Its said that the cell processor of the PS3 makes it a console that is too advanced for this era. Developers eventually will learn how to push it to the max, but we know for sure that thats a few years away. With that being said, will the PS3 truly last 10 years as Sony heads claim it will? Your opinion on if you think it will or will not is what I'm interested in reading. This also brings us to when the PS4 is due to hit. I think we will begin to here heavy plans and specs around 2012. Let me know what you think....
Playstation 4, when?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
i hope it doesn't last , iwant to see ps4kjghs
why??? Than once it does you will just be saying I want PS5 here...what are you so unsatisfied with??
I believe it can last 10 yrs PS2 did last 7 years and was amazing.Solid_Max13
agreed
Its said that the cell processor of the PS3 makes it a console that is too advanced for this era. Developers eventually will learn how to push it to the max, but we know for sure that thats a few years away. With that being said, will the PS3 truly last 10 years as Sony heads claim it will? Your opinion on if you think it will or will not is what I'm interested in reading. This also brings us to when the PS4 is due to hit. I think we will begin to here heavy plans and specs around 2012. Let me know what you think....
Benny_Blakk
are you tired of your PS3? i mean it's a blessing when i have time to play mine... new games new stuff>home.... i mean do you even have time to think about PS4....maybe we'll all die in 10 years:D:twisted:
w
[QUOTE="KraigA"]the rams not good enough to make the ps3 last..gizmo_logixThe RAM is only an issue if you write code for a PC/360. The Cell/RSX architecture doesn't work like the PC/360. The Cell's SPUs do a lot of pre and post processing. And once the devs start to get better use of these SPUs you'll start to see the longevity of the PS3. If the PC/360 is ALL YOU KNOW. Of course it's "hard" to learn the PS3. But this is very typical of American thinking. They think that the world revolves around them. Using a little country slang.... There's more than one way to skin a cat.
wtf how do you know hes american, also what does that have to do with the ps3, imamerican and i dont think the world revolves around me, typical every where else in the world to hate on america
if the ps3 is so far ahead of its time then why is this evena discussion about wanting to see a ps4, it will last easily and anyone who wants the next version is one that will never be satisfied with anything in lifeKurupSoldr
I wouldn't take the topic so seriously. I think the topic was made just for fun to see peoples opinions on when the console will come out...
[QUOTE="KraigA"]the rams not good enough to make the ps3 last..gizmo_logixThe RAM is only an issue if you write code for a PC/360. The Cell/RSX architecture doesn't work like the PC/360. The Cell's SPUs do a lot of pre and post processing. And once the devs start to get better use of these SPUs you'll start to see the longevity of the PS3. If the PC/360 is ALL YOU KNOW. Of course it's "hard" to learn the PS3. But this is very typical of American thinking. They think that the world revolves around them. Using a little country slang.... There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Let's see, Sony and Toshiba fund IBM, AN AMERICAN CORPORATION, to design and produce such a processor idea. It was designed at an IBM facility near Austin, Texas. And yes, RAM is an issue with either console. Even with data compression, it can be a pain as half of the PS3's RAM has to be used as a framebuffer for processing the image and displaying it (that's all the VRAM for you plus with some games a bit of XDR RAM like Oblivion). Even if the 256 MB of XDR RAM was left untouched from video/frame buffering usage needs, about 30 MB is needed for the OS, and then you have to deal with what room is left for textures, geometry, game engine, sound, etc. Frankly the consoles are severely constrained by their RAM limitations. It would have been so much smarter to have equiped the PS3 and 360 with a full gigabyte of RAM. HDD data streaming so far is the PS3's only hope in alleviating that, but even still it'll only go so far in helping even with the huge data transfer rates of XDR RAM as you're then limited by a slow 5400 RPM hard drive, and lol streaming off a Blu-Ray disc is so slow, slower data rates than the 12x speed DVD drive in the 360.
LOL Pre and post processing require data to process in the first place in order to get desired results and such processes don't lessen RAM needs one bit, as the programs need RAM as well.. And the Cell processor isn't this Godsend that Sony and Sony fanboys love to tout. The Emotion Engine was touted the same way as well, but in the end the PS2 got ripped apart by the likes of the Gamecube and Xbox when it came to overall hardware performance. When it comes to floating point performance, the Cell is pretty athletic but in terms of general processing power, it's not to useful, but then again a console doesn't need much in the way of "general processing power." But in actuallity the Xenon CPU in the 360 probably could achieve better artificial intelligence as it's got the architecture for it and so far the Xenon has proven to be quite the performer as well since no game has even needed more than two of the cores. Oblivion utilized only one core. So as you can tell I don't think the PS3 is this super amazing machine that everyone else thinks it is. Neither is the 360, and both consoles have major flaws in their design.
