Top
350°

The Cell processor 2 is in development, and go for PlayStation 4

Mindful of the information comes from a trusted source: apparently, the Cell chip's successor is already being designed. It's not something that surprises us in particular, but it also makes two details have reached us, is being developed at supercomputing center in Barcelona, ​​and its most immediate application will be PlayStation 4.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.es
The story is too old to be commented.
NukaCola2226d ago

Good, devs now know how cell tech works and I expect great things for next gen. I do ask that the bluray drive in the PS4 read much faster and that they add RAM like no other. The next systems should just bite the financial bullet and fork out for the memory. That really has been the only hold back with consoles this last year. They have created unbelievable things, but I really hope they give the devs (within a limit to keep the console under $400 at launch) as much freedom to grow as possible.

lazertroy2226d ago

I stopped reading what you said "devs now know how cell tech works"

Trophywhore2226d ago

dont be trollin. Its most good devs know how cell tech works. :P

raytraceme2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

Dice knows how to use it, idtech know how to use it, ps3 exclusive devs know how to use it (about 18 studios are sony owned), insomniac know how to use it, Crytek know how to use it, irrational games know how to use it. The only devs. to learn how to use the cell is activision, and epic games. Now why would these devs want to go to another architecture?

A_Troll_From_Ign2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

Well he is right it one sence look what naughty dog can do. But yeah the majority don't know who to use it efficently as Sony 1st party studios.

What are they gonna do, add more spus and L1,2 and 3 cache?

Tbh it does need to be more gamer friendly. What's gonna be in the Xbox CPU wise?

gamingdroid2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

It's actually more how to work around the Cell's deficiencies.

Cell can do repeated calculations on small amounts of data sets really fast, but ain't so good when you have to pass that data around a lot.

Sony needs to solve the bandwidth and the low memory issue.

ProjectVulcan2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

I doubt this rumour, it IS a rumour. IBM abandoned CELL architecture a long time ago. Potentially they could be working on some kind of derivative from what they learned, but it will be more than slightly different. In other words, it is more likely to be in name only, rather than a direct lineage successor to PS3's CELL design.

Multithreading is still difficult, load balancing and latency beyond a certain number of cores makes many more SPE versions of CELL unworkable, hence the reason IBM abandoned it. The law of diminishing returns.

I think we are looking at an other round of PowerPc based processors for the next consoles- with the joker in the pack being AMD's link up with microsoft and a possible entirely interated SoC design, an AMD fusion type product for Microsoft's next machine.

I am more interested in seeing what the GPU choice will be- AMD could be supplying every machine in very different configurations. Sony once again seem that they may take an unconventional approach.

Whatever happens i would imagine sony will have learnt from their mistakes designing and launching PS3. Certainly they should make sure they have much tighter control over design rights this time round instead of gifting Microsoft a CPU.

Khronikos2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

As far as I know it is not totally abandoned and did they not buy back the cell manufacturing from Toshiba's share? I thought all of them still had the tech to go on if needed. The ONLY reason the PS3 keeps up is the Cell processor. Not only that but this kind of computing is fundamentally where all mainframes are. The CPU's right now at Intel are at a point where they are very nice so I expect major revisions but the cell itself is not a dead design at all. Sure 4 high cores is nice but can any console handle that kind of heat for 400 dollar machine. Not right now. I don't want just a two core machine, either. I would rather they bulk up to a 12 core Cell chip with faster buses and more power on the GPU. It's more future proof than a lot of things would be. As long as the buses are huge and SPUs are even speedier and maybe more of them I don't see how you could go wrong as long as the GPU is stable and powerful. Let the smart devs get all the more from it and let the average devs use the GPU mostly. All we need is really 1080p 30fps but of course 60 would be so much better at this point.

ProjectVulcan2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

Sony DID buy back the plant from Toshiba last year, but IBM and their technology was always the driving force behind the CPU development. After all, the whole thing was based on IBM's PowerPc architecture that they also licensed to Microsoft for 360's CPU. IBM long decided that the specific CELL architecture was a dead end. http://arstechnica.com/hard...

PS3 wouldn't need CELL to 'keep up' if whoever it was selected its particular GPU had demanded a better part, or at least decided not to gimp the one they chose. The KEY part for any games machine is really its GPU, which is where Sony got caught out and Microsoft (well, really ATI) pretty much nailed.

tehnoob32226d ago

Using a cell processor again would enable Sony to easily emulate Ps3 games. Using a conventional processor would make it almost impossible to emulate.

