Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and get your project in front of SourceForge's nearly 20 million monthly users. It takes less than a minute. Get new users downloading your project releases today!
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the stuff-to-poke-at dept.
Yousef writes "GameSpy has an interesting article about a presentation given by Sony's head of R&D for Entertainment. It appears that there are some very interesting things in store for the PS3, plus a complete Red Hat Linux installation for the PS2 and many other toys too. An interesting read."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
That article is the first I've ever read that goes on for ages and yet doesn't tell you anything about the PS3! I don't think Sony will be launching the PS3 just yet anyway - judging by the gap between the PS and PS2 launch.
yeah.. but now it really has some competition... back in the day you could not come close to a playstation.. i though was addicted to goldeneye on the 64, but overall the PS spanked it.. now with M$ stupid machine out... the PS2 has some serious competition.. so i bet the PS3 will be out in a lot less time than it took the PS2 to get there.... (more importantly that M$ will probably get a BUNCH of games out for it.. hey.. they have more money than everyone.. if they say make the games.. it happens)
Compared to PC hardware, the PS2 is SLOOOOOOW. It's core CPU is a 294 mHz MIPS.
The real speed comes in with the specialized vector units (VU0 & VU1) that are specifically built to scream through large sets of 4 component floating point vectors (used as 3d coordinates in games) and perform a limited number of operations on them.
Slow is relative. Just because it doesn't clock at 2 GHz, it doesn't mean it is slow. As you've stated, they have vector operations, just like some supercomputers.
Maybe they are not usefull for every application, but I think they are powerfull for regular calculations.
Today we have Linux distros running from a single CD, without HD install at all. And the processors used in these PS are very fast.
The PS2 uses a CPU that runs at 300 MHz. Would you scoff at an ad in the paper that is selling a "very fast" x86 machine at 300 HMz these days? I would.
Console CPUs at lower speeds than PCs used to have higher performance because they were customised for gaming. That's becoming less and less true as newer consoles come out that are closer relatives to PCs.
Now the hardware to handle graphics runs quite a bit faster. And we can expect the PS3 CPU to be "very fast". But is a 300 MHz PS2 processor really all that amazing as compared to a 200 MHz Dreamcast processor?
MHz is not everything. The number of instructions executed by cycle (IPC) and the number of pipeline stages are very important. For example, if a processor can delivery 10 IPC with a 200 MHz clock and another processor delivery 1 IPC with a 1 GHz, which one is the fastest? (a) The first one (right answer) (b) The second one (c) The CowboyNeal one
Of course it is not so simple, but just to think about: how do you compare an Athlon 1.6 GHz to a Pentium 4 at 2 GHz?
For example, if a processor can delivery 10 IPC with a 200 MHz clock and another processor delivery 1 IPC with a 1 GHz, which one is the fastest?
If you can get an IPC average of 10, sell your idea to Intel before they send a group of thugs over to torture it out of you.
In the real world, the best sustained IPC you'll ever get is in the 2-2.5 range. The universe conspires against you - control hazards, cache and memory latencies, dependencies, misspeculation penalties, and all other brands of evil.
Trust me. I've been studying this for years, and will be making a career out of teaching it in a few more.
A 300 MHz modified MIPS core and a 200 MHz SH-4 core could go toe to toe with each other, but neither holds a candle to a current desktop.
All of the heavy lifting in *any* console produced in the past 5-10 years is done by the graphics chipset, and that gets stale pretty quickly too.
The PS2 uses a CPU that runs at 300 MHz. Would you scoff at an ad in the paper that is selling a "very fast" x86 machine at 300 HMz these days? I would.
Yes, as well you should. However, this is a straw man argument and has absolutely no bearing on your following statement, since a 300MHz x86 is hardly the same as a 300MHz emotion engine.
Console CPUs at lower speeds than PCs used to have higher performance because they were customised for gaming.
Repeate after me: All MHz are not the same. I have a 200MHz StrongARM in my Gameboy Advance. The SNES had a 3MHz processor. The GBA is a bit more powerful than the SNES, but not by the same delta as a 4MHz 8086 and a 200MHz Pentium! All MHz are not the same! In fact, MHz are about as useful for gauging performance these days as BogoMIPS, which is to say not at all.
That's becoming less and less true as newer consoles come out that are closer relatives to PCs.
Gross overgeneralization. The XBOX is the only thing that's a repackaged PC. The PS2, which currently dominates the market by a huge margin, is quite far from a PC architecturally. The GameCube, while using something resembling a PPC, is otherwise architecturally quite remote from a PC. The XBOX may take all its RAM from the same pool (which as has been discussed isn't really a good thing), but that's not much different from what we do now (I've seen cheap SiS motherboards with onboard video that use system RAM for video RAM. Big deal, XBOX.)
Now the hardware to handle graphics runs quite a bit faster. And we can expect the PS3 CPU to be "very fast".
Again, "very fast" is completely relative. The XBOX may have a 700MHz Celery (which is kinda slow anyway, but an OK general-purpose CPU), but take away its graphics accelerator and you'll be lucky to rival a SNES or PSX. The PS2's core is rather tied together, but even though it's 300MHz, it can push a decent amount of polys. Lesson for today: All MHz are not the same!
Oh, and to be somewhat on topic, anything Sony says about the PS3 is likely complete hype at this point. I like Sony (well, no I don't, but I like the PS2;-)), but I know just as well as the next guy how the marketting deal works.
But is a 300 MHz PS2 processor really all that amazing as compared to a 200 MHz Dreamcast processor?
All MHz are not the same! All MHz are not the same! All MHz are not the same!
> I have a 200MHz StrongARM in my Gameboy > Advance. The SNES had a 3MHz processor. The GBA > is a bit more powerful than the SNES, but not > by the same delta as a 4MHz 8086 and a 200MHz > Pentium!
Whereas the sentiment of the note is correct, I suggest you follow through with some fact checking. The processor in the GameBoy Advance is an ARM7 TDMI, running at 16.78 mHz.
Even so, it should be noted that the Emotion Engine's IPC and so forth (as IPC and mHz aren't everything either, no matter what AMD's webpage told you) aren't as impressive as everyone here seems to think they are.
What's important about the PS2 with regards to speed are a few things: bandwidth (it's just sickening), two reconfigurable vector computation engines (VU0 and VU1 - seems like they might be great for a lot of beowulfish stuff, but then, I have no idea how those clusters really run, so take that with a grain of salt), and the following slap in the face: because all of the comparsions you read were using the DreamCast as the watermark at the time.
The machine, if used aggressively, can still tangle with the GameCube. How it fares against the XBox is the subject of debate; my personal belief is that with careful use it could surpass the XBox, but many people disagree (some feel the higher instruction processing rate is the deciding factor, which would give the issue to the XBox; others feel that the cache problems of an instruction-oriented architecture outweigh the benefits when considered against the bandwidth oriented architecture, which would give it to the PS2, at the cost of being very difficult to write to.)
Moreover, there are facets of the XBox like realtime Dolby 5.1 compression of generated audio which the PS2 has to dedicate a VU to hope to match (this is a significant chunk of the PS2's processing power, making this a Bad Thing).
> [The GameCube ] is otherwise architecturally > quite remote from a PC.
Not really. Certainly not as far as the PS2, and arguably not even as far as a PS1. Whereas the bus layout and memory maps are completely different, you'll find that things like a normal opcode list make a bigger difference in the long run anyway - I mean, really, nobody in the industry uses magic numbers; it's all a macro called VRAM anyway. On the other hand, you really do use assembly, and quite often.
> Again, "very fast" is completely relative.
Not really. The SNES was "really fast" when it came out, and now it's dog slow. It's relative to what the consumer expects. The judgement made solely on experience, while not being hindered by expectations regarding numbers, operating system concerns, et cetera, is a better measure (in my mind) of "really fast" than anything else.
I mean, we've had Crays which pound your box (whatever it is) into the ground for probably 20 years. Is your box still really fast? Yes: Quake gets three digit frame rates, and even IE doesn't lag.
Now quit doting so much on numbers for subjective judgements. "Fast" doesn't have a number attatched to it in the dictionary, does it?
> The XBOX may have a 700MHz Celery (which is > kinda slow anyway, but an OK general-purpose > CPU),
For someone talking about the relativity of speed, you're certainly not thinking about it much. Consider the previous generations of chip, and the current. A celery 700 is more than plenty fast.
> but take away its graphics accelerator and > you'll be lucky to rival a SNES or PSX.
I don't honestly believe you have any idea what you're talking about, no offense. My 486/33 was able to emulate the SNES in DOS mode, which means it was eating the CPU, graphics cards, sound cards, and so forth all on its lonesome.
If you can't tell the difference between a 486/33 and a Celery 700, you're not qualified to be talking about relative machine speeds. No offense. And, hey: go have alook at Bleem!'s requirements.
> The PS2's core is rather tied together, but > even though it's 300MHz, it can push a decent > amount of polys.
