Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
6/6/2006 9:12:42 AM EDT




AFTER BREAKING THE news to me about PS3 RSX speeds earlier on the flight to Japan, my row-mate said 'if you think that's interesting, wait till you see this. Cell is hurting, badly'.
For those of you that believe in religions with karmic tendencies, scoops like this meant one of two things, the wings of the plane are about to fall off and I am going to die in a fiery ball, or worse yet, the movie selection will be worrisome. Cell memory access appears to be broken, RSX has half the triangle setup rate of the ATI chip in XBox360, and the true horror, Big Momma's House 2 and a Queen Latifa movie.

With the movie selection still making my brain throb from the glances I caught, I furiously took notes on what the source was saying. He started out saying that the RSX can only write about half as much vertex data as it can fetch, not an ideal situation by any stretch, but survivable.

Then came the horrible news, RSX appears to be limited to setting up 275 Million triangles/second, anemic compared to the 500+ million in XBox360. When asked about this apparent thumping dished out by MS, the reply from one notable ISV relations boffin was a terse 'What a Piece of Junk'. Talk about a steak in the heart.

Half the triangle setup capability in the PS3, could things get worse? Yes, far far worse, how about another disparity of three orders of magnitude? No, I am not joking, looking at Sony's own figures, Cell appears to be pretty badly broken.



For main memory, it looks like Cell has about 25GBps of main memory bandwidth, and RSX is about 15-20GBps. Achievable bandwidth is between about two thirds of that and nearly 100%, clearly the elves in the caves surrounding Rambus central did something right with XDR. That is the happy news.

For local memory, the measured vs theoretical bandwidth is missing, I wonder why? RSX is at a solid 22.4GBps for both read and write, good job there green team. Then comes the blue team with Cell. Local memory write is about 4GBps, 40% of the next slowest bandwidth there. Then comes the bomb from hell, the Cell local memory read bandwidth is a stunning 16MBps, note that is a capital M to connote Mega vs a capital G to connote Giga. This is a three order of magnitude oopsie, and it is an oopsie, as Sony put it "(no, this isn't a typo...)".

If you can write at 250x the read speed, it makes Cell local memory just about useless. That means you do all your work out of main memory, and the whole point of local is, well, pointless. This can lead to contention issues for the main memory bus, and all sorts of nightmarish to debug performance problems. Basically, if this Sony presentation to PS3 devs shown to us is correct, it looks like PS3 will be hobbled in a serious way.

The next slide goes on to say "Don't read from local memory, but write to main memory with RSX(tm) and read it from there instead", and repeats the table numbers. This is very very bad. The number of times the presentation goes on to say that it is correct, and the lack of anything like "this will be fixed by production steppings, so take measures X, Y and Z" say to me that it is not a fixable snafu. Remember at E3 when I said that the PS3 demos there were object sparse? Any guesses why?

Someone screwed up so badly it looks like it will relegate the console to second place behind the 360. All the devs I talked to were lukewarm on the 360 architecture but universally negative on the PS3. Revelations like this go a long way to explain why you keep hearing about simmering problems from the Sony devs.

You end up with a console with half the triangle setup rate of the 360, a crippled CPU that is a bitch to program, and tools that are atrocious compared to the 360. To make matters worse, you have an arrogant set of execs telling us that twice the price is worth it for half the power, a year late. If it isn't already too late, Sony had better do something about this recto-cranial inversion or it may very well sink the console. µ




I'm really not to sure what all this means but i'm bet someone here can clarify it.

rsx speed?


Holy crap look how big this thing is.. I remember when all the sony fanboys were talking shit about the first xbox saying.. its so big , waa waa waa..

6/6/2006 9:15:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Essentially it can only write to its memory at 16mbps, the competition is writing to memory at gigabytes per second.

There is a major bottleneck essentially that doesnt affect graphics directly so much as how much "Stuff" games can keep track of at one time.
6/6/2006 9:20:26 AM EDT
[#2]
Link to source?

Kharn
6/6/2006 9:23:47 AM EDT
[#4]
What a steaming pile of shit.
6/6/2006 9:35:26 AM EDT
[#5]
Is that worse than the PS2 or something?

I was into the polygon counts and shaders and stuff back when the Nintendo 64 came out. I had one and loved it. I was horrible at the games but they were entertaining. Now I have a PS2 and couldn't possibly care less about polygons and that stuff, I want games that appropriately challenge me. Some of the PS2 games I have picked up recently are amazing... Killzone and a few others for starters... If the gameplay is good and the imagery immersive *enough*, I don't care what the zip rate for the memory stream buffer is.

Edit: Oh, and Star Wars games. If you come out with Star Wars games - especially new upgrades to the Hoth/Snowspeeder scenario - with every console I will buy it.

I am only half kidding.
6/6/2006 9:39:39 AM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:
...


Holy crap look how big this thing is.. I remember when all the sony fanboys were talking shit about the first xbox saying.. its so big , waa waa waa..

www.engadget.com/media/2006/06/large-ps3.JPG



Yeah, but he's Japanese.  With an American it will look much smaller.  
6/6/2006 9:47:13 AM EDT
[#7]
sounds like propaganda to me, it would make no sence/cents for sony not to releace somthing equal or at this point better then the 360.  

There is no reason why they can't.
6/6/2006 9:50:50 AM EDT
[#8]
It's wrong:

http://portable.joystiq.com/2006/06/05/rumor-ps3-hardware-slow-and-broken/

Long story short, sky is not falling, nothing to see, noone ever writes to that specific memory type.

Relax.
6/6/2006 9:59:44 AM EDT
[#9]
Erm... Kirk > Picard!
6/6/2006 10:14:17 AM EDT
[#10]
Yeah basically it's saying that the Cell CPU cannot read quickly from the video processor's local memory. A CPU should not be reading from the local memory of a separate processor unit.
6/6/2006 10:18:22 AM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:
Holy crap look how big this thing is.. I remember when all the sony fanboys were talking shit about the first xbox saying.. its so big , waa waa waa..




599 US Dollars

youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ
6/6/2006 10:19:24 AM EDT
[#12]
I'll pass and just get a PS2.  
6/6/2006 10:20:55 AM EDT
[#13]
That slide was from a Sony presentation done in Japan, note the logos on the slide... Sony’s OWN numbers.
6/6/2006 10:21:48 AM EDT
[#14]
The techno babble is lost on me... But that's the first pic of the PS3 I've seen, damn its huge. I need to start figuring out where I'm gonna put it amongst the other crap I have.
6/6/2006 10:24:20 AM EDT
[#15]
PS3 pic looks photoshopped.

6/6/2006 10:26:35 AM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:
That slide was from a Sony presentation done in Japan, note the logos on the slide... Sony’s OWN numbers.



Yeah, but it's taken totally out of context. The "local memory" referenced is the local memory for the video processor unit, not the memory for the CPU. Sony's basically telling the developers that even though the Cell processor is theoretically capable of directly referencing the video memory, nothing should be developed that way because it's too slow. Instead, only the video processor should directly reference the video memory, as should be the case in ANY respectably engineered system.
6/6/2006 10:40:54 AM EDT
[#17]
Does not really matter to me either way.  I'm getting a Wii.