The RAM is only an issue if you write code for a PC/360. The Cell/RSX architecture doesn't work like the PC/360. The Cell's SPUs do a lot of pre and post processing. And once the devs start to get better use of these SPUs you'll start to see the longevity of the PS3. If the PC/360 is ALL YOU KNOW. Of course it's "hard" to learn the PS3. But this is very typical of American thinking. They think that the world revolves around them. Using a little country slang.... There's more than one way to skin a cat.[QUOTE="gizmo_logix"][QUOTE="KraigA"]the rams not good enough to make the ps3 last..TacticalElefant
Let's see, Sony and Toshiba fund IBM, AN AMERICAN CORPORATION, to design and produce such a processor idea. It was designed at an IBM facility near Austin, Texas. And yes, RAM is an issue with either console. Even with data compression, it can be a pain as half of the PS3's RAM has to be used as a framebuffer for processing the image and displaying it (that's all the VRAM for you plus with some games a bit of XDR RAM like Oblivion). Even if the 256 MB of XDR RAM was left untouched from video/frame buffering usage needs, about 30 MB is needed for the OS, and then you have to deal with what room is left for textures, geometry, game engine, sound, etc. Frankly the consoles are severely constrained by their RAM limitations. It would have been so much smarter to have equiped the PS3 and 360 with a full gigabyte of RAM. HDD data streaming so far is the PS3's only hope in alleviating that, but even still it'll only go so far in helping even with the huge data transfer rates of XDR RAM as you're then limited by a slow 5400 RPM hard drive, and lol streaming off a Blu-Ray disc is so slow, slower data rates than the 12x speed DVD drive in the 360.
LOL Pre and post processing require data to process in the first place so theres really no point. And the Cell processor isn't this Godsend that Sony and Sony fanboys love to tout. The Emotion Engine was touted the same way as well, but in the end the PS2 got ripped apart by the likes of the Gamecube and Xbox when it came to overall hardware performance. When it comes to floating point performance, the Cell is pretty athletic but in terms of general processing power, it's not to useful, but then again a console doesn't need much in the way of "general processing power." But in actuallity the Xenon CPU in the 360 probably could achieve better artificial intelligence as it's got the architecture for it and so far the Xenon has proven to be quite the performer as well since no game has even needed more than two of the cores. Oblivion utilized only one core. So as you can tell I don't think the PS3 is this super amazing machine that everyone else thinks it is. Neither is the 360, and both consoles have major flaws in their design.
thanks for the unbiased opinion, also nice owning the hater
wow i cannot even imagine wat ps4 will look and sound like.
eventually gaming will outdue reality.
the ps3 is way too advanced for this generation, i dont think any1 here even close to fully understands all that it can do. some of the best game out have about half tapped into it i would guess, and game developers dont want to spend rediculous amounts of time making a game that is 2 times better looking/sounding/playing than ones out.
the only reason ps3 isnt doing well is cuz of the price and gaming companies not commiting to the ps3. in a few years we will look back on oblivion and resistance and laugh at how lame looking they were because people will elarn more about the ps3.
so when is the playstation 4 coming out? not until about 7 years after people fully utilize the ps3, because thats how far gaming consoles are spread out usually.
Man its too early to start talking about things like that. Enjoy the PS3 have fun with it, we don't even know if there is going to be a PS4. rocket9434
No i dont think its going to last 10 years,And no the cell CPU is not that great its a sever proc,there are newer CPUs that beat the hell out of the cell at everything,Also with a G70 GPU there is no way that it would ever hold up to the next xbox that is due out in the next 3 or so years.
The RAM is only an issue if you write code for a PC/360. The Cell/RSX architecture doesn't work like the PC/360. The Cell's SPUs do a lot of pre and post processing. And once the devs start to get better use of these SPUs you'll start to see the longevity of the PS3. If the PC/360 is ALL YOU KNOW. Of course it's "hard" to learn the PS3. But this is very typical of American thinking. They think that the world revolves around them. Using a little country slang.... There's more than one way to skin a cat.[QUOTE="gizmo_logix"][QUOTE="KraigA"]the rams not good enough to make the ps3 last..TacticalElefant
Let's see, Sony and Toshiba fund IBM, AN AMERICAN CORPORATION, to design and produce such a processor idea. It was designed at an IBM facility near Austin, Texas. And yes, RAM is an issue with either console. Even with data compression, it can be a pain as half of the PS3's RAM has to be used as a framebuffer for processing the image and displaying it (that's all the VRAM for you plus with some games a bit of XDR RAM like Oblivion). Even if the 256 MB of XDR RAM was left untouched from video/frame buffering usage needs, about 30 MB is needed for the OS, and then you have to deal with what room is left for textures, geometry, game engine, sound, etc. Frankly the consoles are severely constrained by their RAM limitations. It would have been so much smarter to have equiped the PS3 and 360 with a full gigabyte of RAM. HDD data streaming so far is the PS3's only hope in alleviating that, but even still it'll only go so far in helping even with the huge data transfer rates of XDR RAM as you're then limited by a slow 5400 RPM hard drive, and lol streaming off a Blu-Ray disc is so slow, slower data rates than the 12x speed DVD drive in the 360.
LOL Pre and post processing require data to process in the first place in order to get desired results and such processes don't lessen RAM needs one bit, as the programs need RAM as well.. And the Cell processor isn't this Godsend that Sony and Sony fanboys love to tout. The Emotion Engine was touted the same way as well, but in the end the PS2 got ripped apart by the likes of the Gamecube and Xbox when it came to overall hardware performance. When it comes to floating point performance, the Cell is pretty athletic but in terms of general processing power, it's not to useful, but then again a console doesn't need much in the way of "general processing power." But in actuallity the Xenon CPU in the 360 probably could achieve better artificial intelligence as it's got the architecture for it and so far the Xenon has proven to be quite the performer as well since no game has even needed more than two of the cores. Oblivion utilized only one core. So as you can tell I don't think the PS3 is this super amazing machine that everyone else thinks it is. Neither is the 360, and both consoles have major flaws in their design.
Ok, lets take this one step at a time. First of all, I was referring to typical "American think" from comments like, "The PS3 wont last ten years because of it's RAM limitations." Now, where would we hear this type of absolute statements from? Sounds pretty much like the dumb comments in our political environment today. Do you think that we get these type of comments from the UK or Europe or Japan? Nope. It's mostly an American type thinking. Individuals. Not the whole country. I'm American by the way. But it makes me sick to see so much disinformation going around under the Bush-type think. And that's what I was referring to. This whole Cell/RSX is "hard" debate reminds me of the comparisons of Japanese fuel enjected engines of the 80's. Way back when Amercan car makers (and mechanices) were complaining that the Japanese cars were "too hard" to work on. Yawn...I've heard it before. So, this isn't just about IBM (co-creator of the Cell chip and an American company). It's about the "fans" and some jounalist that make comments that have that luddite "it can't be done" type thinking. And yes, I'm quite aware of the requirements of the PS3's OS. But you are looking at the problem form a PC/360 centric perspective. And that's the problem. The Cell/RSX was not built in-house like the Emotion Engine was. Sony knew this time that they had to get help from IBM and Toshiba in order to built a processor that could last far in the future that actually had a much fuller life-span than the PS2. The Cell/RSX is NOT the EE I can assure you that. And what's clear is that while the Cell/RSX is much more advanced than the EE was. Sony is also helping the developers a lot more than past times with the PS2. Relatively speaking the it was more difficult to program for the PS2 than it will be for the Cell/RSX. Right now, there's a glut of 360/PC programers that only know a certain way to program; thanks to the Microsoft funded gaming schools that try to lock developers into ONE WAY of programing. Hmmm, why M$ would do such thing? Probably to help themselves and to dissuade others from learning non-M$ development methods. Sorry, but Sony wont play that game. I know it's hard for you to understand this. But todays developer class will be left behind. You can't stop progress. So, either learn it or stop complaining. The choice is yours. Keep programing the PC way. I hear the PC gaming industry is and "growth