Nvidia's Chief Scientist David Kirk on RSX

[nightime]

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/07/11/nvidia_rsx_interview/1.html


RSX and the PlayStation 3

For those that don't know, if you've been living under a rock for the last few months, the graphics processor in the PlayStation 3 is NVIDIA-designed and is called RSX. How does it compare next to the 7800?

"The two products share the same heritage, the same technology. But RSX is faster," said Kirk.

But for how much longer, we wonder? With the PlayStation 3 not due until March 2006, won't the next generation of PC graphics be here by then? "At the time consoles are announced, they are so far beyond what people are used to, it's unimaginable," David comments. "At the time they're shipped, there's a narrower window until the next PC architecture." In other words, RSX looks incredible now, but when it launches, there'll be a smaller time until PC looks better.

"However, what consoles have is a huge price advantage." And 'huge' is the appropriate word: pricing is still to be announed by Sony, but Playstation 3 could debut at £399 - the price of a 7800GTX board, yet offering so much more.

Whilst their relationship with Microsoft has become publicly tenuous, what about NVIDIA's relationship with their new console partner?

"So far our relationship with Sony has been great. We have a much closer relationship and share a much broader vision for the future of computing and graphics.

"When we came together a few years ago, we found a vision and experience that we shared. It sounds cliched, but Japanese companies are often trying to create a vision and make the technology follow that, not the other way round. We believed in that."


"Our commonality with Sony has led to a number of product areas that go beyond PlayStation 3. The business deal is structured so that both companies benefit. It's a really good realtionship."

So I put it to David that there might be more to come from Sony and NVIDIA: "The deal goes beyond PS3. The future is looking good."

What does this mean exactly? Until we get some concrete details, it could in theory translate to NVIDIA-powered graphics in just about any suitable device that Sony make: Sony VAIO desktop and notebook computers would be an obvious opportunity; another distinct possibility is NVIDIA GoForce wireless media processors (WMP) inside future SonyEricsson mobile phones.

A rank outsider would be NVIDIA Inside for a future replacement for the PSP, but we should stress that this is all pure speculation. What we do know is that NVIDIA design kick-ass graphics chips and Sony make some of the most desirable consumer electronics available. Put those two together and you have quite a potent combination - we look forward to seeing what they come up with.



that settles it - RSX is a faster G70.

[xbdestroya]

Well, that doesn't totally settle it I feel. Obviously RSX is based on G70, but there will be architectural changes, on one level or another.

Also it says nothing of the role Cell might play in the graphics sub-system.

[rpgamer_2k5]

Many of us know where you're coming from so that significantly hurts the aim of your post.

Note: Try that elsewhere not here because it is just a waste of time for us to reply and certainly for you.

This line: "
"The two products share the same heritage, the same technology. But RSX is faster," said Kirk."

First, this just means that the RSX is based on the G70 technology. Now come on, if you actually believe RSX, a GPU that was under development for more 2 years or more is going to be identical to the G70 which is geared toward PC usage than you are just simply living in some dream world. A good share of the transistor count of the G70 (video acceleration features) will definitely be discarded, saving a good amount of transistor count for more shaders. :) Then we have to understand that the current G70 will not be able to work with the Cell like Cell <--> RSX. Some significant tweaking will be done there... The term 'faster' can mean anything, it can mean faster clock speed (remember the "many" clocks in the G70?), faster shader operations, faster anti-aliasing, faster HDR, faster memory, we can keep on going and going.

...Clearly he did not state just a faster clockspeed because greater integration will the Cell will offer the G70 much more. Many of us wouldn't even mind that because the Cell (Getaway-looking graphics) plus G70 (better than Unreall 2007 PS3) will be more than enough for first generation. :)

