[riddleofthejynx]

i hope it's not a playstation at all.

it's too soon for a ps4 or whatever it's going to be called. PS1 and PS2 have over a thousand games each, ps3 only has 700. We need at least 1200 ps3 games before they think about making a new console IMO. these companies should compete with good games before they throw around unnecessary hardware. they're still not using the ps3 to the fullest

[BobbyBlunt]

Originally Posted by riddleofthejynx i hope it's not a playstation at all. it's too soon for a ps4 or whatever it's going to be called. PS1 and PS2 have over a thousand games each, ps3 only has 700. We need at least 1200 ps3 games before they think about making a new console IMO. these companies should compete with good games before they throw around unnecessary hardware. they're still not using the ps3 to the fullest

Well they stick to a timefram of about 6 years per new console release. Ps3 came out in 06 so I wouldn't have been shocked if we saw a new ps this year, but it doesn't look like that will happen. A 2013 release will probably happen though. 7 years for a gaming console isn't that bad.

[marty370]

Originally Posted by riddleofthejynx i hope it's not a playstation at all. it's too soon for a ps4 or whatever it's going to be called. PS1 and PS2 have over a thousand games each, ps3 only has 700. We need at least 1200 ps3 games before they think about making a new console IMO. these companies should compete with good games before they throw around unnecessary hardware. they're still not using the ps3 to the fullest

Ther's plenty of time for more PS3 games, PS4 could be atleast 1.5/2 years off. So about late 2013/ early 2014 release.

[riddleofthejynx]

don't get me wrong, ps3 has some amazing titles. and i agree, the time frame does coincide with earlier generations.

still though, a lot of the games we have now took too long to make imo (some aren't even out yet). I wish companies would do like the old days and get hundreds of third party sleeper hits for their systems. there needs to be more lower-budget games with high-content and replayability first.

or at least i'd be a little happier.

[Pawsed]

Originally Posted by marty370 Cell is not limited to game systems. IBM has announced a Cell-based blade, which leverages the investment in the high-performance Cell architecture. Other future uses may include HDTV sets, home servers, game servers and supercomputers. Also, Cell is not limited to a single chip, but is a scalable system. The number of attached SPUs can be varied, to achieve different power/performance and price/performance points. And, the Cell architecture was conceived as a modular, extendible system where multiple Cell subsystems each with a Power Architecture™ core and attached SPUs, can form a symmetric multiprocessor system. Surely multiple Cell 2 chips with more SPU's would be a better way to go. And PS4 would possibly retain backward compatibillty with PS3.

While it would ensure an easy transition from PS3 to PS4 development, and yes Backwards compatibility, there are a few key reasons they most likely one. One is exactly like you said - it's not limited to game systems. It's a very generalized processor, and that's not always the best idea. The more you add to an instruction set, the more space used on a chip, the more spread-out and complicated the connects etc etc. A balance is always needed. The CELL is designed for super computing, and thus neglects a lot of on chip features games might need (though realistically, PS3's limitation is it's GPU). The way they get around this is by running these functions virtually - the simple concept being if a processor can add 1 and 1, and 2 and 2 it needs to add 1 to 1, then add 1, then add to 1, all done symbolically via the underlying software. Basic explanation, but the if it could directly add 2 and 2, then you'd do it a lot quicker. Modern functions and needs are far more complex, but the point is the same. The Cell forgoes a lot of things in the name of super-computing speed. PS3 makes up for lacks by wasting processing cycles.

Now, more CELLs could improve this by offering more threads, but the more you fragment code like that the more waiting eventually occurs in real time applications like gaming. It works in super computers because the threads can run independent. But gaming threads are so related that you don't want to super fragment it like that, lest you start virtualizing a lot of important functions because they're being split over multiple cores and having to wait for everything to occur, wasting tons of clock cylces.


The simpler answer to why they won't use CELL though, is two fold. One, CELL programming is more complex. While the current devs may have a handle on it, it still creates a problem where they've got to make code run on CELL and on the more standard paradigms of the 360's hardware (and Wii U but that's fairly standard as well). This is why many games look better cross platform on 360 - it's easier to code for, and they use tools to convert to PS3 which don't produce optimal results (they've gotten a lot better).

While you might argue "Well the devs seem to have it figured out now," you need to recognize that most of that is working off existing engines for the current platforms. Add in higher SPE count CELLs, or more CELL chips in parallel, and then throw in the fact that they're all going to be writing new engines for the next gen platforms (well, some will work off others work but same difference).

