Despite rumors about PC components in the upcoming PlayStation 4, the console is unlikely to use such hardware.
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 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
Only reason for that is its newer tha. The 360s. Not some godlike processor.
"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
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.
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...
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
@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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.
Developers have had years to get used to the Cell and take advantage of its power. Why start all over again now?
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
@T900 Ones talking about the cell, the others talking about the rsx chip. Nice job at trolling, though. Some folks may have missed that.
@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.
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)
@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.
@T900 Sounds like more marketing than substance to me. "Canyanaro!!!!"
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.
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!!
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
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.
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!
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.
If it did use pc hardware that would mean mods for games!! (right?)
No. They're talking "over-the-shelf" PC components like the 360 uses. PS3 uses the Cell Processor is was essentially alien tech back when it was released.
Ps3 already supports mods (Portal 2, Unreal Tournament 3 come to mind)... It's the developers that don't ;)
Absolutelly agree!! But it would be better not just double the SPU's but make a modified CELL with 4 double threaded PPE cores and 32 SPU's running at 4ghz, along with 4 gigs of ram and 3 gigs of Vram on an Nvidia's Kepler GPU!With those specs, the PS4 will be able to play the PS3 games, but if they'll change the processor, we can forget about the backward compatibility(
And let me guess you want all of that at an affordable price right?
no! i bought the ps3 at the first month with the price around at 599) and i can do that again) BTW i would like it to have a dual kepler GPU)))) 10 year life cycle... it has to be powerfull:D
it cost sony 900 dollars to make a ps3 in the beginning and they sold it for 600 so why not? People would still buy it. The economy is bad though so that's another thing to think about also.
The 32 spu cell processor is already a reality and running, as to if they would use that I have no idea. But a 32 spu cell processor with a good gpu and 4+ gigs of ram would be a beast.
Hasn't this been already confirmed? The ps4 will not use the cell. I'm sure this was already established. The dev kits for the ps4 are already out and they do not have the cell in them. Also the Vita doesn't even use the cell.
Nothing has been confirmed yet, only rumours.
Well, being in the industry. The dev kits are already out and they don't have the cell processer in them. I really doubt they will put the cell chip back in the playstation.
yes but the are early builds though. There will be tons of kit revisions all the way up until launch of the ps4. Don't be surprised if the rumored dev kits turned out to be a load of horse shit. I mean look at the wii U. The rumors about that sytems specs and capablities are always changing. At this point all we can do is wait till E3 and or launch
It makes sense to use cell again. Backwards compatibilty, Home, PSN Games and other apps are already coded for cell's structure.
Maybe Home will be out of Beta by the time the PS4 arrives! xD
Over the shelf pc parts will equal more piracy problems, its going to be the Cell or maybe ARM which isn't as common as over the shelf pc parts...
the cell is dead....guys...and 3rd party games r now the mainstream.......and just for this reason ..sony had to trash the "cell 2" idea... about the raw power....still no one can say ...who was better xbox or ps3......one got more pure power and a bottleneck memory (ps3) that end to be useless ...another one..had a better gpu and a slower cpu....but 200 times more easy for the dev to use it....we seen in this years 8 on 10 3rd party games was better on xbox...and some exclusives was better on ps3
i know that is a ps3fan site...i have already 2 bubbles..and i stop to write post on here for this reason.....so now start with the disagree...(also if i said something that u can google it anytime)
This gen the cell for the most part failed. There is nothing "mind-blowing" on the ps3 compared to the 360. That being said, I think they should keep the cell BT get unified ram out the ass. Thats the only real problem here. That way itll have b/c. I refuse to buy a next gen console without 360/ps3 b/c cause they sure as hell wont last 10 years.
You're joking right?
He's not joking. You must not own both consoles or spend a little to much time taking serious what the fanboys write on n4g. I own both and the 360 holds its own and imo is better in a lot of areas and its profitable for the company who makes it as its still leading against a company that wiped the floor with them last gen. Tha says a lot that its even close as no one could have guessed this and kudos to MS.
Just a thought... 1. If sony used PC hardware wouldn't that mean that it can be upgraded? 2. They wouldn't have a way to void the warranty for the system. Ex: Removing the sticker from the side of the Big PS3.
I get feeling that we might have to manually install BC via an external chip. I do recall there being an unusual patent from Sony regarding BC a couple years ago.
epic lols are being had. the PS4 will NOT use the Cell processor. there are a MULTITUDE of reasons why it wont - here are a few: 1. Intel, the creators of the Cell processor, ditched it and stopped R&D on it. If the people that MADE the cell dropped it for a more regular design, doesnt that say something? 2. The PS Vita doesnt use the Cell. With sony completely owning the Cell manufacturing plants, and the PSV being touted as a portable PS3, if there was ever a console that would use the Cell it would be the PSV - but it doesnt. it went back to a traditional architecture. 3. Developers dont like the Cell. the only ones who do are the ones who HAVE to like it, at least publicly in their carefully worded sony-praising releases. different for the sake of being different isnt good. 4. R&D on the Cell stopped YEARS ago. Sony arent CPU makers, they cant just 'upgrade' the Cell processor. so if they were to use the Cell in the PS4, theyd be using it in its current configuration - 3.2ghz, 6 usable SPUs. using the same CPU 2 generations in a row would see Sony exit the console market quicker than Sega did on the back of the dreamcast. make no mistake, the PS4 will NOT use the cell or any variation of it as a CPU. you can bet your life on it.
Intel has nothing to do with the Cell. Toshiba has total Cell chip manufacturing ownership but has shared interest/development of the cell with Sony and IBM NOT Nvidia. Know before you troll.
Ah, but if he did that, he might not be such a troll. epic lols, indeed.
Opps put Nvidia at the end instead of Intel.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.