Interesting if true .. link?
It was quoted by one of the guys over at Neo Gaf who seems to know a lot about Orbis. I wasn't a statement of fact though I think he said "he wouldn't be surprised.
Interesting if true .. link?
It's a secret to everybody. :smile:It will be funny if in the end MS - that still is not a "known" member of the HSA foundation - embraces homogeneous computing instead of heterogeneous after being a long time partner of AMD.
It was quoted by one of the guys over at Neo Gaf who seems to know a lot about Orbis. I wasn't a statement of fact though I think he said "he wouldn't be surprised.
Are we sure that Durango is Jaguar based? People have mentioned the rumors don't explicitly state Jaguar. Perhaps it's richland/vishera downclocked with some special sauce? For instance, that AndyH guy said each core was modified to have its own FPU, but it seems Jaguar already has an FPU per core (correct?), they're just not so stellar, which led to some saying they're upgraded instead. However, what if it's based on vishera, like an 8350? Then the comment makes more sense. Say an 8350 modified for an FPU per core, downclocked to 1.6GHz? At 1.6 even vishera shouldn't be the heat/watt monster we know it as, and given the smaller GPU CU count, they might have room.
As to the 14+4 issue surrounding orbis, what if it's a result of legacy design? That is to say, what if orbis was originally an APU + GPU. It would help explain the CPU context switching patent by Sony. Additionally, Arthur Geis (the ageis poster from GAF) mentioned that those old Durango rumors about MS using a 6670 were actually for orbis, and that people had confused them. Also, IIRC, around that time there was talk of a 2 GPU solution for Durango, but perhaps this too was for orbis. If true, these seemingly suggest an APU+GPU solution. However, somehow someway this changed (maybe they caught wind of what MS had planned?), and Sony went with a SoC instead. Now, maybe, prior to this event, Sony planned to use the CUs (let's conveniently count 4) in the APU to provide processing support for the CPU in a more integrated, HSA like setup, and so some modifications were done to say the ACEs or to add an extra SIMD unit or increase texture caches or whatever it is the latest rumors are suggesting, specializing them in some way for GPGPU work with expectation they would be under utilized for rendering with the separation. The aforementioned event occurs, and this design gets updated into a SoC, but because developers have already been working with this setup, Sony isn't able rework the designed integration of the 4CUs too radically. As a result, we have a puzzling 14+4 setup with some vestige literature suggesting these 4CUs will provide minimal rendering support, despite that it may no longer holds as they're now just more specialized CUs in an 18CU SoC GPU. This might explain why eurogamer may perceive them as separate - their documents are out of date.
Isn't this what happens, someone who 'seems' to know something that makes one console look better than the other and fanboys jump on it like it's gospel.
Im sure Sony fanboys would do the same if the situations where reversed but this is getting beyond a joke.
Are you sure?
Was recently told Durango's peak triangles and vertices rate>Orbis.
Now why would that be...I dont know but it seems pretty telling to me, that the whole GPU might be better.
who cares what proelite has to say? take a look at proelite november 2012 edition:the origin seems to be proelite who seems to say its a fact but wont elaborate. take all the salt and disbelief you'd like, as i know many of you will. i tend to give it some credit and take note, but wouldn't count it as fact or anything.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47002439&postcount=936
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47002541&postcount=953
who cares what proelite has to say? take a look at proelite november 2012 edition:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=43932120&postcount=1199
The only clear advantage Orbis has is a 50% increase in CUs. How does that produces a 100% improvement in framerate?I'm expecting 20-30fps on Durango and 40-60fps for the same game/content on Orbis.
The only clear advantage Orbis has is a 50% increase in CUs. How does that produces a 100% improvement in framerate?
Bandwidth isn't an advantage?
I can understand that Vishera at 32nm is a bad choice for the example setup, but richland is 28nm, IIRC, so that may be more viable perhaps? I hadn't really thought carefully about performance at the lower end frequencies. I just assumed vishera/richland would perform better than Jaguar at even low frequencies, but I guess Jaguar is tuned to run better at lower frequencies, while vishera/richland are tuned to higher frequencies.This would only make sense if Durango was a 32nm Vishera + VLIW4 APU, which would be 2nd gen HSA and therefore inferior to a 28nm 3rd gen HSA. Not to mention that there is no reason at all to use Vishera if you're going to have a core frequency of 1.6Ghz.
I had thought that initially the lowered rendering capabilities might have been a result of the hypothesized separate APU+GPU setup and dealing with synchronization between the 2 GPUs and so forth, rather than due to specialization resulting in stripping the 4 CUs of their rendering capabilities. Ah well, it seems to not be the case. Though, I wonder why Sony might limit developers to use those 4CUs explicitly for GPGPU work. I would think if it was just an abstraction they would not attach a explicit number, but mention it as a best practice. Was it that they could only afford to include in the design modified CUs? Maybe, previously it was 11+6 (with the modified CUs taking extra space), and this latest iteration is considered more "balanced"? It does seem fit with what we know.I think that the Sony GPU context switching patent was related to the Crossplay feature of the Vita, but that's only a guess.
I also think the 14+4 setup as well as the APU+GPU concept are just abstractions of how this Liverpool processor works. It's all a big hetereogneous processor, so I think it's better to view each element as a gear wheel instead of a complete new engine. If I were Sony I would aim to have the infamous 4 CUs as flexible as possible. Having them available for GPGPU and also for rendering would be the silver bullet. Maybe Sony says "you can use as much GPU resources for rendering as you want, but we want you to use only these four super-duper CUs for your GPGPU algorithms".
It's ~170 GB/s vs ~170 GB/s. The division in Durango's BW between RAM pools doesn't negate the working BW the processors have available. And if Durango has a clever architecture of lower latency RAM that enables better efficiency, it could come out on top. Of course, that would require considering these boxes are more than just a collection of numbers that can be compared as bigger=better...Bandwidth isn't an advantage?
I think we know what both systems are going to be. There really is no mystery at all.