• On TechRepublic: Windows 7: Slower to boot than Vista?
September 30, 2008 5:33 AM PDT

Sony considering existing cell processor for PS4: Bad idea?

by David Carnoy

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.
Recent posts from Fully Equipped
LED TVs: 10 things you need to know
15 worthy Blu-ray movies for less than $15
Top 30 must-have Blu-ray Discs
Is this your Kindle?
Will PSP Go keep pirates at bay?
Keyboard for Apple tablet already here?
Top 40 movies not out on Blu-ray
Name that Netbook: What should Apple call its rumored tablet PC?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (57 Comments)
by Eauboy September 30, 2008 6:17 AM PDT
Everyone says titles make the console. I'd like to see them commit to the same architecture for long enough to attract the loyalty of the best game studios.

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.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis October 5, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
Really, why do we need a new console so freaking soon? The PS4 shouldn't be coming out until.... 2015, at earliest! Better 2020 because by that time, we will finally have such POWERFUL CPU's and GPU's that you can build a system that can EASILY do a game like Crysis at 1920*1200 with NO STUTTERING!
by SlurmSlurper September 30, 2008 7:23 AM PDT
Seeing as it is the RSX chip that handles graphics, is there any reason to update the cell chip at all rather than just the RSX? I mean is the cell really taxed by the tasks it is currently handling?

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.
Reply to this comment
by hoford September 30, 2008 8:02 AM PDT
A simple low development cost approach:

* 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.
Reply to this comment
by farre900 October 6, 2008 4:35 PM PDT
6gb ram maybe and 2 gtx
by MadLyb September 30, 2008 8:42 AM PDT
The key, with whatever they do, is backwards compatibility.

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.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis October 5, 2008 10:22 AM PDT
True. I want a system where I can play my legally bought older PS1, 2 and 3 games on the new console, without having to put out more money.
by noahjwhite September 30, 2008 8:52 AM PDT
As it stands now... I don't really know if sony needs to upgrade the processor. What they need to upgrade is the GPU. I highly doubt that the processor is using anywhere near it's potential.
Reply to this comment
by kswa1987 September 30, 2008 9:10 AM PDT
I think Sony has long been down the wrong path with its console strategy

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
Reply to this comment
by planblove September 30, 2008 9:12 AM PDT
I kinda agree with Sony. the Cell isn't really being used to its full capabilities just yet. By keeping the same architecture and adding more cores, developers get really delve into its capablities because they already know what they're dealing with. Add on the latest next gen Nvidia graphics board and you have a PS4 that should be very powerful and completely backwards compatible to PS3.
Reply to this comment
by GioXtreme September 30, 2008 9:38 AM PDT
Finally I was willing to buy a PS3 cause of the price cut but now Sony comes with the great idea of dropping backwards compatibility.
Reply to this comment
by Forked_Tongue September 30, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
I'm in the camp of simply boosting the ram and upping the gpu with at least 1-2 GB or ram just for video, preferably with the Nvidia GTX 280 (with the physix trademarked processing mostly to improve game realism). The cell processor is hardly tapped but now that many of the game designers are somewhat familiar with it then minimize their learning curve by leaving as is or do a die cut. As cheap as ram is, it will be much cheaper later and will give game developers a lot of lee way to design games, I would put at least 4-8 GB and make it a 64 OS game system to take advantage of it (it should be competitive to whatever low end computer that comes out at that time, by 2012-2013 all computers should be at least dual-core or more). Icing on the cake, since they use Linux include a copy of a major free distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora as a dual boot or at least a installation CD/DVD, use the education angle to get some parents to consider that it's also a second computer investment as well, let the linux community help build your media center for you just have a distribution channel to sell it to them.
Reply to this comment
by bigmc6000 September 30, 2008 3:58 PM PDT
By 2012-2013 I'd hope that most would be quad-cores and only the cheapest of the cheap would even think about using dual-cores. At least that's the hope. I haven't looked at Intel's roadmap lately tho...
by nx7oe September 30, 2008 2:12 PM PDT
Is everybody so cheap that they cant buy a ps3 as it is? I am a baller so i can afford everything
Reply to this comment
by Ed-duh-win October 1, 2008 1:29 AM PDT
great, now go play in your lonely world.
by David Turner October 5, 2008 6:50 AM PDT
There is a difference between being able to afford a PS3 and thinking its worth the money they are asking
by sommer182 September 30, 2008 2:32 PM PDT
Doesn't matter what they do to the system, if Sony wants to get back to being #1 they need to work one angle--price. The economy is in the tank and while serious gamers might keep buying games, I know my household can't do what we used to. We want to pick up a new system for the kids and for myself, but I've got a $250 max budget for the console. That means one system makes the cut for right now--the Wii. Sorry Microsoft, I don't count the 360 Arcade as an option. Anyone know what the #2 console was last holiday season behind the Wii? I'm pretty certain it was the tried and true PS2. Why? Cost. Plain and simple. Just like $100 bucks is the sweat spot that stand alone Blue Ray machines will need to hit before mass market adoption, $250 bucks is the spot for game consoles. Less than that and they will go flying off the shelves no matter what # is behind the word "Playstation."
Reply to this comment
by September 30, 2008 3:38 PM PDT
sommer182 is right, most people are buying based on cost.

