NVIDIA: PS3 GPU to be 50X as powerful as PS2 graphics chip

[Xenon]

Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang has apparently 'confirmed' that the GPU they are
working on, with Sony, for Sony's Playstation3 will be in the region of 50
times more powerful than the Graphics Synthesizer chip in Playstation2.



http://www.totalvideogames.com/pages/articles/index.php?article_id=6897

nVidia Discuss Playstation3

10/12/2004
By: Chris Leyton


The Playstation3 graphics processor is the result of a two year
collaboration between nVidia and Sony...

Following on from Sony Computer Entertainment and NVidia announcement,
further details regarding the graphics processor set to feature in the
forthcoming Playstation3 have today come to light.

Speaking at a San Jose Press Conference, Jen-Hsun Huang President nVidia,
claimed that the processor set to feature has been specifically created for
the Playstation3 and is not based on a PC chipset. Huang claimed that both
Sony and nVidia have been working closely for the last two years on the
design of the chip, backing up earlier speculation that both companies were
in collaboration.

Naturally Huang believes the Playstation3 to be far more powerful then
anything currently on the market, with some vague suggestions hinting at a
50 fold increase in performance compared to the Playstation2.
____________________________________________________________________________
_______


Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang has 'confirmed' that the GPU they are working on
for Sony's Playstation3 will be in the region of 50 times more powerful than
the graphics chip in Playstation2.

____________________________________________________________________________
_____________


http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=113056

Friday 10th December 2004



PS3 GRAPHICS CHIP MOST POWERFUL YET - SAY NVIDIA

nVidia claim PS3 GPU "far more powerful" than anything they've previously
worked on

11:26 While the arrival of PS3 is still far off into the mists of 2006, the
images we're getting in our heads of how delicious the visuals are going to
look are getting better and better.
After nVidia confirmed the long-held assumption that they were working with
Sony on the PS3's graphics (get the lowdown here), further details about
just how powerful the chip will be have emerged.

Speaking at a Silicon Valley press conference, nVidia president Jen-Hsun
Huang confirmed that the company has already been working on the chip for an
extended time and suggested that it would be in the region of 50 times more
powerful than the PS2's graphics chip.


This was backed up by nVidia's executive vice president of marketing Dan
Vivoli in comments made to the San Jose Mercury. ``This chip is going to be
far more powerful than anything we've done before," he said, before
reinforcing that work has been in progress for around 18 months.

nVidia have years of experience producing advanced graphics chips for PC
gaming. While the PS3 chip will incorporate many elements of nVidia's
next-generation PC graphics technology, it is being designed as a standalone
unit and is not based on existing PC architecture.

nVidia's previously developed the GPU (graphical processing unit) for
Microsoft's Xbox. Despite rivals ATI securing the contract to develop the
GPUs for Xbox 2 and Nintendo's next-gen console (catch up here) the PS3
contract could be hugely lucrative for nVidia as their technology will also
be used in Sony's consumer electronics devices like DVD players and digital
TVs.

More jargon-loaded graphics news for all the next-gen consoles as it
appears.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________



okay, two things:

1.) what happened to PS3 being 1,000 times as powerful as PS2 ? uhhhh, I
suppose Nvidia was not counting the Cell-CPU in PS3, just the graphics
processor ?

2.) remember at the PS2 technology announcement in early March 1999, Sony
said that PS2 graphics chip (GS) could handle 50x more graphics data than
Dreamcast? or something to that effect.

 

[Richard Dower]

It's all hype, PR and spin. Us poor sods fall for it every time and splash
out on such lacklustre hardware that NEVER lives upto the hype.

 

[hg]

It's all hype, PR and spin. Us poor sods fall for it every time and splash
out on such lacklustre hardware that NEVER lives upto the hype.

Maybe this time some of the hype may actually be true.... my thinking is
that the next gen will not only be fought on brand awareness of which the
Sony Playstation is king but also on how good the graphics are. If Sony
don't make their system at least as good as all the other next gen units
then they may lose out. I know when I see the same game running on a PS2,
Xbox and Gamecube side by side the PS2 always looks worse than the other
two.

 

[Tim]

It's all hype, PR and spin. Us poor sods fall for it every time and splash
out on such lacklustre hardware that NEVER lives upto the hype.

The only thing that counts is the quality and availability of the games. A
new engine is useless without any fuel.

