Digital Trends - When Sony unveiled the PlayStation 3 console back in 2005 at E3, it was an impressive machine. The much-anticipated device and multimedia hub offered a new experience, allowing users to not only play games, but view photos, browse the Internet, and watch Blu-Ray discs all in glorious 1080p. Here we are seven years later and we’re equally impressed by Sony’s next-generation console — which pretty much blows its predecessor out of the water in a couple key areas.
40°
30°
40°
30°
Ad 
40°
How so? Sony literally blew Billions in research for the PS3.
The Cell for its time was def ahead of a low performance, power saving tablet CPU.
RSX was ahead of its time in comparison to the 7850-7870 Mobile GPU on the PS4.
Sony isn't introducing any new media format this time around. Hence its plain old bluray.
No Backward compatibility as the PS3 did feature.
The only thing going for the PS4 is the RAM, which to be honest doesnt really do any sort of calculations what so ever. Funnily enough its also the RAM that people have mostly been talking about (the CPU & GPU have just been ignored, with the PS3 release the CELL was the talk of the town not just some RAM). Almost gives you a feeling its Sony that tells the media what to talk about, Since they invested alot on the Cell thats what they wanted the media to talk about naturally the effect trickled down to the fans. This time around since the CPU and GPU are nothing special they need to talk about something else and since they dont have much else to talk about, they decide to focus on the RAM lol.
I wonder how we are EQUALLY impressed by the PS4 as we were with the PS3.
Of course the PS4 will blow its predecessor its releasing 7 years later, thats the least we would expect of it. However equally impressive not a chance.
Imo in comparison to the PS3, PS4 looks like a cost saving exercise. Whats left to be seen how much of these cost savings are going to be forwarded to the fans and how much is kept for corporate profits.
Good attempt but you are going to get disagreed to hell by the herd lol.
Not easy prying off Sony blinders.
He is getting disagreed with because he is just plain wrong. I mean there is really no other way to put it.
Sony = disagrees
Talk too highly of Sony = disagrees.
Ask for disagrees = agrees!
Its funny how so many people have disagreed with facts.
PS3 indeed was a better package for its time than the PS4.
Obvious trolls are obvious.
lol You deserve +bubbles for that comment.
What hindered the PS3 was the crappy GPU and small memory.
What the CELL is actually very good at is virtually of little or no relevance or use to gaming code. It is inflexible very much the opposite of what x86 has been slowly developed into over the past 35 years. Think about why x86 has been around that long too, when CELL has born and died in less than a decade.
Which is probably why PS3 has been trounced performance wise by gaming computers with dual core x86 processors in PC since the day it arrived.
Put a core 2 duo and an 8800GTX in a PC (both of which were around by the time PS3 launched) and it will of course, beat up PS3 on anything you care to mention.
Sony have switched to x86 for that very reason....it is vastly superior in genera purpose code for games.
Secondly CELL is as dead as a dodo, and that wouldn't be the case if it were actually so superior to existing hardware.
Use some common sense! How can it be so brilliant and yet utterly dead as an architecture?
Fact is it isn't so brilliant in 2013. An x86 CPU is much better, and a modern GPGPU much better at everything else.
Which is precisely why Sony ditched CELL and included an x86 CPU and a modern GPGPU.....
.....
Tell me...why is there such a big deal about BC? It's not like your consoles ceased to exist after a new one comes out. I'm sorry but when a new console comes out, I'm moving on. If I want to play old games, I have my other consoles.
And can you please back up your statements with evidence?
Oh...wait, you can't.
Remember Okami on the PS2? Awesome game isn't it? Well, I already own a copy for my old PS2. If I want to play it again I have to pull my PS2 from the closet and rig it on my entertainment centre. Or can just re-purchase the game on the PSN Store and have it downloaded to my PS3. But why? Why should I spend more money on something that I already own? So, my only option is to clean the dust over my PS2. Fair enough... well, not so fair. What will happen to my PS2 games collection when there is no more support for that system? I can always buy a new one on Amazon or EBay but with time that system will become scarce, harder to find, and the harder to find the expensier it will be... just to think abaut it annoys me.
Listen, I own something like 200 Dreamcast games. Several accessories, memory cards, rumble packs, arcade sticks... you got the picture. Right now that collection is sitting on several boxes on my closet. My Dremcast does not work anymore. Amazon and EBay got replacements but they are mostly refurbished and won't last long. It is quite rare to find an original, still sealed one but the price is a little step for such an old system. The point is, that I don't want my vast PlayStation games to follow the Dreamcast example. I want to play my games as long as I want regardless of the system.
For me BC is a big deal. I want to upgrade to a PS4 as quick as the thing hits the market, but still... No BC means i will stick to my PS3 until there is nothing new to play.
Just my opinion. Happy gaming folks.
That excites me more then RAM, or CPU's and whats not.
The console makes developers happy, which makes me happy. I'm excited for what they will be able to do with it.
So yeah Equally impressed, then add the share button, the play as you download, Vita remote play and streaming your game things which I find cool and I'd say I am more impressed.
And BC is coming via the cloud.
The PS4 may not have expensive "ahead of their time" tech inside it, but it improves in other ways over the PS3 and if you can't see that, you're more blind than normal.
-The Ps3 to the Ps4 is like the psOne to the Ps2 which is a evolution but not the Ps2 to Ps3 which was a revolution. We are still in the HD era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://support.microsoft.co...
As far as more ram goes, I played Skyrim on both PC and PS3. The biggest thing I noticed between the 2 was PS3 was on medium graphics and load times were horrible. Now imagine skyrim on max settings with no load times on the PS3. I know, I'm dreaming but it's only because there is not enough memory capacity to load all of the data to be processed at once. Add more memory, then more and larger files can be loaded thus improving texture quality and greatly reducing load times. This also helps with loading more of the game up at once to reduce potential areas for load screens. Like with skyrim, walking into a house. Wait for house to load and then go to a different section of the house just to wait for another loading screen. More ram, graphics ram specifically, helps with these issues greatly.
Yes, SONY spent billions on PS3 to deliver the ultimate game console and muli-media device, but nobody can complain about a change of statedgy this time. I mean, how many of the dissenting voices actually bought a PS3 at launch? I did, but not enough gamers did, indeed there was a lot of hatred. So well done SONY for adapting. I say well done because I like Playstation consoles, simple.
I look forwards to PS4. Its many times more powerfull than PS3 with enough RAM for silky smooth operation. Ticks all of the boxes.
As for BluRay, of course it is still to be used, it has enough capacity. WTF are these fannies expecting, Holographic BluRay2? We might have got a format such as that if, you know, you had bought a PS3! If you didn't spend the cash then you have no say.
I think u mean it was the most disappointing racin game on a console ever
Seriously are you guys THAT bored with your lives ? :\
Anyways,can't wait till June ! PS4 @ E3