PS4 Pro Speculation (PS4K NEO Kaio-Ken-Kutaragi-Kaz Neo-san)

[Shifty Geezer]

What does that mean for games targeting PS4's GCN trying to run on GCN3? Are you suggesting PS4 games (owner's current library) could run poorly on Neo? Can you imagine the fall-out of someone buying a Neo, putting in Infamous Second Son and Diablo 3, and the performance being worse than their old console?!

 

[kalelovil]

I'd say there is the potential for edge-cases where that is true (but I'm neither an engineer nor a professional developer), as with any system of emulation. I'd guess it will insignificant or invisible to the end-user, otherwise Sony would not have chosen this path forward. Sony does presumably have the significant advantage of contact and collaboration with AMD's graphics engineers.

 

[AlNom]

I'm still assuming that most devs have PC ultra assets and writing changes to code to make use of them on Neo will be utterly trivial.*

* I say this from a position of total ignorance, which I will attempt to cover up with bluster if challenged.

They still have to work within 5GB of game title memory for Neo. Presumably the extra 512MB allows them to push the framebuffer allocation accordingly.

One would hope that the AF issue is settled though.

 

[3dilettante]

I'm asking if Neo is even compatible with PS4 based on what 3dilittente said here:

Neo should run PS4 code as is. If it doesn't we're looking at a very different product. Which may be forwards compatible - perhaps the incompatiblities with PS4 are an API abstraction to facilitate FC in future - but which throws a massive spanner in the running PS4 as a business.

That was related to the question of the standard PS4 being forward-compatible with Neo, which I believe the discussion by DF of a mix of shared and dedicated binaries for the GPU that hints at it not being fully forward-compatible, where there is code for Neo that the PS4 cannot handle. Sony is forbidding disparate treatment of the two code paths, and preventing using Neo's backward compatibility with the PS4 as a crutch for problems with the Neo software. A symmetric forward and backward compatible scenario would have one path that both could run.
There are other indications like needing a patch to add Neo features to existing titles, and other platform elements like a changed memory allocation whose assumptions would cause problems for the PS4.

That does not rule out the opposite direction, where Neo can handle PS4 code gracefully--which would be necessary to run existing software.

The systems are complex, so verifying whether hardware can run software and handle different behaviors that do not exist yet--particularly with the consoles where we see obvious signs of immaturity in terms of understanding them--is a difficult problem.
Also, in more software-relevant examples like text editors and web formats, forward compatibility also needs forethought and explicit elements in the design that telegraph what is to come for future features and behaviors. Whether the rather secretive console business would want leave bread crumbs to where their upcoming consoles are going is unclear.

I am curious if there is some element of "well, we can only shrink it so far, so let's add something" to the Neo, or if it's also an effort at monetizing Sony's attempt at doing something new, by increasing the abstraction between software and the console. The two variations of the PS4 platform coexisting on the same hardware/OS might be a little more compartmentalized/portable for future compatibility or keeping options open based on what happens with Microsoft's leveraging of its system organization.

 

[novcze]

I am curious if there is some element of "well, we can only shrink it so far, so let's add something" to the Neo, or if it's also an effort at monetizing Sony's attempt at doing something new, by increasing the abstraction between software and the console...

I'm also curious and I think that increasing the abstraction between software and the console is only way to real PlayStation ecosytem without hard reset every few years. Backward compatibility (via hw. or sw.) should be replaced with software forward compatibility ... at least I would like it.

 

[mpg1]

Not sure how true this is but interesting info on neo: http://vrworld.com/2016/05/11/amd-confirms-sony-playstation-neo-based-zen-polaris/

"At the same time, we managed to learn that SONY ran into a roadblock with their original PlayStation 4 plans. Just like all the previous consoles (PSX to PSOne, PS2, PS3), the plan was to re-do the silicon with a ‘simple’ die shrink, moving its APU and GPU combination from 28nm to 14nm. While this move was ‘easy’ in the past – you pay for the tapeout and NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering), neither Microsoft nor Sony were ready to pay for the cost of moving from a planar transistor (28nm) to a FinFET transistor design (14nm).

