nVidia building the PS3 GPU in its "entirety"

[Dave Baumann]

Are you serious in alot of your responces? A years worth of difference (one lithography generation) in launch window is equivalent to an economically sustainable 2X increase in logic budget for the 5 year fixed cycle over the competition. It's HUGE.

Eh? It can potentially from one console to another, but I'm talking about the difference between a PC and a consoles (even then, thats not neceearily the case for all elements of the PC industry).

 

[Panajev2001a]

The PC industry has given them the freedom to innvovate, something that wouldn't be possible along in the consumer industry

What kind of Pravda is this ?

<snip>

ok, apparently there are two mindsets expressed here:

people of the first mindset think PC industry (a synergism for both its hw and sw) is thriving and flourishing, and all other consumer computing sectors can only hope to be like the PC sector. they have their resons for that.

people of the other mindset, in contrast, see the PC industry as a well-entranched behemoth, hardly providing any innovation, and hence falling badly behind the price/performance curve of the day. which may not be necessarily bad for those few entrenched PC IHV/ISV's, but is clearly bad for both the consumer and any (small) innovative players on the market.

and the reason i'm saying this is not to beat a dead horse, but rather to hint at the prospect that the dead horse' beating won't stop any time soon, pardon any possible lack of eloquence on my side.

Thank you Darkblu, very eloquent post.

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Sony had 90nm shipping last fall, they have a bleeding-edge 90nm SoC shipping in Japan and from what I've heard have recieved back 65nm SOI samples which are running in house. I suspect their announcement of 45nm was correct and we can expect that in 2006.

And a year’s difference isn’t that great when you look at the lifecycle of the consoles.

Are you serious in alot of your responces? A years worth of difference (one lithography generation) in launch window is equivalent to an economically sustainable 2X increase in logic budget for the 5 year fixed cycle over the competition. It's HUGE.

PS. Say whatever you want about the PC as a platform, defend it for some bizzare reason with arguments about what it's done yesterday, the proof is in the numbers and where they money is tomorrow.

PPS. It was quite elequent darkblu.

This is why MS is willing to lose so much on the Xbox. When the home PC gives way to a converged consumer device they want to be there. Everyone knows where things are going but the trick is predicting critical mass and mass adoption. I think the PC survives a couple more console generations as an entertainment medium. PC's are so amazingly adaptable. Thousands of small developers are inventing new businesses and the pc connected internet is the perfect beta environment. Think about P2P. Biggest thing ever. Skype and other VOIP apps will end POTS in a few years. It will gain critical mass on PC's before going to a converged device. Online gaming gains critical mass on PC's before going to a converged device (xbox live is a start but PC's are where online gaming happens). PC's are cool and allow individuals and small groups of people to create amazing things that simply are not possible on proprietary systems. People use PCs to enhance productivity and will continue to do so for a long time. The bifurcation will happen eventually between production and consumption devices but it ain't going to happen as soon as you think

 

[jvd]

2.3x the current top-of-the-line due to current fabbing and process size, but when fabbing at 65nm/SOI/Lo-K/etc... they might have more room to up the GHz.

If the Cell BE ~ 4.6+ GHz, then the GPU will likely be 1/4 (worst) ~ 1/2 (best) that speed.

So your telling me they are going to go from 400mhz to possible 2.3 ghz while making the gpu even bigger than it currently is all the while going from a drop of 110nm to 65nm .

Find it hard to believe.

Did anyone expect Cell to be 4.6+GHz? Especially given the top G5 [PPC] is only 2.5GHz.

Is cell 4.6+ ghz ? I dunno i don't have a ps3 in my hands to you ? But thats besides the point

Nvidia's clock speeds have been steadly going down in clock rate since the geforce fx 5800ultra.

I don't see them producing a nv50+ lvl chip much higher than 1 ghz . Certianly not 2.3 ghz Esp when you see them almost double thier transitors generation. Which means they will be at around 444million transistors by the time the ps3 comes out . Hell they will be at that with thier next gen chip after the nv40( 222m at 130nm)

I also don't see ati going past 800-1ghz by xbox 2 launch

 

[Megadrive1988]

DaveBaumann wrote:

the PC vendors are becoming, if not already are, the single most prolific driving force in 3D – they are the only force in the PC space, they are the pixel generators for the entire next generation console industry

I had to take a look at this statement (a true one) again.


last console generation, graphics chip wise, we had:

3DO M1's graphics: 3DO Systems in-house
Saturn's VDP1 & VDP2: Sega in-house
PS1's 'GPU' (GPU in name only) Sony in-house
NEC PC-FX's graphics: Hudson in-house
N64's Reality Co-Processor: SGI
3DO M2's BDA (BullDog ASIC): 3DO Systems in-house - not used in console.

this generation:

Dreamcast's PowerVR2DC aka CLX2: Videologic, NEC
Playstation2's GS: Sony in-house
Gamecube's Flipper: ARTX a splinter of SGI that got bought by ATI, NEC
Xbox's NV2A: Nvidia

the coming generation

Xenon's R500: largely ATI, maybe some MS stuff
Revolution's GPU: ATI (+NEC?)
PS3's GPU: largely Nvidia, maybe some Sony stuff


I don't really concider Gamecube's Flipper GPU to be from the PC space. more from SGI since ARTX was really completely ex-SGI people. ATI bought ArtX by the time Flipper was nearing completion. of course, Revolution's GPU is fully ATI thus could be counted as coming from the PC GPU space.



indeed, for the first time, the entire next generation of consoles, as far as we know, are, for the most part, getting their pixels generated by PC GPU vendors. the major holdout was, of course, Sony.

 

[Mythos]

On the subject of PC architecture and GPU's...

Nvidia:

"However, he took pains to note that the new console GPU is bringing no PC-related baggage with it. "It's nothing to do with Windows, it doesn't use any of the Windows features, and it's not about driving Windows," he said. "It's not about the PC at all."

Cell or Cell light based?

 

[Megadrive1988]

yeah that's true as well. although Nvidia is first and formost a PC GPU vendor, its tenticles reach out into almost every area of 3D processing, many that do not have any PC baggage with them.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Taken literally, driving "Windows" is actually done from a tiny portion of the ASIC valled the VGA engine; all graphics vendors are hopping up and down to dump this at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

[Brimstone]

2.3x the current top-of-the-line due to current fabbing and process size, but when fabbing at 65nm/SOI/Lo-K/etc... they might have more room to up the GHz.

If the Cell BE ~ 4.6+ GHz, then the GPU will likely be 1/4 (worst) ~ 1/2 (best) that speed.

So your telling me they are going to go from 400mhz to possible 2.3 ghz while making the gpu even bigger than it currently is all the while going from a drop of 110nm to 65nm .

Find it hard to believe.

Did anyone expect Cell to be 4.6+GHz? Especially given the top G5 [PPC] is only 2.5GHz.

Is cell 4.6+ ghz ? I dunno i don't have a ps3 in my hands to you ? But thats besides the point

Nvidia's clock speeds have been steadly going down in clock rate since the geforce fx 5800ultra.

I don't see them producing a nv50+ lvl chip much higher than 1 ghz . Certianly not 2.3 ghz Esp when you see them almost double thier transitors generation. Which means they will be at around 444million transistors by the time the ps3 comes out . Hell they will be at that with thier next gen chip after the nv40( 222m at 130nm)

I also don't see ati going past 800-1ghz by xbox 2 launch

I have the same question. Is "CELL" clocked at 4.6 Ghz? The NEC SX-8 supercomputer has vector processors running at 2.0 Ghz.

Further-enhanced single-chip, vector processor The vector processor (vector and scalar units) is integrated into a single chip by applying leading-edge CMOS technology with 90-nanometer (nanometer: 10-9 meter) copper interconnects and the most advanced LSI design technology. Pipelines of the vector unit, the central part of a vector processor, operate at a 2GHz clock frequency, which is double the speed of the SX-6, and realize a peak vector performance of 16GFLOPS per CPU. Moreover, hardware support of the vector square root operation achieves a sustained performance six times higher than that of the SX-6.

http://news.nanoapex.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=5158

 

[Megadrive1988]

off-topic: the above post about NEC supercomputers reminded me of.....

I had once hoped that NEC would build a parallel CPU from its supercomputer & vector processor experience, for Nintendo. something to rival CELL or at least attempt to do so. there were rumors of just that, but they faded. I doubt what IBM is doing for Nintendo is nearly on the same scale as CELL. the Revolution CPU is likely to be a single core or maybe dual-core PowerPC solution. at best, on par with Xenon's CPU, but probably not even. I'm in no way downplaying Revolution though. but thinking more optimistically, the time frame would have been there, or is there, for IBM to build a CPU that's beyond the Xenon CPU, for Nintendo.

 

[cybamerc]

DaveBaumann:

> However, even the timescales at which consoles are exceeded by PC's
> capabilities these days are are lessening, even more so now the same
> graphics vendors are being used.

Because the prices for high end consumers cards have increased drastically over the last couple of years. A top of the line graphics card costs twice as much as PS2 and Xbox did when they launched.



Vince:

> PS. The PC marketplace isn't driving 3D, the userbase of high-end
> accelerators isn't expanding at a rate that's even close to Consoles. 4M
> 9700's compared with 75M PS2s

The number of consoles versus those of PC graphics cards isn't relevant. ATI's and Nvidia's businesses don't revolve around consoles. I don't think anyone can deny the impact PC gaming has had on the evolution of 3d graphics. The fact that the three big console/set top box makers are going with graphics solutions from ATI and Nvidia should be enough to tell you that.

> Lets cut the shit, the PC isn't the future for the 3D firms...

In the near future it is. Who knows what the market looks like in 10 years from now. The console as a gaming only device could be a thing of the past if Sony and Microsoft have their ways.

 

[ultimate_end]

so basicly, I take it you are thinking the GPU is mostly Nvidia-based, with input from Sony. it seems to be the best choice, considering that Sony was quite alot behind Nvidia when PS2 was developed, and now that Nvidia has grown in resources and IP by leaps & bounds, Nvidia was the only really good choice for Sony..

Um, how did you come to this conclusion?

PS2 was developed between 1994 and 1998. Now what exactly was the nVidia company at this time? Not much, that's for sure.

As for post PS2 nVidia innovations, video card integrated T&L a la GeForce 256, although having a somewhat revolutionary effect at the time, is not that incredible, considering it was merely a common sense evolution for graphics technology. Programmeable pixel shaders didn't arrive until GeForce 3, with a 2001 release. Irrespective of how long this technology was in development, the fact remains that it was given physical implementation almost 2 years after PS2, which shows that it is a much later development than anything SCEI could have utilised when the GS was locked down in 1998. In the years since then, I can't see how Sony could currently be any more than one PC GPU generation behind in pixel shader technology. Given Sony's graphics related patent applications, even that itself may be a moot point.

And now for the general rant (I've been holding this in for quite some time)...

I find the suggestion that Sony is vastly behind nVidia almost as outragious as the belief, of many on these boards, that Sony needed Toshiba to develop the PS3 GPU.

Emotion Engine notwithstanding, since when has Toshiba had anything to do with Playstation graphics? Even the Emotion Engine is essentially a general media processor, not a graphics processor. The only remotly graphics related development (based on general purpose computing technology BTW) related strictly to graphics is one vector unit and the GIF (which isn't strictly "graphics technology" either). OK, so the R5900 core has a couple of extra graphics related instructions. Big ****ing deal!

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but regardless of a few mediocre graphics, patents Toshiba is not the graphics technology powerhouse that people here seem to believe they are! I respect Toshiba more than almost anyone, for their semiconductor technology and SOC expertise. I even suggest that Toshiba had a far larger role in the development of CELL than anyone (including B3D Forums' Toshiba zealots) have given them credit for. I too, dream of an X-Architecture implementation of CELL. But I laugh in the face of anyone who suggests that they have graphics knowledge approaching that even of Sony.

Advanced eDRAM process? That's a joint development between Sony and Toshiba and was intended not only for graphics applications.

Toshiba designs graphics processors? Yes, but then Sony Corporation set up a R&D graphics research department in the early 90's, which still very much operates today and has contributed to SCEI's projects (possibly even PS3).

I probably need to state this again. Sony does not need Toshiba to help them with graphics technology!

.
Yes, that was off-topic. No, I don't give a damn.
Here, back on topic...

I was disappointed when this nVidia deal was announced and that certainly hasn't changed now. Do not assume that this deal came about because Sony isn't capable of making a powerhouse GPU of their own. Do not assume that this nVidia GPU is some kind of radical technology designed specifically for Sony. Do not even assume that PS3's GPU will be much more than a GeForce 7800 Ultra, manufactured with Sony/Toshiba technology. Finally, do not assume that this deal is an indication of some kind of failure of Sony to implement their own design. Alternative explanation random example? If Sony ran out of funds after planning to plow $3 billion into CELL, the "buy now, pay later" licensing approach would have looked a feasible way to produce a powerful, fully featured GPU, without spending many millions of dollars.

Look, I'm not trying to tell you what's what. I'm trying to tell you that we can assume nothing about PS3, positive or negative. In spite of what we think we know *cough*Vince/Qroach/PCengine*cough*, we are all assuming what PS3 will become.

There is nothing wrong with this. Just accept the fact that we may be wrong.
I realise that to some, I sound like I'm very much stating the obvious here, but it had to be said.

BTW Megadrive, please don't think anything in this post is actually directed at you. I realise that you have been very humble in your comments so far. That is more than some might say of myself.
I accept that you may have worded your original comment the way it was to not offend anybody. If that is the case, then please accept my apology for using it to air some of my feelings on this matter.

*edit* And yes of course the nVidia GPU will be customised by nVidia to work with the PS3 CPU.

 

[Megadrive1988]

ultimate_end, why do you think Sony is going with an Nvidia-based solution for PS3 graphics processor?

