Official speculate before its too late: RSX Spec thread

[leechan25]

Traditional PC GPU's work on a pull model, not a push model.
The GS is what I would consider a push model.

If it's the former I don't really see any complications above and beyond those that exist on Xenon. FWIW ATI and MS did solve the problem for some resonably sized processor set at some level, although I suspect more by accident than design in this case.

Yeah, those GPU's never were really push by PC based CPU's. The GPU mostly was the one waiting around. However the EE push the GS. In fact its still pushing the GS now that developers are trying to get more out of the both vector units.

 

[ERP]

Yeah, those GPU's never were really push by PC based CPU's. The GPU mostly was the one waiting around. However the EE push the GS. In fact its still pushing the GS now that developers are trying to get more out of the both vector units.

Not really my point, I was merely stating that the GPU was in controll of the DMA in the PC world where the GS has data pushed to it.

GPU's are pushed in the PC world, although, architecturally DX3-9 make it difficult to push a lot of polygons.

 

[leechan25]

Not really my point, I was merely stating that the GPU was in controll of the DMA in the PC world where the GS has data pushed to it.

GPU's are pushed in the PC world, although, architecturally DX3-9 make it difficult to push a lot of polygons.

Oh,

Well cell will act like to EE to the RSX.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Oh,

Well cell will act like to EE to the RSX.

Not really, EE had to Push the GS as it was'nt a proper GPU and hardly had any HARD-WIRED features, hence the EE had to push the GS to do everything. With PS3 its different because it does have a "POPER" GPU to do the graphics rendering. So there relationship wont be the same as EE + GS.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Focus

That's what most of us think right now. However, RSX Gpu is surely closer to a cell in my opinion than you give Sony credit for. Why would Sony and Nvidia design a GPU that would become weight down by a CPU that sending it at least eight processors worth of instructions independently and simultaneously? How could the GPU handle that level of data without bottlenecks? My answer is the Visualiser or something with multiple cores.

Maybe we focus on wrong aspect of only graphics when real capability of PS3 is CELL which can help RSX with graphics but also many other calculations to make graphics realistic like realistic animation and physics and many particles, not just polygons, shadow and lighting.

EA is using 3 SPE for graphics and GPU is already fill-rate bound (I think by fill-rate he is talking of pixel-shaders) so I think RSX is not so much faster than Xenos. Also, developer quote always say "slightly" faster. If GPU difference is very large developers would say "much" faster, no? Also Sony says faster than 2 6800 not 3 6800 or 2 7800. So maybe RSX is like 7800GTX 256MB but smaller size, 128-bit memory access and 550mhz clockspeed. Maybe also other small differences for more support to access to CPU and main memory by GPU. I wonder if maybe even GPU has method to control a SPE is possible, maybe. but I do not feel RSX has extra SPEs inside or have very different design from G70. If release is very soon then real PS3 models must be built and tested now. Also remember RSX has to have no heat and power problems.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6552

Young noted that high quality execution on its own, with great AI, control, physics and so on, gives you a baseline average score, on a GameRankings-style site, of an 80% rating. It's vital - of the top 60 games of the past 3 years in North America, just 11 products had average ratings under 80% - but that's not necessarily enough. He then pointed out important game design differentiators - from the 'mod' for Doom to the gravity gun in Half-Life 2 and dual-wielding weapons for Halo 2, arguing that these kind of innovations have to be carefully designed into the game's schedule, to be mapped out during a pre-production process.

Some of the most interesting footage and information came at the end of the piece, when Young talked about the latest iteration of the Medal Of Honor series for PlayStation 3, currently in development at EA Los Angeles. He revealed that, while still early in development, the PS3 version of the game was already fill-rate bound, leaving 4 SPUs of the PlayStation 3 ready to be used for code-powered effects such as physics, particles, AI, and so on.

He also advanced his theory that, while only 20% of the processing power would be used for processes other than rendering in the current generation, as much as 50% would be available for AI, physics, and other such tasks in the next generation. This would hopefully lead to a much more sophisticated experience that isn't just better graphics running on a similar codebase, and while doing this, Electronic Arts is "trying to hold to a [budget] increase of 50% over the current generation" for next generation console titles.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Ps3

The only thing im looking forward to is a GPU atleast AS powerful as the 7800 GTX 512 WITH-OUT any CPU bottleneck's. That is going to own.

Maybe this is PS3.

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

.
EA is using 3 SPE for graphics and GPU is already fill-rate bound (I think by fill-rate he is talking of pixel-shaders) so I think RSX is not so much faster than Xenos.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6552

There Fill Rate bound because of there lack of know-how on how to program PS3, Not because PS3 does'nt have enough of it. I also think that PS3 has a Higher fill rate than Xenos, but im not sure.

 

[ERP]

There Fill Rate bound because of there lack of know-how on how to program PS3, Not because PS3 does'nt have enough of it. I also think that PS3 has a Higher fill rate than Xenos, but im not sure.

More stating speculation as fact.......
Fact is that there is no information in this quote beyomg Medal of honor is currently fillrate bound on PS3 devkits. Anything else is speculation.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Ea

There Fill Rate bound because of there lack of know-how on how to program PS3, Not because PS3 does'nt have enough of it. I also think that PS3 has a Higher fill rate than Xenos, but im not sure.

I think for PS2 EA performance is not so good but for PS3 many developers say GPU is easy so I feel that even EA has probably no problem with GPU use. Because of not so great PS2 use by EA I wonder if EA has good use of SPE. Maybe EA has improved. We must be patient to find out, my friend, but until then it is enjoyable to speculate no? Also we do not know what is resolution of EA's PS3 game. Is it 720P? 1080P? If 1080P, pixel shader fill-rate requirement is very high because twice as many pixels so half as many operations available for one pixel.

 

[version]

PS3 doing 100 billion polygons/sec, fillrate not too big problem

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Yeah, it's using the built-in flux capacitor to go back in time to draw more polygons. But you'll need 2 Gigawatts of power to do this, so the cooling will be a bit loud, and the power supply quite large...

 

[ihamoitc2005]

?

PS3 doing 100 billion polygons/sec, fillrate not too big problem

I feel 100 Billion is too much my friend. I feel I must disagree. Benchmark for 1 SPE for optimized T&L is ~ 200M/sec no? So if bandwidth and no other stall maybe 1.6 Billion. But from other demo we see not perfect increase but ~5x from 1 SPE to 8 SPE so maybe 1 Billion/sec, maybe, but we cannot know. I am sorry to say 100 Billion is too much.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Mistaken

Yeah, it's using the built-in flux capacitor to go back in time to draw more polygons. But you'll need 2 Gigawatts of power to do this, so the cooling will be a bit loud, and the power supply quite large...

I feel you have made a large mistake my friend. We are discussing the PS3 but you have described PS3.5

 

[version]

 

[SentinelQW]

"PS3 doing 100 billion polygons/sec"

Muhahaha...

Ps2 Sony's theoretical max = 75 million polygon/sec
And Ps2 real in-game polygon performance = 5-6 million/sec...

My opinion, the Ps3 polygon performance weaker than 1 billion/sec. In-game performance is strongly questionable...

 

[MrWibble]

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Ps2

"PS3 doing 100 billion polygons/sec"

Muhahaha...

Ps2 Sony's theoretical max = 75 million polygon/sec
And Ps2 real in-game polygon performance = 5-6 million/sec...

My opinion, the Ps3 polygon performance weaker than 1 billion/sec. In-game performance is strongly questionable...

PS2 Theoretical Max geometry transform=150M/sec
Real in-game polygon draw speed=20M/sec

Also, I now feel that "version" maybe was joking about 100 Billion number.

 

[ERP]

Also, I now feel that "version" maybe was joking about 100 Billion number.

I think versions posting history should be required reading before anyone is allowed to respond to him......

MrWibbles response is the best version parody ever.

 

[Fast]

And Ps2 real in-game polygon performance = 5-6 million/sec...

More like 10-20 mpps.

IIRC Sonys Performance Analyzer measured a game using 10-20mpps. Any educated guess on what game that was? A Jak game perhaps?

Oh and Sony stated the "real" polygon figure for PS2 around 25 mpps.
"25 Million Polygons per Second (48-pixel quad with Z, Alpha, and Texture)"

 

[Kodama]