New PowerVR demos

[Kristof]

But, wouldn't that take a lot of video memo...
Oh, wait.

 

[alexsok]

Putting all the maunder aside, i'm really interested, moreover intrigued to find out how the new PowerVR stacks up against it's rivals, namely NV40 and the new Radeon... AFAIK, they're the first breeze out there to gasconade PS3.0/VS3.0 demos

p.s
wish i had the hardware to test it out

 

[Ailuros]

I just don't think PowerVR stands a chance of putting out a truly good GPU in the consumer sector. With their current business model, their product will always take a long time to get to market. I don't think they'll ever be able to be competitive.

That is, even if they do have a finished design, and are able to get a few chips out for review by early next year, it will take some time to set up all the necessary licesnsing deals, and subsequent production.

While I can't deny that their IP lisencing model is in fact not IMHO a milestone for really strong competition, all the rest is pure speculation concerning possible deals.

For the record the forecasted timetables for MBX have been kept more or less so far and it's not just one lisencee but a multitude of them.

 

[KimB]

Also keep in mind that they didn't have much of any competition in that space. I still say that it will take PowerVR a good six months (or more) longer to put out a comparable product than it will for ATI or nVidia due to their business strategy. Because of this, and because I feel that we're at the point where TBR's should be less attractive due to the software being run, I don't think PowerVR stands much of a chance.

 

[Ailuros]

You're still speculating and basing nothing on a single fact. Let's just wait and see.

I don't personally expect myself PowerVR to put up the same level of competition as the other two big players, but that doesn't mean that they won't sell well for their expectations and encounting the long absence or that it will go unnoticed or being an uncapable product.

Because of this, and because I feel that we're at the point where TBR's should be less attractive due to the software being run, I don't think PowerVR stands much of a chance.

I think I've heard the same old same old from you specifically more than often enough and up until now it's nothing else but prejudiced theory and nothing else.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't personally expect myself PowerVR to put up the same level of competition as the other two big players, but that doesn't mean that they won't sell well for their expectations and encounting the long absence or that it will go unnoticed or being an uncapable product.

You're just speculating and basing nothing on a single fact. Let's just wait and see. I think I've heard the same old same old from you specifically more than often enough and up until now it's nothing else but prejudiced theory and nothing else.

(Sorry...couldn't resist Ailuros. Seriously though, you really shouldn't be one to call out other's prejudice as a negative point.)

 

[Ailuros]

Seriously though, you really shouldn't be one to call out other's prejudice as a negative point.

Really? Then I challenge you to find one single comment that proves my supposed obvious bias against ATI/NV. Good luck you'll have a hard time with that one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Really? Then I challenge you to find one single comment that proves my supposed obvious bias against ATI/NV. Good luck you'll have a hard time with that one.

Did I say anything about a bias agsint ATI/NV?

Or are you going to claim you don't have a bias for PowerVR?

 

[Ailuros]

Change the definition from bias to preference for TBDR and I'm all game. However said preference will not keep me from acknowledging other products obvious strengths nor did I ever result in downplaying a competitor's product before it's presentation or having reliable data in my hand. For the case in point looking back into June 2002:

Let me clarify more of what I mean by the possibility of the R300 being more 'DX8.5" than DX9.

I'm not trying to say that the NV30 will be lightyears ahead, but that it looks like it will be noticeably ahead in features (And almost certainly performance...by a good margin). In reality, I expect it to be a little bit less than the difference between the original Radeon and GeForce3. I fully expect the R300 to be noticeably ahead of the Parhelia in features and performance.

Note that it is also absolutely certain that both video chips will offer some features that the other does not. It may even be true that the non-overlapping features will be equal in number. What is more important is which features are more forward-looking and will be used to great effect. I have a strong belief that nVidia's featureset will be significantly more complete in this aspect (Based on just a little more than past history...).

Can I bend over laughing now?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Change the definition from bias to preference for TBDR and I'm all game.

Fine.

However said preference will not keep me from acknowledging other products obvious strengths nor did I ever result in downplaying a competitor's product before it's presentation or having reliable data in my hand.

My point, Ailuros, is that if we don't actually have a Series5 product here on the market to talk factually about, Chalnoth is entitled to whatever-the-hell speculation he wants, and you don't really have much of a place to criticize him for it.

You're pro-deferred rendering, he's historically anti-deferred rendering. You both have your reasons. And note that Chalonoth's last speculative criticism on Series5 is not simply based on deferred rendering tech, but PowerVR's busines model.

So unless you particularly appreciate people telling you to "STFU, you're just a deferrered rendering Fan-boi!" I don't think it's particularly appropraite for you tell essentially tell Chalnoth the same thing form the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

[Ailuros]

What's up Joe bored and looking for another 10 page quote orgy or what?

And note that Chalonoth's last speculative criticism on Series5 is not simply based on deferred rendering tech, but PowerVR's busines model.

<snip>

Because of this, and because I feel that we're at the point where TBR's should be less attractive due to the software being run, I don't think PowerVR stands much of a chance.

