Ripping off the veil: The mysterious PS3 hardware scaler exposed

[VG Aficionado]

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/16

Introduction

Since its launch last November, Sony's latest gaming platform has given early adopters trouble when attempting to play certain titles in 1080i/p. The console did not automatically upscale its video output to desired resolutions; it was up to either the game software to support these resolutions natively or the internal scalers of users' HDTVs. This forced many people, developers and owners alike, to question the very existence of scaling hardware in the PlayStation 3.

Worse, it created a sour taste in the mouths of owners of older CRT-based HDTV sets, many of which are not capable of accepting a 720p signal at all, and thus only capable of displaying 480i/p and 1080i video signals. If they wanted to run their games in HD resolution, the solution for these disgruntled owners until now was to hope that developers would release their games with 1080i/p support --not a walk in the park for the developer-- or, simply, to buy a new HDTV. As one can imagine, the latter was not the most well-received solution in the history of CE devices.

The key words in that last paragraph would be “until now,” because with the latest PlayStation 3 software development kit (SDK) update, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI) has finally exposed part of the built-in hardware scaler to developers.

Will this mean that most, if not all, future games will support output at 1080p/i resolutions? Moreover --and this is the question that owners of 1080i-only CRT HDTVs crave to see answered--does this mean that current PS3 games may eventually support the native HD resolution of their televisions? Well, the answer requires some good old-fashioned explanation, so let’s start already!


The issue and its solution until now

For openers, let's talk about the way the PlayStation 3 outputs modern videogames. First, the console renders a frame buffer - called the back buffer - in which the drawing passes are executed. Following that, a second frame buffer is rendered, the front buffer. The front buffer is basically the final result of all the rendering operations that took place in the back buffer, and thus it is the picture that one sees on their screen. The front buffer is the optimal point in the display process where scaling solutions can operate.

Before the latest SDK update, developers working on PS3 wishing to support 1080p/i in their 720p-native games had very few options available to them. For 1080i, a theoretical possibility (since it’s not supported on PS3) would be to do “field rendering” -- a technique that consists of software scaling the 1280x720 backbuffer into a 1920x540 frontbuffer that will successively render odd and even interlaced lines. The problems with this technique are that it can only output in 1080 interlaced (not progressive), that it has image quality issues, and even more limiting, that it requires the game renderer to refresh at 60Hz (60 frame per seconds) at all times. If the renderer misses a single frame, the output image quality will be terrible. Clearly, field rendering is not an optimal solution for the video output issues of the PlayStation 3.

The only real option available to developers, though, was to upscale the front buffer in software to 1920x1080. This avoids the image quality issues associated with field rendering, and it is also capable of outputting 1080p as well as 1080i signals. Additionally, it is perfectly compatible with games that render at 30Hz, or with unstable framerates (yeah, we know that there’s a few of those out there.)

So, you may say, why don’t developers just upscale the front buffer to 1080p in software and be done with it? As simple as this sounds, the techniques described above are not free. They have a price in both computational resources and RAM. The computational issue--in the form of doubled fillrate cost--is a problem on its own, since fillrate is not one of RSX's fortes. But it’s not as stressful as it sounds, since a front buffer is being rendered in a single pass, unlike the back buffer, which requires numerous passes and is therefore more sensitive to resolution increases. The real deal breaker in this scenario is the larger footprint in RAM occupied by these upscaled buffers. It's a price that not all development houses can pay if they plan on their game fitting into the PlayStation 3’s memory.

To illustrate how serious the memory problem would be, let's look at the increased requirements that a software upscaler would impose. There are three main resolutions that comprise the common HDTV standards: 720p (1280x720 progressive), 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced) and 1080p (1920x1080 progressive). In order to output at 720p, a PlayStation game needs to render a 1280x720 front buffer; in the case of 1080i/p, it needs a 1920x1080 pixel front buffer. As you can see in the graph below, these different buffers have very different sizes.

http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/ps3scaler/graph.png

http://www.beyond3d.com/images/articles/ps3scaler/graphplus.png

As the above graph illustrates, a 1920x1080 front buffer is twice the size of a 1280x720 buffer. With the difference in megabytes measured in the single digits, you could argue that in the grand scheme of things, the difference is not that large. But in reality, when dealing with any closed system, game developers are already trying to shoehorn their games into the available RAM. The PlayStation 3 is no exception, and many developers simply cannot afford to spend more RAM on an upscaled front buffer... and as the games already on the market plainly show, many of them didn’t.

In the best case scenario, a developer would wait for RSX to "vblank" (vertical blank--in other words, be left with only the front buffer loaded in memory) and then use RSX to upscale. Developers that seek to have RSX rendering the next frame in the back buffer as soon as possible have to store their front buffer as a 720p image and then upscale it when the GPU is available. In this case, at a single point in time, a 720p back buffer, a 720p front buffer, and a upscaled 1080p frame buffer are all resident in the PlayStation 3 video memory.

Fast forward to the day when a new SDK update was made available, and with it comes a new solution for developers.

[VG Aficionado]

Second part:

The latest SDK: A scaler breaks its chains and is now running free. Well, almost.

And so we arrive at last to the most recent development, the late January PlayStation 3 SDK update. Amongst the newer versions of the various tools included in the SDK lies a new function: the ability for developers to use some of the functionality of the fabled hardware scaler, a scaler many previously doubted existed at all. Interestingly enough, "some" is the key word when describing the unlocked functionality; SCEI only gave access to hardware accelerated horizontal scaling. Horizontal scaling on its own cannot upscale a 720p image into 1080p/i --this would require both horizontal and vertical scaling. Hence, the newly exposed scaler functionality is not enabled in the PS3's user interface directly, but instead will still require developer support to work.

At the time of publication, the reasons why SCEI didn’t give developers access to both horizontal and vertical scaling are still unknown, as are the reasons they didn’t grant developers access to horizontal scaling until now. The video scaler itself remains shrouded in mystery, as strange as it may seem, but at least now we can say with confidence that it does indeed exist. There are multiple reasons for this continuing secrecy, and insiders are reluctant to discuss them even off the record, nevermind for publication. Nonetheless, the reasons behind SCEI's choices are not our subject today. While a great deal could (and will) be said about the nature of this scaler in the future, today's article will focus on the recently exposed functionality; the details of its hardware and the way that it is integrated into the PlayStation 3’s architecture will be reserved for a later article.

Now, let’s describe exactly how this added capability works. How can a developer implement a 1080p/i output mode in their 720p-native game for a low cost with this partial scaling? Simply, the developer needs to support one of the new resolutions that SCEI has added to the PlayStation 3’s rendering palette. Key among these is new support for a resolution of 960x1080. This results in a framebuffer with relatively few more pixels compared to the more standard 720p, and as a result enjoys a computational cost (fillrate cost) comparable to the one associated with 720p framebuffers to begin with (921,600 pixels for 1280x720 compared to 1,036,800 pixels for 960x1080). At the same time, it benefits from eligibility to be horizontally scaled by the resident hardware scaler.

Additional 1080 rendering modes also supported now include 1280x1080 and 1440x1080. These modes, similar to 960x1080, are capable of being upscaled by the hardware into 1080p/i.

http://www.beyond3d.com/images/articles/ps3scaler/graphall.png

http://www.beyond3d.com/images/articles/ps3scaler/graph2.pngg

As we can see in this graph, the RAM requirements of a single 960x1080 front buffer are extremely close to a 720p front buffer.

It is worth noting that as of today, support for one of these scalable resolutions is not yet a requirement of new game development; that decision is still in the hands of the developers themselves. However, it is already strongly rumoured that such support will become mandatory through future revisions of the PS3 technical requirements checklist (TRC).


Conclusion

In conclusion, the foretold yet hitherto unseen PlayStation 3 hardware scaler has made its entry onto the development scene with this SDK update. Its appearance should bring hope into the hearts of 1080i-only HDTV owners that all future games may support their television sets natively. They may also look forward to seeing patches to some of the currently released 720p-only games, should developers have the time and inclination to revisit their old code base and hack a new 960x1080 rendering mode into it.

As a postscript, we’d like to speculate about another point of debate concerning the PS3 video output capabilities --its lack of VGA resolution support, which itself could also be affected by this latest “horizontal revolution.” As one would deduce after reading this article, just as with HDTV resolutions, a hypothetical VGA resolution support - notably for 16:10 screens - would entail developer input as well. This would of course require a little more development work for said developers, and additional configurations to run rendering tests on, but the computational and memory costs associated should no longer hinder support of these resolutions in any meaningful way.