Oner2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

Funny how those that speak of "deficiencies" can't provide a single game (after 5+ years & STILL going) on a competitors console that rivals the graphics, capabilities, scale & environments of the PS3's top exclusive titles.

So you can try and boast your OPINIONS to those who wear the same biased blinders, but the plain old fact that you can't change is this ~ you can't provide 1 single game that proves your OPINION correct...whereas there are quite a few games on the PS3 that prove you wrong day in and day out.

ProjectVulcan2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

@ Oner

It is easy to look at that from a one sided perspective, and claim that there is no evidence that other console has had better visuals than a few PS3 exclusives. That sole claim does have some substance i will not dispute this.

HOWEVER this misses several extremely important points if you take a balanced viewpoint....

For example Killzone 2 and 3 are probably unrivalled in terms of visuals for FPS on PS3. However i question whether that actually makes them better games than other 'visually inferior' rival FPS, be it on PS3 itself or exclusive FPS on other platforms.

I say it doesn't.

If you wanted killer visuals, PS3 arguably just edges 360 out. But it still loses heavily to PC anyway so its a debatable win if that is your only motivation.

And CELL itself, the architecture- it has allowed how many games would you say that look better than anything else on rival console platforms? Sony exclusives, all of them, maybe 6 or 7 titles at most? Out of how many? Thousands...

Now consider- How many games has PS3's architecture effectively LOST to rival platforms? How many top exclusives has 360 gained because of PS3's difficulties in development? For example, L4D, Mass effect. How many GREAT games have appeared on a rival console platform much delayed for PS3, and ran or looked considerably better because of simpler development on 360? For example Bayonetta, or The Orange box, or Bioshock.

Well, i believe i would cast my eye down a fairly long list considering those factors. Longer than the opposing list of Sony titles that look better than rival games but don't all necessarily play better.

So you could try and trumpet it as a glorious victory for PS3's design, but i actually see it in balance as being a story of some good wins, and some major losses.

jack_burt0n2225d ago

how the hell does vulcan have so many bubbles and talk such nonsense......................

seriously you are clueless.

a better GPU???? did you actually say that?? do you know anything about ps3 development at all!?

ProjectVulcan2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

Looks like i know plenty more about the consoles and hardware in general than you jack_burt0n...

The fact remains PS3's GPU is a fail, and if it weren't gimped or based on a dated design instead of a custom one like 360's GPU then PS3 would almost certainly outperform 360 comfortably in ALL circumstances and games, instead of losing in most multi plats and just edging 360's exclusives in a rare few cases.

The best devs use CELL as a graphics coprocessor, which devs wouldn't need to emphasise as much IF THE GPU WERE NOT AS WEAK AS IT IS.

Most of the tasks part handed off to CELL like vertices are handed off because RSX has a crap vertex fillrate against Xenos. This simply would not be needed to try and balance an engine if PS3's GPU was not based on an older split pipe design or didn't suffer a bunch of missing ROPS and a halved memory bus.

Handing off such tasks is clever, but it shouldn't be required. No CPU on the planet is going to be able to have a vertex fillrate on par with a half decent hardware accelerated GPU.

CELL effectively then has been used to patch up the weaknesses in RSX against its conpetitor platforms, when in reality, it should have been able to do other things that it would actually be good at instead of doing graphics work it is not exactly perfectly suited to.....

In short then, CELL in many cases is like using a spoon (CELL) to cut your steak(vertex shaders). You CAN do it, but that doesn't mean that you would, if you had a knife(decent GPU). You are only using the spoon because you don't have a knife....That isn't something to be praised IMO.

It doesn't matter if you believe what i have said but it is true. Just look at a PC with a cheapo low end dual core CPU paired with a powerful GPU. Sure the GPU will be bottlenecked, but it'll still obliterate another PC with a top end CPU and a sub par GPU in games.

The GPU is the KEY component, ATI nailed it for 360, Nvidia didn't for PS3 for whatever reason.

A-Glorious-Dawn2225d ago

Extremely stealthy trolling vulcan, other trolls could learn from you...

reynod2225d ago

@Vulcanproject

I completely agree with what you say. However console fans specially PS3 gamers on this site are completely blinded by whatever they are told techwise, they do not listen to reason.

Sony was 1 year late to the market. The 8800GTX launched at the same time the PS3 did. Till date there isnt a game that the PS3(RSX + Cell) can beat the 8800GTX + any low end dual core cpu. Which simply proves GPU is the key component. However no point telling this to the playstation audience at N4G they simply what to believe the CELL is some superchip.

