<sigh>
I tried.
I tried.
Unofficially RSX = G80
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
- Status
Uhm, you don't know that and with me I'd think it's a bit silly to assume it.
Have you not noticed how much I've avoided all the G80 speculation threads? There is a reason you know.
I thought it was because you just didn't get around to reading that thread...
Uhm, you don't know that and with me I'd think it's a bit silly to assume it.
Have you not noticed how much I've avoided all the G80 speculation threads? There is a reason you know.
That's my point too! However, it can be fun to take wild guesses!!!
That's my point too! However, it can be fun to take wild guesses!!!
Taking a wild guess once is alright, but taking the same wild guess multiple times after being proven to be wrong is trolling.
When has he been PROVEN wrong? I missing that post
Let me ask you this: in your opinion, what *would* prove him wrong?
When Sony tells us the final specs of the RSX or when developers can freely talk about this subject without NDA restrictions. I do realized this could possibly never happen but that would do it for me.
Well that's not saying much because all GPU hardware is "derived" from current and past models. It a platform or foundation future models. When the real GPU codename G80 comes to market it will be "derived" from the NV47 too. Or are we saying the NV47 was not "derived" from 6800 class cards?
Nerve-Damage,
Assuming your friend is correct:
It could just be a PR thing: Some small, known feature in RSX is also in G80 (e.g., XDR, tighter integration with CPU in whatever shape and form, more power efficient, etc). But this by no means concludes that RSX is based on G80.
It would be better for Sony to focus on PS3 software now and prevent any disappointment in hardware due to unrealistically raised expectations.
Assuming your friend is correct:
It could just be a PR thing: Some small, known feature in RSX is also in G80 (e.g., XDR, tighter integration with CPU in whatever shape and form, more power efficient, etc). But this by no means concludes that RSX is based on G80.
It would be better for Sony to focus on PS3 software now and prevent any disappointment in hardware due to unrealistically raised expectations.
1. Hardware. PS3 hardware goes on sale on November 17th -- about 45 days from now. Sony plans to have 500k consoles in consumer hands by then and another 1.5 million 30 days later. IF Sony can have 500K units in 45 days, surely launch devs can have a couple final units by now.
2. Software. Launch titles will bo "gold" 2 to 4 weeks before release. That means for verification, bug testing, and so forth they essentially have about 2 weeks to be 100% complete with their games. Introducting new hardware within that time frame, an expecting 100% compatibility is insane.
3. RSX has been complete for a while. Sony slides showed RSX being finalized in the Spring time. NV stock holder information indicates RSX has already begun stockpiling for a while. (This on top of the NV47 based architecture slide, 24 Pixel Shader slide, and a number of RSX whitepapers). For Sony to go with G80 (which is not even released and already has missed some of the lucrative fall school sales! Thus we know it is still in the process of reaching retail) it requies
a) to dump all their stock piled RSX-G70s
b) aquire sufficient number of G80s for launch; plus 3x as many by the end of the year
c) had huge, divergent change of heart in the last couple months (Sony already knew about G80 in 2005, so why not then??)
d) mislead stockholders, the press, consumers, and most importantly developers (who according to you still don't have it 45 days from launch)
4. Devs are telling you that this is insane. We have heard the G80 rumors before. True, we don't know a lot about the VS (although we do know that at 550MHz it can setup 275M vertices which is very G70ish), and we know RSX is modified (extra cache, fewer rops, 128bit bus, lower frequency) but essentially not only do the whitepapers tell us what RSX is, but developers have been for a long while... and continue to.
In Conclusion: The reason you are getting some hostility is because we have heard this rumor before -- and been disproven -- and there is 0, Zero, Nadda, Nien, absolutely NO PROOF that this "rumor" from a "reliable" source is even true.
Further, all the direct evidence from people in the know + the current time frame completely bust this theory.
Basically your stance is "what if!" with some crazy ideas... like
If you followed the above points, and have followed B3D for a while, you would realize that introducing a new RSX 2 weeks before Gold is nuts.
And what is annoying some is your persistance. Instead of saying, "Yeah, this is some wild, internet fanboi driven wet dream 1-up tech dream with no proof that seriously flies in the face of all the reputable proven evidence" you keep saying...
"what if!"
Playing whatifs, I just got off the phone with an insider that made a comment that the DX10 360 update may "combine" unified shaders, streamout, and tessellation to expose Geo... nahhhh
I will personally go out an buy a 360 TONIGHT if it means I get to see Geo naked on it!
Specifications on the RSX are basically known. If you or Babcat, or anybody wants them, google them, feel free. If you can't understand them, TOO BAD. Major in computer science and engineering and come back in four years. The "Numbers" exist, you can extrapolate specifications from there. Anything more that is known is essentially useless to anybody except coders and developers, and you do not need to know it because you're not going to understand it, and you won't use it.
