backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 84 comment(s) - last by gonchuki.. on Feb 28 at 12:54 PM

The notorious Cell processor inside the PlayStation 3
The engineers behind the Cell processor lend a hand to the people behind the PS3 games

It’s no secret that the Cell processor makes the PlayStation 3 a very powerful machine, but its complex architecture also makes it difficult for developers to program their games. While Sony is likely doing its best to improve software tools, some developers are longing for lower-level detail on the Cell.

IBM, one of the creators of the Cell architecture, is stepping in and giving developers tips on how to better harness the PS3 processor. According to Next Generation, IBM engineers are participating at a game developer’s workshop at High Moon Studios in Carlsbad, Calif. with Vivendi Games studios' Radical Entertainment and Swordfish to learn the ins and outs of the multi-core Cell.

High Moon chief technical officer Clinton Keith says that that IBM's expertise goes beyond what Sony's support can offer in regard to the Cell. “We’ve been talking to Sony for almost two years now, but they didn’t create the Cell,” he said.

“They created the architecture for the PS3 and they’ve created a lot of the developer libraries. We’ve had access to those [Sony] engineers… but they’re not the hardware engineers,” continues Keith. “We want to hit [the Cell] on all fronts. We’re talking to the guys [IBM] who designed this chip and have been working on it for five years now.”

As part of the workshop, programming teams will use software development kits from IBM’s Global Engineering Solutions labs to create the best Cell-based game development algorithm. The teams will share their knowledge and findings from their work on the processor.

Sony’s Phil Harrison said that the current PS3 launch window titles use “less than half” of the system’s computational power, and that “nobody will ever use 100 percent of [the PS3’s] capability.”

Developers haven’t kept quiet on the challenges for making games on the Cell. John Carmack, lead programmer of the Quake and DOOM 3D engines, has expressed his thoughts, saying, “I think the decision to use an asymmetric CPU by Sony was a wrong one. There are aspects that could make it a winning decision, but they’re not helpful to the developers … It’s not like the PlayStation 3 is a piece of junk or anything. I was not a fan of the PlayStation 2 and the way its architecture was set up. With the PlayStation 3, it’s not even that it’s ugly--they just took a design decision that wasn’t the best from a development standpoint.”

Japanese developer Hideo Kojima shares Carmack’s sentiment, though his team was able to achieve stunning results on the PS2 with Metal Gear Solid 3. “Overall I think it is difficult, of course. But if it's easy and simple, then how can you differentiate from other games?” posed Kojima. “Other people will do the same thing as you. Therefore, we're trying to use [the Cell's] difficulty to create something different.

“If I say too much, Mr. Kutaragi might get really upset. I think that the PS3 is difficult to work with, but so was the PS2.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why?
By Shoal07 on 2/22/2007 9:10:57 AM , Rating: 4
Developers aren’t stupid. Developing for a difficult architecture (and we thought the emotion engine in the PS2 was a PITA!) requires more people and more time. This means to makes the same game for the 360 or the PS3, the PS3 will have significantly higher development costs. What’s the 360 really require, .net, C3 or J#? How many thousands of developers know these backwards and forwards. Now throw in the PS3 where they’re working with the actual hardware developer to design a new language to handle programming for the cell... What a mess. Why even develop and invest the resources into this mess unless Sony is giving HUGE incentives. The risk ratio between 360 and PS3 development is going to throw alot of developers onto 360. GTA 4 on 360 in October anyone?




RE: Why?
By Shoal07 on 2/22/2007 9:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
"What’s the 360 really require, .net, C3 or J#?"
What does the 360 really require, .net, C# or J#?

Oh where oh where has my edit button gone?


RE: Why?
By thebrown13 on 2/22/2007 11:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
C#/.NET/DirectX

Which is already the best in the business, soon to be complemented by XNA.


RE: Why?
By Trisped on 2/23/2007 1:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
Really, with .Net you should be able to use any MS IDE language since they all use the same libraries and such.


RE: Why?
By maximal on 2/23/2007 12:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are you serious? Who in the right mind would write a game in managed code? It (Xbox 360) can support .NET all it wants, but it won't be used for game development. You need direct hardware access in order to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of it, and that means some sort of efficient C compiler front-end, and with Power architecture there is no shortage of those.


RE: Why?
By robber98 on 2/23/2007 3:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
So are you suggesting that Microsoft is an idiot? Yes, C/C++ offer better performance, but does it justify the cost (development time, debugging..etc)? For pure performance, why don't you suggest Assembly or, to be extreme, machine code? ;)


RE: Why?
By gonchuki on 2/28/2007 12:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
hardware may not be limited right now, but using inefficient programming languages only leads to reach the console limit earlier.
If your game engine already struggles in today games to run at 60fps, better optimize it or tomorrows games with more bling will be crawling.

The PS3 has the big advantage of raw power, it just needs more time to create a good engine, and it will live longer than its competitors from the same generation (just like what happened with the PS2 and its exotic hardware)


RE: Why?
By jskirwin on 2/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By therealnickdanger on 2/22/2007 10:54:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sony needs to really, really start kissing some tails in order to keep developers in the fold

That's about the only part of your comment I agree with. While it's ignorance on our part to claim that it is "easy" or "easier" to program for the Xbox360 or the PS3, what is widely known is that the 360 has more power that's more readily accessible along with incredible hardware and software support from Microsoft.

If both the Xbox360 and PS3 were 500hp track cars, the PS3 would be the car having air/fuel problems.


RE: Why?
By robertgu on 2/22/2007 1:57:23 PM , Rating: 5
That's a good analogy.

I think people seem to get too caught up on the performance of the Xbox vs. the PS3 on one aspect of the system...the CPU Subsystem. On the whole, the Xbox and PS3 are equal in power; the Xbox has a more powerful Graphics Subsystem, the PS3 has a more theoretically powerful CPU Subsystem (if developers ever figure out how to properly use it).

Additionally, even with the relatively easy to use developement tools for the Xbox and the use of symmetrical CPU processors, developers are still not able to fully tax the Xbox. What I believe will happen is the Xbox will get closer to its theoretical potential much quicker than the PS3. And its graphics, A.I., and physics support will be superior to the PS3 for many years to come due to its more standard structure and better developer support.

I can’t see how the PS3 will ever get close to its theoretical potential. Even if developers squeeze every ounce of the Cells impressive theoretical power, what’s the point, as the graphics subsystem will be the bottleneck way before the Cell even gets taxed? You look at gaming systems everywhere, what’s to first thing that needs to be upgraded because of obsolesce for each generation of PC games? It’s the graphical subsystem. You can usually get away with using the existing CPU for a couple incremental graphic subsystem upgrades before it really starts to limit the system.

So for me, I would prefer a more standard, balanced, and easy to develop structure (al la Xbox), vs. the entirely unbalanced and difficult to develop structure of the PS3 of which has an avg. graphical subsystem and an amazing CPU subsystem. To me, the Cell is more a marketing aspect than actual usable substance for a gaming console. But that's just my useless opinion :)


RE: Why?
By ADDAvenger on 2/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By abakshi on 2/22/2007 3:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
What? The PS3 has a G70 derived GPU and the 360 has an ATI R500.


RE: Why?
By 4745454b on 2/22/2007 3:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 360 uses a G70 derived GPU, the PS3 uses a G80 derived GPU, now which one is more advanced?


Not true. The 360GPU was made by ATI, and was code named Xenos. 10MBs of ram, USA, etc. The PS3s GPU is based off an Nvidia chipset. After doing some digging, I can't find the exact one. Most people say its a modded G70(1?) I couldn't find any links that showed its based off of the G80. If you care to post one, be my guest.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzcx 360 info


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 2/22/2007 3:45:16 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously dude. Did you even read anything about either console?

The PS3 GPU is a castrated 7800GTX with half the ROPs(8 vs. 16) and half the memory bandwidth(128-bit vs. 256-bit).

The 360s GPU is sort of a hybrid R580/600. It supports DX10 level features with it's unified shaders, has a full 256-bit memory bus, and offers free 4x AA processing on every rendered frame. It just has the same number of unified shaders as the X1900XT/X has pixel shaders.

So which do you think is more powerful?


RE: Why?
By afkrotch on 2/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By obeseotron on 2/22/2007 8:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
At the very least it has generalized shader units assigned on the fly to the type of shader required. This is a DX10-level feature. The GPU is significantly more programmable than a standard DX9c, though absolutely not DX10 level.


RE: Why?
By willow01 on 2/23/2007 1:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
He didn't say that the X1900XT/X had unified shaders he just said that the Xenos had as many unified shaders as the X1900XT/X has pixel shaders .


RE: Why?
By baddog121390 on 2/22/2007 10:08:14 PM , Rating: 3
"offers free 4x AA processing on every rendered frame."

Not at 720p it doesnt. 10mb of edram isnt enough space to fit a 1280*720 frame with 4x anti-aliasing.


RE: Why?
By otispunkmeyer on 2/23/2007 4:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
true

it cant even fit a 720p image with 2xAA in it.

to overcome this they use a tile based renderer. they just make the tiles small enough to fit in with 4xAA applied.

however, i reckon that these tiles are abit too small, and that the machine will then be sampling the same geometery points over n over (ie if lots of geometry spans multiple tiles) so thats a lot of wasted work and i think the 360 isnt powerful enough to mince through it all and it just gets bogged down.

with 2XAA they can make the tiles larger and thus have less wasteful processing.

http://beyond3d.com/articles/xenos/

everyone should read that, its a very indepth articel detailing the inner workings of Xenos. its a very good read.