Thanks

All the members of the game development community who are always helpful and friendly when I come around bothering them with my pesky questions. Carl and Geo for their tremendous editing help. Stefan, Arun and the B3D Crew. Double thanks to Carl for the late night work I forced on him.

Maison du Café’s coffee, for keeping me awake long enough to fini

[woundingchaney]

So its not a hardware scaler chip its using the RSX to upscale images why wouldnt this be considered a software solution (perhaps Im missing something here)???

And it seems only the horizontal is scalable. There is something here that simply doesnt seem to fit.

I think its great that Sony is adding support of this but at the same time I dont think this answers all the questions.

[VG Aficionado]

I'd appreciate someone who understands this thoroughly to let us know the implications of this.

[venomv]

I think thye are saying the it has a hardware scaler, but it hasn't been activated in the dev kits 'till now, and just the horizontal.....

But why? Could this possably have something to do with fixing the BC issues?

[Z]

could 480i/p games be upscaled to 1080i in the future?

[Smokey]

i womder when i could have my ps3 set at 1024x1080 :)

[jaxmkii]

there just saying if your older HDTV only supports 1080i.

your 720p games will be upscaled to 1080i by PS3 not the game its self...

in the future it will be a Sony standard for now its still up to devs.

[Nameless]

^ I did not pull that from the article...
It sounds like the new Dev kits are allowing the developers the option of upscale rendering to any resolution they feel necessary. The choice to upscale to 1080i or 1080P will have a performance hit, because it will require use of precious RAM. So the upscaling will still remain in the developers hands and would not be applied to all titles from the hardware side...

I have mixed feelings about this subject, because I think old HDTV owners should be able to play games at 1080i if their television does not support 720P. Also, owners of 720P television should have the option to play games at 1080i if they prefer the image quality. The only issue I have with upscaling is that it can be misleading if you look at the Microsoft approach. Since the 360 provides Hardware upscaling for all titles the publishers list all titles supporting 480P, 720P, 1080i & 1080P. I think that statement is misleading, because most 360 games are not even supporting native 720P. The consumer does not know this info from looking at the box and assume all images are native resolution & this does make a difference in image quality.

I guess both sides of the fence have issues IMO. The PS3 only advertise the native resolution of titles, but does not "properly" support all HD televisions & the 360 upscales to all resolutions, but does not natively output above 720P AFAIK. An interesting conundrum... Peace

[Smokey]

i was thinking the same nameless a bit MS sounding in the rez "upscaling" department. this is something that could go against sony (on mad forums anyway)

[venomv]

I see you watching CPI, could you spell this out for us, lol.

[Red_Eyes]

Nice move on Sony. I guess the API for the scaler wasn't complete yet and it's just work in progress.

[cpiasminc]

So its not a hardware scaler chip its using the RSX to upscale images why wouldnt this be considered a software solution (perhaps Im missing something here)???
Yes, you're missing the second page of the article. The first page was pretty much about software scaling as the only recourse prior to the update.

And it seems only the horizontal is scalable. There is something here that simply doesnt seem to fit.
That also makes sense because there are some interesting little things you can do with horizontal scaling on TVs because they scan in vertical scanlines and because the horizontal resolution of the target is inherently greater (assuming nobody puts their TVs in portrait mode). Back in my high school days, I published some research on ways you can use this to your advantage to even fake a broader color gamut without physically having to alter the display -- but it was a trick that didn't translate too well to scaling in both dimensions because it introduces error on purpose.

But why? Could this possably have something to do with fixing the BC issues?
Most likely sucky or incomplete microcode and a sense of priorities. There are plenty more important matters than the goddamn scaling (assuming that something is eventually done about it at all)... There's one and only one reason it ever got treated as a big deal, and that's the fact that it's something for arguing morons on forums to sling mud about because they're less likely to run across more worthy things to complain about.

It sounds like the new Dev kits are allowing the developers the option of upscale rendering to any resolution they feel necessary. The choice to upscale to 1080i or 1080P will have a performance hit, because it will require use of precious RAM. So the upscaling will still remain in the developers hands and would not be applied to all titles from the hardware side...
The point is that having a hardware scaler is that it means NOT having to use extra RAM for a larger framebuffer -- it scales in transmission so the back and front buffers can remain as is. Prior to having access, supporting higher resolutions meant rendering at or software scaling to higher resolutions, which did eat up either RAM or fillrate.

[woundingchaney]

Thx for repy.

So there is indeed a hardware scaler. Good news.

[Nameless]

The point is that having a hardware scaler is that it means NOT having to use extra RAM for a larger framebuffer -- it scales in transmission so the back and front buffers can remain as is. Prior to having access, supporting higher resolutions meant rendering at or software scaling to higher resolutions, which did eat up either RAM or fillrate.

I see your point, but does this new RSX API provide all titles going forward the ability to upscale with a minumum performance hit? Also, could this be applied to B/C PS2 titles?

[Red_Eyes]

Possibly.

[xbdestroya]

I'm going to step in here and shed some light as well, since I'm the 'Carl' mentioned here:

All the members of the game development community who are always helpful and friendly when I come around bothering them with my pesky questions. Carl and Geo for their tremendous editing help. Stefan, Arun and the B3D Crew. Double thanks to Carl for the late night work I forced on him.

Right now even to Vysez (the primary author) a lot of the mystery surrounding the scaler is still that - a mystery. But something that absolutely needs to be clear is that this is not a client-side firmware update sort of a thing, where suddenly all 720p games will scale flawlessly up to 1080i. It rests in the hands of the developers themselves now, and to work, the developers have to create their game (if it is a 720p-native game to begin with) with support for 940x1080 as well.

Now, doing so places a slight burden increase on the GPU, but marginal compared to what true 1080p rendering would cost (field rendering on PS3 is not an option, so there's no such thing as 1080i 'native'). So the game then supports 720p, and through the PS3 hardware scaling, 1080i and p.

Hopefully such support will become mandatory in a sense, as it will help those with 1080i-only sets out a good bit on future 720p releases. But as Cpi said, there's a bit of a sad aspect to effort having been put forth towards this, as the 1080i-only set is an extremely small portion of the HDTV community, and only getting smaller. The fix I think truly did stem from bad press and forum riots.

[Nameless]

^ XB thanks for the additional clarity, it appears my initial interpretation of the information was fairly accurate... ;)

It would be nice if Sony would make this type of support mandatory to put this issue to rest. Also, it would allow gamers to decide if they want titles to output at 720P, 1080i or 1080P. I think Microsoft is really turning this into a perception issue, because of the way they package their titles.

It's still impressive how quickly Sony can move to address these issues and it's a testament to the flexibility of the hardware. Peace

[venomv]

Ok, if they were to turn the verticle on at some point (assuming the hardware is there). Would that enable any game to up-scaled without the devolopers doing it, or do the devs always have to enable it.

[xbdestroya]

Ok, if they were to turn the verticle on at some point (assuming the hardware is there). Would that enable any game to up-scaled without the devolopers doing it, or do the devs always have to enable it.

Well if it were a good scaler, then yes that's what it would essentially mean. Any game could be scaled.

It's a weird situation, to be sure, but to tell you the truth I'm not sure if this particular solution *has* the ability to scale vertically. It was described to me as bilinear only and legacy hardware for PC monitor support that has now found new life in being able to address the 1080i issue. But since some features were knowingly withheld, it seems that's not the end of the story on it either.

Remember that Sony until now had a strict policy of native-render, straight to output. They were against the whole scaling thing, else they obviously would have built a 360-style scaler in from the beginning. BD films are Cell; so to will be any future PS2/PS1 B/C upscaling. Those have always been in the clear in terms of versatility.

The only thing this tangibly benefits is PS3 games, which Sony clearly never considered as needing this to begin with. But the forum uproars and here we are...

So I just do want it to be clear that outside of PS3 games, everything else you see on the screen can be handled via Cell and/or RSX natively.

[cpiasminc]

I see your point, but does this new RSX API provide all titles going forward the ability to upscale with a minumum performance hit? Also, could this be applied to B/C PS2 titles?
It does mean something to all future titles, though it pretty clearly says that whether the developer chooses to use it or not is open. Obviously, some people really choose to push the hell out of pixel and/or texel fillrate (e.g. Gears of War), which makes even the slight increase in fillrate demands something of a deal breaker. I think Sony will first "complete" the scaler microcode and open it up fully before ever really making it a TRC.

Will it affect PS2 titles? I seriously doubt it. Mainly because there is no fixed resolution or refresh rate to PS2 titles. And a hardware scaler by nature (assuming it's not analog) is going to look for a relatively small subset of inputs. Many PS2 games are rendering at all sorts weird resolutions which are achieved by tweaking CRTC register-style controls manually to squeeze out a little extra effective fillrate and ignore overscan regions. So when a scaler is looking for 640x480i/p and it gets 512x448i/p or 624x432p or 576x400i or 624x320p... well, things don't go so smoothly... I also don't know for sure if the PS2 hardware just has its own output DAC or not.

[Domination]

Interesting... I am honestly surprised by this news, not so much pertaining to secrecy since they are notorious for this, but the fact that it was always there with few having any knowledge of its existence until now.

[ddaryl]

Most likely sucky or incomplete microcode and a sense of priorities. There are plenty more important matters than the goddamn scaling (assuming that something is eventually done about it at all)... There's one and only one reason it ever got treated as a big deal, and that's the fact that it's something for arguing morons on forums to sling mud about because they're less likely to run across more worthy things to complain about.





You're my new hero....Somebody else who can spell it out in laymans terms.

The entire videogame industry is in shambles because of over zealous self proclaimed diehard gamers that can not fathom the amount of technology that needs to come together in a very short amount of time to make these evolutionized, and revolutinized consoles what they are.

People whine and cry about Sony's fallacies, but I just a see a company on the very cutting edge of hardware technologies doing more then anyone should expect when it comes to bringing the entire package together in such a little time frame.



In regards to there being scaling capabilites, well that is just good to know

[Smokey]

i cant believe they give in for a few dorment 1080i sets

[curryking1]

Wow, thanks a lot for all the input on the topic guys.

And, ddaryl, I agree, Sony, as of late, has provided me with the feeling of not only being cutting edge, but trying to do things differently to achieve further results than would be possible by sticking to trends. Happened with the PS1 and PS2. Seriously, at the beginning, with how much power is in the PS2, who on earth thought we would get anything near something like the graphics in FF XII? Or RE4 PS2? There are always different methods to achieve same, better, worse results for a given problem.

Anyways, cpi is right on this thing about these forumees mudslinging everything that comes by them because really, there is nothing actually much relevant else to say other than about miniscule differences and such.

[lips]

Good to hear, but I would rather know if ps3 could ever actually reach its physical limitation of 1080p at 128bit color. Your front buffer would require 32 megabytes a frame; although, ps3 should beable to provide the 2 gig/s bandwidth for 60 fps. Although we would still like to see 4x aa with antistrophic filtering, it will be interesting what path triple-a games will take.

[Danji Ikari]

I kind of figured the aforementioned "carl" was you Xb.

This is very interesting news though..so the consensus between both of you is that there is a strong chance of Sony only requiring support of these outputs after vertical scaling has a working microcode? Or was that only Xb's opinion?

I have a friend who would be included in this group of people being screwed over only being 1080i compatible if he actually owned a PS3. Seeing as how he kind of hates Sony and he's not going to get one I'm not going to tell him that it wouldn't be HD for games anyways unless it supported it.

This whole issue reminds me of the time I discovered that Sky Oddysey and Parappa the Rapper 2 don't support audio output via optical cable. That was really annoying and the only solution I had for it was a flurry of cable extenders which of course made the audio sound terrible relative to the optical alternative.

[xbdestroya]

This is very interesting news though..so the consensus between both of you is that there is a strong chance of Sony only requiring support of these outputs after vertical scaling has a working microcode? Or was that only Xb's opinion?

Well the microcode theory was Cpi's, but it's as good a theory as any. I think it was just a non-consideration on their part prior. Or... who really knows.

But as for mandating the resolutions, if anything they would get mandated prior to a working vertical scale, because were that to happen the whole specific resolution support would be mooted anyway. As it stands now, the additional resolutions are perfect for utilizing exactly what's been granted to reach 1080 - horizontal scaling.

[frosty]

I would also like to say, before any trolls from the other camp read this and misinterpret it, that this does NOT mean PS3 will scale to hit it's 1080p games from now on. When PS3 says it is running a game in 1080p, it's running in native 1080p. No need to upscale. This only allows for 720p to be compatible with 1080i/p sets as well.

My question is, do you think insomniac will release a patch for resistance now? I think they should, since this is Sony's only current killer app. (Assuming a firmware update is out of the question to fix that issue).

[Smokey]

before any trolls from the other camp read this and misinterpret it
thats what ive been worried about :(

[VG Aficionado]

My question is, do you think insomniac will release a patch for resistance now? I think they should, since this is Sony's only current killer app. (Assuming a firmware update is out of the question to fix that issue).Now that you say this, I wonder if the slight delay MotorStorm suffered recently has something to do with this. I wonder which games will be the first ones to benefit from the latest SDK update.

[curryking1]

Good point VG, that may be true. It'd be great if they start adding it sooner than later.

[xbdestroya]

Hmmm, I personally don't think Motorstorm was delayed for this, btu you never know. Either way it could come in the European release if it didn't make the American.

But... I mean aren't you guys unaffected anyway? :smoke:

[Z]

Most likely sucky or incomplete microcode and a sense of priorities. There are plenty more important matters than the goddamn scaling (assuming that something is eventually done about it at all)... There's one and only one reason it ever got treated as a big deal, and that's the fact that it's something for arguing morons on forums to sling mud about because they're less likely to run across more worthy things to complain about.
be that as it may, a user should complain if his PS2 game looks worse on his brand new 'next-gen' PS3- especially since the thing has actual PS2 chips inside. I still don't know what went wrong in the first place. I though it was only people seeing issues by viewing their PS2 games upscaled by their new HDTVs.

[xbdestroya]

Cpi wasn't speaking to the B/C issues, which I think are fair to say rank as an appropriately high priority for Sony, but rather the reasons they went to the lengths of enabling this scaling solution for 1080i specifically in the SDK.

[Nameless]

^ Exactly... B/C is obviously a primary concern considering the timely firmware fix to solve the problem... ;)
Sony, did not have too many concerns regarding upscaling, because the console is capable of natively rendering 480i/p, 720P, 1080i/p. Sony just left the choice to the developer and the PS3 would output at the games native resolution. The only problem with this approach is some older sets don't output at 720P only 480i/p or 1080i. As a result any games that have a native resolution of 720P would only output at 480 on those displays, because the PS3 does not have a hardware driven upscaler. Honestly, Sony did not feel implementing a hardware upscaler was necessary. Only this small pocket of HDTV owners is negatively impacted by the decision.

The only thing that made this issue worse is that Microsoft included a hardware driven upscaler to output games at any display resolution, because some 360 titles don't natively support HD resolutions. Also, this is a nice feature to allow upscaling for B/C titles...

In the long run this is a nominal issue for Sony and currently it's being blown out of proportion IMO. Peace

[frosty]

Thing is, PS3 DOES have a hardware upscaler. It's only been usable since the new SDK came out though.

[Nameless]

^ I guess it depends on your definition of hardware upscaler...

Yes the new SDK allows you to plug into the RSX to implement upscaling, but you can't just apply this to all image output of the machine.

Do you see my point?

This is starting to turn into a nomenclature issue regarding the term "Hardware upscaler".

[frosty]

Hardware scaler = a piece of hardware dedicated to upscaling or downscaling an image. PS3 has one. It may not be fully available as of yet, but it is there.

[woundingchaney]

I would also like to say, before any trolls from the other camp read this and misinterpret it, that this does NOT mean PS3 will scale to hit it's 1080p games from now on. When PS3 says it is running a game in 1080p, it's running in native 1080p. No need to upscale. This only allows for 720p to be compatible with 1080i/p sets as well.

My question is, do you think insomniac will release a patch for resistance now? I think they should, since this is Sony's only current killer app. (Assuming a firmware update is out of the question to fix that issue).

It although doesnt mean that Sony wont do this. This scaling is done by a 960x1080 so I doubt the game is going to read "960x1080" and "1280x720"on the back of the box. If this is the only res or one of the resolutions used in development of the game I can easily see Sony displaying the game as 1080 (or up to 1080 or a varied assortment of standard hd resolutions) simply for marketing and Wow factor, despite the res. being native or upscaled. Of course this is directly related to my question. Games currently read 1080p because until now there was no other solution.

Also when supported by devs, is this suggesting that the game will be developed using 960x1080 and 1280x720 or will only one be used in development (or any of the newely supported resolutions). Is it feasable the buffer could be determined upon the setting of the tv connected to the PS3, as to say since the PS3 menu recognizes the native res (or supported res) of my tv could that initially determine the buffer used in the game?? I feel fairly sure that the game will be developed under the most rescource requiring buffer available such as the 960x1080 being slightly more rescource heavy than the 1280x720 and then be determined by your tvs setting, although I wanted to ask.