market." NOT! :D Now, when I was talking about SPU pre and post processing. I wasn't taking about stuffing full blown textures and geometry into a 256MB of RAM space. I was talking about taking out part of the geometrical objects and and stripping what isn't and keeping what is needed for streaming. This is where the SPUs come into play. This is a multi-threaded process. Not the multi-core, RAM intensive, stuff everything into a limited space method. This is the problem with that PC view point. Apple and oranges if you always using the PC as your benchmark. Blu-ray disc speed and HDD speed are only tools that will be used to stream this data. Not all of it will be limited to just one medium. Although, the Blu-ray (x2) is slower than the 12x DVD. It is a lot better in streaming; espepetially when talking about the processing allowed for PCM audio and HDMI video. In reality, the 2x Blu-ray is equivalent to a 8x DVD. But whether any console uses DVD or Blu-ray it has been found that relying soley on disc speed access and streaming is not wise. This is why the HDD will be utilized as well. This is something that Sony didn't have on hand during their PS2 days. Now, if you are going to complain that the 5400RPM HDD is slow (7200RPM will work too, but lets not go there for now) then are you going to say that the overhead of the PS3 is equvient of the overhead of a standard PC, running graphic drivers, print-drivers, anti-virus software, file system manger, and a bloated OS like XP or Vista? Are you really going to compare the needs of a "general purpose PC" to that of a console? I think not. This is why we build consoles. They are specialized beats. Sure, it would be nice if the PS3 had 1GB of RAM. But this is finical suicide. The trade off will be learning how to stream and utilized the SPUs to do the pre and post processing on the textures and geometry and well as symmetrically processing the audio. Hard stuff. But if done, the pay off is great. This is what the PS3 is good at. So, I leave your "general processing power" to the PC weenies like yourself. Have fun upgrading XP/Vista every 6-12 months! DX10 anyone? Nvida/ATI. You name it. Upgrade city. It's funny how PC guys like to brag how their PC best all consoles. But it's easy to say that when the PC is a moving target, that of which they do not necessariy play a part in. Well, unless they buy a new PC every 6 months. LOL! Anyways, lets keep the "general processing power" to where it belongs. Vista running print servers, web, file serving, word processing, spreadsheets, etc...Yawnn... Nothing I say here will convince you. The proof is in the pudding. And that will happen. This is why Sony has long term plans. I say this to everyone luddite 3rd party developer. Either get on board the PS3 and learn it, or get the hell out of the way. Because we're doing it will you or without you. And what's great is that opportunity will arise out of this hesitance by some 3rd party developers. Those that are willing and have an open mind. Well, the sky is the limit.ps1 lasted 10 years, ps2 will, and so will ps3. I think 2008-2009 is when devs start getting the hang of ps3 more. I mean look at all the games comming out the end of this year, and early 2008. Lair, heavenly sword, warhawk, soocm, ratchet and clank, gt5:prolouge, tekkan, killzone, mgs4, and uncharted are all awsome looking games that can all stand up aganist any 360 title out there or any 360 title comming out. and all those games are just first wave, imagine what 3rd wave games will look like.
[QUOTE="TacticalElefant"]The RAM is only an issue if you write code for a PC/360. The Cell/RSX architecture doesn't work like the PC/360. The Cell's SPUs do a lot of pre and post processing. And once the devs start to get better use of these SPUs you'll start to see the longevity of the PS3. If the PC/360 is ALL YOU KNOW. Of course it's "hard" to learn the PS3. But this is very typical of American thinking. They think that the world revolves around them. Using a little country slang.... There's more than one way to skin a cat.[QUOTE="gizmo_logix"][QUOTE="KraigA"]the rams not good enough to make the ps3 last..gizmo_logix
Let's see, Sony and Toshiba fund IBM, AN AMERICAN CORPORATION, to design and produce such a processor idea. It was designed at an IBM facility near Austin, Texas. And yes, RAM is an issue with either console. Even with data compression, it can be a pain as half of the PS3's RAM has to be used as a framebuffer for processing the image and displaying it (that's all the VRAM for you plus with some games a bit of XDR RAM like Oblivion). Even if the 256 MB of XDR RAM was left untouched from video/frame buffering usage needs, about 30 MB is needed for the OS, and then you have to deal with what room is left for textures, geometry, game engine, sound, etc. Frankly the consoles are severely constrained by their RAM limitations. It would have been so much smarter to have equiped the PS3 and 360 with a full gigabyte of RAM. HDD data streaming so far is the PS3's only hope in alleviating that, but even still it'll only go so far in helping even with the huge data transfer rates of XDR RAM as you're then limited by a slow 5400 RPM hard drive, and lol streaming off a Blu-Ray disc is so slow, slower data rates than the 12x speed DVD drive in the 360.
LOL Pre and post processing require data to process in the first place in order to get desired results and such processes don't lessen RAM needs one bit, as the programs need RAM as well.. And the Cell processor isn't this Godsend that Sony and Sony fanboys love to tout. The Emotion Engine was touted the same way as well, but in the end the PS2 got ripped apart by the likes of the Gamecube and Xbox when it came to overall hardware performance. When it comes to floating point performance, the Cell is pretty athletic but in terms of general processing power, it's not to useful, but then again a console doesn't need much in the way of "general processing power." But in actuallity the Xenon CPU in the 360 probably could achieve better artificial intelligence as it's got the architecture for it and so far the Xenon has proven to be quite the performer as well since no game has even needed more than two of the cores. Oblivion utilized only one core. So as you can tell I don't think the PS3 is this super amazing machine that everyone else thinks it is. Neither is the 360, and both consoles have major flaws in their design.
Ok, lets take this one step at a time. First of all, I was referring to typical "American think" from comments like, "The PS3 wont last ten years because of it's RAM limitations." Now, where would we hear this type of absolute statements from? Sounds pretty much like the dumb comments in our political environment today. Do you think that we get these type of comments from the UK or Europe or Japan? Nope. It's mostly an American type thinking. Individuals. Not the whole country. I'm American by the way. But it makes me sick to see so much disinformation going around under the Bush-type think. And that's what I was referring to. This whole Cell/RSX is "hard" debate reminds me of the comparisons of Japanese fuel enjected engines of the 80's. Way back when Amercan car makers (and mechanices) were complaining that the Japanese cars were "too hard" to work on. Yawn...I've heard it before. So, this isn't just about IBM (co-creator of the Cell chip and an American company). It's about the "fans" and some jounalist that make comments that have that luddite type mentality. And yes, I'm quite aware of the requirements of the OS. But you are looking at the problem form a PC/360 centric perspective. And that's YOUR problem. The Cell/RSX was not built in-house like the Emotion Engine was. Sony knew this time that they had to get help from IBM and Toshiba in order to built a processor that could last far in the future that actually had a much longer life-span than the PS2. The Cell/RSX is NOT the EE I can assure you that. And what's clear is that while the Cell/RSX is much more advanced than the EE was. Sony is also helping the developers a lot more than past times with the PS2. Relatively speaking the it was more difficult to program for the PS2 than it will be for the Cell/RSX. Right now, there's a glut of 360/PC programers that only know a certain way to program; thanks to the Microsoft funded gaming schools that try to lock developers into ONE WAY of programing. Hmmm, I would why M$ would do such thing? Sorry, but Sony wont play that game. I know it's hard for you to understand this. But your developer ****will be left behind. You can't stop progress. So, either learn it or stop whining. Now, when I was talking about pre and post processing. I wasn't taking about stuffing full blown textures and geometry into a 256MB of RAM space. I was talking about taking out part of the geometrical objects and and stripping what is and what isn't needed for streaming. This is where the SPUs come into play. This is a multi-threaded process. Not the multi-core, RAM intensive, stuff everything into a limited space mentally. This is the problem with your view point. You are always using the PC as your benchmark. Blu-ray disc speed and HDD speed are only tools that will be used to stream this data. Not all of it will be limited to just one medium. Although, the Blu-ray (x2) is slower than the 12x DVD. It is a lot better in streaming; espepetially when talking about the processing allowed for PCM audio and HDMI video. In reality, the 2x Blu-ray is equivalent to a 8x DVD. But whether any console uses DVD or Blu-ray it has been found that relying soley on disc speed access and streaming is not wise. This is why the HDD will be utilized as well. This is something that Sony didn't have on hand during their PS2 days. Now, if you are going to complain that the 5400RPM HDD is slow (7200RPM will work too, but lets not go there for now) then are you going to say that the overhead of the PS3 is equvient of the overhead of a standard PC, running graphic drivers, print-drivers, anti-virus software, file system manger, and a bloated OS like XP or Vista? Are you really going to compare the needs of a "general purpose PC" to that of a console? I think not. This is why we build consoles. They are specialized beats. Sure, it would be nice if the PS3 had 1GB of RAM. But this is finical suicide. The trade off will be learning how to stream and utilized the SPUs to do the pre and post processing on the textures and geometry and well as symmetrically processing the audio. Hard stuff. But if done, the pay off is great. This is what the PS3 is good at. So, I leave your "general processing power" to the PC weenies like yourself. Have fun upgrading XP/Vista every 6-12 months! DX10 anyone? Nvida/ATI. You name it. Upgrade city. It's funny how PC guys like to brag how their PC best all consoles. But it's easy to say that when the PC is a moving target, that of which they do not necessariy play a part in. Well, unless they buy a new PC every 6 months. LOL! Anyways, lets keep the "general processing power" to where it belongs. Vista running print servers, web, file serving, word processing, spreadsheets, etc...Yawnn... Nothing I say here will convince you. The proof is in the pudding. And that will happen. This is why Sony has long term plans. I say this to everyone luddite 3rd party developer. Either get on board the PS3 and learn it, or get the hell out of the way. Because we're doing it will you or without you. And what's great is that opportunity will arise out of this hesitance by some 3rd party developers. Those that are willing and have an open mind. Well, the sky is the limit.Even thow M$ does have it own way of doing thing is it not easyer to dev for the 360 and the PC? (yes) why becuase when you start getting to the piont where somthing needs realy speacal programing you hit the time facter.the 360 has a CPU that is based offa run of the mill desktop CPU ark,And you can run just about anything on it with little or no speacal programing added.Where as the cell has a mid range power PC CPU core (one ture core) with seven speacal cores,now to get all the power that you need to make up for the slower cell you have to multi thread the app,now wtih 1 core and seven SPE core that is a lot of threading to do,now you have to give the SPEs there tasks and they can only speak one or two languages each where as the powerPC corecan do more that 4,So you spend all that time and it takes much longet to make a game but you can (maybe)keep going like this for 10 years or so,or you could just come out with a new system in 5 year and have made a crap load of games.Becuase in five year computers will be about x3 or x4 times fater than the fastest system now.
Also muti threading realy does take a long time Dual core CPUs have been out for PCs for a while and only about 15games are muti threaded.
I think there needs to be a little clarification. First, there's "SONY PR speak" in which they boldly say, "TEN YEAR LIFESPAN FOR THE PS3." The press picks that up and goes with it and fanboys use it to brag. First of all. Lets take the PR and separate it from what's really going on. The ten year life-span of the PS3 is referring to the production of the console. Production like the PSone (11 years; 1994-2005). And the PS2 (7 years so far; 2000-????). This is not talking about the "sweet spot" or viability of the hardware limits. That's around 4-5 years (and maybe a bit more in term of the PS3). It wont matter what new PCs come out or if the Xbox 720 comes out in 2010. Those things take time and money. And by then the PS3 would have built up a huge fanbase that it will be too much for the competition to lure others. One of the great things about a console is that it's static. It doesn't change in specs. Thus, is not a moving target and reduces development time and cost over time. This allows developers to get more out a console, that doesn't need upgrades, that wouldn't be possible on a PC that came out in 2006 (like the PS3). In the PC world, the processor speed, graphics speed, RAM requirements are always moving and increasing because that's the way the PC world "creates" better looking games. It's also important that Microsoft has a stake in developers upgrading to DX9, DX10, DX11, etc... So, M$ has built revenue generating scheme into the industry that incentives developers and PC gamers to upgrade and pay money in order to "get better graphics." This is the way of the PC -- although, Moore's Law is slowing down. Sony is not following this model. They are not depending on Microsoft to give them anything in terms of development cycle standards. Sony follows their one tune. This is why the upgrade your PC/graphics card method isn't followed in the console world. M$ is in a catch-22. One one hand they want to make the 360 PC-like. But on the other hand if they get too close to the 360 they end up cannibalizing their XP/Vista game sales (and vice versa). M$ business plan all comes back to sales of Windows.No i dont think its going to last 10 years,And no the cell CPU is not that great its a sever proc,there are newer CPUs that beat the hell out of the cell at everything,Also with a G70 GPU there is no way that it would ever hold up to the next xbox that is due out in the next 3 or so years.
elfboy69
Cell may be a powerhouse, but its bottlenecked by the RSX and the RAM. Even if you were to use the Cell for graphics, it could never achieve the level of precedence of a dedicated graphics processor which runs many more floating operations at once. Supposedly radiosity calculations are possible on the Cell, but what about everything else? Using the Cell to get a little bit better graphics in some regard and killing your physics, AI, and orchestration capabilities isn't smart. Using all these properties will take all the skill of developers to use correctly and efficiently, but even still PCs will quickly eclipse the consoles CPU capabilities and graphics cards themselves will be utilized to do physics and such. You talk about upgrading and the amount of money it takes to do so, but when you think about buying a decent computer you need in the first place, you can add hardware to that PC that costs the same as a PS3 and get better graphics, as well as buy games from the vast library of PC gaming not to mention game mods and cheaper games.
My 8800GTS will easily probably last 3+ years before I really need to replace it, but even still despite that, the 8800GTS will be crapping all over the 360 and PS3's graphics capabilities forever. Not to mention I love tinkering with aspects of my system like a car person loves tinkering with his car. Tinkering, personalization, games and the sheer enjoyment of all that combined is what make me love PC gaming, oh and not to mention the practicality of a computer, Linux, open sourced programs like Open Office, my mouse and keyboard, my music on there, and oh God I love Youtube. 64 player online battles in PC games make me happy too.
TacticalElefant, look at is this way. Think about in 2-3 years from now. There will be a lot better PCs on the market with great graphics. And during that time period, there will be a host of PS3 games that come out (2009/2010) and PC gamers that have these great PC machines will say, "Wow! I'm surprised that these games look soooooo good coming from a 2006 console. How do they get so much out of such an old console (even compared to PC of 2009)." Not saying that it will look better than 2009 PCs. But that they will squeeze more power out of the PS3 than ever though possible. But only becaues the PS3 was made to be "pushed" for lack of a better word. And not "upgraded" like PCs are. That's what will happen.gizmo_logix
for that reason I prefer to game on a console than a PC
everytime I buy a new PC game, there is always something on my PC that needs to be upgraded
and I dont think Sony litterally meant they will wait 10 years before coming out with the next playstation, given how fast technology improves. that would be suicide.
Personally, I think that the timing of the PS4 will be tied to the timing of Nintendo's and MS's release (much like their's will be tied to Sony). All in all, in todays market, one company can't skip or miss a new generation as todays consumer is rather attracted to things that are "new and shiny". I'm not saying that everyone is like this, just that enough are.
Let's look at how many people buy a console at launch. When you get a launch console there are a few things that come with this. If you got it at launch, you pre-ordered it (more than likely, really. Less likely, you're one heck of a lucky SOB. Possible, but not by much). What else did you're early (and let's face it, blind. Just being honest here) decision get you? 1) the smallest selection of games that console is going to see in it's lifetime. (2) If the sytem is going to have mass defects, it'll probably be in the launch units. (3) The highest price point the system will see. So why do people invest so early? Cause they want the "next big thing" to hit the console world and have faith that thisconsole is it.That's what selling these.
Now, looking at that, I just don't think that Sony (or any of the companies) could afford to not launch close to, if not at the same time as their competitors. Sony could lose sales to their competitors iftheir competitors come up to bat with their next big thing and Sony doesn't. The consumer market could switch away from Sony to pour money into the other (newer) sytem(s).
Also, MS got a nice jump in sales by getting their system out earlier, but that may not have been the case if Sony and Nintendo had hit at the same time. Some people just didn't want to wait. Now Sony isn't doing so well with people pointing at it's library. This, by contrast to MS, does look bad b/c MS has had more time to get their library fleshed out. Had they launched at the same time, they would've looked equal in the first few months.
That's my two cents at least. As for a date, 2010 sounds too early. All companies want their systems out there and pulling in money for a bit (on the software), to recoup the money lost producing/researching/designing the hardware (and repairing it, in some cases). 2012 at the earliest, is my prediction.
Who cares about PS4? PS3 has just begun.bdhoffi was gonna say that
just because sony says they plan to support the ps3 for ten years dosnt mean the ps4 will come out in 2017, it will prolly be here in 7 years
Looks like I am going to be the first person in this thread to say it. (And I can hardly believe nobody has said it already.)
I do not think there will be a PS4. I do not think that Sony is going to recoup their investment in either hardware or software development on the PS3, ever. It's kind of like Spinal Tap. It's a great movie, has lots of fans, people all over the world love it and when they meet the actors and the director they ask them why they never made another movie. They always tell them that when you make a great movie, and everybody tells you it's a great movie, if your great movie didn't make any money, you don't make a sequel to it.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment