How does MS feel about ATI's GPU problems

[BenSkywalker]

Your telling me that the Cell processors can calculate over 30000 physics objects at one time?

IIRC Sony's leaf demo was doing more then that- though I don't recall the exact number off the top of my head.

Cell is still based around a general processing unit. While the PPC chip is based solely to do exactly one thing and thats Physics.

The PPC isn't based on a general processing unit it IS a general processing unit. MS went with three PowerPC cores running in tandem- Sony went with a single PowerPC core and a bunch of vector units(not quite, but close enough) for Cell. Cell is without a doubt the design more naturally suited to handle complex physics model. MS's design choice has its own strengths, but physics calculations(outside of DSP functions) would likely be their weakest comparison against Cell.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The Gamecube team and the Xbox360 GPU team operate completely independently because that would be a serious conflict of interest to have the same team working for two competiting console vendors.

The team that created the GPU for the XBox was the same team that created the graphics chip for the Sega Saturn and are now creating the graphics chip for the PS3. GameCube and XB360 are two different generations- it doesn't mean anything at all that the design team working on the XB360 is the same team that worked on the GC and the N64.

Eh, I think all of nvidia more or less made the saturn graphics chip, since it was also their PC chip at the time, same for XGPU and PS3 gpu.

BTW, Nintendo got dibs on the team that made the GameCube and N64 gpu, the x360 gpu team and the Nintendo team aren't allowed to really work together. Doesn't mean that the team that worked on the Gamecube wasn't split up a little perhaps, but I believe it's more of the Real3d team that's working on the x360 gpu.(I think the real3d team may have even had previous interaction with microsoft?)

 

[BenSkywalker]

BTW, Nintendo got dibs on the team that made the GameCube and N64 gpu, the x360 gpu team and the Nintendo team aren't allowed to really work together. Doesn't mean that the team that worked on the Gamecube wasn't split up a little perhaps, but I believe it's more of the Real3d team that's working on the x360 gpu.(I think the real3d team may have even had previous interaction with microsoft?)

I think you have that backwards. The Revolution is simply using a PC based R520 offering, the ArtX team has been working on the chip that will now be used in the XB360 since they finished the R300.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Your telling me that the Cell processors can calculate over 30000 physics objects at one time?

IIRC Sony's leaf demo was doing more then that- though I don't recall the exact number off the top of my head.

Cell is still based around a general processing unit. While the PPC chip is based solely to do exactly one thing and thats Physics.

The PPC isn't based on a general processing unit it IS a general processing unit. MS went with three PowerPC cores running in tandem- Sony went with a single PowerPC core and a bunch of vector units(not quite, but close enough) for Cell. Cell is without a doubt the design more naturally suited to handle complex physics model. MS's design choice has its own strengths, but physics calculations(outside of DSP functions) would likely be their weakest comparison against Cell.

unfortunately the PS3's cell is good only at 1 thing and this physics or other pure math that does not take much chache. The cell's 7 extra cores are not flexible at all. It has only 1 general multipuropse useful core with 7 extra cores to boost math performance. The Xbox360's cpu si much beter rounded is more flexible. It dosent have the brute strength, but i believe it can do much better in general.

also, remember sony said all the demos were prerendered. The Xbox360 stuff are runnning decently on alpha dev kits.

 

[BenSkywalker]

also, remember sony said all the demos were prerendered.

Actually- they never said anything remotely close to being like that and in certain instances explicitly stated the exact opposite. The leaf demo was one they stated was real time.

As far as Cell being better in math- what do you think the XB360's CPU is better at- arts&literature? History?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

BTW, Nintendo got dibs on the team that made the GameCube and N64 gpu, the x360 gpu team and the Nintendo team aren't allowed to really work together. Doesn't mean that the team that worked on the Gamecube wasn't split up a little perhaps, but I believe it's more of the Real3d team that's working on the x360 gpu.(I think the real3d team may have even had previous interaction with microsoft?)

