OPM: The PS4/Orbis spec rumours currently focus on an AMD ‘Bulldozer’ A8-3850 processor with integrated graphics processing power, and an AMD Radeon HD 7670 graphics card. Those components are available right now! So just what are they capable of? We built our own PS4 to put them to the test with a few games…
10°
20°
30°
40°
Ad 
40°
Adding in a 7850 for example would massively improve game performance, more than doubling it. Even a 550Ti would trounce it and thats like a $110/£85 card.
If Sony's new machine had the original configuration it would perform somewhat better in games designed specifically for it minus the traditional windows OS overheads. But it would still be pretty slow by 2012 standards.
I suspect that their newest machine will turn out somewhat differently from these rumours anyway.
1.manufacturing, if it's costly to update the cell,then what's the point keeping the ps3 around?
2.the next box and ps4 are identical in specs,so how do they market it when they're same?
3.Sony doesn't use dx11.
4.Sony had compatibilities issue with all of its gaming products,you would think
that the ps4 wouldn't suffer this.
I believe that they are going with updated cell and a high end powervr chip,I
remember hearing that the frame issue when playing the orange box was caused by only running on the ppe of the cell,I assume that enough of those would alleviate some of the developers problems.
2. They are not exactly identical, or at least the ones I am following are not, but they are very close. This is good, not bad, as same as this gen the multiplat games won't have much difference between them, making it a viable choice for either system
3. neither do Microsoft or Nintendo as of yet. If the latest OpenGL lacks a lot of the features of DirectX11 then its quite possible Sony will want to use DirectX instead. It would be no different from MS using Sonys disc formats
4. I'm not entirely sure what you mean so cannot answer fully, but I would expect them to drop backwards compatibility in favor of making the wisest business decision which includes dropping the cell. If Sony go with the cell while others go with Power7 then they just wont stand a chance
Everything after the PS2 has just increasingly disappointed me. I didn't even want to compare the PS2 to a PC because I had so much fun any everything looked sharp. Now on a HD screen everything looks ugly. When I start a game I see UGLY.
their common sence should tell them if it is the AMD it will be more than 4 cores, lol, faster than 2.9ghz,and not off the shelf.
Both sony and microsoft, whatever they do release will be state of the art hardware no matter what it's based on and not the rediculous specs we saw listed.
Your likely to see 12 to 16 cores for each and some where between a 5 and 6 ghz processor with roughly 6 to 10 gigs of memory plus many more upgrades.
It'll be strong enough to be future proof for atleast 6 years. Neither sony nor MS will show it's hand before it's ready so these rumors are so the other truly doesn't know what each is doing.
Why on earth would Sony want to use DirectX? The use of that graphics API would mean that Sony has to pay royalties to Microsoft for every sold console. Not exactly a good strategy against a competitor...
And yes, it would be very different from Microsoft using BluRay. The reason for this is that BluRay, contrary to popular believe, is not owned by Sony, and Microsoft would not have to pay Sony for the use of BluRay. DirectX on the other hand is directly related to Windows, and can only be used on Microsoft developed operating systems.
Finally, Microsoft does actually use DirectX in the Xbox 360...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"Direct3D (the 3D graphics API within DirectX) is widely used in the development of video games for Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, Microsoft Xbox 360 and some Sega Dreamcast games."
If there is one thing developers always crave it is more memory. No matter how much the consoles are imbued with within a couple years PC cards will have a truckload more and devs will start banging that drum again.
I recall developers talking about PS2 a year before it arrived and when asked they said they wanted 16mb of RAM at least. Sony gave them double that system RAM, they still moaned, and 18 months later xbox arrived with 64mb and that wasn't enough either to keep them happy!
By the time PS3 launched you could commonly buy PC video cards with more video memory on them than PS3 had TOTAL for both system and video. Same went for PS2 and Xbox.
It will always be the case with consoles and developers. As long as the machine has enough to produce good results and you are competitive with your rivals.
A memory advantage over a rival console can be pretty handy as xbox 360 has demonstrated.
Consoles APIs are typically heavily heavily customised. Developing the base SDK for a new console goes hand in hand with designing the hardware. It is highly unlikely Sony would use anything but a highly tailored API. Massively unlikely to be a superset of DirectX.
