Slashdot Mirror


ARM Claims PS3-Like Graphics On Upcoming Mobile GPU

l_bratch writes, quoting from the BBC, "'British computer chip designer ARM has unveiled its latest graphics processing unit (GPU) for mobile devices. The Mali-T658 offers up to ten times the performance of its predecessor." ARM claims that its latest GPU, which will be ready in around two years, will have graphics performance akin to the PlayStation 3. If this has acceptable power consumption for a mobile device, could we be seeing ultra-low power hardware in high-end PCs and consoles soon?"

164 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. In two years by starmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.

    1. Re:In two years by zero.kalvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if in two years we would be experiencing better graphics, just imagine playing a PS3 like graphics on something that barely consume 1W ( or dunno how much a mobile device should), and I would bet it wouldn't cost that much either.

    2. Re:In two years by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient

      Counterexample: FarmVille.

    3. Re:In two years by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well it is the point that the PS/3 is old in computer terms. While this is an advancement for mobile computing It still fits in the fact in terms of performance mobile computing is about 5-10 years behind desktop computing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:In two years by trum4n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better Counterexample: Minecraft!

    5. Re:In two years by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      500,000,000 downloads of Angry Birds?

    6. Re:In two years by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      umm, look at the tegra 3. ARM graphics are catching up to consoles quite easily (consoles were always behind). Remember, it's been 3 years where we went from "ARM can barely handle nintendo emulation (single core/500mhz/125mhz gpu)" to "ARM is competing with PS3(4 cores, 1.5ghz, 300+mhz multicore gpu)". In *3* years. All with devices that are more efficient with power than anything intel can offer. So what do you see for the next 12 months, let alone 3-4 years? Even if the increases slow down they're basically going to make x86 processors irrelevant.

    7. Re:In two years by Korvin20111803 · · Score: 1

      In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.

      It is insufficient for serveral years already. Consoles were not improved for 6 years, and constanly developing desktop keeps getting console graphics (excluding only Crysis 1), except better resoultion, framerates and minor improvements if any.

    8. Re:In two years by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Its' for the mobile market. So, MW3 on your phone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:In two years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except there is NO WAY it can be done at 1w even at the best rate of computing improvements. Remember, they did not mention power usage in their press release, only the submitted did. While they are taking power into consideration, it seems to me more of scale in where idle usage is extremely low with the cores shut down. This is great news for moble devices that don't expect full usage most of the time (assuming the scale is extreme to where idle is extremely low power usage).

      Remember, Arm has been slowly scaling up in speed while x86 scaling down on power usage. It wouldn't be surprising if this new gpu uses more power then traditionally known for arm. That said, alot remains to be seen. Press release and actual performance can be worlds apart. How many times have a company promised something-like performance only for it to not deliver. Hopefully, it's true though.

    10. Re:In two years by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if in two years we would be experiencing better graphics, just imagine playing a PS3 like graphics on something that barely consume 1W ( or dunno how much a mobile device should), and I would bet it wouldn't cost that much either.

      I still believe that PS3 graphics will be severely dated in two years and is probably dated now. However, if this chip is truly low power and cool running, why not put 10+ of them on a single card?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    11. Re:In two years by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because we're not talking about graphics cards, we're talking about single chips for using in phones, etc, where compactness and power usage are very important?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:In two years by ifrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although in Minecraft, you can get some high res textures that make the game look a little more modern, and there are also modded shaders which can do some neat stuff as well. Even stuff like bump mapping.

      I was playing with the default 16x16 for a long time, but I've finally got a little sick of it and made the switch up to 32x32.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    13. Re:In two years by bberens · · Score: 1

      I kind of hope for more stagnation in the graphics quality market. Let's just hang out where we are for a while and hopefully the game makers will start competing on interesting story lines, game mechanics, etc. rather than ripples in water in puddles.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    14. Re:In two years by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.

      PS3 graphics are a bit dated already. Consoles (and console ports) are seriously limiting the graphics in current run games. It's a pity, really. Good that cell phones will have circa 2006 GPU capabilities soon, though.

    15. Re:In two years by ifrag · · Score: 1

      From the reviews I've read, running MW3 isn't really that much of a technological achievement. Maybe if it was Battlefield 3...

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    16. Re:In two years by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand ARM's market. ARM is not in the desktop market, or even in the laptop market except at the low end. They do, however, completely own the embedded market right up to the top end of the smartphone and table markets. This kind of core will end up in smartphones and tablets. You will be able to run PS2-era graphics on something that fits in your pocket and work from batteries (and probably has Thunderbolt or HDMI output for connecting it up to a big screen). It isn't competing with some energy-guzzler on the desktop, it's reducing the need for such a thing to exist at all. PS3 graphics aren't as good as they can possibly be, but they're a lot better than is required for a host of applications, and now you can do all of those with a pocket-sized device.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:In two years by nschubach · · Score: 2

      Pfft, Mechwarrior 3 wouldn't be a problem. ;)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    18. Re:In two years by kesuki · · Score: 1

      one thing i've noticed since returning to slashdot is that all the kids are claiming supercomputer specs are running slow on their tablets etc. seriously there was a time when 3 mhz was cutting edge. what happened to break all the 3 mhz codebase? gone cause some idiot flagged it as obsolete?

      the only reason why hardware with low specs isn't running right is some form of virus like a rabbit program, or some form of power management that is crippling the hardwares specs. i know slashdot has always been a honeypot crossover with a datamining platform (ask slashdot anyone?) and they have made stupid laws that don't really exist. don't get me wrong i love open source, but the company behind slashdot has changed at least 3 times, and taco jumped ship to be a daddy...

    19. Re:In two years by tepples · · Score: 1

      what happened to break all the 3 mhz codebase?

      Changes in CPU architecture, for one thing. Z80 bytecode won't run natively on an Athlon. Also an increase in standards for graphic design and internationalization. It's a lot slower to render bidirectional or ideographic text with stacked diacritics in dozens of writing systems using antialiased scalable fonts with color and shadow than to render monospace fonts from a 7- or 8-bit character set in one size and in black and white.

    20. Re:In two years by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Or- Wii.

      The graphics processing on that is feeble compared to PS3 / XB360, and yet it outsold both of them for a while. Still sells relatively well now (albeit at 5-year-old-hardware prices).

    21. Re:In two years by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Is it wrong that I went there first too?

    22. Re:In two years by chrb · · Score: 1

      SNES emulation may itself be a poor example. Like most old systems, programmers used various low-level tricks to increase performance. Worse still, the cartridge based nature of the console allowed extra game-specific hardware coprocessors to be shipped with different games! These kind of tricks are much less used now due to better hardware and compatibility concerns, so programmers tend to stick to published APIs. This makes new hardware more amenable to emulation at the API level e.g.OpenGL - we can now emulate two player Mario Kart 64 on a cell phone in HD and it is smooth and playable.

    23. Re:In two years by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Uhh... What *else* does MW3 stand for? Metal Worker 3? Mega Won-ton 3? Metal Ware 3? Mega Whorship 3? Mikey's War 3?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    24. Re:In two years by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Consider that the PowerVR SGX543MP products support up to 16 cores, but nobody has shipped one with more than 2 (Sony's PS Vita will be the first with 4). I believe the Mali-400 in the SGS2 is a 4-core part.

      Considering that PS3 -> 2013 (when the ARM GPU is supposed to come out) is seven years, so we should see ~4 doublings, or 16x the performance that we saw in 2006 when the PS3 came out.

      If we make the out-of-my-ass assumption that a 4-core mali-400 uses 2W of power at full load, and a 16-core T-658 will use 8W, we get the equivalent of a 128W GPU from 2006.

      Yeah, I'm doing a lot of making up numbers, handwaving, and bullshitting, but I'm just trying to illustrate the point that a laptop-class ARM GPU from 2013 will probably be able to match the performance of the 2006 PS3's GPU. Moore's law and all that.

