Sony Ditching Cell Architecture For Next PlayStation? [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/z9dTEZJq7Q6etl5PsCnL2l-rE_s/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/z9dTEZJq7Q6etl5PsCnL2l-rE_s/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/z9dTEZJq7Q6etl5PsCnL2l-rE_s/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/z9dTEZJq7Q6etl5PsCnL2l-rE_s/1/da)
RogueyWon writes "According to reports in Kotaku and Forbes, Sony is planning to ditch the Cell processor that powered the PlayStation 3 and may be planning to power the console's successor using a more conventional PC-like architecture provided by AMD. In the PS3's early years, Sony was keen to promote the benefits of its Cell processor, but the console's complicated architecture led to many studios complaining that it was difficult to develop for."http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Sony+Ditching+Cell+Architecture+For+Ne xt+PlayStation%3F%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FxlAkiN) http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F12%2F03%2F01%2F1643230%2Fsony-ditching-cell-architecture-for-next-playstation%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3 Dfacebook)http://www.gstatic.com/images/icons/gplus-16.png (http://plus.google.com/share?url=http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/01/1643230/sony-ditching-cell-architecture-for-next-playstation?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=googleplus)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/03/01/1643230/sony-ditching-cell-architecture-for-next-playstation?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/iDN41N8vn4A

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/iDN41N8vn4A/sony-ditching-cell-architecture-for-next-playstation)

[xelement5x]

There goes backwards compatibility for the PS4.

[Clownzilla]

Sony's mistake wasn't the cell processor but it was the lack of training and support that Sony gave the developers outside of Sony when it came to programming on the cell processor architecture. Sony just assumed that programmers would adjust to programming for the new architecture by themselves. Honestly, I think Sony needs to completely open up the PS3 and remarket it as a low cost computer after the PS4 is released.

[Bojay1997]

Sony's mistake wasn't the cell processor but it was the lack of training and support that Sony gave the developers outside of Sony when it came to programming on the cell processor architecture. Sony just assumed that programmers would adjust to programming for the new architecture by themselves. Honestly, I think Sony needs to completely open up the PS3 and remarket it as a low cost computer after the PS4 is released.

What's the total market for that though? Sony isn't interested in an initiative like that which will only move a few thousand units to hobbyists and most consumers aren't going to buy what is a pretty inflexible piece of hardware as a replacement for a computer, especially without commercial productivity software to support it and especially when you can get a pretty decent low end complete PC system for a few hundred bucks nowadays.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

There goes backwards compatibility for the PS4.

Surely there's a possibility of them releasing a PS4 with a set of Cell processors on-board dedicated to backward compatibility tasks (or emulating it)?

The PS3 wasn't built with the Emotion Engine, but there was one in there at launch for BC games (and later emulated).

[Polygon]

Let's be honest, the PS3 wasn't very backwards compatible either. Then at one point they threw up their hands and just said screw is all together with the slim.

[kupomogli]

My only advice is that if Sony is to make the PS4 BC, either make it BC and keep it that way or don't do it at all. I'm only assuming they'll get less backlash over not even offering BC than if they offered it then later took it away.

[TonyTheTiger]

Surely there's a possibility of them releasing a PS4 with a set of Cell processors on-board dedicated to backward compatibility tasks (or emulating it)?

The PS3 wasn't built with the Emotion Engine, but there was one in there at launch for BC games (and later emulated).

Honestly, it might be a bad idea to go that route. Could help to simply release the next console with no BC at all. We all know what happens when a console gets streamlined and periphery functionality gets trimmed off. Cutting off that drama at its source by not introducing the functionality at all might help Sony in the long run. The sting of a new console not being backwards compatible will cool off pretty damn quickly, much more quickly than a gradual paring down over a couple revisions, a stigma they still haven't quite escaped from.

[markusman64ds]

I'm just guessing, but I think Sony made the original PS3 backwards compatible because they figured that the PS2 wouldn't last much longer. They thought that everyone would buy PS3s (599 US Dollars) because they had better hardware and stop buying PS2s, allowing them to stop making PS2's while still making money from it's games.

It would make more sense for the PS4 to be BC because the PS3 isn't as popular as the PS2, but still has some great games coming out for it.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Honestly, it might be a bad idea to go that route. Could help to simply release the next console with no BC at all. We all know what happens when a console gets streamlined and periphery functionality gets trimmed off. Cutting off that drama at its source by not introducing the functionality at all might help Sony in the long run. The sting of a new console not being backwards compatible will cool off pretty damn quickly, much more quickly than a gradual paring down over a couple revisions, a stigma they still haven't quite escaped from.