[frosty]

Actually, from what I gather (CPI or XBD please correct this if I'm wrong) the 960x1080 res will only be used on 720p games that need to be scaled to 1080i for TV's that cannot display a 720p image. PS3 has shown to be way more than powerful enough to handle 1080p (lair being a prime example) natively. However, to be fair to you, I too can see a 720p native game being claimed as 1080p in the same way MS does with 360 titles. I don't see anything wrong with this, however since Sony does have the ability to render native 1080p titles, it should have it clearly marked when it does so it can differentiate itself from the rest of the crop. For instance, it should say "supports up to 1080p res" for all games but should say "native 1080p "true HD" on titles that run at 1080 with no upscaling.

[woundingchaney]

Actually, from what I gather (CPI or XBD please correct this if I'm wrong) the 960x1080 res will only be used on 720p games that need to be scaled to 1080i for TV's that cannot display a 720p image. PS3 has shown to be way more than powerful enough to handle 1080p (lair being a prime example) natively. However, to be fair to you, I too can see a 720p native game being claimed as 1080p in the same way MS does with 360 titles. I don't see anything wrong with this, however since Sony does have the ability to render native 1080p titles, it should have it clearly marked when it does so it can differentiate itself from the rest of the crop. For instance, it should say "supports up to 1080p res" for all games but should say "native 1080p "true HD" on titles that run at 1080 with no upscaling.

Im not arguing the "fairness" of the issue but I can easily see the game reading 1080p on the back of the box as it would be a supported res., as you suggest games running native would most likely have the TRU or Native tag along with the 1080p logo (this is not a statement about the power of the PS3 here).

If the res. is supported Im willing to bet a dollar to a donut it will be displayed whether or not it being native/tru.

[frosty]

I agree.

[Nameless]

For instance, it should say "supports up to 1080p res" for all games but should say "native 1080p "true HD" on titles that run at 1080 with no upscaling.

I agree with this approach...

[cpiasminc]

^ I guess it depends on your definition of hardware upscaler...

Yes the new SDK allows you to plug into the RSX to implement upscaling, but you can't just apply this to all image output of the machine.
Ummm... RSX isn't involved (sort of is, but not really). The upscaler is a physically separate device -- it doesn't really have a die of its own, but it's nothing to do with RSX or any rendering components within. Much the same way that the audio hardware shares a die, but doesn't actually have anything to do with its companions.

The only real role RSX plays here is outputting to a frontbuffer of a suitable size that the scaler can work with it. There's no real software side to it unless you choose to software scale yourself.

Actually, from what I gather (CPI or XBD please correct this if I'm wrong) the 960x1080 res will only be used on 720p games that need to be scaled to 1080i for TV's that cannot display a 720p image.
I think it's a little more generic than that. The only reason 1080i-only CRTs were brought up was because it's an obvious problem case. This is more or less for anybody who wants to run a game at 1080i/p, but the game already pretty much maxes out fillrate running at 720p. So instead of rendering at 1920x1080, they render at 960x1080 or whatever and use the upscaler to fill in the gaps instead of demanding double the fillrate all of a sudden.

[frosty]

So, basically, both fixing the 1080i problem and upscaling to achieve 1080p.

[Garfunkel]

I guess it is no surprise there was a scaler from the start.

But I am glad sony has moved quickly to fix this issue and add scaling with it :) ;)

[Red_Eyes]

Well, Sony didn't really want to kill their competitors in just one instant. So they purposely hold back PS3's potential and slowly release that potential to slowly kill their competitor. Slow and cruel. That's how they love it. Lol. Next up, the verticle scaler.

[MasaC]

Aren't you guys forgetting the other resolutions made available for rendering, like 1280x1080, 1440x1080 and 1600x1080?

Didn't Ted Price from Insomniac say in his blog that they decided late in the development process of Resistance: Fall of Man to go with 720p instead of 1080p due to performance issues on the later levels?

What if they have had access to say, 1440x1080? Isn't it very possible they just might have gone with that instead if they couldn't get the game engine to run well in full 1920x1080?

[frosty]

^exactly. it does allow for higher than 720p resolutions that don't HAVE to be 1080p.

[MasaC]

Yep, I think it's excellent to instead of a giant step up from 720p to 1080p introduce these baby steps up to full HD. It seems a gentle way to slowly push the devs to full 1920x1080 rendering and at the same time give the choice to the devs to choose what's best for their game.

[frosty]

Well, they've already proven to be capable of making games at full blown 1080p, however it does offer a nice option for devs that want to create a game like killzone, but don't neccessarily want to be stuck with 720p (not that it's a bad thing).

[xbdestroya]

Yep, I think it's excellent to instead of a giant step up from 720p to 1080p introduce these baby steps up to full HD. It seems a gentle way to slowly push the devs to full 1920x1080 rendering and at the same time give the choice to the devs to choose what's best for their game.

Ok now, just so no one thinks otherwise, this isn't something that results in baby steps towards devs rendering things natively in 1080. What it in fact might result in, is devs feeling reduced pressure to doing so, and instead using this as an out to reach that resolution.

But personally, I still think this was born out of 1080i support rather than cheap-o 1080p plans. If that was their intention, they should have just gone with a more traditional scaler from the start.

[curryking1]

Good point xb, always got a good point lol.

[frosty]

I agree, I feel the added benefits of being able to scale to resolutions between 720p and 1080p are just that. Not the primary reason it is in there. Otherwise we would have seen every 1st gen PS3 game upscaled to 1080p, as it would have fully supported Sony's "True HD" philosophy.

[MasaC]

I didn't mean these baby steps towards full HD as a cheap-o 1080p escape route. I meant more as an incentive for the devs to explore resolutions above 720p and as they learn more to squeeze the full juice out of the PS3 to go with full 1080p.

Like in the case with R:FoM where they did try full 1920x1080 but decided to stick with 720p due to performance issues I'm sure they would have gone with something like 1440x1080 if they had the option.

I mean that in order to use this scaler the devs must explore higher rendering resolutions than 720p in the game engine. That's the incentive right there.

If I understand the article correctly, the devs can't just let their games render in 1280x720 and then let the scaler upscale to 1920x1080. That would be the cheap-o 1080i/p escape route. No, they have to render in a higher resolution and they can choose between 960x1080, 1280x1080, 1440x1080 and 1600x1080. Whatever suits their needs best.

[woundingchaney]

Ok now, just so no one thinks otherwise, this isn't something that results in baby steps towards devs rendering things natively in 1080. What it in fact might result in, is devs feeling reduced pressure to doing so, and instead using this as an out to reach that resolution.

But personally, I still think this was born out of 1080i support rather than cheap-o 1080p plans. If that was their intention, they should have just gone with a more traditional scaler from the start.
Unless of course a full blown scaler would have added much more unwanted expense to an already expensive product.

Although I would agree, I think the 1080p name tag will live on but as always the vast majority of titles will release in 720p and be scalable to 1080p. I still think the native 1080p will be made a selling point for their respective titles.

It might be that instead of this being the forum morons backing the cause of this issue it is the need to carry on the 1080p tag and support the few consumers with the 1080i issue (but who knows).

Really a win - win scenario in nearly every aspect.

The only problem with supporting these other resolutions is that it would suggest monitor resolutions and there is a definite lack of hdmi and/or component monitors. This may be the first clue to a dvi or vga cable accessory in the making (unless of course one was already announced that I dont know about).

[xbdestroya]

It might be that instead of this being the forum morons backing the cause of this issue it is the need to carry on the 1080p tag and support the few consumers with the 1080i issue (but who knows).

Really a win - win scenario in nearly every aspect.

Well, could be. I certainly grant that what I suspect was the cause, may in fact not be the cause. Either way you're right, win/win in a sense.

The only problem with supporting these other resolutions is that it would suggest monitor resolutions and there is a definite lack of hdmi and/or component monitors. This may be the first clue to a dvi or vga cable accessory in the making (unless of course one was already announced that I dont know about).

There is actually a lot to say about this, but I'm not sure what I can or cannot mention. But Wounding, you're on a track that leads somewhere. :)

(PS - My secrecy is not because there's something exciting per se; HDCP monitor support will be a factor for these newly supported resolutions. The reasons are thus otherwise.)

[woundingchaney]

LOL

Yeah I know Xb you and the infamous "Top Tech Crew" :)


But anyways good to see you on the forum.


Edit- I would say that the integration and full support of monitors is more important for consumers than scalable 1080p/i would be any day. This could really open the door to affordable high def gaming.

[Nerve-Damage]

Honestly, Sony should have stuck to their guns!! :nono:

Purely native support…

Sony (IMO) let the salacious headline chasing half-a$$ news media organizations and X-shills get to them.

