Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 4
Results 76 to 84 of 84
  1. #76
    Counting Mod
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    27
    Posts
    13,954
    Rep Power
    146
    Points
    90,992 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    The cell was much more innovative for sure since it wasn't a customized CPU. It was standalone made specifically for PS3. That turned out to be a double edged sword.




    Currently Playing: ​Skyrim, Far Cry 4
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ The Order:1886

  2. #77
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    Rep Power
    41
    Points
    20,463 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jabjabs View Post
    Jaguar is much more suitable for it's situation, now that the CPU isn't hand holding the GPU it doesn't need so much floating point performance and as such is a much more balanced and reasonable CPU as a whole.
    Cell was never hand holding the GPU for floating point operations. GPU work was offloaded to Cell to make up for a lack of memory bandwidth. The GPU bandwidth on the PS3 was puny. A 32-bit frame buffer/back buffer at 720p could easily consume almost all of the bandwidth by itself, so some GPU work was offloaded to Cell where the additional bandwidth from the XDR could be used to compensate.

    RSX was crippled by the lack of bandwidth. It could easily have done far more with more bandwidth. Just look what the GPU in the 360 could pull off by simply offloading the frame buffer to the extremely high bandwidth EDRAM. Without that EDRAM it had less than half the total bandwidth of the PS3 (The 360's shared GDDR3 had the same bandwidth as RSX alone). Simply offloading that frame buffer to the EDRAM made an absolutely massive difference in the system though.

  3. #78
    Forum Guru
    jlippone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,825
    Rep Power
    86
    Points
    10,370 (0 Banked)
    RSX vas also crippled by comparably weak vertex processing capabilities, which was reason why most games pruned vertex data with SPUs before sending it to RSX.
    Removed non visible polygons from display lists, converted lists to better fit RSX caches and so on..

    If cell did work on pixels it was carefully planned and never a normal texturing or shading of polygons.

    This time GPU should be quite capable and with decently low access we should see some interesting things.
    -------
    Couple of nice blog posts about OpenGL.
    The Truth on OpenGL Driver Quality
    Things that drive me nuts about OpenGL

  4. #79
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    Rep Power
    41
    Points
    20,463 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by jlippone View Post
    RSX vas also crippled by comparably weak vertex processing capabilities
    It was no weaker than the 360 GPU.

    And I didn't say that Cell was doing a lot of pixel work, just that it was taking over some of the GPU load to reduce bandwidth requirements. One thing that Cell did was antialiasing which normally chews up tons of GPU bandwidth. (That's also why antialiasing was done by the custom logic in the EDRAM in the 360 rather than the GPU)

    As far as the PS4 goes, it will surely be far better than the PS3. As I've said before, I expect it to be able to do anything an HD 7850 GPU can do and then a bit more. It appears to have similar raw processing power as an HD 7850, but will surely have some refinements beyond that year+ old GPU.
    Last edited by Completely Average; 02-27-2013 at 07:39.

  5. #80
    Forum Guru
    jlippone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    37
    Posts
    3,825
    Rep Power
    86
    Points
    10,370 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    It was no weaker than the 360 GPU.
    In terms of vertex input, constants etc it is by a mile. (in terms of pixel shading, it wins and loses some.)
    There is reason why all games do animations, prune geometry and so on with SPUs, even though RSX could do it as well.

    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=40458
    SPUs are needed to help RSX on vertex jobs to get parity with Xenos.
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    And I didn't say that Cell was doing a lot of pixel work, just that it was taking over some of the GPU load to reduce bandwidth requirements. One thing that Cell did was antialiasing which normally chews up tons of GPU bandwidth. (That's also why antialiasing was done by the custom logic in the EDRAM in the 360 rather than the GPU)
    Changing from MSAA to MLAA is not done simply for bandwidth, there are other advantages as well. (less work on GPU, shading, post processing artifacts.. etc.)
    Also the process is done in completely different phase, MSAA is done during rendering, MLAA is done in post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    As far as the PS4 goes, it will surely be far better than the PS3. As I've said before, I expect it to be able to do anything an HD 7850 GPU can do and then a bit more. It appears to have similar raw processing power as an HD 7850, but will surely have some refinements beyond that year+ old GPU.
    Oh yes, it's huge leap to right direction.
    It certainly will be fascinating to see how pipelines will change, especially if new LibGCM (LibGNM on Ps4?) allows varied use of GPU. (CU job for pruning and sending result for another CU for rendering?..etc)

    Exciting times ahead.
    Last edited by jlippone; 02-27-2013 at 09:31.
    -------
    Couple of nice blog posts about OpenGL.
    The Truth on OpenGL Driver Quality
    Things that drive me nuts about OpenGL

  6. #81
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    18,199
    Rep Power
    165
    Points
    202,442 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    It was no weaker than the 360 GPU.

    And I didn't say that Cell was doing a lot of pixel work, just that it was taking over some of the GPU load to reduce bandwidth requirements. One thing that Cell did was antialiasing which normally chews up tons of GPU bandwidth. (That's also why antialiasing was done by the custom logic in the EDRAM in the 360 rather than the GPU)

    As far as the PS4 goes, it will surely be far better than the PS3. As I've said before, I expect it to be able to do anything an HD 7850 GPU can do and then a bit more. It appears to have similar raw processing power as an HD 7850, but will surely have some refinements beyond that year+ old GPU.
    Cell=vertex manipulation
    Rsx=drawing
    Cell=post processing

    All this was handled by gpu on 360.

    The rsx was considerably fat worse than the 360 gpu.

    As for the ps4, i have nothing bad to say about it. Save that perhaps $#@! only know what they will do with all that bandwidth....

  7. #82
    Elite Guru
    Jabjabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    5,403
    Rep Power
    78
    Points
    5,253 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    Cell was never hand holding the GPU for floating point operations. GPU work was offloaded to Cell to make up for a lack of memory bandwidth. The GPU bandwidth on the PS3 was puny. A 32-bit frame buffer/back buffer at 720p could easily consume almost all of the bandwidth by itself, so some GPU work was offloaded to Cell where the additional bandwidth from the XDR could be used to compensate.
    Yeah I may have worded that badly, I wasn't implying that Cell directly aided in GPU calculation but it did play a significant roll in assisting RSX as the above posts have pointed out.

  8. #83
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,520
    Rep Power
    41
    Points
    20,463 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    As for the ps4, i have nothing bad to say about it. Save that perhaps $#@! only know what they will do with all that bandwidth....
    Funny, I already see the bandwidth as a limiting factor. 1080P @ 60FPS with 4XAA and 16X AF isn't going to be possible in most games with that bandwidth.

    For example, to run Crysis 3 on it's High Quality settings at 1080p @ 60FPS with 4X AA and 16X AF you need a minimum of a GTX 590 GPU which has 331.7 GB/s bandwidth dedicated to just the GPU. Push the graphics up to Very High Quality settings and the GTX 690 with 384.5 GB/s bandwidth is the only GPU on the market that can do it without having to go to an SLI/Crossfire setup.


    Now, the work around for this is easy. Render games at 720p native and scale it, or drop frame rate, or drop AA, or drop AF or a combination. But, the limit is there and it does require a sacrifice. I expect that most games will still be 720p native and scaled to 1080p to preserve frame rate and graphics fidelity at the cost of resolution. Fewer people would notice the scaling than would notice a loss of frame rate, clarity, or graphical features.
    Last edited by Completely Average; 02-27-2013 at 16:13.

  9. #84
    Master Guru
    Bigdoggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Age
    34
    Posts
    6,628
    Rep Power
    75
    Points
    7,757 (11,045 Banked)
    Items Baby ChocoboPlayStationUser name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    Funny, I already see the bandwidth as a limiting factor. 1080P @ 60FPS with 4XAA and 16X AF isn't going to be possible in most games with that bandwidth.

    For example, to run Crysis 3 on it's High Quality settings at 1080p @ 60FPS with 4X AA and 16X AF you need a minimum of a GTX 590 GPU which has 331.7 GB/s bandwidth dedicated to just the GPU. Push the graphics up to Very High Quality settings and the GTX 690 with 384.5 GB/s bandwidth is the only GPU on the market that can do it without having to go to an SLI/Crossfire setup.


    Now, the work around for this is easy. Render games at 720p native and scale it, or drop frame rate, or drop AA, or drop AF or a combination. But, the limit is there and it does require a sacrifice. I expect that most games will still be 720p native and scaled to 1080p to preserve frame rate and graphics fidelity at the cost of resolution. Fewer people would notice the scaling than would notice a loss of frame rate, clarity, or graphical features.


    Not even Battlefield 3 needs that. it doesn't matter either way. You are using a 690GTX as an example which isn't right. I can definitely argue by the time a high end GPU card was fully utilized by 2 games or maybe 3 games the next game needed a better GPU to be utilized to it's full potential anyway. Such a purchase is nothing more then bending over and getting pumpkined by Nvidia. $1000 for a card just for gaming. lolz oh geezes and a waste at that.

    Consoles really don't need to compete wiht high end GPU's. In fact, they probably just compete with the middle end GPU's. The main reason games look much better is because people are maxing their resolutions. It doesn't make the graphics better, it's just a better resolution, there is a difference.


    Also, the majority of PC gamers that I do know usually game around 720p resolution or rather (1024 x 768.) a few I know go up as high as (1280 x 1024). Either way you are going to be much better performance with higher settings with a lower resolution that is clear anyway. Going any higher for a single monitor is pointless. you better be running double or triple monitors.
    Last edited by Bigdoggy; 02-27-2013 at 17:24.
    PSN ID: Intense_Peanut

  10. Likes MonkeyClaw likes this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.