I don't recall ever saying anything to the effect that Toshiba is a graphics powerhouse. I've never heard much about Toshiba's graphics teams. since Sony designed the PS1 'GPU' (gpu in name only) and the PS2 Graphics Synthesizer, I would believe that Sony's graphics expertise is far beyond that of Toshiba's but not in the same leauge as Nvidia or ATI, or even 3Dlabs.

admittedly, knowing that the Graphics Synthesizer was locked down in 1997 or 1998 makes me think that Sony could have developed a decent graphics processor on its own for PS3. but it seems they have choosen not to do so this time, or are at the very least getting major help from Nvidia.

ok thanks ultimate_end for you comments at the end of your post. yeah I am trying my best not to be overly against any one company or overly for another. it's hard sometimes.

 

[ultimate_end]

ultimate_end, why do you think Sony is going with an Nvidia-based solution for PS3 graphics processor?

I don't recall ever saying anything to the effect that Toshiba is a graphics powerhouse. I've never heard much about Toshiba's graphics teams. since Sony designed the PS1 'GPU' (gpu in name only) and the PS2 Graphics Synthesizer, I would believe that Sony's graphics expertise is far beyond that of Toshiba's but not in the same leauge as Nvidia or ATI, or even 3Dlabs.

admittedly, knowing that the Graphics Synthesizer was locked down in 1997 or 1998 makes me think that Sony could have developed a decent graphics processor on its own for PS3. but it seems they have choosen not to do so this time, or are at the very least getting major help from Nvidia.

As I said at the bottom of the post, most of the rant isn't related to what you have said. I just hope now that other people will read it.

Why the nVidia deal? As I said, I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume the reason. I mentioned the cost issue. Another possibility is ease of portability between PC games and PS3. If anyone hadn't noticed, a lot of PC developers don't want to port their games to PS2. The PS2 is too different from a PC, simple as that. Even if PS2 was easy to program for, the lack of PC-style features would kill off the idea anyway. Hell, call it developer lazyness if you want, but it shows a perceived need for such PC commonality to be in PS3. As I also said, Sony would still be a generation behind in pixel shaders as well. But it's not for me to say what Sony feels is needed for PS3.
That's just it, we just don't know enough about any of this.

Sony behind 3D labs? Judging from patent applications, Sony has been looking very hard at antialiasing technology and Sony does understand pixel shading (PSP), so it isn't so rediculous to assume that with enough money and work (they have that research department remember) that the PS3 implementation would have been acceptable. Then there is the SALCS/SALPS theory that would have been interesting in this regard too.
Don't forget the brick based etc rendering patents, or the fact that a possibly customised high speed CELL GPU implementation, as suggested by the original cell patent, would have also been interesting. Again I will say, I am disappointed with what it seems the PS3 GPU will become.

 

[Megadrive1988]

just a quick reply before i'm off to work: yeah on some levels I am disappointed that Sony seems to be going for a customized implementation of Nvidia's next-gen desktop architecture. I would have liked to see the other GPU solutions Sony was working on internally, and perhaps with other partners. maybe we'll see a combination of the best of Sony's work and Nvidia. but that may or may not happen. it's true, we don't know enough yet.

 

[Dave Glue]

Taken literally, driving "Windows" is actually done from a tiny portion of the ASIC valled the VGA engine; all graphics vendors are hopping up and down to dump this at the earliest possible opportunity.

Why, exactly? I can't see this taking up much die space - what hassles does it bring?

 

[Qroach]

ummm PS2 development didn't stop in 1998. It went down to the wire with the early launch titles in japan.

 

[ultimate_end]

ummm PS2 development didn't stop in 1998. It went down to the wire with the early launch titles in japan.

I assume you are referring to my post.

Now I know you are a game developer, so you probably know about the Graphics Synthesizer's development. But when you say PS2, would you be referring to the changes made to the EE? Such as increasing clock speed and removing the 128bit VU0-VU1 bus? I find it hard to believe that something as relatively simple as the Graphics Synthesizer would require continued development long after the initial specs were released.

*edit* OK wait, I did say PS2 development didn't I? Well I can't really edit it now, but basically I just meant PS2 development on the whole, but really, GS development in particular.

 

[Qroach]

I find it hard to believe that something as relatively simple as the Graphics Synthesizer would require continued development long after the initial specs were released.

I don't see any reason to "not" beleive it. Anyway, I've said what I had to say on it, I'm not getting into a big dicussion where one tries to prove it over another. if you don't agree that's fine...

 

[ultimate_end]

I find it hard to believe that something as relatively simple as the Graphics Synthesizer would require continued development long after the initial specs were released.

I don't see any reason to "not" believe it. Anyway, I've said what I had to say on it, I'm not getting into a big discussion where one tries to prove it over another. if you don't agree that's fine...

I'll take your word for it then.

In any case, it doesn't change much as far as my original point is concerned. But I appreciate your correction all the same.

As for not getting into a discussion, well most of my post was off topic anyway so...