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.
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.