Next gen consoles will ALL use AMD GPU

[FordGT90Concept]

2009 is not recent my friend, And even then it was no were near as manatory as that article makes out, I don't ever remember seeing 4xMSAA and 720p in all 360 games up until it was wavered.

And with MLAA now very easy to acheive on Cell more and more PS3 games will have much better anti aliasing quality then 360.

The Sabatour as an example, MLAA on PS3 gamave it the same quality as 4xMSAA, The 360 version of the games had no anti-aliasing at all.

iirc DICE are running MLAA on Bad company 3 on PS3 as well.

Naughty dog have moved to FXAA and so have the God of war guys.

TCR means it has to pass in order to get published. That's very mandatory. The only way around it was if you got an explicit waiver from Microsoft.

You don't "see" it because TCRs are under an NDA. One developer happened to leak those requirements in an article (although not the full details of said requirements--Microsoft is very thorough in this stuff).

As for MLAA:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2011/06/30/xbox_360_to_get_boost_in_graphics

The MLAA used with the PS3 requires 3-4ms of rendering time spread across five SPUs.

"On the Xbox 360 we run at 2.47ms, with still a lot of possible optimisations to try," Jimenez told GamesIndustry.biz.

It could be that 10 MiB eDRAM showing it's skillz, or the Xenon, or the Xenos. Anyway, nothing special about the PS3.


FXAA is an NVIDIA technology but it sounds like Xbox360 can use it:
http://timothylottes.blogspot.com/2011/03/nvidia-fxaa.html

 

[antuk15]

TCR means it has to pass in order to get published. That's very mandatory. The only way around it was if you got an explicit waiver from Microsoft.

You don't "see" it because TCRs are under an NDA. One developer happened to leak those requirements in an article (although not the full details of said requirements--Microsoft is very thorough in this stuff).

As for MLAA:

It could be that 10 MiB eDRAM showing it's skillz, or the Xenon, or the Xenos. Anyway, nothing special about the PS3.

I suggest you look HERE and HERE and then show me all these native 720p 360 games with 4xMSAA :shadedshu

And there will be the odd ocasion of that, But MLAA doesn't cost RSX anything

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Most are 720p and at least half have at least 2xAA.

All AA costs time. It is post-processing after all.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I suggest you hop onto youtube and watch the KIllzone development videos, Killzone 3 off the top of my head uses MLLA, Which is a post processing effect. There's too many to list and post processing is not just lighting

And Killzone did not use canned lighting, A very good chunk of it is fully dynamic.

Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 look much better then anything I've seen 360 spit out.

None of this makes sense to me. Not only was the canned lighting in killzone a well known issue, but why are you sitting through ps3 triple A title developer vids? Only eagerly awaiting fans watch those. Your I hate consoles thing just seems a little iffy given your statements thus far.

 

[antuk15]

None of this makes sense to me. Not only was the canned lighting in killzone a well known issue, but why are you sitting through ps3 triple A title developer vids? Only eagerly awaiting fans watch those. Your I hate consoles thing just seems a little iffy given your statements thus far.

I'm just obsessed with tech, It's interesting just what idea devs come up with on these old dogs. It also makes you relise just how under utilised PC hardware is

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Originally Posted by antuk15
I suggest you hop onto youtube and watch the KIllzone development videos, Killzone 3 off the top of my head uses MLLA, Which is a post processing effect. There's too many to list and post processing is not just lighting

And Killzone did not use canned lighting, A very good chunk of it is fully dynamic.

Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 look much better then anything I've seen 360 spit out

prob the only games you can, any more that you do will be sony dev made as the xbox is what devs make for anyway so a lot of games are no better or not much better then xbox on ps3 and pc simples and thats the reason id most appreciate any update to the ancient console empire

 

[antuk15]

prob the only games you can, any more that you do will be sony dev made as the xbox is what devs make for anyway so a lot of games are no better or not much better then xbox on ps3 and pc simples and thats the reason id most appreciate any update to the ancient console empire

I can't wait for the next gen consoles.

Then DX9 can finally die and we can say a big hello to true DX11

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I think I've been radically misquoted haha

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I just hope there's more symbiosis between Xbox and Windows. Ideally, GFWL certified game would run on Xbox and an Xbox game would run on Windows. That won't happen with the continued use of POWER processors.

