[hexus.net]AMD claims it will power another gaming device

[railven]

So you are saying if the consoles had more powerful hardware, the designers wouldnt use it?

It is a chicken vs egg argument in a way, but the limiting factor is the hardware. The designers are designing down to that. But I dont mean that in a bad way, even a top end PC has limits. It is just that I dont understand why some of the console and AMD fans get so defensive when the console's limits are pointed out. They are a good compromise between power usage, price, and performance, but certainly not cutting edge hardware.

That's the question.

From this thread alone I learned the people defending the consoles don't even own them, have zero interest in them and will most likely not buy one.

Knowing Sony's key power focal point I can say they designed a great Console.

MSFT hasn't given a direct reasoning for their choices, well except they didn't want to repeat RRoD. But that was solved by using a giant half empty box with a fan half the size of it. Haha.

 

[AnandThenMan]

but certainly not cutting edge hardware.

You want cutting edge hardware prices at $399. That's cool but as pointed out Sony and MS decided they needed to make money this round. I'd love you to point me in the direction of a cutting edge computer for $399, I'd very much buy one and recommend it to everyone I know.

 

[railven]

You want cutting edge hardware prices at $399. That's cool but as pointed out Sony and MS decided they needed to make money this round. I'd love you to point me in the direction of a cutting edge computer for $399, I'd very much buy one and recommend it to everyone I know.

Take the way back machine:

PS3 - $500 Blu-ray player, "Cutting edge hardware"
Xbox360 - $400 First unified shader GPU "cutting edge hardware"

At least more so when Xbox 360 came out, I couldn't just stick a $200 card into my computer to compete. I needed top of the line GPUs.

X360/PS3 actually pushed new "cutting edge hardware" with their launches, were affordable to consumers, and well...never mind you reached your conclusion few posts back anyways.

 

[NTMBK]

Take the way back machine:

PS3 - $500 Blu-ray player, "Cutting edge hardware"
Xbox360 - $400 First unified shader GPU "cutting edge hardware"

At least more so when Xbox 360 came out, I couldn't just stick a $200 card into my computer to compete. I needed top of the line GPUs.

X360/PS3 actually pushed new "cutting edge hardware" with their launches, were affordable to consumers, and well...never mind you reached your conclusion few posts back anyways.

The PS3 and 360 also cost vast sums of money to develop, and were not profitable to sell for most of their lifespan. They were outliers. Historically most consoles have not been that cutting edge. Just go take a look at the N64, that thing didn't even have a fan in it.

 

[railven]

The PS3 and 360 also cost vast sums of money to develop, and were not profitable to sell for most of their lifespan. They were outliers. Historically most consoles have not been that cutting edge. Just go take a look at the N64, that thing didn't even have a fan in it.

Sony invented the loss-leader system:

PS1 - one of the first CD-ROM based console $299.
PS2 - included a DVD drive when DVD was just launching $299, making it the cheapest DVD player
PS3 - kept the trend going.
PS4 - eff the trend.

Nintendo always played it safe (they kept following their trends. Just look at the Gamecube/Wii/Wii U).

PS2 is on record as the most successful console ever. It launched with cutting edge hardware. PS3 had a year delay, inflated price tag, yet still sold ~80million units.

 

[AnandThenMan]

So let's ask the question again. What should Sony have done with the PS4? Serious question, come up with a a rough hardware spec that Sony and MS should have gone with.

 

[railven]

So let's ask the question again. What should Sony have done with the PS4? Serious question, come up with a a rough hardware spec that Sony and MS should have gone with.

Here is the problem:
Some of you guys that probably don't play/focus on consoles are making some rather outlandish defenses for what was chosen for the current consoles to counter people's opinions that the new consoles are under powered.

No one claimed/said/hinted that these consoles are pathetic/useless or reached the idiotic conclusion that MSFT/SONY can't design let alone market/sell consoles.

What has been said, and defended, was that these consoles (based on the history of these companies) are clearly less than their predecessors. End of case. There is no reason to play forum-engineer.

The truths are, both companies wanted to reach profitability ASAP. Sony actually gave a big reason why they chose their hardware (250W power limited was a hard restriction). MSFT hasn't really said why, just because that's why.

Both consoles will reach profitability, I actually think both said they already have (minus discount/bundles/yada).

Like Tundra said best - why are some of you jumping through hoops to defend something you've clearly said you have zero interest, don't own, and might not ever own? Since it isn't "I'm a consoler" angle, it must be "because AMD" angle.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So let's ask the question again. What should Sony have done with the PS4? Serious question, come up with a a rough hardware spec that Sony and MS should have gone with.

4 faster cores than 8 slow and both should have dropped the mega reservation for non game related parts.

The consoles are almost more TV/Media boxes than game consoles. And thats what both companies had in mind.

 

[railven]

4 faster cores than 8 slow and both should have dropped the idiotic mega reservation for crap.

The consoles are almost more TV/Media boxes than game consoles.

And the worst part is both scrapped multimedia functions already on the previous consoles to be added later, if ever.

And the TV-centric console fell flat on its face in non-NTSC ('Murica) regions.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You want cutting edge hardware prices at $399. That's cool but as pointed out Sony and MS decided they needed to make money this round. I'd love you to point me in the direction of a cutting edge computer for $399, I'd very much buy one and recommend it to everyone I know.

Did you not read my post completely, or are you deliberately mis-quoting me? I never said I wanted cutting edge hardware for a console price. In fact, I specifically said the consoles were a good compromise. Are you trying to tell me they *are* top end hardware?

 

[monstercameron]

Here is the problem:

Some of you guys that probably don't play/focus on consoles are making some rather outlandish defenses for what was chosen for the current consoles to counter people's opinions that the new consoles are under powered.



No one claimed/said/hinted that these consoles are pathetic/useless or reached the idiotic conclusion that MSFT/SONY can't design let alone market/sell consoles.



What has been said, and defended, was that these consoles (based on the history of these companies) are clearly less than their predecessors. End of case. There is no reason to play forum-engineer.



The truths are, both companies wanted to reach profitability ASAP. Sony actually gave a big reason why they chose their hardware (250W power limited was a hard restriction). MSFT hasn't really said why, just because that's why.



Both consoles will reach profitability, I actually think both said they already have (minus discount/bundles/yada).



Like Tundra said best - why are some of you jumping through hoops to defend something you've clearly said you have zero interest, don't own, and might not ever own? Since it isn't "I'm a consoler" angle, it must be "because AMD" angle.

So are you saying we should all just agree with you?
Compute alone changes the whole deal. No console has done gpgpu at the level available to current gen consoles. Not to mention massive amounts of unified memory, these two features will extend the capabilities of what is possible in a $400 console.
Look I don't get this back and forth, it is better than previous gen no?

 

[railven]

So are you saying we should all just agree with you?

No, I'm not (I never even hinted at that.) Crap, I've said from the start these are my opinions.

Compute alone changes the whole deal. No console has done gpgpu at the level available to current gen consoles. Not to mention massive amounts of unified memory, these two features will extend the capabilities of what is possible in a $400 console.

Sure, they will, but for how long? Do you follow consoles (honestly). MSFT is already in hot water for using slower DDR3 for it's unified sub system and measly 32MB for its uber ESRAM.

With the push for parity (is it pressure from a specific company who chose poorly - perhaps) that's going to sort of gimp the PS4.

When the PS4 is left off the leash, well, you got missing AF, sub 1080p resolution, sub 30 frame rates. Woof.

Look I don't get this back and forth, it is better than previous gen no?

What? Here, let me redirect this:
Was Bulldozer better than previous AMD chips, no? (Now the kicker) do you think it was under powered (performing)?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Sony invented the loss-leader system:

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Sony's not exactly the most profitable company around right now. If anything, their decision to use off-the-shelf AMD components for their game console is propping up the losses of all their other devisions.

Not only was the PS4 design was a wise decision, but it's keeping the company afloat financially.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

PS2 is on record as the most successful console ever. It launched with cutting edge hardware. PS3 had a year delay, inflated price tag, yet still sold ~80million units.

No it didn't -- The PS2 wasn't any more powerful than a Dreamcast..... Without that DVD drive, its hardware was nothing to call home about..... Far from cutting edge. The PS2 couldn't even do HD, yet the Xbox launched only a year later could go all the way up to 1080i and had built-in network play (Xbox Live). If anything, the Xbox was the "cutting edge hardware" of that generation, certainly not the PS2.

