will PS3's GPU be more modern than PS2's GS for its time?

[Qroach]

I never said I didn't have a problem with it; I just didn't respond. It's a complex situation that's dependent on many factors, I just assume not get into it.

I seem to remember you having a big problem with it while saying it wouldn't be as cheap as what sony is doing internally. Now you say different, go figure. Yeah I can see why you wouldn't want to get into that. Moving along now...

It costs more because you can't just develop new techniques out of sheer serendipitous action.

ya know it's funny to see how you are you didn't think sony needed to licese tech before the Nvidia annoucement, but not that they did you embrace it like a hot girl.

Yes I do agree, it would take more TIME and money invested to reach the point where nvidia and ATI are at. which is why I said I think sony's decision was based more on timing and what they get for the money compared to what it costs.

Ask Dave what the costs are to developing a new architecture for ATI or nVidia -- it's in the billions of dollars.

billions? I'm sure it costs in the hundreds of milllions. ...but billions seems a bit much don't you think?

 

[Vince]

I do not beleive it was Nvidia being cheaper than doing it internally there's a reason doing it internally won out with Sony before. When I say bite the bullet, I mean going outside the company to get what you want, and in almost all cases that will cost you more.

I seem to remember you having a big problem with it while saying it wouldn't be as cheap as what sony is doing internally. Now you say different, go figure. Yeah I can see why you wouldn't want to get into that. Moving along now...

This is just not true. As I said it's situation and context dependant. For example, it's immensely cheaper for ATI or nVidia to "go outside the company" and fab their parts at TSMC|UMC|IBM than it is for them to drop $4Billion on a bleeding-edge 300mm fab. Hell, why hasn't nVidia gone vertical?

Inversely, for a company like Sony that consumes over $8Billion in ICs per year, it's become immensely profitable for them to go vertical. This can be directly seen already in the PSP price, which someone from Sony has stated is only attainable since Sony internally fabs the majority of the ICs themselves. The benefits for them will only become more pronounced in the next half-decade as Sony, as a company, moves to a network-centric Cell world product line.

EDIT: Added second quote, since you're still not thinking about what's been said.

 

[Vince]

It costs more because you can't just develop new techniques out of sheer serendipitous action.

ya know it's funny to see how you are you didn't think sony needed to licese tech before the Nvidia annoucement, but not that they did you embrace it like a hot girl.

It's only funny because you don't understand what I'm saying, nor what V3 is for that matter. Pattern anybody? If you understood what I was saying, it was that they don't need nVidia or ATI for 'Shading' and the computationally intense functions that are unbounded in resource demands and is where the future lies. I've consistently maintained for over two years that the 'dumb' raster functions, which are hard-bounded, will never-the-less a problem for several reasons.

And secondly, ask Dave. You're wrong.

Also, you keep stating that it was Sony which was pushing for this deal. Yet, what Joe didn't post in his initial thread was that Jen-Hsun Huang stated:

<blockquote>"The fundamental difference, of course, between the two platforms is that Ken's vision for PS3 is much much broader and it's going to be the underlying platform for digital consumers, from media servers to digital televisions to the next generation PVRs to game consoles and his vision is far far greater than mine in terms of the types of things he wants to build with it. The CELL microprocessor is a four to five year undertaking and I know of no microprocessor -- modern microprocessor -- with a greater level of investment than the CELL microprocessor and architecturally it's innovating and it's applications are going to be quite amazing from those people. So I think that alone is worth the price of entry I would really be very surprised if all of us in the computer industry and consumer electronics industry aren't the first in line to buy a CELL processor, just so we can know what it can do. It's an amazing vision."</blockquote>

 

[Qroach]

I guess it will all come out in the wash. however I don't think sony is really saving any money on graphics tech, based on all the "cell taking a revoloutionary approach to rendering graphics" nonesense people around here have been muttering for months.

Possibly they are doing this to save money on having to create thier own tech/ip in the long run. What I think that comes down to is them having inferior graphics technology at this stage of development and they realized they could better spend the money on licensing elsewhere. Whether it was cheaper or more expensive, is really something neither of us should be arguing about.

