| A203D said:
i think launching a new console is absolute sucicide especailly if natal fails. theres no advantage in that, the components and the performance would have to exceed the ps3 for it to compete with sony. which would make it more expensive to manufacture, and more expensive to consumers. evidently the sales of the wii show that the consumer wants the best bargan, and the PS3 which is the most expensive has sold the least of the 3 consoles. most importantly its very expensive and time consuming to develop HD games, GTA4 costing $100 million, and GTA5 i think is the longest game in development. i think theres no way any developer would think about supporting a new console in the next 4 years minimum.
|
You've got it all wrong. It would be cheaper to make a console faster than the PS3 than it is to make the PS3 today. The supporting technologies are significantly better than they were when the PS3 was released.
The PS3 has a 2* BRD. A new console could have a 6 or 8 speed drive. This means they wouldn't need a HDD which is immediately a $30 cost savings even accounting for a more expensive drive initially.
The PS3 has 512MB of ram with a total of ~50GB/s memory bandwidth. A console releasing today could use GDDR5 2Gbit chips and with only double the memory and only a single 128bit bus they could have double the memory bandwidth using 4 7Gbps 32bit GDDR5 modules. This is still cheaper than the PS3s memory subsystem.
The PS3 has very old technology in the RSX GPU whereas a modern console could jump straight onto a low power Redwood DX11 GPU which is only 110mm^2 with more than double the transistors and is least 50% more efficient in operation with more than double the shader floating point performance. This is supported by benchmarks showing that the GPU which makes the basis of the RSX in the PS3 has not stood up to the test of time. Even more significantly modern GPUs are a lot faster in post processing operations which make up a large proportion of rendering time in modern games.
etc.
Tease.
