Sony Teases Future of PlayStation Event on February 20
- Thread starter zakislam
- Start date
- Status
BrutalPigeon
Distinguished
- Oct 14, 2011
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]BrutalPigeon[/nom]GO AMD! Grab some money from it and start making good processors again XD[/citation]
They already make good processors, I don't want to see them compete the high-end, what I want them to do is continually improve the midrange, I really don't care if that means they never have a high-end processor again because there is next to no market for the highest and processors, they're more or less just a figurehead something that is just there for bragging rights along. They now the processors only leg in single core performance, and send single core I really don't see much of a future for it, at least I hope it doesn't have too much of a future, I'm not worried about them ever improving to the point that Intel has right now. I would love to see them keep emphasizing multi thread processing.
[citation][nom]mobrocket[/nom]announcement will beSONY will be announcing Playstation 4 will be announced at E3[/citation]
Do you have any idea how much the gaming press hates it when they announced their consoles and going to all those details during the conference, instead of focusing on the games.
Know the way I see it they announced the PlayStation four and possibly gives specs, but they don't show games, and that's what the E3 presentation is full of.
[citation][nom]fonzy[/nom]I can't wait just so we can end all the rumors and speculation, 4Gb's of GDDR5 or 8Gb's...7770 or 7850...8 core cpu..etc..etcLet's just get the specs out there.[/citation]
Well right now Sony has a eight core CPU in the PlayStation three with one core disabled for quality control, and another core dedicated to DRM.
4 GB of RAM isn't that out there for what they're doing considering that they can up of 4K support and PlayStation so they have something that people can play 4K on their TVs whenever they get them. As for the GPU considering this is going to be a jump from a just barely 720 P to 1080 P gameplay having at least one gigabyte of video RAM or maybe even to isn't that out of the question.
Now as for what card they use piece together how much the PlayStation four is probably the cost and how much it in a subsidize it through games.
I see the high-end system costing $500 and they subsidize $200-$300 giving them a wiggle room of about $700-$800. And you can kind of piece together what the specs should probably look like based on consumer prices but we know Sony doesn't pay consumer prices they pay wholesale prices.
If Sony tries to make a profit off of every consoles sold like Nintendo does they have no chance of winning the console war incensed the gaming division is what holds Sony up right now they be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't hack this system.
They already make good processors, I don't want to see them compete the high-end, what I want them to do is continually improve the midrange, I really don't care if that means they never have a high-end processor again because there is next to no market for the highest and processors, they're more or less just a figurehead something that is just there for bragging rights along. They now the processors only leg in single core performance, and send single core I really don't see much of a future for it, at least I hope it doesn't have too much of a future, I'm not worried about them ever improving to the point that Intel has right now. I would love to see them keep emphasizing multi thread processing.
[citation][nom]mobrocket[/nom]announcement will beSONY will be announcing Playstation 4 will be announced at E3[/citation]
Do you have any idea how much the gaming press hates it when they announced their consoles and going to all those details during the conference, instead of focusing on the games.
Know the way I see it they announced the PlayStation four and possibly gives specs, but they don't show games, and that's what the E3 presentation is full of.
[citation][nom]fonzy[/nom]I can't wait just so we can end all the rumors and speculation, 4Gb's of GDDR5 or 8Gb's...7770 or 7850...8 core cpu..etc..etcLet's just get the specs out there.[/citation]
Well right now Sony has a eight core CPU in the PlayStation three with one core disabled for quality control, and another core dedicated to DRM.
4 GB of RAM isn't that out there for what they're doing considering that they can up of 4K support and PlayStation so they have something that people can play 4K on their TVs whenever they get them. As for the GPU considering this is going to be a jump from a just barely 720 P to 1080 P gameplay having at least one gigabyte of video RAM or maybe even to isn't that out of the question.
Now as for what card they use piece together how much the PlayStation four is probably the cost and how much it in a subsidize it through games.
I see the high-end system costing $500 and they subsidize $200-$300 giving them a wiggle room of about $700-$800. And you can kind of piece together what the specs should probably look like based on consumer prices but we know Sony doesn't pay consumer prices they pay wholesale prices.
