N
NEXT BOX
I found this supposed developer opinion on Xbox 2 | Next posted on several
message boards:
http://www.psinext.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6282&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=328909&highlight=Cpiasminc
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=37493
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20824
[some supposed programmer or developer] QUOTE:
____________________________________________________________________________
__________
"I think the key difference here in terms of hardware for Xbox2 is the fact
that Microsoft wanted to play a bigger part in deciding on the hardware. In
fact, this time around, they're in full control, whereas the last time,
basically nVidia did the entire system. Microsoft definitely makes great
developer tools and documentation, and it would be silly to think that XNA
will not amount to much. But the thing is that they are clearly without any
sense at all when it comes to hardware. The fact that they choose to
centralize their FSB or share a single L2 cache among 3 processors shows
some real lack of insight. The biggest flub would have to be that 10 MB
eDRAM on the GPU -- which I'm told is really MS's idea (both MS and ATI told
me that much) -- that just says they didn't even think about resolution.
Hardware-wise Xbox2 is getting disappointing the more I look at it... and I
know I shouldn't really be saying that since I'm actually developing on it.
But by disappointment, I should say -- it won't suck or anything remotely
near sucking... it just won't be anything monstrously groundbreaking --
let's just say it's Moore's Law looking perfectly normal and healthy. The
GPU will have some serious power all right, as will the CPU. But if you
think of the difference between PS1 and PS2, you should see about the same
growth from Xbox to Xbox2, but at the same time, taking into account the
difference in resolution, content, shader complexity and everything else put
together.
All in all, Xbox2's total system architecture is still very PC-like. Or
Mac-like in this case. In that sense, it will probably be easier to develop
for. The thing is that SIMD is very important to getting any major
performance out of PPC processors these days. Without it, they're basically
Celerons. So avoiding pipeline stalls and concerning yourself with
*instruction latency* is going to be huge on all 3 consoles with this
upcoming generation. In some ways, that actually means we've gone back to
the '60s in terms of programming. It's just that it's the 60s with 3 million
line codebases.
BTW, I should also note that based on what I'm hearing from every studio
I've been to, I'd have to say that, at least for the first generation of
games on next-gen consoles, you will not see anything running at 60 fps.
There is not one studio I've talked to who hasn't said they're shooting only
for 30 fps. Some have even said that for next-gen, they won't shoot higher
than 30 fps ever again.
As for PS3... well, it looks as though PS3 will be the hardware king this
time around. Just as Xbox had the powerful hardware in current-gen. The
question of whether it will be that easy to develop on is still up in the
air. Developing a cross-platform engine for Xbox2, PS3, PC, NRev will likely
be damn-near impossible. I'd expect a codebase with more #ifdefs than code,
the way things look. I don't expect graphical power to be that massively
different between PS3 and XBox2, though. They're essentially very similar
GPU pipes... PS3's will probably have some features that Xbox2's doesn't and
vice versa. Where the difference will lie is going to be in CPU power. How
that will manifest itself is still very uncertain. If the graphical power is
smaller, that may also mean there is more value for studios to do multi-SKU
titles, and we may see a bigger glut of games that are available for all 3
or at least 2 of the 3 consoles.
Then of course, comes the business hand of Microsoft... in this Sony is
definitely second, but I wouldn't count it as a gaping hole. I mean, Sony is
an 11-figure yearly revenue company, too. If nothing else, PS3 can drive
home the point of CELL as an architecture. And in that sense, Sony is
playing for the longer term than MS. OTOH, MS is the sort of company that
can afford to play out a generation at a time."
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Now if you read through the threads that I linked to above, you will
actually see some differing thoughts on this guys post about Xbox2, and, at
least one reply from the guy himself, explaining his original post. I'll go
ahead and paste that guys explaination below, so if by remote chance you are
even interested in this, you can read it now without searching through the
threads I linked to:
[some supposed programmer or developer's explaination for his original post]
QUOTE:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
" Oh, geez... I was hoping this wouldn't really blow up out of proportion.
