• Report: Orbis (PS4) to use eight-core AMD CPU, Radeon GPU
    90 replies, posted
At least PC ports will no longer suffer bad utilization of multiple cores
So next gen consoles are basically high end laptops with a lifespan of 10 years?
New games will be amazing. No more console limitations for ages.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39271588] Looks like the next console gen is gonna be great. PC games are finally going to step into the 21st century. I'm excited.[/QUOTE] My wallet isn't excited, I remember when the last time new consoles came out and then PC hardware requirements went up massively in a year.
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;39270543]no backwards compatibility? no point in getting one anywhere near launch then i guess[/QUOTE] Why do they keep doing that?! The only upside to that move is + you can rerelease a few games + you save money for integrating that compatibility Meanwhile, on the downside: - fewer customers on launch where the price is highest - need to invest into exclusives or ports of modern high profile AAA games - hope that fans stick with you yet again/brand loyalty questioned - anything you plan on rereleasing needs to be ported, instead of establishing compatibility once and for all - gaming history erodes, which is bad for customers and devs trying to learn from crappy-looking-yet-brilliant games (probably not their top concern) They must have better reasons for that. They might be money-hungry, but not downright stupid or short-sighted, you don't make that much money with those attributes. So why do they keep on doing this?!
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;39289294]Why do they keep doing that?! The only upside to that move is + you can rerelease a few games + you save money for integrating that compatibility Meanwhile, on the downside: - fewer customers on launch where the price is highest - need to invest into exclusives or ports of modern high profile AAA games - hope that fans stick with you yet again/brand loyalty questioned - anything you plan on rereleasing needs to be ported, instead of establishing compatibility once and for all - gaming history erodes, which is bad for customers and devs trying to learn from crappy-looking-yet-brilliant games (probably not their top concern) They must have better reasons for that. They might be money-hungry, but not downright stupid or short-sighted, you don't make that much money with those attributes. So why do they keep on doing this?![/QUOTE] For the PS4 to be backwards compatible, it would pretty much have to have a PS3 inside it. Do you want to pay for that?
When I read this bit [QUOTE]According to the report, the processor architecture is based on new "Jaguar" technology that's primarily designed for low power consumption. Jaguar products for PC are set to ship later this year with 4 cores, but Orbis will double that count at launch.[/QUOTE] It reminded me of this. [video=youtube;nxuna944dls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxuna944dls[/video]
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;39289294]Why do they keep doing that?! The only upside to that move is + you can rerelease a few games + you save money for integrating that compatibility Meanwhile, on the downside: - fewer customers on launch where the price is highest - need to invest into exclusives or ports of modern high profile AAA games - hope that fans stick with you yet again/brand loyalty questioned - anything you plan on rereleasing needs to be ported, instead of establishing compatibility once and for all - gaming history erodes, which is bad for customers and devs trying to learn from crappy-looking-yet-brilliant games (probably not their top concern) They must have better reasons for that. They might be money-hungry, but not downright stupid or short-sighted, you don't make that much money with those attributes. So why do they keep on doing this?![/QUOTE] Why would a lack of backwards compatibility mean fewer customers? People who buy the PS4 will have the intention of playing new games, not old games. If they wanted to play old games then they'd still be using their PS3.
7970M scores as good as GTX 570 on 3dmark11
[QUOTE=danharibo;39289339]For the PS4 to be backwards compatible, it would pretty much have to have a PS3 inside it. Do you want to pay for that?[/QUOTE] Or they could just keep with the same CPU architecture.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39289504]Or they could just keep with the same CPU architecture.[/QUOTE] Not really, they would probably have to use the same processor. It's been nearly 10 years, they need to move on.
[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;39269680']As long as it's reliable and doesn't have a pricetag like the PS3 then i don't see anything wrong. I'm still having nightmares about the PS3s launch price.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ[/media] Now all we need is Sony E3 2013 press conference in a nutshell
If i recall correctly, didn't developers had problems with developing games for the PS3 because of the Cell CPU that had more cores and was just more difficult to make work properly? The Cell was considered alien technology when it came out because it was so advanced and to this day not many developers took maximum advantage of it, mainly because the market crashed and had not much money to develop games to use it to its max extension
[QUOTE=danharibo;39289529]Not really, they would probably have to use the same processor. It's been nearly 10 years, they need to move on.[/QUOTE] That's why they should have gone x86 in the first place.
If it has <8GB of ram then its going to suck for developers.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;39290439]If it has <8GB of ram then its going to suck.[/QUOTE] Not really. 4 GB is good enough. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Anything under, and yes, it would probably suck.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39290484]Not really. 4 GB is good enough. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Anything under, and yes, it would probably suck.[/QUOTE] First of all the RAM is shared between the system, games and the gpu. Second, it may be just enough today but not in a few years.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;39290484]Not really. 4 GB is good enough. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Anything under, and yes, it would probably suck.[/QUOTE] They probably said that back when the PS3 and 360 were still in R&D
[QUOTE=darth-veger;39289581]If i recall correctly, didn't developers had problems with developing games for the PS3 because of the Cell CPU that had more cores and was just more difficult to make work properly? The Cell was considered alien technology when it came out because it was so advanced and to this day not many developers took maximum advantage of it, mainly because the market crashed and had not much money to develop games to use it to its max extension[/QUOTE] Fairly sure that was more because of the "alien" architecture rather than the amount of cores.
You also don't really tell the program to use certain cores, it's just that with more cores the more simultaneous threads can be run. This means that CPU-intense stuff can be done in another thread and most likely be run on another core.
If all they did was replace the gpu, the cpu is still faster than the highest end i7's. We'd be stuck with the weird architecture though.
[QUOTE=dije;39291814]You also don't really tell the program to use certain cores, it's just that with more cores the more simultaneous threads can be run. This means that CPU-intense stuff can be done in another thread and most likely be run on another core.[/QUOTE] Or split up into two or more threads when necessary, and possible.
Cell only has one fully independant core. The SPEs are vector processors that rely on that one PPC core giving them instructions. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] It's a bloody weird design. But used properly it's amazing. Look at what ND did with uncharted 3
[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;39292480']Cell only has one fully independant core. The SPEs are vector processors that rely on that one PPC core giving them instructions. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] It's a bloody weird design. But used properly it's amazing. Look at what ND did with uncharted 3[/QUOTE] But that's the biggest issue, using it properly. Almost every cross-platform game on the PS3 runs worse than it does on the Xbox from what I've seen and sometimes the games even have issues. First party titles do look incredible for the hardware, but not all games are first party. It's Sony's job to provide a console that a developer will want to work on and the PS3's CPU isn't helping.
[QUOTE=nessman;39292070]If all they did was replace the gpu, the cpu is still faster than the highest end i7's. We'd be stuck with the weird architecture though.[/QUOTE] I'd bet money on a high end i7 being at least 3 times faster then the PS3's cell processor.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39292914]I'd bet money on a high end i7 being at least 3 times faster then the PS3's cell processor.[/QUOTE] Cell came from supercomputers. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] It's probably built too much like a gpu to work well as a cpu though.
[QUOTE=nessman;39292986]Cell came from supercomputers. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] It's probably built too much like a gpu to work well as a cpu though.[/QUOTE] Yes that's the problem, it's designed to work with highly parallel tasks which many games are not.
[QUOTE=Shugo;39269796]Yeah, pre-launch console hardware rumors are always ridiculous and get out of hand. I remember at one point different "reputable developer sources" were being reported as saying that the Wii U was simultaneously not as powerful as the last gen, as powerful as the last gen, and way more powerful than the last gen. :v: If anyone else remembers the Game Boy Evolution, you should know by now not to trust rumors like this.[/QUOTE] i still have no idea how powerful wii u is :v:
[QUOTE=nessman;39292986]Cell came from supercomputers. [/QUOTE] You realize that the Cell was used in the PS3 before it was used in a supercomputer, right? [quote=Wikipedia: Cell Microprocessor]The first major commercial application of Cell was in Sony's PlayStation 3 game console.[/quote] And fucking [I]mobile processors[/I] are being used in supercomputing now. That doesn't mean shit for how good the individual processor actually is, when a supercomputer is just a ton of them connected anyway. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ezhik;39293060]i still have no idea how powerful wii u is :v:[/QUOTE] It's powerful enough that a couple of games are already full 1080p, where 720p was the highest the PS3 and 360 could do. (The majority of games released now for the WiiU are 720p as well, but this soon after it's launch we don't see the games properly optimized like they are on the PS3/360)
[QUOTE=nessman;39292986]Cell came from supercomputers. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] It's probably built too much like a gpu to work well as a cpu though.[/QUOTE] yeah they use AMD cpu's in supercomputers too, doesn't mean they're good (they're not good)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.