Sony has two goals in not using the CELL - One, put in hardware that is in line specwise with what the 720 ends up with. They want to be 'faster' for sure, but realistically they don't want to be highly custom this time around - while they had the more powerful system, it ended up being detrimental for so long that it hurt their market share because developers had trouble with it, or ported results looked crappy. 360 was extremely easy to port to from Windows, but PS3 not so much. Look at the list of 360 console exclusives and you'll see a ton of them also exist on the PC - be it MS porting to PC, or PC devs porting to 360, it was still easy to do and meant more console exclusives for MS, and more profits from console games on 360 that could also be sold on PC without much dev. Now look at PS3 exclusives. You'll see that next to none made it to PC. One, because Sony owned titles are meant as system sellers, but also because 3rd party titles are often too highly optimized to cost effectively port.

So by not using the CELL, they would hope to open the door to more ports of other console's games (that look good), and get devs on board all over. be it PC or console, due to ease of development.

The other major reason they won't use the CELL again - PS3 games.

They do NOT want backwards compatibility. Yes, WE want it. But they recognized a while back, with sales of PS2 remakes, that not having PS2 games work in all but the earlier PS3's, has meant there is a market for PSN and retail collections/bestof/remakes of not just PSOne, but PS2 games as well.

On PS4 even more so. Your friend got a PS4 and it's backwards compatible? Lend them your copies of Uncharted 1-3. Wait, it's not backwards compatible? Well what do you know, Sony's got a collection of Uncharted 1-3 for the PS4 for only $39.99 for your friend to enjoy.

The market has overwhelmingly shown they'll buy these collections if they can't simply pop their games in. They sell like hotcakes, and take very little to make. This is one of the top reasons they won't use CELL. And without CELL on board, they aren't about to start another research program to make a new chipset like CELL - so they're going to standard chipset architecture manufacturers and getting customized chips from them. This is a win-win in their book - more games for the system, more compatibility and easier development, and they get to sell tons of PSN/PS4 disc collections of PS3 remakes in addition to PS2 and PSOne. Expect this to be the new trend. Instead of offering backwards compatibility, they just start putting old system titles in their cloud for whatever new system comes out - for a fee.

[pepethedon]

So far so bad, anyone heard rumors about that screen? Maserati utilizes the exact same technology on the Maserati Birdcage's (Car) dashboard:





Clear panel that produces color images, very interesting touch imo.

[riddleofthejynx]

i hope nothing is ever backwards compatible with ps3, let it be unique.

i hope it's not backward compatible at all either, that's going to lead to piracy.

i seriously hope you're not able to run backups on it either. make it where it only runs code from the real copy of the game. People should be able to backup their copy, yeah, but not play it this time around.

i'm not looking forward to the next sony console so soon, i'll probably upgrade the ukfc outa my PC before i buy a next gen console. they're turning it into an xbox, and i don't want that, so if they want me to buy it, the console better be secure so i don't get the jerk around when new slim models get released.

leave all playstations in the past, the name has been unhealthily tarnished.

[marty370]

Originally Posted by Pawsed While it would ensure an easy transition from PS3 to PS4 development, and yes Backwards compatibility, there are a few key reasons they most likely one. One is exactly like you said - it's not limited to game systems. It's a very generalized processor, and that's not always the best idea. The more you add to an instruction set, the more space used on a chip, the more spread-out and complicated the connects etc etc. A balance is always needed. The CELL is designed for super computing, and thus neglects a lot of on chip features games might need (though realistically, PS3's limitation is it's GPU). The way they get around this is by running these functions virtually - the simple concept being if a processor can add 1 and 1, and 2 and 2 it needs to add 1 to 1, then add 1, then add to 1, all done symbolically via the underlying software. Basic explanation, but the if it could directly add 2 and 2, then you'd do it a lot quicker. Modern functions and needs are far more complex, but the point is the same. The Cell forgoes a lot of things in the name of super-computing speed. PS3 makes up for lacks by wasting processing cycles. Now, more CELLs could improve this by offering more threads, but the more you fragment code like that the more waiting eventually occurs in real time applications like gaming. It works in super computers because the threads can run independent. But gaming threads are so related that you don't want to super fragment it like that, lest you start virtualizing a lot of important functions because they're being split over multiple cores and having to wait for everything to occur, wasting tons of clock cylces. The simpler answer to why they won't use CELL though, is two fold. One, CELL programming is more complex. While the current devs may have a handle on it, it still creates a problem where they've got to make code run on CELL and on the more standard paradigms of the 360's hardware (and Wii U but that's fairly standard as well). This is why many games look better cross platform on 360 - it's easier to code for, and they use tools to convert to PS3 which don't produce optimal results (they've gotten a lot better). While you might argue "Well the devs seem to have it figured out now," you need to recognize that most of that is working off existing engines for the current platforms. Add in higher SPE count CELLs, or more CELL chips in parallel, and then throw in the fact that they're all going to be writing new engines for the next gen platforms (well, some will work off others work but same difference). Sony has two goals in not using the CELL - One, put in hardware that is in line specwise with what the 720 ends up with. They want to be 'faster' for sure, but realistically they don't want to be highly custom this time around - while they had the more powerful system, it ended up being detrimental for so long that it hurt their market share because developers had trouble with it, or ported results looked crappy. 360 was extremely easy to port to from Windows, but PS3 not so much. Look at the list of 360 console exclusives and you'll see a ton of them also exist on the PC - be it MS porting to PC, or PC devs porting to 360, it was still easy to do and meant more console exclusives for MS, and more profits from console games on 360 that could also be sold on PC without much dev. Now look at PS3 exclusives. You'll see that next to none made it to PC. One, because Sony owned titles are meant as system sellers, but also because 3rd party titles are often too highly optimized to cost effectively port. So by not using the CELL, they would hope to open the door to more ports of other console's games (that look good), and get devs on board all over. be it PC or console, due to ease of development. The other major reason they won't use the CELL again - PS3 games. They do NOT want backwards compatibility. Yes, WE want it. But they recognized a while back, with sales of PS2 remakes, that not having PS2 games work in all but the earlier PS3's, has meant there is a market for PSN and retail collections/bestof/remakes of not just PSOne, but PS2 games as well. On PS4 even more so. Your friend got a PS4 and it's backwards compatible? Lend them your copies of Uncharted 1-3. Wait, it's not backwards compatible? Well what do you know, Sony's got a collection of Uncharted 1-3 for the PS4 for only $39.99 for your friend to enjoy. The market has overwhelmingly shown they'll buy these collections if they can't simply pop their games in. They sell like hotcakes, and take very little to make. This is one of the top reasons they won't use CELL. And without CELL on board, they aren't about to start another research program to make a new chipset like CELL - so they're going to standard chipset architecture manufacturers and getting customized chips from them. This is a win-win in their book - more games for the system, more compatibility and easier development, and they get to sell tons of PSN/PS4 disc collections of PS3 remakes in addition to PS2 and PSOne. Expect this to be the new trend. Instead of offering backwards compatibility, they just start putting old system titles in their cloud for whatever new system comes out - for a fee.

