Anmelden
?
XBox 360 - NUR Xbox 360
- Thread-Ersteller Stike
- Erstellungsdatum
- Status
Ja es hört sich toll an, genauso wie bei der Geforce 6800 Ultra, nur bringt es leider nichts. Solange ein paar Trolle glauben das sie dadurch Filmgrafik bekommen hat Sony und Nvidia genau das erreicht was sie wollten. Das dies schon lange im PC Bereich auch vorhanden ist, ist denen aber wohl nicht klar.
NeSS schrieb:
Es geht ja auch bei 128Bit um die interne Berechnung und nicht um die spätere Ausgabe.
128 Bit Rechengenauigkeit bedeutet, dass je 32Bit für eine der drei Grundfarben und 32Bit für den Alpha- (Transparent) Kanal verwendet werden, wo ansonsten bei 32 Bit Rechengenauigkeit lediglich jeweils 8 Bit zur Verfügung stehen.
Man kann insbesondere den Helligkeitsbereich hoch schrauben, für den das menschliche Auge empfindlicher ist als gegenüber dem Farbbereich, und intern damit rechnen. Des weiteren setzt sich das fertige Bild ja aus mehreren Layer- und Texturenschichten zusammen. Werden diese mit lediglich 32Bit berechnet schleichen sich bei deren Kombination Rundungsfehler ein, die um so höher sind, je mehr Schichten ins Spiel kommen.
Bei einer internen Rechentiefe von 128Bit gehen diese Rundungsfehler gegen Null. Dass am Ende das Bild natürlich mit 32Bit bzw. 24 (ohne Alpha-Kanal) ausgegeben wird, steht ja nicht zur Debatte.
Mit 128Bit interner Rechengenauigkeit erreicht man schon eine sichtbare Bildverbesserung. In wie fern diese aber mehr Performance gegenüber 32Bit Berechnungen schluckt, weiß ich leider nicht und wäre mal interessant zu erfahren.
Jedenfalls muss die Grafikkarte dafür ausgelegt sein.
In der derzeitigen Grakageneration sind es so viel ich weiß nur die Modelle der GF6xxx Serie von Nvidia.
Zum Thema Rendering gibts von 3Dcenter.de gute Artikel:
Grenzen beim 32-Bit-Rendering - und Auswege
64 Bit Rendering - Sinn oder Unsinn?
Dabei geht es zwar weniger um die interne Berechnung, aber das Thema wird angeschnitten. Auch bei der X360 gibt es intern ein höheres Rendering-Verfahren und ja, so etwas ergibt Sinn... Das das Auge nicht mehr als 32-Bit Farben erkennen kann ist ja wieder ein anderes Thema.
Grenzen beim 32-Bit-Rendering - und Auswege
64 Bit Rendering - Sinn oder Unsinn?
Dabei geht es zwar weniger um die interne Berechnung, aber das Thema wird angeschnitten. Auch bei der X360 gibt es intern ein höheres Rendering-Verfahren und ja, so etwas ergibt Sinn... Das das Auge nicht mehr als 32-Bit Farben erkennen kann ist ja wieder ein anderes Thema.
Terminator
Gesperrt
- Seit
- 29 März 2002
- Beiträge
- 10.895
http://www.justgamers.de/?page=news&news_id=24301&PHPSESSID=86acb5f8ac7df47f350d6e045d607cae
Äh, das hört sich wieder ganz schön doof an ...
HellFireWarrior
L11: Insane
- Seit
- 25 Feb 2005
- Beiträge
- 1.746
Aber dieses 128 Bit Rendering soll ziemlich viel Bandbreite schlucken, was bei der PS3 doch sowieso schon knapp ist. Auserdem dachte ich, dass die Geforce 6XXX nur 64 Bit interne Genauigkeit hätten.
MasterChief1976
L19: Master
Terminator schrieb:
http://www.justgamers.de/?page=news&news_id=24301&PHPSESSID=86acb5f8ac7df47f350d6e045d607cae
Äh, das hört sich wieder ganz schön doof an ...
shit jetzt hatte ich termi schon so weit das er mal aufhört sich über die abwärtskompatibilität der 360er gedanken zu machen und dann das ......
Terminator
Gesperrt
- Seit
- 29 März 2002
- Beiträge
- 10.895
master chief + riptor:
Interview mit einem Ati-Verantwortlichen:
In the first of a new series of interviews with industry luminaries, were talking to ATI evangelist, Richard Huddy.
Richard is responsible for talking to Developers about ATIs technology, and helping them to create technology that runs great on ATI hardware. Richard has previously lent his incredible graphics expertise to 3Dlabs and to NVIDIA. Most recently, he has been involved with the development and promotion of the graphics sub-system in the Xbox 360, designed for Microsoft by ATI.
The Xbox 360 architecture
I began by asking Richard for his opinion on the Xbox 360 archtecture. Im really impressed, he commented, Its way better than I would have expected at this point in the history of 3D graphics. The unified shader architecture alone is capable of giving a performance increase of a factor of nearly two over the hardware that we have in PCs today. Thats because we see many cases, and this is particularly true on consoles, where games are limited by one of the two groups of engines in the graphics chip, either the vertex engines or the pixel engines. With a unified pipeline we can now devote 100% of the hardware to which ever task is the bottleneck.
How does he think the sharing of memory between the graphics and the main memory will affect performance? Well, Richard explains that the shared memory is Very different from the technology implemented on the original Xbox, or even on todays PC implementations.
The intelligent memory gives pretty awesome speed the bandwidth is up to 2 Terabits per second. That kind of power is almost unimaginable. The old terminology of SMA (Shared Memory Architecture) simply doesnt do justice to the flexibility and power of the Xbox 360. SMA is a term we have inherited from the PC and it usually has some negative connotations, but the Xbox 360 is really nothing like that.
ATIs Xenos Xbox chip
By now, youd have to have been hidden under a rock to have avoided learning the details of the ATI graphics that power the 360, dubbed Xenos. 10MB of Embedded DRAM provide enough of a buffer to enable all 360 games to have Anti-Aliasing switched on, effectively for no performance hit. The question on everyones lips is: is this something thats going to turn up on the PC any time soon?
Id be very surprised if these hardware features were implemented on the PC any time soon, were told. Microsoft has a very specific revision of DirectX (or Windows Graphics Foundation) for Xbox 360, just as they did with Xbox 1. DirectX for the PC includes no hardware specific instructions, because DirectX has to be 10 times more generic to work on a PC platform and the myriad of hardware configurations. I dont think it will happen. Plus the architecture of the Xbox 360 is closed box that means we can do special things there which have no comparison in the PC space.
"We practically have AA for free on the PC anyway right now. If the difference between 1280x1024 with no AA and 1280x1024 with 2x AA is 90 FPS and 70FPS, who wouldnt turn the AA on? The performance hit isnt going to be noticeable to most gamers and with an X800 or X850 those kind of frame rates are common place.
ATIs role in Xbox 360 backwards compatibility
One of the biggest questions has been whether or not Xbox 360 would be backwards compatible with original Xbox games. Recent word from Microsoft has been that Halo 2 will be amongst the first games to get backwards compatibility but until now, no one has known exactly what that means, or how it will be achieved.
What are the problems? Well, Xbox 1 games are written for Intel CPUs and Nvidia graphics, and graphics engines in particular use hardware specific instructions. Apart from the change to PowerPC hardware with the Xbox 360, Nvidia-specific calls have to be interpreted in a manner that the ATI hardware in the 360 will understand.
Richard: Microsoft werent focused on hardware backwards compatibility early on that wasnt in the specification. They believed that any compatibility they could get would come in through a software layer, and they didnt want to compromise this generations hardware for the sake of last generations games.
They have implemented compatibility purely through emulation (at the CPU level). It looks like emulation profiles for each game are going to be stored on the hard drive, and I imagine that a certain number will ship with the system. They already have the infrastructure to distribute more profiles via Live, and more and more can be made available online periodically.
Emulating the CPU isnt really a difficult task. They have three 3GHz cores, so emulating one 733MHz chip is pretty easy. The real bottlenecks in the emulation are GPU calls calls made specifically by games to the Nvidia hardware in a certain way. General GPU instructions are easy to convert an instruction to draw a triangle in a certain way will be pretty generic. However, its the odd cases, the proprietary routines, that will cause hassle.
Halo 2 courtesy Bungie
ATI v Nvidia: RSX, PS3 and the console wars
With the Xbox 360 Xenos core running at 500MHz, and the PlayStation3s RSX graphics core running at 550MHz, the non-techie press are calling the specs a win for Sony. Is this really the case, though?
Richard is adamant that the extra graphics speed on paper is more than made up for by the differing architecture of the Xenos. That mere 10% clock speed that RSX has on Xenos is easily countered by the unified shader architecture that weve implemented.
Rather than separate pixel and vertex pipelines, weve created a single unified pipeline that can do both. Providing developers throw instructions at our architecture in the right way, Xenos can run at 100% efficiency all the time, rather than having some pipeline instructions waiting for others. For comparison, most high-end PC chips run at 50-60% typical efficiency. The super cool point is that in the right way just means give us plenty of work to do. The hardware manages itself.
The issue of unified versus split shader pipelines is a critical one that well come back to in a moment, but I was curious as to how Richard felt the CPU architecture between the two consoles makes a difference to the graphics and overall power.
The PS3 does appear to have a huge amount of CPU power with the seven Cell cores. The problem they have is that CPU power isnt really what developers need the bottleneck is really the graphics. Everybody is going multi-threaded and multi-core the Xbox 360 has three PowerPC cores, AMD and Intel both have dual-core chips, so everyone is having to learn how to write this stuff. But writing multi-threaded apps for two or three cores is difficult. Doing it for seven separate cores, when the main core has a slightly different feature-set from the other six, is very, very difficult.
Unified v separate on the PC, and Nvidias stance
Nvidia have previously stated in public that they do not believe that unified shader architectures are the way forward. Windows Graphics Foundation 2, the version of DirectX that will ship with Longhorn, will be designed around the idea that the graphics card will have unified vertex and pixel pipelines, but will not require that to be the case. Given that ATI is working with Microsoft now on unified parts on next-gen DirectX, whilst Nvidia is saying that it doesnt think this is the best idea, does Richard think that Nvidia will suffer, in the long run, on the PC platform from not following Microsoft?
Id love to say yes Id love to say that Nvidia are going to be stuck when it comes to Longhorn. But actually I do think they will have a unified shader architecture by the time WGF2 comes around. This time around, they dont have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isnt worthwhile. But in the future, theyll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that theyve cracked how to do it best. But RSX isnt unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful.
Talking to the guys at Microsoft, its impossible to escape the conclusion that the future is for unified pipelines, theres no doubt.
Of course, the great news for ATI is that theyll be on the second revision of their unified architecture by then, just as Nvidia is getting started.
Gears of War, an Xbox 360 exclusive
Conclusions
So Richard has told us some really interesting stuff. His comments about backwards compatibility for the 360, and the architecture of the Xenos ATI chip have really given us some insight that was unavailable before. His thoughts about the comparisons between 360 and PS3 also shed some new light on the differences between the two consoles, and how the technology is going to affect PC gamers over the coming years. Wed like to say a big thanks to Richard for taking the time out to chat with us, and we look forward to bringing you some more industry insight in a couple of weeks time.
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/06/10/richard_huddy_ati/1.html
In the first of a new series of interviews with industry luminaries, were talking to ATI evangelist, Richard Huddy.
Richard is responsible for talking to Developers about ATIs technology, and helping them to create technology that runs great on ATI hardware. Richard has previously lent his incredible graphics expertise to 3Dlabs and to NVIDIA. Most recently, he has been involved with the development and promotion of the graphics sub-system in the Xbox 360, designed for Microsoft by ATI.
The Xbox 360 architecture
I began by asking Richard for his opinion on the Xbox 360 archtecture. Im really impressed, he commented, Its way better than I would have expected at this point in the history of 3D graphics. The unified shader architecture alone is capable of giving a performance increase of a factor of nearly two over the hardware that we have in PCs today. Thats because we see many cases, and this is particularly true on consoles, where games are limited by one of the two groups of engines in the graphics chip, either the vertex engines or the pixel engines. With a unified pipeline we can now devote 100% of the hardware to which ever task is the bottleneck.
How does he think the sharing of memory between the graphics and the main memory will affect performance? Well, Richard explains that the shared memory is Very different from the technology implemented on the original Xbox, or even on todays PC implementations.
The intelligent memory gives pretty awesome speed the bandwidth is up to 2 Terabits per second. That kind of power is almost unimaginable. The old terminology of SMA (Shared Memory Architecture) simply doesnt do justice to the flexibility and power of the Xbox 360. SMA is a term we have inherited from the PC and it usually has some negative connotations, but the Xbox 360 is really nothing like that.
ATIs Xenos Xbox chip
By now, youd have to have been hidden under a rock to have avoided learning the details of the ATI graphics that power the 360, dubbed Xenos. 10MB of Embedded DRAM provide enough of a buffer to enable all 360 games to have Anti-Aliasing switched on, effectively for no performance hit. The question on everyones lips is: is this something thats going to turn up on the PC any time soon?
Id be very surprised if these hardware features were implemented on the PC any time soon, were told. Microsoft has a very specific revision of DirectX (or Windows Graphics Foundation) for Xbox 360, just as they did with Xbox 1. DirectX for the PC includes no hardware specific instructions, because DirectX has to be 10 times more generic to work on a PC platform and the myriad of hardware configurations. I dont think it will happen. Plus the architecture of the Xbox 360 is closed box that means we can do special things there which have no comparison in the PC space.
"We practically have AA for free on the PC anyway right now. If the difference between 1280x1024 with no AA and 1280x1024 with 2x AA is 90 FPS and 70FPS, who wouldnt turn the AA on? The performance hit isnt going to be noticeable to most gamers and with an X800 or X850 those kind of frame rates are common place.
ATIs role in Xbox 360 backwards compatibility
One of the biggest questions has been whether or not Xbox 360 would be backwards compatible with original Xbox games. Recent word from Microsoft has been that Halo 2 will be amongst the first games to get backwards compatibility but until now, no one has known exactly what that means, or how it will be achieved.
What are the problems? Well, Xbox 1 games are written for Intel CPUs and Nvidia graphics, and graphics engines in particular use hardware specific instructions. Apart from the change to PowerPC hardware with the Xbox 360, Nvidia-specific calls have to be interpreted in a manner that the ATI hardware in the 360 will understand.
Richard: Microsoft werent focused on hardware backwards compatibility early on that wasnt in the specification. They believed that any compatibility they could get would come in through a software layer, and they didnt want to compromise this generations hardware for the sake of last generations games.
They have implemented compatibility purely through emulation (at the CPU level). It looks like emulation profiles for each game are going to be stored on the hard drive, and I imagine that a certain number will ship with the system. They already have the infrastructure to distribute more profiles via Live, and more and more can be made available online periodically.
Emulating the CPU isnt really a difficult task. They have three 3GHz cores, so emulating one 733MHz chip is pretty easy. The real bottlenecks in the emulation are GPU calls calls made specifically by games to the Nvidia hardware in a certain way. General GPU instructions are easy to convert an instruction to draw a triangle in a certain way will be pretty generic. However, its the odd cases, the proprietary routines, that will cause hassle.
Halo 2 courtesy Bungie
ATI v Nvidia: RSX, PS3 and the console wars
With the Xbox 360 Xenos core running at 500MHz, and the PlayStation3s RSX graphics core running at 550MHz, the non-techie press are calling the specs a win for Sony. Is this really the case, though?
Richard is adamant that the extra graphics speed on paper is more than made up for by the differing architecture of the Xenos. That mere 10% clock speed that RSX has on Xenos is easily countered by the unified shader architecture that weve implemented.
Rather than separate pixel and vertex pipelines, weve created a single unified pipeline that can do both. Providing developers throw instructions at our architecture in the right way, Xenos can run at 100% efficiency all the time, rather than having some pipeline instructions waiting for others. For comparison, most high-end PC chips run at 50-60% typical efficiency. The super cool point is that in the right way just means give us plenty of work to do. The hardware manages itself.
The issue of unified versus split shader pipelines is a critical one that well come back to in a moment, but I was curious as to how Richard felt the CPU architecture between the two consoles makes a difference to the graphics and overall power.
The PS3 does appear to have a huge amount of CPU power with the seven Cell cores. The problem they have is that CPU power isnt really what developers need the bottleneck is really the graphics. Everybody is going multi-threaded and multi-core the Xbox 360 has three PowerPC cores, AMD and Intel both have dual-core chips, so everyone is having to learn how to write this stuff. But writing multi-threaded apps for two or three cores is difficult. Doing it for seven separate cores, when the main core has a slightly different feature-set from the other six, is very, very difficult.
Unified v separate on the PC, and Nvidias stance
Nvidia have previously stated in public that they do not believe that unified shader architectures are the way forward. Windows Graphics Foundation 2, the version of DirectX that will ship with Longhorn, will be designed around the idea that the graphics card will have unified vertex and pixel pipelines, but will not require that to be the case. Given that ATI is working with Microsoft now on unified parts on next-gen DirectX, whilst Nvidia is saying that it doesnt think this is the best idea, does Richard think that Nvidia will suffer, in the long run, on the PC platform from not following Microsoft?
Id love to say yes Id love to say that Nvidia are going to be stuck when it comes to Longhorn. But actually I do think they will have a unified shader architecture by the time WGF2 comes around. This time around, they dont have the architecture and we do, so they have to knock it and say it isnt worthwhile. But in the future, theyll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that theyve cracked how to do it best. But RSX isnt unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful.
Talking to the guys at Microsoft, its impossible to escape the conclusion that the future is for unified pipelines, theres no doubt.
Of course, the great news for ATI is that theyll be on the second revision of their unified architecture by then, just as Nvidia is getting started.
Gears of War, an Xbox 360 exclusive
Conclusions
So Richard has told us some really interesting stuff. His comments about backwards compatibility for the 360, and the architecture of the Xenos ATI chip have really given us some insight that was unavailable before. His thoughts about the comparisons between 360 and PS3 also shed some new light on the differences between the two consoles, and how the technology is going to affect PC gamers over the coming years. Wed like to say a big thanks to Richard for taking the time out to chat with us, and we look forward to bringing you some more industry insight in a couple of weeks time.
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/06/10/richard_huddy_ati/1.html
Necrophorus
L14: Freak
Sehr interessanter Artikel, so erfährt man immer mer über den äußerst potentiellen Grafikchip Xenon.
Ist ja schon interessant, wie lächerlich sich Maniac & Co. gemacht haben, als sie die Xenon GPU mit einer X700 verglichen haben!
Dem Artikel zu entnehmen ist die Xenon GPU allein schon durch die Unified Shader annähernd doppelt so stark wie eine X850 XT!
Der Vorteile eines geschlossenen Systems und die triple Core CPU tun ihr Übriges.
Ist ja schon interessant, wie lächerlich sich Maniac & Co. gemacht haben, als sie die Xenon GPU mit einer X700 verglichen haben!
Dem Artikel zu entnehmen ist die Xenon GPU allein schon durch die Unified Shader annähernd doppelt so stark wie eine X850 XT!
Der Vorteile eines geschlossenen Systems und die triple Core CPU tun ihr Übriges.
MasterChief1976
L19: Master
@necro
seit wann hat den die maniac von ihrgendetwas eine ahnung?
seit wann hat den die maniac von ihrgendetwas eine ahnung?
Necrophorus
L14: Freak
master chief schrieb:@necro
seit wann hat den die maniac von ihrgendetwas eine ahnung?
Dennoch ist es immernoch schwer, einige von der Inkompetenz der Man!ac zu überzeugen. ^^
Sonny Black
L13: Maniac
- Seit
- 27 Apr 2005
- Beiträge
- 3.561
Seine vergleiche mit der PS3 sind imo nutzlos da er genauso wenig über die architektur des RSX bescheid weiß wie jeder andere. Und außerdem ist es klar das er das Produkt seiner Firma als STÄRKER bezeichnet um dafür zu werben.
Ice schrieb:
Naja, er vergleicht ja nur die beiden Shader-Architekturen, sprich getrennte zu vereinheitliche. Und da weiß man ja schon, dass der RSX bei getrennten Pipelines für Vertex- und Pixeleffekte bleibt, geht ja sogar aus der Sony PK hervor.
Somit stimmt die Aussage, dass die Pipelines der X360 GPU effektiver arbeiten als die des RSX je nach Game und Spielszene.
Mehr sagt er eigentlich nicht.
Und dass der RSX gleich viele Pipelines haben wird oder gar mehr als der ATI-Chip ist sehr unwahrscheinlich.
solid2snake
L19: Master
- Seit
- 14 Okt 2004
- Beiträge
- 18.020
wie, wird daran wirklich schon gearbeitet und man wille dazu nichts sagen?
- Status