The Emotion Engine doesn't push any polys at all, ever. Did you do any research before claiming to know what was going on under the hood? Vertex pushing is almost always solely the province of the Graphics Synthesizer, and sometimes the VU units.
> Oh, and to be somewhat on topic, anything Sony > says about the PS3 is likely complete hype at > this point.
It's been in development for almost two years. I bet they have a general idea of how it's going to work.
> I know just as well as the next guy how the > market[t]ing deal works.
While most of your post was spot-on you left some remnants of the PS2 fanclub around. I'll help you clean them up:
Gross overgeneralization. The XBOX is the only thing that's a repackaged PC. The PS2, which currently dominates the market by a huge margin, is quite far from a PC architecturally. The GameCube, while using something resembling a PPC, is otherwise architecturally quite remote from a PC. The XBOX may take all its RAM from the same pool (which as has been discussed isn't really a good thing), but that's not much different from what we do now (I've seen cheap SiS motherboards with onboard video that use system RAM for video RAM. Big deal, XBOX.) The Xbox is, actually, less of a PC than the Gamecube is. Not many PCs have a Unified Memory Architecture. The Gamecube doesn't. It's got dedicated system RAM, dedicated video RAM, etc. Like a PC.
The Gamecube uses a modified G3 (PowerPC 750, whatever). The Xbox uses a modified Pentium III (NOT a modified Celeron. Pentium III's have 8-way L2 caches, Celerons 4-way, a performance difference of ~10%).
I'd actually go as far as saying as the GC and Xbox are both architecturally fairly close to PCs, but that doesn't matter. They don't function the same, and they're specialized to run games better.
The PS2's is a lot different from a PC, you're right. But it's generally accepted that Sony/Toshiba made a huge mistake with the Emotion Engine. The Vector units are WAY too hard to program for, not to mention all of the obvious bottlenecks in the system (4MB VRAM?)
> The PS2's is a lot different from a PC, you're right. But it's generally accepted that > Sony/Toshiba made a huge mistake with the Emotion Engine. The Vector units are WAY too > hard to program for, not to mention all of the obvious bottlenecks in the system (4MB VRAM?)
The vector units must be WAY too hard to program for. There are so few games for the PS2, and only 1 or 2 companies doing the development...
I vaguely remember some marketing blurb when the PS2 was released saying that 4000 PS2's were shipped to Iraq to be netted together as a 'super-computer', and that China was being blocked from recieving these also.
Personally, I believe these to have been simply marketing rumors intentionally set to make the PS2 seem more powerful than it is. I am curious, though, does anybody have better insight into that than I do? My memory is very fuzzy about it.
It mentions RedHat. It doesn't mention the PS3.
It mentions the GSCube, a cluster of PS2 machines set up as a technology demo. That was shown a year ago; it's not a future product.
The PS3 is PowerPC-based, and won't have the wierd vector units of the PS2. Those are generally conceded to have been a mistake. They're hard to program, and required considerable tool development. The competitive effect was that for the first year, PS2 games sucked. (The Xbox is more vanilla; it's basically a PC running Win2K with a GeForce 3, which simplifies development. I know people who had to port a physics engine to the PS2 vector units. Not fun.)
Well does making a platform easy to code for result in great games? Well not really - but it makes it easier to write them. Is a games console based on RedHat going to result in less crashes per a game than the PS2? Again debatable as the crashes could be down to either the OS or the game software itself.
It mentions RedHat. It doesn't mention the PS3. It mentions the GSCube, a cluster of PS2 machines set up as a technology demo. That was shown a year ago; it's not a future product.
hmmm....
"Today I cannot mention more detail of cell processor," he said, noting that it'll be unveiled around 2003 or 2004. He did state, however, that the third generation PlayStation would be based on this technology. That means a PlayStation 3 born and bred to be jacked into the 'net.
The PS3 is PowerPC-based?! That's pretty bizarre, and should constitute an article all in itself, seeing as Sony is the most direct competitor to Apple. Link, please.
And seeing as the PowerPC is a Motorola chip, and Apple just happens to be the biggest user of these Motorola chips, I don't see how this had anything to do with competition between Apple and Sony.
Actually the PowerPC is a processor designed by IBM for their RS/6000 class of machines. When apple decided to base macs off of them IBM gave motorola a licence to manufacture them for apple. Until the G4 the mac/motorola versions were direct copies of the IBMs (603 and 604 were models of RS/6000 and the G3 was actually a direct copy of the IBM Power 750). The G4 however was the first branch that motorola made (altivec was completely their creation). At the same time IBM was developing the Power4 which is completely different. The whole infamous screwup didn't lead ibm to make the g4s, it prompted apple to consider the Power4 to be the G5 (nothing has come of it yet).
Uhh, isn't Power4 that massive 4-CPU's-on-one-die server processor? The one that costs many thousands of dollars per processor? I'm sure that entry level power mac g5's selling for $6000 would go over real well.
Not.
Maybe Apple will use a derivative of the Power4 tech for their G5's, but probably not a direct copy.
That was kind of what I meant. Sorry for being vague. And the Power4 is only 2 cpu's on one die, with four of those chips being used on one NUMA module in IBMs biggest machines. The individual chips aren't THAT expensive. Even so, most likely they'd just have IBM make a scaled down version (like they did with the first powerpcs which were a scaled down version of the POWER architechture). Still, the apple using power4s for the G5 was just a rumor, nothing's come of it yet.
The PS3 is not going to be Power PC based. It's been mooted for some time that Sony are teaming up with IBM and Toshiba to manufacture a custom chip codenamed "Cell". This is mentioned in the article; and has been covered on the net before; a quick google reveals this. [sonyweb.com]
Maybe not. Back in mid-2001, we were seeing reports like this [theregister.co.uk].
But Sony announced some changes in direction at GDC. (I knew I should have gone Friday, but I had a bad cold.)
The fraction of the main CPU devoted to graphics in games has been dropping. More CPU time is being used for character control, AI, and physics.
Much of the graphics work is offloaded to the GPU. The graphics are good enough that it's now very noticeable that the movement is lousy. So the need is not for more graphics power as much as for more general-purpose CPU power.
The programming difficulties have been eased, as the tools become better, for example the new vector c compiler for the ps2 automatically does all the vectorizations to push those 16 pipelines, no more hand coded asm
The "wierd vector units" and multiprocessor architecture of the PS2 was a stroke of genious! The PS2 vs XBox is analog to the Amiga vs AtariST (which had a faster CPU, but no co-prosessors).
It's not so simple as that. The XBox may not have generic co-processors, like the PS2's two vector units, but it does have a very powerful graphics co-processor, and another very powerful audio co-processor. Currently, the PS2's VUs are being used for things like enhanced graphics effects (doable on the XBox's GPU) and audio effects like surround sound (the XBox does dolby digital natively in hardware). Yes, if the PS2 had the same powerful graphics and audio processors, then the extra VUs would be a huge asset. As it is, those co-processors need to be used just to keep up with what the XBox can do.
he PS3 is PowerPC-based, and won't have the wierd vector units of the PS2.
Umm, Altivec anybody?
Very different beasts.
Altivec is more or less just another functional unit tacked on to the G4 chip (like SSE or 3DNow on Intel/AMD chips). It's controlled directly by instructions in the main execution stream, like another add or divide unit would be.
The vector coprocessors on the PS2 were independent processor cores tied to the main core's co-processor bus (MIPS does funky things with coprocessors). They had their own program memory (if I recall correctly), which more or less made them big, bizzare CISC units with completely programmable microcode as far as the main processor was concerned. Program them, then send them data, trigger them, and watch them go as they run their embedded code.
For PC enthusiasts, this would be like breaking out a soldering iron and tacking a couple of completely independent DSP chips north of the northbridge in a PC. Powerful, but they'd be tricky as hell to use, because they'd have to be working on memory that the CPU wasn't modifying, and you'd have to set up the software all three chips are running so that all working data is processed and then passed on by each in turn without anyone stepping on anyone else's toes.
In theory, you can do this by pipelining your graphics data flow and having each module deal with a different part of it. This is how the PS2 was supposed to be used. In practice, this is a PITA to do, and Sony didn't pre-build developer libraries that did it (why is beyond me).
So, programming a G4 with AltiVec is much easier:).
Yeah, I was shocked and horrified at the number of 'nicey nicey' morning and afternoon chat shows that showcased the X-box around launch time.A number claimed to be consumer oriented, but they didn't do a comparision with other products
Yuck, it still gives me nightmares, ingratiating grins proffering huge black controllers like they were gifts from God and would confer freedom from sin because it came from Microsoft almighty
Gr I couldn't move for either reading/ hearing/ seeing yet another X-Box competition. The thing I remember though is somebody saying (I'm not sure whether it's true or not) that there's a disclaimer with the X-Box saying that they accept no responsibility for injury to small children caused by it falling over - mind you from what people have said they are heavy. It's black because that's the colour of evil & of Borg cubes:o)
I don't get quite how this would work. Sure, you can get massive power for your console by harnessing the power of 15 others, and that sounds fine and dandy until you start thinking about the whole picture. What about those 15 other consoles? These 16 consoles can't all be getting power from eachother at the same time; that wouldn't get you any better performance than one console. Do you only draw power from consoles not in use? Does that mean that the PS3 or whichever version, if any, comes to implement this system, has no off switch? What happens when you become active?