 

[RJT]

It's all hype, PR and spin. Us poor sods fall for it every time and splash
out on such lacklustre hardware that NEVER lives upto the hype.

Too true.

 

[Mike B]

50x more powerful than PS2? LOL.. that isn't saying much considering PS2
graphics capabilities. Anyway, it's never going to live up to it. They never
do live up to the hype.

 

[Xenon]

50x more powerful than PS2? LOL.. that isn't saying much considering PS2
graphics capabilities. Anyway, it's never going to live up to it. They never
do live up to the hype.

well, lol, first of all, he didn't say PS3 GPU is 50 times more powerful
than PS2, he said the PS3 GPU is roughly 50 times more powerful than PS2's
graphics chip. there's a difference (he was not counting PS2 CPU vs PS3
CPU).

secondly, 50 times more graphics performance than PS2's graphics.... is....
pretty disappointing if true. Sony said the PS2 was 300x more powerful than
PS1. they meant in graphics. and then Sony said PS3 would be 1000x more
powerful than PS2. now Nvidia is saying, as far as graphics, PS3 will only
be 50x more than PS2. that kinda sucks. I was expecting Nvidia to say more.
if Nvidia says 50x, it might only be 10x or 5x in reality. i mean, in
games. Nvidia would not UNDER-hype its work. if they say 50x you KNOW its
gonna be less than that. probably.

then again, we don't have any PS3 games to compare to PS2 games. so we'll
have to wait 15-18 months longer, to find out. when PS3 is likely to hit
Japan.

 

[a_noether_theorem]

[a few groups snipped]

then again, we don't have any PS3 games to compare to PS2 games. so we'll
have to wait 15-18 months longer, to find out. when PS3 is likely to hit
Japan.

Look, I don't want to be a dick, but your numerical arguments are
worthless because the differences between the PS2's rudimentary polygon
rasterizer and a modern DX9/OpenGL2.0 GPU are radical. Anyone who says
N times as fast where N = any stupid number you want to make up are
just blowing hot air.

You wanna know how fast the PS3 will be or what the games will look
like? It's simple. Find a high quality copy of the Unreal 3.0 engine
demo video kicking around on the web. This was running on a GeForce
6800 Ultra. Now extrapolate a performance multiplier based on a chip
that's, say, 2 years more advanced. Voila! The stuff at the end of
the video is particularly slick.

The screenshots don't really do it justice, but here are a few. The
stuff at the top is pretty fancy.

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml

Then, if your imagination needs a little more help, look at the
screenshots for 3dmark 05 on Futuremark's website.

3dmark's website:
http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark05/?screenshots
some nice grass for those who care:
http://www.idevgames.com/forum/printthread.php?t=7308

This stuff runs on current hardware. And ok, it's a demo, but if the
cell is 1/10th as fast as they claim, then I wouldn't worry about game
logic/AI etc slowing it down.

You don't need to imagine lots of new fancy features, because, quite
frankly, a GPU capable of DX9 shader model 3.0 computations is, *at
least in theory*, capable of producing movie quality graphics. The 64
bit color and high dynamic range lighting are pretty much what seal the
deal. The graphics wonks will argue the finer details aren't there,
but this stuff's going on a tv, so I say good enough for government
work.

The only issue is what the multiplier relative to a GeForce 6800
Ultra's speed is. And that's where the 2 year extrapolation comes in.
With 2 years, and on a fixed platform, I'd say, I dunno.... 5x as
fast. Assume the PS3 GPU will be 5x as fast as a 6800 Ultra and
assume the Cell processor will be fast enough not to bottleneck it.
The graphics will be, *by today's standards*, mindblowing. The frame
rate in the U3 engine demo was a little choppy at times, but with a few
years, and at tv resolutions, they could get it to 60 fps with say 2-5
times as much detail.

And there's your estimate. Dunno if that's 50x as fast or not, but
it's hard to imagine what 50x would look like anyway. And to be
honest, I think developers will have a hard time tapping out the next
gen, not because of programming constraints, but because of art budget
constraints.

So I think Nintendo may be (approximately) right about this one. As of
the next gen of consoles, the hardware race is (approximately) over.
Content is king, God save the king.

 

[helix]

Games is what's really important here. When the first Playstation came
out, we were all dazzled by its revolutionary graphics, but as it
pumped out game after game, Sony became infamous for putting quantity
over quality in content. How many hundreds of games were looked over on
the original Playstation console?

