Rumor: Sources Leak PS4 Specs

Highlander
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 9:23:57 PM
Reply

4k output is much like the dual HDMI output of the 'original' PS3 specs, it's vapor. There won't be displays for it, and nor will there be anytime soon. Not that our eyes could do a particularly good job of seeing all those pixels.

I'm finding these 'specs' even harder to believe the more they come. Could it be that Sony might use some disinformation?

Either way I absolutely *hate* the idea of saddling a game console with a piece of crap X86 processor. Dumbest decision ever if they do it, worse than calling Vita, Vita.

Last edited by Highlander on 4/4/2012 9:25:41 PM

10 up, 7 down

Dancemachine55
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:47:44 PM

If you have the time Highlander, do you know or remember if the specs rumoured for the PS2 or PS3 were at all accurate to the final design?

I know everything about the PS3 was complete hokem, even the announcement model, were all completely different to what is the final release model of the PS3.

I think you may be right that Sony is leaking false specs or designing several fake PS4's to confuse and keep journalists on their toes.

4 up, 0 down

SmokeyPSD
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 11:20:25 PM

I would've rather liked 2 HDMI ports to stick on the PS3 honestly... 1 for video, 1 for discrete 7.1 audio. Hardly useless in my view...

3 up, 0 down

faraga
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 2:27:23 AM

Why would you need to have two HDMI cables to separate audio and video? A single HDMI cable would transfer both just fine and most, if not all receivers that have HDMI inputs also have HDMI outputs.

5 up, 1 down

matt99
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:44:36 AM

Highlander,
PSXE should hire you for a tech column explaining all the numbers and specs for the rest of us...I mean you basically do that anyways :P

3 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:53:58 AM

Dance Machine

I can't remember whether the PS2's spec matched the rumors at the time, that would take some research. I may try to do that though, it might make an interesting project.

The PS3 was rumored to have all sorts of things inside it. However the key ones I can remember are;

Rumor: 2 HDMI ports -
Reality: 1 HDMI, the HDMI protocols include lossless audio and no second port would be needed in any case.

Rumor: Network router capability
Reality: no router capability as such, 1 ethernet port and wireless. Can act as an Access point for PSP/Vita to get online.

Rumor: clock speeds and capabilities of the CellBE and RSX were subject to many rumors. The main one was that the system was teraFLOP capable - the so-called super computer in the home. cell at 3.4GHz or higher with 8 SPUs, capable of 256 GFLOPS.
Reality: Cell clocked in at 3.2GHz with only 7SPUs. maximum theoretical performance is just shy of 200GLOPS. In reality only 6SPUs are available to games, and even with the best coding in the world it's doubtful that the system achieves much more than 100-120 GFLOPS (which is still a HUGE number BTW). RSX had fewer pipelines than expected and clocked a little lower than expected.

Rumor: PS3 would have more than one CellBE and no GPU.
Reality: This was the original concept, and two Cells would be formidable. But the cost of the CellBE manufacture and limited yields forced a change. The RSX GPU was added, and provides much of the system chipset functionality besides being the GPU of the system.
There are other things, the amount of RAM was rumored to be all sorts of things, but 512MB total with 256MB System and 256MB Video quickly became the reality. Though the system did hang onto the rumored exotic XDR memory that runs at the same clock as the CPU and is therefore *very* quick.
Rumor: Would play every PlayStation game
Reality: PS1 games are run through emulation. It was impossible to create a PS2 emulator that would run in real time. So, the entire PS2 chipset was grafted onto the first version of the PS3. The second version (launched in Europe) emulated the Emotion Engine in software, but had the PS2 GPU on the motherboard because it could not be emulated. Of course PS2 BC was removed for cost reasons, but we now see a limited Software based PS2 compatibility via PSN.

Like the PS2 I would have to do some more research to give a complete picture, which might be an interesting project.

3 up, 1 down

kraygen
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 12:37:11 PM

May have to disagree with you on the 4k issue Highlander. At E3 this year, multiple companies were showing off 4k displays and claiming they planned to have them on the market by the end of 2013.

Granted that's over a year away and they could even be a little late, but if the ps4 isn't slated to come out until the end of 2013 also it could make sense for them to have the 4k abilities.

Also at the time of release the 4k tv's would be expensive, but at the time of the ps3's release, buying a 1080p tv was ridiculously expensive, so I wouldn't be so quick to count it out.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 2:36:01 PM

That's not the point. 4K displays have existed as prototypes for some time. But what is the driving force to get a 4K TV?

At a typical viewing distance a 1080p screen is essentially retina class, you cannot distinguish individual pixels at the normal viewing distance. It's a fundamental limit of human vision. 4K screens would need to be 80+ inches in size and you'd sit at least 10 feet from them to gain any benefit from the additional resolution, and even then you would be selectively focusing on one portion of the screen.

1080p isn't even the primary standard for broadcast TV yet, it takes decades to transition this kind of thing, and to get the appropriate TVs into homes. 1080p is beginning to work through the mainstream and get to screens outside the living room.

Movie producers were not entirely happy with HD video in the home because it potentially eats at the cinema market. 4K video in homes would be essentially film resolution, and that would seriously threaten movie makers and cinemas.

There are many obstacles to 4K screens, and few of them are technical. The biggest objection in my mind is that really and truly, 4K resolution is a waste of technology and dollars. Research 1080p resolution, viewing distance and the ability of humans to resolve the extra resolution with their eyes. The case for 4K screens is weak at best.

3 up, 2 down

thedaini
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 3:04:20 PM

Highlander, I understand what you're saying about how many pixels the human eye can see, and screen size/viewing distace (part of the reason you don't see 32" TVs that come with 1080p, it's a waste).

But, Sony may be doing a couple things:
1) They recognize that the industry is moving towards 4k TVs and don't want to release a console that consumers may view as "out of date" because it doesn't support the latest technology. (regardless of if the technology is really needed)
2) If the console has enough power to support 4k display, then it should easily be able to handle 3D at 1080p, which the PS3 is limited to 720p. Or, it may be able to produce full screen views for more than two users using 3D display technology (like the Playstation TV they released)

The goal may not be "we need 4k support" but instead enough power to give developers a lot options. Just something to think about.

Last edited by thedaini on 4/5/2012 3:04:55 PM

3 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 3:29:10 PM

I'm pretty sure that the GPU being rumored isn;t really going to be up to the job of rendering and pushing 4K images. I don't believe 4K output, and won't until I see it on the console, in action.

I understand the goal about giving developers power. But if giving developers power that outclasses the PS3 itself, someone is going to have to come up with a great explanation of how the rumored specification does this, because really it doesn't

Last edited by Highlander on 4/5/2012 3:30:45 PM

2 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 3:40:31 PM

One last thing to mention, HDTV had been around for several years at least before PS3 arrived. 4K is not yet available. So talking about how PS3 helped drive 1080p into the mainstream is missing the 5 or so years that HDTVs existed in the market before the PS3.

1 up, 0 down

timmagicker
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 6:36:40 PM

I find it extremely hard to believe, considering that they're trying to crossfire two GPUs on different infrastructures. The chances that the GPU on the CPU, if they could even crossfire it properly, being able to keep up to the faster 7XXX Discrete GPU, are slim to none unless it's the lowest of the low end Discrete GPUs, or the highest of the high-end APUs (CPU with a built-in GPU)

0 up, 0 down

somethingrandom
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 11:24:50 PM

It's not a matter of "if" they're able to crossfire them as this has already been done with AMD APU's for the better part of a year. Regardless, this is a very piss poor hardware configuration that can't even stack up against my friend's new midrange laptop. That's not even considering being competitive with high end gaming PC's. If this is true then the Ps4 is obsolete before it's been announced. I do not share the same attitude as the Highlander however when it comes to x86 CPU's as long as they have the right graphics to back 'em up.

1 up, 0 down

richfiles
Monday, April 09, 2012 @ 3:14:24 PM

Dual HDMI would be nice, because some of us don't want to repurchase our grand of audio equipment, just because it refuses to pass 3D through to the TV. I also happen to have a larger LCD and a smaller Playstation 3D monitor. It'd be cool to hook both up and be able to take advantage of the big screen when I want, but use the small screen when 3D content is available.

Last edited by richfiles on 4/9/2012 3:16:48 PM

0 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 9:28:17 PM
Reply

Heck, This is all Greek to me.

And this non-techie needs the powers of Highlander to chime in on the powers of these specs(if true).

EDIT: Never mind Highlander, I see you already beat me to the article, LOL

Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/4/2012 9:30:12 PM

1 up, 0 down

Metal Head
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:03:18 PM
Reply

Highlander is the expert on this subject. I guess we can kiss backwards compatible goodbye.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:37:01 PM

If, the rumors are true, then yeah, no way it will feature BC with PS3 - in the box. The only chance would be some kind of add-on that included a single chip CellBE/RSX and memory that could connect directly to the PS4 and use things like the HDD, BluRay, networking and of course the video output. But I don't see why they'd do that if they can get the PS3 itself down to $199. All it means is yet more clutter near my TV.

0 up, 0 down

telly
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 9:17:02 AM

And providing a reasonable BC solution for fans means we would all be less inclined to buy remastered PS3 versions of games as PS4 downloads in five years :-/

1 up, 0 down

Crabba
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 5:12:40 PM

telly with these specs, there won't be much room if any for remastered PS3 games, especially exclusives...

0 up, 0 down

PSTan
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:06:57 PM
Reply

That mock-up's been around for a few years now. I really dig the design.

0 up, 0 down

StevieRV
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:11:01 PM
Reply

nobosy in their right minds are building gaming pcs with AMD CPUs at this point, intel clearly have better architecture this generation, I dont understand why Sony are choosing AMD over intel, or even their Cell

i know they need to make it cheap, but also that graphics card cant compete with some others on the market already for pc, and i think if they want it to last for 10 years, they need it to at least be cutting edge in current pc terms, which off those specs, it isnt

having said that, i will still be buying it, console gaming over pc gaming any day

5 up, 2 down

firesoul453
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:23:08 PM

It sound genus to me! I don't know why someone woulden't

0 up, 0 down

Geobaldi
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:54:25 PM

I built my current gaming PC with AMD processors and cards. Runs everything on the market right now with no issues. No need to pay the extra $200+ just to have Intel written on the parts.

2 up, 0 down

faraga
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 2:36:23 AM

Tests have proven that the Intel processors range have superior performance to the AMD processors in the same price range. That said, the best processor on the consumer market right now is the fastest Intel i7 chip.

I would also be disappointed if they would use this hardware. By the looks of it, it looks like the average high end gaming PC of today, although better PC's are already for sale/build. Why Sony would build a console with hardware that's already obsolete as soon as it enters the market is a mystery to me. Nintendo would be a brand to do that, not Sony.

8 up, 1 down

daus26
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:54:24 PM

AMDs are fine, but Intel's chip is clearly top of the line in terms of processing power. I'm not saying which is better, but there is a bit of justification to be paying more for Intel. I will say though that AMD's APU have much better gpus integrated to their processors, which reduces the need for any high end external graphics card. In a way, it should suit most people's needs. Intel is almost like the "Apple" to PCs. It's a premium, that most people don't really need, but really nice to have.

1 up, 0 down

Kthara
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 8:19:26 PM

The funny thing about the Intel fanbase, is that the majority either don't realize or just fail to ever mention, that the only time you really ever see the higher Intel vs AMD performance is in benchmark testing anyway. Anyone who can sit there with a straight face and claim they can notice a difference in gameplay with an extra 5fps in real world computer gaming is absolutely full of it unless they're talking about the complete bottom end. Yea, between 1 and 10-15 fps, you're probably gonna notice that extra 5fps, but face it, above 20-30fps, you don't notice anything at all. Dollar for dollar, AMD makes Intel look foolish. Yes, in benchmarks, Intel wins. Yea, we all get that. Now show me a REAL WORLD situation (ie gaming) where Intel's performance actually makes a difference class for class, and then show me that it doesn't cost at least 40% more than the AMD variant. I've been building systems based on cost, customer demand, and overall performance since 2001. I've yet to see an Intel system that could beat an AMD system real world and still be "cost effective". There's nothing wrong with AMD's performance, and any alleged shortcomings are usually quite easily overcome by building the system intelligently. Spec out parts that are going to work the best together. Spend a little extra time in tweaking instead of buying what sounds good based on advertised performance and pricetags that sound good. No matter how "good" ya think your parts sound, there's always more performance to be found through proper setup.

1 up, 0 down

somethingrandom
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 11:34:28 PM

While the above poster has some idea what he's talking about in that you won't get better gaming with Intel processors for the money. However, PC's are NOT only used for gaming. In tasks like video encoding and Photoshop and related things that many people do for a living the Intel parts blow AMD out of the water. Not just benchmarks. I suppose I should mention something about multitasking several high demand programs as well.

0 up, 0 down

firesoul453
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:22:23 PM
Reply

my friends laptop has an A8, its not a powerhouse (the one in the laptop) but its efficient and the APU is pretty nice for not being a dedicated graphics card.

If they use a much more powerful A8 and if they can use the APU while using the dedicated card then this machine will be low cost (not $700) system and be pretty powerful and decently power efficient (which will also probably make it run cooler).

1 up, 0 down

cLoudou
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:30:35 PM
Reply

All I know that it should be more developer friendly so I don't wanna hear any devs complaining how difficult it is to develop for.

1 up, 0 down

Dancemachine55
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:54:47 PM

If it can pull a 360 (or in this case, a 180) and swing multiplats playing better and smoother on PS4 than NeXbox, PS4 will have a much better chance.

Considering how much of a fail the original Xbox was (except for Halo and Xbox Live), I really do respect MS for how well they designed the 360 to be excellent in the most basic functions and requirements for gameplay and online services. Multiplats ran smoother (for the first few years) and online streaming and gameplay was just overall smoother on their machine.

Shame about the red ring problem and lack of blu-ray or HD discs. Here's hoping Sony can adopt the strengths of the 360 this gen and come back on top next gen. Oh, how I miss the ol' PS2 days.

2 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 1:57:22 AM

cLoudou,
I think then we'd still get a few lazy developers that would start whining that it's just wayyyyyy to hard to develop for a Etch-A-Sketch.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/5/2012 1:58:18 AM

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 12:05:20 PM

Programming the Cell is no more difficult than programming any High performance computing device. If you look closely at how things are going even in the world of PCs, the CPUs have many cores, the GPUs have very many cores. All of the headaches that Sony and their devs went through are there for all to experience now. It's no longer possible to get performance gains simply by threading. Developers have to consider parallel processing of certain kinds of data and task and how they handle that.

So all the work that Devs have done changing their mind set and looking for opportunities to do things in parallel or to take advantage of the vast power of the SPUs in the CellBE is going to need to be done by others in te PC realm. This is a very deep topic, but the reality is that the CellBE architecture and PS3 really do show the way forward, but the 360 and PC industry of 5-6 years ago was not there yet. They are getting there now.

Future PCs will use CPUs, GPUs, GPGPUs and other fusions of CPU and GPU technology. AMDs APU concept is essentially to take a simple GPU and put it on the same chip as the CPU. Conceptually that's not very different to the CellBE with it's PPC core and 8 high speed SPUs. x86 CPUs contain many cores with many execution units. The internals of these new CPUs look more like collections of multiple processors working in parallel than they do a classic multi-core CPU. GPUs are headed that way too with arrays of very simple execution units that can be used in parallel or series to accomplish various tasks.

Parallel processing is going mainstream, and developers that said the CellBE and PS3 was too hard will have similar problems in this new parallel processing world.

3 up, 2 down

Dancemachine55
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:44:10 PM
Reply

So long as Sony keep the blu-ray disc drive, I'll be a happy camper. :)

I kinda hope the rumours about the next Xbox having no optical drive are true, because that would mean many more people with slow or no internet connections for their consoles would flock to the PS4.

8 up, 0 down

playaplus
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:49:01 PM
Reply

starting to get the feeling that its a step backwards for sony smh. the less difficult to develop for the better i guess...but I want elite devs..not crap devs

1 up, 2 down

Dancemachine55
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 10:57:53 PM

The main difference isn't between elite or crappy devs.

It just means all developers can concentrate on making a great game rather than wasting time simply getting the game to work at all.

I'm all for making it user and developer-friendly, means the gamers win with better and more highly polished games.

6 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 11:06:24 PM
Reply

Hmmm, pretty disappointed at the GPU there... Weak sauce. Oh well.

8 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 11:11:55 PM

Sony is clearly under a new direction. This system falls way short of a PS2 to PS3 leap in capabilities. It makes me wonder what else is going on with it's design to justify a whole new console. Will it have a motion controller, or something?

5 up, 0 down

gumbi
Wednesday, April 04, 2012 @ 11:30:21 PM
Reply

I really don't understand how after investing so much into the cell architecture of PS3, Sony could just walk away from it like this. Developers are already familiar with it, and are churning out increasingly more impressive work.

Keep the cell architecture Sony, and just ramp it up. A little faster, more cores, and more memory. Developers already know what to do with it, and they're learning how to squeeze more and more out of it. All you need to do is give them more to squeeze.

Not to mention the fact that this would make backwards compatibility almost a non-issue.

For now, I'm chalking all these bogus specs up to rumour and speculation.

13 up, 0 down

unapersson
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 1:28:10 AM

I agree, I'm going to be disappointed if they just ship a PC in a box. The advantage of consoles is they've always offered something different, and I've always been convinced the hardware has been an important part of that as it encourages different types of games. Just compare the standard PC style games that come out on the 360 with the more varied titles you get on the PS3. It's the thing that sold me on the PS1 originally when I was used to the PC and retro home computers.

That said I assume the mention of DirectX is just about the cards capabilities, they'd be daft to release a Windows based console and have to pay money to Microsoft for every machine they released. It might as well be called Xbox Alt in that case.

5 up, 1 down

Highlander
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 2:17:56 AM

Agreed. Cell is designed to run in multi-cell configurations. 4 CellBEs on one die, add a modern GPU and bingo, you have a Multi-teraFLOP beast of a console.

Being Cell based it wouldn't be a complete leap into the dark, and would allow Devs to build on their knowledge gained on the PS3.

9 up, 0 down

karneli lll
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 12:02:08 AM
Reply

Sounds like Sony is trying to discourage MS, or make MS develop an expensive console

0 up, 2 down

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 12:11:13 AM
Reply

I think there's something wrong with me these days...I almost don't care at all about the power of the PS4. So long as it can produce games I want to play, I'm fine.

...guess I'm getting boring in my old age.

10 up, 0 down

dmiitrie
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 1:05:35 AM

I feel exactly the same way. Whenever I hear Higlander or Temjin rail against the specs, I'm halfway interested and amused. But for theist part, the numbers mean nothing to me and I find myself thinking, "as long as the exclusives are better than XBox and the multiplays are about even, im fine with whatever they do."

1 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 4:40:54 AM

Not boring. Getting wiser. ;)

A game consoles main purpose is to play games. As such the quality of a console is in direct relation to its ability to run the games. The better they run, the better the console is. In essence it's that simple, really.

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/5/2012 4:45:33 AM

4 up, 0 down

telly
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 9:24:28 AM

Yes to all of you. I really feel like the next generation could have less emphasis on charting new ground in terms of graphics but "filling in the blanks" on the graphic capabilties we have now. What I mean by that is I think we'll see improved frame rates, more details in facial animations, fewer missing/weird animations for characters, and so on. Detail and resolution will surely go up too, but in trying to read the tea leaves it sounds like Sony (and Microsoft) are trying to make development much easier, which I think is going to lead to smoother edges in games, so to speak.

But don't hold me to that two years from now ;)

1 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 5:12:56 PM

No I think you're on to something there Telly. We don't really need much more from the graphics chips than the ability to render full HD at a good frame rate.

But we *do* need more power "behind the scenes", sort to speak. That's the area where there is most room for improvement (all imo of course), cause that's what the future games will require, the games that want to do more than just push the "there and then", but offer more persistence to the world.

And the more the developers can focus on *that* instead of having to tweak and struggle to get their game to work on different architectures, the better it is for us. That is my firm belief.

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/5/2012 5:14:14 PM

1 up, 0 down

somethingrandom
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 11:45:41 PM

Lol all of you sound like you're buying a Wii U.

0 up, 0 down

tlpn99
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 12:59:49 AM
Reply

As long as they do cross game chat. Always knew backwards compatibility would possibly not happen id need more space for the ps4 then still gonna wait a year you know its gonna be rushed and errors will happen i waited on both ps3 and 360 and they still failed with ylod and rrod

1 up, 3 down

mehrab2603
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 3:18:05 AM
Reply

Looks outdated even by today's standards.

3 up, 0 down

PHOENIXZERO
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:05:48 PM

It's outdated by two or three year old standards.

It really is a crappy video card and would still be crappy without all the PC overhead. I really hope the CPU and GPU info isn't true just as I also hope the next XBox also isn't using that GPU.

0 up, 0 down

taus90
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 4:46:33 AM
Reply

The same Spec in a pc with a resource burdened OS is definitely outdated. but the Same spec in a Stand alone game console makes a huge difference. look at the quality of 5 years old ps3 with its cell and RSX gpu, still blows a majority of the games in the market. its all about optimization.. and we havent heard what amount of RAM PS4 will have besides 1gb vram. so stop jumping the guns

0 up, 1 down

PHOENIXZERO
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:13:36 PM

Even without the hefty overhead that it would still be terrible.

0 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 5:36:46 AM
Reply

I don't think you all should stare blind at the specific numbers for a machine planned for release more than a year into the future. These numbers, if valid at all, are highly likely the spec for the prototypes the selected developers are given to start working on, and if so it's a machine that's been assembled many months ago already.

It makes good sense to start developing your software on a system that doesn't have the same power as the final product as long as the layout remains.

What's more interesting is the general info about the architecture. Coming from these many sources I would be extremely surprised if it now would turn out to be false, as some speculated in when the rumours first appeared.

But the numbers are just numbers right now. It's of less interest at this point in time.

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/5/2012 5:48:43 AM

2 up, 0 down

___________
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 5:53:53 AM
Reply

dont forget the used games lock and locking games to a single PSN account.
the more and more i hear of these supposed next gen consoles the less and less i want to do with them!
whatever they are, i wish they would hurry the %$#@ up and come out that way i can stop having to put up with crappy 6 year old outdated ports!
makes you wonder what developers could really do if they made a game souly for PC and had as big a budget as they needed.

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 7:09:56 AM
Reply

I'm getting more and more convinced that these rumors are completely false. There's just no way Sony would be THIS stupid, to release a next-gen console with parts that would hardly even qualify for a low-end gaming PC TODAY, much less so obviously in a year or more when the new consoles are supposed to come out!

The PS3 was very high-end at least CPU-wise even when it was released, even if Sony messed up with the GPU and memory on the console, but these specs are hardly better than what the PS3 already has, and DEFINITELY not enough to make make so-called 'next-gen' games a visible improvement compared to this gen, and if that's the case, why would anyone buy it??

AMD is way behind Intel in current CPU tech, and the AMD's A8-3850 is currently at best a low-mid end gaming CPU, and the Radeon HD 7670 GPU is just a rebranded HD 6670, which is a very low-end gaming GPU even today.

Just mentioning 4k resolutions together with a HD 6670 tells me this rumor is completely fake, because there's no way, no how that graphics card would be able to run anything more than pac-man in 4k...

If Sony (and MS too) wants people to get excited about buying a next-gen console they better make them good enough to make a REAL NOTICABLE quality difference compared to this gen, and THESE specs as rumored DEFINITELY AIN'T IT!

2 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 9:46:25 AM

I don't think you should look too hard at the specific details, but more look at the broader picture.

If they have handed out prototypes for developers to start working on it doesn't mean it's the final setup. Can you describe in detail today the PC you would buy in a years time?

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/5/2012 9:48:39 AM

0 up, 0 down

___________
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:16:01 AM

easily dual 670s, some kind of I7 processor, minimum 16GB DDR3 RAM, SSD for the OS and HDD for storage.
hes right the specs here are hardly better then what the ps3 is, releasing this next year would be suicide!
the freaking wiiU has a bigger gap then what this does!
christ when your being out shined in tech by ninty you know your in trouble!

0 up, 1 down

Crabba
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 4:57:35 PM

Beamboom, no I wouldn't be able to describe in detail now what I would want in a gaming PC in a year from now, but I would definitely be able to say what I WOULDN'T want, and that's ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY close to these specs, I can tell you that!

Also, by now Sony must surely know at least the general architecture and performance level they're looking for with the PS4, if they're supposed to release it in a year from now.

0 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 3:02:08 AM

By all means, the architecture (meaning the technical layout, the framework) is of course set by now. But the actual chipsets, the actual performance of the different components that makes out this architecture doesn't need to be set in stone. The developers only need to have a version of the architecture for the system at hand to start working on it, they don't need the exact hardware.

