PS4 Specs Rumor: Resolution, Memory, And Backwards Compatibility

This is so fake that it's not even worth reporting.

16 up, 0 down

lol, and the x86 based PS4 with a low end (even today) GPU releasing in 2013/2014 was any more believable?

16 up, 4 down

That low end GPU story, though unlikely, is way more belivable than this story.

6 up, 3 down

I don't understand why you guys are metioning the gpus. We don't even know what gpu this rumor is talking about other than two Nvidia chips. Both rumors state similar resolution capabilities. The only unbelievable thing here is the insane processor and the unusually high RAM. Either way, it's either too weak, or too strong. Perhaps being too weak is more believable than too strong in this case, especially if Sony is trying to aim for $500 or less.

---

Last edited by daus26 on 5/25/2012 8:42:14 PM

0 up, 0 down

I have a feeling both reports (the AMD one and this one) are both fake.

I reckon Sony is either teasing MS or keeping them on the edge of their toes so they won't be able to copy anything Sony does or one-up them.

I will remain patient and wait until either E3 or TGS or even (I hope not, but still) E3 2013 to hear what the PS4 will have in store.

As for either the PS4 or Xbox 720, the console with backwards compatability with PS3/360 games and PSN/XBL games will win my money.

2 up, 1 down

Yes we do Daus, it's 1 GPU running at 2GHz core and supposedly based on Kepler. Ther is a link to the original picture which is quite clearly readable.

0 up, 0 down

Way faker sounding than the previous rumored crappy hardware.

Sony won't use Cell again, period and 10GB of RAM in a game console at this and years beyond ridiculous. That said, I do wish they'd stick with NVidia and even IBM, whom dropped Cell years ago..

---

Last edited by PHOENIXZERO on 5/27/2012 7:52:18 PM

0 up, 0 down

I can see a resolution of 3840 x 1080 being believable if they would be so nice as to allow dual screen outputs *fingers crossed*

0 up, 0 down

Interesting. Last month i believe the rumor was that they were doing away with the cell in favor of a more pc-like cpu/gpu architecture, with an AMD gpu in conjunction with an integrated gpu. But this recent rumor definitely sounds more tantalizing.

1 up, 1 down

The fact that this architecture and spec-list makes it backwards compatible immediately makes it my favourite.

I understand not everyone cares about backwards compatability and no one buys a new console to play old games, but having the option there (especially since I love Uncharted, Infamous, Batman, Rock Band, Singstar and Guitar Hero, AND I have a stupid amount of DLC pruchased over the years) is so much more appealing to me than a new console with no ability to play last gen games.

I hope THIS is the architecture used, although the 10GB RAM might be a bit of a stretch.

3 up, 0 down

If you consider the growth ratio from PS2 to PS3 of memory (32 MB x 4 MB VRAM) to the PS3 memory (512 total, split between system and VRAM) you come up with around 7-8 GB... Given that 8 makes more sense, and given that 2 additional GB in mass quantity is only 1/4 of that amount there... I'd say that 10 GB might be possible, especially if Sony chooses to let the PS3 ride out like the PS2 did, which I hope is the case.

Given that I'm starting to see more and more PS3s that are starting to yellow light... Quite frankly, I REALLY want backwards compatibility!

---

Last edited by richfiles on 5/28/2012 11:04:12 PM

0 up, 0 down

lol check out the design of the PS4 from the Euro link. Yeah, it looks like a rolled up scroll an Elder Scrolls dude carries around in his satchel =p

3 up, 1 down

10 GB of working memory. Hmm.

I'm no engineer, but I'm so used to seeing anything to do with computer memory or processing fall along the familiar base-2 geometric sequence (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 etc.) that this stuck out as perhaps a little strange to me. Any of our more tech-savvy folks have any insights about this?

3 up, 1 down

For RAM (which I assume is what they refer to as working memory), it's not that strange. For example, with DDR3 ram, you could buy a 4GB stick and an 8GB stick, plug them into your motherboard and have 12 GB of RAM. I might be wrong, but I feel like I've seen solitary 10GB DDR3 RAM at our local Tiger Direct store... I might be remembering wrong, though. lol

Depending on the type of ram they are using, or if it's engineered independently, it's possible.

2 up, 2 down

'working memory' is such a vague term. It's not the same as saying Video RAM or System RAM.

