Sadaiyappan
Golden Member
- Nov 29, 2007
- 1,120
- 4
- 81
Did you say it will be 2x as powerfull as a current PS3 ??? That is going to be lot of power actually..
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
:laugh:
Nintendo makes console that is twice as powerful as their last-gen console; everyone calls it last-gen technology, Gamecube 1.5.
Sony makes console that is twice as powerful as previous-gen console; fanboys brag about how powerful it is.
I'm not sure where you saw that it'll be twice as powerful as the PS3, but that amount of power would be a joke if it came out in 2011. And I don't think Sony would put out a console that is only twice as powerful as the PS3. They'll put out something that is comparable to whatever Microsoft puts out.
Cell is\was a terrible idea. Why make your console more difficult and costly to develop on compared to a competitor? MS will probably have something out about the same time. But I would expect an intel larrabee or multi core intel chip powering it with an Nvidia or ATI chipset. The tools for a pc looking machine are much more robust and easier to use. Especially when it comes to porting, which most games are going to do anyways.
/shrug
/shrug
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
While often times the console that's easiest to develop for wins, it's not always the case. The PS2 was far more difficult to code for than the XBox or the Gamecube, how did that turn out? Oh, just the PS2 being the best selling console of all-time, still going strong nine years after its release.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
huh?
Graphical quality can drastically improve without increasing resolution.
Look at the leap from the PlayStation/N64 generation to the Dreamcast/PS2/Xbox generation. Same TV resolutions, graphical quality much improved.
Look at computer games. People often continue to play games year after year at or around the same resolution, and yet graphical capabilities and the games continue to look better.
For awhile, graphical improvement always stagnates as developers get settled in to working with common GPU architecture abilities and use countless barely-improved versions of the same game engines for a few years. When the Unreal 3 engine came out, it was a big improvement over the graphics of the last Unreal 2 build.
Games that take full advantage of the PS4/next Xbox will look worlds better than the games of today, even if they use the same engine.
Also, it can be expected that all games will be capable of 1080p instead of typically being locked to 720p for framerate stability.
In short, I can guarantee games will easily look a lot better on the next generation.
Do you think if the xBox wasnt a first generation console and the gamecube tarnished with the N64 debacle and the PS2 wasnt coming off PSX insanity it would have turned out the same?
I dont think it is a fluke the PS3 was a flop this time around using the same formula as the PS2. The competition is here this round where it wasnt last round. When the PS2 was released it was simply the console to get. It played PSX games out of the box and neither of the competition had anything compelling to offer. One of them (xBox) was late to the party as well.
If Sony goes down the same road I expect them to get spanked like they have with the PS3. Offering a harder to code for console that will be playing ports from the xBox720 isnt compelling for developers. Ports are ports, they arent going to make it better than the original if at all.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Hardware-wise the Gamecube and Xbox were both superior to PS2. Sure it helps that the PSX was so popular, but did the SNES popularity help N64? Has the PS2's all-time-record-sales helped the PS3? What makes the PS2 "simply the console to get"? I didn't own one.
I also don't really think it's even fair to say the PS3 is a flop. It has started slow, but it's done well enough and is gaining momentum as time goes on.
Like I said - of course it's a good thing to have a console that's easier to work with, but I believe I read Gamecube was the easiest to program last round, how did that work out? Dreamcast was very easy to code for, technically superior to PSX/N64, and launched ahead of the PS2, how did that work out? It's a factor, but far from the deciding factor.
I also don't really think it's even fair to say the PS3 is a flop. It has started slow, but it's done well enough and is gaining momentum as time goes on.
Like I said - of course it's a good thing to have a console that's easier to work with, but I believe I read Gamecube was the easiest to program last round, how did that work out? Dreamcast was very easy to code for, technically superior to PSX/N64, and launched ahead of the PS2, how did that work out? It's a factor, but far from the deciding factor.
You're missing important information here.
Particularly, the popularity of the SNES actually DID help the N64. What didn't was a poor game library and 3rd party abandonment. Why did that happen? Well - it's the primary reason for the PSX's success - optical media. CDs were vastly superior to the cartridge - and developers knew it.
The PS2 succeeded by riding the coattails of the booming PSX, along with timing the DVD market perfectly. Many people owned a PS2 simply because it played DVDs and it was a great all-in-one solution. Dreamcast failed because of lack of 3rd-party support (primarily EA - shows how important that company is to a console's success). But also SEGA had terrible upper-management and was bound to fail.
