CPU Speculation time! IBM stops Cell prodn, PS4 will use Intel?

Yay complete speculation time!

IBM has stopped Cell innovation, so what are Sony going to do with PS4 (if/when that happens)?

No AMD/ATI - the competition uses those.
No IBM again - Sony/Tosh were pissed when IBM took on the Xbox CPU too
No Nvidia parts - Considering the NV-Sony relationship over the PS3: Sony's arrogance at thinking Cell can do graphics and Nvidia only offering a 7900 GT on the graphics side.

Intel wants to get into the graphics market: gaming is key.

- If people design game engines with Larrabee in mind, they will also sell PC games made for Larrabee = Larrabee graphics sales.
- Intel will get a massive marketing partner in Sony and a whole new non-PC user market
- Intel can use Sony cash to help develop a CPU-GPU for PS4, maybe.
- Intel makes nippy, low power CPUs already and has a great process technology + FABs to use.

Thoughts?

 

Interesting, though it depends on final capabilities of Larrabee.

Though to be honest, intel should have quite a while to refine it, as I don't expect Sony will enter final design phase for quite some time.
If Larrabee is technically viable though, I can definitely see intel being all over Sony, for exactly the reasons you mention.

 

Every games/console ad on telly would end with that irritating intel jingle, i don't think i'd like that

 

Hard to say, they could still use IBM, it's not like IBM couldn't incorporate parts of the Cell in a newer CPU design specifically for the PS4 for backwards compatibility. As for Intel, I dunno, perhaps but as badders has said, it really matters how refined Larrabee can get. Consoles have certain power requirements and heat requirements to follow, it's not like they'd want to use Larrabee if it's some REALLY huge power hog which produces a lot of heat. AMD/ATI could still be used, even if they are being used by Microsoft or Nintendo, although I don't see that being likely.

 

Please God let this work. If what Bindi says about ease of conversion of PS4-PC games would result, it would make my year.

I agree that AMD is a bit too cosy with the competition, but at the same time, I don't think Nintendo are the competition anymore - it's all down to Microsoft.

 

I didn't think the Sony-Nvidia relationship was that bad. After all, Nvidia are bringing the Stereoscopic 3D to PS3 aren't they.

Also, from what I gather, Toshiba and Sony had already taken over the production of the Cell in Japan...
Clicky

It could be another Cell - there are already bigger versions with more cores and more SPE's available, ensuring backward compatibility with PS3 yet exponentially increasing power.

 

TBH I'd be scared if I was sony, they have to trust in technology that isn't even out yet and let's face it, it won't be anything HUGE going by intel's past GPU's. What they should be scared of is the fact that Microsoft have ATI so can you imagine a GPU based on the extremely power efficient 5870?! THAT'S SOME HORSEPOWER! Imagine how games would run on that baby when games are optimized for it and it alone!

I'm not sure how larrabee could compete with that.

 

I reckon it'll be a 2,048-core ARM job.

 

How far is Larrabee off completion and mass production?

Sony will have to weigh up their options pretty quickly if they're going to stick to releasing their next console in the next couple of years, and considering the underwhelming showing Larrabee has put in so far I doubt it's their first choice. I would think the hardware choices are done pretty early on in the design phase to prevent future complications and software compatibility issues.

That said, I'm glad to see the end of the Cell processor and developers constantly bitching about how much they hated it.

 

Sony will most likely develop there own from now on i bet.

 

i can still see sony and nv working together, maybe with cell or even a couple of gpgpus?

 

Problem is, Tosh is only just moving/ed to 45nm where an 8 core Cell is only now within acceptable Thermal and cost levels, whereas Intel are pushing 32 and 28, and TSMC (for ATI) already have multi-Bn transistor 40nm, with whatever else in the works.

Sony do like their own CPUs, true: same as PS2, but Im not sure whether Sony will want to include an optical drive in the PS4 at all - I know MS won't given their sucessful XBL model - so backward compatability for blu-ray's...? Or, emulation?

The NV contract will be expensive: it is for the PS3, as it was for the Xbox. I doubt Nvidia will give up control of a Fermi-esq part easily. Nvidia make no noise that they are in the current PS3 anyway.

 

There are rumours floating around that they have already chosen PowerVR. How true that is I don't know.

 

PowerVR are not a high performance company. They supply chips for mobile products, like the PSP Go.

 

I'm sure i seen some ware that the PS4 is already done ready for 2014/15... and are developing the "PS5" right now...

it was on Hexus TV on an interview with a smart man...

 

Larabee seems the most realistic but I can't see Nvidia wanting to let go of the console market. What about an entire nvidia based console.Would a games console be able to run entirely on the GPU? Even if thats not possible, it would give nvidia a chance to try its hand at designing an X86 based processor. Another possibility is using a modified version of the current cell again. Surely the cell contained tonnes of power? Increasing system ram and a powerfuller GPU would still make a powerful console?

BTW, how did I get 4 green things under my post count?

 

If nVidia comes to Sony with a better gaming GPU than the 7900GT was during PS3 development, I can see Sony forgiving them. For the PS4 to succeed, it really needs to have none of the problems that the PS3 did. Lower cost is one thing, but technical complexity is another huge one. Think of Microsoft after Vista: they couldn't really make Win7 less complex, so they just didn't change the underlying architecture from Vista hardly at all.

For Sony, that means the PS4 needs to not yield another huge leap in programming complexity. They can't exactly step backwards, but it would be a huge boon for them to get a speed increase not from a more complex architecture, but simply from a faster version of what they already have in the PS3. I have the feeling that going to Intel for the PS4's graphics could easily do exactly what going to Cell for the PS3 did: drive developers away.


- Diosjenin -

 

Intel has some pretty special relationships with semiconductor fab equipment makers. It helps put them ahead of everyone else in terms of their processes. IMHO, IBM is a close second but they seem to be more focused on novel tech like 3D chips (multi layers of transistors).

I could ramble on about this (and I have a habit of doing so). But here is the shortest version I can come up with, hopefully it's not too bad.

Assuming Sony does not do another PPC based system:

Intel:
easy to develop for, has the entire platform. But long term production is a problem. they wined about MS tying up FAB space with the netburst xbox CPU. I don't think they will handle Sony's long console lifetimes any better. Two exceptions, embedded chips that are planned for 5 year+ production, or Atom where they are letting other fabs make it.
I don't expect much from Larabee. Intel sucks at graphics and their monopoly status does not help.

ARM:
Intel has declared war on their space, so it's now innovate or let chipzilla have their way with the market. ARM might become a reasonable desktop processor and could find its way into game consoles.

Nvidia:
Their PC chipset business is essentially dead (unless some other monopoly litigation busts Intel open). But they have general purpose computing platforms, they just aren't x86. And they already have a relationship with Sony. I don't think they are angry with each other either.

MIPS:
Traditional platform for Japaneese consoles. The Playstation, PS2 and N64 all used MIPS stuff so developing for it shouldn't be a problem. But I don't know if it has kept pace with other CPUs like PPC.

Insane ideas
Itanium: Maybe Intel will get just crazy enough with this sinking ship to let Sony use it. It's fits Sony's MO, quirky, hard to develop for, and not mainstream. But I don't think any cool sounding names like 'reality synthesizer' would be enough to displace the Itanic name.

OpenSPARC: SPARC wasn't a bad architecture, but could it be whipped into shape for a game console? What about the GPU?

 

They'll stick with what they have, probably migrating it to lower geometries as costs allow, add a bit more RAM to SPEs, the system in general and more GPU grunt and they have a PS4 with some well established tools, changing architecture adds more pain, requires new tools etc. reckon they'll play safe and stick with whats been established, the Cell is already proven to be powerful, its biggest let down was that it was a new concept for Devs and the 360 had got its foot in the door first, so games were developed with that in mind and back ported to an incompatible architecture.

By the time the next one comes out everything should be pretty stable it would be madness to jump ship to another platform unless all console makers are in cahoots at this point and go with some common concepts.

Can't seem MS radically changing the formula either, Consoles don't need grunty CPUs they just need polygon pushing power and the RAM to hold a decent frambuffer.

Both companies lost a fair bit of dough, they'll be wanting to see returns a lot sooner and so will likely play it safe.

 

Oooh lovely ideas!

It was a P3 mobile Celeron at 733MHz in the Xbox-1. I did not know Intel whinged though, Interesting. However it did allow Xbox games to be made far easier, but also piracy was rampant because it was x86.

ARM are low power only, these consoles will need teraflops of grunt.

They do still do "chipsets" but not for x86 now - Nvidia does know how to do connectivity, and does have the relationship you are right. Most likely graphics suspect then?

Are we talking Hitachi? No chance. Despite being Japanese they are out of touch with the performance race these days.

How about reviving Alpha? Both Sony and MS will want CPUs that have 128-bit AXV extensions for gaming - Intel's next gen architecture will do that, and by default, AMD now has access to it.

I can certainly see MS using another IBM CPU again - it's worked almost perfectly for them in this one. Just add a few more cores in, reduce the process and tweak the internals = job done. Bolt that to a next gen ATI GPU and they will be happy.