If Sony tries to make a profit off of every consoles sold like Nintendo does they have no chance of winning the console war incensed the gaming division is what holds Sony up right now they be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't hack this system.
whiteodian
Distinguished
- Apr 8, 2010
- 462
- 0
- 18,790
$500-$800 for a console. Madness. I paid $600 for the original PS3 and have regretted it almost every day. It is an expensive blu-ray/dvd player now. Never again will I pay that much. $400 tops unless it is godly. Hopefully Sony learned from their past mistake with the PS3 and will sell it at a much more reasonable price. I believe the high cost is why they got off to such a slow start with the PS3.
bustapr
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2009
- 1,613
- 0
- 19,780
hopefully this time they wont announce more features than theyd use. I remember all the hype behind the godly sixaxis controller. look at all the games that actually use it. original ps3 have a bunch of usb slots, card slots, and ps2 functionality. look at what happened. sony needs to think well about their product this time. I hope its doesnt dissapoint.
kinggraves
Distinguished
- May 14, 2010
- 951
- 0
- 19,010
It's already been confirmed by reliable sources to be the announcement of the next Playstation. I wouldn't expect much in the way of details other than "We'll show it at E3", but anything at all could hint to the direction they'll take it. Is this system going to be a 4k capable powerhouse to help push their new TVs and media, like new PS models frequently are? Or are they going to try to compete with Nintendo on the low price and casual market this time around? Sony isn't that strong financially these days, they might not want to take another several years of losses.
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]Well right now Sony has a eight core CPU in the PlayStation three with one core disabled for quality control, and another core dedicated to DRM.4 GB of RAM isn't that out there for what they're doing considering that they can up of 4K support and PlayStation so they have something that people can play 4K on their TVs whenever they get them. As for the GPU considering this is going to be a jump from a just barely 720 P to 1080 P gameplay having at least one gigabyte of video RAM or maybe even to isn't that out of the question.Now as for what card they use piece together how much the PlayStation four is probably the cost and how much it in a subsidize it through games.I see the high-end system costing $500 and they subsidize $200-$300 giving them a wiggle room of about $700-$800. And you can kind of piece together what the specs should probably look like based on consumer prices but we know Sony doesn't pay consumer prices they pay wholesale prices.If Sony tries to make a profit off of every consoles sold like Nintendo does they have no chance of winning the console war incensed the gaming division is what holds Sony up right now they be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't hack this system.[/citation]
The current 8 core design that they are using currently is horrible, and extremely under utilized. It is hard to program for in the first place, and then on top of that it is really segregated and forces certain types of tasks to run on specific Cells, which often renders CPU usage well below the potential that was boasted at release. This is why the much humbler x360 can keep up (for the most part) while only running 3 cores. With a modern x86 platform they could easily run the same load on a duel core processor. I would love for consoles to utilize more cores just as much as anyone... but at the same time you do not need lots of cores for things like games. I would much rather the next gen consoles have 4 capable cores than for them to have 8 core (4 AMD "modules") that are not taken advantage of. You need 1 for the OS, and then 3 for the game itself and let the GPU take the hard work of making things look nice.
I think that 4GB of ram is a given, and while 8GB may be overkill, it is cheap enough where they could do it if they wanted to. RAM is going to be the single overwhelming game changer between current gen vs next gen consoles. I mean lets face it; Graphics, while they give that initial 'wow' factor, are not what makes a game great, immersive, or even memorable. What really matters on the visual end of things is that the graphics are 'good enough' to not be distracting (which consoles will be once they are consistently up to 1080p), and that there is enough stuff in the scene to not look like a series of box rooms and box buildings connected by rectangular corridors. And even if you have a series of boxes you can still dress it up like the recent Batman games where there is enough clutter and junk in the scene to cover it up. Issues of object/itom pop-in, and the frustratingly limited view distance that is the hallmark of console games just goes away. All of this topography, and all of that 'stuff' (rocks, trees, tables, clutter, etc.) is greatly contained by the system and graphics memory, and moving from the very constrained 256MB of extremely fast XDR memory in today's consoles, to 4-8GB of comparatively slow DDR3 memory will make a larger impact on the feel of future games in the way of level design and environment immersion than raw graphics or CPU horsepower ever could.
If nothing else, having that mass amount of RAM will allow some really heavy preloading of levels and game elements so that level transition becomes either really fast, or even potentially transparent. You are still constrained on the initial load time from your HDD or BluRay media, but once the game is up and running a well designed game should be able to keep up with you the rest of the way. Coming from the PC gaming arena where monumental skyrim areas load in 10 sec or less, the console takes forever. That may be an extreme case, but that extra time just sitting there waiting for the next area to load (especially when traveling and you are only going to be in the area for a few sec anyways) just takes me out of the game. Getting rid of this problem will go a long way towards converting me over to console gaming.
The current 8 core design that they are using currently is horrible, and extremely under utilized. It is hard to program for in the first place, and then on top of that it is really segregated and forces certain types of tasks to run on specific Cells, which often renders CPU usage well below the potential that was boasted at release. This is why the much humbler x360 can keep up (for the most part) while only running 3 cores. With a modern x86 platform they could easily run the same load on a duel core processor. I would love for consoles to utilize more cores just as much as anyone... but at the same time you do not need lots of cores for things like games. I would much rather the next gen consoles have 4 capable cores than for them to have 8 core (4 AMD "modules") that are not taken advantage of. You need 1 for the OS, and then 3 for the game itself and let the GPU take the hard work of making things look nice.
I think that 4GB of ram is a given, and while 8GB may be overkill, it is cheap enough where they could do it if they wanted to. RAM is going to be the single overwhelming game changer between current gen vs next gen consoles. I mean lets face it; Graphics, while they give that initial 'wow' factor, are not what makes a game great, immersive, or even memorable. What really matters on the visual end of things is that the graphics are 'good enough' to not be distracting (which consoles will be once they are consistently up to 1080p), and that there is enough stuff in the scene to not look like a series of box rooms and box buildings connected by rectangular corridors. And even if you have a series of boxes you can still dress it up like the recent Batman games where there is enough clutter and junk in the scene to cover it up. Issues of object/itom pop-in, and the frustratingly limited view distance that is the hallmark of console games just goes away. All of this topography, and all of that 'stuff' (rocks, trees, tables, clutter, etc.) is greatly contained by the system and graphics memory, and moving from the very constrained 256MB of extremely fast XDR memory in today's consoles, to 4-8GB of comparatively slow DDR3 memory will make a larger impact on the feel of future games in the way of level design and environment immersion than raw graphics or CPU horsepower ever could.
If nothing else, having that mass amount of RAM will allow some really heavy preloading of levels and game elements so that level transition becomes either really fast, or even potentially transparent. You are still constrained on the initial load time from your HDD or BluRay media, but once the game is up and running a well designed game should be able to keep up with you the rest of the way. Coming from the PC gaming arena where monumental skyrim areas load in 10 sec or less, the console takes forever. That may be an extreme case, but that extra time just sitting there waiting for the next area to load (especially when traveling and you are only going to be in the area for a few sec anyways) just takes me out of the game. Getting rid of this problem will go a long way towards converting me over to console gaming.
cptnjarhead
Distinguished
- Jun 22, 2009
- 395
- 0
- 18,780
I'm excited to see what they have come up with. I hope its not the "off-the shelf" hardware that was leaked, i would rather see some new architecture, but maybe they are trying to make things easier on the developers.
Who knows...either way, its always good for gamers when the new consoles come out, even us PC gamers.
Who knows...either way, its always good for gamers when the new consoles come out, even us PC gamers.
[citation][nom]whiteodian[/nom]$500-$800 for a console. Madness. I paid $600 for the original PS3 and have regretted it almost every day. It is an expensive blu-ray/dvd player now. Never again will I pay that much. $400 tops unless it is godly. Hopefully Sony learned from their past mistake with the PS3 and will sell it at a much more reasonable price. I believe the high cost is why they got off to such a slow start with the PS3.[/citation]
The original PlayStation three had a PlayStation two inside of it, it also had a Blu-ray player which was expensive as hell at the time, with a standalone player being at almost the grand. You also have to take into account they just funded the cell, that was what one $2 billion just on the processor alone.
Why say when I say 700 to 800 I'm going with the subsidized price. Really I want them to come on a $500 take a loss and put an extra $2-$300 and that console. I got PlayStation three I think a year after it came out, I honestly don't regret that decision at all. Any game that doesn't come out on the PC I get on the PlayStation three system exclusives I enjoy with the PlayStation three has the offer, I got more than my fair share from the PlayStation three since it launched. If you are like a $500 price point than don't buy a 500.
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]The current 8 core design that they are using currently is horrible, and extremely under utilized. It is hard to program for in the first place, and then on top of that it is really segregated and forces certain types of tasks to run on specific Cells, which often renders CPU usage well below the potential that was boasted at release. This is why the much humbler x360 can keep up (for the most part) while only running 3 cores. With a modern x86 platform they could easily run the same load on a duel core processor. I would love for consoles to utilize more cores just as much as anyone... but at the same time you do not need lots of cores for things like games. I would much rather the next gen consoles have 4 capable cores than for them to have 8 core (4 AMD "modules") that are not taken advantage of. You need 1 for the OS, and then 3 for the game itself and let the GPU take the hard work of making things look nice.I think that 4GB of ram is a given, and while 8GB may be overkill, it is cheap enough where they could do it if they wanted to. RAM is going to be the single overwhelming game changer between current gen vs next gen consoles. I mean lets face it; Graphics, while they give that initial 'wow' factor, are not what makes a game great, immersive, or even memorable. What really matters on the visual end of things is that the graphics are 'good enough' to not be distracting (which consoles will be once they are consistently up to 1080p), and that there is enough stuff in the scene to not look like a series of box rooms and box buildings connected by rectangular corridors. And even if you have a series of boxes you can still dress it up like the recent Batman games where there is enough clutter and junk in the scene to cover it up. Issues of object/itom pop-in, and the frustratingly limited view distance that is the hallmark of console games just goes away. All of this topography, and all of that 'stuff' (rocks, trees, tables, clutter, etc.) is greatly contained by the system and graphics memory, and moving from the very constrained 256MB of extremely fast XDR memory in today's consoles, to 4-8GB of comparatively slow DDR3 memory will make a larger impact on the feel of future games in the way of level design and environment immersion than raw graphics or CPU horsepower ever could.If nothing else, having that mass amount of RAM will allow some really heavy preloading of levels and game elements so that level transition becomes either really fast, or even potentially transparent. You are still constrained on the initial load time from your HDD or BluRay media, but once the game is up and running a well designed game should be able to keep up with you the rest of the way. Coming from the PC gaming arena where monumental skyrim areas load in 10 sec or less, the console takes forever. That may be an extreme case, but that extra time just sitting there waiting for the next area to load (especially when traveling and you are only going to be in the area for a few sec anyways) just takes me out of the game. Getting rid of this problem will go a long way towards converting me over to console gaming.[/citation]
You know you can get away with the excuse that it's hard to program for with the first 2 to 3 years the PlayStation threes life, but at this point it's not hard to program for any more, it's hard to port games to it. You see the problem starts with games that have the lead programming on this 360. If the if the lead platform was the PlayStation three it's easier to port games from PlayStation three to the 360 than it is from the 360 to the PlayStation three.
That's on this for the first some ever heard someone besides me say that the consoles are almost good enough, I'd say to visually while me though they'd have to have a consistent frame rate and the higher than 30 frames per second frame rate, that will make a very big difference for me.
And I've been same that part for while it's why I could see them putting the solid-state drive into the system eat the initial cost of the solid-state drive and hope that over the next two weeks three years the drive comes down the point where they make a profit selling it. But I also like the idea of a RAM driver they put 16-24 GB of RAM into it and it honestly one cost all that much to do either for the benefit that would give. I play gran turismo, and even with the game installed some will load times can take up words a minute, it's a joke having him that long will load time on a game where it's loading every 2 to 5 minutes.
The original PlayStation three had a PlayStation two inside of it, it also had a Blu-ray player which was expensive as hell at the time, with a standalone player being at almost the grand. You also have to take into account they just funded the cell, that was what one $2 billion just on the processor alone.
Why say when I say 700 to 800 I'm going with the subsidized price. Really I want them to come on a $500 take a loss and put an extra $2-$300 and that console. I got PlayStation three I think a year after it came out, I honestly don't regret that decision at all. Any game that doesn't come out on the PC I get on the PlayStation three system exclusives I enjoy with the PlayStation three has the offer, I got more than my fair share from the PlayStation three since it launched. If you are like a $500 price point than don't buy a 500.
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]The current 8 core design that they are using currently is horrible, and extremely under utilized. It is hard to program for in the first place, and then on top of that it is really segregated and forces certain types of tasks to run on specific Cells, which often renders CPU usage well below the potential that was boasted at release. This is why the much humbler x360 can keep up (for the most part) while only running 3 cores. With a modern x86 platform they could easily run the same load on a duel core processor. I would love for consoles to utilize more cores just as much as anyone... but at the same time you do not need lots of cores for things like games. I would much rather the next gen consoles have 4 capable cores than for them to have 8 core (4 AMD "modules") that are not taken advantage of. You need 1 for the OS, and then 3 for the game itself and let the GPU take the hard work of making things look nice.I think that 4GB of ram is a given, and while 8GB may be overkill, it is cheap enough where they could do it if they wanted to. RAM is going to be the single overwhelming game changer between current gen vs next gen consoles. I mean lets face it; Graphics, while they give that initial 'wow' factor, are not what makes a game great, immersive, or even memorable. What really matters on the visual end of things is that the graphics are 'good enough' to not be distracting (which consoles will be once they are consistently up to 1080p), and that there is enough stuff in the scene to not look like a series of box rooms and box buildings connected by rectangular corridors. And even if you have a series of boxes you can still dress it up like the recent Batman games where there is enough clutter and junk in the scene to cover it up. Issues of object/itom pop-in, and the frustratingly limited view distance that is the hallmark of console games just goes away. All of this topography, and all of that 'stuff' (rocks, trees, tables, clutter, etc.) is greatly contained by the system and graphics memory, and moving from the very constrained 256MB of extremely fast XDR memory in today's consoles, to 4-8GB of comparatively slow DDR3 memory will make a larger impact on the feel of future games in the way of level design and environment immersion than raw graphics or CPU horsepower ever could.If nothing else, having that mass amount of RAM will allow some really heavy preloading of levels and game elements so that level transition becomes either really fast, or even potentially transparent. You are still constrained on the initial load time from your HDD or BluRay media, but once the game is up and running a well designed game should be able to keep up with you the rest of the way. Coming from the PC gaming arena where monumental skyrim areas load in 10 sec or less, the console takes forever. That may be an extreme case, but that extra time just sitting there waiting for the next area to load (especially when traveling and you are only going to be in the area for a few sec anyways) just takes me out of the game. Getting rid of this problem will go a long way towards converting me over to console gaming.[/citation]
You know you can get away with the excuse that it's hard to program for with the first 2 to 3 years the PlayStation threes life, but at this point it's not hard to program for any more, it's hard to port games to it. You see the problem starts with games that have the lead programming on this 360. If the if the lead platform was the PlayStation three it's easier to port games from PlayStation three to the 360 than it is from the 360 to the PlayStation three.
That's on this for the first some ever heard someone besides me say that the consoles are almost good enough, I'd say to visually while me though they'd have to have a consistent frame rate and the higher than 30 frames per second frame rate, that will make a very big difference for me.
And I've been same that part for while it's why I could see them putting the solid-state drive into the system eat the initial cost of the solid-state drive and hope that over the next two weeks three years the drive comes down the point where they make a profit selling it. But I also like the idea of a RAM driver they put 16-24 GB of RAM into it and it honestly one cost all that much to do either for the benefit that would give. I play gran turismo, and even with the game installed some will load times can take up words a minute, it's a joke having him that long will load time on a game where it's loading every 2 to 5 minutes.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]DejaVuBoy[/nom]And in tried and true tradition, Sony will say: "Graphics that look like this!, and features like this!", and a prerendered clip will follow, and vaporware will be shown, and the masses will be hyped.[/citation]I see you've been here before. Sony's MO is overpromise, underdeliver. With that being said, I think the PS3 experience has humbled them at least a little bit. I doubt we'll see a $500-600 launch price, for instance.
[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]I see you've been here before. Sony's MO is overpromise, underdeliver. With that being said, I think the PS3 experience has humbled them at least a little bit. I doubt we'll see a $500-600 launch price, for instance.[/citation]
people are predicting on the high end 500$
but people are also predicting that the consoles wont be a generation jump, and just be good enough to run current graphic levels at 1080p... some not even saying 1080... just a constant 720p.
i hope they put 800$ worth of hardware in it and take a loss to 500$ otherwise gaming will be stagnant for a long time to come.
people are predicting on the high end 500$
but people are also predicting that the consoles wont be a generation jump, and just be good enough to run current graphic levels at 1080p... some not even saying 1080... just a constant 720p.
i hope they put 800$ worth of hardware in it and take a loss to 500$ otherwise gaming will be stagnant for a long time to come.
dons20
Honorable
- Feb 2, 2013
- 30
- 0
- 10,530
Sony Shut up and take my money!! 
I'm sure they will announce it here because they know the amount of suspense they have created by now and it would be a good time to announce/launch it...although the PS3 isn't quite old yet....but they want more money so i'd recommend they go for it
I'm sure they will announce it here because they know the amount of suspense they have created by now and it would be a good time to announce/launch it...although the PS3 isn't quite old yet....but they want more money so i'd recommend they go for it - Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Seagate Ironwolf as single harddrive - ERC disabled?
- Started by Mumintroll
- Replies: 5
-
-
Question Looking for a Cybenetics report that Tom's Hardware referenced - EVGA SuperNova 650 P2
- Started by motoxnate
- Replies: 6
-
Question How to correctly identify and oragnize PSU cables with their respective PSUs
- Started by BlackOrangutan
- Replies: 6
-
Question 24 inches monitor FHD or QHD for home office and scaling dilemma
- Started by RyanBR
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram