Top
200°

Why the PlayStation 4 is unlikely to use PC hardware

Despite rumors about PC components in the upcoming PlayStation 4, the console is unlikely to use such hardware.

Read Full Story >>
ps4daily.com
The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer1527d ago

Sony should ditch the cell and use a cpu that's more developer friendly

Akuma-1527d ago (Edited 1527d ago )

So Sony should disregard the cell chip B/E which helps produce most of the best and technological advance games this gen on consoles that most devs have gotten useto so that they can use familiar CPU that most have been useto?

I wonder what would have happened in the days of the snes if devs didn't try to get useto the tech of the ps1. There was a big jump in technology going from snes to ps1 and most ps1 games had to use 3d space

h311rais3r1527d ago

Only reason for that is its newer tha. The 360s. Not some godlike processor.

NewMonday1527d ago

"Sony should ditch the cell and use a cpu that's more developer friendly"

"So Sony should disregard the cell chip B/E which helps produce most of the best and technological advance games this gen on consoles.."

this is flogging a dead horse, it's done PS4 will use AMD GPU+CPU

Kamikaze1351527d ago

I'd rather have a ton of good games instead of a few good games because not all developers know how to develop efficiently for the system.

TheMailman1526d ago

Of course SONY will have a Cell based PS4 or if not they´ll use some other property technology... That´s what put Sony apart from competition.. they know about hardware technology... not like some others that launch to the market week machines and keep one entire console generation from evolve because their narrow minds and deep pockets... and all with the ignorant bless from gaming “ pseudo media” that almost took the industry, and them self’s (stupid pricks) to oblivion in favour of mediocre, casual and generic games...

fossilfern1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

As impressive as the Cell processor is for the current gen of systems theres just no real point. GPUs have advanced alot in the 6 years that the current gen have been around. The Cell was good to offload tasks that the RSX GPU couldnt handle effectively on its own while it processes other tasks but there is no need because, like I said, GPUs are more than capable now to produce outstanding visuals. So a PowerPC CPU from IBM or some AMD CPU with RISC instructions will be a wise choice for Sony

sjaakiejj1526d ago

@fossilfern

You got it the wrong way around ;) The Cell was originally supposed to be the only processor in the Ps3. It later turned out that it wasn't quite as capable in graphics as they had hoped for, and as such they added the RSX to the spec, so that some of the graphics could be offloaded to that.

There's two major reasons for Sony to include the Cell Processor in their next console:

1. An evolved version of the processor is likely to be more powerful than other processors currently on the market
2. Backwards compatibility - Putting in an evolved version of the cell means that Playstation 3 games can easily be emulated on the hardware, decreasing costs and thus price for the console.

decrypt1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

@fossilfern

Actually Cell was a failed attempt by Sony to make a GPU. Once they say they couldnt compete with GPUs from AMD or Nvidia and that MS had an advantage with the GPU on the 360, Sony saw the mistakes of their way and at the last moment decided to run to Nvidia for help.

Naturally its no Secret despite Nvidia having screwed Sony over, Sony still had to enter the deal, because they knew the Cell was fail. All that was left for Cell was pure marketing hype to offload some of the work from the GPU. While that may have helped its an inefficient design.

Giving all that work to a more powerful GPU is simply more efficient. Also You are wrong about GPUs now being powerful enough to handle good graphics. Even back in the day the RSX implemented on the PS3 was a botched down version of the 78XX series GPUs. Proof is in the pudding, just before the PS3 was released the 8800GTX was out. That GPU even today rofl stomps anything the PS3 can do, its that simple. PS3s own exclusives are limited to 720p, While 8800GTX with a dual core cpu even today will play most games in 1080p.

Now Sony fanboys here can blindly praise the Cell, but really Cell is nothing great, if it was Sony would never have run to Nvidia for help specially at the last moment.

Some may even cry "oh but 2 Cells were too costly to implement so Sony went for a GPU from Nvidia". News flash, the cost of a chip is determined by its Transistor size. Both the Cell and the RSX are about 250million transistors, which makes them equal in cost. Rather Sony would have to pay Nvidia Royalty on every RSX which actually made RSX more costly for Sony than having another Cell on the PS3. However since sony knew Cell woudlnt stand a chance against a real GPU, they had to plead Nvidia for help.

dark-hollow1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

Just because the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox doesnt mean cell is the way to go.

they could achieve the same result with a powerful cpu and a better GPU than whats found on the ps3.

why makes it complicated for the develipers when you can achieve both power and dev friendly?

adamant7151526d ago

Um, no. They HAVE to get rid of the cell next-gen. Most developers havent gotten used to it, and thats the point. The great and advanced games were produced by sonys first-party, not any third-party. All the third-party games look sub-par compared to the 360.

