theInq: PS3 hardware slow and broken

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
AFTER BREAKING THE news to me about PS3 RSX speeds earlier on the flight to Japan, my row-mate said 'if you think that's interesting, wait till you see this. Cell is hurting, badly'.
For those of you that believe in religions with karmic tendencies, scoops like this meant one of two things, the wings of the plane are about to fall off and I am going to die in a fiery ball, or worse yet, the movie selection will be worrisome. Cell memory access appears to be broken, RSX has half the triangle setup rate of the ATI chip in XBox360, and the true horror, Big Momma's House 2 and a Queen Latifa movie.

With the movie selection still making my brain throb from the glances I caught, I furiously took notes on what the source was saying. He started out saying that the RSX can only write about half as much vertex data as it can fetch, not an ideal situation by any stretch, but survivable.

Then came the horrible news, RSX appears to be limited to setting up 275 Million triangles/second, anemic compared to the 500+ million in XBox360. When asked about this apparent thumping dished out by MS, the reply from one notable ISV relations boffin was a terse 'What a Piece of Junk'. Talk about a steak in the heart.

Half the triangle setup capability in the PS3, could things get worse? Yes, far far worse, how about another disparity of three orders of magnitude? No, I am not joking, looking at Sony's own figures, Cell appears to be pretty badly broken.

For main memory, it looks like Cell has about 25GBps of main memory bandwidth, and RSX is about 15-20GBps. Achievable bandwidth is between about two thirds of that and nearly 100%, clearly the elves in the caves surrounding Rambus central did something right with XDR. That is the happy news.

For local memory, the measured vs theoretical bandwidth is missing, I wonder why? RSX is at a solid 22.4GBps for both read and write, good job there green team. Then comes the blue team with Cell. Local memory write is about 4GBps, 40% of the next slowest bandwidth there. Then comes the bomb from hell, the Cell local memory read bandwidth is a stunning 16MBps, note that is a capital M to connote Mega vs a capital G to connote Giga. This is a three order of magnitude oopsie, and it is an oopsie, as Sony put it "(no, this isn't a typo...)".

If you can write at 250x the read speed, it makes Cell local memory just about useless. That means you do all your work out of main memory, and the whole point of local is, well, pointless. This can lead to contention issues for the main memory bus, and all sorts of nightmarish to debug performance problems. Basically, if this Sony presentation to PS3 devs shown to us is correct, it looks like PS3 will be hobbled in a serious way.

The next slide goes on to say "Don't read from local memory, but write to main memory with RSX(tm) and read it from there instead", and repeats the table numbers. This is very very bad. The number of times the presentation goes on to say that it is correct, and the lack of anything like "this will be fixed by production steppings, so take measures X, Y and Z" say to me that it is not a fixable snafu. Remember at E3 when I said that the PS3 demos there were object sparse? Any guesses why?

Someone screwed up so badly it looks like it will relegate the console to second place behind the 360. All the devs I talked to were lukewarm on the 360 architecture but universally negative on the PS3. Revelations like this go a long way to explain why you keep hearing about simmering problems from the Sony devs.

You end up with a console with half the triangle setup rate of the 360, a crippled CPU that is a bitch to program, and tools that are atrocious compared to the 360. To make matters worse, you have an arrogant set of execs telling us that twice the price is worth it for half the power, a year late. If it isn't already too late, Sony had better do something about this recto-cranial inversion or it may very well sink the console. µ

Text
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
If this is true....then Sony has some serious egg on its face.....


EDIT: And if true somewhere Bill Gates is laughing all the way to the bank(as is Nintendo)
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
16MB/s figure is for Cell writing to RSX's local memory 'directly'(through two different memory controllers) bypassing RSX(it could send the data to RSX and have it put it there much faster- ~20GB/sec that way).

Triangle setup should be no surprise. One thing you may want to keep in mind though- when the 360 is hitting 100% of its geometry peak it has 0% pixel shader power left- RSX has 100% of both whenever it wants.

This is typical Inq being themselves.
 

Nirach

Senior member
Jul 18, 2005
415
0
0
Yummy, slating before testing. Sounds pretty ass-tarded to me. Don't get me wrong, Sony have been the console kings for far too long, and need a fall. But, to be honest, I think Inq is just stiring the pot, so to speak.

If you're that worried, and don't want to spend that much money, either get a better job (Seriously, if I can raise the fund for it and a TV before Nov. 17th, people with a job sure as hell can.) or wait for a few months, and see what actual gameplay is like, rather than Inq. speculations.

And before you jump down my neck for being a Sony fan, I have every intention to get a Wii and a 360, and right now, I don't own anything Sony bar the DVD drive in my rig. So shush, mm'kay?
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
More FUD.

It's seems all the rage to make up bad PS3 info and attack Sony these days. Wait for real news, from a real source.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
Seeing some of the demos from games on the PS3..

FF XIII for example where you can't even tell which parts are realtime and pre-rendered i really don't think this is true or it doesn't matter lol.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/710/710761p1.html

The need to do prerendered cutscenes died years ago. No matter how good of a job they do it takes you out of the game. If you ask me it was my most hated part Of FFVII and up and honestly With they would do this in engine in the game instead of cutting to video.
 

Randum

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2004
2,473
0
76
who cares? The ps3 will come out, and it will sell. end of story. bitch and moan all you want before it comes out, but the bottom line is its Sony, they will sell units.
 

Tenshodo

Member
Jul 8, 2005
116
0
0
However, you have to remember, The Inquirer is famous for starting Rumors. Alot of their articles are false.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
AFTER BREAKING THE news to me about PS3 RSX speeds earlier on the flight to Japan, my row-mate said 'if you think that's interesting, wait till you see this. Cell is hurting, badly'.
For those of you that believe in religions with karmic tendencies, scoops like this meant one of two things, the wings of the plane are about to fall off and I am going to die in a fiery ball, or worse yet, the movie selection will be worrisome. Cell memory access appears to be broken, RSX has half the triangle setup rate of the ATI chip in XBox360, and the true horror, Big Momma's House 2 and a Queen Latifa movie.

With the movie selection still making my brain throb from the glances I caught, I furiously took notes on what the source was saying. He started out saying that the RSX can only write about half as much vertex data as it can fetch, not an ideal situation by any stretch, but survivable.

Then came the horrible news, RSX appears to be limited to setting up 275 Million triangles/second, anemic compared to the 500+ million in XBox360. When asked about this apparent thumping dished out by MS, the reply from one notable ISV relations boffin was a terse 'What a Piece of Junk'. Talk about a steak in the heart.

Half the triangle setup capability in the PS3, could things get worse? Yes, far far worse, how about another disparity of three orders of magnitude? No, I am not joking, looking at Sony's own figures, Cell appears to be pretty badly broken.

For main memory, it looks like Cell has about 25GBps of main memory bandwidth, and RSX is about 15-20GBps. Achievable bandwidth is between about two thirds of that and nearly 100%, clearly the elves in the caves surrounding Rambus central did something right with XDR. That is the happy news.

For local memory, the measured vs theoretical bandwidth is missing, I wonder why? RSX is at a solid 22.4GBps for both read and write, good job there green team. Then comes the blue team with Cell. Local memory write is about 4GBps, 40% of the next slowest bandwidth there. Then comes the bomb from hell, the Cell local memory read bandwidth is a stunning 16MBps, note that is a capital M to connote Mega vs a capital G to connote Giga. This is a three order of magnitude oopsie, and it is an oopsie, as Sony put it "(no, this isn't a typo...)".

If you can write at 250x the read speed, it makes Cell local memory just about useless. That means you do all your work out of main memory, and the whole point of local is, well, pointless. This can lead to contention issues for the main memory bus, and all sorts of nightmarish to debug performance problems. Basically, if this Sony presentation to PS3 devs shown to us is correct, it looks like PS3 will be hobbled in a serious way.

