huh, i've been on this site so long i didn't even know PS2 had backwards compatibility. why the hell did i buy a PS1 back in 2003! (oh, right, the ps2 was more expensive. but maybe i would have bought a ps2 if i knew...)

the ps3 can only play like 85% of ps2 games anyway, right? 85% is not BC in my book.

i can see how BC matters to some people, but i don't have a handle on that percentage. i think it's like 15% max, but maybe it really is as big as so many of you here claim.

@ HappySqurriel

I prefer Sony to focuss on the long term perspective, I think the choice for Blu-Ray was really a no brainer considering the PS3's specifications (memory, bandwidth & performance), within which a higher capacity drive suits very well (like DVD was for the PS2). I also think Sony and other companies have far more long term plans for the Cell design processors well beyond just the PS3, I'm sure they evaluated both the short term and long term gains for the company.

I am most happy with the fact the PS3 has a Blu-Ray drive, but especially with the inclusion of the Cell processor.

It is 98% not 85%(the 80gb), the 60gb is 100% or 99.9999999 etc...% since update 1.93.

Are you programming for it?

I realize that Sony has plans for the Cell processor beyond gaming; in fact there were news stories about the Cell in 2002 that were stating that Sony designed it after a DSP mainly because they were planning on using it as a DSP in many of their products in the future. My problem with the Cell (and Blu-Ray) is mostly that Sony is trying to finance their (at the time) struggling electronics division's R&D with the Playstation division's budget with questionable value being returned to the Playstation division.

I'll contrast Sony's strategy to what I believe is Nintendo's R&D strategy for the future ...

With the Gekko/Broadway and Flipper/Hollywood processors Nintendo now has a very cost effective, powerful (for the clockspeed and die size) and well known architecture. With the 65nm and 45nm processes Nintendo will be able to produce a single core solution based on these processors for handhelds, and an inexpensive multi-core solution for home consoles. Since the technology is being used in multiple products it is very cost effective for each product, and the software technology (engines) will be (mostly) re-useable and standard across platforms.

I'll try to state what I mean in another way ... There is nothing (necessarily) wrong with the approach Sony has taken with Blu-Ray and the Cell but their decision is what makes the system so unfamiliar, expensive, and makes including certain features (backwards compatibility) difficult.

Final-Fan said: HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: @ couchmonkey release a brand-new system with a more traditional architecture (no cell and maybe no Blu-ray) Hello Gabe! Yes let's make the PS4 a cutdown PC! Drool!! Who really wants innovation, advanced features and product diversity when we can all have a cutdown console PC next to our oridinary PCs within our homes?! LOL Well, in theory, it would be entirely possible for Sony to have worked on improving the Emotion Engine and released a 4 to 8 Emotion Engine core that was running in the 2GHz to 3GHz range which would give performance in the 25x to 80x range (as compared to the PS2); developers would be familiar with the architecture, there would be tons of well known tricks to get decent performance, backwards compatibility would be 'free' and it would be trivial to improve performance (and upscale with a similar GPU architecture) existing PS2 games. Seriously, if Sony choose DVD and the processor I described above (with a decent GPU) they could have sold the PS3 for $300 with a minimal loss and demonstrated similar performance to the XBox 360 ... But Sony choose the architecture that was going to ensure poor sales ... I don't know hardware design ... is this scenario plausible FOR REALS?

From a theoritical perspective, yes ...

The Emotion Engine was built off of a 250nm process back in the day and we are currently working on a 90nm process; this means that the emotion engine takes up (approximately) 12.5% as much space on a processor as it once did. Now, with the necessary infastructure to create a multi-core processor it would be a challenge to build an 8 Emotion Engine core processor but it would represent the upper edge of our capability (with a 90nm process).

The 2GHz to 3GHz range is just a rough guestimate based on what we have seen similar processors do in recent times ...

I (personally) don't see what would be overly challenging about producing a 6 core emotion engine at 2GHz or a 4 core emotion engine at 3Ghz.

HappySqurriel said: Final-Fan said: HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: @ couchmonkey release a brand-new system with a more traditional architecture (no cell and maybe no Blu-ray) Hello Gabe! Yes let's make the PS4 a cutdown PC! Drool!! Who really wants innovation, advanced features and product diversity when we can all have a cutdown console PC next to our oridinary PCs within our homes?! LOL Well, in theory, it would be entirely possible for Sony to have worked on improving the Emotion Engine and released a 4 to 8 Emotion Engine core that was running in the 2GHz to 3GHz range which would give performance in the 25x to 80x range (as compared to the PS2); developers would be familiar with the architecture, there would be tons of well known tricks to get decent performance, backwards compatibility would be 'free' and it would be trivial to improve performance (and upscale with a similar GPU architecture) existing PS2 games. Seriously, if Sony choose DVD and the processor I described above (with a decent GPU) they could have sold the PS3 for $300 with a minimal loss and demonstrated similar performance to the XBox 360 ... But Sony choose the architecture that was going to ensure poor sales ... I don't know hardware design ... is this scenario plausible FOR REALS? From a theoritical perspective, yes ... The Emotion Engine was built off of a 250nm process back in the day and we are currently working on a 90nm process; this means that the emotion engine takes up (approximately) 12.5% as much space on a processor as it once did. Now, with the necessary infastructure to create a multi-core processor it would be a challenge to build an 8 Emotion Engine core processor but it would represent the upper edge of our capability (with a 90nm process). The 2GHz to 3GHz range is just a rough guestimate based on what we have seen similar processors do in recent times ... I (personally) don't see what would be overly challenging about producing a 6 core emotion engine at 2GHz or a 4 core emotion engine at 3Ghz.

Well, six core EE would be 12 core (if i understood what you were meaning), since Emotion Engine has 2 processors, main processor running at 250+ MHz and co-processor running at 100+ MHz. Makes it a little harder to design, since it doesn't even have 2 similar processors. Also the 2 processor core, as far as i know, made PS2 harder to program than it's competitors.

Edit: But of course, using EE:s main processors, you should be able to produce processor as you described. 

HappySqurriel said: Final-Fan said: HappySqurriel said: MikeB said: @ couchmonkey release a brand-new system with a more traditional architecture (no cell and maybe no Blu-ray) Hello Gabe! Yes let's make the PS4 a cutdown PC! Drool!! Who really wants innovation, advanced features and product diversity when we can all have a cutdown console PC next to our oridinary PCs within our homes?! LOL Well, in theory, it would be entirely possible for Sony to have worked on improving the Emotion Engine and released a 4 to 8 Emotion Engine core that was running in the 2GHz to 3GHz range which would give performance in the 25x to 80x range (as compared to the PS2); developers would be familiar with the architecture, there would be tons of well known tricks to get decent performance, backwards compatibility would be 'free' and it would be trivial to improve performance (and upscale with a similar GPU architecture) existing PS2 games. Seriously, if Sony choose DVD and the processor I described above (with a decent GPU) they could have sold the PS3 for $300 with a minimal loss and demonstrated similar performance to the XBox 360 ... But Sony choose the architecture that was going to ensure poor sales ... I don't know hardware design ... is this scenario plausible FOR REALS? From a theoritical perspective, yes ... The Emotion Engine was built off of a 250nm process back in the day and we are currently working on a 90nm process; this means that the emotion engine takes up (approximately) 12.5% as much space on a processor as it once did. Now, with the necessary infastructure to create a multi-core processor it would be a challenge to build an 8 Emotion Engine core processor but it would represent the upper edge of our capability (with a 90nm process). The 2GHz to 3GHz range is just a rough guestimate based on what we have seen similar processors do in recent times ... I (personally) don't see what would be overly challenging about producing a 6 core emotion engine at 2GHz or a 4 core emotion engine at 3Ghz.

The Cell is designed for scalability, the EE was not. The Cell was designed from the ground up to work with other Cell processors and share workload. It was also designed to be able to scale up the EIB to accept more SPUs to handle more tasks. The PS4 could have a dual/quad core Cell with 32 SPUs each if they wanted to.

You would rather have Sony build up a faster and more complicated EE chip than design a chip that could expand into the PS4 via the route you have claimed the EE should have gone? I think your grasping at straws here. Computing is going in a very interesting direction right now. Many of the chip manufactures producing chips to compete in the future, including Intel, are not including massive numbers of general purpose cores, but are looking to have specialized cores. The near future Intel roadmap include 8 core processors, but even they agree processors will not always head this way. IBM just happens to be the first to drop with the Cell.

The EE is/was harder to program for than the Cell. Many devs have stated this (I don't have the links right now... but I guarantee it was said. I think it was one of the SE guys.) It has to do with hand writing assembly code and setting stack flags to get the best performance out of it. I'd argue to say that with the help of the IBM compiler, the Cell is light years ahead of the EE in ease of programming.

Edit: Also, simply making an 8 core EE would not solve the problems developers today have. Thinking in parallel.