It could be as simple as 12Gb of physical memory 2GB of which is partitioned for Video use, and the other 10GB is available for 'working memory'.

5 up, 0 down

Ah, "working memory." Makes sense.

Thanks, guys.

0 up, 0 down

Nah, I got the original picture of the document now, it says 10GB of XDR2 system RAM and and 10GB of GDDR6 Video RAM.

The only reason I can see for a 10GB memory would be if there is some custom memory controller that does something odd like having 5 channels to access memory or some weird addressing thing.

Of course the specification might also refer to the development systems. The document mentioned an externally accessible development system, so it's possible that the memory figure for the retail units could be very different. It is very odd though.

0 up, 0 down

10 GB doesn't sound so out of it if you consider that they might include some sort of game streaming in the near future

0 up, 0 down

10gb seems wrong. Maybe 1gb is what they meant? That seems too low but who knows at this point

0 up, 0 down

20GB onboard?
yeah, and the next Ferrari has time warp capabilities!
never in my life have i seen something so ridiculous!

0 up, 0 down

lol i dont think even a current console has 1gb or memory (with them always blaming memory for excuses on why they cant do certain things) so i seriously doubt theyll jump up from less than 1 to 10.. also q4 2013? i hope not Id prefer 2014 or 15.. and lastly backwards compatibility? lol yeah right the reason they took it out of Ps3 was to cut costs so why would the re-add something to a more expensive new console that they were too cheap to keep in one that was cheaper?

1 up, 0 down

I was expecting it to have something like 16, personally, but keeping in mind it doesn't keep as much crap open as most PC's, 10 is probably enough... but for longevity's sake, I'd want 16.

My computer has 8GB of RAM, and it runs all current games perfectly fine. Of course, my GPU has it's own built in memory as well, as would the GPUs in the PS4, so 10GB may be more than enough.

0 up, 0 down

Duo, you're being kinda negative man...

If you base a PS4 on a cell derivative with a dual nVidia GPU (think RSX SLI'd with a newer GPU), you're really talking about extending the PS3 design. If you had twin Cell BEs in a current system you could emulate a PS2 in software without even resorting to using a GPU. With a new GPU and extra Cell resources, a PS4 would be not only PS3 capable, but should also be capable of emulating PS2 in software.

7 up, 1 down

This rumor sounds even more unlikely then the previous ones.

5 up, 0 down

You think so? I don't think it's far fetched. The top line GPU's on the market now can do a little bit better than what is listed here. (Of course, there's no need for better at this point, either. lol)

I'm more interested in what this "Advanced" processor is. That'll be the part that really defines it's power.

2 up, 4 down

How far fetched?

Let's see....

take the current Cell system design expertise and apply it to the PS3. Double the Cell cores, use an updated Cell SPU design, keep RSX with minor modifications to support more memory and a bigger, better GPU, say a Tesla or Kepler. Throw in 12GB of physical memory partitioned 2GB for video and the other 10 for system use. The underlying hardware is an extension of what they already have, which makes it easier than starting fresh.

5 up, 2 down

a cell processor in the PS4 seems more plausible than having a variant of some AMD APU. i'm more curious about the Playstation Omni and Playstation Iris mentioned in it...

1 up, 0 down

I just realized now after some of my previous posts, it kind of sounds like the processor is what has the 10GB of built in memory. The RAM on the system itself might be completely different... Is that even possible? I haven't heard of that before...


If that's the case, we still lack a lot of info like the power and number of cores in the processor, as well as the system's working memory outside the processor...

Rumor, if true, is still unclear.

0 up, 0 down

If it was termed 'local memory' or 'embedded memory' or even 'local storage' I might agree. But working memory really is more of an overall system term that indicates that after video memory has been partitioned there is 10GB free for everything else.

Of course all this and all my posts are based on the assumption that such a system exists to be discussed, otherwise we're discussing a design, which would still be valid.

1 up, 0 down

If the screen shot was closer to the paper it would help..I wouldn't doubt Sony releasing a PS4 next year either..It's the backward compatibility that's the head scratcher...I'm all for it but unless it's software emulation then it sounds like more money coming out of my pocket.

0 up, 0 down

Sony said almost 2 years ago that the basic design was already laid down. If you decided to make a PS4 with an uprated Cell and better GPU, you could easily lay down that design two years ago and update it as tech and designs improve with time.

1 up, 0 down

Did they? If that's the case then it should be rather simple and not expensive at all. So let me ask you this Highlander, Is there currently any Nvidia chips capable of running the said displays? Or should we expect new flat screens with better resolution? Just curious, you give a lot of info that coincides with my A+ cert studying

0 up, 0 down

I don't think HDTVs in the home will go to 2160p resolution, 1080p is still working through, and to be honest there is really no benefit to consumers. I'm pretty sure that both Nvidia and AMD/ATI have GPUs that can go as high as that resolution, but of course the question is when running at that resolution are they capable of doing very much. That's a lot of pixels. I think you can already get panels with higher than 1080p resolution as monitors, and I am certain that the major TV makers have made prototypes at 2160p resolutions.

1 up, 0 down

To anyone in doubt: this is bs. I assure you.

3 up, 4 down

As highlander pointed out, it's not far fetched. It sounds like an extension of the PS3, which would not be difficult to design or expensive to produce, yet it would have next gen quality power. So you're right. Not likely, but not impossible like the stupid Orbis rumor.

But, as is the case with most rumors, it's not likely the full true picture. And indeed, we don't have enough information to even formulate the full picture. Either way, it's more than possible.

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/25/2012 1:19:23 PM

3 up, 6 down

It is possible, in the sense that it can be made.

But it won't, and this isn't true. There's a lot of useless stuff there that would make Sony struggle in the quality:price ratio.
That much RAM is pointless for this architecture.
That processor is also too expensive to produce (though it would be a complete beast).
These just add up to avoidable production costs.

We can't forget that a console is the "poor man's gaming platform". And I don't mean that in a derogatory form. I mean that it is the ultimate form of getting bang for your buck.
I doubt they'll want to launch a new PS at the price the PS3 launched, much less at an higher value.

3 up, 3 down

"Backwards compatibility is included: "The aim is older PS discs without problems."

Can only dream ;(

3 up, 0 down

Fake. Move on.

2 up, 0 down

I hope this is BS from the developer perspective. I was optimistic about a more PC PS4 for ease of development purposes.

Sorry, BC is not going to happen. It raises the price and Sony will want to keep costs down to remain competitive to. All though I would be extremely happy and pay extra for BC. Keeping everything under 1 roof would be pretty sweet!

2 up, 1 down

these are the listed specs;

22nm cellBE X processor - 16PPEs and 128 SPEs (WTF!)

22nm Custom Nvidia/SCB "Quantum Leap" GPU based on the Kepler architecture

10GB of XDR and 10GB of GDDR6 memory

HDD upgradeable

Sony Aether(TM) GUI

Video capable of 2160p 2S, 1080p 3D, all games must render to 1080p30 2D as minimum spec.

formats listed PS4 discs, PS3 discs, PS2 discs, PS1 disc, HD BluRay (including BDXL), DVD, CD and digital distribution.

PlayStation Omni is listed as an accessory as is PlayStation Iris and a DualShock 4 controller.

It's described as having an "externally accessible development platform".

The actual source document looks relatively legitimate. But I don't know about the CPU specs, that's a hell of a lot of PPEs and SPEs.

10GB is an odd number for memory whether it be XDR2 or GDDR6 - not that either standard has much presence in manufacturing. XDR2 was proposed in 2008, but I'm not sure anyone makes it. Nvidia has been pushing GDDR5 products for a while, so it's logical/possible that GDDR6 is an extension of GDDR5.

But like I said at the top, this spec is about as likely as Sony changing track completely for PlayStation and going with a re-boxed commodity PC architecture with a low end consumer GPU. So...who knows. Certainly this rumor is at least accompanied by a semi-realistic looking document, unlike the Orbis rumors.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 5/25/2012 12:19:36 PM

2 up, 5 down

You know, a more realistic rumor would be;

22nm Cell BE X processor with 4PPEs and 32SPEs

Nvidia GPU based on Kepler architecture

8GB XDR2, 4GB of GDDR5

and so on and so forth. Those would actually be possibilities.

This rumored document talks of a system with the CPU equivalent of 16 CellBEs. That's a *hell* of a lot of transistors on a single piece of silicon.

Of course the document itself could be real, but the specs could be overblown and represent notional design targets.

But, between the CPU specs and memory numbers, there are things about this that don't make as much sense as they could. Actually, if I were going to create a rumored design that I thought people would believe, I would have made sure the RAM amounts were possible (in other words 8GB or 12GB, not 10GB) and the CPU would have been something based on the number of cores possible on a Power 7, so a 4PPE/32SPE, or even a 4PPE/64SPE CPU. That would be easier to believe - to me at least.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 5/25/2012 12:28:40 PM

2 up, 3 down

Well, taking into account Moore's Law (that kind of still stands), it is possible to create that processor. But at a ridiculous cost, obviously not within the average console "budget".
And even that amount of memory (8GB XDR2, and 4GB GDDR5) is pointless for a console (especially one with the Cell's architecture). It would be just a waste of money for little to no gain.
The rumoured amount is even more ridiculous.
These amounts would make sense with a x86-like approach, but that is clearly not the case.

There's no way this is even close to the real thing.

---

Last edited by wolfsinner on 5/25/2012 1:12:54 PM

3 up, 3 down

Mmmm... Kepler.

1 up, 0 down

Wolfsinner

Not sure what Moore's law really has to do with this at all, not to mention that Moore's Law is in trouble soon.


I didn't say that it was impossible to make a CPU with 16PPEs and 128SPEs. I said I was skeptical because a) it is a lot of transistors for what will need to be a commodity processor, and b) how many mainstream 16 core CPUs do you know of? Throwing in 128 SPEs makes it sound more like the number of processing elements on a GPU than CPU. Though Cell has always been something of a hybrid. Either way, The IBM roadmap for cell did not push as far as 16PPEs and 128SPEs, the most I remember seeing was 4PPEs and 32 or 64 SPEs, but those were 'future designs'. 16/128 just sounds like someone said "it needs to be 16 times as powerful as the Cell BE." and that was that.

As far as transistors are concerned, cellBE has a transistor count of 241 million. 8 core Power 7 has 1.2 billion. In theory with a modest re-design and 10% extra transistors to cover any glue circuitry to support multiple cells on one die, you might look at a 16PPE/128SPE Cell with as much as 3 billion transistors. For a processor, that is a *lot*. Look at how much those Xeons cost. I agree with you that the issue on CPU (assuming someone was making a 16PPE/128SPE Cell) would be cost, not transistor number, though I was using transistor number as a proxy for cost since there is a pretty linear relationship between transistor count on a CPU and cost.

I think you're wrong about the memory with cell, you can address more - it depends on the memory controller and address scheme used. 8GB would not be pointless even with a generation 1 Cell BE, although it would be easier with something like a PowerXcell8i processor. The key point is that the supposed future cell architecture would not have the limitations of the original architecture. I'd love to know how you come to the conclusion that additional memory would be pointless. I'd also love to know why you think having 8GB system and 4GB video would be more suited to a PC environment. In a hard partitioned memory architecture there is no need for either pool of memory to be the same size as the other. 4GB should be more than sufficient for the video resolutions discussed, and 8GB system memory would again be more than sufficient for any envisaged game.

I mean, I'm just throwing numbers out there, I could have said 4GB and 4GB.

I agree that excessive quantities of exotic memory is a pointless cost, if you're going to put large amounts of memory into the box use something more commodity based, like DDR3 and GDDR5. But the amounts themselves are not really pointless if you are trying to future proof your system.

Gaming laptops and desktops are shipping with 8GB-12GB of system RAM and graphics cards with 2GB of RAM, so in 18 months time, why would a console featuring similar amounts of memory be so outlandish?

You say that these memory amounts would make sense for an x86 based approach. Why? That makes zero sense to me. Hardware is hardware. There is nothing inherently different in an x86 based, or Power based, or Cell based architecture that results in larger amounts of memory making more sense for x86 compared to say Cell. If anything a Cell based system with the extremely high bandwidth internal data bus for the SPEs could actually make use of a much larger system memory when streaming data from memory through the SPEs for processing.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 5/25/2012 1:45:52 PM

5 up, 6 down

I never said you couldn't address more memory, I said that it would be pointless.
When I say pointless, I see this from a console perspective. It is added production costs for little benefit. In a console, companies discard things that really aren't that benefitial.

The reason why there's a huge difference between a x86 architecture and the Cell architecture is everything.
The x86 architecture is exclusively scalar, while the Cell has 1 scalar unit, and (with the PS3) 8 vector units.
Vector processing makes much better use of memory than most scalar processors. This reduces the need for huge amounts of memory, and increases the amount of floating point operations per second (most calculations in games are floating point, which is why most consoles have vector processor components).

---

Last edited by wolfsinner on 5/25/2012 1:44:52 PM

7 up, 2 down

Highlander I hope just for you they release "The Many Wonders of the Cell BE Technology, the PS4 and You" as a PS4 launch title =p

.... (I might even buy it too ;)

5 up, 1 down

I like the direction of these rumors, but unfortunately they are just blown way out of proportions.

16PPEs and 128 SPEs is just way too extreme, and I don't see that Sony would be able to get that into a console level price point.
10GB system RAM + 10GB Video RAM is also a bit extreme, if not quite as much as the CPU specs, but 8+4 like Highlander suggested would be a lot more reasonable.

Highlander, you also missed pointing out the Audio specs, 11.1 channel audio, obviously also very extreme and unlikely.

Unfortunately, it seems like these specs were just put together by someone with no clue whatsoever about reasonable specs for reasonable cost for a console system so as much as I hate the previous rumors, these specs are unfortunately even less likely to be true.

2 up, 1 down

Wolfsinner, you're talking in circles, and wrong. Sorry, but you are very wrong.

I'm not sure what text book you dragged this out of;

"The reason why there's a huge difference between a x86 architecture and the Cell architecture is everything.
The x86 architecture is exclusively scalar, while the Cell has 1 scalar unit, and (with the PS3) 8 vector units.
Vector processing makes much better use of memory than most scalar processors. This reduces the need for huge amounts of memory, and increases the amount of floating point operations per second (most calculations in games are floating point, which is why most consoles have vector processor components)."

But it's extremely incorrect. Vector units ar not inherently better at using memory, and that in no way affects the amount of memory used by game code, graphical or audio data. Please just stop. The difference between the exection units affects the kinds of operation they are good at, it in no way affects the amount of memory that the device can use. You are extremely wrong on this point.

CRabba, very true on the audio, the PS3 already supports lossless audio. I was too distracted by the extreme unlikeliness of the CPU and memory specs. That and the circles that Wolfsinner is talking in.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 5/26/2012 5:43:25 PM

1 up, 2 down

TheHighlander
I can't help but wonder, what did you study?
I get the feeling it wasn't CS.

I'm taking a Master's in AI and Processor Design. I'm not making anything up.
I know, from one end to the other how the x86 and MIPS architectures work. And I've studied the Cell quite thoroughly.
You can't just break processors down into logic and arithmetic/fp units and say that you know how a processor works.

I am not wrong, and it's not extremely incorrect, you just clearly lack knowledge in this area. I get the feeling that you're a Chemistry graduate or something.

You keep putting words in my mouth buddy. I never said that it affects the amount of memory that the device can use, I said that it is used more efficiently. These are very different things.
If you are/were a CS student, and understand (WELL) how pipelining, and multi-level caching works, I can quickly explain to you why it is so. If not, then just go read stuff.
Also, RAM is not the only thing that counts, read on Virtual Memory.

The funniest thing is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're telling me to stop.
Your arguments speak for you.

I won't reply, however, if you give me a half-ass, unjustified, reply next though. Calling me "extremely" "this" and "that", without any kind of justification is just poor and ridiculous.

Also, why have you been so hostile? I feel like you're raging over there, with all these insults at my arguments. Sorry if I'm hurting your ego.

PS - I'm aware that this comment, in itself, is pretty hostile. I just thought it would be fitting. :)

---

Last edited by wolfsinner on 5/26/2012 8:45:04 PM

1 up, 2 down

Wolfsinner, you are wrong. You stated clearly that that more memory was some how not as important to the Cell architecture as it is to the x86, that's simply untrue. The Cell architecture is not inherently more memory efficient. If anything, the RISC nature of the SPEs and the in-order execution of the processor might actually result in slightly larger executable for the same work.

I studied Computer Science a long, long time ago, and high performance architectures specifically. A chemistry graduate I'm not.

Pipelines on the Cell are short, if there is a miss and it has to reload the pipe, the penalty is lower than on a highly pipelined processor like the old netburst x86 from Intel. But pipeline length has less to do with memory size and more to do with the ability to handle out of order instructions and branch prediction. The decision to go with in order processing had a greater impact on the length of the CPU pipeline than anything else.

Virtual memory? On a game console? For responsiveness of the system at the system (not the user) level, you really do not want to be skimping the RAM and relying on Virtual memory. The performance difference is just too great to warrant using virtual memory instead of simply giving more memory.

Multi-level caching? Sure, go for it. My honors thesis was an examination of cache memory use in a high performance RISC architecture. I wrote a binary level CPU emulator to produce processor/memory traces from real code from the target processor and then ran it through a cache memory emulation, that I also built. Yeah, cache memory? I got you covered. You're taking a masters in AI and processor design, great. Are we supposed to compare credentials now? Am I supposed to bow because you are studying something for a masters? What was your original degree?

Multi-level cache does not reduce the requirement for RAM, all it does is reduce the amount of extremely high speed cache needed for the L1 cache, and in general reduce the need for high performance RAM since the whole point of cache memory is to let the CPU continue operating at full speed without waiting for memory. In the PS3 and any CellBE system that uses XDR memory, the requirement for more cache or a multi-level cache is less because the XDR memory runs at higher speeds than typical DDR2 memory and allows extremely high speed data transfers from memory to the CPU.

The whole PS3/CellBE system design is built around having low latency generated by reloading the pipeline or recovering from a cache miss. The shorter pipeline, in-order execution and high speed XDR memory are all components in making that happen. Memory size has nothing to do with it.


I didn't put words into your mouth. You said this "The reason why there's a huge difference between a x86 architecture and the Cell architecture is everything.
The x86 architecture is exclusively scalar, while the Cell has 1 scalar unit, and (with the PS3) 8 vector units.
Vector processing makes much better use of memory than most scalar processors. "

Which is really not saying much of anything. Except that vector units make better use of memory and because the Cell has 8 vector units and x86 is exclusively scalar the cell will somehow make much more efficient use of memory. The inference being that the cell uses less memory.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Vector units can stream data, they are designed around SIMD instructions, I'm very well aware of that. There are a number of things that they can do very well, but in the end, they are just as dependent on the amount of memory as anything else, to have something to process.

Scalar vs vector really has no place in the discussion of the amount of memory needed or used in a system. Considering the voracious demand for data that 8 SPEs running SIMD instructions can generate, system data bandwidth is a far higher concern. Consuming large quantities of streamed data is not something that cache memory handles well, but is something that XDR handles well. The only 'efficiency' involved in vector vs scalar is the fact that for the same computational task, a scalar unit has to generate so many more memory load/store commands because it's not able to process in a SIMD manner. So the Vector unit will generate less instructions to load/store data, but at the same time the amount of data remains the same.

That's kind of the point of the Cell since the SIMD work is intended to be handled by the SPEs, and other workloads by the more (not exclusively) scalar PPE. None of that has an impact on the amount of memory. Oh, and BTW, if you have a highly capable SIMD processor churning through data, you really do not want to be burdening the system with the overhead of virtual memory.

I'm sure the others are bored now, and I'm equally sure you will tell me that I'm wrong and suggest that my degree must have been granted by some virtual online school or something. Whatever. I hate to sound pejorative but CS degrees and masters programs today skip over a lot of ground. A lot of fundamental computer science is kind of assumed. It's like the foundation is already there, why study it? Just say it's there and move on. Well, I know how the foundation is built, because I studied it, and I worked upwards from there.

The discussion itself is pointless in any case because the quoted memory for the PS4 in this rumor is really unlikely. I'm not going to discuss this further because you have your preconceptions based on what you think you know from your studies. All I will say is that your knowledge is incomplete.

1 up, 1 down

Hell yeah, now we're talking. This at least is more believable than x86 based PS4.

1 up, 2 down

"The aim is older PS discs without problems." PS1 discs, that's all. It's cool to get ideas on this stuff, but don't believe this stuff just yet.

2 up, 1 down

I don't care if it's fake or not, I like this rumor much better. It's so pointless and lame to go with the Xbox and PC's architecture, or anything remotely similar, in a Sony gaming console. Ok, there's nothing wrong with going for the X86 route, but come on, let's continue to innovate and push forward. The cell is picking up its stride and it's already incredibly amazing on what it can do with the minuscule RAM the PS3 has. Sony just can't adapt to the lower common denominator, especially the weak sauce of the AMD gpus in the other rumor.

4 up, 1 down

We can all speculate on the PS4 but until things are official it is just rumors. The thing I mainly want is a developer friendly system that most developers are able to master. I know some developers will never really get their heads around the PS3 like Bethesda and I accept it. I don't like it because I love Bethesda's games from a design standpoint but I have come to terms with the fact their games are a little wonky and unstable on the PS3. That's not a jab at the PS3 but a rather a jab at Bethesda who apparently does not care about PS3 users enough to get their games(fallout series) running properly on the system. They will even ship a game out on the PS3 with game breaking glitch like Skyrim and try to hide the PS3 version from reviewers..

Developer friendly system that is at least as powerful as MS next system at a decent price should put Sony in a competitive position come next gen. A good launch is very important as well. The PS3 launched into a lot of negativity that seemed to start because of blowback on its price point. The first couple of years were tough on the PS3 and Sony. That poor launch had consequences that can be felt to this very day. So Sony needs to have a better launch next time.

With all the developers Sony has lined up now there is no doubt Sony can have a powerful line up of games that could put the PS4 in a very competitive position come next gen. I am opimistic about Sony's prospects come next gen.

This technical speculation is fun but one has to keep in mind it's not all about console specs. The most powerful system does not always win. It really comes down to the games and marketing. I would love to see Sony spend more on advertising. Daus mentioned this the other day. I am going to borrow his quote and say that advertising is big reason why gamers bought a Kinect and why some do not even know what the PS Move is. That's what Daus said and I could not agree more.

3 up, 1 down

Black fruit roll up!!! Man i hope it tastes good

0 up, 0 down

I don't see that happening, well only the Q4 2013 release window. IBM abandoned Cell chip development a few years ago, and that in computer years is an eternity, so I don't see where that advanced cell chip will come from. It would be only up to SONY to develop it (IBM and Toshiba droped it).

SONY is walking away from the exotic architectures and going for more traditional designs. I believe will use an AMD Trinity family CPU and an AMD GPU.

1 up, 0 down

It sounds pretty made-up to me. I mostly believe the POWER-based dual/quad-core CPU w/ SPU farm (co-processor) and switch to AMD GPU (unless they found PS3 BC wouldn't be possible and switched back to NVIDIA) rumors. And I'd kinda be surprised if they went with more than 1-2GB RAM.

0 up, 0 down

Whatever the end specs are I just hope Sony starts to make a ton of money. I'm worried about the current state of videogames.

1 up, 0 down

U smell that? yep it's BS

2 up, 0 down

I think sony's leaking blown out stuff to make MS sweat !!

0 up, 1 down

Fake or not, I would like more details on the future of backwards compatibility. I know it is a wild dream, but if all previous PS generations discs were compatible with PS4 I would be a happy man.

2 up, 1 down

Doesn't sound as realistic as the last "rumoured" spec list. Even so, I would much prefer the PS4 having these specs than the last rumoured lot!

PS3 backwards compatability, PSN backwards compatability, massive jump in tech, Blu-ray still used, fast enough to power anything you put in it.

I wonder if Epic Games think THIS spec list is suitable to run their "Highly advanced" Unreal Engine 4. What do you guys think?

1 up, 1 down

oh hogswash!
serious absolute utter hogswash!
never in my entire life have i seen something so ridiculous!
i swear to god if these end up being the exact specs for the ps4 you can have all the money in my bank account and all of my possessions!
thats how ridiculous these specs are!

BS on AT LEAST 5 fronts!

1 you would not go that crazy on specs than couple it with such a crappy storage medium.
that list has a 250 or 320GB HDD depending on which model.
firstly todays games in 720P have HDD installs of 7GB+!
imagine how much a 2160P games install would be!
secondly HDDs are dead!
ps4 will come with a SSD, or at least a hybrid. HDDs are dead in the water!
SSDs are so cheap now and are coming in bigger and bigger sizes.
not to mention hybrids which have the storage capacities of HDDs and almost the speed of SSDs.
why settle for DVDs when you can have bluray?
seriously, no freaking way in hell is $ony putting such highly advanced expensive hardware in the ps4 than cheeping out on the storage medium!
not even $ony is THAT stupid!

