Why does Sony create such wacky architectures?

[bleon]

When Sony goes about designing a new console, why does it end up being totally weird? One of the Sony reps described the PS3 design as having "crazy architecture" and as most people know, cell is going to be massively parallel with multiple cores and be a bitch to program. DC, Xbox and GC all have technology simlar to PCs or Apples PowerPC.

I guess that by creating an architecture which is unique and hard to program, it would discourage developers from porting onto other consoles, since the costs would outweigh the benefit. Also, if Sony needed to boost the performance near launch time due to their competitors, the parallel nature would let them added more processing cores if needed.

Whats the advantage of creating these costly exotic architectures when similar performance can be had by using "off the shelf" components?

 

[Phil]

Whats the advantage of creating these costly exotic architectures when similar performance can be had by using "off the shelf" components?

I think one of the targeted advantages of creating those costly exotic architectures is exactly that performance will be unmatched by 'off the shelf parts'... potentially, for a long time. You might also be able to benefit from better cost/performane ratios too.

 

[marconelly!]

I very much doubt Sony could compile something simillar to PS2 with the off shelf parts, in time of it's launch, and make it's cost low enough.

As for different architectures - why not? Being interested in the technical side of the things, I always welcome radically new ideas. How boring would it be to have a hardware that is yet another example of something done so many times already? Besides, the old Playstation more or less had very much 'standard' hardware, so it's not like it's their tradition.

 

[bleon]

As for different architectures - why not?

IMO, the competition using off the shelf components would be able to choose the best technologies at the time to incorporate them into the final product. If you look at the graphics quality of the PS2 compared to the Xbox, the Xbox wins (but is more costly and came out later). I own a PS2 btw.

Anyway, I'm not dissing the architecture for being different, I'm just wondering if the massively parallel approach is the way of the future.

 

[wazoo]

As for different architectures - why not?

IMO, the competition using off the shelf components would be able to choose the best technologies at the time to incorporate them into the final product. If you look at the graphics quality of the PS2 compared to the Xbox, the Xbox wins (but is more costly and came out later). I own a PS2 btw.

Anyway, I'm not dissing the architecture for being different, I'm just wondering if the massively parallel approach is the way of the future.

You answer yourself to your critics. The xbox is more costly and came almost 2 years later, and still most games do look comparable, some may even look better on the ps2, and people are still blown away by ps2 games (Konami games for reference) 3 years after the japanese launch. To be fair, you would need to imagine what would be the ps2 power if it launched with the xbox or what would be the xbox if it launched in Mars 2000.

 

[Phil]

Wazoo hit it on the nail. Also, back when PS2 was designed, I believe that memory was very costly. It is my understanding that through PS2's architecture, Sony was able to achieve more with less memory (e.g: VRAM) gaining yet another advantage.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I don't think Sony cares the slightest whether their architecture is 'weirld', 'crazy' or 'mundane' - as long as it gives the best performance, they will use it. Same case with everyone I'd imagine.

 

[zidane1strife]

You answer yourself to your critics. The xbox is more costly and came almost 2 years later, and still most games do look comparable, some may even look better on the ps2, and people are still blown away by ps2 games (Konami games for reference) 3 years after the japanese launch. To be fair, you would need to imagine what would be the ps2 power if it launched with the xbox or what would be the xbox if it launched in Mars 2000.

Or what would have happened if sony had allied themselves with two other top companies, and achieved superior manufacturing tech... maybe .15m out the gate(aka at launch..)... making the ps2 several fold what it was...

 

[McFly]

From your footer:

ps3 will be 45-65nm tech.

45 in 2005? I'm 99% sure that this will not happen. Do you have any infos I don't have?

Fredi

 

[LunaticBlue]

Maybe...

Maybe it has something to do with Japanese loving new, creative and wacky technologies. Could it be that they intentionally make the console stand out from a technology/design standpoint in order to cater more to Japanese consumers?

 

[Crusher]

I think it's a combination of making it harder to port games to other systems, and keeping developers so busy learning how to use their architecture that they wouldn't have time to try and port the game anyway.

 

[Sonic]

No it's not about having a wacky architecture that stands out from the others in order to please the Japanese consumers. That's ludicrous.

