Nvidia: PlayStation 3 GPU In 2005

Advertisement (Why?)

Nvidia's contribution to Sony's next game console should be ready by the end of 2005, CEO Jen-Hsun Huang indicated yesterday. While the bulk of his recent "fireside chat" with investment firm Morgan Stanley covered the bigger picture of Nvidia's business, Huang filled in a few more details regarding the chipmaker's collaboration with Sony.

Though it's designed to work in concert with the Cell processor, developed by Sony and IBM, the GPU for the new console is derived from Nvidia's technology. "It's based on the next generation GPU technology," Huang said, "and our expectation is to try and put it into production this year." Later, he reiterated that point -- "I have every expectation that we will be able to see final production silicon later on in the year."

News source: 1up.com

Cont...

In its twenty year history Reflections has created a number of break-out hits, including the Destruction Derby titles for the PlayStation, famous Amiga action title Shadow of the Beast, and, of course, the Driver series, whose success led Atari to acquire the studio in 1998.

The most recent title in the Driver series, Driv3r, was Atari's biggest commercial hope for this year, but the game launched to hugely polarised critical reaction - ultimately leading to allegations from some quarters that the firm had offered bribes or marketing deals in return from high review scores from certain publications.

#1 R-Style on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:00

Okay.....

E3 2006 the next console ......

#2 Mx² on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:16

Nice

(5 replies) #3 stezo2k on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:19

bad move i say.... nvidia is one of the main reasons why ms don't really profit from the xbox. it'll totally bump up the price i recon

#3.1 robpears on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:24

ye i think i may have to agree

#3.2 _Pablo on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:39

MS pay Nvidia for the physical chips which Nvidia get manufactured by a third party, whereas the PS3 chip will be licensed from Nvidia by Sony who will then manuacture the chips on their existing fabs.

#3.3 Xerxes on 21 Dec 2004 - 01:01

I don't think it's a bad move, in fact on nvidia's part it's a really good one

...from what I understand nvidia wasn't the reason xbox didn't really make much of a profit, it was the games...in US xbox did very well, in Europe and Japan it was barely noticed and since it generated little profit...MS decided to not pay nvidia the money they should of got...at least with Sony nvidia will get paid the money they were entitled too.

#3.4 Valkyre on 21 Dec 2004 - 02:21

Actually the primary reason why Microsoft didn't profit from the Xbox was because of the hard drives, which they are removing from Xbox Next. They promised nVidia a specific sum of money, and after nVidia had made and produced the chipset (modified GeForce 3), Microsoft tried to shaft them by paying them less, and thus a lawsuit was born.

#3.5 codykm on 21 Dec 2004 - 03:23

Actually, there will be different flavors of Xbox Next, one will include a HDD, however it will cost more, just FYI

(9 replies) #4 i like chips on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:33

ati > nvidia. flame on!

#4.1 Hafnium on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:39

As far as I'm concerned, > denotes "larger than" - not "better than"! So, if someone should claim that "larger than" = "better than", then Microsoft > Apple.

Last edited by 55483 on 20 Dec 2004 - 17:57

#4.2 digistil on 20 Dec 2004 - 18:15

hahaha...good call.

#4.3 petrolxl on 20 Dec 2004 - 19:21

I was taught that '>' meant "greater than" so in this case he is right either way.

#4.4 MoRiA on 20 Dec 2004 - 19:37

Sorry to burst your little "larger than" bubble, here, but the > symbol is actually "Greater Than", as decreed by mathematicians everywhere, including the Microsoft Windows Character Map application.

Noone ever said that it meant "better than", but "greater than" can easily apply to something such as "ATI > Nvidia", to which I totally agree

Yes, I know that I'm merely adding to the fire.

Edit: And HTML code..: > is printed as >. Ever wondered what "gt" stands for? Greater Than :p

#4.5 Surr3al on 20 Dec 2004 - 19:53

Yes, but the mathematical definition of "greater than" is simply larger than the corresponding number. However, you must realize we are arguing over a technicality here... of course the author of that post meant "better than".

