Support NeoGAF

[DonMigs85]

Would Sony need a NVIDIA GPU to emulate RSX or could they go with AMD?

Not sure, because I think they also use Nvidia's CG language for RSX.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Your average x86 chip might not, but CELL sure as hell does. The PS3 wouldn't be anywhere close to competing with the 360 graphically at this point if not for CELL, nevermind comprehensively surpassing it in titles that really understand how to utilise its capabilities. CELL is doing all kinds of traditional graphics work in even your average run of the mill multiplatform title, nevermind your premier first party exclusives.

So the Playstation 3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 and can produce better graphics?

Not to start a flame war, but this has always baffled me.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

So the Playstation 3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 and can produce better graphics?

Not to start a flame war, but this has always baffled me.

Why did this fact baffle you?

 

[Massa]

Xbox 360's specification was changed just a few months before launch (RAM doubled and Xenon clockspeeds reduced).

More recently, the 3DS might have been a Tegra device in late 2009.

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

since this has become (in my mind at least) a place for pontification on the specs of PS4, allow me to posit a bit WRT the memory in the device (pardon my poor math skills, but this should be generally accurate)

PSX: 3MB (~0.003GB, 2MB CPU 1MB video)
PS2: 32MB (~0.031GB, ~11x what's in PSX)
PS3: 512MB (0.500GB, 16x what's in PS2, again divided be tween two pools of 256MB)
PS4: 8192MB? (8.000GB, 16x what's in PS3)

now there is also the fact that this generation is protracted by several years so we may see the presumptive 16x increase superseded a bit, therefore I think 8GB is just a reasonable lower boundary of what to expect.

 

[H_Prestige]

8gb of RAM? What on earth would a console need that much for?

Honestly, I'm not sure it would even need more than 2gb.

Speaking of RAM and ps3 BC, what are the chances that Sony uses XDR RAM again? Would ps3 bc require it?

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

8gb of RAM? What on earth would a console need that much for?

Honestly, I'm not sure it would even need more than 2gb.

well, for one thing 2GB would only be a ~4x increase over PS3, which is much less than what we've seen before. I'm operating under the assumption that the protracted nature of this generation is partially due to a desire to make the next generation a noticeable leap from this one. and you have to consider, that this is most likely 2013 we're talking about. 8GB might seem like a lot in the context of 2010, but in 2013 it will generally be considered a small amount

 

[Dennis]

No way will it be 8GB RAM. At most 4GB but I would guess 2GB. 8GB is total overkill.

And I have an uncomfortable feeling that next-gen will be a much smaller upgrade than we are used to.

 

[brain_stew]

since this has become (in my mind at least) a place for pontification on the specs of PS4, allow me to posit a bit WRT the memory in the device (pardon my poor math skills, but this should be generally accurate)

PSX: 3MB (~0.003GB, 2MB CPU 1MB video)
PS2: 32MB (~0.031GB, ~11x what's in PSX)
PS3: 512MB (0.500GB, 16x what's in PS2, again divided be tween two pools of 256MB)
PS4: 8192MB? (8.000GB, 16x what's in PS3)

now there is also the fact that this generation is protracted by several years so we may see the presumptive 16x increase superseded a bit, therefore I think 8GB is just a reasonable lower boundary of what to expect.

I'd like to have a bit of what you're smoking if you think there's any sort of reasonable chance of the next Playstation coming with 8GB of RAM! :lol

2GB is most likely, 4GB if we're extremely lucky.

 

[Truespeed]

If AMD flatly refuse to allow their GPU to be integrated with an IBM CPU, I don't see how they'll be able to do that.

And 'their' is the problem. They'll do it by allowing their customers to participate in design process and give them the appropriate licensing rights to fabricate the CPU themselves if they want.

 

[yurinka]

So PS4 BC confirmed?

 

[brain_stew]

And 'their' is the problem. They'll do it by allowing their customers to participate in design process and give them the appropriate licensing rights to fabricate the CPU themselves if they want.

Microsoft aren't capable of integrating a high end GPU and CPU on their own. If AMD refuse to do so and also disallow IBM from doing it for them then they're really just SOL. AMD have the major upper hand in these negotiations because I don't believe any of the three console manufacturers will be wanting discrete CPU and GPU chips, its an unnecessary extra cost and drag on performance. Integrated CPU/GPU designs are going to be the norm for all but high end markets from now on, and consoles aren't part of the high end market.

 

[Gravijah]

I love you gofreak and brain_strew. You guys always make threads like this interesting for me.

 

[Truespeed]

That's not necessarily true. The console hardware manufacturers (especially MS) learned that going to Intel/AMD was not the right choice because those big chip manufacturers didn't allow them to do whatever they wanted with the designs.

Intel/AMD were selling chips, IBM were selling designs.

The console manufacturers want designs because they can then integrate them with the GPU and cut costs down the road.

With the AMD/ATI merger, it is possible that any one of these console manufacturers could go to with AMD for all their design needs. IBM is still very much in the design game which is why everyone goes to them; at least one of the console manufacturers will use them. Intel? Not so much.

Console design process is really fascinating and anyone who's interested in this sort of thing should read Xbox 360 Uncloaked. Lots of great info and insight to the process.

Of course it's about price. It always is. AMD and Intel will sell you anything you want and do whatever is necessary providing the price is right. IBM didn't win their business because they had the best architecture designs, they won it because they were offering a price / performance ratio that AMD or Intel couldn't even match.

Also, I would also recommend "The Race for a new game machine" for someone that wants the inside story at IBM during the development of the Cell and Xenon.

 

[dionysus]

Why couldn't a console manufacturer buy off the shelf pc parts and save hundreds of millions if not billions in hardware R&D? Developers would probably love working on x86 considering the amount of preexisting technical competency. You could use linux kernel as your foundation for the os too.

edit. Aren't they already basically buying off the shelf parts in the handheld arena?

 

[Dennis]

The PS3 will be remembered as the Ken Kuturagi over-engineered $599 super-console.

You bet Sony will have learned this lesson. The PS4 will most likely come with 2GB RAM and be a modest upgrade on the PS3. The investment in Cell will now pay off and they can release a decently powered machine at a much better price point - for consumers and Sony.

I would pay $799 for a new 8GB RAM PS4 super-console but that makes me a tiny minority. Look no further than GAF for hardcore gamers who want this gen to last 5 more years and next gen to be cheap.

 

[Truespeed]

Microsoft aren't capable of integrating a high end GPU and CPU on their own. If AMD refuse to do so and also disallow IBM from doing it for them then they're really just SOL. AMD have the major upper hand in these negotiations because I don't believe any of the three console manufacturers will be wanting discrete CPU and GPU chips, its an unnecessary extra cost and drag on performance. Integrated CPU/GPU designs are going to be the norm for all but high end markets from now on, and consoles aren't part of the high end market.

I see, so AMD will cut of their nose to spite their face. AMD is in no position to turn down business regardless of what it is. I could probably see this type of behavior from Intel, given their market dominance, but not AMD.

 

[brain_stew]

Why couldn't a console manufacturer buy off the shelf pc parts and save hundreds of millions if not billions in hardware R&D? Developers would probably love working on x86 considering the amount of preexisting technical competency. You could use linux kernel as your foundation for the os too.

That strategy didn't work out too well for Microsoft with the original Xbox.

These machines are going to be produced for 6+ years but the chips inside them will likely only be on retail shelves for a couple years at most and may only ever get one die shrink. If you can't choose where and when the chips are fabbed and can't initiate die shrinks then you can't cost reduce your console over time.

