Promised Slides from Hotchips conference

[Acert93]

I noticed something on the #5 360 slide. Video Out is show as a box inside the GPU, directly connected to a box labeled Analog Chip. Doesn't Dave's Xenos expose state that the chip has no video out? I thought it wrote the buffer to main memory. Also, this diagram seems to be saying that the lack of HDMI output in inherent in the chip, thus there can be no new cable created to support it.

Diagrams are often overviews of the logical flow, not the technical workings.

In basic terms the GPU outputs to the scaler chip, but technically it outputs to the memory where the scaler chip them outputs the image.

And from past ATI interviews it was stated the scaler chip is only analogy. For HDMI support they would need to replace the chip. So there wont be any HDMI cable until there is a new SKU with a new scaler unit... which may never happen.

You never know, MS may be angling the Xbox 360 at another 4 year life cycle. Xbox 720 in 2009, full compatible but beefed up, and it uses the HD optical format winner, etc.

 

[ninzel]

I'm having a hard time deciding on which to buy. Is their anything really great over the 360 that makes waiting for the PS3 worth it?

 

[Acert93]

I'm having a hard time deciding on which to buy. Is their anything really great over the 360 that makes waiting for the PS3 worth it?

Wait. Games will be the difference. Buy the system with the games you like and features you will use. If you love Halo and hate MGS then, or if you are in love with Jak and cannot stand PGR then your choice is pretty clear. Hardware is only part of the equation If you are unsure... wait until you see how things shape up and wait until you see a "must have" title and then ask "Does the platform look solid and to offer more games I like". If so get it!

FPS and Sports games are my cup of tea + online gaming. So I am going to wait to see how that is shaping up and then make a move.

 

[aaaaa00]

yeah, it beat the ps2 in general computing. totally wiped the floor with it. somebody had/has a fairly amusing idea of 'most scenarios' at redmond.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=540030&postcount=29

OK now I have to hear your definition of weaker..........

And please don't start pointing out the raw flop advantage, because it's only relevant if you can actually practically use it.

In EVERY piece of significant game code I have ever seen the "mobile celeron" in xbox completly destroys the EE in performance. It's not even close.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=504702&postcount=61

Oh Dear god please save me from 5 years of PS2 was better at pushing polys than XBox threads. Were only now starting to see less Saturn was better than PS threads.

This is pretty simple, on every single application I have ever tested Xbox is faster than PS2 (sometimes by enormous margins) with one notable excepion, when the games become transparent fill limited (loadsa particles) then Xbox is slower.

But then you'd expect that it shipped 18 months later. But PS2 has the EDRAM which explains the aberation.

I have never heard of anyone building a cross platform game worrying too much about the Xbox version, the same devs often have to invest a huge amount of time to get the PS2 version up to speed.

and it was fairly cheap. maybe compared to a pc, alright. gee, xbox being overly cheap must be the reason why ms abandoned it in record time.

I think they felt it was cheap enough to meet the goals of shipping something in 18 months for ~$300 with losses that Microsoft was capable of sustaining.

To be clear, I didn't say xbox is cheaper than PS2, I only intended to mean that xbox was cheap enough that MS decided they could afford to ship it given their goals.

Although I do agree with you that Microsoft probably misjudged how quickly they'd be able to cost-reduce the xbox, but I do think they were sure the company could sustain the losses necessary to ship xbox 1 to meet their strategic goals.

but the final question that really bugs me to no end is exactly what stopped ms from coming up with a _real_ console design?

I'd say the big reason was time. I'd speculate they felt they needed a project that would ship in 18 months, beginning to end. A real console with a custom design would take longer, and I think they believed they just didn't have the time.

Xbox 1 was built the way it was because Microsoft wanted a foot in the door as quickly as possible, and were willing to take big losses because they believed launching this generation was more important than waiting for the next generation.

 

[ninzel]

Wait. Games will be the difference. Buy the system with the games you like and features you will use. If you love Halo and hate MGS then, or if you are in love with Jak and cannot stand PGR then your choice is pretty clear. Hardware is only part of the equation If you are unsure... wait until you see how things shape up and wait until you see a "must have" title and then ask "Does the platform look solid and to offer more games I like". If so get it!

FPS and Sports games are my cup of tea + online gaming. So I am going to wait to see how that is shaping up and then make a move.

I've never owned a Playstation product before, although I'm tempted when the PS2 price cut comes to get one just to see if the whole Plastation world of games and system appeals to me. This gen I owned an Xbox, but didn't really play it that much, anly a few games really appelaed to me. So buying the 360 isn't really compelling at this point, the PS3 is a big risk since I've never played their games and I'm concerned about the lack of 3rd party support for the Revolution. Honestly I'm not that impressed with next gen so far.
All I see so far is a graphics upgrade and it's just not pulling to the store to put down my money.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm pleased with the eclectic assortment of PS2 titles. Things like 'Katamari', EyeToy titles and 'Graffiti World' balance out the traditional fighters, shooters and racers. If the norm bores you there's a good chance you'll find something on PS2 that appeals. For me PS3 holds even more for future games, especialy if EyeToy2 does come as standard and sees widespread integration. Lots of opportunities for new physics based titles, not just rag-doll bodies flying out from FPS explosions!

