| snakefisher said: well xbox was a powerhouse compared to ps2.If anything expect the next xbox to wipe the floor with ps4 |
why!?
Just because MS has more money does not mean they can just wing it around - they have shareholders, they have to be responsible.
Microsoft actually moved away from the 'powerhouse' strategy because the Xbox failed.
S____M____C____C said:
1) There's a difference between making profit from the start and suffering catastrophic losses. Sony won't achieve profit from the off, that's ridiculous. They hope to make a good overall return on the PS4 - that is all. 2) Sony's brand image is the one of quality, high tech. They have built up that image this gen. If the NGP is any indication they are (rightfully) going to continue with this theme. The PS4 should still pack a punch. 3) Even if MS offer a bit more power, i'm doubtful they will be able to churn out as many quality games as Sony do. So, i would definitely pay a little more for a slightly less powerful console if I knew the games were going to be on it. 4) You need to read the article, emphasis was on semi-conductor investement. Basically, Sony aren't keen to keen develop new technologies for their consoles (so no holographics or nothing lol). 5) C'mon, this is Sony. Their whole brand revolves around being up-market. They aren't for going 'cheap' anytime soon. Your post was actually, crap. |
I agree with your post and only have one thing to add to reflect my sentiments on his post
hackers are dumshits who have no life and get in the way of consumer rights in the name of protecting them. Scum the lot of them, I just LOL at the fools who think they were fighting for consumer rights. They beat the common sense out of all of them, sad but true
In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!
"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"
For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!
| snakefisher said: well xbox was a powerhouse compared to ps2.If anything expect the next xbox to wipe the floor with ps4 |
yeah dudeeeee...Sony would like a xbox ps2 like situation too :P you are right, tip of the hat to ya
In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!
"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"
For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!
sounds like a good idea, hopefully if the ps4 can bring a lot more profit than the ps3, they can make a pretty big investment on the ps5...but then again that didn't work for the ps3 sooo i guess not LOL
"I don't know what this Yamcha is, but it sounds just like Raditz."
This fits what a number of people have been saying for some time. The PS4 will probably have more CELL processors at a higher clock and more SPUs per chip. With the process for these chips refined, this should not be hard to accomplish.The BD drive will be a much faster drive than the current one which will eliminate the current BD issue, and ram will likey be trippled. So in terms of raw power the PS3 will see a very big increase, the investment however will be far less than the PS2-PS3 jump. The developers will also have an easier time developing for it due to how similar the architecure will be.
People are not quite interpreting it correctly. What it means is
1) SONY will cap R&D expenses. This means that they might spend up to ~$1 billion on developing PS4, but not the billions spend on developing PS3 Buying facilities to manufacture PS3's.
2) SONY will not be loss leading by ~$300 at launch, hell they probably won't be loss leading by ~$100 at launch. This is actually a pretty good thing since we want PS4 to be profitable (if its ROI bearly outweighs its costs then why would SONY make a PS5?)
Reuse the Cell, but instead of using a single core hyperthreaded controller main CPU, use a Quad core, 8 thread CPU controller mounted with 24 SPU's . That's exactly triple the SPU's on the PS3 Cell. R&D costs would be low, and performance would be high. Dedicate 3 to the OS (for some AWESOME in-game OS) and 3 disabled for yeild. That leaves 18 for games (again, triple the PS3). Then use a mid-high end Nvidia card (Sony probably won't switch to AMD cards) which would also have low R&D costs.
And an extra benefit, if they clock the Cell at 3.2GHz (like the PS3) then it will have hardware BC with PS3 games (as long as the GPU could virtualize the RSX)
I think the cell is gone. There going to abandon it for a more normal processor. So porting won't be as big of a issue next gen. Doesn't mean the system won't be a beast, just not as big of a beast like the ps3 was in 2006. If sony does go back to the ps2 days and have the weakest system. They may win in sales but the ps2 was my least favorite Sony system. Coming from this gen graphics are going to be more important to make a great game. Worlds will be bigger,textures will be larger, well everything will be bigger and better. If sony lags behind, sony will be the 360 of next gen holding mutiplat games back with tech. I hope sony still has the best tech next gen I hope they will be able to profit but still make a monster of a system, because they have the most exclusives. Uncharted could look amazing next gen or god of war think about what it could look like. Then you see another system lets say the xbox 720 have more power and have some new halo that has even better graphics and then your like, damn Uncharted could of looked better if sony would of not tried to go cheap. I just want a all out battle for best graphics next gen.
| Ultr said: Well they already have the cell-technology, they can re-use it and make it better and BAM! still best thing out there |
lol? do you know anything about technology... modern cpus eat the cell for breakfast.. cell is pretty outdated by todays CPU standards...
It used to be good, but there was a reason why sony and toshiba didnt really continue investing on that architecture.
| VetteDude said: Reuse the Cell, but instead of using a single core hyperthreaded controller main CPU, use a Quad core, 8 thread CPU controller mounted with 24 SPU's . That's exactly triple the SPU's on the PS3 Cell. R&D costs would be low, and performance would be high. Dedicate 3 to the OS (for some AWESOME in-game OS) and 3 disabled for yeild. That leaves 18 for games (again, triple the PS3). Then use a mid-high end Nvidia card (Sony probably won't switch to AMD cards) which would also have low R&D costs. And an extra benefit, if they clock the Cell at 3.2GHz (like the PS3) then it will have hardware BC with PS3 games (as long as the GPU could virtualize the RSX) |
Do you know that it would be cheaper to put 2 GPU's on that with the standard cell and games would run better than with a 3x cell....
I am amazed about how people think the cell is Almighty.. i own both ps3 and xbox 360, the edge could be given by the cell but i can assure you that if the cell was weaker but the ps3 had a really stronger GPU, difference would be pretty noticeable
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
