PSP2 should be similar to PS3 is power

[edepot]

Here are the facts:

The PSP has about 80% of the graphical power of a PS2.
The PSP was released 4 years after the PS2.
PSP: year 2004 and PS2: year 2000

Here are the predictions:

The PSP2 should be at least 80% as powerful as the PS3.
The PSP2 should be released 4 years after the PS3.
PSP2:year 2010 and PS3: year 2006


Since the PS3 (theoretically) can do 275million polygons per second.
The PSP2 should (theoretically) do 220million polygons per second.

There was a rumor that the SGX543MP (quadcore) will be used in PSP2. If it is used then it can only (theoretically) do 130million polygons per second. This chip cannot keep up with 80% of the graphical power of the PS3. Time to shop around or innovate.

TBDR lost out to ATI and nVidia the last time they competed. The goal is to make extremely powerful chips, without forcing the developer into one type of fixed graphical capability offered by the hardware. The PS2 lasted so long because the GPU is extremely fast and powerful and people could find ways to get graphical power out of it years and years later via coding efficiency. If the PS2 GPU was a slow hardware with fixed functions, ALL games will be bound by the performance of that slow hardware and fixed functions. Get rid of the fixed features in hardware, and instead offer a very powerful general silicon where code is king. That is why the PSP's MIPS processor is so successful, lasting so many years with no competition in sight (at this moment at least). Forcing one way to implement 3D (Tile based deferred rendering) only hampers future innovation. Let the code decide whether to split it up into tiles or whether to do deferred rendering. The industry is headed to OpenCL, where coding determines efficiency. Why are some vendors going the opposite direction and forcing a particular type of 3D implementation? If TBDR is so great why do the top graphics vendors ATI and nVidia not forcing the developers to use it? There is a reason and I think there is a lesson to be learned here. Cost and power efficiency is relative and can be achieve with powerful non-fixed function chips (like that used in the PSP).

Here is a PSP using coding techniques to tap the power of the MIPS...
http://www.primotechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/acreedpspmore.jpg

Here is an iPhone dependent on the fixed functions of TBDR...
http://images.macworld.com/appguide/images/320/791/954/ss1.jpg

Note that while on the PSP you can change coding techniques to improve graphics, the iPhone is kinda stuck with the fixed-function GPU. That is the best it will look for the life of the product.

So here is to hoping the next PSP2 and PS4 go the route of extremely fast parts where code determines efficiency, and the hardware is ok to be costly initially so that later iterations can bring it down to the right price, thereby keeping the console life long. (unlike the PC, people don't swap out parts in mobile gaming machines, so it HAS to be powerful, with future innovation through software key to its lifespan).

Just to be clear, I have nothing against TBDR, only that it should be an option not a necessity for achieving 3D. If it can be done in software (optionally), allocating to powerful generic modules, the better.


(can someone fix the title? is=in)

 

[obonicus]

That'd be a quick way to kill game devs in Japan. Or push them ALL to DS.

 

[Carl B]

When PSP2 launches, we can theorize as to what it 'should' be able to do - no sooner. The original PSP launched in a world when die shrinks gave you everything you wanted and more. PSP2 will not launch in that world, so it will be more a function of what chips are available at x expense and thermals.

 

[corduroygt]

The best thing psp2 can do is to be a smartphone as well. It cant be anything close to ps3 unless nuclear batteries are invented

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Here are the facts:

The PSP has about 80% of the graphical power of a PS2.
The PSP was released 4 years after the PS2.
PSP: year 2004 and PS2: year 2000

Here are the predictions:

The PSP2 should be at least 80% as powerful as the PS3.
The PSP2 should be released 4 years after the PS3.
PSP2:year 2010 and PS3: year 2006


Since the PS3 (theoretically) can do 275million polygons per second.
The PSP2 should (theoretically) do 220million polygons per second.

That is some questionable logic if I ever saw one..., but considering that you already have PS4 product codes and release dates on your website it's hardly surprising.

I don't think the 2010 will be the time you can have such much performance with so little power draw. When the PSP launched PS2 slim was already in the market, and that thing is tiny, and ran pretty cool if I remember correctly. PS3 slim is now new, is quite big and atleast mine runs really hot. I'm very sceptical, that you could get 80% of that performance in a very small portable form factor.

 

[tha_con]

I actually think we'll see a trend similar to the GCN>Wii.

Basically, the new PSP will possibly be slightly more powerful than the current PSP, with a new focus on connectivity. In fact, I don't think it even needs to be "online" or a phone, simple 3G connectivity similar to the Kindle would be more than enough, IMO.

In fact, if it simply had a touch screen and gyroscopic control like the iPhone, then that would be more than enough.

I say keep a design similar to the PSPGo (sliding, buttons hidden when closed) and it'll be pretty popular. They most certainly HAVE to build in an app though for music, as using the xmb is cumbersome for music.

I'd really like to see how the xmb controls with touch screen though, could be interesting.

I think PS4 will be similar, slightly more powerful than PS3 with significant added emphasis on connectivity and features, as opposed to raw power. I can see them adding more memory, etc, dedicated specifically to OS functunality (in game access, gross game chat, etc). The next big "evolution" of gaming is going to be network related, IMO.

 

[dobwal]

Here are the facts:

The PSP has about 80% of the graphical power of a PS2.
The PSP was released 4 years after the PS2.
PSP: year 2004 and PS2: year 2000

Here are the predictions:

The PSP2 should be at least 80% as powerful as the PS3.
The PSP2 should be released 4 years after the PS3.
PSP2:year 2010 and PS3: year 2006


(can someone fix the title? is=in)

Very unlikely and highly superficial in terms of analysis. PS2 was $149 console in 2004/2005 with a profit margin built in. Its about to be 2010 and the PS3 is still $299.

Given that the PSP was around $250.00 at launch, using your logic we should see a 80% power of the PS3-PSP2 for about $499 in 2010

 

[Prophecy2k]

Basically, the new PSP will possibly be slightly more powerful than the current PSP, with a new focus on connectivity. In fact, I don't think it even needs to be "online" or a phone, simple 3G connectivity similar to the Kindle would be more than enough, IMO.

I still don't think 3G connectivity is really necessary for a portable games console IMHO. PSP2 only really needs to include WiFi and Bluetooth allowing for wireless tethering to a mobile phone. I use the bluetooth connectivity to tether my PSPGo to my LG Renoir and I must say, if that was the only feature marking a difference between the Go and PSP 3k, it was worth it in my book... PSP2 just needs to extend this.

I also don't see the need for further increasing the cost of the PSP2 by adding a touchscreen... I'd much rather have a dual analogue nub setup.

At the end of it, I do think the PSP2 is gonna offer a significant performance improvement over the PSP, and significant enough for a portable handheld to provide game devs "enough" performance for what they want to do.

Ultimately the DS showed that the software is most important. Sony need piracy almost entirely eradicated for their next PSP for it to stand a fighting chance next gen. Otherwise publishers and devs could simply ignore it.

 

[edepot]

Very unlikely and highly superficial in terms of analysis. PS2 was $149 console in 2004/2005 with a profit margin built in. Its about to be 2010 and the PS3 is still $299.

Given that the PSP was around $250.00 at launch, using your logic we should see a 80% power of the PS3-PSP2 for about $499 in 2010

Your conclusion is close, but how you went about it is kinda missing some intermediate steps:

Here is the correct way to look at it (using the same logic):

PS2 launch price: $300
PS2 Slim: $150 (half)

PS3 launch price: $600
PS3 Slim: $300 (half)


PS2->PS3 doubled in price

So...
PSP launch price: $250
PSP2 launch price: $500

PSP->PSP2 doubled in price


I wouldn't mind paying $500 for a portable PS3, especially if the PS3 Slim portable costs $250 years later. (or PSP2 -> PSP2 Slim using the same analogy).
But seriously, price is meaningless, as most consoles are subsidized to meet consumer expectations. Performance, on the other hand...

I think the main feature the PSP2 needs to have is 720p or 1080p output so you can plug it into your HDTV when at home. So it can play Full HD movies and games. (Actually it should do more than that but if you are interested visit the PSP Secrets page below) That is why it is cruicial that the PSP2 can have 80% of PS3, else you will only plug it into regular TV's when everyone is moving to HDTV Full HD.

 

[dobwal]

Your conclusion is close, but how you went about it is kinda missing some intermediate steps:

Here is the correct way to look at it (using the same logic):

PS2 launch price: $300
PS2 Slim: $150 (half)

PS3 launch price: $600
PS3 Slim: $300 (half)


PS2->PS3 doubled in price

So...
PSP launch price: $250
PSP2 launch price: $500

PSP->PSP2 doubled in price


I wouldn't mind paying $500 for a portable PS3, especially if the PS3 Slim portable costs $250 years later. (or PSP2 -> PSP2 Slim using the same analogy).
But seriously, price is meaningless, as most consoles are subsidized to meet consumer expectations. Performance, on the other hand...

I think the main feature the PSP2 needs to have is 720p or 1080p output so you can plug it into your HDTV when at home. So it can play Full HD movies and games. (Actually it should do more than that but if you are interested visit the PSP Secrets page below) That is why it is cruicial that the PSP2 can have 80% of PS3, else you will only plug it into regular TV's when everyone is moving to HDTV Full HD.

Given the issues Sony has had with launching a $600 PS3, you honestly think that a $500 PSP2 is something that Sony would strongly consider.

Are you aware of Sony's current predicament with the PS3 or do believe something other than the high launch price of the PS3 and Sony inability to reduce manufacturing cost to more plausible price points did not play a large part in Sony's inability to reach PS2 like sales or profitability?

Price is meaningless? Yes, as we know that the PSP is a game seller, so it makes sense to attach huge subidization requirements on the software of your new portable to pay for hardware costs since its predcessor showed such great ability to do so.

The only way a $500 PSP2 makes sense if Sony were to flesh out its feature and turn it into a touch screen cell phone. At least then you could have carriers subsidize the hardware and offer a price point more palable to consumers. But add in that type of feature and more than likely 80% of the PS3 power would be lost to the additional cost of adding a touch screen, GPS and cellular hardware.

But at least you get the options of multiplayer gaming anywhere without the need to tether or carry two devices. One device would meet all your needs. Imagine a PSP GO with a qwerty keyboard in place of the start and select button area and the controller and input button a little smaller and spread outward a little more.

 

[tha_con]

I still don't think 3G connectivity is really necessary for a portable games console IMHO. PSP2 only really needs to include WiFi and Bluetooth allowing for wireless tethering to a mobile phone. I use the bluetooth connectivity to tether my PSPGo to my LG Renoir and I must say, if that was the only feature marking a difference between the Go and PSP 3k, it was worth it in my book... PSP2 just needs to extend this.

I also don't see the need for further increasing the cost of the PSP2 by adding a touchscreen... I'd much rather have a dual analogue nub setup.

At the end of it, I do think the PSP2 is gonna offer a significant performance improvement over the PSP, and significant enough for a portable handheld to provide game devs "enough" performance for what they want to do.

Ultimately the DS showed that the software is most important. Sony need piracy almost entirely eradicated for their next PSP for it to stand a fighting chance next gen. Otherwise publishers and devs could simply ignore it.

The thing is, that's not readily available to everyone (tethering). I have an outstanding phone (Palm Pre) and I can't tether it for Wifi / Bluetooth connection.

The reason the iPhone is so successful is because it's always connected no matter where you go. The PSPGo is positioning itself against the iPhone / iPod touch, so it's clear Sony wants to be a competitior in that market.

Touchscreen is essential. Every major player has it (DS, iPhone, iPod Touch, even tons of smart phones like the BlackBerry's, HTC, Palm phones, Android, etc). It is necessary if they want to remain competitive, otherwise they can hang it up. It's far more important than a second analog nub.