#4.6 Joshie on 20 Dec 2004 - 20:00

Wrong again! 'Large' has everything to do with size. 'Greater than' refers to a higher number (though 'higher' itself requires visualizing numbers). So you could say higher, or greater, but never, ever, larger.

#4.7 i like chips on 20 Dec 2004 - 20:51

haha, i think you guys are missing my point here

#4.8 supersaiyanjericho on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:16

they are purposely missing the point...but i am sure they get it *wink wink*

#4.9 sdkaneda on 21 Dec 2004 - 03:24

all right. everyone up to your rooms without any supper.

(3 replies) #5 2xSilverKnight on 20 Dec 2004 - 18:31

that's why the next gen console by Microsoft and Nintendo is powered by ATI

#5.1 amdme3200 on 21 Dec 2004 - 11:16

That's why my pc is powered by NVIDIA.

#5.2 Radium on 21 Dec 2004 - 17:51

That's why I'm staying with NVIDIA.

#5.3 SecretAgentMan on 22 Dec 2004 - 09:07

QUOTE

ATI will be the best choice this coming round. Nvidia has lost a lot of ground since they worked on the Xbox with Microsoft.

(5 replies) #6 jstillion on 20 Dec 2004 - 18:44

Xbox 2 will probable running off an modified versions of windows or windows core using DirectX (which Ati is currently better at) where Sony probable choose a assembler like OS (as previous) and so the acceleration will be of capacity of the hardware, not direct X api's.

#6.1 2xSilverKnight on 20 Dec 2004 - 18:54

do you know what are u talking about ?
This is not how it works. Directx do not bottleneck the hardware capabilities.

#6.2 Surr3al on 20 Dec 2004 - 19:59

using DirectX (which Ati is currently better at)

I fail to see any significant "besting" when ATi manages to beat Nvidia by only a couple fps in certain tests. If we're talking about price per card, there still isn't much of an advantage as they both price around the same here as well.

Please let me know when ATi actually beats nvidia by a significant margin.

#6.3 Liquid on 20 Dec 2004 - 21:31

Also DirectX is dead. Microsoft is starting some new thingy.

#6.4 MEMO.INC on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:03

I bet Sony & NVidia will base their PS3 on OpenGl with CG like tools as MS is going fot DX Next (or whatever it's name is).Im sure both consoles are going to be awesome graphically, the real battle is going to be on the extra features, such as Tivo like features, broadband gamming or PC like features.

I hope Nintendo will live up to the challenge.

#6.5 MrCobra on 21 Dec 2004 - 07:40

@Liquid:

DirectX is not dead. It's not called (or soon won't be) that anymore but it's still DirectX.

#7 SkaterAustin on 20 Dec 2004 - 19:46

Im an ati guy, but I read a article at gamespot a few months ago talking about the new nvidia gpu for the ps3, its gonna be 2 x 6800 gt ultras.. thats just amazing...

on other note... the r5xx core is what im looking forward to in 2005 for my pc.

(unreal 3 *cough*)

(2 replies) #8 mrt2 on 20 Dec 2004 - 21:37

I'm not a fanboy of either parties, nor do I intend to be flamed by this posting... I'm merely someone who goes with the greater value which for me usually means greater performance at the time. Anyone who claims to only see a few fps difference between ati and nvidia cards must either be looking at shotty articles, fabricating their knowleged of what they are talking about, or must not be reading the benchmarks from high res high quality games. Fact of the matter is at lower resolutions and gfx qualities (with the exception of doom3, and anyone with half a brain understands why this is...simply put, because of 3dfx and nvidias acquisition of them. 3dfx being one of the early pioneers of openGL)...with that exception, both cards manufacturers are equal. But tests have shown, time and time again, (tomshardware.com, firingsquad.com, anandtech.com and my own benchmarks from both sets of cards), that as you increase the visual quality(AA and AF) and resolution ATI increasingly gains performance leads...and significant ones at that. At 1600x1200 with all settings maxed (which I choose to play most of my games) ATI gets at least a consistent 30 fps higher...which to some isn't much especially at above 60FPS (normal exceptable fps range). But for me, who always goes for the latest and greatest...this is an undeniable peice of the puzzle as to which manufacturer has the greatest card at the moment. I have both companies top cards for different reasons....so they both hold value, but PURE performance at high resolutions I have to undeniably give the title to ATI. Any other conclusion would more than likely come from foolish fanboism(tm). =)

#8.1 memNOC on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:00

so nVidia is clearly the right choice here.