I think it'll be a lose/lose either way.

Based on Sony's prior commitments to backwards compatibility it's fair to say that certain camps will want it or expect it.

If they don't provide it out of the gate those people will be disappointed.

And if they do offer it for a limited time and then adjust SKUs in later models to leave it out (which seems to be the more industry-wide standard these days) there will be the standard complaining then.

But, really, there's always all the time complaining about everything.

[SirPsycho]

I at least hope they continue with PS1 BC and do PS2 BC with the next edition of their numbered series of consoles.

PS3 might be a bit pricey to include, and cost was their official reason for ending PS2 BC support with newer models of the PS3. I can keep a system to play that games on, no big deal. But it will be nice to be able to lessen the load for a heavily used disc system that will be pushing 10-15 years in age when the new system comes out.

[Jaruff]

This was expected. To my knowledge, IBM's attempt to bring the C.E.L.L. to servers largely failed. At least that's what I remember reading a while back. It's a very complicated architecture.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think it'll be a lose/lose either way.

Based on Sony's prior commitments to backwards compatibility it's fair to say that certain camps will want it or expect it.

If they don't provide it out of the gate those people will be disappointed.

And if they do offer it for a limited time and then adjust SKUs in later models to leave it out (which seems to be the more industry-wide standard these days) there will be the standard complaining then.

But, really, there's always all the time complaining about everything.

Possibly. But an alternative scenario is like what happened with Microsoft. At this point, it seems most people have forgotten the 360 is backwards compatible at all, probably stemming from the BC there never being a particularly strong selling point. The difference between the 360's BC and the later fat PS3's BC was mostly nil except Microsoft got more leeway it seems because they never actually took anything away.

[Bojay1997]

I have a feeling that backwards compatibility is not the selling point it once was. Frankly, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for the publishers given that there is now a market for "HD" remakes of games from as little as one generation ago. Ultimately, the average gamer doesn't have a huge library of older games anyway (look at the attach rates per console sold and it's frankly shocking how few games are purchased by the average console owner) and the only people who likely care about BC would be collectors who would be a very small group anyway.

As much as the whole refusal of Sony to provide a low cost or free backward compatibility program for the PSP UMDs on the Vita seemed unreasonable to me, the truth is like most gamers, I tend to move on software wise when new platforms are released and if I feel the urge to play something older, it's not that hard to pull out my old hardware.

[Gamevet]

I can understand using an AMD video card, but it's pretty stupid to go with an AMD processor. AMD is so far behind Intel in the CPU market that even their latest "bulldog" processor (BS if you ask me) barely performed better than the good old i7 975, and it came nowhere near the performance of the i7 2600k.


Today, I had a pretty funny experience with an AMD fan. I was looking at power-supplies (PC cases were right above them) and this guy starts talking to me about a Cooler-Master case that he had. He then goes on about getting an 8150 (at first it didn't dawn on me what he was talking about) and he mentions that it's even faster than the i7s. I looked over at him and said: "No it's not, I'll show you." I whip out my phone and start loading the Passmark website. He says: "Passmark, I've heard of them." And sort of backs away before he gets the message of defeat.

[Clownzilla]

What's the total market for that though? Sony isn't interested in an initiative like that which will only move a few thousand units to hobbyists and most consumers aren't going to buy what is a pretty inflexible piece of hardware as a replacement for a computer, especially without commercial productivity software to support it and especially when you can get a pretty decent low end complete PC system for a few hundred bucks nowadays.

The Sony PC route would be only after the PS3 mass market gaming lifespan has run it's course (many years after the release of the PS4). Release an update that will open the system up and create a nice following of PS3 PC enthusiasts. It would only be a positive for the Sony brand and gamers would give them more respect. Will Sony do this.......no. Should Sony do this from a "good business" standpoint.........absolutely yes.

[TonyTheTiger]

I have a feeling that backwards compatibility is not the selling point it once was. Frankly, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for the publishers given that there is now a market for "HD" remakes of games from as little as one generation ago. Ultimately, the average gamer doesn't have a huge library of older games anyway (look at the attach rates per console sold and it's frankly shocking how few games are purchased by the average console owner) and the only people who likely care about BC would be collectors who would be a very small group anyway.

