If it is practical and possible, it would have been better if they increased the clock speed by 180Mhz (to 980Mhz). This would increase the peak performance throughput to 1.505 TFLOPS and in the end would give them more computational power to leverage in the future.
@supertom221 I don’t think that Sony’s use of the Cell for the PS3 was a bad idea, however I think it was a poorly executed choice. They should have offered developers the tools and development kits to fully utilize the Cell, even if it meant partnering with IBM or Google to create such tools. Making such a move would have allowed developers to fully capitalize on the potential of the console earlier and would have also attracted more developers to the PS3 platform. This opening of the console earlier would have given Sony a clear lead and advantage – those 6 SPE (vector cores) are powerful. I hope that with the PS4, Sony becomes more aware of the needs of the developers and provide them with basic development kits to capitalize on the full potential of the unit earlier than later.
@liam82517 The GPU in the PS3 in 2005-2006 was the RSX and it was similar to the 7800GTX. In 2006 when the PS3 was released the 7800GTX cost end-users $600+ the RSX cost Sony $130. What you must realize is that, in the console they sew/integrate the chip onto the console’s circuit board and they don’t use a standard video card like PC users. Lastly, the GPU chips in the PS3 and 360 were above or in line with PC GPUs of that generation/year*. Whether you believe that my "expectations" or opinions is realistic or not is your opinion and it's highly debatable. Like I've said before your views are understandable but highly myopic and primitive. In the end the choice of what goes into the next gen consoles or not isn't up to us.
PS3 components cost in 2005-6: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061117130000.html
7800GTX cost in 2005-6: http://guru3d.com/article/geforce-7800-gtx/
@liam82517 I understand your point of view, however going with a mod 680GTX or 670GTX would be more advantageous both in the short and long term. Going with such hardware would increase the possibilities of the system both for the end-user and developers. Based on calculation the system I suggest would presently cost Sony between $500-$600 and that will decrease in the future. Yes, they would be making a loss if they sold it for $399 today, but that short term loss could be a breakeven or profit in 2013/14. Going with such hardware will not only ensure a successful future for the console and make it future proof, but it will also help the gaming industry move forward. The reality is that primitive consoles limit the potential of developers and the industry as a whole. In the end you must realise that the specs suggested are my opinion and are not the view or specs suggested by Sony. Plus, like I’ve said before you’re entitle to your opinion as I am to mine.
@liam82517 I’m fully aware that PCs and game consoles are two different platforms. I’m also aware the games are easier to optimize for gaming consoles versus PC. I’m very conscious that your views are different from my own and you’re entitle to them, however myopic and limited they may be. Simply what I’m saying is, if Sony is sticking to its 6-10yrs console lifespan and it aims to survive strong competition from MS a GPU of the 680GTX standard or better would be most advantageous to them.
@supertom221 Note I said "customized" and "modified". BTW, the RSX is a modified 7800GTX. A GPU better than the 680GTX would be amazing, but Sony is in a terrible financial state and such a GPU would have added cost such as research cost etc.
chainvector's comments