Jaguar can operate on 128 bit SIMD (ie 4 x 32 bit), whereas Espresso's limited to 64 bit (2 x 32 bit) "paired singles" SIMD.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WiiU technical discussion (serious discussions welcome)
- Thread starter blu
- Start date
Jaguar can operate on 128 bit SIMD (ie 4 x 32 bit), whereas Espresso's limited to 64 bit (2 x 32 bit) "paired singles" SIMD.
The CPU has no L3, the L2 is eDRAM. Comparable to the PowerPC A2 (PowerEN and Blue Gene Q).
lwilliams3
Member
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not sure if it was ever officially confirmed, though Marcan stated that there is an ARM processor in the system that at least does the tasks that Wii's ARM "Scarlet" did. I believe Wsippel's research led him to unoffically confirm that the ARM is mult-core.
As for the background OS tasks running off the ARM, I honestly think that just makes sense considering that Espresso only has 3 cores to work with and we haven't heard anything about any of those cores being locked up.
Of course it does.
Actually, it's a bit harsher (for Nintendo) that that: if they think the best way to use their resources is to develop games for the WiiU, they will do it. There might be a lot of games that could be profitable for WiiU, but other projects on the twins can prove more profitable even, and thus, no project would be ever greenlit by a big publisher on WiiU because better opportunities are to be sought somewhere else. It's an explanation that would hold particularly true in the actual case of the 3DS; it doesn't get games because S-E, Konami, EA, Ubi, Rockstar and the others think it's more profitable to put their eggs in other baskets. Which in the case of S-E is totally stupid.
Well, they had to change a lot:
No PPC750 ever supported SMP.
No PPC750 was ever manufactured at 45nm.
No PPC750 ever used eDRAM.
No PPC750 supported more than 1MB L2 cache.
No PPC750 was designed to run at clock speeds exceeding 1.1GHz.
Not to mention Gekko and Broadway were no off-the-shelf cores, either. Initial 750s didn't support paired singles, and Nintendo's versions have several dozen additional instructions - they were already more of a superset. And contrary to popular opinion, not even Broadway was just a shrinked Gekko. Some logic units were completely redesigned.
While I appreciate HV's work in trying to create some impressive tech when few others bothered on Wii, it's still somewhat depressing to see a developer brag about tech as old as it was.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
The above needs the remark that due to x86-64 simd actually not having a MADD op, that ratio is for one cpu doing MADDs while the other does MULs & ADDs, which is not exactly equivalent coding-wise.
freezamite
Banned
I'm really curious about that. Would you care to be a bit more specific? I thought that Broadway was a shrinked-overclocked Gekko.
The Core 2 Duo is "based on" the Pentium 3 processor, which is also just under 15 years old. I don't think the Wii U processor is a performance champ in any measure (just based on the size and what fab process it's on - IBM can't pull miracles), but that criticism is unfair because we don't know how loose "based on" is. This criticism hs been put down repeatedly here.
Not sure which way you're leaning with this? A Core 2 Duo also on 45nm is over 120mm2 (just going by memory, somehwere around there), and I think Cell is still over 100mm2 on 45nm. Yes the eDRAM offers thrice the density, but even if you shrank the cache on a Core 2 Duo down that much it would not be that small (just visually approximating 1MB more cache on this 2MB Core 2 Duo)
Each core is really tiny. The whole die is about the size of a single core Atom. But then again, AMD Jaguar cores are tiny too and supposedly that's what other next gen consoles will use, just many more than 3 of them.
Edit: to clarify the cache is the uniform large squares at the bottom.
Wait now, when did we get to it having 3MB L2 cache? I thought it just had 3MB L3 cache made of eDRAM like other IBM designs. I've never heard of L2 and L3 cache being the same size.
Not in the sense that he probably meant, RSX had fixed function pixel/vertex shaders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
lightchris
Member
I would call those minor changes that don't imply any deeper overhaul of the acutal architecture. Far from exciting from a performance standpoint.
Of course we don't know for sure what else might have changed. It's just my guess that it won't be much, amongst others because the development costs would've been high.
lwilliams3
Member
Espresso doesn't have a L3 cache
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
That's not 'fixed function', that's 'non-unified'. Harder to utilize fully, but still fully programmable.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
How does wii u compare to orbis?