Little hint PS3 gamers, if CELL was so good Sony would have instead gone with 2 CELL chips instead of running to Nvidia at the last moment. Dont give us the bullcrap about 2 CELL chips being too costly, that isnt true either. It would have been cheaper for Sony infact since they would have produced CELL in house and wouldnt have had to pay Nvidia royalties. Both the CELL and RSX have around 250m transistors. Usually Transistor count detormines how costly a chip is going to be. Hence Sony putting 2 CELLS in the PS3 would have been cheaper for them however that would have decimated the PS3s performance, it would have been a PS2 1.5

SkyGamer2225d ago

bubbles vulcan.

It doesn't matter if you believe what i have said but it is true. Just look at a PC with a cheapo low end dual core CPU paired with a powerful GPU. Sure the GPU will be bottlenecked, but it'll still obliterate another PC with a top end CPU and a sub par GPU in games.

I have been saying that for many years. Just because you go to wlamart and buy a cheap pc and think you can play high end games at all, that is foolish and plainly just won't happen. Now you don't need faster ram (although it does help), you do need a better psu and a discreet video card.

Persistantthug2225d ago

In November 2009, an IBM representative said that it has discontinued the development of a Cell processor with 32 SPUs[14][15] but they have not halted development of other future products in the Cell family.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Computersaysno2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

Gah, nvidia lost the 360 contract and now they have lost the next gen playstation one too i bet

ProjectVulcan2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

It is really already what i said persistantthug, its academic. However you want to go into detail- The 32 SPE part was the direct lineage successor to PS3's cell, the smaller parts are minor derivatives.

In other words, 32 SPE, its direct successor that i mentioned- is dead in the water because of diminishing returns from additional SPEs. The other projects are more closely PPE based, which technically is part of the CELL but not so much the unique version that was developed for PS3. The PPE is basically 360s CPU too. What made cell unique is really gone, even the PowerXCell 8i IBM line is history in favour of GPGPU solutions. Such is the flexibility of GPU design these days!

Basically the actual CELL design used for PS3 is a dead end, but elements taken in the learning process can be re used. That was pretty much what i said in that post about the CPU anyways tho wasn't it.

Thanks for the agrees guys, it isn't a mystery to me that CELL props up RSX against 360. It has to be used fantastically well to match 360 on most multiplat games, and brilliantly so with a no doubt huge dev budget to beat it. Kudos Naughty dog and Guerilla who had those elements in place. But i bet they wouldn't complain if you swapped out CELL and RSX for an old athlon X2 and a G80 core 8800GTS :)

Oner2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

You say ~

"It is easy to look at that from a one sided perspective, and claim that there is no evidence that other console has had better visuals than a few PS3 exclusives. That sole claim does have some substance i will not dispute this.

HOWEVER this misses several extremely important points if you take a balanced viewpoint....

For example Killzone 2 and 3 are probably unrivalled in terms of visuals for FPS on PS3. However i question whether that actually makes them better games than other 'visually inferior' rival FPS, be it on PS3 itself or exclusive FPS on other platforms.

I say it doesn't. "

There is no other argument until I am proven wrong because MP titles don't mean jack $#@! Especially when there are more than enough to completely dispute it, as it is on it's own ~

Portal 2
LA Noire
The Saboteur
FF XIII
Burn Out Paradise
Mirrors Edge
Batman Ahrkam Asylum
GTA 4
Unreal Tournament III
Dead Space
Street Fighter IV
Devil May Cry 4
Assassin's Creed II
Bioshock 2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
Fallout 3
Dragon Age: Origins
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Borderlands
Red Faction: Guerrilla

And that's the short list off the top of my head, as there are other more current titles that continue to support my point (anyone who can add to it please do).

But what you don't get is you are bringing up a DIFFERENT discussion to what I am talking about, thus that is a SEPARATE issue/thing to address. So MY point is STILL completely undisputed which shows how the TECHNOLOGY within the PS3 is NOT "deficient" (as some would like many to believe). THAT is the point I was directly addressing/discussing/talking about.

Now on to your NEW and DIFFERENT subject ~ I again say you are incorrect since you say they are not "better" but how could they NOT be if the gameplay in those multiplatforms are EXACTLY the same but the visuals are "better"? Be it draw distance/textures/resolution etc.

And if we are talking exclusive to exclusive (of which is kinda hard + quite subjective to prove either way but I will try) then how is it that a title like Uncharted 2 which won MANY MANY awards not only for graphics and gameplay doesn't prove you wrong? (Additionally Uncharted 3 will just solidify my point when it drops)

The fact is the PS3's hardware is not as "deficient" as some tout. Because the proof is there and hasn't been proven wrong by way of visuals, environments, scale, player count & overall capabilities (as my original point still stands).

And it all culminates to one thing that is a constant across this type of discussion ~ There are devs that are better than others that can use the PS3's hardware better than others and it shows.

But it's "deficient" right? /rollseyes #whatever

Persistantthug2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

The 32 was a DIRECT successor to the 16 SPE version. They canned it, allegedly because the 32 didn't produce the significant gains above the 16.

That doesn't mean they can't or won't make an evolved version.
Afterall, Toshiba's recently launched TVs with a CEVO chip, and that is based on Cell Tech.

You almost make future Cell Tech development and progression sound so black & white.
There's lots of ways the next Cell could pan out...that includes offshoots.

ProjectVulcan2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

Its canned persistantthug. What more do you want to clarify? Higher multiple SPE(the bit that actually makes it most unique) chips are gone. Direct lineage ended, History, Dead as a dodo. Whatever. The base design is finished, and only elements and echoes will survive in future designs, just as i said. Every chip around traces a fair bit of its design to ancient chips, so although the SPECIFIC architecture is dead, whole design concepts can resurface and hang about.

@ Oner

My discussion was related the point that you made really, but from a balanced angle.

Your point was PS3's technology made a few of these exclusives look better than anything on say 360, which i never disagreed with.

My balanced points were that yes, you have a reasonable point, but it is not the big picture. So i supplied the big picture.

The technology doesn't make some of the games that look better, better playing games. Killzone 3 might look better than any other console FPS, but i don't think it is the best FPS made this gen because of those visuals. Do you? This is kinda important, has PS3's technology delivered lots of games that are all much better playing than its rivals?

The answer has to be no.

If PS3's tech was the only factor, we would all have PCs and nothing else because it has the best tech, so although i never disputed that point, i believe it is rendered moot by my statement.

As for the multiplatform thing it is VERY relevant and counts HUGELY. Most of the games anyone plays right now are multiplatform. This is a fact we have lived with since the death of the exclusive, or at least the reduction of exclusives tied to one platform.

I am not sure what your list is about exactly, but it isn't games that run and look better on PS3 against 360, because at least half of that list are truthfully a slight bit better running/looking on 360.

My latter point was that PS3's hardware has put off several developers and done damage to the state of some games, multiplatforms and otherwise on PS3. Maybe more damage than allowing a few developers to take full advantage of its hardware and surpass 360?

Yes Ps3 has a few games that 360 may never be able to match visually, but that doesn't mean it can't match or surpass them gameplay wise. Doesn't that count more? Was it worth it that 8/10 multis look and run better on 360, or 360 getting exclusives that might have made it on PS3 but for developmental difficulties- to gain half a dozen or so best looking console games only on Ps3?

That is a question each person can answer with their own opinion, but its fair to state then the design of PS3's hardware is a bit of good and a fair bit of bad looking at the big picture....

As someone with lotsa machines my opinion is that i am thankful for PS3's top exclusives and i couldn't care less about games it doesn't have, because i have other machines they are on! However if you only ever owned a PS3, i could see why you might be bothered more that a lot of games were compromised, made better on 360, for the sake of a few top PS3 first party titles looking a little bit better than 360s top games.

If you read all that congratulations. You deserve it!

Computersaysno2225d ago

An old athlon x2 and a G80 8800GTS inside Ps3 hmmm interestin. This would pulverise Ps3.

Sometimes i wonder why console makers dont just buy stuff off the shelf. I know its cost and rights to make it. Microsoft did it with xbox and it worked for power but failed because of the cost and contracts they had entered into and messed up.

Surely by the time you have blown all that wad on developing a new machine and its special processors it wouldnt cost as much to just buy off the shelf and knock it together. This is how arcade platforms are made anyway, all segas arcade stuff is just a pc in a box with standardised bits and then they give it a name!

Sony blew billions on cell and fiddling the machine. They would have ended up with more power if they used a crappy x86 dual core cpu and then a chopped up geforce 8800. They were well in development a year before Ps3 was launched.

Oner2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

Sorry but I have to disagree again since your "big picture" is not including other factors (thus not exactly a balanced angle IMO), as how can you specifically say "the PS3's GPU is a fail" when the PS3 was never made to be programmed/used/like or comparable to a standard everyday run of the mill PC ~ where you have a processor doing it's specific things that are separate from the GPU with ram tying them together etc.

The PS3 was made differently to use the Cell in conjunction TO/WITH (and even as) the GPU to provide a better end result when utilized properly. So to quote yourself ~ that's quite "easy to look at [it] from a one sided perspective" in that way. Undoubtedly yes the PS3's GPU is "less powerful", but that is a non issue because of the way the PS3 was built to spread the load out across the Cell/GPU etc as stated in laymen's terms.

So you are not exactly putting everything on the table correctly and leaving out key factual elements that explain it more uniformly for a clear & "balanced viewpoint" I believe...So then I ask, why cite a specific single item (the RSX) as "weak" when the end product (graphics capability output as a whole) shows an uncontested proven. That's not giving the whole picture now is it, and it's just nit picking an "easy known" that has no real value in the real world via the end result of how there are no games that can graphically match PS3's exclusives. (<- on consoles that is, let me be clear before I get jumped on by PC Elitist's lol).

Additionally if any dev at this day and time after 3 PlayStation generations/iterations haven't grasped that they have all been made to challenge them (and in my opinion justifiably so) then they will never "get it".

I mean can someone...ANYONE please explain to me how something that is reportedly "easier to code for", and that certain people claim to be "more powerful", after almost 6 years cannot rival what PS3 exclusives have done/shown? Because it sure as hell doesn't make any damned sense to me!

Also, my point of how "a title like Uncharted 2 which won MANY MANY awards not only for graphics AND GAMEPLAY" doesn't throw a wrench in your query of ~

"Yes Ps3 has a few games that 360 may never be able to match visually, but that doesn't mean it can't match or surpass them gameplay wise. Doesn't that count more? Was it worth it that 8/10 multis look and run better on 360, or 360 getting exclusives that might have made it on PS3 but for developmental difficulties- to gain half a dozen or so best looking console games only on Ps3?"

Then I don't know what to say...other than that it goes right back to what I said about Uncharted 2 and how it comes down to the devs. As the gameplay was phenomenal in it (and to repeat UC3 will just solidify what I am getting at). So there is no weight to the 360's gameplay aspect being "better" either.

(Sorry if my post seems a bit erratic/weird as I couldn't really go over it as finely as I would like because the wifey is calling for something)

Computersaysno2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

You dont get his points do you oner? lol His point was that ps3 lost games and support from devs because it is hard to develop for. It gained with stuff like uc2 but that would be a good game no matter what system it turned out on. If it was on an easy to dev for system it would still be great. Plus then maybe all the other multi games on that kinda system wouldnt lose compared to 360 ones.

You were banging on like ps3 design had no drawbacks and it only ever did good for the machine while vulcanproject just balanced it by askin if the prety big losses by being hard to dev for were worth it for just a few games that look a bit better than 360 ones.

It was just this tiny part from you claiming ps3 has no deficiences based on your claim of a handful ps3 exclusives. he just said why your claim was narrow in vision which i agree it was and didnt balance out what problems ps3s architecture brought with it. Not so perfect as you pretended it was in your first post

Just re read your first post again and see why it was so close minded and one sided as if a few exclusives justify all the problems that have been encountered

as for the cell thing then it seems to me he was sayin that sony would have had a better machine if they just had a better gpu and rsx wasnt so disabled, it is more importan overallt than what the cell can do for the graphics. PC cpu arent like cell but they easily beat console having better gpus.

A-Glorious-Dawn2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

Vulcan, gameplay is not the same as visuals, gameplay is carefully tweaked by developers. They CHOOSE how the game plays and plan it extensively. Its not 'inferior' unless huge mistakes are made during the development process.

"The technology doesn't make some of the games that look better, better playing games. Killzone 3 might look better than any other console FPS, but i don't think it is the best FPS made this gen because of those visuals. Do you? This is kinda important, has PS3's technology delivered lots of games that are all much better playing than its rivals?

The answer has to be no."

No the answer is preference, Do you prefer how Killzone plays over other Fps? no? that's fine but that in no way means the gameplay is 'better' or 'worse'..