The next slide goes on to say "Don't read from local memory, but write to main memory with RSX(tm) and read it from there instead", and repeats the table numbers. This is very very bad. The number of times the presentation goes on to say that it is correct, and the lack of anything like "this will be fixed by production steppings, so take measures X, Y and Z" say to me that it is not a fixable snafu. Remember at E3 when I said that the PS3 demos there were object sparse? Any guesses why?

Someone screwed up so badly it looks like it will relegate the console to third place behind the second place 360 and industry leading Wii. All the devs I talked to were lukewarm on the 360 architecture but universally negative on the PS3. Revelations like this go a long way to explain why you keep hearing about simmering problems from the Sony devs.

You end up with a console with half the triangle setup rate of the 360, a crippled CPU that is a bitch to program, and tools that are atrocious compared to the 360. To make matters worse, you have an arrogant set of execs telling us that twice the price is worth it for half the power, a year late. If it isn't already too late, Sony had better do something about this recto-cranial inversion or it may very well sink the console. µ

Text
fixed
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,210
2,551
136
I'm going to have to call false on this Inquirer article. Some of the stuff might be true but probably overexaggerated. Now...I don't believe the PS3 is going to be much better than the Xbox360 and certainly not worth a $200 premium over the Xbox360. I do believe both will put out similar levels of performance.

The PS3 will sell. I see them selling the first 10 million easily in a year or less and I can see them hitting 20 million in 2 to 2.5 years. You don't have to convince the hardcore gamers and fanboys to buy your system. They will come and buy it even if you don't spend a dime on advertisement. BTW, this is also where I see Xbox360's true battle will be. Not the first 20 million but rather past that when you get to the more mainstream consumers.

I know Sony had a the whole "analysts say 25% of the US market will have HDTV's by the end of 2006" thing. The problem is even if these predictions are true, most of the HDTV owners are videophiles. They don't play games and they do not want a game machine as their primary Blu-Ray player. Sony is banking on videophiles buying the PS3 as a cheap Blu-Ray player but by their very nature, true videophiles will not be getting a cheap Blu-Ray player. Especially judging by the mediocre DVD playing ability of the PS2. There will still be enthusiasts who are just now buying HDTV's. These guys are just beneath the videophile clss and they will play games but they mostly overlap with the hardcore gamers.

So the hardcore gamers and fanboys can easily account for your first 20 million sales. The problem is you have to lure Joe Consumer in. Joe Consumer does not, and likely won't for the next few years own an HDTV. He likely doesn't have broadband and he definitely does not care about Blu-Ray. He's going to look at his, at best, 480p TV and wonder what the fuss about Blu-Ray is about. He can't justify $1000 for a "low end" HDTV much less the $2500+ for a better one and he definitely needs a good reason to spend $600 for a games system. When he sees the PS3 demoed at EB or similar store, he's going to see a graphics jump but not as much as you'd think. I witnessed this during the Xbox360 launch. People saw better graphics but if you saw it on the demo monitors...it's not as large a jump graphically as if you had a full blown HDTV set.

The problem is, Sony is hyping up all sorts of integration of the PS3 that does not fit with the buying style or buying ability of the general public. The general public is not ready for the all in one convergence machine. I do believe convergence will happen but I don't think it's ready for prime time. They have overhyped their system and had to scale back which is creating a negative vibe. Their arrogance and recent treatment of their customers are also creating a negative vibe. They have included pricey features that the general public does use by banking on an upsurge in HDTV sales. A sales surge in HDTV's benefit them as they sell HDTV's and they are hoping the PS3 is a trojan horse for Blu-Ray which they have a huge stake in. A lot of betting going on and bets are never 100% certainties or we wouldn't have casinos and gamblers.

I think Sony is pushing convergence too hard in an effort to sell you more consumer products (Sony branded of course). Microsoft has seen very limited success pushing HTPC's (WebTV and media PC's) and I don't see Sony being better at it. While MS pushes some of the same concepts as Sony, they're not pushing it as hard having learned from their past mistakes and instead is allowing the consumer to move towards convergence at their own pace. MS is still providing a lot of the same things Sony is but at the same time they genuinely seem to be pushing the Xbox360 as a powerful games system whereas Sony seems to want their PS3 to be a trojan horse for more Sony products and Blu-Ray.


As far as the games go, graphics on the PS3 from the available games with real footage doesn't seem to be better than the Xbox360. If you watched the hi-res footage of FF 13 you can easily tell the CGI from the real time stuff. I guess this attest to the graphics capability of the PS3 but at the same time, it doesn't seem like anything that can't be done on the Xbox360. I'm actually kind of disappointed in the quality of most of the PS3 demos as they weren't much better than graphics shown in the Xbox360.

And does anyone think Sony's strategy is "I can do that and one up you" for the PS3? They copied MS's Xbox Live features and are trying to one better it. They copied Nintendo's "expanding the market" mission statement. They copied numorous things from Nintendo controllers.
 

Soccerman06

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2004
5,830
5
81
Who is the source on this? Was the guy FROM the Rochester IBM plant where the Cell is being designed and tested? lol my dad, who has friends that actually worked on the 360/PS3, knows more about this ****** than the inq. Yes the PS3 is having some trouble, but the Cell is only having small problems, its the blu-ray and reading that is the problem. ;)
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: Soccerman06
Who is the source on this? Was the guy FROM the Rochester IBM plant where the Cell is being designed and tested? lol my dad, who has friends that actually worked on the 360/PS3, knows more about this ****** than the inq. Yes the PS3 is having some trouble, but the Cell is only having small problems, its the blu-ray and reading that is the problem. ;)

Oh yeah, my friend knows this guy who's dad is really high up in both companies some how (he's like some super double company secret agent) and HE says that PS3 is going to r0X0r your b0X0rz.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
I think i know this same guy. Maybe we are friends?



Anandtech is still a PC forum. Conroe or K8l plus r600 or g80 and who cares which console is gimped more, they're both incapable of running Crysis from what i've read.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Then came the horrible news, RSX appears to be limited to setting up 275 Million triangles/second, anemic compared to the 500+ million in XBox360.

1. Xbox 360 has a unified shader architecture, to do that 500+ million, it'd have to dedicate all its shading power to that. That would be very....different from the typical vertex load in games now, where pixel shading power usually needs a 3 to 1 advantage over vertex shading.
Also, Ps3 has Cell, which was basically designed to be a graphics processor, and probably most of the work Sony and nvidia have been doing on G70 to turn it into RSX has probably been on the Flex I/O bus in order to get these two communicating efficiently. The original PS3 plans called for two Cells to do the graphics, but Sony realized a PC gpu would be better. However, you could practically look at the Ps3 as a sli system with two gpus, just not the game gpus. Still, both are immensely powerful at graphics, and have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Local memory write is about 4GBps, 40% of the next slowest bandwidth there. Then comes the bomb from hell, the Cell local memory read bandwidth is a stunning 16MBps, note that is a capital M to connote Mega vs a capital G to connote Giga. This is a three order of magnitude oopsie, and it is an oopsie, as Sony put it "(no, this isn't a typo...)".

That makes no sense that write would be faster than read, let alone such a huge difference. Well, unless for some reason the Cell architecture makes it nearly impossible to retrieve data...

I don't believe this article. While Sony had a major change in their philosophy and tried to shoe together their previous ideas with the PC platform, they at least have been aiming high the whole time, Microsoft was always aiming for performance per the dollar and a rather balanced platform (with a few caveats, like the blunder that was 10MB edram for AA) and unless Sony really messes something up, a mishmash of high end parts should beat out a well balanced system. (then again, gamecube was well-balanced and cheap and competed well with xbox, xbox 360 is not cheap so maybe its well-balanced architecture will allow it to overtake ps3 in power)

That said, I believe Xbox 360 is a better value for the money, and once some worthwhile games come out on it (that aren't on the PC), I'll be picking it up along with a Wii.

FF XIII for example where you can't even tell which parts are realtime and pre-rendered i really don't think this is true or it doesn't matter lol.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/710/710761p1.html

Have you seen the video? Not that spectacular, and jaggies galore.