PS3 hypotheticals thread
- Thread starter PS3MAN
- Start date
Definitely number 1, it's the real limiting factor, as the 256 MB framebuffer is fine for the RSX, especially when there is a constant stream to the VRAM.
Definitely #1
But the biggest handicap on the PS3 is that it has two ISA's = PPE, PowerPC I-III control ISA using in order execution; and an SPE, SPE ISA. This called a "heterogenous architecture" but the only way for it to work efficiently is to have two or more control (PPE) cores or for the primary to be able to execute code out of order. Due to this not being the case quite a bit of code optimization is needed to utilize SPE independent of PPE controls. The reason Xenon has been easier to develop for is that it consist of a single parent ISA and there three parents. If one is busy the other can pick up the cue.
Probably #5
If in future generations of Cell they do not have an out of order exe OR Dual core PPE, then they must double the Local storage (256KB to 512KB) so that the SPE can have larger instruction cues to better enable their autonomous function without the aid of the PPE or Level 2 cache.
But the biggest handicap on the PS3 is that it has two ISA's = PPE, PowerPC I-III control ISA using in order execution; and an SPE, SPE ISA. This called a "heterogenous architecture" but the only way for it to work efficiently is to have two or more control (PPE) cores or for the primary to be able to execute code out of order. Due to this not being the case quite a bit of code optimization is needed to utilize SPE independent of PPE controls. The reason Xenon has been easier to develop for is that it consist of a single parent ISA and there three parents. If one is busy the other can pick up the cue.
Probably #5
If in future generations of Cell they do not have an out of order exe OR Dual core PPE, then they must double the Local storage (256KB to 512KB) so that the SPE can have larger instruction cues to better enable their autonomous function without the aid of the PPE or Level 2 cache.
inefficient
Veteran
A source of frustration perhaps. Hardly the biggest handicap.
This is somewhere between speculation and being just wrong.
No.
Possible. But not for the reasons you give. And the win in increasing LS size will have to be compared with wins in increases in other areas for example increasing SPE count. Would it increase efficiency, sure. But this not likely to be a limitation this gen.
To answer the OP. For this gen I would have gone with #2. But of course, it is designed the way it is for a reason.
Hazuki Ryu
Regular
Price?
So a 512MB Radeon X1600 has a performance advantage over a 256MB X850 ? *sigh*
Console games are designed to run within a memory spec otherwise you would get a fault. If a game is designed to run within 512MB, adding more ram isn't going to give you any performance boost at all.
Ergo, 1 and 2 do not help the performance. They would help with texture variety and texture sizes, but then you would want higher memory bandwidth instead, which is a different type of spec.
Increasing the core speed of RSX would help with the shaders, but again, memory bandwidth would become more of a bottleneck for the ROPs, blending etc.
Console games are designed to run within a memory spec otherwise you would get a fault. If a game is designed to run within 512MB, adding more ram isn't going to give you any performance boost at all.
Ergo, 1 and 2 do not help the performance. They would help with texture variety and texture sizes, but then you would want higher memory bandwidth instead, which is a different type of spec.Increasing the core speed of RSX would help with the shaders, but again, memory bandwidth would become more of a bottleneck for the ROPs, blending etc.
You are listing the PS3's performance strengths as weaknesses. What you are suggesting may possibly make the PS3 easier to program, but it definitely will make it slower, given the same amount of silicon.
256MB XDR >>> 256MB GDDR3?
It would be a right assessment, if the RAMDAC or the RSX can get access to stuff in XDR as equally as GDDR3. Currently, as Taku Murata, a member of SE R&D division mentions PS3's VRAM size as a problematic (while still manageable) attribute, I'd take more GDDR3!
It would be a right assessment, if the RAMDAC or the RSX can get access to stuff in XDR as equally as GDDR3. Currently, as Taku Murata, a member of SE R&D division mentions PS3's VRAM size as a problematic (while still manageable) attribute, I'd take more GDDR3!
I think #1 would have been too expensive. #3, if you look at the power graph released of Cell, 4 GHz double the power usage. So probably #4. I would probably trade optional hdd and higher fan speed to see #4 and maybe increased the GDDR3 clocked to balance it. OCing the GPU in most PC games seem to improve frame rate. But I think most PS3 games frame rate problems are CPU related and OCing Cell to 4 GHz won't solve it. It probably requires better memory management scheme and better SPU algo.
256bit VRAM bus
So a 512MB Radeon X1600 has a performance advantage over a 256MB X850 ? *sigh*
Console games are designed to run within a memory spec otherwise you would get a fault. If a game is designed to run within 512MB, adding more ram isn't going to give you any performance boost at all.
Increasing the core speed of RSX would help with the shaders, but again, memory bandwidth would become more of a bottleneck for the ROPs, blending etc.
I think the point is if the PS3 had been released with 512MB of XDRAM instead of 256MB, then developers could be taking advantage of it. We're not talking about arbitrarily adding another 256MB of RAM to an already released system.
While not really a performance advantage, more XDRAM would allow for the easy implementation of features such as In-Game XMB, custom soundtracks, etc...without having to reduce the OS footprint.
I really don't know the hardware workings of the PS3 RAM all that much though...wouldn't augmenting the DDR3 make more sense since you could store higher resolution textures, therefore resulting in possibly better looking games? Or is there another limiting factor that would prohibit the use of higher resolution textures? Or even, could the additional XDR be used to stream textures to the DDR3 as well?
