Unofficially RSX = G80
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
- Status
Just 1.5 months left for dreaming...
Realistically Sony has already produced key components for PS3 in large quantities, perhaps even more than 1 million RSX´s if they kept on their 2 mio at launch target long enough. I simply doubt we will see them digging a deep hole for all those now useless chips and try producing a new risky cutting-edge component.
Its possible that RSX went through changes after realising a delay will be necessary, but those changes sure were done early enough, so the RSX you gonna see in November will be the same that went into the "final" devkits available since months.
A early pricecut, once the production hurdles are taken, would be a better way for Sony to burn a pile of money. Adding 256-512 MB Ram would be another nice way, by far my favourite
Realistically Sony has already produced key components for PS3 in large quantities, perhaps even more than 1 million RSX´s if they kept on their 2 mio at launch target long enough. I simply doubt we will see them digging a deep hole for all those now useless chips and try producing a new risky cutting-edge component.
Its possible that RSX went through changes after realising a delay will be necessary, but those changes sure were done early enough, so the RSX you gonna see in November will be the same that went into the "final" devkits available since months.
A early pricecut, once the production hurdles are taken, would be a better way for Sony to burn a pile of money. Adding 256-512 MB Ram would be another nice way, by far my favourite
The truth is that there is not a final devkit out yet. From what I recently read it was stated that the current unit is DevKit version .93 and 1.0 has yet to be released. Now, it could just be done with a software patch and no new hardware if Nerve Damage's inside information turns out to be false. However, if new hardware is on the way I could easily see Sony sacrifice some of the old RSX chips they had been making (which might NOT be as many as we think) so they could have a more powerful GPU in a console that might indeed sell 100 million units by the end of it's life.
From a European POV I say scrap November (yeah right), wait for 65nm & G8x-derivate before starting mass-production. Then unleash a PS3 that actually is that 1+ year "better" than the competition. But that aint happening, the launch-production got dragged out, so its not like they asked themselfes "what can we do if we start massproduction in september". Of course what you said is possible, but highly unlikely.
And according to "final" devkits - they get improved even after the magic 1.0 Version. But any change in RSX more than likely is already months old and in the current kits.
Sexual harassment
? The point of my rant was that there is nothing hardware is going to physically give you alone, not one thing. You gain nothing from it alone, yet from most of what i read you posting you continually ignore this, over and over again. By saying something as dumb as you showed not one ounce of knowledge absorbed. How many times have people kindly tried to explain to you that raw peak performance numbers are totally useless? That hardware isnt everything? I've seen quite a few people try to kindly explain things to you, yet you've entirely ignored them. Will the Cell and RSX create better games for the PS3 then anything the wii or xbox could do? Nope, never in a million years. Devs make the games. I'll say it again, devs make the games. You're wrong yet again in saying its hardware performance thats key, its just not right. Let me use the computer for an example. Doom 3 was a game liked by quite a few people, now do you think that someone who runs the game with a $2000 computer has a better game some how then someone who ran that same game on a $1000 computer? The answer is no. The game is the exact same for both users in the end in that they can experiance it quite completely despite one user having a prettier picture to look at. Whether the PS3 has an NV50 or NV40 based graphics processor, it doesnt matter because hardware power players little part in the fun you have in a game.
Do you understand yet? From my observation you would appear to have a problem reading between the lines, beyond the fluff if you will. Theres a wealth of knowledge that can be gained here, i think you should use that. If you want to go on believing silly things like CELL being far more powerful then Conroe or even a decent AM2 because of Sony/IBM PR garbage, or that Sony and Nvidia just "swapped out the pipes of the G80 and NV47 based RSX" you can do that at a hundred other places. Here though, especially if you want to get into the game industry which you mentioned, you really should try to learn something, cause there is so much information around on these boards in particular just waiting.
Last edited by a moderator:
We are talking about two different things.
I totally agree that developers are the ones who think of all the ideas for games and then program them. Hey, they could make Metal Gear Solid 4 on the PS1 and a ton of folks would go crazy, buy a million copies, and love it. However, there are many of us who realize that even though developers make games they make the games on HARDWARE! That's right. They make the games on actual material.
A game, it's graphics, it's effects, it's AI, it's physics, it's animation, and every part of a game is not ran on imaginary virtual consoles based on human thought. They are ran on physical hardware that actually exists.
Yes, some people would love MGS4 based on the PS1 and would purchase a ton of copies. However, many more people after seeing true next-gen graphics would much rather purchase the game based on PS3 hardware because of all the additional improvements the HARDWARE would allow!
