|
Sony considering multi-core processor for PS4
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 29 December, 2009
Kotaku, citing Impress, is reporting today that Sony is considering not using the Cell architecture for the PlayStation 4, and instead moving to a multi-core CPU, one that will be easier to develop for than the Cell.
Sony has repeatedly said the PS3 will have a ten year life span but it's interesting to see that the company already has the PS4 on its mind.
The source says the first ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 02:37 |
Link to this message
|
somehow i feel like a made a good choice not to purchase one of this current gen's new consoles..how many years has the PS3 been on the market for again?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. December 2009 @ 02:55 |
Link to this message
|
The PS3 has been available more than 3 years now...and we are probably looking at at least 2 more years before we get the PS4...I think that 5 years is rather good for a gaming system; but then again I am used to having a PC that costs twice as much and is outdated after a year, obsolite after 2-3 years.
|
|
av_verbal
Suspended permanently
|
29. December 2009 @ 03:35 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
The PS3 has been available more than 3 years now...and we are probably looking at at least 2 more years before we get the PS4...I think that 5 years is rather good for a gaming system; but then again I am used to having a PC that costs twice as much and is outdated after a year, obsolite after 2-3 years.
Don't spread FUD, PC gaming isnt that expensive, unless you want to play the games in max resolution like 1920 by 1200, with everything turned to max.
BTW my old gaming rig is 7 years old & still going strong, far from obsolete, all you do to play the latest titles is adjust the graphics to a lower resolution.
it may be lower than that of the best specs that the games are designed for but it is still far superior to both the PS3 & 360.
The PS3 vga is based on the 7600 Nvidia. 550 mhz GPU, 256 MB of GDDR3 ram clocked at 700mhz, which is like lol.... thats a £20 graphics card, no i couldn't possibly afford that upgrade!
BTW back on topic didn't IBM state a couple of months ago that the Cell processor line is at an evolutionary dead end & killed it?
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
Don't you just love how wild speculation constantly gets reported as news? They probably also considered only selling it built into its own 60" HDTV for $3000, but you don't see BS like that 'reported.' It'll probably be a year or so before they even make close to a final decision on any architecture, anyway. The Cell is already multi-core and it would be kinda dumb to assume any new CPU wouldn't be, so it doesn't say anything people couldn't assume anyway. Even the wording from said source sounds kinda made up.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. December 2009 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
Not only is the cell a multi-core, but it has a lot of vector processing capability; it is effectivly a GPU and a CPU in one; the extra chip for video is just for extra power.
I have trouble believing that your 7-year-old gaming system still runs new titles, especialy since the reason I bought my 3870 is because slinter cell refused to even try to start on my x1650...it isn't even a matter of the games playing slowly and ugly...the games just won't play...I might as well put a PS3 game into a PS2. I don't think you play modern PC games on that old rig...but I will stop short of calling you a liar; maybe your idea of "new games" is flash-based titles that will run on any netbook.
I was actualy being nice to the PC...$600 is a great deal for a PC capable of running the same titles at the same quality...most $600 PCs cannot run GTA4 as well as a PS3. Also, PS3 has no hardware upgrades; you don't need to keep buying a new video card to play the latest games at max resolution; they are writen to run well on the hardware available...and the hardware available does not change every 6 months.
While I am an old-timer PC gamer (I still have Wolfenstein 3D on diskets), recent times have pushed me to the PS3 more than ever. It seems like every PC game is writen to require Live, Steam, or some other crap. They also all seem to be writen with the goal of allowing cheating, especialy in online play. Since I moved to playing PS3 almost exclusivly, there are only two things I miss: The Keyboard and the Mouse. Other than that, it is a wholy more enjoyable experience, with a lot less money waisted on constant upgrades...and without all the DRM-related problems that PC games have become slaves to (I know there is still DRM...but it works correctly on the PS3).
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 08:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
While I am an old-timer PC gamer (I still have Wolfenstein 3D on diskets), recent times have pushed me to the PS3 more than ever. It seems like every PC game is writen to require Live, Steam, or some other crap.
