Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

[silhouette]

Let's look back for a little history lesson:

1- When 360 is released at 300/400$ price-points, the most expensive console was 150$. Currently, 360 is 200/300$ price point and PS3 is 300/400$. Unless the price points of both consoles drops down to 150/200$ price point, there is almost no point to release a console at 400$ price point. I believe we are at least 2 years away from this. (2011 time-frame)
2- Technologically, 360 (and later PS3) is tech-wise a lot more ahead of their previous counterparts (even a full floating-point pixel pipeline makes a big difference between original xbox and 360, let alone being able to render 720p and AA at respectible speeds). If they release a console this/next year, I am not sure if there would be an extremely big difference compared to before. Even after 3/4 years, still PS3/360 can hold up with many PC titles (even the ones that are coming next year like Rage, Crysis 2, Alan wake, God of War3, etc.), and I still believe that there are room left on both 360 and PS3 for more time to come. The only limiting factor I see for 360 is the DVD drive (in terms of space), but that can be circumvented by multi-disk hard-disk installs (annoying arcade users).. So, I believe again, 2011 is a good time when DX11 picks up more and bigger texture memory makes more difference than now
3- Fragmenting the user base... That's exactly very good reason not to move on quickly...

I still think 2011 will be the earliest and 2012 will be the most likely time frame.

 

[wco81]

If PS3 Slim sales aren't sustained for a year, maybe Sony looks to reset the equation by launching early or first, like MS did.

 

[Prophecy2k]

If PS3 Slim sales aren't sustained for a year, maybe Sony looks to reset the equation by launching early or first, like MS did.

Regardless of Slim sales (which i can personally see being sustained for more than a year), Sony would be wanting to get the upper hand on MS and push to be first to the market with the PS4. On the other hand MS will be wanting to do the same.

I do think that when "next-gen" eventually comes, we certainly won't see the 12 month gap between the next Playstation and Xbox that we saw this gen. Both Sony and MS will be pushing to ensure this.

I would also expect to start hearing whisperings of deals and HW specs for the PS4 and Xbox720 by the summer next year. And come the spring of 2011, I think we'd have a pretty good idea of what will be in each of the new boxes

 

[wco81]

Didn't it seem like we were talking about Cell specs for at least 2 years before the announcement (never mind the actual launch)?

The X360 CPU wasn't that well-known that long in advance.

Of course people saw the patents or patent applications. This time around though, there seems to be no indication of new patentable architectures.

 

[Acert93]

Cell was formally announced about 16-18 months before the PS3 launch (Spring 2005). The Xbox 360 block diagram with significant functional details was available Fall 2004 and per ATI there was functional GPUs for the 360 in Nov 2004 although a proper tape out at full speed and features had to wait until Summer 2005.

Contracts were announced far ahead of this. We haven't heard anything about GPU, CPU, memory, etc agreements which is a solid sign nothing has materialized quite yet.

 

[E2K]

I think the 'next generation' will be a cheaper, maybe even smaller PS3 slim.
It will have the same processor-language and functions, although faster (and maybe more instructions). The same with the GPU. All to maintain full backwards compatibility.

Almost like the Wii did compared to the Gamecube.
It will be like they skipped a generation.

Xbox will get a blu ray drive, and also a miniaturization. It will be sold bundled with the natal hardware.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I think the 'next generation' will be a cheaper, maybe even smaller PS3 slim.
It will have the same processor-language and functions, although faster (and maybe more instructions). The same with the GPU. All to maintain full backwards compatibility.

Almost like the Wii did compared to the Gamecube.
It will be like they skipped a generation.

Xbox will get a blu ray drive, and also a miniaturization. It will be sold bundled with the natal hardware.

I do not think PS4 will have CELL...

I think this will be the scenario...

PS4: Intel OOOe CPU with AVX extensions + LRB

PSP2: Modified Allegrex CPU (no PSP1 GPU, other enhancements...) or ARM based CPU (dual Cortex A9, SMP configuration with one of the CPU's taking the security/OS role the second R4000i/Media Engine had in PSP1) + PowerVR SGX 5xx

DS2: next-generation nVIDIA Tegra

 

[liolio]

I do not think PS4 will have CELL...

I think this will be the scenario...

PS4: Intel OOOe CPU with AVX extensions + LRB

PSP2: Modified Allegrex CPU (no PSP1 GPU, other enhancements...) or ARM based CPU (dual Cortex A9, SMP configuration with one of the CPU's taking the security/OS role the second R4000i/Media Engine had in PSP1) + PowerVR SGX 5xx

DS2: next-generation nVIDIA Tegra

Thus you gave credit to early rumours about Intel and Sony having land a deal.
Actually it's would be a pretty good move for Sony for many reasons.

Even if all this is hypothetical, I think that Ms (just in case) will have to consider dropping IBM.
I feel like MS would be horrified to see Sony ship a complete x86 system for many reasons.

 

[Xenus]

I don't see any reason for sony to drop cell unless they can get amd or intel to build them a custom proc. However LRB would be an interesting choice more in form with sony's love of radical video designs.

 

[liolio]

I don't see any reason for sony to drop cell unless they can get amd or intel to build them a custom proc. However LRB would be an interesting choice more in form with sony's love of radical video designs.

Katuragani is done. Sony has payed his tribute to "radical" video design. Going witt intel has so many advantage. They won't be alone on the tool compilers, they will have bunch of them and the best of the business. They could have top of the class CPU. Their system would be closer to the PC world.
They may have land a good deal with Intel and on top of that it saves smae bunch of R&D.
And using "not customs" designs has advantages, price goes down quicker (volume), you're not in charge of shrinking (cost money).
For the cell it would not surprised me if the architecture dies sooner than later.

Overall and in regard to expected launch date for next generation systems, I close to think that MS has been crazy to not make the deal with Intel. They would better know for sure than they will have a consistent perf advantage (to make up for the trade off to make up for the flexibility of the design and the "overall" working environment).
Not to mention Ms may have open a door for Sony to provide "the perfect" linux/Chrome OS box.Just my two cents.

 

[one]

I feel like MS would be horrified to see Sony ship a complete x86 system for many reasons.

Why? Isn't it good for their core business that it may be able to run a Windows copy on it? I use Mac with WinXP installed at my workplace.

By the way according to my ex-SCEI colleague it's very unlikely that they will ever work again with nVidia on PS4 as they are fed up with GPU hardware bugs.

 

[MfA]

I don't think the console manufacturers can afford to delay technological upgrades for too long. What if say Valve tried to launch officially branded games PCs with DRM hardware? (Offering the DRM hardware for sale separately for existing PCs, say an external custom DVD drive with USB connector.)

It wouldn't be a console in the classical sense ... but it would have many of it's characteristics. On the officially branded PCs they could do stuff like virtualizing the normal PC environment so the games run in an incorruptible and fully controlled environment giving console like reliability (the hardware would be a known factor). While still letting people use it as a normal PC. (On the non branded PCs reliability would be up to the user.)

As long as the PC games market is still sizeable and holds dominance in the MMORPG market it presents a clear and present danger to consoles IMO.

 

[Acert93]

By the way according to my ex-SCEI colleague it's very unlikely that they will ever work again with nVidia on PS4 as they are fed up with GPU hardware bugs.

Welcome to Spring 2006

 

[jonabbey]

Katuragani is done. Sony has payed his tribute to "radical" video design. Going witt intel has so many advantage. They won't be alone on the tool compilers, they will have bunch of them and the best of the business. They could have top of the class CPU.

You think a 'top of the class' Intel CPU would be affordable for a next-gen console?

And using "not customs" designs has advantages, price goes down quicker (volume), you're not in charge of shrinking (cost money).

This wasn't the case for the original X-Box. I thought? The X-Box saw a lower development cost up front, certainly, but I thought that MS had difficulties with price reductions.

For the cell it would not surprised me if the architecture dies sooner than later.

