there are other areas where it’ll affect the game experience. Real-time multi-channel audio, for instance, requires a lot of system resources.

Also, when they’re upgrading to a 64-bit system, gamers will be able to expand their system’s memory. It won’t be long before 2GB isn’t enough: You’ll want 4GB or more of RAM. And once PC users have that much space to play with, developers are going to start using it! They’ll be able to create GIANT maps and huge, seamless worlds. Tons of audio data can be stored on the system for a more realistic variety of sounds. And texture sizes won’t be so limited. In short: Bigger! Better! Faster! games.

Only time will tell if the jump to 64-bit will have as dramatic an impact as PC Gaming’s leap to 32-bit. But it’s definitely a clear milestone on the horizon.

Why is it irrelevant? Xbox2, Intel/AMD 64bit CPUs. Possible combination again. :oops:
 
jvd said:
Well if they use a 3ghz athlon 64 it would have no trouble running apps that a 700mhz celeron can do. Its just that it would do everything 64bit 30% faster. Sorry 30% faster than it can do 32 bit stuff. Which is faster than an athlon xp can do 32 bit faster , which is faster than the athlon thunderbird can do it , which is faster than the p3 can do it , which is faster than the celeron can do it. So yea no problems there. The main problem would be a 3d card. But I'm sure that any dx7 card should be able to do it. Let alone a dx 11 or 12 card

Yeah, "maybe" they will use a 64-bit Intel, too. Then you'll really be sweating if it can run 32-bit x86 on par with a 733 Celeron! :p The real question is how much cache do you think you'll find in the chip that does go into the XBox2? 128 kB again? (Don't laugh, it's not impossible) 512 kB? Anything over 1 MB? (...talking about server-grade Xeon stuff, at this point) Any plausible number you care to apply there will subject you to the very peak/sustained performance issues you cited earlier, ironically.

Overall, it is very unclear where the motivation is to code "64-bit" games. The sweet spot is most definitely 32-bit for games. Maybe when there's a game that needs to simulate a global weather patterns, manipulate some DNA models, or keep track of some giant database... :) That ought to be a "killer app"! :p
 
randycat99 said:
jvd said:
Well if they use a 3ghz athlon 64 it would have no trouble running apps that a 700mhz celeron can do. Its just that it would do everything 64bit 30% faster. Sorry 30% faster than it can do 32 bit stuff. Which is faster than an athlon xp can do 32 bit faster , which is faster than the athlon thunderbird can do it , which is faster than the p3 can do it , which is faster than the celeron can do it. So yea no problems there. The main problem would be a 3d card. But I'm sure that any dx7 card should be able to do it. Let alone a dx 11 or 12 card

Yeah, "maybe" they will use a 64-bit Intel, too. Then you'll really be sweating if it can run 32-bit x86 on par with a 733 Celeron! :p The real question is how much cache do you think you'll find in the chip that does go into the XBox2? 128 kB again? (Don't laugh, it's not impossible) 512 kB? Anything over 1 MB? (...talking about server-grade Xeon stuff, at this point) Any plausible number you care to apply there will subject you to the very peak/sustained performance issues you cited earlier, ironically.

Overall, it is very unclear where the motivation is to code "64-bit" games. The sweet spot is most definitely 32-bit for games. Maybe when there's a game that needs to simulate a global weather patterns, manipulate some DNA models, or keep track of some giant database... :) That ought to be a "killer app"! :p

I'm not saying any tech will be better than the other. There will be trade offs for sure. If ms goes with the hammer based chips it will save money by not needing a northbridge since it has that hypertransport. That be more than enough speed for ram and graphics to access the chip. A 3ghz chip is more than enough for computer ai , physics and the few other small things it will need to do. The big question is the graphics chip. Obviously a r300 or an nv30 will not be nough to compare with the ps3. But i'm sure the r500 or the nv50 will be at least equal to it. If one isn't enough i'm sure microsoft wont mind throwing in two. They don't seem to care about loosing money. Besides if they go with ati i'm sure they will liscense out the tech and make it themselves. I'm sure when the time comes for 500bucks they can put together a 3ghz chip a r500/nv50 with 256megs each and 256megs of system ram with a harddrive and a sound card for 500 bucks. Sell the system for 300 and loose 200 of each system . A set up like that will put out some nice graphics. And since it will do a crap load of things in hardware and have the pixel shaders and vertex shaders plus a beast of a tnl engine it will be able to do all of what ps3 does.
 
Back
Top