Sony considering existing cell processor for PS4: Bad idea?

IBM's 45nm cell processor.
(Credit: IBM)Ah, the challenges of being a game-console manufacturer. Blogger Sean Hollister at GameCyte says that Japanese tech news site PC Watch is reporting that, in a potential cost-savings move, Sony is considering using a tweaked version of PS3's current cell processor in the upcoming PS4--which isn't due out until at least 2010.
Unfortunately, I don't read Japanese, so I can't translate the article for you, but here's what GameCyte has to say:
"In a long technical analysis following the report, PC Watch voices the opinion that the PS4's performance would not increase significantly from that of the PS3 if this is true. While Moore's Law and the historical rate at which Sony has shrunk processors size would suggest that the cell processor could reach as many as 32 cores, PC Watch expects that the cost of redesigning the cell's layout--which has apparently remained the same as it has shrunk from 90nm to 65nm, and from 65nm to 45nm--would be prohibitive enough that Sony will stick with around 10 cores for the PS4."
PC Watch hasn't cited any particular source in its article, but apparently Sony's been asking some developers what they think of the idea. Hollister goes on to note that, "They [PC Watch] speculate that while Sony would like to distance themselves from the cell in the long run, at present they might do well to make use of their existing investment and expand the technical capabilities of the PS3-only moderately--a la the hardware transition from GameCube to Wii-- in order to constrain further expenditure."
Personally, I think the Wii's graphics suck--and most Wii games suck, too--but Nintendo hasn't exactly been hurt by any of that (though, I do think the mediocre graphics will seem overly retro sooner than Nintendo thinks). That said, the PS3's graphics are obviously starting from a much higher baseline than the GameCube's, and developers are just starting to get the hang of developing for the thing. So, it does make some sense for Sony to stand pat with the current cell processor and simply try to get the cost of the machine down to the point where it can move a ton of consoles and not lose money on each one. I'd guess that will be somewhere in the range of $250.
The basic problem for Sony is that, ideally, it wouldn't put out a PS4 until 2012 or even 2013. By that time it could recoup--or at least start to recoup--its initial investment on the PS3. But, a little company called Microsoft will undoubtedly push forward with an XBox 720--or whatever the 360's successor will be called--in 2010. And it will probably push the graphics envelope.
I'd like to see Sony just stick with the PS3 until 2012 and come out with a model that had a modified design (read: flat top) that would fit better in my equipment rack. This would be similar to what it did with the PS2; Sony could call it the PS3 Turbo Slim, or something like that. Have a couple of models, one that cracks the $200 barrier, and let Microsoft do what it's gotta do. Then come out with something a year or two after Microsoft does--but make sure it's actually superior (Sony's initial claims that the PS3's graphics would best the XBox 360's simply haven't been true).
Oh, and Sony? For those of us with universal remotes, please put an infrared port in whatever new machine you build.
Anybody else have any bright ideas for how the company should proceed with its PlayStation franchise? Thoughts on what the PS4 should be--or not be? And when would you like to see it arrive? Feel free to comment.
Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.

Also, keep adding/refining home entertainment features such as streaming media support, movie rentals, etc. My PS3 is the center of my home entertainment, and I'd like to see it stay there.
Not updating the chip means a faster time to market for both games developers and Sony. It should also make backwards compatibility with the PS3 a doddle.
* dual core cell
* 2 GB RAM
* 1 GB video ram
* NVIDIA GTX 280
You could build a prototype right now with IBM CELL boards.
The dual core is simple to layout. allow for 2 SPEs to be dead to help with yield.
PS3 Compatibility mode would be simple.
Total reuse of OS, hypervisor, and core applications.
For extra credit they can bump the SPE memory from 256K to 512K.
This would be cheaper development than any previous console.
I am beyond tired with not being able to reuse existing purchased content without keeping piles of equipment laying around.
Considering they have already dumped PS2 compatibility with the PS3 doesn't give me much hope.
It seems (to me) that the PS3 is more a showcase of Sony's technological advances than a true gaming console effort. It has been notoriously difficult for game developers to extract all the horsepower from this machine because of the new architecture (read: Cell), whereas microsoft decided to go with an architecture that is well known to game developers.
Ironically, I think that the PS3 has only succeeded thus far because of its ability to act as a Blu-Ray player (and arguably the best Blu-Ray player). I also think that the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is what pushed Sony's HD disk standard above HDDVD.
A bold move from Sony to be sure... they cornered the HD disk market with the PS3 (what market there is) but have sacrificed their spot in the console market
He is also right that the "360 Arcade" doesn't cut muster. I have a buddy who works at the local Wally-World. One day while I was in there talking to him, he overheard one of the people that he works with trying to talk someone into buying the "360 Arcade" and without even saying anything, he just left our conversation and walked over to stop his co-worker. My buddy is a HUGE xbox fan (despite the fact that he's had to send his 360 in for Red Ring twice already) but he felt so strongly when he heard his co-worker that he couldn't "not" say something. Basically he went over and told the customer that buying the "360 Arcade" was a waste of money. That almost every one of them that he's seen sold comes back within a few weeks because making a "cut down" version of the 360, and trying to pass it off as being in the same family just ends up infuriating people who buy it and then find out that it doesn't live up to the expectations that all the Microsoft advertising for the 360 has created. The customer ended up leaving with a Wii, despite my buddy trying to talk him into spending the extra money on a "full" xbox 360.
To address some of the author's points:
graphics: Yes, the Wii graphics are not as awe inspiring as the other consoles, but really how many "sparticles" do I need dancing around my screen to distract me from how bad many of the titles are (a la many of the titles from the winner of the last round of the console wars: the PS2)
I've been a gamer for 30 of my 37 years of life. I've played everything from the first Magnavox system all the way up to and including the current generation. I don't need photo-realistic imagery or "infinite" hardware T&L distractions from every game, what I need are games that remain compelling to play LONG ENOUGH that I get my money's worth out of them. Having said that, most of the "serious" gamers that I know (including myself) think that "serious" games and consoles do not go together. If you want to play a "serious" game that has dazzling graphics, you should buy a PC. If you want to play a fun/compelling casual game (especially if you want one that can be played w/ a group of friends who aren't necessarily going to invest 300-400 in their own consoles) then buy a Wii, and save the extra money you could have spent on a more expensive console for your next PC upgrade.
Second point: aweful games
You seem to be ignoring what I would consider to be an otherwise obvious fact: the more popular a console is, the more "crap" games are released for it.
Look at the winner of the last round in the console wars: PS2. Yes, it had some great games, but if you do the math almost all of those games were either first party games (Sony), or third party games from developers that were devoted to the platform (square-enix), or titles that were pushed out near the end of the console's life by smaller third party developers that had cheap access tools that had evolved significantly over the console's life span.
This is basically what we're seeing from the Wii ecosystem. Most of the "great" games are being made by Nintendo. Occasionally a developer will come along and do the whole "made for the Wii" thing, and commit significant resources to making a great Wii only game (boom blox). Eventually, the Wii will be so prevalent that anyone developing for it will have access to "the best" tools for this generation at significantly reduced cost, and even independent developers will be turning out great games for it (right before we get whatever is next in line).
I don't know. The whole NXE thing makes me think MS may be aiming at 2011-2012 for the next console. I don't see much of a reason for MS to push out a new console in 2010 ... it's not like they seem interested in changing media formats (dvd -> bluray).
As well, I think, for MS, the longer the wait the better because of all the hardware problems early on. The longer they wait, the more people will forget about the issues of the past.
In terms of GRAPHICS, the PS3 was BEHIND PCs of 2006 when PS3 launched, because RSX was a downgraded GeForce 7800 (RSX has HALF the pixel pipelines/ROPs and half the external bus width) , Worse, PS3 cost upto twice as much ($500 & $600) as PS1 & PS2. People were paying upto twice as much for a console that didn't touch the best PC graphics. By fall 2006, the Nvidia G80 / GeForce 8800 offered graphics significantly superior to the best that PS3 will EVER do.
For PS4, Sony & IBM could do a modest update to CELL, using 2 PPEs and 12 to 16 SPEs with other improvements to the CELL architecture (512K LS as someone mentioned), clock it at the speed CELL was originally designed for (4+ GHz), that would be enough for the CPU side of things.
The major improvements should be in the form of latest generation Nvidia GPU (for 2011 or 2012) which means something not only much more powerful than RSX, but more powerful than GTX 280, given that GTX 280 will be 3 or 4 years old by the time PS4 launches in 2011-2012. Give the GPU uptp 2 GB of graphics memory, at least a 256-bit external bus, and embedded RAM / EDRAM for the highest possible rendering bandwidth (like PS2 and Xbox 360 have, which PS3 lacks).
At least 2 GB of next-gen Rambus main memory, or at least fast GDDR5, for total of 4 GB RAM.
Faster Blu-ray drive
Larger hard disk drive
new type of controller (not just Dual Shock 4) that at least beats what Nintendo offers with Wii Remote and upcoming MotionPlus ( Sony should try to guess what Nintendo will do with Wii2 controls).
The next generation Xbox will probably NOT launch as early as 2010, but more like 2011. So Sony can either try to meet that time, or come out no more than a year later in 2012 with a stronger PS4.
-
by Ed-duh-win
October 1, 2008 1:31 AM PDT
- I'd say Sony really dropped the ball with the PS3. Too expensive, too powerful for today, and too damaging to the company's bottom line. If it was in the $200-$300 range I would go get one in a heartbeat, but right now I'm staying put.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by jasonschlachter
October 1, 2008 10:39 PM PDT
- Sony is currently using an 8 core. If they upgraded it would likely be a 32 core by 2012. Don't worry.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (57 Comments)As for PS4, I'd say a quad-core should be the minimum. Yes, it would be more expensive, but it would look better on paper than a single-core compared to an Xbox 720's say, 16-core.