nVidia shader patent (REYES/Raytracing/GI) destined for PS3?

[Qroach]

on the other hand, did you also factor in that Sony will be ultimately be fabbing these chips once Nvidia's work is done? Did you factor in how much work Nvidia will be doing in the lifespan the PS3 is expected to sell and how much money on royalties will be made in that time...

Yes I did. If Nvidia doesn't fab the chips and sell them, they won't make a have to spend as much money, but they also won't make nearly as much profit on each chip. The bottom line I think some anylysts out there saw was that even though sony is a good console to be invovled with, it wouldn't necessarily be worth more money compared to previous deals OR their core PC business in the long run.

I think how much this deal is worth has already factored into the price of Nvda stock.

 

[GwymWeepa]

A single card...

That sells for how many years and at what price? I wouldn't be suprised if Nvidia made more money off a single card, then they did from all the components supplied for a single xbox..

Oh Nvidia probably makes much more money off a single card sold than a single xbox, and they'll make a lot more off a high-end chip offered now than a single ps3...but when those consoles sell into the multiple millions, that's when the real money is made. It wouldn't surprise me if the ps3 sells over 100 million units, that's a lot of f'ing cash to be made, far more than any single card. A hiccup in their pc line-up when designing the ps3 chip is nothing, especially when factoring in how much money they'll make from the console contract.

 

[one]

The bottom line I think some anylysts out there saw was that even though sony is a good console to be invovled with, it wouldn't necessarily be worth more money compared to previous deals OR their core PC business in the long run.

It's about corporate image, rather than immediate money. Do you trust some obscure analyst, or the assessment done by Sony towards the value of nVIDIA technology? Also nVIDIA's contribution is not limited in hardware IP - it includes software and support which will continue at least several years. In addition the relationship with Sony has importance in OpenGL community, as those with actual products have big voice in there anyway. nVIDIA is joining in the mobile market too, where OpenGL ES is standardized, not to mention the consumer electronics area. It has a potential of the nVIDIA breakout into whole new markets. Compared to this, the PC card market is just diminishing now - the battle between cheap videocard-integrated chipsets.

 

[Qroach]

I'll trust people looking at what this is really worth in dollars and cents as opposed to PR released by Sony or Nvidia.

Nvidia always supports hardware they create with software and tools. no suprise here... They do it on the PC, did it for xbox, and now ps3. Nvidia was targetting the expansion into new markets long before any deal with sony was struck. Remember when they said (years ago) about having a graphics processor driving every screen?

I think Nvidia moving into new markets was an evoloutionary step, not revoloutionary. Nvidia already has the biggest name in graphics next to ATI, just how is thier image going to improve beyond that? To be honest, I think you're really stretching to find reason that support your opinion.

 

[Phil]

on the other hand, did you also factor in that Sony will be ultimately be fabbing these chips once Nvidia's work is done? Did you factor in how much work Nvidia will be doing in the lifespan the PS3 is expected to sell and how much money on royalties will be made in that time...

Yes I did. If Nvidia doesn't fab the chips and sell them, they won't make a have to spend as much money, but they also won't make nearly as much profit on each chip. The bottom line I think some anylysts out there saw was that even though sony is a good console to be invovled with, it wouldn't necessarily be worth more money compared to previous deals OR their core PC business in the long run.

I think how much this deal is worth has already factored into the price of Nvda stock.

Nvidia being responsible for the fabbing costs money too. In turn, they can of course sell them at a even higher price (which is ultimately what you're refering to and what they did with the Xbox deal) - yet, simply designing the chip has its distinct advantages in that it's a one-off effort and will ultimately be paying off over a potential lifespan of 7 years. Think about it again: designing a chip with a one-off effort together with Sony and you'll be enjoying royalities for a console with a potential 100+ million userbase after 5 years. Not only that, but as One mentioned, market presence in also a factor that will pay off, if only by mindshare.

