We build a PS4! What can the rumoured specs do?

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…

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Hellsvacancy3392d ago

They could of atleast uploaded HD videos of what theyve done

ProjectVulcan3392d ago (Edited 3392d ago )

Why- kind of a pointless exercise the whole thing. We know how fast or actually how slow that sort of system is compared to a decent gaming spec PC and a midrange card. It would beat PS3 now allowing better filters and settings but its not a huge leap.

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.

Kurylo3d3391d ago

Memory limitations being removed is going to be a huge step from ps3..

Machioto3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

I believe these specs are fake,the things that point out these are the following,

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.

limewax3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

1. Its still not really fair if they ditch the console and consumer base giving them a big middle finger, regardless of what the cell may be costing them, using it was a decision they need to carry on with until the PS3 production is halted

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

LocutusEstBorg3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

This thing still won't run anything smoothly at 1080p and won't have AA. Pathetic.

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.

Machioto3391d ago

@lime what I meant in that last part of my comment is,devs had to us the spe and ppe to get a smooth performance,only first party dev made good use of it and third party games suffered because it was tricky to use the spe,it made the kinda like single core CPU,if they had more of the ppe's it would ease development. The rumor are saying that the next box and ps4 have the same specs,which is a bit weird and dx11 is proprietary to Ms,while it current systems doesn't use it,I'm pretty sure that its successor will have,besides OpenGL is open source.

jjf3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

From what I've read it seems certain now that PS4 will be a SOC based on Licenced technology from AMD with a lot of custom processing and a very high memory bandwidth. The buldozer spec looks the perfect fit, underwhelming running windows but it's a very modern high tech architecture, does things differently and is potentially very quick if used in the right way, a bit like cell! The important thing this time is after a die shrink SONY could quite easily put the thing in every TV/Laptop/Desktop they make, stick the Vita chipset in every mobile and tablet they make, consolidate their tech widen the audience for SEN services and possibly make some money in the process.

sikbeta3391d ago

The whole thing is pointless, even if you build a PC with the same specs, games will not squeeze all the power in it, that's why consoles have games with better graphics after years of using the same HW

TheXgamerLive3391d ago

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.

sjaakiejj3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )


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...
"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."

ProjectVulcan3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

There is never enough memory Kurylo3d.

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.

fatstarr3391d ago

Im more interested in the WIIU specs. none the less Ill wait for e3 to see how the WIIU, PS4 and the "16 Core" 720 compare.

Autodidactdystopia3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

This is the gpu i put in my daughters computer.

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

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.

DeadlyFire3391d ago

I think its safe bet to say Sony will go with AMD Trinity or other based APU design coming in 2012/2013. A8-3850 is just a trail run for test kits if its true. Even if they go with Trinity or Kavari APU. They could alter them in some way for PS4. A custom APU with say a 16 core CPU and higher range APU/GPU core + GPU.

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.

Hayabusa 1173391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )


"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?

gaffyh3391d ago

Thing with this whole story though is that consoles have a very basic OS, meaning there are more resources available for gaming. That isn't the case with stuff like Windows, because it in itself is a resource hog.

@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.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3391d ago
3391d ago Replies(3)
Staude3391d ago

One crucial thing is that the games will be optimised for the machine, and the machine wont have to run a thousind things in the background. That alone allows it to perform a lot better in those games, than a similar pc rig would.

decrypt3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

Not necessarily true. While pcs do have tons of things happening in the background, they also have a ton of ram. hence applications running in the background dont have much impact. besides its the gpu that does bulk of the work. there is no external load on the gpu.

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.

ninjahunter3391d ago

Actually the difference in console and PC optimization is strikingly close. on good ports at least.
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.

Staude3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

If the pc has the same setup as the console, like I said, the console, with games optimised for it, will be able to outperform the pc because of the above mentioned fact. It's also noteworthy that pc games are not optimised for any given platform due to the widely different setups people can have.

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.

T9003391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )


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.

Staude3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

Then tell me why we have games like uncharted 2/3 looking so good, and by extention, in my opinion better than what a similar pc can run with the same resolution and the same framerate ? Oh, if you were going to say optmisation, and playing to the consoles strengths. Well, that's just it. Since the processor works so well for a streaming enviroment and at procedual generation.
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

T9003391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )


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.

Staude3390d ago

I'm not sure we're going to completely agree on this. I mentioned myself that it was difficult to compare as the game isn't on the pc. It is very linear game, but my point was simply that it plays to the strengths of the machine and by doing that, achieves more than it would, if it wasn't highly optimised for that set of hardware, on the same hardware.

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

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3390d ago
xer03391d ago

Most of the media are taking the rumoured specs too literally.

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 ;-)

cannon88003391d ago

I won't be buying a ps4 if these truly are the specs for it. But that's just me.

IRetrouk3391d ago

So you would miss out on all of Sony's exclusives just because it's not a powerhouse? I will be getting at least two of the three new consoles day 1, power or not Sony's devs will make more amazing games, Microsoft's live is only gonna get better and Nintendo are doing their own thing, controller looks interesting

cannon88003391d ago

Maybe, I'm not sure. I'll be thinking about it.

WitWolfy3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

Take these rumors with a pinch of salt, sure Sony said the PS4 wont be such a leap when you compare the PS2 to the PS3. But lets be honest here, Sony knows their technology, and I would be surprised if the PS4 isn't at least 5-8 times more powerful then the PS3.

nirwanda3391d ago

@cannon I'm not loaded i have a good job but i also have a family, im glad i bought an xbox 360 at launch and skiped the Ps3, i got a year of HD gaming without a pc and when tbe Ps3 came out all of the games were worse than the 360 for a good year or so,
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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3391d ago
3391d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3390d ago
Bleucrunch3392d ago

Knowing Sony I have no doubt that they will be the most inovative company next gen yet again with the most up to date graphics and processing chip that will be cutting edge in gaming...They will learn from the mistakes of the past and do what they need to do....I just wished Sega would come back to the market with a console and add more competition man...COME ONE SEEEGA!

Halochampian3391d ago

mmmm?? cant tell if serious -__-

krazykombatant3391d ago

ok.. i'm not sure if you're serious.

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.

InTheZoneAC3391d ago

does nintendo even sell any more wii's?

MaxXAttaxX3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

Motion controls aren't really innovation.

shackdaddy3391d ago

Innovative? They just made a HD PS2. Basically same controller and everything...

LeShin3391d ago

Lol come on man, get your PS2 out, put in God of War 2 in & play it...

...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

shackdaddy3391d ago

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...

Bleucrunch3391d ago

Bro I gotta admit that was a very irrational and ignorant statement by you. Do a little research and you will clearly see that both consoles are not the same.

InTheZoneAC3391d ago

and that's bad because?

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?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3391d ago
Nathaniel_Drake3391d ago

Don't know why you are getting disagrees, I never seen a game like Journey done on any console. An uncharted experience that gives you a cinematic feel, like you playing a movie I have never seen that on a console. There are probably much more in terms of games I may be forgetting. Innovation can come from games and not just hardware.

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

Halochampian3391d ago

Are you serious?

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.

Nathaniel_Drake3391d ago

I don't understand how it was innovative, this is old tech being renewed, sure it was brave to do this but calling it innovative is just wrong.

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

dark-hollow3391d ago

journey and uncharted being innovative has little to do with the hardware but most with the talent behind the software.

kevnb3391d ago

i dont think those games are innovative at all, good sure... innovative not a chance.

jimbobwahey3391d ago


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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3391d ago
cannon88003391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

@ Streeks

They won't be the most innovative company next gen if they use those pieces of shit for their next console.

andibandit3391d ago


If you mean

Innovative Arrogance
Innovative Pricing

yeah then you're pretty much right, Sony will problably dominate those 2 areas again.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3391d ago
GamingPerson3392d ago (Edited 3392d ago )

Now we need someone to optimize for it.
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.

jukins3392d ago

I can appreciate what they were trying to do in the article. but even if sony uses "off the shelf" pc components they will more than likely be a optimized custom job with a custom OS im sure it'll perform better than these tests. Although im kinda holding out hope that sony sticks with the cell after all they did buy back the chip manufacturing plant from toshiba after selling it haha.

Kurylo3d3391d ago

cell sux compared to modern processors :/

jukins3391d ago

how so? it seemed to help most of the ps3 exclusives surpass any other consoles games. also the fact that the cell made for a different development environment that what the industry has been used to over the past 20 or so years also has to be taken into account.

jthamind3391d ago


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.

Ulf3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

Wow, are you wrong.

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.

MaxXAttaxX3391d ago

2. Come on. It's from 2006 and it's still pretty powerful.

Kurylo3d3391d ago

i never said the cell sux. I said it sux compared to modern day pc processors.

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..

Kurylo3d3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

By the way .. for arguments sake.. here are the actual numbers (Numbers are from IBM research.. u know.. the ones that made the cell and 360 processor)

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.

Ulf3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )


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.

junk_mind3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

You do realize that the cell processor only has 1 core. Not 8. And 6 useable SPUs. One deactivated, one for the operating sytem.

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?

MaxXAttaxX3390d ago (Edited 3390d ago )

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?

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3390d ago
_Aarix_3391d ago

Cell kinda does. So a dedicated ps3 game like uncharted 3. Uses a full dedicated team of ps3 developers that know what theyre doing while using a ps3 engine that was built for scratch specifically able to handle the cell and 7 cores and yet gears of war gives uncharted 3 a run for their money in terms of graphics AND only 7 gigs. Im sorry but if thats the best a billion dollar processor could do this gen then it was a waste compared to the rsx. Only an idiot can deny how stunning gears look with only a fraction of the space while managing all the content and the 20 hour campaign.

IRetrouk3391d ago

Sorry, what? Really? I mean seriously? Have you played both games?

aquamala3391d ago (Edited 3391d ago )

A radeon 7670 is a rebranded 6670, so just a sub $100 gpu today? Can that really be it?

BrianG3391d ago

It sure can, think about the current PS3 GPU, modeled after a 7800GT.

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...

Disccordia3391d ago

And that gpu that the ps3 has... by the time it got released it was hardly cutting edge. I think the series 9 was out for pc by then.

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

bednet3391d ago

@Disccordia: oh PCs are blowing the PS3 way out of the water and they have been since the PS3 got released. The fact that my PC can run stupid resolutions like 2560X1600 or run certain current gen games at over 100fps just proves that and it's not even that high end.

The limitation is the software, driven by consoles.

JOHN_DOH3391d ago

I doubt it. Is that even a "gaming" gpu? Remember starting from 6000 series cards amd changed the naming for the cards, so a 66xx is the upgrade for 55xx cards.