PlayStation 3 may not have LSI chips in its design
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
You're looking at the wrong side... It's the chip right above the EE*GS on the other side of the board...
I really don't know why you'd think that...
This is also pretty much incorrect... Nevermind that the "several" DSPs on the system can't run program code or control other procs...
Or 3, they just manufacture the IOP themselves and be done with it...
Playstation == SNES CD & Sony standalone player
PlayStation X == Playstation
???????? == PSX
PS2 == PlayStation2
I don't remember the specific code name for the PSX but I know for a fact it wasn't PSX (I'm drawing a blank right now)...
While the motherboard pictures and consequent Archie's post invalidate entire thread of DM's thinking, I nonetheless want to clarify something.
I would consider EE to be the master more often though, if you think that matters.
In effect you would be switching one 'custom' chip for another... with lower compatibility as end result.
That's simply wrong. There is no arbitrary rule for the roles of two processors - they can both be in the role of master/slave just by looking at different part of the same application.DM said:
I would consider EE to be the master more often though, if you think that matters.
I didn't say it's impossible, I said it's impractical because the hardware of the chip emulating the IOP would need to be customized in order to make it work.notAFanB said:
In effect you would be switching one 'custom' chip for another... with lower compatibility as end result.
Ok, now I just have a lot of silicon bondage scenes running through my head, and it's not funny in the slightest!Fafalada said:
...
The fact that SCEI hasn't done anything to reduce its cost; all other SCEI produced chips are being integrated to cut cost, while IOP design remains as is; in fact, this is the sole chip whose configuration has not changed since the beginning, because SCEI can't touch it... It is strictly a "use as is" deal.
It depends one how "general purspoe" the DSP is..
Any chip can emulate anything as long as there is substential performance difference between two.
Why not funnychtellis said:
We've had a discussion once before where people compared current console cpus to girls.You didn't ask to emulate "anything", you asked to turn half a system into software and keep the other half untouched. The emulated subsystem will require custom hardware to connect to the non-emulated half if you want to have any semblance of compatibility with existing software.Deadmeat said:
...
IOP is marked as a non-SCEI manufactured part, while new SPU2 is. SCEI cannot self-fabricate IOP unless it obtains a manufacturing license from LSI.
Emulation is soemething we do everyday; the DOS/Win16 is emulated, command console is emulated, PC is full of emulated lagacy hardware that doesn't really exist. So why wouldn't the same work for "PSX"?.
IOP is marked as a non-SCEI manufactured part, while new SPU2 is. SCEI cannot self-fabricate IOP unless it obtains a manufacturing license from LSI.
"PSX"'s CPU is already connected to PSX2OAC and emulator would handle the interface portion. All you would have to make it compatible with PSX2 was to upload the IOP emulator into the CPU, then boot from the PSX/PSX2 CD-ROM.
Emulation is soemething we do everyday; the DOS/Win16 is emulated, command console is emulated, PC is full of emulated lagacy hardware that doesn't really exist. So why wouldn't the same work for "PSX"?.
Re: ...
Yet another example from you turning a guess on your behalf into a "fact". Stop lying, please.
There is NO such thing as a "PSX".
There is NO such thing as a PSX2 EITHER!
Why do you have to be such a thick-headed numbskull on this issue? You KNOW there's no such thing as a "PSX" or a PSX2 so why bother?
Well, as Faf already told you, EE relies on *hardware* signals from IOP, something a *software* emulator would not provide! Of course, who would expect you - a layperson - to listen to what a professional who actually works on the machine in question has to say on the issue?
Deadmeat said:
Yet another example from you turning a guess on your behalf into a "fact". Stop lying, please.
There is NO such thing as a "PSX".
There is NO such thing as a PSX2 EITHER!
Why do you have to be such a thick-headed numbskull on this issue? You KNOW there's no such thing as a "PSX" or a PSX2 so why bother?
Well, as Faf already told you, EE relies on *hardware* signals from IOP, something a *software* emulator would not provide! Of course, who would expect you - a layperson - to listen to what a professional who actually works on the machine in question has to say on the issue?
Re: ...
What's there to explain? According to that chart - which may or may not be entirely accurate - they're not fabbing IOP themselves, so what? That they're not making the chip themselves does not mean Professor Plum did it with a candlestick in the library, for fricks sake use the lump of grey matter you got inbetween your ears and realize that A does not automatically mean B, C, D, W, Q *and* Z too!
What?
WHAT?!
Deadmeat said:
What's there to explain? According to that chart - which may or may not be entirely accurate - they're not fabbing IOP themselves, so what? That they're not making the chip themselves does not mean Professor Plum did it with a candlestick in the library, for fricks sake use the lump of grey matter you got inbetween your ears and realize that A does not automatically mean B, C, D, W, Q *and* Z too!
What?
WHAT?!
...
This is accurate.
SCEI can't pack it into one of its own inhouse chipset and cut cost because they don't own it. SCEI has to keep getting ripped off for IOP and this is the reason SCEI wants to get rid of all LSI originated processors from PlayStation architecture through emulation, as the title of this very thread suggests.
Re: ...
But you don't KNOW that! You just invented it right now, admit it!
Another invention (=lie) of yours. It's quite amazing how an assumption on your behalf in your mind turns into rock-solid evidence... In my opinion it is quite laughable.
