NVIDIA in PS3 part 42890^2 - CNN weighs in

[zurich]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/27/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/

"The reality is nVidia is not sitting in a vacuum," said Erach Desai, an analyst with American Technology Research. "They are in discussions with Sony for the PS3."

<snip>

The graphics chip is the most expensive part of a gaming console, though, which is part of the reason Sony has traditionally kept development of that unit in-house. And price is certain to be in the forefront of the company's mind, since the speculated cost of the "Cell" microprocessor, which will power the PS3, is not going to be cheap.

Those cost concerns, combined with Sony's do-it-ourself history, that has some other analysts a bit more skeptical that nVidia will be able to win a PS3 contract.

"I would probably characterize it as a less than 50 percent chance that they win PS3," said Michael McConnell of Pacific Crest Securities. "However, we have talked with Sony and their take on it is they're considering an external vendor as well as an internal solution. So you can't rule it out, but you definitely can't say it's a sure thing."

If PS3 is to launch in 2005, I'd think Sony would know by now whether or not they were going to outsource the graphics chip...

On top of that, I thought the main purpose of making a beastly Cell CPU was because Sony was going to follow the PS2 design philosophy, ie: decoupling the TcL from the rasterizer. Since NVIDIA's designs are diametrically opposed to that, it really wouldn't make much sense.. (and I highly doubt they'd make a custom GS-like design for SCE, given the time frame and all) And to counter the Cg argument, NVIDIA has been quietly walking away from that for some time..

So if you ask me, none of this really adds up to a logical relationship :?

 

[Vince]

On top of that, I thought the main purpose of making a beastly Cell CPU was because Sony was going to follow the PS2 design philosophy, ie: decoupling the TcL from the rasterizer. Since NVIDIA's designs are diametrically opposed to that, it really wouldn't make much sense.. (and I highly doubt they'd make a custom GS-like design for SCE, given the time frame and all) And to counter the Cg argument, NVIDIA has been quietly walking away from that for some time..

There are those more basic pipelined raster functions that need taking care of (eg. the Rendering Pipelines in the Visualizer patent). I don't think Sony would want a whole set-piece "GPU" as you alluded to.

While this is 98% BS, I was going to reply to someone else's post about nVidia's role NG by saying that they should try to get their IP in the Cell specification. I mean, if nVidia wants to enter the more embedded/mobile/low-power markets then getting something like this would instantly put them on a whole other plateu in comperison to their competition. It's would be quite the coup d'état.

The entire semiconductor industry is at a very peculiar period of time IMHO with the possibilities of reallignments in power and corperate structures increasing likely. IBM & AMD's R&D, with chatter from IBM of aquiring AMD in ~5 years. IBM and nVidia, STI... very intersting IMHO.

PS. "Beastly CPU"? How is the Visualizer type deal any less beastly? Also, how do you come to the conclusion that the TcL (of which the concept is disappearing as a singularity) is decoupled? If anything, my hunch is that the processing can be done anywhere.

 

[Brimstone]

If discussions are ongoing, I'm doubtful of what the PS3's condition is. It seems pretty late for Sony to be considering this.

 

[Vince]

If discussions are ongoing, I'm doubtful of what the PS3's condition is. It seems pretty late for Sony to be considering this.

Yes, I'm doubtfull of the PS3's condition where everything is being designed inhouse with development by the upper-tier manufacturers. Even with this mythical IP/nVidia deal - they'd still be at the advantage due to the collaberation of STI.

But, yet, if PS3 is in such dier straits - then what about XBox2! Ekkk! The Horror.... (imagine drums here)

 

[Paul]

It seems pretty late for Sony to be considering this.

PS3 will be coming out in 2 years, there is still time. If any of this is true Sony wouldn't be putting in a full GPU of nvidia's though. Just nvidia would help.

 

[Brimstone]

If discussions are ongoing, I'm doubtful of what the PS3's condition is. It seems pretty late for Sony to be considering this.

Yes, I'm doubtfull of the PS3's condition where everything is being designed inhouse with development by the upper-tier manufacturers. Even with this mythical IP/nVidia deal - they'd still be at the advantage due to the collaberation of STI.

But, yet, if PS3 is in such dier straits - then what about XBox2! Ekkk! The Horror.... (imagine drums here)

If the news is true, why would Sony even consider this as an option now? After several years of internal development, have the results been less than expected? Thats the question that comes to my mind.


I really doubt this Nvidia thing will happen but...you never know.

 

[Vince]

If the news is true, why would Sony even consider this as an option now? After several years of internal development, have the results been less than expected? Thats the question that comes to my mind.

Internal development on what? Surely you don't think STI is going to design a rendering pipeline as well?

I don't see how people can confuse this as you so easily do (wonder why?). Everything that Cell embodies in PS3 was layed out and described in the Suzuoki patent -- and that's totally on target as per investor briefs.

What you need to ponder before even talking like this is look at the Cell patent (basically STI's work) and remember that the rendering pipelines were absent. Think about it. That would be a SCEI developed part of the architecture specific to embodiments in the consumer realm. Allways has been - how you thought thgis fell under the aegis of STI is your fallacy in thinking.

