RSX: Why no shows/infos?

[CrumCon]

What do you people think?
Why Wont they let any info regarding RSX?
I got the feeling it's not that powerful they wished it to be.. but thats my though...

instead they only hype CELL's capabilities. :chinese2:
Strange huh?

any thoughs?

[cliffbo]

its because they want to save something for E3, and they want to drop the power bombshell there.

[version]

g80

[altares]

i'm afraid, the reason is 24 pxpipes

[RavenFox]

i'm afraid, the reason is 24 pxpipes
You do know thats not bad right?

[altares]

for a nextgen console to have a gpu old by 1 year and a half IS bad, the good about ps3 is only the Cell, if they make something like 32-48 px it'll be a lot better, let's hope

[Saibo]

for a nextgen console to have a gpu old by 1 year and a half IS bad, the good about ps3 is only the Cell, if they make something like 32-48 px it'll be a lot better, let's hope

Cell doesnt have "pipes" it has cores , 8-9 of them. 32 would be dreaming(maybe when the PS4 hits!?).

Anyway, i think they are saving the best for last(RSX). Maybe it has some G80 features? maybe it is a ray tracing architecture? :P

no more speculation until E3 please people... :duh:

[Raijin]

First if we take a look at the new Sony's calendar, dev. dont have their final kits yet. So no RSX or a dumbed down one. They are not supposed to get the final one until June - July if everything is fine. Look at Microsoft last year, we had final specs on Xenos only until they were sure everything was fine. I think It will be the same for the RSX. Not before July - August.... hell maybe even September at the TGS.

[VG Aficionado]

for a nextgen console to have a gpu old by 1 year and a half IS badYou know, Nvidia's 7900 (G71) GPU series has been released this month, they're highest-end cards and their configuration is 24/8. What is more interesting is that RSX development must have been completed around the same time as these cards, only that RSX will have many advantages inside PS3 with Cell, greater bandwidth and the fact of being inside a closed system.

You must be assuming RSX is going to perform just like last year's G70 when the PS3 actually has 4x more bandwidth between GPU and CPU than any PC system today. And you can be sure Cell is going to assist RSX in ways that PC CPUs won't be able to parallel for a good while yet.

[altares]

Cell doesnt have "pipes" it has cores , 8-9 of them. 32 would be dreaming(maybe when the PS4 hits!?).

Anyway, i think they are saving the best for last(RSX). Maybe it has some G80 features? maybe it is a ray tracing architecture? :P

no more speculation until E3 please people... :duh:

hehe, i know the cell is a GPCPU (general purpose cpu), i meant the GOOD thing about ps3, and the only thing for what there is so much fuzz is the Cell,
they already said the RSX is 2 6800 Ultra so about the same speach they did with Geforce7...

[VG Aficionado]

they already said the RSX is 2 6800 Ultra so about the same speach they did with Geforce7...They did say that RSX is MORE powerful than a 6800 SLI system. They also said it would be Nvidia's most powerful GPU when it was released, and assuming they expected it to be shipped inside PS3 by May/June 2006, it would mean it is more powerful than the latest Nvidia PC GPUs today.

[venomv]

They said the RSX was more powerfull then 2 6800 Ultra's, not equal. Guess ya beat me VG.

[altares]

You know, Nvidia's 7900 (G71) GPU series has been released this month, they're highest-end cards and their configuration is 24/8. What is more interesting is that RSX development must have been completed around the same time as these cards, only that RSX will have many advantages inside PS3 with Cell, greater bandwidth and the fact of being inside a closed system.

You must be assuming RSX is going to perform just like last year's G70 when the PS3 actually has 4x more bandwidth between GPU and CPU than any PC system today. And you can be sure Cell is going to assist it in ways that PC CPU's mostly can't.

the bandwidth dont do much, the best exemple is the AGP-PCIEX transition...

[Z]

if your GPU has specs better than the competition, then you have bragging rights. if not, they won't talk about it.

they will talk about it on E3, even if they don't get too tech focused in some areas do to the reason I have mentioned. ;)

[VG Aficionado]

the bandwidth dont do much, the best exemple is the AGP-PCIEX transition...That was a transition from 4.2 to 8.4 GB/s compared to RSX's 35 GB/s. That relatively huge amount of bandwidth is not there for no reason. And you can't really compare a PC to a closed system like PS3 anyway.