    25. Re:In two years by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Even better: Cave Story!

      Much better (and semi-joking): NetHack ;)

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    26. Re:In two years by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Just did 256x256 just for shits and giggles. It looks pretty damn amazing with all that nice stuff in the texture pack I found. I also installed a mod that allows the HD stuff and a bunch of other performance options. :)

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    27. Re:In two years by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I bet a lot of this is fudging due to size-of-screen.

      Think about it. When the PSX came out, your average homeowner's TV screen was a scant 20 inches (4:3 ratio) diagonal. When the PS2 came out, that was a "whopping" 24".

      When the PS3 came out? Yeah. 37" or larger 16:9 widescreens. A lot of them, given initial price tag, to well above 40".

      Now play a PS2 or PSX game on that humongous screen. Looks like shit, doesn't it? Load that PSX game up instead in the Popstation version on your PSP, or in an emulator on a 13" or even 15" laptop playing with a USB controller from a few feet away. Suddenly it looks a whole hell of a lot better.

      "PS3-level graphics" can be fudged quite a bit when you're dealing in "mobile" devices of a tiny screen and not trying to push massive amounts of AA to get rid of "jaggies" on a bigger screen with bigger pixels.

    28. Re:In two years by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that the desk isn't why PCs use so much power right? You also realize that people will still use desks whether they have an x86 PC or not, just as they did before the x86 was invented right? ARM is absolutely working towards competing with x86. In what way is trying to get people to buy an Arm computing device instead of an x86 computing device not competing?

      The ARM was just as much a desktop CPU as the x86 was. The difference is that ARM got crushed in the desktop market. At the time, the desktop market demanded computing power at any energy cost, and ARM simply couldn't keep up with Intel. With Intel's focus on the desktop, ARM proceded to pick up Intels scraps. All of the little markets that Intel decided were too small to worry about.

      Fast forward to the 2000, and desktop speeds start outpacing most user's needs. The last 5-6 years of desktop speed improvements have basically been a CPU bubble. CPU speeds have increased faster than most people have any use for. We are currently seeing a state where people are realizing that they are vastly over paying in energy for their CPU processing power usage. The bubble is bursting. ARM is way behind in ramping up the processing power of their CPUs as well as way behind in ramping up their CPU power usage. Like many other bubbles, suddenly people realize that what they were chasing isn't worth it, and they would rather have what was available 10 years ago.

      In today's post CPU bubble environment, we are seeing a situation where Intel's CPU's are not low power enough to cover the entire market, and ARM's CPUs are not fast enough. They are both racing to hit the sweet spot that gives them market dominance, but don't be fooled into thinking that they are not racing to the same goal. They are just at opposite ends of the field.

      The question is who will reach the goal first. On the Intel side, you have dominance in the traditional computing environment as well as market mindshare. Most people know who Intel is and that their PC uses an Intel processor, but most could not tell you what kind of processor their ARM device uses. On ARM's side, you have a new market that did not care about Intel compatibility, and settled on ARM.

      Intel will continue to push downward to smaller devices, while ARM will continue to push upward with larger ones.

    29. Re:In two years by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that Sony has already announced their next PSP (current? - I didn't really care and my magic 8 ball says "reply hazy, try again") will be as powerful as a PS3. PS3 runs on a modified and upgraded nVidia 7800 architecture, which dates it to about 2005 tech-wise, and a 6 year old GPU is ancient in GPU years. This is before nVidia had unified shaders, so there are 8 vertex and 24 pixel shaders (or 32 total shaders) at 550MHz - I think that's entirely eclipse-able in mobile in a couple of years.

      Anyhow, we'll have to see how Mali holds up to Kal El (nVidia's Tegra 3), which is already reportedly outperforming Mali on tablets (but still behind PowerVR, but I don't know the configuration tested, I just remember seeing it was slower than iPad2) and should be in phones soon. I'm personally more interested in Wayne... OpenGL 4.X and DX11 in mobile. Still a bit on the short side graphics-core wise (max of 64), but hardware tessellation is fun.

    30. Re:In two years by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's used by some to denote Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    31. Re:In two years by Nutria · · Score: 2

      suddenly people realize that what they were chasing isn't worth it, and they would rather have what was available 10 years ago.

      What an absolute steaming crock of shit. Who here really wants a 32 bit 1.3GHz Athlon XP back on their desktop?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    32. Re:In two years by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one. I still use my old 1GHz P3 laptop. With a UXGA screen, it makes for a great X terminal (although a less than portable one with only a couple minutes of battery life). Anything Flash or JS heavy very quickly brings it to a crawl.

    33. Re:In two years by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.

      No we won't. PS3-level graphics will still be perfectly satisfactory for all but the hard core, a small part of the game market. We will therefore be in a position to dump both Microsoft and Sony in favor of a new gaming ecosystem revolving around inexpensive and power efficient ARM class devices.

      To restate the prediction I made earlier: this generation is the last hurrah for the "big console". In future, dedicated console hardware cannot possibly be competitive on price with commodity graphics available on general purpose consumer devices.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    34. Re:In two years by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one.

      That's sarcasm, right?

      1GHz P3 laptop. With a UXGA screen, it makes for a great X terminal

      An MC68020 w/ 16MB RAM also powered a great X terminal, the VXT-2000. With a 22 in monitor, I loved it.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    35. Re:In two years by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I kind of hope for more stagnation in the graphics quality market. Let's just hang out where we are for a while and hopefully the game makers will start competing on interesting story lines, game mechanics, etc. rather than ripples in water in puddles.

      Improved CPU and GPU capabilities and better gameplay are not mutually exclusive. There are physical limitations to, for instance, rendering a huge number of characters on the screen at once. Or the memory is simply not there to utilize all the interesting animations you need to support that interesting storyline you need.

      Look at it this way... better CG technology hasn't necessarily made movies better, but it really expanded the range of what really good filmmakers could do with realistic budgets. Improved game technology is similar. Right now a huge amount of work has to be done optimizing the game engine and assets to reach acceptable quality levels. Once we hit a point where CPUs and GPUs no longer have to struggle to render, say, a nice open world, more gameplay options will naturally emerge as well, as developers won't have to spend quite so much time fighting against the constraints of the hardware.

      Sure, we'll take advantage of the extra power to render extra shiny stuff (or, frankly, just MORE of what we can already do today - draw distance is still a big limitation for complex scenes). But better technology can also allow more gameplay options as well.

      Also, if you haven't seen all the games that have focused heavily on story and/or interesting gameplay mechanics, then I'm not sure what to tell you except that you need to pay more attention. Some examples: Katamari Darmacy, Okami, Half-Live series, Portal series, Uncharted series, Mass Effect series, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, Bauldur's Gate series, Deux Ex (first or most recent), Bioshock, SWTOR, Guild Wars 1 & 2, Skyrim, SW: Knights of the Old Republic, Braid, Limbo, N+... seriously... we've never had it so good as gamers, and I've been a gamer since damn near the beginning of videogames. People who say otherwise are looking through rose-colored glasses.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    36. Re:In two years by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      *********
      P *
      * q * * *
      * Grue
      * * * * * * **

      It's been a long time.....

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    37. Re:In two years by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Anyone who hasn't tried to run a modern browser with modern dynamic web pages on one.

      That's sarcasm, right?

      Yes. I was implying that anyone who still thinks a 1.3GHz Athlon is still usable as a desktop clearly hasn't tried to access any complex web pages with one, giving my laptop as an example of why trying to do so is painful at best.

    38. Re:In two years by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You must be confused about what thread your in. This entire discussion is about computers that are in the same computing class as a 32 bit 1.3Ghz Athlon XP. They are putting them in this new fangled devices called "Smart Phones" and "Tablets". They seem to be all the rage with the kids these days.

      Seriously, your comment makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

    39. Re:In two years by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      At the time, the desktop market demanded computing power at any energy cost.

      Actually, the market demanded MS Windows, and that meant Intel. The first ARMs actually outran available x86 processors.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    40. Re:In two years by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Intel was well entrenched long before most people ever even heard of Windows.