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).
by random truth October 1, 2008 4:30 PM PDT
I agree with the commenter above. If you want to serious game than get a pc. Write now I actually use a mac pro with a 500 gb regular hard drive 128 gb solid state with vista ultimate 64 bit. It is the most amazing thing I have ever used. Its quite pricy but nothing comes close to the raw power of 16 gb of ram (can have 32 gb) 4 graphics card, two 4 core processors at 3.2 ghz.
by binternet September 30, 2008 3:12 PM PDT
one thing is to keep (or slidly modify) CPU, but thats hardly the only components that gives its power to a computer (or a gaming console). More and more it is thought that it is more important to have a powerfull GPU that a powerfull CPU. I think that with the right arhitecture, RAM, Motherboard, and GPU; using an updated version of the Cell Processor could make much sence....
Reply to this comment
by random truth October 1, 2008 4:34 PM PDT
Id also say faster bus speed, Get flash memory instead of hard drive, and faster blue-ray drive. With those at fast enough speeds you can practically get rid of load times. Hey, I can hope cant I.
by grilledcharlie September 30, 2008 3:53 PM PDT
All of this is completely mute unless Sony creates an online experience even somewhat comparable to XBOX LIVE. Considering that Microsoft continues to improve LIVE, all I can say is, good luck Sony. At least they get sales due to including a blueray player. I know several people that bought and use their PS3 for a blueray player only. I'm just waiting for the next Sony price drop to go get my blueray player...I mean PS3.
Reply to this comment
by illinifan80 September 30, 2008 6:12 PM PDT
If Sony would like users who can't afford to buy every new system available to keep using the Playstation, it should have backwards compatibility. I've been holding off buying the new units until now and I bought an XBOX simply because Sony didn't want me to be able to play my PS2 games on the PS3.
Reply to this comment
by BCF1968 October 5, 2008 6:40 PM PDT
So let me get this straight. The PS3 doesn't let you play PS2 games anymore so you bought an XBOX 360 which doesn't play PS2 games either. Anyone else see the flaw in this person's logic? I assume you have PS2 since you have PS2 games. Try playing those games on that. It's kind of what PS2 games were made to play on. And don't say it's a pain to have to switch back and forth between a PS2 and a PS3 because what are you doing now with your PS2 and XBOX 360? Switching back and forth. And don't say having a PS3 and a PS2 takes up too much room because PS2 are not much bigger than a DVD case. If you don't have enough room for your PS2 perhaps playing video games is the least of your worries.
by DCBRONCO October 9, 2008 8:26 AM PDT
Maybe his logic is that with only a few exclusives and most people still owning a PS2, what's the need for a overpriced PS3.
by haub123 September 30, 2008 6:32 PM PDT
I'm just gonna keep my PS3...... This would be stupid, but if they keep the same archtecture they should make PS4 games play on the PS3. It wouldn't make them any more money besides game sales, but for the people like me who bought the PS3 for the blu-ray, and won't upgrade until something better comes out (which I don't think will happen by 2012, because people will still have 4:3 TVs) and wouldn't buy a new system anyway. The problem they have is that the PS3 has so much power as is, there wouldn't be any reason to get something different. Just think, I can watch movies, download HD movies, run linux, stream music and movies from my computer..... I don't think I need anything new for a long time.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis October 5, 2008 10:24 AM PDT
Uh.... you been to the stores recently? Every TV in there is 16:9 or 16:10.... you cannot GET a 4:3 TV anymore..... believe me, I have looked.
by jdoge13 September 30, 2008 6:57 PM PDT
I would disagree with the statement "Microsoft will undoubtedly push forward with an XBox 720...in 2010." Thats just speculation nobody knows when it will come out and you present it as near fact.
Reply to this comment
by grilledcharlie September 30, 2008 7:08 PM PDT
So, you don't think Microsoft is going to come out with a new system? What rock have you been living under. New consoles have been consistenly coming out in around a 5 year cycle for 10 years now. Disagreeing with that statement is a diplay of pure ignorance.
by random truth October 1, 2008 4:36 PM PDT
can I point out how old the ds and psp are.
by grilledcharlie October 1, 2008 8:30 PM PDT
Who's talking about handheld systems?
by C433Z September 30, 2008 10:28 PM PDT
I wanna see what developers can do once they get a hang of the current processor. If you look at the graphics comparison from early ps2 years, like Ghost Recon (1), and later on, like Black, it's a HUGE difference, and it's using the same hardware.
Reply to this comment
by nowimcool September 30, 2008 10:39 PM PDT
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 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.
Reply to this comment
by parallaxscrolling September 30, 2008 11:27 PM PDT
Sony needs to get back to what made PS1 and PS2 massive successes, low prices ($299) and more overall graphics rendering power for that price than high-end PCs costing several grand with the latest graphics cards and other consoles. This is what attracted developers to Sony platforms, who then went on to make the best & most games for the PlayStation brand.

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.
Reply to this comment
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.

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.
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)
advertisement

About Fully Equipped

Executive Editor David Carnoy has been covering electronics for CNET since 2000, arriving at the company just as "that whole Internet bust thing" happened. Early on, he launched CNET's cell phone coverage, earning him the nickname "Wireless Dave," then moved on to bigger and broader things. Hunkered down in New York City, he oversees CNET's Home and Hardware reviews, which includes all things related to home theater, PC, and digital imaging. Fully Equipped covers the gamut of gadgets and gizmos and, to keep things lively, Carnoy likes to alternate between writing useful, advice-oriented pieces or thought-provoking columns with inflammatory headlines designed to elicit commentary from readers. Fully Equipped is the longest continuously running column on CNET.com.

For older columns, read the Fully Equipped archive (2002-2008).

Add this feed to your online news reader

Fully Equipped topics