In all honesty it plays games pretty well.
the specs for their computer are as follows.
amd B50 x4 processor.
so like a 550 phenom2x2 unlocked using the sb710 thingy.
it runs crysis 2 @ dx11 with maldohd 3.0 at roughly 20-30 fps at 1360x768 (varies)
but it'll run MW3 @ 1080p full settings 8x AA at 60 steady.
it runs most of the games i put on it at absolute full settings except for AA
@ an ok 1360x768, but its plugged into a 32 inch plasma, so it works for the 7-9-13 year olds just fine. :)
Ill upload a video someday its all half height
in this case
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Red...
has everything 3 gigs ddr3
and a blu ray drive
its like they already have a ps4 lol.
edit: oh yeah and its like a media center, but its all through a custom xbmc installation i made for them it has a built it 360 controller receiver and it all works from that so they never have to touch the keyboard and mouse, all of their games and the thousands of emulated console games they have are all at access from startup from the 360 controller. its friggin sweet.
so effectively ive put to bed all of the crap people say about pcs, like wahh, desk sitting, wahh control from my couch, wahhh, little monitor, wahh.
this thing has everything movies music weather visualizations, pc games console games internet blu-ray all automated with xpadder windows blinds multiple emulators and xbmc, i think the ps4 may be similar.
If rumors are true of 16 core Xbox 720. Its not impossible that PS4 will feature 16 core AMD CPU as well. Both Interlagos and Abu Dhabi CPUs from AMD feature 12/16 core designs. My bet is on Piledriver cores or Abu Dhabi design. http://www.xbitlabs.com/pic...
"1.manufacturing, if it's costly to update the cell,then what's the point keeping the ps3 around? "
They won't be keeping the PS3 around.
"2.the next box and ps4 are identical in specs,so how do they market it when they're same? "
You clearly have no idea how marketing works. You market your product to the desired audience, you don't change the product (especially when you're dealing with millions of $$$) just so you can market it. You're preparing for failure right there.
"3.Sony doesn't use dx11."
And Microsoft won't use Blu-Ray.
"4.Sony had compatibilities issue with all of its gaming products,you would think
that the ps4 wouldn't suffer this. "
Since when have Sony learnt from their mistakes?
I will bet you money right here, right now, that there won't be any form of cell in the next Sony product. Hell, they didn't even use it in the Vita, despite fanboys like you raging that the cell will be in every Sony product.
EDIT: You guys do realise that Sony use Windows 7 in their offices to build games right?
@Hayabusa - MS will use Blu-ray and DX 11 (because it's their own format), Sony will probably also use Blu-ray and OpenGL is more likely as it is used in PS3 as well. They will keep the PS3 going when PS4 comes out, at least for 3 years, I guarantee it.
I agree with your point on the Cell and the backwards compatibility though, but again, if BC is gone, all the more reason to keep the PS3 around.
You can experiment this by turning off some applications on hour pc then benchmarking a game. the difference will be negligible.
Also if console optimization was so good then consoles would be outperforming older pc hardware. 8800gtx launched with the consoles till date it outperforms consoles in any game. in fact 8800gtx today would run most games in 1080p a feat consoles fail to achieve. in truth most console optimization comes from cutting corners like res, aa, af, fps, texture size etc.
If you compare the processing power with the actual graphics, resolution and frame rate, the efficiency rate of consoles is hardly more than a 10% bonus.
By the same setup, I mean both CPU, GPU as well as the RAM, Harddrive and even the powersupply. You can repackage it in another tower. But similar specs include ram. And applications running in the background also affect the CPU which is noteworthy, since, it's a part of the rig.
I'm not saying it's gonna be generations apart, It is however a worthy difference.
Also, consider that they can play to the individual strengths of the hardware since they are building for just that specific hardware. They can add a ton of what it does well, and remove some of what it does poorly, creating something that does end up looking and playing a lot better, simply due to optimisation. Optimisation is not just one thing. It's everything that I mentioned :P
For instance, If it does physics really well, they can throw additional physicsbased objects into the game, while, let's say it does textures poorly, they will lower the resolution of them. They might use a technique then, where that is not very apparent, and you might have a game that, while having lower textures, have a ton of more crap that flies around everywhere when something happens.
There's just a lot of advantages to building for a specific setup.
So tell us why the PS3 cant outperform a 8800GTX backed by any dual core CPU.
Its obvious console optimization is there, however its not that big of a difference. They may at max squeeze out 10% more performance from a console.
When Crysis originally rolled out people with 7800GTX (same gpu on the PS3), played the game on PCs at low/med settings 720p 25-30fps. Guess what settings PS3 plays Crysis 1 in 2011? its about the same.
Hence no i dont think console optimization will make a mountain of a difference.
I don't really want to compare ps3 exclusive games, but it makes my point easier, since they deal exclusively in the hardware, they usually play to the strengths. Unfortunately many third parties will not spend a great deal optimising, and unfortunately, due to the optimised games being exclusive, well, it's difficult for me to prove my point since you can't find the games elsewhere. But when you do look at some of those games, I think you would .. I Hope you would agree that those could not run, by a mile on the same pc configuration.
I will say that I could Barely run dragon age 1 on my old pc which had a 8000 series. I can't remember if it was a 8600 or a 8800 however, but by barely, I mean that it ran at lower than 1fps in intense battles. And that was on low. I think you guys have tainted memories of older hardware :P - It was playable most of the time though.
Anyways, while you all keep blabbering about the 8800 gtx, you need to remember that the GPU of the ps3 is infact comparable to a 7800. - The fact that the cell can also double as a GPU in some areas is something we can't really compare as general purpose CPUs function differently.
One final thing I will note. I never said how much of a difference it would make, just that it makes a difference :P
I dont think Uncharted looks anywhere as good as Crysis. Also remember Uncharted is a highly linear game, Look around the corners u will see low res textures everywhere, specially at the places they dont want you looking. In any case Uncharted isnt there on the PC so you cant make a direct comparison.
Make an apples to apples comparison, back in the day when Crysis 1 was released many people were still sporting 7800GTX (which is about equal to the PS3's GPU). Most people back then ran Crysis 1 at 720p no AA, low to med settings. When Crysis released on PS3 in 2011, guess what you have about the same settings as well. So where did the console optimization go?
Now you can argue most multiplats dont make use of the Cell, well in that case you would be comparing 2 different sets of hardware RSX + Cell to 7800GTX, which would be unfair. If a comparison to 8800GTX is made, 8800GTX will stomp RSX + Cell its no contest.
I think there is something severely wrong with your PC if sporting a 8800 GPU it was struggling to play Dragon age. My laptop which has a weaker GPU than the 8800GTX can runs Dragon age maxed out at 1080p near 60fps, thats still alot beyond what consoles are able to handle.
So again the difference between console and PC optimization isnt much. At best console makers are cheating by lowering settings and calling that optimization.
I've also mentioned that it makes a difference but haven't made a mention of exactly how much, so at the very least, we partially agree on the subject, I do however think that it can make a bigger difference than you think. Crysis is a bad example as it's notoriously unoptimised, on all platforms. :P It is still an amazing looking game though. - And a developer not using the cell, does mean not optimising for the hardware regardless, So it's very difficult to make a specific comparison due to the architecture of the CPU.
At the end of the day, it's how much the individual developer decides to cater to that specific hardware, and ofcourse, if their focus is on catering to the hardware or just achieving something specific. - And getting as close as they can to that with as little work as possible. - I don't think the second way is lazy, But I do think that you'll be able to achieve more the first way :P
We all know Sony and Microsoft are sending dev units, but based on what Sony want to achieve (4K and 1080P Stereo 3D), I can only imagine that final hardware will be more powerful than these basic units.
In my opinion... I would guess that devs would have to setup these boxes to run in parallel somehow, to emulate the final hardware performance, Sony wish to achieve.
Now, there's a thought ;-)
Maybe, I'm not sure. I'll be thinking about it.
This time i will wait for both to launch seeing as they are so close together with there launches and go with the console with the most power whatever it is
sure Sony hit the jackpot console wise with their cell processor. But innovative award goes to Nintendo. They went out on a limb and brought back motion controls to gaming. They were thought to be stupid things not to be taken seriously. They excelled with it and managed to sell the most consoles this gen. They also made the 3DS.
I do believe if sony announce their console at E3 this year and release it the next, it will give them the edge over MS and perhaps take back some of that market share that ninty took from them.
I don't see SEGA coming back into the console picture. ffs they can't make a great sonic game, forget about asking for a console.
I don't want to think about what will happen but i think Apple will join this market sooner or later.
...then get your PS3, put on God of War 3 play it and then say the PS3 is just a PS2 HD lol
By that logic, the HD God Of War Collection should look exactly like God of War 3
What? That doesn't even make sense. You're comparing software. That isn't what I said. I said the PS3, which is hardware, is just a HD PS2 meaning it basically does the same as the PS2 but with better hardware/visual capabilities(i.e. nothing innovative).
And no, you obviously can't just pop in GoW2 and get HD graphics because the graphics don't scale to the hardware being used. That, again, is a completely different thing to what I said...
online play is free, yet it's the same online gaming experience as you get for shelling out money for xbox live
the dualshock can be brought back for ps4 and every console after, it's that good. Maybe change the analog sticks to be concave and change the triggers to be concave as well.
why is that not good enough for you?
And Nintendo didn't innovate motion controls, they were just brave enough to bring it to the market as their main part to their console. As I have heard Sony had this tech already and it's been done before them.
And I do agree Sega was a better company at bringing out competition game wise from its other competitors unlike Microsoft, I wish they too were back in the console business
Ok Journey is an amazing game that I love love LOVED. But it's software and its software that could have been released on any platform. And the innovation goes to the developer not the publisher.
And most technologies are created by small corporations and bought by the big guns. The fact that Nintendo brought it to a system as its main controller is innovative. I dont care for it much, but it was daring and innovative.
So microsoft hasn't brought competition to Sony? You can hate them all you want, but you cant say that they havent gone toe to toe with sony this gen.
Journey was released on the Sony platform and not any other platform and something I have never experienced, this is innovative and it's only on the Sony platform. When Uncharted came I have never experienced to bring cinematics and gameplay together like this again on the Sony platform
Also I never said I hated Microsoft, if they only can bring new IP's to the table then its awesome, I'm criticizing them for only bringing in timed exclusives, where is the competition in creating new IP's with that. In Sega you had so many new IP's going up against Sony's and Nintendo's, there was just so much games to choose from if you only owned one console.
There is no competition gamewise between Sony and Microsoft, hands down Sony is demolishing MS in this area. And please don't tell me the reason you came up with toe to toe is sales because that's not a game.
The problem with this gen has been that superiority is now defined as sales not games, we need another system that can provide this otherwise all we are going to get are mundane COD games over and over again and new innovative games get buried below never to be thought of again
I disagree that Journey could have been released on any platform. Would the game run on an Xbox 360? Of course it would, the hardware could definitely handle the game. However, it's also a very risky game that truth be told, I could not see any publisher other than Sony coughing up the money to fund. That's why I don't think you would ever see a game like Journey done on any other console, and why I think Ramzadel has a good point.
Sony have an eye for innovative new experiences that other publishers won't even touch, which is why we've had games such as Journey, Flower, Heavy Rain and Little Big Planet. I definitely think Sony deserves credit for innovation since although the developers made these games, Sony funded and nurtered the games in the first place. I've no doubt that if Sony wasn't a part of the gaming industry, we wouldn't see games like these at all.
They won't be the most innovative company next gen if they use those pieces of shit for their next console.
If you mean
Innovative Arrogance
Innovative Pricing
yeah then you're pretty much right, Sony will problably dominate those 2 areas again.
Knowing console devs they will want to squeeze everything out of it even if that means cutting features. 1080p @30fps might
be the standard in most games. Most people won't complain about 60fps because most people don't know what 60 or 30fps is.
you're comparing what the Cell did to "any other console games." that's the point, the competition wasn't much. let developers like Naughty Dog or Sony Santa Monica take those games onto a modern day high end PC with the same funding, resources, mocap, etc, and you'll see how shitty the Cell will look in comparison to modern PC hardware. lol.
A Cell design, with the same # of transistors as a modern quad-core i7 would have 3 PPUs with a 4MB L2 cache and 24 SPUs. It would *destroy* the i7, at practically everything but word processing and some crappy apps that suck with cache coherency and branching issues.
You are out of your mind if you honestly believe the Cell was a poor design. It has the highest performance, per unit power (i.e. it scales the most effectively), of any processor ever created -- by a longshot. Its only downfall is that it takes out-of-box thinking to use it well -- i.e. it takes a smart engineer, rather than a pleeb.
2. Come on. It's from 2006 and it's still pretty powerful.
There is a reason they arent making it anymore. Its a dead end.
@Ulf .. im sure u think that the first intel quad core processors are the same as core i7s because they are both quad cores... lol...
Sorry... cell is dead for a reason. When the people who make the damn thing agree... u really sound like a fool for disagreeing... Your thinking as a fan and not as someone building processors.. and definently not as a developer. No one wants the cell..
Core I7 Extreme = 76,383 MIPS at 3.2ghz
PS3 Cell Processor = 10,240 MIPS at 3.2ghz
and just for shits and giggles...
xbox 360 processor triple core xenon = 19,200 MIPS at 3.2 ghz.
So yes... sonys cell was way exagerated.. and its numbers were only theoretical... not as high as they say in practice. Even dual core processors on pc beat the cell.
So yes.. there are obvious reasons why the discontinued the cell processor.
Those Cell numbers are for just the PPU -- i.e. one of NINE cores. You realize that the Xenon is literally just 3 PPUs, right? And that the Cell has 8 SPEs that add a TON to the chip's processing ability? Did you copy those #s from wikipedia, without bothering with the (PPE only) comment, because you didn't know what that meant?
Also, I called the i7 an i7 "quad core", because there are oct-core i7s (the server model). There's no confusion with the core 2, bud.
You act like the cell is your pride and joy. Why defend a dead product?
Lets just say for arguments sake your right and kurylo3ds information was for 1 PPU. Well, that means a programmer can take advantage of all that power without doing a lot of crazy extra work. And by the way when you do all that crazy extra work there is no way to "max out". Which means you will never hit the full capability because you will never always be using every single SPU. Where as if you were operating straight off one that it will take advantage without the gaps. If that makes any sense in my wording lol..
And by your logic multiplying those numbers by6 or 8 or whatever means that the ps3 and 360 processor are equal since u multiply the 360 the same way but by less cores. And the i7 basically dominates still because u multiply by cores and what have you. So what exactly is your argument again?
Why do you keep comparing the i7 with the Cell which is from 2006?
You're not proving anything aside from the already known fact of technology obviously advancing with time.
What's the point?
Quite an old GPU but it seems to be doing well. The reason is optimization. When developers are working with one dedicated hardware spec they can squeeze a lot of extra performance out of it.
Whereas PC developers have to program a game to work on thousands of different set ups. Different RAM, CPU, GPU, etc...
but as you've pointed out it doesn't need to be cutting edge to be competitive. tbh I don't think the pc is even blowing the ps3 away even today despite what elitists may say
The limitation is the software, driven by consoles.
However there are many processors with 16 cores, infact there are some with hundreds. The problem is cost, i mean an intel style cpu say for made up example and i7 with 16 cores, would be insanely expensive.
A chip designed with all those cores from somebody else could be a lot cheaper, more cores doesn't always equal a better chip either, it could be 16 really slow low performance cores.
Don't get me wrong i'm not saying the next consoles will have 16 core cpu's, just saying they do exist :)
So yeah... a $900+ processor, the 990X (practically the best in the market at the moment) has only 6 cores, 16 core CPU is just not going to happen in consoles any time soon
And the only 16 core procesors i know of are server level procesors and those cost thousands of dollars
Higher cost, more heat, more room, extra components, more fail points, more fans, higher power consumption, harder to optimize, etc etc.
Sony knows better, it will have a single card.
crysis 2 and all games run better then ps3 or 360. here are some links. remeber $399 laptop with a BIG windows os.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Asus makes great products by the way.
This just shows you how far behind consoles are in the hardware race, that's all.
Rumor has it that the 4 core chip sony are using comes with integrated graphics, and the newest intel chips with integrated graphics can hit 30fps running crysis on low to medium so when you combine a gpu with that its crossfire,
not a full pc set up, but it will have better results then a single gpu
Not an CPU with integrated graphics chip, and a gpu. That defeats the purpose of a single chip design; less heat, less cost, and compact design.