    41. Re:In two years by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.

      The 3rd paragraph of http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2518952&cid=38016338 says:

      Fast forward to the 2000, and desktop speeds start outpacing most user's needs. The last 5-6 years of desktop speed improvements have basically been a CPU bubble. CPU speeds have increased faster than most people have any use for. We are currently seeing a state where people are realizing that they are vastly over paying in energy for their CPU processing power usage. The bubble is bursting. ARM is way behind in ramping up the processing power of their CPUs as well as way behind in ramping up their CPU power usage. Like many other bubbles, suddenly people realize that what they were chasing isn't worth it, and they would rather have what was available 10 years ago.

      Nothing in there about tablets and smart phones; it's all desktop.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    42. Re:In two years by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is about the speed of computers. People would always have preferred to have massive computing power that did not have to be used at their desk 100% of the time. They also would have always wanted the systems to be low power if they could have looked past their desire for speed. It has been the desire for the absolute fastest speeds possible that has tied them to a desk using large amounts of power.

      The amount of processing power most people need has been well surpassed by what x86 offers, but is not fully bet by ARM. The low power that people want (and is required for phones) is met by ARM, and not fully met by x86. Intel is pushing down into the low power market while trying to keep enough speed, while ARM is pushing up with more speed while trying to keep the low power. ARM wasn't even a consideration for most people before the CPU speed bubble popped because ARM was so much slower.

      The separation between tablets and desktops is a false dichotomy. The obvious end game is to have a tablet that sits on a stand, has a bluetooth keyboard and mouse for desktop use and a connectable keyboard to turn the tablet into a clam shell laptop. At that point, "desktop" and "tablet" become description of how you are using your device, not a description of the device itself.

      Intel is aware of this, and will push downward into this market. They are not going to just leave it for ARM. ARM is aware of this, and is pushing upward into the same market.

    43. Re:In two years by Sudline · · Score: 1

      mobile computing is about 5-10 years behind desktop computing

      Actually it is 5 years, and 205 mFLOPS. With Tegra 3 it is now 3-4 years. And with this GPU, even less than that.

    44. Re:In two years by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The amount of processing power most people need has been well surpassed by what x86 offers

      When was the last time that you had multiple Web 2.0 pages open? Heck, even a single page chock full of Java Script and Flash put a serious burden even on modern processors.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    45. Re:In two years by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      You can have 3D rendered graphics with a static, sideways camera.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    46. Re:In two years by hattig · · Score: 1

      PS3 level graphics on a mobile device is nothing to be sniffed at.

      It's also natural progression, by 2013 it will be seven or eight years since the PS3 was released.

      Also maybe the graphics chip can be run at higher speeds to achieve even better performance (at higher power consumption), even if that wouldn't be an option for mobile devices apart from netbooks and above.

    47. Re:In two years by hattig · · Score: 1

      This is ten times faster than ARM Mali 400 graphics, as used in the Samsung Galaxy SII (in a Quad-core configuration). That's a 45nm chip as far as I am aware. It's in a phone, so the graphics can't be using a significant amount of power even when running flat out.

      This GPU is coming out in two years time, and will probably be built on a mature 28nm process or even a 22nm/20nm process. That is 1.5 - 2.5 full node shrinks - you can fit 3 - 6 Mali 400s into the same area of die - that's 3 - 6x the performance (GPU scales very well, and we're also ignoring that not all of the GPU would need to be duplicated) without increasing the clock or other enhancements that are surely in this new GPU.

      10x the performance at 1W would seem to be very achievable to me, if the current Mali 400 uses under 1W currently.

    48. Re:In two years by hattig · · Score: 1

      A T604 core achieve around 68 GFLOPS according to ARM's documentation.

      ARM say "On the compute side, Mali-T658 provides four times the processing power of Mali-T604" (http://blogs.arm.com/multimedia/625-arm-mali-t658-gpu-arrives-at-the-japan-technical-symposium/?sf2518165=1) so that's 272 GFLOPS. The PS3 RSX does 400 GFLOPS according to Wikipedia, but 255 GFLOPS according to other sources. Regardless, it's in the same ballpark. Most PS3 games are rendered at something like 1024x600 to 1280x720, which is roughly equivalent to high-end smartphone resolutions too.

    49. Re:In two years by hattig · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's a lot less than that, mobile phones don't have 24WHr batteries (all-day computing).

      Hell, an iPad lasts 10 hours when being used from a 25Whr battery - that's 2.5W load, including the display.

      Mobile phones have 8Whr batteries. Samsung Galaxy S2 is 6.6Whr for example. It can standby for a couple of days (with no apps running in the background) so standby power consumption for the entire phone has to be 0.125W. In reality power consumption in use is more like an average of 0.25W but that does include light usage throughout the day.

    50. Re:In two years by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is a myth. I run multiple "Web 2.0" pages all the time. I run Flash and Java Script. My couple of year old PC has no problem with them. Heck, the Atom N270 base netbook I have here has no problems running them. If your modern processor has problems with that kind of usage, your computer is broken. My kid's favorite games are online flash games. He will load up a dozen of them in seperat tabs of his computer and his couple of year old PC has not problems. I get that it is hip to claim that web pages are dragging your computer's process, but it is just a fantasy for those that want to complain.

    51. Re:In two years by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Right, I meant DOS.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    52. Re:In two years by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing he meant Modern Warfare 3.

      But it's nice to know we're not alone!

  2. Resolution! by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, PS3-like graphics... except the PS3 is doing it at 1280x720 or 1920x1080. This will be pushing probably 20-40%% of the pixels.. and doing so in 2 years, while the PS3 hardware is 5 years old (to the day).

    So, no, I don't think that a chipset that will, in 2013, do 20% of the job that 2006 hardware does will be making its way into high-end PCs and consoles soon.

    1. Re:Resolution! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I think you're looking at the wrong side of the street. This isn't about the top-end computing power; it's about the efficiencies on the bottom end. So, now you can start churning out laptops and cheap PCs with pedestrian graphics cards that use low power and provide significant performance. No need to take the truck nuts off your Dell, sir.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Resolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sure, PS3-like graphics... except the PS3 is doing it at 1280x720 or 1920x1080. This will be pushing probably 20-40%% of the pixels.. and doing so in 2 years, while the PS3 hardware is 5 years old (to the day).

      So, no, I don't think that a chipset that will, in 2013, do 20% of the job that 2006 hardware does will be making its way into high-end PCs and consoles soon.

      Except most phones released today have 1080p output via hdmi. So now what?

    3. Re:Resolution! by GeLeTo · · Score: 1

      This chip will work on tablets, so I am not sure about the 20-40% of the pixels thing. Also PS3 games look much better than the PC counterparts on similar hardware thanks to the fine-tuning and specific optimisations which are possible only on fixed hardware. In order to match the PS3 the Mali GPU actually has to be more powerfull. And let's not forget that the power consumption will be orders of magnitude lower. It definatelly will not be high-end, but might still be more powerfull than most of the GPU's that will be sold at the time of the release (e.g. integrated Intel crap).

    4. Re:Resolution! by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      I was addressing the question at the end:

      "could we be seeing ultra-low power hardware in high-end PCs and consoles soon?"

    5. Re:Resolution! by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      And do you know of any phones that allow you to play games at 1080 using the HDMI output? No?

      Neither do i.

    6. Re:Resolution! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      There will still be some hard-core graphics intensive games that will require whatever the cutting edge in graphics is at that point.

      However, as old as PS3 may be- the fact is, that, for most of us non-hard-core gamers PS3 quality graphics is more than enough (and will be still in another 5 years time) for the vast majority of games we'd want to play.

      We're beginning to hit a point of diminishing returns on graphics anyway- you're always going to be limited by what the eye can process, and the ability of the artists.... sure when 3D goes mainstream and is built into our monitors all of a sudden graphics cards will need to be more powerfull.

      I personally can't think of one game I have played in the last 5 years where going beyond PS3 quality graphics would have improved the game for me.

      Now, I'm not hard-core, and don't play the shoot-em up first person genre which tend to be the most gpu intensive- but people like me make up an increasingly significant portion of the game-market.

      Look at how successfull simple things like Angry Birds can be.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Resolution! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 5, Informative

      And do you know of any phones that allow you to play games at 1080 using the HDMI output? No?

      Neither do i.

      The iPhone 4S and its bigger brother, the iPad 2 tablet.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    8. Re:Resolution! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Galaxy Nexus' built-in display is 720p. (That it's Pentile is irrelevant to this issue.) If it follows a similar arc to the original Nexus those screens will be showing up in low-end phoens within a couple of years.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:Resolution! by tepples · · Score: 1

      That it's Pentile is irrelevant to this issue.

      I disagree. PenTile means games can skimp on the antialiasing.

    10. Re:Resolution! by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      In 2 years a phone with a 1080p display is a likely reality. We already have phones/tablets running at/near 1280x720 which is 50% of the 1080p pixel count. But to say that it would be acceptable on the high end PC side is a stretch, in 2 years we will probably have desktop expectations beyond 1080p. Entry level to mid market could see a benefit though, that market has been under served by horrible attempts at "integrated" graphics for years. It will be interesting to see if this GPU compares to the beefed up CPU/GPU integrations coming from AMD. The new frontier (aside from serious game enthusiasts) is smaller and greener.

    11. Re:Resolution! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      PenTile performs sub-pixel rendering by necessity, but that's just approximating the image that would be created by an RGB display. It's not going to do anything for aliasing artifacts.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    12. Re:Resolution! by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1
      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    13. Re:Resolution! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sure we will at least on the PCs although it won't cost a lot and it'll be from AMD and Intel, like with Brazos and Ivy Bridge CULV. I mean when I can pick up a netbook for $350 with 8Gb of RAM that will play L4D and TF2, get 6 hours on a battery while watching HD movies, outputs 1080p over HDMI, and all in a machine that only weighs 3 pounds and costs less than my craptastic Celeron laptop did 5 years ago? Now THAT is nice!

      I think the next advance will be just how far what was once considered "gamer only" levels of graphic performance will spread. i mean it wasn't that long ago that if you wanted to play anything more than DVDs or better than SD you needed a discrete card in your laptop that jumped the price like crazy and made the battery life shit, or how in desktops IGP was a dirty word and how cell phones had to be dropped to almost comically bad resolutions just to get more than a slideshow. Now you have all these machines either in the market or coming down the pipe that get frankly insane levels of graphics for prices so cheap anybody can have one.

      Personally i'm ALL for it. I don't know about the ARM side but on the X86 it looks like OpenCL (which is now supported by Nvidia as well as AMD) is gonna make more and more programs accelerated by the GPU, the power seems to be dropping both on the desktop side and on the mobile side its getting crazy how much performance per watt some of these things are getting, and its all gonna be smooth video and nice if not truly Crysis insane levels on the gaming front. If ARM can keep current power usage levels and get PS3 graphics? I say great, more avenues to sell them means more games!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Resolution! by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 2

      Samsung Galaxy Nexus has a 1280x720 screen. And most Android 4.0 devices coming out in the next 12 months will include 1280x720 screens.

      And pretty much every Android device released this year includes a mini-HDMI port for connecting to 720p and 1080p screens.

      IOW, current and future Android phones can already do what you think they can't.

    15. Re:Resolution! by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      Graphics card companies always try to outperform their competitors. You can do that on price only, but no one is going to buy a new card that's exactly as powerful as the one you already have only cheaper. For that reason I suspect the current trend to continue.

    16. Re:Resolution! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yes, they'll continue to get better and better- and the hardcore gamers will continue to pay over $200 for a graphics card to get the best of the best.

      However, I think for many of us- we're going to see continually less and less gain for each extra $1 spent.

      You can get a 1gig DDR3 video card from Newegg or TigerDirect for $15 after rebate these days.

      Sure, that's not high-tech anymore- but it will run most games fairly well that non-hardcore gamers are likely to encounter.

      If I were into first person shooters maybe I would need a $100 card.

      If I'm playing the newest release of Worms, civilization, Football manager or FIFA the $15 card will work for me.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:Resolution! by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

      The high-end smartphones (Galaxy Nexus) are already at 1280x720. Even if they don't improve at all, in the next two years ARM based netbooks are sure to offer full 1080p.

    18. Re:Resolution! by chrb · · Score: 1

      LG Optimus 2X, Samsung Galaxy S2, HTC Amaze, HTC Sensation, Motorola Droid 3, ...?

    19. Re:Resolution! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't expect desktop expectations to go beyond 1080p in 2 years. More likely, in 2 years desktop expectations will go DOWN to 1080p and peg there. We are seeing the reconvergence of TV and PCs. (hand held and desktop) Economies of scale are going to make 1920x1080 the cheapest screen size to run. The general public has bought into 1080p being an awesome picture, and that isn't likely going to change due to the TV market.

      For handhelds, you won't be able to see a better picture than 1080p. I doubt you could tell a 1080p from a 720p on that 10" tablet anyway.

    20. Re:Resolution! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      We're beginning to hit a point of diminishing returns on graphics anyway- you're always going to be limited by what the eye can process, and the ability of the artists.... sure when 3D goes mainstream and is built into our monitors all of a sudden graphics cards will need to be more powerfull.

      You might be surprised at the crazy amount of optimization and general smoke and mirrors game programmers have to use in order to get those "good enough" graphics. More headroom in CPU and GPU would allow us to either create similar quality scenes with a lot less effort, or create much larger scenes with similar levels of optimization. I'm sure it looks rather effortless when you only see the final result, but the current limitations of console hardware seem a lot more restraining when you're the one who's constantly banging your head against them - telling your artists that the beautiful landscape they've spent months creating needs to reduce it's texture budget by 25% in order to bring the memory budget in line, or tell the designers that their amazing idea for the final battle where you have to fight an entire army won't work because the physics and animation would be too expensive.

      Increased fidelity will also mean another fantastic advance - once we hit a level of fidelity where it doesn't make sense to increase it, game developers won't have to recreate all their assets from scratch with each new generation of games. Instead, we'll instead be able to make use of libraries of props, similar to how most movies don't have to recreate all their props from scratch, and can use existing back lots instead of the additional expense of filming on location (ok, the analogy breaks down a bit there, but you get the point). In other words, as the technology improves, creating virtual worlds will become a LOT less expensive and time consuming than it is now.

      Technically, we can do near photo-realism right now, but there are problems: we don't have enough CPU, GPU, or memory headroom in the machine to allow us to make general-purpose trade-offs for flexibility's sake. For instance, we could easily render a photo-realistic desk, coffee cup, or a tree, but when creating huge, sprawling scenes, we couldn't use those props - we need much more efficient versions that can fit in our budgets. So, often, props have to be tailored for the game, or sometimes even the specific scene they're used in. Moreover, if a game wants to do something interesting gameplay-wise (like have 100% destructable environments and props), this can drastically alter the way these props are built. This means that games still have to build almost all their visual assets from scratch for each new game.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    21. Re:Resolution! by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that one is for the video output and the other for sound.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    22. Re:Resolution! by Cito · · Score: 2
      Rasberry PI

      small as a credit card

      plays games and plays video in real time at 1080p http://www.raspberrypi.org/

      25 bucks

      see videos on their site and it's arm

    23. Re:Resolution! by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2

      I was addressing the question at the end:

      "could we be seeing ultra-low power hardware in high-end PCs and consoles soon?"

      Not soon, but inevitably. The equation is: better power efficiency equates to more stream cores. The number of stream cores tends to increase to compensate, so discrete graphics card power consumption stays about the same, near the maximum of what typical cooling systems can accommodate. This somewhat obscures the ongoing trend to lower power designs. However, power consumption per stream unit governs the maximum practical throughput (aka heat dissipation) of high end discrete cards. Therefore it is only a matter of time before ultra-low power design becomes dominant at the high end as well as low.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    24. Re:Resolution! by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Your a miserable prick aren't you. This is still great, no matter what you say.

    25. Re:Resolution! by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      I own this phone, it's no sham. One cable is micro-hdmi, the other is usb for power. (Playing games through hdmi eats up battery for some reason)

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    26. Re:Resolution! by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

      That was not very insightful, despite the score:5

      First off, iPhone is 960x640, and iPad is 1024x768.