It could be that making it harder to port games to another system was part of it, but I doubt that Sony wanted development costs to be so high. And eventually the cost of porting the game to another system would come down any which way. It's just a matter of time before developers come to grips with hardware that they become very good with it. Current examples are most of the devs making games for the PS2 now.

As for a radically different architecture compared to Nintendo and Microsoft using off the shelf components, I would say that it isn't so much Nintendo using off the shelf components as it is Microsoft. The point of Sony making the PS2 and PS3 with different designs and parts that aren't readily available have many different reasons. One of them being from a performance standpoint. Sony has contracted Toshiba and IBM for the PS3 and all three of these companies are focusing a vast amount of resources to develop the technology. The thing about the tech though, is that each one of these companies can focus on the project without other thigns interfering. The same with Nintendo going to ArtX to make the graphics chip in the GCN. At the time ArtX wasn't owned by ATI but shortly thereafter it was, but ArtX was still allowed by ATI to focus on gettings the graphics chip in GCN out of the way. Sony is developing its architecture the way it is becauseit wants the top level of performance it can get when the console releases, and it also thinks this is the way that computer architecture is going from a wholly based entertainment reasoning.

Sony also doesn't use off the shelf components because it has a certain level of pride that I assume they have.

MS probably used off the shelf components because that's what it has known for years. It has a strogn relationship with both Intel and AMD and MS of all people should know how to get the best performance out of the current and somewhat futrure tech to be released more than any other company. And this isn't bad for MS, but it was bad for nVidia because it meant that they had to lose focus on NV30 somewhat?

Sony going with the CELL technology isn't a bad move, it's just very ambitious. But if anyone can make it work it's the three companies developing it now.

 

[elchuppa]

PS2 games don't look anywhere close to as good as XBox games in general.. This is at least what my eyeballs tell me. Also I'm not quite sure that there were 2 years between xbox and ps2. At least not in terms of availability.
In any case I like sony's interesting architectures. Their approach has a lot of potential but also it's fair share of risks. Also if it takes 2-3 years before programmers can leverage your hardware that can be a significant factor in getting good developer support.
I look forward to seeing the next gen consoles, they can't come soon enough IMO.

 

[DeadmeatGA]

When Sony goes about designing a new console, why does it end up being totally weird? One of the Sony reps described the PS3 design as having "crazy"?

That's because the man in charge of SCEI, Kutaragi Ken, is an electronic engineer by trade with no proper training in computer science. While he knows how to maximize any given circuitry, he doesn't give a shit about the programming aspect of the architectures he creates because he doesn't know any better. And people who "knows better" cannot criticize him because of his position and ranking within Sony.

Sony put together a crap architecture and survived in this generation, but I don't know how long Sony's luck will continue to hold.

 

[Tagrineth]

Re: Maybe...

Maybe it has something to do with Japanese loving new, creative and wacky technologies. Could it be that they intentionally make the console stand out from a technology/design standpoint in order to cater more to Japanese consumers?

...which is a stupid theory because Nintendo is based in Japan too.

 

[marconelly!]

PS2 games don't look anywhere close to as good as XBox games in general.. This is at least what my eyeballs tell me. Also I'm not quite sure that there were 2 years between xbox and ps2. At least not in terms of availability.

Actually, best looking titles on PS2 certainly look as good or at least very close as anything else. On average, PS2 games look worse because most developers don't even try to make good graphics. PS2 is approx 22 months older than an Xbox. I don't know what are you talking about the availability.

Sony put together a crap architecture and survived in this generation, but I don't know how long Sony's luck will continue to hold

Good old deadmeat. Would take a bullet for Sony to fail. Dream your little dream...

 

[Panajev2001a]

That's because the man in charge of SCEI, Kutaragi Ken, is an electronic engineer by trade with no proper training in computer science. While he knows how to maximize any given circuitry, he doesn't give a shit about the programming aspect of the architectures he creates because he doesn't know any better. And people who "knows better" cannot criticize him because of his position and ranking within Sony.

Sony put together a crap architecture and survived in this generation, but I don't know how long Sony's luck will continue to hold.

no proper training in computer science ?

Deadmeat, Deadmeat...

First you still assume he basically single-handendly designed both HW and OS and API for PS2, PSX and PS3 ( still how come PSX turned out easy to code out of the box [sort of] ? Kutaragi was the MAN behind PSX too it appears ), second you make a claim on his reputation and knowledge...

You can list all the exams he took in his university life and all the experience he might have accumulated in all these years ( he is not 20-25 ) ? Wow, that is amazing my friend...

Now you say "he knows how to maximize any circuitry"... well but you also said that the whole PS2 HW ( both EE and GS ) is architecturally flawed and arguably a good design over-all in terms of elegance ( you called it a piece of garbage in the past )...

Also, going by your logic, Shigeru Miyamoto is to be held responsible of every small graphical glitch/flaw present in SM64...

A crap architecture... BEEEP! the major problem for developers was Documentation ( or lack there of, at least at the beginning for american developers ) and lack of efficient high level libraries/API and developer were presented with a quite flexible system with new features and new ways of approaching real-time 3D graphics with "not excellent" documentation and having to write to the metal ( or obtain bad efficiency ) due to the lack of good high level libraries...

The architecture makes much more sense than the Saturn architecture and ideally is a direct extension of the PSX HW which people loved...

PSX:

MIPS core + GTE ( fixed-point Vector Unit ) + MJPEG decompressor...

PS2:

MIPS core + VU0 ( VU also available as co-processor ) + VU1 ( stand-alone Vector Unit ) + IPU ( MPEG2 decoder )...

The do not sound that different HW wise...

If I gave you a nice ARM7 CPU ( like the GBA CPU ) and I told you "now build me an OS with Windows like complexity, GUI, multi-tasking, etc..." and I gave you a compiler with BAREBONE libraries... and I required you to write good chunks in ASM... even with the ease of use of ARM ASM, you would still have a problem ( btw, I'd give you also a crappy User Manual for the ARM7 CPU )...

Now let's change the CPU with something more complex architecturally...

see the point of my "dramatization" ?


Again, you are declairing PS3 doomed/piece of crap 2 years before it hits the market, you are basically calling Toshiba and IBM's as not having any balls and saying in the matter... and you're saying that even if we find much more times other people's names in SCE's R&D papers and patents, it all down to what Kutaragi knows how to do and that he is too dumb to even have a large team work and put in practice several of the ideas he has ( assuming your model )...

I am sure that David Kirk is solely responsible for GeForce FX not crushing the Radeon 9700 PRO and mr. Meyer is the sole responsible for any of AMD mistakes...

PS3 will not require developers to code to the metal out of the box with crappy documentation, the developers feedback has been clear enough I hope in that regard... I think we will move back to what we had with PSX in temrs of having to use HLSL and high level APIs, you are just oing to have a much more flexible and powerfule HW...

Are you really telling me that Sony, IBM ( which is investing billions of $ in internal Linux related R&D and Linux is rumored to be used [modified, customized] in Cell OS ) and Toshiba are not capable of providing an HLSL ( Sony has been investing for quite some time in the Stanford Shading Language ), a good OS and API support ( completed with nice compiler support ) ?

And if they provide that ( very "likely" ) you would still say that it would not be enough and people would be "abbandoned" to such a crazy and obtuse architecture ( which is not ) ?

 

[DeathKnight]

Actually, best looking titles on PS2 certainly look as good or at least very close as anything else.

Look as good or at least very close to what would be considered average to decent on the Xbox and possibly even the Cube.

 

[marconelly!]

Look as good or at least very close to what would be considered average to decent on the Xbox and possibly even the Cube.

Well, if you consider games like ZoE2, SH2, SH3, MGS2, BGA... average looking (by GC and Xbox standards), I don't know then. Maybe I'm crazy or blind, but I honestly don't see anything on Xbox that makes ZoE2 average looking (to say the least).

 

[wazoo]

Look as good or at least very close to what would be considered average to decent on the Xbox and possibly even the Cube.

Those better-than-everything-on-ps2-by-large xbox games seem to have been released only to you. Names ???

Some GC games I own are better than the best of my ps2 library, but the difference is not that much that you could build a marketing campaign on top of it, and the xbox does not seem to exhibit such a gap over the GC I would have to change my mind.