 

[Absolute Bastard]

since this has become (in my mind at least) a place for pontification on the specs of PS4, allow me to posit a bit WRT the memory in the device (pardon my poor math skills, but this should be generally accurate)

PSX: 3MB (~0.003GB, 2MB CPU 1MB video)
PS2: 32MB (~0.031GB, ~11x what's in PSX)
PS3: 512MB (0.500GB, 16x what's in PS2, again divided be tween two pools of 256MB)
PS4: 8192MB? (8.000GB, 16x what's in PS3)

now there is also the fact that this generation is protracted by several years so we may see the presumptive 16x increase superseded a bit, therefore I think 8GB is just a reasonable lower boundary of what to expect.

Personally I think RAM will increase at much lower rate than before. Resources will be spend of bandwidth and computational power instead. Reasons for this would be:

- 60 fps. 3D might make this actually happen. This won't take any more RAM, but everything must be moved and calculated twice as many times per second as this generation.

- Transfer rates from mass storage grows at slower rate. This means longer load times to fill that RAM, and it already getting annoying.

- Asset creation is already very expensive, greatly more textures/geometry would again increase costs and no one can afford that. Texture resolutions will obviously increase, but not at 16x rate. Graphics must be increased by mostly other means, like faster framerate, image quality, resolution, dynamic light, shadows and effects. All this costs a lot more bandwidth and flops than RAM.

So, I'd say no more than 4GB, perhaps as little as 2GB of fastest stuff they can get.

 

[DonMigs85]

Hopefully whatever GPU PS4 has is at least GTX 460-level with 1GB VRAM and at least another 1-2 GB of system RAM.
It's still substantially more powerful than RSX when you think about it - 24 pixel shaders/8 vertex shaders and a measly 8 ROPs compared to a 336 unified shader beast with 32 ROPs.

 

[gbovo]

Why couldn't a console manufacturer buy off the shelf pc parts and save hundreds of millions if not billions in hardware R&D? Developers would probably love working on x86 considering the amount of preexisting technical competency. You could use linux kernel as your foundation for the os too.

edit. Aren't they already basically buying off the shelf parts in the handheld arena?

Xbox.

 

[Dennis]

Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still?

Hopefully whatever GPU PS4 has is at least GTX 460-level with 1GB VRAM

I think that is about the max we can expect if it comes out in, say 2 years. That will be about a lower-mid range card then.

Edit: a 1GB VRAM GPU would make me happy. THAT would represent a massive leap forward in the image they can throw on screen.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still?

PS3 has been profitable for quite some time.

 

[brain_stew]

I see, so AMD will cut of their nose to spite their face. AMD is in no position to turn down business regardless of what it is. I could probably see this type of behavior from Intel, given their market dominance, but not AMD.

I don't think they'll walk away from a lucrative deal but I do believe they can and will play hard ball. They've got such an immense upper hand going into these negotiations, they'd be crazy not to.

AMD are lightyears ahead of the rest of the competition in both area and power efficiency when it comes to high end GPU designs. They just so happen to be the two single most important metrics of what makes a good console GPU.

Going with anything other than an AMD GPU could mean saying bye-bye to BC. Considering the amount of investment some of their customers have in their online platform, ditching BC could have a disastrous effect, much more than it has in any previous generation.

They're the only company that can offer both high a high end CPU and GPU design, and better yet they can provide both on the same die. By the time the next Xbox launches AMD will have tens of millions of CPU/GPU hybrids in consumers hands, its something they can prove they can do very well.

With Bobcat they've made huge strides forward in terms of power and area efficiency in the CPU space, surpassing any previous x86 design and probably any PowerPC design. It looks like a perfect CPU core for a home console.


Basically, its AMD's contract to lose.

 

[Man]

Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still

Sony have started earning (not much, but in the black) for a $299 PS3.
Been that way since (atleast) the second PS3 slim variant came out this spring (with 40nm RSX).

 

[Dennis]

PS3 has been profitable for quite some time.

Not that I doubt you but I would like to see a breakdown if you have a source. Or is it info from Sony themselves?

 

[Opus Angelorum]

@ brain_stew

Indeed.

Choosing components for a console boils down to two things, availability and cost.

Standard PC components are produced in relatively small quantities, and given a small window of availability.

Using hardware that can be made in very large quantities and perhaps more importantly over a long period of time brings the cost per unit way down, especially later in the life cycle (see: console price drops).

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Not that I doubt you but I would like to see a breakdown if you have a source. Or is it info from Sony themselves?

Sony. iSupply only gives estimates, Sony confirmed they were making a profit.

@ brain_stew

Indeed.

Choosing components for a console boils down to two things, availability and cost.

Standard PC components are produced in relatively small quantities, and given a small window of availability.

Using hardware that can be made in very large quantities and perhaps more importantly over a long period of time brings the cost per unit way down, especially later in the life cycle (see: console price drops).

Not to mention that customized hardware usually achieves better performance on transistor-by-transistor basis than off the shelf hw.

 

[Man]

AMD are lightyears ahead of the rest of the competition in both area and power efficiency when it comes to high end GPU designs. They just so happen to be the two single most important metrics of what makes a good console GPU.

Nvidia just broke through with the 460 though, they have good days ahead of them with the new architecture.

 

[DonMigs85]

Even when the Cube was knocked down to $99 in 2003 Nintendo was still making a profit. I wonder just how they do it...

 

[Danne-Danger]

So, I'd say no more than 4GB, perhaps as little as 2GB of fastest stuff they can get.

I doubt that they'd go over 2GB. It would be really interesting to see what console devs would if they weren't so restricted by memory, PC games have always had the upper hand in that area, or at least for as long as I can remember.

The mere thought of a modern gaming system using only 512MB is absurd if you're a PC gamer.

 

[brain_stew]

Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still?

Microsoft have been breaking even (and probably making a small profit) on their $200 box since before their major redesign. Its safe to assume that the 360's BOM is comfortably below $200 now.

Its not all that relevant either, AMD have made tremendous leaps in power and area efficiency since they designed Xenos and Microsoft even have to include extra silicon in their CPU/GPU hybrid to slow it down. So even with the same amount of silicon as the 360 has, AMD could still deliver a much faster console (this is without considering the ability to switch out the slow GDDR3 for fast GDDR5 allowing you to triple bandwidth for just a couple extra $s and many other similar tweaks) and since it can already be sold at $200, you could do some pretty incredible things by adding an extra $100 to that component budget (which Nintendo can do if they launch a console in 2011 @ $300).

No need to include a HDD in the base model these days either. A cheap 4GB/8GB flash chip is more than enough for your base system.

 

[Dennis]

I doubt that they'd go over 2GB. It would be really interesting to see what console devs would if they weren't so restricted by memory, PC games have always had the upper hand in that area, or at least for as long as I can remember.

I would gladly accept 2GB of system RAM if they could then splurge on a 1GB VRAM GPU. That would make a much larger difference in the visuals we could then expect.

 

[DonMigs85]

I doubt that they'd go over 2GB. It would be really interesting to see what console devs would if they weren't so restricted by memory, PC games have always had the upper hand in that area, or at least for as long as I can remember.

The mere thought of a modern gaming system using only 512MB is absurd if you're a PC gamer.

One difference though is that PC games generally just load as much data as they can into RAM - on console they can still use nifty streaming tech to help get around RAM limitations, so the difference may not be too profound in the end.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

PS3 has been profitable for quite some time.

Source?

http://www.isuppli.com/teardowns-manufacturing-and-pricing/news/pages/sony-gets-one-step-closer-to-breakeven-point-with-latest-playstation-3-design.aspx

The new PlayStation 3 with 120GByte HDD model is priced at $299 in the United States—which means Sony sells each PlayStation 3 in the United States for $37.27 less than its materials and manufacturing cost.

This was in December of last year, so it would only just have broke even at the start of the 2010.

 

[brain_stew]

Nvidia just broke through with the 460 though, they have good days ahead of them with the new architecture.

The 460's area and power efficiency is only just on par with AMD's previous generation 55nm chips, they've got a long, long way to go to catch upto AMD, who will soon be two generations ahead of them.

 

[ExtraKr1spy]

I doubt that they'd go over 2GB. It would be really interesting to see what console devs would if they weren't so restricted by memory, PC games have always had the upper hand in that area, or at least for as long as I can remember.

The mere thought of a modern gaming system using only 512MB is absurd if you're a PC gamer.

They'd just pump more effects into it until what we see on screen chugs around 30 fps again.

 

[modulaire]

I'm curious if one next generation console will be noticeable more powerful than the other (PS4 vs. Xbox720). Or it will be like this generation and they are basically the same.... Can't wait for the unveiling.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Source?

The game business achieved a profit in the fourth quarter due to strong sales of first-party software and the elimination of negative margins on the PS3.

The fourth quarter ended March 31st, 2010.


http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/05/14/sony_playstation_3_hardware_finally_profitable

 

[Kagari]

Source?


.

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/sony-ps3-now-profitable

 

[mrklaw]

I love all the '8GB is a pipedream' and 'what could you possibly need that much memory for' comments. Did we have the same with PS2 and PS3?

Although with the kind of streaming tech used in games these days, and presumably more power being used for post-processing/AA, actually reaching HD resolutions, and physics etc, you don't necessarily need huge amounts of memory for textures (as 1080p will be the cap)

 

[Dennis]

I love all the '8GB is a pipedream' and 'what could you possibly need that much memory for' comments. Did we have the same with PS2 and PS3?

Although with the kind of streaming tech used in games these days, and presumably more power being used for post-processing/AA, actually reaching HD resolutions, and physics etc, you don't necessarily need huge amounts of memory for textures (as 1080p will be the cap)

I am not sure I understand. Do you actually think that 8GB is possible or am I reading your post wrong?

 

[Danne-Danger]

One difference though is that PC games generally just load as much data as they can into RAM - on console they can still use nifty streaming tech to help get around RAM limitations, so the difference may not be too profound in the end.

Developers complain about it all the time though (look for Carmack quotes on console limitations). Taking away the limitations would also allow developers to think about creating games that would require much memory on consoles, think Civ 5 or similar (maybe not the best example?).

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Thanks.

So it took the PS3 four years to start turning a profit, with (realistically) another two/three years left in its life cycle. Needless to say Sony won't make the same mistake again, hopefully.

 

[Dennis]

Developers complain about it all the time though (look for Carmack quotes on console limitations). Taking away the limitations would also allow developers to think about creating games that would require much memory on consoles, think Civ 5 or similar (maybe not the best example?).

Crysis (first one) is a great example of the kind of game you could then see on consoles.

 

[DonMigs85]

Developers complain about it all the time though (look for Carmack quotes on console limitations). Taking away the limitations would also allow developers to think about creating games that would require much memory on consoles, think Civ 5 or similar (maybe not the best example?).

FFXIV is apparently also being held back due to RAM limitations.

 

[Man]

The 460's area and power efficiency is only just on par with AMD's previous generation 55nm chips, they've got a long, long way to go to catch upto AMD, who will soon be two generations ahead of them.

Isn't Nvidia leading in the $200 price range?

 

[brain_stew]

One difference though is that PC games generally just load as much data as they can into RAM - on console they can still use nifty streaming tech to help get around RAM limitations, so the difference may not be too profound in the end.

Plenty of PC games use streaming tech. though, some even more aggressively than in console games because you can rely on having a fast and reliable HDD present not a slow and inconsistent optical drive. Crysis is just about the perfect example of this, yet it still chews through system and video RAM like nobodies business.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

I don't see more than 4GB of RAM in the next generation of consoles. I think an optimum would be 4GB of high speed RAM. I don't know if Sony is looking into Rambus again, or will they use the conventional RAM this time.

Since MS proved you can make a great OS in a small package (32MB), we could see a feature-packed operating systems from both (or maybe from all 3?) parties and there would be still a huge amount of RAM available for games.

 

[brain_stew]

Isn't Nvidia leading in the $200 price range?

Leading in price: performance =/= leading in area: performance and power: performance.