Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Console Gaming' started by ManBearPig, Feb 14, 2013.
Not necessarily a bad thing. We'll just have to see how it all plays out. It could be kind of nifty it ends up being what amounts to a competitor to GameFly where you can "rent" games on the fly.
That's nice and all, but imagine if we were here 7 years later, and the PS3 had been given a 7600 instead of a 7800. I'm pretty sure that this would completely change your opinion Sony's GPU choice, on top the fact that you wouldn't have even known about the RAM limitation.
Same shit as last time. Sony gimps something by half of what it should be, and all of the fanboys are here to defend it. The funny thing, is that last time around, we were being told by the fanboys how RAM wasn't gonna be the bottleneck with the PS3/360 because of their leet GPU's and eDRAM and the Cell being powerful enough to shoot ICBM's or whatever. Now we're being told how the GPU isn't going to matter because of all the RAM it has. Apparently we PC gamers have been sitting a dirt-cheap gold-mine of ultimate game performance for years, but we've been wasting all of our money on GPU's!
Yeah, and if that was pre-rendered those guys must have had hell of a time emulating crappy player..
Here's a hint: this is not a PC. You don't have to brute force your way past directx and windows is overhead.
So harping on the fact that it is weaker than your PC is meaningless.
I don't get why people are complaining about the video card. Did you see what they squeezed out of the crap in the 360 / PS3? The 7850 is an absolute excellent choice and will easily be good for a long time to come.
The processor is my only gripe. Sure it has 8 cores but they're relatively weak cores. I'm wondering if they realized that their processors on the previous gen well outweighed the video capabilities so they scaled back the CPU too far and flip flopped the scenario.
But, I'd rather have a weaker CPU than a GPU.
What I'd be interested to know is why they went for 8 x Jaguars instead of say 2 Piledriver/Steamroller modules (ie 4 cores)?
1. Die space, and therefore cost.
2. A Jaguar at 1.6 GHz is probably still faster than a Cell SPU at 3.2 Ghz. They now have 8 of them.
3. It lets them reserve one of the 8 cores for the OS. Reserving 1 out of 4 Steamroller cores would be a waste (that being said, why not something truly heterogenous - 2 steamroller modules and 1 jaguar core?)
4. Power budget. Perhaps Jaguar is more efficient in terms of IPC per Watt than SteamRoller is? More heat in a console dramatically increases the chance of hardware failure, ala RRoD.
Right, but I think they expect developers to use or maybe developers asked for multiple cores. I know developers were asking for more memory and they got that so perhaps some major studios wanted the next console to be heavily multithreaded in order to split up certain workloads.
I'm still rocking a pair of 6850s and they'll handle most games on high detail even in single GPU mode.
The big thing for this generation will be keeping thermals and energy consumption down. Two big things that really hurt the last generation. The next big difference is I don't think anyone wants this generation to last as long as the previous one. We might get four or five years tops out of it, which is doable with the hardware they have. The GPU is actually half way between a 7850 and 7870, which to me are still high end cards.
Also embedded systems don't have the same overhead that a PC has. Windows uses a buttload of RAM just to run itself. All I've got running is a single Chrome tap open, two desktop widgets, antivirus, and a couple small background apps. It's using 1.9GB.
The CPU is strangely weak. 1.6Ghz? What is this, a phone?
It would be interesting to see if the transition to PC-oriented parts helps them with this. If AMD keeps with the GCN architecture for awhile, then Sony could continue to use AMD64 and GCN for their next console, which means little to no change for developers and possible innate backwards compatibility.
Not really. The CPU is only as weak as the supporting cast these days. Once you cut out the "bloat" of a general purpose OS, and add in the necessary high performance parts in terms of memory and GPU, a couple 1.6GHz cores is plenty. Most of the time your 4.6GHz overclocked PC sits idle.
The question then becomes, why EIGHT cores? Especially when your typical game will only ever use at most three (one for main logic, one for physics and one for audio). Most will even only use one or two.
Look at what happened with the 360 and PS3 and you'll understand. The roadmap was laid out a long time ago. Sony and MS want these boxes under EVERY TV in EVERY LIVINGROOM, whether you're a gamer or not. These will be set top boxes, playing games, downloading media, uploading crap to Facebook, DVRing junk you'll never watch, streaming your last 30 seconds of gameplay, playing your Netflix, Pandora, etc.
If you missed it in the presentation, there's a ton of non-game related crap that will ALWAYS be going on in the background on these boxes. They'll be finding ways to fill up those cores that have absolutely nothing to do with Metal Gear and Mortal Kombat. But you can bet they'll involve your wallet.
Killzone analyses: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone-shadow-fall-demo-tech-analysis
Ok not pre-rendered but lots of shortcuts, but acceptable for gameplay.
The CPU doesnt need to be so strong , and at 1.6ghz vs the in order powerPC cores of cell its fine. The game engines and AI etc will be fine running on this, the system stuff is offloaded onto the secondary cpu.
DirectX does have overheads, any layer that needs to sit between hardware and software does, typically you profile your code and work around them and its not such an issue. But its a necessary evil on a platform with many hardware options.
A handful of games right now can use 3, and a couple can use 4, Witcher 2 and Civ 5 that I know of. So if you give 4 to games, 1 to the OS, 1 to the sharing function, 1 to streaming for the play while streaming function, then nothing gets in the way of anything else and you still have 1 left over for something unforeseen or for any of the other things you mentioned, though its unlikely there will be much of it going on while you're playing a game besides maybe downloading another game, which probably won't happen while you're streaming a game. So it seems feasible for most of the CPU to be used for just a game. This situation is of course ideal, but it seems like they're doing a better job of looking to the future. Consoles need to push efficient multithreading across multiple cores to keep the frequencies low so that they can keep power consumption and heat low, and yields high which would help keep cost down.
They did push pretty hard back when the PS3 and 360 were announced as to their intentions for the systems replacing as many other devices as possible, but that was mostly marketing, they didn't seem to sure how to really make it happen. Most of the extra functions are things a lot of people use now anyways or have been asking for, and consolidating them into a single device is not only extremely convenient, its more reactive to the market and its direction than last time.
The OS etc have a separate processor to run on.
Hopefully more cores helps AI etc
looks like Orbis GPUs is based on amd's Sea Islands arq...
there is more ACE units, and those units got buffed
Be interested in the thermal profile of this APU.
150-200w tdp I would think.
I'm interested on the rumors about streaming PS3 games, but hope it's better than Onlive, which was terribad.
If they can include some interesting Vita features within the PS4, like stream to vita, remote control..etc. It may help the Vita sales.
Make your own PS4 equivalent computer. AMD to sell a cut down version of Sony's Playstation 4 APU
kinda, but not really. Plus PC games always require a bit more higher specs to get running the same. If i want a PS4, i'll buy one, if i want a PC, i'll build a much higher end one than this.
If you read the whole thing I'm pretty sure its not what that seems to suggest. Its actually them just saying that an APU based on similar CPU and GPU tech as the PS4 is on the way. That's just Jaguar is replacing Bobcat, not sure what GPU is in that but its not going to be anywhere close the PS4 one and it'll likely be a low clocked dual and quad core. And they're obviously going to have their main CPU paired with GCN.
Honest question though, if they had already decided they were going to go x86, what else where they going to go with instead? Intel? I doubt they have any desire to just hand out designs of their CPUs to be fabbed somewhere else which means, no chance at making a SoC, which then means multiple chips, increasing BOM. Plus, they are 100% financially solvent and are less likely to make an attractive deal.
Yeah, but why not Steamroller?
*cough* backwards compatibility *cough*