DeadlyFire1526d ago

You guys do know AMD has 16 core low power Server CPU coming in 2012. Abu Dhabi.

Its the most likely CPU candidate. Basically anything on Steamroller is prime candidate from AMD if its AMD CPU.

If its Cell. Which it might be, but with rumors pointed at AMD I am doubtful of that. Then yes it would use 16-32 SPUs.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1526d ago
Rearden1527d ago

Developers have had years to get used to the Cell and take advantage of its power. Why start all over again now?

mushroomwig1527d ago

Exactly, there is no excuse for these major developers not to already be used to the cell since they've had nearly 6 years to work with it.

There is also the fact that Sony invested billions on the cell, there is no way they're going to drop it now. If anything I expect the PS4 to come with a Cell chip with more SPUs.

The main problem with the PS3 seems to be the RAM and I'm sure Sony will address that in their next console.

Hicken1527d ago

Because that way tons of detractors can say, "See? Sony knew the cell was crap. That's why they scrapped it in favor of something better."

Honestly, that's about the only reason.

sjaakiejj1527d ago

The Cell processor isn't developer "unfriendly". It was just a new piece of hardware that many developers were unfamiliar with. Regardless, it was the most powerful processor of its time, and can still do some amazing things when used in the right way.

I would be surprised if Sony would go with the 'leaked' architecture. If anything, I believe the 'leak' was just someone looking for attention.

T9001526d ago

"Regardless, it was the most powerful processor of its time"

One would have to wonder what sort of Crack Sony fed you lol.

"Back when Sony announced the specifications of the PlayStation 3, everyone asked if it meant the end of PC gaming. After all Cell looked very strong and NVIDIA's RSX GPU had tremendous power. We asked NVIDIA how long it would take until we saw a GPU faster than the RSX. Their answer: by the time the PS3 ships. So congratulations to NVIDIA for making the PS3 obsolete before it ever shipped, as G80 is truly a beast. "

http://www.anandtech.com/sh...

Cell was out dated by PC tech before it even released :P

sjaakiejj1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

T900, I don't think you read your own quote correctly:

"We asked NVIDIA how long it would take until we saw a GPU faster than the RSX. "

Cell is not a GPU, and Cell is not the RSX.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Sony. I'm more interested in the technicalities behind consoles and hardware, and Cell was the most powerful processor of its time.

suicidalblues1526d ago

@T900

Ones talking about the cell, the others talking about the rsx chip.

Nice job at trolling, though. Some folks may have missed that.

T9001526d ago

@skaakiejj

"Cell is not a GPU, and Cell is not the RSX."

Cell is Part CPU part GPU. Unfortunately it fails badly at both, which is why Sony had to get a real GPU from Nvidia. If the GPU tasks were left to the Cell PS3 would be no where as good as it is today.

When it comes to general processing CPU tasks an Intel or AMD Dual core CPU will outperform the Cell. If the Cell was such a good CPU you would have seen it in everday PCs.

When it comes to GPU tasks its quite obvious Cell doesnt hold a candle compared to even 5-6 year old GPUs from Nvidia or AMD.

Cell is a hybrid which fails at both of its tasks. If it was so powerful you would have seen atleast Sony make all of its games run in 1080p on it.

sjaakiejj1526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

T900

That's a pretty poor attempt at a come back. Going from a misread quote and a source, you go to mindless jabbering about something which you clearly know nothing about. And misspelling my name is rather disrespectful, so please be a bit more mature.

So let's clear it up.

The Cell is _not_ a hybrid GPU and CPU. It was always a CPU that was thought to be able to replace the GPU as it was a CPU able to perform the tasks of a GPU rather efficiently. The original plan was to use two Cells in the Playstation 3, but this was later deemed an unsuitable approach in light of costs, performance and developers.

Now your big misconception is that you believe the Cell is just another general purpose CPU. It's not - the Cell was tailor made to perform specifically tailored tasks to it very fast. Mathematically insensitive computations like Fourier Analysis are computed much more effectively on the Cell than they could be on the Core 2 Duo. In fact, the Cell in the Ps3 was customised to be optimal for the types of tasks generally expected to be required by games.

