[liolio]

Originally Posted by cbarcus

I seem to recall that Microsoft officially announced the 360 about the middle of 2005 (May?) and launched later that year. A spec sheet leaked out about a year before the official announcement, and some details changed by launch (CPU speed & memory). The console was (still?) plagued by quality issues indicative of a rushed design. When did the industry know that Microsoft was launching in 2005, only 4 years after the launch of their original console? I do not know, maybe you do?

They must have know may be a year before that, here the lunch games:

Amped 3 (2K Sports)
Call of Duty 2 (Activision Inc.)
Condemned: Criminal Origins (SEGA Corp.)
FIFA Soccer 06 Road to 2006 FIFA World Cup (Electronic Arts Inc.)
GUN (Activision)
Kameo: Elements of Power (Microsoft Game Studios and Rare Ltd.)
Madden NFL 06 (Electronic Arts)
NBA 2K6 (2K Sports)
NBA LIVE 06 (Electronic Arts)
Need for Speed Most Wanted (Electronic Arts)
NHL 2K6 (2K Sports)
Perfect Dark Zero (Microsoft Game Studios and Rare Ltd.)
Peter Jackson s King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie (Ubisoft)
Project Gotham Racing 3 (Microsoft Game Studios and Bizarre Creations Ltd.)
Quake 4 (id Software and Activision)
Ridge Racer 6 (Namco Ltd.)
Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 06 (Electronic Arts)
Tony Hawk s American Wasteland (Activision)

Even if they recieve the final dev kit 3 months before launch publishers had to know a while ago, I would bet a tiny year.
But Ms clearly made a fast move but hopefully the system was quiet standard with I guess decent tools API etc. In regard to the xbox "dumping" I guess publisher were not surprised either even a company as big as Ms can't support that level of bleeding for years.

That was a major upgrade from their original console with 8 times the memory, 20x the theoretical performance for their CPU, 10x(?) performance for the GPU, etc. I am not expecting their next system to have a CPU with 500+ Gflops of theoretical performance, 4 GBs of GDDR5 memory, etc. As a consequence of low-balling the performance of the next iteration (others are expecting something far more powerful later), an earlier launch would fair better against the competition, especially 5 years after the 360 has been on the market. I would not expect the system to launch without 3rd-party support, but with a more modest upgrade, late support might not be a big problem. Especially if you consider that the major change involves motion control.

I don't see why Ms would be in a different situation than Sony or Nintendo when it will come to their next system. They will make their choice based on what they want to achieve and what can be made hard wise in regard to costs, power consumption, heat dissipation. Mostly likely by fall 2012 Sony or Ms will use 32nm process for the CPU 28 nm for the GPU. Between I don't expect 500GFlops from their next CPU, but it should be clearer now after the PR mess we faced once again this gen that GFlops alone are a poor indicator of CPU performances. If Ms sticks with something close to xenon they would better improve it that try to augment its throughput at all cost. I don't see in which way a modest update will help late support, basically I expect the CPU to be a pretty standard SMP CPU stuck to a pretty standard/slightly modified directx12 GPU, it will be accesible and it's usual for launch games to not push the system. Say devs would be unprepared to deal with 6 cores instead of 3, they will simply do with three cores. Idem if they don't know what to with some gpu extra capatibilitie they will use it as a standard part.

If Sony is concerned about their market position, then they are probably going to respond to an early Microsoft launch with one of their own (major assumption).

My guess as far as what Sony is capable of:

a) By 2010: 32-core Cell @ 40nm (~1 TFlop SP FP?)
b) By 2011: 64-core Cell @ 28nm (~2 TFlops SP FP?)

If these implementations incorporate certain changes that IBM included in their PowerXCell 8i Variant, performance will be perhaps a bit less than half for double-precision (which may be useful in games- I don't know).

I don't think that it would be a smart move, if Sony stick to the Cell they should assume that IBM was right hen they wanted fewer SPU and thus a tinier, more money maker chip (read that IBM want 6 SPUs).
2 Improved PPU and 12 spu should be more than enough muscles.

If you were Microsoft considering your current architecture, would you rather compare yourself to (a) or (b)? Even if you had GPGPU capability?

Actually I Sony will also have a GPU able to run some general purpose calculations.
Basically Ms would have to balanced their cpu/gpu budget depending on how well things run on the cpu or the gpu. I think they would do this within the bundaries they will fix themselves in regard to respective die size. Actually you should consider thing the other way. Optical shrink allow to pack more transistors but power consumption doesn't go don't as fast, thus such a cell (mostly as big as the actual cell at its launch) would most likely be consistantly more power hungry. That would put constrain on the rest of the system. Not too mention that it would cost more to produce and thus affect how much Sony is wiling to spend on the GPU. GPU is improtant and must not be overlooked, and Sony I think will be carreful to not price themselves out of the competition this time around.
Imagine Sony do what you say, Ms come with a tiny CPU (say they pack four fixed/improved xenon cores along with 2MB of cache) they have a lot of budget left for the GPu and the RAM and they could have way neater package. While a four cores CPU may be enough, Sony may have to spend quiet a lot on its GPU to keep up in this regard => along with its supposed Cell2 the system will be consistantly more expansive, power hungry etc.
Sony has to balance its silicon budget properly or they could be at either or both a graphical disadvantage or cost disadvantage.

I am making many assumptions here, any of which could be wrong because I am not in the industry, and I hope no one takes my speculation too seriously!

Nothing wrong with speculations (I've done a lot here some... to say the trust).

[AzBat]

Playora's Matt Spall said at Develop Conference 09 that the next generation systems will be browser-based & that this is the last generation of the traditional console.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/35043/Spal...-browser-based

Umm... Yeah, sure that sounds like a great idea.

Tommy McClain

[Blazkowicz]

PS3 was already hyped to be a cloud computing device (even though that term wasn't known back then and wasn't used if I recall correctly).

here, that's only a claim to get attention.

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

PS3 was already hyped to be a cloud computing device (even though that term wasn't known back then and wasn't used if I recall correctly).

But obviously that was just marketing hyperbole, far far from reality.

[cbarcus]

Originally Posted by Rangers

But obviously that was just marketing hyperbole, far far from reality.

I do not know anything about the original claims, but Folding@Home is an interesting and useful application of grid computing, which is related to cloud computing in concept (scalable, distributed computing). But if one were to consider what the likes of Google's AppEngine, Amazon's AWS, and Microsoft's Azure actually does, then yes, the PS3 does not do anything like this.

[JasonLD]

I think it will all depends on how Onlive, Gaikai, and OTOY do in maybe next two or three years. If they work as advertised and become successful, then we might see the complete transformation of the industry...if not, then we will see at least one more generation of so called traditional consoles.

[fehu]

Originally Posted by cbarcus

I do not know anything about the original claims, but Folding@Home is an interesting and useful application of grid computing, which is related to cloud computing in concept (scalable, distributed computing). But if one were to consider what the likes of Google's AppEngine, Amazon's AWS, and Microsoft's Azure actually does, then yes, the PS3 does not do anything like this.

A the time Kutaragi said something like "PS3 will be a connected console, so that whe you will play GT5, more ps3 will be connected, more gorgeous will be the grphic rendered!".
This back in 2002 circa, back when the ps2's dominated the planet.
Nobody belived him for a single istant, except for the fanboy + cellrulezwillchangetheworld people, but at the end the idea of a connected ps3 remained.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by cbarcus

I do not know anything about the original claims, but Folding@Home is an interesting and useful application of grid computing, which is related to cloud computing in concept (scalable, distributed computing).

Yeah but its not PS3 exclusive. In fact it was already available on the PC (and in the form of SETI at home for a long time) before the PS3 launched.

[ShaidarHaran]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Yeah but its not PS3 exclusive. In fact it was already available on the PC (and in the form of SETI at home for a long time) before the PS3 launched.

It is exclusive to the PS3 within PS3's market (consoles). No other console can run F@H.

[geeQ]

Originally Posted by cbarcus

I do not know anything about the original claims, but Folding@Home is an interesting and useful application of grid computing, which is related to cloud computing in concept (scalable, distributed computing). But if one were to consider what the likes of Google's AppEngine, Amazon's AWS, and Microsoft's Azure actually does, then yes, the PS3 does not do anything like this.

Actually I thought grid computing and cloud computing were quite different?

As has been said folding@home would be a classic example of grid computing, where by the end user has a system which is connected via software to a central server. the server sends out the data to be processed by the end users hardware, which then comes back to the central server once the job is finished. Or that a users hardware is designated the central server, it sends out the jobs which get sent to other users hardware and servers etc.

I thought a cloud setup was basically when a central server does ALL the heavy lifting and sends the results to a simple receiver device with software in the users home. The end user does almost no processing.

Think Kutargi's vision was based on grid computing and not cloud computing.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me can help answer this question.

[Blazkowicz]

cloud computing is vague, deliberately so even, as the term itself ; there's not necessarily a central server doing all the work. Processing is done "somewhere", likewise data might be stored wherever.
A grid is a good exemple of cloud computing. This very board could be a mundane one. Wikipedia is another one, with dozens of cache, web, database and other servers ; you have no idea where or how is processed your entry editing, but it gets done, and you access it from any web browser on yourlanguage.wikipedia.org

[Silent_Buddha]

Sorta. In broad terms...

Grid computing takes a bunch of disparate computing resources and ties them in such that they can perform on one task.

Cloud computing uses a central computing resource to serve the needs of many "access" points. Replacing the need for traditional computers and replacing them with dumb terminals.

Again REALLY broad definitions.

Grid computer can be used to power computing resources for Cloud computing, but it doesn't work the other way around.

Grid computing is more about processing data. Cloud computing is more about serving up data (and computer resources).

Regards,
SB

[geeQ]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

cloud computing is vague, deliberately so even, as the term itself ; there's not necessarily a central server doing all the work. Processing is done "somewhere", likewise data might be stored wherever.
A grid is a good exemple of cloud computing. This very board could be a mundane one. Wikipedia is another one, with dozens of cache, web, database and other servers ; you have no idea where or how is processed your entry editing, but it gets done, and you access it from any web browser on yourlanguage.wikipedia.org

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

Grid computer can be used to power computing resources for Cloud computing, but it doesn't work the other way around.

Grid computing is more about processing data. Cloud computing is more about serving up data (and computer resources).

Ah I think I see. Was thinking that the 2 were exclusive and not necessarily compatible to each other but now I see that in fact a grid setup- multiple servers/systems all working on a common goal could in fact be the central setup that powers the cloud. Once the grid has done it's task it then gets sent to the end user whom simply has the 'dumb' terminal sitting at home.

The only problem is adopting a universal cloud setup would take away resources that the grid could use in the first instance... If we all simply had 'dumb' terminals at home then the grid could only rely on the hardware that remains. folding@home for example would not work if none of us actually had any hardware sitting in our homes.

[Blazkowicz]

real dumb terminals have P2-class hardware and only run a VNC or similar session. Here a computer running mainly a browser needs more CPU power (it's pretty hungry), but the CPU usage is usually spiky and there's some to spare when pages were loaded and you are mostly scrolling through text.

So assuming a decent CPU in a light home appliance (such as a dual core Atom, VIA nano or sempron), you can fold, likewise a slow DX11 IGP can be used. Not as fast as a gaming PC, but lighter on the power bill, and with a great power/watt. Some people might be willing to donate 10W or 20W, not so much 100W or 200W.

but we could be arguing that on the google chrome OS thread or have a generic cloud computing discussion (dunno in which section )

[Megadrive1988]

Going from PS3 CELL: 1 PPE:7 SPEs ~ 1/5 of a TFLOP
to 4 PPEs:32 SPEs providing 1 or 1+ TFLOP would be a nice improvement
8 PPEs:64 SPEs providing 2 or 2+ TFLOPs would also be nice, given the timeframe.


You might recall, one reported option for the PS3 back in 2003 or so was an 8:64 configuration, all on a single chip (even though that would be totally unrealistic for 2006):

Sony chip could transform video-game industry
TECHNOLOGY ENVISIONS ALL-IN-ONE BOX FOR HOME
By Dean Takahashi
Mercury News

Sony's next-generation video-game console, due in just two years, will feature a revolutionary architecture that will allow it to pack the processing power of a hundred of today's personal computers on a single chip and tap the resources of additional computers using high-speed network connections.

If key technical hurdles are overcome, the ``cell microprocessor'' technology, described in a patent Sony quietly secured in September, could help the Japanese electronics giant achieve the industry's holy grail: a cheap, all-in-one box for the home that can record television shows, surf the Net in 3-D, play music and run movie-like video games.

Besides the PlayStation 3 game console, Sony and its partners, IBM and Toshiba, hope to use the same basic chip design -- which organizes small groups of microprocessors to work together like bees in a hive -- for a range of computing devices, from tiny handheld personal digital assistants to the largest corporate servers.

If the partners succeed in crafting such a modular, all-purpose chip, it would challenge the dominance of Intel and other chip makers that make specialized chips for each kind of electronic device.

``This is a new class of beast,'' said Richard Doherty, an analyst at the Envisioneering Group in Seaford, N.Y. ``There is nothing like this project when it comes to how far-reaching it will be.''

Game industry insiders became aware of Sony's patent in the past few weeks, and the technology is expected to be a hot topic at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose this week. Since it can take a couple of years to write a game for a new system, developers will be pressing Sony and its rivals for technical details of their upcoming boxes, which are scheduled to debut in 2005.

Ken Kutaragi, head of Sony's game division and mastermind of the company's last two game boxes, is betting that in an era of networked devices, many distributed processors working together will be able to outperform a single processor, such as the Pentium chip at the heart of most PCs.

With the PS 3, Sony will apparently put 72 processors on a single chip: eight PowerPC microprocessors, each of which controls eight auxiliary processors.

Using sophisticated software to manage the workload, the PowerPC processors will divide complicated problems into smaller tasks and tap as many of the auxiliary processors as necessary to tackle them.

``The cell processors won't work alone,'' Doherty said. ``They will work in teams to handle the tasks at hand, no matter whether it is processing a video game or communications.''

As soon as each processor or team finishes its job, it will be immediately redeployed to do something else.

Such complex, on-the-fly coordination is a technical challenge, and not just for Sony. Game developers warn that the cell chips do so many things at once that it could be a nightmare writing programs for them -- the same complaint they originally had about the PlayStation 2, Sony's current game console.

Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic Games in Raleigh, N.C., said that programming games for the PS 3 will be far more complicated than for the PS 2 because the programmer will have to keep track of all the tasks being performed by dozens of processors.

``I can't imagine how you will actually program it,'' he said. ``You do all these tasks in parallel, but the results of one task may affect the results of another task.''

But Sony and its partners believe that if they can coordinate those processors at maximum efficiency, the PS 3 will be able to process a trillion math operations per second -- the equivalent of 100 Intel Pentium 4 chips and 1,000 times faster than processing power of the PS 2.

That kind of power would likely enable the PS 3 to simultaneously handle a wide range of electronic tasks in the home. For example, the kids might be able to race each other in a Grand Prix video game while Dad records an episode of ``The Simpsons.''

``The home server and the PS 3 may be the same thing,'' said Kunitake Ando, president and chief operating officer of Sony, at a recent dinner in Las Vegas.

Sony officials said that one key feature of the cell design is that if a device doesn't have enough processing power itself to handle everything, it can reach out to unused processors across the Internet and tap them for help.

Peter Glaskowsky, editor of the Microprocessor Report, said Sony is ``being too ambitious'' with the networked aspect of the cell design because even the fastest Internet connections are usually way too slow to coordinate tasks efficiently.

The cell chips are due to begin production in 2004, and the PS 3 console is expected to be ready at the same time that Nintendo and Microsoft launch their next-generation-game consoles in 2005.

Nintendo will likely focus on making a pure game box, but Microsoft, like Sony, envisions its next game console as a universal digital box.

A big risk for Sony and its allies is that in their quest to create a universal cell-based chip, they might compromise the PS 3's core video-game functionality. Chips suitable for a handheld, for example, might not be powerful enough to handle gaming tasks.

Sony has tried to address this problem by making the cell design modular; it can add more processors for a server, or use fewer of them in a handheld device.

``We plan to use the cell chips in other things besides the PlayStation 3,'' Ando said. ``IBM will use it in servers, and Toshiba will use it in consumer devices. You'd be surprised how much we are working on it now.''

But observers remain skeptical. ``It's very hard to use a special-purpose design across a lot of products, and this sounds like a very special-purpose chip,'' Glaskowsky said.

The processors will be primed for operation in a broadband, Net-connected environment and will be connected by a next-generation high-speed technology developed by Rambus of Los Altos.

Nintendo and Microsoft say they won't lag behind Sony on technology, nor will they be late in deploying their own next-generation systems.

While the outcome is murky now, analyst Doherty said that a few things are clear: ``Games are the engine of the next big wave of computing. Kutaragi is the dance master, and Sony is calling the shots.''

By 2012-2013 such configuration of CELL, 8:64, should be possible, given that IBM was planning to have a 4:32 config in 2010. I'm not saying PS4 will use an 8:64 config at all. Sony might do something as modest as a 2:12 or 2:16 and instead sink more money into the GPU.

I'd rather see PS4 with GPU that's no so outdated at the time of its release as the PS3's RSX was. RSX was so disappointing for a console that was meant to be cutting edge. IMHO the RSX was the least impressive for its time of any PlayStation. The PS1's graphic chip and PS2's GS were more advanced for their time than PS3's RSX. On the other hand, RSX was the first industry-standard GPU put into a PlayStation system. It didn't have any serious shortcomings compared to Sony's in-house graphics. So in that respect RSX was really good, it was just a low-end GPU by the time PS3 launched.

[liolio]

I don't give much faith to this early report, basically that was unrealistic high expectations, basically they speak of 8 cells, that's 2000mm² not too mention the complexity of the mobo. I still believe no matter it has somehow been dismissed by a lot of persons here that Sony seriously considered at some point to go with a "gpu less" design so multiple cells would have make sense. Anyway 8 is... way too much.

Overall I'm less and less confident in the cell roadmap, 2010 is less than 6 months away we haven't heard anything about it, neither from Sony or IBM. I think that if anything IBM is focusing on its POWER7 supposed to deliver a consistent amount of flops. They know larrabee is coming at they don't want to loose to much market share on the HTC /super computer market.

I wouldn't be surprised if the three actual manufacturers end up with pretty similar Power PPC next gen. The only case where I don't see this happens is if larrabee is to land in on of the next gen system I think that the manufacturer which made that choice could have a X86 CPU. If negotiations have been tough enough with Intel and the latter decided to cut a lot in their margin.

After reading rumors (based on old rumors... ) about what could be AMD bulldozer and also what AMD called Cluster based multi threading, I've come to think that MS and IBM could consider this approach to boost xenon throughput. Basically attach two vmx128 to one core and rework the cache architecture (along with fixing xenon main flaws). It may end a lot less bothering than go further than 4 cores.
Xenon does not support multi threading for it vmx units and given the number and the size of the register it could prove pretty costly to implement.

I also had been wandering if cloud based rendering/computing could be part of the equation. Basically offload operations where latency has no significant impact on the game. I especially think of AI. For example think about a huge open world where your actions would have a real significant impact on the population populating it. That could be a lot of data to update and eat consistent memory space.
In regard to rendering I don't know how could rendering could be mixed in.
Interestingly it could an addition done on a per game basis, not all game would need it.

[Prophecy2k]

Originally Posted by liolio

I don't give much faith to this early report, basically that was unrealistic high expectations, basically they speak of 8 cells, that's 2000mm² not too mention the complexity of the mobo. I still believe no matter it has somehow been dismissed by a lot of persons here that Sony seriously considered at some point to go with a "gpu less" design so multiple cells would have make sense. Anyway 8 is... way too much.

Overall I'm less and less confident in the cell roadmap, 2010 is less than 6 months away we haven't heard anything about it, neither from Sony or IBM. I think that if anything IBM is focusing on its POWER7 supposed to deliver a consistent amount of flops. They know larrabee is coming at they don't want to loose to much market share on the HTC /super computer market.

I wouldn't be surprised if the three actual manufacturers end up with pretty similar Power PPC next gen. The only case where I don't see this happens is if larrabee is to land in on of the next gen system I think that the manufacturer which made that choice could have a X86 CPU. If negotiations have been tough enough with Intel and the latter decided to cut a lot in their margin.

After reading rumors (based on old rumors... ) about what could be AMD bulldozer and also what AMD called Cluster based multi threading, I've come to think that MS and IBM could consider this approach to boost xenon throughput. Basically attach two vmx128 to one core and rework the cache architecture (along with fixing xenon main flaws). It may end a lot less bothering than go further than 4 cores.
Xenon does not support multi threading for it vmx units and given the number and the size of the register it could prove pretty costly to implement.

I also had been wandering if cloud based rendering/computing could be part of the equation. Basically offload operations where latency has no significant impact on the game. I especially think of AI. For example think about a huge open world where your actions would have a real significant impact on the population populating it. That could be a lot of data to update and eat consistent memory space.
In regard to rendering I don't know how could rendering could be mixed in.
Interestingly it could an addition done on a per game basis, not all game would need it.

Wouldn't such an approach then assume that all game users would have to be connected to the internet to even play the game? What about the folk with slow connections? How would that affect things?

Also one has to think about the added cost of running your cloud computing server on the dev side. Would the added cost be paid for by the product consumer? Then again such games could be distributed as XBLA/PSN titles. I dunno

[Megadrive1988]

I have no faith in anything like cloud computing , web browser based computing, server based computing, distributed computing, etc as far as real-time games are concerned. This won't happen in time for the next generation consoles, Xbox3/PS4 assuming those consoles are coming in the 2011-2013 timeframe, 2-4 years from now. By 2020 or so when it's time for Xbox4 and PS5, perhaps the technology will be ready.

Alternatively, if Xbox3/PS4 aren't coming until 2015-2016, then perhaps some model of cloud computing might be ready, but just barely.

As I see it, next-gen console games are still going to depend on the CPUs and GPUs that can be put into a box that sits in everyone's home. The advancement is going to come from moving from multi-core to massively multi-core aka manycore, as well as the advances in software/tools/programming models. But still based on the silicon that can be manufactured, not remote data centers.

[grandmaster]

Until hyper-fast broadband is as easily available as mains power, Cloud won't and can't be the focus for the major platform holders.

[Silent_Buddha]

It just depends on how much of the public a manufacturer wants to exclude. There will ALWAYS be someone without fast broadband. Hell, I'd argue that for the next 25-50 years if not more, there will always be someone without broadband.

However, that doesn't preclude any company from deciding that the population without fast enough broadband is small enough that it doesn't matter or composed of a demographic that wouldn't be purchasing consoles for personal use anyways.

That said, I still think it's at least 5-10 years away (if not more) before any of the major players could even think of implementing a console focused on cloud gaming.

Online only distribution would be the first step. As with that you could still have offline methods of distribution through secure memory cards or something.

Regards,
SB

[damienw]

I have a totally hypothetical question.

What would be the pros/cons of using a setup like this (PS4 used just to illustrate point):

Cell 4/32 as CPU/General Purpose Unit (or Cell descendant)
2x a midrange GPU at launch (like a built in SLI/crossfire; maybe evolutionary descendant of RSX)
2 (or 4) GB RAM; split a la PS3
4x (or 8x) Blu-ray
built in A/B/G/N wireless and ethernet

I'm just thinking that with the economic climate, all 3 current console manufacturers might really go evolutionary steps and try to not have to pour a cubic butt ton more money into R&D on new/unproven tech.

I just find it hard to believe that after all the grief Sony has taken that they would be somewhat reluctant to go through that again by using Larrabee this early.

[holsty101]

Wouldn't it be easier/more efficient to have 1 more powerful gpu over 2 lower powered ones?

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by holsty101

Wouldn't it be easier/more efficient to have 1 more powerful gpu over 2 lower powered ones?

Yes, only positive effect from having 2 smaller ones would be better yields

[Blazkowicz]

even then you can disable part of the GPU, as is already done on Cell and RSX (which has 28 pipes, 24 of them enabled).

dual GPU add costs, eats too much power ; the power budget can't increase anymore in consoles. You also need to design a new dual GPU mechanism, probably an MCM with very high speed interconnects, or either you have to duplicate all assets, wasting a huge quantity of memory : a usual scarce resource on consoles.

a point was already made against a 4/32 Cell.
I can imagine a 2/12 Cell with a midrange GPU (the RV740 kind of midrange CPU : very fast already) and 2GB of rather fast unified memory.

[Megadrive1988]

no reason for duel midrange GPUs. Best thing to do is take the basics of a new upcoming highend GPU and customize it, work hard on increasing its efficiency. By the time the console comes out, the GPU in it is near the state of the art of what you can buy seperately for PC, maybe a little more or a little less. Xbox1 in 2001 was this way, it was a GeForce 3.5 almost a GF4, at a time when GeForce 3 Ti500 was out for PCs. The Ti500 had a fillrate and bandwidth advantage over NV2A but NV2A had more geometry power, and perhaps more pixel shader performance, although they both shared the same basic 4:2 design. NV2A was not outclassed by Ti500 like the RSX was outclassed by the G80.

I'd like to see PS4's GPU a highly custom well-thought-out work by Nvidia and SCEI.