Rumor: PS5 announcement coming mid 2019 and more info at PSX 2019

[EricHiggin]

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

In retrospect, PS should have launched 2 SKU's like they did, but in a different manner that was totally doable back then without simply saying they never should have used cell. It should have been the 60GB BC model for $599, along with a 20GB non BC model for $399. Based on the rise in sales once PS3 slim hit the market, a non BC model right off the bat would have solved a lot of the early sales problems. Games were going to be an issue for awhile no matter what until cell was better understood, but at least they could have kept some from jumping into the MS camp with a lower cost of entry. I would have to imagine that one change would have put PS3 within reach of 100 million.

I agree.
But by the same token, the Cell processor was completely unnecessary, Sony would have sunk a truck ton of cash into that design. (In collaboration with others of course like IBM)
Even if manufacturing costs were tenable, the R&D costs was a significant part of the initial high price... Towards the end of that console generation, Sony wasn't able to consolidate the GPU, CPU and such into a single chip like Microsoft did either, most likely because of nVidia.

They could have spent that extra R&D budget on say... More Ram or a faster GPU... Or. Lord forbid. A lower price.
But the Cell wasn't the only inhibitor to Sony hitting a lower launch price which is what I am trying to convey, so many aspects that just didn't need to be there or could have been dumbed down.

Obviously they didn't make the same mistake twice, the Playstation 4, for all intents and purposes and shortcomings had the right combination of hardware at the right price, it wasn't a high-end device though, but Sony did invest in components that will give the biggest bang-for-buck and they were rewarded for that with good sales.

No doubt. Cell was a massive undertaking and was unnecessary. Krazy Ken had big plans though. All I was trying to say was considering they were all in down that path, including multiple SKU's, they should have offered BC as a premium option early on. They even could have kept the premium version all gen long if they really wanted, but with slim eventually hitting $299 you would be looking at around $499 for the BC version. The premium version may have been discontinued eventually once the cheaper SKU's sales took off, but at least they wouldn't have received too much backlash for not offering BC at all.

Right down to the card reader like you said, PS had their heads in the clouds and looking back they could have put together a much more solid line up of hardware without changing too much of the design and architecture, and more so removing some luxuries for a more affordable price. Hindsight is 2020 though.

Pemalite said: 

Trumpstyle said:

One sneak peak into the next-gen console is that chinese console "subor z plus" which was released with a 4/8  core ryzen cpu clocked at 3ghz and 24CU Vega with 1,3ghz speed totaling 3,99TF.

But it's just really bad news, according to anandtech that SOC is just below 400mm2 die size and eurogamer says the console pulls 185watt this is on 14nm.

You can get a Quad-Core Ryzen with 10CU's @ 15w.

The chips you are looking at though are desktop-equivalent parts which aren't binned for lower power consumption.

AMD's GPU's though are inefficient, that is where your power budget is going to be spent, wait for Navi or AMD's Next Gen architecture before seeing how things land.

Trumpstyle said:

Since 7nm(high performing one) is 2x transistor density and 0.5 less power by just doing simple math we won't be getting anything higher than a 8/16 core ryzen cpu clocked at 3ghz with a GPU that has 8TF.

Depends on how much of the die area is going to be dark to reduce leakage.

I think a single Ryzen CCX (Thus 4 to 6 cores) is what we will get next gen... And that is fine as even a Quad-Core Ryzen without hyperthreading will beat the crap out of an 8-core Jaguar or Cell.

Trumpstyle said:

I hope this wrong though. But we might need to prepare we getting a very low TF console.

Who cares? If TF was everything then it might actually be important, but it's not.

Trumpstyle said:

Sources:

"Using Crysis 3 to push the machine to max load, a 185W peak is drawn from the mains."

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-hands-on-with-subor-z-plus-ryzen-vega-chinese-console

That is the power consumption for the entire machine.
The Xbox One X will do 172w from the wall playing Gears of War and the base Xbox One will do 107w.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11992/the-xbox-one-x-review/6

So in that retrospect, 185w is fine.

The Subor also doesn't have the same low level API the consoles have, which would lead to more power consumption to get the same results. Put a comparable 2TF PC up against a PS4 and not only is it going to struggle to try and match it, it's going to do so at a much higher price, while consuming more power. Navi will definitely improve on performance per watt, and probably more than you would expect if PS is directly involved, otherwise PS5 might as well just use Polaris or Vega.