 

[dukmahsik]

so from a design/architectural stand point, which system is better? im talking about how the components are designed to work with other components. (how well they are integrated or coherent).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's an unanswerable question. They're different, and differences have pro's and con's. I was reading earlier to day an article from Dec 2003 about the current consoles and projections for next gen. Entertaining reading how little people knew what was going to happen this time around! But it did highlight the difference in current gen architectures. PS2 has no multitexturing, but has enough brute speed and bandwidth to allow multitexturing by multiple passes. Whereas XB had a very developer friendly system, straightforward and with lots of rendering niceties built in.

Next gen XB360 and PS3 approach the challenge of providing great games machines from two different directions. XB360 has a flexible GPU and symmetric processing, with particular consideration given over to image quality avoiding the XB's pitfall of BW limitations by including eDRAM. PS3 goes for a new processor model designed to avoid the bandwidth limits of RAM access, offering lots of potential but with an as yet unknown extra level of difficulty to development, and couples this with what's presumably a straightforward GPU but with some close integration with the CPU.

I imagine as with this gen the consoles will have different strengths and weaknesses, and the developers will be entrusted the task of maximizing those strengths and reducing the impact of the weaknesses. The end user's perception of which is best depends on which platform executes most effectively that end user's preferred types of entertainment, just as it was this generation.

 

[dukmahsik]

That's an unanswerable question. They're different, and differences have pro's and con's. I was reading earlier to day an article from Dec 2003 about the current consoles and projections for next gen. Entertaining reading how little people knew what was going to happen this time around! But it did highlight the difference in current gen architectures. PS2 has no multitexturing, but has enough brute speed and bandwidth to allow multitexturing by multiple passes. Whereas XB had a very developer friendly system, straightforward and with lots of rendering niceties built in.

Next gen XB360 and PS3 approach the challenge of providing great games machines from two different directions. XB360 has a flexible GPU and symmetric processing, with particular consideration given over to image quality avoiding the XB's pitfall of BW limitations by including eDRAM. PS3 goes for a new processor model designed to avoid the bandwidth limits of RAM access, offering lots of potential but with an as yet unknown extra level of difficulty to development, and couples this with what's presumably a straightforward GPU but with some close integration with the CPU.

I imagine as with this gen the consoles will have different strengths and weaknesses, and the developers will be entrusted the task of maximizing those strengths and reducing the impact of the weaknesses. The end user's perception of which is best depends on which platform executes most effectively that end user's preferred types of entertainment, just as it was this generation.

that was nicely written! your conclusion is left wide open though, give me your personal opinion. Which will offer better image quality? which will offer better ai/physics? etc? Also the RSX/CELL integration... is it better than xcpu/xenos' integration?

 

[randycat99]

Uhhh, you don't get it, do you? These aren't things you can simply calculate by looking at the hardware from a high-level. Both architectures will be quite capable, nonetheless. How well they do at one thing or another cannot be "known" until we are literally 5 years into the console's lifespan, when a multitude of games have been "test-bedded" on the hardware.

Even if he did give you a direct answer, what good would that information do you? Can you the "take it to the bank"? Would it tell you who is to be next generation's market dominator? Will it give you the "ammo" you've been searching for to make endless topics about how console xyz is going to sweep the floor? Will it tell you which console to buy, so that you can drum your chest the loudest that you bought the "best" one?

These are all silly reasons, imo. You'll buy the console that has the games you want to play. Either one will be very capable devices, nonetheless... Either one is deserving of appreciation for their technical design. That one is built one way is not a dead indication that one built another way is built "wrong". One does not need to adopt a mindset that to appreciate one, he must eschew (or endlessly find ways to eschew) the other. This is poor, poor "technical posturing" when people do that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Personal opinion? I don't know. And that's not just fence-sitting because I don't want to take sides!

XB360 could have better IQ as it's designed to support AA as standard with HDR. We don't know enough about RSX to know how it'll cope with AA especially with HDR where it's bandwidth could be limiting, but assuming it's close to G70 it'll be weaker in this area. As for CPU<>GPU integration both seem strong in that area. XB360 has writing direct to CPU L1 cache and the use of MemExport, while PS3 has the direct and fast CPU<>GPU link for directly sharing data. I'm not a dev to have an opinion on which I'd prefer.

The only point I could state personal preference for is PS3's CPU. I think it has more potential for 'procedural synthesis'/physics/image recognition/'advanced gameplay' when properly used. I doubt this'll make much difference in most games but I expect the best of PS3 in those sorts of tasks to outdo the best of XB360. eg. Where a peak XB360 game might have 200 mesh based object collisions on screen, PS3 might have 300-400. That's only for those that know how to make the most of Cell though and that won't be apparent for a few years. And that's not an extensive technical consideration but more an overall 'gut feeling'! I'll also add that I like the direction Cell is heading, offering the possibility of the same hardware in PS4 where devs use exactly the same code and techniques on a later Cell based system, which means PS4 development should be a natural progression. Unlike this and most gens where new hardware's usher in totally new approaches and all the old ways get chucked out the window. Even if PS3 were the least impressive overall than it's competitors, it's setting up a nice future for the PlayStation brand assuming nothing goes pear-shaped along the way.