[altares]

when will they talk about the real specs of RSX, i'm tired of waiting

[Domination]

when will they talk about the real specs of RSX, i'm tired of waiting


I thought they would talk about it at CES since it was a tech show. But seeing how they didn't, I'm guessing it'll be this E3 since a great portion of the console is expected to be revealed then. Sony is never too good to go mentioning any specs at E3. If any other time they've had there is any indication, including that of the PS3, you are likely to get RSX information there than anywhere else.

[Smokey]

sony hype the "CELL" because its their baby. and it seems its not a bad piece of kit!

[NeoPlayStation]

Don't make sense the lack of RSX info if it was just a G70 or G71 OC. Everybody know this cards.

[SmartPenguin]

I think you'll find that the info on the RSX has been around for some time.

NVidia have stated many times that it's a G70 : clocked a little faster than the PC equivilent, but basically the same.

The BIG difference between RSX and the PC G70 is the FlexIO. This is important because it gives the RSX the ability to render quickly directly from system memory. Traditionally in games, dynamic data, like procedural geometry or dynamic texture data is generated in system memory (especially if some interaction is needed like collision detection) and then copyed into vram for rendering. This copying step is not required with the RSX and it can display the CPU generated data directly from system memory at almost the same rate as from vram. What you end up with then, is static data (textures, gemetry) sitting in vram with the display buffers, and dynamic data generated and rendered directly from system memory.

This may not make much difference in an artificial demo or benchmark, which is just trying to see how many pixels of vertices in can draw from a super-hi-res static model; but in real game code where the game data is constantly changing, and you need the CPU and GPU to closely cooperate, it's going to make a HUGE difference to what game developers can do.

[Smokey]

will people be dissapointed if its "JUST" a g70. its still in an closed console situation. the rsx is either goin to be wayout there or a g70 in wolfs clothing.

[Junox50]

What do you people think?
Why Wont they let any info regarding RSX?
I got the feeling it's not that powerful they wished it to be.. but thats my though...

instead they only hype CELL's capabilities. :chinese2:
Strange huh?

any thoughs?

No offense, but I think your being negative because your dissapointed (im not saying you dont have a right to be. Lets just wait a while before we go assuming such things). E3 should be the place where they spill the info your looking for.

[OmniCloud]

Well...if SmartPenguin is on top of his game (sure like he knows what he's talking about) then, the benefits of RSX would be seen in feature games and developments...Not in flashy demos that don't really mean anything anyway...

[cliffbo]

No offense to you, but I think your being negative because your dissapointed (im not saying you dont have a right to be. Lets just wait a while before we go assuming such things). E3 should be the place where they spill the info your looking for.

your right. its like any drug: once you have your fix and get high, a low follows.

[Junox50]

Not in flashy demos that don't really mean anything anyway...

Sure they do. They mean something for the developers that make the games.

your right. its like any drug: once you have your fix and get high, a low follows.

Agreed, Cliffy.

[cliffbo]

check back on all the threads and you'll find a pattern junox. aint it odd. up, down, up, down. perhaps when the stolid Sony fans have sliced and diced the info, others then step in to scrape up the remainder.

[Junox50]

check back on all the threads and you'll find a pattern junox. aint it odd. up, down, up, down. perhaps when the stolid Sony fans have sliced and diced the info, others then step in to scrape up the remainder.

I think its coming from people either misinformed or dissapointed for not receiving the PS3 news they wanted. Sometimes I feel these topics or posts about PS3 arent really necessary if its really just to rant.

[rpgamer_2k5]

the bandwidth dont do much, the best exemple is the AGP-PCIEX transition... You are correct, a G71 derivate isn't going to be offering more higher bandwidth even if it is available. The GPU has to be designed to use the bandwidth. In other words the GPU would be like the early SATA drives that were just IDE drives with a SATA interface. Besides the G71 are independent graphical monstors; they wouldn't need much help from the Cell.

Even now, I wonder how those two are going to work together if the RSX is a G71 derivative. Quit dreaming, guys and girls, the G71 does not work like that. The Cell is not going to be able to intervene in its operation as an exotic Cell - RSX configuration.

The higher bandwidth may only just allow faster access to the XDR modules of the Cell. Doesn't seem to be that advantegeous given that current GPUs have similar bandwidth between VRAM, easily covering the CPU-GPU bandwidth deficit. It's probable that this design has been taken in order to reduce costs.

[cliffbo]

I think its coming from people either misinformed or dissapointed for not receiving the PS3 news they wanted. Sometimes I feel these topics or posts about PS3 arent really necessary if its really just to rant.

agreed. check yourself for the rant thing though. text can be read in a variety of ways, especially because we don't really consider punctuation. so while i don't really think some are ranting i do think that there are two sets of people here. those that Support Sony and those that (legitimately) support all machines, and sometimes they fight to ballance things... just a lttle too much

[Junox50]

agreed. check yourself for the rant thing though. text can be read in a variety of ways, especially because we don't really consider punctuation. so while i don't really think some are ranting i do think that there are two sets of people here. those that Support Sony and those that (legitimately) support all machines, and sometimes they fight to ballance things... just a lttle too much

I am aware of that. Some topics are actually just rants. There was a topic made by someone (forgot who) on the news we got of the PS3 HDD,release date, etc. All they did was pretty much rant that the conference was a waste of time and nothing more. Yet, it really wasnt since it cleared up some things we wanted to know about PS3 for a while.

[VG Aficionado]

This is relevant:



There's a rumoured premise that says RSX will be more powerful than G70 and maybe around the same as G71. Despite the inferior memory interface and bandwidth of RSX, could PS3 have the possibility of boasting equal or greater performance than a PC? Supposing programmers could obtain the maximum performance from both systems, is there any feature of the PS3 that gives RSX an advantage over a PC GPU? The Cell<->RSX bridge? Just Cell? None?

Cell<->RSX bridge is a fairly significant part of it. On a PC, you may have that GPU->VRAM bandwidth advantage, but the CPU<->GPU bandwidth is pretty lousy by comparison -- 4.2 GB/sec each way compared to the 10.8 GB/sec each way of 360 or the 15 GB/sec one way and 20 GB/sec the other for PS3. Moreover, there's no separate bus controller in the middle of this link between CPU and GPU, whereas on a PC, you've got to go through the PCI-E controller which processes requests at a very low clock rate (i.e. the latency is a lot lower).

All that adds up to being able to send more data to the GPU per frame, so that the GPU can be pushed closer to its limits. More polygons, more textures, more post-processing, etc.

Conversely, there's the CPU side of the equation in that having the raw power to do more pre- and post-processing has to be there in order for it to be useful.Link: http://forums.e-mpire.com/showthread.php?t=52603&page=3

[section]

Just one note: why would Sony want to continue collaboration with Nvidia if they and their engineers weren't very happy with RSX and what their own engineers have been able to achieve with Nvidia's people?

You really can't compare PC graphics cards with console "counterparts", it will never be apples to apples. It can't be stressed enough how much more intricate and efficient design results you are able to achieve in a closed console environment.

PS2 would be able to show more beautiful graphics if it had had more standardized graphics chip from day one, ie. used some well known API. Now that there's OpenGL (ES) for graphics chip PS3 would give excellent graphics even if it wasn't any faster than one Geforce 6800 Ultra. No shimmering anymore, no flat textures, excellent lighting, great amounts of AA + AF...

So I'm not worried a bit what PS3 will be able to show graphically, the possibilities are already wonderful so why worry? :3eye:

[cliffbo]

Just one note: why would Sony want to continue collaboration with Nvidia if they and their engineers weren't very happy with RSX and what their own engineers have been able to achieve with Nvidia's people?

You really can't compare PC graphics cards with console "counterparts", it will never be apples to apples. It can't be stressed enough how much more intricate and efficient design results you are able to achieve in a closed console environment.

PS2 would be able to show more beautiful graphics if it had had more standardized graphics chip from day one, ie. used some well known API. Now that there's OpenGL (ES) for graphics chip PS3 would give excellent graphics even if it wasn't any faster than one Geforce 6800 Ultra. No shimmering anymore, no flat textures, excellent lighting, great amounts of AA + AF...

So I'm not worried a bit what PS3 will be able to show graphically, the possibilities are already wonderful so why worry? :3eye:

in complete agreement. nvidia make a crap chip so Sony think 'i know we'll sign them for another' see it as it is people.

[section]

in complete agreement. nvidia make a crap chip so Sony think 'i know we'll sign them for another' see it as it is people.

