Will the PS2 performance increase be repeated this gen?

[JardeL]

First of all , I am not an expert... I don't know if Emotion Engine assists graphics , maybe it does ... But CELL will assist without a doubt, maybe even much more than EE's ... *

But I don't think that RSX has as much secret as GS ... Programmers are familiar to RSX [ than GS ] ... * Eventually , I don't think PS3 can reach PS2's performance increase [ graphics quality ] ...

For X360 , maybe some improvements [ little gfx tweaks and some AI ] but with all these developer praise for !lovely! MS libraries , improvements won't be comparable to PS2's [ maybe even PS3's ] , IMO ...

*Correct me if i'm wrong...

 

[Bigus Dickus]

If i correctly understood, CELL was designed so that as a trully parallel programming model can be used (unlike Xenos that is "simply" multi-threaded).

Assuming you mean Xenon and not Xenos... well, doesn't matter, I'd have to disagree in either case. Xenon (CPU) is multi core and multithreaded.

 

[Sis]

No it won't.

Both of the systems are much easier to use than the PS2 was relatively speaking, which means they will probably both start at a higher point along the curve, and there will be less of a gap between first gen and last.

And the nature of the market will dictate that multi-platform developers not concentrate on any one platform.

Those two factors rule it out completely imo.

Both systems have room to grow, but they difinately will not improve as much as the PS2 did. Propbably somewhere between what we saw with PS2 (huge growth) and Xbox1 (solid growth).

I expect to see a slightly larger gap with PS3 games due mainly to the weaker development tools/documentation initially, and the potential of CELL and the BR disc, but the 360 also has many tricks up it's sleeve that aren't being exploited.

I disagree, since both systems introduce multithreading paradigms to deal with which I would expect requires significant and non-trivial learning. I would expect both systems to see large jumps from 1st gen games to "end of life gen" games.

The fact that the tooling experience is there only means that they don't have to take as large a step back as they would have without the tooling, in my opinion.

The multiplatform issue is a bit of a non-issue, since it is the 1st party games that have the opportunity to show off their respective systems.

 

[Arwin]

Just to clarify: (as some of your points raised an eyebrow) this poll is strictly based on improvement within the same platform, not from last gen (ps2/xb/gc) to this gen (xb360/ps3/wii).

No, you were actually asking if that improvement within one console's lifecycle would be as big this gen as it would last gen. So yes, I did understand the question (unlike in the other thread, where I clearly didn't ... )

If you were wondering about the CD-DVD comment, the first games on PS2 were released on CD-ROM, and/or CD-ROM sized games on DVD. At the end of the cycle, that had become very rare.

 

[TheChefO]

I disagree, since both systems introduce multithreading paradigms to deal with which I would expect requires significant and non-trivial learning. I would expect both systems to see large jumps from 1st gen games to "end of life gen" games.

The fact that the tooling experience is there only means that they don't have to take as large a step back as they would have without the tooling, in my opinion.

The multiplatform issue is a bit of a non-issue, since it is the 1st party games that have the opportunity to show off their respective systems.

I figured this at first as well when the system specs were announced and the initial topics were discussed on programming difficulty. My prediction was first gen titles would ship using only one core on xb360 and the same relevent ppe core on Cell due to the similarities (and at the time, close launch dates). Developers picked up the programming model much quicker than I figured though and from what I recall, none of the xb360 games shipped using just one core.

With that, I expect improvement through efficiency and a growing technique knowledgebase. However, this growth gap will not be as large as I originally anticipated.

 

[oli2]

Assuming you mean Xenon and not Xenos... well, doesn't matter, I'd have to disagree in either case. Xenon (CPU) is multi core and multithreaded.

I effectively meant Xbox360's CPUs.
I think there were a misunderstanding there : i did not intended to say one CPU is superior to another.

But you have to understand that if there is a paradygm shift between single-threaded programming to multi-threaded one, there is the same between multi-threaded and parallel one.

Often, people do compare the 6 threads capability of Xbox360 to the 7 SPE of CELL.

If i am right, you cannot because Cell is designed around parallel computation .

Maybe some expert can come and comment these but each SPE has "tiny" (but enough in parallel computation) cache, high calculation power, no access to main RAM, and super speed communication to PPE. I don't know if a SPE can communicate to another very fast but it would vastly help.

In parallel computing, you can vastly reduce the complexity of some of the most classic algorythms (sort, Matrix calculation for example), but it require skills and to be formed to this way of thinking.

The question is (as i mentionned earlier) : in real world, will it bring something to the way games are developed ? Will developers be able to make good use of it ? If so, we could be very surprised ...

