nVidia building the PS3 GPU in its "entirety"

[London Geezer]

The current paradigm is fabulous for the PC, no question about it.

A prime example is the XBox which used off-the-shelf components (relatively speaking) and due to it being a closed-set, allowed for superior integration and all that is derived from this.

You appear to agree that that same paradigm for PC hardware design can be applied elsewhere and work equally as well.

Yeah, it worked so well in the console market that it only took a few billion dollars in losses to keep it afloat in head to head competition with older but dedicated hardware.

Three cheers for the mighty x86 pc hardware makers!

It's not like "the hardware" won. Ps2 didn't succeed over the Xbox because of the EE+GS.

 

[DeanoC]

Let me ask you think, if the PC landscape wasn't populated by multiple vendors that compete in graphics and image processing and several others who compete in CPU design and yet others who design interconnections and the storage hierarchies and even more who deal with all the components that go into a contemporary PC -- but, instead you had, say, three monolithic companies that produced the entire system and competed against eachother for sales in the holistic view of a PC, would the industry have went on the same road that it has?

But they don't exist, because no single company can compete in RnD versus the whole PC business (with 10's of billions of dollars RnD each year). The monopoly's have to external PC company to get the latest/greatest tech.
If you want a fast moving industry you basically require the way the PC business works.
Thats why the PC model, applies through-out all IT today. Mobile phones, super-computers, consoles are all built according to the PC model. You (as the platform holder) mix and match N company product and produce the product that fits your budget and target performance.

Its just the company wide model of plugging in PC express cards.

The current paradigm is fabulous for the PC, no question about it. It's clearly hovering around the point of equilibrium for greatest net benefits per investment, I'm not saying it's not. The current affordable PC wouldn't exist without it. But, that doesn't mean for a second that this equilibrium point is in the region of greatest relative preformance.

That's an assumption that you make in your argument, tacitly or not, and one which I clearly and emphatically refute.

We will have to agree to disagree, I have no doubt the PC market pushs performance like no other. Else why is Sony using an IBM designed CPU (based on work of BlueGene and PowerPC both based on the PC model) and a GPU by NVIDIA...

Of course a closed design can win the short term but lose in the long term. Indeed STI know this, by trying to get Cell into into its own market economy model.

 

[Tuttle]

It's not like "the hardware" won. Ps2 didn't succeed over the Xbox because of the EE+GS.

Don't be silly. That's just a strawman.

The superior PS2 hardware design was just one of many reasons why Sony destroyed MS in the marketplace.

 

[PC-Engine]

It's not like "the hardware" won. Ps2 didn't succeed over the Xbox because of the EE+GS.

Exactly, not to mention MS didn't lose $3 billion on hardware. Also don't forget that Xbox had a built-in HDD that was basically thrown in for free.

The superior PS2 hardware design was just one of many reasons why Sony destroyed MS in the marketplace.

What hardware in PS2 is superior to Xbox?

 

[London Geezer]

It's not like "the hardware" won. Ps2 didn't succeed over the Xbox because of the EE+GS.

Don't be silly. That's just a strawman.

The superior PS2 hardware design was just one of many reasons why Sony destroyed MS in the marketplace.

Errrr... Ok then...? :? If you say so... I can feel the heat already.

 

[Guden Oden]

The superior PS2 hardware design was just one of many reasons why Sony destroyed MS in the marketplace.

You're not serious, right? Please don't troll threads on purpose, thanks...

 

[Vince]

But they don't exist, because no single company can compete in RnD versus the whole PC business (with 10's of billions of dollars RnD each year). The monopoly's have to external PC company to get the latest/greatest tech.

Please don't evade my questions, I know the answer and this is getting old. I'm not disputing the benefits on the current paradigm, I already stated it's fabulous for the PC marketplace. No argument there, I fully support your employment.