Working together with the number 1 console maker is far more lucrative than you think - even if it's just a licencing contract. One shouldn't forget that while Nvidia had the upperhand with Xbox and the asking price for their chips - the Xbox is rather far behind in userbase numbers and that doesn't even include the negative mindshare of having your parts in the "financially disasterous xbox project".

Again, "not getting more than from a single video card sale" doesn't seem anywhere near plausible once you consider the factors involved and the little work/effort they're doing now in designing a chip that will last for years to come. Not to mention the experience and knowlege in being closely tied in with CELL related stuff that can and will be used in their future PC-orientated projects (at least it will be inspired to say the least).

Last factor to consider is the PC gaming sector that is on a decline and may/will continue to do so as console gaming becomes even more popular and more mainstream. It simply is a good thing for them to be on this deal and making an appearance... much like Microsoft is doing with Xbox as well.

 

[one]

I'll trust people looking at what this is really worth in dollars and cents as opposed to PR released by Sony or Nvidia.

PR? LOL, The fact 'Sony chose nVIDIA' is THE approval. Sony engineers can assess technical merits in nVIDIA technology better than financial analysts in Wall streets, don't you agree?

Nvidia always supports hardware they create with software and tools. They do it on the PC, did it for xbox, and now ps3. Nvidia was targetting the expansion into new markets long before any deal with sony was struck. Remember what they said years ago about having a graphics processor driving every screen?

I think Nvidia moving into new markets was an evoloutionary step, not revoloutionary. Nvidia already has the biggest name in graphics next to ATI, just how is thier image going to improve beyond that? To be honest, I think you're really stretching to find reason that support your opinion.

Eh? Can you name other big clients of nVIDIA, except for Sony and Microsoft? Evolutionary or revolutionary, it's a big plus for nVIDIA. nVIDIA is a big name in the PC space, but frankly its brand name is obscure in other markets at this time.

 

[Qroach]

PR? LOL, The fact 'Sony chose nVIDIA' is THE approval. Sony engineers can assess technical merits in nVIDIA technology better than financial analysts in Wall streets, don't you agree?

I haven't been talking about "technical" I've been talking about "financial".

Eh? Can you name other big clients of nVIDIA, except for Sony and Microsoft? Evolutionary or revolutionary, it's a big plus for nVIDIA. nVIDIA is a big name in the PC space, but frankly its brand name is obscure in other markets at this time.

Nvidia is a partner just like IBM and toshiba in a sense. If you really think sony isn't going to plaster Nvidia's name on the PS3 or even refer to them by name nearly as much as microsft did, then I think you'll be shocked. I won't be suprised if you don't even see Nvidia's name in anywhere but the hardware specs (if even that).

 

[one]

PR? LOL, The fact 'Sony chose nVIDIA' is THE approval. Sony engineers can assess technical merits in nVIDIA technology better than financial analysts in Wall streets, don't you agree?

I haven't been talking about "technical" I've been talking about "financial".

There must be hidden assets, which are future-proof, in nVIDIA. I bet Sony people under NDA could evaluate them and reached the conclusion. If Sony people are all stupid, then I'm wrong.

Eh? Can you name other big clients of nVIDIA, except for Sony and Microsoft? Evolutionary or revolutionary, it's a big plus for nVIDIA. nVIDIA is a big name in the PC space, but frankly its brand name is obscure in other markets at this time.

Nvidia is a partner just like IBM and toshiba in a sense. If you really think sony isn't going to plaster Nvidia's name on the PS3 or even refer to them by name nearly as much as microsft did, then I think you'll be shocked. I won't be suprised if you don't even see Nvidia's name in anywhere but the hardware specs (if even that).

Why don't you think partnership is not enough? I'm not talking about building consumer brands. When some cellphone maker evaluates imaging hardware, it evaluates nVIDIA technology by cost and technical merits, then cuts a deal. In evaluating cost and technical merits, the PS3 deal can be one of factors. Consumer perception is irrelevant.

 

[j^aws]

Performance between Xe GPU and PS3 GPU will largely depend on the Process used and die size (same would apply to CPUs, although CELL has an inherent advantage from a clean design). If equal in die size but Xe GPU is on 90nm and PS3 GPU is 65nm, roughly scaling, you should be able to get twice as many transistors at 65nm that would roughly equate to twice the performance.

First, how do you know that Xenon CPU isn't a clean design?

By 'clean' if you mean efficient, custom CPU design, then yes, I have no doubt, it will be a great multi core CPU compared to curent CPUs with neat custom features. Heck, I also have a Mac and if someone told me a triple core G5 @ 3.5Ghz ~ $300 would be available Q4 2005 in a console, I would be impressed.

However by 'clean', I was referring to a 'clean sheet' design, starting with a blank sheet of paper and 400 engineers at your disposal from STI and dedicated design centre type of 'clean'. If they haven't f%£ked, it should inherently perform better for a given process and die size. This was always STI's goal stated throughout the project.

Secondly, how do you know there is a process advantage?

Well, with the scaling calcs I did earlier with leaked specs etc,

Xe CPU(tri-core) = 84 GFlops @ 3.5GHz, 65nm (IBM)
Xe GPU = 240 GFlops @ 500Mhz, 90nm (TSMC)

PS3 CPU(1 CELL) = 294 GFlops @ 4.6GHz, 65nm (STI)
PS3 GPU = 480 GFlops @ 500MHz, 65nm (STI)

Of course, change clocks, cores, process etc. accordingly scale depending on your POV. These process assumptions were based on existing discussions on these boards and what was expected in the release timeframe. However reading this below,

http://eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=52601132

There's a chance that TSMC will have 65nm ready for late 2005. If that's the case then the GPUs should be similar in performance for a given die size. However, I would be extremely impressed if Xe is totally at 65nm for Q4 launch and matches PS3 at 65nm for H2 2006 launch and would suggest questions at STIs fab strategies and heavy investments to be ahead of the curve. But that would also hint at PS3 launching on 45nm in 2006 as Sony+Tosh have stated to have 45nm sampling by Q4 2005.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200402/04-0212E/

CPU<=>GPU--->output

This applies equally to Xenon as much as PS3, Xenon has been built with good connections between CPU and GPU.

Yes, this was inferred in the leaked specs with L2 cache being read by GPU etc. but I didn't mean to imply the contrary. If you followed my post, I was trying to show two different ways to scale CPU+GPU, i.e. where [...]=IC,

Onchip IC,

[CPU<=>GPU]--->Output

Separate chip IC's (PS3),

[CPU]<=>[GPU]--->Output

Just curious for opinions, which RAM config would be better for PS3,

A) Off CPU,

[CPU]<=>[GPU]--->Output
  |
[RAM]

B) Split CPU|GPU,

[CPU]<=>[GPU]--->Output
  |       |
[RAM]   [RAM]

Say for a total of 512MB which would be better, A or B

 

[Qroach]

Nvidia being responsible for the fabbing costs money too. In turn, they can of course sell them at a even higher price (which is ultimately what you're refering to and what they did with the Xbox deal) - yet, simply designing the chip has its distinct advantages in that it's a one-off effort and will ultimately be paying off over a potential lifespan of 7 years. Think about it again: designing a chip with a one-off effort together with Sony and you'll be enjoying royalities for a console with a potential 100+ million userbase after 5 years. Not only that, but as One mentioned, market presence in also a factor that will pay off, if only by mindshare.

Working together with the number 1 console maker is far more lucrative than you think - even if it's just a licencing contract.

Really, then why hasn't the stock price for nvidia shot through the roof? I'm only talking about lucrative in a financial sense. I have no interest in arguing about "perception".

