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?"
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.
A lot more information here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5077/arms-malit658-gpu-in-2013-up-to-10x-faster-than-mali400
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
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.
In two years, PS3-like graphics will be insufficient
Counterexample: FarmVille.
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?
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.
Better Counterexample: Minecraft!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.