This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Deadmeat's House of Cards (cards being made of air, btw):
A: IOP is emulated in PSX
B: LSI is ripping off Sony
C: There is no LSI-branded chip in PSX (or at least visible in pics on the liksang website)
D: Must mean IOP is emulated, QED
However, NONE of this has been proven by you! It's all circular reasoning, a fabrication! You have no facts pointing to LSI owning the IOP (which would be very very strange, why would Sony GIVE away their IP to another company? Makes no sense!), you have no facts pointing to LSI ripping off Sony (which AGAIN would be very strange, you don't think Sony's people know how to negotiate a deal or something?). Finally, you haven't even a shred of evidence that IOP is being emulated through what you (and only you) call PSX's CPU - which apparantly is a DSP. Well, you should know DSPs are often cack at running general-purpose code, so this sound like an unlikely prospect to say the least just from a performance point-of-view, not to mention lack of hardwired signals IOP feeds EE, etc.
Deadmeat said:
But you don't KNOW that! You just invented it right now, admit it!
Another invention (=lie) of yours. It's quite amazing how an assumption on your behalf in your mind turns into rock-solid evidence... In my opinion it is quite laughable.
This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Deadmeat's House of Cards (cards being made of air, btw):
A: IOP is emulated in PSX
B: LSI is ripping off Sony
C: There is no LSI-branded chip in PSX (or at least visible in pics on the liksang website)
D: Must mean IOP is emulated, QED
However, NONE of this has been proven by you! It's all circular reasoning, a fabrication! You have no facts pointing to LSI owning the IOP (which would be very very strange, why would Sony GIVE away their IP to another company? Makes no sense!), you have no facts pointing to LSI ripping off Sony (which AGAIN would be very strange, you don't think Sony's people know how to negotiate a deal or something?). Finally, you haven't even a shred of evidence that IOP is being emulated through what you (and only you) call PSX's CPU - which apparantly is a DSP. Well, you should know DSPs are often cack at running general-purpose code, so this sound like an unlikely prospect to say the least just from a performance point-of-view, not to mention lack of hardwired signals IOP feeds EE, etc.
...
Back in 1992, SCEI was a small start-up hated by other Sony executives(Kutaragi put up his neck to get PSX out the door against heavy internal opposition, which started the decade long ill-blood between Sony Electronics and SCEI) and it didn't have the expertise and resources to design its own CPU, so it ordered the custom-enginnered CPU from someone who could, LSI Logic. It would backfire and haunt SCEI for years to come, but SCEI has no choice in the beginning.
Why did MS kick nVIDIA out of Xbox Next? Because nVIDIA was making a killing on XGPU! SCEI is kicking LSI IP out of PSXs to cut cost!
Sure we do(but you don't).
Actually, LSI owns the PSX1 CPU IP and all its derivatives(IOP).
Because it wasn't theirs to give away in the first place???
Back in 1992, SCEI was a small start-up hated by other Sony executives(Kutaragi put up his neck to get PSX out the door against heavy internal opposition, which started the decade long ill-blood between Sony Electronics and SCEI) and it didn't have the expertise and resources to design its own CPU, so it ordered the custom-enginnered CPU from someone who could, LSI Logic. It would backfire and haunt SCEI for years to come, but SCEI has no choice in the beginning.
What is the title of this very thread? Why would SCEI want to kick LSI parts out of its designs if it were a happy customer???
Why did MS kick nVIDIA out of Xbox Next? Because nVIDIA was making a killing on XGPU! SCEI is kicking LSI IP out of PSXs to cut cost!
Re: ...
So where's the evidence man? Fess up, or shut up.
Oh, really? And where's the document proving this? I am willing to bet real money you simply made up this "fact" using the fact the IOP is still a discrete chip as a basis.
And why would it NOT be theirs??? Even if LSI developed the chip, including MDEC and GTE (MIPS owns the CPU core itself), which I don't believe they did, Sony should still own the chip design itself. Anyway, I believe Sony themselves did the chip design, I don't understand where you mean LSI comes into this, except for manufacturing and possibly the gate layout.
You tell a tall fairytale speaking of bad blood within Sony, do you have any proof of this either, or is it just more mind-constructs on your behalf based on assumptions and your own misunderstandings?
What? You're saying there was NOBODY else in the business capable of building the PS GPU despite there are SO many talented design companies out there, and Sony was forced to sell their soul to these guys? LAUGHABLE!
You're designing circumstances to fit your opinion. Simply LAUGHABLE!
A thread title isn't EVIDENCE! It's just a thread title! Jesus, get real.
Point I'm making is, you have no evidence IOP is LSI IP. That's just baseless imaginings on your behalf and it would be nice to see you admit that.
Deadmeat said:
So where's the evidence man? Fess up, or shut up.Oh, really? And where's the document proving this? I am willing to bet real money you simply made up this "fact" using the fact the IOP is still a discrete chip as a basis.
And why would it NOT be theirs??? Even if LSI developed the chip, including MDEC and GTE (MIPS owns the CPU core itself), which I don't believe they did, Sony should still own the chip design itself. Anyway, I believe Sony themselves did the chip design, I don't understand where you mean LSI comes into this, except for manufacturing and possibly the gate layout.
You tell a tall fairytale speaking of bad blood within Sony, do you have any proof of this either, or is it just more mind-constructs on your behalf based on assumptions and your own misunderstandings?
What? You're saying there was NOBODY else in the business capable of building the PS GPU despite there are SO many talented design companies out there, and Sony was forced to sell their soul to these guys? LAUGHABLE!
You're designing circumstances to fit your opinion. Simply LAUGHABLE!
A thread title isn't EVIDENCE! It's just a thread title! Jesus, get real.
Point I'm making is, you have no evidence IOP is LSI IP. That's just baseless imaginings on your behalf and it would be nice to see you admit that.