Some speculation on Next gen consoles :) Very Verbose!!!

triple core (or quad core) CPU, a PPU, and the ATI R500 VPU would be a killer combination for Xenon. then imagine 128 MB for the CPU, 128 MB for the PPU and 256 MB for the VPU, and we could have a system that rivals PS3 easily. well maybe. ... ah just a conservative dream :)
 
Megadrive1988 said:
triple core (or quad core) CPU, a PPU, and the ATI R500 VPU would be a killer combination for Xenon. then imagine 128 MB for the CPU, 128 MB for the PPU and 256 MB for the VPU, and we could have a system that rivals PS3 easily. well maybe. ... ah just a conservative dream :)

I'm really curious about SiS and the chips set they are designing for the X-Box 360. They were into Rambus technology, but seem unintrested in XDR currently. Now around the time SiliconPipe announced they were ready to work with core logic vendors, SiS got the Xbox 2 contract. So the timing is right.

Economically at least for SiS, a core logic chip with Siliconpipe technology would make sense because whatever is used in the Xbox 360, could be reused in the PC market. It will be intresting to see how the memory system in Microsofts next-gen console works out.
 
Brimstone,

I'm not totally convinced MS is getting their memory system from SiS. The most likely technology is wireless, USB and possibly motherboard design(via IA and embedded designs). Memory system is most likely tied to whatever ATI supports.

Tommy McClain
 
Megadrive1988 said:
triple core (or quad core) CPU, a PPU, and the ATI R500 VPU would be a killer combination for Xenon. then imagine 128 MB for the CPU, 128 MB for the PPU and 256 MB for the VPU, and we could have a system that rivals PS3 easily. well maybe. ... ah just a conservative dream :)

A 4 core PPE would be around 1/2 trans of Cell, 1 PPU would be also around 1/2 of Cell, if R500 are not much bigger than NV GPU they could be very well stay at the same price.

But I dont see here the HARDWORK from IBM to XB2 that DeanoC talked about some time ago.

So there should be something diferent, or a fourth processor :?:

If we think well the PPU in 90 nm would not be very high price (not even in power) and to get PC implementation (a whole new market) they could , even, give 1 or 2 years of license free to MS. Again memory would be the main problem.Right :?:

There would be room for the romor of 4 processors ( and a diferent combination of the others components ) :?:
 
pc999 said:
But I dont see here the HARDWORK from IBM to XB2 that DeanoC talked about some time ago.

Think about Faf's moan about SPU programming a little while ago on this very forums. Sometimes its the little things that are almost impossible to do...
 
Megadrive1988 said:
triple core (or quad core) CPU, a PPU, and the ATI R500 VPU would be a killer combination for Xenon. then imagine 128 MB for the CPU, 128 MB for the PPU and 256 MB for the VPU, and we could have a system that rivals PS3 easily. well maybe. ... ah just a conservative dream :)

I really don't see this happening because of cost and heat. If thats the case, then I think a 2 CELL CPU and a Nvidia GPU setup would be possible... :D

-Josh378
 
DeanoC said:
pc999 said:
But I dont see here the HARDWORK from IBM to XB2 that DeanoC talked about some time ago.

Think about Faf's moan about SPU programming a little while ago on this very forums. Sometimes its the little things that are almost impossible to do...

Now I will hate FAF because he write to much and I will spend a lot of time searching his moans. :LOL: :devilish: :devilish: :D but it will not be for long ;) .

Anybody whithout NDA can help.

Better star my search, and prey to understand him ...
 
DeanoC said:
pc999 said:
But I dont see here the HARDWORK from IBM to XB2 that DeanoC talked about some time ago.

Think about Faf's moan about SPU programming a little while ago on this very forums. Sometimes its the little things that are almost impossible to do...

DeanoC, can you and DaveB setup and interview and have it released the second your NDAs expire ;)
 
Josh378 said:
Megadrive1988 said:
triple core (or quad core) CPU, a PPU, and the ATI R500 VPU would be a killer combination for Xenon. then imagine 128 MB for the CPU, 128 MB for the PPU and 256 MB for the VPU, and we could have a system that rivals PS3 easily. well maybe. ... ah just a conservative dream :)

I really don't see this happening because of cost and heat. If thats the case, then I think a 2 CELL CPU and a Nvidia GPU setup would be possible... :D

-Josh378

I believe heat is going to be an issue in any case with respect to next gen consoles.

We really don't know how hot a PPU will get and ram is traditionally does not get all that hot as passive cooling is all that's really been used and allot of people think it's just for show. The plates are inherently flawed in design by not having spikes or fins to increase surface area for heat dissipation. Ram slots also typically are to close for passive cooling of this type to be used. As ram is not typically in slots within consoles better passive or active cooling could be used but again ram just doesn't get hot enough to justify it IMO. XDR is supposed to require less voltage with common memory modules so it's fair to conclude they could be cooler than the norm even yet still. That is my opinion as of now anyway.

Cost is a more valid point I think but then again the PS3 is estimated to be anything but cheap given it's using new and premium components. In this sense maybe MS or the Big N would not be at a disadvantage.

It is curious to me that people do not suggest 384MBs or ram more often could be used. This coupled with a PPU 'LE' would help to keep costs down a bit and make this suggestion a bit more plausible no?

64MB for the PPU, 64MB for the CPU, and 256MB for the GPU

or a different split or a unified scheme or a split & shared scheme could work...I'm just suggesting it's doable with less than 512MB of ram not that ram should be all that expensive in the long run.

I believe a low entry PPU that is capable of handling oh 15 to 20 thousand physically interactable objects would be quite sufficient to the task for conssoles given a multi-core CPU is also present. (compared to what could be the mid range PPU that is supposed to be able to handle 30 to 40 thousand such objects)

Something that doesn't look good about the Xbox2 CPU is that it only has 1 shared 1MB cache for all three cores. That strikes me as odd and perhaps even a bad idea not give each core it's own independent cache of say 512K or more.

I'm not all that smart so it could be just me.
 
This article has some good information on the AGEIA PPU. 125 million transistors, 130nm fabbed at TSMC, uses GDDR3 memory.

I have to point out though that only the software/middleware aspect of the AGEIA technology is going into Xenon as far as we know. Having a dedicated PPU to go along with that is an assumption some have made; erroneously I believe.
 
BOOMEXPLODE said:
This article has some good information on the AGEIA PPU. 125 million transistors, 130nm fabbed at TSMC, uses GDDR3 memory.

I have to point out though that only the software/middleware aspect of the AGEIA technology is going into Xenon as far as we know. Having a dedicated PPU to go along with that is an assumption some have made; erroneously I believe.

why would they use the software/middleware for the console maybe if it was used for a game they are making for it but I can't think of anything else. if they did use the software and make it mandatory it would drive out any other 3rd party physics engine makers from doing anything on the console, which could cut out on some cross platform games if developers wanted to use a different physics engine or write there own.

my biggest concern is with nintendo and most likely sony having free internet play are they still going to charge for xboxlive or is there going to be something they have that the others wont that will make it worth it
 
I'm just saying I could see game developers licensing it, but I can't see it included in the sdk for the console or microsoft making developer use it unless they had there hardware in the system, and I doubt if it's any better then havok, meqon, or any other 3rd party physics engine without the use of the hardware
 
pegisys said:
I'm just saying I could see game developers licensing it, but I can't see it included in the sdk for the console or microsoft making developer use it unless they had there hardware in the system, and I doubt if it's any better then havok, meqon, or any other 3rd party physics engine without the use of the hardware

Meqon is supporting X-Box 360.


Can anyone explain the pros and cons of Havok, Meqon, and NovadeX?
 
pegisys said:
I'm just saying I could see game developers licensing it, but I can't see it included in the sdk for the console or microsoft making developer use it unless they had there hardware in the system
That theory might sound plausible if we were talking about some completely new API built specifically with the hardware in mind, but that is not the case at all.

Novodex has been around for quite a long time - with perhaps as many people using it as Havok and others.
Getting a license with the console SDK instead of paying for it by yourself sounds like a pretty nice thing to me - for those that have used Novodex before it's a complete no-brainer.
For those that haven't - the competing API would still need some serious featureset advantages for it to pay off. And using an API endorsed by the hw maker has other advantages too, aside for being cheaper.

If there's anything about XNA that struck me as a real move in pushing the ease of development forward - this would be it.
 
scificube said:
Mythos said:
If you're still interested..

There is a cell presentation by Peter Hofstee (IBM) in which he talks about physics based graphics system and ray casting ability for cell.

Yes I am. Where can I look at it?

