Does Sony have a plan B???

[wordsmyth]

I think PSX is Sony's plan B.

Going by a 4-5 year console cycle, it would normally seem a bit late in the game for Sony to release the PSX, which I consider to be basically a PS2.5. However, it makes sense if Sony is attempting to extend the PS2's life-cycle and get a jump on the next MS console by trying to win people over to the all-in-one idea, which I see as the future of both the Playstation and XBox console lines.

The Emotion Engine was designed specifically for the PS2, but Cell is really the future of Sony's electronics, so its imperative that it functions without a hitch. I think Sony is just playing it safe and making sure everything is five by five before they release anything based on Cell architecture.

This is of course, just my opinion. However, if it proves to be true, I'm curious how MS will respond. Will they wait to release their next console until Sony has announced the release of the PS3; or will MS stick to a 4-5 year console cycle and attempt to get the jump on the PS3.

 

[PC-Engine]

And there is no guarantee that ATI or Nvidia wouldn't say to MS "scram"

And there is no guarantee that Nintendo or MS couldn't just drop out of the console war.

If you are going to say that Cell could very well be delayed, there is no reason not to say what I said above correct? But oh no your highness, you deem my words "imposible" well I say the same with yours.

ATI and Nvidia aren't the only gpu companies out there

Why would MS or Nintendo drop out of the console war? That's like saying SONY would drop out of the console war

CELL being delayed is not in the same "what if" scenario as the rediculous ones you came up with. You need to tighten up those screws man.

The question is if CELL is delayed, what is plan B???? Or are you insisting that CELL will be on time therefore there's no need for plan B????

 

[Paul]

No but at this time Nvidia or ATI are the only companies out there that can produce something excellent, there are probably many "good" companies out there but nothing like nvidia or ati.

And are you really insisting that Nintendo won't drop out or Nvidia won't just say scram?

Why would MS or Nintendo drop out of the console war? That's like saying SONY would drop out of the console war

And it's just like saying Cell won't be in PS3 despite SCEI confirming it, your proving my point. Nintendo dropping out is absurd just like Cell magicly not making PS3 would be absurd, the billions of dollars for nothing? Sounds insane to me.

CELL being delayed is not in the same "what if" scenario as the rediculous ones you came up with. You need to tighten up those screws man.

They only one that needs to tighten up some screws is you at this point. How is Nvidia or ATI telling MS to scram any different than Cell not being in PS3? What's more, how are these "rediculous" situations as you put them? Are they only rediculous because you don't want them to happen?

Or are you insisting that CELL will be on time therefore there's no need for plan B????

I am insisting that saying that Cell will not be in PS3 is just moronic. It's almost like saying Nintendo will drop out of the console race. Sure.. it COULD happen, along with a 6 mile meteor hitting the earth tomorow. But there is just NO evidence to support it at all and it's pointless to even say. So yea, I am insisting that Cell will be on time because their is resonable evidence to support my claim. Kutagari says it will debut in 2005, and than you have the Oita 65nm plant going in mass production 2004.

Wanna know what the plan B is? A delay of PS3, that's the plan B. Because there is no evidence of a second chip for PS3, nothing. It's cell or nothing for PS3. Although do I think everything will go off without a hitch with Toshiba? Yes, because billion dollar companies such as Toshiba don't shit around, everything is calculated and if they say their plant is going into mass P 2004 I believe them.

 

[nonamer]

Didn't Sony license a 64-bit MIPS cpu core from IBM IIRC? They may indeed have a plan B, but I'd doubt we'd hear about unless it becomes necessary.

Paul, when it comes to multi-billion dollar companies, the last thing you should do is believe them at their word.

 

[Sonic]

Oh come on Paul, even you must have some doubts that PS3 could possibly get delayed some. And contrary to your belief, ther is slight evidence to support that the PS3 with CELL architecture will not be released until 2006. But not everything can be so easily divulged on.