Use CELL as an IO controller just like they did with the original PS2 chipset in the PS3 or SOC(System on a chip). Cell chips will be dirt cheap, now many many millions have been made and sold by now.

[ps3hacker12]

Originally Posted by MysterySword The PS3's 8-core Cell processor is actually quite weak in some areas. Yeah, it's good for making computations, but not too much else. Also, since 2006, processors have improved quite a bit - to the point where it's no longer just about the number of cores. For instance, the quad-core 2.9Ghz CPU may have hyperthreading (and probably all of the improvements of newer CPUs since Core 2 Duo CPUs hit the market). Ever since the Core 2 Duo CPUs came out, it hasn't been an clock speed war, so GHz aren't as relevant anymore.

It's not even 8 cores it's a single core with 7 SPEs. SPEs are very different to cores.


Sent from my me at home from my fingers typing the above message... using Tapatalk

[ps3hacker12]

Originally Posted by bpear96 This sounds cool, but its more likely to be the soon to come AMD piledriver trinity APU (check out AMD Trinity A10-5800K). That will have lower power consumption even though they are higher clocked. And have a intergrated chipset based on radeon hd 7xxx series. So it could easily "crossfire" with a separate 7xxx discreet card. This is great for ps4 and PC gamers. If these specs are somewhat true, the ps4 will basically be a PC (unupgradable,locked down pc :P) But games will not need much changes to run on PS4 and PC, so maybe we will stop seeing lousy ports to ps4 and even PC of multiplatform games.If this thing ever did get hacked up, or exploit found i would be surprised to see full windows 7+ on it lol. AMD is a good choice, there lowcost, and a good bang for your buck.There apu's are nice espically crossfired. And this could really help AMD get up off the ground since they havent been doing the "best". I personally just made the switch to PC gaming though, upgraded my rig from something that could barely play half-life :P to something that can play basically any game maxed out. And it didnt cost much either. I got a AMD Phenom II x4 BE overclocked at 4.1ghz with coolermaster 212+ MSI twinfrozr Radeon HD 6950, Unlocked to 6970 with tweaked bios, and OCed to 950/1375 CORE/VRAM. And then 8GB of ram. Its awesome! ************* [ - Post Merged - ] ************* Ok for one you can not compare to CPU with complety different architecture, almost like comparing a quadcore tegra 3 with a quadcore Phenom ii x4, even at the same clock per core the phenom would likely beat it, completly different architecture, this AMD APU and The CELL processor. Also sony could get a custom APU with Eight piledriver cores, and a radeon HD 7660M which could easily crossfire with a 7670 like the rumor says. But 4 cores would be plenty.

Nice rig. You shoulda got an i3-2100 instead of that phenom tho, better in gaming (check anandtech benches if you don't believe me).


Sent from my me at home from my fingers typing the above message... using Tapatalk