Official: ATI in XBox Next

[Joe DeFuria]

What I meaneth, is that pc gphx cards that came yrs after n64/psx, but prior to ps2/xbox managed a 10X perf jump... today that is not the case... the cards are not even equal in b/w...

How are you measuring this "performance jump"? You can't pick and chose a spec, and not consider overall performance.

mid-way? we're about 18 approxx months away from the likely launch of the ps3...

I thought we were 2 years at least...Fall 2005 or sometime in 2006, depending who you ask.

And the R300 that was being referred to was launched a year ago. So I'm talking about R300's place in the life cycle. 6 months from now we'll have another "step change" in PC graphics with NV40 and R420. And then another (NV50 and R500) right around the time of the next console launch.

From what I've heard increasing fillrate several fold(aka several 100Gpixels per second.), isn't that beneficial for a normal display...

What are you calling a "normal" display? Normal for consoles, or Normal for PCs? That's my point. PCs have different priorities in terms of where bottlenecks are and where more resources are best put to use.

perform all the tasks of previous h/w but with 100x increases in T&L, b/w, processing specs of h/w involved, along with added features, resolution, memory... IOW an increase in overall performance of over two orders with substantial but more down to earth increases in other areas...

But all these architectures are different. I mean, comapre "PS2 Specs" with X-Box specs, and you would think that PS2 rapes the X-box in many areas, right?

But the end result is they are pretty much the same. Can we agree on this?

1) X-Box and Ps2 have are on "par" in terms of graphics prowess. They each have relative strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day, the graphics they produce are very comparable. Agree?

2) This means that PS2 hardware is roughly equivalent to X-Box hardware. That is, PIII 700is Mhz plus NV2A, on a unified memory bus

Can we agree on that?

3) Todays PCs are more or less directly comparable to X-Box specs. (Not exactly, because of the unified bus architecture, but close.)

4) Today's PC hardware, P4 3 Ghz+, plus R350 / NV35, outclasses x-box hardware. Roughly 3x the raw performance, give or take depending on the situation.

Is that not a reasonable assesmnet?

Is there any reason to doubt that PC hardware will advance at a similar rate over the next 2 years? Putting PC hardware at an "order of magnitude" above the x-box, PS2 generation?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The psx cpu was clocked at 30ish Mhz approxx... My mid'90s pc had 100+Mhz, and IIRC more transistors. It was above current pc gphx in part do to cheapsters like 3dfx being on top...

...surpassed in overall processing by more than an order of magnitude prior to the arrival of next gen successor...

I honestly have no idea why you're comparing Mhz, number of transistors, etc. We're talking vastly different architectures of different eras. It's pointelss.

What matters is the end result. How does the graphics in a gaming situation stack up.

 

[zidane1strife]

I think the same will be true this gen. The problem has allways been that while the 9800pros are out the programers need to make sure the game runs on a radeon 64 meg.

I´m not necessarily talking about improvements in software-games, I´m referring to hardware advances, and the shrinking gap in the hardware side of the equation...

PS neither am I saying next gen consoles will be end all doom "$%·%!, I´m just saying that if sloweth does occurreth, the advantages of hardware a few yrs later on won´t be as big.

 

[Clashman]

If all you are looking at is vert-processing power than I can see how you would say that there hasn't been an "order of magnitude" increase over the current console lineup. But there are other things which factor in to processing power besides vertex's. Surely the 256 mb cards we are seeing from ATI and Nvidia contain many times the ram available on PS2, GC, and X-Box, as well as have similarly increased the memory bandwidth they have available. AA performance is likely also boosted similar levels. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a situation in which an XBox, GC, PS2 running anything at 4x/6x AA in 640x480 wouldn't get absolutely crushed by an R350/NV35. In fact, Triangle processing is probably the ONLY thing that hasn't been massively improved upon in current cards, and I'd be willing to wager that this is because there isn't much that even begins to tax current hardware triangle-wise.

 

[London Geezer]

joe, i dont really think we could honestly say that PS2 and Xbox graphics are "on par"..... poly counts might be very similar, but we know that the xbox can make those polys look better than ps2's polys....

of course Ps2 can pull off effects that can sometimes amaze people, i mean SH3, ZOE2 and others are something that made a lot of people think they weren't running on PS2. but still, nothing the Xbox can't do. maybe the particles might be the only problem. actually, take the maybe away.

but the rest.... i'm sure the xbox could make SH3 look even better than it does now without too much of an effort. ZOE2 might be a bit more problematic though... every other game i can think of could be done on the Xbox, unless the game is using a whole lot of particles and alpha textures we all know PS2 excels at.

 

[zidane1strife]

I honestly have no idea why you're comparing Mhz, number of transistors, etc. We're talking vastly different architectures of different eras. It's pointelss.

What matters is the end result. How does the graphics in a gaming situation stack up.

Well, I´m just giving examples, but overall I think we can all agree on the fact that one of those pentiumII rapes the psx cpu badly at any sort of calc-processing task, that is what I mean, and a card from the geforce line rapes the psx grphx chip badly too...

It is badly owned overall in all specs, this ´owning´ has been diminishing slowly.... that is the point.

The process used and the INVESTMENTs done in the console arena have been SIGNIFICANTLY increasing, while the costs for updating fabs. has also been increasing, but low. level guys like the taiwan cheese man. might have trouble keeping up without a huge profit source as that of the ever growing console market.

The point is to show that the gap in the hardware side has been slowly diminishing, it is a trend that I´ve observed... if it continues gphx difference will be even smaller in the future... that is the point, it might happen it might not... it´s just an observation

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a situation in which an XBox, GC, PS2 running anything at 4x/6x AA in 640x480 wouldn't get absolutely crushed by an R350/NV35.

Right...Or more specifically, those settings at 1024x768 or higher. And to be clear, I'm not in any way advocating some type of "PC superiority" here. I just disagree with the notion that the "difference between PCs and Consoles" is in any way a significantly different situation than it was during the last console cycled.

In fact, Triangle processing is probably the ONLY thing that hasn't been massively improved upon in current cards, and I'd be willing to wager that this is because there isn't much that even begins to tax current hardware triangle-wise.

I think a little differently...I think it hasn't been taxed to a great extent not because of content, but because:

1) Higher pixel rates have a better "return" on the investment, given the nature of PC displays.

2) higher vertex rates have diminishing returns due to external bottlenecks....considering the AGP Bus and general PC architecture.

I think once vertex shaders get programmable enough such that most or the "work" is done "on GPU itself" vs. "heavily split between the GPU and the CPU" as it seems today, we'll see vertex power on the PC start to get a kick in the backside. (Just my personal theory...)

 

[Clashman]

Seems reasonable enough.

 

[Clashman]

Right...Or more specifically, those settings at 1024x768 or higher.

I was just trying to put the comparisons in perspective by using 640x480, since that seems to be the default for consoles. Too often comparisons of consoles and PCs compare consoles at 640x480 to PCs running 1024x768 4xAA when clearly at those settings the hardware is being stressed in vastly different ways.

 

[zidane1strife]

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a situation in which an XBox, GC, PS2 running anything at 4x/6x AA in 640x480 wouldn't get absolutely crushed by an R350/NV35.

Indeed, but what I mean by comparing Mhz, amount of transistors, etc...

Is that you might say...¨Hey zidane, So the difference in later gen pc hardware and consoles, has been diminishing in terms of speed, bandwith, amount of processing elements, etc... and the costs for further advancements have been going up... But that doesn´t matter since they´re different architectures...¨

But I say look carefully, Doth it not matter that hardware wise the gap is closing? If so, we can extrapolate that, and you´d basically be saying that even if you had several fold the transistor budget, speed, and bandwith of another competing architecture you weren´t at any particular advantage hardware wise... which is...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, I´m just giving examples, but overall I think we can all agree on the fact that one of those pentiumII rapes the psx cpu badly at any sort of calc-processing task, that is what I mean, and a card from the geforce line rapes the psx grphx chip badly too...

And PCs today "half-way" rape the PS2 and x-box today, and they will "fully rape" them by the time the next gen consoles are ready to appear. (Again, not sure how one defines a level of "ownage" or "rape")

It is badly owned overall in all specs, this ´owning´ has been diminishing slowly.... that is the point.

Sorry, I just don't see it any differently. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see the "gap" diminishing at all. (Or expanding, for that matter.)

