Will M$ be able "dominate" console market ?
- Thread starter Mod
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Sony is doom? I hope not. I would love to see the Cell stuffs take off. Something new is always welcome.
GIVE US FFTSW REALTIME GRAPHICS SONEEEE, and no, no image problems this time please.
GIVE US FFTSW REALTIME GRAPHICS SONEEEE, and no, no image problems this time please.
zidane1strife
Banned
Code:
Sony has to execute flawlessly on the PS3 or they're toast. Their other partners have to become majorly involved as well. $40 Billion vs. $2 Billion is not really a fair fight. It's probably no surprise that I agree with Ben and disagree vehemently with Vince.A couple of billion... fish kill.... a couple of billion another toshiba factory... a 400M ibm received for cell, who knows how much more by now? Sony's internal R&D for sony computer entertainment, and other sections of sony(like those involved in blue ray, and other consumer areas that might influence ps3) + TOshiba's internal R&D + IBM'S internal R&D(including manucfaturing research, since that will affect the ps3..)... all in the billions... sony's annual marketing near a billion now.... a billion or more is likely for the ps3....
Now what do we know of microsoft's xbox division... 2 yes 2 billion is said for XBOX LIVE, XBOX 2, and the like.... Nvidia won't all this get u know!!! A deal that fuxxors them already exists and they only have a few million to research the only component that can make it competitive with the multibillion multiyear multihundreds of engineers ps3.... From intel competitive processor is unexpected.... all important is to be done in primitive taiwanesse cheesseeee factories....
So what will happen?
a couple of million and months with a few hundred engineers in nvidia against the billions, the years, and the countless hundreds of engineers behind the ps3 with full access to every new gpu researched by nvidia or ati or the like? Will the taiwan cheesseee foundry compete with the combined tech of 3 of the worlds strongest tech companies? U decide my friend
zidane1strife said:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-948493.html
They say $400M, not $1B. Granted that's just for Cell, and not the entire PS3 console system, but I doubt the development rest of the system will add more than another $100M onto the cost of developing Cell.
Also, you're ignoring two key facts. First, Cell is not a GPU, it's a general purpose processor that can be used for graphics processing among other things. It's not going to have the optimized hardware for anti-aliasing or texture filtering, and it's probably not going to have as high of a texel fillrate as whatever the next X-Box GPU will have. Second, the software required to get the general purpose chip to do the kinds of 3D rendering that will be required for the PS3 is going to be bulky, and it will be very difficult to squeeze efficiency out of the code.
So your saying that Nintendo has great games to offer and MS have being able to lose massive amounts of money to offer? The big problem with that is what will happen when they get into a position were they no longer wish to lose any money? Infact they want to make lots of money.. then what do they have to offer?
I have no big problem with MS bleeding money like a multiple stab victim, because they can do it and its neccesary for them to have a chance in this industry. I just found it strange to have it tauted as "something to offer" alongside brilliant game franchises like Mario and Zelda.
zidane1strife
Banned
Crusher sorry if I wasn't clear but I meant 1Billion for marketing first year.
Sony invest about 200M+ in each of the mayor territories as it is now... the combined sum probably nears 700M+ a year... for a high profile launch like that of ps3, and it's first year, specially when u consider inflation... a rise to one billion is not out of the question...
LET'S not even go into the amount of hype generated by gamers, and the media... that sort of marketing worldwide, and mindshare alone would probably cost dozens of billions(probably more than some companies even have in their piggy banks...).... sony is getting it for FREE.
As for u'r gpu comments, sony dev.s have access to even GeforceFX from months ago, indepth access that is. U think sony's just gonna ignore pixel shading functions and focus only on the vertex side of the equation? Hmmmm, I wouldn't be surprised if ps3's pixel performance far surpasses it's vertex capabilities...
EDITED
Sony invest about 200M+ in each of the mayor territories as it is now... the combined sum probably nears 700M+ a year... for a high profile launch like that of ps3, and it's first year, specially when u consider inflation... a rise to one billion is not out of the question...
LET'S not even go into the amount of hype generated by gamers, and the media... that sort of marketing worldwide, and mindshare alone would probably cost dozens of billions(probably more than some companies even have in their piggy banks...).... sony is getting it for FREE.
As for u'r gpu comments, sony dev.s have access to even GeforceFX from months ago, indepth access that is. U think sony's just gonna ignore pixel shading functions and focus only on the vertex side of the equation? Hmmmm, I wouldn't be surprised if ps3's pixel performance far surpasses it's vertex capabilities...
EDITED
Mmm, yes, industrial espionage--the honorable way beat your competition. And exactly how long do you think it would take NVIDIA to launch a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Sony if they infringed on even a single patent that NVIDIA holds from all their GeForce FX technology? And I find it very difficult to believe anyone at Sony has access to any in-depth information on any NVIDIA product beyond what is publicly stated in their patents. I doubt most of the implementation specs NVIDIA uses would be useful for Cell anyway, since they are two completely different kinds of processors with different purposes. Cell is not a GPU. It was not built with pixel processing in mind. It's job is not to do 3D rendering, it's job is to be capable of doing 3D rendering, while at the same time being capable of doing sound processing, performing general math operations, etc. Specialized hardware like GPUs is the exact opposite of the purpose of something like Cell.
zidane1strife
Banned
Well, maybe espionage too... but what I mean is Everquest 2 dev.s have received h/w and indepth info. on its' workings.
As for the pixel area... the GS made with primitive manufacturing tech for its' time... has a fillrate that's not been eclipsed by even an order of magnitude by gpus like the FX(and likely the next nv and ati gpus to come this year...) even though years have passed since it's release...
Sony said they aimed to achieve the goal they hadn't achieved with ps2... nigh-photoreal gphx in real time. Clearly pixel effects are necessary fo such a thing.
Crusher said:
Whats the diffrence between the P10 and Nv1x hardware? Or the diffrence between the NV3x TCL front-end and the R300? Are these designs not 'optomized instead? I find what your saying pretty unbalanced in perspective.
I find this type of statement so... two years ago. The fundimental underlying hardware is all so similiar as we move into the realm of full-programmability and HLSL. It's no longer as cut-and-dry as you have these discrete hardwired blocks thats do nothing but one function (e.g. the idea of a TCU/TMU) - if anything that type of architecture is quite ineffecient when you think about it.
Woah, quite a leap there - without first making sure you have a place to land. So, I take it you know the exact specifications of what the 'Pixel Engines" are in the Visulaizer or whatever name the Sony patent talks of.
Wow, people still measure texel fillrates? I thought we finally moved past that BS.
Everyone in the PC 3D industry does/did this to an extent. Your comment is so ignorent... like nVidia didn't infringe on 3dfx's IP on Texture Mapping or about 5 other patents, or Matrox in their infamous suit where nVidia had a large block of Matrox's engineers just get up and move to nVidia and infringed on IP. Or that PoverVR and GigaPixel didn't mutually infringe on eachothers IP at some juncture. Or that 3dfx didn't infringe on nVidia's patents concerning concurrent pixel pipelines. Or that SGI doesn't have the entire industry by the balls - this whole argument is pointless.
And they wouldn't win shit.. just as nobody has won anything against nVidia.
simplicity
Newcomer
Sony has no need to do industrial espionage to find out how the NVIDIA GX parts work, or even how future NVIDIA parts work.
Sony is a potential customer of NVIDIAs. So what they probably did was, about a year ago, call up NVIDIA and say "we're designing the PS3. We've developed our own architecture, but we are willing to scrap it if yours is way better. Here's the performance we want, and our budget. What can you sell us?"
And NVIDIA probably said, "We're developing these parts, with these capabilities. We can sell you this one."
Sony probably talked with ATI and the other GPU vendors, too. They'd be stupid not to.
I'm sure Nintendo and MS did the same sort of thing.
In a way, Sony is at an advantage because they have access to all the other companies, and also have their own IP. Neither MS nor Nintendo can use Sony's designs.
NVIDIA is a pretty aggressive company, so I bet they made a serious bid for Sony's business, even if it was a long shot that they would get it. (Unless, of course, what Sony was asking for was so far out of the league of what NVIDIA could produce that it wasn't worth even trying to bid for it.)
P.S. It also occurs to me that Sony has the VAIO laptop and desktop PC business, so they're certainly non-disclosed on NVIDIA's short-term future plans for the PC space.
Sony is a potential customer of NVIDIAs. So what they probably did was, about a year ago, call up NVIDIA and say "we're designing the PS3. We've developed our own architecture, but we are willing to scrap it if yours is way better. Here's the performance we want, and our budget. What can you sell us?"
And NVIDIA probably said, "We're developing these parts, with these capabilities. We can sell you this one."
Sony probably talked with ATI and the other GPU vendors, too. They'd be stupid not to.
I'm sure Nintendo and MS did the same sort of thing.
In a way, Sony is at an advantage because they have access to all the other companies, and also have their own IP. Neither MS nor Nintendo can use Sony's designs.
NVIDIA is a pretty aggressive company, so I bet they made a serious bid for Sony's business, even if it was a long shot that they would get it. (Unless, of course, what Sony was asking for was so far out of the league of what NVIDIA could produce that it wasn't worth even trying to bid for it.)
P.S. It also occurs to me that Sony has the VAIO laptop and desktop PC business, so they're certainly non-disclosed on NVIDIA's short-term future plans for the PC space.
zidane1strife
Banned
No I mean manufacturing wise... the foundries s@cked. Major production problems, and wasn't it first manufactured in .25m in some of them?
On top of all that no copper or other advanced technics used. Now when they launch they'll have top stuff... most likely edging out even some taiwan cheese foundries...
Well the original fab (Kokubu) wasn't intended for mass production and had handle a longer run than intended due to spin-up problems at Fab-1 (Nagasaki). Hence the delay 'till early 2001 for .18um. However 130nm didn't pose any problems. Dunno about 90nm though, I don't think they'll feel it's necessary unless they cease EE production at Oita (which is a SCK/Toshiba operation) and defer it to SCEI's two Nagasaki Fabs...