Grampa Simpson
Banned
This is not the right thread for that.
Read the last few pages.
It was menioned by IBM engineers in Linkedin profiles a while ago. Don't know what exactly was redesigned and why. The only unit specified in one profile was the adder.
That's pretty much my point. Espresso cores are by no means huge, but neither are other embedded cores like ARM - or Jaguar.
Also, Espresso has no L3 cache. The L2 is eDRAM. Which is also why they could afford having a whopping 3MB. Apparently.
I wouldn't be surprised seeing changes at least comparable to Gekko, which was a very significant evolution of the "regular" PPC750CXe, extending the ISA by several dozen mosly graphics related instructions and sporting a heavily modified FPU introducing limited SIMD capabilities to the 750 line. Nintendo did it once, I see no reason for them not to do it again. If that leads to a smaller, more efficient chip, it would probably warrant the higher development costs.
We're not talking about power draw from the wall. We're talking about rated output, which is afaik what the Wii U's PSU's 75w is labeled as.
But you are 100% correct.
I really hope the CPU and memory bandwidth don't cause issues and Nintendo have found some architecture to get around them both. I just can't see how this system is even going to be capable of exceeding PS3/Xbox 360 level graphics when the CPU and MEM1 bandwidth seem to gimped
oversitting
Banned
Isn't L2 going to be much slower and harder to access with eDRAM?
IBM uses that exact technology for two of their latest and greatest performance chips, so apparently not.
Looking at Blue Gene/Q might be interesting in that regard, as that chip does some interesting things with its L2. Multi-versioning, atomic transactions and such.
Chronos24
Member
Which I would love to hear from Ideaman again with a tidbit more info to maybe at least tell us if we are close on some of the great estimates we've seen here.
Antiochus
Member
It appears that no one has yet managed to crack open the GPU and see just what R700 (4000 series) model it most resembles, let alone benchmark it at all. It appears an absolute NDA regarding Wii U technical specs exists after all, just no publicly.
But going from the scant info present, it appears the closest R700 GPU it resembles is the 4650/4670, which would be a clone of the 3850/3870 of a generation previously. Assuming being programmed as part of streamlined console would bring a moderate boost, the final performance would, at the most generous metric, be close to that a HD 4830. What does that mean? In most likelihood, we'll see close to max quality Crysis 1(c.2007-2008) visuals near the end of Wii U's lifespan......at 720p. Perhaps a bit higher resolution, but it will never reach max quality at 1080p, while Orbis and Durango most certainly can, right at debut.
But going from the scant info present, it appears the closest R700 GPU it resembles is the 4650/4670, which would be a clone of the 3850/3870 of a generation previously. Assuming being programmed as part of streamlined console would bring a moderate boost, the final performance would, at the most generous metric, be close to that a HD 4830. What does that mean? In most likelihood, we'll see close to max quality Crysis 1(c.2007-2008) visuals near the end of Wii U's lifespan......at 720p. Perhaps a bit higher resolution, but it will never reach max quality at 1080p, while Orbis and Durango most certainly can, right at debut.
Chronos24
Member
I haven't heard much about the ARM processor. Could someone maybe explain this processor to me and any info on its specs? I keep hearing its multi core as well too so I'm a little confused about it. As always I am trying to raise the limits of my technical knowledge
And possibly another core for audio, assuming a developer (Likely only Nintendo) uses the DSP.
EDit: Wait, whaaa?!! Do you think the OS is running on the ARM and not the main CPU?
How exactly were you able to deduce this from those scans?
shinra-bansho
Member
IIRC the leaks for both Durango and Orbis indicate separate audio processing units.
Every developer using middleware, or at least fmod, for audio also uses the DSP. fmod even supports DSP/ CPU load balancing on Wii U, which is pretty awesome. Basically, if too much happens and the DSP can't keep up, it will overflow to the CPU before dropping stuff - if the CPU has cycles to spare that is.
