AMD Bulldozer in PS4 - rumor sufaces

[Topweasel]

pretty sure they will go with a new cell processor, for backward compatibility.

dont want to see another debacle involving ps2 backward compatibility, or how they 'cut costs' by removing the hardware for it.

Actually they have never cared very much and CPU backwards compatibility support is 100* easier then video backwards compatibility. Sony was so late in giving up and getting a 3d provider that I am pretty sure the RSX chip in the PS3 isn't owned by them, much like the previous chip in the original Xbox. If they are choosing AMD for video no matter what then they already lost the hardware based backwards compatibility, so unless they are going to use the PS2/PS3 method of including the previous systems hardware on board, they are going to have to software emulate everything anyways.

As for Cell itself. Sony has pretty much given up on that ruling the world. It was supposed to be a scalable CPU to rule the world. The advent of advanced SOC's and ARM processors killed about every use case Sony intended on using it in. They sold off the IP and Fab's for it to Toshiba who later has licensed it out to IBM to manufacture and advance, but I doubt Sony would nock on that door again.

 

[lamedude]

AFAIK Sony owns RSX. They fabbed it themselves (until recently, the latest rev is 40nm which suggests TSMC) and the die has Sony it.

Sony was aggresive in cost cutting on the PS2 and probably wanted to the same with the PS3.

 

[Mopetar]

games weren't as expensive to produce before as they are now. some break 400 million don't they? it's very possible that to save dev costs a game will be made for 1 console in mind and have a cheap ass port to another. neither sony/ms/nin want to be on the short end of that stick.

I don't believe they get that high, unless game studios have started practicing the same shady accounting that Hollywood has been using. Wikipedia says that the average cost is around $20 million. Another wiki lists similar costs.

AFAIK Sony owns RSX. They fabbed it themselves (until recently, the latest rev is 40nm which suggests TSMC) and the die has Sony it.

I imagine that Sony has some ownership of the chip and can get it manufactured wherever they like, but that Nvidia gets some royalties for every chip made.

 

[RussianSensation]

It also now knows how to fabricate bulldozer at 32nm.

Bulldozer is again rumored to be delayed, now into October. Bulldozer does not even have a GPU onboard. If I was Sony or MS I'd stay as far as possible from AMD CPU given AMD's track record of constant delays and failure to deliver promised performance in the last 5 years.

I don't believe they get that high, unless game studios have started practicing the same shady accounting that Hollywood has been using. Wikipedia says that the average cost is around $20 million. Another wiki lists similar costs.

Ya, that $400 million estimate is a bit high. Development costs are actually a small portion of the total game launch cost.

Call of Duty Black Ops cost < $30 million to develop. But, the approximate total launch cost for say Modern Warfare 2 was $200 &#8211; $250 million, including development, marketing, distribution, console royalty and manufacturer.

-Console may not be $500.

True, but it's much more reasonable to assume next generation consoles will be $350-500 rather than $200-300. Considering PS Vita and Nintendo 3DS both cost $250, it's even less reasonable to expect any new generation console to launch below $299. Wii U's expensive controller will limit Nintendo's ability to match the aggressive pricing of the original Wii.

Sony and MS might actually want to turn a profit off of console sales rather than a loss.

The game console business has generally been a loss leader business for a long time. You make up the difference in game and accessories sales. I don't see this changing any time soon. For Nintendo the situation is different because they have little 3rd party support; so it's harder to make up the revenue from game sales alone.

-They could use a custom designed APU. No need for arbitrary constraints.

I never said they couldn't do it, I just think it's not going to happen on launch date. APU always has constraints of TDP and die size. These constraints are not arbitrary. You alleviate some of those issues when you move to a dedicated GPU + CPU setup, which is why outside of cost savings 2 separate dies are preferable. An APU design is more suitable for a portable device or a budget gaming system. But if you intend your console to last another 5-7 years, personally, I think it's a poor choice.

-They might be working on other features of the console to fit within the price.

Yes, some of those features may even include 3D stereo gaming which requires even more powerful GPUs. What about if they want all games to run at 1080P 4AA @ 60 fps? We don't know.

 

[Topweasel]

AFAIK Sony owns RSX. They fabbed it themselves (until recently, the latest rev is 40nm which suggests TSMC) and the die has Sony it.
Sony was aggresive in cost cutting on the PS2[/URL] and probably wanted to the same with the PS3.

I am not sure a heat spreader with Sony all over it means anything. This isn't going to be completely generic Nvidia part with Nvidia labeling. It was developed or at least tweaked for specific use inside the PS3. Think of Nvidia in this case as a Chinese parts supplier. Most sony optical drives are rebrands, but they all say Sony all over it.

But as far as I know and everything that was said during the development of the system and statements made later in the life of the original Xbox, Nvidia doesn't license out their graphics technology. They may have a contract or an allowance for Sony to shop around production to reduce die sizes, but they technically do not own the RSX.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I never said they couldn't do it, I just think it's not going to happen on launch date. APU always has constraints of TDP and die size. These constraints are not arbitrary. You alleviate some of those issues when you move to a dedicated GPU + CPU setup, which is why outside of cost savings 2 separate dies are preferable. An APU design is more suitable for a portable device or a budget gaming system. But if you intend your console to last another 5-7 years, personally, I think it's a poor choice.

You said "$150 APU"; that is an arbitrary constraint. I understand you're using current Llano as a reference point for the top end APU, but there is room to increase the die size and transistor count. Llano is only 228 mm2 at 32nm. Thuban, another AMD chip, is 346 mm2 at 45nm.

The game console business has generally been a loss leader business for a long time. You make up the difference in game and accessories sales. I don't see this changing any time soon. For Nintendo the situation is different because they have little 3rd party support; so it's harder to make up the revenue from game sales alone.

Sony and MS have been copying every other Nintendo business model. There's a possibility they might do the same with console pricing, or focus on aspects other than raw 3D performance.

Yes, some of those features may even include 3D stereo gaming which requires even more powerful GPUs. What about if they want all games to run at 1080P 4AA @ 60 fps? We don't know.

We don't know anything concrete (that was inherent in my points), but I think we all know 60 fps is not going to be a standard for consoles.