Pssst... PSP... psst... Pixel Shading... psst

[Teasy]

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.

It doesn't matter what terms mean on this board and Cyba isn't even trying to challange any terms meaning on this board anyway. He's saying that, when Sony say PSP does pixel shading, we have no idea if that really means a programmable colour combiner. Sony may just be refering to basic shading that chips like TNT could do many many years ago, because pixel shading can mean more then a specific kind of programmable colour combiner. I mean if someone described me as a "super man" does that mean they think I'm Kal-El of Krypton or just a nice bloke?

 

[Panajev2001a]

Teasy,

Is it impossible to expect for a Q4 2004 chip ( whose feature set was probably frozen in mid-late 2002 ) to have DOT3 blending support ?

That would allow for nice per-pixel lighting and it would not be that transistor heavvy and the impact on diea area of the chip would be relatively minimal...

Add to that dependent texture reads and you have a "Pixel Shader"

 

[Josiah]

nobody defines "pixel shading" as vertex lighting, on this board or elsewhere. I don't think that's what Sony is doing, but if it is that would make them Lame with a capital L. that's like a car manufacturer saying their latest model has 400 horsepower because it comes with a picture of 400 horses...

 

[Panajev2001a]

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.

Well, they have never once said that PlayStation 2's Graphics Synthesizer does "Pixel Shading", so the PSP's Rendering Engine should have a more evolved feature-set, as far as Pixel Shading goes, than the Graphics Synthesizer...

 

[Teasy]

Is it impossible to expect for a Q4 2004 chip ( whose feature set was probably frozen in mid-late 2002 ) to have DOT3 blending support ?

I didn't say anything was impossible or even improbable. I don't even have much an opinion on what features PSP may or may not have. I just agree with Cybamerc that pixel shading could mean something other then its excepted meaning on this board.

 

[marconelly!]

Well, they have never once said that PlayStation 2's Graphics Synthesizer does "Pixel Shading", so the PSP's Rendering Engine should have a more evolved feature -set, as far as Pixel Shading goes, than the Graphics Synthesizer...

Exactly. If they wanted to misuse the meaning of the word, they would be touting PS2 as pixel shading capabale machine too.

 

[Tagrineth]

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.

Is he referring to the Ultra 64 (Nintendo64)?

If he is, a quarter of that would make for EMBARRASSINGLY low performance.

N64 already HAS a dodgy, frustrating memory subsystem. Making it even lower power and lower capacity would even go as far as crippling the original, fullspeed system (hell, N64's memory subsystem as-is already ruins the hardware)... cutting back the rest of the system would result in a performance catastrophe. Even for a handheld.

 

[Blade]

Tag: That sounds about right, from what I've learned here about the N64's hardware.

BTW, nice way to put it.. for some reason I laughed out loud at "EMBARRASSINGLY".. heh..

 

[cybamerc]

Panajev2001a:

> Is it impossible to expect for a Q4 2004 chip ( whose feature set was
> probably frozen in mid-late 2002 ) to have DOT3 blending support ?

Well... somehow Sony managed to forget about that feature (and a whole bunch of other ones) the last time it designed a graphics chip.

> Well, they have never once said that PlayStation 2's Graphics
> Synthesizer does "Pixel Shading"

The PS2 predates the GF3, for which Nvidia coined the term "Pixel Shader", by quite a bit.

> so the PSP's Rendering Engine should have a more evolved feature-set,
> as far as Pixel Shading goes, than the Graphics Synthesizer...

That doesn't say a whole lot however as the GS is about as bare bones as it gets.

 

[Grall]

Cyba:

If Sony meant 'pixel shading' = gouraud shading, they would have said so, but mentioning gouraud shading as a bulletpoint on the specs sheet went out of fashion half a decade ago since ALL hardware released since basically FOREVER does gouraud shading.

Nvidia didn't coin the term 'pixel shading'. Shaders have been in use in rendering software for...well, I don't know HOW long really. Quite long anyway.


*G*

 

[Blade]

I think he means that nVidia coined 'pixel shading' as a PR term. It's just another term for flexible color combiners or something, right? A lot of hardware can do it (like the GameCube) despite the fact that it's not on their spec sheets..