Marketing Angle: Now come on, David Kirk isn't just some sort of god in Nvidia; the shareholders are the ones that dictate Nvidia. I say this because the shareholders want Nividia to have an upperhand in order to gain the majority of the market share or more profit. So, what's the point? See the point is any firm operates in a upside down triangle system. Now lets skip the basic and lets remember all the marketing executives who understand how the market works not to mention the competition. They tell David Kirk and the rest HOW to answer an interview. Like come on, most engineers and what not don't always have the communication 'spunk'. All this we see, the wording and all are planned by their degree holding executures or advisors in the field of marketing. The reason why we see only "RSX is faster" rather than some discrete fasts is because of marketing! Such a comment can mean anything as I have explained above, plus it also sends out doubt. It is pretty obvious that the G70 is just the toddler, their bigger brothers (RSX and next Nvidia GPU for Desktops) are meant to help the little kid take on the rivals (ATI). Like it or not, we still have heard NOTHING pertaining to the the next desktop GPU based on the G70 architecture or the RSX. All those specs are merely speculations, by assuming the the RSX = G70 will allow Nvidia and Sony to initiate a 'shock & awe' in the future. :)

[Domination]

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/07/11/nvidia_rsx_interview/1.html




that settles it - RSX is a faster G70.

LOL! I haven't read the entire report, but I'll get to it later. You people are still focusing on which GPU is better, which most likely will lead up to which platform is set to be the triumphant one as far as visual capabilities. The only reason I believe Sony could have the better GPU is due to it having a later launch. History has always proven this. I also don't believe the RSX will be an off the shelf GPU like it is being touted due to the amount of time it has had in development. But that's beside the point. Looking at these quotes, not to mention what we saw at E3:

GI: Was most of what we saw really just showing off the graphics capabilities - stretching the RSX graphics part rather than the Cell chip? The assumption is that Cell is there for complex physics and AI...

You're right; obviously Cell allows you to do complex collisions, physics, dynamics, simulations, all of those things. Though, the Getaway demo was a good example of how you can have a living city brought to life as a result. Although it was pretty graphics, most of that power was actually Cell-based.

The Doc Ock head - the Alfred Molina head - is actually more of a Cell demo than it is a graphics demo, because we're calculating hugely complicated light sources in real-time on the Cell, even to the point where we calculate the angle at which light enters the skin, the way that the light is then coloured by your blood, and the way that it is then reflected back out. It's something called transmission. Skin is hugely complicated - if I put my finger over a light, for example, you can see that the light is coming through my skin. We were simulating that - emulating, simulating, kind of a fine line - we were simulating that on the Doc Ock head demo.

GI: So that's really pushing the Cell rather than the graphics chipset?

Yeah. Those are really hardcore maths problems which the Cell is really good at solving.

GI: It's not just the RSX that drives the graphical quality, then - the Cell can also really be used to improve the graphics.

Well, I'll give you a couple of other examples. The terrain rendering demo that was done by STI, which is the people who developed the Cell, doesn't use the graphics chip at all. That 3D landscape was generated in real-time from two input data sources and a software renderer running on the Cell created the final image. All that it does is output as a bitmap straight to the video hardware - it doesn't even create a single polygon, there's no concept of a polygon in that demo.

....and I can pretty much gather that it doesn't matter which GPU is better; Sony does not seem to be heading in the same direction as Microsoft from a visual perspective.

[nightime]

G70 is now Nvidia's current desktop GPU. the RSX will be a tricked out, faster variant of G70, with special conciderations to make it work effectively with Cell.


Nvidia's next-gen NV5X architecture will be, for the most part, a whole generation beyond G70 and RSX.


where does G80 fit into this? I don't know, and I will not act like I know since I really don't. the G80 could be a G70 varient, or the NV5X thus a whole new architecture. no idea. however, it is clear that NVidia's next-gen WGF2.0 Longhorn, Shader Model 4.0 architecture will be well beyond the capabilities of G70 and RSX, and we should see this GPU by late 2006.

[Domination]

G70 is now Nvidia's current desktop GPU. the RSX will be a tricked out, faster variant of G70, with special conciderations to make it work effectively with Cell.


Nvidia's next-gen NV5X architecture will be, for the most part, a whole generation beyond G70 and RSX.


where does G80 fit into this? I don't know, and I will not act like I know since I really don't. the G80 could be a G70 varient, or the NV5X thus a whole new architecture. no idea. however, it is clear that NVidia's next-gen WGF2.0 Longhorn, Shader Model 4.0 architecture will be well beyond the capabilities of G70 and RSX, and we should see this GPU by late 2006.

I'm asking you this very simple question: Does it really matter?

