Embedded RAM-Why so little on ArtX?
super...@aol.com
consoles and especially Dolphin's development. There was ment to be
a large amount of this high speed memory called 1T-SRAM embedded
directly into the Dolphin's graphics processor called "Flipper",
designed by ArtX, now part of ATi. This was announced last Sept by
Nintendo and MoSys. (and NEC) MoSys makes the 1T-SRAM. NEC is to do
the manufacturing of the RAM and the ArtX chip. There was
MENT to be as little as 8 MegaBytes and upto 16 MegaBytes of this
Embedded 1T-SRAM on Dolphin/Gamecube's ArtX graphics chip. The Flipper.
Put another way: Nintendo and MoSys announced that they would have
8-16 MB of 1T-SRAM Embedded into the ArtX "Flipper", which contains
GAMECUBE's graphics processor.
The reason I am posting this, is because the ArtX Flipper, the GPU,
NOW *only* has about 3 MB of this 1T-SRAM embedded. About 2 MB for
the frame buffer and about 1 MB for a texture cache. So it does not
even have the *least* amount (8 MB) that was announced by Nintendo,
NEC and MoSys - to be manufactured by NEC. 3 MB is pretty small, even
with the S3 Texture Compression. The PlayStation 2 was critisized for
having only 4 MB of eDRAM embedded onto its Graphics Synthisizer.
Nintendo, ArtX, MoSys and NEC were supposed to make Dolphin/Gamecube
better than PlayStation 2 by having a large amount (8 to 16 MB) of
this high speed 1T-SRAM embedded onto the ArtX graphics chip. But the
final(?) amount is merly 3 MB. WHY? And will this change? Or is it
possible Nintendo is not revealing the final or full amount of RAM -
Embedded RAM for the ArtX graphics part and/or the main, off-chip
memory?
I know GAMECUBE has 24 MB of main memory, part of which will be used
for geometry, textures and frame buffer. Also, the console
has 16 MB of DRAM which is designated "A-RAM" for audio, animation
and other purposes. In total, the GAMECUBE has about 43 MB of RAM,
but only 3 MB of that is Embedded (contrary to a few false reports)
I also read just recently that Mr.Miyamoto stated that GAMECUBE
would have "a lot of RAM". He said that he could not say exactly
how much RAM at this time, but that it "will" be a lot.
Check this out:
http://www.dailyradar.co.uk/published/features/game_feature_page_182_1.h
tml
On top of that, DailyRadar U.S. has stated 2 or 3 times that
GAMECUBE's amount of RAM is not finalized or set in stone.
Now, I thought the Gamecube specs were final. According to Julian E.
of Factor 5 (of StarWars demo fame) GAMECUBE's specs and RAM are
final. But perhaps not. I will take Mr.Miyamoto's word over Julian's.
1st party over 3rd party. (I believe Factor 5 is 3rd party)
Would it not be inexpensive to throw in 32 MB of that 100 Mhz DRAM
instead of 16 MB? Or increase the main memory from 24 MB to 32 MB or
even to 48 MB, or any combination? Or just have the low-end figure
of 8 MB 1T-SRAM embedded on the ArtX graphics chip, instead of just
3MB --What do you think people? (tech people, Nintendo console people)
Anyone - I am very curious! I am so interested in Gamecube, its
technology now, and the games next year.
While GAMECUBE will be a good machine, even with the current specs,
and it will have some great games, I cannot help but to think it would
have been so much better with more high speed RAM on the ArtX graphics
chip. As they had said it would have. And perhaps even more main
memory. Perhaps the 8-16 MB of Embedded RAM was just too expensive or
Nintendo wanted to cut corners. I am not saying Gamecube is bad, not
at all. Just not what many, including me, had expected. Ultimately, it
*will* be the games that matter. Not the specs. (specs *can* be good!)
Yet developers are always wanting/needing mo' RAM!
Here's that news from IGN.com about the MoSys 1T-SRAM
http://ign64.ign.com/news/8335.html
"What involvement does MoSys have with Dolphin?