And seriously, no amount of you telling me who is "raped" or "owned" more or less, isn't going to persuade me.

The process used and the INVESTMENTs done in the console arena have been SIGNIFICANTLY increasing,

And they haven't in the PC space?

while the costs for updating fabs. has also been increasing, but low. level guys like the taiwan cheese man.

What is it with you and TSMC anyway?

The point is to show that the gap in the hardware side has been slowly diminishing, it is a trend that I´ve observed... if it continues gphx difference will be even smaller in the future... that is the point, it might happen it might not... it´s just an observation

Ok, I just disagree with that observation from the onset.

 

[zidane1strife]

And PCs today "half-way" rape the PS2 and x-box today, and they will "fully rape" them by the time the next gen consoles are ready to appear. (Again, not sure how one defines a level of "ownage" or "rape")

Well in terms of 3d gphx games related calcs, things like flops are of importance(so ok, they´re not exactly that good for comparisons..).
I don´t recall the exact number of Flops the psone cpu performed but IIRC the later cpus owned it badly in that area, more than 10x.

The EE is about 6Gflops, I´ve heard the current P4s are in the teens(1Xs) in terms of Gflops, which appears to be a slightly smaller increase

The psx-n64 did about 100-200k verts, later pc gphx cards achieved several million verts in that area, and similar gains in terms of overall processing elements, speed, etc...

This gen top console hw is ranked at about 100+M verts, top gpus are a few fold above that, and are lower in terms of bandwith to the top console's bandwith in gphx chips.

In the gpu arena we´re currently dealing with an increase of about 2-3 in terms of transistors, and processing speed... in the past increases in both speed and transistors were larger.

The pc continues to be designed towards general purpose, while the consoles are being ever fine tuned for a specific task, as the gap in hardware decreases... let us all see what evolution has taught us... that something that is designed for a specific purpose tends to surpass a more general purpose solution, aka the specialist vs the jack of all trades...

And they haven't in the PC space?

Well, in comparison the ratio is not favorable for the pc, at least in terms of investments related to 3d dedicated hardware.

PS look a little further back say the snes a 4Mhz chip with low-trans count IIRC... that was in the 90s BTW...

edited

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Zidane,

You keep on repeating more or less the same thing. Comparing individual types of specs.

The EE is about 6Gflops, I´ve heard the current P4s are in the teens(1Xs) in terms of Gflops, which appears to be a slightly smaller increase

And yet, for all the apparently great "flopness" advantage of the EE, the the X-Box, with the old 700 Mhz PIII seems to be holding it's own.

You just can't take one chip out of a console, look at it, and draw any meaningful conclusion. Please, stop it already.

The pc continues to be designed towards general purpose, while the consoles are being ever fine tuned for a specific task,

Which is the same as It's always been!.

And furthermore, are we not being lead to believe that consoles are gearing up to be more general purpose, which is in direct contradiction to what you are proposing?

At the very least isn't CELL, for example, being touted as flexible, and not simply fine-tuned for a specific task?

Well, in comparison the ratio is not favorable for the pc, at least in terms of investments related to 3d dedicated hardware.

Plase, show me the numbers of all the investment in dedicated consoles, vs. all the investment numbers for general purpose foundaries.

 

[zidane1strife]

let´s give one simple example, to summarize my point...

The top console gpu is about 60M trans IIRC, it´s clocked at 233Mhz, since it´s basically a nigh Gf4, it could very well handle pcish resolutions... though it's bandwith starved with cheapo mem. which is shared with its other components so let's no go there...

The important thing is that in terms of processing elements, aka transistors, and speed, it´s not that far behind.

The current gpus are in the 100+M trans area, about 2x... In terms of speed the top gpus are about 500Mhz or about 2x... now surely we´re talking about the chips that do the math, not memory starvation perse...

In about 18months, next fiscal yr gphx hardware featuring over two dozen times the amount of transistors of current gpus, and nearly an order of magnitude increase in speed could be released...

Now, if you don´t see something peculiar in the above paragraphs, I don´t know what to tell you

If sloweth does taketh place, the gap will be shrunketh significantly...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

let´s give one simple example, to summarize my point...