While some laptops do run in this configuration, it's because you can use a low powered, low energy APU, and then combine it when you need more power. This isn't needed in a console as you're not dealing with battery life.
Cheers Gamers & Happy Gaming!
Sony seems to be going the microsoft rout which is to assemble PC component into a box and call it a console. This is really bad because within the next 3 years it will be maxed out and there will be nothin exciting about newer games for it.
The PS3's CELL architecture is able to still yield improved impressive visuals because of its a custom architecture. Its 2012 and the ps3 is still producing the best visuals on console.
The xbox 360 is still playing catch up on the ps3.
3rd party games are beginning to look better on the ps3 (final fantasy 13, Castlevania, La noire, Vanquish, AC: Brotherhood, Battlefield 3 etc) by next gen devs will even be more used to the CELL architecture.
Sony should stick with an upgraded cell cpu (powerXcell32iv)coupled with a modern midrange nvidia GPU that suports physix and FXAA3. 6gb xdr2 Ram.
Who agrees with me?
Hell, was just playing my Sega Nomad last night :-)
There's about a 2x performance difference between those two cards, which would be about right for an actual next-gen console -- the HD 7670 just isn't enough of an upgrade.
It is important to note that the software costs of Windows drivers hurts performance considerably, as well, so even if it was a HD 7670 equivalent, it would perform a lot better than it would in a PC. Writing closer to the metal is a big deal -- a lot bigger than most seem to understand.
You can't build a console-equivalent PC, on the same hardware, without the lightweight style of OS that consoles use. You just won't get the same results using a general purpose OS like Windows 7, etc. Having to handle 10 zillion hardware combos costs the OS a LOT of overhead.
===================
That said, if I'm correct, and it is a HD 7770 equivalent, it'd probably be a match for a HD 7850, or even 7870, on an OS+driver burdened PC. Try and put a nVidia 7900 GT or 7800 GTX into a PC and see if the PC versions of any game look anywhere near as good as they do on the PS3, if you don't believe me.
Most of those games *require* an 8800 GT or better to even run at the lowest detail (which usually doesn't look as good as the PS3), and that card beats the socks off the RSX, in terms of hardware.
The good thing is that Naughty Dog is making their new game ( The Last of Us ) and its gonna look better than uncharted 3 and possibly on the 19th Santa Monica could announce God of War 4 which will also look better than God of War 3.
In my opinion the ps3 can still produce improved stunning visual past 2013 and i don't mind if the ps4 doesn't show up till 2014 because am realy happy with my PS3.
Playing Killzone 3 now and drooling saliva from my mouth. Stunning!!!!!
So let's say a console is meant to just run games, you can do a lot more than a PC if you had the same hardware, because the PC isn't mainly a gaming machine. Not only you have to run the game, but you have to run your OS and another crapload of things behind as well, which greatly reduce the performance.
how do you cram high end parts into a machine yet sell it at a price that consumers will accept? i guess they need a proper marketing strategy. apple has no problem selling its crap at high prices to the masses.
also to note is that the days of free online gaming are over. sony will charge for online next gen. MS has set a precedence that people are more than willing to shell out $50 a month for it. as long as they think they are getting a benefit they will continue to pay. this was one selling point the ps3 had that they will no longer be able to market vs their competition.
will be interesting to see what comes of all the rumors.
They certainly won't be getting my money this time if those specs hold true.
A PS4s CPU and GPU won't just be off-the-shelf parts..they'll me modified. Most likely clocked to perform better. Then there's the fact that games will be specifically optimized for that specific build on the PS4.
Besides PS4 won't be on shelf for until about holiday 2013. There's tons of time for things to change. They definitely will.
be ready for another 720p gen guys. I can't wait for 4k res on a single screen in late 2012 if everything goes as planned.
Besides, 30fps feels fine with a controller.
If 60fps is so impressive, how come movies and most TV shows still display at 24fps? Why wouldn't they want a smooth flawless 60fps for their shows and movies?
30fps looks better on video games in my opinion. I saw Uncharted 3 running at 60fps in a video and the animations looked really cheesy at that point.
Also, I forgot to point out that frame drops during 60fps are really distracting and can cause annoying judder that looks horrible. However, if a game runs at 30fps and drops to 25-28fps it isn't nearly as apparent.
No cheating with sub 720p native resolution