Interesting stuff, seems kosha :-
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/851/1050851/intel-design-playstation-gpu
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/851/1050851/intel-design-playstation-gpu
Playstation 4 to have GPU from Intel
- Thread starter wwwebber
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 9,785
- Location
- Milton Keynes
Interesting stuff if true, however doesnt give much hope on moving away from cheap pc ports though it may make it easier.
I saw that, it's BS journalism I'm afraid. Although the article is interesting and does appear to contain useful factual info - it's statements like this that really brings it down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,717
- Location
- London
That's not even journalism tbh.
Have to agree.
Overall that's about the worst gaming related article I've read! The author seems to have some weird issues.
Also, I thought the whole point behind the Cell architecture is that Sony can cheaply tack on some more cores for the PS4, so why is the PS4 processor unknown?
Also, I thought the whole point behind the Cell architecture is that Sony can cheaply tack on some more cores for the PS4, so why is the PS4 processor unknown?
That's what i thought too, the whole point of the cell was that they could just stick more in the system and they'd just 'work'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
there's nothing to say they wont use a cell of some kind. Seem's an unusual choice not to but all the article said was that it wasnt confirmed, really. Concievable intel could supple the everything bar the cpu. i would imagine the savings buought by using an intel-designed chipset would be quite large.
re
I wouldnt say it has failed but it is not as successful as the ps1 /ps2, because chipping it to allow it to play copied games is very hard to do...infact i dont know if you can do it at all....that is why it is not as popular as its predecessors
I wouldnt say it has failed but it is not as successful as the ps1 /ps2, because chipping it to allow it to play copied games is very hard to do...infact i dont know if you can do it at all....that is why it is not as popular as its predecessors
The article is about the GPU, that's the graphics processing unit. Sony has already said numerous times they plan to use the Cell again, and to be honest, they don't have a choice. Far too much spent on the PS3, and literally nothing to gain from it. They're going to be sticking with the Cell for a little longer, and avoiding Nvidia on the GPU side of things, which as the article rightfully points out, has been a major pain in the backside. Butchering relations with both Microsoft and Sony was an incredibly stupid thing to do, especially now that consoles are the main platform for gaming (whether you like it or not, sorry) and PCs are falling by the way-side.
I disagree with that part; the PS3 is possibly the main reason why blu-ray succeeded. Getting a blu-ray player into as many peoples' homes was the best tactic for 'beating' HD-DVD and the PS3 was the tool to accomplish that.
Being part owner of blu-ray technology, Sony have a lot to gain from making it the primary HD format.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
hmm. if it were a company who sold 20 million units.....which led to that company's bankruptcy.....would it still be a success?
Not if projected sales where 25 million by this point.
Selling 16million units, or comparing them to any other numbers of units sold from the 360, does not mean its doing well or has been a success.
What has Nvida meant to have done to Sony that so bad? It will be interesting to see what intel can produce in way of a GPU but historically they haven't been very good at making them. Saying that if the PS4 is going to be a Wii like console then intel shouldn't have any problems.
The PS3 sold slightly more than its predicted 10 million sales from Sony in the Last year, so its bang on prediction. They had lowered it the previous year though by 1 or 2 million, if it doesnt increase in its sales even at the propsed end of life it will be close to 100 million units.
Wasnt Intel developing a pretty good GPU/CPU hybrid? If true then the experience gained by them could be a benifit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 9,785
- Location
- Milton Keynes
You're thinking of Larrabee, that's Intel's main GPU project, aimed at taking on ATI and Nvidia, its designed to be a radical difference from thier current integrated solutions. Basically massive parallel multi-core design that theoretically should scale accordingly as more cores are added, unlike the current SLI/Crossfire designs, but ofc each core is much weaker than the main cores as we'd think of them from NV and ATI, but Larrabee intends to use far more cores.
I believe they also bought out the Project Offset studio so they'd have an actual 3d team working with the chip whilst it was in development so they could refine it from the Offsets findings as they worked with the prototype chips.
I believe they also bought out the Project Offset studio so they'd have an actual 3d team working with the chip whilst it was in development so they could refine it from the Offsets findings as they worked with the prototype chips.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
if its similar to what they did to MS then it will be something along the lines of demanding the same price for the gpu's when they move to smaller manufacturing processes to decrease the production costs. Normally that cost would be passed on to some degree but NV tried to bend MS over a bench with the xbox gpu, which is why they were dropped for the 360.