The top console gpu is about 60M trans IIRC...In about 18months, next fiscal yr gphx hardware featuring over two dozen times the amount of transistors of current gpus

Again with the transistor count of completely different architectures.

Makes no sense the last 10 times you brought it up, and it miraculously has not changed since.

Now, if you don´t see something peculiar in the above paragraphs, I don´t know what to tell you

I prefer to go with "you don't have anything to tell me."

If sloweth does taketh place, the gap will be shrunketh significantly...

Or perhaps you just have a speech impediment?

 

[zidane1strife]

Again with the transistor count of completely different architectures.

Joe the gf4 line perf wise, and arch wise ain't that different from today's modern gpus...

Anyway, if u actually think that transistor count, and speed don't matter(just because it's a different arch.), take for example a cpu from a few yrs back and compare it to a modern one... be the arch similar or different, the fact is " THE amount of processing elements and speed" will give the more recent chip an unfair advantage.

This my friend is a fact, it does giveth advantage. If the difference in perf elements and speed diminishes... it's a logical inference perf between the two chips even with diff arch will tend to diminish

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe the gf4 line perf wise, and arch wise ain't that different from today's modern gpus...

It's completely different from Sony's architectures, which you keep trying to compare them to.

Anyway, if u actually think that transistor count, and speed don't matter(just because it's a different arch.)...

Argh.

They ALL matter. You just can't say that architecture A with X transistors, is better or worse than architecture B with Y transistors.

Understand?

Architecture B can require Y transistors in order to be competitive with Architecture A with X transistors.

Please, graspeth this concept.

 

[Deepak]

Why are we losing our sleep over ATI/NV more than the executived of these companies themselves ....lets hope next gen is great for us gamers in terms of gameplay!

 

[cthellis42]

0.045 for a while, doesn't that mean more power to the developer who works out how to use it BEST, rather than who gets there FIRST?

Not if the one who got there first gave the yrs, 100s of engineers, and $$$, to develop some of the best, while the rest release every 6-12mnths with, relatively speaking, poorly funded rush jobs...

That is, of course, the point. But to my understanding nVidia and ATI do not drive this. They influence this, and certainly they can provide certain direction, but in the end they are controlled by what OTHERS do, who shell out more than their net worth in R&D quite possibly each and every year.

So while some companies shell out billions to improve processes and refine, most chip designers (not in charge of the fabbing themselves, as say IBM is) will have to influence what they can... but ultimately have to design towards what will realistically be best for all factors involved. (Process, architecturs, time to market, scalability...)

Exactly... rush, short-termed, relatively speaking, h@cks done with leaving some space in mind, for further improvements, will be hard pressed to surpass a true multi-year large R&D program which puts the effort to fill the space with the top nougat from the start... if the sloweth does cometh... What will happen?

We're not talking huge disparity of scale here, though. HUGE disparities leave some companies well in the dust and not in contention at all. Comparable chips mean the companies allocated different amounts of resrouces in different ways with different designs in mind...

As I said before, if a company can ALWAYS push the boundries AND have the most efficient design with the least issues with the highest margins with the most future growth... Well, they pretty much paste everyone else. Meanwhile, we've seen that to certainly not be the case between people truly judged "competitors." Going one X route will typically bring about Y concessions, and it's a huge, long-term balancing game.

In this case S/I/T have shown their hand years ago, and recently shown the lengths they're willing to go to to ensure their overall success. They adopt a complex, far-reaching, and broad-scope scheme, and there's a chance we WILL see that "disparity of scale" from those who compete and those who cannot by the end of it. (Of course there's always the chance they are overreaching and will stumble quite a bit before the finish line, too. ) Since they've played their hand, it's now up to the others to call. I don't really think Microsoft can get away with playing the same game they did last time, and certainly they've given themselves more time this generation, but it's still a lot less than S/I/T's, and we haven't detected any huge movements as of yet. Are they going to pony up and fight on the same scale, or are they going to play it safe and hope Sony stumbles? Questions, questions...

 

[Megadrive1988]

4) Today's PC hardware, P4 3 Ghz+, plus R350 / NV35, outclasses x-box hardware. Roughly 3x the raw performance, give or take depending on the situation.

Is that not a reasonable assesmnet?

certainly, yes.