Sunnyvale-based MoSys is the company behind 1T-SRAM technology, which
will make the graphics chip and the Gekko CPU work in perfect harmony
with each other -- and at blazing speed. MoSys first announced its
partnership with Nintendo in September 1999. MoSys and NEC then
announced on January 31, 2000, that NEC's 1st LSI Memory Division will
use 1T-SRAM technology in high-density application-specific memories --
including Nintendo Dolphin's.
"1T" refers to the single transistor feature while the "S" means that
the RAM is static as opposed to dynamic (DRAM). The static nature of
the SRAM is intended to give the Gekko chip immediate access to all the
info it needs which should give the Dolphin its incredible speed."
And here's the part were they state no less than 8 MB and as much
as 16 MB of Embedded 1T-SRAM on the ArtX custom graphics processor.
This news was repeated in various forms all over the Net on many
different sites and also the Usenet. A search for "MoSys" "ArtX"
or "Nintendo Dolphin" will produce some of the posts.
http://ign64.ign.com/news/8335.html
"According to NEC's associate vice president, systems integration,
Junshi Yamaguchi, the Nintendo graphics chipset will use as low as 8MBs
and as high as 16MBs of the embedded 1T-SRAM. Comparatively, Sony's PS2
features 4MBs on its graphics chip, but also draws upon additional
system RAM continuously. It is not yet known just how much system RAM
Nintendo's machine will include."
Thanks for taking the time to read my post and for any replies.
-superion76
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Brian Scanlon
inexpensive but equally performing alternative. What we now have is 24 MB
of graphics memory dedicated to the Flipper with hardware S3 compression.
With the low latency, you have essentially instant access to all textures in
the 1T SRAM. If Nintendo hadn't used 1T SRAM, then the eDRAM would have had
to be increased. Using virtual texturing, you only use up memory for what
is displayed, further decreasing memory requirements. Nintendo also hinted
that the memory sizes were not set in stone. Either way, the Gamecube has a
phenomenal amount of texture/video memory, and when you factor in
compression and virtual texturing, there really isn't much of a limit after
all. They also are able to keep costs down this way. I think originally,
everyone underestimated the awesome power of the 1T SRAM memory system.
--
Brian Scanlon
http://members.home.com/sharps97
http://www.mp3.com/novatech
To seek to know the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this
defect, For this effect defective comes by cause . Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet
.
<super...@aol.com> wrote in message news:8pufq7$76q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Your Name Here
> Alright - this is for the tech-heads, people who really know about
> consoles and especially Dolphin's development. There was ment to be
> a large amount of this high speed memory called 1T-SRAM embedded
> directly into the Dolphin's graphics processor called "Flipper",
> designed by ArtX, now part of ATi. This was announced last Sept by
> Nintendo and MoSys. (and NEC) MoSys makes the 1T-SRAM. NEC is to do
> the manufacturing of the RAM and the ArtX chip. There was
> MENT to be as little as 8 MegaBytes and upto 16 MegaBytes of this
> Embedded 1T-SRAM on Dolphin/Gamecube's ArtX graphics chip. The Flipper.
> Put another way: Nintendo and MoSys announced that they would have
> 8-16 MB of 1T-SRAM Embedded into the ArtX "Flipper", which contains
> GAMECUBE's graphics processor.
Neither Nintendo nor MoSys nor anyone official announced how much
RAM there would be, either embedded or otherwise. The only numbers
that came up were from speculation.
> The reason I am posting this, is because the ArtX Flipper, the GPU,
> NOW *only* has about 3 MB of this 1T-SRAM embedded. About 2 MB for
> the frame buffer and about 1 MB for a texture cache. So it does not
> even have the *least* amount (8 MB) that was announced by Nintendo,
> NEC and MoSys - to be manufactured by NEC.
Again, no official announcement was made.
> 3 MB is pretty small, even
> with the S3 Texture Compression. The PlayStation 2 was critisized for
> having only 4 MB of eDRAM embedded onto its Graphics Synthisizer.
But you're comparing apples and oranges. The PS2 GS can ONLY access
the 4MB of embedded DRAM. It cannot directly access main memory.
The Gamecube graphics chip has ultra-high bandwidth, ultra-low latency
embedded memory, and it can also access high bandwidth, ultra-low latency
off-chip main memory.
> Nintendo, ArtX, MoSys and NEC were supposed to make Dolphin/Gamecube
> better than PlayStation 2 by having a large amount (8 to 16 MB) of
> this high speed 1T-SRAM embedded onto the ArtX graphics chip. But the
> final(?) amount is merly 3 MB. WHY? And will this change? Or is it
> possible Nintendo is not revealing the final or full amount of RAM -
> Embedded RAM for the ArtX graphics part and/or the main, off-chip
> memory?
The embedded memory will not change. It would be impossible to try to
implement a late change such as this in the silicon and still expect
to have several million units ready for sale next summer.
You have to take into consideration the fact that the 1T-SRAM takes up
about 3X the area of regular DRAM (source: www.eet.com article). Thus
the 3MB of 1T-SRAM takes up the same area as 9MB of regular DRAM. To
put much more on there would make it a very expensive chip, not suitable
for an inexpensive console system.
> I know GAMECUBE has 24 MB of main memory, part of which will be used
> for geometry, textures and frame buffer. Also, the console
> has 16 MB of DRAM which is designated "A-RAM" for audio, animation
> and other purposes. In total, the GAMECUBE has about 43 MB of RAM,
> but only 3 MB of that is Embedded (contrary to a few false reports)
>
> I also read just recently that Mr.Miyamoto stated that GAMECUBE
> would have "a lot of RAM". He said that he could not say exactly
> how much RAM at this time, but that it "will" be a lot.
> Check this out:
> http://www.dailyradar.co.uk/published/features/game_feature_page_182_1.h
> tml
>
> On top of that, DailyRadar U.S. has stated 2 or 3 times that
> GAMECUBE's amount of RAM is not finalized or set in stone.
>
> Now, I thought the Gamecube specs were final. According to Julian E.
> of Factor 5 (of StarWars demo fame) GAMECUBE's specs and RAM are
> final. But perhaps not. I will take Mr.Miyamoto's word over Julian's.
> 1st party over 3rd party. (I believe Factor 5 is 3rd party)
Technically, Factor 5 is "2nd" party, since they are helping develop
the audio tools for Gamecube.
> Would it not be inexpensive to throw in 32 MB of that 100 Mhz DRAM
> instead of 16 MB?
Actually, that's very realistic. It would simply involve using a
standard 32MB chip instead of a 16MB chip. Probably would involve
no changes to the board (or minimal changes if any).
> Or increase the main memory from 24 MB to 32 MB or
> even to 48 MB, or any combination?
This would require more of the custom memory chips. It's not
unreasonable, but it's not likely. The main board would have to
be redesigned. This would probably delay launch.
> Or just have the low-end figure
> of 8 MB 1T-SRAM embedded on the ArtX graphics chip, instead of just
> 3MB --What do you think people? (tech people, Nintendo console people)
As I mentioned above, this is unreasonable. First off, it would push
back release by several months, and second, it would make the system
cost too much. You'd double the size of the chip, and the cost would
go up exponentially.
> Anyone - I am very curious! I am so interested in Gamecube, its
> technology now, and the games next year.
>
> While GAMECUBE will be a good machine, even with the current specs,
> and it will have some great games, I cannot help but to think it would
> have been so much better with more high speed RAM on the ArtX graphics
> chip.
But what would you sacrifice for this? Would you be willing to wait
another 6 months? Would you be willing to pay another $100?
> As they had said it would have. And perhaps even more main
> memory. Perhaps the 8-16 MB of Embedded RAM was just too expensive or
> Nintendo wanted to cut corners. I am not saying Gamecube is bad, not
> at all. Just not what many, including me, had expected. Ultimately, it
> *will* be the games that matter. Not the specs. (specs *can* be good!)
>
> Yet developers are always wanting/needing mo' RAM!
Make a noise for replacing the 16MB A-RAM with 32MB.
I would wager he didn't say (or didn't mean) "embedded" memory.
EM
that was unveiled with the GC. I should have expected, based
on past product announcements, that there is some daylight
between what Nintendo says and what Nintendo does.
I guess cost is the main reason why there is that amount of
memory in the unit. Nintendo wanted perfomance similar to
SRAM without the price. 1T ram does provide this but still
offers a premium over SDRAM (but Rambust?). Nintendo
probably worked out a number where the cost of diminishing
return is optimal.
Embedded RAM is supposed to be the future of graphic chips.
Eventually it will (supposedly) be cheaper than discrete memory
but the technology might be too new to be completely cost
effective yet
It is hard to imagine the amount of RAM to change from now
to GC's release. Companies who are developing games now
would be annoyed at Nintendo because they would have had
to spend resource making sure their product runs within spec
only to find out later that there was more headroom.
However it is still a good setup no matter what. To put things in
perpective:
2 MB frame buffer means a max resolution of 800 x 600 at
24 bits colour plus 8 bits alpha (somebody will probably correct
me on this). This is higher than most TV's can handle.
How fast this is swapped in and out of main memory will affect
frame rates.
1 MB compressed textures is roughly equivalent to 4 MB
textures for a PS2 (equal to its total VRAM). We don't know
what is the largest single texture map possible on the unit.
Remember with the advent of dynamic lighting, light maps
are less prevalent reducing texture memory requirements
further.
EM
super...@aol.com
I was disappointed too. To the extreme. When GC was first
revealed. Nintendo's specs, all of them, just baffled me.
They make more sense today though. And I'm not so dissapointed
after learning more about how GC works. The virtual texturing,
texture pointing and other things. I've even heard that Flipper
supports some form of HSR (hidden surface removal) but not
to the extent of PowerVR or GigaPixel.
I'm sure Nintendo did indeed do the R&D to find an optimal
price/performance ratio. Sega along with NEC and Videologic did
an amazing feat in 1997 when they designed Dural/Katana (Dreamcast)
On Embedded RAM - I had heard about this for use in game console
chips as far back as 1996 when IntelligentGamer reported on it
for possible use in the 3DO MX chipset - an enhanced M2. It
really is ment to be the future of 3D chip sets. If they can get
the space requirements improved and production refined. I think
the goal is to eventually have a system on a chip (SoC).
I believe this was concidered for the Nintendo/SGI
N2000 project to follow up the N64, before SGI/MIPS was out
of the running for the next Nintendo console.
I do hope the GC RAM is increased or that Nintendo was just
coy on the full amount of memory. Perhaps there is another
bank of memory yet to be revealed. That is highly unlikely
though, as we have seen the motherboard. I just thought I'd
toss that idea into the air. Maybe 43MB is final.
I cannot speculate on the real world performance - but from
what you have there in your figures - it looks good. I didn't
realize that about the lighting. real lights are less demanding
on texture space - If I understand that correctly.
One thing that *really* concerns me though is when you said:
"How fast this is swapped in and out of main memory will affect
> frame rates."
What are the issues here and do you think that will be a real
problem? Nintendo stated something like "more detailed graphics
moving at faster frame rates than ever before" -Wishful thinking
maybe?
About the texture space - If the Flipper GPU has 1 MB texture
cache, with the S3TC, would that not be roughly 6 MB worth
of textures - 6:1 compression?
Thanks for the feedback.
-superion76
super...@aol.com
just how different the Gamecube's architecture is from the PS2.
Is eDRAM, that's the RAM that is embedded into the PlayStation2's
Graphics Synthesizer, isnt it? And doesn't that just stand for
embedded-DRAM - eDRAM? I think Nintendo was going to use this
before they announced the MoSys 1T-SRAM. The main memory was
also ment to be different. NEC DD-SRAM (or something).
"Using virtual texturing, you only use up memory for what is
displayed, further decreasing memory requirements." --That sounds
fantastic. Awesome even.
"Nintendo also hinted that the memory sizes were not set in stone."
Yes indeed. And that sound even better! I mentioned this too because
I've seen it mentioned over and over again on different parts of the
Net. Perhaps it will, although I am resigning myself to the idea
that the memory size is final. If it turns out there is more, then
I'll dance in the streets for joy.
-superion76
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
eDRAM is very expensive. What Nintendo decided to do was to find an
inexpensive but equally performing alternative. What we now have is 24
MB of graphics memory dedicated to the Flipper with hardware S3
compression. With the low latency, you have essentially instant access
to all textures in the 1T SRAM. If Nintendo hadn't used 1T SRAM, then
the eDRAM would have had to be increased. Using virtual texturing, you
only use up memory for what is displayed, further decreasing memory
requirements. Nintendo also hinted that the memory sizes were not set
in stone. Either way, the Gamecube has a phenomenal amount of
texture/video memory, and when you factor in compression and virtual
texturing, there really isn't much of a limit after all. They also are
able to keep costs down this way. I think originally, everyone
underestimated the awesome power of the 1T SRAM memory system.