I have had this same exact argument with several other people who have your same belief. I know where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, but you take it too far. Yes, developers are vital to the developermnet of games. Yes, developers are the ones that come up with great story lines. Yes, game developers are the ones that program the machines to run the games.
However, how much AI, animation, lighting, physics, number of characters on screen at one time, draw distance, and all other sorts of things are dependant on the HARDWARE of the system. But the developers are vitally important in this too, because they are the ones that will push any piece of hardware to get the most out of it.
I'm just saying that game developers are absolutely vital to gaming, but at the same time the hardware allows them to expand their creativity in new ways and push it further than ever.
The truth is I doubt you could find one developer on this forum that wishes Sony had decided to stick with the PS1 for all eternity, because all you really need are developers and new hardware does not matter at all.
I totally agree that developers are the ones who think of all the ideas for games and then program them. Hey, they could make Metal Gear Solid 4 on the PS1 and a ton of folks would go crazy, buy a million copies, and love it. However, there are many of us who realize that even though developers make games they make the games on HARDWARE! That's right. They make the games on actual material.
A game, it's graphics, it's effects, it's AI, it's physics, it's animation, and every part of a game is not ran on imaginary virtual consoles based on human thought. They are ran on physical hardware that actually exists.
Yes, some people would love MGS4 based on the PS1 and would purchase a ton of copies. However, many more people after seeing true next-gen graphics would much rather purchase the game based on PS3 hardware because of all the additional improvements the HARDWARE would allow!
I have had this same exact argument with several other people who have your same belief. I know where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, but you take it too far. Yes, developers are vital to the developermnet of games. Yes, developers are the ones that come up with great story lines. Yes, game developers are the ones that program the machines to run the games.
However, how much AI, animation, lighting, physics, number of characters on screen at one time, draw distance, and all other sorts of things are dependant on the HARDWARE of the system. But the developers are vitally important in this too, because they are the ones that will push any piece of hardware to get the most out of it.
I'm just saying that game developers are absolutely vital to gaming, but at the same time the hardware allows them to expand their creativity in new ways and push it further than ever.
The truth is I doubt you could find one developer on this forum that wishes Sony had decided to stick with the PS1 for all eternity, because all you really need are developers and new hardware does not matter at all.
Sexual harassment
you showed not one ounce of knowledge absorbed. How many times have people kindly tried to explain to you that raw peak performance numbers are totally useless? That hardware isnt everything? I've seen quite a few people try to kindly explain things to you, yet you've entirely ignored them. Will the Cell and RSX create better games for the PS3 then anything the wii or xbox could do? Nope, never in a million years. Devs make the games. I'll say it again, devs make the games. You're wrong yet again in saying its hardware performance thats key, its just not right. Let me use the computer for an example. Doom 3 was a game liked by quite a few people, now do you think that someone who runs the game with a $2000 computer has a better game some how then someone who ran that same game on a $1000 computer? The answer is no. The game is the exact same for both users in the end in that they can experiance it quite completely despite one user having a prettier picture to look at. Whether the PS3 has an NV50 or NV40 based graphics processor, it doesnt matter because hardware power players little part in the fun you have in a game.
Do you understand yet? From my observation you would appear to have a problem reading between the lines, beyond the fluff if you will. Theres a wealth of knowledge that can be gained here, i think you should use that. If you want to go on believing silly things like CELL being far more powerful then Conroe or even a decent AM2 because of Sony/IBM PR garbage, or that Sony and Nvidia just "swapped out the pipes of the G80 and NV47 based RSX" you can do that at a hundred other places. Here though, especially if you want to get into the game industry which you mentioned, you really should try to learn something, cause there is so much information around on these boards in particular just waiting.
Nope, he is kind of right about that.
Somebody at GAf was talking yesterday, in response to the 8800GTX pics, how huge and hot and heavy it looks, that that is why PC gaming is a "joke" (according to some) and that Nvidia and ATI should dedicate themselves to improving power-per-watt "like Intel has" according to him.
And the guy said in response better than I can phrase it:
"Unless they talk to each other and both agree to do it, they won't. Who's gonna risk spending significant energy tweaking the power, instead of spending that energy getting every extra fps, when its pretty much all that benchmarks test? Its what people base their decision on."
Of course he is correct. If it applies to PC gaming, it applies at least somewhat to consoles. Except perhaps the Wii. It operates somewhat outside that paradigm (but then again, it hasn't been proved a success yet either).