2 those specs are ridiculous!
no single VDU out there offers 10GBs GDDR6 memory!
NONE!
hell, GDDR6 does not even exist yet!
let alone 10GBs of XDR2 RAM, the expense for just that alone would be through the freaking roof!
how much is this thing suppose to cost?
2 thousand dollars?

3 there is no such thing as 2160P TVs!
next set of TVs are 4K TVs.
the worlds first 4K TV was demonstrated at CES early this year and said they would not be ready for consumers for at least another 2 years!
not to mention they have said the smallest 4K TV possible is 52 inches.
what about those who dont have the room for a 50+ inch TV!?
and the room for you to sit far back enough!
that poses 2 problems.
first being theres no TV to support that, so why release a console that can do higher resolutions when there are 0 displays for it?
secondly why put together a new console thats suppose to last for at least 5 years and only go to 2160?
4K TVs will be ready 2014 this is suppose to release roughly 1 year before they will be ready.
so 1 year in its life cycle its already going to be outdated!
not to mention sharp i think it was announced a prototype at CES this year of a 8K TV!
no time frame for that was available, but its safe to say it will be here within 5 years so again the ps4 could be lapped TWICE!
2160P is half selling it!

4 that brings me on to the next problem.
those specs would be able to do SO much more than 2160P!
there underselling themselves if that really was the specs they would be able to push it allot further than 2160P!
its like the german gentlemens agreement.
merc, BMW and audi have been in a power race for years now.
each keep adding more and more power to their cars but due to a agreement neither will produce a car that goes faster than 150MPH.
so why add 700HP to a car that will do the same top speed as a 300HP car?
ps4 is the same, why have such high specs when it will only do 2160P max?

5 the slot for storage lists 2 different models.
i seriously doubt $ony would go to the effort and expense creating 2 different models just to have a HDD size difference.
look at the original ps3s they had many different things.
20GB had no BC and no memory card slots.
according to that list $ony is making 2 different models and the ONLY difference is the HDD size.
and such a small difference too, 250 to 320 not really worth manufacturing!
especially considering 250GB HDDs today are like 50 bucks!

im sorry but this is the silliest thing i have ever heard!
id be more believable if they were to say $ony, M$, ninty and apple were joining forces to create the worlds best console!

nice try guys but next time when your bored and want to play with photoshop at least think up something HALF believable!

---

Last edited by ___________ on 5/26/2012 6:34:31 AM

2 up, 3 down

You're wrong on many counts, well, not so much wrong as over and understating at the same time. You are correct about 1 thing, there is no GDDR6 - yet. Although GDDR5 is several years old. XDR2 was proposed a long time ago, but I'm not sure anyone has ever fabricated any.

1 up, 1 down

My dream: 1TB or more hdd, 20gb ram, 10gb processor, huge custom 3D graphics card, all completely upgradable. Does everything the PS3 did plus tons of new features. Full VR projection up to 28 x 28 ft. with choice of voice activation and partially downscaled use of televisions. (May require better hardware, just throwing numbers out there). Air accessories such as waste belt, hat, gauntlets, and full chest plate. Up to a whole air suit if desired. These pieces of wear include small air jets that react by releasing fast pressured air onto parts of the gamers body, allowing for a much more real effect of being damaged/effected, and slow paced air released and/or suctioned to match that of weather conditions and/or sensations of (cold) scared, (hot) angry/fatigued, (warm) sexual/under influences (neutral) riding/racing/sailing. And with no harm whatsoever because it's just air. And all the while better if kept optional, this way you can play traditionally or virtually. Gamers have been placed in games for a long time, it's time to place the games around the gamers I think.

0 up, 0 down

fake, but full disc backwards compatibility just totaly gives it away.

0 up, 0 down

what in the hell? holy crap if anyone believs 10gb of ram right off the bat you know its a lie... the wii u will have like 1gb right? i doubt sony or microsoft will have more than 2gb or maybe 4gb in ther consoles thers no need for that much unless 2020 is around the corner

0 up, 1 down

This would make sense if the WiiU weren't *current* generation tech.

0 up, 0 down