Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogumbercules
There's no denying the 5800k/7660D is a cheap, smart and efficient option for Sony. Also no doubt it's much more powerful than the GPU in the PS3, which I believe is some kind of cut-down nvidia 7800.
That said, it's not nearly as powerful as having a dedicated GPU in there. Last I saw, rumors were flying that the PS4 was packing a Sea Islands dedicated GPU, which would make it a formidable machine.
I just don't want to see them put in weak-ish hardware and have a situation 7 years from now where they stretch out the generation far longer than the hardware can cope with. Though I will admit that devs have done some amazing stuff with the hardware they're stuck with. Uncharted 3, God of War 3, Halo 4, etc.
|
The APU has several benefits, and it is important to keep in mind that "HD" gaming is 1920x1080 - there is no need for overpowered GPU's designed to push multiple displays, or anything really beyond 1080p. You need a consistently performing platform. The A10 seems to fit the bill quite nicely.
There is the cost aspect. Sony learned the hard way. Seeing a dedicated GPU is unlikely.
Heat generated by a system with multiple components, rather than SOC also means you draw more power, and need to dissipate it somewhere. My 60GB PS3 - as much as I love it - it a giant, heavy, hot brick. Down sizing is smart in general.
Given what a console is generally expected to do, I am quite happy with the A10 being used. Most importantly it's x86.
Avoiding a dedicated GPU also means Sony can upgrade the "PS4" by merely swapping the A10 SOC out (since it just sits in a single socket) for something newer when AMD releases it. Such as a die shrink, or even an improved GPU (as they are packaged together). The PS3 has not had its GPU upgraded- however it has undergone three die shrinks on the CPU.
Seeing 8GB on the base unit is a good sign. No more 256MB XDR memory as with the PS3- which when released was already well behind the curve.
All things taken into consideration- its hardware is on par with current decent everyday gaming PC for non-extreme users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
1- Replicate the WiiU specs.
2- Every penny saved by not having the gamepad, could be transferred onto getting a better CPU, and hint faster GPU (the GPU will automatically be much faster, as the console will have to render on only 1 screen, and not 2). Now, they'll have a 350$ console, that beats the WiiU in all aspects in terms of performance and graphics. You are done. Plus, you can push the PS Vista as a gamepad alternative fully, to compete with XBox SmartGlass, and WiiU
|
You're kidding right? The Wii U is a terrible piece of hardware.
It's using a triple-core PowerPC-750 clocked at 550Mhz, based off the GameCube; which coincidentally also used the PowerPC-750. It has a Radeon 4000/5000 based GPU clocked at 649Mhz.
Backwards, is not the means to go forwards. If you expect Sony to save money, going x86 and running away from PowerPC is the *best* thing to do. It means porting games no longer takes years because it is the same platform as the PC. There is a lot of time and money saved in that.
Using an off-the-shelf APU that isn't an expensive, slow, PowerPC is also very smart. It means Sony isnt' wasting money on R&D and having to adapt their SDK's to a different architecture. Cost savings.
The entire premise of my initial post *is* about cost savings. The Wii-U's lethargic processor will never push the 1080/60p + 3D content Sony is aiming for from the start. It also has a longer development cycle due to porting.