NVIDIA Helping Sony with PS3 GPU
- Thread starter Lazy8s
- Start date
Nothing, nothing...I was just dreaming
.Just suppose, like all people here suppose, we have a system with 2 PEs, one for the CPU and one for the GPU.
In my mind the GPU is absolutelly free from T&L load. It just does pixel operations.
Anyways we are talking about 256-256 GFLOPS from each part.
XBOX on the other hand will feature a 80 GFLOP CPU and an ATI GPU. This ATI pirece should deliver 432 GFLOP in order to equal PS3 figures. 423 GFLOP...not NVFLOPS or ATIFLOPS or OURUFLOPS... Highly unlikely.
Then again why Sony should bother so much about PS3 when they could be on par with XB2 with just one PE and a silly GPU (just a rasterizer with a couple of functions like the GS) ? Here is where the equation fails... I have no answer.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
You wouldn't happen to remember when that quote was uttered? I don't need a link, I beleive you, I just would like to know the timeline of events.cybamerc said:
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
shpankey said:
Probably because that 2004 PS2 software is running on 1999 PS2 hardware, making the comparison valid
mashoutposse, I only say there will be little or no difference as many people including yourself tend to think that games like GT4 look better than any racer on Xbox (which is a fair point). Xbox has graphics technology 1.5 years ahead of the PS2. With the next gen, we noe know that all the machines are using PC solutions for GPU and they will release within 3-6 months of each other. So if the gap for 1.5 is small the gap for say 4 months will be tiny, its nothing to do with machine support, I will be queuing for PS3 on launch date like many others, but if this was a PR by MS it would have been roundly slated. For the record it reads to me that a Nvidia GPU solution is going to be used in a machine containing cell technolgy, but hey that how I've read it.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
shpankey said:
Because "2004 PS2 software" is still running on the same unaltered 2000 PS2 hardware.
PC graphics hardware wasn't even close to matching PS2 performance, much less exceeding it.
shpankey
not an idiot
Not when he was quoting me when I was refering to hardware.Freeburn said:Probably because that 2004 PS2 software is running on 1999 PS2 hardware, making the comparison valid
He was talking hardware (or at least I understood it that way). If he was meaning software then my bad.mashoutposse said:
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
seanoff said:
I think that is what has a lot of us thinking in the same direction.
Canning the NV48, due to it being a '20Mhz' refresh was understandable, no-one has really put forward a similar justification for the NV50 being canned, most sites that reported this seemed to add a "wtf are they up to?" or a "they must have something else but what???" element to the end of such articles, although there were a few that put forward the notion that the whole ATI/WGF relationship has affected Nvidias roadmap.
Interesting to speculate, but ultimately it's stil going to be a while before anything is really known about what they are up to.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Pug said:
If you consider the current crop of consoles "practically the same" graphically (and I share that sentiment), then I agree that the PS3 and XBOX 2 will likely be just as close.
Still, based on what we've seen, it looks like NVidia completely abandoned their previous plans for future GPUs, and I can't help but think that this project has something to do with it...
acklame said:The pr doesn't give a definintive answer about either way and it really depends on how you read it. It's just that the supposed NV50 cancellation last week may simply be a coincidence....or not
Well, it would have just said "NVIDIA is developing the GPU for the next generation PlayStation system". But it's doesn't. So there is clearly a collaboration in "development" (not just "impementation") terms between Sony and NVIDIA.
IMO of coz.
XboxGamers
Member
Toy Story 2!
It just doesn't fit. Assuming CELL is doing all the T&L, then the GPU just needs to be a really fast rasteriser/shader. How are the current PC cards set up? Are they separate T&L chips, or all on one?
PC chips seem focussed on resolution and T&L, offloading CPU load. I don't see thats what Sony wants.
Maybe its dangerous to speculate on the architecture as it could be significantly customised for console needs.
As for a CELL GPU, I don't see that in the release, just different reading of the words. Although Sony *could* use some kind of two-way licensing to get NVidia onboard with lower costs, and in return get inroads into the PC graphics card game.
PC chips seem focussed on resolution and T&L, offloading CPU load. I don't see thats what Sony wants.
Maybe its dangerous to speculate on the architecture as it could be significantly customised for console needs.
As for a CELL GPU, I don't see that in the release, just different reading of the words. Although Sony *could* use some kind of two-way licensing to get NVidia onboard with lower costs, and in return get inroads into the PC graphics card game.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
shpankey said:
If the PS2 is generating graphics that far exceed what is possible with even the highest end PC hardware of its time, then what is it exactly that makes that PC hardware superior? Hardware is more or less defined by its software, and graphically, there is a wide gulf between PS2 and, say, a Geforce 256.
J. Horwitz
Member
As correctly assumed by the skeptics here, the two-year number is sleight of hand. As of one year ago, the collaboration between nVidia and Sony was apparently not finalized, and rather was being explored as one of two or more PS3 GPU possibilities. Sony attempted but apparently failed to develop a graphics solution in-house, and as I understand it was approached by nVidia with the suggestion that a competitive solution would require shader and other technologies Sony was ill-equipped to deliver on par with ATI's Xbox2/NR chips.
From what was said by an nVidia insider at the time, Sony's in-house solution was set to be little more than a dramatic polygon count evolution of the PS2's graphics chip, scaled in rough approximation to the PS1-PS2 jump, with relatively few new hardware effects (and perhaps lacking support for emergent display technologies). The theory behind nVidia's discussions with Sony was that the Japanese hardware and software development communities had generally missed the boat on the various next-generation shadowing, texturing, shading, and geometry technologies incorporated into ATI and nVidia chipsets, and consequently had fallen behind Western developers on the software development curve for such features.
Now that all of the major console hardware players have partnered with Western graphics chipmakers, the expectation is that the next generation (or two) of software will begin to show more dramatic visual gains than the last one did. EA's recent "screenshots", for example, aren't too far off from reality except in the specifics.
From what was said by an nVidia insider at the time, Sony's in-house solution was set to be little more than a dramatic polygon count evolution of the PS2's graphics chip, scaled in rough approximation to the PS1-PS2 jump, with relatively few new hardware effects (and perhaps lacking support for emergent display technologies). The theory behind nVidia's discussions with Sony was that the Japanese hardware and software development communities had generally missed the boat on the various next-generation shadowing, texturing, shading, and geometry technologies incorporated into ATI and nVidia chipsets, and consequently had fallen behind Western developers on the software development curve for such features.
Now that all of the major console hardware players have partnered with Western graphics chipmakers, the expectation is that the next generation (or two) of software will begin to show more dramatic visual gains than the last one did. EA's recent "screenshots", for example, aren't too far off from reality except in the specifics.
Heh well if we use anandtech as a wayback machine, in March 2000 it was around the GeForce256 era (which sort of makes sense, if xbox = NV2A)
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1190
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1190
IBM/Toshiba gain from cross licencing with NVidia because the more chips they sell the more money comes in, the more money comes in the more the development costs get spread, the less risk involved.
U think IBM and Toshiba did this to help sony. No they did it to make money. If they can get someone like Nvidia using their tech it make all the more sense and they all make more money. Nvidia if the chip is a beast, IBM/Toshiba because they get some royalties from every chip, sony because they get Nvidias help for a dimunition of their royalties from the chip and the PS3 gets a fully resolved graphics development environment.
Fuck!! How do u think business operates. Its not a collection of fucking fanboys.
http://theinquirer.org/?article=8094TekunoRobby said:
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
DSN2K said:Panajev hinted at this a very long time ago, wonder if he knew anything.
Considering how quiet Nvidia has been and all the hints in the past, speculating it wouldn't have been that hard.
EDIT: Thank you very much cybamerc!
mashoutposse
Ante Up
That's true. But do you really think that a GF256 compares to the PS2, regardless?
And yes, the PS2 came out almost simultaneously with the GF256, a full three generations back from the GF4 series.
Freeburn said:
That's what I'm thinking.
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
Pug said:
Because appeasing the curiousity of 1000's of internet-addled gamers & would-be anal cysts is a low priority to them?
Because in a world of intense competition you hold your cards close to the chest until you need to show them?
Because we're just shooting crap out of our mouths because speculation is, like, fun?
Pick one.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Pug said:
Why would NVidia reveal something like that while they are currently embroiled in a hard fought GPU war and are looking for every advantage?
If the speculation in this thread is on track, I'm sure that NVidia would love ATi to continue along its path of development until it is too late.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Awesome! I personally thought that Sony would be going with someone on the outside to help provide for a super-VPU, but nVidia's involvment is surprising! Should be incredibly interesting to see how the two systems (Xenon and PS3) and the future of Nvidia's GPU line turn out. Heh...poor Nintendo...hopefully, Revolution will be all that it's cracked up to be, as far as revolutionary design goes...'cause it looks squarely out of the visuals race at this point.
MightyHedgehog
Member
mashoutposse said:
I'm sure that Ati's been aware of this for a while. Stuff like this can't be a secret to everybody.
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
You people with your negativity, reserve judgement until we know what type of hardware it is (Revolution) or what the hardware might be capable of (Xbox 2 and PS3). All this doom and gloom based on such limited information is getting to be silly.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Well, not to totally derail this or anything, but I just don't hold out much hope for Nintendo on the visual capability end...they always seem to end up with generally middle of the road capability, relative to their competitors.TekunoRobby said:
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
As acklame said, this is a VERY interesting part:
Sure hearing about the Nvidia and Sony venture will be awesome for the PS3 but I'm really excited to see what else Sony does with the GPU for other products and what Nvidia brings from that venture to the PC sector.
Sure hearing about the Nvidia and Sony venture will be awesome for the PS3 but I'm really excited to see what else Sony does with the GPU for other products and what Nvidia brings from that venture to the PC sector.