-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PSP CPU locked in firmware at 222 MHz
- Thread starter Panajev2001a
- Start date
So, I'm confused, since my PentiumM defaults at only GHz and spends most of it's time at 400MHz instead of 1.6GHz, should I be mad or something Faf?
PS. You screwed the pooch on this one Pana, way to help enpower another generation of anti-Sony retards with another [dumb] meme that won't die.
PPS. Haha, I love Faf.
PS. You screwed the pooch on this one Pana, way to help enpower another generation of anti-Sony retards with another [dumb] meme that won't die.
PPS. Haha, I love Faf.
It looks like there are some modules loaded into that reserved memory space that are accessible for game purposes, via API calls (video decoding, audio decoding, onscreen kb interface, etc.), unless I'm reading this wrong. So, there's already memory saved for game purposes by merit of the fact that devs didn't have to roll their own and load into memory themselves. In other words, stuff is already in that reserved memory that they would have had to load anyway, in most cases. Granted its not all reserved for modules a dev would have loaded anyway, but it doesn't sound like a complete loss.jarrod said:
Could be wrong. Faf, am I close?
I don't know, it sounds like there's an enormous amount of potential simply in the flexibility to throttle CPU and bus speeds *frame by frame* anywhere within their min-max ranges in order to maximize game performance against battery performance and I'd be very surprised if devs have mastered that at this point and aren't being more than a little conservative in most cases.
That's the impression I got from Pana... though I'm sure developer use and optimization of that extra 8MB would be far more appreciated than running SCE decompression or keyboard "modules".kaching said:
There's a learning curve, but it's more concentrated on balance than breaking new ground. Same as any handheld really, though the locks should allow for a nice artificial boost whenever SCE deems the time right.kaching said:
Really, this shouldn't be anything surprising. It's the exact same thing you pointed out to me when I was comparing early N64 demos to early DS demos.... handhelds will just never make the same sorts of leaps forward consoles do a multitude of reasons. You were right, clever man.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
How much do the PSP batteries cost? $30 or $40? And much will these new powerful batteries cost? $50?
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
That irregularly shaped metal plate could be a heat-spreader of a kind, as it seems like it's overlapping chips when the unit is assembled, but I'm not sure
Actually so long as you're not trying to just run a recompile of PS2 game in there, I don't really see problems with amount of memory. It's pretty nicely balanced.jarrod said:
My only beef with this was that they use fast memory for OS(which really doesn't need speed much). But granted, from price point it probably doesn't make any difference, as the cost of physical packaging for another 8MB SDram module would probably end up costing at least as much if not more overall.
Fair enough, although IMO, Both of these new handhelds have far more flexibility to play with then any devices prior.
Likewise, they are both designed to be easier to work with then their respective predecessors (N64/PS2) but that doesn't mean they don't have quirks of their own.
Losing 8 MB to system OS is kinda strange...Mainly because in the PSX and PS2 cases the ammount taken was much lower...IIRC 512 and 1023 Kb IIRC.
Anyways if those 8 MB have useful stuff it could be awesome. Just imagine having high level dma managing functions there in the PS2 case...I am sure a lot of devs would already sign.
Anyways if those 8 MB have useful stuff it could be awesome. Just imagine having high level dma managing functions there in the PS2 case...I am sure a lot of devs would already sign.
Better for some, worse for others, I'm sure.jarrod said:
The reason why I point it out is because I don't think it is the same thing. The ability to precisely throttle CPU and bus speed as Faf describes is not something I've heard of being particular commonplace in handheld game devices, yet. Is this possible with the DS hardware too? If it is, then I agree, it is the same. But my statement is made on my current understanding that DS doesn't allow this same level of control, nor did previous handheld game devices. As such, it seems like Sony has spent more time with developers cautioning them towards conservatism initially, given the level of control they actually have over system utilization, meaning "leaps forward" may very well be possible once this aspect of the system is better understood.There's a learning curve, but it's more concentrated on balance than breaking new ground. Same as any handheld really, though the locks should allow for a nice artificial boost whenever SCE deems the time right.
Really, this shouldn't be anything surprising. It's the exact same thing you pointed out to me when I was comparing early N64 demos to early DS demos.... handhelds will just never make the same sorts of leaps forward consoles do a multitude of reasons. You were right, clever man.
Kaching,
While afaik DS doesn't have direct Mhz control - there are some other hw aspects that are pretty... different... to say the least - and will likely take some amount of experience to get full use out of.
Like I said, I feel both of these system have a fair bit of room to grow.
Jarrod does have a point though - namely I doubt any portable system will get the same amount of attention in regards to its software advances as desktops do...
While afaik DS doesn't have direct Mhz control - there are some other hw aspects that are pretty... different... to say the least - and will likely take some amount of experience to get full use out of.
Like I said, I feel both of these system have a fair bit of room to grow.
Jarrod does have a point though - namely I doubt any portable system will get the same amount of attention in regards to its software advances as desktops do...
Thanks, Faf. As far as attention for software advances go, I wasn't directly disputing the amount of effort that might ultimately be put towards it, although I will say I was surprised at the size of the dev team involved in Twisted Metal:Head On as I glanced at the credits in the instruction manual the other night. Other comments from PSP devs have been made in a similar vein of requiring larger teams than they initially expected to get the results they wanted.
jarrod said:
It should also be noted that Microsoft is taking the exact same approach with the Xenon. (What did you think J. Allard's keynote was really about, anyway?
) I guess Sony beat them to the punch again, though...Sure, developers would love to have the 8MB back, but developers also hate writing memory stick save code that has to handle cases where the user is an idiot and pulls the stick out in the middle of the save while simultaneously putting the console to sleep, all without crashing. Or implementing gloriously boring code that just lets you put in all the data to set up your network connection, again and again, for every new title that ships...
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
xexex said:
AFAIK, bil-linear filtering is really "free" on PSP's GPU and some rumors said the same about tri-linear, but I cannot confirm them.
Edit: Fafalada just confirmed it.
This is really nice as it puts PSP's GPU quite a bit ahead of the GS with textured fill-rate, especially when it comes to tri-linear which takes 2 clock-cycles on the GS and half of the texturing engines (8 Pixel Engines used as TMU's).
Comapre it with the GS:
You aslo are not taking into account that the GS is rendering at a target resolution which is almost 2.5x higher than what PSP targets to so you could inlfate the PSP's fill-rate scores taking into account this fact to produce quite higher "effective" numbers
.Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Argyle said:It should also be noted that Microsoft is taking the exact same approach with the Xenon. (What did you think J. Allard's keynote was really about, anyway?
Sure, developers would love to have the 8MB back, but developers also hate writing memory stick save code that has to handle cases where the user is an idiot and pulls the stick out in the middle of the save while simultaneously putting the console to sleep, all without crashing. Or implementing gloriously boring code that just lets you put in all the data to set up your network connection, again and again, for every new title that ships...
Very good overview of pro's and con's of this approach
.Fafalada, I understand the clock-speed is software selectable, but then to limit developers to pass this 222 MHz barrier developers need new libs from Sony or to hack the current ones (and fail TRC
).
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
GASP, could this then, provide for a scenario where a OMAP2 equipped NGAGE 2 games being neck and neck with PSP games at E3? Especially if they get the MBX in OMAP2 up to 110Mhz? :lol
Fafalada said:A simple X-Scale vs a triple core IC with 4MB of embeded memory isn't exactly a very comparable scenario though.
If the battery is 3.6V 1800 mAH (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/01/psp_6.jpg) good for a few hours, then the whole system's power consumption can't be much more than a couple watts, only a portion of which would be the chips themselves.
Hence a heat sink would be unnecessary, no matter what the ICs are.
Those slides (and Faf's comments) are ambiguous.
What does 'locked' at 222MHz mean? Is it locked in firmware, so even if Faf tries to throttle up to 300, it'll only go as far as 222? Or is it locked by TRC requirement, so you'll fail if the performance analyser sees you go above that?
IMO its crazy to hard lock anything. Just ask developers to develop based on 222. And then if Rockstar or Namco come along and ask nicely for an extra 111MHz in some situations, judge on a case by case basis.
I am happy with the current battery life. I don't want to be denied games purely because they'll run an hour shorter.
With the battery hogs being identified as UMD/Wifi/Screen, and Bus speed specifically mentioned as low power, I don't see upping the speed affecting battery life too much.
What does 'locked' at 222MHz mean? Is it locked in firmware, so even if Faf tries to throttle up to 300, it'll only go as far as 222? Or is it locked by TRC requirement, so you'll fail if the performance analyser sees you go above that?
IMO its crazy to hard lock anything. Just ask developers to develop based on 222. And then if Rockstar or Namco come along and ask nicely for an extra 111MHz in some situations, judge on a case by case basis.
I am happy with the current battery life. I don't want to be denied games purely because they'll run an hour shorter.
With the battery hogs being identified as UMD/Wifi/Screen, and Bus speed specifically mentioned as low power, I don't see upping the speed affecting battery life too much.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
mrklaw said:
The current Sony libraries do not allow you to set the clock-speed higher than 222 MHz: you can use the command to do that, but if the clock-speed is higher than 222 MHz the libraries will probably cap it to 222 MHz.
You could hack the Sony provided libraries probably, but I do not think you would pass the TRC process.
soundwave05
Member
Wouldn't Sony just "remove" the cap set at 222 MHz once higher capacity PSP batteries are availible?
I'm pretty sure in the future that "super-duper brightness" setting the PSP has, but is only currently availible if you have the system plugged in to an outlet, will also be availible for portable viewing once higher capacity batteries come out.
I'm pretty sure in the future that "super-duper brightness" setting the PSP has, but is only currently availible if you have the system plugged in to an outlet, will also be availible for portable viewing once higher capacity batteries come out.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
soundwave05 said:
I would hope so.
soundwave05
Member
Panajev2001a said:
I think Sony had to do this though. The bad press and shitstorm of complaining consumers if the PSP had games where the battery dies literally in an hour or so would've really tarnished their launches.
Once higher capacity batteries come out, I think they'll remove these restrictions and also change the brightness setting options.
The PSP really simply put is more advanced than the current battery tech can really handle (or perhaps more accurately, the level of battery tech that Sony can effectively put in a product this slim for $250), so right now Sony's put it on a bit of a leash.
True true - and now that I think about it, newer phones and PDAs have similar capacity batteries also after all, and similar life too. (I was really surprised to see my new Samsung phone come with 1600mAh battery).aaaa0 said:Hence a heat sink would be unnecessary, no matter what the ICs are.
"locked" is probably the wrong term anyway, because it gives people the impression that by "unlocking" their PSPs will suddenly run all old games faster (and they won't). Restricted is better term in this case.mrklaw said:
Can someone please explain WTF the problem is? What Sony did is perfectly logical from the standpoint of First-Generation games developed on first generations tools (and in some cases largely without them), and to a very significant extent without the aid of the power consumption tools.
By capping the clock, you likely get a better than linear decrease in power consumption, allowing for initial games which don't fully drain the battery in under 2 hours while still beating the competition to such an extent that if a few assholes didn't post and spread this, nobody would be the wiser.
Once developers get better at working around the limitations, they'll remove the caps and you'll get Second or Third Generation games -- that play on all PSP models at full clock -- that in all likelyhood, will look much better at a less than linear increase in consumption due to better coding and schedualing practices. It's a perfectly practical and logical concept.
This has nothing to do with a new model PSP, or newer batteries, or a future respun 90nm IC or 65nm part -- Sony isn't going to segment the userbase. This is a fully software dependent feature that's intended to easy developers into the platform. Buy a future game developed once the caps are released on a Japanese launch PSP with serial number 00001 and guess what, it'll run at 333|166MHz.
I'm just amazed that the same people who would have had no f-ing clue or no ability to know the difference are suddenly "informed" and posting about how this is "despicable" (quoting another brilliant cybermerc post) or talking about how this is related to battery life increases... But whatever
By capping the clock, you likely get a better than linear decrease in power consumption, allowing for initial games which don't fully drain the battery in under 2 hours while still beating the competition to such an extent that if a few assholes didn't post and spread this, nobody would be the wiser.
Once developers get better at working around the limitations, they'll remove the caps and you'll get Second or Third Generation games -- that play on all PSP models at full clock -- that in all likelyhood, will look much better at a less than linear increase in consumption due to better coding and schedualing practices. It's a perfectly practical and logical concept.
This has nothing to do with a new model PSP, or newer batteries, or a future respun 90nm IC or 65nm part -- Sony isn't going to segment the userbase. This is a fully software dependent feature that's intended to easy developers into the platform. Buy a future game developed once the caps are released on a Japanese launch PSP with serial number 00001 and guess what, it'll run at 333|166MHz.
I'm just amazed that the same people who would have had no f-ing clue or no ability to know the difference are suddenly "informed" and posting about how this is "despicable" (quoting another brilliant cybermerc post) or talking about how this is related to battery life increases... But whatever
Its not logical. If Sony were concerned about battery life and the consumption emulators etc weren't available, they can restrict to 222MHz by TRC or edict. They don't need to lock the libraries. Thats too restrictive. What happens if someone comes to them and needs 333MHz? Can they redo the libraries so quickly?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Vince said:
Vince, what is biting you in the ass that much to make you go beserk with insults ?
I am not doubting that, I know that are ways to fully utilize the CPU without doing much and there are way to fully utilize it doing stuff wort the time and cycles spent on it.
Sony would not fragment the user-base, so we excluded quite early in the thread that this limitation involved new hardware revisions to enable the high clock-speed.
If the CPU reach 99% of utilization at 333 MHz it does not matter whether the software is well designed or if it is crappy code doing worthless stuff: what will change will be what you can achieve in the game, how your output will look and what your game will be able to achieve.
Sure, right now developers are probably still green to the machine and power-consumption riented optimization work and limiting the clock-speed to 222 MHz gives them less power to waste and when they will move to a clock-speed of 333 MHz dropping the software barrier developers will be able to utilize the CPU much more efficiently.
This does not change hat atthe same CPU/GPU utilization rate you cannot have a more than linear decrease in power consumption going from 333 MHz to 222 MHz and a linear increase only when going from 222 MHz bakc to 333 MHz.
Games which will use the CPU and GPU very well when the clock-speed is increased will tax the hardware a little more: launch PSP's will still be able to play those games with stock batteries, but you might want the new battery for a more comfortable play-time thanks to the larger capacity battery.
Uhm...
I think the 333Mhz speed will be made available when Sony see fit. It's not uncommon to "lock" some features to devolopers and unlock them during the system life cycle.
As for why Sony locked rather than restricted by TRC, well, maybe they wanted to avoid a situation when software had to be rejected. You need as much software as you can at launch don't you?
As for why Sony locked rather than restricted by TRC, well, maybe they wanted to avoid a situation when software had to be rejected. You need as much software as you can at launch don't you?
Panajev2001a, I hope the posters that tend to brand you a Sony PR agent, take note of Vince's post. Fact is if, Nintnedo or MS went and did something like this and used the excuses Vince points out there would be a wild reaction. Seems to me that Sony wanted the PSP out the door as soon as possible to the DS launch. Seems that taking 50% of the clock speed to "help" developers smells a bit wiffy. What is doesn't do though is take away the fact that the PSP is a great piece of electronics and although I'm not at interetsed in portable gaming, or much of the software thats available for the PSP (old PS2 rehashes in the main) I'm getting one.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Vince said:
I think you are being way too optimistic to think that just by the devs getting more familiar with the system, or as the tools develope more that the cap will be magically lifted. The cap simply exists because the unit running at the full speed will make the battery life under the current battery technology too short.
Is this a failing by the battery industry or is it a failing of Kutaragi's team in properly estimating the power consumption of their creation? It's not like the limitations of the current battery technologie were secrets available to select few. And since battery tech moves at the morlasses pace compared to the IC industry, I think we should all just get use to thinking that PSP is a 222/111Mhz unit.
Sure, every PSP made can run @333/166 without any problems (other than drinking batteries like cool-aid), but then again, every single Clie NX70's Intel XScale PXA250 can be "overclocked" back to it's "proper" speed of 300Mhz, instead of what Sony had limited to and sold as (200Mhz).
O_OPanajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
xexex said:
0.5-166 MHz.
What happens if someone needs more than 333MHz? Can they redo the hardware design so quickly?mrklaw said:
Seriously, devs are going to bump against restrictions of hardware at some point, it's inevitable. At least this one can be relaxed without having to transition devs and users to a whole new platform.
Does that somehow better justify the complaints about this? Because others would have taken the same opportunity to spread FUD against MS and Nintendo it's okay to do it to Sony?Pug said:
I'm not sure how limiting clock speed guarantees getting things out quicker. Having access to the full clock speed would have allowed some developers to power through certain problems quicker by merit of not having to worry about coding as efficiently to get the results they've gotten so far.
Sony announced their schedule for the PSP release before Nintendo said anything about the DS. They initially set the launch for late 2004 worldwide sometime in 2003 and then pushed NA and EU regions into 2005 by early 2004 (Feb, I believe). All before Nintendo officially announced the DS.
I agree this may be somewhat motivated by reaction to Nintendo, but not in order to get PSP out the door any faster than already planned. I think it is motivated by the desire to initially offer a selection of game content with acceptable and relatively consistent battery drain characteristics, as has been suggested previously in this thread, in order to minimize one of the most common complaints about PSP in direct comparison to GB/DS hardware.
Agreed. I'd be much more inclined to complain about this CPU/GPU restriction if the resulting games were generally lackluster or worse. And what complaints that devs have made about working with the PSP haven't gravitated towards these specific library restrictions.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Sony wasn't able to hit 4-6 hours of playtime with the current battery, so they temporarily cut down the specs in software as a result. Pretty cut and dried, IMO.
mashoutposse said:
This is not the first time I've heard of a CPU being artificially limited by software so I'm not really sure what the big to do is in this thread... I'm reading it... and I'm still really not getting what certain folks beef is....
mashoutposse
Ante Up
If anything, people should have MrBob's attitude... Today's games look damn good and the system still has a very tangible 50% increase waiting in the wings.
This sounds like a means to extend the life of the system by producing an artificial jump in graphics later down the road. That or it could really be linked to the battery issue. But as MrBob said, the games look awesome enough already. The lower clock doesn't matter unless it's for yield purposes (doubtful). PEACE.
I don't see the big deal either. It sounds like the CPU clock is controlled on the developmental side so there shouldn't be any problems with firmware updates on the systems. Once the full potential is unlocked it'll show a nice boost in capabilities. I thought PSP was running full tilt on day one.
Now that I know, I want a Dynasty Warriors PSP game with the whole PSP unlocked! If I have to wait a few years so be it. I don't plan on tossing my PSP to the curb after 6 months.
I'm sure we'll get streaming games off of the UMD eventually as well. More ram availablity + more CPU and GPU speed availability + UMD streaming and the PSP is going to eventually turn into a monster of a system.
Now that I know, I want a Dynasty Warriors PSP game with the whole PSP unlocked! If I have to wait a few years so be it. I don't plan on tossing my PSP to the curb after 6 months.
I'm sure we'll get streaming games off of the UMD eventually as well. More ram availablity + more CPU and GPU speed availability + UMD streaming and the PSP is going to eventually turn into a monster of a system.
Shogmaster
Sloppy seconds
Just be prepared for it never being unlocked, unless there's gonna be some miracle battery advancement coming that I'm not aware of.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Shogmaster said:
Just be prepared to be disappointed Shogmaster when this prediction of yours gets proven wrong
.