 

[akira888]

One fact to keep in mind is that the term "pixel shading" has over the past 2+ years come to symbolize programmable register combiners. The term is used now for almost nothing else, so the odds that Sony would accidentally misuse this term is almost nil. For Sony, hype is certain, however alright technical misrepresentation is rare from them (or anyone else).

The upshot is that it might be a very limited combiner, either at or sub PS1.0 quality. Still, for a handheld, very nice.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Panajev2001a:

> Is it impossible to expect for a Q4 2004 chip ( whose feature set was
> probably frozen in mid-late 2002 ) to have DOT3 blending support ?

Well... somehow Sony managed to forget about that feature (and a whole bunch of other ones) the last time it designed a graphics chip.

First: why shold it happen again ?
Second: that last chip was feature-frozen around 1997 while the PSP's Rendering Engine was feature frozen ~4.5-5 years after that.

The PS2 predates the GF3, for which Nvidia coined the term "Pixel Shader", by quite a bit.

Pixel Shader, Fragment Shader... come on now

 

[Paul]

Well... somehow Sony managed to forget about that feature (and a whole bunch of other ones) the last time it designed a graphics chip.

Yea and let's doom future Sony graphics chips to failure because of a past one.

 

[marconelly!]

The PS2 predates the GF3, for which Nvidia coined the term "Pixel Shader", by quite a bit.

What does it matter? They would be saying that right now if they considered it to be true.

 

[Josiah]

The PS2 predates the GF3, for which Nvidia coined the term "Pixel Shader", by quite a bit.

nvidia did not invent this term...renderman had been using shaders for years already...

 

[chaphack]

Another thing is, think people are expecting PSP to produce some sorta acceptable 3D for 2004....i mean its a Sony, its a Playstaion, and its a 3D machine...i say anything less and it might not be good...

 

[notAFanB]

Another thing is, think people are expecting PSP to produce some sorta acceptable 3D for 2004....i mean its a Sony, its a Playstaion, and its a 3D machine...i say anything less and it might not be good...

I don't think it will be 'high' end but only because of cost. Sony/playstation branding has little to do with it.

 

[chaphack]

I think people are soo used to glory 3D by now, that anything less would seems fugly and disappointing, especially for one named after Playstation.

DC class 3D = oh yeah.
PS2 class 3D = oh nice.
GC/PS2 class 3D( w/ pixel effects) = hell yeah!
Xbox class 3D =
DX9.1 3D = sorry gotta wake up now :?

 

[cybamerc]

Grall:

> If Sony meant 'pixel shading' = gouraud shading, they would have said so

I'm inclined to agree but the point is that we just don't know. There is nothing to be excited about in that slide and certainly nothing that warrants the creation of a new thread.

Don't forget that Sony listed "Bump Mapping" on GS specs. It's far too early to break open the champagne.

> Nvidia didn't coin the term 'pixel shading'.

That's not what I wrote either. The exact term "Pixel Shader" was invented by Nvidia marketing. Yes, the term "shader" has been around for a long time but for marketing purposes there is a hell of a difference between "Pixel Shader", "pixel shading" and "shader".



Panajev2001a:

> why shold it happen again ?

Why shouldn't it?



Paul:

> Yea and let's doom future Sony graphics chips to failure because of a past one.

I'm not dooming them. I merely don't understand this extreme excitement over something so incredibly non-descriptive. And let me turn it around and ask what Sony has done to deserve the benifit of the doubt. Neither the PS1 or PS2 has advanced rasterizers. Why such high expectations for this one?



marconelly!:

> They would be saying that right now if they considered it to be true.

What would be the point? Primitive gfx chip or not the PS2 has already won. There is no reason to make up fancy marketing terms for old, proven, extremely succesful hardware. They might as well save the hyperbole for the new generation.



Josiah:

> nvidia did not invent this term...renderman had been using shaders for years already...

Yes, but as it were I didn't write "shaders" but rather "Pixel Shader". Reading comprehension is essential for a proper debate people.