But, this doesn't mean that it's the best paradigm to extract the greastest preformance. In fact, it's clearly not and there is objective evidence in the XBox (vis-a-vis the PC) and high-end Supercomputing to support this proposition. It's nigh impossible for you to disagree to this on a theoretical ground.

Secondly, it is possible to closely approximate the theoretical. I do believe STI is doing it and the console platform is the perfect catalyst as it is invarient and is a closed-set.

Thats why the PC model, applies through-out all IT today. Mobile phones, super-computers, consoles are all built according to the PC model. You (as the platform holder) mix and match N company product and produce the product that fits your budget and target performance.

The top 3 Supercomputers are all customly built using custom ASICs designed for a specific closed-set enviroment. Consoles aren't built according to the PC paradigm as it's a closed-set since there is no inhomogeneity when you view the platform cross-sectionally.

We will have to agree to disagree, I have no doubt the PC market pushs performance like no other. Else why is Sony using an IBM designed CPU (based on work of BlueGene and PowerPC both based on the PC model) and a GPU by NVIDIA...

If the PC model was superior, why aren't Sony and Microsoft analogous to Dell and HP-Compaq? Your argument is logically inconistent as there are differences and these are demonstrated by Sony spending several billion dollars for a clean-sheet architecture and Microsoft doing the same with IBM to a lesser extent.

Of course a closed design can win the short term but lose in the long term. Indeed STI know this, by trying to get Cell into into its own market economy model.

So, you spend most of the post dissagreeing and then undermine it all by agreeing with me in the short-term. Which is all that's relevent to this discussion? *confused*

 

[rabidrabbit]

It's not like "the hardware" won. Ps2 didn't succeed over the Xbox because of the EE+GS.

Exactly, not to mention MS didn't lose $3 billion on hardware. Also don't forget that Xbox had a built-in HDD that was basically thrown in for free.

I was under the impression that Sony is no longer losing money on hardware :?
How much Sony are still on minus?

And I also thought I read somewhere that Microsoft would not be able to get the xbox profitable this gen :?

 

[Dave Baumann]

The XBox shows this is true, and refutes your dumb earlier post defending the current model on the grounds that it's prolific (totally unrelated to the argument at hand), by showing that the same components when taken out of the competitive PC paradigm will outpreform it.

Its not dumb Vince, your statement that the PC vendors have an "(in)ability to create usable and farsignted standard between each component" is clearly incorrect as you have proved yourself by the very fact that it can be applied beyond the scope of the PC environment and used to a full context. I don't take issue with the idea can equally be applied to hardware as well, but I just don't agree with some of the things you speak about - so far the PC has been the longest lasting platform available purely on the basis that it has also had to be one of the most adaptible and quick to adopt and even define and push new technologies and standards.

The curious element about your last point is that the Cell paradigm is that it is designed to be used in a multitude of devices so the hardware contructs it employs are going to have to be less specific by design, in some areas, than the pure device its going to be utilised in.

 

[Tuttle]

The superior PS2 hardware design was just one of many reasons why Sony destroyed MS in the marketplace.

You're not serious, right? Please don't troll threads on purpose, thanks...

Go find another thread to play in.

 

[PC-Engine]

It's not like "the hardware" won. Ps2 didn't succeed over the Xbox because of the EE+GS.

Exactly, not to mention MS didn't lose $3 billion on hardware. Also don't forget that Xbox had a built-in HDD that was basically thrown in for free.

I was under the impression that Sony is no longer losing money on hardware :?
How much Sony are still on minus?

And I also thought I read somewhere that Microsoft would not be able to get the xbox profitable this gen :?

That's because MS decided not to shrink the motherboard, cpu, gpu, down in size. If they did it would be cheaper to manufacture. Again with the HDD built-in and the technology being newer, it would take more time for Xbox hardware to be profitable. Don't forget that MS lowered the price to $150 at a sooner time than SONY did with PS2 relative to their respectivel console lifetime. It's not as simple as SONY makes better cheaper hardware while MS can't.

 

[Dave Baumann]

That's because MS decided not to shrink the motherboard, cpu, gpu, down in size. If they did it would be cheaper to manufacture.

The components aren't theirs, so its would probably take more money to request the component makers to do this than it would just to put up with the loss.

 

[London Geezer]

I think that the main difference is that for some reason, God has stated that there should be a new cutting-edge PC graphics card out every 6-8 months. With a completely new architecture every 12-18 months.

PC therefore can afford to take smaller steps, one at a time. Whereas consoles come out at ~5 years intervals, and when they do, technology has progressed so much that the jump makes people go WOW, as they compare those to the last generation of consoles. those same people might, at the same time, look at PC and think that PC CPU and GPU manufactueres might lack "foresightness". I don't think that's the point. PC manufacturers can afford to take smaller steps, maybe delving a little bit deeper in what they're doing at the moment, cause they know in 6 months time they'll have a new fresh product out of the door.

With consoles, companies take big risks, trying to figure out the best way to make that console last for the next 5 years without looking embarrassingly outdated at the end of their lifetime, which is just tough if you ask me. That might look like "pioneering" in some people's eyes.

I just say... It's all about the gameplay

 

[pahcman]

Hi Vince,

You sound like a smart guy who thinks abreast far and wide.
I find there is a problem for us mere readers to communicate with your excitement with Cell. Instead of talking numbers, papers, theories, revolution, deadend peecee etc, perhaps you can share with us your envisioned type of exciting new entertainment that this Cell project will exclusively create. We can start with the PS3.

This way its better for all, now we can visualize something common and easier. Everyone agree?

 

[Titanio]

As it seems Nvidia are trying to get their next gen GPU in production this year, doesn't that mean that the ATI GPU for the Xbox2 are going to fairly evenly matched?

NVidia won't have it in production this year, they're looking to have final silicon towards the end of next year. So the answer to your question is possibly/probably not, but there are other factors asides from time.

 

[DeanoC]

Of course a closed design can win the short term but lose in the long term. Indeed STI know this, by trying to get Cell into into its own market economy model.

So, you spend most of the post dissagreeing and then undermine it all by agreeing with me in the short-term. Which is all that's relevent to this discussion? *confused*

No Sony is embracing a version of the PC architecture.
Cell is hoping to become the next x86. A standard that works o.k. in most cases.
Moving from a custom designed processor for every generation to using a basically off-the-shelf part thats compatible with the lots of already written software.
All thats really new is fitting more advanced vector units than usual for a general processor.
What I'm saying is that there isn't yet an inherit advantage of Sony's stragegy (except to Sony) than the normal IT industry (which uses x86, PowerPC or ARMs as a rule). Sony is hoping for one processor to rule them all, but I don't see any reason why Cell will do any better than any other plan for global domination.

x86 isn't getting SPUs because its doesn't need them, it will use seperate GPUs for when you need lots of floating point maths.

I fail to see why you see Cell as so revolutionary, its just a CPU with a few independent vector units. Of course Sony will tell you its a revolution, just the same as every new CPU architecture is "revolutionary". Alpha, Itanium, POWER, etc. Whats Cell doing that these didn't, its not money Itanium has had a fortune spend on it.

So why didn't x86 die to Itanium?
Because Intel misguessed the future... They guessed that x86 would run out of steam, they guessed wrong. I personally beleive that KK is complelety wrong when he says PC architecture has run out of steam...

Indeed its likely to first cheap TFLOP will be in a PC (thanks the GPUs) not a PS3....

 

[PiNkY]

Vince could you please give your definitions for "PC paradigm" and "Cell paradigm".

IMO in all the various engineering disciplines open standards and modular architectures have quite consistently outperformed (performance/costs) closed-set approaches (e.g. computer hardware, software, cars, avation, etc..). All three current generation consoles are (to me) just variations of the pc architecture (whether they are using MIPS,x86 or PowerPC ISAs). The same holds for mobiles and other embedded devices. Requiering hardware equality instead of software compatability (platform compatability) seems to be a step back to the 70s.

 

[DeanoC]

I suppose I should mention that I quite like Cell/PS3 its just I don't get the argument that the future is Cell. That its inheritantly better than the other architectures. Its got some cool ideas, that look fairly good for a games console, but as a Sony employee told me "Its just a good CPU".

To me its just a high performance float version of ARM. Fast, cheap and cool for techies but not really making much of a difference to the rest of the world outside embedded systems..

 

[Qroach]

while I'd love to give you and your twin Johnny more comments to take out of context and use as a sig;

It's a quote guy, I really don't see how it's taken out of context. I just thought it was funny how conflicts with your more recent arguments.

Besides, I'm sitting pretty so far in the grand scheme of things, there's no need to comment.

Riiight, you have a selective memory my friend. that's fine, I care not.

What is most interesting to me is how Jen-Hsun commented again that this will be used in all Sony CE devices, which is what Cell is intended and was designed for -- We have independent confirmation from both Sony group, IBM and Toshiba on this. So, how would one make these statements logically compatable?

I'm not really suprised by this, as sony intends to leverage what they are doing in many projects, but once again I really don't care what they are doing outside of the PS3.

PS. While I'm without a doubt an ass (no pun intended), can we ditch the link to Deadmeat's picture? Thanks.

What link are you talking about??

 

[Vince]

Its not dumb Vince, your statement that the PC vendors have an "(in)ability to create usable and farsignted standard between each component" is clearly incorrect as you have proved yourself by the very fact that it can be applied beyond the scope of the PC environment and used to a full context.

No, you just don't understand what's being stated. Very simple, and you're going to do all the thinking:

• I have GPU Gn, CPU Cn, Storage Sn, which of the following would more closely approximate the eq. point of greastest preformance:
  [list:4fc65be220]
• Closed System A: [GPU G1, CPU C1, Storage S1] with custom interconnections and system optimization; or:
• Open System B: Random combination of [GPU Gn, CPU Cn, Storage Sn] |n=1...1E5

[/list:u:4fc65be220]
The PC will allways lose out to a closed-set enviroment, especially in the PC paradigm we have in which there is little thinking of the system on a holistic level. Each vender is concerned primarily with their given component and there is little cooperative work. Hell, look at the history of PCI, AGP and - finally - PCI-Express. AGP texturing anyone?

The curious element about your last point is that the Cell paradigm is that it is designed to be used in a multitude of devices so the hardware contructs it employs are going to have to be less specific by design, in some areas, than the pure device its going to be utilised in.

I question the convention wisdom that applied, and both of us talked about, back in the 1999 period when DX7 was around with DX8 on the horizon and all the buzz was about the move to more programmability and the questions of fixed-functionality verse programmability and what preformance delta there would be. I feel that we were correct for out time, but the paradigm (I need a new word... situation) has changed with the influx of logic that's been happening and will only accelerate in the next two years tremedously.

When we were talking about a 20M-odd transistor NV15, the balance is alot finer than it is when we're talking about a Broadband Engine or R500 that could be approaching a Billion transistors. We've, IMHO, reached a point where the bounds are on sheer computation and bandwith in dynamic applications. It's possible to design around a modular architecture that's focused on these types of applications which can be scaled down to the low-end apps which have a low resource budget, while retaining cost effeciency due to process advances.

For example, as the ATI guys have told me and you've mentioned on the site from time to time, general computation is moving to the GPU. Not to mention names, but somone here and I were discussing sequencing on them. A GPU is, I'm betting you're going to say, highly tuned to graphic applications but it can still run anything. With the move to a unified shader (I don't know but would guess the ALU they'd use is more akin to a current VS [over current PS constructs, which is why I stated this] which is akin to an APU) this just becomes more and more feasible.