PS3 Graphics: Shader 3.0?
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
It's still pure speculation, but weren't we quasi-certain that the part would be SM3.0 or SM3.0+, anyway?
Also, if the Vertex Programs are handled by the CPU, like some people speculated, based on the data known about the Cell CPU, the SM3.0 would only apply to the Fragment Operations, no?
Also, if the Vertex Programs are handled by the CPU, like some people speculated, based on the data known about the Cell CPU, the SM3.0 would only apply to the Fragment Operations, no?
it wouldn't surprise me at all, SM3.0 it's ok. We also should remember that there are good chances PS3 GPU will not have any kind of customized vertex shader engine. So it could be seen as 3.0 part on the pixel shading side and something much more advanced (in some area..) on the vertex shading side (no easy vertex texturing, at least from the start..)
Was anyone expecting more? Or less? SM3.0 seems pretty future proof for a console, considering there are pretty much NO games on PC that even exploit SM2.0 completely...
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Dave, isn't Xbox2 / Next / 360 / Xenon's VPU supposed to have some superset of SM3.0 ? like a SM3.0++ or SM3.0+++ ...something that is inbetween SM3.0 and SM4.0 ?
I guess if SM4.0 does not arrive on PCs until summer or fall 2006, it would make sense for Playstation3 to have something a little bit short of full SM4.0 since it will most likely be shipping in H1 2006 in Japan, and have to be completed well before the end of this year.
I guess if SM4.0 does not arrive on PCs until summer or fall 2006, it would make sense for Playstation3 to have something a little bit short of full SM4.0 since it will most likely be shipping in H1 2006 in Japan, and have to be completed well before the end of this year.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
pc999 said:
well it is probably *not* impossible for Xenon or Revolution (which are NOT the same thing btw) to have SM4 or SM4-like VPUs. just not very likely. at least not likely to have FULL SM4. thus, the likely SM3 ++ or +++
BOOMEXPLODE
Regular
Isn't SM3.0 a Microsoft thing? I mean, it's an API right? PS3 won't run DirectX, so I don't think it even applies. It's more relevant to say that the PS3 GPU could be roughly equivalent to the new PC part Nvidia debuts in the fall.
I'm sure it will be far beyond what the current Nvidia GPU's are capable of, but what that direction is has to be seen. If it is like what MS wants for Longhorn then that would be nice. Sony probably wants a really flexible GPU so I think it will be something that is more close to SM4 than SM3.
I am not that familiar what SM3.0 actually entails, but I thought through OGL, the current 6800 already go beyond it.
Afterall, DirectX doesn't place any API restriction when it comes to PS3. But still they need more speed, out of their current 6800 instead of more features. I mean 6800 allowed for long shaders already, but lots of very long shader aren't that useable for games currently. So hopefully they'll deal with that part first. Instead of allowing even longer shader without improving the useability of them.
Afterall, DirectX doesn't place any API restriction when it comes to PS3. But still they need more speed, out of their current 6800 instead of more features. I mean 6800 allowed for long shaders already, but lots of very long shader aren't that useable for games currently. So hopefully they'll deal with that part first. Instead of allowing even longer shader without improving the useability of them.
Questions:
Who defines the shader model capability?
Is it MS or MS in conjunction with part vendors?
What happens when MS and a major vendor disagree on the roadmap?
Does it only affect DirectX?
I have always wondered what impact the split between MS and Nvidia would have on future shader roadmap.... especially since we know that MS and ATI agree that the future is in unified shaders and NV disagrees...
Does MS now see ATI as a strategic partner in both the pc and console space?
Does that shut NV out of access to future development or maybe just restrict their involvement in its development...
If ATI has greater/more specialized knowledge of the roadmap, and preferred access to the Windows graphics hooks, then NV maybe in trouble after SM 4.0
Who defines the shader model capability?
Is it MS or MS in conjunction with part vendors?
What happens when MS and a major vendor disagree on the roadmap?
Does it only affect DirectX?
I have always wondered what impact the split between MS and Nvidia would have on future shader roadmap.... especially since we know that MS and ATI agree that the future is in unified shaders and NV disagrees...
Does MS now see ATI as a strategic partner in both the pc and console space?
Does that shut NV out of access to future development or maybe just restrict their involvement in its development...
If ATI has greater/more specialized knowledge of the roadmap, and preferred access to the Windows graphics hooks, then NV maybe in trouble after SM 4.0
I don't agree .
Its like when nvidia put out a geforce 4 instead of a dx 8.1 part with ps 1.4 . They just felt it was better to increase the speed of thier dx 8 part . Which turned out to be a good move .
Ati's current part is p.s 2.0b so they did move foward from p.s 2.0 and it has g.i which all of ati's dx 9 parts have and its very fast at p.s 2.0b .
SO i don't think it was a slap in the face . Now if thier next part isn't sm3.0 i'd say that is a smack in the face . As you can see from the 6200 its not to ambitious for curren't tech . And from ati has said they wanted to wait for 90nm and focus on pci-e first as the transistor increase would have been to big .
blakjedi said:
MS takes in input from vendors, but ultimately defines the spec. If not they will be no different than OGL.
AFAIK, the unified shader is only regard to the underlying hardware, while DirectX still make differentiation to Vertex or Pixel shader. This where load balancing comes in, where you can configure the hardware for the job depending on your requirement.
Its not like they're going to unified everything to be done on vertex level to achieve their sub pixel shading.
Well, MS can certainly put NV into trouble if they wish it so, but I don't think they'll do something like that. They need NV and maybe few other vendors, just incase ATI decide to bite a bigger piece of the pie.
well dx 8.1 was an update to add p.s 1.4 because ati came up with it and was more flexiable and powerfully than p.s 1.1-1.3 if i recall right .
Ps2.0b is really just a profile in dx 9c to take advantage of ati's current hardware .
I don't think its a slap in the face because ati had a dx 9 card out months before dx 9 was out . SO i don't see it that way .
Its also why i think ms might go with a dx 9.1 if r500 is like a sm 3.5 . I'm sure they will want something similar for ports from the xenon to the pc so its as easy as possible which wont happen if the r500 is more than sm 3.0 . More work than needed will have to be done .