DonMigs85
Member
Not sure, because I think they also use Nvidia's CG language for RSX.H_Prestige said: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.H_Prestige said:Would Sony need a NVIDIA GPU to emulate RSX or could they go with AMD?
brain_stew said: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.
Flying_Phoenix said: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.
brain_stew said:Xbox 360's specification was changed just a few months before launch (RAM doubled and Xenon clockspeeds reduced).
H_Prestige said: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.
MrBelmontvedere said: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there is also the fact that this generation is protracted by several years so we may see the presumptive 16x increase superseded a bit, therefore I think 8GB is just a reasonable lower boundary of what to expect.
brain_stew said: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.
Truespeed said: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.
No_Style said: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.
brain_stew said: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.
dionysus said: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.
MrBelmontvedere said: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.
Xbox.dionysus said: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?
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.DonMigs85 said:Hopefully whatever GPU PS4 has is at least GTX 460-level with 1GB VRAM
DennisK4 said:Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still?
Truespeed said: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.
Sony have started earning (not much, but in the black) for a $299 PS3.DennisK4 said:Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still
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?Lagspike_exe said:PS3 has been profitable for quite some time.
DennisK4 said: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 said:@ 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).
Nvidia just broke through with the 460 though, they have good days ahead of them with the new architecture.brain_stew said: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.
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.Absolute Bastard said:So, I'd say no more than 4GB, perhaps as little as 2GB of fastest stuff they can get.
DennisK4 said:Do we know if the $299 PS3 and 360 consoles are sold at a loss still?
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.Danne-Danger said: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.
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.Danne-Danger said: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.
Lagspike_exe said:PS3 has been profitable for quite some time.
isuppli said:The new PlayStation 3 with 120GByte HDD model is priced at $299 in the United Stateswhich means Sony sells each PlayStation 3 in the United States for $37.27 less than its materials and manufacturing cost.
Man said:Nvidia just broke through with the 460 though, they have good days ahead of them with the new architecture.
Danne-Danger said: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.
Opus Angelorum said: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.
I am not sure I understand. Do you actually think that 8GB is possible or am I reading your post wrong?mrklaw said: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)
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?).DonMigs85 said: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.
Crysis (first one) is a great example of the kind of game you could then see on consoles.Danne-Danger said: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.Danne-Danger said: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?).
Isn't Nvidia leading in the $200 price range?brain_stew said: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.
DonMigs85 said: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.
Man said:Isn't Nvidia leading in the $200 price range?