Yellow Dog Linux

oeboeroe wrote:All I can say is, you could appeal to your vendor to supply a datasheet for a developer to use when implementing a driver. Since both ATI and NVIDIA currently have problems facing other peoples IP regarding their GPU's drivers. This has been the "battle" between the giants regarding the PC games market, FUD plus specific game optimization regardless of the underlying libraries, it beeing opengl or directx.

There is some hope concerning ATI, since AMD has been trying to open up their driver for foss.

Then again I won't be troubled if I could CUDA my way on the RGX, don't need no 3d..

smashing the vizor for fun and profit is cool, just hope there's some common sense before someplace starts shipping chips again and you'd be fighting a challenger on grand turismo you'll never beat. E.g. I don't want to give up my gameos just so I can run eye candy on a workstation.

If you want compiz like ability try looking/supporting the effort to get the CELL to act as a GPU, specs are available a FOSS driver is available. Someone just needs some time to get it up and running again..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium3D

http://www.yellowdog-board.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=7053#p35823

If there is enough time.. one could even opt to GSOC it.. I don't know just winging it here.

There are even tutorials (FOSS) out there how one creates a raytracer on the CELL..

DOOM raytraced anyone?

Just my 2 euro cents

Personally i dont believe that its even as bad as 7800 that card could barelly run ut2k4 with anti aliasing at playable fps... as much powerfull as the cell could actually be, it would be impossible for it to render games like killzone2 with a trash gfx card like that, i can go as high as saying it couldnt even render wipeout hd at 1080p even if sometimes it drops at 720p to keep it up at 60fps.
I will only believe in those specs when nvidia states them themselves, untill then dont care much about that xboxvsps fanboy made up war...

Legendary_Agent wrote:Personally i dont believe that its even as bad as 7800 that card could barelly run ut2k4 with anti aliasing at playable fps... as much powerfull as the cell could actually be, it would be impossible for it to render games like killzone2 with a trash gfx card like that, i can go as high as saying it couldnt even render wipeout hd at 1080p even if sometimes it drops at 720p to keep it up at 60fps.
I will only believe in those specs when nvidia states them themselves, untill then dont care much about that xboxvsps fanboy made up war...

Here you go. From an Sony press release, courtesy of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'

Based on NV47 Chip (Nvidia GeForce 7800 Architecture)

Also:

Sony staff were quoted in PlayStation Magazine saying that the "RSX shares a lot of inner workings with NVIDIA 7800 which is based on G70 architecture. Since the G70 is capable of carrying out 136 shader operations per clock cycle, the RSX was expected to feature the same number of parallel pixel and vertex shader pipelines as the G70, which contains 24 pixel and 8 vertex pipelines.
NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang stated during Sony's pre-show press conference at E3 2005 that the RSX is twice as powerful as the GeForce 6800 Ultra.

All of the above is fully referenced and cited on the wikipedia site.

Cheers,
Paul

i wouldnt take wikipedia word for it if i were you, wikipedia can be made up by ayone and later edited by everyone else with an account...
Also the information is based in prerelease 2005-2006...

Fact is 7800gtx couldnt even match my old ati x1900xt club3D edition and we both know x1900xt has serious performance issues to run most new games at 1280*1024 with 60fps average.

Also it states its based on a 7800 not that is actually 7800... its the same as saying nvidia gforce 9800gx2 is based on a 8800gt, doesnt make it the same does it

Legendary_Agent wrote:i wouldnt take wikipedia word for it if i were you, wikipedia can be made up by ayone and later edited by everyone else with an account...

But, in this case, they have references, which I'll list here for you:

http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/050517e.pdf

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2417&p=4
(This one has nVidia's own presentation slides)

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/doc ... /3dps3.htm

(Specifically, this slide: http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20 ... dps309.htm )

So - unless you have any information otherwise, we'll have to take Sony & nVidia's word as fact on this.

Legendary_Agent wrote:Also the information is based in prerelease 2005-2006...

But - none of this has changed since release. Consoles don't get upgrades like PC cards do.

Legendary_Agent wrote:Also it states its based on a 7800 not that is actually 7800... its the same as saying nvidia gforce 9800gx2 is based on a 8800gt

But - you just pointed out how similar they are, I think. There's not that much difference between a 9800gx2 and 8800gt from a chipset standpoint - they both use the G92 core and have similar published performance specs.

Sure - they're not identical: it has been optimized for console as opposed to PC use. However - I do know that the RSX was selected very late in the Sony design process. According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Race-New-Game-Mac ... 0806531010 - which I recommend highly - Ken Kutaragi wanted to use a custom Sony part, but the design fell through at the 11th hour, necessitating the use of the nVidia GPU.

Cheers,
Paul

lol all sources youve posted are pre-release speculations and 1 is chinese

Please tell me you dont actually think a 7800gtx can run any current 3rdgen game at the performance the ps3 is actually running sure cell is powerfull but not even close to a second gfx card performance xD.

Im gonna research the specifications again and compare the two, if ps3 gpu specs are the same as a 7800gtx including shaders and clocks then its obviously made up, if they are worse i will laugh xD

Gonna post it later

Legendary_Agent wrote:lol all sources youve posted are pre-release speculations and 1 is chinese

Those aren't "pre-release speculations" - those are Sony & nVidia's published specifications. At least - what we're going to get. Any other data is probably internal to Sony/nVidia and covered by an non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Make of them what you will.

Also - that's Japanese, not Chinese. The page is one of the main technical websites in Japan - they have a lot of Sony insider information. The main takeaway is that the slide I referenced is in English and is from Sony.

Legendary_Agent wrote:Im gonna research the specifications again and compare the two, if ps3 gpu specs are the same as a 7800gtx including shaders and clocks then its obviously made up, if they are worse i will laugh xD

Gonna post it later

I eagerly await the results of your research.

Cheers,
Paul

BTW: Here's a good article to start your research with:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=9

Cheers,
Paul

Lol and here we are again, posting pre-release speculations xD
Article Date: June 24th, 2005
____________________

Now back to my comparison
Nvidia 7800gtx PS3 RSX

Transistors 302 million "300+"million

Core Clock 430mhz 550mhz

Shaders 24 24

Vertex Units 8 8

Memory Clock 600mhz 700mhz

Memory Size 256mb 256mb

P. Pixel Fillrate 6.9gb/s 4.4gb/s

Flops: 165 GFLOPS 1.8tflops??


As we know from OFFICIAL source Sony which is updated, ps3 is able to reproduce 2.1tflops performance, the cpu alone can only produce 225gflops(which according to you folks its better than the gfx card itself)
This clearelly shows up the very flaws in those articles stating that the ps3 is running on a poorly overclocked 7800gtx.

As i said before, we wouldnt have games like gran turismo 5, uncharted 2, killzone 2, wipeout HD and flower running on such very, very obsolete system...

Sony's original ps3 design was without any rsx at all. They said everything could be done on the cell. Here is an article talking about how developers are going back to the cell without the aid of the rsx. Essentially the rsx was a crutch for developers until they got used to the cell and were comfortable using it.

This article in particular is about the ps3 version of The Saboteur:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-saboteur-aa-blog-entry

This website is the best for all ps3 technical specs around, pay particular attention to the "Early PS3 Models" and "RSX - Reality Synthesizer"

http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html

Legendary_Agent wrote: 1.8tflops??

See here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=25392

Cheers,
Paul

Article: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=25392
Pre-release speculation...again
___________________________

I understand and i just proved you how its impossible for ps3 to have such obsolete gfx card, and to run all gfx on cell processor is silly, you can barelly get it to raytrace ONE car mesh at 24fps with 480i...
You are basing your whole information about ps3 on some outdated pre-release articles (which are useless stating facts to the actual released console) speculating "teh powa of the ps3" thats why youre not making any sense, and honestly if sony would even release a 2 cell ps3 instead of what we have now we would see it bite the dust the same way sega saturn did.

Legendary_Agent wrote:I understand and i just proved you how its impossible for ps3 to have such obsolete gfx card, and to run all gfx on cell processor is silly, you can barelly get it to raytrace ONE car mesh at 24fps with 480i...
You are basing your whole information about ps3 on some outdated pre-release articles (which are useless stating facts to the actual released console) speculating "teh powa of the ps3" thats why youre not making any sense, and honestly if sony would even release a 2 cell ps3 instead of what we have now we would see it bite the dust the same way sega saturn did.

I beg to differ. I believe you have an unrealistic expectations of what the PS3 can deliver. The pre-release technical information about the chipset is more or less correct:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=33973

Core clock: 500MHz (down from previous target of 550MHz)
Memory clock: 650MHz (down from previous target of 700MHz)
8 ROPs (other 8 disabled)
128bit bus to memory
24 pixel shader pipes
G7x (NV47) based

However - Sony's tflops measurement is pure nonsense.

You might find this site informational:
http://www.eurogamer.net/archive.php?pl ... e=face-off

Cheers,
Paul

Lol mate you can differ all you want, after all this is a free and an open forum

As for those silly game comparisons, i dont quite understand what youre trying to achieve with multiplatform games, they are all made on xbox360 hardware and later ported for ps3 with no SPE core optimization in pretty much every single multiplatform release, in other words, ppc 3.2ghz+gpu are the only processors running and the obvious hypervisor which is the seventh SPE core.

I know enough about xbox360vsps3 and frankly this is not what we are discussing here xD

But unfortunatelly my "unrealistic" expectations are quite real, infact we have games like granturismo 5 and killzone 2 already playing decently enough on ps3, they are called granturismo 5 and killzone 2

And again you are basing your WHOLE information on PS3 specs from some pre-release speculations, the truth we do not have anything on the gfx card of the ps3 aside from the 256mb vram size, all other articles trying to guess it are just plain silly and unrealistic at their best attempt, possibly because of the xbox360vsps3 consolewar.

Perhaps it's best to think about it this way.

The RSX was designed in 2005 or so. These designs had to be in place before the launch of the PS3 in Nov. 2006. Once you've launched a console, you can't go back and redesign the chips - you can only reduce the process size during manufacturing. Otherwise, too many games will break. So - it's safe to assume that the RSX performance has remained relatively unchanged since console launch, with improvements in chip yield and heat dissipation.

Considering that nVidia designs are fairly cutting edge - would you really expect the RSX to have features from graphics cards like the 8xxx series released in 2007 or the 9xxx series released in 2008? Wouldn't it make more sense if nVidia simply delivered to Sony the best they had at the time, which is the 7xxx series?

Would you want to take the chance with a design that you hadn't even moved into production? Or would you want to take an established chipset, push it a little for the future and deliver that to Sony?

Just something to think about.

Cheers,
Paul

Legendary_Agent wrote:infact we have games like granturismo 5 and killzone 2 already playing decently enough on ps3, they are called granturismo 5 and killzone 2 .

See here:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... blog-entry

Cheers,
Paul