Does Sony even need to upgrade their CPU for a next-gen system? It seems that the PS3 is hurting for memory and RSX, not for its CPU? If Cell didn't need to be used so much to make up for RSX's limitations, would it not be adequate for another generation? It's not like processor clock speeds are likely to advance all that much over what Cell already provides. Transistor count, yes, clock speed not so much.

If Sony tries to come in at a lower cost next generation, using a 22nm Cell would be pretty svelte, and they wouldn't have to depend on future die shrinks of uncertain provenance to cost reduce that part of the system.

Not to mention Ms may have open a door for Sony to provide "the perfect" linux/Chrome OS box. Just my two cents.

Of what value would that be to Sony? I'm a die hard Linux user, but unless Sony suddenly turns into Apple, they're not going to be attempting to field a Windows competitor.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This wasn't the case for the original X-Box. I thought? The X-Box saw a lower development cost up front, certainly, but I thought that MS had difficulties with price reductions.

that was due to stupid contracts as I understand it. nVidia manufactured chips and sold them to MS, as the only supply. MS agreed a price, without negotiating future price drops. nVidia reduced the size of the GPU over time but didn't pass any savings onto MS. In essence MS were stuck with a BOM at the end of the XB's life similar to the start. Had Ms used an off-the-shelf GPU instead of the customised VN2a, they would have benefited from improving fabrication techniques.

They learnt their lesson, and this time around own the IP for essential chip designs so they can tender out to the cheapest fab.

 

[TheD]

And don't forget you argue that you product have a ten year life… Cut this by two is not a good marketing feature.

No, the "ten year life cycle" talk is about how long they will keep making and supporting the console (think PS2 today), not that they will keep it as the flagship for ten years.

PS3/360 can hold up with many PC titles (even the ones that are coming next year like Rage, Crysis 2, Alan wake, God of War3, etc.)

No, the PC for a fair few years has been able to beat a console by a long way.

Rage is going to be able to run at a much higher res and with high AA & AF, don't even get me started on Crysis 2........... unless they cut down the game world big time over Crysis 1 the PC will kill the consoles.

And the last two games are not coming out on PC (Alan Wake was, but is now up in the air) and I have no doubt if GOW3 was made for PC that it could run at 1080P @ 60FPS on any modern PC with a good GFX card.

 

[Rolf N]

Weird how quickly people forget what a poor choice Intel has proven to be for the original Xbox.

 

[liolio]

Weird how quickly people forget what a poor choice Intel has proven to be for the original Xbox.

In which way? I don't remember complain about perfs, if anything it may have cost ms too much (ie bad contracts again as SHifty stated already).

 

[ban25]

I don't think the console manufacturers can afford to delay technological upgrades for too long. What if say Valve tried to launch officially branded games PCs with DRM hardware? (Offering the DRM hardware for sale separately for existing PCs, say an external custom DVD drive with USB connector.)

It wouldn't be a console in the classical sense ... but it would have many of it's characteristics. On the officially branded PCs they could do stuff like virtualizing the normal PC environment so the games run in an incorruptible and fully controlled environment giving console like reliability (the hardware would be a known factor). While still letting people use it as a normal PC. (On the non branded PCs reliability would be up to the user.)

As long as the PC games market is still sizeable and holds dominance in the MMORPG market it presents a clear and present danger to consoles IMO.

Increasing cost with newer hardware won't help grow console marketshare. The PC platform certainly is not engaged in a hardware arms-race -- quite the opposite, it's evolving towards online content delivery and games you play in your web browser. In order to take a share of that pie, console platform holders will need to bring down costs for both consumers and developers.

 

[MfA]

The PC platform has never stopped being engaged in a hardware arms race, not everyone goes along with it but that's irrelevant. Some people want to go along with it ... the casual market might be bigger, but the gamer market won't go away. A significant part of present console marketshare are gamers who will jump ship if the gap grows too big, even more if say Valve were to make PC gaming (at least for Steam games) as convenient as console gaming.