Latest PS3 rumors...surprises ?

[Titanio]

isn't that what microsoft tried to do last time, but they got outsold because they didn't have a lot of games people liked

not saying thats going to happen, but sony proved this gen that you could come out on top with weaker hardware

Sony is not MS. Sony's always arrived after one console, been technically stronger than one console.

Saturn -> PSX

Dreamcast -> PS2

X360 -> PS3

This isn't new territory for them.

 

[valioso]

if they plan to release in june.. is a bit late to make significant changes imo... unless yields are better then expected and they activate the 8th spe.

 

[Nesh]

isn't that what microsoft tried to do last time, but they got outsold because they didn't have a lot of games people liked

Sony has got the support MS didnt have with the XBOX though

not saying thats going to happen, but sony proved this gen that you could come out on top with weaker hardware

Not if they release a weaker console after 360

XBOX would have done worse if it was only as powerful as the PS2

 

[Nesh]

The PS3 will launch in USA and Japan in JUIN 2006 ( just after the E3 2006 ) and in europe in September 2006. Because sony is not ready for a march 2006 launch.

Sounds possible and logical

The RSX of PS3 will run at 600 MHZ, synchronised with the GDDR3 memory running also at 600 MHZ but at 256 bit.

No idea

The CELL will run at 3.4 GHZ, synchronised with the Rambus ram at 3.4 GHZ.

possible

Fight Night will be a launch game for PS3 in juin 2006, with a new Tekken.

Very likely

Motor storm will launch in fall 2006.

No idea

first playable PS3s for the public will be shown at E3 2006, allowing gamers playing demos of fight night and tekken.

Very likely if the first rumor is true

 

[Guilty Bystander]

I don't think Cell's frequenty will be altered or RSX's in that case.

I think Sony will add some GDDR3 memory from 256MB to 512MB and maybe increasing the memory bus from 128bit to 256bit.
These are just thoughts though.

 

[pegisys]

Sony is not MS. Sony's always arrived after one console, been technically stronger than one console.

Saturn -> PSX

Dreamcast -> PS2

X360 -> PS3

This isn't new territory for them.

true but everyone knew the xbox was coming, and everyone new it would be a lot faster specwise, but it still didn't do big number compared to the ps2, and the ps2 had 2 system after it this gen that are faster specwise

it's the games that draws the crowd, the higher specs may get them a few more sales at launch but I think thats about it, most of the sales will come a year or 2 down the line if they have hit games like they do now

 

[Carl B]

I think those rumors for th emost part, though soundign plausible, are probably without merit. A 256-bit bus has been discussed before as something that will add too much expense - and worse yet be expensive in a way that won't scale down easily as will other costs as time goes on.

The launch dates certainly sound wholly plausible, but I think that if we default to anything, might as well stick with the Spring Japanese launch. Sony will have really screwed up IMO if they miss the 'Golden Week' holiday in Japan.

 

[Nesh]

I think those rumors for th emost part, though soundign plausible, are probably without merit. A 256-bit bus has been discussed before as something that will add too much expense - and worse yet be expensive in a way that won't scale down easily as will other costs as time goes on.

The launch dates certainly sound wholly plausible, but I think that if we default to anything, might as well stick with the Spring Japanese launch. Sony will have really screwed up IMO if they miss the 'Golden Week' holiday in Japan.

They will be a lot more screwed globally if they rush it while its not ready

 

[Carl B]

They will be a lot more screwed globally if they rush it while its not ready

Sure I agree, I just don't see them as 'not' being ready by Spring 06 for Japan. We'll know January at the Vegas Consumer Electronics Show. Probably no sooner.

 

[Powderkeg]

Save that they increased specs on PS2 to no advantage. Already had this debate elsewhere. Not every product made is the cheapest possible with the minimum featureset to do the job. XB could have had a good few less costly components and still beaten the opponents on power, so why'd MS kit it out with more than just the bare minimum? The reason for Sony to increase specs is to get better performance, which if they feel is worth the extra costs in their long-term marketting strategy and goals, they'll go with. If they can get more bang-per-buck with an upgrade it makes economic sense. eg. They could go with a 1:6 Cell configuration and get better yields, but the performance:dollar ratio wouldn't be as good.

I also think it unfair to say great specs wouldn't result in greater sales. There are certainly some people who'll buy the highest spec machine, so making sure PS3 is higher spec'd than XB360 will attract them. Then there's general public perception. We've already covered opinions that XB360 and PS3 will be fairly evenly matched. If the public believe this they might go with the cheaper solution, so Sony really want everyone to believe PS3 is the better machine if they're to charge more. And there's getting people to part with their cash when they get the point of considering value for money later in the console's lifecycle, and increasing the specs can only help this.

If I were Sony and it would only cost $2 more to make the improvements I would. If it'd cost $50 more I wouldn't. Without any knowledge of the costs such upgrades (including forecasted cost reductions) would incur I wouldn't either accept these rumours as likely or impossible based on pricepoints alone.

I understand your points, but I see a flaw.

The vast majority of games will be multiplatform and because of that the difference in power will be imperceptable, even with an increase in specs. See most Xbox games compared to their PS2 counterparts if you need an example.

So to the casuals, it's going to be a question of who has the most desirable exclusives, in which case the PS3 will come out on top, regardless of power. After all, being underpowered sure hasn't hurt PS2 sales, has it?

And Sony has already established the perception that they are more powerful to the general public, who doesn't really pay attention to specs anyways.

The only group of people who would actually be influenced are a small group of hardware geeks who only buy the most powerful hardware and aren't influenced by the game lineups or name brand.

And I don't believe that group is large enough to justify investing any more money than they already have spent. If it was an important group, MS wouldn't be almost 80 million consoles behind the PS2 in worldwide sales.