Microsoft would probably object to limited DRM support too in the media.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I think I've been radically misquoted haha

sorry bad grabbing their, Im not so sure AMD need or want IBM's help the simple economics of it means that

IF AMD did make an APU for the big 2 they might well use bulldozer enhanced (trinity) with a gfx core poss dual on board but could also add a discrete gpu to that all kept low volts and watts but with 3xscaling gpus in a v cheap package considering the apus would be mid bin range it would be win win and their scaleing these days is bob on that would make a cheap doable package with high end offshoot chips plus plenty of low end die capital

and its all about die economics , everychip needs to be sold in some cut down form or not

 

[Lionheart]

As I said, I actually hate consoles and haven't owned one since my old PS2.

I'm just not biased like people in this thread and I happen to know what I'm talking about

So you hate console but you bitch and whine in a console thread

Awesome news for AMD, really looking forward to the next gen consoles

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

what i find funny is all the Killzone 3 killzone 3, have you actually played the damn game,

the graphical popin and texture pop in is so fucking terrible its actually worse to play then games that came out years ago i mean good god Killzone on PS2 had less pop in and issues lol PS3 is ancient cell is fucking ancient the 360 is ancient its all ancient hardware

most of the tech is based on architectures based in 2004-2005

the PS3 is actually using a revised 6800 Ultra, its performance is someware between 6800gt and 7800gt performance

which is old as dirt its nearly half the performance of one of AMD's current APUs in the graphics department even more so when looking at pure DX9 or Open GL performance

the Cell yes it had 8 spes 1 disabled 1 for os leaving 6 of them functional only sony exclusives truly use the cell to the best of its ability but then MGS4 was exclusive, but now MGS Rising is multi platform and looks better and it looks the same on 360 and PS3 so the cell and all its goodies didnt really do jack in this senario, any dev can leech a bit more performance out of the hardware but theres always costs.

ive noticed PS3 games might have a bit better graphics these days but they also have alot more texture and LOD pop in, so it looks better standing still looks terrible in motion,

i can say this as i have a PS3 myself almost all my friends own a PS3 AND Xbox 360, i can tell you right now in 99% of games graphics are nearly identicle i can see lighting difference some shadowing differences etc but its about the same difference as you can see from Nvidia vs AMD / ATi on the PC front do to differing hardware. In essence the console tech is 7 years old effectively cell was good then its shit now, and heres why, when a 100w cpu + apu offers 4 x86 cores that spank the shit out of the cell and offers a GPU around 8800gt performance which is 2x the PS3 or Xbox 360s performance and thats looking it at it from a consoles greater then 80% efficiency vs PC at less then 50%, essentially a $100 chip that uses half the power and offers far more performance. Cell is just plain old

and IBM has scaled the Cell to massive # of cores which is great for as Ford pointed out, super computers, guess what, no developer making games is gonna spend a fortune trying to tailor a multiplatform game engine to use 64-128 cores ./ threads, if they cant even be asked to get quad core supported properly after 5 years i doubt they can utilize a cell chip in terms of whats available now, and thats where cell gets its power massive number of cores... oh wait dont we get that already with todays GPUs and Direct compute . Open CL, CUDA etc? yea,

The Cell kept the PS3 in the game so to speak it offered another alternative down the road, problem is it took them 5 years to master the Cell cpu, and thats to utilize 6 spe's yea... lets see them do the same with 30-60-100 + cores it wont happen devs dont ahve the time and heres why most license there game engines from 3rd parties or they reuse ancient game engines

examples Call Of Duty is baseed on the Quake 3 engine its nearly 12 years old now and there still utlizing alot of the base source code just tweaked over time with shit bolted on, almost all developers do this the above is just an example
]
Sony will have to drop cell for a different cpu architecture,simply because developers want the easiest platform to code for with the greatest return on investment.

Xenon cpu offered that its 3 cores were easier to load balance and utilize in terms of a programming a game engine, its entire platform was closer to that of the PC itself

meaning a developer got a 2 for 1 with the Xbox and its Xenon + Xenos

where as most PS3 exclusive developers have there own game engines but lets see how many of them actually ported to a different platform no many because the process of doing so was a royal bitch.

and developers again want return on investment so most likely all COnsoles having AMD gpus of varying types and performance lvls and all having IBM cpus would probably be a good thing because at that point games are much less likely to have glaring platform specific bugs that cripple some ports.