The thing about ATI and Nvidia telling MS to scram is simply that that thought is preposterous. That's highly unlikely to happen, a crap load more than CELL being delayed or not appearing in PS3. I doubt Nvidia or ATI would risk their own graphics hardware business or participation in DirectX and anything to do with Windows by telling MS to scram. It's not going to happen, because ATI and Nvidia both know they'd be screwing themselves so much worse than they are to MS.

And IBM may not be entirely ready for a launch of PS3 in 2005. Sure, it can debut, but that's not the same as launching, it's the same as unveiling. I don't know where some people get the idea that CELL belongs to Sony and that it controls everything to do with it. Toshiba might be manufacturing the CELL chip in PS3, but that doesn;t mean it is Toshiba's or Sony's. Sure, it's a partnership between the big 3, but it's still as much as IBM's as it is Sony's and Toshiba's. PS3 could very well be delayed b y the say so of IBM, but I have a hard time believing IBM isn't ready. Patents or no patents, it's still architecture very much belonging to IBM.

While the thought of PS3 not being released on time and being delayed or CELL not being in it are rediculous themselves, that's not the point of this thread. The thread was created for the purpose of "what if." What if CELL doesn't end up in PS3, what could Sony use as a plan B or backup technology for PS3? I think that was the original point of the thread, not to go crazy over the thought of someone suggesting CELL might not be there.

 

[Paul]

Didn't Sony license a 64-bit MIPS cpu core from IBM IIRC? They may indeed have a plan B, but I'd doubt we'd hear about unless it becomes necessary.

Which is probably going to be used in PSP. PSP is said to have a MIPS core, although a 32bit one.

 

[Paul]

Funny Sonic, according to a CNET news article over a year ago Cell was just about ready to tape out.. And if you were reading, we are now talking about what Sony has IF Cell is not the cpu for ps3.

The thing about ATI and Nvidia telling MS to scram is simply that that thought is preposterous. That's highly unlikely to happen, a crap load more than CELL being delayed or not appearing in PS3.

And how is it out of line? Even more out of line than Sony spending billions on Cell and it not being in PS3?

And IBM may not be entirely ready for a launch of PS3 in 2005.

Link? Evidence? So far there is only evidence to support they will be. If the chip is going into production 2004 that means it's DONE finished.

What if CELL doesn't end up in PS3, what could Sony use as a plan B or backup technology for PS3? I think that was the original point of the thread, not to go crazy over the thought of someone suggesting CELL might not be there.

Like I said, we can play WHAT IF'S all damn day. And how are suddenly my what if's out of line or crazy? Even more crazy than Sony investing billions in cell and it doesn't turn up in their best selling product?

Oh come on Paul, even you must have some doubts that PS3 could possibly get delayed some.

And when did I say it couldn't get delayed? I never said that, infact my first post in this topic was in response of Cell NOT being in PS3, not there being a delay. I admit that it is very NOT likely ps3 is delayed, I never say it can't.

That's highly unlikely to happen, a crap load more than CELL being delayed or not appearing in PS3.

And why is that? Don't you think a company spending billions in a CPU, coming out in press releases and stating the processor will be used in the console and than suddenly changing their mind is a little out of whack? I would go as far as to say it's crazier than ms not getting ATI or nvidia.

 

[Sonic]

A CNET article over a year ago said CELL was just about to tape out? That means it would have taped out months ago, and I mean months ago. Are you sure this article came out a year ago, or did I misread?

I have little doubt Sony can pull it off, but the possibility of them having issues and trouble with it is a high probability. It's an untested architecture on a process that could be a little shaky whether or not it's working correctly or not. If they do have .65nm process working, but it has a high failure rate in its wafers then it could very well be delayed. Things like this happen all the time, but it doesn't mean they will.

I'm done arguing on this thread.

 

[Paul]

The article is from August 2002, not a full year but close.

Cell has nearly "taped out"--an industry term meaning that the chip's pen and paper design and layout have been completed. Soon these will be handed over to engineers in manufacturing, who will craft samples. Meanwhile, the engineers have been testing various elements of the processor, both separately and together, before the manufacturing unit connects them inside actual Cell chips.

Meaning they are testing it by now and writing the OS and such.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-948493.html

I have no doubts PS3 could be delayed, but everything is going as planned at this point it seems.

 

[megadrive0088]

Sony supposedly had a plan B for PSX2 in the late 90s if Sega came out with a machine more powerful than how Dreamcast turned out. If DC turned out to be Sony's worst nightmare, Sony was going to counter with a PSX2 using twin Evans & Sutherland TR5 chips (Namco's highend System22 arcade used TR3) ..that version of PSX2 would have been out in 1998-1999. though. since DC was not a big enough threat, Sony just built their own graphics engine, they did not need the E&S version or PS2 grew beyond the limits of E&S tech.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Mmm, so PS2 would have been far powerful then the present model?

 

[London Geezer]

Mmm, so PS2 would have been far powerful then the present model?

apparently... but it would also have been a lot more expensive.....


oh and by the way, since many fanboys seem to think that 50 million people bought the PS2 and loads of games in a hype shopping spree obviously blinded by Sony's marketing machine since PS2 is a piece of shit, why would Sony want to invest all that money in this project... i mean, they could just take a Genesis, call it PS3 and BOOM 100 million units sold....

 

[Vince]

Sony supposedly had a plan B for PSX2 in the late 90s if Sega came out with a machine more powerful than how Dreamcast turned out. If DC turned out to be Sony's worst nightmare, Sony was going to counter with a PSX2 using twin Evans & Sutherland TR5 chips (Namco's highend System22 arcade used TR3) ..that version of PSX2 would have been out in 1998-1999. though. since DC was not a big enough threat, Sony just built their own graphics engine, they did not need the E&S version or PS2 grew beyond the limits of E&S tech.

Whoa... From what I've heard the GS was perhaps the first actual PS2 based IC that was completed. So to say they waited for DC then decided to build their own is... odd.

 

[iapetus]

london-boy: "i mean, they could just take a Genesis, call it PS3 and BOOM 100 million units sold...."

Hey, didn't you have to sign an NDA when you found out about Sony's Plan B? Nobody's supposed to know about that one yet...

 

[megadrive0088]

Wanna know what the plan B is? A delay of PS3, that's the plan B. Because there is no evidence of a second chip for PS3, nothing. It's cell or nothing for PS3. Although do I think everything will go off without a hitch with Toshiba? Yes, because billion dollar companies such as Toshiba don't shit around, everything is calculated and if they say their plant is going into mass P 2004 I believe them.

agreed.

if PS3 cannot be out by 2005, it will be by 2006. simple enough. otherwise we'll know that Cell has major problems or needed alot more time, and there is NO hard evidence to support that at this time.

 

[Rockman]

I agree psx is plan b, they may have clear some of those bottlenecks and\or added more ram & power to it.

 

[London Geezer]

I agree psx is plan b, they may have clear some of those bottlenecks and\or added more ram & power to it.

yeah then there are gonna be option on the PS2 games released to turn on the resolution, add AA and AF and things like that this is not PC land kiddo, PS2 architecture-specs will remain the same until its death. no "more ram" crap...

 

[chaphack]

PSP and PSX are obviously plan B. I believe CELL is not yet ready for 2005, not forgetting the BB infrastructure worldwide. Late 2006 or 2007 will we see PS3 IMHO.

I mean, PSP is slated for late 2004. They need to have ample work on their handheld for it even have sniff of success. A year later PS3? Nay....dont think so.

 

[Ozymandis]

I know it's just pure speculation, but after reading what I just posted in the PS3 thread, what can Sony do if Cell is not ready to go into PS3, what could Sony put in the PS3 in time in order to be able to compete with Xbox2 and GC2???

Personally I don't see where they need to do anything. There's too much emphasis on hardware here. As long as Playstation2 maintains the best developer support, I don't think that Sony needs to rush things.

When you're outselling your nearest competitor by more than 400% and the gap is still growing, why not wait until you've got the hardware that you want?

 

[London Geezer]

When you're outselling your nearest competitor by more than 400% and the gap is still growing, why not wait until you've got the hardware that you want?

couldn't have said it better.... i mean i could have but hey u beat me to it