One shouldn't forget that while Nvidia had the upperhand with Xbox and the asking price for their chips - the Xbox is rather far behind in userbase numbers and that doesn't even include the negative mindshare of having your parts in the "financially disasterous xbox project".

Regardless of how many xbox consoles were sold, Nvidia stiull made a $hit load of money off it, and still does. Negative mindshare? Um, in a financial sense there is no such thing. Mindshare doesn't make you money or else 3dfx would still be the #1 graphics chip maker.

Again, "not getting more than from a single video card sale" doesn't seem anywhere near plausible once you consider the factors involved and the little work/effort they're doing now in designing a chip that will last for years to come.

Little work? so which is it that you want to argue for? on one side you argue they are providing tools and software and on the other you argue little work/effort. The two really don't go together. providing tools and software is a lot fo continuous work, once you can't describe as little "work/effort". Nvidia always designs a chip that will last for years to come.

Last factor to consider is the PC gaming sector that is on a decline and may/will continue to do so as console gaming becomes even more popular and more mainstream. It simply is a good thing for them to be on this deal and making an appearance... much like Microsoft is doing with Xbox as well.

Video cards or GPU's are only required for video games? No of course not. If that was the case expanding into other markets such as you mentioned wouldn't make sense right? This goes back to my previous point, regarding the average life of graphics processors and the sheer amount available on the market at one time. Nvidia made tons of money of TNT processors despite them being incredbly out of date.

 

[one]

Mindshare doesn't make you money or else 3dfx would still be the #1 graphics chip maker.

I bet what 3dfx got was mere 'geek mindshare'
You have to note that the PC vidcard market is very fast in cycling products.
It's very risky.

 

[Qroach]

There must be hidden assets, which are future-proof, in nVIDIA. I bet Sony people under NDA could evaluate them and reached the conclusion. If Sony people are all stupid, then I'm wrong.

I don't think there's anythign such as "future proof" in technology these days. anyway I'm sure Sony is getting a really good deal and good technology form nvidia. Why is it that whenever soeone has an alternate explanation for somehting invovling sony and PS3, they always resort to, "well sony isn't stupid" or "if you think sony is stupid, then..." when

I've said nothing of the sort. I've been talking about what the sony deal is worth in financial term to Nvidias bottom line. I haven't been saying anything remotely like sony is stupid for using nvidia or anything like that.

When some cellphone maker evaluates imaging hardware, it evaluates nVIDIA technology by cost and technical merits, then cuts a deal. In evaluating cost and technical merits, the PS3 deal can be one of factors. Consumer perception is irrelevant.

That's actually what I've been trying to convey. consumer perception is irrelevant in this deal.

 

[Qroach]

yes PC video cards is risky, which is why Nvidia and ATI release cards targetting all the market segments out there.

 

[one]

http://eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=52601132

There's a chance that TSMC will have 65nm ready for late 2005.

According to the article

This year, TSMC will spend about US$400 million on process development, with most of that going to development of the 65-nm node. Earlier this year, the company made its first 65-nm SRAM test module and announced plans to make the first low-power devices at that process node by late 2005. A high speed version of the process is scheduled to come in the first half of 2006, followed by a general purpose process later that year.

If the Xenon release is in late 2005, it's unlikely 65nm lines will be ready then.
As for XeCPU, reading articles like this,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/02/first_65nm_ibm_powerpc_chip/
I doubt it is in 65nm.
BTW, the latest devkits for Xbox 2 are still in a dual-CPU Mac G5, right? Why don't they offer a 4-way version, like using 2 Xserve G5?

 

[Fox5]

Mindshare doesn't make you money or else 3dfx would still be the #1 graphics chip maker.

I bet what 3dfx got was mere 'geek mindshare'
You have to note that the PC vidcard market is very fast in cycling products.
It's very risky.

Voodoo 3 was number 1 in the retail markets(probably due to its $100-$200 price range compared to nvidia's $200-$300, plus riding off the success of previous voodoos).