I got to play with the GSCube first hand last year. It is essentially 16 PS2's in a single box. The workload is distributed by dividing the screen up into tiles and having a PS2 dedicated to rendering 1/16th of the screen. Distributing this workload over a network sounds a little far fetched to me.
FWIW, the Dreamcast used this "tile based" rendering as well.
Nope.. Arms and legs are quite common, and of low value. What Sony requires is a torso. You're welcome to keep your legs, but they'll be strictly for cosmetic purposes (won't function).
The torso you sell to them will be used in the RealDoll playstation addon due out shortly. They're expected to be low in volume, and quite high in price -- especially for the female version.
OK. Fine. I meant to say "partial screen rendering".
I never said the Dreamcast was multiprocessor. Nor did I say it was a new/revolutionary technique. I was just explaining how 16 PS2's work together on the GSCube.
That wouldn't realy work, with most games each person has thier own viewpoint that must be rendered separatly meaning that the best you could do would be to keep the speed the same. Incidently this is what multiplayer PC games have done for years and what the X-Box does when you play multi over a LAN.
The bit about distributed computing an the PS3 has been going around for a while now. It is almost certainly either flat out false or not what everyone thinks it is. What it most certainly does not mean is they're going to distribute the load over a WAN (namely the internet) to other people's PS3s. Games are one of the most realtime critical apps out there, you could never get the latency over the internet down to a point where you could send some calulation to another machine and get it back in time to be useful. What it more likely means is the PS3 will use a processor with some new method of processing things in parallel and "distributing" the load to keep the pipes full.
"Maybe Playstation 6 or 7 will be based on biotechnology...with protein," [Okamoto] quipped.
When that time comes by, I guess biologists will be the ones to develop mod chips and the like. Maybe a real "virus" will infect it. What an interesting day that will be.
Back of box: For external use only. If Playstation 6 contacts skin, flush with water for 15 minutes. Do not stare directly at Playstation 6. If Playstation 6 breaks open, run and take cover.
I don't know if you have seen this movie, but i highly recommend it. You'll get a lot on the subject of "organic playstation", including viruses. ExistenZ [imdb.com]
"...Consoles are the desktop of tomorrow." Maybe if all you do is play games. If consoles get to the point that they can do everything a computer can, have (standard) firewire/usb ports, pci slots for expansion options, room for extra drives and whatnot, and you hook them up to a crt or lcd monitor on your desk, guess what.... its a computer, not a console. Until a 'console' has all of those things, and probably more, it wont be replacing any of my desktops. On the other hand, my PS2 rocks for a quick game of GTA3 or whatever, and I appreciate it for that.
Consoles are easier to use because they are one trick ponies, for the most part. i think of consoles as dedicated hardware, that are for the most part single purpose machines. If you use your computer mainly for games/surfing/email, then a console is probably a viable replacement, or will be at some point. My point is by the time there is a console that can do everything my Mac can, it is in my point of view, no longer a console. Once I can hook up my lcd/crt to it, hook up a firewire cam and edit video, rip mp3s, burn cds, dvds, etc... why should it still be considered a console? Cause it has a 'Playstation 9' badge on it? If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then yada yada yada...
The irony is that the PS2 does have firewire/usb ports, expansion slots for a hard drive, network addons, and the ability to hook up to CRT monitors (don't know about LCDs). The PS2 Linux Kit [playstation2-linux.com] available for preorder [playstation.com] will basically be a desktop computer. It's already out in Japan, and you can do quite a few things with it if you are dedicated. Want to play MP3s, type up documents, use external CD burners/hard disks (via USB), use it as a NFS server/client, program games for it, or browse the web? It's pretty much all there.
As for buying a computer, the majority of people hardly upgrade anything more than RAM and maybe a hard disk, so a console could conceivably be the next wave of computers. It sure would make programming "easier" with a non-moving hardware platform much like how Apple's computers are.
Actually if the Dreamcast had a port for a hard drive of some sort it could be a pretty good mini-desktop, y'know. ^_^
I think all of us might do well to perhaps consider that stuffing Linux down the throat of a Playstation (or even a Dreamcast, despite my sentimental attraction to the idea) might not be the best possible way to create a Linux-based console. Sadly Indrema wasn't the way to go either...actually manufacturing consoles is a business best left to huge megacorporations.
The Nvidia Nforce Athlon chipset is very, very interesting indeed. There are decent ATX and mATX motherboards available featuring this little gem. This may very well be the first all-in-one mobo that will provide decent gaming performance. A buddy of mine just built a box using an Abit NV7M motherboard with the chipset [abit-usa.com] and he is blown away...he was prepared to "help the board along" by adding a sound card, etc, but no need. Throw the thing in a case like the Casedge 1123 or 1300 and you might have the beginnings of a happening Linux gaming box.
I think this is more along the lines of what we should be thinking about. Certainly something like this would be easier to lug to LAN parties, that's for sure...
And who, outside the game crowd, "gives a shit" about consoles? Don't bother answering.
The PC is not dying, it's alive and well. As much as MS is going to push Word.NET on the Xbox/HomeStation, it is completely illogical to do word processing in the living room on your TV set with a console. Sorry. So while it's certainly true that the console gaming market is stronger than the PC gaming market (the reasons for which should be glaringly obvious to everyone), that in no way serves as an indication that the PC is dying. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Notice PC sales are down and console sales are up?
1. one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. not unless you can provide surveys and reports that show that.
2. PC sales are not down, they are flat. Their actual sales numbers are still growing. Their growth is down, as is to be expected when the the product is mature.
Additionally, if sales are flat, or even declining, it really does not at all mean the PC is dying. I have an Athlon 1333 MHz with 512 MB RAM and a 40 Gig hard drive. I have no reason to buy a new computer for any of the applications I run -- Browser, Email, Quake (125 fps), Counter Strike, ssh, AIM. I doubt sales of refrigerators, for example, have been increasing recently, but that doesn't mean the refrigerator or its market is dying. It is a sign that the PC is at the point where people don't need new ones anymore.
Recent data shows that cell phone handset sales are down significantly [infoworld.com]. Does this mean that cell phones were just a fad and now they're dying? No: every person I know, except for my mother and grandmother, has a cell phone. I bought mine in 2000 - a Startac. I still have it. Why? Because no other phone has a feature compelling enough to force me to upgrade. If the Handspring Treo had a better price point and worked with Verizon I might actually be persuaded, but that's another story.
Anyhow, using PC sales figures to predict the death of the PC is a stupid move. All such figures prove is that Dell will no longer be a stock market darling as the PC market is pretty well saturated.
I guess this should have been in reply to HanzoSan instead of RN, but oh well.
Sony Cell technology [geek.com] NEWS IBM, Sony, and Toshiba announced a partnership today in Tokyo to develop new, faster, smaller chips code-named Cell. Over the next 5 years the companies will spend US$400 million to break the 0.10 micron barrier. Cell chips will be targeted for use in high-speed Internet access and network-based computing.
Sony Computer Entertainment (the gaming folks) is the Sony division involved in the partnership, and it already has working arrangements with Toshiba--the two companies formed a joint venture to design and produce the PlayStation 2's chip. Adding IBM to the mix helps all three companies reduce development costs... and Sony also gets to license IBM's 0.10 micron processing technology, which will probably be used in the PlayStation 3 (PS2 chips are currently at 0.18 and 0.25 microns, though Sony has announced a move to 0.13 micron technology) and other upcoming devices from Sony Computer Entertainment. Development work on the new Cell chips will take place in an Austin, Texas IBM facility and will eventually be produced at a new IBM fab in East Fishkill, New York, slated for completion next year.
IBM will also announce today that it is joining the Extreme Ultra Violet Consortium, another group working to shrink micron processes. Industry watchers think IBM's move may help boost the EUV technology's chances of success.
... I read that as the Extreme Ultra Violent Consortium. Just think what their symposia must be like! Hmmm...perhaps I won't complain about that IBM harddrive failure after all.
It sounds more like it emulates linux in a VM rather than actually loading it as the actual machine OS. This allows them to use all kinds of proprietary code without violating the GPL, and to build in all sorts of copy and "ip" "protection."
Fair use quote:
This is how the Runtime Environment (RTE) works. In order to get Linux running on your PS2, you must boot the system using the PS2 Linux DVD. During boot, after all the copy-protection stuff is taken care of, the system lays down the Runtime Environment. This is basically a layer that hides access to the SPU2 (Sound Processing Unit), the input/output processor, the hard drive, the CD/DVD-ROM system, the controllers, memory cards, USB, i.Link and other peripherals. The RTE does supply hardware looking hooks, an educated guess being faux-memory address and registers. Then the Linux kernel is loaded on top of this. There are Linux device drivers that accesses the Runtime Environment that are open source, but it's just a device driver calling in all actuality, another device driver that's closed.
What you can and can't do with the system is limited.
You have no ability to read a normal PSX or PS2 memory card directly. For example you can't open a Final Fantasy X save, edit how much cash you have, and save it again. Through the RTE you can format a whole memory card(!) and mount it like an 8 meg hard drive, but that card would be worthless for saving normal PS2 games. Once you put the Linux formatted card without Linux running (i.e. you are in the browser) it asks to reformat the card.
The RTE also not allow audio CDs to be identified. It also can tell if you have put in a CD-R or not (it can see a wobble track, which all CD-Rs have ) and likewise not allow the disk to be seen. A PS2 can read CD-Rs fine, the RTE is just doing copy protection first to make sure you can't. You will also have no access to the CSS portion of the MPEG decoder, but you can decode raw MPEG-4. Direct access to the Dolby subsystem is also denied. Anything dealing with region locks are also restricted.
The first DVD (The boot disk) has a Linux boot loader and the RTE on it. This disk is not allowed to be copied. It also has the manuals on it too, which I'm sure are also copyrighted and not allowed to be publicly distributed. The Linux kernel is on the second disk and also on the hard drive after it's installed. In order to use a monitor, you must one that is "Sync on Green". This means that the refresh rate is only in the green channel. The monitor must use that sync pulse to sync red and blue channels so they all get painted in the screen at the same time. The reason why you have to use that is because a PS2 can turn it's sync on green ability on and off. If you try and use the monitor adapter for playing PS2 games or watching DVDs, sync on green will be turned off and only the green channel will show up. Direct video output defeats Macrovision. Sony doesn't want you making copies of DVDs to tape. Keep in mind that your network adapter is going to have a MAC address that Sony, no doubt, knows. Also removing the PS2 hard drive and attempting to mount in a PC will also likely not work and possibly damage the drive.
Keep in mind that your network adapter is going to have a MAC address that Sony, no doubt, knows.
I doubt it since rewriting a MAC address is dead simple - a bridging firewall with no rules will do the trick. Do, however, bear in mind that it's entirely likely that PS2's all have a hardware identifier that sony will know.
It looks like this will be useless for creating your own PS2 games, what with the VM and all that copy-protection built in. Why in the world are they restricing access to the memory card anyway? And what's up with all that monitor bullshit?
Making halfway-decent games on the PS2 requires direct hardware access in order to take advantage of their kooky architecture. Can we even stream data off the hard drive to the video memory during gameplay? Probably not.
And of course we can't read CDR's with it, just in case we actually make something useful and want to easily share it with our friends. I understand the piracy issues, but in light of all the lockdowns they put in place, I need to ask: Why did they bother porting Linux to the PS2 anyway?
That is actually not copy-protection. I read from the sony linux playstation2 site that there is nothing that prevent you from rewriting and replacing the entire RTE, and hence access to memory card. My guess is that sony doesn't want to spend development time to do it. Instead, they simply provide a VM for you to hack into it. If open source works, someone else will make it.
There's one problem: you're still going to have to boot off of the provided Sony DVD-ROM. So, I don't think it's likely that you'll be able to work around their cripped RTE. Unless a mod chip becomes commonly available, or someone finds a way to create PS2-bootable DVDs, PS2 Linux users are stuck with Sony's crippleware.
"Of course, the TV set is not so great for Linux," Okamoto explained, smiling. So the kit will also include a converter cable to allow you to hook your PS2 to a high-resolution monitor. The kit will run about $200. And yes, it was running Linux, completely compatible with all Linux software and able to compile anything. The kit is mostly for non-commercial hobbyists. What does Sony gain? An audience of avid PS2 users experimenting with a robust TCP/IP (Internet communication) protocol. Fans will also receive complete documentation with the kit, which includes all the technical details of the PS2 hardware. Normally this info is only available to game developers. An interesting project indeed.
Now I'm not a bit surprised that Sony wants to keep control over how people use their consoles. I'm not even surprised that Sony is dead set on using hardware to prevent their customers from being able to assert their legal rights under copyright law. But I am a little bit surprised that their representative and/or the journalist who wrote that story will blatantly lie and claim to be giving people "complete documentation" and the like, when obviously they aren't going to do anything of the kind.
And I do think that potential buyers of the product, many of whom may read this article, deserve to know the truth. It may or may not make a difference in whether or not any given person will buy it, but at the very least you should know the truth before you make that decision.
Anybody remember 'Enos Lives'? If you rearrange the letters just a little, you get 'Sones Evil' or 'Sony's Evil'. Part of a marketing gag that people spent months trying to decode when the PS1 was launched.
Don't ever expect Sony to support the idea of people making games for Linux without paying royalties to them. Remember them shutting down the Aibo hacking site?
In any case, I wouldn't expect a whole lot from Sony releasing a product to run Linux on their machines. I think they're worried that people will use it to exploit their machines to do things that Sony doesn't think is appropriate. I'd be much more comfortable with a 3rd party doing it.
But I am a little bit surprised that their representative and/or the journalist who wrote that story will blatantly lie and claim to be giving people "complete documentation" and the like, when obviously they aren't going to do anything of the kind.
According to the PS2 Linux FAQ you get 6 of the 7 manuals that licensed developers get. The only one missing is the one for stuff covered by the RTE. The graphics system is not a part of the RTE and so you do get the manual for that, the main processor and the Vu's.
Only on Slashdot would anybody complain that that is not enough information about a type of computer system which is historically completely closed to all but those who spend $20,000 and are hand picked by the manufacturer.
Only on Slashdot would anybody complain that that is not enough information about a type of computer system which is historically completely closed to all but those who spend $20,000 and are hand picked by the manufacturer.
Me complaining? Hardly that. I don't care whether they release it, one way or the other, I don't have one and I don't plan to get one so why would I care?
Why would anyone care? Well if I were a stockholder I'd care, because this will probably get them some free (as in beer) R&D. Would I care if I owned one? No, I'd play games on it so I wouldn't care. If I wanted a supercomputer I'd buy a decent rackmount. I'm not sure why anyone should care about this unless they own a PS2 and no PC and want to learn about TCP/IP? Which can't be a great big audience really.
If you want one, and you care, by all means, go ahead. I wasn't challenging your right to be excited about whatever you want to be. I was just pointing out some facts not covered in the article.
I'm not sure why anyone should care about this unless they own a PS2 and no PC and want to learn about TCP/IP?
I'm not saying you should be excited about it, but the reason most people are (including me) is that the PS2 is a very different beast from what we are used to working with. Different enough to send most less patient developers running for the hills. I personally can't wait to develop for such a system.
The developer responded that the realistic real-time rendering they wanted to do would require 18,000 times more processing power than what was available with the PSOne.
It's difficult to imagine what sort of rendering in a game would require this much power behind it. Then again, I remember when a 1 Gigabyte server was huge. I also wonder that, if the plan for distributed processing is to be successful with multiple PlayStation consoles, how many users would be willing to leave their PlayStation(#)s running all the time for other people to use. On top of that, how would Sony propose to network the consoles togeher? The networking prospects for the current-generation PS2s have occasional problems running the software it already has for networked gaming beyond a jury-rigged LAN.
In regards to why would Sony want Linux on their PSx consoles... An audience of avid PS2 users experimenting with a robust TCP/IP (Internet communication) protocol. Fans will also receive complete documentation with the kit, which includes all the technical details of the PS2 hardware. Normally this info is only available to game developers. Again, Linux for PSx isn't going to rake in millions for Sony, but there may be different benefits for hobbyist developers. It won't be for everyone, but if you're into trying new things, then feel free.
The "Gestural Interface" seems to be the most interesting out of what the article offered. It might be a step closer to a virtual reality interface without needing an expensive headset. It might change gaming for the console. Then again, it depends on the games that use said hardware. It'll be interesting to see how many of these ideas actually come to fruition, and how many of them become Vaporware.
Who out there is looking forward to this? I personally find keyboard/mouse to be superior vs the PS2's controller. Can you say, "Max Payne"? I found it easier to control on my PC than on my PS2. Do I really want to have to jump sideways in my living room and throw my back to dodge bullets?
It may be "cool" nut I don't find it practical. Maybe I'm getting too old.
I think gestures as an interface (at least to some degree) would ENHANCE the game immersion. I want to dump my keyboard (and the finger twister that comes with playing a game liek T2 on a PC) and mouse. I want more IMMSERSION in my games to ENHANCE the gaming EXPERIENCE. Thats the next leap the gaming industry needs to take. We have the technology (processing power at a good price) nowdays unlike the 1st generation attempts.
... and I want to dump my monitor in favour of more immersive display technologies, be it headware, large projection systems or whatever they develop. I want the feeling of being IN the game. Dont forget the sound too for location awareness of objects / people etc.. This is a must for that next multiplayer scenario. Bring on the holodeck:D
IMPROVE the I/O for gaming. Thats our only limitation for the gaming experience.
Well folks, looks like the Sony managers are thinking in the right direction: What is the long-term threat to the PS? Of course it's MS's xbox.
And enabling linux on the PS is just a logical step - because: It's MS who is the competior.
And what is MS's only strength today? No, it's not MS windows by itself, its the combination of Windows and MS office. So what is the threat to the PS?
I can tell you: Eventually MS will come out with some sort of "Word for the xbox" or stuff..
Now, would you consider that a possibility?
Just wondering..
And what would be the consequences for the market..
Or Linux doesn't require hefty licensing fees and already has a wealth of software available for it in source form which makes porting relatively easy. I don't think Sony gives a fuck about Microsoft, if it wasn't for MS Sony would have no PCs to sell anybody. Enabling Linux on the PS2/3 is logical because it is a fully functional OS that doesn't require obscene licensing fees which makes the cost to distribute it virtually nil. This anti-Microsoft hopefulness crap is just stupid.
Come now, are you really that sold out to Slick Billy that you have to call today's technological revolution "anti-Microsoft hopefulness crap"? Get with the program, corporations that have poor business ethics suck in 2002. Used to be, the law would prevent restraints of trade and general theivery from consumers/investors.
Sony figures they need an ace in the hole because of Microsoft's track record. If you honestly think Sony is doing this for any reason OTHER than to deny Microsoft's latest attempted market take-over, well I'd have to call that "pro-Linux hopefulness crap". You are a fool for thinking that "Sony doesn't give a fuck about Microsoft" - or more concerned with thinking that Sony picked Linux because it's whiz-bang cool.
If there were no Microsoft Xbox, there would be no official Sony PS2 Linux. It really IS as simple as that.
How much do those drugs you're taking cost? Technological revolution, get off that short bus at the next stop and look around. Linux is no technological revolution. It must be nice to live in the purple haxe shrouded world you come from where Sony uses Linux because they are with the program. Linux has no licensing costs, Sony can distribute it to a bajillion PS2s and not have to pay a dime to anyone other than their own developers. If Sony jammed some proprietary OS on the PS2 with a licensing fee on the software itself they would NOT release it to customers, only to developers. Why is that so fucking hard to understand?
The concept is quite basic, Sony wants to release a development environment for the PlayStation. The PS2 has enough power it can run much of the same software a full fledged PC could, especially with the addition of a hard drive. They want to make say 30% markup on each dev kit they sell (hard drive and software). Linux makes the job simple because it comes in source form and has an open license meaning no royalty fees have to be paid to anyone. This signifigantly reduces the cost of releasing a dev kit for the PS2 and 3. Sony's Linux dev kit doesn't have anything on it that directly competes with Microsoft software. I don't know where in the hell you get this from. Linux on the PS2 doesn't deny Microsoft anything at all. If Sony stuck QNX or CP/M on the damn thing it still wouldn't matter.
What is it with people of your ilk accusing everyone lacking a bleary eyed retarded devotion to the Linux religion Microsoft sell-outs? The world is not nearly so binary as you're either with Linux or with Microsoft. That line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous. Linux is not a religion, the fate of the souls of the world do not depend on Linus fucking Torvalds. Stop being ao accusatory towards thosewho don't share your stupid fanatical devotion. The Force is not fucking with you even if you wear that Darth Vader helmet to protect your head when you fall down.
I wonder how soon we can start running SETI@home [berkeley.edu] on the PS2 and PS3. I just can't wait to join all the hot women [berkeley.edu] that are running this contest lately.
Well I was excited about all the Cell development and this PlayStation 2 stuff, but Ken Kutargai (the guy behind playstation and SCEI president) recently made some very grim statements at the South Korean PlayStation 2 launch. On the topic of PS3 Kutaragi-san said "Nothing has been started yet." He made some very grim statements about online gaming too saying; "If broadband connections capable of delivering 10Mb/s are affixed to game consoles, the industry as we know it will be over. By that time, perhaps 2005 or later, games would be available for download rather than sold in stores." This news [gamefu.org] came right after many analyst's came out saying how skeptical [gamefu.org] they were about Sony's online plans. This comes right after the Nintendo-Square and Nintendo-Capcom deals, which by the way Kutaragi mad, summoning top Square officials [gamefu.org] to the SCE headquarters to explain the deal, as he was out of town when the deal was made (the Square one) and had no prior knowledge about it. The memory card shortage [gamefu.org] doesnt help much either.
there was also an EE times story [eetimes.com] on this recently with some details on their broadband gaming service they're going to unveil: "Okamoto also said that Sony will roll out broadband gaming features and services for the Playstation 2 this year, working with partners such as America Online, iMode, Telewest and Vodaphone. Those services will use a so-called Dynamic Network Authorization System for copyright management. The system is based on a disk ID that is read by a DNAS server, he said."
Strange... since the official PS2 linux isn't Redhat Linux, but Kondara MNU/Linux... On the RedHat site, they already showed the PS2 in their showcase... as provider of the embedded developement platform: http://www.redhat.com/about/success/showcase/ps2la rge.html
I believe sony had about 9000 or so upgrade kits sold in Japan, and are taking preorders here for the kit, $200.00, for a 40 GB HDD, os, keyboard, etc. due to ship in May, 2002, and that the idea is to let people write their own games for the PS2. Much more is possible, I'm sure.
And GTA3 is soon to be released for PC so what's the point? Should be upgraded and whatnot, hopefully it will have a lot more stuff than the PS2 release. Anyone know the exact date? I've only seen the approximate "early April" reponse so far, but April is only 8 days away.
Insert Joke Here (Score:2, Funny)
PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it is possible to build nice Beowulf clusters with PS2/3 running Linux, using a server with disk as a file server.
Has anybody tryed it before?
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:1)
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:1)
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:1, Troll)
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:1)
Maybe they are not usefull for every application, but I think they are powerfull for regular calculations.
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:1, Insightful)
Try looking at the differences between the MIPS architecture and x86, see if you find anything interesting.
Intel silicon can run a lot of clock cycles per second, but it's what it does with those cycles that counts!
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:1)
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:3, Informative)
The PS2 uses a CPU that runs at 300 MHz. Would you scoff at an ad in the paper that is selling a "very fast" x86 machine at 300 HMz these days? I would.
Console CPUs at lower speeds than PCs used to have higher performance because they were customised for gaming. That's becoming less and less true as newer consoles come out that are closer relatives to PCs.
Now the hardware to handle graphics runs quite a bit faster. And we can expect the PS3 CPU to be "very fast". But is a 300 MHz PS2 processor really all that amazing as compared to a 200 MHz Dreamcast processor?
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:3, Informative)
(a) The first one (right answer)
(b) The second one
(c) The CowboyNeal one
Of course it is not so simple, but just to think about: how do you compare an Athlon 1.6 GHz to a Pentium 4 at 2 GHz?
Re:PS2 and PS3 processors (Score:2)
Thats the excuse Apple uses for being fast than P3/4, however its not the instructions per clock, or the mghz, its the overall design.
having fast mghz can make up for low instructions per clock (P4)
but theres alot of other tricks to make things faster
Maximum IPC is about 2. (Score:2)
If you can get an IPC average of 10, sell your idea to Intel before they send a group of thugs over to torture it out of you.
In the real world, the best sustained IPC you'll ever get is in the 2-2.5 range. The universe conspires against you - control hazards, cache and memory latencies, dependencies, misspeculation penalties, and all other brands of evil.
Trust me. I've been studying this for years, and will be making a career out of teaching it in a few more.
A 300 MHz modified MIPS core and a 200 MHz SH-4 core could go toe to toe with each other, but neither holds a candle to a current desktop.
All of the heavy lifting in *any* console produced in the past 5-10 years is done by the graphics chipset, and that gets stale pretty quickly too.
FUD. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, as well you should. However, this is a straw man argument and has absolutely no bearing on your following statement, since a 300MHz x86 is hardly the same as a 300MHz emotion engine.
Repeate after me: All MHz are not the same. I have a 200MHz StrongARM in my Gameboy Advance. The SNES had a 3MHz processor. The GBA is a bit more powerful than the SNES, but not by the same delta as a 4MHz 8086 and a 200MHz Pentium! All MHz are not the same! In fact, MHz are about as useful for gauging performance these days as BogoMIPS, which is to say not at all.
Gross overgeneralization. The XBOX is the only thing that's a repackaged PC. The PS2, which currently dominates the market by a huge margin, is quite far from a PC architecturally. The GameCube, while using something resembling a PPC, is otherwise architecturally quite remote from a PC. The XBOX may take all its RAM from the same pool (which as has been discussed isn't really a good thing), but that's not much different from what we do now (I've seen cheap SiS motherboards with onboard video that use system RAM for video RAM. Big deal, XBOX.)
Again, "very fast" is completely relative. The XBOX may have a 700MHz Celery (which is kinda slow anyway, but an OK general-purpose CPU), but take away its graphics accelerator and you'll be lucky to rival a SNES or PSX. The PS2's core is rather tied together, but even though it's 300MHz, it can push a decent amount of polys. Lesson for today: All MHz are not the same!
Oh, and to be somewhat on topic, anything Sony says about the PS3 is likely complete hype at this point. I like Sony (well, no I don't, but I like the PS2 ;-)), but I know just as well as the next guy how the marketting deal works.
All MHz are not the same! All MHz are not the same! All MHz are not the same!
Re:FUD. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Advance. The SNES had a 3MHz processor. The GBA
> is a bit more powerful than the SNES, but not
> by the same delta as a 4MHz 8086 and a 200MHz
> Pentium!
Whereas the sentiment of the note is correct, I suggest you follow through with some fact checking. The processor in the GameBoy Advance is an ARM7 TDMI, running at 16.78 mHz.
Even so, it should be noted that the Emotion Engine's IPC and so forth (as IPC and mHz aren't everything either, no matter what AMD's webpage told you) aren't as impressive as everyone here seems to think they are.
What's important about the PS2 with regards to speed are a few things: bandwidth (it's just sickening), two reconfigurable vector computation engines (VU0 and VU1 - seems like they might be great for a lot of beowulfish stuff, but then, I have no idea how those clusters really run, so take that with a grain of salt), and the following slap in the face: because all of the comparsions you read were using the DreamCast as the watermark at the time.
The machine, if used aggressively, can still tangle with the GameCube. How it fares against the XBox is the subject of debate; my personal belief is that with careful use it could surpass the XBox, but many people disagree (some feel the higher instruction processing rate is the deciding factor, which would give the issue to the XBox; others feel that the cache problems of an instruction-oriented architecture outweigh the benefits when considered against the bandwidth oriented architecture, which would give it to the PS2, at the cost of being very difficult to write to.)
Moreover, there are facets of the XBox like realtime Dolby 5.1 compression of generated audio which the PS2 has to dedicate a VU to hope to match (this is a significant chunk of the PS2's processing power, making this a Bad Thing).
> [The GameCube ] is otherwise architecturally
> quite remote from a PC.
Not really. Certainly not as far as the PS2, and arguably not even as far as a PS1. Whereas the bus layout and memory maps are completely different, you'll find that things like a normal opcode list make a bigger difference in the long run anyway - I mean, really, nobody in the industry uses magic numbers; it's all a macro called VRAM anyway. On the other hand, you really do use assembly, and quite often.
> Again, "very fast" is completely relative.
Not really. The SNES was "really fast" when it came out, and now it's dog slow. It's relative to what the consumer expects. The judgement made solely on experience, while not being hindered by expectations regarding numbers, operating system concerns, et cetera, is a better measure (in my mind) of "really fast" than anything else.
I mean, we've had Crays which pound your box (whatever it is) into the ground for probably 20 years. Is your box still really fast? Yes: Quake gets three digit frame rates, and even IE doesn't lag.
Now quit doting so much on numbers for subjective judgements. "Fast" doesn't have a number attatched to it in the dictionary, does it?
> The XBOX may have a 700MHz Celery (which is
> kinda slow anyway, but an OK general-purpose
> CPU),
For someone talking about the relativity of speed, you're certainly not thinking about it much. Consider the previous generations of chip, and the current. A celery 700 is more than plenty fast.
> but take away its graphics accelerator and
> you'll be lucky to rival a SNES or PSX.
I don't honestly believe you have any idea what you're talking about, no offense. My 486/33 was able to emulate the SNES in DOS mode, which means it was eating the CPU, graphics cards, sound cards, and so forth all on its lonesome.
If you can't tell the difference between a 486/33 and a Celery 700, you're not qualified to be talking about relative machine speeds. No offense. And, hey: go have alook at Bleem!'s requirements.
> The PS2's core is rather tied together, but
> even though it's 300MHz, it can push a decent
> amount of polys.
The Emotion Engine doesn't push any polys at all, ever. Did you do any research before claiming to know what was going on under the hood? Vertex pushing is almost always solely the province of the Graphics Synthesizer, and sometimes the VU units.
> Oh, and to be somewhat on topic, anything Sony
> says about the PS3 is likely complete hype at
> this point.
It's been in development for almost two years. I bet they have a general idea of how it's going to work.
> I know just as well as the next guy how the
> market[t]ing deal works.
You sure?
(sighs)
Re:FUD. (x2) (Score:2)
Gross overgeneralization. The XBOX is the only thing that's a repackaged PC. The PS2, which currently dominates the market by a huge margin, is quite far from a PC architecturally. The GameCube, while using something resembling a PPC, is otherwise architecturally quite remote from a PC. The XBOX may take all its RAM from the same pool (which as has been discussed isn't really a good thing), but that's not much different from what we do now (I've seen cheap SiS motherboards with onboard video that use system RAM for video RAM. Big deal, XBOX.)
The Xbox is, actually, less of a PC than the Gamecube is. Not many PCs have a Unified Memory Architecture. The Gamecube doesn't. It's got dedicated system RAM, dedicated video RAM, etc. Like a PC.
The Gamecube uses a modified G3 (PowerPC 750, whatever).
The Xbox uses a modified Pentium III (NOT a modified Celeron. Pentium III's have 8-way L2 caches, Celerons 4-way, a performance difference of ~10%).
I'd actually go as far as saying as the GC and Xbox are both architecturally fairly close to PCs, but that doesn't matter. They don't function the same, and they're specialized to run games better.
The PS2's is a lot different from a PC, you're right. But it's generally accepted that Sony/Toshiba made a huge mistake with the Emotion Engine. The Vector units are WAY too hard to program for, not to mention all of the obvious bottlenecks in the system (4MB VRAM?)
Re:FUD. (x2) (Score:1)
> Sony/Toshiba made a huge mistake with the Emotion Engine. The Vector units are WAY too
> hard to program for, not to mention all of the obvious bottlenecks in the system (4MB VRAM?)
The vector units must be WAY too hard to program for. There are so few games for the PS2, and only 1 or 2 companies doing the development...
Re:FUD. (Score:2)
Geez, you and Steve Ballmer would have a field day.
Anybody remember Iraq being blocked from PS2? (Score:2)
Personally, I believe these to have been simply marketing rumors intentionally set to make the PS2 seem more powerful than it is. I am curious, though, does anybody have better insight into that than I do? My memory is very fuzzy about it.
PS3 (Score:4, Informative)
The PS3 is PowerPC-based, and won't have the wierd vector units of the PS2. Those are generally conceded to have been a mistake. They're hard to program, and required considerable tool development. The competitive effect was that for the first year, PS2 games sucked. (The Xbox is more vanilla; it's basically a PC running Win2K with a GeForce 3, which simplifies development. I know people who had to port a physics engine to the PS2 vector units. Not fun.)
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
hmmm....
"Today I cannot mention more detail of cell processor," he said, noting that it'll be unveiled around 2003 or 2004. He did state, however, that the third generation PlayStation would be based on this technology. That means a PlayStation 3 born and bred to be jacked into the 'net.
no mention of ps3...blast this slashdot article!
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
Origin of the PowerPC (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Origin of the PowerPC (Score:1)
Not.
Maybe Apple will use a derivative of the Power4 tech for their G5's, but probably not a direct copy.
Re:Origin of the PowerPC (Score:2)
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
Re:PS3 (Score:2)
The fraction of the main CPU devoted to graphics in games has been dropping. More CPU time is being used for character control, AI, and physics. Much of the graphics work is offloaded to the GPU. The graphics are good enough that it's now very noticeable that the movement is lousy. So the need is not for more graphics power as much as for more general-purpose CPU power.
Of course, we can always use more texture memory.
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
Re:PS3 (Score:1)
It's not so simple as that. The XBox may not have generic co-processors, like the PS2's two vector units, but it does have a very powerful graphics co-processor, and another very powerful audio co-processor. Currently, the PS2's VUs are being used for things like enhanced graphics effects (doable on the XBox's GPU) and audio effects like surround sound (the XBox does dolby digital natively in hardware). Yes, if the PS2 had the same powerful graphics and audio processors, then the extra VUs would be a huge asset. As it is, those co-processors need to be used just to keep up with what the XBox can do.
Re:PS3 (Score:2)
Umm, Altivec anybody?
Very different beasts.
Altivec is more or less just another functional unit tacked on to the G4 chip (like SSE or 3DNow on Intel/AMD chips). It's controlled directly by instructions in the main execution stream, like another add or divide unit would be.
The vector coprocessors on the PS2 were independent processor cores tied to the main core's co-processor bus (MIPS does funky things with coprocessors). They had their own program memory (if I recall correctly), which more or less made them big, bizzare CISC units with completely programmable microcode as far as the main processor was concerned. Program them, then send them data, trigger them, and watch them go as they run their embedded code.
For PC enthusiasts, this would be like breaking out a soldering iron and tacking a couple of completely independent DSP chips north of the northbridge in a PC. Powerful, but they'd be tricky as hell to use, because they'd have to be working on memory that the CPU wasn't modifying, and you'd have to set up the software all three chips are running so that all working data is processed and then passed on by each in turn without anyone stepping on anyone else's toes.
In theory, you can do this by pipelining your graphics data flow and having each module deal with a different part of it. This is how the PS2 was supposed to be used. In practice, this is a PITA to do, and Sony didn't pre-build developer libraries that did it (why is beyond me).
So, programming a G4 with AltiVec is much easier
Sony's marketing department (Score:1)
Re:Sony's marketing department (Score:1)
Yuck, it still gives me nightmares, ingratiating grins proffering huge black controllers like they were gifts from God and would confer freedom from sin because it came from Microsoft almighty
Aaargh!! Nurse, fetch my medication...
Re:Sony's marketing department (Score:1)
Distributed PS* computing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:2, Informative)
FWIW, the Dreamcast used this "tile based" rendering as well.
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:2)
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:2)
The torso you sell to them will be used in the RealDoll playstation addon due out shortly. They're expected to be low in volume, and quite high in price -- especially for the female version.
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:1)
I never said the Dreamcast was multiprocessor. Nor did I say it was a new/revolutionary technique. I was just explaining how 16 PS2's work together on the GSCube.
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:1)
Would it be possible to program multiplayer game where the more people you linked into your game the faster it would play?
I suppose if your running redhat we could just sit and play nethack all day. What happened to the games?
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:1)
Re:Distributed PS* computing (Score:2)
bio-playstation (Score:2, Funny)
When that time comes by, I guess biologists will be the ones to develop mod chips and the like. Maybe a real "virus" will infect it. What an interesting day that will be.
Re:bio-playstation (Score:5, Funny)
For external use only.
If Playstation 6 contacts skin, flush with water for 15 minutes.
Do not stare directly at Playstation 6.
If Playstation 6 breaks open, run and take cover.
Re:bio-playstation (Score:1)
Re:bio-playstation (Score:2)
do not taunt Playstation 6
Re:bio-playstation (Score:2, Funny)
Re:bio-playstation (Score:1)
Re:bio-playstation (Score:2)
Re:bio-playstation (Score:1)
ExiztenZ (Score:1)
ExistenZ [imdb.com]
Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:4, Offtopic)
I'm betting its a Linux based OS, for the PS3 and other appliances.
IBM Sony & Toshiba [infosatellite.com]
I think consoles are the key to Linux being successful on the desktop, because Consoles are the desktop of tomorrow.
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:2)
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:1)
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:2)
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:2)
A Console doesnt overwelm a user with 100000 icons, it keeps its simple, like Tivo and others.
It may do many tasks, but its simple because of how it presents itself, the GUI, the style.
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:1)
All a console really needs to add to satisfy most home users would be email, a real web browser and a word processor.
Personally I'd welcome the stability of a console in the computers of those people that call me with their computer problems.
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:3, Informative)
As for buying a computer, the majority of people hardly upgrade anything more than RAM and maybe a hard disk, so a console could conceivably be the next wave of computers. It sure would make programming "easier" with a non-moving hardware platform much like how Apple's computers are.
Consoles/Computers/Convergence (Score:2)
I think all of us might do well to perhaps consider that stuffing Linux down the throat of a Playstation (or even a Dreamcast, despite my sentimental attraction to the idea) might not be the best possible way to create a Linux-based console. Sadly Indrema wasn't the way to go either...actually manufacturing consoles is a business best left to huge megacorporations.
The Nvidia Nforce Athlon chipset is very, very interesting indeed. There are decent ATX and mATX motherboards available featuring this little gem. This may very well be the first all-in-one mobo that will provide decent gaming performance. A buddy of mine just built a box using an Abit NV7M motherboard with the chipset [abit-usa.com] and he is blown away...he was prepared to "help the board along" by adding a sound card, etc, but no need. Throw the thing in a case like the Casedge 1123 or 1300 and you might have the beginnings of a happening Linux gaming box.
I think this is more along the lines of what we should be thinking about. Certainly something like this would be easier to lug to LAN parties, that's for sure...
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:1)
Yeah, for extremely large values of "tomorrow". They have been predicting the death of the PC for what, 6 years now?
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:1)
The PC is not dying, it's alive and well. As much as MS is going to push Word.NET on the Xbox/HomeStation, it is completely illogical to do word processing in the living room on your TV set with a console. Sorry. So while it's certainly true that the console gaming market is stronger than the PC gaming market (the reasons for which should be glaringly obvious to everyone), that in no way serves as an indication that the PC is dying. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:2)
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:1)
1. one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. not unless you can provide surveys and reports that show that.
2. PC sales are not down, they are flat. Their actual sales numbers are still growing. Their growth is down, as is to be expected when the the product is mature.
Re:Sony, Toshiba & IBM are creating an OS (Score:1)
Recent data shows that cell phone handset sales are down significantly [infoworld.com]. Does this mean that cell phones were just a fad and now they're dying? No: every person I know, except for my mother and grandmother, has a cell phone. I bought mine in 2000 - a Startac. I still have it. Why? Because no other phone has a feature compelling enough to force me to upgrade. If the Handspring Treo had a better price point and worked with Verizon I might actually be persuaded, but that's another story.
Anyhow, using PC sales figures to predict the death of the PC is a stupid move. All such figures prove is that Dell will no longer be a stock market darling as the PC market is pretty well saturated.
I guess this should have been in reply to HanzoSan instead of RN, but oh well.
Sony IBM & Toshiba Cell Chip Technology Info (Score:4, Informative)
NEWS
IBM, Sony, and Toshiba announced a partnership today in Tokyo to develop new, faster, smaller chips code-named Cell. Over the next 5 years the companies will spend US$400 million to break the 0.10 micron barrier. Cell chips will be targeted for use in high-speed Internet access and network-based computing.
Sony Computer Entertainment (the gaming folks) is the Sony division involved in the partnership, and it already has working arrangements with Toshiba--the two companies formed a joint venture to design and produce the PlayStation 2's chip. Adding IBM to the mix helps all three companies reduce development costs
IBM will also announce today that it is joining the Extreme Ultra Violet Consortium, another group working to shrink micron processes. Industry watchers think IBM's move may help boost the EUV technology's chances of success.
I must be getting tired... (Score:1)
Interesting facts about official Sony Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a good link if you're interested in this - http://www.execpc.com/~halkun/PS2/ [execpc.com]
It sounds more like it emulates linux in a VM rather than actually loading it as the actual machine OS. This allows them to use all kinds of proprietary code without violating the GPL, and to build in all sorts of copy and "ip" "protection."
Fair use quote:
This is how the Runtime Environment (RTE) works. In order to get Linux running
on your PS2, you must boot the system using the PS2 Linux DVD.
During boot, after all the copy-protection stuff is taken care of, the system
lays down the Runtime Environment. This is basically a layer that hides access
to the SPU2 (Sound Processing Unit), the input/output processor, the hard drive,
the CD/DVD-ROM system, the controllers, memory cards, USB, i.Link and other
peripherals. The RTE does supply hardware looking hooks, an educated guess
being faux-memory address and registers. Then the Linux kernel is loaded on top
of this. There are Linux device drivers that accesses the Runtime Environment
that are open source, but it's just a device driver calling in all actuality,
another device driver that's closed.
What you can and can't do with the system is limited.
You have no ability to read a normal PSX or PS2 memory card directly. For
example you can't open a Final Fantasy X save, edit how much cash you have,
and save it again. Through the RTE you can format a whole memory card(!)
and mount it like an 8 meg hard drive, but that card would be worthless
for saving normal PS2 games. Once you put the Linux formatted card
without Linux running (i.e. you are in the browser) it asks to reformat
the card.
The RTE also not allow audio CDs to be identified.
It also can tell if you have put in a CD-R or not (it can see a wobble track,
which all CD-Rs have ) and likewise not allow the disk to be seen. A PS2 can
read CD-Rs fine, the RTE is just doing copy protection first to make sure you
can't. You will also have no access to the CSS portion of the MPEG decoder,
but you can decode raw MPEG-4. Direct access to the Dolby subsystem is also
denied. Anything dealing with region locks are also restricted.
The first DVD (The boot disk) has a Linux boot loader and the RTE on it.
This disk is not allowed to be copied. It also has the manuals on it too,
which I'm sure are also copyrighted and not allowed to be publicly distributed.
The Linux kernel is on the second disk and also on the hard drive after it's
installed.
In order to use a monitor, you must one that is "Sync on Green". This means
that the refresh rate is only in the green channel. The monitor must use that
sync pulse to sync red and blue channels so they all get painted in the screen
at the same time. The reason why you have to use that is because a PS2 can turn
it's sync on green ability on and off. If you try and use the monitor
adapter for playing PS2 games or watching DVDs, sync on green will be turned
off and only the green channel will show up. Direct video output defeats Macrovision.
Sony doesn't want you making copies of DVDs to tape. Keep in mind that your
network adapter is going to have a MAC address that Sony, no doubt, knows.
Also removing the PS2 hard drive and attempting to mount in a PC will also
likely not work and possibly damage the drive.
Re:Interesting facts about official Sony Linux (Score:2)
network adapter is going to have a MAC address that Sony, no doubt, knows.
I doubt it since rewriting a MAC address is dead simple - a bridging firewall with no rules will do the trick. Do, however, bear in mind that it's entirely likely that PS2's all have a hardware identifier that sony will know.
Dave
And this PS2 Linux is useful how? (Score:2)
Making halfway-decent games on the PS2 requires direct hardware access in order to take advantage of their kooky architecture. Can we even stream data off the hard drive to the video memory during gameplay? Probably not.
And of course we can't read CDR's with it, just in case we actually make something useful and want to easily share it with our friends. I understand the piracy issues, but in light of all the lockdowns they put in place, I need to ask: Why did they bother porting Linux to the PS2 anyway?
Re:And this PS2 Linux is useful how? (Score:1)
Re:And this PS2 Linux is useful how? (Score:1)
-J
Re:Oh, God...someone mod this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article.
Now I'm not a bit surprised that Sony wants to keep control over how people use their consoles. I'm not even surprised that Sony is dead set on using hardware to prevent their customers from being able to assert their legal rights under copyright law. But I am a little bit surprised that their representative and/or the journalist who wrote that story will blatantly lie and claim to be giving people "complete documentation" and the like, when obviously they aren't going to do anything of the kind.
And I do think that potential buyers of the product, many of whom may read this article, deserve to know the truth. It may or may not make a difference in whether or not any given person will buy it, but at the very least you should know the truth before you make that decision.
Yep, Enos Lives. (Score:2)
Don't ever expect Sony to support the idea of people making games for Linux without paying royalties to them. Remember them shutting down the Aibo hacking site?
In any case, I wouldn't expect a whole lot from Sony releasing a product to run Linux on their machines. I think they're worried that people will use it to exploit their machines to do things that Sony doesn't think is appropriate. I'd be much more comfortable with a 3rd party doing it.
Re:Oh, God...someone mod this up! (Score:2)
According to the PS2 Linux FAQ you get 6 of the 7 manuals that licensed developers get. The only one missing is the one for stuff covered by the RTE. The graphics system is not a part of the RTE and so you do get the manual for that, the main processor and the Vu's.
Only on Slashdot would anybody complain that that is not enough information about a type of computer system which is historically completely closed to all but those who spend $20,000 and are hand picked by the manufacturer.
Complaining? (Score:2)
Me complaining? Hardly that. I don't care whether they release it, one way or the other, I don't have one and I don't plan to get one so why would I care?
Why would anyone care? Well if I were a stockholder I'd care, because this will probably get them some free (as in beer) R&D. Would I care if I owned one? No, I'd play games on it so I wouldn't care. If I wanted a supercomputer I'd buy a decent rackmount. I'm not sure why anyone should care about this unless they own a PS2 and no PC and want to learn about TCP/IP? Which can't be a great big audience really.
If you want one, and you care, by all means, go ahead. I wasn't challenging your right to be excited about whatever you want to be. I was just pointing out some facts not covered in the article.
Re:Complaining? (Score:2)
I'm not saying you should be excited about it, but the reason most people are (including me) is that the PS2 is a very different beast from what we are used to working with. Different enough to send most less patient developers running for the hills. I personally can't wait to develop for such a system.
Interesting Concepts, but,,, (Score:4, Interesting)
It's difficult to imagine what sort of rendering in a game would require this much power behind it. Then again, I remember when a 1 Gigabyte server was huge. I also wonder that, if the plan for distributed processing is to be successful with multiple PlayStation consoles, how many users would be willing to leave their PlayStation(#)s running all the time for other people to use. On top of that, how would Sony propose to network the consoles togeher? The networking prospects for the current-generation PS2s have occasional problems running the software it already has for networked gaming beyond a jury-rigged LAN.
In regards to why would Sony want Linux on their PSx consoles... An audience of avid PS2 users experimenting with a robust TCP/IP (Internet communication) protocol. Fans will also receive complete documentation with the kit, which includes all the technical details of the PS2 hardware. Normally this info is only available to game developers. Again, Linux for PSx isn't going to rake in millions for Sony, but there may be different benefits for hobbyist developers. It won't be for everyone, but if you're into trying new things, then feel free.
The "Gestural Interface" seems to be the most interesting out of what the article offered. It might be a step closer to a virtual reality interface without needing an expensive headset. It might change gaming for the console. Then again, it depends on the games that use said hardware. It'll be interesting to see how many of these ideas actually come to fruition, and how many of them become Vaporware.
Gestural interfaces...why? (Score:1)
It may be "cool" nut I don't find it practical. Maybe I'm getting too old.
Re:Gestural interfaces...why? (Score:1)
Re:Gestural interfaces...why? (Score:1)
IMPROVE the I/O for gaming. Thats our only limitation for the gaming experience.
PS2 Server farms. (Score:1)
Maybe a cluster of these. Wonder what kind of hacks are going to come of this. Its already a cool hack of sorts.
Now i really gots to get me a PS2 not only for GTA3 but another linux box would be cool to have.
Not a bad move.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And enabling linux on the PS is just a logical step - because: It's MS who is the competior.
And what is MS's only strength today? No, it's not MS windows by itself, its the combination of Windows and MS office. So what is the threat to the PS?
I can tell you: Eventually MS will come out with some sort of "Word for the xbox" or stuff..
Now, would you consider that a possibility?
Just wondering..
And what would be the consequences for the market..
Re:Not a bad move.. (Score:2)
Re:Not a bad move.. (Score:1)
Sony figures they need an ace in the hole because of Microsoft's track record. If you honestly think Sony is doing this for any reason OTHER than to deny Microsoft's latest attempted market take-over, well I'd have to call that "pro-Linux hopefulness crap". You are a fool for thinking that "Sony doesn't give a fuck about Microsoft" - or more concerned with thinking that Sony picked Linux because it's whiz-bang cool.
If there were no Microsoft Xbox, there would be no official Sony PS2 Linux. It really IS as simple as that.
Re:Not a bad move.. (Score:2)
The concept is quite basic, Sony wants to release a development environment for the PlayStation. The PS2 has enough power it can run much of the same software a full fledged PC could, especially with the addition of a hard drive. They want to make say 30% markup on each dev kit they sell (hard drive and software). Linux makes the job simple because it comes in source form and has an open license meaning no royalty fees have to be paid to anyone. This signifigantly reduces the cost of releasing a dev kit for the PS2 and 3. Sony's Linux dev kit doesn't have anything on it that directly competes with Microsoft software. I don't know where in the hell you get this from. Linux on the PS2 doesn't deny Microsoft anything at all. If Sony stuck QNX or CP/M on the damn thing it still wouldn't matter.
What is it with people of your ilk accusing everyone lacking a bleary eyed retarded devotion to the Linux religion Microsoft sell-outs? The world is not nearly so binary as you're either with Linux or with Microsoft. That line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous. Linux is not a religion, the fate of the souls of the world do not depend on Linus fucking Torvalds. Stop being ao accusatory towards thosewho don't share your stupid fanatical devotion. The Force is not fucking with you even if you wear that Darth Vader helmet to protect your head when you fall down.
Re:Not a bad move.. (Score:1)
SETI@home ? (Score:1)
The Otherside Of the Story (Score:3, Insightful)
EE times story (Score:1)
Re:Redhat? (Score:2)
The R&D team booted up a PS2 running RedHat.
Re:Redhat? (Score:3, Funny)
-1, Illiterate
Re:Redhat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Redhat? (Score:1)
"Much more is possible, I'm sure" (Score:1)
A PS2 Beowulf Cluster ?
No...
8)
Re:Scorpion king Soundtrack! Listen Now! (Score:1)
Re:Playstation 3??? (Score:1)
To a lesser degree, it's nice if the system runs Rez and Virtua Fighter 4... but really, it's a GTA3 box.
Re:Playstation 3??? (Score:1)
And GTA3 is soon to be released for PC so what's the point? Should be upgraded and whatnot, hopefully it will have a lot more stuff than the PS2 release. Anyone know the exact date? I've only seen the approximate "early April" reponse so far, but April is only 8 days away.
Re:Playstation 3??? (Score:1)