Erm, even if they go with a SoC based design, doesn't mean that there couldn't be more than one of them in there. Thinking at least 8 CPU cores and 2 GPU cores...[chin]Oh, one thing is for sure; Next consoles from MS and Sony will aim for, at launch, SOC one chip design. It just saves so much money on building the thing. AMD is lightyears ahead of what Intel or NVIDIA can do there. On the other hand, I fear that SOC design (CPU, GPU, "chipset" all on one chip) will be saddled with performance that, by today's PC gaming standards, would be... crap. Translation; we'd get another generation of sub-720p-upscaled-narrow-FOV console junk. Yeah, tessellated and more shiny (future console GPUs will be DX11.1 grade as far as features go) but I fear the raw performance would hobble them... just so they can build a SOC design from day 1.
Totally agree. It's all about the games. While PS3 exclusives graphically have an edge in some areas to the 360 now; lets not forget how damn long it took. It wasn't until Heavy Rain that I felt it was worth buying a PS3. Even that title after left me distasteful since the game wasn't as impressive as I thought it would be and the games catalog at the time and online infrastructure still severely lacked compared to the 360. Now the PS3 is more worth owning after Uncharted 2, 3 and GoW3 but in my opinion still lacks but ignore my feelings about that since that's not the point and is opinion based. The main point is the 360 early in its lifetime came out with Dead Rising, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Halo, Gears of War, and I even thought Kameo was a lot better than most PS3 titles for awhile and liked that game a lot. I was obsessed with Bioshock at the time. I had to buy a 360 early. The quality was too good to ignore and had some of my most memorable gaming experiences playing Halo3 and Gears of War online at such an early stage. 360 released earlier than the PS3 with superior titles and competed admirably graphics wise for the PS3 for years and still does. Heck previous flag ship titles like Twisted Metal and Gran Turismo are showing graphical faults due to difficulty in programming.I can't say I really care who makes what in the up coming generation or how cutting edge it is. The direction I take when it comes to buying hardware depends on the software.
It doesn't matter what hardware you have in your console. If you don't have any good games to play on it then it simply won't sell.
Anyway, more new news:
Can all be rumors so take it with a grain of salt but sounds like Sony is learning how to please developers with an easier architecture given the success of the 360. Also if true, there probably not in a position to gamble with unfamiliar architecture next gen to developers since they lost a ton of market share so they want to take an easier road. Sounds smart to me.http://kotaku.com/5889410/playstatio...-wild-theories
PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor, Sources Say, Which Leads to Some Wild Theories.
The PlayStation 4 will not use Sony's Cell processor nor any possible successor to the vaunted chipset that was introduced to the world through the PlayStation 3, gaming industry sources tell Kotaku.
What we're hearing from sources follow a Forbes rumor last week that chip-maker AMD would make the graphics chip for a PS4, a shift from the PS3's use of a graphics chip from AMD rival Nvidia.
The abandonment of the Cell architecture would thrill the many game developers who have struggled with the complex chipset, but it could also be viewed as the admission of a mistake.
Cell was the pet project of PlayStation creator Ken Kutaragi, who dreamed that the chip—a "Power Processing Element" married to eight "Synergistic Processing Elements"—would make the PS3 the most impressive gaming console ever. He spoke of a home equipped with multiple devices that were powered by Cell, all of them linking to each other to increase the computational power driving any of the devices.
Cell was not the revolution Sony hoped and hyped that it would be. It also never managed to make the PS3 appear to be significantly more powerful than the year-older Xbox 360. That could have been the Cell's fault or simply the result of development decisions that compelled game creators to make their games run on both the PS3 and the generally-more-popular Xbox 360.
But with no Cell or Cell successor in the PS4, what would Sony do? Here's where the reporting turns to speculation. One theory I've heard is that AMD will provide both the CPU and GPU for the PS4, meaning that AMD, not Sony, would engineer the main processing and graphics chips for the machine. Should AMD be doing that, they could go with the AMD Fusion architecture, which puts CPU and GPU on the same chip. AMD has already been putting chips like this out (one was considered for the MacBook Air), which would enable Sony to turn to developers and say: you could be working with the PS4 architecture right now; just work on an AMD Llano chip or something. Would developers like that? They'd have to prefer it to Cell and—what do you know—here's one of gaming history's best programmers, id's John Carmack, saying in an interview with PC Perspective last year that AMD Fusion-style chip architecture is "almost a forgone conclusion" for the future of computing.
A Sony rep declined to comment on this story, citing the company's policy not to comment on rumors and speculation.
Sony hasn't even acknowledged the existence of the PlayStation 4 let alone detailed the guts within it. But we're beginning to hear trickles of information about Sony's next gen. It's all vaguer than the talk for next Xbox, code-named Durango, which Microsoft has been showing to publisher and developer partners.
The lack of chatter on PS4 would suggest that Sony will once again put its next console out after Microsoft. But if the chipset for the PS4 is actually one that already exists, then aspiring PS4 developers might find themselves capable of ramping up for this new machine faster than expected. And if that happens, the code-named Durango, probable for 2013, might have a sparring partner from Sony sooner than we thought.
Last edited by Invertigo; March 2, 2012 at 02:50.
I'd have thought after Rage, people would stop treating John Carmack like the King Solomon of video game technology. If Zenimax hadn't bought them, the decisions he made about Rage's tech could have killed id.
Now when Tim Sweeney talks hardware/software, that's worth paying attention to. Thank goodness MS did when they were making the 360, otherwise it would have been stuck with a piddling 256MB of RAM.
In addition to what I said in the Doom IV thread, the engine's dependence on static geometry with baked lighting meant the world of Rage couldn't be as dynamic as other modern games. Even characters showed no visual signs of damage when you fought them. id, the pioneers of gibs and "blood maps," didn't have any such features in their latest game.
Sony Playstation 4 will be an x86 CPU with an AMD GPU :-
Weird how they didn't keep Cell; devs are finally getting accustomed to it. Yes, this will help portability, especially with PC, but now devs will have to learn all over again.
Erm, devs will just port their PC code straight over, it couldn't be any easier for them? [huh]
Obviously backwards compatibility will likely be down the toilet, but at least Sony shouldn't have to worry too much about the software API's anymore for extracting performance, they can just concentrate on making sure the hardware is good.
It sounds like a could be a real beast with multi-layered CPU/GPU's...[surrender]