384bit @ 264GB/s with 6GB would have made the PS4 more potent than it's current configuration IMO.
Memory controller and bus takes a lot of die space. I think it would be more cost effective to pick 7gbps chip to get up to 224 GB/s on a 256-bit wide bus. In fact they will most probably choose 7gbps chip, but will underclock/volt them to get the most units and reliability. I still think they could settle at 6gbps for 192 GB/s but even 176 GB/s is really nice with that amount on a console.
1 Million PS4 = 16 Millions high end GDDR5 chips. Good luck with that.
It's probably a better case than blu-ray diode when PS3 launched, but still challenging in production.
In my view, basic peer-to-peer RemotePlay arrangement should only be used for LAN gaming.
In this case, the Vita does not need a copy of the RemotePlayed PS4 game.
To switch the game host across WAN between 2 PS4s on-the-fly, they can either:
* Mandate both parties to own the game: only need to share action and state data like co-op.
or
* Both parties Gaikai from the servers so that the host doesn't have to stream 1080p game presentation upstream (to another PS4). In this case, both parties don't need a local copy of the game technically speaking. It just happens that the host already bought a copy but he got stuck. This approach is only applicable if Gaikai's instant demo platform works as advertised.
As you can see, I don't believe in peer-to-peer RemotePlay across WAN.
It will work as long as latencies isn't too wild.
It should be no different from essentially hosting a Gaikai server on your PS4, and since there's HW encode decode embedded, it should be fine.
There seems to be a concern about local ISP bandwidth issues and the like.
While I understand that streaming 720p+ is going to take about 5+ Mbps, it is totally possible that PS4 doesn't encode at that resolution and goes for something in the realm of 540p (PSV resolution I remember) or 480p. That in effect can lower the requirement down to under 3 Mbps.
Anyway, from my experience, if a user wants to stream and has infrastructure limitations, it really isn't up to the manufacturer and service provider to fix the user's own problems. It's up to the user and his ISP to fix. Or don't stream, period.
This is like asking GE to provide a refrigerator that still work 24/7 when you have power outage issues.
It's just not their responsibility.
Trying to work around network infrastructure limitations (latency, bandwidth) will most likely result in overly complex systems and make the experience much more unpleasant.
If your program uses only small amount of memory, GPU should have ~6GB available to it.I have a question if the PS4 has 2GB reserve for OS and system(example),will the GPU will be able to take advantage of those 6GB or their will be a point where it will be a waste.?
New features like these also put pressure on ISPs to improve their service or risk losing customers to competitors better equipped to provide a good experience. If your DSL upstream sucks maybe your PS4 will convince you to switch to cable. Or if your cable is unreliable, maybe you seek out a fiber provider.
New features like these also put pressure on ISPs to improve their service or risk losing customers to competitors better equipped to provide a good experience. If your DSL upstream sucks maybe your PS4 will convince you to switch to cable. Or if your cable is unreliable, maybe you seek out a fiber provider.
What’s more, developers are predicting the death of pure single player experiences in several years.
I can't see this happening but if it does it will be followed by mine and I'm guessing many, many others gamers exits from the games market very shortly after.
I can't see this happening but if it does it will be followed by mine and I'm guessing many, many others gamers exits from the games market very shortly after.