upnorthsox
Veteran
My EU launch (March 2007) PS3 60Gb has a Toshiba Blu-ray drive in. Understand?
No I don't understand, do you have a picture of this? AFAIK Toshiba didn't make a Blu-ray drive until 2009.
My EU launch (March 2007) PS3 60Gb has a Toshiba Blu-ray drive in. Understand?
What I find interesting is the Orbis leak mentions Jaguar explicitly while the Durango doc doesn't, just says x86. Perhaps the Durango CPU is more customized. Someone suggested you could upgrade the CPU's from one ADD and one MUL unit to two FMA's instead, this way you could effectively double the flops. I figure the L2 and memory couldn't support the bandwidth, but by using the embedded RAM, maybe that alleviates the bandwidth issue.
Interesting, really interesting.I was coming back in regards to this as I had some extra info. This does after all seem to be the case for Xbox 3's CPU. I'm not sure on the exact details, but from a FLOPs perspective it seems it may have as much as double the performance of "vanilla" Jaguar cores.
Aeoniss could you point to the whole post? It goes against the data from VGleaks, it smells fishy."..They also understand [Durango's GPU] read write/rate per per pixel is roughly twice that of the PS4 gpu?"
Heard this floated around on another board. Wtf?
"I need to dedicate some time to having a good look at the specs i never realised there was a page 2 and 3 of the vgleaks article regarding the gpu. And a cursory glance tells me this is a very highly customised chip.
People do understand this is not 12 vs 18 cu's right? Its 12 vs 14.
They also understand its read write/rate per per pixel is roughly twice that of the PS4 gpu?
The issue i have is, there isn't a whole heck of a lot of data about the PS4 gpu, so we have to assume it's a standard chip. We also dont know enough about gcn engines."
It's coming from an indie dev on the forum. He knows his stuff and he's made some games, he's from New Zealand. Insofar as I'm aware he isn't signed on with any big development company.
He's only interpreting what information has been leaked to us so far, so what all of us who aren't tied by NDA's know.
I just don't know what information he's interpreting to reach the aforementioned conclusion.
Edit: He just provided context
"
PS4
Dual Shader Engines:
- 1.6 billion triangles/s, 1.6 billion vertices/s
720
Triangle rate
2 tri/clock * 800 MHz = 1.6 Gtri/sec
Vertex rate
2 vert/clock * 800 MHz = 1.6 Gvert/sec
You cannot push more vertices through than the 720.
Both the DB and the CB have substantial caches on die, and all depth and color operations are performed locally in the caches. Access to these caches is faster than access to ESRAM. For this reason, the peak GPU pixel rate can be larger than what raw memory throughput would indicate. The caches are not large enough, however, to fit entire render targets. Therefore, rendering that is localized to a particular area of the screen is more efficient than scattered rendering.
Must be said, 99% of what you render at any one time is in the one spot.
Rain would be the obvious exclusion to that.
Colour buffer
The CB is optimized for 64-bit-per-pixel types, so there is no local performance advantage in using smaller color formats, although there may still be a substantial bandwidth savings.
PS4
32 color ops/cycle
Now, again, my interpretation of this would be that the ROP is 64 bit per pixel on the 720 and only 32 bits per pixel on the PS4."
They just kill things that did not work,in fact if the new super slim PS3 dies,you don't have to open your whole console and dismantle the DVD drive just to get your disc out.
No matter what people try to pretend is not 12CU vs 14 CU,the PS4 has 4 CU on the compute side that i am sure sony did not put there just because they wanted to fill the die space with something.
Every times something is shut down another magical theory appears on how Durango will be on par or even ahead is tiresome.
Is he trying to say that Durango has half the ROPs yet the same bandwidth as Orbis (going with the additive split pools meme: DDR3 + EDRAM ~= 170GB/s), hence "twice" the "read/write rate per pixel?" It still doesn't make sense to me, but what do I know.
"Our new car model has manual windows so that you can escape when you drive into a large body of water!"
Some times it surprise me because some people actually want to put Durango as the mother of all efficient systems ever created,one that rival the 680GTX GPU based on silly theories about efficiency.
But some how Orbis the more straight forward design,with faster ram and unified isn't as efficient,it has ROP over kill,and the 4 CU it has for compute would not do little difference if any.
Arguments like this are tiresome,duango hardware has been heavily tied to secret sauce ever since it was hint that it wasn't as powerful as orbis.
Assume Sony built a closed box system optimized for a GPU with 14CUs, 8 jaguar cores, and 2GB of GDDR5. The feedback from developers is then that Durango has 8GB of memory, a "custom" jaguar CPU with roughly twice the compute power, and a custom GPU which is at least comparable to Orbis'. What would be the easiest way to close the performance gap?
Wouldn't upping the memory to 4GB and add CUs to the GPU be one of the most obvious answers? (The fact that the extra 4 CUs weren't planned in the initial system design phases could explain why they're said to only provide limited benefit in the rendering pipeline)
That wasn't case from what i read,the 4CU were part of the plan the 4GB of memory came from pressure from developers,the 4 CU apart did not.
Either way from what i read you have 12 CU on Durango vs 14 CU on orbis.
A CPU with 102 gflops on Orbis and one with double the flops in Durango (if true,it could be the new secret sauce) so 204 Flops on the CPU side for Durango.
That still leaves 4CU with what 400Gflops on the compute side that still are there to be use.
I don't see this in the positive light you do. Sony's PS3 redesigns have each involved ripping out hardware and features present in the previous version. I don't recall any console where (aesthetics aside) the original version was so far and away the best version to own and each successive revision has resulted in a lesser device. Maybe someone else can think of a comparable example?
Yep, It's a lot easier to reduce costs when you remove features from the box, as opposed to adding them. Sony is definitely more skilled at removing features.
I was coming back in regards to this as I had some extra info. This does after all seem to be the case for Xbox 3's CPU. I'm not sure on the exact details, but from a FLOPs perspective it seems it may have as much as double the performance of "vanilla" Jaguar cores.
There's two reasons for this IMO.
1. MS already did this last gen with a system that seemingly on paper was overmatched and then, as i think Shifty put it, "merrily kicked PS3 in the nether regions on a number of multiplatform titles." I.E. there's a track record here of efficiency, performance, and "bang for your buck" from the MS engineering team so they deserve some benefit of doubt
2. There has been a steady stream of leaks about custom (and not so custom) pieces of this system that clearly allude to the fact that MS has put some significant thought into getting the highest possible performance with the budget they've been given. There has been no such information that Orbis is anything but exactly what's on paper. By the way, thats not a bad thing, its just the case right now.
Also, this is a technical forum and i think subconsciously the crowd here wants to uncover the fabled "secret sauce" and a bold, cutting edge design, under the covers that provides more performance than could have been expected from the given transistor budget
MS did not do this with the xbox 360.
and this is before taking into consideration that the OS *may* (if plans haven't changed- referring to yukon leak) operate on it's own exclusive CPU+GPU arrangement, as well as all the audio work being piped through the SoC/dedicated DSP.
Saving 5-10% of the system resources and adding 5-10% more puts the two systems in roughly the same ballpark before you even start talking about efficiency.