Cell Processor is Dead to IBM

[zerocool84]

They should have gone with a standard x86 or PowerPC processor. Wii, Gamecube, and Xbox 360 all use PowerPC processors.

Whoever is in charge of Sony needs to be fired. They pull this same stunt every damn time. Minidisks, betamax, emotion engine. It's almost like it's Sony's goal to make great technology that cannot be adopted by any other company and dies off after a couple of years. They already dropped all PS2 compatibility and now it looks like PS4 will drop all PS3 compatibility. Meanwhile Nintendo is able to tout 100% backward compatibility with Gamecube due to it being the same basic design.

I'm not defending Sony but you obviously don't know them. They create technology, great, risky technology. Sure some of it has failed but others haven't which is why they are a leader in technology. Also it's not like any of their technology hasn't been adapted by other companies.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

The cell processor's death or otherwise is largely irrelevant to the PS4. The reality is that unless there is a marked reversal of fortune for the PS3, the PS4 will use far less specialized components.

The fact that the emotion engine was difficult to program for, as is the cell, was not an accident, nor was it a simple side effect of using what they deemed the best available technology. It was a calculated move made by a company in the leading position in the console industry.

Consider: Making a system difficult to program for also make it difficult to port between systems. If you're the market leader, this is a wonderful thing - you're the main market, so games get developed for your platform first. Making porting to competitors difficult means fewer cross platform releases due to larger development costs - and since you're the leader, that will no doubt hurt your competitors more then it hurts you.

The PS1 was the undeniable leader, by a wide margin, of it's generation. The PS2 didn't enjoy quite the same dominance, but it was again the leader. The PS3 to PS4 transition will be different, as Sony won't be going into it as the market leader. And if you're not the market leader, making your system difficult to program hurts you more then your competitors.

That's just as it stands now though. The PS4 is still a long way off.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Seems like every generation of Sony console comes with a caveat that unless you really put some time into it, you're not going to get the best of the system has to offer, but if do put the time in, the games come out looking phenomenal. If you look at the stuff that came out at the beginning of the PS2's life cycle and then the last big AAA titles that hit for it near the end like God of War 2, it's literally like a completely next generation in consoles. Already with series like Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank, the sequels substantially overshadow the previous game graphically.

Hopefully a price cut and a system redesign is the kick in the butt the PS3 needs to have developers take it more seriously and utilize the hardware to maximize the software.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Given Sony's track record of "OMG THIS HARDWARE IS 3X AS DIFFICULT TO PROGRAM FOR THAN THE COMPETITION, BUT IS 10X BETTER IN A COMPLETELY NICHE SITUATION!", I don't even want to guess what they're dreaming up for the PS4.

KK is gone now, anyone that follows console hardware development knows he was the reason Sony stuck to exotic solutions. In his defense, it seemed to work out pretty well for them for the better part of two decades. It wouldn't shock me to see the PS4 use some sort of Cell derived processor, perhaps with 4PPEs/12SPEs or some other more balanced solution then their current offering. Given that going that route with any newer nV GPU would give them full BC and allow them to build on top of their already existing libraries which would make for a much easier transition then what we have seen from Sony in the past.

Too bad anti aliasing doesn't seem to be one of those capabilities.

That has nothing to do with Cell, that is a limitation of the GPU/game code(balance it right and you can get 1080p w/AA, but it requires compensation on the code/asset end).

Technical wise, doesn't it make more sense for PS3 to like, use a x86 out-of-order CPU that everyone is familiar with?

Who do you think 'everyone' is? Console native devs still dominate the global console gaming market, and they likely have a hell of a lot more experience with MIPS and POWER derivatives then they do with x86.

Whoever is in charge of Sony needs to be fired.

KK who was in charge of the PS division is no longer with Sony.

Minidisks, betamax, emotion engine. It's almost like it's Sony's goal to make great technology that cannot be adopted by any other company and dies off after a couple of years.

Don't forget things like Walkmans and BluRay, also EE utterly dominated the market and is still selling rather well a decade later. Sony has some fantastic failures to be sure, but they also occasionally have monster successes using their philosophy.

The PS1 was the undeniable leader, by a wide margin, of it's generation. The PS2 didn't enjoy quite the same dominance, but it was again the leader.

The PS2 was far more dominant then the PS1. The PS2 sold about the same as all its competitors combined and then doubled.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

The stats on Wikipedia, at least, actually seem to paint the PS2 being very slightly more dominant, if anything. 2.41 or so PS1 units for each competing unit vs 2.49 PS2 per competitive unit.

Either way, the situation has seriously reversed this generation, at least so far. .49 PS3s per competing unit.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The stats on Wikipedia, at least, actually seem to paint the PS2 being very slightly more dominant, if anything. 2.41 or so PS1 units for each competing unit vs 2.49 PS2 per competitive unit.

PS2 was at 138Million as of August, it's still moving 0.25Million units a month at its' current sales rate- it's still pulling away from the PS1. By the end of this year it should easily clear 140Million, don't think it will make it to 150Million, but it will be relatively close. We have to wait until the sales book is closed on the PS2's generation before comparing sales to its' competition, that all the others failed out of the market so much sooner doesn't change that

Either way, the situation has seriously reversed this generation, at least so far. .49 PS3s per competing unit.

That is flat out wrong, not sure where they got that number from(I suppose it is possible it was accurate at some point, but it isn't now). Just counting the Wii and the 360 and using low ball estimates on both you are comparing 80Million units sold to less then 30Million. Low balling its competition and padding the PS3's numbers you are still under .40 so far this gen.

 

[sourceninja]

I think the tools they give the developers is a lot more important then the hardware (although that is a factor). Microsoft is the king of tools. Sony actually at one point said being hard to code for was a feature.