PS3 attempted to repeat the PS2's run - new media format, riding the popularity of the PS2. Unfortunately HD media is more of a slow burn than a flash flood that DVDs were. That, the HD-DVD format war, and a lack of blockbuster games within the first year were what caused it so much pain. Not to mention the stigma of being released with a hefty price tag. The timing just wasn't there. They essentially lost a year, and since Microsoft already had a year on them, they couldn't risk losing 2 to time it better.
Now that Microsoft has a viable platform that is easy to develop for, there's really no reason for developers to take the hard route - especially with more and more games going cross-platform as it is. Sony doesn't have the gaming clout it once did, and learned that with the PS3.
There were many factors, and Sony has relied on those other factors for some time. But I am saying that in current times ease of development trumps all, and it will continue to be the main determining factor for some time.
3rd-party developers can make or break a console. Development costs have grown exponentially, so more and more games need to be cross-platform to become profitable. Microsoft created a platform that is easy to develop for. They will develop for that platform.
Sony can't rely on raw install-base to entice developers anymore. They need a trump card. Blu-ray was that card, but even that is slow to catch on. I suspect by the time it does, 2011 will be around the corner and the next round will be starting. And then Sony is left with a powerful, but difficult to develop for console with no solid foundation and a pair of strong competitors.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
However, what you have to remember is that by 2011 those developers will have a firm idea for how to develop for the PS3. So if Sony goes with a more powerful version of their current architecture, they aren't really making this difficult for the developers - they've already been working with that architecture for years, they'll know how to get the most out of it, etc.
I really don't see why ease of development trumps all now, when it didn't in 2002. It hasn't been that long. PS2 was not only the weakest hardware, but also by far the hardest to work with, and it did well enough.
I really don't see why ease of development trumps all now, when it didn't in 2002. It hasn't been that long. PS2 was not only the weakest hardware, but also by far the hardest to work with, and it did well enough.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
The thing is... each factor all plays into each other as well, and is hard to really judge... thus why analysts trying to predict sales can be either very right or very wrong.
The PS3 had the trouble of initial high price, and an all new architecture to learn to develop for. So games took awhile. But from the start, the main issue was the price and the fact that it was launched a year after the 360, and the 360 had a good start being it was at a decent price tag, and the initial buyers were the fans of the first Xbox, with people foaming at the mouth over Halo, and a few other really fun Microsoft-published games. The Xbox really only failed because it was trying to compete against a readily-established brand, was a new-comer, and had a HORRIBLE controller. The S controller helped, but was far from great.
This round is a far different story.
Like I said, first year purchases of the Xbox 360 were most likely all from former Xbox owners, and of course from people who just wanted the new console. It didn't look like ass, which honestly does help people. Then there's the fact that it has friendly development. So decent games were available at the start, and with all the first year purchases, told developers it was a good platform to support, and friend's seeing that their friends have a 360, and the love of Live, initiated more sales.
The PS3, aside from the high price tag, started out EXACTLY like the PS2, minus the large number of sales from hype, being the first console of the generation (the Dreamcast fire never really grew, and was kind of out of the limelight at that time), and riding the coattails of the PS1. BUT, the PS2 had a horrible software library for the first year. Absolutely terrible. Games were buggy, not optimized, and some had framerate issues even though they looked like ass compared to games a year or two into its life.
But now, as the PS3 is coming down in price, and as first-party titles and third-party developer support are proving worthwhile, it's gaining momentum and more fans. It'll sell kind of at an exponentially increasing rate. As more consoles are sold, more people will see their friends have it, and with good titles, will want to get one themselves. As the price falls, this will happen more.
As sales continue, more developers are going to want to further their investment in developing for the PS3. If sales continue, some developers will begin to make the PS3 the lead development platform, as it'll be easier to port to the 360 than it would be to port to the PS3, while maintaining optimal performance.
And consoles that are easier to develop for, see their peak graphical performance rather early in the life. While I don't necessarily completely believe the PS3 can be graphically superior to the 360, especially with the 360's slightly better GPU, the Cell might provide better engine abilities, like physics simulation (PhysX is going to have code for the PS3).
With that said, since the PS3 is difficult to develop for, much like the PS2 was, it might be possible that games won't reach full graphical potential till later in its life. Whether this will happen, I don't know, and won't claim to know for sure. Whether the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 or not, I don't care, and the fact that its more difficult to develop for can and does somewhat nullify that bullet-point anyhow.
But mark my words, PS3's sales are definitely going to increase. Whether at the end it has more consoles sold worldwide than the 360 is anyone's guess, but it's definitely not going to finish as a 'flop' as so many claim. A rough first year hit it hard, and had an effect on sales and software development. Excellent first party titles have helped mend the wounds that weak 3rd-party support gave the console.
And as I have said many times, I am far from a console fanboy. I own a Wii, and enjoy that from time to time. I would own a 360, if it weren't for the fact that I invested in my PC for gaming, and all the titles I am interested in for the 360 all make it to the PC, if not at the same time, then not too long after. The Halo series I'm not particularly fanatic about, as to me, it's just another console shooter that really doesn't feel like it stands apart from. It's polished and well-made, no doubt... but gameplay wise just doesn't strike me as a must-have. The multiplayer is fun at times, and the only time I really have fun with the multiplayer is when playing 4-player local with friends, doing random game modes like zombie or certain weapons only, and I'm not all that great at it, but really just enjoy it due to playing it with my buddies.
The Cell? Again? Hasn't Sony learned what a gigantic mistake that was yet?
Seriously, I'm just LMAO hearing people say "it'll be just like the PS3, just with more SPUs". Kids, more SPUs isn't going to solve the PS3's architectural problems, and if you think they will, you have zero idea of what the PS3's underlying programming problems are. They'd be far better off just moving to the 360's model of having a bunch of full-fledged cores and slapping a die-shrunk PS3-on-a-chip on there for BC.
Seriously, I'm just LMAO hearing people say "it'll be just like the PS3, just with more SPUs". Kids, more SPUs isn't going to solve the PS3's architectural problems, and if you think they will, you have zero idea of what the PS3's underlying programming problems are. They'd be far better off just moving to the 360's model of having a bunch of full-fledged cores and slapping a die-shrunk PS3-on-a-chip on there for BC.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
explain.
With the proper code, the Cell is very efficient for what it can be utilized for. Throw inefficient code at it, and it's going to be bad.
Now, there are definitely a few bad points in the PS3's overall architecture, no denying that, but the Cell is basically not related to that. Throw a more powerful and more efficient Cell-based chip in a more refined console architecture with proper memory and GPU utilization, and it'll be golden.
SoulAssassin
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2001
- 6,135
- 2
- 0
I'm certainly not saying we've hit the upper limit of what an HDTV can do but we can't expect such a huge difference between the PS4 and the PS3 as we had between the 2 and 3. The next gen will be an incremental improvement over the last on all platforms.
The PS4 Cell would likely have 2-4 general purpose cores along with 2-4 times as many SPEs.
Developers would by then have 2-5 years of experience coding for the Cell's asymmetric design. Sony, publishers and their studios will have years worth of SPE coding to share for graphics, AI and physics.
Put more of both cores together with 2-4 times the memory and porting general-core code becomes eaiser (existing PC & 360 code would run without needing the SPEs) while libraries written to use the SPEs would work as well or better as on the PS3.
Switching to a new design and kicking tools, engine and code library support back to square one would be the "gigantic mistake."
To be fair, I'm a Win32 / C++ application software developer and the last time I did game programming was in 6502 assembly for the C=64, so perhaps your game development experience is more recent.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
That's some crap logic. Throw inefficient code at any CPU, it's going to be bad. I'm guessing you've never done any serious real-time highly-threaded programming before. (Hint: I have. I have a published paper on the subject, in fact, if you want a bit of proof.)
It is _100%_ related to that. The Cell's problem is that it's _not_ SMP. You've got one full core on there, and then you've got a bunch of little DSPs that you've got to try to feed on a discrete basis (because of the SPU's lack of access to main memory). You can't just instantiate a new thread and let it go on the logical CPU of your choice. You've got to discretely manage memory and write a very specific kind of code - code that, frankly, is not all intuitive with regards to general game programming, or any other sort of threaded programming that an average programmer would know of.
The fact that this is "special" code doesn't mean it's better code. That's a weird logical leap to make, yet seems to happen every time this topic comes up. PS3 programmers have a damned hard time feeding those SPUs as it is. Quadrupling the number is only going to make that management four times harder, because this is _not_ a task that lends itself to being fixed by a simple library.
No, it won't be. But keep telling yourself that. There is a reason that the Cell has had very little success outside of the PS3, and it's not because the man is keeping it down.
And any little successes you might have from just doing more of the same with the Cell would be obliterated from those you would see by adding more general-purpose-capable cores in the 360 (and presumably, Wii) successor. The very fact that most of the people espousing the "more is better" view of the Cell are pointing to the increased number of PPEs (a bizarre architectural decision given the Cell's aims, but we'll assume it comes true) as what's going to be fixing it should be proof enough of that.
The Cell is part and parcel of the problems with the PS3s architecture. Like the rest of the PS3, its too complex for its own good, and not in balance with everything else. Quirky CPU mated with a last gen GPU, slow large capacity drive and inflexible system/video memory structure- its a unbalanced mess on almost all levels.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter