backtop

Print 61 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Feb 6 at 5:19 PM
Sony offered a teaser video on Twitter

Sony's PlayStation Twitter handle posted a video today that teases the next-generation console, which will be announced February 20, 2013.

The PlayStation Twitter account posted a tweet saying, "See the future," with a link to the teaser video for the new console. It doesn't reveal any images of the hardware or gameplay, but rather a vague collection of shapes related to the PlayStation console and controller.

Check out the video here:


The next-generation PlayStation console, dubbed PlayStation 4, is rumored to have a custom chip based on AMD's A8-3850 with a quad-core 2.9GHz processor and a 1GHz graphics card with 1GB memory. Hiroshi Sakamoto, Sony's vice president of home entertainment, recently said that the company planned an announcement at the E3 gaming event in June, but that an announcement could come earlier. Clearly, the latter is true.

Source: Twitter


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
hmm
By GulWestfale on 1/31/2013 10:30:31 PM , Rating: -1
well, going with x86 means there will be more dev support, lower dev costs, easy porting of games from the PC, the hardware development costs were obviously lower than with PS3...

on the other hand, it will now be possible to directly compare sony's hardware with PCs, and the CPU/GPU they appear to be using is already outdated. of course, developers will be able to use the full power of the system instead of having to design their games for the one tard who still runs a celeron with half a gig of RAM in his hardcore gaming rig, but i think it will take the PC less time to catch up to console graphics than when the PS3 launched. the easy porting between the two platforms will mean that PC users will get an equal graphics experience right from the start, and then in two years the PS4 will be left in the dust...

i wish sony well, and of course plenty of bunny-hopping CoD-n00bs will buy their system, but i myself am not interested.




RE: hmm
By txDrum on 1/31/2013 10:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
I generally only game on the PC. If I'm not mistaken, the new xbox is also meh hardware, but also keep in mind that for 300 or 400$ this should be a very good deal. Personally I'll stick with the PC, and I think sony could have done much better with a trinity APU, but hopefully this should do well for them.


RE: hmm
By maugrimtr on 2/1/2013 8:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but i think it will take the PC less time to catch up to console graphics than when the PS3 launched. the easy porting between the two platforms will mean that PC users will get an equal graphics experience right from the start, and then in two years the PS4 will be left in the dust...


The hardware in both new consoles is very dated. Dated enough that many PCs of the past 3 years already surpass their specs. Any 2 year old PC long since demolished those specs.

I'll be waiting for the pricing. Consoles mysteriously buy ancient hardware at a premium and sell units at a loss for remarkable money. I've no idea how Sony and Microsoft pull this off. Maybe they should hire Lenovo or some other competent hardware designer.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 9:01:15 AM , Rating: 2
1) We don't actually know what hardware is in these machines. Nothing has been confirmed by anyone.

2) The rumors are all that something is "this-based" or "that-based," and provide no information (read: speculation) on custom features, the most important part of every console.

3) Even the strongest rumors seem silly, e.g. http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/29301_large_dur... -- The next Xbox only being 1.6 GHz is illogical, no matter how many cores there are, given where CPU tech currently is overall. They're not making an ultramobile. They're going to want to do 2 GHz MINIMUM, probably more like 2.6 - 3.6.


RE: hmm
By FITCamaro on 2/1/2013 12:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even with older, less powerful hardware, being able to perfectly optimize to a platform and a set of hardware is good for at least a 20-30% boost in performance vs that hardware in a Windows or Linux based PC.


RE: hmm
By MindParadox on 2/1/2013 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by FITCamaro on February 1, 2013 at 12:29 PM Even with older, less powerful hardware, being able to perfectly optimize to a platform and a set of hardware is good for at least a 20-30% boost in performance vs that hardware in a Windows or Linux based PC.


Exactly this! It is INSANELY easier to optimize your coding when you know that you have exactly one set of hardware to code for than if you have multiple possibilities that have to be taken into account.

A console could honestly be running 5 year old hardware and still be able to easily compete with computer gaming simply for that reason alone


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 2:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is only true if your platform isn't plagued by bottlenecks and short-sighted design. This is also assuming you're not comparing yourself to the PC high end. Dollar-for-dollar, you're right, the console will win 99.99% of the time.


RE: hmm
By SPOOFE on 2/1/2013 4:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is also assuming you're not comparing yourself to the PC high end.

Meh, but PC "high end" is absolutely ridiculous. I don't expect them to even consider trying to beat a quad-SLI setup.


RE: hmm
By Silver2k7 on 2/3/2013 4:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
The new Geforce Titan is out in one month or so.

But its also got a MSRP of $899 each.
of course you could in theory get 4 of them.. but my totaly unscientific guess is that maybe 1 in 10.000 gamers get such a setup ^^


RE: hmm
By Silver2k7 on 2/3/2013 4:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
the point is PC have always been faster than consoles always will be..