#8.2 SkaterAustin on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:30

Gonna have to agree with u, along as i can play a game at 30 fps the game doesn't glitch at all at 30fps, and anything above i cant really see a difference.. I got a 9600 pro it can play half life 2 very well at 70 fps and my lowest is 32 fps. I can also play doom 3 on ultra high at average of 43 fps.

(4 replies) #9 k3rny on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:36

OpenGL > DirectX

#9.1 Mav Phoenix on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:46

Good one.

#9.2 hotrod on 21 Dec 2004 - 02:20

A lot of people don't realize just how true that statement is. OpenGL has always been so much better than directX and it has yet to be exploited by security bugs to the best of my knowledge

#9.3 Solarix on 21 Dec 2004 - 02:32

Glide > OpenGL

#9.4 Darkinspiration on 21 Dec 2004 - 03:41

yup but it's so hard to work with opengl that it's not even funnny. But i for one would like to seen openGL more in games. that mean more linux and mac port since neither platform have a directx compatible api. Dam you microsoft

(3 replies) #10 Sedriss on 20 Dec 2004 - 22:45

You guys fail to see the real status behind consoles. The games will make or break the system. Doesnt matter wut type of technology is in it.

#10.1 supersaiyanjericho on 20 Dec 2004 - 23:00

without the tech, there would be no good games.

#10.2 Mav Phoenix on 21 Dec 2004 - 00:19

NES still has some of the best games.

#10.3 machorro on 21 Dec 2004 - 19:52

i think you should have said: "with the tech, there are not many good games" what does it matter if you could see the hair noses, if the game plot, gameplay and stuff suck

i think that with better technology comes better features to create, but not necesarily good games...

on the other hand in the past with the NES and SNES they didn't have good tech, yet most games where tha bomb

just my 2 cents

#11 Shagin099 on 21 Dec 2004 - 00:33

Later this yr eh? hmm well they have like 10 days

.... yeah i know they mean 2005 - its still funny... for about 2 seconds... to me and no one else

(1 reply) #12 Bryan000 on 21 Dec 2004 - 08:47

I think Sony may have waited a bit too long getting started on the PS3 tech. It would've been better if they announced it at E3 2005 instead of E3 2006. On the other hand, it seems likely that PS3 will be the most powerful and capable machine of the next-gen consoles since it is being developed with the latest-and-greatest technology in mind. But that is no guarantee it will be a success. History shows us that consoles which launch later in the generation cycle usually have a difficult time catching on, and sometimes die a horrible death long before the following generation consoles start appearing.

#12.1 machorro on 21 Dec 2004 - 19:55

maybe they will be a little late but if ps3 keep supporting ps1 and ps2 games

ps3 game library will be huge and many personas will buy ps3 just for playing for ps2 games and waiting for more games to be released...

we will have to wait to see, like someone said above, it all depends on the games

#13 cibbis on 21 Dec 2004 - 11:45

next version of DirextX will be called DirectNEXT i believe, i member reading somthing about it when i was workin at Atari

(1 reply) #14 mrt2 on 21 Dec 2004 - 14:17

Well some of your statements about Directx VS OpenGl are true for the most part. But you have to take the lesser of 2 evils. Neither standard has it perfect. OpenGl all be it as it may....is more powerful, YES...BUT....DirectX is more efficient. But that could be purely do to the fact that so many more developers are using DirectX and DirectX has so much more money backing it for development and updates etc...
DirectX is als a bit more dynamic/versatile (currently at this stage of the game with directxC). OpenGL does have the capability to be as dynamic/versatile as directX...very quickly I might add. But then there is that thing again of money and people to put behind developing it. And as much as I hate to say it...you can't beat MS there. So at this point to unless tides change, there is really no point in hoping for OpenGL to make more of an impact than it has already made. So staying fixed on the idea of wanting more opengl...and using cards that perform better, in hopes that it will catch on...is pretty darn futile. =(
I personaly myself think that manufacturers (like Sony) etc...should ditch this whole console thing, and user all those resources to make pc gaming an even more amazing entity than it already is. I mean cmon HL2 and Doom3 look amazing, and the gameplay is also on par...you are NEVER going to get a console to that level of gameply(especially with a control pad)/gfx. Well I mean you will get them there, but by time you are there pc's are at the next level....OK I'm rambling. back to playing HL2 on my Dell 2005 widescreen now.