 

[helix]

Games is what's really important here. When the first Playstation came
out, we were all dazzled by its revolutionary graphics, but as it
pumped out game after game, Sony became infamous for putting quantity
over quality in content. How many hundreds of games were looked over on
the original Playstation console?

 

[helix]

Games is what's really important here. When the first Playstation came
out, we were all dazzled by its revolutionary graphics, but as it
pumped out game after game, Sony became infamous for putting quantity
over quality in content. How many hundreds of games were looked over on
the original Playstation console?

 

[helix]

Games is what's really important here. When the first Playstation came
out, we were all dazzled by its revolutionary graphics, but as it
pumped out game after game, Sony became infamous for putting quantity
over quality in content. How many hundreds of games were looked over on
the original Playstation console?

 

[rhh]

Games is what's really important here. When the first Playstation came
out, we were all dazzled by its revolutionary graphics, but as it
pumped out game after game, Sony became infamous for putting quantity
over quality in content. How many hundreds of games were looked over on
the original Playstation console?

 

[spiderman is spectacular]

Games is what's really important here. When the first Playstation came
out, we were all dazzled by its revolutionary graphics, but as it
pumped out game after game, Sony became infamous for putting quantity
over quality in content. How many hundreds of games were looked over on
the original Playstation console?

Damn immigrant, you only need to post one time.

 

[rhh]

Screw you, I'll post however many times I want to.

 

[poldy]

Assume the PS3 GPU will be 5x as fast as a 6800 Ultra and
assume the Cell processor will be fast enough not to bottleneck it.
The graphics will be, *by today's standards*, mindblowing. The frame
rate in the U3 engine demo was a little choppy at times, but with a few
years, and at tv resolutions, they could get it to 60 fps with say 2-5
times as much detail.

Of course, there's some expectation that the next gen consoles will all
support HDTV resolutions.

 

[Bill Cable]

Maybe this time some of the hype may actually be true.... my thinking is
that the next gen will not only be fought on brand awareness of which the
Sony Playstation is king but also on how good the graphics are. If Sony
don't make their system at least as good as all the other next gen units
then they may lose out. I know when I see the same game running on a PS2,
Xbox and Gamecube side by side the PS2 always looks worse than the other
two.

The PS2 is almost 2 years older than the other two consoles, hence the
difference in graphic capabilities. With the xbox2 coming out a year before
the PS3 and the next Nintendo, expect it's graphics to end up the worst of
the 3 consoles. The only way they'll win the next wave of the console wars
is if the xbox2 wows us so much that we don't want to be a bit patient.

 

[Martin Wilson]

The fact nvidia are involved means if nothing else the PS3 will have
fine graphics. I don't swallow the hype and only expect the ps3 to
perform one step away from the current top platform xbox. If you
double the vertical and horizontal resolution of graphics you already
have to shift four times as much data but if you increase the colour
depth that might increase to 16x more memory being used for graphics
and already a massive amount of memory and processing power are
swallowed up plus of course everything has to be at least 50x faster
for the whole system to be 50x faster and that includes the dvd drive
and all cpu/gpu's.

I've just been playing Killzone and its a great game but it still
looks a lot worse than the xbox's Halo by a long way on ps2. I love my
ps2 but the design is pretty hopeless and its obvious programmers
struggle to get good performance out of it.

I'm looking forward to the ps3 because I believe it will be a superb
console and has the right team designing it plus it will be very easy
to develop for. I don't believe the ps2 has been sony's finest hour. A
disappointing design compared to the superb playstation which was
amazing for its day in its ease of development and performance. The
PS3 will hopefully restore Sony's design reputation. Of course the PS2
has been a fantastic success in marketing and sales but its a long way
from well design electronics.

 

[hg]

The PS2 is almost 2 years older than the other two consoles, hence the
difference in graphic capabilities. With the xbox2 coming out a year before
the PS3 and the next Nintendo, expect it's graphics to end up the worst of
the 3 consoles. The only way they'll win the next wave of the console wars
is if the xbox2 wows us so much that we don't want to be a bit patient.

I know about the rumoured release dates and I certainly know how time
affects graphics - you're talking to a guy who's upgraded his PC graphics
card five times in the last three and a half years!
The thing is every company is spreading rumours and propaganda about their
own hardware just to confuse everyone else. We'll only know which hardware
is the best when they're all released and software's available, of course.
Until that time, they can only guess and make adjustments to their products
as best they can, which is what I was trying to say.