Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[AlNom]

I feel like we're re-treading old topics here! Isn't this supposed to be the Predict The Next Next-Gen Console Tech

i guess to be more specific could sony just add say 2gigs of shared( or 1 gig split) of ram and call it a day? i guess since i dont really understand the ins and outs of the whole picture im asking if the nexbox is fully upgraded what other shortcomings could there be if sony say only upped the ram?

At the time, GDDR3 or XDR density was about 512Mb per chip. You'd be asking for 32 RAM chips for 2GB. Integration on the motherboard would be infeasible let alone the wire trace complexity that entails with so many chips.

 

[Alkohallick]

At the time, GDDR3 or XDR density was about 512Mb per chip. You'd be asking for 32 RAM chips for 2GB.

what about now? if its possible, would they be able to compete with nextbox?

 

[Dr. Nick]

what about now? if its possible, would they be able to compete with nextbox?

Are you talking about using the same tech next gen just with more ram? Well only if Microsoft did the same thing IMO but if MS decided to go with DirectX 11/12 class tech and Sony didn't then I think Sony would have some problems.

 

[AlNom]

what about now? if its possible, would they be able to compete with nextbox?

GDDR5 chips have yet to hit 2Gb density. GDDR3 production topped out at 1Gb density. XDR is still only 512Mb density.

So right now, GDDR3/5 @ 1Gb density would still mean 16 chips for 2GB memory.

 

[Alkohallick]

Are you talking about using the same tech next gen just with more ram? Well only if Microsoft did the same thing IMO but if MS decided to go with DirectX 11/12 class tech and Sony didn't then I think Sony would have some problems.

reading from a post here at b3d i thought dx11/12 is just like a term for what it can do not its limitation (or something like that) so problem like what?

GDDR5 chips have yet to hit 2Gb density. GDDR3 production topped out at 1Gb density. XDR is still only 512Mb density.

So right now, GDDR3/5 @ 1Gb density would still mean 16 chips for 2GB memory.

i think your caught up in the "it aint possible" frame of mind, im just asking-if it was possible- could an ps3 w say 2gigs of ram, shared or split, potentially keep up with the nextbox

 

[function]

I find this interest because when Sony first showed off basically G70 slides, some of them containing bench marks of what were essentially "old games", of what the RSX would be capable of at E3 2005 everyone seemed to be blown away by it now people are like "Is this the best Sony could have done?"

I guess in early 2005 a Geforce 7 did seem impressive. When you don't know how the software situation is going to evolve it's hard to gauge the suitability of something like a graphics chip over the longer term. I wasn't expecting my 7900 to age as it did, but then again I don't really know much.

I remember ATI talking about their shader heavy X1900 series though, and how it was designed based on how they predicted software demands would change (indeed, in some older software it didn't particularly distance itself from the X1800). I'm sure ATI, Nvidia and MS had a good idea how things would pan out, and I would have expected the same from Sony.

This does raise an interesting (and indeed on topic!) point about which console manufacturer is best placed to pick the right hardware. With their money, final say over DirectX, links to hundreds of software developers and links to AMD, Nvidia and Intel I'd say MS, but then I'd have said the same thing this generation and the winner really does have to be ... Nintendo?

i think your caught up in the "it aint possible" frame of mind, im just asking-if it was possible- could an ps3 w say 2gigs of ram, shared or split, potentially keep up with the nextbox

My 7900 GTX is saying ... no.

 

[AlNom]

i think your caught up in the "it aint possible" frame of mind, im just asking-if it was possible- could an ps3 w say 2gigs of ram, shared or split, potentially keep up with the nextbox

Based on the technical facts I've laid down, why do you believe it would be feasible or cost effective

 

[RobertR1]

i think your caught up in the "it aint possible" frame of mind, im just asking-if it was possible- could an ps3 w say 2gigs of ram, shared or split, potentially keep up with the nextbox

The nextbox would not only have a RAM upgrade but also a major CPU and GPU upgrade. A current PS3 with 2GB of RAM would get smoked.

 

[sunscar]

i think your caught up in the "it aint possible" frame of mind, im just asking-if it was possible- could an ps3 w say 2gigs of ram, shared or split, potentially keep up with the nextbox

You're not catching his drift. You're asking if PS3 could compete two years from now with a new console, just by bumping up the RAM to 2GB. The reality is that competitor will likely already have more memory than that, ~ 20-30x the power, and new shader tech that allows things that simply aren't practical without newer GPU tech. The performance gulf would be about as wide as the one between the Wii, and PS360 now.

 

[V3]

Well who was it that got them into such a situation, surely that's where the blame lies, not with Nvidia? Whilst, I'm never going to argue that RSX is anywhere near as good as it should have been, was the alternative any better? I fear not. If Sony didn't have Nvidia to fall back on, where would they have been then? The question still stands, who else could have produced a somewhat competitve solution in the same time frame? If RSX was bad, then the alternatives were surely a spectacular disaster waiting to happen.

Someone here mentioned that Sony went with RSX instead of Toshiba for political reasons not performance. It was probably some kind of ultimatum of some sort either from developers side wanting familiar tool or Bluray Vs HD-DVD thing, we will never know. But it went downhill from there. They scramble to get BC working; PS3 could launch cheaper or cost them less money at launch if they didn't need to include that hardware BC. It could also be smaller from the start as hardware BC take some portion of the motherboard and from the prototype picture it was smaller too.

Also do you remember what NV stance was during Xbox and why MS dumb them. It's because they don't sell their chip design for MS to manufacture it cheaper. Well remember they did sold it to Sony to everyone surprised here at the time. Now we know why. The chip was broken.

It would have been a jail free card if RSX work as Sony picture it. Also remember that when it was announced that RSX was suppose to be one of many future collaboration with NV. Nothing come since. At this point in time it is very unlikely that Sony will go with NV again due to this.

On the hind side they should have just delayed the whole PS3 for two more years. They rushed it to the market to win Blu-ray was a mistake IMO. More so because they have to launch with Sixaxis instead of Dual Shock. They should have just relaunched PS2 with Eyetoy and motion control and compete with Wii. It was a poor launched.

If Sony don't turn PS3 around in the next year or two, there won't be a PS4. Anyway going forward technically from PS3 is going to be difficult.

 

[corduroygt]

The nextbox would not only have a RAM upgrade but also a major CPU and GPU upgrade. A current PS3 with 2GB of RAM would get smoked.

I'm not too sure about that. The cell is perfectly adequate for a CPU since not much will run on CPU any more by next gen. Cell + Fermi + 2GB could be very strong.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I'm not too sure about that. The cell is perfectly adequate for a CPU since not much will run on CPU any more by next gen. Cell + Fermi + 2GB could be very strong.

Last time I checked Fermi wasn't in PS3, or was it?!

 

[Squilliam]

I was thinking about the nextbox the other day and I was remembering the brilliant article on Ars about the PS2 architecture and why it was so efficient next to the PC style hardware that the current consoles seem to have. So I was thinking about the Xbox 3 with the idea of an effective cheap + powerful console architecture.

The design of the Xbox 3 will probably have to be cheap based off the lessons of the Wii, reliable because they will not be forgiven twice and powerful because likely 3D will be a major gimmick so 60FPS @ 1080P will be a standard to aim for and beyond that having the games look noticeably better will be important too.

Now if your baseline is a design with no mechanical HDD, you can do something along the order of implementing a solid state memory system with say 16/32GB with 1/2 GB reserve + 8/15GB user space and 7/15GB for fast cache at speeds of upwards of say 300MB/S. More importantly data can be streamed onto RAM with much lower latency than from a HDD or optical disc so you wouldn't need to float as much data in main memory as a buffer.

In terms of the rendering pipeline effectively the CPU would have to run the games at 30FPS and the GPU would need to render at 60FPS (oversimplification) so the current design with the ED Ram and FSB on the GPU would have to continue as the GPU itself would have to be designed with the goal of rendering as much in the minimum time frame. This means ED-Ram on die so it can be read back quickly as every ms is important.

The overall system would be GPU heavy with 2/1 ratios favouring the GPU in terms of silicon budget. It would still maintain a 128bit bus to keep the board level complexity down and with GDDR5 it would still yield 70-80GB/S throughput which would be plenty as the framebuffer wouldn't be eating considering bandwidth.

So what do you think? Am I thinking along the right path here? Sorry I haven't given any die sizes or technology used but I still don't think the specific technologies are as important as figuring out a good overall architecure.

Edit: Would it be possible to use intelligent ED-Ram to create a 3D effect without developer input? So one 30FPS render goes in and two come out?

 

[ShadowWolf64]

I'm not too sure about that. The cell is perfectly adequate for a CPU since not much will run on CPU any more by next gen. Cell + Fermi + 2GB could be very strong.

Your delusional if you think the PS3 could compete with the next xbox in terms of pure hardware power...

 

[Crossbar]

GDDR5 chips have yet to hit 2Gb density. GDDR3 production topped out at 1Gb density. XDR is still only 512Mb density.

So right now, GDDR3/5 @ 1Gb density would still mean 16 chips for 2GB memory.

Actually no, Elpida has 1 Gb XDR memory in production since spring.

They also have it in a 32 bit configuration, which is a perfect fit for the PS3 which lets it cut the number of XDR circuits in half. I expect them to turn up in a cost reduced PS3 during next year, together with a shrinked RSX on 45 nm.

I also keep an open mind to the possibility Sony will replace the GDDR3 interface with an XDR-interface on the RSX, it would help reducing heat, number of circuits and help keeping up the volumes of XDR memory. GDDR3 is slowly dying anyway, being replaced by GDDR5 produced in high volumes.

 

[Kaotik]

GDDR5 chips have yet to hit 2Gb density. GDDR3 production topped out at 1Gb density. XDR is still only 512Mb density.

So right now, GDDR3/5 @ 1Gb density would still mean 16 chips for 2GB memory.

I don't think they'd need 2GB mem, 512MB shared or 2x 512MB pools would most likely do just fine

 

[Schaden]

Nvidia totally screwed Sony. They took one of their parts which they had long since shelved because of both defects and performance issues, and proceeded to sell it to Sony. RSX was never meant to be sold to anyone, it was a long since shelved piece of hardware, but they realized they could make a pile of money this way and protect their PC business at the same time since the video hardware they sold Sony was obsolete from day one. Sony was desperate at that point as they were both out of time and out of money trying to go with their own solution, so NVidia took advantage of the situation and profited big time.

I don't know where you're coming from ? RSX was a spin off from among the last of an older generation of discrete dx9 gpus and probably a bit disappointing as a future proof choice for a next gen console, but I think it was a matter of bad timing.

I don't believe the situation was as nefarious as you make it sound, "long since shelved", "never meant to be sold to anyone" ? Other than broken scaling, Nvidia delivered what they could in the time frame Sony required. PS3 was supposed to launch in 1st half of 2006. In between the launch of geforce 7 and 8.
I think the GPU Nvidia delivered looked especially weak since PS3 didn't launch until G80 was already on the market.

What was the date of Sony's contracting Nvidia for RSX?

G80 or a derivative of it seems iffy from a timing standpoint. It would have needed to have been ready or nearly so when Sony released details in mid-2005, and it would have needed to be in final production months before the initial mid-2006 launch date.

This article from July 2004 announces a collaboration between Nvidia and Sony for the next playstation. Furthermore, it claims the development work has already been ongoing for two years.

NVIDIA partners with Sony on PlayStation 3 graphics hardware

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/nvidia-partners-with-sony-on-playstation-3-graphics-hardware

The companies have been jointly developing a custom graphics processing unit (GPU) incorporating next-generation GeForce technology - the graphics hardware behind NVIDIA's PC products - for the past two years, which will be used alongside SCEI's own system solutions for next-generation platforms featuring the Cell processor.

 

[Acert93]

That press release settles it

 

[AlNom]

I don't think they'd need 2GB mem, 512MB shared or 2x 512MB pools would most likely do just fine

He was wondering about 2GB.

 

[joker454]

I don't know where you're coming from ? RSX was a spin off from among the last of an older generation of discrete dx9 gpus and probably a bit disappointing as a future proof choice for a next gen console, but I think it was a matter of bad timing.

I don't believe the situation was as nefarious as you make it sound, "long since shelved", "never meant to be sold to anyone" ? Other than broken scaling, Nvidia delivered what they could in the time frame Sony required. PS3 was supposed to launch in 1st half of 2006. In between the launch of geforce 7 and 8.
I think the GPU Nvidia delivered looked especially weak since PS3 didn't launch until G80 was already on the market.

I tried to private message you, but looks like that is disabled for you. Enable it and I'll shoot you a reply.