Pssst... PSP... psst... Pixel Shading... psst
- Thread starter Panajev2001a
- Start date
chaphack said:Yeay, the overall picture would look better with programmeable pixel graphics.
We shall now wait to see and gauge, what comparable technology Nintendo has up their sleeve...GCM(gamecube mini!
yea, not likely to see antthing for awhile tho.
Yeah, if I'm Ninty I dont do a damn thing but be working on GBA successor in the background. PSP WILL BE a higher price point than GBA. And GBA has already installed a huge fanbase and it's growing (and just wait till this Christmas/ GBASP's first). Let Sony come out with PSP Christmas season 2004 then late 2005 or early 2006 bring out the GBA Next. That way you give PSP the Dreamcast treatment like PS2 did.
Besides these PSP numbers are BS just like PS2 hype numbers was. Don't expect anything more than N64 graphics from PSP if that. Maybe..just maybe approaching Dreamcast quality if Sony PR is'nt BS-ing us (that'd be a first). And I'm still holding my breath on the battery useage problem.
Besides these PSP numbers are BS just like PS2 hype numbers was. Don't expect anything more than N64 graphics from PSP if that. Maybe..just maybe approaching Dreamcast quality if Sony PR is'nt BS-ing us (that'd be a first). And I'm still holding my breath on the battery useage problem.
Used to be that serious hype built up for only a couple of MONTHS before a console's launch... but Sony changed that with PS2. :?
Anyway, I agree with Goldni. We'll probably see something halfway between N64 and Dreamcast graphics, but doubtful anything approaching the current set-top systems.
Anyway, I agree with Goldni. We'll probably see something halfway between N64 and Dreamcast graphics, but doubtful anything approaching the current set-top systems.
I wonder how close this is to Carmacks vision of a handheld.
He wanted the most amount of computing power you could fit within the power/space budget. Then have dedicated memory for the frame buffer which you could do whatever you wanted with.
The graphics features being minimal would be just fine and the hardwired features should only be there if the operation is going to be used a lot and is very computationally intensive.
He wanted the most amount of computing power you could fit within the power/space budget. Then have dedicated memory for the frame buffer which you could do whatever you wanted with.
The graphics features being minimal would be just fine and the hardwired features should only be there if the operation is going to be used a lot and is very computationally intensive.
That's what I gleaned from his comments.
His main concern was just having chunk of fast memory which he could basically read and write too without arbitrary restrictions. He was a fan of the Atari handheld -- can't remember it's name. He basically wanted to do whatever computations and pump them into that fast memory for display (framebuffer).
I'm think i was unclear hardware rasterisation wasn't implied. For instance if the handheld (back in the day when he voiced his thoughts on the matter) was 2d then you might need a few features in hardware but the rest would be done via software.
His main concern was just having chunk of fast memory which he could basically read and write too without arbitrary restrictions. He was a fan of the Atari handheld -- can't remember it's name. He basically wanted to do whatever computations and pump them into that fast memory for display (framebuffer).
I'm think i was unclear hardware rasterisation wasn't implied. For instance if the handheld (back in the day when he voiced his thoughts on the matter) was 2d then you might need a few features in hardware but the rest would be done via software.
The interview in which John Carmack gave his opinion of the Atari Lynx can be found here (scroll down a little bit more than halfway) -
http://www.doomitalia.com/articoli.asp?Id=3
Mind you, this was taken IIRC about the time of the GBA's release, so it is already more than two years old.
http://www.doomitalia.com/articoli.asp?Id=3
Mind you, this was taken IIRC about the time of the GBA's release, so it is already more than two years old.
cybamerc said:
You said something to the effect of basically all hardware released as far back as TNT could do pixel shading, which actually isn't true at all. Shading in its earliest form wasn't available until the original geforce (or GF2 actually since the register combiners were borked in the GF I've heard it said).
First reasonably true pixel shading hardware was GF3, hence you quite simply MUST be confusing something with something!
*G*
Just so's no one has to delve in the article, here are John Carmack's comments:
John Carmack -- I can't believe there is going to be another gaming device that still has the concept of "tiles". I am really quite shocked. The Atari lynx showed how it should be done YEARS ago: a memory mapped framebuffer, a reasonable CPU, a blitter coprocessor, and unified memory (large form factor and short battery life were it's problems). Several more backwards handheld systems have unfortunately been produced since then.
A device that was basically half or a quarter the speed and memory of the U64, but with a similar architecture, would have made a great handheld. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the hardware optimum involved having 256k or so of embedded video memory on the LCD/graphics controller. It wouldn't be as convenient to program, but it would let it get away with a much lower performance memory subsystem.
I wonder what he would make of things now. ^_^
John Carmack -- I can't believe there is going to be another gaming device that still has the concept of "tiles". I am really quite shocked. The Atari lynx showed how it should be done YEARS ago: a memory mapped framebuffer, a reasonable CPU, a blitter coprocessor, and unified memory (large form factor and short battery life were it's problems). Several more backwards handheld systems have unfortunately been produced since then.
A device that was basically half or a quarter the speed and memory of the U64, but with a similar architecture, would have made a great handheld. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the hardware optimum involved having 256k or so of embedded video memory on the LCD/graphics controller. It wouldn't be as convenient to program, but it would let it get away with a much lower performance memory subsystem.
I wonder what he would make of things now. ^_^
Grall:
As far as I'm aware there is no universal definition for what the term "shader" entails but in the traditional sense it is something that outputs color values. Can we not agree on that? As such when someone gets terribly excited over something as non-descriptive as "pixel shading" that annoys me. While I'm positive the feature set will be superior to that of 8 year old hardware there is no guarantee that it will live up to DX standards, or that it will even follow DX standards.
As far as I'm aware there is no universal definition for what the term "shader" entails but in the traditional sense it is something that outputs color values. Can we not agree on that? As such when someone gets terribly excited over something as non-descriptive as "pixel shading" that annoys me. While I'm positive the feature set will be superior to that of 8 year old hardware there is no guarantee that it will live up to DX standards, or that it will even follow DX standards.
There might not be any universal standard as to what a pixel shader really IS or what its capabilites should be apart from as you say, output color values. However, there IS a standard set on this board, and things get screwy when someone starts saying that half-decade old hardware or more does pixel shading, because that doesn't use the common useage of the word.
Commonly, pixel shaders around here means a minimum of DX8 PS1.1 or equivalent. Will the alledged shaders of the PSP be an exact match of that? I would think not, but that's beside the point.
You don't get pixel shaders from a TNT. If you did, you'd have pixel shaders in an S3 Virge too.
*G*
Commonly, pixel shaders around here means a minimum of DX8 PS1.1 or equivalent. Will the alledged shaders of the PSP be an exact match of that? I would think not, but that's beside the point.
You don't get pixel shaders from a TNT. If you did, you'd have pixel shaders in an S3 Virge too.
*G*
Grall:
> Commonly, pixel shaders around here means a minimum of DX8 PS1.1
> or equivalent.
But it doesn't say anywhere that the PSP has a Pixel Shader. It says it does "Pixel Shading". There's a difference. Whatever you and other hopefuls read into the word is irrelevant as there is no guarantee that Sony shares that definition.
> Commonly, pixel shaders around here means a minimum of DX8 PS1.1
> or equivalent.
But it doesn't say anywhere that the PSP has a Pixel Shader. It says it does "Pixel Shading". There's a difference. Whatever you and other hopefuls read into the word is irrelevant as there is no guarantee that Sony shares that definition.