Thought I kind of wish there would be arcade game cabinetts with 2-4 top-end video cards and possibly a raytracing card (Caustic Series2 R2500 16GB) a 32" 4K monitor and some very flash games.


RE: hmm
By TakinYourPoints on 1/31/2013 11:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Based on an article I read it will use x86 but like the PS2 and PS3, it will also allow for lower level control of hardware. Like those older machines, it will mean more difficulty in development but a higher performance/quality ceiling in the long run. I'll post the link if I can find it.

This will also make cross-platform porting less easy then it would first seem. And as per usual, making direct comparisons with PCs still doesn't make sense since there is far more optimization and less overhead with consoles.

A 1999 PC wouldn't be able to pump out the visuals of a 2007 PS2 game like God Of War 2, you know?


RE: hmm
By Philippine Mango on 1/31/2013 11:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
theoretically COULD, it's just that developers don't write their games that way... fyi HL2 works on an nvidia TNT2, pentium III 600,mhz with the right directx setting...


RE: hmm
By silverblue on 2/1/2013 2:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a little concerned about the use of a Llano-based CPU. It'll lack most modern ISAs and in most situations, the equivalent Trinity will beat it on the CPU side (without saying anything about the GPU). I'm interested in knowing what "custom" entails.

Still, if AMD had lots of Llanos sitting still doing nothing... :P


RE: hmm
By MGSsancho on 2/1/2013 6:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
Why would it lack the modern ISAs? I think you mean it would no include all of the older stuff like x87, 3dnow,maybe some the 128b and 256b functions and maybe the branch prediction engines. It will be a cpu with stripped out legacy bloat. They chose the fusion architecture since it is the most recent and more efficient architecture AMD has shipping. Since consoles are usually already behind a tad then they ship, why make it even more outdated?

I get the feeling most of the details will be correct but the clock speeds might be higher. Maybe these consoles will turn a profit on day one this time. We shall see.


RE: hmm
By silverblue on 2/1/2013 7:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
I mean it lacks the newer stuff.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 9:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
It can have whatever ISAs they want it to have. They're not buying the CPU off the shelf, lol. It's a console -- it's going to have custom features.

Also, it won't be Llano-based. Promise. Llano is from two years ago, and provides no savings or efficiencies of any kind over its newer counterparts. The console isn't even out yet. Sony is stupid, but not THAT stupid.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 7:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
"A 1999 PC wouldn't be able to pump out the visuals of a 2007 PS2 game like God Of War 2, you know?"

This is true, but 8 years is along time. A better comparison is that a 2006 PC would be able to pump out WAY better graphics than the PS3 released the same year. Low end GPU is the culprit. Hopefully that improves more than anything else. Textures on console games are seriously lacking, everything is so blurry.


RE: hmm
By B3an on 2/1/2013 10:15:57 AM , Rating: 2
"A better comparison is that a 2006 PC would be able to pump out WAY better graphics than the PS3 released the same year"

No it wouldn't. The consoles are highly optimized and have lower level access, they still have finer hardware control for some things than even the latest PC hardware (its slowly catching up though). You have more control over memory as well on consoles, you can just go in and change specific things more easily. Doing the same task on PC is often less efficient, although being as the PC hardware is faster it often cancels it out.

When the 360/PS3 come out they could easily match a high end PC graphically, even though PC hardware was technically more powerful.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
Funny story: The PC hardware wasn't more powerful. The consoles came out with stronger graphics than anything out at the time. It took time for PC GPUs to catch up, especially if you're talking about the mid-range.


RE: hmm
By dubldwn on 2/1/2013 11:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the 360/PS3 come out they could easily match a high end PC graphically, even though PC hardware was technically more powerful.

That was true when the 360 came out. The PS3 launched on almost the exact same day as the 8800GTX.


RE: hmm
By SlyNine on 2/2/2013 4:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
The PS3 was based on the 7800 series. The 8800GTX was far more powerful.


RE: hmm
By SlyNine on 2/2/2013 4:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
The 1900XT was also far more powerful than what the the 360 had under its hood, according to anandtech. The 48 unified shaders had about the same amount of power as a 800XT. They were not on the level of a 1800XT or 1900XT.

Just because the 1900XT had 48 unified shaders, and the 360 had the same amount does not mean they were the same GPU. Common misconception.


RE: hmm
By SlyNine on 2/2/2013 4:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry just to clearify; each individual shader for the 360 was on the level of a single shader on the 800XT.


RE: hmm
By dubldwn on 2/4/2013 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. That's the point I was making.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 12:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
"When the 360/PS3 come out they could easily match a high end PC graphically"

No, they couldnt. In some ways, especially physics, triangles and all that they were better... But they were dramatically lower quality with regards to textures and fill rate. Especially textures. Low res blurry horrible looking textures ruins the whole thing.


RE: hmm
By wallijonn on 2/1/2013 10:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A better comparison is that a 2006 PC would be able to pump out WAY better graphics than the PS3 released the same year.


Please stop using the word "PC" when what you really mean is a 2006 mid to high end graphics card in a 2006 PC. I have a 2006 PC with on-board graphics that will probably not be able to play GOW (2005). (Vista was released in 2007, so you wouldn't need twice the memory of an XP machine.)

The big question is whether Sony can recapture market share. If the PS4 comes in at >$500 then few will buy it. If it doesn't have game backwards compatibility (and let's say that the XBox720 does) then no one will buy it. Yes, the BD player will probably be able to do 4K, but few will be able to initially afford a set. The PS3 can do deep colour but there's no TV that uses the technology.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Please stop using the word "PC" when what you really mean is a 2006 mid to high end graphics card in a 2006 PC. "

OK, point taken, but we are talking about Gaming. If it was a 2006 gaming PC it wouldnt have had onboard graphics.

"The big question is whether Sony can recapture market share. If the PS4 comes in at >$500 then few will buy it. If it doesn't have game backwards compatibility (and let's say that the XBox720 does) then no one will buy it."

Agreed, I have a PS3 and I am already planning not to buy PS4. I will get an Xbox720 (or whatever name it releases as) unless the Sony has some very clear advantages. If both are relatively equal, I wont buy Sony period.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well, one clear advantage is PSN. People sleep on it, and yes it goes down far too often lol, but there really is no better offering out right now. Its competition is Nintendo whatever-the-hell, which is stupid, and XBL Silver, which does nothing at all.

If you want to pay every month, PSN+ v XBL Gold is another story, but PSN+'s argument there is stronger as well. XBL has a better perception, though. It's mainly because Xbox's interface has always been better, and also the dynamic of Xbox always packaging in a headset and having cross-game chat and PS3 never having cross-game chat (see: awful memory configuration) and never packaging anything.

For ME, if the hardware is comparable I'm going to lean toward Sony. The problem is, MS hardware has always been a lot smarter in the past.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 11:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, and that was a big part of why I got a PS3 over Xbox 360... But I am seriously doubting that it will be free with the PS4. MS cleaned up with Xbox live gold. 10 million users @ $5 a month is $600 Million a year for. I don't think they will be giving it away free again.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 11:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
It would have the opposite effect if Sony addressed the perception problem. If they could fix these really simple things, the cost of XBL Gold would suddenly become a liability. Microsoft is probably going to really entrench themselves in it this time too, so Sony has a real single-point-of-failure Death-Star-thermal-exhaust weakness to destroy MS with.

Until last month Sony's interface was braindead. That's six years. They never had cross-game chat. Six years. No headset. Six years. The 360 also had The Promise of Halo, which is no longer what it used to be.

And the 360 controller is better.

Wow lol, on second thought I don't really trust Sony to out-think MS at all on this. They really are a bunch of dumb stupid idiots.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 2/1/2013 11:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Wow lol, on second thought I don't really trust Sony to out-think MS at all on this."

LOL... Ya, after thinking about that comment, its a toss up. Both MS and Sony have the potential to make serious idiotic decisions. Both have demonstrated that skill many many times over.


RE: hmm
By SPOOFE on 2/1/2013 4:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They really are a bunch of dumb stupid idiots.

After the PS3 came out, Sony's CEO was all over talking about the poor quality of the company's internal communication; the Marketing guys making hardware promises that the Hardware guys never heard about, things like that.


RE: hmm
By wallijonn on 2/1/2013 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that was a big part of why I got a PS3 over Xbox 360...


Well, that an the XBox360 had a >50% failure rate. :D

But many of us are still anti-Sony: root kits, removing Linux capability, no backwards compatibility & having their Credit Card site hacked.


RE: hmm
By superflex on 2/1/2013 5:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sony blows. The RLOD/YLOD never got the same media attention as the RROD.
Both were fatal flaws based on improper cooling.
Cant wait to see the failure rates of the PS4 and XBOX 720.


RE: hmm
By ktemple on 2/1/2013 10:00:27 AM , Rating: 1
The architecture doesn't actually help that much with the support/costs thing. What helps the Xbox is that it uses DirectX and it has far fewer bottlenecks than the PS3. The PS3 has OpenGL which is great, but it has a really awful memory configuration. So did the previous two PlayStations. Sony seems hell-bent on doing terrible memory setups.

People think it was the Cell that made development hard for the PS3, but that was only really relevant for the first 10 - 15 months. Working around its bottlenecks is the true pain. All three PlayStations have had this same issue for slightly different reasons. MS is also better about dev support and that sort of thing.

MS has used the unified memory setup since the very first Xbox, and it's paid off handsomely. It's clearly the best configuration for consoles (and soon, PCs). Somehow, Sony refuses to get the memo. If they don't do it this time, you can consider them down for the count.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki