http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009/11/24/ibm-to-drop-the-cell
read the link they explain it there difficult to get power out of it thats the main reason.. all programmers even non gamers one prefer traditional multicore solution because its easier to get power out of it and new processors pwn the cell any day
These reports will continue until more developers become at home using the Cell architecture. It would seem this far into the generation though that a lot of developers aren't prepared to invest more time in using the Cell so I'd guess its almost nailed on Sony will move way from the Cell for the PS4. The only exception is if they do a "Wii" with the next PS4 and produce a hardware evolution on the GPU and CPU rather than a entire new architecture.
There is arguments that make sense on both sides I guess and we'll know more this time next year.
| Soleron said: Firstly, while Goto is a good journalist, he doesn't usually have secret industry sources. He goes on very good guesswork and public domain information. There are only four real choices of CPU for a performance-oriented PS3. - Intel - AMD - IBM (Standard POWER) - IBM (Cell) Any other CPU vendor does not have the performance to compete. I'm thinking of ARM and VIA here primarily. Those three companies also have the strongest CPU manufacturing capability; choosing another company would mean negotiating with one of them for fab space anyway, because independent foundries like TSMC or UMC are too low-power oriented to do powerful CPUs in a reasonable time and budget. So, the top two have the advantage of being x86 and hence easy sharing with the PC platform and easy to develop for as most developers understand x86 multi-core. The Cell would also be easy to program now, but since they would have to make architectural changes like the cache it would mean another learning curve, which a third-place entrant into next generation cannot afford to impose. And standard POWER would mean easy sharing with Xbox 360, though I believe MS will pick an x86 CPU this time around since it's their native platform and they only went away from it because Intel's architecture in 2004-5 when they were designing wasn't good enough. The advantage of AMD (though for political reasons I think it's the least likely option) is that you get a great-performing GPU and CPU on one die from one foundry. That will bring down dev costs and manufacturing costs considerably; all previous Playstations trend towards greater integration like that. Although Intel can too, their GPU isn't good enough and the integration is on the package level rather than the die. There are only two choices of GPU, now that Intel's Larrabee has been delayed over and over and indications are that its first iteration was hot and underperforming. Not something to risk a console on; at least AMD's Fusion uses a known CPU and known GPU, just new process and die layout. - AMD - Nvidia Sony's choice of Nvidia was wrong this gen; the PS3 GPU is inferior to the AMD one. Nvidia's roadmap is also not strong, with the GT200 having been delayed 7 months and Fermi being similarly delayed and not out - and with a huge TDP of 225W it doesn't sound like derivative parts will be as low power consumption as is required for consoles. So I would say AMD is the most likely option. There's also the chance of a deal with AMD for both CPU and GPU too. |
with the way things look right now, Fusion-type is probably the most attractive solution to next gen consoles and I personally think ATI will be the way to go with modifications. AMD/ATI has always been future proof in general.
| slowmo said: These reports will continue until more developers become at home using the Cell architecture. It would seem this far into the generation though that a lot of developers aren't prepared to invest more time in using the Cell so I'd guess its almost nailed on Sony will move way from the Cell for the PS4. The only exception is if they do a "Wii" with the next PS4 and produce a hardware evolution on the GPU and CPU rather than a entire new architecture. There is arguments that make sense on both sides I guess and we'll know more this time next year. |
that really is such a shame since 3rd party like Capcom and Square-Enix already have their multiplat engines completed and running great at this point in time. UE3 has also pretty much matured on the PS3, not to mention the Cell is actually fully PhysX capable when optimized correctly as well on top of being very HDR capable.
dahuman said:
that really is such a shame since 3rd party like Capcom and Square-Enix already have their multiplat engines completed and running great at this point in time. UE3 has also pretty much matured on the PS3, not to mention the Cell is actually fully PhysX capable when optimized correctly as well on top of being very HDR capable. |
Read the last sentence I wrote in that quote.
slowmo said:
|
just having a discussion lol. guess I should have started with, "it really would be a shame since..." instead.
dahuman said:
just having a discussion lol. guess I should have started with, "it really would be a shame since..." instead. |
I know, I'm just wary of debating somethings on here. I think the Cell architecture (for the PS3) was a mistake from the start so I'm biased from the offset on this point and not the best person to engage in such a debate. The only issue is that UE3 will be superceeded for the next generation and if we have another evolution of the Cell architecture then how long will it take for developers to get a mature engine again. I just wonder if Sony will look at the mistakes made this time round and decide avoiding coming across them maybe better than trying to work around them. One thing for certain I can say is they will listen to developers before making the final call this time.
| invetedlotus123 said: I don't understand much about it. But, going for a x86 plataform would make the system cheaper to make? Since most of the processor produced nowadays uses this architechture. And using a x86 the development costs and time would drop? Since we see powerhouse PC games that costed little to make when compared to powerhouse console games. |
Not really. They would be about the same price; the console alone is sufficient volume to get the maximum volume discount on whatever they choose. 90% of the reason PCs are faster than consoles at the moment is the graphics card, not the CPU. And I would argue the opposite; current PC games cost far more than consoles because of all of the artists and programming needed to get the higher detail levels seen.
x86 matters only when you need prior compatibility with Windows applications. Since consoles don't, they are free to choose whichever is better on price and performance out of all of the architectures.
The Cell architecture was a mistake for practical reasons, not technological ones. If Sony had been undisputed first place (PS2-like domination) as they expected then programmers would have had to learn the new system faster and optimise for it more.
Cell Processors have to be in the ps4!
or something alot more powerful will be needed at a cheaper price :O
its sad because hybrid processor performance gains are immensive.
i think spu 2 can be a great , especially for lazy programmers
Essay Pro
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