This ‘die-shrink’ requires to re-develop the same chip again, with a cost measured in excess of a hundred million dollars (est. $120-220 million). With Sony PlayStation VR retail packaging being a mess of cables and what appears to be a second video processing console, in the spring of 2014 SONY pulled the trigger and informed AMD that they would like to adopt AMD’s upcoming 14nm FinFET product line, based on successor of low-power Puma (16h) CPU and Polaris GPU processor architecture.

The only mandate the company received was to keep the hardware changes invisible to the game developers, but that was also changed when Polaris 10 delivered a substantial performance improvement over the original hardware. The new 14nm FinFET APU consists out of eight x86 LP cores at 2.1 GHz (they’re not Zen nor Jaguar) and a Polaris GPU, operating on 15-20% faster clock than the original PS4.

According to sources in the know, the Polaris for PlayStation Neo is clocked at 911 MHz, up from 800 MHz on the PS4. The number of units should increase from the current 1152. Apparently, we might see a number higher than 1500, and lower than 2560 cores which are physically packed inside the Polaris 10 GPU i.e. Radeon R9 400 Series. Still, the number of units is larger than Polaris 11 (Radeon R7 400 Series), and the memory controller is 256-bit wide, with GDDR5 memory running higher than the current 1.38 GHz QDR. Given the recent developments with 20nm GDDR5 modules, we should see a 1.75 GHz QDR, 7 Gbps clock – resulting in 224 GB/s, almost a 20% boost.

Internally known as PlayStation Neo, the console should make its debut at the Tokyo Game Show, with availability coming as soon as Holiday Season 2016 – in time for the PlayStation VR headset."

 

[MrFox]

vrworld.com seems to be brightsideofnews.com that got renamed to be new and fresh. Same guy running the show.

No source == Unreliable

 

[London Geezer]

In theory it could make sense that in order for Sony to shrink the architecture, they would only actually make a profit if they got whatever AMD is producing at high enough quantities. That would support the theory that PS4 Neo is just a shrunk PS4, with the added benefit of a performance increase. That way they don't even have to sell it at a lower price but in fact probably higher - unlike what they've historically done with slim PS2/PS3 which were much cheaper.

Anyway, I guess we'll know more in less than a month.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Whilst it's likely that you're correct London-boy, selling the new box at a higher entry price does nothing to let them access the more price conscious consumer that typically buys into the console platform late in the game. The entire driving motivator of die-shrinking consoles has been cost reduction, in order to increase margins and/or reduce the product sale price. PS Neo will be great for me personally, but without any accompanying lower cost PS4 option I'd be concerned that it could harm the PS4's overall momentum in the long term.

Well, maybe the idea is to die shrink the PS4k later on down the line in order to provide the lower priced unit? I guess at least that would be going from FinFET transistors to FinFET again (assuming whatever lower node they go to after 14nm uses FinFET transistors).

 

[London Geezer]

There is also the very real possibility that Sony isn't actually interested in a much cheaper console. We don't even know what their profit margin per unit is right now. Perhaps the business model is no longer made for continually cheaper consoles, we've already seen by the lack of a super cheap PS3 when compared to PS2, which I think went down to $99 at the end of it lifecycle. I don't think the PS3 was ever sold at less than $200, but my memory could be wrong.
Apple are doing quite well without cheaper products.

I'm not saying this is all true, but I do see the merits in keeping a certain price point that people are willing to pay, and giving extra features (form factor, performance) in order to keep the value (and price) up.

 

[Xbat]

This was my theory to, posted something similar earlier.

 

[Globalisateur]

There is also the very real possibility that Sony isn't actually interested in a much cheaper console. We don't even know what their profit margin per unit is right now. Perhaps the business model is no longer made for continually cheaper consoles, we've already seen by the lack of a super cheap PS3 when compared to PS2, which I think went down to $99 at the end of it lifecycle. I don't think the PS3 was ever sold at less than $200, but my memory could be wrong.
Apple are doing quite well without cheaper products.

I'm not saying this is all true, but I do see the merits in keeping a certain price point that people are willing to pay, and giving extra features (form factor, performance) in order to keep the value (and price) up.

I don't think so. (And I know it's not what you think). Sony know that the real money comes from software and services, not hardware (PSN beating all of Nintendo...). For that they need to sell the most hardware possible. I think they know this since PS2. It was selling incredibly well, they (stubbornly) continued to shrink it and lower the price until the very end.