 

[oli2]

To Sis and Chef (too long to quote you recent posts) :
If you see Cell simply as a "simple" (not meaning "not advanced") multi-threaded CPU, you don't understand what the main idea is.

Lets take a n*n matrix on which you have to make some operations.

the complexity in single threaded programming is O(n^2).
if you want to split these operations to 6 threads, you don't get O(n^2) /6 complexity because you have to deal the general efficiency of the system.

In parallel computing, and a system designed towards it, you can theorically reach the complexity of O(n^2) /p (p= number of parallel processors).

Imagine now you want to multiplicate a m*n matrix by a n*m one : see the complexity, and what parallel computing brings ?

I am no expert in parallel computing, but i do know that things are not as simple as to split the calculation to multiple threads on general purpose CPUs.

I don't know if i was clear ... But i hope you get my point and my questions : will it bring to the world of gaming (Sony certainly thinks that) ? Will the devs. be able to make good use of that.

Maybe this wikipedia page will help you understand me :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing

 

[inefficient]

Maybe some expert can come and comment these but each SPE has "tiny" (but enough in parallel computation) cache, high calculation power, no access to main RAM, and super speed communication to PPE. I don't know if a SPE can communicate to another very fast but it would vastly help.

SPE's do have access to main ram. All SPEs have access to system memory and every SPE can independently have memory in flight at the same time. System memory accesses is one of Cells major strong points compared to other CPUs. It was specifically designed to tackle memory bottle necks.

Accesses from the 256KB of Local Store are faster than access to main memory using naive techniques. But it's not like you're reading from optical disc or anything. And the latency to system memory can be hidden almost completely with the correct techniques.

They also communicate with other SPEs at the same speed as the PPE they are all on the same EIB bus.

 

[oli2]

...

Thanks for the details.
These informations reinforce my opinion that the main purpose is parallel computation, not only multi-theading programming.

 

[Jesus2006]

I'm missing the option 'Yes it will, without a doubt, be exceeded'

 

[onanie]

If the technical gap in the range of PS2 games is due to mastery of a parallel processor (that is, EE with its two vector units), then PS3 brings another level of complexity with its 7 cores. The large number of elements in the processor means it will not be utilised fully if intertwined tasks (such as AI, physics) were arbitrarily separated for each SPU (not to say that this is easy, even). The processor design might eventually lead to a generic SPU job queue scheme that allows full usage of the SPUs, I think.

I expect that the eventual gains will be significant, even if I only consider that CELL is currently significantly underutilised.

 

[Sis]

To Sis and Chef (too long to quote you recent posts) :
If you see Cell simply as a "simple" (not meaning "not advanced") multi-threaded CPU, you don't understand what the main idea is.

I believe dealing with threading issues will be the most difficult challenge (or the most opportune area for improvement over the years), but that's just my gut opinion. I'm not sure I get the distinction you're making between multithreaded and parallel processing, but perhaps I was being too lazy with my terminology by calling the CPUs multithreaded.

EDIT: Actually, I see what you mean (now that I've finished my cup of coffee). Thanks for the clarification--I didn't mean to imply it was using a simple threading model, even though that's what I typed...

 

[Capeta]

If the technical gap in the range of PS2 games is due to mastery of a parallel processor (that is, EE with its two vector units), then PS3 brings another level of complexity with its 7 cores. The large number of elements in the processor means it will not be utilised fully if intertwined tasks (such as AI, physics) were arbitrarily separated for each SPU (not to say that this is easy, even). The processor design might eventually lead to a generic SPU job queue scheme that allows full usage of the SPUs, I think.

I expect that the eventual gains will be significant, even if I only consider that CELL is currently significantly underutilised.

EE is not analogous to CELL eg EE in PS2 was used for TnL...CELL in PS3 isn't. Not only that but PS2's main increase in performance output was graphics. Since PS3 is has traditional GPU with built-in TnL as well as better tools, there won't be a major improvement in graphics like there was with PS2. I don't foresee major graphics improvments from "untapped CELL performance"...physics? Sure.

 

[Todd33]

Often, people do compare the 6 threads capability of Xbox360 to the 7 SPE of CELL.

I think people think the six thread term is equivalent to six cores or something. It's three cores who can do one normal thread and one gimped thread.

Anyone care to comment on this?

 

[oli2]

I think people think the six thread term is equivalent to six cores or something. It's three cores who can do one normal thread and one gimped thread.

This debate was only a "mathematical" one between the 2 CPUs. Some people needed to explain that the CPU in Xbox360 brought around the same number of "cores" than those found on Cell : 6 to 7 is "better" than 3 to 7.

This is IMO anecdotic and with no interest because there are several points regarding Xbox360 that should be looked at :
- It was meant to arrive one year before PS3
- Cell specs and main idea was well known, and Microsoft had not enough time producing such parallel CPU.
- Microsoft knew where they were aiming at with DirectX10, when preparing the GPU for its console and could include some of it inside.

To sum up this point, IMO, Microsoft put more emphasis on the GPU, and the RAM. On the CPU front, it was more put the maximum of the power, using several general purpose CPU.

To come back to Cell, there is another point that is generally uncompletly discussed i think. This quote is an example of it (no offense Inefficient)

System memory accesses is one of Cells major strong points compared to other CPUs. It was specifically designed to tackle memory bottle necks.

Accesses from the 256KB of Local Store are faster than access to main memory using naive techniques. But it's not like you're reading from optical disc or anything. And the latency to system memory can be hidden almost completely with the correct techniques.

They also communicate with other SPEs at the same speed as the PPE they are all on the same EIB bus.

People praise the efforts made towards the system memory for certainly many good reason i don't master, but a key point to understand about parallel programming is : the formula to calculate the time of computation for a given algorithm is something like :
T = x*Tcommunication + Tcomputation, where "x" is the number of inter-processors communications needed, "Tcommunication" is the time of communication between two processors, and "Tcomputation" the time of computation on a processor.
So, a very efficient system memory for gaming programming is certainly very important, ... for parallel programming, this is a key factor !

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I effectively meant Xbox360's CPUs.
I think there were a misunderstanding there : i did not intended to say one CPU is superior to another.

But you have to understand that if there is a paradygm shift between single-threaded programming to multi-threaded one, there is the same between multi-threaded and parallel one.

Often, people do compare the 6 threads capability of Xbox360 to the 7 SPE of CELL.

If i am right, you cannot because Cell is designed around parallel computation .

I still think you are just out in left field here. The Xenon CPU has three fully developed cores, not a single highly multithreaded one, and I don't think there is any way that you can truthfully describe it as not being designed for parallel computation. To not think of Xenon programming in that way (parallel) means you're throwing away over half of its potential processing power.

That the Cell has 8 cores instead of 3 just means it is even further along the road to a focused parallel processing paradigm... not that it is on the road and the Xenon isn't.

And to clear the air, I think the CELL is the superior processor. Perhaps not in every single measurable way (certainly not cost, I would imagine), but on the whole, talking about power for gaming and not cost/benefit ratios, I think it is the superior processor. But that doesn't mean MS wasn't thinking that parallel was the way to go as well. They just didn't go quite as far.

 

[TheChefO]

This is IMO anecdotic and with no interest because there are several points regarding Xbox360 that should be looked at :
- It was meant to arrive one year before PS3
- Cell specs and main idea was well known, and Microsoft had not enough time producing such parallel CPU.
- Microsoft knew where they were aiming at with DirectX10, when preparing the GPU for its console and could include some of it inside.

To sum up this point, IMO, Microsoft put more emphasis on the GPU, and the RAM. On the CPU front, it was more put the maximum of the power, using several general purpose CPU.

I would like to make a request to those posting in this thread:
Please do not discuss the intent of the design differences between the consoles. If one is going to discuss differences between designs, please limit it to factual differences and leave intent (and any angst (not pointing a finger at you oli2 :smile: )) out of the discussion.

Overall, good contributions so far guys. Keep 'em coming. :smile:

 

[oli2]

...The Xenon CPU has three fully developed cores, not a single highly multithreaded one, and I don't think there is any way that you can truthfully describe it as not being designed for parallel computation.

I know how many cores there are inside.
All i say is that there is a big difference between parallel programming and multi-threading programming (be it on single core, single core HT, or multi-core).

Nothing can prevent you to program with multiple threads, even on a single core with no HT.

If you want to make a parallel program, you need several processors (its a pre-requisiste)

 

[oli2]

Please do not discuss the intent of the design differences between the consoles. If one is going to discuss differences between designs, please limit it to factual differences and leave intent (and any angst out of the discussion.

I have the feeling this is quite difficult in this type of discussion because how do you separate "intent" of "main idea".
Second thing which is difficulty is sticking to "differences" that leads to speak about "Ghz", "number of true / false cores", etc. which do not cover the overall figure.

 

[Sis]

I know how many cores there are inside.
All i say is that there is a big difference between parallel programming and multi-threading programming (be it on single core, single core HT, or multi-core).

Nothing can prevent you to program with multiple threads, even on a single core with no HT.

If you want to make a parallel program, you need several processors (its a pre-requisiste)

You lost me here. The 360 has 3 homogenous cores, the PS3 has 8 heterogenous cores. But neither one has multiple processors...except being multi-core they might as well be. No?