If I were to design a console

[mmntech]

Sony managed to build a hotter console than the 360 that didn't break (for a few years at least and even then YLoD was nowhere near as big as RRoD).

I've always been curious to know what the long term failure rate was for the 20/60gb fat PS3s. A lot of people I know had theirs fail. Those 90nm chips burned hot, and tin solder just sucks.

The fat PS3's have a massive blower fan connected to a laptop style headsink. So it kept the chips cool. However, the massive passively cooled power supply just bakes the back of the motherboard. Not a lot of airflow at the top of the case. That's probably why the PSU in the Slim is actively cooled.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I would disallow microtransactions in all games.

Example:
Sorry, but I just paid $60 for NB2k14. After buying I realize that growing VC (Virtual Currency) takes longer than I would want in order to create a jacked player. I have a player in his 5th season. Ranked 190 in the league and 37 at his position. From reading forums, it looks like it is harder to build VC in the game with NBA2K14. People think it is intentional so that people shell out $$$$ for a bunch of VC to avoid waiting forever. I already paid $60 for the damned game.

I have no problem paying for expansion packs. I get it. The company created a bunch of extra content at their time and cost. But to simply design a game from the ground up to F the buyer? I'm sick of it. It hurts people like me that refuse to pay. People with money to blow are not effected so they'll probably make more money. But they are spitting in the faces of many people. I hope the video game industry implodes if they keep pulling this crap.

 

[mmntech]

Yeah, I have a big problem with microtransactions in full retail games.

Extra Credits did a video explain why a lot of publishers and developers are doing F2P monotization wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz9OXy86a0

 

[sze5003]

I would disallow microtransactions in all games.

Example:
Sorry, but I just paid $60 for NB2k14. After buying I realize that growing VC (Virtual Currency) takes longer than I would want in order to create a jacked player. I have a player in his 5th season. Ranked 190 in the league and 37 at his position. From reading forums, it looks like it is harder to build VC in the game with NBA2K14. People think it is intentional so that people shell out $$$$ for a bunch of VC to avoid waiting forever. I already paid $60 for the damned game.

I have no problem paying for expansion packs. I get it. The company created a bunch of extra content at their time and cost. But to simply design a game from the ground up to F the buyer? I'm sick of it. It hurts people like me that refuse to pay. People with money to blow are not effected so they'll probably make more money. But they are spitting in the faces of many people. I hope the video game industry implodes if they keep pulling this crap.

I have over 40k in vc coins from the nba2k14 mobile app. They have a daily vc give away and you can also guess which nba games will win each day and if you get it right you win vc. I have not shelled out any money for vc. I also think microtransactions are horrible.

 

[Rakehellion]

I've always been curious to know what the long term failure rate was for the 20/60gb fat PS3s. A lot of people I know had theirs fail. Those 90nm chips burned hot, and tin solder just sucks.

The fat PS3's have a massive blower fan connected to a laptop style headsink. So it kept the chips cool. However, the massive passively cooled power supply just bakes the back of the motherboard. Not a lot of airflow at the top of the case. That's probably why the PSU in the Slim is actively cooled.

I've owned a few fat PS3s and the biggest failure was the laser. That was another immature technology at the time.

 

[Rakehellion]

The point about it being louder is the PS4's cooling system could have been designed better.

Designed better than what exactly? It was designed better. You want NASA to design a cooler made of solid gold and pyrolytic graphite with liquid cooling? Or does it just need to be quieter than the other guy's system so fanboys can win arguments on the internet?

"Better" isn't a specification. Without an actual noise target or frame of reference you have no point.

 

[Rakehellion]

You must have missed the memo. A lot of people still want the disk.

You want the disk, but you don't ever want to take it out of the case. There's a solution to people who want convenience, and there's a solution for people who want legacy.

Id rather have 4 full size desktop cores for gaming than 6 cut down tablet cores.

Problem is, you can't put desktop cores in a tablet.

 

[Rakehellion]

I would disallow microtransactions in all games.

Those things make billions of dollars and aren't going anywhere. Don't like the game, don't buy it.

 

[Timorous]

There is certainly a purpose of using dedicated memory - you can use GDDR5 for graphics and DDR3 for system. Because that's the type of memory that works best in their respective roles.

XB1 uses all DDR3 - good for system use but mediocre for graphics (low bandwidth)
PS4 uses all GDDR5 - good for graphics but mediocre for system use (high latency)

This is false.

The 5.5 Gbps chips used in the PS4 have an Act to Act latency of 40ns, this is marginally better than the DDR3 used in the XB1 which has an Act to Act latency of ~ 41ns.

Personally I think the PS4 is the perfect console, hardware wise, this generation. For its cost, I dont think you can really do better.

I agree with this 100%. The only way to get a faster PS4 is to have made it more expensive but that backfired on them with the PS3 so they went with a sensible $399 launch price.

It's clear that the emphasis was on power saving and low cost.

My design is still low cost but a little less emphasis on power saving because I think a lot of people would prefer a more powerful console and would gladly take the extra 30-50 watt hit you might get from moving from an 8 core tablet cpu to a 4-core desktop cpu. Cost is about the same.

Your design is worse and will result in a lower performing, more expensive device.

1) A 4 core desktop CPU will take up more die space than the 8 core jaguar design, this results in either a lower grade of GPU so overall die space is the same or the same GPU and a larger die. The smaller GPU would hurt performance more than the CPU increases performance resulting in a net performance deficit or the larger die will result in a lower yield and the price/chip will increase which will result in a higher cost device.

2) The increase in power will also mean you have to use a weaker GPU to compensate or beef up the cooling solution to compensate. If you beef up the cooling solution you are increasing costs directly and you are also increasing the size of the package which will result in higher shipping costs.

The only way to have gotten a higher performing PS4 would have been to have higher cost and power targets.

 

[futurefields]

1) A 4 core desktop CPU will take up more die space than the 8 core jaguar design, this results in either a lower grade of GPU so overall die space is the same or the same GPU and a larger die. The smaller GPU would hurt performance more than the CPU increases performance resulting in a net performance deficit or the larger die will result in a lower yield and the price/chip will increase which will result in a higher cost device.

2) The increase in power will also mean you have to use a weaker GPU to compensate or beef up the cooling solution to compensate. If you beef up the cooling solution you are increasing costs directly and you are also increasing the size of the package which will result in higher shipping costs.

The only way to have gotten a higher performing PS4 would have been to have higher cost and power targets.

No I would use the same GPU as PS4, and pair it with a quad core desktop part. The Qualcomm SOC handles the OS. Nobody said anything about using the same size case as PS4, die size, power targets and cooling are not factors because I am talking about using a bigger box with better cooling and a beefier power supply.

Cost is the same because - no 8gb of GDDR5, only 2GB. And the DDR3 for system RAM much cheaper. the quad-core CPU is a simple design that uses more power than the 8-core jaguar, cost is about the same but performance and power usage are increased - again, real gamers don't care about an extra 50 watts of power or a slightly louder fan. "Imma buy the weaker system because its quieter and uses less watts" - something you never hear a real gamer say.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You want the disk, but you don't ever want to take it out of the case. There's a solution to people who want convenience, and there's a solution for people who want legacy.



Problem is, you can't put desktop cores in a tablet.

No I want the physical media and when I do an install why do I need the disk inserted all the time?

 

[Timorous]

No I would use the same GPU as PS4, and pair it with a quad core desktop part. The Qualcomm SOC handles the OS. Nobody said anything about using the same size case as PS4, die size, power targets and cooling are not factors because I am talking about using a bigger box with better cooling and a beefier power supply.

Cost is the same because - no 8gb of GDDR5, only 2GB. And the DDR3 for system RAM much cheaper. the quad-core CPU is a simple design that uses more power than the 8-core jaguar, cost is about the same but performance and power usage are increased - again, real gamers don't care about an extra 50 watts of power or a slightly louder fan. "Imma buy the weaker system because its quieter and uses less watts" - something you never hear a real gamer say.

That would cost more. The increased die size + improved cooling + improved power supply + larger case would add up to a lot more than the differential between 8GB of GDDR5 vs 2GB of GDDR5 + 4GB of DDR3.

I am not convinced that it would even provide a performance boost. Arguably the most likely game to be CPU bound is 64 player BF4 and you do not see the minimum frame rate on the PS4 as low as it is on the XB1. If it was you could suspect a CPU bottleneck causing it but since the PS4 has consistently higher frame rates than the XB1 version, while also running at a higher resolution, it suggests that frame drops are caused by GPU limitations more than CPU ones.

Your architecture would also run into memory limitations much sooner than the 8GB GDDR5 design of the PS4, partly because you are only using 6 GB of ram and partly because the split memory design is not as friendly for the developers to use meaning you will probably end up with asset duplication as it exists in the system pool and the VRAM. On top of that a split design is less compatible with GPU compute which the PS4 has been geared towards as evidenced by the beefed up ACE units which match the Hawaii design.

I do not think your console would be faster, it would cost more, be more awkward to develop on and have reduced GPU compute functionality. Overall it is a weaker design than the PS4 when looking at performance across the entire system.

 

[futurefields]

That would cost more. The increased die size + improved cooling + improved power supply + larger case would add up to a lot more than the differential between 8GB of GDDR5 vs 2GB of GDDR5 + 4GB of DDR3.

I am not convinced that it would even provide a performance boost. Arguably the most likely game to be CPU bound is 64 player BF4 and you do not see the minimum frame rate on the PS4 as low as it is on the XB1. If it was you could suspect a CPU bottleneck causing it but since the PS4 has consistently higher frame rates than the XB1 version, while also running at a higher resolution, it suggests that frame drops are caused by GPU limitations more than CPU ones.

Your architecture would also run into memory limitations much sooner than the 8GB GDDR5 design of the PS4, partly because you are only using 6 GB of ram and partly because the split memory design is not as friendly for the developers to use meaning you will probably end up with asset duplication as it exists in the system pool and the VRAM. On top of that a split design is less compatible with GPU compute which the PS4 has been geared towards as evidenced by the beefed up ACE units which match the Hawaii design.

I do not think your console would be faster, it would cost more, be more awkward to develop on and have reduced GPU compute functionality. Overall it is a weaker design than the PS4 when looking at performance across the entire system.

PS4 only has 5gb RAM for games, mine has 6gb.

 

[futurefields]

PS4 only uses 6 cores of the tablet cpu for games (2 cores are for OS per Sony.). Mine uses entire desktop quad core just for games, OS is handles by Qualcomm SOC with it's own SDRAM pool. My system a lot better performing for games.

 

[Rakehellion]

PS4 only has 5gb RAM for games, mine has 6gb.

The other 3GB is being used for functionality that yours doesn't have. The PS4 firmware can give developers as much memory as they want.

 

[futurefields]

Mine is better performing for gaming, Sony's better performing for OS functions.

 

[ShintaiDK]

PS4 only has 5gb RAM for games, mine has 6gb.

Yours got 4+2. Plus you would have to spend some of the 4 to have parts of the 2 in. Not to mention the lack of flexibility it gives and the OS+memory related flaws in your dual uarch setups.

PS4 only uses 6 cores of the tablet cpu for games (2 cores are for OS per Sony.). Mine uses entire desktop quad core just for games, OS is handles by Qualcomm SOC with it's own SDRAM pool. My system a lot better performing for games.

You (still) cant mix ARM and x86 memory addresses. So no, you cant do it the way you wish.

 

[Rakehellion]

PS4 only uses 6 cores of the tablet cpu for games (2 cores are for OS per Sony.). Mine uses entire desktop quad core just for games, OS is handles by Qualcomm SOC with it's own SDRAM pool. My system a lot better performing for games.

It's just plain silly to have two CPUs on two different architectures when you can just use a portion of the main CPU for OS functionality.

And since you've been asked more than once "have you ever programmed anything before" and you haven't answered, the answer is clearly no.

Your console is this:

 

[Rakehellion]

Mine is better performing for gaming, Sony's better performing for OS functions.

I don't understand how you think it's going to play games when there's no memory allocated to the OS.

 

[futurefields]

Did you read the OP? Read it again, OS is powered by a SOC with 1gb RAM. My console has 7gb, 1gb of low power cheap RAM for OS.

 

[futurefields]

If ARM doesnt work it could use an x86 SOC for OS. aMD makes those too.

 

[exdeath]

You (still) cant mix ARM and x86 memory addresses. So no, you cant do it the way you wish.

Off topic but yes you can. There would be stall and arbitration issues to deal with which is always the case but you can have any number of CPUs, DMACs, or misc devices accessing the same memory. Not at the exact same time but when is this ever the case outside of dual ported RAM? Youre just manipulating A/D lines. They don't even both have to be based from 0 or be all inclusive. You could even designate a shared window in RAM that both CPUs have access too from their own addressing schemes. [0000F000] could be the same physical memory address on x86 as $0000A000 on ARM.

It's just a matter of address decoding. You can put whatever you want wherever you want.

 

[badb0y]

This is all fun and all but if you bothered to look up on the development of the PS4 Mark Cerny specifically says that the number 1 feature developers wanted in the PS4 was unified memory which pretty much throws your design out the window.

 

[futurefields]

I don't listen to PR. Developers are not happy with these consoles especially the CPUs.

Google "Sucker Punch PS4 cpu" or "Battlefield 4 PS4 cpu"

 

[Fulle]

It'd be difficult to design something "better" than the PS4, while hitting the same price target.

The biggest bottleneck is the CPU, with the small Jaguar cores. They're very efficient little cores, though, and GPGPU should help alleviate the CPU bottleneck some.

A unified memory architecture with hUMA support, means that memory management is easier on the PS4 than any current or previous console... Or even against a PC.

The cooling solution is similar to what you'll see in some discreet GPUs, with an enclosed blower design. While it's slightly louder than the Xbox One's design, it's within 1dB from 3 feet, while keeping lower load temperatures while gaming. The more compact design allowed the PS4 to be substantially more aesthetically pleasing in it's case design, and also include the power supply unit in the case.

Where I feel improvements could be made were in the Controller. Going with the smaller battery wasn't a smart cost cutting measure IMHO. I also think that the surfacing on the analog sticks could have been slightly improved without adding cost. The light bar should have had the ability to dim or be turned off from the start. That said, it's still my favorite controller ever made.

Oh, yeah, the Wireless chip was another area that was cheaped out on a tad too much. I would have liked to see a bit higher end WiFi on a machine that's supposed to last as long as Sony intends. Dual Band, 11 AC, and 5GHz support, should have been included in the chip they sourced. And it would have likely only cost a few dollars extra. A slightly higher end Bluetooth adapter, would have also been smart for better headset support.

With my adjustments, I figure the PS4 would have cost an extra 20 dollars to produce... and would eliminate much of their common complaints about the system.