      About PS/3 games... NONE of the current games render at 1920x1080.
      The filtrate is not there, not by a long shot.
      I think that in all these years, there have been a handful of games rendering at this resolution, and those are simple games of casual type with unsophisticated graphics. I believe that Pixeljunk Monsters was the only 1920x1080 native resolution game in the launch lineup.
      Post launch there have not been many additions to this.

      Most common approach for PS/3 development is to render at 1280x720 (and often even lower than that) and then use hardware up scaling.
      1920x1080 can't be done on PS/3 with complex graphics and 30fps, period.

              Bram

      --
      Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    27. Re:Resolution! by hattig · · Score: 1

      Tablets are approaching 1280x800 today. Most PS3 games render at sub 720p resolution (1024x600 for example, then scaled up).

      In terms of GFLOPS this ARM Mali T658 will be pushing ~270 GFLOPS. That's comparable to the PS3 RSX's throughput, although not directly comparable due to architectural differences (unified shaders in Mali vs. distinct vertex and pixel shaders in the RSX).

      Double the clockspeed for a netbook/laptop implementation, and you're over half a TFLOP. This can be achieved by merely fabbing it on a HP (General) process rather than an LP process - presumably 28nm or below. Sure, this won't apply to a smartphone or tablet, but why not a cheap future console / media player?

    28. Re:Resolution! by hattig · · Score: 1

      The ARM Mali 6xx series also supports OpenCL (and DirectCompute), and in terms of GPU performance it looks like it ranges from AMD Ontario up to half-a-Llano.

      Coupled with the high performance ARM CPUs (high performance meaning relative to older ARM cores), these will form a compelling offering for lots of products. And with SoCs costing under $40, it is an obvious way for future OEMs to reduce the cost of Ultrabooks, where the cost of the low-power Intel CPU is crippling the price of the devices.

      And as for your other respondent, an ARM Cortex A9 is roughly equivalent or better than an equivalent clocked Intel Atom (but obviously available in quad configurations), and Cortex A15 is even faster per clock, and clocks even higher (2.5GHz+).

    29. Re:Resolution! by hattig · · Score: 1

      The tile-based rendering approach that mobile GPUs use (including the ARM Mali and the PowerVR SGX) means that 4x AA is effectively free anyway. According to their websites, anyway.

    30. Re:Resolution! by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Galaxy Nexus : 720Ã--1280 px at 316 ppi
      Galaxy Note : 1280x800 px, 13.46 cm (5.3 in) at 285 ppi
      iPhone 4S : 640Ã--960 resolution at 326 ppi (0.61 MP)
      HTC Edge : 720x1280

      And that's phones, being released now. What kind of screens will phones have in two years? What about tablets in two years?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  3. More information here... by allanw · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. No by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

    The PS3 is 5 years old and based on even older graphics tech. Beating that on mobile is cool, but not surprising. The PS3 never was impressive, graphically, to PC users. Who had better than HD resolutions for years. Some console games are still limited to 720P. Oh, and people had 3D on PC like, 8 years ago (or more.) Sucked then, sucks now.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:No by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some? Make that most. You can count on two hands 1080p, 60 fps games on both 360 and PS3, with most being 2D games that don't need any sort of graphical power to run.

    2. Re:No by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      Having the equivalent of a 7600GT in a super low power mobile form factor would be great, especially considering the actual demands (resolution/AA) would be lower anyways.

    3. Re:No by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Oh, and people had 3D on PC like, 8 years ago (or more.)

      I had a PowerVR-based 3D card in my PC in 1999, so make that at least 12 years ago. (I wasn't a particularly early adopter)

    4. Re:No by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I had a 34020-powered card back in about 1992 (or at least access to one, it was on one of the work machines). Then the world got obsessed with 2D blitting, and 3D acceleration just got forgotten about. (Despite the fact that 3D was biiiig - but all being done by iD's guru asm code.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  5. Sure, in the same sense than PS2 is akin to PS3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The current gen Mali drives graphics that look like they come out of a PS1. If you look at the graph in Anandtech article you'll see that they mean 10x faster than the low end Mali, not what we have in the GS2. So that would mean the next gen part might be able to be like a PS2, though I think that's wildly overestimating performance.

  6. Tegra 5 by backslashdot · · Score: 1, Troll

    nVidia is commited to releasing a new Tegra chip every year. The Tegra 3, which is already out is 5x faster than Tegra 2 (which beats the Mali 400 which is at 1/10th the speed of the GPU ARM announced). So basically, by the time this ARM CPU is released .. Tegra 5 will be out .. and going by the roadmap of how fast Tegra 5 will be .. it will run at least 5x times faster than ARM's chip.

    I hope ARM prices this cheap dirt cheap .. so that sub $200 (off contract) phones can have it.

    1. Re:Tegra 5 by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

      The Tegra 2's GPU is NOT that hot.

      Hell it can't even play H.264 Main/High profile video at 720p. The Mali-400 has no problem with this.

      (I own a Tegra2 device and an Exynos device with a Mali-400 - in almost any workload, the Exynos utterly dominates the Tegra2 despite the CPU only being clocked 20% higher.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Tegra 5 by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't Tegra have major heat issues that stop it from being in anything smaller than tablets?

      Both Sony and Nintendo considered using it for their new consoles but the heat and power usage apparently made them turn away from it.

    3. Re:Tegra 5 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      How many companies use ARM's GPU? nVidia uses their own GeForce. Qualcomm uses Adreno. TI and Apple use PowerVR. Samsung uses PowerVR and ARM. But as far as I know they are the only ones that use ARM.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Tegra 5 by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      Hell it can't even play H.264 Main/High profile video at 720p.

      Both my Transformer and my Xoom have been able to play H.264 Main/High profile since Android 3.1 came out. The original problem was caused by software problem, not hardware. Link.

    5. Re:Tegra 5 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Read my post again. I specifically asked how many are using ARM GPUs not ARM cores.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Yea right by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 2 years time the PS3 will be 7 years old.

    The PS2 was 7 years old in 2007. Were PS2 level graphics acceptable for "high end PCs and consoles" in 2007?

    No? Then why would PS3 level be acceptable in 2013?

    1. Re:Yea right by Jeng · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because we are getting to the point in technology that us humans won't be able to perceive the difference in graphics.

      You can only make something so lifelike, after that you might as well aim at efficiency.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Yea right by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because we are getting to the point in technology that us humans won't be able to perceive the difference in graphics.

      Hollywood is getting close, but they have huge render farms, terabytes of source data and can spend hours rendering a single frame. GPUs are still a long way from producing photo-realistic output.

    3. Re:Yea right by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      High end was a dumb thing to add. PCs in general yes. If can pump out 1080p it will be good enough for 99.7% of current PC users. Are people going to run CAD or high end video games on it? Probably not.
      Gamers just don't seem to get just how small of a percentage of PC users they are. For a good long time PCs will probably be stuck at 1080p for the majority of monitors since TVs will keep the cost of the panels low for a good while.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Yea right by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " GPUs are still a long way from producing photo-realistic output." In a reasonable time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Yea right by Pulzar · · Score: 2

      Because we are getting to the point in technology that us humans won't be able to perceive the difference in graphics. You can only make something so lifelike, after that you might as well aim at efficiency.

      Is there a single game out there that's so lifelike that you can't perceive the difference between it and a real video?

      There's plenty more room for improvement, we're not getting anywhere close to that point.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    6. Re:Yea right by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Sure, but "consoles" was also there making "high end" PCs the correct subset to use. Mind you my PC plays games just fine and isn't what I would call high end...

    7. Re:Yea right by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not really. The Wii was not start of the art when it came out and did very well. I don't hear people screaming for better graphics than the PS/3 or the 360. Combine that with the rise of casual games and yes it could run a console well enough for many users. The high end market could and frankly is shrinking. You can get good video cards and I do mean good cards for around $120 now that will run games very well on the average monitor. You only need the high end cards for 27" high resolution monitors like the Apple Thunderbolt monitor and others that share that resolution.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Yea right by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      A few words for you: Global illumination, path-tracing, trillions of particles, atom worlds, AI.

      See 5, 3 and 2 from this page:
      http://www.skytopia.com/project/cpu/cpu3.html

      Also remember that "lifelike" isn't necessarily an ideal, and that there are things we can see which far exceed the mundane visuals you can get from the relatively dull world we inhabit.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    9. Re:Yea right by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      True. A point that many in this thread are missing is that the limiting factor is no longer screen resolution. 1080p works fine on TVs for photo realistic graphics. Heck NTSC was pretty darn good for photo realistic graphics.

    10. Re:Yea right by Zorque · · Score: 1

      Because you're carrying it around in your pocket and using it wherever you are? Are you really unimpressed with this miracle of technology that may someday soon see us replacing dedicated devices with smaller, more portable ones?

    11. Re:Yea right by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Not to mention today's game engines and GPU's already push developers to spend more resources on creating assets and artwork then on developing the actual game.

      Even if graphics cards could do realtime rendering of a truly lifelike gameworld, there would just not be enough development dollars going around to populate anything larger then a medium sized house.

    12. Re:Yea right by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      A few words for you: Global illumination, path-tracing, trillions of particles, atom worlds, AI

      Nice, but I would actually prefer better game play.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    13. Re:Yea right by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Decent graphics/music can greatly add to the atmosphere whatever the quality of the playability.

      And believe it or not, I prefer old retro games to most modern games these days.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    14. Re:Yea right by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Because we are getting to the point in technology that us humans won't be able to perceive the difference in graphics.

      We are far from this point. In fact we may be close to the point where we cannot easily pinpoint what is wrong but we are still able to perceive it unconsciously. There are a lot of important things current 3D engines can't do correctly such as indirect lighting (radiosity), refraction and caustics. Here is an interesting article about some of these limitations : http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PhilippeRinguetteAngrignon/20090606/1708/Why_quotNextGen_Gamesquot_Went_Gray_Brown_And_Grey.php

  8. graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was a story on CNN a few weeks ago that said that while PC sales are slowly increasing in the entire world, it's very tilted, and they are falling dramatically in the US, Canad, and Europe. The increase is coming from the developing world being able to afford computers as they fall in price.

    The culture shift from desktop computing to mobile is happening in part because mobiles are becoming powerful enough to do most of the tasks that desktops used to do. OK, you'll always get a few neckbeards to say "But the cell phone can't run AutoSuperCadShop 390322.55!" But that misses the point. That's not what 99.9% of consumers DO with their computers. They play some games, including 3D games, they check their facebooks, they look at some news headlines, and so on. All that works fine on a device that they can fit in their pocket. For those times a keyboard is needed, a bluetooth keyboard will do just fine. And for those times a larger screen is needed, a wireless connection to the screen will work fine.

    I don't know why people can't see this shift happening right in front of their eyes. Even the sales data bears it out now: mobile computing is on the upswing, and in the western world, PC sales are falling. It's a nice world: Instead of needing to lug around a desktop or even a netbook, you'll have the capability of a (say) 2009 vintage desktop in your shirtpocket in 2014. A 2009 desktop is nothing to sneeze at, and meets the needs of 99% of the population just fine. The rest will become a more expensive niche, but will still exist in some way.

    It's a Star Trek Future.

    1. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      The culture shift from desktop computing to mobile is happening in part because mobiles are becoming powerful enough to do most of the tasks that desktops used to do.

      No, they're not. They're becoming powerful enough to check your email and play Farmville, which is all that many people used to do with their PCs; they're not much good for actual productive work.

      Meanwhile PC gaming has stagnated due to Microsoft concentrating on pushing console games, so there's little reason for the average home user to upgrade. Word won't let you write stuff ten times faster just because you switched from a Pentium-4 to an i7, and when games are limited by being designed for an Xbox and them ported over, your super-fast GPU will be sitting idle much of the time waiting for something to do.

    2. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      your super-fast GPU will be sitting idle much of the time waiting for something to do.

      One word: Crysis.

    3. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I think his point which you missed is that checking email and playing FarmVille is what the majority of consumers do. Most of them are not playing leet games or rendering animation. In businesses, they might write in Word or crunch a few numbers in Excel. It doesn't take a quad-core Core i7 to do that. The stagnation comes from the fact that a desktop made 5 years ago will handle the majority of their tasks and mobile computing is approaching the point where they handle a good majority. Also mobile computing is starting to allow consumers to do things they didn't do before. How many people do you know watched movies on their computer via Netflix compared to the numbers that watch it on their tablets.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by VocationalZero · · Score: 1

      The neckbeards created the demand (and supply) for the personal computer in the first place, so I'm sure they can keep it afloat.

    5. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by kesuki · · Score: 1

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130659
      can you find 1024 stream processors for a console yet? in sli mode?
      and yet in a way i long for simple fun games like i used to play on whatever console was popular at the time.
      no i don't like 'social gaming' it's too whiny and spammy and it seems to exist merely as a reason to go to facebook.

    6. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by kesuki · · Score: 1

      youtube does movies now, some free, some with rental price pay per view has hit the internet... well actually hulu plus did that... but you get the idea.

    7. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      mobiles are becoming powerful enough to do most of the tasks that desktops used to do.

      No, they're not. They're becoming powerful enough to check your email and play Farmville, which is all that many people used to do with their PCs; they're not much good for actual productive work.

      Most actual productive work needs very little processing grunt. If you can edit a Word document, make a PowerPoint presentation and turn data into a chart in Excel then a lot of people's jobs are covered. The bottleneck is input and output - mostly screens and keyboards - rather than CPU.

      That said, laptops permanently tethered to a particular desk are every bit as funny as four-wheel-drive vehicles that never leave suburbia.

    8. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      I haven't bought a PC for some years. Is that because my smart-phone does the PC's job? No, it's because my PC doesn't need replacing. It's fast enough. In fact I don't even own a smart-phone.

      It's not that mobiles are taking over, it's that PC's have been fast enough for some time. The only time the slowness of my PC has shown up has been with games, and that is frequently solved by just buying a new graphics card.

      99% of consumers may mostly be able to do what they want 99% of the time with their locked-down overpriced mobile phones, but what happens when they do need a PC? There's nearly always something you need a PC for a some point.

    9. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Much of that may happen, but the idea of convergence into one device is not happening. We're seeing more and more different sorts of devices with time, not fewer and fewer.

    10. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      I got a new Acer PC for my mother for $499. I was floored by the specs: 4 core, 1 Gig mem, 1 TB disk, discrete Radeon graphics. Except for Windows Home which is unspeakably lame, it is wonderful.

      Incidentally, judging by my mother's reaction to Windows Home, this will be her last Windows machine ever. She hates the way the window menu commands disappeared, replaced by a band of blur. She now judges KDE on Linux to be "more compatible" with her skills than Windows Home. The problem was slightly fixed by putting in Eudora instead of "Windows Live Mail" which she really hates, and open office instead of the lame thing that passes for a text processor. Oh, and she now has Firefox and Chrome instead of the IE icon, which I removed to slow down the malware onslaught. Next obvious step is an operating system transplant.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    11. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      High end mobile devices are powerful enough for most actual productive work. The major problem is that they are simply too small. Give them a 20+ inch screen, a full size keyboard and mouse and you have enough power for document writing, accounting and coding.

    12. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I remember when I got my sweet new K5 rig, and while setting everything up on the kitchen table my roommate came in (who knew nothing about computers, and expressed 0 prior interest to a computer before that) and asked me "so what the fuck do you do with a computer to make it worth spending that kind of money on it?"

      I showed him the Internet (or What there was of it) and after about 10 minutes he seemed rather unimpressed with it. As he walked away, I said, while there is porn on there too.

      Boom! He was hooked on this Internet thing. He spent the next 2 days in front of my computer. Porn site after porn site. When I came home from work on the 3rd day, he was buying a computer. Online even! Asked if it was a good one and can he get a 2nd phone line installed in the house and get his own Internet.
      He used both computers and dial-up connections at the same time, switching back and forth as pages loaded.

      We even had the first broadband (DSL) connection in town. Completely funded by his new found love of computers.

    13. Re:graphics, star trek, and the post-PC era by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Agree with this. My phone is an SGS2. It has 1.2ghz dualcore, 1gb working RAM, powerful graphics processor that can handle 1080p video no poblem, and 16gb builtin storage. It support bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and have 1080p out. It even have usb host capabilities, but can't be used at the same time as video out.

      Yet, even if I was to acquire the needed parts and connect them, it would still be useless as a desktop, despite being in many ways more powerful than my old laptop, which still does its job just fine.

      Why can't I use it as desktop? Software. It needs a desktop environment, and that environment need to be able to talk to the gfx card and video out. It could also use a snazzy docking system, but that's technicalities :)

      Motorola Atrix experiments a bit with it, but it's still in the "duct tape" category. Maybe we'll have to wait for Apple to put that together in a meaningful way..

      Well done it would be pretty cool. Get to work, put phone in dock. It start charging, and the screen, network, keyboard, mouse, speakers etc are connected. You get your normal desktop, start working.

      Go out for lunch, grab phone. Something happens back at office, and you need to finish what you worked on ASAP. You pull up the mostly-done file in the phone UI, does some quick finishing touches, and send it.

      At home you connect it again, continue reading that webpage your co-worker sent you which you barely got a look at earlier. You then move to the couch, play a few games, watch the latest movie, and then go to sleep.

      When out traveling, you got a thin keyboard/mouse/screen thing you plug the phone in when needing to get work done, or if someone gets smart enough to standardize it, rent it from the hotel. At the presentation it's the same. Put in standard gadget, display presentation.

      So forth, so forth... The tech is mostly there. The software is mostly there. The phone hardware is already powerful enough for 90% of what we do. And it just get wilder... Quad core, this gpu, over 15 minutes battery time.. The future is bright!

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  9. Well, no by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    When we have handhelds as powerful as the PS3 (the Vita is getting there), we'll have much more powerful PCs and a new generation of consoles.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Well, no by Locutus · · Score: 1

      the story isn't about the handhelds matching desktops, it's about the handhelds getting some very powerful graphics. besides, the reference was with consoles, not desktops. Just because consoles in a few years might be doing holographic displays it doesn't mean handhelds doing pretty nice 3D graphics on battery power isn't nice too.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    2. Re:Well, no by kesuki · · Score: 1

      holographic displays tanked when sega tried them in arcades. they did worse than laserdisc games. it was a load of special glass and small playing field. i only ever saw one once, but i know they were invented... oh wait it was a parabolic screen, http://www.definiteanswers.com/q/What-is-SEGA-s-HOLOGRAPHIC-game-4c120518a7a5b but as a kid it seemed like a holographic game!

      the thing is, i don't like games like i used to, especially since some hardware is really flaky like cheap Chinese knockoffs. that and i hate all the remote wand/camera stuff, and i like movies better than games, but i refuse to have multiple media of the same movies.

  10. Why is this that shocking? The cell chip is 5 by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Five years ago tomorrow the PS3 made it's debut, did you think that in the mean time everyone just sat back and basked in the glory of its infinite capabilities? Two years from now (if that pans out) will be 7 years since the commercialization of the Cell chip, so seeing a miniature version that uses dramatically less power is pretty much par for the course. Desktop chips that have similar (or more specific) capabilities are already available in many products. Remember, the first PS3 drew an amazing 200 watts at full load, and within 2 years that was more than cut in half. This is just more progress, and *promised* progress at that. Hey ARM, why not just say you will have a flying car in 2 years?

  11. Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we went from "ARM can barely handle nintendo emulation (single core/500mhz/125mhz gpu)" to "ARM is competing with PS3(4 cores, 1.5ghz, 300+mhz multicore gpu)". In *3* years.

    Are you comparing emulating an NES to running native games? An emulator has to contend with the entire game engine being written in bytecode, and it has to process graphics a scanline at a time so that games' raster effects (parallax scrolling, fixed position status bars, Pole Position/Street Fighter/NBA Jam floor warping, etc.) still work. A native game running on a 3D GPU doesn't need the bytecode interpreter overhead, and it can render one object at a time because it doesn't need raster effects.

    1. Re:Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Compare emulating an NES on a handheld to emulating it on a PC. FCEU runs well on a 200mhz Pentium. Shouldn't a 500mhz ARM do better?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by kesuki · · Score: 1

      agreed. arm shouldn't need 5 1ghz cores plus 12 gpu cores. that much power and they could be cracking encryption.

    3. Re:Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Don't count on it. ARM is doing the speed improvements that Intel did years ago. The job gets harder the faster you go.

    4. Re:Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      arm is not built like x86, and doesn't have x86's flaws. They do not have the same hurdles that intel does, for a lot of reasons.

    5. Re:Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It is physics that make it hard for Intel to ramp up speed. Not design flaws.

    6. Re:Emulation isn't necessarily a fair comparison by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I believe the term you're looking for there is "physx", to pull a double entendre and being a pedant at the same time. Graphics performance matters, but I don't really want to sidetrack into that.

      It's not the physical limitations of the processors that are at issue for higher performance. It has more to do with "Where can we get more gains"? Performance has been on a continual upward trend, and that hasn't changed. When we get down to 10nm, then we will be facing actual physics issues/limitations *ON SILICON*.There are other technologies in the works here (graphite). Even Intel is exploring this.

      It has to do with at it's core, RISC vs CISC. There simply is no way around it until intel actually provides ARM processors. With their attempts to introduce x86 for android, it sounds like they have given up on the ARM route for consumers/entry level, even though they bought a license to ARM.

  12. Hollywood has bigger screens to fill by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    The computational cost of filling a 5, 7 or 10 inch screen for a mobile device with a photo-realistic image is far smaller than doing the same for a twenty foot tall movie screen.

    Even if your mobile device gets plugged into an HDTV, it's still nowhere near the same problem that Hollywood faces creating output that will be shown in theaters with basketball court sized screens with the front row ten feet away.

    1. Re:Hollywood has bigger screens to fill by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

      4K is only four times the pixels as standard 1080p video. There is still no way for realtime rendering of Pixar-like stuff in the near future, be it on mobiles or desktops.

    2. Re:Hollywood has bigger screens to fill by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The more important limitation is not human perception, it's cost. Remember the models in Quake? Remember the mods? A fairly competent 3D artist could knock out something like the Quake guy in a day or two. Now compare that to a modern game. A single tree in a modern FPS has more complexity than every model on a Quake level combined. That all translates to vastly more artist time, which translates to greater expense. For a Pixar film, you can spend a huge amount developing and texturing every model, but for a game the upper limit is a lot lower.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Hollywood has bigger screens to fill by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      Just to be pedantic, 4K is between 4 and 6 times the pixel count of 1080p, depending on the definition of '4K' being used:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    4. Re:Hollywood has bigger screens to fill by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      There is still no way for realtime rendering of Pixar-like stuff in the near future, be it on mobiles or desktops.

      I attended a conference where the head of Dreamworks animation was speaking about the process of making a CGI movie.

      I was amazed to discover that each frame of a high-quality, big-budget movie is rendered 100 different times differently. Some layers are masks, other layers are specific aspects of the scene. Each layer is composited with the others to make the final frame look just right.

      Realtime Pixar-like graphics will not happen in the near future, and not just because of processing power. Those graphics are excellent because of more than just rendering.

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  13. Wii and Wii U by tepples · · Score: 1

    could we be seeing ultra-low power hardware in high-end PCs and consoles soon?

    I thought that was the entire point of the Wii. Because the "sensor bar" (IR position reference emitter banks) needed to sit by the TV, the console's case needed to be small. This meant Nintendo couldn't use a CPU and GPU with a high TDP, so it stuck with what is essentially a 50% overclocked GameCube. I guess Nintendo is trying the same tactic with the Wii U: take a roughly Xbox 360-class CPU and GPU and take advantage of six years of process shrinks to get the TDP down so it'll fit in the same size case.

    1. Re:Wii and Wii U by alannon · · Score: 1

      Curious, what does the sensor bar have to do with the form factor of the Wii?

  14. Re:Why is this that shocking? The cell chip is 5 by Locutus · · Score: 1

    good points but we are also talking about things in the single digits for power consumption. I agree, die shrinkage and advances in designs give lots of power savings. Still, having PS3 like graphics on a handheld will be nice.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  15. 3DS is backwards compatible with the DS by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Both Sony and Nintendo considered using it for their new consoles but the heat and power usage apparently made them turn away from it.

    And Nintendo ended up using something just as hot and power-hungry for the 3DS. As I understand it, the reason Nintendo ditched Tegra for the 3DS had everything to do with the fact that Tegra wouldn't work with an ARM9 core (ARMv5), and Nintendo needed something cycle-accurate to the ARM946E in order to play DS and DSi games without glitches.

  16. $30 Video Game System by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient for the desktop and console market, and we will be in the same situation.

    Never underestimate the low-end. Imagine a dongle with an HDMI plug on one end that just plugs into a TV set, but inside it has a chip that can do PS3-level graphics, WiFi for downloading games, Bluetooth for controllers, and enough flash to cache them.

    Most HDMI ports can provide 150mA at 5V, which is minimal for this sort of application, but within sight in the next several years.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:$30 Video Game System by kesuki · · Score: 1

      this reminds me of dragonball where they eventually become so strong that they would blow up the earth trying to fight there.
      the numbers are being faked by someone, and nobody here seems to care that somehow we went from 3 mhz cpu with 3 mhz gpu all the way to 64bit 6 core 2.2 ghz cpus and 512 bit 800MHz 1408 Stream Processing Units gpus all in what 20-25 years?

      it's beyond absurd and frankly i don't like it. this is why i have a 40(60 watt 3d gaming) watt(3.5amp) computer and a 70 watt tv set. if they crash and burn i have fallback hardware that isn't so efficient, but at least i know that i don't have the absurd power requirements of some peoples setups. the tv gets run very rarely though.

  17. Mobile has less power by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    mobile computing is about 5-10 years behind desktop computing

    And it always will be, unless somebody devises as way to provide 15A of power to a mobile device, and a way to dissipate that sort of heat.

    Now, we may eventually reach a state where it just doesn't matter - everybody will have enough computing power on their phone to raytrace a 4K HD stream in realtime and they will reach a natural equilibrium where it just doesn't make sense to make faster chips for desktop computers. Or, we might see such great Internet pervasiveness that everybody just has thin-clients and computes on a CPU farm, but until either of those things happen, desktops will be faster than mobile devices.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Mobile has less power by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I am thinking about advancements in PC displays. I remember 110x100 graphics then 320x200 then 640x480, 800x600 then 1024x768 (on 14" screens) After that they just made displays larger to handle more pixels. the iPhone 4 was one of the first devices I have seen that offered a higher DPI.
      The same thing with color depth, Monochrome, CGA (4 color), Ega (16 color), VGA (256 Color), SVGAs that now offer the common 16 bit/24 bit/32 bit colors.

      Once we reach our perception limit we don't need to improve an area.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Mobile has less power by mikael · · Score: 1

      There is HDR - high dynamic range. Your framebuffer has high precision pixels that have fixed-point or 32-bit floating point components for at least RGB if not RGBA. Then by dynamically scaling these values you can view both the dark areas of a scene as well as the bright areas.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  18. GPU Farms? by AdamJS · · Score: 2

    I don't know much about ARM GPUs, but if these turn out to be significantly lower-powered than their counterparts, couldn't multi-gpu ARM boards be put to great use for GPGPU applications?

    1. Re:GPU Farms? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't really think GPU hardware is limited by legacy architecture design to the extent that CPUs are. Which means that I think current generation desktop GPUs will already be quite efficient (despite there being graphics cards out that require secondary power connectors). Even x86 is being made more efficient all the time, it seems..

      --
      which is totally what she said
  19. Screen Size will make the deal work. by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

    I think this will make a huge difference in mobile gaming because of screen size. Assuming that this thing outputs to 720p like the Nexus Galaxy, I think this will be a big thing.

    While the PS3 graphics are old and crappy compared to what a modern PC can do, don't forget about screen size. Seeing 720p on a 40 inch screen is a lot different than seeing 720p on a 5 inch screen. The best example of this is fonts that look fine at 5 inches will look like crap expanded to 40 inches. Artifacts and jaggedness on 40 inch are going to be pretty minimal on a 5 inch. We are talking about shrinking by almost a factor of 10. At some point the quality of the output will exceed our eyes ability to notice the difference.

    Of course this will do nothing to improve what the chip can render in terms of complex environments, smoke etc. But at 5 inches it is not hard to have too much on the screen.

    1. Re:Screen Size will make the deal work. by mikael · · Score: 1

      The real comparison is between what can be rendered using DVD codecs and what can be rendered using the GPU. That's what owners of these systems expect. They want their games to look like what a SFX based movie can provide.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  20. Compatibility demands have increased by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    FCEU runs well on a 200mhz Pentium. Shouldn't a 500mhz ARM do better?

    Not necessarily. Compatibility demands have increased since the Nesticle days and even since the FCE Ultra 0.98 days, and users are less willing to put up with known emulation glitches in specific games than they used to be. The "new PPU" engine in FCEUX is slower, but its behavior is more accurate to that of the NES than the old PPU, and some games demand this accuracy. For example, the Final Fantasy orb effect, text boxes in Marble Madness, and certain things in Sid Meier's Pirates are all done with cycle-timed mid-scanline writes to the PPU's I/O ports. The English version of Castlevania 3 and later Koei games use an IC called "MMC5" that's almost as complex as the coprocessors used in some Super NES games.

    1. Re:Compatibility demands have increased by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Compatibility demands have increased since the Nesticle days and even since the FCE Ultra 0.98 days, and users are less willing to put up with known emulation glitches in specific games than they used to be.

      Maybe I'm misremembering, but NesDS seems a lot less compatible than FCEU did back in the day.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Compatibility demands have increased by tepples · · Score: 1

      For one thing, I wasn't aware nesDS was still being maintained. For another, the DS has a 67 MHz CPU and therefore can't run the whole PPU in software, so it emulates NES video using DS's tiled video mode. This doesn't work for mid-scanline effects.

    3. Re:Compatibility demands have increased by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Ah that explains it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  21. Got to be better than the rest by Xordan · · Score: 1

    The only thing which really matters for ARM GPUs is how good they are against the best their rivals can put out there. If Imagination Tech, NVIDIA or Qualcomm chips have better price, performance and power requirements, then few companies will use ARM over their current chip providers (which is the case today). As for these claims; they are entirely believable and nothing special. Their competitors are all claiming similar things, ARM are just making more noise about it.

  22. PS3 Graphics, 256 mb phone memory. by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    It sucks how much android software lingers in phone memory for no damn reason (I'm looking at you, Google Android bloatware P.O.S. Market app). Every day at least once I go into Android Assistant to shut down a bunch of software that doesn't need to be running. There's a lot I love about Android, but it has a ways to go before it's ready for hardcore gamers.

    1. Re:PS3 Graphics, 256 mb phone memory. by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      What sucks is Google's attitude in refusing to provide a way to actually terminate an application on the theory that Android knows when to do that better than you.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  23. Re:In two years maybe Intel will catch-up by Pence128 · · Score: 1

    That's the CPU. The PS3's video hardware is a modified GeForce 7800.

    --
    404: sig not found.
  24. Re:Why is this that shocking? The cell chip is 5 by TurtleBay · · Score: 1

    Quake III was released in 1999. Quake III was ported to windows mobile in 2005. So mobile games are still about 7 years behind. When Quake III came out it was the best game ever, however now the bar has moved and it isn't good enough. By the time this chip comes out we will have next gen consoles that will do shader based antialiasing and horizon based ambient occulsion in most games. PS3 graphics will be noticeably dated (just look at how many PS3 games use no anti-alaising or texture filtering and run at less than 720P).