Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

cloud computing is vague, deliberately so even, as the term itself ; there's not necessarily a central server doing all the work. Processing is done "somewhere", likewise data might be stored wherever.
A grid is a good exemple of cloud computing. This very board could be a mundane one. Wikipedia is another one, with dozens of cache, web, database and other servers ; you have no idea where or how is processed your entry editing, but it gets done, and you access it from any web browser on yourlanguage.wikipedia.org

 

Sorta. In broad terms...

Grid computing takes a bunch of disparate computing resources and ties them in such that they can perform on one task.

Cloud computing uses a central computing resource to serve the needs of many "access" points. Replacing the need for traditional computers and replacing them with dumb terminals.

Again REALLY broad definitions.

Grid computer can be used to power computing resources for Cloud computing, but it doesn't work the other way around.

Grid computing is more about processing data. Cloud computing is more about serving up data (and computer resources).

Regards,
SB

 

Ah I think I see. Was thinking that the 2 were exclusive and not necessarily compatible to each other but now I see that in fact a grid setup- multiple servers/systems all working on a common goal could in fact be the central setup that powers the cloud. Once the grid has done it's task it then gets sent to the end user whom simply has the 'dumb' terminal sitting at home.

The only problem is adopting a universal cloud setup would take away resources that the grid could use in the first instance... If we all simply had 'dumb' terminals at home then the grid could only rely on the hardware that remains. folding@home for example would not work if none of us actually had any hardware sitting in our homes.

 

real dumb terminals have P2-class hardware and only run a VNC or similar session. Here a computer running mainly a browser needs more CPU power (it's pretty hungry), but the CPU usage is usually spiky and there's some to spare when pages were loaded and you are mostly scrolling through text.

So assuming a decent CPU in a light home appliance (such as a dual core Atom, VIA nano or sempron), you can fold, likewise a slow DX11 IGP can be used. Not as fast as a gaming PC, but lighter on the power bill, and with a great power/watt. Some people might be willing to donate 10W or 20W, not so much 100W or 200W.

but we could be arguing that on the google chrome OS thread or have a generic cloud computing discussion (dunno in which section )

 

Going from PS3 CELL: 1 PPE:7 SPEs ~ 1/5 of a TFLOP
to 4 PPEs:32 SPEs providing 1 or 1+ TFLOP would be a nice improvement
8 PPEs:64 SPEs providing 2 or 2+ TFLOPs would also be nice, given the timeframe.


You might recall, one reported option for the PS3 back in 2003 or so was an 8:64 configuration, all on a single chip (even though that would be totally unrealistic for 2006):

By 2012-2013 such configuration of CELL, 8:64, should be possible, given that IBM was planning to have a 4:32 config in 2010. I'm not saying PS4 will use an 8:64 config at all. Sony might do something as modest as a 2:12 or 2:16 and instead sink more money into the GPU.

I'd rather see PS4 with GPU that's no so outdated at the time of its release as the PS3's RSX was. RSX was so disappointing for a console that was meant to be cutting edge. IMHO the RSX was the least impressive for its time of any PlayStation. The PS1's graphic chip and PS2's GS were more advanced for their time than PS3's RSX. On the other hand, RSX was the first industry-standard GPU put into a PlayStation system. It didn't have any serious shortcomings compared to Sony's in-house graphics. So in that respect RSX was really good, it was just a low-end GPU by the time PS3 launched.

 

I don't give much faith to this early report, basically that was unrealistic high expectations, basically they speak of 8 cells, that's 2000mm² not too mention the complexity of the mobo. I still believe no matter it has somehow been dismissed by a lot of persons here that Sony seriously considered at some point to go with a "gpu less" design so multiple cells would have make sense. Anyway 8 is... way too much.

Overall I'm less and less confident in the cell roadmap, 2010 is less than 6 months away we haven't heard anything about it, neither from Sony or IBM. I think that if anything IBM is focusing on its POWER7 supposed to deliver a consistent amount of flops. They know larrabee is coming at they don't want to loose to much market share on the HTC /super computer market.

I wouldn't be surprised if the three actual manufacturers end up with pretty similar Power PPC next gen. The only case where I don't see this happens is if larrabee is to land in on of the next gen system I think that the manufacturer which made that choice could have a X86 CPU. If negotiations have been tough enough with Intel and the latter decided to cut a lot in their margin.

After reading rumors (based on old rumors... ) about what could be AMD bulldozer and also what AMD called Cluster based multi threading, I've come to think that MS and IBM could consider this approach to boost xenon throughput. Basically attach two vmx128 to one core and rework the cache architecture (along with fixing xenon main flaws). It may end a lot less bothering than go further than 4 cores.
Xenon does not support multi threading for it vmx units and given the number and the size of the register it could prove pretty costly to implement.

I also had been wandering if cloud based rendering/computing could be part of the equation. Basically offload operations where latency has no significant impact on the game. I especially think of AI. For example think about a huge open world where your actions would have a real significant impact on the population populating it. That could be a lot of data to update and eat consistent memory space.
In regard to rendering I don't know how could rendering could be mixed in.
Interestingly it could an addition done on a per game basis, not all game would need it.

 

Wouldn't such an approach then assume that all game users would have to be connected to the internet to even play the game? What about the folk with slow connections? How would that affect things?

Also one has to think about the added cost of running your cloud computing server on the dev side. Would the added cost be paid for by the product consumer? Then again such games could be distributed as XBLA/PSN titles. I dunno

 

I have no faith in anything like cloud computing , web browser based computing, server based computing, distributed computing, etc as far as real-time games are concerned. This won't happen in time for the next generation consoles, Xbox3/PS4 assuming those consoles are coming in the 2011-2013 timeframe, 2-4 years from now. By 2020 or so when it's time for Xbox4 and PS5, perhaps the technology will be ready.

Alternatively, if Xbox3/PS4 aren't coming until 2015-2016, then perhaps some model of cloud computing might be ready, but just barely.

As I see it, next-gen console games are still going to depend on the CPUs and GPUs that can be put into a box that sits in everyone's home. The advancement is going to come from moving from multi-core to massively multi-core aka manycore, as well as the advances in software/tools/programming models. But still based on the silicon that can be manufactured, not remote data centers.

 

Until hyper-fast broadband is as easily available as mains power, Cloud won't and can't be the focus for the major platform holders.

 

It just depends on how much of the public a manufacturer wants to exclude. There will ALWAYS be someone without fast broadband. Hell, I'd argue that for the next 25-50 years if not more, there will always be someone without broadband.

However, that doesn't preclude any company from deciding that the population without fast enough broadband is small enough that it doesn't matter or composed of a demographic that wouldn't be purchasing consoles for personal use anyways.

That said, I still think it's at least 5-10 years away (if not more) before any of the major players could even think of implementing a console focused on cloud gaming.

Online only distribution would be the first step. As with that you could still have offline methods of distribution through secure memory cards or something.

Regards,
SB

 

I have a totally hypothetical question.

What would be the pros/cons of using a setup like this (PS4 used just to illustrate point):

Cell 4/32 as CPU/General Purpose Unit (or Cell descendant)
2x a midrange GPU at launch (like a built in SLI/crossfire; maybe evolutionary descendant of RSX)
2 (or 4) GB RAM; split a la PS3
4x (or 8x) Blu-ray
built in A/B/G/N wireless and ethernet

I'm just thinking that with the economic climate, all 3 current console manufacturers might really go evolutionary steps and try to not have to pour a cubic butt ton more money into R&D on new/unproven tech.

I just find it hard to believe that after all the grief Sony has taken that they would be somewhat reluctant to go through that again by using Larrabee this early.

 

Wouldn't it be easier/more efficient to have 1 more powerful gpu over 2 lower powered ones?

 

Yes, only positive effect from having 2 smaller ones would be better yields

 

even then you can disable part of the GPU, as is already done on Cell and RSX (which has 28 pipes, 24 of them enabled).

dual GPU add costs, eats too much power ; the power budget can't increase anymore in consoles. You also need to design a new dual GPU mechanism, probably an MCM with very high speed interconnects, or either you have to duplicate all assets, wasting a huge quantity of memory : a usual scarce resource on consoles.

a point was already made against a 4/32 Cell.
I can imagine a 2/12 Cell with a midrange GPU (the RV740 kind of midrange CPU : very fast already) and 2GB of rather fast unified memory.

 

no reason for duel midrange GPUs. Best thing to do is take the basics of a new upcoming highend GPU and customize it, work hard on increasing its efficiency. By the time the console comes out, the GPU in it is near the state of the art of what you can buy seperately for PC, maybe a little more or a little less. Xbox1 in 2001 was this way, it was a GeForce 3.5 almost a GF4, at a time when GeForce 3 Ti500 was out for PCs. The Ti500 had a fillrate and bandwidth advantage over NV2A but NV2A had more geometry power, and perhaps more pixel shader performance, although they both shared the same basic 4:2 design. NV2A was not outclassed by Ti500 like the RSX was outclassed by the G80.

I'd like to see PS4's GPU a highly custom well-thought-out work by Nvidia and SCEI.

 

Actually he wasn't that far off.

I get your point though, I was really excited at what I thought was an awesome concept. Not so much in graphics capability, but PS3's talking to each other and sharing computing time to effect what happens in multplayer co-op games. Oh well maybe next gen.

 

Perhaps the question is really about filling up the worlds that the game developers create with content. So instead of having a wasteland, you have grass and trees and instead of having a barely populated city you have a bustling metropolis.

Maybe for the next generation, whats in order is to expand the scope of the rendered world and fill it with content on the outside of the rendered structures and on the inside fill it with content. Just as with GTA IV how they had seperate episodes within the same city they created why not have an expensive pre-created city made for the strict purpose of having games use it as their setpiece.

It makes sense to me at least for consoles to have a 'gotham city' type setting where any number of stories and games can unfold within. All they would have to do is take the assets and use them as they see fit. That way you can have an open world shooter, an RPG, an adventure game etc all using the same places. So for example in an adventure game you may visit the tallest tower in the city and explore it in search for an answer to a mystery and in another game like for instance an action sandbox game you may level it to the ground! New York has be blown up, invaded, you've found out what women wanted etc all in the same place.

 

Funny you should say that.

I thought of something like this back in 1994. The idea was to use a common library for everyday objects.

Cars, Trees, houses, boats, planes, etc. Things that don't change and yet are recreated over and over again.

Once the common library was created (to your example a fully fleshed out city) it would be stored locally and added upon as needed. This system would allow games to be extremely small and even downloadable (a crazy idea back then!)

The other idea I had from about 1998 was to take this library to the city level (your example) and then having multiple games and genres playing out at the exact same time in the exact same arena (city). Having racing games playing out in the same region as an fps which is also hosting Ace Combat type games and water sports (lakes, or bay areas) etc.

The technology wasn't ready then and doesn't seem to be now, but it's close. MAG is the closest I've seen to the scale, and BF1942 is the closest as far as having a mass of chaos, but the players are all in the same genre.