PS4 graphics to be PowerVR Series 6 ?
in [ATI Video Cards]
|
Prev: 5750 - Different cooling packaging
Next: which driver
From: Benjamin Gawert on 30 Nov 2009 01:19 * YKhan: > I picked up a 16GB Class 6 (highest speed class) SDHC card for $20 > including shipping on Ebay. I'm sure it cost whoever was selling it > much less for him to buy it. See my answer to GMAN for that. 50GB Bluray disks can be produced for way less than $1 *today*. > That's entirely possible, and that's the reason they'd want to get rid > of the optical drive. A small flash drive slot would be a much more > cost effective non-permanent storage medium than a disk drive. The flash drive slot indedd is cheaper than a BD drive, but at the end of the day the cheapest solution is no removable media at all. > Physical distribution isn't going away, just the optical disk physical > distribution. And you can't rely on the Internet to download your > games when you need them. Sorry, but you must be really naive if you think physical distribution is not going away in the long term, especially since the publishers more than once expressed that this is what they are aiming for. On the PC, there already is STEAM which in fact is very successful and does completely rely on the internet to download your games, and this for several years now (and often enough, the STEAM version means less hazzle than the version on DVD which requires online activation with limited activations and other intrusive copy protection schemes). Sony and MS are constantly expanding their online stores, and this for a reason. Digital distribution means that more profit goes to the publisher, the second hand market can be dried out (by locking game titles to a certain console), much better control over pricing (single source means no pricing competition), and cost savings because mass production of media is not necessary any more. Also, only digital distribution allows new licensing models like time-based licensing. Physical media might not disappear completely, but with the next consoles we very likely will see that digital distribution plays an equal role as physical distribution, if not more (Current consoles are used as test beds for the concept). You have to be very naive to not see the writing on the wall IMHO. Benjamin
From: Yousuf Khan on 30 Nov 2009 11:50 Bill Cable wrote: > On Nov 27, 3:15 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> You missed the other part of this thread that said otherwise. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > Based on what I Googled, one division of IBM is off the Cell... not > the whole of IBM. There's more here: Cell is no longer hpc material - The Inquirer "According to the IBM executive's crystal ball, Cell is now no longer the right platform on which to develop HPC computing and so IBM will be shifting its focus from Cell-based co-processing to OpenCL-based co-processing - AMD's GPU stuff, in not so many words. This means that while Cell served its purpose in proving parallel processing was the way to go, development costs of further Cell based products become pointless as GPGPU computing becomes more widespread. Considering AMD is one of IBM's closest research partners this hardly comes as a surprise." http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1563659/cell-hpc-material So it looks like IBM will be moving towards AMD's solutions for at least HPC stuff from now on. Other than HPC and Playstation stuff, what else is there left for Cell? It looks pretty dead to me. Yousuf Khan
From: The alMIGHTY N on 30 Nov 2009 17:21 On Nov 25, 12:56 pm, Benjamin Gawert <bgaw...(a)gmx.de> wrote: > * parallax-scroll: > > > The choice? The > > PowerVR Series 6 by Imagination Technologies that utilizes a > > technology known as "TBDR," which is "3-5 times better than a > > competitive level nVidia/ATI Graphics card." Evidently, Sega used TBDR > > to help power the old Sega Dreamcast and if you remember, that console > > was definitely ahead of its time in the visual department. > > Yes, at a time when the 3Dfx Voodoo2 was a top-of-the line 3D graphics > card for PCs. However, it is not 1998 any more, and while AMD and Nvidia > invested lots of ressources into advances in the performance and > capabilities of their GPUs, the PowerVR today is merely a low-power GPU > for handheld devices as their "grownup" versions never left the > prototype stage. > > Sony would be mad if they choosed PowerVR for the PS4. > > > But perhaps > > the most interesting part about all of this is that Sony will retain > > the Cell processor currently in all PS3s; this new piece of advanced > > technology from Imagination will work with the Cell. > > The PS4 is very unlikely to be Cell based as IBM as stopped all > development for this architecture. Cell is dead. Wow. I hadn't read that. So much for Blig Merk's constant yabbering about how great Cell is. On the other hand, isn't it still possible that they'd use some current variant of Cell to power their next console? There must have been developments to the processor since the launch of the PS3 3 years ago and it would allow them to not have to worry about forcing developers to learn yet another brand new architecture for the next generation... > Benjamin
From: The alMIGHTY N on 30 Nov 2009 17:22 On Nov 26, 3:48 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > Jim wrote: > > With IBM out x86+Larrabee looks more likely than PoweVR. Intel can make an > > offer Sony can't refuse. > > Except that Larrabee isn't proven yet. PS4 can still go to a more > traditional regular PowerPC processor along with a traditional GPU, > making it more like the Xbox360. I'd love to read comments from the fanboys on BOTH sides of the fences on this one, haha... > Yousuf Khan
From: The alMIGHTY N on 30 Nov 2009 17:33
On Nov 28, 2:11 am, Benjamin Gawert <bgaw...(a)gmx.de> wrote: > * YKhan: > > > Well, Nintendo used to do fine with cartridges in the olden days. > > Perhaps they're going back to the modern equivalent of cartridges, > > flash memory thumb drives? Most modern SD flash cards are 8 to 16GB, > > meaning that they're already larger than or equal to DVD drives in > > capacity, and they are still growing. Blu-Ray disk don't seem like > > they offer enough of a cost advantage over flash drives. > > A 50GB flash drive still costs many times (magnitudes) more than a 50GB > Bluray disk, so it is highly unlikely that next consoles will use flash > as medium. > > Besides that, game publishers clearly aim to move from physical > distribution to electronic distribution, not only because it is cheaper, > but also because it allows them to kill the 2nd hand market (games are > locked to a console/user and can't be sold) and makes other licensing > models (like time-based licensing where you buy playtime) possible. I'm quite certain there would be a huge backlash from consumers if they were to take this route. Many people bank on the ability to resell games once they've finished them. Further, the network bandwidth required to handle massive downloads of even games that only take up half a Blu-ray disc won't be here even in the next decade. The U.S. is by far the most important market so the video game industry will make sure that anything they choose to do will be viable in this territory. > Benjamin |