#14.1 _Pablo on 22 Dec 2004 - 18:08

It has taken many versions of Direct3D to reach the point where it competes (and in terms of D3D vs OGL 1.x D3D now beats) OpenGL. But in that time Direct3D has evolved to look more and more like OpenGL than it does the last version of Direct3D, to the point that it is now relatively simple to move from OpenGL to Direct3D and back. The similarities end there however, as Direct3D has the benefit of mass market acceptance whilst OpenGL has the benefit of cross-platform portability.

I haven't owned a console since having to have a PS1 for Ridge Racer - but you saying we should ditch consoles is simply crazy talk. Consoles offer the developers and users the benefits of a pretty cheap fixed platform - users know they don't need an upgrade to play the latest titles "The Way It Was Meant To Be Played" and developers know that have just one platform to test and optimise for so they can get the best from the machine. Yes my PC has far better graphics, sound, connectivity and a keyboard and mouse (Also a gamepad, steering wheel and joystick - it's not all about FPS!) but it's also as inefficient as can be, with few developers getting the maximum performance out of the powerhouses we have under our desks. Plus I could have bought a PS2, XBox and GC for the same money I spend on the just the graphics card each year.

(1 reply) #15 rockguitarpaddy on 22 Dec 2004 - 18:44

What i dont see is why microsoft are going with ati
Take a look at the graphics market today, and what do you see?

1. Nvidia 6800 = Ati X800
2. Nvidia 6600 are far greater than Atis mid range offerings (X600 / X700) in performance and price (where are the Ati AGP models?)

3. Ati X300 > Nvidia 6200 But it doesnt have support for SM 3.0

In the technology and performance end for the high end and midrange user, who comes out top? NVIDIA. Who are ms choosing? Ati.
Unfortunately, MS might make more of a loss by choosing ati, as they are usually higher priced, and are not up to date with the latest advances (64bit precision, SM 3.0 and other DX9.0c features)

Then again, being with MS now may change that...

#15.1 _Pablo on 23 Dec 2004 - 00:44

The only problem with NVs early adoption of new technology versus the ATI slight tech increments on the previous standard (SM2.0 vs SM2.0b and no doubt the same with SM3.0+ or whatever) is that the next generation NV chip is out before the new tech gets fully utilised in games and the previous generation is a slower implementation - whereas ATI seem to release a more mature implementation of the tech later on, but just as games are utilising it fully.

E.g. with SM2.0, NV30/35 is seen to have less PS2.0 (although the FP format makes and apples-apples comparison impossible) performance than the equivalent R300/350. The R420 and the NV40 both have great SM2.0/b implementations and the the NV40 is alone in it's SM3.0 support. I'll wager that the NV5?/R5?0 will have both have great SM3.0/b implementations but NV will probably throw in another early implementation of some new tech.

If you had posed the same "who comes out top" during the last generation then ATi would have been top and it may well be the case the ATi will come out top on the next generation. I just fear that either company may take their eye off the PC for a while in order to focus on the console market - which would leave the other free to sit back on some minor increment whilst it's quiet, but maybe not, when NV made the NV2X for XBox their PC chips stagnated a little, with the NV25 series being lacklustre improvement on the NV20...but ATI stormed in with the 9x00 series. We'll see soon enough I guess, with NV cancelling NV48 and NV50, they may have a monster up their sleeve or maybe I'll be getting a R5X0 next time.

Just to clarify no fanbias, I've got 6800GT, 9800Pro, Mobility9800 and FXGo5200.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net