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?"

43 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 trum4n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better Counterexample: Minecraft!

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

  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 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?

    2. 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.
    3. 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?
    4. 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.

    5. 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

    6. 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?
  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.

  5. 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 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. 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 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.

  9. 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 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. $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)
  13. 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.
  14. 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?

  15. 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
  16. 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.