"My latter point was that PS3's hardware has put off several developers and done damage to the state of some games, multiplatforms and otherwise on PS3. Maybe more damage than allowing a few developers to take full advantage of its hardware and surpass 360? "

This might be true in some cases, and many multiplats perform slightly better on 360 in some way or another. But isn't this because the 360 is usually the lead platform? with games that use the ps3 as a lead you can see the same thing happen in reverse.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk...

LA Noire performs slightly better on ps3, most of the time though we find with games that use the ps3 as the lead there is effectively no difference, even to pixel counters. now this suggests to me that porting this way yields a better result for all. SO while the ps3's architecture does have flaws, and is difficult to use and even harder to master, maybe unacceptability so. This 'more damage' you insinuate needn't be there and to pin the blame of these outcomes solely on the ps3's hardware is wilfully disregarding all the facts...

and there's no denying that the fabled PS3 exclusive has yet to be matched on consoles...

Computersaysno2224d ago (Edited 2224d ago )

From what i seen even games lead on PS3 often come out as good as, but still often better on 360! Dark souls, vanquish, Crysis 2, Castlevania, dead space, homefront, burnout paradise. These were lead on PS3. a bunch of them actually came out better on 360 but they were at least equals.

You can cite a few very isolated cases but i know there is a lot more that favour 360. how is it that games lead on Ps3 usually turn out fine ported to 360 or very close. LA noire was lead on ps3 and it is teeny bit better on ps3. The other way round tho unless its a great port they can turn out shit on ps3 like mafia 2 or bayonetta, FEAR 2,3. Name a few ports to 360 lead on ps3 that turned out as shit. I cant think of many if any. I can name quite a few the other way round.

I have to agree with vulcan here a glorious dawn. What you are saying is that its not ps3s fault its the developers fault for leading on 360. Hang on tho surely thats again what vulcan said. If ps3s hardware was better and easier to work with then maybe it would be the lead platform?

Its always the same dev fault dev fault excuse but its not their fault they chose to lead on a friendlier and better dev environment and platform.

You blaming the devs a glorious dawn is precisely what vulcan pointed out! sonys hardware put off devs and pushed them away from the system rather than attract them and draw them in and made them want to build games just for the machine and lead on ps3.

You reinforced that observation with your comment

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 2224d ago
theonlylolking2226d ago

They need to design the PS4 so that the amount of RAM can be expanded to improve performance in all games.

ATi_Elite2226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

Well many AAA Devs now fully understand how to better program for the Cell and hopefully the Cell 2 will retain that same features but just add a more powerful PPE, more SPu's and faster clocks at a more energy efficient usage. Maybe even more cache per SPu.

PS4 will surely have more system ram...hopefully dedicated 1.5GB Vram for a MUCH more capable GPU!

Update the Blu-Ray drive and toss in a 1TB HDD, KB/M support, proper web browsers, PS3 compatibility, some PSVita connectivity, and you got yourself another winner!

tehnoob32226d ago (Edited 2226d ago )

I would bet at atleast 2gb+ of XDR ram

jack_burt0n2225d ago

Yup and means emulation is a given and the costs will be much much lower because its a revision.

damnyouretall2225d ago

tehnoob3

yeah man ram is getting cheaper and 5 years from now it will be ever cheaper to produce. i hope next gen consoles just take the loss for a few years and give us atleast 4 gigs.

hiredhelp2225d ago (Edited 2225d ago )

I said early last year this was the case.
IBM stated they had a new cell and if sony wanted it they happy to work with them.
The cell is amazing. All we need is to me is
a faster gpu 1gb, better shader and core clock.
At least 2gb ram preferabliy 4gb as ram is generic and can be bought cheap now.
forget about brands what better place to make and build these parts than hongkong right.
upgrade the blu-ray to read speeds of 8x or better 100 plus gb capacity.
Self upgradable ram would be the fututre some how keep the self upgrade HDD.

@ATi Elite better vram is a must your right m8.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2224d ago
Rashonality2226d ago

wow, alot of rumors about the next-gen consoles these days....i hate rumors

Tonester9252226d ago

If they do choose to use the cell again. I would be happy :-) Challenge the devs

Indigon2226d ago

I absolutely agree, games are looking better and better on PS3 with Uncharted 3 taking the crown.

xtreampro2226d ago

Challenge the devs? Devs are the ones who want to move away from the Cell including ND. If challenging means to design on an unworkable Cell Processor then you've misunderstood the word challenge.

If by any chance a developer happens to read your comment I wouldn't blame them for wanting to bash your head in.

rjdofu2226d ago

"Devs are the ones who want to move away from the Cell including ND"

Source or GTFO.