Not over here, overseas had PS2 emulation we had software emulation dunno why they couldn't use that for the slims from day one ect..
I'm not to bothered about B/C I'll be keeping my PS2 & PS3 if I pick up the PS4
PS4 to use x86 CPU??
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Not over here, overseas had PS2 emulation we had software emulation dunno why they couldn't use that for the slims from day one ect..
I'm not to bothered about B/C I'll be keeping my PS2 & PS3 if I pick up the PS4
Be nice not to need to have multiple consoles.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Although bare in mind the ps2 launch consoles used something like 50w gaming. The ps3's started off at about 200w. I've no doubt sony could get to the point where they have a ps3 on chip, but it would probably take longer and cost them substantially more. even now, 5 years after the launch of the ps3, the current consoles are still drawing about twice the power of the original ps2 consoles - they have some way to go yet, I'd imagine.
It really doesn't matter to me, I have to confess. I've got a ton of games on the Gamecube that I loved but I can't say I've ever used my Wii to play Gamecube games.
The best solution for me, in regards to next gen, is that the hardware is sensibly priced and that it is well supported by developers. If that means dumping the Cell, so be it.
The best solution for me, in regards to next gen, is that the hardware is sensibly priced and that it is well supported by developers. If that means dumping the Cell, so be it.
I am sure I read somewhere that CELL was designed to be scaled well like this by adding more main CELL cpus and/or adding more SPU? Hard to say as I am sure none of us knows the intricacies of this particular cpu architecture. I am sure your comments are valid in a general sense though.
rp2000
I remember reading this too. Sony knew the Cell was costly to develop but because it was scalable they hoped it would cut development costs of the PS4.
That said, it would make sense to go back to something which is easier for software houses to program for.
Whatever they do they should learn from the past and just aim to be first out the door as historically it's always the first console launched which has done the best.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Two things, no, nothing to suggest the PS4 of next Xbox will be ahead, if they end up a year apart on release they could be a year apart on graphics generation as well, process/power/etc. Also being AMD doesn't mean an awful lot in terms of being similar, you can do vastly different things and AMD has never had a problem creating new(ish) IP for customers. 360 and Wii have AMD gpu's in them, that are nothing alike on power or architecture really.
Why didn't Sony turn to Intel, the next 2-3 years are going to be HUGE, chip stacking, memory on die, insane bandwidth to local stacked mem, new interconnects between parts, interposers. If you go Intel chip and AMD gpu... basically no chance for ANY of that to be included, you'd get a Intel chip on one package and an AMD gpu on another. AMD Gpu and IBM/ARM/AMD cpu and you can start working together, or more closely and making some chips with serious special source.
It's starting to look like new xbox quite early, good bump in power but nothing truly "out there", while PS4 could still be 2 years away, but could have a huge amount of "special source" thrown in, AMD cpu/gpu stacked, with memory, some new interconnect, insane memory bandwidth for the GPU, vastly less traces, cheaper pcb, cheaper console(for the power).
Xbox could essentially be "pre revolution" and PS4 could be "post revolution".
Ps3 did some good stuff, bluray was a great edition as its considered massively better as a home entertainment system than just a console compared to the Xbox, but as it was so much later it really could/should have been able to come with a better GPU and Cell likely held it back badly(time to market, cost).
As for Cell, its dead because it gained traction nowhere else. IBM's plan was always Sony as a major cash influx to get Cell up and running, then scaling it down to fit in every other Sony device that gets made, tv's, bluray players and selling it to other electronic's manufacturers. But Cell basically didn't end up anywhere else or remotely useful. It's like AMD/Nvidia, you spend hundreds of millions on R&D to get the best high end graphics, but you subsidise the R&D spending by selling millions of midrange and 10's of millions of low end gpu's to "make up the numbers". Cell did the high end, failed miserably in making up the numbers and has got itself canned. Sony can't subsidise the R&D with Playstation sales only so a vastly cheaper alternative is what they are going for.
A standard AMD chip won't necessarily be the absolute best for gaming that they could produce, but could cost them hundreds of millions less in R&D.... an easy tradeoff to make
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Two things, no, nothing to suggest the PS4 of next Xbox will be ahead, if they end up a year apart on release they could be a year apart on graphics generation as well, process/power/etc. Also being AMD doesn't mean an awful lot in terms of being similar, you can do vastly different things and AMD has never had a problem creating new(ish) IP for customers. 360 and Wii have AMD gpu's in them, that are nothing alike on power or architecture really.
Why didn't Sony turn to Intel, the next 2-3 years are going to be HUGE, chip stacking, memory on die, insane bandwidth to local stacked mem, new interconnects between parts, interposers. If you go Intel chip and AMD gpu... basically no chance for ANY of that to be included, you'd get a Intel chip on one package and an AMD gpu on another. AMD Gpu and IBM/ARM/AMD cpu and you can start working together, or more closely and making some chips with serious special source.
It's starting to look like new xbox quite early, good bump in power but nothing truly "out there", while PS4 could still be 2 years away, but could have a huge amount of "special source" thrown in, AMD cpu/gpu stacked, with memory, some new interconnect, insane memory bandwidth for the GPU, vastly less traces, cheaper pcb, cheaper console(for the power).
Xbox could essentially be "pre revolution" and PS4 could be "post revolution".
Ps3 did some good stuff, bluray was a great edition as its considered massively better as a home entertainment system than just a console compared to the Xbox, but as it was so much later it really could/should have been able to come with a better GPU and Cell likely held it back badly(time to market, cost).
As for Cell, its dead because it gained traction nowhere else. IBM's plan was always Sony as a major cash influx to get Cell up and running, then scaling it down to fit in every other Sony device that gets made, tv's, bluray players and selling it to other electronic's manufacturers. But Cell basically didn't end up anywhere else or remotely useful. It's like AMD/Nvidia, you spend hundreds of millions on R&D to get the best high end graphics, but you subsidise the R&D spending by selling millions of midrange and 10's of millions of low end gpu's to "make up the numbers". Cell did the high end, failed miserably in making up the numbers and has got itself canned. Sony can't subsidise the R&D with Playstation sales only so a vastly cheaper alternative is what they are going for.
A standard AMD chip won't necessarily be the absolute best for gaming that they could produce, but could cost them hundreds of millions less in R&D.... an easy tradeoff to make
Thanks!!
This clears things up now
Afaik to make games run on cell cpu, you have to specially hard code the games for it in order to utilise the 6-7 SPEs, otherwise it won't work. While xbox 360 cpu resembled a general purpose pc cpu and hence creating and porting 360 games over to pc was much more manageable.
One thing playstation has got which many people dont realise is their game engine... (the 'sony' engine) which is one of if not the most impressive and efficient game engines out their (only god knows what game it could make on the PC)
Uncharted, killzone, GT5, Motrostorm, and a few others are all extremely impressive graphics/performance wise compared to any other multiplatform console game or Xbox exclusive.
Still when I play killzone 3 now expect the resolution the game is graphically more impressive than most PC games and has better effects than nearly every game, Uncharted also graphics wise amazing.
Sony will always have the trump over Xbox in the games they can produce due to this, they just need to make a system that is easy for multi platform developers to code for which the PS3 certainly wasn't, and is what I expect now.
So developers will have less time trying to get the game to work the same for both the PS4/Nextbox, and more time and easier to port over to PC for us.
I wish I could see that engine run a game programmed and made on the PC..... it would be immense.
Uncharted, killzone, GT5, Motrostorm, and a few others are all extremely impressive graphics/performance wise compared to any other multiplatform console game or Xbox exclusive.
Still when I play killzone 3 now expect the resolution the game is graphically more impressive than most PC games and has better effects than nearly every game, Uncharted also graphics wise amazing.
Sony will always have the trump over Xbox in the games they can produce due to this, they just need to make a system that is easy for multi platform developers to code for which the PS3 certainly wasn't, and is what I expect now.
So developers will have less time trying to get the game to work the same for both the PS4/Nextbox, and more time and easier to port over to PC for us.
I wish I could see that engine run a game programmed and made on the PC..... it would be immense.
Nope, Sony have their own in house engine, its been used for all the Uncharted's , Killzone 1 & 2, Motorstorm, Infamous pretty much most of their top exclusives, you can also tell the similarties with the engine in the different games and how it works, very impressive.
It has no name, Naughty Dog call it the 'Naughty Dog' engine (just the adapted 'Sony' engine), Guerilla Games dont call it anything, has no name lol and is kept under the radar. It is Sony's ace up their sleeve over the Xbox, for example if the Xbox had access to this engine they could make more impressive exclusives.
A sit is Sony use it on their top PS3 exclusives devs who programme it perfectly for the PS3's cell and the outcome is impressive for such weak hardware.
Last edited:
Fixed
I was always surprised how well the PS3 did compared as compared to the 360 it had a slower GPU, less flexible memory set up and a complicated CPU but matched the xbox in performance.
While it would be a shame to lose backwards compatability if they moved to X86 the development cost saving and the greater ease of porting games could pay of well.
While it would be a shame to lose backwards compatability if they moved to X86 the development cost saving and the greater ease of porting games could pay of well.
Thats not true at all - Toshiba are still releasing tv's with Cell inside them (as they always planned to). I was reading a review on one this year that mentioned the cell specifically
(Im not suggesting it was as popular as any of the three companies wanted it to be however, but its not abandoned)
Current gen consoles have actually aged quite well... I saw a PS2 being played a while ago and it was unbelievable how bad the graphics were!
Moving to x86 is probably the best thing for all concerned given that custom architectures now offer little benefits to graphics quality (I mean if you compare graphics PS1 -> PS2 -> PS3 it's clear the jump isn't going to be anything like as dramatic this time round) and a common architecture would make games easier to develop.
If only we could play the same game across different networks instead of having PC/PS3/Xbox only multiplayer...
Moving to x86 is probably the best thing for all concerned given that custom architectures now offer little benefits to graphics quality (I mean if you compare graphics PS1 -> PS2 -> PS3 it's clear the jump isn't going to be anything like as dramatic this time round) and a common architecture would make games easier to develop.
If only we could play the same game across different networks instead of having PC/PS3/Xbox only multiplayer...