The owners of 480p/1080i HD based sets only represent a small percentage of the HD users spectrum, and its only getting smaller. I say fuck’em…

[woundingchaney]

Honestly, Sony should have stuck to their guns!! :nono:

Purely native support…

Sony (IMO) let the salacious headline chasing half-a$$ news media organizations and X-shills get to them.

The owners of 480p/1080i HD based sets only represent a small percentage of the HD users spectrum, and its only getting smaller. I say fuck’em…
I think Sony always intended to do this why else would the scaler be present. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the news media or "X-shills".

Quite simply Sony is behind in quantity and quality of software (but seem to be picking up steam rather well since launch).

[curryking1]

At least we know Sony is capable of putting in some serious hardware, many exotic and new things in there ;) They aren't an electronics giant for nothing.

[woundingchaney]

At least we know Sony is capable of putting in some serious hardware, many exotic and new things in there ;) They aren't an electronics giant for nothing.

Even beyond that it is amazing how well Sony can keep a secret. Or how well they can build a contract/agreement to keep this secret. I mean really did anyone actually know definetely that there was a HW scaler present.

Sony is definetely a no nonsense company in that respect.

[Fillibuster]

Yeah yet everyone is so shocked when they don't release the RSX specs...ITS SONY!

[frosty]

Well Nerve Damage, look at it this way.

Say Guerilla has Killzone up and running and has a little horsepower to spare but not enough for 1080p. So, they can either render at slightly above 720p and upscale to 1080p, or render at 720p. Would you rather lose the resolution and have to go with 720p leaving the excess power unused or gain a few pixels and have it upscaled?

[Siraris]

Well Nerve Damage, look at it this way.

Say Guerilla has Killzone up and running and has a little horsepower to spare but not enough for 1080p. So, they can either render at slightly above 720p and upscale to 1080p, or render at 720p. Would you rather lose the resolution and have to go with 720p leaving the excess power unused or gain a few pixels and have it upscaled?

It really isn't that easy...

[frosty]

Well it's exactly what many have said is now possible in this thread. rendering at 960x1080 and upscaling from there, and how it only has a slight cost as far as power goes.

[Nerve-Damage]

What you guys are coining the scalar chip (mysterious mystery chip) could be more than. It’s a high probability it maybe another high-end serial I/O chip with integrated PVR functionality, and some video scaling capability too boot.

Some of us down at the firm believe its an upgraded version of Toshibas “GOKU" chip. Which is well suited for multi I/O serial interface systems and does offer great performance in PVR based devices. There's a good reason why we believe it is...

Anyhow, (IMO) the chip scalar usage was an after thought from Sony (due to pressure) and not to poor software management.

[Garfunkel]

I am sure devs knew about the scaler long ago but couldn't reveal anything. I don't hear CPI going "OMGZ!!1! p53 sC4I3r!!1!".

[jaxmkii]

Interesting... I am honestly surprised by this news, not so much pertaining to secrecy since they are notorious for this, but the fact that it was always there with few having any knowledge of its existence until now.

kinda makes you wonder why Sony would hide this? what good could it possibly do?

[cliffbo]

I think Sony always intended to do this why else would the scaler be present. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the news media or "X-shills".

Quite simply Sony is behind in quantity and quality of software (but seem to be picking up steam rather well since launch).

i agree. i think that the scaler was kept a secret to encourage devs to go for 1080p instead of simply upscaling.

[Domination]

At least we know Sony is capable of putting in some serious hardware, many exotic and new things in there ;) They aren't an electronics giant for nothing.

Believe me when I say this, but I look at this every-single-time I view the competition from a hardware perspective. I feel the media are underestimating them greatly on this aspect.

[cliffbo]

does this mean that PS2 games could be upscaled?

[curryking1]

Even beyond that it is amazing how well Sony can keep a secret. Or how well they can build a contract/agreement to keep this secret. I mean really did anyone actually know definetely that there was a HW scaler present..

Truly the equivalent of an enigma for a company.

[VG Aficionado]

I think both Nintendo and Sony are much better at keeping secrets than Microsoft. Somehow, a lot of 360 related information has leaked over the last few years. I remember that diagram that detailed the system's specs with 256 MB of RAM (it was originally going to have half the RAM it does now) and a tri-core CPU two or three years ago. A few weeks prior to E3 2K5, the final name and pictures of the system leaked, as well as nearly all final hardware details. I think we all remember that kid posting pictures of his stepfather's 360 test unit months before launch. And most recently, we've seen that HDMI-enabled 360. We have never seen similar leaks regarding PS3 and Wii, let alone so many of them. I wonder whether these leaks are deliberate or not.

I'm looking forward to seeing what features Sony has yet to reveal about PS3. To me, PS3 hasn't launched yet, and I don't mean it just literally.

[curryking1]

I think that may have to do with Microsoft not caring to keep that stuff secret. Letting stuff slip beforehand might have been there idea to essentially keep interest at a nice level.

[cliffbo]

I think that may have to do with Microsoft not caring to keep that stuff secret. Letting stuff slip beforehand might have been there idea to essentially keep interest at a nice level.

agreed. MS deliberately leak information to create interest in there console and Sony keep their cards close to there chest to create a sense of mystery.

i prefer Sony's approach but sometimes i wish they would take a leaf out of MSs book.

[curryking1]

Yes, I think it's nothing more than two different strategies. It could be that MS isn't as good as Sony at keeping secrets, who knows, we won't know that until we have evidence MS tries to keep a secret and successfully does so, but right now it seems it's just different ways/philosophies/strategies of getting the attention of the market.

[cliffbo]

Yes, I think it's nothing more than two different strategies. It could be that MS isn't as good as Sony at keeping secrets, who knows, we won't know that until we have evidence MS tries to keep a secret and successfully does so, but right now it seems it's just different ways/philosophies/strategies of getting the attention of the market.

although Sony's strategy sometimes leads to frustration (as we have seen here many times) the main advantage over MS's strategy is that it creates more impact when we eventually get the information. an analogy would be: when you get a present at Xmas that you had no idea about, its more of a surprise and your more likely to talk about it to friends.

[curryking1]

I don't know which is more effective, it can be argued of course if we have the right data and we could give an opinion to which is more effective, at least anyone could agree that they use different methods :)

[cliffbo]

I don't know which is more effective, it can be argued of course if we have the right data and we could give an opinion to which is more effective, at least anyone could agree that they use different methods :)

i know what your saying curry. the drawback with MS's method is that it makes 360 fanboys look stupid in the long run because they immediately make claims of having something the PS3 doesn't, only then to find out later that not only does the PS3 get it, but its improved. it will happen with everything this gen, games, online, peripherals, tech etc...

and of course it makes certain sites look stupid too LOL (oh, the joy... stiq)

[curryking1]

Well, maybe, but I don't think the effectiveness of MS' strategy has much to do with how 0.1% (fanboys) of the gaming market takes it lol. These leaks are known to all the gaming users on the intarwebnet.

And besides, it doesn't matter what fanboys think.

EDIT: I'm not trying to disagree or anything, just trying to convey what I think about it. Just making sure I don't fault by starting anything no one wants lol ;)

[cliffbo]

Well, maybe, but I don't think the effectiveness of MS' strategy has much to do with how 0.1% (fanboys) of the gaming market takes it lol. These leaks are known to all the gaming users on the intarwebnet.

And besides, it doesn't matter what fanboys think.

EDIT: I'm not trying to disagree or anything, just trying to convey what I think about it. Just making sure I don't fault by starting anything no one wants lol ;)

you don't have to explain yourself to me Curry LOL. i don't expect everyone to agree with everything i say ;) TROLL

[Leedogg]

Could this mystery Hardware Scaler be also used for upscaling dvds too?

[Nameless]

^ I would say no based on current discussion...

[woundingchaney]

i know what your saying curry. the drawback with MS's method is that it makes 360 fanboys look stupid in the long run because they immediately make claims of having something the PS3 doesn't, only then to find out later that not only does the PS3 get it, but its improved. it will happen with everything this gen, games, online, peripherals, tech etc...

Well I have no idea about how the PS3 scaling/hw scaler could be considered improved over MSs hw scaler. I dont think the issue makes anyone look stupid as it is once again being touted as a trump card for both sides. I would say that the 360 scaling method is superior and easier integrated than the PS3s but it shouldnt matter much especially since people are so interested in native resolution. On one side its hard to condemn MS for using scaling since the PS3 will now be doing it but MS has yet to achieve a native 1080p game (at least that I know of) so really what does it matter.

I dont think that this method your speaking of is some technique specifically implored by Sony. Im sure if they were able to get the scaler prepared for release titles they would have (after all why go through all the negative press over the issue).

I think that is a very bold statement assuming that Sony will deliver "better" games, online, periphrial, tech etc this gen. (but we will see).

[curryking1]

you don't have to explain yourself to me Curry LOL. i don't expect everyone to agree with everything i say ;) TROLL

LOL! My feelings.... :( hahahaha :beer: :grouphug:

P.S. That's a root beer, I hate beer, tastes awful.... cranberry cocktails are my thing hahahahahaa.

[cliffbo]

Well I have no idea about how the PS3 scaling/hw scaler could be considered improved over MSs hw scaler. I dont think the issue makes anyone look stupid as it is once again being touted as a trump card for both sides. I would say that the 360 scaling method is superior and easier integrated than the PS3s but it shouldnt matter much especially since people are so interested in native resolution. On one side its hard to condemn MS for using scaling since the PS3 will now be doing it but MS has yet to achieve a native 1080p game (at least that I know of) so really what does it matter.

I dont think that this method your speaking of is some technique specifically implored by Sony. Im sure if they were able to get the scaler prepared for release titles they would have (after all why go through all the negative press over the issue).

I think that is a very bold statement assuming that Sony will deliver "better" games, online, periphrial, tech etc this gen. (but we will see).

yeh, wounding, that did sound a bit fanboyish LOL. i was speaking generally though, i'm not sure if the scaling will be better on the PS3 but i am sure about all the other things i mentioned. if i had the money i would buy a 360 though, its a very good console

[woundingchaney]

yeh, wounding, that did sound a bit fanboyish LOL. i was speaking generally though, i'm not sure if the scaling will be better on the PS3 but i am sure about all the other things i mentioned. if i had the money i would buy a 360 though, its a very good console

Dont worry Cliff, although Im willing to bet against such a broad statement. :)

[curryking1]

Ahh what a great forum lol!

[jaxmkii]

Could this mystery Hardware Scaler be also used for upscaling dvds too?

ewww... upscalling poor sorce data is just nasty

[cliffbo]

can it upscale PS2 games?

[Nameless]

^At this point no.

Will it affect PS2 titles? I seriously doubt it. Mainly because there is no fixed resolution or refresh rate to PS2 titles. And a hardware scaler by nature (assuming it's not analog) is going to look for a relatively small subset of inputs. Many PS2 games are rendering at all sorts weird resolutions which are achieved by tweaking CRTC register-style controls manually to squeeze out a little extra effective fillrate and ignore overscan regions. So when a scaler is looking for 640x480i/p and it gets 512x448i/p or 624x432p or 576x400i or 624x320p... well, things don't go so smoothly... I also don't know for sure if the PS2 hardware just has its own output DAC or not.

[venomv]

Well, as of right now it can only scale the horizontal, unless/untill it can scale vertical, so even if it could scale DVD's and PS2 games, why would you want it to?

[frosty]

PS3 doesn't need to use the scaler for DVD's and PS2 games. Think about it, Cell is just sitting there basically idle while playing either. It can upscale a DVD better than the upscaler chip can anyday, same for PS2 games. Sony has already mentioned that they are getting their software to do so finalized to release in a future update.

[cliffbo]

okay, so could this chip have more up its sleeve than upscaling? remember that strange statement from PSM about a built in physics chip!?

[curryking1]

That's great for upscaling DVDs on the cell, but upscaling PS2 games, hell naw! I want my software rendering crap for uber sharp PS2 games. I hope it happens, and sooner rather than later if it will.

[Domination]

Well I have no idea about how the PS3 scaling/hw scaler could be considered improved over MSs hw scaler. I dont think the issue makes anyone look stupid as it is once again being touted as a trump card for both sides. I would say that the 360 scaling method is superior and easier integrated than the PS3s but it shouldnt matter much especially since people are so interested in native resolution. On one side its hard to condemn MS for using scaling since the PS3 will now be doing it but MS has yet to achieve a native 1080p game (at least that I know of) so really what does it matter.

I dont think that this method your speaking of is some technique specifically implored by Sony. Im sure if they were able to get the scaler prepared for release titles they would have (after all why go through all the negative press over the issue).

I think that is a very bold statement assuming that Sony will deliver "better" games, online, periphrial, tech etc this gen. (but we will see).


It probably had a lot to do with something else not being ready, I don't know. I'm sure there was a reason for it, though.

I agree, on the games. Better is an opinion. However, I could probably wager that Sony will deliver the largest first/second party library of the two.

Online, I could possibly side with you here as well. I honesly feel that the two are going to have their own strengths and weaknesses ranging from, flexibility, content, and available features. But as a software firm, I could probably give Microsoft the lead way here as far as standard, widely accessible features. But I think it's going to come down to preference here for the consumer.

On peripherals, I'd have to go with Sony. Already, they've surpassed Microsoft tremendously on this side, being their console more open and all. I can only see this improving more as the console becomes widely available on the market. I also have to look at this from a hardware side. I just see it as Sony having more experience and weight in this area.

[frosty]

No, this is a scaler and nothing more. And only a horizontal one at that (for now). I'm sure CPI or XBD would have made mention of it by now.

[woundingchaney]

ewww... upscalling poor sorce data is just nasty

I dont know man I recently bought a 12bit upscaling dvd player and there is a tremendous difference in quality. A good upscaler can do quite a bit (but I agree that its not comparable to native).

[Epix]

I dont know man I recently bought a 12bit upscaling dvd player and there is a tremendous difference in quality. A good upscaler can do quite a bit (but I agree that its not comparable to native).

Which one? Have you seen Oppo's (http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html) new 1080p upscaling DVD player?

[woundingchaney]

Which one? Have you seen Oppo's (http://www.oppodigital.com/dv981hd/dv981hd_index.html) new 1080p upscaling DVD player?

No but I heard good things about it.


I went with a 70usd phillips dvp5960 (got it on sale).

[Red_Eyes]

Scalar technology is so awesome. In fact, we should just render every at 2 by 2 pixils and scale them up to 1080P. Lol.

On a serious note, come on, it's only a scalar. What's all the fuzz. It only affect a small percentage number of peoples anyway too.

[rog27]

Ummm... RSX isn't involved (sort of is, but not really). The upscaler is a physically separate device -- it doesn't really have a die of its own, but it's nothing to do with RSX or any rendering components within. Much the same way that the audio hardware shares a die, but doesn't actually have anything to do with its companions.

The only real role RSX plays here is outputting to a frontbuffer of a suitable size that the scaler can work with it. There's no real software side to it unless you choose to software scale yourself.


So, you're basically saying that the hardware scaler and certain audio components share that mystery die space on RSX that we could never account the extra transistor budget for (RSX has 300 million transistors even stripped of pure video, etc., but the g71 refresh had 50+ million less for some reason)?

Or does the hardware scaler lie on the HDMI/HDCP chip or Super Companion Chip (SCC)?

[Garfunkel]

Scalar technology is so awesome. In fact, we should just render every at 2 by 2 pixils and scale them up to 1080P. Lol.

On a serious note, come on, it's only a scalar. What's all the fuzz. It only affect a small percentage number of peoples anyway too.

doesn't quite work that way my friend ;)

[cpiasminc]

So, you're basically saying that the hardware scaler and certain audio components share that mystery die space on RSX that we could never account the extra transistor budget for (RSX has 300 million transistors even stripped of pure video, etc., but the g71 refresh had 50+ million less for some reason)?

Or does the hardware scaler lie on the HDMI/HDCP chip or Super Companion Chip (SCC)?
Wow... so very much not related to what I was trying to say, but nice segueway nonetheless. As far as the transistor count of RSX is concerned, yes it does include things that aren't GPU components... No, that's not what I was getting it, but that say, the audio hardware on RSX does not have anything to do with the GPU pipelines nor do you do any sort of GPU programming to hook up to it -- it's just another standalone component whose transistors happen to be on the same die. There are no audio "shader" pipelines or anything like that, and no operations to either device have anything to do with one another. Accounting for "mystery" transistors is another ball of wax which probably won't ever be publically released (though that won't stop people from guessing).

The "sort of but not really" part had to do with having to render to a different size frontbuffer.

As far as where the scaler is located, you got me. All the talks I saw about it were focused on it to the point of it being treated as a stand-alone component (which it is) with no regard for what package or die it lies on. But if I were to guess, putting it on the same die with HDMI/HDCP hardware makes the most sense.

[frosty]

Thank you for clearing that up, as well as putting any more "hidden RSX crap" rumors to rest before they even had the chance to flare up.

[cliffbo]

Thank you for clearing that up, as well as putting any more "hidden RSX crap" rumors to rest before they even had the chance to flare up.

Hidden RSX! please elaborate...

[cpiasminc]

Hidden RSX! please elaborate...
There's actually a second RSX in the PS3, and it lies on an alternate plane of existence where you can't see it, but virtual photon clouds in our space-time do get reabsorbed by charged particles in the alternate plane and vice versa, which allows electronics in both planes to communicate via micro-wormholes. This sort of link turns out to be instantaneous, so there's no additional latency penalty for data transfers. The second RSX is actually a lot bigger and it's this bigger RSX that accounts for the remainder of those 1.8 TFLOPS.

Oh, also, Gran Turismo HD will give you many more RSXes, but unfortunately those only come back as photons in the visible light frequency bands rather than electric fields that can drive real hardware components... that too, they're not Sony's or nVidia's... they're from Honda, so even if we used optical interconnects it wouldn't yield any useful information.

[Nameless]

^ LMAO... :lol:
Do you write for Star Trek in your offtime.
The only thing you missed is the temporal disturbance caused by the usage of the alternate plane RSX due to it's transient non-linear design... *Takes another puff of joint*

[frosty]

Not to mention, the other RSX's don't need to rely on PS3's power supply, as they each have their own over-unity perpetual generators on board.

[cliffbo]

is all that with or without Heisenberg compensator's? lol


:)

[jaxmkii]

is all that with or without Heisenberg compensator's? lol


:)

oh you have to use it or your pattern buffer will not sync up due to quantom iragularitys caused buy the laws of improblibility.

[VG Aficionado]

C'mon guys, cut on the crap! All I need to know is whether the additional RSX can control a bat add-on to spank all of the Xbox fanboys that approach my PS3.

[frosty]

An 11 dimensional bat at that. One that can smack them from every angle known to us as well as some we can't even percieve!

OK folks, let's try to get back on topic, lol.

[jaxmkii]

An 11 dimensional bat at that. One that can smack them from every angle known to us as well as some we can't even percieve!

OK folks, let's try to get back on topic, lol.
yea frosty cut the string theroy crap! we only use Hawkings laws here!

[frosty]

^M-theory actually. String theory is 10 dimensional.

[jaxmkii]

^M-theory actually. String theory is 10 dimensional.

how careless of me:crazy2:

[Fats]

*stumbles in*

Great news then.

*stumbles out again*

[curryking1]

LOL! 11 dimensional bat hahahhaha!

[cpiasminc]

oh you have to use it or your pattern buffer will not sync up due to quantom iragularitys caused buy the laws of improblibility.
Which was one of the big problems that Sony needed to solve when doing research on the RSX -- they needed to develop a PLL which would shift the phase of all incoming signals (including sync clocks) so that the second RSX would remain 180 degrees out of phase with the regular one. They also had some interesting methods for dealing with heat, though -- they use a heavy water coolant, which is partly why PS3 weighs as much as it does. They've gone beyond deuterons and tritons... they've gone all the way to nonadekanons... the hydrogen isotopes weigh more than the oxygen atoms making for some... really heavy water. An abundance of neutrons and ancillary massive particles but only one proton which more or less serves to do nothing more than to provide a suitably positive charge to the nucleus (which is why they considered dubbing the isotope "administratium", but that didn't fly for some unexplained reason... go figure).

LOL! 11 dimensional bat hahahhaha!
Well, you gotta have some way to manage 8,589,934,592 shader pipelines! Well, okay, 1,977,326,743 are reserved for redundancy, but what are you gonna do? You gotta keep everything running on the same bat wavelength at the same bat time, same bat channel... same bat isocline... same bat hypervolume intersection... same bat manifold saddle... same bat symmetry... okay, you get it by now.

Back on topic, now.

As long as this applies to games in general being able to rely on the scaler to get 1080 resolutions, that's pretty much the most important point here. The big value here means that developers don't have to be shackled by limited fillrates which is a big problem for both PS3 and Xenon. Their fillrate in relation to their resolution is really quite pitiful (the two GPUs put together still have a poorer fillrate-to-resolution ratio than PS2). But being able to put more effort into fewer pixels at the GPU end is a damn good thing. When all is said and done, the CPU is still eating up the vast majority of the time, but the GPU is the easiest thing to play with in the goal of shaving time away... so it's just as well that the GPU isn't filling so many pixels and we're not having to give up so much more memory. That, too, fewer pixels filled means more done per pixel no matter what the game is.

[frosty]

Translated into laymans tearms, not being forced to stick to 720p when 1080p isn't possible with the game you are trying to create is a GOOD THING. You will get better graphics out of it in the end. It's a win-win. 720p to 1080i fixed, and devs are given a little more freedom.

[curryking1]

Their fillrate in relation to their resolution is really quite pitiful (the two GPUs put together still have a poorer fillrate-to-resolution ratio than PS2).

That is very interesting. It seems both MS and Sony were too intent on jumping onto a high resolution for gaming just to make their consoles sound more powerful than they actually are.

[frosty]

Well, for requiring all games be HD, yes.

[curryking1]

I think they pushed each other too much on the resolution front. It's a very obvious figure that everyone understands, so it's clear why it was chosen to be the one where they want to one-up each other.

I think that has been a problem for these first few next gen games, they're too bent on this super high resolution crap, I'm sure they can make games a lot cooler and more interactive with slightly lower resolutions. Like maybe go down from 720p to like 600p or something. Many games have simply been resolution all the way up, game the exact same as last gen.

God damn, I can't wait for mid gen so I can see what this gen is actually gonna be like. I hate the beginning of this gen, it sucks balls.

Whatevs, I'm with Kojima, he can make MGS4 480p, and with all the crap he would probably put in it, I wouldn't give a s***. And this scaler stuff is only adding to my reason to love him.

[cpiasminc]

That is very interesting. It seems both MS and Sony were too intent on jumping onto a high resolution for gaming just to make their consoles sound more powerful than they actually are.
Technically that's not completely fair on my part since no other GPU ever made (note made, not sold as PC GPUs are often overclocked by vendors) prior to the G80 compares to the PS2 GS in that arena. Though I am talking strictly about pixel fillrate, not texel fillrate. Obviously, the GS is laughable in texel fillrate, but since it was never really designed for complex shaders, that's fine for what it was. It was more built for complex blend operations and framebuffer accumulation using otherwise simple pixels per pass. Give the same task to any other GPU, they'll probably go up in smoke.

Most GPUs we know today are designed for complex pixels in fewer passes, so texel fillrate is king over pixel fillrate. But when resolution goes up and pixel fillrate doesn't go up so much... you end up choking a bit. Of course, on the PC, we don't really care so much because we've got the luxury of SLI so long as you've also got the luxury of a bottomless wallet. So you can easily boost pixel and texel fillrate (which aren't really affected so much by PCI-e bus bandwidth).

If either RSX or Xenos had 16 ROPs instead of 8, I think it'd be a non-issue in practice.

[gozirah]

If FUD has an opposite, its right here in this thread.

[Garfunkel]

Thanks for the info CPI!

[curryking1]

I am t3h pwned by cpi. Thanks for the information. I guess I jumped a bit too ahead of myself, great clarification man.

Also, I really like the results devs like Square got from the PS2, like FF XII just looked amazing. Do you think it really utilized the PS2's strength, like arguably the best cpi? I found it had great everything visually basically.

But let me get this one thing, so pixels are good for simple textures and stuff, and texels are for like shader effects like bump mapping and stuff?

And do you think that there could be a lot of performance gains by decreasing resolution, like say from some arbitrary res like 720p down to 600p? I don't even think 720p is that necessary for gaming yet, that is if there is a lot of horsepower to go to use elsewhere with a bit of a drop in resolution.

I know it's kind of a silly question, but since you're a dev, do you feel that maybe your game or future games could simply do more if they didn't go 720p and above? Simply be more interactive, have some more detail here and there for a bit of sacrifice with sharpness? Ah well, I'm just a spectator to these things. But I guess I'm just asking what you would personally rather have in the idea that you want to make a 'better' and 'more alive' game or something. Would you rather stick closer to standard def with some modest increases over it and with the resulting performance gain over high resolutions or do you think it's worth it to go for the higher resolutions?

[frosty]

^Some good questions. Just so you know texels are pixels in a texture. Pixel fillrate would be how fast the GPU can draw the image on screen, wheras texel fillrate would be how fast it draws textures (plz correct if wrong). When you run a shader, it takes a set of instructions for what surface to emulate and applies it to the texture taking into account environmental variables such as lighting direction and intensity. After running that program, it outputs what color that particular texel should be. So, the more shader effects you are using, the more passes over a texel you are having to do in order to apply that shader effect. This is where texel fillrate comes into play. However, I know only in part, mostly from what I have picked up reading these forums, so don't take that as the gospel truth. better to have someone like CPI, XBD, Mainman, or any of our other GFX guru's elaborate on that.

[cpiasminc]

^Some good questions. Just so you know texels are pixels in a texture. Pixel fillrate would be how fast the GPU can draw the image on screen, wheras texel fillrate would be how fast it draws textures (plz correct if wrong). When you run a shader, it takes a set of instructions for what surface to emulate and applies it to the texture taking into account environmental variables such as lighting direction and intensity. After running that program, it outputs what color that particular texel should be. So, the more shader effects you are using, the more passes over a texel you are having to do in order to apply that shader effect. This is where texel fillrate comes into play.
Of those bolded words...
"texture" --> "textures" (plural) as there are usually more than one. Lately, having 8 texture layers isn't that uncommmon. In the games I'm working on, we occasionally have objects with as many as 14 textures. Since things like normal maps, detail texture layers, specular levels, strand bundle thicknesses, etc. are all stored in textures, it's something of a given these days that texture counts are way up there.

"texel" --> "pixel" or "sample" (the latter in the case of AA). The shaders are there in the intention of outputting a pixel to the framebuffer. Texels are read and used in the shader as data towards the end purpose of outputting a pixel of a sample in the framebuffer. Yes, there is technically the whole multiple render targets thing in which case the output buffer may be used as a texture, but the shader pipelines don't really know that -- only the software and the driver/API layer know that. That's a whole other ball of wax.

"passes" --> "texture reads". In the case of PS2 or PSP which have single-texturing hardware, you do have to do stuff as multiple passes, but nowadays you can just read from textures as many times as you want in one pass.

[frosty]

Thanks for the explanation! Good to know I wasn't too terribly far off, lol.

[Epix]

Sony should have thrown in a DCDi chip from Faroudja. Problem solved.

[Siraris]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9593535&&#post9593535

According to this member Darknight, who I'm guessing is a developer (if he's not just making stuff up) there is a scaler in the PS3, and developers have known about it for a long time, just told not to use it. *If you read previous posts by him, he seems to be a developer and doesn't want to say much to not break his NDA.

Any comments xb?

*edit* In http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8988845#post8988845 this post, he clearly states back on 11/25/06 that there is a hardware scaler that developers can't access, and developers would have to release a patch for each game for it to support 1080i. This is now true, or at least what the B3D article says. I'm believing that this guy know's what he's talking about now. So the question still stands, why doesn't Sony want developers using the scaler?

[frosty]

This thread is about there being a scaler in PS3, so yeah. They just now released the SDK do devs could use it, but for now they can only scale horizontally. Vertical scaling will come later I presume. Horizontal is all we need though, because we can render 960x1080 and stretch it to fill 1920x1080 and not take much of a performance his vs. 1280x720. So, basically a very low cost way to upscale 720p for 1080i sets and upscaling it to 1080p as well.

[Siraris]

This thread is about there being a scaler in PS3, so yeah. They just now released the SDK do devs could use it, but for now they can only scale horizontally. Vertical scaling will come later I presume. Horizontal is all we need though, because we can render 960x1080 and stretch it to fill 1920x1080 and not take much of a performance his vs. 1280x720. So, basically a very low cost way to upscale 720p for 1080i sets and upscaling it to 1080p as well.

Horizontal is not all we need, why would you even say that? If you're talking about appeasing the vocal minority that are not able to use the PS3 with their TV's, then yes, horizontal scaling is useful to solve that problem quick and easy. That being said, if there is a scaler inside the PS3, you could have every PS3 game running in 1080p if the developer wanted so, because the scaler would do the brunt work of rendering to the screen, as opposed to having the CPU/GPU rendering a 1080p FB.

According to Darknight from the AVS forums, developers have been able to use the scaler all along, but Sony wouldn't approve their game if they did.

[xbdestroya]

That being said, if there is a scaler inside the PS3, you could have every PS3 game running in 1080p if the developer wanted so, because the scaler would do the brunt work of rendering to the screen, as opposed to having the CPU/GPU rendering a 1080p FB.

It's still not rendering at 1080p... just scaling. There's a very real difference.

[BruceWayneIII]

[url]...So the question still stands, why doesn't Sony want developers using the scaler?

There could be several technical arguments and reasons, that we don't really know about (and I won't start guessing). However, I would guess that one small reason would be to refrain launch-game developers from using the scaler to compensate for less optimized games. I.e. scaling lower-resolutions to 720p. That might be the reason why SONY included the scaler in the SDK but pushed the acceptance of the use of it.

[frosty]

Exactly, they saw the bad press x360 got for doing the same thing, and knew that if PS3 did as well it would bring it's power vs. the 360 into question, and would make it's price tag harder to justify.

[curryking1]

So... this is all part of a bigger scheme to make money!!! I understand now! Only image matters!!! Why must the world be so horrible!?!?!

[Siraris]

It's still not rendering at 1080p... just scaling. There's a very real difference.

I'm well aware that it's not actually rendering 1080p, that being said, even if it was rendering at 720p and being scaled to 1080p, they could put that on the box and flaunt it to everyone for the time being. I am well aware of the technical caveats of rendering the game in a 1920x1080 FB, and I'm guessing developers don't want to do it as it will pinpoint graphical flaws, but it does seem silly.

[cliffbo]

i read an article a long time ago when MS announced that their 360 could now do 1080p but the 'P' did not stand for 'progressive' it stood for something else. can anyone find that article. it is a war of perception

[VG Aficionado]

I remember reading that "p" stood for "parity" :laugh:

Whatever. I'm glad PS3's scaler actually works together with the RSX to allow using intermediate resolutions between 720p and 1080p. It's a win-win situation and it's not like they're cheating with resolutions, but using them more cleverly.

[woundingchaney]

There could be several technical arguments and reasons, that we don't really know about (and I won't start guessing). However, I would guess that one small reason would be to refrain launch-game developers from using the scaler to compensate for less optimized games. I.e. scaling lower-resolutions to 720p. That might be the reason why SONY included the scaler in the SDK but pushed the acceptance of the use of it.

[Smokey]

i read an article a long time ago when MS announced that their 360 could now do 1080p but the 'P' did not stand for 'progressive' it stood for something else. can anyone find that article. it is a war of perception

1080p uPscale :) J/K

[woundingchaney]

There could be several technical arguments and reasons, that we don't really know about (and I won't start guessing). However, I would guess that one small reason would be to refrain launch-game developers from using the scaler to compensate for less optimized games. I.e. scaling lower-resolutions to 720p. That might be the reason why SONY included the scaler in the SDK but pushed the acceptance of the use of it.

I highly doubt that. If anything it seems Sony simply didnt have the scaler software (dev codes...etc) available for games until now. As the article states they have just made it possible for devs. I would imagine that releasing games with sub 720p res. wasnt a concern what so ever. Its also a possibility that the scaler was one of the final additions to the PS3 so in early dev kits they may of had no idea how the scaler was going to fit into the scenario.

360 games really dont get that much bad press over scaling a small percentage (LOL outside of the internet anyways) in comparison to the large amount of bad press Sony has recieved for the PS3 not being compatible with certain sets.

[cliffbo]

I remember reading that "p" stood for "parity" :laugh:

Whatever. I'm glad PS3's scaler actually works together with the RSX to allow using intermediate resolutions between 720p and 1080p. It's a win-win situation and it's not like they're cheating with resolutions, but using them more cleverly.

so why 'parity'? because its not true 1080p! its another perspective cheat

[Coded-Dude]

MS won't explain why/how they are achieving 1080p, there is a IGN article about it.

[BruceWayneIII]

I highly doubt that. If anything it seems Sony simply didnt have the scaler software (dev codes...etc) available for games until now. As the article states they have just made it possible for devs. I would imagine that releasing games with sub 720p res. wasnt a concern what so ever. Its also a possibility that the scaler was one of the final additions to the PS3 so in early dev kits they may of had no idea how the scaler was going to fit into the scenario.

360 games really dont get that much bad press over scaling a small percentage (LOL outside of the internet anyways) in comparison to the large amount of bad press Sony has recieved for the PS3 not being compatible with certain sets.

I was not saying my guess was the main reason. I clearly state there might be technical reasons. If it was in the SDK, something tells it was working - at least to some degree. Microsoft did not get the same amount of bad press over scaling for a long list of reasons. I don't think they are quite comparable in that sense. Everyone was picking on SONY's 1080p resolution, doubting it, so upscaled launch games would definately fuel the flames. I said it was probably a component in the overall decision. No more, no less.

[Epix]

Possibly the intended implementation was in violation of the HDCP 1.3 revision spec (published Dec. 21 06). The current 'work around' could be a means to circumvent HDCP 1.3 non compliance.