Mobile phones will have Ps3 level graphics in 3 years.

[Cry Havoc]

http://androidandme.com/2010/03/news...cs-in-3-years/

I'm skeptical of this, but then again, I don't develop video cards, either.

Still, pretty crazy to think about, and not entirely out of the realm of possibility, considering that the new Samsung Galaxy S is relatively close to a Ps2 level of processing.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm skeptical too. I haven't been in the semiconductor industry for several years now, but we are already pushing the limits of silicon.

Think about it. We had rapid advances in CPU speeds until about 8 years ago. Memory isn't doubling in density every 1.8 years any more.

My God...

We went from about 90 mhz in 1992 to about 800 mhz in 1998. About a factor of nine in six years. We are still only around 3 ghz CPU speeds in 2010. Less than a factor of four in 12 years. If the trend of 1992 to 1998 continued, we would have CPU running in excess of 60 ghz.

[Drachen]

I'm skeptical too. I haven't been in the semiconductor industry for several years now, but we are already pushing the limits of silicon.

Think about it. We had rapid advances in CPU speeds until about 8 years ago. Memory isn't doubling in density every 1.8 years any more.

My God...

We went from about 90 mhz in 1992 to about 800 mhz in 1998. About a factor of nine in six years. We are still only around 3 ghz CPU speeds in 2010. Less than a factor of four in 12 years. If the trend of 1992 to 1998 continued, we would have CPU running in excess of 60 ghz.

90 mhz in 92, what kind of computer was that?? $5000? We bought an 486 sx2 33 Mhz in 1994. Regardless, your point is still made. However, I was under the impression that the reason for that drop off was partially the silicon limits, but more importantly that chip makers started forcusing more on architecture which would more efficiently use the same speed so that they wouldn't have to continue designing more elaborate cooling systems with every chip they made.

[Wild Cobra]

90 mhz in 92, what kind of computer was that?? $5000? We bought an 486 sx2 33 Mhz in 1994. Regardless, your point is still made. However, I was under the impression that the reason for that drop off was partially the silicon limits, but more importantly that chip makers started forcusing more on architecture which would more efficiently use the same speed so that they wouldn't have to continue designing more elaborate cooling systems with every chip they made.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was working at the time for a manufacturer of CMP equipment, and we had a man from Intel doing skunkworks at our location. At the time, he was working on the copper process, with our prototype equipment.

Yes... in '94.

I seem to recall that Intel was just releasing the 90 mhz then, but I could be wrong.

[baseline bum]

And XBox360 level graphics in 5 years???

had to go there... LOL

[Wild Cobra]

I just looked it up.

The P54C 90mhz was release 3/7/94.

OK, I was a couple years off. So long ago...

Every Pentium ever made, at least till 1999, was made on a piece of equipment I had a hand in. It wouldn't surprise me if Intel still uses the 676/776/Momentum platform for their chips today. I made some engineering changes to that line of equipment.

[ElNono]

The amount of transistor packing you could do has been slowing down considerably in the past 5 or so years. Current state of the art is around 45nm production. That's why you see more increases in cores and parallel processing than in clock speed. The good thing is that GPU work lends itself well to parallel processing.

However, the thing to consider with cell phones is that battery life and heat dissipation are major factors, thus I don't really see high-end ps3 type of graphics anytime soon.
That said, OpenGL ES2 hardware already includes both a vertex shader and a fragment shader, and can do multi-sampling almost for free. I would expect actual non-fixed pipeline stream processor-based GPUs in the next year or two, and that should give you what top of the line integrated GPUs give you today.

One thing to keep in mind is that most of these mobile chipsets are SoC, which mean high speed data paths between internal components, but sharing external RAM between them (very much like integrated GPUs today). I don't think putting GDDR memory in there will be done anytime soon, since you really want to keep them cheap.

[Wild Cobra]

[Wild Cobra]

The amount of transistor packing you could do has been slowing down considerably in the past 5 or so years. Current state of the art is around 45nm production. That's why you see more increases in cores and parallel processing than in clock speed. The good thing is that GPU work lends itself well to parallel processing.

However, the thing to consider with cell phones is that battery life and heat dissipation are major factors, thus I don't really see high-end ps3 type of graphics anytime soon.
That said, OpenGL ES2 hardware already includes both a vertex shader and a fragment shader, and can do multi-sampling almost for free. I would expect actual non-fixed pipeline stream processor-based GPUs in the next year or two, and that should give you what top of the line integrated GPUs give you today.

One thing to keep in mind is that most of these mobile chipsets are SoC, which mean high speed data paths between internal components, but sharing external RAM between them (very much like integrated GPUs today). I don't think putting GDDR memory in there will be done anytime soon, since you really want to keep them cheap.

SoC, or SoG?

Is SoC something new?

[Drachen]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was working at the time for a manufacturer of CMP equipment, and we had a man from Intel doing skunkworks at our location. At the time, he was working on the copper process, with our prototype equipment.

Yes... in '94.

I seem to recall that Intel was just releasing the 90 mhz then, but I could be wrong.

Seems a little more plausible. I know the P1s came out that year and I think 75 Mhz was the first, then 90.

[Wild Cobra]

Never-mind...

System on Chip.

I thought maybe you meant Silicon on Glass.

I am very familiar with SoC, but we called them ASIC.

[ElNono]

Never-mind...

System on Chip.

I thought maybe you meant Silicon on Glass.

I am very familiar with SoC, but we called them ASIC.

Yes, System on a Chip.

And yes, it's basically what ASICs evolved into, thanks to languages like VHDL that let you build in blocks.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, System on a Chip.

And yes, it's basically what ASICs evolved into, thanks to languages like VHDL that let you build in blocks.

LOL...

ASIC design was using something like that for the years I was involved with LSI Logic.

No way designers would lay out a trillion transistors by themselves, or even a group. Memory is repe ive, but ASIC isn't.

I have a 200 mm ASIC wafer in a safe, not easy to get to place. Maybe I'll take the time and photograph it and post it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Back in 95 people were envious of my 66mhz computer.

[ElNono]

LOL...

ASIC design was using something like that for the years I was involved with LSI Logic.

No way designers would lay out a trillion transistors by themselves, or even a group. Memory is repe ive, butt ASIC isn't.

I have a 200 mm ASIC wafer in a safe, not easy to get to place. Maybe I'll take the time and photograph it and post it.

I've done VHDL programming myself a long time ago.
Testing with Altera and Xilinx, then you send to a fab.

When they started to get cheaper, they started to replace MCUs in arcade games a lot.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing special, but this is 250 nm technology, maybe 1999. This one has 37 chips across the 200 mm. I have another that only has 9 chips across, but where it's at in the process, you cannot see the individual chips with a standard camera photo.

[Wild Cobra]

Back in 95 people were envious of my 66mhz computer.

I was using a 25 mhz 68040 in serial number 173 of the Amiga 4000. paid a cool $3,000 for it in October 1992.

It ran circles around the Pentium 90 on animations.

[PM5K]

With the size of the screens and resolution, you won't need the same hardware to have a similar looking experience. In the article though it seems they mean PS3 level with HDMI out so in that regard you would need the same type of hardware, at least performance wise.