The fact that it wasn't a general purpose processor is the very reason that it could be as powerful as it was. It's also the reason why we don't see it in PCs - it's task-oriented, not general.

If you want you can read the technical details here yourself, given that you can understand them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Running games in 1080p is a developer choice. You have the performance, you can go one of two ways with it -
1. You improve the graphics, AI, etc
2. You run it at 1080p

Most developers pick 1)

T9001526d ago (Edited 1526d ago )

@sjaakiejj

You only contradict yourself, at one point you say Cell is a CPU designed to do GPU tasks. Yet Sony saw fit to get a RSX because Cell wasnt good enough. It was pretty clear 8800GTX at release clearly outperformed RSX at GPU intensive tasks, mean while Sony saw RSX superior to the Cell which is why they installed one in the PS3. Hell most of the PS3 GPU intsensive tasks are handled by the RSX not the Cell. Cell merely offloads some tasks. If it was so powerful it would have been the other way about, its common sense. Sonys Own devs primarily use RSX for most of the work, Cell is left for offloading some tasks, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why that is the case.

Put a 8800GTX and any dual core cpu together, and you will get 1080p in most games with much better graphics than a PS3 can render. So when you are saying developers choose option 1, its actually they are making a compromise due to poor hardware.

I never stated Cell was a general purpose CPU. I did mention that Cell sucks at general purpose tasks and would get its ass handed to it by a dual core cpu. Meanwhile it would also get butchered by anything like a 7800 series GPU or above.

I dont need to read Sonys technical crap, its for the fanboys who believe 6 year old tech is still some super computer lol.

Calling Cell the most powerful Processor of the time is absurd at best. When clearly it was just a hybrid which failed at performing either tasks well. Hence it was used to offload tasks from the GPU, which tbh is highly inefficient and a waste of memory bandwidth. It was just Sonys way of using a Crappy layout and having its on developers do lip service at praising it.

Its obvious why most developer choose option 1, its because the hardware is poor. Its a butchered 7xxx series GPU with a hybrid CPU that really has received more than its share of marketing hype. Like i mentioned chips like the 8800GTX which rolled out the same time could easily handle better graphics at 1080p. Poor devs had to be making compromises while offering lip service to please Sony. Unfortanetly most of you console tards fell for it.

TheBrownBandito1525d ago

@T900

Sounds like more marketing than substance to me.

"Canyanaro!!!!"

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1525d ago
cannon88001526d ago

If you actually do a lot of research about the cell and how much money has gone to perfect game engines from different companies. Drastically changing it would be bad, especially for this economy.

ATi_Elite1524d ago

To prove just how stupid Sony is!!

Anyway Sony has already ditched the Cell and has committed to an Intel CPU and an AMD GPU!!

Sony and MS both know their futures in gaming rely on switching to the PC.

Consoles are DEAD and wasting million on Hardware is NO LONGER a viable Business model when all you gotta do is piggy back off the PC or TV with a HDD or the Cloud.

Steam and Blizzard both make Billions of dollars in PROFIT just from Steam and Battle.net! No hardware No stores No commercials, just pure Profit!

All too easy!!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1524d ago
chanto231527d ago

Stick with the cell, the only problem PS3 had was the split memory...address this issue and the PS4 will be a beast...and add x-chat

BubloZX1527d ago

A more advanced version of the cell with maybe 16 or 32 SPEs. And a mid range ATI graphics card would put it wayyy ahead of whatever Microsoft and the wii u a a more affordable price. Sony owns all right to the cell and they've brought cell cost way down. It'd be financial suicide to abandon the cell now.

zero_cool1527d ago

This could be a pretty good indication that the playstation 4 could be using another multi core processor in the cell processor family...

http://www.hardwareheaven.c...

Cheers Gamers & Happy Gaming!

ApolloAdams1527d ago

Dump the cell and go towards a more PC based system there is no reason to use the cell anymore. It makes better business sense for them to dump backwards compatibility and sell the games on the PSN. Like they did with the PS3.

I think they should use a APU + GPU setup which incorporates a crossfire configuration with god heat control and power.

If Vita is any indication of anything than Sony wants to appeal to third party developers and I'm sure they would appreciate PC based hardware.

Next generation will not be about who has the "beast system" but more about the social features and the services. Who ever can come out first reliable and affordable will have a huge advantage and from where I'm looking Sony doesn't have the resources for a screw-up.

Show all comments (60)
The story is too old to be commented.