Inquirer: Ps3 hardware far from done.

A few reasons:

(1) The standard "mine is bigger than yours/it's how you use it" hyping that both Sony/MS zealots do.

(2) Interesting and currently exclusive features (unified shaders,etc.)

(3) We actually have real info to talk about.

 

No, they worked together since last summer. Sony stated that the technology that goes into the PS3 has been in development for 3 years, which is right, since G7x started development 3 years ago.

Choosing NV was the smartest thing Sony ever did, they just didn't do it right away.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

Not according to the NVidia Sony press release, Gubbi:

Link: (article written summer 2004)

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-15015-1278-4-4-x

Excerpt:

According to Nvidia president and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang, the two companies' collaboration has been going on for some time. "Over the past two years Nvidia has worked closely with Sony Computer Entertainment on their next-generation computer entertainment system," he said. "In parallel, we have been designing our next-generation GeForce GPU. The combination of the revolutionary Cell processor and Nvidia's graphics technologies will enable the creation of breathtaking imagery that will surprise and captivate consumers."

In parallel, meaning developing the custom solution alongside the pc solution...it was never the same solution..although they both have commonalities.

 

Another interesting tidbid from the same article:

"Sony and Nvidia's custom GPU will be manufactured at Sony's Nagasaki factory and at Oita TS Semiconductor, Toshiba and Sony's joint fabrication facility."

Firstly...that it is a custom GPU and secondly, that it's being produced in a fab that's jointly shared with toshiba...could toshiba IP be going into the GPU? Interesting question.

 

No.

"we have been working closely with Sony" != "we have been working on the PS3 GPU"

Working with could mean anything, from back and forth discussion, to contract negotiations, or anything in between. We know what it doesn't mean, it doesn't mean they were actually working on the GPU. Why? Because if they were actually designing the GPU for the last two years, they would simply have said "for the last 2 years we have been designing the ps3 gpu called RSX", no need for the fancy wording at all.

So they did "something" together for the last 2 years, in parallel to the 'something' they've been designing the G70.

 

I like how people talk like they know what the specs of RSX are. Some sort of foggy "G70 based" was floating around once, but honestly, who the heck really knows anything at this point?

 

But that also doesn't disprove his take on the quote. You can argue both ways.

 

Real info on one side. As it has been said so many times on this forum, we have to wait and see what RSX really will be.

The whole unified shaders is largely hype, but I agree will lend itself to shader heavy games, but there is still the question if heavy shader use will really make all that much of a visual difference. If the difference is 30 percent advantage, it may never be noticed. It's not like the RSX will be a weakling when it comes to shader power.

Anyway, this has all been discussed to death around here, and my response it just a knee jerk reaction, to somone's OPINION. My answer of course is just my OPINION also.

 

Alright, let's not do this 'when has RSX been worked on since' thing again. I think it's been proven pretty definitavely now by this point in several threads that at the very minimum, Sony and NVidia began a working relationship almost immediately after ATI and Microsoft announced their partnership, in the summer of 2004. Now - does that mean that's when joint R&D began? I don't know. But we can't look at Sony's move to NVidia as a last minute scramble - at the very least it was a calculated 'Plan B' that was probably being fleshed out on contigency during that time regardless of any other efforts on Sony's part in pursuing a GPU solution for PS3.

Now let's go back to talking about the *real* news of The Inquirer.

 

Sony went to Nvidia in the summer of 2004 and asked them for a GPU, that's the simple obvious truth IMO, everything else is spin spin spin...

Ok, now we can go back!

 

Scooby...you have a tendency to overanalyze. That statement is contained within a press release about the RSX...it is implied. Plus it explicitely says "next generation computer entertainmnet system (aka ps3)". Everything they would work on with Sony regarding the PS3 would center around the GPU. You are extrapolating a negative here because I feel you are wishing it to be true.

 

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

 

We know what Sony/NVIDIA wrote in their first press release about the co-operation:

"Both companies are jointly developing a custom graphics processing unit (GPU) incorporating NVIDIA's next-generation GeForce(TM) and SCEI's system solutions for next-generation computer entertainment systems featuring the Cell* processor."

http://nvidia.com/object/IO_17342.html

At that time the G7x was their next-gen GeForce part. So NVIDIA and Sony stated that the RSX is G7x based and as long as they have not stated otherwise I see no reason to beleive otherwise.

 

Does this debate really need to happen again? Honestly, everything has been said many times before.

I don't see how it matters in the least. It isn't as if getting a GPU late from one of the two experts in GPUs means that the GPU is inferior. It's a stupid arguement and a stupid assumption that it matters in the least as to how good a GPU is in either box. Custom does not inherently imply Better, let us not forget that -- regardless of logic I imagine this arguement will continue for at least another page.

It doesn't matter when Sony went with Nvidia, all that matters is they did, and it was likely the best choice.

 

i don't think so, I just see through PR speak like it's paper thin. I notice when companies use fancy wording in their PR statements, and I gather alot from what they don't say.

It's obviously a well though out, well worded statement, which alludes to this development without actually explicitly stating it. marketing speak 101, and it was said that way for a specific reason: to give the impression of something without having to explicitly say it

Now...why would they go to all that trouble is the truth was so simple? They wouldn't. The would just state it explicitly "we have been working on GPU for X years"

Anywys, this debate does not need to happen again, I won't post again on it.

 

http://www.oed.com/bbcwords/management-speak.html

Could just be that their so caught up in the business culture of talking meaningless crap that they don't know how to come out and just say it how it is. PR and business talk is all Management-speak. It's disenfranchising me...

 

Yet just a few posts previous you stated:

Seems like you want to assume the best case for potential differences re XeCPU and CELL, yet assume smallest possible difference between RSX and Xenos. Why?

I think there have been plenty of threads that adequately covered the CELL/XeCPU architecture, power, and flexibility aspects, so I won't attempt to rehash that or start yet another debate, but what I've taken away from those discussions (that included some very knowledgable people) is that while CELL may have more theoretical performance than XeCPU, its architecture doesn't necessarily lend itself to putting those extra flops to actualized use in AI and physics calculations. If you are talking about a CELL-RSX cooperative on the graphics front, that is about as speculative as you can get, so it wouldn't seem wise to assume that as fact and yet trumpet that "we have to wait on RSX!" whenever RSX/Xenos talk starts up. If at all, you'll see decent use of CELL capabilities in graphics processing in third-fourth generation games.

 

Well, with your reasoning the Inq just cant be well informed about delays. And if they are a product should be quite close to launching anyway, in which point they are wrong. So how do you know the Inq is correct?

 

And how much can you really extract from "G7x based?" There's a lot you can change when you "base" one chip on another. You can probably safely conclude that it has separate vertex and pixel shaders and SM 3.0, but I don't see how you can get much farther than that to the kind of specific things necessary to say whether or not it's more or less powerful than Xenos. We don't know what's been changed, so purported comparisons are still speculative.

 

I would agree with this statement, as I don't think there is enough time for Sony to make architectural changes, and be able to launch this year. It's a very powerful G70 part, and there is nothing wrong with that.