Lol, either hard sarcasm or you really are the biggest cynic around :D

[cliffbo]

Lol, either hard sarcasm or you really are the biggest cynic around :D

look at my sig :djparty:

[xbdestroya]

I think you'll find that the info on the RSX has been around for some time.

NVidia have stated many times that it's a G70 : clocked a little faster than the PC equivilent, but basically the same.

The BIG difference between RSX and the PC G70 is the FlexIO. This is important because it gives the RSX the ability to render quickly directly from system memory. Traditionally in games, dynamic data, like procedural geometry or dynamic texture data is generated in system memory (especially if some interaction is needed like collision detection) and then copyed into vram for rendering. This copying step is not required with the RSX and it can display the CPU generated data directly from system memory at almost the same rate as from vram. What you end up with then, is static data (textures, gemetry) sitting in vram with the display buffers, and dynamic data generated and rendered directly from system memory.

This may not make much difference in an artificial demo or benchmark, which is just trying to see how many pixels of vertices in can draw from a super-hi-res static model; but in real game code where the game data is constantly changing, and you need the CPU and GPU to closely cooperate, it's going to make a HUGE difference to what game developers can do.

First, welcome to the forum SmartPenguin.

Still though your own facts are just assumption as well - it's just that it's the commonly accepted conservative assumption. I've been saying the above is the most likely as well, but the truth is we really don't know exactly what RSX is, save that it's roots lie in NV47 and that it runs at ~550MHz. FlexIo is a given, but there's still a lot of rrom for mystery in there - such as these 'large caches' devs have been discussing of late.

[fknuckle]

Maybe they dont wanna tip there cards to nintendo? probably not the case,but who knows.

OR maybe they decided to add a little more ram at the last second(like psp), and wouldnt that take a little more time for some slight reconfigurations? so maybe it's not technically fully finished yet.(Big long shot.)

[rpgamer_2k5]

The FlexIO will not give the RSX any exotic advantages (i.e. ability of the Cell to closely support the RSX), but it will allow SLI-like abilities. Think of the Cell and the RSX as a SLIed Geforce. :)

This would fall in like with cpiasminc's quote:

All that adds up to being able to send more data to the GPU per frame, so that the GPU can be pushed closer to its limits. More polygons, more textures, more post-processing, etc.

Conversely, there's the CPU side of the equation in that having the raw power to do more pre- and post-processing has to be there in order for it to be useful.

Even though I would love to see an exotic design of my dreams (GP-GPU w/ raytracing, global illumination, SPEs), it is certainly not a requirement. Even the Geforce 6800 Ultra plus Cell is enough. :)

[rog27]

I dont' know why everyone is hounding the 8/24 setup. NVidia refers to vertex and pixel shading processors. Vertex Shader processors are each composed of 1 ALU, while Pixel Shader processors are each composed of two ALUs. That's a total of 56 ALUs for RSX (8 VS/48 PS) vs. Xenos's 48 (48 unified).

[Bliss]

I know, the Cell combined with a modified G70 would be great in a closed machine, but Nvidia said the RSX will be the most powerful GPU when it will be available...and however I don't see a modified G70 inside the PS3, with a November-release...I still think the RSX has some Cell like architecture...I mean...a different GPU from G70 (= the core a custom G7x plus 4 to 6 SPE-like DSPs, one of these being reserved for redundancy to increase yields, like the CELL !) and Sony will throw a bomb at E3 ! That's what I think !

ps: why final devkit in June if the RSX = modified G70/71 ?

[rpgamer_2k5]

Bliss your argument actually makes the most sense, but right now it seems 'normal' to assume that the RSX is a G70 derivative (despite the logic and what Kutaraji stated). :)

[woundingchaney]

I know, the Cell combined with a modified G70 would be great in a closed machine, but Nvidia said the RSX will be the most powerful GPU when it will be available...and however I don't see a modified G70 inside the PS3, with a November-release...I still think the RSX has some Cell like architecture...I mean...a different GPU from G70 (= the core a custom G7x plus 4 to 6 SPE-like DSPs, one of these being reserved for redundancy to increase yields, like the CELL !) and Sony will throw a bomb at E3 ! That's what I think !

ps: why final devkit in June if the RSX = modified G70/71 ?
Nvidia did not say that

[VG Aficionado]

Forget about any extravagancies, RSX will pretty much be a powerful GPU with great CPU<->GPU bandwidth.

And that's not bad at all.

[yoshaw]

Why is it even necessary for Sony to reveal RSX? They did almost a 10-15min showcase of it at their E3 Press conference and Jen-Hsen Huang wasn't that open with the architechture. It still was a fair share of the 2 hour long conference. They had their limelight, I don't think its really needed anymore. TBH, I'd rather see the games speak for the RSX rather than some stupid PR rep from Nvidia coming on stage and telling me loads of geek speak stuff thats probably gonna sound 'Greek' to me anyway.

[Crossbar]

OK, that was a lot of interesting and probable theories about how the RSX will work, but if we go back to the topic of this thread, "why no shows/info".

Here is my theory: Sony may have had some kind of upgrade in mind from the start because the spring launch was not a hard deadline IMO. Depending on when they finally decided the launch date, they wanted to decide some of the final hardware late. Some of the hardware is is more or less custom made for the PS3 like the XDR memory. The GDDR3 memory is an off the shelf component available as a volume product from several manufacturers. The PS3 will launch one year after the 360. Why would Sony go for the same memory speed of the GDDR3 memory? It will have a different price today and higher speeds are available in higher volumes.

My theory is that Sony has been in negotioations with several manufacturers to find a sweet spot for the price/performance of the GDDR3 memory for the RSX and that is one of the reasons why they haven't released any information concerning the RSX. Sony may also be tuning the frequency of the RSX to get the right power consumption and enough yield from production.

Perhaps the frequency isn't 100% fixed before the final dev kits of the hardware are released in May (the sw kits are in June) and maybe Sony don't want to spill the beans before that because before the spec is fixed it can't be used for comparisons with the 360.

I am clutching at straws here, but I am trying to find a rationale for the "no show". What do you think?

EDIT:@yoshaw Geeks also need some information to be happy. The RSX is a black information hole and that raises a lot of questions, but of course in the end it is the game play that matters, but that is not the topic of this thread.

[yoshaw]

yoshaw Geeks also need some information to be happy. The RSX is a black information hole and that raises a lot of questions, but of course in the end it is the game play that matters, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Ok, I agree. Geeks need their fill. Wait a min, I'm describing myself here. But the gist of my post was basically that RSX has been introduced once and it wasn't any less significant of an announcement either. It was a whole lot of the 2 hour presentation that Sony planned for E3. They invited the Nvidia CEO, who exclusively offered UE3 UT2007 demo not before going into detailed specifications and all sorts of carefully selected slides. Well, it was a nice 10-15 min of RSX PR speak. Not the kind that the true geek would prefer as not much specifications as of what many pipes, how many blah blah wasn't discussed. So I can feel the devoid that you do. Ofcourse I can, just wondering, is it really needed. Do we have MS' specific presentation of Xenos now that Xbox360 is already launched for some time now? If Yes, then what was the gap between that info shared and the actual launch. So we can apply the same to RSX in order to be fair and not just bash Sony everytime they have a conference, keynote or an announcement. Right.

[Crossbar]

Ok, I agree. Geeks need their fill. Wait a min, I'm describing myself here. But the gist of my post was basically that RSX has been introduced once and it wasn't any less significant of an announcement either. It was a whole lot of the 2 hour presentation that Sony planned for E3. They invited the Nvidia CEO, who exclusively offered UE3 UT2007 demo not before going into detailed specifications and all sorts of carefully selected slides. Well, it was a nice 10-15 min of RSX PR speak. Not the kind that the true geek would prefer as not much specifications as of what many pipes, how many blah blah wasn't discussed. So I can feel the devoid that you do. Ofcourse I can, just wondering, is it really needed. Do we have MS' specific presentation of Xenos now that Xbox360 is already launched for some time now? If Yes, then what was the gap between that info shared and the actual launch. So we can apply the same to RSX in order to be fair and not just bash Sony everytime they have a conference, keynote or an announcement. Right.
MS actually released quite detailed specs of the graphic chips of 360 right around E3 last year if I'm not mistaken, at least here is a detailed article from June. http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/

If Sony was planning a fall launch right from the start I guess it makes sense if they don't release any information earlier than E3. But just until the week before we have been expecting a spring launch, and we are just starting to get used to that.

A difference concerning the RSX is that it has been available to developers since January, the 360 developers did not get their hands on the Xenos until late June/July last year.