The lame Wii outsold the PS3 by 20 million units for its generation -- and still wasn't even capable of HD. "Cutting edge hardware" has never won a generation for sales. Almost always it is the combination of popular software and a low price that wins each generation. Look at the market failures of Atari Jaguar, 3D0, Neo Geo for "cutting edge hardware."

 

[railven]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Sony's not exactly the most profitable company around right now. If anything, their decision to use off-the-shelf AMD components for their game console is propping up the losses of all their other decisions.

Who hasn't noticed. But if you hadn't known, Sony was riding a super high breaking records in the console sector with PS1 and PS2. That came to an end with the PS3 (which went on to sell 80million units, woof dat failure!)

If anything, that was discussed - like twenty times. Sony raced to profitability.

Not only was the PS4 design was a wise decision, but it's keeping the company afloat financially.

You mean them spinning off, melting, selling, closing, all them other things that were costing them heavily didn't help?

EDIT:

No it didn't -- The PS2 wasn't any more powerful that a Dreamcast..... Without the DVD drive, its hardware was nothing to call home about. Far from cutting edge.

Re-read, sir, Dreamcast didn't use a DVD drive, PS2 did. Giving PS2 a "hardware" edge over it's competitor. PS2 also cost more than DC, sold better, and well, I don't want to bring up DC's terrible demise.

The lame Wii outsold the PS3 by 20 million units for its generation -- and wasn't even capable of HD. "Cutting edge hardware" has never won a generation for sales. Almost always it is the combination of popular software and a low price. Look at the market failures of Atari Jaguar, 3D0, Neo Geo for "cutting edge hardware."

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!! I said this probably a few posts back. But let's look at those products:
Jaguar was not cutting edge. It sure was hyped up with it's 64-bit processor but did you see it's games? Woof! Even the PS3 with it's hard to code cutting edge cell was closer to Xbox 360 than Atari Jaguar to it's competitors.

3DO did not adopt the loss-leader system so they charged the consumer from the start to generate profits. Result - $600-700 hardware that was on par with it's competitors and a smaller library, thus not justifying it's price. At least when we pay the premium for Intel/Nvidia the performance is there. The 3DO is a great example of how not to sell a console.

 

[brokEN2]

Not sure if posted already but

New Nintendo consoles being worked on!

 

[AnandThenMan]

Did you not read my post completely, or are you deliberately mis-quoting me? I never said I wanted cutting edge hardware for a console price. In fact, I specifically said the consoles were a good compromise. Are you trying to tell me they *are* top end hardware?

I misunderstood your post/context, sorry.

Yes of course the PS4 is not top end hardware it costs $400 all in! But there seems to be this prevailing notion that the hardware is meh. Which is why I asked for people to state what they think the hardware should have been. It would be nice if we were getting $1000 performance for $400, if that was true I'd probably break my tradition and buy a console.

So it's a natural question to ask, if some think the hardware is underwhelming (or worse) then come up with an idea of what it should have been. If people think the hardware is only okay or sucks then they must have an idea of what is good, right?

.....BTW I'm talking the PS4 here the Xbone is pretty lame I don't know what MS was thinking.

 

[Red Hawk]

Not sure if posted already but

New Nintendo consoles being worked on!

Yeah. It could entirely be coincidence, but AMD hardware has powered the graphics side of Nintendo consoles since the Gamecube. It wouldn't at all be a surprise if Nintendo went AMD again with their next system. We (hopefully) won't see the next Nintendo console until 2017, though.

It will put Nintendo in an interesting situation, though. Microsoft and Sony are trying to get their money's worth out of the PS4/XB1 by saying they'll have a 10 year lifespan. I doubt they'll last that long, but the point is that they're not fast-tracking new console development. Nintendo's next console can pretty easily be more powerful than the PS4/Xbox. If Nintendo does this right -- which, after the Wii U, is a fair question -- they can trump Sony and Microsoft at the hardware game.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

AMD already said they don't expect the consoles to go past 5 years and that they're already exploring the next batch of systems.

If AMD can get a similar spec out for Nintendo but on the next available die shrink, it could be a huge game changer for Nintendo. Having the hardware edge and their first party games might bring them back to the mindless, err, hardcore gaming market.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Who hasn't noticed. But if you hadn't known, Sony was riding a super high breaking records in the console sector with PS1 and PS2. That came to an end with the PS3 (which went on to sell 80million units, woof dat failure!)

EDIT:

Re-read, sir, Dreamcast didn't use a DVD drive, PS2 did. Giving PS2 a "hardware" edge over it's competitor. PS2 also cost more than DC, sold better, and well, I don't want to bring up DC's terrible demise.

Jaguar was not cutting edge. It sure was hyped up with it's 64-bit processor but did you see it's games? Woof! Even the PS3 with it's hard to code cutting edge cell was closer to Xbox 360 than Atari Jaguar to it's competitors.

3DO did not adopt the loss-leader system so they charged the consumer from the start to generate profits. Result - $600-700 hardware that was on par with it's competitors and a smaller library, thus not justifying it's price. At least when we pay the premium for Intel/Nvidia the performance is there. The 3DO is a great example of how not to sell a console.

As someone who owns all the above consoles, you are getting some of the facts incorrect. Jaguar was incredibly cutting edge by 1993 standards.... It had a 64 bit data bus and was powered by 5 processors.... -- The hardware was a powerhouse, but it was crippled by a rush through development and had awful support from the parent company. For a 1993 era game console to be able to run a game like Skyhammer -- is actually pretty amazing (even if it wasn't technically 3D):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Jh79AdVSo

The Jaguar at its release was the most powerful game console in existence. But the PS1 replaced it for most powerful console when it debuted.

The Dreamcast hardware was mostly killed by software piracy. It was incredibly easy to pirate CD-Rom software during that era and the Dreamcast hardware didn't even need to be modded to read it. The DVD advantage of the PS2 was mostly for playing movies, as most games (Dead Or Alive, for example) looks and play identically on both consoles.

The 3DO was just an ill-conceived device -- they really couldn't decide whether it was a movie player or game console throughout most of its like... The same problem that doomed CD-i and Amiga CDTV.

 

[cytg111]

3GB memory more or less gone as well.

So games are down to 6 cores and 4.5-5.5GB.

instant FUD opportunity.. hard to pass by is it not.

- In other news, the same reporter explained why Intel has not moved beyond 4 cores for mainstream : The software is just not there. Over to you Roger, with the weather, is it gonna rain?

Or was that another Shintai? I keep mixing em up.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Im sorry but not everyone has english as first language.

its a fact there is hardware reserved for the OS that games does not have access to on both consoles, where do you think the DRM system is? Specially on the PS4 you dont reserve 2 cores just for run an OS, whats that? Vista?

And google translate actually takes time to spell. Set your spell check to english.

To say you're rambling without any clue about the facts here would be an understatement. The 360 also had two entire threads devoted to OS level stuff. Part of what the OS is doing on the XB1 is multitasking. All of the XBox sits on top of a hypervisor; each "OS" is a VM. It's what enables the fast launch times, app switching and pinning and such.

You have nothing to cite that an eighth of the XB1's CPU is reserved for "DRM." DRM for what? It's a closed system. This is not Denuvo or something.

 

[RampantAndroid]

And MSFT with it's clunky 3 Operating Systems, it's Kinect reservations, and gimped GPU.

Sony will have to pay for MSFT's short commings as "parity" is pushed for across the board in certain titles.

I just find it a little disheartening that some gamers are hoping for 720p/60FPS for console games. That's what this generation is boiling down to.

720p60 or 1080p30.

3GB is gone likely because how else do you enable the multitasking? You *need* to reserve memory for it. You can't say "as long as the use isn't multitasking you get 6GB of RAM, but if they open the NFL app, you only get 5.5GB for your game." No, you instead say games get x amount, the OS gets y amount and apps get z amount. There's no confusion about memory allotments changing, and it's easier to develop for.

 

[tential]

4 faster cores than 8 slow and both should have dropped the mega reservation for non game related parts.

The consoles are almost more TV/Media boxes than game consoles. And thats what both companies had in mind.

yet dropped windows media center support on the Xbone...

Ya, MS can screw themselves, that's the exact reason why I didn't even want one actually. MS just dropped support for something that should have worked out of the box, and worked WELL given this "It's an entertainment system too!" thing they were trying to push.

 

[jpiniero]

4 faster cores than 8 slow and both should have dropped the mega reservation for non game related parts.

If you did that, you would have to eat quite a bit of the GPU budget, either from die size or power. Or both.

A console being released this year would probably be using Puma or A57.