If either the 360 or Ps3 was markedly more powerful than the other, it would do SERIOUS damage to the other. As I say, Wii is a little bit outside that sphere, but i think a G80 based PS3 might even hurt the Wii just by a ripple effect.
Most FPS games for consoles just plain suck.
Doom III on the Xbox wasn't an exception.
I know, because i've played -and finished- the PC version on a (then) fairly high-end setup and i honestly didn't like it.
Too close to the old and repetitive formula for all id games in the last few years.
And i don't believe even for a second that the PS2 couldn't run that game, if they ever considered that business prospect.
I've seen it being played on a 8 year old 3dfx Voodoo 2 with just 8MB and primitive OpenGL support.
Doom III on the Xbox wasn't an exception.
I know, because i've played -and finished- the PC version on a (then) fairly high-end setup and i honestly didn't like it.
Too close to the old and repetitive formula for all id games in the last few years.
And i don't believe even for a second that the PS2 couldn't run that game, if they ever considered that business prospect.
I've seen it being played on a 8 year old 3dfx Voodoo 2 with just 8MB and primitive OpenGL support.
why make the delta so far, ps1 to ps3, like apples and oranges, you believe the PS3 will produce better games then the other two consoles regardless of the truth in this rumor, mainly because CELL is like a billion times more powerful then the other two CPUs. I'm telling you thats total bullshit.
What ever console has the best hardware, in your mind, will make the best games, that is a fallacy of your imagination.
That would be an effect of propaganda, and it may not even happen, likewise it doesnt mean its right. What console had the most hit titles last time? PS2. Wait...the Xbox was more powerful...... think my heads going to explode.
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, I don't think so. Do I think it's possible there are design concepts in there related to what would become the G80? Yeah. I think that's about as close to the G80 as RSX is gonna get, though. Think about it - In a few months, when this G80 goes into initial production, it'll see something like ten thousand units, when for PS3, you're going to need fifty times that number just for launch in the same time window - I don't see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not going to debate this anymore, because we are not going to agree and this thread is about specifically the RSX.
Sunscar,
I honestly am not certain there will not be ANOTHER delay. Another one could be around the corner. For goodness sakes, more than one person tried to ask at TGS if Sony was certain there was not going to be another delay and they danced around the question. But even without another delay we don't know how long they have been manufacturing these Ver. 2.0 RSX's (if Nerve Damage's information is correct) or how fast they will be able to manufacture them. Also, we really don't know for certain just how many units will be avaiable at launch if there is not another delay.
I honestly just hope they delay the launch all together, mass produce the RSX 2.0 (if it exists), manufacture tons and tons of PS3's, and then do a proper launch in March WORLD WIDE.
Sunscar,
I honestly am not certain there will not be ANOTHER delay. Another one could be around the corner. For goodness sakes, more than one person tried to ask at TGS if Sony was certain there was not going to be another delay and they danced around the question. But even without another delay we don't know how long they have been manufacturing these Ver. 2.0 RSX's (if Nerve Damage's information is correct) or how fast they will be able to manufacture them. Also, we really don't know for certain just how many units will be avaiable at launch if there is not another delay.
I honestly just hope they delay the launch all together, mass produce the RSX 2.0 (if it exists), manufacture tons and tons of PS3's, and then do a proper launch in March WORLD WIDE.
While I firmly believe that the RSX is NV47 based at its core...it could have some shader functionality of a G80 part, even though RSX is a discrete shader configuration and G80 has unified shaders. We already know the bandwidth of the part...so that's not really up for argument. Shader extensions/instructions are the only part that RSX may borrow from the up-and-coming G80 architecture. That's what would probably make it shader model 3.0+ compliant just like the xenos, like a few devs have already mentioned.
I totally agree with you that the RSX as we know it right now is indeed an N47 an also feel the same that if it's related to the G80 at all it's probably due to extra shader instructions or it's larger cache size.
However, Nerve Damage is trying to say that a NEW model of the RSX has been produced based on the G80 architecture. If this is the case then the new RSX could have completely different pipelines than the old one.
However, Nerve Damage is trying to say that a NEW model of the RSX has been produced based on the G80 architecture. If this is the case then the new RSX could have completely different pipelines than the old one.
its going to be doing OpenGL, they dont need to be nearly as focused on the DirectX parts and capabilities of the chip..
btw dont forget this little tidbit from the conference call in febuary
RSX has been in production for quite some time. I think i'm about finished here since all thats left is speculation vs what we really know.
which would destroy much of backward compatability and every game in development would lose alot of previously finished work. Stop seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status