Sony is not heading in the same direction as the others. That's the point I am trying to have you understand. Many are focused way too much on whos GPU is more flashier than whos that they neglect to see the entire equation.

[xbdestroya]

G70 is now Nvidia's current desktop GPU. the RSX will be a tricked out, faster variant of G70, with special conciderations to make it work effectively with Cell.


Nvidia's next-gen NV5X architecture will be, for the most part, a whole generation beyond G70 and RSX.


where does G80 fit into this? I don't know, and I will not act like I know since I really don't. the G80 could be a G70 varient, or the NV5X thus a whole new architecture. no idea. however, it is clear that NVidia's next-gen WGF2.0 Longhorn, Shader Model 4.0 architecture will be well beyond the capabilities of G70 and RSX, and we should see this GPU by late 2006.

I honestly think that G80 is/will be NV50.

We'll see though. It's true that RSX won't have those functionalities that come with WGF 2.0, but it won't be until roughly four years from now before we can look back and say whether it mattered (greatly) or not.

[Voidler]

I do feel Nvidia could've done abit better by Sony, but what're you gonna do?:?

[Domination]

I do feel Nvidia could've done abit better by Sony, but what're you gonna do?:?

Honestly, it's too early to judge that since we don't know what the RSX is yet capable of nor the goals any of the guys at Sony were shooting for when they partnered with nVidia for GPU.

[Voidler]

Honestly, it's too early to judge that since we don't know what the RSX is yet capable of nor the goals any of the guys at Sony were shooting for when they partnered with nVidia for GPU.I guess. I think the problem I have with it though, is from the limited info we know of the RSX, it's goal seems of a much lower standard than the rest of the system, compared to Cell and such. I'd have thought Nvidia would push far beyond their regular PC stuff, thinking perhaps we'd get something like a cycle beyond, on the level of what the NV50 may be. Atleast that's how far a head the Cell seems to be, I'd want the GPU to be of a similar standard.

[Domination]

One thing to pay close attention to is the way these competitors think. Before E3, I bet you thought Sony had nothing to show because nothing was ever really said in comparison to everyone and everything else. But this is how they think. They are so used to achieving different standards that it almost comes as a normal for them. I'm not saying the RSX has much left to be revealed. But what I am saying is don't underestimate these guys all because of their lack of communication.

The RSX is still behind a closed curtain. Before actually ridiculing it, first wait and see what it is capable of.

[rpgamer_2k5]

Such confidence is indicating that you carry more knowledge than the rest of us which... is not the case.

G70 is now Nvidia's current desktop GPU. the RSX will be a tricked out, faster variant of G70, with special conciderations to make it work effectively with Cell.

Technological Messiah, can you define 'faster'? Is it just clock frequency? What about HDR? What about anti-aliasing? What about shader operations?

Here's an example:

By comparison, the Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition delivers these impressive performance gains:

* Pixel fill rate gain of 150%
* Memory bandwidth gain of 50%
* Geometry performance gain of 90%
* Floating point operations/sec. gain of 140%

This same GPU is available on the PC but why do we see the impressive gains when the same GPU is ported over to the Mac? Even though it is clocked lower than the PC variant.

Two arguments:
1. The Cell will provide benefits that are NOT available on any current system. The PPC is alot more modern than the x86 (evolution of the Intel 8008) and this is why a slightly modified (ie. port over) Radeon for the Mac performs much more better than the PC counterpart despite lower clockspeed. In the same manner, if you shove a G70 into the PS3, you'll most likely see gains especially when you move over from PCI-E to FlexIO. Oh yeah, my bad; the Geforce 7800GTX cannot even use FlexIO benefits. If you are not aware a GPU designed to use a certain processor bus will really not perform better on a superior bus. The Geforce 256 will not perform better on a mobo with AGP-8X since it is designed to be used with the AGP-4X. Now really wouldn't that be useless? Why would Nvidia and Sony even need 2 years to develop such a half-assed GPU? Why waste all the money? Nvidia wouldn't have not won the tender; the Cell or even a ATI solution would have been better.

2. The PS3 does not use the same configuration as modern computers and yes, that includes Xbox 360. :evillaugh Just a little recape, modern computers uses a:

GPU = Graphics configuration

hence...
CPU --> GPU = Game

While for the PS3 it is:

CPU = Calculations, AI, Physics, Sounds AND Graphics.
GPU = Graphics

hence...
CPU <--> GPU = Game

How in the world can you get a Geforce 7800GTX to work in such a manner? Does Nvidia even have a GPU that can graphics operations from the Cell and then improve on it? Can any CPU out there, take graphics from the GPU and then do some post-processing? [Hint: Opposite of Yes] The Geforce 7800GTX is a Graphics Processing Unit which is a term that strictly means that it is a dedicated processor for graphics. The CPU does none of that, which is why it does not require such a high bandwidth like the PS3. The Geforce 7800GTX is a lone beast. If it cannot do an operation, it will try and try, it is not designed to send it over to the Cell. You cannot just take a Geforce 7800GTX and force it to send back the data to the Cell. It is not designed to do so. It will just perform terribly and be a total waste.

Conclusion: Even though the RSX was developed upon the G70 architecture, it really doesn't mean it is a Geforce 7800GTX clone.

Two Points:
i. The RSX is based on G70 technology, just as the x86 is based on Intel 8008 technology. Now does that mean both are identical? Even if both followed the same history. If anyone says, "no they didn't", you need to really understand the wording, the x86 would not exist without the Intel 8008. The x86 shares the same history as the Intel 8008. Once again, does that mean the both are the same?

ii. The AMD FX64 is based on the x86 architecture while my crappy 386 is also based on that same architecture. If one claims that the AMD FX64 is the same as the 386, just a bit faster, are they wrong? No they are not because they use the same x86 architecture. ;-)

It's pretty obvious, Nvidia is doing what Sony has been doing for all those years. With the Playstation, the Playstation 2, the Playstation Pocket and now the Playstation 3. There is a reason why Nvidia and Sont is keeping the RSX secret. Not because it is recieving half-assed tweaks like the ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac edition.

Nvidia's next-gen NV5X architecture will be, for the most part, a whole generation beyond G70 and RSX.

We don't even know what the G70 architecture entails yet we have you coming about with such rediculous comments. No one here said that the RSX alone will be superior tok the G80, most predict that the RSX will be between the G70 and G80. Nvidia said that the RSX is a next/second-generation G70, aka G75.

where does G80 fit into this? I don't know, and I will not act like I know since I really don't.

Err...How can a sequence of words be called a question when it questions a non-existing observation? No one here concluded that. That question of yours just seems like a red herring.

[Rukawa]

"It's far harder to design a unified processor - it has to do, by design, twice as much. Another word for 'unified' is 'shared', and another word for 'shared' is 'competing'. It's a challenge to create a chip that does load balancing and performance prediction. It's extremely important, especially in a console architecture, for the performance to be predicable. With all that balancing, it's difficult to make the performance predictable. I've even heard that some developers dislike the unified pipe, and will be handling vertex pipeline calculations on the Xbox 360's triple-core CPU."

Some developer gonna use Xenos shader only for pixel shading
Should Nvidia drop vertex shader and add more pixel shader , since Cell is very good at vertex processing

[Red_Eyes]

One thing to pay close attention to is the way these competitors think. Before E3, I bet you thought Sony had nothing to show because nothing was ever really said in comparison to everyone and everything else. But this is how they think. They are so used to achieving different standards that it almost comes as a normal for them. I'm not saying the RSX has much left to be revealed. But what I am saying is don't underestimate these guys all because of their lack of communication.

The RSX is still behind a closed curtain. Before actually ridiculing it, first wait and see what it is capable of.

Exactly. I agree with you. Everybody seems to be undestimating the power of RSX. Just because Sony isn't saying anything. But like at E3, as soon as Sony release some info, everybody will be shock once again.

[Domination]

Such confidence is indicating that you carry more knowledge than the rest of us which... is not the case.



Technological Messiah, can you define 'faster'? Is it just clock frequency? What about HDR? What about anti-aliasing? What about shader operations?

Here's an example:



This same GPU is available on the PC but why do we see the impressive gains when the same GPU is ported over to the Mac? Even though it is clocked lower than the PC variant.