The last thing I wanted was for all that to really make a big fuss on a
dozen other forums.
When I say "disappointing", I mean that in respect to everything that was
promised. If you're expecting realtime CG, I have my doubts. That is, unless
displaced subdivision surface support in hardware is actually going to be
there, which is still very much up in the air, and even then, the problem
becomes not the polygon count, but the ability to apply complex shaders on
the darn things. Even otherwise, early games won't be close to the limits of
its power on any of the consoles. We won't see what final hardware looks
like until very very short notice prior to the console's release. Nowhere
near enough time to try adjust and optimize and try to push the limits of
the console. That's why everybody says at least for their first next-gen
games, they're not going to shoot higher than 30 fps. As for those few that
said 30 fps for good, I really don't know. They're probably just being
pessimistic. But then, the only studio I visited that was optimistic about
Xbox2 happened to conveniently be located in Seattle.
Also, for that 10 MB of eDRAM -- consider 1920x1080, which is about 2
megapixels... 2 mpix * (4 (32-bit frame buffer) + 4 (32-bit Z-buffer) + 1
(8-bit Stencil)) = ~17.79 MB. Yes it is supposed to hold frame buffer,
Z-buffer, and stencil, from what I'm told. You could hold it all at 720p, at
least. MS did say that they want developers to at least support 720p
(meaning we don't necessarily have to support 1080i, but 720p is apparently
a requirement).
The other meaning I have as far as disappointment goes is the fact that up
until this time, all my expectations on Xbox2, PS3, and NRev have all been
on a sort of underestimation in hopes that the real thing will be far above
what I say. At least that way, my being wrong would be a good thing. In
Xbox2's case, though, compared to the other two, we're hearing more things
now. Although they keep changing from day to day, nothing I've heard has
really exceeded my presumably underestimated expectations. The only things I
haven't heard about are system bandwidth and the GPU's specs. I don't expect
anything incredible, though. Even 4-5x the system bandwidth of a PC is
really not good enough -- and I mean that in the sense that the system
bandwidth on a PC is god-awful. "
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
message boards:
http://www.psinext.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6282&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=328909&highlight=Cpiasminc
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=37493
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20824
[some supposed programmer or developer] QUOTE:
____________________________________________________________________________
__________
"I think the key difference here in terms of hardware for Xbox2 is the fact
that Microsoft wanted to play a bigger part in deciding on the hardware. In
fact, this time around, they're in full control, whereas the last time,
basically nVidia did the entire system. Microsoft definitely makes great
developer tools and documentation, and it would be silly to think that XNA
will not amount to much. But the thing is that they are clearly without any
sense at all when it comes to hardware. The fact that they choose to
centralize their FSB or share a single L2 cache among 3 processors shows
some real lack of insight. The biggest flub would have to be that 10 MB
eDRAM on the GPU -- which I'm told is really MS's idea (both MS and ATI told
me that much) -- that just says they didn't even think about resolution.
Hardware-wise Xbox2 is getting disappointing the more I look at it... and I
know I shouldn't really be saying that since I'm actually developing on it.
But by disappointment, I should say -- it won't suck or anything remotely
near sucking... it just won't be anything monstrously groundbreaking --
let's just say it's Moore's Law looking perfectly normal and healthy. The
GPU will have some serious power all right, as will the CPU. But if you
think of the difference between PS1 and PS2, you should see about the same
growth from Xbox to Xbox2, but at the same time, taking into account the
difference in resolution, content, shader complexity and everything else put
together.
All in all, Xbox2's total system architecture is still very PC-like. Or
Mac-like in this case. In that sense, it will probably be easier to develop
for. The thing is that SIMD is very important to getting any major
performance out of PPC processors these days. Without it, they're basically
Celerons. So avoiding pipeline stalls and concerning yourself with
*instruction latency* is going to be huge on all 3 consoles with this
upcoming generation. In some ways, that actually means we've gone back to
the '60s in terms of programming. It's just that it's the 60s with 3 million
line codebases.
BTW, I should also note that based on what I'm hearing from every studio
I've been to, I'd have to say that, at least for the first generation of
games on next-gen consoles, you will not see anything running at 60 fps.
There is not one studio I've talked to who hasn't said they're shooting only
for 30 fps. Some have even said that for next-gen, they won't shoot higher
than 30 fps ever again.
As for PS3... well, it looks as though PS3 will be the hardware king this
time around. Just as Xbox had the powerful hardware in current-gen. The
question of whether it will be that easy to develop on is still up in the
air. Developing a cross-platform engine for Xbox2, PS3, PC, NRev will likely
be damn-near impossible. I'd expect a codebase with more #ifdefs than code,
the way things look. I don't expect graphical power to be that massively
different between PS3 and XBox2, though. They're essentially very similar
GPU pipes... PS3's will probably have some features that Xbox2's doesn't and
vice versa. Where the difference will lie is going to be in CPU power. How
that will manifest itself is still very uncertain. If the graphical power is
smaller, that may also mean there is more value for studios to do multi-SKU
titles, and we may see a bigger glut of games that are available for all 3
or at least 2 of the 3 consoles.
Then of course, comes the business hand of Microsoft... in this Sony is
definitely second, but I wouldn't count it as a gaping hole. I mean, Sony is
an 11-figure yearly revenue company, too. If nothing else, PS3 can drive
home the point of CELL as an architecture. And in that sense, Sony is
playing for the longer term than MS. OTOH, MS is the sort of company that
can afford to play out a generation at a time."
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________
Now if you read through the threads that I linked to above, you will
actually see some differing thoughts on this guys post about Xbox2, and, at
least one reply from the guy himself, explaining his original post. I'll go
ahead and paste that guys explaination below, so if by remote chance you are
even interested in this, you can read it now without searching through the
threads I linked to:
[some supposed programmer or developer's explaination for his original post]
QUOTE:
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
" Oh, geez... I was hoping this wouldn't really blow up out of proportion.
The last thing I wanted was for all that to really make a big fuss on a
dozen other forums.
When I say "disappointing", I mean that in respect to everything that was
promised. If you're expecting realtime CG, I have my doubts. That is, unless
displaced subdivision surface support in hardware is actually going to be
there, which is still very much up in the air, and even then, the problem
becomes not the polygon count, but the ability to apply complex shaders on
the darn things. Even otherwise, early games won't be close to the limits of
its power on any of the consoles. We won't see what final hardware looks
like until very very short notice prior to the console's release. Nowhere
near enough time to try adjust and optimize and try to push the limits of
the console. That's why everybody says at least for their first next-gen
games, they're not going to shoot higher than 30 fps. As for those few that
said 30 fps for good, I really don't know. They're probably just being
pessimistic. But then, the only studio I visited that was optimistic about
Xbox2 happened to conveniently be located in Seattle.
Also, for that 10 MB of eDRAM -- consider 1920x1080, which is about 2
megapixels... 2 mpix * (4 (32-bit frame buffer) + 4 (32-bit Z-buffer) + 1
(8-bit Stencil)) = ~17.79 MB. Yes it is supposed to hold frame buffer,
Z-buffer, and stencil, from what I'm told. You could hold it all at 720p, at
least. MS did say that they want developers to at least support 720p
(meaning we don't necessarily have to support 1080i, but 720p is apparently
a requirement).
The other meaning I have as far as disappointment goes is the fact that up
until this time, all my expectations on Xbox2, PS3, and NRev have all been
on a sort of underestimation in hopes that the real thing will be far above
what I say. At least that way, my being wrong would be a good thing. In
Xbox2's case, though, compared to the other two, we're hearing more things
now. Although they keep changing from day to day, nothing I've heard has
really exceeded my presumably underestimated expectations. The only things I
haven't heard about are system bandwidth and the GPU's specs. I don't expect
anything incredible, though. Even 4-5x the system bandwidth of a PC is
really not good enough -- and I mean that in the sense that the system
bandwidth on a PC is god-awful. "
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
SC