 

[Qroach]

It's only funny because you don't understand what I'm saying, nor what V3 is for that matter. Pattern anybody?

The only pattern i see is the flips, then flops, and then flips again you are making my friend.

If you understood what I was saying, it was that they don't need nVidia or ATI for 'Shading' and the computationally intense functions that are unbounded in resource demands and is where the future lies. I've consistently maintained for over two years that the 'dumb' raster functions, which are bounded, are never-the-less a problem for several reasons.

Right vince. Sony is paying paying royaltees on every graphics chip produced, just so they have access to your "dumb raster functions"? I think you are VERY wrong there and don't give enough credit to SONY. I think sony alreayd had a number of dumb raster functions in the hardware they currently use in PS2. At the very least I think mroe time has been spent working on "shading tech" than anything else in graphics cards of the past 4 years.

IMO sony are using nvidia tech for pixel shading among other things. call it a hunch, but think you'll be pretty suprised just how many graphics functions are handed off to nvidias hardware (including computationally intense functions).

Also, you keep stating that it was Sony which was pushing for this deal. Yet, what Joe didn't post in his initial thread was that Jen-Hsun Huang stated

No I'm not stating that. I'm stating IMO reasons sony would choose to work with nvidia. Nvidia would have thier own reasons for being involed. I'm sure Nvidia was fine with this choice after being left out two competing consoles. It's not like they had anything to lose.

 

[Vince]

The only pattern i see is the flips, then flops, and then flips again you are making my friend.

No I'm not stating that. I'm stating IMO reasons sony would choose to work with nvidia. Nvidia would have thier own reasons for being involed. I'm sure Nvidia was fine with this choice after being left out two competing consoles. It's not like they had anything to lose.

What I find interesting is that just based of the timing of announcements, people assume that it was nVidia who was left out. Yet, logically, nVidia was the front-runner for X2 and Sony's been dealing with nVidia since around the same time MS started looking for alternative IHVs.

Microsoft sent tenders out to the IHVs in mid-2002 because I was told "they are looking for alternatives" -- ask yourself why. Perhaps nVidia and Sony already had some level of communication (as we now know) and nVidia saw the potential revenues in Cell or because MS wouldn't play along, chose ATI as a second choice. As I posted way back when the talk first started, it would be foolish for nVidia to not get their IP in the Cell platform; in one swoop they achieve dominance and instantly overshadow ATIs attempts at moving into CE significantly. As Huang said, it's "worth the price of entry."

PS. And we'll see what's in the Media Processor and what's not...

 

[Megadrive1988]

Vince, nice summary of Nvidia's strategic moves.

 

[j^aws]

This thread and the NV-Sony deal is full of Oxymorons!

 

[Mythos]

Even from a business prospective...Sony would have the leverage in negiotations on whatever deal is being struck. Sony has the dominate position and Nvidia wouldn't know what kind of deals Sony is making for their GPU development. So naturally Nvidia would have to bid in for business. IMO the outcome would be something like this...

Nvidia gave very good pricing on their tech. (to buy into the console market and be on a dominate platform). Sony saw diminused returns on there GPU prospect went with Nvidia (to get software tools and established tech.). In return for Nvidia's good deal, Sony gave them the ability to push their tech. to other devices (posibily to pick up new business from their low price Tech offer).

 

[Dave Baumann]

Yet, logically, nVidia was the front-runner for X2 and Sony's been dealing with nVidia since around the same time MS started looking for alternative IHVs.

Logically they were on the back foot because of arbitration issues and they were always making noises that the deal MS wanted (royalty based) was not profitable - they were, and still are for the most part, a revenue driven company as high revenues drive stock. ATI were already much more ammenable to such a model as they already had it in a few other areas, including GC; NVIDIA have only recently (since the Media-Q purchase actually) softend on the royalty.

Perhaps nVidia and Sony already had some level of communication (as we now know) and nVidia saw the potential revenues in Cell or because MS wouldn't play along, chose ATI as a second choice.

JHH's goal was to have all three, not one.

 

[Vince]

Oh, no doubt Dave. I'm just pointing out that while ATI may very well turn out to be a better choice for Microsoft's next console, there are likely (as you pointed out as well) many facets to the deal which people don't factor in when they state that nVidia was "left out" and that they had nothing "to lose".

Also, do you have a rough estimate of how many hardware engineers nVidia has now-a-days? I remember it was something like 350(?) a few years back, but the company has expanded alot since.

 

[Brimstone]

As I posted way back when the talk first started, it would be foolish for nVidia to not get their IP in the Cell platform; in one swoop they achieve dominance and instantly overshadow ATIs attempts at moving into CE significantly. As Huang said, it's "worth the price of entry."

ATI is fine. They've already licensed Tensilica's Extensa processor. Chris Rowen and his leadership of Tensilica will have a much greater impact than "CELL".

 

[pc999]

ATI is fine. They've already licensed Tensilica's Extensa processor. Chris Rowen and his leadership of Tensilica will have a much greater impact than "CELL".

Can anyone explain what is Tensilica's Extensa processor?

Thanks.

 

[Brimstone]

ATI is fine. They've already licensed Tensilica's Extensa processor. Chris Rowen and his leadership of Tensilica will have a much greater impact than "CELL".

Can anyone explain what is Tensilica's Extensa processor?

Thanks.

A recipie for instant chips

The devastating thing Tensilica has are software patents.


Tensilica Secures Key Patents

 

[Panajev2001a]

NV probably offer them the price that is cheaper than what Sony could have done internally.

No... that is still not it... you are assuming that the internal solution was the one they set aside when they finally gave the contract to nVIDIA.

 

[Panajev2001a]

My hunch is NV in dire need to replace the loss of income from failing to get Xbox2, most likely outbid Toshiba, thus making PS3 or other cell device cheaper for Sony to produce.

that would have been my second quess ; )

My question is this: why cannot we maybe accept that nVIDIA's GPU is also the more featured and faster of the two ?

 

[Vince]

My question is this: why cannot we maybe accept that nVIDIA's GPU is also the more featured and faster of the two ?

I think this is tacit in their statements Pana. If you normalize the relative preformance to be equivalent, it would take a larger amount of capital to reach that static level with the internal Sony or Toshiba designs. Or, said in other words, the external design is cheaper.

 

[MrSingh]

My hunch is NV in dire need to replace the loss of income from failing to get Xbox2, most likely outbid Toshiba, thus making PS3 or other cell device cheaper for Sony to produce.

that would have been my second quess ; )

My question is this: why cannot we maybe accept that nVIDIA's GPU is also the more featured and faster of the two ?

no.. because italian wine and pasta is just so darned delish!

 

[nelg]

Microsoft sent tenders out to the IHVs in mid-2002 because I was told "they are looking for alternatives" -- ask yourself why. Perhaps nVidia and Sony already had some level of communication (as we now know) and nVidia saw the potential revenues in Cell or because MS wouldn't play along, chose ATI as a second choice.

Perhaps two years ago someone at MS had a 5800ultra and said "this is not the future".

 

[V3]

I guess it will all come out in the wash. however I don't think sony is really saving any money on graphics tech, based on all the "cell taking a revoloutionary approach to rendering graphics" nonesense people around here have been muttering for months.

Qroach, if Sony ever going to bite a bullet, they would go with cheaper technology not an expensive one. In that way they may had more inferior pixel engine. That's Sony biting the bullets. Not MS style, like you thought.

We don't know anything about Toshiba solution (or NV), yet you thought of their solutions to be inferior because Sony went with NV instead. Sony will go with a cheaper solution. If it is better than its a plus isn't ?

Possibly they are doing this to save money on having to create thier own tech/ip in the long run. What I think that comes down to is them having inferior graphics technology at this stage of development and they realized they could better spend the money on licensing elsewhere. Whether it was cheaper or more expensive, is really something neither of us should be arguing about.

What you shouldn't be arguing is if the solutions is inferior or superior. Because that arguments doesn't hold. And your argument superior equates to something more expensive doesn't hold either.

Sony went which ever cheaper for them for their need.