Will PS3 GPU only have PS units or both PS and VS units?

[j^aws]

Okay, I did a recent poll on PS3 config,

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20417

...and a NUMA architecture with eDRAM was the most popular. You can still vote in the above poll!

So, in this poll do you think that the PS3 GPU will have dedicated VS and PS units or only PS units or only VS units (hmm)!?

 

[nAo]

As I already stated in another thread my vote goes on the VS+PS option.
CELL will assist the GPU but it's not going to be a vertex shader engine substitute in the general case, imho.

 

[London Geezer]

And we would know... how?

 

[nAo]

And we would know... how?

SPEs could help the GPU with 'exotic' tasks suchs as vertex creation or destruction, tesselation, and so on..there are infinite possibilities..

 

[j^aws]

And we would know... how?

It's a poll...just vote!

 

[Fafalada]

As I already stated in another thread my vote goes on the VS+PS option.

And consequently most likely no eDram. Especially so if we get that extra 256MB of XDR for GPU people keep bringing up. (who started that one anyway? )

But yeah, I have to go with the same vote.

 

[nAo]

As I already stated in another thread my vote goes on the VS+PS option.

And consequently most likely no eDram. Especially so if we get that extra 256MB of XDR for GPU people keep bringing up. (who started that one anyway? )

Even if One wrote that PS3 GPU is going to have edram cause a japanese magazine cited that somewhere..

 

[MfA]

NVIDIA ripping out vertex shaders and fitting in eDRAM in something essentially designed for PCs in this short a timeframe ... you actually consider that a real possibility Fafalada?

 

[Urian]

An NV4x dual core+Media Engine.

 

[Fafalada]

I think you misunderstood me Mfa, I voted VS&PS (as did nAo - hence my comment "same vote").

Anyway I dunno how modular NVidia designs are, so I wouldn't know what removing VS interface would do.
But eDram is just another memory interface, so I hardly see that as some monumental design change - the reason I doubt this one is the chip size.

 

[darkblu]

I think you misunderstood me Mfa, I voted VS&PS (as did nAo - hence my comment "same vote").

Anyway I dunno how modular NVidia designs are, so I wouldn't know what removing VS interface would do.
But eDram is just another memory interface, so I hardly see that as some monumental design change - the reason I doubt this one is the chip size.

well, i hope you're wrong, or at least your reasoning 'vs + ps = !edram' is wrong. for your own sake 8)

 

[Npl]

My guess is that the GPU VS will be used for Displacementmapping and maybe other pure-visual-things. Not that a GPU does anything else but visual-things , but by "pure" I mean the work done is not significant for Gameplay. nonpure would mean the CPU would have to transform the vertices themself anyway, being for hitscan, physics, shadows.

Especially so if we get that extra 256MB of XDR for GPU people keep bringing up. (who started that one anyway? )

You think the GPU would pull Texture-Data through 2 Busses and Cell from Main-Ram ? IMHO Local-Memory is needed( be it SDR or GDDR3) since I doubt a small Amount of eDram would help much lowering the GPU`s need for the Main Ram.

 

[Farid]

I think it's almost 100% sure that the GPU will have VS.

The question is will those VS be stripped ones, only used for things such as VTex, or are they complete ones, and therefore the CPU will be used, "simply", as a complement and/or for "exotic" stuf (Geometry Shader, NURBS,...).

 

[zidane1strife]

I'd like to see at least 2 cells/PEs in the system, thus my vote for mostly PSs(yeah I know it's unlikely).

PS

I'm curious, even if that "what if" scenario where so, would a substantial VS presence rather than a beefier PS solution be beneficial/considered more desireable?

 

[Fafalada]

You think the GPU would pull Texture-Data through 2 Busses and Cell from Main-Ram ? IMHO Local-Memory is needed( be it SDR or GDDR3) since I doubt a small Amount of eDram would help much lowering the GPU`s need for the Main Ram.

I don't suggest GPU to exclusively pull rendering data from main-ram, it should at least have some local memory to fit rendering buffers.
But it Should have the option to pull rendering data from main memory by itself.

What I don't want to see is a GPU that can only address it's local memory (doesn't matter if it's embeded or external) - that would make it a cumbersome and limited setup compared to what others have
(and could be especially bad if it came to a worst case scenario with 256MB of total memory divided into two pools between GPU and CPU).

As for the eDram issue - I have to admit that I'm somewhat undecided on it myself at the moment.
IMO - a "good" local pool size would be 32-64MB (for eDram), and assuming it's configured as I suggested to nAo in another thread. But at that size, one Has to wonder what kind of GPU cutbacks we would see because of it.

Putting this against suggested 256MB of external ram local to GPU, I'm probably more partial to the latter - larger size + less likelihood of GPU ommisions does matter.
Although... like Deano, I may very well change my mind about it by tommorow

 

[j^aws]

Bah...only '1' vote for the VS only option!

Where are all the REYES luvers!

I know nVidia are not fond of unified shaders yet unlike ATI, but for WGF 2.0, there were discussions in other threads that NV could have specialized, optimised VS and PS units.

The VS units would excel at VS work but would still be capable of PS work and vice versa, so that if required for flexibility, the extra (though not optimal) units would be available.

One common belief is for CELL to do VS work but the GPU to have these new optimised PS units only but still be capable of VS work if needed. PS units have been experimented for raytracing algorithms etc. by NV.

How about the other way around? The GPU to have optimised VS units only but still be capable of simple PS work on these units? This would suit a REYES architecture better, no? The dicing of polygons can be taken care of by CELL SPE's and the resultant micro-polygon shading done by these VS units with simple PS functionality on the GPU...?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

[Npl]

You think the GPU would pull Texture-Data through 2 Busses and Cell from Main-Ram ? IMHO Local-Memory is needed( be it SDR or GDDR3) since I doubt a small Amount of eDram would help much lowering the GPU`s need for the Main Ram.

I don't suggest GPU to exclusively pull rendering data from main-ram, it should at least have some local memory to fit rendering buffers.
But it Should have the option to pull rendering data from main memory by itself.

Agreed, I never meant in shouldnt. Dont think why there wouldnt be something similar to "AGP-Texturing". Its actually more interesting to know if it will work the other way round, and since Sony claimed "CPU <---> GPU" instead of "CPU ---> GPU" a few times...
In the end I think it would be best to just fit the GPU in a similar fashion that it shares the local Memory like another Cell( doesnt means that it would have to use XDR-Ram too).

@Jaws: Tons of Polygons without textures - should make nice Cartoons

 

[j^aws]

...
@Jaws: Tons of Polygons without textures - should make nice Cartoons

Pixar don't complain!

Who's talking about no textures?...Vertex texturing is available on current NV40 VS units...these new VS units would be the next evolution!

 

[London Geezer]

...
@Jaws: Tons of Polygons without textures - should make nice Cartoons

Pixar don't complain!

Who's talking about no textures?...Vertex texturing is available on current NV40 VS units...these new VS units would be the next evolution!

Pixar movies hardly look photorealistic, although i certainly won't complain if i'm laying games at the level Pixar movies are today... in 10 years time....

 

[j^aws]

...
@Jaws: Tons of Polygons without textures - should make nice Cartoons

Pixar don't complain!

Who's talking about no textures?...Vertex texturing is available on current NV40 VS units...these new VS units would be the next evolution!

Pixar movies hardly look photorealistic, although i certainly won't complain if i'm laying games at the level Pixar movies are today... in 10 years time....

Well the P in PRMAN stands for 'photorealistic renderman' as an example REYES renderer. Obviously true photorealism isn't here yet but their movies looks are from stylized shaders they use as much as anything.