Playstation 3 to use nvidia graphics?

Drunken_Donkey said:
The ps3 is going with the cell processor not a G5
Click to expand...

The cell processor is pretty much a multicore PowerPC 970, aka the G5.

The 970 is the basis for both the xbox2 (which will have multiple chips) and the cell (multiple cores on a single chip).

IBM is also making the chip for the new Nintendo machine. Anyone want to take bets on whether it will use the PPC 970 as well? :D

Slashdot has more information: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/05/2332221&tid=137&tid=136&tid=10

-MrD
 
Framerate said:
They won't be able to have a very large online community if they release the console in limited quantities next year. They should just wait a couple of years when all of the games are done and when they have suficient quantities of the console instead of realeasing just a few with barely any games. It is a waste of man power in every aspect.
Click to expand...

Well, we know that any products using a Cell won't appear until 2006. The belief right now is that Microsoft will launch Xbox 2 in Q4 2005, Sony will launch the PS3 in early 2006 (let's say March, since they seem to love that month), and Nintendo will come in about the same time as Sony, or maybe a little later. They aren't rushing into this. But the thing about console launches is that they always have only a few titles. It's just how the industry operates. Obviously, the more the better, but development schedules and competition over hardware sales complicates things (just look at how few launch titles the DS has, plus its various firmware bugs--Nintendo rushed it to beat the PSP.)

Plus, in an era of increasing development time, Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony can't wait three years while developers learn the console's tricks and go through the development process. Ain't gonna happen. What we can hope for is a strong killer app lineup with online gaming capabilities. Example: Mario Kart with an online 8-player Grand Prix mode, or an online battle arena complete with rankings and spectator abilities. But hoping for a glut of online games right at the launch isn't going to work.
 
I am talking about this statement:

"When is the Playstation 3 out? Apparently in limited quantities next year and in spates the year after. The graphics chip will be made by Sony at its Nagasaki Fab Two and at a joint venture fab owned by Tosh-Sony."

If it is impossible to find the consoles then it will sure as hell be impossible to find the games that are out. I can only see there being a demo disk coming with the system. Who wants a dinky demo disk when they just spent $$$ for a console. I want a game that I can just simply go to my local Best Buy or EB and pick up. But with limited availability of the console, it is almost impossible to predict the amount of copies of a game that need to be made. Of course then again they could just make mass amounts that will be readily available when they release their unlimited supply of the PS3s.
 
On a side note here, I just though I'd clarify a little something about Xbox2. People seem to be under the misconception that NVIDIA 'lost' the contract to ATI, and that this will benefit ATI.

MS did in fact offer the Xbox2 contract to NVIDIA, but they turned it down, because the licensing terms of that contract were definately NOT in NVIDIA's favor (that's generally how MS operates). The contract (presented to both ATI and NVIDIA), was a raw deal, with MS keeping IP rights to the chip. While it is true that ATI gains a little more brand recognition to the masses by working on Xbox2, in the end, they are actually taking a hit on those console sales to further their marketing position.

I'm not saying that's a bad way of doing business, but working on Xbox2 is in fact hurting ATI rather than helping.
 
I'm not saying that's a bad way of doing business, but working on Xbox2 is in fact hurting ATI rather than helping.
Click to expand...

Of course we really have no proof of this, why don't you atleast wait until the console is out to make your assumptions
 
I think sony and microsoft have seen that gamers today pay over $2000 for a pc to play online games and this makes me believe that the next consoles will not be in $$300-400but in $500-$700 range... About consoles being more powerfull then pc's? rofl. Pc's will always be gods to consoles...
 
geekcomputing said:
but the relations were so bad that microsoft screwed them on the nv30 (5800) by not using fp16 or 32 but instead ati's 24. so it gave nvidia horrible dx9 performance.
Click to expand...

Actually, nVidia wanted to break from Microsoft and thier DirectX 8.1 standard at the time to create thier own standard in hopes it would garner wider support. So nVidia made CG (which likes fp32), built hardware around it, and tried to get developer support. Well CG didn't take off, and along came DirectX 9 (which likes fp24). The rest is history. Atleast this is how I think it went down. :)
 
eXzite said:
I'm not saying that's a bad way of doing business, but working on Xbox2 is in fact hurting ATI rather than helping.
Click to expand...
Yes, most companies love to sign contracts they know are going to lose money. :rolleyes:
 
So...I wonder who will have better graphics, the xBox or the Gamecube, seeing as how both their GPU's are going to be made by ATI...
 