 

[Titanio]

true but everyone knew the xbox was coming, and everyone new it would be a lot faster specwise, but it still didn't do big number compared to the ps2, and the ps2 had 2 system after it this gen that are faster specwise

it's the games that draws the crowd, the higher specs may get them a few more sales at launch but I think thats about it, most of the sales will come a year or 2 down the line if they have hit games like they do now

I'm not saying specs are all that matter! I'm saying that Playstation has used technical superiority in combination with many other factors, to lead over previously released systems. It helps, and it'd sure hurt if it the hardware was less advanced than earlier systems.

On a general note - does anyone not ever think that SCE may simply take genuine pride in releasing the best system they can within their budget? I certainly get that impression anyway. If the budget allows, upgrades could happen. I'm not saying it is or isn't likely, just possible. Why did they increase PSP's memory? It certainly wasn't because they weren't already miles beyond the DS technically. Why not go with 6 active SPUs? They'd still be more powerful. And so on and so on.

 

[Megadrive1988]

rumors should always be taken with a grain of salt - but i do hope that 256-bit memory bus is true. that's one of the worst things about PS3 IMO, especially since there is *no* high-bandwidth embedded memory on RSX

 

[Mintmaster]

rumors should always be taken with a grain of salt - but i do hope that 256-bit memory bus is true. that's one of the worst things about PS3 IMO, especially since there is *no* high-bandwidth embedded memory on RSX

Agreed. Maybe we'll see the return of 16-bit rendering

But really, the 7800GTX has 2.2 times the bandwidth per shader pipe of RSX (current specs). The 512MB GTX has 2.6 times the bandwidth. That's a big deficit. I don't know how they'll be able to use all that horsepower with HDR rendering without being seriously bottlenecked.

xbdestroya is probably right, though. A 256-bit memory interface would make it really hard to make shrink the chip in the future on a 65nm or 45nm process. I don't think you couldn't make the connections to the pins that dense.

 

[V3]

rumors should always be taken with a grain of salt - but i do hope that 256-bit memory bus is true. that's one of the worst things about PS3 IMO, especially since there is *no* high-bandwidth embedded memory on RSX

Well if they botch the Cell - RSX connection, they would have no choice but to match the development kit that had 256 bit, just to get similar performance.

 

[chachi]

Save that they increased specs on PS2 to no advantage.

The big difference this generation is the relative power of the competitors are known, if they're confident that their current spec is the most powerful then it's just throwing money away to bump them for no purpose. If there are some flaws in the design, say it's too hard to use the XDR with the RSX, then I can see them adding some DDR but that's a *very* expensive decision to make. Bumping the MHz of Cell or RSX would be easier, but even a few percent loss in yields for a relatively small boost in performance seems like a bad move if they already think their design is the best.

I know people like to theorize about 10 year lifespans (i.e. wouldn't it be grand) but you can never design a viable product that lasts that long and it'd be pointless to try. In 5 years technology will have advanced to the point where even a very expensive product now will be easily outclassed by budget ones then.

There are only two real reasons I can think of for them to up the specs. #1 - they have wind of an Intel backed competitor, this seems unlikely given the Windows-centric nature of x86 gaming. #2 - they just can't deliver for less than $500. A 10% boost in Cell and RSX probably wouldn't make that big of a difference, but it should make developers lives easier (that's always a good thing), and people have shown they're captivated by bigger numbers even when it doesn't mean all that much in real life.

Probably more scary to the competition is if Sony could launch at a lower than expected price. $299 would be very bad news for MS and Nintendo. I know if I was Sony that's what I'd do.

 

[expletive]

So this thread has gone on for a couple of pages now and i cant find the source of these rumors in it anywhere. Did i miss something?

 

[ROG27]

Agreed. Maybe we'll see the return of 16-bit rendering

But really, the 7800GTX has 2.2 times the bandwidth per shader pipe of RSX (current specs). The 512MB GTX has 2.6 times the bandwidth. That's a big deficit. I don't know how they'll be able to use all that horsepower with HDR rendering without being seriously bottlenecked.

xbdestroya is probably right, though. A 256-bit memory interface would make it really hard to make shrink the chip in the future on a 65nm or 45nm process. I don't think you couldn't make the connections to the pins that dense.

Hmmm...has anyone ever thought that they might split the 300 million transistor G7x type core up into two seperate 150-200 million transistor cores for the RSX, each with it's own 128-bit memory interface. In essence, they would be preserving the 256-bit memory bandwidth (because the lesser throughput from fewer ALUs on each core would no longer be a bottleneck for a 128-bit bus), increase yields, and lower costs....and in the end they would be able to shrink the chip in the future on a 65nm or 45nm process...

Maybe I'm crazy...but why wouldn't Nvidia thought of this? I'm sure they have...maybe that's what all this dual-core rumor rumblings have been about.

Can any devs give me a wink or something?

This would be a very interesting step for Nvidia to take and a welcome suprise

 

[SentinelQW]

Fight Night = exclusive XBOX 360 title!

http://www.gamevision.de/news,id11887,fight_night_3_exklusiv_xbox_360.html

http://www.xboxfront.de/news-897-2632.html

 

[Bobbler]

Fight Night = exclusive XBOX 360 title!

http://www.gamevision.de/news,id11887,fight_night_3_exklusiv_xbox_360.html

http://www.xboxfront.de/news-897-2632.html

What does this have to do with the thread?

Additionally, that doesn't even make sense considering the showing that EA had at the PS3 unveiling. Completely ignoring the fact that on those sports titles EA doesn't like to do exclusives.

 

[me2]

Fight night is not an exclusive, at EA we never do exclusives (at least not anymore after odd worlds: Stranger ). Fight night does have a release date for the X360 in march as well as other platforms.