-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
IGN: PS3 is much more powerful than Xenon
- Thread starter Izzy
- Start date
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Dr_Cogent said:
...Then Sony must be exceptional in that regard since they've hit every single one of their targets thus far (except for the European PSP launch).
Buffy4ever
Banned
peedi said:
first thing I am very happy with my PS2. I think the graphics on the PS2 are fine. But it fanboys like you make me almost embossed to own the system. because of you I think I like the Nintendo fanboy better now.
If you look at the history of consoles, companies that have been in very dominate positions have lost, so Sony's recent success doesn't gurantee anything. Really the important thing is who the real winner is, and thats the video game consumer. The fierce competion between Sony and Microsoft results in the end user geting more value out of every dollar they spend.
They apply equally to all consolesDopeyFish said:
3.5 target may just as well be too high for Xenon due to same issue. But the only thing we know about thermal characteristics of Xenon is BillGates PR - "it's dissipating hundreds of watts".Makes the 4ghz Cell at <100Watt look downright puny in comparison.
But last I checked, PS3 cpu was never rated yet.
sonycowboy
Member
DopeyFish said:
Calm down, little buddy.
As far as tech goes, I don't know diddly. I do, however, feel like I can talk reasonably well about the industry in general.I was simply showing that every single point you made was certainly applicable to Microsoft as well as Sony. And the dual core is just one of those "rumors" going around right now, but you're right I should have left it triple core, that'll run MUCH cooler. :lol
As far as heat issue goes, Microsoft will pack just as much into their system, have to do it half a year earlier, and won't be able to produce it in house, with the inevitable benefits that that produces.
You could certainly argue that Microsoft has more "spending room" than Sony. However, given that the games division is currently one of the "bright spots" for Sony, it would be suicide for them to cut features for fear of spending too much money. If Sony loses in games, they could end up out of that market completely, and so I expect Sony to give the Playstation division every possible opportunity, rather than taking them away.
Also, Sony already has invested in fabrication plants, the CELL R&D, & Blu-Ray development. That's already committed and to a large extent, paid for. What's left for them to back out on? How much RAM is in the sytem? I think that this hand has pretty much already been dealt as far as this generations hardware goes, with only a few details left to be decided. A short pocketbook isn't going to be the problem unless there are extenuating circumstances (eg. CELL yields are very bad and Sony pushes it through anyway or backs off, or Microsoft produces cutthroat prices and forces Sony to lose a ton of money on the hardware). Short of that, I don't see the "pocketbook" being the issue you paint it as.
Now if Sony doesn't do as well as they hope with PS3, the PS4 and PSP2 could very well be in significant trouble. And Microsoft ain't going away.
sonycowboy
Member
DCharlie said:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/
Do you think that Sony hasn't paid IBM, Toshiba, or the construction companies yet? I didn't say they hadn't been charged to the divisions, I said they had already mostly been paid for. You don't get Billion dollar plants built on credit.
They'll continue to hit various divisions for years, that's not the point. The original poster was arguing that Sony was low on cash and the cash would stop Sony from investing in the PS3.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
he he - no i agree. My question would be whether Sony paid out in cash or paid out of issued debt. You mentioned that they were all paid for, but i recall a couple of large bond issues over the last few years, and i'm sure one was earmarked for Fab creation."Do you think that Sony hasn't paid IBM, Toshiba, or the construction companies yet? I didn't say they hadn't been charged to the divisions, I said they had already mostly been paid for. You don't get Billion dollar plants built on credit.
Ah, i get you. I missed the original. Everything you are saying is correct, i just picked up on the definition of "paid for" but sounds like we are on the same page
inpHilltr8r
Member
Fixed that up for you sprinkles.Kung Fu Jedi said:
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
inpHilltr8r said:
You're so clever tinkerbell!
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
nitewulf said:
The two designs are also different.
We have seen the PPE being quite a hot-spot and Xenon's CPU has three PPE's with additional modifications: we have a much bigger L2 cache (2 MB it seems) with probably a faster connection to the PowerPC cores due to the fact that it is shared between three cores, each VMX unit is now quite more complex as it seems to have the register file increased in size from 32x128 bits to 128x128 bits and we also have the register file duplicated (one Register file per Hardware thread).
The VMX units received another modification which seems to allow SIMD operation in two modes: Structure of Arrays (SoA) and Array of Structures (AoS). To allow this dual mode o operation they are spending some nice amounts of extra logic in there.
SoA is more similar to SSE and the original VMX ISA while AoS is more similar to the ISA of the VU's in the Emotion Engine.
SoA requires a bit of a change in the way you structure your data compared to AoS which is a bit more natural.
In the VU's a single QuadWord, a single 128 bits register contains 1 Vertex and it is divided in 4 different fields: XYZW.
When you process vertices in an AoS system you would organize them in memory and load them up like this: XYZW XYZW XYZW XYZW XYZW.
SoA has the advantage of being faster at doing dot products and other matematical operations at the expense of code readibility or some wasted cycles rotating registers a bit to massage data opportunely.
In SoA you basically process vertices in arrays of 4 elements (since the SIMD execution width is 4) like this: XXXX YYYY ZZZZ WWWW. You process vertices in groups of 4.
When you process vertices in an SoA system you would organize them in memory and load them up like this: XXXX YYYY ZZZZ WWWW.
You would basically move from the Vector as the basic unit to the Matrix of Vectors as your standard unit: dividing your geometry and Vectors in groups of 4.
In reality with the VU's you can process vertices in both AoS form and SoA form because you have support for broadcasting (example: we take one field of a single register and multiply all fields of another register by it) and horizontal add's and multiplies.
SPE's remove broadcasting and probably horizontal add's and mul's thus making the hardware leaner and simplier.
You could use the SPE's in AoS mode if you filled each vector of the same component: instead of X1 X2 X3 X4 you would have X1 X1 X1 X1 (X1 is the X component of vector V1 let's say) and so on for the other components, but this way you see that you need 4 registers for 1 vector and 16 registers for a single 4x4 matrix.
Why is SoA faster, more efficient and easier to implement ?
Let's say we need to do a Dot3 operation: we do not let any FMAC idle while on a AoS unit the FMAC assigned to the W component would do nothing.
Let's say we have a dot3 product to make:
Dot4 = X1 * X_light + Y1 * Y_light + Z1 * Z_light
Basically if we take a register it is easy to see it divided in four elements which I will call x, y, z and w... so REG0 contains REG0.x, REG0.y, REG0.z and REG0.w I find it easy giving a name to each field but you could just number them from 0 to 3 for example.
In AoS form we store a vertex per register so it makes sense to think about the fields as .x, .y, .z and .w.
In SoA form we store, in a register, one component (either x or y or z or w) of four vertices: keep this in mind for SoA... think of a register with 4 fields... field 1 I call .1, field 2 I call .2, field 3 I call .3 and field 4 I call .4.
AoS, for a dot product, does the multiplication of the two vectors element by element then requires two horizontal adds:
REG1.x = REG2.x * LIGHT.x
REG1.y = REG2.y * LIGHT.y
REG1.z = REG2.z * LIGHT.z
//these three instructions are performed by a single mul.xyz instruction like:
//mul.xyz REG1, REG2, LIGHT
//the register called LIGHT in AoS form contains all the 4 components
//of the light vector we are using.
REG1.x = REG1.x + REG1.y
REG1.x = REG1.x + REG1.z
//these two instructions are performed by two add's:
//add.x REG1, REG1, REG1[y]
//add.x REG1, REG1, REG1[z]
The last step will stall until the data is ready to be forwarded in the pipeline, also it is said that horizontal adds/muls (add/mul elements in the same register together) are a bit slow or require more hardware to speed things up.
We have 3 instructions to do a single dot product and we are wasting an FMAC each cycle.
To do 4 normals with one light dotted with them we need 4 instructions as we to do a mat4x4 * vec4x1 operation (if we write things on the VU in AoS form, but if we use SoA form with VU's then we can do it in 3 instructions) and more if we want 4 lights we actually can do a matrix * matrix multiplication in that case and that means 16 instructions using the VU.
Example of 4 normals and 1 light on VU1 in SoA form:
mula acc, mNorm[0], vLight[x]
madda acc, mNorm[1], vLight[y]
madd vDot, mNorm[2], vLight[z]
Example of 4 normals (stored in a matrix) and 1 light on VU1 in AoS form:
.macro MatrixMultiplyVertex vertexresult,matrix,vertex
mul acc, \matrix[0], \vertex[x]
madd acc, \matrix[1], \vertex[y]
madd acc, \matrix[2], \vertex[z]
madd \vertexresult, \matrix[3], \vertex[w]
.endm
Example of 4 normals (stored in a matrix) and 4 lights (stored in a matrix) on VU1 in AoS form:
.macro MatrixMultiply matresult,matleft,matright
mul acc, \matright[0], \matleft[0][x]
madd acc, \matright[1], \matleft[0][y]
madd acc, \matright[2], \matleft[0][z]
madd \matresult[0], \matright[3], \matleft[0][w]
mul acc, \matright[0], \matleft[1][x]
madd acc, \matright[1], \matleft[1][y]
madd acc, \matright[2], \matleft[1][z]
madd \matresult[1], \matright[3], \matleft[1][w]
mul acc, \matright[0], \matleft[2][x]
madd acc, \matright[1], \matleft[2][y]
madd acc, \matright[2], \matleft[2][z]
madd \matresult[2], \matright[3], \matleft[2][w]
mul acc, \matright[0], \matleft[3][x]
madd acc, \matright[1], \matleft[3][y]
madd acc, \matright[2], \matleft[3][z]
madd \matresult[3], \matright[3], \matleft[3][w]
.endm
We see that SoA form is more efficient (3 cycles versus 4 cycles for 4 normals and 1 light and only 16 cycles for 4 nromals and 4 lights).
On the SPE you won't have horizontal math quite likely nor broadcast muls/adds so to make it in 16 cycles you will have to have one of the matrices (in the case of 4 lights and 4 normals beign processed) transposed before you multiply the matrices together.
Not having horizontal math and broadcast capabilities hurts a bit (you have to spend cycles somewhere to enforce that the right matrix is in the right form at the right time), but you can go faster in terms of clock-speed and you have a leaner and cooler SPE thus being able to afford more of them on the same chip.
Ghost of Bill Gates
Banned
Honestly, I think both consoles will be equal in power. Also, RAM will play a big role next-gen.
OK. less TTL hardware, cheaper, less heat ---> higher clockspeed and more of them inside cell.Panajev2001a said:
so if the horizontal mathematics and broadcasting cant be done in the SPEs, is that where the VMX comes in? it readies the information to be fed to the SPE, feeds it, SPE calculates and stores the resultant data in the local cache where it waits to be used?
lambchop said:
So when, pray tell, do you think MS should launch XBox2 lambchop? I mean, I keep hearing this comment from certain gamers, yet they rarely offer a suggestion of when would be the PERFECT time to launch the console.
Has launching after Sony helped either Nintendo or Microsoft in the past? Did the N64, Gamecube or XBox benefit from launching after Sony's consoles? Well I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?
So if launching after Sony is not a good idea, and launching before Sony is also not a good idea (according to you), then that only leaves launching at the SAME TIME as Sony. Come on, is that really a better option?
The way I see it, based upon current rumours, MS has chosen to launch first in regions where they are strong (US & Europe), and at the same time as Sony where they are weak (Japan) or maybe a week or so earlier.
Hence I expect XBox2 to launch in November this year in the US. Both XBox2 and PS3 to launch around March/April next year in Japan. XBox2 to launch in Europe around the same time PS3 launches in the US. And finally, a PS3 launch in Europe.
We'll see of course, however whenever it is, I fail to see your DC connection.
Roland Hood
Member
For this next gen, I just hope that the hardware guys make it easy enough so that even Sega can make good looking games.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Roland Hood said:
No hardware is that powerful! :lol
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
I don't see the DC connection either, but Xbox is weak in Europe (I don't know where this perception of it being strong here is coming), and I don't think a 2H2006/4Q2006 European release would help them in the slightest. If you're launching first, why give up your biggest advantage? It makes no sense to me.Dr Yassam said:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Pug said:
Ok think of memory his way: divided in Quad Words (128 bits)... You can store and then operate vertices in this way:
10: X1 Y1 Z1 W1 --> Vector V1
11: X2 Y2 Z2 W2 --> Vector V2
12: X3 Y3 Z3 W3 --> Vector V3
13: X4 Y4 Z4 W4 --> Vector V4
Basically a you have an array, your geometry database, that is composed of structures of vector components.
union vecREG {
uint128 reg;
typedef struct vector {
float x:32;
float y:32;
float z:32;
float w:32;
};
}
vecREG arr[MAX_VERTICES];
Then you have an array of these in memory basically as your list of vectors.
SoA stores things this way:
10: X1 X2 X3 X4
11: Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
12: Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4
13: W1 W2 W3 W4
14: X5 X6 X7 X8
11: Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8
12: Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8
13: W5 W6 W7 W8
typedef struct vector4x4 {
float x[4];
float y[4];
float z[4];
float w[4];
};
You are storing 128 bits per memory location or register, but it changes what YOU think it is inside those 128 bits.
Vector Units have registers and you can think of the various fields these registers have as field x, field y, field z and field w. When I say REG1.x I am taking the field of the register that corresponds to that label.
You can name the filds the way you want as logn as you are consistent and this is true for what YOU think it is in them.
Most vector units can be used either in SoA mode or in AoS mode, but not all... standard VMX and SPE ISA ar eused in SoA mode as they lack broadcast math capabilities and/or horizontal math instructions.
This might be helpful: http://www.x86.org/articles/sse_pt3/simd3.htm
mashoutposse
Ante Up
In rebuttal (same article):
Sorry if this isn't new:
SCE boss confirms PS3 backwards compatibility
World not exactly in shock, but nice to know all the same
Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has confirmed that the PlayStation 3 will feature backwards compatibility with the PS2 and PSone, ensuring continued support for older software formats in the new hardware.
Speaking to Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun, Kutaragi-san attributed some of the success of the PS2 to the console's ability to play PSone games as well as PS2 native titles, stating that this was "a matter of security... [PS2] offers a sense of insurance because it is compatible with PSone and DVD-Movies."
This trend - started by Sony with the PS2, as backwards compatibility in home consoles was certainly not the norm before then - is set to continue with the PS3, which will offer emulation for the PS2 and hence for the PSone.
"PSone runs on the PlayStation 2 through emulation rather than actual hardware. PlayStation 3 will offer the same compatibility for PS2 software and the format will continue forever," he explained.
It's expected that Microsoft's successor to the Xbox will also offer backwards compatibility with current hardware - although the recently announced decision to partner with ATI rather than NVIDIA may cause trouble in this respect, according to some graphics experts.
"ATI's hardware runs the same sort of pixel shaders and so on that the NVIDIA chipset does," one graphics programmer working on Xbox games explained to us, "but getting the hardware to exactly mimic the behaviour of an NVIDIA part could be very tricky... It'll be interesting to see if Microsoft can get Xbox 2 to play Xbox games without glitches, especially ones that have been written to tie in closely with the console's specs."
Source
SCE boss confirms PS3 backwards compatibility
World not exactly in shock, but nice to know all the same
Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi has confirmed that the PlayStation 3 will feature backwards compatibility with the PS2 and PSone, ensuring continued support for older software formats in the new hardware.
Speaking to Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun, Kutaragi-san attributed some of the success of the PS2 to the console's ability to play PSone games as well as PS2 native titles, stating that this was "a matter of security... [PS2] offers a sense of insurance because it is compatible with PSone and DVD-Movies."
This trend - started by Sony with the PS2, as backwards compatibility in home consoles was certainly not the norm before then - is set to continue with the PS3, which will offer emulation for the PS2 and hence for the PSone.
"PSone runs on the PlayStation 2 through emulation rather than actual hardware. PlayStation 3 will offer the same compatibility for PS2 software and the format will continue forever," he explained.
It's expected that Microsoft's successor to the Xbox will also offer backwards compatibility with current hardware - although the recently announced decision to partner with ATI rather than NVIDIA may cause trouble in this respect, according to some graphics experts.
"ATI's hardware runs the same sort of pixel shaders and so on that the NVIDIA chipset does," one graphics programmer working on Xbox games explained to us, "but getting the hardware to exactly mimic the behaviour of an NVIDIA part could be very tricky... It'll be interesting to see if Microsoft can get Xbox 2 to play Xbox games without glitches, especially ones that have been written to tie in closely with the console's specs."
Source
Groder Mullet
Member
Beat me to the punch.....
sonycowboy
Member
Amir0x said:
Can someone link the news story where Kutagari (or Kaz??) mentioned that they want to do BC, but they don't want to jeopardize the PS3 feature set to do so, and basically saying he hopes it will have it?
I searched the forums and googled but couldn't find it. Thks.
Roland Hood
Member
Amir0x said:
Yep. That was way back when Kutaragi was still a big shot at Sony.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Redbeard said:
Out of the three who have directly commented on PS3's capabilities relative to XBOX 2's, only one sounds like he has an agenda of come sort:
Hmmmmm.
It also sounds like he has only spoken to XBOX 2 developers.
Ghost of Bill Gates
Banned
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Redbeard said:
I wouldn't be surprised
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Two editors have already responded with opposing viewpoints. They both claim to have heard from devs that the difference between XBOX 2 and PS3 is more than trivial.
Well, this is the ign editor that did a Halo2 article on the ps2 ign section. But that in and of itself doesn't mean much. He does come across as having some kind of agenda at times. He's definitely more pro-xenon than pro-ps3, though i think that's only because he's only seen xenon stuff.Redbeard said:
sonycowboy
Member
mashoutposse said:
Ivan's said alot of things while at IGN. He seems to thrive on riling feathers. He's been pretty brutal about the PS2's technical shortcomings and calling it severely underpowered, etc. He used to be on pc.ign.com, so maybe those are his best contacts and his point of reference.
What's interesting is how we are consistently hearing such disparate stories. IGN & EGM have definitely said that PS3 is significantly more powerful, others tells us the Xenon is going to blow us (and the PS3) away, and then we hear they'll be roughly comparable.
What's unfortunate is that some of these "media" seem to be making their own stories by giving their own speculation which seems to be as uninformed as the rest of us. Are they really not getting any inside dirt at EGM & IGN, but some of our "smaller" media folks at GAF are privy to the interior and giving us any better info??? Or are we just being fed bullshit from all sides?
At this point, we've heard so much different stuff, that I'm pretty much having to throw it all out. I'm sure next gen's graphics will be quite a bit beyond what we've seen, but I'm not truly expecting to be "FUCK AWED" by anything graphically. I've seen the Unreal demos, as well as some other demos, and their beautiful, but it seems more evolutionary than revolutionary to me. What's crazy is that this shows that some media folks who should know better, are lying out of their fucking teeth. We just don't know who it is yet.
E3 should be great, but I'm quite sure Sony and Nintendo aren't going to show their entire hands and I expect Microsoft to lay 90% of it on the line and have probably the single best showing that we've ever seen, and I expect Microsoft to be crowned the next generation champion by many. This should serve them well and I think Sony and Nintendo will take it for a good number of months, until they really start laying it out. there.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
I have a question....and if it's stupid or not appropriate to this thread I apologize. I don't read much of this sort of information but...
How do developer's feel about Sony? I'd say this gen it has an inescapable lead in developer's both east and west. If the system were more capable at this late in the game it would probably have even more of the PC-like content that the Xbox gets exclusive. Now my question is this...are these the sorts of relationships that are built by being the most powerful game in town...or is there the added benefit that Sony is really a good company to develop games for? Or at least license them too? I have no idea what their corporate environment is like or how the licensing structure works.
The reason I ask is I wonder how their momentum will carry to the next gen. I would guess that MS is doing everything in their power to secure a greater breadth of that, and it must seem attractive to some developer's because it's launching first (a big factor, like it or not). If it's likely to be the same, with the same 3rd party support then I would say ....game over already. Even if MS scores a few small coups. Nintendo isn't really worth considering in the "war" aspect. Or will so many of these huge franchises get greedy for the opportunity to jump into new sales and power before it happens all again?
I know some of that is like looking into a crystal ball, but I also know some of you have greater insight into the business aspect of this obsession than I do. Sorry to sidetrack, but I'd love to hear some tidbits about this. Ultimately, it's about who has the games (to me).
How do developer's feel about Sony? I'd say this gen it has an inescapable lead in developer's both east and west. If the system were more capable at this late in the game it would probably have even more of the PC-like content that the Xbox gets exclusive. Now my question is this...are these the sorts of relationships that are built by being the most powerful game in town...or is there the added benefit that Sony is really a good company to develop games for? Or at least license them too? I have no idea what their corporate environment is like or how the licensing structure works.
The reason I ask is I wonder how their momentum will carry to the next gen. I would guess that MS is doing everything in their power to secure a greater breadth of that, and it must seem attractive to some developer's because it's launching first (a big factor, like it or not). If it's likely to be the same, with the same 3rd party support then I would say ....game over already. Even if MS scores a few small coups. Nintendo isn't really worth considering in the "war" aspect. Or will so many of these huge franchises get greedy for the opportunity to jump into new sales and power before it happens all again?
I know some of that is like looking into a crystal ball, but I also know some of you have greater insight into the business aspect of this obsession than I do. Sorry to sidetrack, but I'd love to hear some tidbits about this. Ultimately, it's about who has the games (to me).
A little over 2 months until we know about both of these systems.
Honestly, who cares? You're all going to buy the Xbox 2, and when the PS3 comes out, you'll buy that too. Everyone will act like <insert series from this generation> is important, and of course it won't mean jack crap compared to some other series we weren't counting on. Microsoft will get an exclusive like Ninja Gaiden or Panzer Dragoon Orta again, and it'll sell well below expectations. Capcom will release Resident Evil 5 for the PS3, expecting 5 million in sales, only to find out that the Cube really wasn't holding them back. Square will finally make a completely real-time 3D Final Fantasy game, but Western sales of the game will reach an all-time low.
And all the technology in the world won't make gamers have any better taste than they do now. What's getting hotter will continue that way. What's on its way out will continue that way. I'm more excited about the Revolution. At least there's a crazy gimmick or two in that, and not just technology that the average gamer neither understands nor appreciates.
Honestly, who cares? You're all going to buy the Xbox 2, and when the PS3 comes out, you'll buy that too. Everyone will act like <insert series from this generation> is important, and of course it won't mean jack crap compared to some other series we weren't counting on. Microsoft will get an exclusive like Ninja Gaiden or Panzer Dragoon Orta again, and it'll sell well below expectations. Capcom will release Resident Evil 5 for the PS3, expecting 5 million in sales, only to find out that the Cube really wasn't holding them back. Square will finally make a completely real-time 3D Final Fantasy game, but Western sales of the game will reach an all-time low.
And all the technology in the world won't make gamers have any better taste than they do now. What's getting hotter will continue that way. What's on its way out will continue that way. I'm more excited about the Revolution. At least there's a crazy gimmick or two in that, and not just technology that the average gamer neither understands nor appreciates.