I think you have that backwards. The Revolution is simply using a PC based R520 offering, the ArtX team has been working on the chip that will now be used in the XB360 since they finished the R300.

Lol, nothing has been said about what the Revolution's gpu will be based on, but due to it having backwards compatibility with gamecube, it has been highly rumored that it will use an evolved version of Flipper.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Lol, nothing has been said about what the Revolution's gpu will be based on

There is information available on what Revs GPU is based on, didn't actually think it was that hard to find either.

but due to it having backwards compatibility with gamecube, it has been highly rumored that it will use an evolved version of Flipper.

That is a fairly stupid rumor if you think about it. Is the RSX an evolved GS? Is the R500 an evolved NV2A?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Lol, nothing has been said about what the Revolution's gpu will be based on

There is information available on what Revs GPU is based on, didn't actually think it was that hard to find either.

but due to it having backwards compatibility with gamecube, it has been highly rumored that it will use an evolved version of Flipper.

That is a fairly stupid rumor if you think about it. Is the RSX an evolved GS? Is the R500 an evolved NV2A?

X360 doesn't have full backwards compatibility, they're emulating games on a case by case basis. Revolution will play all gamecube games.
And I don't think it's been revealed if PS3 has hardware or software backwards compatibility, they could potentially include the GS in it.

 

[BenSkywalker]

X360 doesn't have full backwards compatibility, they're emulating games on a case by case basis.

That is true. Some of the shadowing techniques utilized in some games is going to give them problems not to mention the fact that the processors are quite different.

Revolution will play all gamecube games.
And I don't think it's been revealed if PS3 has hardware or software backwards compatibility, they could potentially include the GS in it.

If you take a look at the R520 it lacks nothing the GC has for features or performance- the Revolution will also be capable of playing N64, SNES and NES games also- doesn't mean they need a SFX chip in there Even the eDRAM the GC is packing isn't up to par with the system level RAM the Revolution will be using.

For the PS3 the RSX is superior to the GS in almost everything(latency to front buffer being the only weakness I can think off of the top of my head) so I'm not seeing them needing a GS included.

 

[Fox5]

R520(which I'm pretty sure rev isn't using) has hardware that will be compatible with assembly coding for the TEV in Flipper?

 

[BenSkywalker]

R520(which I'm pretty sure rev isn't using) has hardware that will be compatible with assembly coding for the TEV in Flipper?

The TEV only offers a subset of the capabilities of SM2.0- the R520 derived part will be a SM 3.0 part and should handle the assembly level functionality of the TEV without issue. Pretty much all shader code for SM1.x level hardware was written in assembly- that doesn't mean it is mapped directly to the hardware.

 

[VIAN]

I think the GPUs for X360 are custom X360 chips. ATI is having problems with the manufacturing process, X360 probably has a higher process than what ATI is trying to do.

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The Gamecube team and the Xbox360 GPU team operate completely independently because that would be a serious conflict of interest to have the same team working for two competiting console vendors.

The team that created the GPU for the XBox was the same team that created the graphics chip for the Sega Saturn and are now creating the graphics chip for the PS3. GameCube and XB360 are two different generations- it doesn't mean anything at all that the design team working on the XB360 is the same team that worked on the GC and the N64.

That's a much different scenario. None of those projects were the same company developing two competing products in parallel.

It was clearly stated on Beyond3D's Xenos article that the teams are completely seperate

from http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/index.php?p=04

(We've heard comments from developers familiar to both designs that this element of Xenos bears similarities to the "Flipper" design for Nintendo's Gamecude, a part that was originally designed by ArtX, who of course were subsequently purchase by ATI, however ATI are keen to point out that while there may be apparent similarities the designs are entirely independent as there are distinct virtual and physical barriers between the groups working on the various console developments, past and present, and no members of the Flipper architecture team were involved in Xenos's development).

 

[g3pro]

The Xbox 360 is said to have shortages on release day. Due to ATi's yields? Maybe so.