Wow! I still have shareware diskettes of WOLFENSTEIN 3D, DOOM (I), HERETIC (I) and others. I too am leary of things like STEAM...requiring installing an online client app to play your damn stuff is kinda shady. Then again, the Valve guys are egomaniacal buttwipes, so hardly surprising. People like that really deserve getting knocked down a few to several notches. They've pretty much ADMITTED they're too inept to understand PS3 (or ANYTHING non-DirectX, so OpenGL probably confuses their tiny minds too).
|
Senior Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 09:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
BTW my old gaming rig is 7 years old & still going strong, far from obsolete, all you do to play the latest titles is adjust the graphics to a lower resolution.
I looked at call of duty: modern warfare2 and need for speed shift for pc and according to the system requirements you need a dual core processor with min 1.5ghz.I doubt you will get them to run on a 7 year old pc.Im gonna buy a PS3 even if it is 3 years old only cause i want to play decent games.ive red somewhere the PS4 should be ready by 2012 but i highly doubt it im guessing around 2015.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. December 2009 @ 09:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
If everyone gets used to the cell, which they seem to be, wouldn't it be better to keep that framework than switching off to something different?
But meh, I don't really care about the tech in the box. Partly because it's over my head and partly because the games kinda tell me all I need to know about the tech.
|
|
Clownzill
Newbie
|
29. December 2009 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have to agree with av_verbal when it comes to playing newer games. There will be some games that won't make it on a 7 year old system but there are still plenty of new games that will. That said, I like my games at max thus I tend to play "older" games on my 5 year old system. I'm just getting around to playing Far Cry and I have to say that it's not "cutting edge" but it's still pretty good, fun, and most importantly less than $5. I still can't comprehend how people pay $40-$60 for a video game. I just let the fanfare of the new games die and pick them up when their not "cool" anymore. If I'm paying more than $25 for a game (and at $25 it better be a GREAT game) then I'm paying too much.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. December 2009 @ 12:07 |
Link to this message
|
I speculate that the PS4 will be announced in 2 years, released in 3. But also that the PS3 will still be around for a few years after that. It will have a large catalog of games behind it, and it functions well as a multimedia box. Just like the PS2 franchise is still being milked, I believe Sony will do the same for the PS3, hence the reported "10 year" lifespan. 5-6 years is the typical wait time for a new system and it should be that way. If they can release a next gen system for those who have the money to spend, then more power to them, as long as they can keep the PS3 titles and features fresh for those who would rather wait. Heck there are still tons of people who have no plans on buying into HD in the next 2 years.
A PS3-PS4 transistion will be much different than the PS2-PS3 transition was. Many aspects of the PS3 can be built upon. Customers have been introduced to an online community and a multimedia online store. This is a foundation that can be built upon, rather than abandoned for a new one. They just have to make sure that the PSN account transition is seamless and that they don't make the mistake of not providing backwards compatibilty with PS3 games (I should be able to log into thet PSN with my PS4 and have access to all PS3 and PS4 titles, but if I decide to log in with my PS3, I obviously will only have access to PS3 titles). In regards to hardware, there probably won't be a need for a new laser design, as I don't see blu ray being succeeded in the near future. Unless they can incorporate faster read times. And it's also possible that the shift may be from hard disc to online only anyway.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. December 2009 @ 12:09
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. December 2009 @ 12:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Gaming is dead(not a polished enthusiast driven hobby its now a wanky brand/trend focused mainstream crap fest.... )
Anyway whatever the POS3 dose hardware wise it needs to have more ramm,less bottle necks and for gods sake better software kits to make ti easier to develop for...
Oh and if the POS4 comes out before 014 the game industry is dead to me....
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. December 2009 @ 14:53 |
Link to this message
|
that's just stupid, but its Sony. developers have just gotten the hang of the whole learning curve. now there telling us that it was fun but you learned all that for nothing piss on sony i hope they die a slow painful death.
the DOD is really going to love this, maybe that's why they bought all those PS3 just for the cell processor alone.
|
|
bomber991
Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 15:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Clownzill:
I have to agree with av_verbal when it comes to playing newer games. There will be some games that won't make it on a 7 year old system but there are still plenty of new games that will. That said, I like my games at max thus I tend to play "older" games on my 5 year old system. I'm just getting around to playing Far Cry and I have to say that it's not "cutting edge" but it's still pretty good, fun, and most importantly less than $5. I still can't comprehend how people pay $40-$60 for a video game. I just let the fanfare of the new games die and pick them up when their not "cool" anymore. If I'm paying more than $25 for a game (and at $25 it better be a GREAT game) then I'm paying too much.
Yeah, I'm doing something different this time with video games. The Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, and Dreamcast generation all have good enough graphics for me. Playing the newest games isn't really a big deal to me anymore. So used games for those system mostly all come in at under $10, and the systems themselves all are under $100. I'll just enjoy them and then pick up the wii, 360, and PS3 whenever the next nintendo, microsoft and sony consoles come out.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 17:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
that's just stupid, but its Sony. developers have just gotten the hang of the whole learning curve. now there telling us that it was fun but you learned all that for nothing piss on sony i hope they die a slow painful death.
the DOD is really going to love this, maybe that's why they bought all those PS3 just for the cell processor alone.
The Slim PS3 already no longer allows doing what the DoD is doing with them anyway, so it doesn't matter what Sony does from here on as far as they're concerned.
|
Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 19:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
@atomicxl
Well said!!!
|
Member
|
29. December 2009 @ 23:49 |
Link to this message
|
What really happens is developers (due to time constraints) really TRY to push their titles to all 3 consoles (or 2 sometimes in the case of CoDMW2), but the PS3 is just a whole new programming paradigm. It is like learning Lisp after learning C. Totally different schools of thought.
Moving to another CPU will be cheaper and it will be easier for programmers to make sure that their titles will utilise all the power in the consoles. Now who has the most cores may have just a little bit more power than the rest of the consoles, but not a lot. And regardless, you hardly ever program multi-core/multi-CPU/threaded applications by manually specifying how many cores are present. That is up to runtime (or compile-time depending on the architecture).
Most of the time right now, developers are using internal (or publicly available) tools to write code in one language and then that will translate to PS2, PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii (where of course one of the biggest hurdles is making sure OpenGL/OpenGL-like and DirectX (360) operations are as close as possible alike). I sometimes see PS3 graphics as worse then 360, and really Wii ALWAYS needs the dumbing down of graphics operations and texture sizes if the game is supposed to run similarly on it as compared to other consoles. Same for PS2.
You can see the power of the PS3 in certain games though. It is definitely there, and it seems to be only when the game is a PS3 exclusive.
For me, PS3 is expensive altogether. And I already have my 360. It seems most of the big titles come out for every console nowadays, so it is no loss like owning an Xbox back in the day or owning a Nintendo 64 back when PSX was dominant (but saturated with lots of crap too).
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. December 2009 @ 05:49 |
Link to this message
|
The PS3 exclusives realy do show off the power of the Cell...but since most games are released on the 360 also, they just dumb down the quality right from the start so that it will run on either system.
Both systems need more ram, but I think the PS3 would benifit a lot more from extra memory...or even some kind of readyboost-like addon.
BTW...the DoD now has over 2500 systems in their PS3 super-computer...clearly they think it will be a current-gen system for at least a couple of years.
|
|
scum101
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
30. December 2009 @ 06:13 |
Link to this message
|
But what are they upgrading from.. oh yes.. a 20 year old 8088 cluster built into a mainframe.. good use of taxpayer dollars there buying tech from the sneaky enemy. The big question to my mind is why they decided to buy these damn things.. are they looking at possibilities for taliban supercomputers built at home, or do they just like playing final fantasy (I prefer the second pink option.. we know the army is stuffed full of geeks and dubious gamers.. don't ask, don't tell)
Anyhow *yawns* .. like it is important? .. console gaming is pretty much dead in the water in the next couple of years.. better pc's and big tv's with vga etc inputs.. say goodbye to these dinosaurs with their dead end cpu tech and miniscule amounts of ram.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
30. December 2009 @ 08:19 |
Link to this message
|
meh....pc gaming makes me sleepy. I spent $1,200 on a new rig this year for HD video encoding and a variety of other purposes. I can play practically any game at the highest settings. I can't name one that I've played in the last year more than 10 minutes. Even multi-plats, I've enjoyed more on consoles. And devs have wised up, releasing the PC version of multi-plat games months after the console version. Who knows how outdated my PC will be in 5 years. But I can tell you that I'm not looking upgrade any components. I did my research and it was a nightmare trying to find the perfect components with drivers that worked with Windows. And I still had problems with 8 months with video drivers until updates finally worked.
Console gaming will not die. It's a different feel. It's a separate machine with specs you don't need to upgrade. I wouldn't want to be in a situation where I couldn't play a game because my PC was running an important overnight task, and I wouldn't build a PC just for gaming. I know people who would, and they are in their own class. Also, I don't want my kids asking me to get off the PC so that they can play their game. As long as you have families with kids, console gaming will live.
Exclusives keep consoles alive. The handful of Sony exclusives have impressed me and have held my attention for months at a time. Heck, if a console can release a killer exclusive every 3-4 months, I would no longer be wanting in the game department. So far most value-adding dlc for exclusives have been free, available via updates.
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
30. December 2009 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
The PS3 exclusives realy do show off the power of the Cell...but since most games are released on the 360 also, they just dumb down the quality right from the start so that it will run on either system.
Both systems need more ram, but I think the PS3 would benifit a lot more from extra memory...or even some kind of readyboost-like addon.
BTW...the DoD now has over 2500 systems in their PS3 super-computer...clearly they think it will be a current-gen system for at least a couple of years.
I agree with the first part and as well with the more ram would be beneficial but only in part ~ because while yes more ram is "good", having quality is overall better than just having more...i.e. XDR over standard off the shelf stuff.
Remember, the PS3 has 4 times the internal bandwidth, twice the memory bandwidth and much faster ram than it's closest competitive counterpart. Combine that with how fast the Cell crunches data and you really aren't hampered by 512mb ram in the PS3 (if utilized properly), Killzone 2, Uncharted 1 & 2, MAG and quite a few others prove this. Here is a short article about the PS3's ram.
On topic though, I am a bit worried about the next gen of PS product because of 2 things. Ken Kutaragi is not at Sony anymore (the father of Playstation) and the design/architecture of all the PS consoles have always been his "brainchild" and since he is not there currently it concerns/bothers me...which leads me into the second thing ~ Without Kutaragi to envision a very powerful system that has scalable constantly improving possibilities, will the next PS be nothing more than "just" powerful from the start thus causing a bit of stagnation & laziness because there won't really be a pushing of the boundaries/learning curve if it uses some sort of easy to code for tech?
That has always been the PS's strongest card. To always give more than what the others do & give...so if they "settle" for tech that is off the shelf then how are they going to do the same & offer the same as every PS has in the past?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. December 2009 @ 09:06
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. December 2009 @ 09:35 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
The PS3 exclusives realy do show off the power of the Cell...but since most games are released on the 360 also, they just dumb down the quality right from the start so that it will run on either system.
Both systems need more ram, but I think the PS3 would benifit a lot more from extra memory...or even some kind of readyboost-like addon.
BTW...the DoD now has over 2500 systems in their PS3 super-computer...clearly they think it will be a current-gen system for at least a couple of years.
I agree with the first part and as well with the more ram would be beneficial but only in part ~ because while yes more ram is "good", having quality is overall better than just having more...i.e. XDR over standard off the shelf stuff.
Remember, the PS3 has 4 times the internal bandwidth, twice the memory bandwidth and much faster ram than it's closest competitive counterpart. Combine that with how fast the Cell crunches data and you really aren't hampered by 512mb ram in the PS3 (if utilized properly), Killzone 2, Uncharted 1 & 2, MAG and quite a few others prove this. Here is a short article about the PS3's ram.
On topic though, I am a bit worried about the next gen of PS product because of 2 things. Ken Kutaragi is not at Sony anymore (the father of Playstation) and the design/architecture of all the PS consoles have always been his "brainchild" and since he is not there currently it concerns/bothers me...which leads me into the second thing ~ Without Kutaragi to envision a very powerful system that has scalable constantly improving possibilities, will the next PS be nothing more than "just" powerful from the start thus causing a bit of stagnation & laziness because there won't really be a pushing of the boundaries/learning curve if it uses some sort of easy to code for tech?
That has always been the PS's strongest card. To always give more than what the others do & give...so if they "settle" for tech that is off the shelf then how are they going to do the same & offer the same as every PS has in the past?
If properly utilize means lower textures and other graphics dickary youer better off with twice the ramm so even smaller backed games will be able to play well on it.....
|
Junior Member
2 product reviews
|
30. December 2009 @ 10:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If properly utilize means lower textures and other graphics dickary youer better off with twice the ramm so even smaller backed games will be able to play well on it.....
That's just it. When properly programmed, there is no need for lower textures or other corner-cutting tricks. Those things are the results of games being developed for another architecture (PC or 360) and instead of being reprogrammed for PS3, they cut corners and make a poor-man's port of it.
A lot of games developed with the PS3 as lead architecture look very good and have high res textures. For example, Burnout Paradise was developed as one of the few multiplatform titles with the PS3 as lead console and as a result looks sharper on it than on the 360 for example.
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
30. December 2009 @ 11:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by kyo28:
Quote:
If properly utilize means lower textures and other graphics dickary youer better off with twice the ramm so even smaller backed games will be able to play well on it.....
That's just it. When properly programmed, there is no need for lower textures or other corner-cutting tricks. Those things are the results of games being developed for another architecture (PC or 360) and instead of being reprogrammed for PS3, they cut corners and make a poor-man's port of it.
A lot of games developed with the PS3 as lead architecture look very good and have high res textures. For example, Burnout Paradise was developed as one of the few multiplatform titles with the PS3 as lead console and as a result looks sharper on it than on the 360 for example.
Exactly. Additionally there is also a new AA technique that has been tried in the game Saboteur which even in it's infancy is EXTREMELY promising...quote from article ~
Quote:
The PS3 rendition of Pandemic's The Saboteur is different though. It's special. It's trying something new that's never been seen before on console, or indeed PC, and its results are terrific. In a best-case scenario you get edge-smoothing that is beyond the effect of 16x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, effectively delivering an effect better than the capabilities of high-end GPUs without crippling performance.
Source
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. December 2009 @ 11:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. December 2009 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
If properly utilize means lower textures and other graphics dickary youer better off with twice the ramm so even smaller backed games will be able to play well on it.....
That's just it. When properly programmed, there is no need for lower textures or other corner-cutting tricks. Those things are the results of games being developed for another architecture (PC or 360) and instead of being reprogrammed for PS3, they cut corners and make a poor-man's port of it.
A lot of games developed with the PS3 as lead architecture look very good and have high res textures. For example, Burnout Paradise was developed as one of the few multiplatform titles with the PS3 as lead console and as a result looks sharper on it than on the 360 for example.
*sigh* the problem is you make a unique console the the more trouble the standardize industry will have issues with it, that's great that some games an look great on it if they take their time and code on it correctly....my point is you don't allow for the distraction and issues you build a system that can be deved and easily molded for right from the start. By doing it the way they did they have did more damage and slot millions because of the lack of foresight...
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
30. December 2009 @ 11:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Quote:
Quote:
If properly utilize means lower textures and other graphics dickary youer better off with twice the ramm so even smaller backed games will be able to play well on it.....
That's just it. When properly programmed, there is no need for lower textures or other corner-cutting tricks. Those things are the results of games being developed for another architecture (PC or 360) and instead of being reprogrammed for PS3, they cut corners and make a poor-man's port of it.
A lot of games developed with the PS3 as lead architecture look very good and have high res textures. For example, Burnout Paradise was developed as one of the few multiplatform titles with the PS3 as lead console and as a result looks sharper on it than on the 360 for example.
*sigh* the problem is you make a unique console the the more trouble the standardize industry will have issues with it, that's great that some games an look great on it if they take their time and code on it correctly....my point is you don't allow for the distraction and issues you build a system that can be deved and easily molded for right from the start. By doing it the way they did they have did more damage and slot millions because of the lack of foresight...
Honestly Zippy I think your descripiton is exactly the 360's problem. It's powerful and easy to program for but look at it now...nothing that is technologically superior to even Uncharted 1 and the 360 has been out for about 4 years now.
It's all in how you look at it I say. Make something that is powerful but will challenge devs which will make them think creatively and that will separate/distinguish the talented from the average.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. December 2009 @ 11:35
|