 

[RejZoR]

I think the reason they'll be going for that is AMD's expertise in Fusion cores. Because ultimately that's what consoles are in a nut shell. All in one thing and Fusion is dead on for that.
They'll also probably fuse a much more powerful "CPU and GPU" together for that purpose i assume... I used quotes because it's not CPU and GPU on its own anymore...

If it's true however, it will suck badly for NVIDIA...

 

[CDdude55]

And yet this is all irrelevant if the games aren't good.

 

[hellrazor]

To nVidia: Who's the bitch now?

 

[KainXS]

the PS3 is actually using a revised 6800 Ultra, its performance is someware between 6800gt and 7800gt performance

where did you read it has a 6800?

 

[KainXS]

I can't wait for the next gen consoles.

Then DX9 can finally die and we can say a big hello to true DX11

I have been waiting so long for that, . . . . . . . . please let them die

I luv my PS3 and 360 but they are really holding back development of GL and DX

where did you read it has a 6800?

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

the PS3 was designed before the 7800 was ready to be used

Sony themselves qoutes the PS3 as having a gpu faster then a 6800 ultra time proved this to be false but its in some of the original launch previews and interviews from ages ago

but its essentially much like the Xenos gpu we all know its based on the older x1800 but uses a shader design somewhat similar to the x1900 /x1950

PS3s gpu is essentially an improved 6800 series but lacks the full on grunt of the 7800 series

overall design and performance wise the PS3s gpu has more in common with the 6000 series then it does the 7000 series

 

[ShiBDiB]

You meen like how they code Cell on PC? A CPU that has an architecture thats fuck all like anything on PC, Seriously get a clue.

They're not going to pick hardware to make porting easier to other machines.

Huh?

He's saying they dont design games using consoles, they design them on PC's and port them to consoles. That being said they design them on the PC's to perform better with the console components thus making them run much better on the console then the PC

 

[devguy]

MCM is not an all-in-one processor. It's a discreet GPU and CPU on the same chip, not die.

The original 360S was an MCM design, however, they have recently started shipping 360s with the GPU/CPU/Mem/IO Controller on the same die. source

 

[yogurt_21]

the PS3 was designed before the 7800 was ready to be used

Sony themselves qoutes the PS3 as having a gpu faster then a 6800 ultra time proved this to be false but its in some of the original launch previews and interviews from ages ago

but its essentially much like the Xenos gpu we all know its based on the older x1800 but uses a shader design somewhat similar to the x1900 /x1950

PS3s gpu is essentially an improved 6800 series but lacks the full on grunt of the 7800 series

overall design and performance wise the PS3s gpu has more in common with the 6000 series then it does the 7000 series

there really isn't any difference between the x1800 and x1900 except for shader count.

the x1800 had 16 rop's and 16 shaders
the x1900 had 16 rop's and 48 shaders

same goes for the 6800 vs 7800. when the 6800 had 16 rop's against the 7800's 24. other than that they were the same basic gpu.

but really looking at the rsx on the ps3 it looks merely like a downclocked (especially for memory) 7800gtx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
the main performance drop from the 6800 ultra is more than likely cpu based combined with the downclocked memory.

this is coincides with the xenos gpu which looks exactly like and X1900XT just down clocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

again the drop in performance is more likely due to clock speeds and weak cpu.

in any event architecturally they look far more like the x1900xt and 7800gtx than they do the x1800xt and 6800ultra respectively.

and for all out there who say the 360 is built on a modified x1800....the x1900 IS a modified x1800. lol

 

[FordGT90Concept]

We don't know how many components of the RSX and Xenos are disabled though. You'd think ATI/NVIDIA wouldn't produce millions of chips they could sell for $200+ a pop for use in a console where they probably get $25-75 each. They most likely engineer the chips to take up as little die space as possible for cost savings so they can still get a profit on the chips.

The clockspeeds are reduced for power consumption and heat concerns.

All told, I think RSX and Xenos are custom-built GPUs for the console market. People insist on comparing them to computer parts but really, its like comparing ARM to x86. Like ARM being purpose built, console GPUs can achieve more with less. They are no doubt based on 7800GTX and X1900XT in order to save on research costs but you couldn't pop a Xenos/RSX chip off the console, set it in a card, and exect it to work. For example, no GeForce chip supports XDR but RSX does and no Radeon chip supports EDRAM but Xenos does.