"Actually, nVidia wanted to break from Microsoft and thier DirectX 8.1 standard at the time to create thier own standard in hopes it would garner wider support. So nVidia made CG (which likes fp32), built hardware around it, and tried to get developer support. Well CG didn't take off, and along came DirectX 9 (which likes fp24). The rest is history. Atleast this is how I think it went down. "

yea.. i agree.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
I'm just amazed that sony didn't design their own chip. And that, after all their problems with M$ and the Xbox1, nvidia still went the console route...
Click to expand...

i don't think you read the article very good


with the xbox, i believe nvidia designed the chip, had them made at TSMC, and then sold them to ms who assembled the xbox...

this time around, i believe nvidia is designing the chip.. sony is producing it, sony is assembling it into the ps3, and sony is selling the ps3... and then giving nvidia like 5 bucks/pop for their design efforts... so this is really a better deal for both sony AND for nvidia, and probably assures that a much better product will be produced, since nvidia doesn't have to worry about producting costs and profit margins... since they will basically be getting nothing but profit once the design is completed...

good move for nvidia... sony could probably design their own graphics chip(or get somebody else to do it)... but nvidia is a big name that alot of people know, and they also know their business pretty damn good..

also, nvidia is up to something over there in california, i don't know what it is, but they have suddenly become awful shady the last few weeks, i can't help but think some of this was centered around this announcement, but there is more going on over there, i assure you
 
Verge said:
i don't think you read the article very good


with the xbox, i believe nvidia designed the chip, had them made at TSMC, and then sold them to ms who assembled the xbox...

this time around, i believe nvidia is designing the chip.. sony is producing it, sony is assembling it into the ps3, and sony is selling the ps3... and then giving nvidia like 5 bucks/pop for their design efforts... so this is really a better deal for both sony AND for nvidia, and probably assures that a much better product will be produced, since nvidia doesn't have to worry about producting costs and profit margins... since they will basically be getting nothing but profit once the design is completed...

good move for nvidia... sony could probably design their own graphics chip(or get somebody else to do it)... but nvidia is a big name that alot of people know, and they also know their business pretty damn good..

also, nvidia is up to something over there in california, i don't know what it is, but they have suddenly become awful shady the last few weeks, i can't help but think some of this was centered around this announcement, but there is more going on over there, i assure you
Click to expand...

yeah I think that's a good take on it...within 2 weeks nvidia has announced deals with intel and sony...I must say...they've been busy...
 
geekcomputing said:
well... seems a lot of you are ill informed so.. here goes.

1st off nvidia got a 200 million upfront payment from microshaft for the xbox. thats quite a lot for an initial start.

2nd after completing the xbox chip which was a geforce 3/4 hybrid i belive if memory serves me right , microsoft then decided that they, being microsoft can fuck anyone , decided to fuck nvidia by demanding a lower price per chip so low in fact that nvidia would be selling chips at a LOSS! eventually nvdia won..... but the relations were so bad that microsoft screwed them on the nv30 (5800) by not using fp16 or 32 but instead ati's 24. so it gave nvidia horrible dx9 performance.

i see a lot of people saying that nvidia is gong to exit the graphics card market for computers.
i dont knwo what you are smoking but that is their core compentency and no way in hell that will ever happen. in fact it will only make their graphics card business stronger due to additional R&D. i would guess sony will be paying a % of the tab on the ps3 r&d which will only benefit nvidia.

combine that w/ SLI and the recent intel agreements (aka nforce 5 for intel and some nice front side bus technology) and times are goign to get very very interestign.
Click to expand...
I like how everyone is blaming the NV3X performance on everyone but nvidia, microsoft didn't force them to make a chip with lackluster FP performance, it was nvidia, and they've redeemed their self.
And how does microsoft not use FP16 or FP32? You must be on crack
I mean wtf, 24FP precision is good enough atm, and thats years after the spec was made, why not have 24FP the min "full" precision?
It's good to see posts of people defending nvidia, because I know who's a real nvidia !!!!!! so I will keep an eye on them for comical purposes. :eek:
 
Moloch said:
I like how everyone is blaming the NV3X performance on everyone but nvidia, microsoft didn't force them to make a chip with lackluster FP performance, it was nvidia, and they've redeemed their self.
And how does microsoft not use FP16 or FP32? You must be on crack
I mean wtf, 24FP precision is good enough atm, and thats years after the spec was made, why not have 24FP the min "full" precision?
It's good to see posts of people defending nvidia, because I know who's a real nvidia !!!!!! so I will keep an eye on them for comical purposes. :eek:
Click to expand...

this is a really deep and socially significant post coming from one of the biggest ati fans on the board... :rolleyes:
 
And to put to bed the constant comments about how this or that next gen console will beat computer hardware available at release... no they won't. There may have been a time early on when that happened, but not any more, and not for the forseeable future. One simple reason is that initial price aside, no console vendor is going to put a cutting edge GPU in their box that needs cooling like a 6800GT or X800XT. You can't passively cool them, the active coolers require fast moving fans. If the cooling fails or gets blocked for even a short time you have $400 in dead video. Console vendors can't afford that. Anyone remember how the Xbox went fanless on the video after the first gen? That was Microsoft getting a big "no duh" wake-up call about why fans in high abuse appliances are a bad idea. It's also why they'd like to dump the hard disk. (although stopping modders and feature hackers must be up there. Boy does the Xbox makes a good streaming media player) ;)
 
mickey987 said:
So...I wonder who will have better graphics, the xBox or the Gamecube, seeing as how both their GPU's are going to be made by ATI...
Click to expand...