Two arguments:
1. The Cell will provide benefits that are NOT available on any current system. The PPC is alot more modern than the x86 (evolution of the Intel 8008) and this is why a slightly modified (ie. port over) Radeon for the Mac performs much more better than the PC counterpart despite lower clockspeed. In the same manner, if you shove a G70 into the PS3, you'll most likely see gains especially when you move over from PCI-E to FlexIO. Oh yeah, my bad; the Geforce 7800GTX cannot even use FlexIO benefits. If you are not aware a GPU designed to use a certain processor bus will really not perform better on a superior bus. The Geforce 256 will not perform better on a mobo with AGP-8X since it is designed to be used with the AGP-4X. Now really wouldn't that be useless? Why would Nvidia and Sony even need 2 years to develop such a half-assed GPU? Why waste all the money? Nvidia wouldn't have not won the tender; the Cell or even a ATI solution would have been better.

2. The PS3 does not use the same configuration as modern computers and yes, that includes Xbox 360. :evillaugh Just a little recape, modern computers uses a:

GPU = Graphics configuration

hence...
CPU --> GPU = Game

While for the PS3 it is:

CPU = Calculations, AI, Physics, Sounds AND Graphics.
GPU = Graphics

hence...
CPU <--> GPU = Game

How in the world can you get a Geforce 7800GTX to work in such a manner? Does Nvidia even have a GPU that can graphics operations from the Cell and then improve on it? Can any CPU out there, take graphics from the GPU and then do some post-processing? [Hint: Opposite of Yes] The Geforce 7800GTX is a Graphics Processing Unit which is a term that strictly means that it is a dedicated processor for graphics. The CPU does none of that, which is why it does not require such a high bandwidth like the PS3. The Geforce 7800GTX is a lone beast. If it cannot do an operation, it will try and try, it is not designed to send it over to the Cell. You cannot just take a Geforce 7800GTX and force it to send back the data to the Cell. It is not designed to do so. It will just perform terribly and be a total waste.

Conclusion: Even though the RSX was developed upon the G70 architecture, it really doesn't mean it is a Geforce 7800GTX clone.

Two Points:
i. The RSX is based on G70 technology, just as the x86 is based on Intel 8008 technology. Now does that mean both are identical? Even if both followed the same history. If anyone says, "no they didn't", you need to really understand the wording, the x86 would not exist without the Intel 8008. The x86 shares the same history as the Intel 8008. Once again, does that mean the both are the same?

ii. The AMD FX64 is based on the x86 architecture while my crappy 386 is also based on that same architecture. If one claims that the AMD FX64 is the same as the 386, just a bit faster, are they wrong? No they are not because they use the same x86 architecture. ;-)

It's pretty obvious, Nvidia is doing what Sony has been doing for all those years. With the Playstation, the Playstation 2, the Playstation Pocket and now the Playstation 3. There is a reason why Nvidia and Sont is keeping the RSX secret. Not because it is recieving half-assed tweaks like the ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac edition.



We don't even know what the G70 architecture entails yet we have you coming about with such rediculous comments. No one here said that the RSX alone will be superior tok the G80, most predict that the RSX will be between the G70 and G80. Nvidia said that the RSX is a next/second-generation G70, aka G75.



Err...How can a sequence of words be called a question when it questions a non-existing observation? No one here concluded that. That question of yours just seems like a red herring.

THANK YOU. Rep point for you.

[Domination]

Some developer gonna use Xenos shader only for pixel shading
Should Nvidia drop vertex shader and add more pixel shader , since Cell is very good at vertex processing

I'm thinking both will be about balanced to suit different tasks. It's not the best comparison, but I believe it works similiar to two GPUs in SLI.

[rpgamer_2k5]

Some developer gonna use Xenos shader only for pixel shading
Should Nvidia drop vertex shader and add more pixel shader , since Cell is very good at vertex processing

I really wouldn't doubt the vertex shaders of the RSX since Nvidia carries huge knowledge in the shader processor field. The Cell SPEs could act as shaders if the developers choose to do so. It would not be a desperation move like for the Xbox 360, instead the Cell and RSX will do graphics operation together. Since we know nothing about the RSX so it is really hard to say anything.