But I expect all next generation consoles to have dedicated audio DSPs. Sony and Microsoft made a mistake not using DSPs last gen - every game has sound after all, and DSPs are much more efficient at audio processing than any CPU.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
I'm pretty sure Crytek has said they could port Crysis 3 to the WiiU if they
wanted with little to any visual fidelity loss.
And the very strong rumors that the WiiU can run the Unreal Engine 4 leads
me to believe it'll be a stronger system than most now believe it is.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
MEM1 is the EDRAM, not what's 12.8GB/s(MEM2)
oversitting
Banned
The L2 is also eDRAM in that? I thought power7 only used eDRAM for the L3 to buffer main memory.
POWER7 uses SRAM for L2. PowerEN and Blue Gene/Q use eDRAM.
oversitting
Banned
cool, did not know that.
Both those chips are quite exotic, so that isn't all that surprising. They're targeting very specific applications. PowerEN is for ultra high end networking equipment, and Blue Gene/Q is a real supercomputer. What's interesting is that Blue Gene/Q not only uses eDRAM for L2, it also does a few unusual things with its L2 as I mentioned.
Pretty sure the leaked dev kit specs listed MEM1 as the DDR3 pool, not the eDRAM.
oversitting
Banned
more like 3-4 wii-u.
Probably more if you consider the newer hardware/software capabilities and modifications.
OK, the popular opinion is that between the PS2 and the XBOX three was a three times performance gap. I assume the DC -> PS2 gap was like two times. That would imply the XBOX was "roughly" (whatever that means) 6 times more powerful than the DC. Is there any indication that such a gap today would result in different development philosophies ? It certainly didn't back then.
I think we are a majority in this thread who only want to know if we can get the same games as the other players out there. So I assume this is the central question, and it's not all about the tech. Is there any game designer who was in touch with all three different dev kits and who could make a comment about how he/she would tackle development on Durango/Orbis and the WiiU ? I hope the answer is that the approach is similar, that would encourage us in being positive about the future library of the console.
I think we are a majority in this thread who only want to know if we can get the same games as the other players out there. So I assume this is the central question, and it's not all about the tech. Is there any game designer who was in touch with all three different dev kits and who could make a comment about how he/she would tackle development on Durango/Orbis and the WiiU ? I hope the answer is that the approach is similar, that would encourage us in being positive about the future library of the console.
I think the reality is that by constantly sabotaging their own products, releasing idiotic "test" games, looking at games like Mad World as barometers, etc, most third party devs have convinced themselves that "normal" games don't sell on Nintendo systems, and thus lack the business case for doing a port even if they are technically able.
IBM uses it for high performance server and workstation chips that optimize for high throughput use. They bet on larger caches cancelling out the fact that eDRAM is slower than SRAM. It works well for them in high performance compute, that's one area where they beat even the mighty Intel.
That said I have absolutely no idea how it would scale to a tiny chip with 3MB of it at 1.2GHz. It's thrice as dense as SRAM, so the alternative would be 1MB of faster SRAM, I have no idea if being three times that capacity makes up for the lower speed in a gaming context.
Kind of true based on what? 5GB RAM (potentially 7 if it's true they skinnied down the OS) available to games vs 1, 8 cores vs 3, still no idea what the U GPU is like but both have embedded memory to help out and the nextbox may have faster eSRAM.
I don't think it will be the Wii-360 gulf again, but I think 2x is way underestimating it.
No.
shinobi602
Member
Not even close.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
It's not slower than SRAM for certain amounts up.
Having moved away from a lot of the technical discussions regarding Wii U since the last Speculation Thread and seeing the Durango layout has me feeling a little nostalgic right now. I'm kinda surprised both at how Durango is built as the furthest extreme of the Wii U's architectural design and at how close Nintendo got to "playing with the big boys" completely.
This has managed to not only make me want to see more of Durango's potential but also begun to be very content with Wii U's potential for growth.
This has managed to not only make me want to see more of Durango's potential but also begun to be very content with Wii U's potential for growth.
I don't know either, but it was certainly more R&D effort to go with eDRAM and the chip would cost the same if they used 1MB SRAM, so 3MB eDRAM being superior is the most logical conclusion.
Really? Tell me more...
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll