-
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 kills Cell chip line - Ninthing kills Sony then wakes up sticky, confused
- Thread starter Falafelkid
- Start date
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Will Sony need better than CELL for PS4?
I don't see games that are CPU-bound anymore, the bottlenecks tend to be bus or I/O based or most commonly GPU load.
Just switching to a CELL with all SPE's available and minor improvements to the PPE core (like the powerXcell line) would most likely be more than enough, unless a whole new paradigm emerges.
Given the way development costs have escalated this generation, how much headroom is there in fact left to go upwards and remain financially viable ?
The reality is that to show off awesome technology to its best advantage costs a lot of time and money.
I don't see games that are CPU-bound anymore, the bottlenecks tend to be bus or I/O based or most commonly GPU load.
Just switching to a CELL with all SPE's available and minor improvements to the PPE core (like the powerXcell line) would most likely be more than enough, unless a whole new paradigm emerges.
Given the way development costs have escalated this generation, how much headroom is there in fact left to go upwards and remain financially viable ?
The reality is that to show off awesome technology to its best advantage costs a lot of time and money.
percephone
Neo Member
Clear said:
I'm pretty sure, there's at least 2 projected designs for the next playstation. One that is an incremental upgrade to the existing tech, the other to be far out there.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
WhiteAce said:
Yes
. That's what I am thinking too.
minus_273 said:
Gameboy is not a brand, but still.. you're right. Think the junior's point was that Sony isn't going anywhere, and he's correct. Whatever happens next gen, whenever that is, Sony will have a Playstation 4 and it will likely be much cheaper than this round. Kutaragi is gone and won't be spending billions in secret in developing it. Wouldn't be surprised if they go for a more traditional processor in an effort to speed the learning curve up.
xs_mini_neo
Banned
NinjaFu$ion said:
O RLY?
silentspork
Member
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
Wes said:
Haha, don't you know, that's what Mario looks like in Germany! :lol :lol
Also, Sony could always throw cell into the PS4 to make it BC. It's probably too costly, but they've done things like throw an emotion engine in the PS3 before, so it's possible. I really hope BC doesn't die, but the truth is, this gen devs realized that if they DO NOT include BC, they can then sell you your games again. THAT is why BC is dead after this gen.
drakesfortune
Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
Binabik15 said:
I don't know, he's from Germany and works for a German TV station. So that must be what Mario looks like in Germany, right?
In Japan Ratchet has big eyebrows, in Germany Mario has a large package and a sexy, hairy chest.UntoldDreams
Member
Supercomputing architecture like Cell is not going away. Period.
The Cell (indeed any recent vector processor architecture) still curb stomps any of our Intel desktop CPU's in math. We have no idea what the future holds but Vector Processors for the PS4 have more than one solution.
They could continue the Cell line. They could switch to Larrabee and abstract things out in the compiler. They could do a bunch of things. There's even an Intel project to add vector processors to their Nehalem Xeon processor line.
http://www.hpcwire.com/features/Compilers-and-More-A-Computing-Larrabee-67032637.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10398877-92.html
The Original Poster is writing fiction with a big helping of wishful thinking about the death of Sony.
I know Gabe Newell basically said Supercomputing architecture is unnecessary for gaming but then again I don't think it was a bad decision.
Frankly, I think it was a very efficient usage of CPU power versus cost.
The Cell (indeed any recent vector processor architecture) still curb stomps any of our Intel desktop CPU's in math. We have no idea what the future holds but Vector Processors for the PS4 have more than one solution.
They could continue the Cell line. They could switch to Larrabee and abstract things out in the compiler. They could do a bunch of things. There's even an Intel project to add vector processors to their Nehalem Xeon processor line.
http://www.hpcwire.com/features/Compilers-and-More-A-Computing-Larrabee-67032637.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10398877-92.html
The Original Poster is writing fiction with a big helping of wishful thinking about the death of Sony.
I know Gabe Newell basically said Supercomputing architecture is unnecessary for gaming but then again I don't think it was a bad decision.
Frankly, I think it was a very efficient usage of CPU power versus cost.
polyh3dron
Banned
They tried something similar with Apple and the PowerPC G5 CPUs and that worked out pretty well now didn't it.ElFly said:
Absolute Bastard
Member
I just wanted to say that it makes perfect sense for Sony to make life easier for developers by forcing then to dump the work they've done over last 6 years and forcing them to learn a new architecture. I mean why would you ever build upon work already done when you can redo the same work all over again? If Sony simply placed a bigger Cell and any compatible GPU on PS4 it would be compatible with existing PS3 software allowing developers to leverage all the code they've written and all the knowledge they've learned. A console generation is a long time so that's a fuckton of code that would have to be reused instead of writing shiny new code. That's obviously completely insane, there's no way Sony would do something that stupid.
I don't understand. A 4890 1GB costs around 150$. This is 1/2 of the cost of a PS3.
NOW with this card you can have Crysys at maximum settings with high resolution.
Console gaming doesn't have that high resolutions (some game does, but its like 1%), and they surely don't have all Crysys graphics.
YET, the PS3 costs like a Crysys-able PC, but It can't even play ports at 60fps locked, and it needs christ to develope a game on their fucking CELL bullshit.
Sony needs to get decently priced fucking CPUs and some fucking awesome GPU, RAM thats not 1GB and now they can fucking put it in a box and call it PS4, 399$ at launch. PC Port friendly, Linux Support, easy to develope and they will win
the next gen
NOW with this card you can have Crysys at maximum settings with high resolution.
Console gaming doesn't have that high resolutions (some game does, but its like 1%), and they surely don't have all Crysys graphics.
YET, the PS3 costs like a Crysys-able PC, but It can't even play ports at 60fps locked, and it needs christ to develope a game on their fucking CELL bullshit.
Sony needs to get decently priced fucking CPUs and some fucking awesome GPU, RAM thats not 1GB and now they can fucking put it in a box and call it PS4, 399$ at launch. PC Port friendly, Linux Support, easy to develope and they will win
second place in
polyh3dron
Banned
Speed up the learning curve? Devs have spent about 4 years now learning how to use the cell. To go in another direction for PS4 and kill BC wouldn't make much sense after all the time and money Sony has invested in the cell.andycapps said:
Yazus said:
I know Crysis is primarily GPU-bound, but I still wouldn't be too optimistic about its framerate after spending $150 for a 4890, $75 for a PSU that will run it without catching fire, on the kind of CPU and RAM that can be crammed into the remaining $75 with a case, HDD, optical drive, input devices, and so on.
goomba said:
That is my point actually, Nintendo doesn't keep the same branding like Sony does. Well, they come out with a Gameboy, iterate on it to become Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP, Gameboy Advance micro, etc.. But they don't call all their handhelds Gameboys anymore.
Also, give me a bit of a break, I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. Really tired now and still drinking my coffee. :lol
polyh3dron said:
I see what you're saying and you have a point. But having a more conventional processor in the PS3 like in the 360 would definitely make it easier on devs in doing multiplatform releases.
Plus people could finally play Valve games on Playstation if they don't have a PC
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
andycapps said:
Programming CELL actually helps devs IMHO...
The PC with higher core counts, bigger vector co-processors (AVX = 8 SIMD lanes), highly parallel processing capabilities exposed in the GPU through DX11 DirectCompute, CUDA, OpenCL, etc... is going to go through the same learning curve PS3 developers had to go through.
IMHO, learning how to make CELL fly makes you a better programmer over-all. Learning about focusing on data, dividing source data in independent chunks of fixed (and easily cachable) size, trying to balance data transfers of said chunks/work batches with enough arithmetic ops, etc... is a luxury that PC programmers were able to avoid in the past, but that is changing on PC's too.
AndyD said:
Low end gpus today have more or at least as much RAM than the current consoles, think about it :lol
I don´t want to bump this thread, but I do want a gpu comparable to a Ati 5xxx and 3 or 4 gb system RAM for the next gen consoles. And HDD installs or a much faster blu-ray drive for streaming.
Oh, what Naughty Dog could do with such hardware
DeaconKnowledge
Member
WhiteAce said:
fixed.
H_Prestige
Banned
Panajev2001a said:Yes
I think that's the smartest solution. They can't keep using exotic architectures because it completely breaks compatibility across generations. Better to make the switch to PC hardware now and only have to deal with one odd man out (ps3) while making future console transitions smooth and easy. Look how easy it will be for MS next gen. Sony needs to get into their heads that it's software that sells systems. The less that hardware gets in the way of software compatibility, the better.
Moreover, with an Intel CPU and LRB, might it still be possible to write an emulator for ps3. I don't know much of this, but from my understanding the reasons ps2 emulation is impossible on ps3 is because of how different the ps2 GPU was compared to RSX, combined with ps2 games being coded to the metal. Would such issues apply to ps3 emulation? Moreover, could such a system finally emulate ps2?
anonymousAversa
Member
silentspork said:
:lol :lol awesome morning thread.
Gotta say though, I expected way more facepalm gifs...
Ninja Moomin
Banned
gofreak said:
I didn't say that they cannot i said that if they don't there's issues... and as things stand no IBM = No Cell.
I can't see how they would stomach the cost of the R&D to produce a new CELL variant if a cheaper solution can be found off the shelf.
Particularly as after the super-costly and unprofitable intro of the PS3 they are likely to be under huge pressure to produce the new system more efficiently.
badcrumble
Member
you pretty much summed up why it's funny. also, see thread title.-PXG- said:
Panajev2001a said:
It helps them in the long run, but remember those early port jobs? Some of them were just horrible. They're finally getting to the point where the differences are pretty negligible, but the RSX and split RAM still seem to be hurting some ports where they just try to plop the code over and don't optimize for the system. But yeah, I do think you get better long term results out of a complex system like Cell, but it's just the time it takes to get to the point where devs understand the architecture and throw more and more crap at it. Cell is definitely proving to be very powerful, at this point though, if it's fully exploited.
Similar threads
- Poll