Voodoo 5, from its release until 3dfx shriveled up, outsold the combined sales in retail of the top 2 geforce 2 makers, which I assume means it was a close second in to Geforce 2 sales during that time.

 

[randycat99]

Really, then why hasn't the stock price for nvidia shot through the roof? I'm only talking about lucrative in a financial sense. I have no interest in arguing about "perception".

While I don't know what you consider "shooting through the roof", it does seem to be up 60% since about August, and is following a particularly healthy rise consistent with the recovery trend of the tech sector. It looks very good for them assuming they continue on this trend. While they may not be at levels comparable to past quarters (yet), you cannot ignore the troubles the entire tech sector has weathered since 2001- so everybody is starting from a low mark around now. The point is, they are rising, and rising considerably better than most tech stocks right now.

 

[aaronspink]

I think the possibilty of some form of ray tracing is more than likely...Examples: Sony's pantent in a form of ray tracing is used, unreal engine 3 is to have some form of ray tracing.

Unreal 3 won't and neither will PS3.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[DeanoC]

However by 'clean', I was referring to a 'clean sheet' design, starting with a blank sheet of paper and 400 engineers at your disposal from STI and dedicated design centre type of 'clean'. If they haven't f%£ked, it should inherently perform better for a given process and die size. This was always STI's goal stated throughout the project.

Yes I'm also refererring to a 'clean sheet' design.
Why do some people have a problem that XeCPU is a clean design, designed and built from scrarch for this one job. Blank sheet of paper, lots of engineers. As I have said many many times its not remotely related to a G5, its share a similar ISA but thats it and by the sounds of it so does Cell.
MS and IBM picked a set of features and built a processor around them.

Say for a total of 512MB which would be better, A or B

From a developer point of view a unified memory system (excluding eDRAM and caches) is an advantage. Its also cheaper. Expect 256 Mb accessable from both CPU and GPU.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Why is it that every patent filed by Toshiba/Sony/IBM somehow relates directly to the PS3? Especially when Cell has much further reaching technical implications for all parties involved? Reyes has been Pana's love child since any Cell patent was 1st filed, or the technology discussed. We all know that this amalgamation of companies didn't join together to solely create the PS3. I realize there's some merit in well-grounded intelligent speculation, but when the PS3 spec. sheet is finally revealed I can already foresee disappointment due to this type of thing. It's already been proven that the PS3 is not the behemoth that it was initially touted to be, but a beast nonetheless. Also, how many tech. patents are existing out there that have yet to come to fruition? (engineers will face headaches even in initial Reyes implementation, not to mention the external memory requirements for essentially a stream processor, ala the PS3 & its subpar random memory access for this type of full application.) Reyes has some time yet before it arrives & creates a paradigm shift in console or PC GPUs. (for many of the developers are one in the same, & this generation will see even more PC dev. cross-platform work, due to the more powerful console architectures & advanced feature sets identical to those of the high-end cards. Surpassing them even for a time) PS4, XBX2, & the NES6 is far more feasible for full Reyes utilization.

It will indeed be some time before the x86 domination of PCs comes to an end as well, unless you're underestimating the time frame in which MS wants/dictates the direction to advance or change. Unfortunately, they also possess the power & consumer mindshare currently to marginalize almost any OS application. Even if it is more efficient, etc. Gasp, I'm tired of reading these Reyes-centric threads. I can still remember when all of those early adherents of Sony's 1 teraflop power claims were defending its technical validity in a multitude of threads. Let's wait for more tangible evidence that this indeed is a real possibility, & not simply the first intersection rays if that.

 

[London Geezer]

Why is it that every patent filed by Toshiba/Sony/IBM somehow relates directly to the PS3? Especially when Cell has much further reaching technical implications for all parties involved?

I think the real question is, why is it that it is so easy and understandable to "find" patents relating specifically to PS3, and not for other machines?
Maybe because people are kinda looking for patents relating to PS3?