You're pro-deferred rendering, he's historically anti-deferred rendering. You both have your reasons.

What would theoretically happen in an extremely unlikely scenario that NVIDIA would choose to flip completely to TBDR?

So unless you particularly appreciate people telling you to "STFU, you're just a deferrered rendering Fan-boi!" I don't think it's particularly appropraite for you tell essentially tell Chalnoth the same thing form the opposite side of the spectrum.

Nice. I neither resulted to such extremes nor am I that tactless. It just helps playing devil's advocate to use the particular interpretation, doesn't it?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What's up Joe bored and looking for another 10 page quote orgy or what?

No, I'm just tired of you jumping on anyone who has any negative speculation on deferred rendering and / or PowerVR, when your own response is little more than "don't speculate."

What would theoretically happen in an extremely unlikely scenario that NVIDIA would choose to flip completely to TBDR?

I don't know, nor is it relevant.

Nice. I neither resulted to such extremes nor am I that tactless.

In your opinion.

It just helps playing devil's advocate to use the particular interpretation, doesn't it?

So, what's your excuse?

 

[Simon F]

What's up Joe bored and looking for another 10 page quote orgy or what?

No, I'm just tired of you jumping on anyone who has any negative speculation on deferred rendering and / or PowerVR, when your own response is little more than "don't speculate."

Joe, to be fair, Chalnoth's first comment:

Deferred renderers lose efficiency with more geometry. IMR's are mostly fillrate-bound, so it may be better to send the geometry multiple times if less work has to be done by the pixel shader.

... was of the tired, old "TBDRs will not be able to handle the next generation" family. An uncharitable person could just as easily point to NV's current offering and say the same thing.

 

[Ailuros]

No, I'm just tired of you jumping on anyone who has any negative speculation on deferred rendering and / or PowerVR, when your own response is little more than "don't speculate."

Yes it was prejudiced theory in fact. Far too far away from jumping on anyone's throat like you want to present it.

In your opinion.

Which I am also entitled to.

So, what's your excuse?

I don't think I owe you an explanation do I? I'll keep on behaving like I always do, which of course is open to criticism too. After all I'll always have you to "jump on my throat" for it, just to keep supposed balances don't I?

 

[KimB]

Joe, to be fair, Chalnoth's first comment:

Deferred renderers lose efficiency with more geometry. IMR's are mostly fillrate-bound, so it may be better to send the geometry multiple times if less work has to be done by the pixel shader.

... was of the tired, old "TBDRs will not be able to handle the next generation" family. An uncharitable person could just as easily point to NV's current offering and say the same thing.

Um, no.

TBDR's use up additional memory bandwidth, at the very least, when adding geometry (an additional read and write of geometry to memory). But, TBDR's are very efficient in fillrate. So if you can reduce geometry, perhaps at some cost in fillrate, it is definitely preferable to reduce geometry with a TBDR.

I don't see how that's anything but objective. And just because the argument is old doesn't mean it's any less valid. I also never said that TBDR's would be worse off than IMR's with current software. I essentially claimed that a TBDR wouldn't be as far ahead in terms of efficiency anymore (I stated that this was due to software, but it's also due to memory bandwidth savings tech that has gone into IMR's).

 

[Mariner]

Haven't we all had this discussion before (several times, in fact).

Basically, the 'doubters' list the reasons that they expect TBDRs to have problems and the 'faithful' post their rebuttals.

Hopefully we'll see a licensee with at PVR5 chip in the near future and these arguments will cease. (To be replaced by a whole load of new arguments, no doubt ).

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Basically, the 'doubters' list the reasons that they expect TBDRs to have problems and the 'faithful' post their rebuttals.

Essentially true...I had a problem with Ailuros in this case not because he's a "faithful", but because he jumped on someone's back for being a doubter, with the rebuttle of "well, you're a doubter."

(And my standard disclaimer...I have less doubts about TBDRs in general, than I do specifically with PowerVR + PowerVR's partner to deliver a competive part in the bleeding edge performance market.)

Hopefully we'll see a licensee with at PVR5 chip in the near future and these arguments will cease. (

Agreed!

 

[Waltar]

I wondered this question when PowerVR released PS2.0 and VS 2.0 demos.

What is the point? It's not like they're demoing it for their hardware, since the last chip they had was barely DX8.

 

[arjan de lumens]

I wondered this question when PowerVR released PS2.0 and VS 2.0 demos.

What is the point? It's not like they're demoing it for their hardware, since the last chip they had was barely DX8.

DX8? More like DX6 - AFAIK, the only non-DX6 feature the Kyro/KyroII had in hardware was FSAA.

 

[SuperCow]

I wondered this question when PowerVR released PS2.0 and VS 2.0 demos.

What is the point? It's not like they're demoing it for their hardware, since the last chip they had was barely DX8.

DX8? More like DX6 - AFAIK, the only non-DX6 feature the Kyro/KyroII had in hardware was FSAA.

So GeForce[1-2] cards that cannot do EMBM (a basic DX6 feature) are DX5?