By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Rumour: PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor, Sources Say

UnknownFact on 01 March 2012

Oh please no CPU GPU fusion thingy on mah Play Station.

That is like taking a step back in theoretical toughpower.



Around the Network
sales2099 on 01 March 2012
brendude13 said:
sales2099 said:
Yet another bit of news that showed PS3 wasnt all Sony expected it to be

Yet another comment that shows sales2099 isn't the user we all expected him to be.

Comebackz of teh year.

PS1 and PS2 werent the highest specs of the competition. Back then when Sony knew how to run a gaming division, they released "moderately" powerful hardware, thus keeping prices for mass market interest and keeping developing costs down. 

With PS3, PSP, Vita, and probably the PS4, Sony goes for the high-end crowd, alienating the mass market that made them great in the first place. 

My statement holds true. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

BlkPaladin on 01 March 2012
theprof00 said:
BlkPaladin said:

Well this isn't a surprise since the Cell project was canned by IBM about three years ago. So if Sony wanted another Cell processor they would have to do it themselves. Since they can not afford to do that. (They had to go to IBM and nVidia to get the PS3's chip done) The Cell processor is now a failed project though the ideas that made the Cell are being incorporated into new chip.

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/11/24/ibm-to-drop-the-cell

That's more spin than truth.

The project was completed. It was done in conjunction with Toshiba and Sony. Sony had no plans to improve the chip and neither did Toshiba. The result is IBM focusing on it's core instead of making products that were funded by other companies.

And yes, the tech from the cell is going into new processors. So to say the cell is canned is really a misnomer. The cell is evolving, if you will, or merging with something else. That's what cells do.

 IBM stated that the Cell is a dead end. And there will be no new iteration of it.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/end-of-the-line-for-ibms-cell.ars

 

Reading this what they learned in the cell projecect went into making AMD's APUs. So instead of "evoling" it was used to strenghen the multi-core CPU's that were already making their appearence before the first cell was released.



theprof00 on 01 March 2012
BlkPaladin said:
theprof00 said:
BlkPaladin said:

Well this isn't a surprise since the Cell project was canned by IBM about three years ago. So if Sony wanted another Cell processor they would have to do it themselves. Since they can not afford to do that. (They had to go to IBM and nVidia to get the PS3's chip done) The Cell processor is now a failed project though the ideas that made the Cell are being incorporated into new chip.

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/11/24/ibm-to-drop-the-cell

That's more spin than truth.

The project was completed. It was done in conjunction with Toshiba and Sony. Sony had no plans to improve the chip and neither did Toshiba. The result is IBM focusing on it's core instead of making products that were funded by other companies.

And yes, the tech from the cell is going into new processors. So to say the cell is canned is really a misnomer. The cell is evolving, if you will, or merging with something else. That's what cells do.

Here something newer. IBM stated that the Cell is a dead end. And there will be no new iteration of it.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/end-of-the-line-for-ibms-cell.ars

From my understanding it was that specifically the cell wasn't the way to go, but that something could be made very similar that would be better. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Intel's Larrabee was designed on the foundational ideas of the Cell.

Pardon the metaphor, but it's kinda like how Nintendo used the size of the game gear, and added some other improvements to create the 3ds analog attachment.



theprof00 on 01 March 2012
sales2099 said:
brendude13 said:
sales2099 said:
Yet another bit of news that showed PS3 wasnt all Sony expected it to be

Yet another comment that shows sales2099 isn't the user we all expected him to be.

Comebackz of teh year.

PS1 and PS2 werent the highest specs of the competition. Back then when Sony knew how to run a gaming division, they released "moderately" powerful hardware, thus keeping prices for mass market interest and keeping developing costs down. 

With PS3, PSP, Vita, and probably the PS4, Sony goes for the high-end crowd, alienating the mass market that made them great in the first place. 

My statement holds true. 

ps2 was out 2-3 years before gc and xbox.

ps1 was considered cutting edge at release.



Around the Network
sales2099 on 01 March 2012



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

BlkPaladin on 01 March 2012
theprof00 said:
BlkPaladin said:
theprof00 said:
BlkPaladin said:

Well this isn't a surprise since the Cell project was canned by IBM about three years ago. So if Sony wanted another Cell processor they would have to do it themselves. Since they can not afford to do that. (They had to go to IBM and nVidia to get the PS3's chip done) The Cell processor is now a failed project though the ideas that made the Cell are being incorporated into new chip.

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/11/24/ibm-to-drop-the-cell

That's more spin than truth.

The project was completed. It was done in conjunction with Toshiba and Sony. Sony had no plans to improve the chip and neither did Toshiba. The result is IBM focusing on it's core instead of making products that were funded by other companies.

And yes, the tech from the cell is going into new processors. So to say the cell is canned is really a misnomer. The cell is evolving, if you will, or merging with something else. That's what cells do.

Here something newer. IBM stated that the Cell is a dead end. And there will be no new iteration of it.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/end-of-the-line-for-ibms-cell.ars

From my understanding it was that specifically the cell wasn't the way to go, but that something could be made very similar that would be better. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Intel's Larrabee was designed on the foundational ideas of the Cell.

Pardon the metaphor, but it's kinda like how Nintendo used the size of the game gear, and added some other improvements to create the 3ds analog attachment.

Basically, that is what is says. It still using some of the theory behind the cell, but not enough for it to be  the cell. I don't know if Tobshiba ever has done much outside of produce the chip and put it in the TV/cell phone in 2009 because that is last I can find about Toshiba in this.



sales2099 on 01 March 2012
theprof00 said:
sales2099 said:
brendude13 said:
sales2099 said:
Yet another bit of news that showed PS3 wasnt all Sony expected it to be

Yet another comment that shows sales2099 isn't the user we all expected him to be.

Comebackz of teh year.

PS1 and PS2 werent the highest specs of the competition. Back then when Sony knew how to run a gaming division, they released "moderately" powerful hardware, thus keeping prices for mass market interest and keeping developing costs down. 

With PS3, PSP, Vita, and probably the PS4, Sony goes for the high-end crowd, alienating the mass market that made them great in the first place. 

My statement holds true. 

ps2 was out 2-3 years before gc and xbox.

ps1 was considered cutting edge at release.

PS2 was out 1 year b4 GC and XBox

PS1 had inferior graphics to N64s best looking games. PS1 couldnt touch Ocarina, Majora, Perfect Dark, Conker, Donkey Kong, etc. PS1 was a 32 bit console. N64 was a .......64 bit console. 

Theres your history lesson. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

theprof00 on 01 March 2012
sales2099 said:
theprof00 said:
sales2099 said:
brendude13 said:
sales2099 said:
Yet another bit of news that showed PS3 wasnt all Sony expected it to be

Yet another comment that shows sales2099 isn't the user we all expected him to be.

Comebackz of teh year.

PS1 and PS2 werent the highest specs of the competition. Back then when Sony knew how to run a gaming division, they released "moderately" powerful hardware, thus keeping prices for mass market interest and keeping developing costs down. 

With PS3, PSP, Vita, and probably the PS4, Sony goes for the high-end crowd, alienating the mass market that made them great in the first place. 

My statement holds true. 

ps2 was out 2-3 years before gc and xbox.

ps1 was considered cutting edge at release.

PS2 was out 1 year b4 GC and XBox

PS1 had inferior graphics to N64s best looking games. PS1 couldnt touch Ocarina, Majora, Perfect Dark, Conker, Donkey Kong, etc. PS1 was a 32 bit console. N64 was a .......64 bit console. 

Theres your history lesson.

ps2 was first released on March 4, 2000, in Japan.

xbox was released on November 15, 2001

ps1 released dec 1994

n64 released June 1996

I was off on my chronology, I had jsut quickly looked it up.

Both times it was 18 months out before competitors. A lot happens to tech in 6 months. In fact, it's frequently said that technology doubles every 6 months, I believe.

Also ps1 was the first to use cds and ps2 the first to use dvds. Both systems were more advanced than simply graphic level. cd and dvd allowed for games that were nearly ten times the size.



Xxain on 01 March 2012
Dgc1808 said:
Xxain said:
Dgc1808 said:
Xxain said:
Staude said:
One one hand, I'd prefere they keep it, so you'll be able to play ps3 games on the machine.. And because I think the structure, when used properly, is badass.

On the other hand. A lot of people who are not sony, have problems using the structure properly, and a more common structure, will likely allow developers to invest less into making games on the machine.. Since they wont have to figure out how it works first :P


ppl at SONY have problem s with it. ( Team ICO, Suker punch)


Sucker Punch has sung nothing but praise for the processor.

Team ICO has problems but there's no real evidence to point at the Cell being one of them.


Team ICO said that actual development didnt start on TLG for awhile due to studying the complicated PS3 architect. Sucker  stated during a interview on infamous 2 that they had trouble with the PS3 architect in infamous 1 and ended up not using it efficiently which they improved in infamous 2

I remember that Sucker Punch interview. They stated that they made some bad design choices in inFamous 1 which they improved on in part 2 (some of which I think were down grades). They never stated they had trouble with the system but that they could have done things more efficiently. Which is always a duh. Every developer learns ways to get more out of a system the more they work on it.

You've got a point with Team ICO. However, technology changes. They were gonna have to learn to work on something different from what they were used to at some point.


They specifically said it was PS3 architect. It about was about letting which part of the architect render and what part handles AI and shit.