NVIDIA: New 90nm GF7s by January, Next-Gen in H1 2006, plus RSX NREs until mid-Q1.

[satein]

I just start to wonder if the RSX on PS3 will be more advance than those high-end NV GPU coming up! According to the comparison picture on PS3&PS3-Evaluation Kit for Watch.impress.co.jp, the RSX uses 128bit GDDR3 as oppose to 256bit GDDR3 on 7800GTX and only set at 550MHz as 7800GTX 512! Also, at this point we can see that this eval kit have got 512MB 7800GTX setup too , may this be possible that it is the same as 7800GTX 512 on sell now? If it's coming this way, the PS3 would not be something for the future as it was supposted to be .

 

[Jawed]

Welcome to six months ago.

Jawed

 

[satein]

Welcome to six months ago.

Jawed

Thank you. I may take too long sleep , but actually I don't know when is it an appropriate time to ask that .

 

[Maintank]

Another source that seems to confine NVDA's January 90nm launch to low-end and midrange parts. Could be that R580 will soon reign unopposed for a few months, as G70 did.

http://www.guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=3351

If this is to be believed things will get interesting.
750Mhz G70 on 90nm.

The question I have to ask if this is true, what does the next generation offer in terms of performance?

 

[Dave Baumann]

At the moment people are just regurgitating the same basic stories.

 

[JoshMST]

But it tastes so much better coming up a 2nd time...

 

[Ailuros]

What real visual differences is there between SM4.0 and Sm3.0 (Or SM2.0 for that matter)?

Other than the probable (or not) inclusion of a true Geometry Shader, I see nothing exciting about SM4.0 from a visual standpoint, that is.

When flexibility and thus performance grows, developers can implement more and "newer" effects that might had been possible with former Shader Models yet rather with underwhelming performance.

Take a unified D3D10 shader core; suppose you have efficient dynamic branching across the pipeline, almost zero vertex or geometry texturing latency and effects like displacement mapping are way more effiecient and usable as up until now.

All in theory of course and all IMHLO.

 

[Junkstyle]

with that said, it would be nice if PS3's GPU was based on Nvidia's next-gen architecture (Nv50) with SM4.0 and the advanced features that i'm sure Nvidia is packing into Nv5x. that would somewhat future-proof the PS3, which is going to have to last until 2012.

Isn't SM4.0 a directX technology? Why would Sony license a DirectX technology?

 

[Rys]

Why wouldn't they, if it was a good fit for their business and the way they want developers to use their hardware? A D3D way to access a GPU would make a lot of sense to a lot of developers.

It's entirely hypothetical of course, since RSX isn't the part being dreamed about, but still.

 

[_xxx_]

Why wouldn't they, if it was a good fit for their business and the way they want developers to use their hardware? A D3D way to access a GPU would make a lot of sense to a lot of developers.

Only if PS3 ran Windows, though

 

[_xxx_]

in my ideal senareo, RSX would be a super tricked out, beefed up, souped up NV50.

No sense at all, would be way too expensive and exaggerated for a console in this timeframe.

 

[Geo]

Mmm, I'd think it would be more like how close RSX is to G7x. Wouldn't performance be the only real question? I can't think why you wouldn't like to leverage all that D3D developer experience if you can do so without f'ing up performance.

 

[_xxx_]

Mmm, I'd think it would be more like how close RSX is to G7x. Wouldn't performance be the only real question? I can't think why you wouldn't like to leverage all that D3D developer experience if you can do so without f'ing up performance.

I think they'll just use Cg and write an appropriate compiler for the platform. Writing a whole foundation for using D3D syntax would be a bit too much work for the small gain it would bring.

 

[Tim Murray]

Mmm, I'd think it would be more like how close RSX is to G7x. Wouldn't performance be the only real question? I can't think why you wouldn't like to leverage all that D3D developer experience if you can do so without f'ing up performance.

Isn't it using OpenGL (or some subset of it, ES maybe) anyway? Why would it need to rely on D3D for SM4.0 stuff when NV can simply provide their own GL extensions? What, to make porting things easier?

 

[Geo]

I think _xxx_ has convinced me that CG would be the way to go. Wasn't that a major part of the point anyway? A toolset? Let us now throw cabbage at Rys for leading us astray.

 

[Arun]

OpenGL ES, yeah. In fact I'm a bit curious how that'll work wrt Cg, since OpenGL ES is kinda made around GLSL - I doubt NVIDIA is going to bother implementing GLSL support for it though *grins* Although now that I'm learning GLSL a bit, I'm really beggining to like some of the little stuff it adds compared to HLSL/Cg. Not truly worth it with the lack of overall support, but heh.

Uttar