But, Doom & Gloom is popular these days. Speaking of which, I can't wait untill Deadmeat comes and educates us all.

 

[Steve]

From the latest Jason Rubin interview

Talking about the PSP - but and also PS3 - I have to ask if Sony has asked for your help in form of wishes etc. concerning controllers, internal hardware and such things, considering the fact that you after all belongs to the most advanced developers in the business as a whole?
"Actually, I got as surprised as everbody else at E3 when the PSP was announced. Before the show I had heard nothing about it. We did not participate at all in the development process, and I know absolutely nothing about PlayStation 3. In other words I don't know if Sony will consult us for advice. I know nothing about the hardware right now. So, as things looks now, no - we're not participating in the development."

PS3 is either late, or launching in 2006.

 

[Grall]

Steve, how the heck do you figure PS3 to be late/launch in 06 from the snippet you quoted? There's absolutely nothing there to support such a claim.

Anyway, Jason wouldn't have the first clue as to when PS3 launches if he hasn't been consulted in its design, so why are you even quoting him to begin with?

*G*

 

[Brimstone]

If the news is true, why would Sony even consider this as an option now? After several years of internal development, have the results been less than expected? Thats the question that comes to my mind.

Internal development on what? Surely you don't think STI is going to design a rendering pipeline as well?

I don't see how people can confuse this as you so easily do (wonder why?). Everything that Cell embodies in PS3 was layed out and described in the Suzuoki patent -- and that's totally on target as per investor briefs.

What you need to ponder before even talking like this is look at the Cell patent (basically STI's work) and remember that the rendering pipelines were absent. Think about it. That would be a SCEI developed part of the architecture specific to embodiments in the consumer realm. Allways has been - how you thought thgis fell under the aegis of STI is your fallacy in thinking.

But, Doom & Gloom is popular these days. Speaking of which, I can't wait untill Deadmeat comes and educates us all.

???

The article states

"However, we have talked with Sony and their take on it is they're considering an external vendor as well as an internal solution. So you can't rule it out, but you definitely can't say it's a sure thing."

What reasons would the internal solution not be chosen? Certainly any internal solution would have in the works for some time already. Nvidia was in the running for a Xbox 2 contract, so they had to have an intense program underway.

 

[Ozymandis]

If discussions are ongoing, I'm doubtful of what the PS3's condition is. It seems pretty late for Sony to be considering this.

It does seem late.

 

[Deepak]

PS3 being such a critical project, I would imagine that very few people would know its details.

Regarding NV, may be they are already working on PS3 secretly thats why they didn't push too hard for XB2 contract....

 

[marconelly!]

I think Nvidia might be outsourced to help with implementation of shaders / shader language, but that's about it.

 

[cthellis42]

Perhaps Sony is going use the secret masters, Bitboyz! After all, didn't they make a product at long last?

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I think Nvidia might be outsourced to help with implementation of shaders / shader language, but that's about it.

That sounds very reasonable. Sony will definitely be giving devs the more 'higher up' programming approach and NV is well positioned to help with its shader and CG expertise. Who knows, maybe CG for PS3?

 

[Urian]

I Believe that Nvidia isn´t going to do PS3 Visualizer.

But the registers and instructions of the Visualizer will be from Nvidia.

 

[chaphack]

Anyone recall some NV guy who said they approached Sony for PS3, but Sony rejected them, wanting to keep full control of their hardware?

NV + Sony would be good, but i dont see that happening.

 

[London Geezer]

nope. Sony will never ever let someone else make a complete GPU for them. and i don't see the point of that, since they already have a vision of what they want to do with the Cell technology. as it stands now, the Visualiser will be Cell based too, therefore how is Nvidia going to know what to do with it? only IBM+Sony+Toshiba can built the CPU and GPU since those are based on Cell.
all Nvidia could do is helping in the shaders part of the job. and even then, how would they do it? i mean, Sony would be the only ones to know the in and outs of the architecture and they would be in a much better position to build libraries and shading languages than Nvidia ever could.

if Nvidia is to get involved, i think it would be both on a hardware AND software level. it's either that or nothing from their part. And i don't know how eager Sony are to let someone else put their hands in their designs which at this point must be nearly finalised, and change things.

 

[Vince]

But the registers and instructions of the Visualizer will be from Nvidia.

Well said, this is what I was trying to get across in that first post. It would be very wise for nVidia to get it's IP in the Cell architecture - or aleast some derivatives of it. They [or whomever] would instantly be at the forfront of consumer electronics graphics.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Well said, this is what I was trying to get across in that first post. It would be very wise for nVidia to get it's IP in the Cell architecture - or aleast some derivatives of it. They [or whomever] would instantly be at the forfront of consumer electronics graphics.

Well said also.

Nvidia really needs or wants to grow in the console/consumer electronics area. they already did the Xbox. for Nvidia, growing beyond that would be done by getting some techology of theirs into PS3, wether it is software, shaders, other parts of rasterzing or some IP of theirs.