PS4 could possibly have a CELL Processor with 4 PPEs + 32 SPEsproviding 1 TeraFlop performance in 20

[AirRaid]

http://www.ps4forums.org/16-playstation-4-cell-chip/

http://www.ps4forums.org/wp-content/gallery/ps3-cell-chip/page10.png


The 4 PPE, 32 SPE CELL should be finished in 2010, making it possible
for PS4 to launch as early as 2011.

Nevermind Sony's ten year lifespan for PS3, which is no different than
PS1 or PS2 lifespans which go beyond the launch of their successors.

 

[Rich Hutnik]

http://www.ps4forums.org/16-playstation-4-cell-chip/

http://www.ps4forums.org/wp-content/gallery/ps3-cell-chip/page10.png

The 4 PPE, 32 SPE CELL should be finished in 2010, making it possible
for PS4 to launch as early as 2011.

Nevermind Sony's ten year lifespan for PS3, which is no different than
PS1 or PS2 lifespans which go beyond the launch of their successors.

If Sony follows the PC route, they could do a tech refresh that offers
more memory for graphics and video, and also improve the speed of the
CPU. Make the next Playstation backwards compatible with the PS3, but
also offer new modes the next Playstation could only play. They could
use a faster drive to decrease load times, and put more than one
version of code on the disk. The disk works with PS3 and PS4. BluRay
should be large enough to enable this to happen.

- Rich

 

[Rich Hutnik]

This would be a bad idea if you ask me.  Why would you buy a PS4 if the
PS3 plays the next generation games?  Newer games is the main reason to
upgrade, but this sort of thing would remove that.  Even arguing "better
graphics" isn't going to really work since many people are still using
their PS3 on non-HDTVs.

Making the PS4 backwards compatible with the PS3 would be a good idea, as
it would encourage folks who didn't buy a PS3 to buy a PS4 so they could
still play the PS3 games they missed while waiting for PS4 titles.  At
least they'll be generating revenue for Sony this way.  At the same time,
it also encourages PS3 owners to upgrade, as they can still play their PS3
games, again while waiting for the PS4 games to arrive.  Either way,
anything that encourages sales of the PS4 should be considered a good
thing.  This is why I can't fully understand why Sony entirely dropped PS2
compatibility from the PS3 so early on in the PS3's life cycle.

You put both versions of the game same on the BluRay disk.

- Rich

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

Whatever.  I don't care about the hardware under the covers.  All I care
about are what games can it play.  


So let's say the PS4 comes out in 2011.  Do you honestly think the PS3
will still be for sale 5 years after the PS4 comes out?  I doubt the PS3
will even live long enough to see the PS4's 2nd birthday, much less its
5th.

Before the Playstation 3 was announced, did anyone seriously believe
that there was a chance that a) the Playstation 2 would still be so
viable 2 years in and b) the Playstation 3 would be doing so poorly?

The main reason the PS2 continues to do well is because companies are
still developing for it.  Some of the best games of 2008 were released for
the PS2, of all things.

They were released on other platforms as well, though, so it's no big
deal.

Now if you're talking about PS2 exclusives, I question whether that's
really true. I hear critical raving about Persona 4 but the game is a
niche RPG and isn't all that and a bag of chips from a financial
perspective.

What do you mean by "best games?" Best games from what perspective?
Persona 4, being an RPG, means that it won't be a good game for most
gamers. I could just as easily say that MLB The Show was one of the
best games in 2008 even if that would make you cringe with
displeasure, LOL.

 

[The alMIGHTY N]

You put both versions of the game same on the BluRay disk.

I think the question was basically, "If you the disc works in both the
Playstation 3 and the Playstation 4, what incentive would most people
have to pay for the new Playstation 4?"

 

[Rich Hutnik]

I think the question was basically, "If you the disc works in both the
Playstation 3 and the Playstation 4, what incentive would most people
have to pay for the new Playstation 4?"

Then why should people bother upgrading to a PS3 now, if they own a
PS2? So long as you can keep getting Madden every year, why is it
needed? Also, why should people bother upgrading their PCs?

Maybe the idea is that you get better graphics and gameplay in the new
version.

- Rich

 

[The dog from that film you saw]

The only advances coming down the pipe for TVs are cheaper screens, and
everything will be 1080p. New screen technologies may be around, but they
aren't going to affect how consoles operate unless you start seeing things
like touch-screen surfaces. I can't see that happening though - at least
not for consumer sets. Even current research into 3D displays use current
screen technologies. Supposedly this would mean that your existing 1080p
capable screen could be used to display 3d images.

I really don't think we're going to see any more huge leaps between
generations as we have in the past. More polygons, sure but that's not
going to mean a whole lot unless the developers behind them are actually
making something interesting and fun to play.

--

60fps 1080 realtime raytracing?
or... graphics that look real? - for all the advancements over the years, a
driving game on a ps3 or a 360 doesn't look like real cars on a real track -
and upping the resolution won't solve that.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

That's a pretty big "if", if you ask me. Other than making sure
the majority of next-gen games are 1080p @ 30fps or better, I don't
really see what more can be done in the graphics area except - maybe -
3D support. Right now 3D support is experimental, and no standard has
emerged. Yet. If that changes and the PS4 was the first/only console
to support 3D grahpics for games, that would be a huge win for Sony.
[snip]

120Hz and contrast ratios will have no impact on the games
or the console's hardware.

These issues are connected -- one of the easier ways of producing
full-color 3D is with screen flipping and active [blinker] glasses.
For this you need a high framerate and low persistance phosphors
or other fast responding display pixels.

3D is probably easier than it looks on the [hard] software side.
Just build a twin core GPU with perspective rendering for each
eye from the same underlying geometry. A hardware solution.

As for whether it is worth it, who knows? Knowledgeable
commentators such as Ben "Yahzee" Croshaw usually complain
more about gameplay than about graphics. Gaming is supposed to
be enjoyable, often as the result of an immersive experience.
That experience can also be obtained under much more primitive
graphics (Castle Wolfenstein).

Personally I admire Nintendo's "develop interfaces" strategy, but it
is less predictable. The remarkable loyalty of fans (willingness to
pay for marginal upgrades) and simple economics make high-resolution
the preferred development path. So we get more pixels!


-- Robert

 

[poldy]

That's a pretty big "if", if you ask me. Other than making sure the
majority of next-gen games are 1080p @ 30fps or better, I don't really see
what more can be done in the graphics area except - maybe - 3D support.
Right now 3D support is experimental, and no standard has emerged. Yet.
If that changes and the PS4 was the first/only console to support 3D
grahpics for games, that would be a huge win for Sony.

Better shaders, more AA, more filtering, better HDR.

Don't be surprised if they render at 720p and use upscaling to use more
lighting effects than using a higher resolution.