And this is what I try to say: The specifications we see here are highly likely just the prototypes. the "demo versions" sort to speak of the final platform. The "working copies" so they can start designing their new games.
Take graphics for example. As long as the chipset support a given set of instructions (an "API") it doesn't really matter what their actual performance is. Their performance only affect how far you can push it in the code. The code itself, what you actually write in order to write an object on the screen and rotate it (or whatever) is the exact same.

So I really, really would not worry too much about these specifications yet. They are *highly* likely to chance before the PS4 goes into production.
Remember that we now talk about technology that is *massively* used. The availability of these chipsets, the production lines, are like enormous. So Sony don't need to start up a production a long time beforehand in order to cover the demand.

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/6/2012 3:12:56 AM

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 3:44:29 AM

It could very well be the case that this is some early prototype, or these rumors could simply be completely false/fake, and end up being based on a modern Cell successor with a new Nvidia GPU.

I really hope for the latter, especially since I would seriously HATE for guys like Naughty Dog who's spent an incredible amount of time and money developing engines and games for the PS3 platform, and would then have to start all over for the next-gen games. That really doesn't bode well for early PS4 exclusives, which is supposed to be what makes people excited about buying a new console!

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 7:23:33 AM
Reply

Just to give you guys a bit of reference, here are some benchmarks of the rumored HD 6670 (HD 7670) PS4 GPU from tomshardware (post got flagged for moderator approval when posting link so I removed it from the post):

Crysis 2 @ 1080p on "performance" settings, not even the highest settings:
Radeon HD 6670 1GB HD 6670 1 GB - 12.4fps
Geforce GTX 590 3GB GTX 590 3GB - 74.40fps
AMD Radeon HD 6990 4 GB HD 6990 4 GB - 64.60fps

Battlefield 3 @ 1080p on "performance" settings (also not highest):
Radeon HD 6670 1GB HD 6670 1 GB - 17.84fps
Radeon HD 6990 4 GB HD 6990 4 GB - 94.45fps
GeForce GTX 680 2 GB GTX 680 2 GB - 93.43fps

So yeah, very exciting high-end GPU there for the rumored GPU on both next-gen consoles....

Last edited by Crabba on 4/5/2012 7:25:42 AM

0 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:34:33 AM

Good research Crabba, but for me this only adds to my suspicion that his is not the final config for a console being released more than a year into the future. It just isn't. It can't be.

There must be something essential about the console we do not know now. It can be anything. It looks like everyone more or less assume the PS4 will be just a rewrapped PC. There's *plenty* of room for creative design and solutions within the boundaries set by the components we do know about the hardware.

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/5/2012 10:35:44 AM

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 5:02:06 PM

Beamboom Yeah I don't see how this could be it. Sony wouldn't release a next-gen console that's hardly better than the PS3, and on a completely different architecture to boot, meaning their best developers like Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Quantic Dream etc etc would have to start all over again. Makes no sense at all.

1 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 4:32:36 AM

Now that introduces a different discussion Crabba, and an interesting one too.

It's not like they would have to start *all* over again, but there's no denying there is a lot of time invested in the current architecture, a lot of knowledge and experience that is now partially obsolete.
For the decision makers at Sony this must have been the main arguments *against* this shift. But apparently the arguments FOR the change must have been considered to weight more.

And I know that what I am about to say now is not the popular stance around here, but please bear with me, folks (those of you who typically get easily provoked by me might want to skip the rest of this post. I can almost guarantee this will annoy you):

I believe what this period with the PS3 has clearly demonstrated is that a platforms success depends on *more* than just pure raw chipset specifications, numbers and theoretical potential. Or as a teacher of mine used to say, "a platform is never better than the software that runs on it".

What we got with the PS3 these years is a modest handful of visually impressive exclusives. But at what cost? A large pile of games that suffer from screen tearing, frame drops, crashes, drop ins, pop-ups, drop outs, all sorts of issues making them the lesser version against the main competitor, or at best - BEST - a version equal to the x360 version.
I don't think I know of a single title that plays better on the ps3 than the x360 - do any of you? How many? One? Maybe two?

And THAT is what everyone outside the Playstation sphere notice. They read about how everything from a reasonably simple game like Bayonetta to a *major* headliner like Skyrim struggle on the PS3. Those kind of stories has plagued the PS3 *constantly* these years.

And that's the market Sony need to win over. And I am sorry people but it has not been an unconditional success.
It's slowly become better, but now it's far, far too late. Noone in their right minds would want to buy a machine that they don't get to fully enjoy until YEARS after the purchase. You really have to be an ardent Sony fan to see that as a positive thing.

I believe this is what Sony realize too, and they *have* to react to that. It's the only responsible thing to do as a company, although that does indeed imply to swallow a couple of camels and a few ounces of pride.
My respect for Sony has risen after this, and I fully, wholeheartedly support their decision.

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/6/2012 7:38:18 AM

0 up, 0 down

Crabba
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 4:27:00 AM

I know what you're saying, and Sony made a few serious mistakes this gen, but that mistake was not using the Cell CPU.

I'm fairly certain that the major reason for these poor third-party multiplatform games are not because of the Cell, but because Sony decided to cheap out on memory and the GPU in the PS3. Had Sony used a little bit more than 256mb system +256mb graphics RAM (which with a big OS footprint and other things means less total memory available for developers than the Xbox 360) and a GPU that is marginally slower, anyone who didn't spend resources using the Cell to its full potential ended up with a game that might not be as good as the 360 version.

So basically by cheaping out a couple of bucks per console Sony might have ended up losing hundreds of millions...

My point being that Sony could easily continue with an improved Cell CPU in the PS4, as long as they include equal or better remaining components to the Xbox 720, meaning the same amount of usable RAM and a competitive GPU, Sony could continue using their biggest advantages: supreme first-party exclusives and PS3 compatibility while not sacrificing thirdparty titles.

0 up, 0 down

Dante399
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 8:02:38 AM
Reply

Quality of the machine means the quality of the games on it.
For years, all you've talked about has been the quality and the power of the PS3 and how the 360 and Wii were no match to it. The PS4 should have the upper hand in technology or else the fans who bought the PS3 for its tech power would find better alternatives. And, if Sony hadn't lost the console war, it would lose it for sure this time.

4 up, 0 down

Crabba
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 3:46:30 AM

yep, completely right.

0 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:14:23 AM
Reply

I just can't stop thinking about how crazy these specs are.
These specs are extremely close, if not the same, to the rumored nextXbox specs.

This will sound crazy, but the xplaystion or playbox is closer to becoming reality than ever before with tech like this. Or at least paving the way towards some sort of unification of hardware. Why Sony has chosen to go PC in design, and a dated one at that come end of 2013, suggests to me something far different may be at play for the next-gen. An approximately 3x boost in GPU processing does not warrant a console relaunch as far as I'm concerned. Is this some sort of response to Apple? Rumors claim they have an official gamepad hitting the market in due time.

I really hope Sony didn't come to some sort of agreement with MS concerning the next-gen. It sounds crazy, but it is absolutely no more crazy than these rumored specs.

1 up, 0 down

wackazoa
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:26:34 AM

Exactly.

0 up, 0 down

PHOENIXZERO
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:21:50 PM

Dated at the end of 2013? Nah, dated in 2010, hell maybe 2009 even.

If MS and Sony are really going with this stuff they're almost suicide console gaming IMO.

1 up, 0 down

Crabba
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 3:49:30 AM

you say gamepad, are you talking about an Apple console?

I haven't seen any rumors like that, but I'm not exactly a fan of Apple either...

0 up, 0 down

wackazoa
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:25:45 AM
Reply

Not really a hardware geek so I dont know much, but why have the PS4 similar to the Xbox ? If I want the power of an Xbox wont I just buy an Xbox ? I like that the PS3 is different from the Xbox as it is a different experience. Im not a fan boy either so I wont buy the PS4 just because it is Sony. I want different.

0 up, 0 down

Beamboom
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:41:35 AM

May I ask you a question?

In what way do you find the PS3 to be different from the x360? How is it a different experience, in your opinion?

It's not a "trick question", no right or wrong answer, I just suspect the differences you experience are not as related to the internal hardware of the box as you may think. And if so, then that should be good news for you and others who worry about this change.
But I may be wrong, let's see!

Last edited by Beamboom on 4/5/2012 10:46:14 AM

0 up, 0 down

Temjin001
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 10:48:58 AM

It's a trick wackazoa!
Watch out!

=p

3 up, 0 down

daus26
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:38:07 PM

Well for me at least, the PS3 is different enough that even with a weaker gpu compared to the 360, the PS3 has the greater potential, added with the fact that many of its games couldn't be run or done on the 360. I haven't heard vice versa. Basically, there's the sense that one console can do things that the other can't, or at least do as well. If the 360 and PS4 is going to be dead similar, then what the heck is the point other than fanboyism or brand loyalty. There won't be any real reason on why a game would have to be exclusive other than being paid to.

Other than that, there's no real differences. But however, consoles just has to be different than PCs. By the way this is heading, especially the Xbox, it's basically a PC. The PS4 cannot go that same route. Think about what the 360 and PS3 is able to produce with so little RAM and VRAM. That's what's unique about consoles.

Sure, being unified is all sugar and rainbows, but without any sense of identity, it won't really be itself. A PC, x86 architectural just isn't Sony, let alone "PlayStation." If Sony has any sense of pride, they would do this.

1 up, 1 down

Beamboom
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 5:20:28 AM

Daus,
How you describe the differences there are more a talk about the *potential*, about how things *could* have been.

But to your main argument: Yes I agree that it is important that the consoles gives a sense of being "different". That I 100% agree with. But I strongly believe this difference is more to do with the physical design of the box and controllers and the operating system than the actual content inside the box. Cause really, if you ran Linux on the PS3, hooked up a keyboard and a mouse and hid away the console there would not have been any "console feel" left at all, regardless of what kind of processors are running.

So this "difference" is actually quite artificial, if still important. It's a marketing and design challenge more than anything else. And this is why I am completely confident that both the console feel and individuality of the Playstation will remain.

0 up, 0 down

Laguna
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 7:51:29 PM
Reply

I really hope the ps4 is at least compatibility with the ps3.

Each system lately has had at least one gen of backward compatibility

Ps2-ps1
Wii-GCN
WiiU-Wii
Ps3-Ps2-ps1
360-xBOX
GBA-GBC
DS-GBA
3DS-DS
PSV-PSP

It would be incredibly stupid to have a console solely for ps4 games.

At the very least let us play damn ps1 games like the ps3 does now :D

1 up, 1 down

daus26
Thursday, April 05, 2012 @ 11:46:24 PM
Reply

Lol, I know exactly what those specs mean, and safe to say, it's rather pathetic if that's what next gen for consoles is going to be. You could almost get those specs on a cheap, mid-level laptop cause AMD A8s are pretty cheap.

For heaven sakes, the laptop I have now have a better processor (i7) and 2gig of Video Ram, and 8gig DDRAM. Granted, the onboard gpu on the i7 is pretty weak (Intel hd 3000 FTL), my laptop isn't too far away from those rumored specs in terms of overall performance.

1 up, 0 down

Highlander
Friday, April 06, 2012 @ 12:35:11 AM

LOL, I know what you mean. You know, thinking about these so-called specifications, I am reminded of how I felt looking at the original Xbox specs and realizing that it was nothing more than a closed box budget PC with pretensions. The rumored specs really are nothing to shout about.

0 up, 1 down

Robochic
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 8:29:26 AM
Reply

i dont believe anything until a real source like oh sony president announces everything. I hate fake sources they just make companies look bad and people too.

0 up, 0 down

Bariikade
Sunday, April 08, 2012 @ 12:03:26 PM
Reply

All I know is I want the next step in gaming. I just hope the next generation consoles are going to make as much of impact on me as seeing the graphics compared to the PS1 to PS2 to PS3.

0 up, 0 down

somethingrandom
Monday, April 09, 2012 @ 12:00:21 AM

Normally, you can see what will come with the next generation by looking at current PC hardware. But recently, PC games have just become console ports that haven't pushed the capability of graphics hardware for the past few years.

0 up, 0 down

richfiles
Monday, April 09, 2012 @ 3:42:34 PM
Reply

I'm looking at these specs... And it's making my brain hurt. 4 x86 cores instead of the 6 available Cell cores, under 3GHz instead of the previous 3.2GHz. I get that architecture makes huge differences in performance, but this just sounds... oddly backwards to me.

I am with the sentiment that upping the number of Cell cores would be a very interesting route instead. The existing chips had 8 Cell cores (1 disabled for yield purposes, and one used for "security"), with a PPC core acting as a sort of "manager". The chips use a cyclic bus configuration. That gave the developer a 6 core machine running at 3.2GHz. Why not develop the tech further. Refine Cell tech, and make it massively parallel? By the time this system is out, the costs should be lower, and developers would not have to relearn... again. The alternative is just more lazy ports of PC software... or vise versa.

Come on. At this point, I am just seeing a closed off gaming PC that's not even up to date. Why shouldn't I just go and build a gaming PC then? At least I can upgrade that, and it's not so closed off!

0 up, 0 down

JROD0823
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 @ 9:14:43 PM
Reply

Highlander, I was hoping you could clear up something I was curious about concerning the discussion at the top of the comments thread.

When you were discussing the pointlessness of going to 4k display, I was wondering if the 4k resolution would allow for the game and movie companies to produce 3d that didn't have to sacrifice framerate and resolution? Correct me if I'm wrong, and not sure about movie resolutions, but isn't the best game companies have put out so far for 3d 720p at 30fps?

0 up, 0 down

somethingrandom
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 @ 1:16:19 AM

Moving up to 4k resolution would make the problem worse. There are near four times as many pixels to render per frame at 4k resolution than at 1080p. Just to be clear 4k resolution is just a measure like 720p and 1080p and such. The 4k comes from the width of approximately 4000 pixels. The width in pixels of 1080p resolution is 1920. The current limitation of 720p 3D at 30fps is a limitation of the processing power of current-gen consoles.

Last edited by somethingrandom on 4/11/2012 1:17:32 AM

0 up, 0 down

SS4
Thursday, April 12, 2012 @ 9:32:31 PM
Reply

I'm ok with the AMD video card but the AMD CPU ... they should go intel if they are gonna use x86 imo

0 up, 0 down

SS4
Thursday, April 12, 2012 @ 9:32:35 PM
Reply

Somehow it double posted....

Well those specs are just speculations anyways so theres no need to worry or rejoice yet :P

Last edited by SS4 on 4/12/2012 9:33:29 PM

0 up, 0 down

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Rumor: Sources Leak PS4 Specs

Comments (87 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Noby Noby Boy cheats	PS3
Hoard cheats	PS3
Guitar Hero cheats	PS2
Hot Shots Golf: Out of Bounds cheats	PS3
Prototype cheats	PS3
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow cheats	PS3
Yakuza 4 cheats	PS3
Stranglehold cheats	PS3

Grid 2 review	PS3
The Last Of Us review	PS3
Remember Me review	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger review	PS3
Fuse review	PS3
Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3

South Park: The Stick of Truth preview	PS3
Murdered: Soul Suspect preview	PS3
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3