--
Brian Scanlon
Brian Scanlon
"The chip itself is a 0.18-micron 202.5-MHz [part]," Buchner said. "We have
about 3MB of on-chip memory [2MB of which is used for the frame buffer and
1MB for texture cache], which is called 1T-SRAM, which is a technology from
a little company in the [San Francisco] Bay Area, and effectively it's like
a pipelined SRAM. It gives us very low latency random access memory. And
it's very, very small in terms of die area."
Besides the embedded memory, Buchner said, there will be two other RAM
stores: a 24MB 10ns 1T-SRAM bank of main memory, with about a 3.2GB/sec
transfer rate peak, and a 16MB chunk of higher latency 100-MHz DRAM. That
latter is called A-Memory, and, according to Buchner, it's "used partly by
the audio DSP and is also under programmer control to use for other things.
There's already some very good uses of that memory. [It's commonly used] to
offset the problems of having a disc [as opposed to the N64's ROM
cartridge]. The latency is way up, so if you can kinda preload to the slower
speed memory, it's still much faster than the disc, and [it can be used] to
emulate a ROM."
"Achievable numbers are far, far greater than PS2, and that's really what
matters--big numbers. What you achieve for a game is what matters, not some
tidbit benchmark numbers," Buchner said.
Well, this is encouraging news. Apparently, A-RAM and the 1T SRAM can be
used for many different things. It seems like load times will be very short
as the A-RAM might be used primarily as a "mini ROM" storage space that can
be filled while a level is playing as well as for generic programming
routines and the like.
In that case, increasing size to 32 MB makes a lot of sense.
--
Brian Scanlon
http://members.home.com/sharps97
http://www.mp3.com/novatech
To seek to know the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this
defect, For this effect defective comes by cause . Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet
.
<super...@aol.com> wrote in message news:8q0k8e$f9u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Fascinating Brian. Just fascinating. I'm learning more and more
> just how different the Gamecube's architecture is from the PS2.
>
> Is eDRAM, that's the RAM that is embedded into the PlayStation2's
> Graphics Synthesizer, isnt it? And doesn't that just stand for
> embedded-DRAM - eDRAM? I think Nintendo was going to use this
> before they announced the MoSys 1T-SRAM. The main memory was
> also ment to be different. NEC DD-SRAM (or something).
>
> "Using virtual texturing, you only use up memory for what is
> displayed, further decreasing memory requirements." --That sounds
> fantastic. Awesome even.
>
> "Nintendo also hinted that the memory sizes were not set in stone."
> Yes indeed. And that sound even better! I mentioned this too because
> I've seen it mentioned over and over again on different parts of the
> Net. Perhaps it will, although I am resigning myself to the idea
> that the memory size is final. If it turns out there is more, then
> I'll dance in the streets for joy.
>
> -superion76
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> eDRAM is very expensive. What Nintendo decided to do was to find an
> inexpensive but equally performing alternative. What we now have is 24
> MB of graphics memory dedicated to the Flipper with hardware S3
> compression. With the low latency, you have essentially instant access
> to all textures in the 1T SRAM. If Nintendo hadn't used 1T SRAM, then
> the eDRAM would have had to be increased. Using virtual texturing, you
> only use up memory for what is displayed, further decreasing memory
> requirements. Nintendo also hinted that the memory sizes were not set
> in stone. Either way, the Gamecube has a phenomenal amount of
> texture/video memory, and when you factor in compression and virtual
> texturing, there really isn't much of a limit after all. They also are
> able to keep costs down this way. I think originally, everyone
> underestimated the awesome power of the 1T SRAM memory system.
>
> --
>
> Brian Scanlon
>
>
EM
the Gekko acessing the A-memory eat into the bandwidth of
the Flipper accessing 1T RAM?
In any event, we can see that the PS2 with the same memory
bandwidth (3.2 GB/s) can handle 60 frames per seconds on
high resolution graphics. This is without the benefit of hardware
texture compression and with a higher latency. So it is safe to
assume that frames rates of 60 fps wiil be the norm.
I know S3TC is suppose to compress 6:1 but this is a peak
figure and I tend to be conservative about these things. Even
Nintendo is using the 4:1 ratio.
http://www.nintendo.com/spaceworld/ngc_specs.html
"Main Memory Bandwidth 3.2GB/second (Peak)"
"Texture Read Bandwidth 12.8GB/second (Peak)"
Sounds like Nintendo "magic" numbers again. : )
FYI, here is part of a correspondence I received from a
PowerVR staff member (supposedly):
"The VQ compressed texture format on DC requires approximately 2 bits per
texel. Thus, if the source image you're compressing is 16bpp, the
compression ratio is 8:1.
For the S3TC method with opaque (or punch-through (yuck)) textures, the
compressed data requires 4 bits per texel. The oft' quoted 6:1
compression ratio thus assumes that the original image was 24bpp."
EM
Brian Scanlon
since visual quality seems to be the emphasis and the system will have no
trouble handling textures 512x512 @ 32 bit. I'd agree, however that 4:1, is
average, but virtual texturing will free up memory even more, since only a
fraction of a texture is used at any one time.
FPS is going to be based more on geometry detail rather than anything else,
IMO. In other words you could run a scene at normal geometrical density at
60 fps, or you could double the density and run at 30 fps instead, depending
on what you are hoping to accomplish.
However, having recently used the high resolution textures available with
Unreal Tournament using S3 compression, I can testify to just how important
256x256 and 512x512 32 bit textures can be to a game. The visual increase
over the normal 128x128 textures is absolutely stunning. In some cases,
such high quality textures can easily make up for a reduction in geometry.
And this is the significant difference that will exist between games running
on the PS 2 and Gamecube...
--
Brian Scanlon
http://members.home.com/sharps97
http://www.mp3.com/novatech
To seek to know the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this
defect, For this effect defective comes by cause . Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet
.
"EM" <em-N...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:39C4442C...@bigpond.net.au...
Your Name Here
Brian Scanlon
--
Brian Scanlon
http://members.home.com/sharps97
http://www.mp3.com/novatech
To seek to know the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this
defect, For this effect defective comes by cause . Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet
.
"Your Name Here" <user...@hostname.com> wrote in message
news:oXax5.91660$Ur3.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
getting kevin j
> Fascinating Brian. Just fascinating. I'm learning more and more
> just how different the Gamecube's architecture is from the PS2.
>
> Is eDRAM, that's the RAM that is embedded into the PlayStation2's
> Graphics Synthesizer, isnt it? And doesn't that just stand for
> embedded-DRAM - eDRAM? I think Nintendo was going to use this
> before they announced the MoSys 1T-SRAM. The main memory was
> also ment to be different. NEC DD-SRAM (or something).
I still havent linked MoSys with the 1T-SRAM. All I know is that NEC is
manufacturing it. Its just me.
> "Using virtual texturing, you only use up memory for what is
> displayed, further decreasing memory requirements." --That sounds
> fantastic. Awesome even.
John Carmack of id Software stated that using a virtual texturing for
memory in vid cards was the way to go. Funny thing is that he was
refering to a PC vid card, not one on a console.
> "Nintendo also hinted that the memory sizes were not set in stone."
> Yes indeed. And that sound even better! I mentioned this too because
> I've seen it mentioned over and over again on different parts of the
> Net. Perhaps it will, although I am resigning myself to the idea
> that the memory size is final. If it turns out there is more, then
> I'll dance in the streets for joy.
>
> -superion76
Its odd that Nintendo will use 24 MB of 1T-SRAM. It would have to be
divided into a 16 MB and a 8 MB sections but the system addresses it as
one huge 24 MB section. The cost of a 16 MB part and an 8 MB part wouldnt
be that different from a single 32 MB part.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> eDRAM is very expensive. What Nintendo decided to do was to find an
> inexpensive but equally performing alternative. What we now have is 24
> MB of graphics memory dedicated to the Flipper with hardware S3
> compression. With the low latency, you have essentially instant access
> to all textures in the 1T SRAM. If Nintendo hadn't used 1T SRAM, then
> the eDRAM would have had to be increased. Using virtual texturing, you
> only use up memory for what is displayed, further decreasing memory
> requirements. Nintendo also hinted that the memory sizes were not set
> in stone. Either way, the Gamecube has a phenomenal amount of
> texture/video memory, and when you factor in compression and virtual
> texturing, there really isn't much of a limit after all. They also are
> able to keep costs down this way. I think originally, everyone
> underestimated the awesome power of the 1T SRAM memory system.
>
> --
>
> Brian Scanlon
I wonder if the Cube can do other forms of texture compression in
hardware. FXT1 compression by 3dfx is open source, but I think they'd
need a license to use it in the console. I doubt the system would do JPEG
since it takes alot of cycles to decompress and developers have faster and
better compression schemes availible.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
Brian Scanlon
means that it takes about zero time to inflate and display it. The system
bus never sees the uncompressed texture, and what you have done is
essentially the most efficient thing that you can possibly do when it comes
to texture compression by employing it directly in the hardware like that.
It seemed to be a big feature of the Flipper, so I am thinking it has its
own little advantage over competing schemes... I would also guess that a
hardware implementation of other techniques would cost $$$.
--
Brian Scanlon
http://members.home.com/sharps97
http://www.mp3.com/novatech
To seek to know the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this
defect, For this effect defective comes by cause . Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet
.
"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.21.000918...@acc.wuacc.edu...
Your Name Here
"getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
>[...]
> Its odd that Nintendo will use 24 MB of 1T-SRAM. It would have to be
> divided into a 16 MB and a 8 MB sections but the system addresses it as
> one huge 24 MB section. The cost of a 16 MB part and an 8 MB part wouldnt
> be that different from a single 32 MB part.
They use two 12MB chips. The 12MB was the most they could economically
fit on a chip. If they could have fit more, they would have.
getting kevin j
supported any other co/dec in hardware. I was thinking of 3dfx's co/dec
which I believe can compress textures even more than that of S3TC. If
Nintendo had FXT1 in hardware, they might have to pay a royalty.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Brian Scanlon wrote:
> S3TC on Gamecube is FREE. It is built in to the hardware directly, which
> means that it takes about zero time to inflate and display it. The system
> bus never sees the uncompressed texture, and what you have done is
> essentially the most efficient thing that you can possibly do when it comes
> to texture compression by employing it directly in the hardware like that.
> It seemed to be a big feature of the Flipper, so I am thinking it has its
> own little advantage over competing schemes... I would also guess that a
> hardware implementation of other techniques would cost $$$.
>
> --
> Brian Scanlon
> http://members.home.com/sharps97
> http://www.mp3.com/novatech
> To seek to know the cause of this effect, Or, rather say, the cause of this
> defect, For this effect defective comes by cause . Wm. Shakespeare - Hamlet
> .
getting kevin j
Hmmmmm.... I've never heard of a memory come in 12 MB chips. I've seen
them in 8 MB and 16 MB but never in 12 MB.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu
Your Name Here
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Your Name Here wrote:
> > "getting kevin j" <gett...@washburn.edu> wrote:
> > >[...]
> > > Its odd that Nintendo will use 24 MB of 1T-SRAM. It would have to be
> > > divided into a 16 MB and a 8 MB sections but the system addresses it
as
> > > one huge 24 MB section. The cost of a 16 MB part and an 8 MB part
wouldnt
> > > be that different from a single 32 MB part.
> > >[...]
> >
> > They use two 12MB chips. The 12MB was the most they could economically
> > fit on a chip. If they could have fit more, they would have.
>
> Hmmmmm.... I've never heard of a memory come in 12 MB chips. I've seen
> them in 8 MB and 16 MB but never in 12 MB.
That's because it's a custom memory chip, not a standard one.
Since it's custom, it does not have to be made in a standard size.
getting kevin j
Its like people with an extra rib, they're prefectly normal but still a
little freaky.
If 1T-SRAM is going to be used in any other system (PC video
cards?!?) they'd want 16 MB chips, not 12 MB. Going from 12 MB to 16 MB
might not be possible now but how about when the Cube ships? If any other
vendor is going to use 16 MB chips, the price will come down and we get
cheaper and a more powerful Game Cube.
----
Kevin G
gett...@washburn.edu