I think you mean "Xbox2" and "Revolution." Honestly, Xbox and Gamecube are about equal in terms of graphics power. I don't see any differences between the GC and Xbox versions of Soul Calibur 2. The PS2, however, is lagging behind in terms of technology.
 
Just a quote about PlayStation3's GPU from NVIDIA's CEO.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1737183,00.asp
It will be a custom GPU, not based on an existing architecture," said Jen-Hsun Huang, speaking at an "Editor's Day" for reporters and analysts at the company's Santa Clara, Calif.-based headquarters. "It will be based on an architecture under development." Neither Nvidia nor Sony disclosed further details about the new architecture.
Click to expand...
 
ShePearl said:
XBOX2 will simply blow any PCs in near future out of water.
Click to expand...

You do understand that most console info leaks are either wrong, or are just flat-out hoaxes, right?
 
Terpfen said:
You do understand that most console info leaks are either wrong, or are just flat-out hoaxes, right?
Click to expand...

Considering most of the recent ones have come from developers themselves... I'd say they're pretty damn close..
 
DropTech said:
Considering most of the recent ones have come from developers themselves... I'd say they're pretty damn close..
Click to expand...

Anything can change. A good example is the DS: look at how much it changed from its announcement back in January to its release just a couple weeks ago, specs-wise and design-wise. Heck, the consoles themselves change over the course of their lives: hardware is refined to be a little more efficient, a little more durable; BIOSes are updated; firmware is revised. More extremely, hardware specs could change due to shifts in pricing, or news about what a competitor is doing.

We'll know what the Xbox 2's specs are in a couple of months. We'll know about the PS3's specs when E3 rolls around. We'll find out about the Revolution at Spaceworld. We won't find out about them from one of dozens of leaks.

ShePearl said:
Yeah, most of them are.
Click to expand...

Just making sure. :)
 
lithium726 said:
there is no way in hell they could sell that for 300 dollars.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they didn't just make it a round dozen 25Ghz processors on that diagram with an (air cooled) 2 Terahertz graphics core, just to get everyone really souped up for the release.

Is there actually any benefit to having 3 processors on a system that only needs to perform one task at a time i.e. play games? Surely the GPU will become a bottleneck long before 3 big CPUs run out of steam?
 
The point of the those (supposed) 10.5GHZ of powar is that the console will be heavily multi-threaded, hardcore physics, AI, and whatever else run natively. It may not happen, but it is a distinct possibility. 21billion operations per second is nothing to bat an eyelash at.
 
The reasons for the multi-cpu is the physics and such which will be implemented. If you take a look at the xbox 2 tech demo ... where the car runs into different obstacles it deforms real time. IE it deforms according to what it hit. This is a hell of a lot o stress to put on one CPU.
 
I will put large sums of money that there aren't 3 identical physical CPU's in the Xbox2 (99% sure the "leaked" specs showing that are pure bullshit). 1-2 dual core chips, or 1-2 single core chips - sure - no way in hell would you complicate the design of the hardware (significantly upping costs) by adding a third CPU without adding a fourth. I kinda doubt that they'll have 2 cpus in there. Seems to make much more sense to use a single dual core chip, because cost and heat are HUGE issues.

On a side note - if anyone could point me to a real world three cpu implementation I'd appreciate it. I've never actually heard of one. (multiproc boxes with 4+ cpus that can hot-swap them out don't count)
 
[H]Rabbit said:
I will put large sums of money that there aren't 3 identical physical CPU's in the Xbox2 (99% sure the "leaked" specs showing that are pure bullshit). 1-2 dual core chips, or 1-2 single core chips - sure - no way in hell would you complicate the design of the hardware (significantly upping costs) by adding a third CPU without adding a fourth. I kinda doubt that they'll have 2 cpus in there. Seems to make much more sense to use a single dual core chip, because cost and heat are HUGE issues.

On a side note - if anyone could point me to a real world three cpu implementation I'd appreciate it. I've never actually heard of one. (multiproc boxes with 4+ cpus that can hot-swap them out don't count)
Click to expand...

God forbid Microsoft releases some sort on new technology for the xbox. Oh !!!n0es!!! what will pc gamers do.
 
According to article the CPUs only due a mere 2 IPC for a total of 21billion instr/sec. Today's AMD64 3000 can do around 12 IPC @ 2GHz for a total of 24billion instr/sec. Those CPUs in the xenon are probably much cheaper to make.
 
lithium726 said:
there is no way in hell they could sell that for 300 dollars.
Click to expand...
It depends on how integrated it is. 3 cores doesn't mean 3 CPUs. All can be on the same chip.

If the CPU cores and northbridge are on one chip, there's no reason for the cost of the whole package to exceed what a current CPU costs (~$40 to manufacture). Even GPUs are not much more costly to manufacture. And those are the 2 most expensive parts in the console. The CPU(s) do not have to be 100% compatible with any current chips, so they can be less complex.

I think it is possible to manufacture and sell what's in that diagram for $300, easily.

But specs slip all the time and who knows what Xenon or PS3 will actually have. The PS3's Cell CPU will likely be weaker than initially hinted due to nvidia making the GPU now, and the first spec on the Xenon that looks like it will be reduced is the 3.5GHz core speed (also the 500MHz "3D core"... just due to heat reasons unless some breakthrough can somehow cut power in 1/2).
 
gwu168 said:
According to article the CPUs only due a mere 2 IPC for a total of 21billion instr/sec. Today's AMD64 3000 can do around 12 IPC @ 2GHz for a total of 24billion instr/sec.
Click to expand...
Not really. Although the Opteron and Athlon 64 can retire 3 instructions per clock, that doesn't mean you can retire 3 128-bit SIMD (4 32-bit operands) per clock. The retire rate for 128-bit SIMD on the Athlon 64/Opteron is 1.5 instructions per clock (see the Athlon 64 optimization guide). So peak execution rate is actually 1/2 of what you think it can do.

The peak rate of SIMD execution on a 2GHz Athlon 64 3000+ (your example) is 2 billion clocks/s * 1.5 instructions/clock * 4 ops/instruction = 12 billion ops per second. To sustain that rate (data set larger than D cache size, for example) requires over 7x more bandwidth than dual channel PC3200 provides. So the peak number is a maximum rate, not sustained performance (picky, I know, but also realistic)...

a 128-bit operand is 16 bytes, executing 1.5 per clock at 2GHz sustained speed requires:
2x10^9 clocks/s * 16 bytes/op * 1.5 ops/clock = 48x10^9 bytes/s, ~44.7GB/s

If the 2 instructions that the Xenon CPUs retire per clock are SIMD (AltiVec), as you chose for your peak rate A64 example, the peak rate jumps much higher than your estimate: 3.5GHz * 4 * 3 * x = 42 billion/s - 84 billion/s depending on how many SIMD ops per clock (x = 1 or 2) it can execute. It also has the same sustained performance bandwith problems as a PC, actually worse since the 3 CPUs share bandwidth with each other and the GPU. And don't forget in the Mac/PPC world that the SIMD MAC (multiply and accumulate) instruction "doubles" the GFLOPS rate since it performs 2 operations in the same clock. That's why I would go for x=2 in the last equation.
 
pxc said:
It depends on how integrated it is. 3 cores doesn't mean 3 CPUs. All can be on the same chip.

If the CPU cores and northbridge are on one chip, there's no reason for the cost of the whole package to exceed what a current CPU costs (~$40 to manufacture). Even GPUs are not much more costly to manufacture. And those are the 2 most expensive parts in the console. The CPU(s) do not have to be 100% compatible with any current chips, so they can be less complex.

I think it is possible to manufacture and sell what's in that diagram for $300, easily.

.
Click to expand...
well, i knew it was a tri core they are tlaking about (which i dont really believe) but i was thinking consumer level costs and my prices got all outta whack
tongue.gif
you got a good point, i wasnt thinking about the pure cost it takes the make the chip
 
ps3 will be a beast! i don't think that xbox 2 will top it, and sertenly not the "revolution".

go playstation!
 
iori yagami said:
ps3 will be a beast! i don't think that xbox 2 will top it, and sertenly not the "revolution".

go playstation!
Click to expand...
thats "certainly," and what do you have against nintendo?
 
lithium726 said:
thats "certainly," and what do you have against nintendo?
Click to expand...

word.. nintendo pwns all... I don't even care for the xbox.. but I have boycotted sony ever since they slaped the precious n64 silly...
 
the announce for the xbox next is early jan!!
the ps3 announce is in mars!!

but e3 all console will be complete and running!!! :D
 
From what I read, Sony and NVidia will be working together for the gpu of the ps3, not just nvidia alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top