The original 360S was an MCM design, however, they have recently started shipping 360s with the GPU/CPU/Mem/IO Controller on the same die. source

It doesn't say who is actually manufacturing it and this is pretty laughable:
"Microsoft has guaranteed there are no processor incongruity between the old and the new Xbox 360 consoles, as it will implement a latency and bandwidth that will impersonate the old system which worked with separate CPU and GPU processors, the Think Digit website reported."

They basically gained nothing from it except to make the Xbox360 as a whole more compact.

It's also important to note that all the technology put into that SoC is old. The three major parties (ATI, IBM, and Microsoft) won't be so defensible about their IP/technology as new technology. Most SoCs are built entirely by one company (ARM, Intel, and AMD mostly). Heads are likely to buck. At the same time, having to give your IP over to someone else (like IBM who has fabs) in order to manfuacture a SoC would probably be written into the contract.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

there really isn't any difference between the x1800 and x1900 except for shader count.

the x1800 had 16 rop's and 16 shaders
the x1900 had 16 rop's and 48 shaders

same goes for the 6800 vs 7800. when the 6800 had 16 rop's against the 7800's 24. other than that they were the same basic gpu.

but really looking at the rsx on the ps3 it looks merely like a downclocked (especially for memory) 7800gtx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
the main performance drop from the 6800 ultra is more than likely cpu based combined with the downclocked memory.

this is coincides with the xenos gpu which looks exactly like and X1900XT just down clocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenos_(graphics_chip)

again the drop in performance is more likely due to clock speeds and weak cpu.

in any event architecturally they look far more like the x1900xt and 7800gtx than they do the x1800xt and 6800ultra respectively.

and for all out there who say the 360 is built on a modified x1800....the x1900 IS a modified x1800. lol

one major problem tho the xenos was in development before the x1000 line was fully tapped out and long before the 1900 series, in essence the 2 are the same but different as ford pointed out that said the xenos has more in common with the x1800xt in terms of its abilities then it does the x1900 or x1950 were significantly changed to offer better shader performance over the old gpus, similar as to the x800 vs the x1800 having roughly similar design aspects but they significantly boosted shader performance,

that said its also as ford pointed out they cant be directly compared to there PC counter parts due to the fact both are supporting far different technologies, and the setup used just for the AA on the 360 shows this.

the supporting and usage of said different ram standards Edram XDR etc can impact performance as well

simply put no PC part uses these ram standards etc, ad clock speeds dont always mean the end all be all a good example would be the 5850 vs 5870 where the 5870 being ROP starved could be matched and overtaken by a 5850 simple because pushing the clock speeds didnt really do much for it after it hit that wall, but its all relative , and at this point were talking about technology thats so old the new AMD APU's offer double the GPU performance.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

simply put no PC part uses these ram standards etc, ad clock speeds dont always mean the end all be all a good example would be the 5850 vs 5870 where the 5870 being ROP starved could be matched and overtaken by a 5850 simple because pushing the clock speeds didnt really do much for it after it hit that wall, but its all relative , and at this point were talking about technology thats so old the new AMD APU's offer double the GPU performance.

:shadedshu


eh dont be callin me shiz you its not starved lol

no seriously are you serious because il get a 5850 from somewhere on payday xfire and wc it, oc it to 1000+ and grin massivly for a bit( the foldin to be done tempts me alone ) whilst hopefully playin crysis 2 maxed at 60+fps or a bit closer plus then eyefinitys on

on topic the now ancient GPUs in the big 2 surprise me, id forgoten their rop and shader count im less impressed by my electronic sledgehammer of a pc(comparatively)

i still doubt well see an end to dx9 style gfx when they come as tard devs like their old toys so your A typical gears of war or fifa etc will still use their shit ol engines till 3 years deep

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

yes im serious

5850 and 5870 were the same gpu just binned

reference 5850s overclocked to the same wall as the 5870s 5870 usually had a 1-2% performance boost but after hitting around 1000 core the 5870s performance was equal to the 5850 but not better it came down to ram, motherboard cpu etc, depending on the mix and match of parts, the card was ROP starved,

pay attention to the green bar thats the 5850 and 5870 at equal speeds

as you can see ram speeds timings and even CPU clock speed etc hell even motherboard choice ive seen cause as much as a 5-6% performance difference which as you can see would make both cards fall into the same performance bracket, just it takes a referenec 5850 with voltage tuning to get the clocks , and all i can say is good luck.