Randycat : As long as he appreciates my opinions are only my opinions, and even if I was the world's greatest authority on gaming hardware they'd still worthless in the grand scheme of things, there's no harm in asking. I'm sure other people could answer with their own personal takes that agree or disagree with me. And as said, the answer to 'which is the best console' all depends on which offers most of what you want which could have sod all to do with the hardware.

 

[dukmahsik]

Uhhh, you don't get it, do you? These aren't things you can simply calculate by looking at the hardware from a high-level. Both architectures will be quite capable, nonetheless. How well they do at one thing or another cannot be "known" until we are literally 5 years into the console's lifespan, when a multitude of games have been "test-bedded" on the hardware.

Even if he did give you a direct answer, what good would that information do you? Can you the "take it to the bank"? Would it tell you who is to be next generation's market dominator? Will it give you the "ammo" you've been searching for to make endless topics about how console xyz is going to sweep the floor? Will it tell you which console to buy, so that you can drum your chest the loudest that you bought the "best" one?

These are all silly reasons, imo. You'll buy the console that has the games you want to play. Either one will be very capable devices, nonetheless... Either one is deserving of appreciation for their technical design. That one is built one way is not a dead indication that one built another way is built "wrong". One does not need to adopt a mindset that to appreciate one, he must eschew (or endlessly find ways to eschew) the other. This is poor, poor "technical posturing" when people do that.

yeah i just took what you said to the bank. i asked him for his opinion, how does that twist your panties? I appologize for being rude but i expect better from this forum. if you're speaking your opinion, why can't I?

as for shifty, thanks for your input. I too am pretty much on the same lines as you for next gen. If devs really get to know the consoles, I think gfx edge will go to 360 while ai/physics/etc will go to ps3. But all by the slimmest of margins.

 

[randycat99]

No one is saying you can't. It's just a funny thing you are asking- like you are asking for a reason or justification that realistically cannot exist, except within perception and opinion. So what was the point of asking? It's clear you have your mind made up, already. So it's not like his opinion could suddenly change your mind. So essentially, you are simply searching for confirmation of your opinions with...more opinions. It's just an odd train of thought, imo.

 

[dukmahsik]

No one is saying you can't. It's just a funny thing you are asking- like you are asking for a reason or justification that realistically cannot exist, except within perception and opinion. So what was the point of asking? It's clear you have your mind made up, already. So it's not like his opinion could suddenly change your mind. So essentially, you are simply searching for confirmation of your opinions with...more opinions. It's just an odd train of thought, imo.

okay pls tell me what I have on my mind and show us this magical 8 ball of yours. I come here to ask minds that are more in the know than I do, clearly you are here for the same reason.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So what was the point of asking?

Sometimes it's just nice to learn how other people think or see things. eg. I asked if people would like to spectate on games. I have no interest, have made up my mind I don't want to spectate, and am not going to change that opinion. But a fair number of people obviously feel differently to me. My question served no purpose. I just learnt some people are keen on spectating, something without any other application to the rest of my life, except maybe as a reminder that not everyone has the same tastes/interests as me

I hope not every time someone offers an opinion its with the intention of getting everyone else to agree with them (though unfortunately I think more often then not that's true).

 

[randycat99]

I absolutely agree with your last point, and extend it to person's who are asking for opinions, as well. Sometimes you just realize, they aren't really asking simply out of the need to be informed, eh?

 

[Tap In]

Uhhh, you don't get it, do you? These aren't things you can simply calculate by looking at the hardware from a high-level. Both architectures will be quite capable, nonetheless. How well they do at one thing or another cannot be "known" until we are literally 5 years into the console's lifespan, when a multitude of games have been "test-bedded" on the hardware.

Even if he did give you a direct answer, what good would that information do you? Can you the "take it to the bank"? Would it tell you who is to be next generation's market dominator? Will it give you the "ammo" you've been searching for to make endless topics about how console xyz is going to sweep the floor? Will it tell you which console to buy, so that you can drum your chest the loudest that you bought the "best" one?

These are all silly reasons, imo. You'll buy the console that has the games you want to play. Either one will be very capable devices, nonetheless... Either one is deserving of appreciation for their technical design. That one is built one way is not a dead indication that one built another way is built "wrong". One does not need to adopt a mindset that to appreciate one, he must eschew (or endlessly find ways to eschew) the other. This is poor, poor "technical posturing" when people do that.

possibly the greatest post ever written on a gaming forum.

 

[randycat99]

Why thank you! I but I can't take full credit, as I do recall someone else here some time ago who said something very similar, but equally enlightening.