Top
140°

Updated Info on the PS3 SDK Hardware

PC Watch, a Japanese PC news site, posted some interesting news today regarding the technical specifications of the PLAYSTATION 3 SDK units. Not only that, but they gave the public insight into some issues developers are having while programming for the PS3.

Sony had announced a while back that the SDK unit to be shown at TGS would be the final version. However, instead of SDK v1.0, the model shown at TGS was v0.93. This is also the model that most developers are using to program their games on. While some may be concerned about Sony's delaying of the final SDK unit, some may also be pleased that Sony still has a chance to add to the final PS3 specifications. Either way, the PS3 is so close to its launch date that if Sony does change the PS3 specifications, it will not be anything drastic.

The story is too old to be commented.
Dlacy13g4072d ago

It was refreshing to see them address the "issues" that have been circulating around development for the PS3. Certainly I think the higher end studios will find/use the work arounds with regards to the "bottle-neck". It will be interesting to see how well the smaller studios do with it.

I truly hope the cell and PS3 are able to perform on the level all expect. I won't be an early adopter but I do expect to get one down the road assuming all is as stated from Sony.

Silverwolf4072d ago

I think the real problem will be with smaller studios not having or wanting to invest the resources or money to find better ways to exploit the hardware on the PS3. Time is money and game programmers don't come cheap.

TheMART4072d ago

"Developers are also dealing with certain restrictions revolving around the Cell processor. For instance, out of the 256kbs of memory allocated to each SPE on the Cell, only 128kbs can be used due to buffering.

The downside to the current RSX specifications is that it has a 128-bit memory interface and 8 ROP (Rasterizing Operation). So there within lies a current hurdle for developers. How can they get the most out of the RSX's shading abilities without dealing with the bottleneck to the ROP memory? While that's a minor hurdle needing to be jumped, the biggest issue facing PS3 developers is HDR and FSAA. With the memory bottleneck, it becomes hard for developers to achieve PC level HDR and FSAA."

I don't know how you Sony fans feel, but this is just all not sounding right. The bottleneck, have to use 'workarounds???' and a problem to achieve PC level HDR and FSAA? 360 is already doing those on the fly

specialguest4072d ago (Edited 4072d ago )

"Yet thanks to the flexibility of the Cell processor, developers are using Cell memory for textures and FlexIO for a texture lead. This greatly frees up GPU bandwidth."

you remind me of a dirty politician, campaigning against the rival. Lol.

Marty83704072d ago

The X360 has loads of bottlenecks also.like Edram too small for Hi Def images.Bandwidth problems.These all have to be worked round also.

shotty4072d ago

Who said it too small. The last thing I remember is my xbox 360 showing high definition "images" on my TV.

TheMART4072d ago

Explain that. The 512 MB ram is flexible. The 10 MB embedded extra fast ram is only for doing FSAA on the fly, let's say for free. That's a buffer. What you are telling, hi def images are totally nonsense in this context. Bandwidth problems? Do you even know the numbers?

"If the RSX follows the 6800 Ultra route, it will have 24 texture samplers, but when in use they take up an ALU slot, making the PS3 GPU in practice even less impressive. Even if it does manage to decouple texture fetching from ALU co-issue, it won't have enough bandwidth to fetch the textures anyways."

That's the RSX you're talking about not the 360 GPU.

"The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.

Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches."

http://xbox360.ign.com/arti...

"Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)"

http://forum.pcvsconsole.co...

The 360 is the stronger GPU, that's why Sony didn't release the spec's 'offically'. But we all know it's just not that good. Otherwise they would have got the spec's on paper sh!t they always do.

Just face it. The PS3 GPU was bought in a hurry, Sony thought Cell could do the job of CPU & GPU. Then they found out it couldn't, and knocked on Nvidia's door to buy something that was laying on the shelfs. There you are. 360 has a special designed GPU. It's the strongest thing out there. There isn't even a PC card with 10 MB extra fast ram embedded with 48 unified pipelines

kmis874072d ago

I found this on the internet:
"So when Microsoft sent out a "detailed analysis" of how the two consoles will perform (probably in response to Sony’s ridiculous 2 Teraflop claim), we knew the PR war had begun for good. According to Microsoft, “XBOX 360 has provably [sic] more performance than PS3”. Their longwinded analysis has been posted in its entirety by many "reputable" websites. The contents can be more or less summarised in one word: hogwash.

Among its many outlandish claims is that the XBOX 360 has five times the memory bandwidth of the PS3. The XBOX 360 has one pool of 700MHz GDDR3 memory providing 22.4GB/s of bandwidth. Both the CPU and GPU share this memory. The PS3 on the other hand has two pools of memory; 256MB of XDR memory providing 25.6GB/s of bandwidth and 256MB of GDDR3 providing 22.4GB/s of bandwidth. Both pools can be accessed transparently by the CPU and GPU. The total available bandwidth is 48GB/s. How did Microsoft manage to change their half-as-fast bus to something five times faster?"

It was written as a direct response to one of the claims in the link you posted (Which claimed that the 360 had 5 times the bandwidth of the ps3).

Since you're such an expert about all of this, and you wouldn't post something that you didn't understand (how would you tell if it's biased or not towards either side?), maybe you can enlighten us all as to how the analysis I just provided is wrong since you'd obviously disagree with it.

TheMART4072d ago

Well you should just read the txt.

"Bandwidth
The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.

Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.

The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.

HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices."

I am not making up any facts. These are hardware restricted numbers. If you give quotes from the internet, share the links with us. So we can verify and read if you are not taking parts out of a bigger part. You just got the links I gave. And yeah, both sides will probably try to make the story as good as it sounds. But some things are just hardware restricted and visible for us all.

kmis874072d ago

That 256 Gigs/sec eDRAM can't be included as general purpose memory!

"The XBOX GPU has 10MB of embedded DRAM (eDRAM) which the GPU can access for accelerated blending and anti-aliasing. Because the module is on the same package as the GPU (but not ‘on’ the GPU), it can be clocked very high -- at around 2GHz. On a 128-bit bus, this provides 32GB/s of bandwidth between the GPU and the eDRAM. Adding this figure to the "system memory bandwidth" would be ridiculous since this memory is not what programmers would consider general-purpose memory; it would be akin to Intel claiming that the L2 cache can be included in system memory bandwidth. But this wasn’t enough. Microsoft claims the eDRAM provides not just 32GB/s of bandwidth, but 256GB/s. How they arrived at this figure they do not explain.

The 256GB/s figure comes from the internal bandwidth of the eDRAM module. That’s to say, in the eDRAM chip itself, it can move data at 256GB/s. But where it counts, the wires between the GPU and the eDRAM, it has 32GB/s of bandwidth. By Microsoft’s convention, Sony can claim that the PS3 has 358.4GB/s of memory bandwidth on the CPU alone!"

That still means that the GPU and CPU on the 360 need to share the 22.4 Gigs/sec of bandwidth while the ps3 has 48 Gigs/sec to share between the CPU and GPU. Here is my link:
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au...
HMMMM It seems like plain hardware specs CAN be distorted to make outrageous claims (360 has 5 times the general purpose bandwidth of ps3). Maybe we should stop using the 18 month old spec comparison that MICROSOFT (I can't emphasize this enough) gave IGN as the basis for our comparisons.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4072d ago
Marty83704072d ago (Edited 4072d ago )

U hav'nt got a clue.

Aflac4072d ago

...about how to lie like u do, hypocrite

Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.