PS3 was an oddity, no need to rewrite history on that point. Why it costed so much and why they couldn't lower the price. But they always said that they didn't want to make real money on PS4 console, nor on PSVR. As long as they don't lose money on the hardware they sell (maybe counting the RD), I think this is Sony motto now and forward.

Yeah, Apple are doing really well but only because people are stu*** enough to buy those shiny mobile phones at that price. Hey it's shiny with an apple and has Apps, so cute! The modern smartphone industry (basically since the iPhone) is quite young compared to the console industry. I predict they won't sell it with shameful untaxed 50% profit in 30 years or so.

 

[Prophecy2k]

That's possibly true, but there's no denying that the slowdown in process manufacturing development also plays a part in that. It certainly did for PS3, and PS3 was somewhat of an anomaly, since it launched at such a high price to start with, so getting it down below $100 through die shrinks and re-engineering was always going to be a longshot.

 

[London Geezer]

Hey hey hey i'm not that stupid!

 

[London Geezer]

My point is not whether or not it can actually be cheap enough to produce a PS3 or PS4 to be sold at $100 or $200. My point is that maybe those price points are not attractive to Sony. With PS3 they introduced a Slim and a Super Slim and the price never went below $299 as the Super Slim was sold with a 250GB hard drive just to keep that price point up. Could Sony have made a Super Slim with no bells and whistles and a rubbish HDD, and sold it at $100-$150? If they wanted, I'm sure they could have.

So, PS4 Neo would follow that same philosophy of holding a certain price range by adding value through features instead of constantly lowering price.

Today's market is very different. No one is interested in at $150 console as by the time it's that cheap, performance would be abysmal. So keep performance and features up and keep the price up. Bingo.

 

[mpg1]

It sounds like the economics of going to 14nm with the same design/specs didn't make sense(IE wouldn't have been able to drop the price much on several year old specs)

So they improved the specs along with 14nm shrink to maintain a certain price point ($399+).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Could Sony have made a Super Slim with no bells and whistles and a rubbish HDD, and sold it at $100-$150? If they wanted, I'm sure they could have.

They quite possibly couldn't, hence the existence of the flash-only model.

Today's market is very different. No one is interested in at $150 console as by the time it's that cheap, performance would be abysmal.

That's questionable. There were twice as many PS2's sold as PS3s. What are the audience who bought <= $150 PS2's playing on? Mobile, maybe. But if there was a $150 PS3, would they buy that? And as others say, the real money's in the services and content unless you're selling crazy amounts of crazy profitable hardware like Apple.

I definitely think a cheap PS4 is important. Certainly cheaper than now. I know people not buying one hoping it'll be cheaper. If the price never drops from what it is, Sony are limiting themselves from tens of millions of potential customers. I have trouble believing that those users are worth less than a new form of consoling elite. If Sony are to follow the standard consumer electronics model, the new model will see the old model sold (and refactored) cheaper to reach a lower tier audience.

 

[mpg1]

The more I think about it the more I do wonder if the orginal PS4 model will just simply be discontinued and replaced with this new model just as any slim model would replace an original model.

I mean this is effectively the slim revision...it just happens to have better specs also

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's the move that'd generate most annoyance among existing users, especially those who buy a PS4 just before the new one comes out. Would that affect the brand/momentum in a bad way? Probably not. i guess it'd attract many more buyers (perceived much better value) than casualties.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is also the very real possibility that Sony isn't actually interested in a much cheaper console. We don't even know what their profit margin per unit is right now. Perhaps the business model is no longer made for continually cheaper consoles, we've already seen by the lack of a super cheap PS3 when compared to PS2, which I think went down to $99 at the end of it lifecycle.

Very true. When you sell an ecosystem (like a console) at bargain basement prices you're going to attract bargain basement owners. No disrespect to those on a tight budget but if you're not buying games from the console's online store or new games from retail then you're not making the console owner any money unless you subscribe to Live or PSN. Just look at the per-capita spend of the iOS and Android ecosystems, it's way skewed in favour of Apple. It's not an economic model that is isolated to phones or mobile operating systems, any ecosystem that is predicated on profit over the life of a product through content sales is going to face this problem - ignoring Apple's 30%+ margins on hardware which consoles don't have.