You've been told again and again what the RSX is, and you refuse to believe, not because the facts support disbelief, but because you are self-righteous.
You ignore facts simply because you think there's a loophole there... RSX is a G71, but what about RSX2.0 that'll be in there in two months?!??!?!??!?! This isn't like moving from Geforce 6800 to a Geforce 7800, where everything is basically the same, but faster - In this case things don't just get faster, they just don't work. It also isn't a simple two month process to hammer and nail PS3-specific hardware onto a "hacked down G80 core". We would be talking about a PS3 launch sometime in 2008 for that.
The two of you are being ignorant, and that's all this is. Give it a rest already.
You've been told again and again what the RSX is, and you refuse to believe, not because the facts support disbelief, but because you are self-righteous.
You ignore facts simply because you think there's a loophole there... RSX is a G71, but what about RSX2.0 that'll be in there in two months?!??!?!??!?! This isn't like moving from Geforce 6800 to a Geforce 7800, where everything is basically the same, but faster - In this case things don't just get faster, they just don't work. It also isn't a simple two month process to hammer and nail PS3-specific hardware onto a "hacked down G80 core". We would be talking about a PS3 launch sometime in 2008 for that.
The two of you are being ignorant, and that's all this is. Give it a rest already.
Some of us are not under NDA and have, uhhh, spoken up before? And it was not too long ago that a number of people from many different sources leaked the 500/650 frequency drop. What more do you want? Sony already put out a spec sheet in 2005 and the changes (1 HDMI, frequency changes, etc) have all been well documented.
Well that's not saying much because all GPU hardware is "derived" from current and past models. It a platform or foundation future models. When the real GPU codename G80 comes to market it will be "derived" from the NV47 too. Or are we saying the NV47 was not "derived" from 6800 class cards?
That is abusing the word derived within that context. By your argument NV40 is derived from NV30, yet NV40 is SM3.0 and NV3.0 is SM2.0. Ditto NV20<=>NV30 and so forth. GPU makers don't just "dump" all their previous R&D, they upgrade and retrofit stuff that is still usable (e.g. a lot of the memory controller and threading in R520 was developed with R600 in mind, yet everyone would agree R600 is a new architecture). BUT G80 is a new architecture that has to support Geometry Shader, Integer and Bitwise in the shaders, and a number of new hardware features not available in G70.
G70 is NV40 derived because it is the same general architecture with refinements. e.g. they added an extra ALU to the Pixel shaders. But that is MUCH different than adding and entirely new instruction set, buffers, and support for a 3rd shader type (geometry) and unifiying the geometry/vertex units.
Basically your use of derived seems to be driven at blurring distinctions to arrive (or leave open) an improbable conclusions, when typically such distinctions are maintained: G70 an evolution of NV40; G80 is a new architecture.
If you were talking about me being ignorant, why you even responding? You don't have to post man.
You come out of no where to call somebody ignorant? Hey man, we can talk about anything, we may even disagree but always respect each other. That's the only these threads works.:smile:
Ok,
G80 is derived from what architecture? You're kinda saying the same thing I said. I know Nvidia new architecture will be partly based on new tools within direct x 10 and multiple CPU core etc. However, the word derived means based from orgin or obtain from a source which in this case are past architectures. So yeah, the G80 will be "derived" from older architectures.
I've been posting throughout the entire thread, and you're both simply being unreasonable, irrational, and ignorant. If you don't wish to be referred to as such, don't act like it. You've both already been told again and again that what you speak of it NOT SO, and yet you go on. It's ignorance to ignore factuality.
This is either a hoax, misinterpretation of information, some half-truth, or entirely true. If this is entirely true, then there will be plenty of time to talk about it when it offically is revealed. That's why I'm not going spend my time pondering whether some rumors are true or not. Giving credibility to rumors gives hoax-makers and jump-the-gun/non-fact-checking pundits reasons to keep putting out these statements. They can say, "Even if we're right only some of the time, the public eats it up so we'll keep doing it."
Again, if Sony is going to, er, refactor their graphic chips 2 months before launch without telling any of their developers and without testing rigorously against all the software, there will be plenty of time to talk about the pros and cons of this if an announcement is made. But giving credence to rumors just feuls the fire for sites like www.theinquirer.net. Here's their latest gem.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34778
Again, if Sony is going to, er, refactor their graphic chips 2 months before launch without telling any of their developers and without testing rigorously against all the software, there will be plenty of time to talk about the pros and cons of this if an announcement is made. But giving credence to rumors just feuls the fire for sites like www.theinquirer.net. Here's their latest gem.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34778
I've been told..
Who died and made you my dad?
Jesus Camp must be taking a brake from their prayers to Bush's photos
Look man, I responded to you respectfully. If you can't respond respectfully - don't write.
- Status