-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IBM: Cell continues as integrated part of Power roadmap; working on next consoles
- Thread starter gofreak
- Start date
brain_stew
Member
Mr_Brit said:
I can't compare GDDR5 to DDR3 but these days the increase in costs between GDDR3 and GDDR5 is trivial, proven by the fact that even the very lowest end chips are now starting to ship with GDDR5. Considering GDDR3 was cheap enough for all 3 consoles this generation, I don't see how GDDR5 is going to be too costly next generation. As things stand they'd be crazy to go with anything else as it gives them twice the bandwidth for a trivial (and soon to be none existent) increase in costs.
If XDR2 delivers on its promises (a big if, I know) then that'll offer a huge increase in bandwidth over even GDDR5. Either way, DDR3 is not going to be in any console next generation.
brain_stew
Member
Man said:
No chance. Nintendo could possibly throw a wild card and end up using solid state storage for games. It should be cheap enough so that 8GB cards don't prove too cost prohibitive and I'm sure Nintendo would love to get rid of the disc drive in their console, as it means a lower BOM, faster load times, smaller physical unit and greater reliability but MS and Sony will definitely be using BD.
All the base SKUs will ship without a physical HDD though, I agree. A single 4GB or 8GB flash chip will more than suffice for most users initial needs and its easy to sell a mechanical drive for power users. The dual SKU strategy has worked really well for Microsoft this generation.
brain_stew
Member
DennisK4 said:
Exactly. Mechanical HDDs will remain an option as its the only way to let power users store lots of content without it becoming cost prohibitive.
brain_stew
Member
zoku88 said:
:lol
That has to be the most damning assessment about the reliability of this current generation of consoles. The saddest part is that its true! :lol .....:/
If the mechanical HDD is the most reliable part of your system, then something's gone horribly wrong somewhere along the line.
brain_stew
Member
H_Prestige said:
I'm not expecting something Wii sized but we won't get anything as big as a launch PS3, as hot and noisy as a launch 360 and power draw will be (significantly) reduced to boot. I think all of that is nailed on and no, it doesn't preclude a nice bump in performance but it does mean that we won't get as big a leap as we did this generation.
DennisK4 said:
Not arguing, but merely questioning from a naive point of view -
Is it really that hard to believe that in 2013 we'll have a GPU thats atleast 100% faster than the GTX 460 retailing for 299?
If Sony budgets out $450 for components, I think we can see everything in, including the 8 gigs of ram
. This is more of an optimist versus conservative approach. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. I just want my Ferrari machine.brain_stew
Member
thuway said:
Even if they can afford it, can it fit in <50w? I'm unsure. If it can't then I don't think its even an option.
Oh, and incase it wasn't obvious already, the razor blade model is dead and isn't coming back any time soon (if ever). Every single piece of console and handheld hardware is currently sold at a profit today and the shareholders of these companies aren't going to allow that to change now that its abundantly clear there's no golden goose at the end of the race.
Investors only ever gave the go ahead to these expensive loss leading console projects in the first place as they believed the hype that they could become the mass market convergence device of the future. Now that its clear that cell phones are instead that device, the rules of the game have changed.
MrBelmontvedere
Member
brain_stew said:
Quoted For Truth
Chittagong
Gold Member
Nah, my new MacBook Pro I got Spring of 2010 has 8GB RAM. A console coming out Christmas 2013 most definitely will have that. That's three and a half years later.
Now I'm not sure what the point of 8GB is, having a full DVD in RAM. What assets can possibly fill that RAM and who are going to generate them?
Now I'm not sure what the point of 8GB is, having a full DVD in RAM. What assets can possibly fill that RAM and who are going to generate them?
brain_stew said:
If Sony still wants to be known as the "graphics leader", they kind of have to. The PlayStation name is now synonymous with bleeding edge technology.
For Sony, the cost of components fall dramatically if you have a small range (IE 50 dollars). However, last gen was a complete mess. Bringing in Bluray + Cell was a nightmare in cost.
Microsoft got the better hand though. If it wasn't for RROD they would have had a cool 6 billion profit by now. If they stick to more conservative measures, I think it can be done. Your assesment might hold true as well, but I'm still hoping that they take the Ferrari approach.
brain_stew
Member
thuway said:
Nope, no chance at all. Transforming the Playstation division into a self sufficient outfit and cost reducing the PS3 was one of the first things Stringer set about doing once he took charge. He's not going to allow a lavish expense like that again under his watch.
brain_stew
Member
thuway said:
That's simply false, its unclear whether Microsoft have even broke even on the 360 project by now, they've certainly not made anything like $6 billion off this venture. They pumped a huge amount into R & D and selling the 360 at a loss initially made them bleed an enormous amount of money in them first couple of years. Oh, and they've just pumped the best part of $billion into Kinnect as well, with no guarantees of its success.
Chittagong
Gold Member
brain_stew said:
Agree with Sony becoming more cost aware but not with the conclusion that it means Sony won't be the tech leader. There are many less expensive, less risky ways to do that than to design a completely new type of processor architecture and bet the farm on a completely new, low yield storage media technology. They could just shoot for near off the shelf components from top of the range and let them cost reduce over time.
EDIT - best part of a billion to Kinect? No way. The hardware has probably taken some tens of millions to develop, and that is if they had custom silicon. Throw in a handful of games with a generous 10M each and you are at 100M. Throw in a double-360 launch campaign at 200M and you are at 300M. And that is really going for a high end of the estimates.
brain_stew
Member
Chittagong said:
Well it would be hard to agree with a conclusion I never made.
It may seem like an obvious observation but Sony and MS are of course waiting to see what kind of impact Kinect and Move will have. Gimmick or the tech the next gen machines will revolve around?
In 2013 very few will have 3D TVs so I am curious to see how hard they will push that angle. Nintendo ignored HD and won.
In 2013 very few will have 3D TVs so I am curious to see how hard they will push that angle. Nintendo ignored HD and won.
Chittagong
Gold Member
DennisK4 said:
Maybe, but given how unpredictable the games market is I can see things swing to the opposite direction very quickly in the next generation.
While I've been rooting for Microsoft this generation, it's hard to not see that they are losing interest in their serious gaming venture. Closing studios, losing second parties, no major first party games in sight other than Gears of War 3, key gaming figureheads out of the door. So I wouldn't be surprised if their next gen console would rest somewhere between half assed and non-existant. This would take Sony to #2 with little effort.
Now take Nintendo, which is at a total architecture dead end with the Wii path and needs to start from complete scratch with their next console. It will boil down to whether they can invent something as revolutionary as the Wiimote - because, as this generation showed, there is little to no brand loyalty among the buying public.
Never being a huge fan of Sony, but I can certainly see stars aligning for them to be #1 next generation just because of what happens with the competition.
Of course, this all will be moot when Apple takes over the business with Apple TV AppStore.
H_Prestige
Banned
Is ps2 software emulation a safe assumption?
DennisK4 said:
Selling at $100 under cost would be a relative God-send for SCE, financially speaking, compared to PS3.
What was PS3's estimated manufacture cost starting out? $800? $1000? They were losing a lot more than $100 per unit anyway, that's for sure.
Something like a $100 loss would be far less risky and something they could recoup a lot faster than the initial losses on PS3. I do not think it's out of the question at all that Sony will sell at below cost, just not at a few hundred dollars below cost...
Well that was insane. How that was allowed, I don't know.gofreak said:
Will Sony swallow $100 on each PS4 sold at launch? I am....sceptical but I suppose its possible. If they really feel they can dominate with tech like they tried to with PS3 and have solid plans for rapid cost reduction. But how likely is that when the Xbox 720 and Wii HD likely will represent very strong competition.
When you can expect to sell the majority of games in a market, maybe. But when the market is split about evenly three-ways?
MrBelmontvedere
Member
DennisK4 said:
that's true for 2013, but these consoles will be around a lot longer than that. it could be that some good autostereoscopic TVs with a (relatively) wide viewing angle appear a few years after that date. this I honestly don't know about, but it's at least conceivable.
Redbeard said:
i find this statement very unrealistic lol.
but i'm unsure of what to think about all of the 8gb talk. sure it lines up based on previous history, but 8gb? will that even be necessary to getting amazing 1080p/60 3d content? and if not, what WILL be necessary to getting it?
high speed 4gb makes more sense to me, unless of course an extra 4gb actually means better graphics.
DennisK4 said:
don't most consoles take a hit like that at first?
fortified_concept
Banned
spwolf said:
Taking Microsoft's bait and rushing the release date was the huge mistake not the hardware. The hardware was expensive and the graphics chip unoptimized because they decided to release asap. Personally I don't mind big console cycles so I'd be fine if it had released a year later.
They have so far, at least MS and Sony. But it is Nintendo who sells at profit and wins this round while MS and Sony have bled money.xtop said:
I don't think we will see a repeat of very expensive consoles being sold at massive intial losses. That model just seems so horribly broken when you can't expect to dominate the games market and recuperate your investment based on the subsequent sale of games.
DennisK4 said:
$100 is, I'd say, a modest loss on new hardware nowadays. It would be a much faster road to break-even on new units, and it wouldn't take TOO long to recoup on sold units through software.
I think a modest loss would allow for a nice system at a good price. So much of what went into PS3 was very young tech and/or very expensive tech. A lot of what goes into PS4 should be a lot more mature (and thus cheaper) which will hopefully allow them to continue to invest decently in a nice level of horsepower, without breaking the bank this time.
(Assuming they don't go for some crazy new tech on some other front, like interface or something
)brain_stew
Member
A $100 loss means that they're going to bleed a cool $1 billion in the first year (without factoring in any higher R & D costs) and it also means that they're an extra year behind on their path to profitability so it comes with a huge opportunity cost. Stake it at ~$2 billion over the system's lifetime.
Oh, and since we're spending so much on tech, that also means you've got to put out a bigger, noisier, hotter and more power hungry machine, that's more prone to defects as well. That turns away consumers, so you've got to make up for those lost sales as well.
Do you honestly believe that this better technology is going to provide a big enough competitive advantage to offset $2 billion in cash and the drawbacks of a much less consumer friendly hardware design? I'm just not buying it, sorry. They can build a fantastic machine for ~$350, that still offers a very substantial upgrade and not produce a huge and power hungry box that's not in anyway suitable for the living room.
Pump that extra $2 billion into compelling first party software, please.
Oh, and since we're spending so much on tech, that also means you've got to put out a bigger, noisier, hotter and more power hungry machine, that's more prone to defects as well. That turns away consumers, so you've got to make up for those lost sales as well.
Do you honestly believe that this better technology is going to provide a big enough competitive advantage to offset $2 billion in cash and the drawbacks of a much less consumer friendly hardware design? I'm just not buying it, sorry. They can build a fantastic machine for ~$350, that still offers a very substantial upgrade and not produce a huge and power hungry box that's not in anyway suitable for the living room.
Pump that extra $2 billion into compelling first party software, please.
Lagspike_exe
Member
I can actually see Sony and MS using 16GB flash memory packs for entry SKUs. 8GB is stretching it too thin especially when you reserve a few GBs for OS and game caches. 16GB would allow even entry SKUs to be viable for purchases of digital content through PSN/XBL and that is a big part of business model used by game publishers today.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Lagspike_exe said:
Because everybody says different things. But I know that brain_stew or some other level headed poster will give it to me straight.
I'd make a thread about it, but I won't for very obvious reasons.
TheExecutive
Member
I cant imagine in what possible universe Sony wouldnt continue to use the cell processor in its next console. Whatever version it may be, there will be a cell processor in the ps4.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
Look at the games, decide for yourself. X360 is better at some things, PS3 at other things. Read DF's comparison of Ninja Gaiden 2 and Ninja Gaiden 2 Sigma to get the full picture.
TheExecutive
Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
Look at first party games or games that were specifically built for a console and you will have your answer. It doesnt take degrees to see that one console apparently has an edge graphically.
Well, there's not much to gain from such discussion. Is a fact that the 360 has the upper hand in multipats and that will likely continue until the end of the generation, so the discussions is pretty much reduced to Uncharted-Kz-GT vs Halo-Gears-Forza... which doesn't make much sense to have, really.Flying_Phoenix said:
TheExecutive
Member
Lonely1 said:
There is nothing to gain from such discussion.
apana said:
Sony's first party content strives becuase of tech. Its not the only reason, but without the graphical leaps made by Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and God of War 3- their impact wouldn't have been as massive.
Even if my opinion is argued with, this generation has spoiled PlayStation loyalists with cutting edge graphics. Asking them to expect any less out of a Naughty Dog, Guerrila, or any other first party Sony team is cutting them at their knees.