Here's the Hofstee video

and slides,

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19108

and PPE similar to Xe CPU,

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21295

I'd normally say Google's your best friend but all of the points you've brought up in your original post have been discussed on these boards extensively and B3D search button will be your best friend! :p
 
If there's anything about XNA that struck me as a real move in pushing the ease of development forward - this would be it.

if thats the case I can understand it, it would help out, whats next a GFX engine in the sdk

if you make things to easy it's not going to lead to better games but faster production to make more games to make more money
 
Jaws said:
scificube said:
Mythos said:
If you're still interested..

There is a cell presentation by Peter Hofstee (IBM) in which he talks about physics based graphics system and ray casting ability for cell.

Yes I am. Where can I look at it?

Here's the Hofstee video

and slides,

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19108

and PPE similar to Xe CPU,

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21295

I'd normally say Google's your best friend but all of the points you've brought up in your original post have been discussed on these boards extensively and B3D search button will be your best friend! :p

Aw shucks Jaws I thought I had put some nice pieces together all on my own back in february...if I wasn't first well...I've always been slow :p

Something I've not seen allot are technical discussions about the Nintendo Revolution. I realize this is primarily due to the Big N's fear of having their ideas being stolen and thus they've been their typical super secretive selves. I must say this is mind boggling to me because specs would say little about the interface to the games which I feel is basically where any "revolution" could occur. I also hope the use of that word is not hung around their necks.

Back on IGN when I fist tried to spin up this conversation it was in the hope of trying to see if my ideas or others could paint some plausibly probable picture of what the Revolution's specs could be.

I would really love to have a dialog with respect to this. If for nothing else to contrast the leaked specs of the supposed two specs Nintendo are looking at and the infamous dual G5 system I see popping up quite a bit.

I thank you for the links though and I will definitely check them out :)

oh...and what is this google and this search you speak of?

edit:

In the vid ray casting is mentioned...which I though was related to ray tracing but I need to check this stuff out again. I haven't looked at it since...Delta Force 1 & 2 which were pure voxel games that used ray tracing...not to say voxels would be used.

I admit I don't know that much about it, but it has always been my understanding that using ray tracing was something very expensive with respect to rendering.

Are they saying they will heavily use this method with the Cell or saying that the Cell can handle it to a degree?

Some of those slides are kinda mysterious with physics based graphics, and hardware accelerated software rendering...

Someone has asked in this thread and the ones linked to as to what these and other things mean.

The fellow seems to be describing the Cell as a system on a chip. I don't think the Cell is even close to being this yet and when it is it will either have to be a way way faster general purpose part or be more radical and have specialized unit on the chip...which will sit idle when tasks do not bring them to bear. I guess this is when networking Cells may shine more as the idle parts of the chip may be put to task by someone else when you're not using them.

...but I don't like sharing that much...so the security features they have built into the chip had well be very very robust.

end tangential blurb:
 
BOOMEXPLODE said:
This article has some good information on the AGEIA PPU. 125 million transistors, 130nm fabbed at TSMC, uses GDDR3 memory.

I have to point out though that only the software/middleware aspect of the AGEIA technology is going into Xenon as far as we know. Having a dedicated PPU to go along with that is an assumption some have made; erroneously I believe.

Thanks for the link...I think I read that Anandtech article but I'll check it out again too.

http://boards.ign.com/GameCube_General_Board/b5002/81256729/p1

I've been all over the PPU but a fellow named SlamDunk puts me to shame...it's shameful I can't find a link to his site right now. I'll update when I do.

I have really said a PPU will be in any system. I've only argued that it not an impossibility and has advantages in a couple different realities. Sorry if I came off some other way.
 
After reading some of those post on the GC board, I really don't see why Sony would need a PPU for PS3? I mean, if CELL is supose to have the ability to act as a physics processor as well, it wouldn't make sense to add a PPU, especially one with less than half the transistors of CELL. Only way I cans see this is if the GPU of CELL was to be a PS or VS monster only and the CELL had to handle the VS and everything else, while the PPU would handle the physics.

If the Rumors are true, then the GPU of the PS3 should handle both PS and VS, freeing the CPU to do other tasks. Although, I'm not saying that a dedicated PPU wouldn't help the PS3. I just think that CELL should be handling the physics, since Sony said it was designed to handle massive physics..

-Josh378

edit: I may be wrong about this, but didn't IBM say that CELL is "scaleable"...(stop me if I'm wrong with this)

What about a 2nd CELL with 1 PPC core and 4xSPU's with 128 XDR-ram as a dedicated physic processor at (3.0 ghz)...but what can I say? A man can dream right?
 
Back
Top