As much as the whole refusal of Sony to provide a low cost or free backward compatibility program for the PSP UMDs on the Vita seemed unreasonable to me, the truth is like most gamers, I tend to move on software wise when new platforms are released and if I feel the urge to play something older, it's not that hard to pull out my old hardware.

Yeah, I guess what BC does is encourage early adoption when the library is pretty paltry. Look back on most consoles and you can see how slipshod most launches really were. But it becomes apparent that we're talking entirely additional hardware to cover that niche during such a small fraction of the console's lifespan. It's pretty silly, overall. Don't get me wrong. I love full backwards compatibility simply for space saving purposes. But if I put myself in the shoes of Sony it's very hard for me to justify going out of the way to produce that benefit, especially when the interest to the end user diminishes over time as the console comes into its own. If the hardware itself makes it easy to implement then great. But a clean divorce from it when the hardware doesn't really support the effort is probably better than an awkward removal over time once it becomes apparent the extra manufacturing cost just ain't worth it.

[Bojay1997]

The Sony PC route would be only after the PS3 mass market gaming lifespan has run it's course (many years after the release of the PS4). Release an update that will open the system up and create a nice following of PS3 PC enthusiasts. It would only be a positive for the Sony brand and gamers would give them more respect. Will Sony do this.......no. Should Sony do this from a "good business" standpoint.........absolutely yes.

Sorry but I just don't see it. There is no money at all to be made from this, so I fail to see how it would be "good business". 99% of consumers and gamers have zero interest in something like this. If you mean that it will make some tiny group of hobbyists happy, then yes, it's "good business".

[Trebuken]

I thought Sony was selling off the cell processor tech? Maybe they haven't found a buyer yet, but if they have then they would have to buy processors somewhere. I cannot imagine a PS4 being backwards compatible for cost reasons, and if you have not noticed they like to sell old games for download these days -- you can buy your favorite games again.

AMD also owns ATI?Radeon now so we may see a CPU/GPU combo for the next gen Playstation.

[xelement5x]

The backwards compatibility isn't normally that big of a deal to me, I normally will keep my older consoles anyway. The problem with loosing it in the PS3 is that the best supported way to play PS2 games (up-scaled through the PS3) just disappeared as an option. The whole thing that drove me to buy the PS3 MGS bundle (the last backwards compatible model) was that they were totally ending support for the BC in their hardware and if I didn't buy it then I'd either have to hunt for one or get a refurb.

If there's no enhanced backwards compatibility in the PS4 at all, I can guarantee I'm going to wait until some major price drops occur to pick up anything.

[Bojay1997]

The backwards compatibility isn't normally that big of a deal to me, I normally will keep my older consoles anyway. The problem with loosing it in the PS3 is that the best supported way to play PS2 games (up-scaled through the PS3) just disappeared as an option. The whole thing that drove me to buy the PS3 MGS bundle (the last backwards compatible model) was that they were totally ending support for the BC in their hardware and if I didn't buy it then I'd either have to hunt for one or get a refurb.

If there's no enhanced backwards compatibility in the PS4 at all, I can guarantee I'm going to wait until some major price drops occur to pick up anything.

I don't follow. What exactly could they do to "enhance" PS3 games on the PS4? It's not like television technology is going to move to 2K in the next two years and it's not like you would need smoothing or some of the other effects that older Playstation games benefitted from when played on the PS2 and PS3. Just upscaling from 720p to 1080p really won't be noticeable on games with most TVs.

[xelement5x]

I don't follow. What exactly could they do to "enhance" PS3 games on the PS4? It's not like television technology is going to move to 2K in the next two years and it's not like you would need smoothing or some of the other effects that older Playstation games benefitted from when played on the PS2 and PS3. Just upscaling from 720p to 1080p really won't be noticeable on games with most TVs.

I have no clue how they would decide to enhance backwards compatibly titles for the PS4. Upscaling to 1440p or some other non-mainstream (yet) HD technology is probably considerable for PS3 titles, but it only really matters if they decide to implement it. You are right that the HD upscaling probably would not be quite as big a jump as it had been for previous generations though.

For me, the draw to upgrade with a lot of the Sony stuff (Excluding PS1 and PSP) has always been the ability to play my previous generation games upscaled on the new tech, and I'm obviously not their prime demographic in that sense. New (and even used "new") games are expensive and I normally have a lot in my backlog from a previous generation I'd love to play in an enhanced mode. In fact, one of the first games I played on my new PS3 back in 2008 was Shadow of the Colossus since I wanted to see how well it looked upscaled, and I've used mine more for PS2 than PS3 games.

The PS2 made PS1 games look better, and the PS3 made PS2 games look great. If they decide to implement some BC features for the PS4 that's awesome, but if not then I'll wait since I've got plenty of PS3 and even PS2 games I still want to play. There's no reason for me to buy a new console if I'm not going to use it or even buy any of the games for it right away.

Sorry for the wall of text.

[The 1 2 P]

I know this is just a rumor but it doesn't make much sense considering how much time, money and effort Sony put into promoting the Cell prosessor. It would probably be cheaper for them to make an upgradable one with more power than to start from scratch with something new from AMD.

[Gamevet]

I know this is just a rumor but it doesn't make much sense considering how much time, money and effort Sony put into promoting the Cell prosessor. It would probably be cheaper for them to make an upgradable one with more power than to start from scratch with something new from AMD.

Yeah, the Cell would have been the ideal processor, but only if the PS3 was the lead platform for game development. Sony's EE worked out fine for them with the PS2, because it was the top selling console; it probably would have been a disaster, had the original Xbox been the lead platform.


The 360 was the lead platform, and its software scaled nicely with the PC architecture. The PS3's Cell was neglected and most of the ports didn't used the SPE's, thus it was just using its single core vs. the 3 cores of the 360's CPU. The way the Cell managed the memory was also neglected because of this, and even though it had faster RAM, it had less of it.

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-celldmas/


The Cell Broadband Engine (Cell BE) processor is a revolutionary new architecture designed and developed jointly by Sony, IBM, and Toshiba. The Cell Broadband Engine Architecture (CBEA) is unique in the sense that it consists of a powerful SMT PowerPC core with special auxiliary SIMD processing units. Each of these units are called synergistic processing elements (SPEs) and are capable of running compute-intensive applications. The SPEs of the Cell BE make it well-suited for graphics applications like gaming, image processing, and hi-definition TVs.

The Cell BE processor can be considered a system-on-a-chip (SoC) with heterogeneous multiprocessors (PPEs, or peripheral processor elements, and SPEs). The Cell BE processor adapts a more power-efficient design, and the crux of the architecture is to utilize various on-chip DMA engines to move data through the SPEs. The bandwidth of data that can be managed by the chip is extremely high by virtue of the direct memory access (DMA) engines and internal bus architecture. Cell BE-based applications and operating systems that run on the Cell BE processor have to effectively utilize the DMA engines to manage work flow to the SPEs. Each of the SPEs has its own DMA engine that can take multiple commands from the PowerPC and the SPE.

[Griking]

There goes backwards compatibility for the PS4.

How backward compatible was the PS3 really?


I at least hope they continue with PS1 BC and do PS2 BC with the next edition of their numbered series of consoles.

My guess is that you'll see more of this on their portable than on the PS4. But of course you'll be charged to play your old games again.

[Gamevet]

How backward compatible was the PS3 really?


My 60 gig PS3 was at least 98% backwards compatible. The only games that didn't work properly were Guitar Hero 1 and Taiko Drum Master.

[kupomogli]

Scarface the World is Yours has problems on a 60GB. Sometimes shooting an enemy has blood spray, but no damage, no increase in the balls meter. It's actually pretty major because you might hit an enemy a good four or so headshots and only one of those will activate as damage and kill them plus give you balls. This is also not a problem on the PS2.

Every other game I've played has no problems, although I haven't played every PS2 game I own on it.

[gepeto]

sega saturn LOL 8 years later and still complaining?

[duffmanth]

I think Sony needs to do whatever they can to keep the cost of the PS4 down. If that means eliminating BC altogether, that's fine with me. Maybe it might also be cheaper to go with chip sets manufactured by AMD? Then Sony doesn't have to spend money, time, and resources developing their own chip set. Whatever route Sony decides to go with the next PS, they better not charge anymore than $399 at launch, or it's gonna be the PS3 launch all over again.

[NayusDante]

Using off-the-shelf components from AMD cuts out the R&D costs that inflated the PS3 MSRP. I can only hope that this is what they're doing.

Say what you want about Intel's chips being faster, AMD is almost always a better value. The fact that AMD is hurting for business means that there's probably even more room for price negotiation, which should keep the PS4's MSRP in reasonable bounds.