Impress Watch: Sony contemplating upgraded Cell for PlayStation 4

It used to be. Then the Wii hit.

From 7 functional cores to 10? Hmmm. Doesn't seem like THAT big of an upgrade considering Intel was 'planning' on having 80 core processors available in 5 years, let alone the ten years championed by Sony.

Seems like the obvious choice though. They put SOO much money into the cell processor, why not just shove two cells duct taped together for the next PS?

No, not 7 cores to 10... This is one VERY misinformed post on Joystiq's part. The Cell only has 1 (ONE) core, not 7, 8, 9, or 10. or anything between 1 and 7. It only has ONE core.

Jesus Christ- I'm tired of the misinformation being spread around the internet.

No need to get all bent out of shape about it, Zeus.

This would indeed be interesting. Cell is a very scalable architecture, and it's been shown that it makes a good CPU.

Technologies like Intel's Larrabee are also showing that massively parallel, floating point optimised CPUs can make great GPUs, with an almost linear number of cores - frame rate relationship. It's so scalable. For every subsequent generation, increasing the number of cores improves the power and maintains compatibility.

I'd predict that for the PS4, Sony will use two Cell chips, leaving the idea of separate CPUs and GPUs. It's hard to explain just how big a benefit this would be. Applications will be able to do calculations (e.g. physics) and graphics on the same processors. Calculation-intensive applications would benefit from the additional Cell, and graphics-intensive applications would benefit by being able to offload instructions when there's not a lot of physics being done for a particular frame.

It's a similar effort to the unified shader architecture used in the 360's GPU, but takes it to a whole new level. This kind of thing couldn't be done on a PC, because PCs have to have CPUs good at scalar code (you don't just run games on your PC, right?). Consoles have a massive advantage.

Wipeout HD cheats at resolution Gran Turismo cheats at resolution. 1080p needs a Ps4. I was hoping PS4 was going to be 4k though with a 4k Blu-ray

In looking at please's comment here and the one below, I think he is incapable of making any damn sense.

The Wii is still at least twice as fast as the Gamecube.

While not as dramatic an upgrade as say... PS2 to PS3, the Wii is a pretty capable box, even if it doesn't support HD resolutions.

Whether the PS3 has 7 'cores' or not technically, it doesn't matter since the developer still has to split the game code to use the several low-powered SPE's.

@Karl

The cell all by itself doesn't do graphics any faster than a dedicated GPU. In fact, if you took the RSX out of the PS3, its 3D graphics capabilities would be abysmal.

The cell is a fast chip, but the SPEs are designed to be generalized stream processors. In terms of functionality, they lie in the middle between CPU cores and shader units, and they're not as vectorized enough to be practical for the rasterization part of the graphics pipeline.

They can still help the graphics, since certain processor-intensive tasks are better suited for the cell (scenegraph processing, physics collision detection, culling, texture streaming, etc), which can dramatically help GPU performance. For example, the cell can be used to optimize a scene so that the GPU only draws polygons that are seen.

The bottleneck in the PS3 is not necessarily the cell. It's GPU and its relatively-low fillrate (compared to its PC counterparts) is the reason why we don't see many true 1080p on the PS3.

Modern high-end GPUs have hundreds of shader units. In terms of pure floating point performance, they destroy the Cell (look up Folding@Home performance statistics for the GPU client vs. PS3 client). Needless to say, the PS4 will have a dedicated GPU, and it will be much faster than the RSX.

The console wars are a dirty game my friend.
Why aren't you bashing on Microsoft for "stealing" the Wii's avatar idea in their upcoming dashboard interface?

If they use 20 cores, it'll be 2.5 PS3's taped together... I think what they should do is have them self sufficient so you could lend 1 to your friend and maybe combine that 0.5 with another friend who bought a PS4 to offer it to another friend couldn't afford one. Buy 2 PS4's for 5 friends to play in the comfort of their own homes!

Not really, since I plan to get my 3rd Xbox 360 since I've heard they may of fixed that nasty freezing problem that sent my other 2 Xbox 360s to the scrap heap.

Also because Banjo Kazooie is coming to the Xbox Live Arcade, which is my main reason for giving the 360 another chance. Damn you Rare, and your childhood memories that are incased with your awesome game that I still somehow have the Soundtrack CD (Actual Disc) from!

I think the intent is to let the industry know that the PS4, whenever it does come, will be fundamentally the same. This really is win-win for everyone involved.

Amen brother, amen.

@replica.

PS4 NOT before 2010:

"A PS4 will be launched by Sony but not until at least 2010 claims the Vice President of Technology for Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, Paul Holman."

"Reacting to Yuta Sakurai's opinion that the recent Sony management shuffle would mean Sony's eventual exit from the gaming hardware market, SCEE VP of Technology Paul Holman claims that Sony is still intent on releasing a PS4... in 2010 at the earliest. And 2010 isn't even ten years after 2006, if you've noticed."

Really this gen looks exactly like last gen with some resolution upgrade. Next Gen is on the PC right now with Crysis

please, you obviously are not very balanced. This generation of console gaming is nothing like last generation. The online playing, social aspects, downloading content, network structure, etc. are completely different. Games also look a hell of a lot better this generation - beyond some resolution upgrades.

If you think Crysis is such a leap, when it was just a graphics overhaul, then you really shouldn't talk about consoles. You are out of touch with what gaming offers now.

That's exactly what I said when this article got posted on Digg.

http://digg.com/playstation/Sony_PS4_Will_Use_Existing_PS3_Cell_Processor?t=19306700#c19306700

Marty your hungry for attention aren't you?

Marty: Look at this fabulous comment I made!

I dunno about you, but my living room isn't big enough for 2 PS3s duct-taped to each other.

Hungry for attention? I'm just posting like everyone else here. Except with a little less douchiness, apparently.

It'll last 10 whether or not PS4 is released within the time. People are still playing PS2 and getting new games all the time, yet here we are talking about our PS3s and hypothetical PS4s.

"getting new games"

Exactly.

PS3 will be dumped right after the PS4 launch, just like how the 360 promptly killed its predecessor.

But what if each core is 2 times faster. That would make the Ps4 5 time faster then the ps3

You mean like how they forced CDs with the PS1 and DVDs with the PS2?

Well, thus far nothing has been said or rumored about it, and even then, I doubt they will, Blu-Ray still young, there is a lot to work with

Marty, Marty Marty ...

What a surprise.

Blu-Ray has brought on allot of positivity for the gaming industry. It's a bona fide next generation format that has more than adequate storage for at the very least the next generation. Don't be surprised when the Xbox720 also has Blu-Ray.

I guess you can't say the same for MS since they offered it as an add on. But, in the end that decision ended up being the nail in HD-DVDs coffin. I would be willing to bet that if MS had included HD-DVD as a medium for games it would of had a huge benefit and in the end may have made it a winner because of the large install base.

We won't see a new storage medium from Sony because it is not necessary. The reason people wanted HD-DVD to succeed is because it was easily cracked and pirated and was more of a complete standard from day 1. I believe the next PS console will be a significant upgrade over the PS3. It will include dual layer BD-ROMs standard and will have the same architecture but with even more power. Sony took a big shot with Blu-Ray and the cell architecture. They will see a big benefit sometime in the lifetime of the PS3 but the biggest benefit will be when the next iteration hits because the cost to manufacture the architecture will be much much less. It will allow Sony to turn a profit from day 1. You can say what you want about Sony's intentions with the PS3. I believe they were pretty noble especially when selling at a loss from day 1. They did push a new standard on the consumer but in the end it will be a good thing for the gaming industry because of the increased storage capacity.

Final Point -Sony took a big gamble and even though they have lost billions of dollars in the early stages they appear to have set themselves up for pure profit over the next generation of the PS brand. Between 10 & 20 cores, more RAM and an upgraded GPU is the perfect recipe for success. It will also allow for full BC with the PS3. We won't have as many developers not accustomed to what is now widely considered an extremely powerful but more exotic architecture.

It's naive to think Sony would push another proprietary format so soon after gaining traction with Blu-Ray. It just comes off as you being bitter towards Sony which is nothing new.

LOL, yeah guys, the PS1 and PS2really pushed CD and DVD - those media formats would have never taken off without the PlayStation's help!

You can make pass judgment all you want. You can act like BRD has made a huge deal in gaming (it hasn't yet).

The fact of the matter is, Sony hedged a huge bet on Blu-Ray, and if it hadn't have won out against HD-DVD, it would have dealt a huge blow to the PlayStation brand. In many ways, their gamble did anyway - they had to wait a year to release the console, they had to charge a lot more for it, etc.

Can you honestly say that the PS3 would be where it was today if they had released it a year earlier? I think it would have trounced the Xbox 360 so badly that it wouldn't have had a chance. Instead, BRD gave the 360 a way in and priced many people out of the PS3 initially. That hurt the brand, and I don't think the PlayStation brand could recover from another media format dependency.

"You can say what you want about Sony's intentions with the PS3. I believe they were pretty noble especially when selling at a loss from day 1."

Noble intentions? With the exception of the Wii, this has been standard practice for pretty much all console manufacturers for all time. There's nothing noble about trying to get a console into your home so you guy their games - all the game companies do that, and if you think they're selling at a loss for any other reason than the fact that it pays off down the road, you're a fool.

Dang R,

you just beat me to the 10 year life cycle comment. Blast!

Has anyone ever told you the but...but...but... joke is lame, was lame, and will always be lame.

dont use it anymore..... Thanks :)

Wow, sorry naxe, wasnt aware you were lord and king of the internet. Must have missed that election.

tl;dr fuck you naxe.

They didn't say that it would last 10 years, they said that it would have a 10-year life cycle, meaning that they would support the console for at least that much time...

Dude, the PS1 was supported for over 12 years, the PS2 is on its 8th year and still going strong, hell, even the Dreamcast lasted for 8 years... it isn't that hard to support a console for more than 6 years (well, other than for Microsoft)

^2 sentences?

a bit of reasonable deduction should tell you, R, that even if PS4 came out in 2011, that doesn't mean Sony will stop supporting the PS3 in 2011

Nosh, the Dreamcast lasted 8 years? Yeah....so....I think you mean "had stuff available here and there for 8 years", not "lasted" 8 years.

Unless you have a (hilarious?) reasoning for your math, I would argue that the Dreamcast lasted at best 2 years.

When sony issued that statement, they certainly implied (although may not have said directly) that this was going to be the only system that they were going to release for the next ten years, if not more. It may not be EXACTLY what they said, but that was the message, and that was what most people took away from it at the time. It wasnt until the power of the cell turned out not be Voltron's CPU that it was spun into "supported possibly with another console soon" by fans/magazines/whoever.

"Nosh, the Dreamcast lasted 8 years? Yeah....so....I think you mean "had stuff available here and there for 8 years", not "lasted" 8 years."

What? by "lasted" I meant the support for it.

And yes, I stand by it, they might have stopped manufacturing them by 01, but they still sold and had customer support for it, hell, they still released 1st party games til 04! (Does Puyo Pop Fever ring a bell?)

"It may not be EXACTLY what they said, but that was the message"

You make a lot of sense

"and that was what most people took away from it at the time."

By most people you seem to only be referring to yourself

"It wasnt until the power of the cell turned out not be Voltron's CPU that it was spun into "supported possibly with another console soon" by fans/magazines/whoever.""

Look, it is rather naive to think that a company would suddenly drop all support for a console and then just work with their newest one.

Jesus Christ... am I the only one who remembers Sony's arrogance to suggest to people that the PS3 was going to push 'Dual 1080p Outputs' and that 'Every game would be in glorious 1080p'?
Doesn't seem to far fetched to believe that people took their 10 years strong speak to mean that they may not release another console for about that much time.