Ken Kutaragi:" I can produce the PS3 anytime"

[Nesh]

MS makes Xenos, a completely custom form the ground-up console GPU.

Sony uses RSX, a customized off the shelf PC GPU.

And you accuse MS of not doing enough R&D? What is this the twilight zone?

Where was Sony's R&D for RSX? They were busy concentrating on BR(to win a format war) and CELL (to sell in CE devices) that they didn't even create a dedicated console GPU.

How you can slam MS for lack of R&D is beyond me. If they didn't care about innovation, why did they spend 3 years designing Xenos from the ground up? If they truly didn't care, as you claim,they would simply have gotten the latest PC card and tweak it for the console (like XBOX1, and PS3) instead of wasting all that money on 3 years worth of R&D.

What did MS do again?Xenos?Which can be used in what?In a XBOX360 only a 3 core powerPC architecture and the end.
You said that Sony didnt do RSX.
Oh I didnt know MS did the ATI GPU.I guess thats what increased MS's R&D more than Sony's.

Cell seems to be a bigger leap in technologival innovation than Xenos and Sony-IBM-Toshiba have been spending for R&D for more years for that proccessor (than what MS is supposed to have spent) which will most probably be used for other things and it wont just stop there.There are more future plans for that, and will benefit the market.

As for RSX being a customized off the shelf PC GPU(I see a contradiction there), well I ve yet to see official proof of that.I only see speculation about that one.And usually by people that are claiming that Cell isnt anything special and that they are surrounded by Sony-******s claiming the opposite.
I dont know about you but atleast thats their "******-war" not mine. *shrugs*

Which means absolutely zero to a gamer buying the console. Realize why SOny is using BR and developed cell and youll quickly find it has a lot less to do with creating the best game console than you seem to think.

And since when has the simple everyday consumer been noticing everything that's going on on the market, knowing how it works and how he is benefited by its form and conditions?
I am a consumer too but I care and it means more than zero.

oh and also once again you think I am accusing MS and claiming that Sony its best because they want to offer the best for the consumer because they are good and MS is BAAADD BAD BAAAAAAD.
Sony's structure as a competitive company in the market(or markets) forces them to add these lil bonuses like BR if they want to survive.A good thing though.Not like I siad anything different *shrugs*

 

[weaksauce]

I think sony has RSX the way they want it. No eDram because they want good 1080p support and no unified shaders because they are slow.
And there's not that much info about RSX.

edit: also PS3 has a lot more bandwidth so it makes it better without edram than what xenos would do. And maybe they preffered to spend all the ~300m transistors on the core instead of giving ~100m to edram and a small logic part.

 

[one]

What do you think customized means?

I'm only going along with your usage :smile: From what you wrote,

Xenos = completely customized GPU
RSX = customized off the shelf PC GPU

For Xenos, you use "customized" to describe a singular combination of technologies not yet proven in the market (Unified Shader + AA coprocessor) as "customized". For RSX, with "customized" you refer to changes added to "off the shelf PC GPU". Is more "customized" inherently better? Well, when it actually serves the purpose and reinventing wheels is not foolish. You have to know the purposes and contexts of those who built those parts.

As I don't know exact budgets for those GPU projects, what I can see from those designs are only that Xbox 360 and PS3 have different design philosophies and goals as Kutaragi suggested, just like PS2 and PS3 have different sets of goals.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well have fun playing semantic games.

it won't change the fact that RSX is based on a PC gpu designed for PC's, and Xenos is not based on anything PC GPU, and is a clean-slate design developed strictly for consoles.

Is more customized ALWAYS better? Not always, there are exceptions to every rule. Would a ground-up RSX started 3 years ago, design specifically for a console with the same number of trannies probably be superior to the G70-based RSX? Most likely! Logically it should be able to use the same # of trannies to create a more efficient, more powerful GPU due to the abilitiy to target one specific hardware platform.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I think sony has RSX the way they want it. No eDram because they want good 1080p support and no unified shaders because they are slow.

So slow, everybody is moving to them. Genius!

 

[one]

Well have fun playing semantic games.

it won't change the fact that RSX is based on a PC gpu designed for PC's, and Xenos is not based on anything PC GPU, and is a clean-slate design developed strictly for consoles.

Strictly for consoles? Rather, AFAIK, it's developed strictly for 720p.

 

[Edge]

RSX is a REFINED PC GPU, that has a long proven history in the PC market.

Xenos is an experimental part that has yet to be proven.

As you can see, both sides can play the spin game.

 

[scooby_dooby]

RSX is a REFINED PC GPU, that has a long proven history in the PC market.

Xenos is an experimental part that has yet to be proven.

As you can see, both sides can play the spin game.

YOU can play the spin game because YOU can't accept the simple truth.

RSX is a modified PC part, Xenos is not.

Is that so bad that you an One have to play dumb little word games? I'm not even saying Xenos is better than RSX at all, make sure you realize that.

This is a conversation about MS's commitment to R&D vs Sony, not about whether MS's console GPU is more/less powerful that PS3's 'refined' PC gpu(which is still impossible to know)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

RSX is a modified PC part, Xenos is not.

RSX hasn't been released yet. I hope if it actually does deviate more from 7800 than just a FlexIO interface you'll be willing to eat humble pie with your hat!

 

[scooby_dooby]

RSX hasn't been released yet. I hope if it actually does deviate more from 7800 than just a FlexIO interface you'll be willing to eat humble pie with your hat!

Why? It will still be a G70 based design, and the point still stands.

I only brought up RSX to show how ridiculous it was to accuse MS of lackluster R&D when they were the ones who spent 3 years designing a GPU from scratch.

Why people decided to get so defnsive is beyond me. I never stated, or alluded to Xenos being more powerful or not, I was simply stating that company X designed it's own GPU, while company Y adapted an existing gpu, so it's irrational to accuse company X of doing less R&D than company Y.

 

[Edge]

YOU can play the spin game because YOU can't accept the simple truth.

Someone has to go out for a walk and get some fresh air. The truth? Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is a conversation about MS's commitment to R&D vs Sony, not about whether MS's console GPU is more/less powerful that PS3's 'refined' PC gpu(which is still impossible to know)

I would not get too caught up in what the Sony boys around here have to say.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why? It will still be a G70 based design, and the point still stands.

I only mention that because you're still making assumptions on RSX. What if it's not just a 7800 with FlexIO, but also has some unique caching structure with 2MBs SRAM and other tricks?

I only brought up RSX to show how ridiculous it was to accuse MS of lackluster R&D when they were the ones who spent 3 years designing a GPU from scratch.

But Xenos was designed by ATi, using their Unified shader research which AFAIK was going to happen whether MS wanted it for a console or not. The rudiments (shader arrays) of Xenos are still a 'PC part' in that they come from research in the PC graphics space. They're not unique to MS's console even if they appeared there first, because they were destined for the PC when development began. The customization of Xenos into a console part is the eDRAM, which again I believe is a ATi design, perhaps influenced in part by the GC's eDRAM GPU. Xenos is a derivative of ATi's next-gen shader research (unified shaders) with some unique eDRAM extra. If RSX features a unique caching tech, or some convoluted pixel pipes, would that rank as customized or modifed?

I was simply stating that company X designed it's own GPU, while company Y adapted an existing gpu, so it's irrational to accuse company X of doing less R&D than company Y.

Except, which is the other's point, MS didn't design the GPU. ATi did. In other words, company X paid company A to design a console component, and company Y paid company B to design theirs. Now if everything ATi developed for Xenos was following MS's orders, in the MS said to ATi when they first approached them 'we want a unified shader system and eDRAM for tiled rendering' than they can be considered to have provided some innovation. But if they approached ATi saying 'we want a console GPU in this time frame' and ATi replied 'well we've got these unified shaders we've been working on htat'll be good for it, plus we know an epanded eDRAM framebuffer is good, and we could tile that buffer if needed' then the innovation of MS in the GPU department is nil. I don't know which way the discussions went.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The truth? Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

It's a result of your mis-interpretation that you thought I was somehow spinning Xenos to be better than RSX.

I was not making a mountain out of anything, you just thought I was. I guess a simple, 'whoops I misunderstood' is too much to ask for.

Shifty - it's all very simple. was the GPU itself(not the components within it) initially designed for PC and adapted afterwards? or was it initially designed for console? One scenario requires much more R&D on the part of the console-maker than the other.

 

[Sethamin]

So slow, everybody is moving to them. Genius!

That's the beauty of it, you see. They make everyone move to a slower architecture, but tell them it's an improvement. It's an industry conspiracy. Then they can keep successfully releasing "upgrades" for years to come! Pure genius!

 

[Edge]

It's a result of your mis-interpretation that you thought I was somehow spinning Xenos to be better than RSX.

I was not making a mountain out of anything, you just thought I was. I guess a simple, 'whoops I misunderstood' is too much to ask for.

Let's put it down to a misunderstanding and call it a day.

Custom versus Proven part. I think Xenos and RSX are awesome GPU's that are going to show a lot of great graphics over the years. I don't really see a big performance difference between the two.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

It is very very debatable actually.

Learn to read. I won't continue a discussion with a tree stump.

 

[weaksauce]

So slow, everybody is moving to them. Genius!

Hey I'm just saying Xenos has slow unified pipes. They'll probably want some faster ones for the PC. Or I don't know, but doesn't xenos make 2 shader ops per pipe per cycle or something and RSX makes 4,5+? I mean it does have weaker shader performance on the paper, even with more pipes.

 

[Sethamin]

Hey I'm just saying Xenos has slow unified pipes. They'll probably want some faster ones for the PC. Or I don't know, but doesn't xenos make 2 shader ops per pipe per cycle or something and RSX makes 4,5+? I mean it does have weaker shader performance on the paper, even with more pipes.

Hey, I heard the PS3 is going to be capable of 2 TFLOPS, but on the other hand, I also heard that the BMW 330i has 255 HP! I think it's obvious which is more powerful.

 

[TurnDragoZeroV2G]

Hey I'm just saying Xenos has slow unified pipes. They'll probably want some faster ones for the PC. Or I don't know, but doesn't xenos make 2 shader ops per pipe per cycle or something and RSX makes 4,5+? I mean it does have weaker shader performance on the paper, even with more pipes.

Er, has zilch to do with unified. That's pipeline structure. Xenos goes wtih just one ALU (5D in width), whilst RSX/G70 (AFAWK) uses two ALUs in each pipe, 4D, with some extra stuff plopped in there (mini-ALUs for legacy, free partial precision normalize, and texture ops tied to the ALU(s?)). But, R520 has just one full 4D ALU in each pipe, with a mini-ALU that does add/legacy (BTW, should this be seen as interesting, WRT the mini-ALU? Or am I drunk?). 16 pipe R520 at 1.5 times the clockspeed of a G70, whcih has 1.5 times as many PS pipes, doesn't seem to exactly lose by a large margin or anything.

Edit: Well, array/shader structure, if you prefer.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Hey I'm just saying Xenos has slow unified pipes. They'll probably want some faster ones for the PC. Or I don't know, but doesn't xenos make 2 shader ops per pipe per cycle or something and RSX makes 4,5+? I mean it does have weaker shader performance on the paper, even with more pipes.

You understand that they are differnt pipline structures, yes? G70 does its 4 by using two ALU's per pipeline, Xeno's does its two on a single co-issue ALU. It kinda even out overall!