Why did Sony use a G70 RSX instead of something better? *spawn
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
There is lots of information I vividly recall about PS3 that I can now no longer find credible sources for. It's like Sony developed some malware that wiped the web clear of it. But I absolutely recall it being reported that Sony claimed PS3 would have two HDMI ports and could output simultaneous 1080p streams independently. Cell doing all the graphics was one of the less bonkers things I remember.
I remember that to, but yeah..There is lots of information I vividly recall about PS3 that I can now no longer find credible sources for. It's like Sony developed some malware that wiped the web clear of it. But I absolutely recall it being reported that Sony claimed PS3 would have two HDMI ports and could output simultaneous 1080p streams independently. Cell doing all the graphics was one of the less bonkers things I remember.
The announcment of dual HDMI ports are easy to find. Simultaneous 1080p I am not sure. Dual HD output probably. Maybe they meant movies. I mean....the PS2 could out put 1080p videos too if I recall in some demonstrations. Or do I remember wrong.There is lots of information I vividly recall about PS3 that I can now no longer find credible sources for. It's like Sony developed some malware that wiped the web clear of it. But I absolutely recall it being reported that Sony claimed PS3 would have two HDMI ports and could output simultaneous 1080p streams independently. Cell doing all the graphics was one of the less bonkers things I remember.
It is pretty peculiar how many things they were planning for PS3 that at the end ended up being impossible due to hardware limitations. Makes someone wonder what was going on behind the scenes.
The CELLIUS project also vaporised
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I believe PS2 could output 1080i and I'm sure it was Gran Turismo 4 that supported 1080i.
davis.anthony
Veteran
You are correct.
I think they did a demo where it actually outputed 1080p video at some point too
The GPU was being developed by Toshiba IlRC. I believe it was called the Visualizer. This very forum is a treasure trove for anyone looking for information about PS3 hardware development. There's a few informative threads worth perusing. Sure brings back some memories seeing all those posters long since gone.
Panajev2001 is a good poster to look up as a keyword when trying to find these old threads.
Panajev2001 is a good poster to look up as a keyword when trying to find these old threads.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Must have been via VGA using Linux then as component is 1080i max.
There was a Cell patent that showed a Cell with alternatives SPUs, rasterising engines or somesuch. Is that what you're thinking of? AFAIK the Toshiba solution has never been revealed or discussed beyond being one of three options. Possibly Toshiba prototyped this graphics-focussed Cell?
Also not 1920x540, but basically 540p interlaced IIRC.
Yeah it was something else. It was like a tech demonstration of its processing capabilities. Not necessarily related to consumer software or output.
Then again my memory may be false.
Not necessarily related but interesting technical article on the EE
Sound and Vision: A Technical Overview of the Emotion Engine
I'll spare you the obligatory opening fluff paragraph that goes something like …
arstechnica.com
As I understood it the development was as follows:
Cell + custom GPU -> Cell + Cell GPU -> Cell + RSX
No one has really talked about the first (and 1 and 2 might often be mixed up) and I only remember one forum post somewhere describing it. But I don't know where to find it anymore.
I thought it was always cell + custom gpu for the ps3 and that cell + cell gpu was something that could be done in the future for servers or other devices they wanted to put cell into. I believe when the custom gpu turned out to be a miss fire they rushed to find a replacement and ended up with Nvidia.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
When you're desperate, you always end up with Nvidia.
Nvidia is like the crazy ex when your horny. You know it's not a good idea but what the hell, right?well it seemed to work out fine for Nintendo so far lol. But I think that was because Nintendo was happy with any hook up after divorcing AMD/ATIWhen you're desperate, you always end up with Nvidia.
Thats because Nvidia had a bunch of old chips on an aging architecture nobody else would buy.
I mean seems to suit Nintendo just fine. They went ATI with gamecube , then enhanced gamecube as the wii and then double enhanced gamecube for wii u.
I don't think RSX was a problem at all. Sure it was probably inferior to Xenos but eh the difference isn't substantial enough to notice without obsessing over screenshots. I think the BDROM was maybe more of a detriment because it caused delays too, was expensive, and slow-ish. And people don't and never did really seem to care about Bluray. Cell was also more problems than benefits.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
RSX was definitely inferior. It was the last of Nvidia's discrete shader architectures vs the first of AMD's unified shader architectures. Other things in PS3 picked up the slack, like almost 180 Gflops of Cell performance. That didn't make RSX better than Xenos, it just meant the overall package was in the same ballpark as 360 - as the expense of devs having to work much harder. There was no real equivalent to 360s 10mb eDRAM and specialised controller often used for "free"* MSAA.
*note free.
Not quite accurate. The GC and hence Wii gpu was designed by ArtX, who were a team formed from former members of Silicon Graphics, which then got bought by ATI.
Last edited:
