I'll post the longer text of what Mark Cerny said choosing the cpu for the ps4 pro but there isn't much:

"For variable frame-rate games, we were looking to boost the frame-rate. But we also wanted interoperability. We want the 700 existing titles to work flawlessly," Mark Cerny explains. "That meant staying with eight Jaguar cores for the CPU and pushing the frequency as high as it would go on the new process technology, which turned out to be 2.1GHz. It's about 30 per cent higher than the 1.6GHz in the existing model."

But surely x86 is a great leveller? Surely upgrading the CPU shouldn't make a difference - after all, it doesn't on PC. It simply makes things better, right? Sony doesn't agree in terms of a fixed platform console.

"Moving to a different CPU - even if it's possible to avoid impact to console cost and form factor - runs the very high risk of many existing titles not working properly," Cerny explains. "The origin of these problems is that code running on the new CPU runs code at very different timing from the old one, and that can expose bugs in the game that were never encountered before."

To me this is very clear (I have bolded the text which makes it very clear). Using a zen cpu will break backwards compatibility. That's why I'm predicting 4 zen cpu core + 8 jaguar cores for ps5, if I'm wrong we will likely see just 4 zen cpu cores. Vivster and Pemalite says it's possible do BC with 4 zen cpu cores, we'll see. I think they just misunderstanding what Cerny saying, it has nothing to with clock speed or clock rate.

a) that is a troll answer

b) when the ps4pro apu was clogged together, there was no zen apu in sight, anywhere, anytime.

c) how would the editor know which parts of the text you want to keep?

Now, this thread has been derailed to maximum effect. The original content was "Cell or not in PS5".

The answer is pretty simple: There won't be a Cell in the PS5. That can easily be explained by the very purpose of the Cell design itself. It was designed with the idea of a (line of) cpu(s) with a (initially a single) core and several "helpers". Those helpers were designed to do auxiliary tasks at great speed, independent of and parallel to the fast core(s). Now, roughly a decade later, we have (after a rocky start) gpus that allow gpgpu tasks running concurrently within the gpu (and along the cpu, obviously). So there is no need at all anymore to have these little "Cell helpers" in a cpu, the gpu has those, and plenty more than any Cell could ever dream of. So a complex cpu design as the Cell is not needed at all anymore.

Yeah, and we all know how that worked out in terms of price and sales. And those never worked together on one application. 

Cell also was needlessly complicated to develop for, I don’t understand how you can be so reluctant on your illogical idea, especially since it wouldn’t be needed for backwards compatibility on a PS5 as many others have already pointed out.

Yeah, of course it is possible. It was also one of the reasons why the PS3 Fat launch models were that expensive although it was heavily subsidized.

They fixed these unnecessary extra costs with ditching the "Emotion engine" CPU in the European PS3 version by software emulating that chip... almost all PS2 games still worked.

And some of you think Sony will go down that road again with adding an outdated chip with very limited purpose?

I know. What you'd in practice need for a 3,2GHz GPU, would be a whole lot different design from today's GPU's (on a practical level at least, as a 3,2 GHz GPU with todays tech/design would produce enormous amount of heat).

Actually, even the early PS2 had PSX hardware inside, and only later in it's life the extra hardware was dropped. But, this was at a time when the PSX hardware cost next to nothing, as it was still mass-produced. This situation would be different from adding Cell for BC, as it is not manufactured anywhere, making it a very expensive processor.

But the problems with PS2 BC on PS3 had nothing to do with the CPU (that could be emulated rather easilly), but actually with the GPU memory bandwidth (all BC PS3's have at least the PS2 GPU inside), that was much higher than that of PS3's. PS4 should not have problems emulating PS2, because the GPU memory bandwidth is higher than that of PS2's.

Third parties did not like the Cell because how expensive it was to optimise, and without optimising, you could not get decent performance out of the chip - the Cell is highly powerful WHEN you can optimise it and know when a single SPE is idling (in your code), but if you're not able to do that, you're ending up with a shitty performance. If you complain about microtransactions and shitty games, consider how much worse it would be if they'd need to spend even more money for the same game. You're going to buy the "greedy third parties'" game anyway, so it's only a matter of how much you'll end up paying for it.

The Vega/GTX is because floating point operations per second is only a one measure of a processor's performance. It's only a metric for specific type of arithmetic. Then again, also just because theoretical performance is high, does not mean real world performance would follow, if there's a bottleneck somewhere that's limiting the performace (ie, a less powerful chip without the bottleneck could outperform the more powerful one with the bottleneck).

Sounds like a disastrous fusion.

It would just be smarter to stick with X86 and ATi GPU's. There are just too many benefits, which is why Sony and Microsoft did not collaborate, but both came close to near identical solutions with the X1 and PS4.

This dumbass topic should die.

Signed

It was also the most expensive console of all time if I remember correctly.

Actually I haven't.

Zen is fully backwards compatible with Jaguar from an ISA standpoint.

The PSX hardware was always being used though, even for PS2 games as it handled the I/O of the entire system, so the costs for it's inclusion could be justified.
That wouldn't be the case for Cell in a hypothetical future console.

Do some research whilst you are at it.

I recall the PS2 chip cost Sony $27 to put in PS3 at the time so easy to see why they cut it.