Lastly, yes, the DS showed that software is most important, which is why Sony needs to focus on improving their SDK and increasing network functionality, as that will tie in directly to software. Stronger hardware will not sell the system, and I think the PSP is evidence of that.

I think the way the market looks now, everything is pointing toward smaller hardware advances and a bigger focus on connectivity and features out of the box (software features). Consumers just aren't as interested as they used to be in extreme hardware, and they never have been concerned with that in the handheld market. A marginal power bump with improved OS features and other things (like touchscreen and gyroscopic sensors) are what will make the next PSP a big player in the handheld market.

 

[dobwal]

The thing is, that's not readily available to everyone (tethering). I have an outstanding phone (Palm Pre) and I can't tether it for Wifi / Bluetooth connection.

The reason the iPhone is so successful is because it's always connected no matter where you go. The PSPGo is positioning itself against the iPhone / iPod touch, so it's clear Sony wants to be a competitior in that market.

Touchscreen is essential. Every major player has it (DS, iPhone, iPod Touch, even tons of smart phones like the BlackBerry's, HTC, Palm phones, Android, etc). It is necessary if they want to remain competitive, otherwise they can hang it up. It's far more important than a second analog nub.

Lastly, yes, the DS showed that software is most important, which is why Sony needs to focus on improving their SDK and increasing network functionality, as that will tie in directly to software. Stronger hardware will not sell the system, and I think the PSP is evidence of that.

I think the way the market looks now, everything is pointing toward smaller hardware advances and a bigger focus on connectivity and features out of the box (software features). Consumers just aren't as interested as they used to be in extreme hardware, and they never have been concerned with that in the handheld market. A marginal power bump with improved OS features and other things (like touchscreen and gyroscopic sensors) are what will make the next PSP a big player in the handheld market.

I agree with one additional caveat, change the "Portable" in the PSP to "Phone".

The cost saving would be enormous. Sony sells to carrier at cost. Carriers subsidize price for consumers. Sony receive a cut of all software, game related or not, because the PSP would be lock down to PSN.

Furthermore, Sony can get a head ups with fleshing out the PSN store with games and other software by using the current PSP Go as a catalyst. Meaning a PS"Phone" has the ability to hit the ground running.

 

[SuperRad]

Here is a PSP using coding techniques to tap the power of the MIPS...
http://www.primotechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/acreedpspmore.jpg

Here is an iPhone dependent on the fixed functions of TBDR...
http://images.macworld.com/appguide/images/320/791/954/ss1.jpg

Note that while on the PSP you can change coding techniques to improve graphics, the iPhone is kinda stuck with the fixed-function GPU.

Are you sure thats actually a screenshot for assasins creed for the PSP as the screenshots I've seen for it are no where near that quality
http://www.techshout.com/images/assassins-creed-bloodlines-psp.jpg

Also the 3GS iPhone offers a programmable pipeline, and a few companies have made 3GS upgrades to versions of their game that can be taken advantage of if you have a 3GS

 

[rekator]

Actualy 80% of PS3 power give a least 80 watts,using the same quick math than your, so we have a Transportable console with 4 kilos and 1 hours battery, don't think people want this for a portable console.

 

[upnorthsox]

The thing is, that's not readily available to everyone (tethering). I have an outstanding phone (Palm Pre) and I can't tether it for Wifi / Bluetooth connection.

The reason the iPhone is so successful is because it's always connected no matter where you go. The PSPGo is positioning itself against the iPhone / iPod touch, so it's clear Sony wants to be a competitior in that market.

Simple, offer 2 versions, one with bluetooth, one with phone. Both with wifi.

Touchscreen is essential. Every major player has it (DS, iPhone, iPod Touch, even tons of smart phones like the BlackBerry's, HTC, Palm phones, Android, etc). It is necessary if they want to remain competitive, otherwise they can hang it up. It's far more important than a second analog nub.

Agreed, in consumers minds it's now a standard feature and to lack a standard feature is product suicide.

Lastly, yes, the DS showed that software is most important, which is why Sony needs to focus on improving their SDK and increasing network functionality, as that will tie in directly to software. Stronger hardware will not sell the system, and I think the PSP is evidence of that.

I think the way the market looks now, everything is pointing toward smaller hardware advances and a bigger focus on connectivity and features out of the box (software features). Consumers just aren't as interested as they used to be in extreme hardware, and they never have been concerned with that in the handheld market. A marginal power bump with improved OS features and other things (like touchscreen and gyroscopic sensors) are what will make the next PSP a big player in the handheld market.

They need both dev support and strong hardware. Focus on lots of pickup and play type stuff along with the epic stuff. They've seeded to much of one to the DS this gen.

 

[Lazy8s]

The PSP's GPU is around six times the size of the iPhone's GPU.

It's clocked three times higher for significantly more power consumption.

It's actually newer than the iPhone's off-the-shelf Lite MBX+VGP which launched in products earlier in 2004.

Even still, iPhone graphics have better definition, color, 3D depth, and could support more advanced functionality like DOT3 per-pixel lighting/shading.

No IMR -- not from nVidia, nor ATi, nor Sony -- has ever outperformed a comparable PowerVR TBDR.

Despite simultaneously running an advanced OS and not having as optimized drivers nor as customized an API, games for the original iPhone can still look like 2XL Supercross and ATV Offroad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4jx12Ewjks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_1cMV9nb68

The 400 MHz clock speed rumored for the PSP2's GPU would have the SGX543MP4 pushing around 280M tri/sec. TBDRs tend to perform closer to their theoretical limits than IMRs, not that superficial comparisons of theoretical numbers between different architectures gives any real indication of the performance differences. Polygons per second by itself says little about graphics quality as well, especially in the paradigm of shader graphics.

Hardware TBDR doesn't limit the programmability of graphics. It simply provides a set-up through its drivers and on-die resources to accelerate the functions of rasterization which are already required by any algorithm, like visible surface determination.

The PS2 was 500+ square millimeters of silicon in its 250nm process. Compare that in the context of its cost when measuring its performance against other architectures.

MIPS is the architecture of the CPU in PSP. Its GPU is actually wholly fixed-function, whereas the VGP part of the MBX solution is a programmable vertex shader.

 

[Zassk]

Here are the facts:

The PSP has about 80% of the graphical power of a PS2.
The PSP was released 4 years after the PS2.
PSP: year 2004 and PS2: year 2000

Here are the predictions:

The PSP2 should be at least 80% as powerful as the PS3.
The PSP2 should be released 4 years after the PS3.
PSP2:year 2010 and PS3: year 2006


Since the PS3 (theoretically) can do 275million polygons per second.
The PSP2 should (theoretically) do 220million polygons per second.

There was a rumor that the SGX543MP (quadcore) will be used in PSP2. If it is used then it can only (theoretically) do 130million polygons per second. This chip cannot keep up with 80% of the graphical power of the PS3. Time to shop around or innovate.

The difference in resolution between PSP and PS2 is X.
The difference in resolution between PSP2 and PS3 is Y.
Y > X by a long shot.

Therefore, the PSP2 could generate visuals that "look" 80% as good as the PS3, on its little screen, with much less than 80% of the graphical power. Something like Tegra, which I think does 80 million polygons per second, should be enough. 130 million polygons per second should be more than enough for "80%-PS3-like" visuals. It will really come down to how powerful a CPU is paired with it.

 

[Lazy8s]

RSX ended up being downgraded to 500 MHz, so PS3 can actually only set-up 250M tri/sec.

 

[archie4oz]

Christ, quit trying to drag the technical competency (what little is left) of the forum with such stupidity...

The PSP's GPU is around six times the size of the iPhone's GPU.

It's clocked three times higher for significantly more power consumption.

Do you find pleasure in pulling things from your arse? Seriously, 103MHz (133MHz for 2G Touch, and 150MHz for 3GS) vs. 111-166MHz is hardly what I call 3-times the clock speed. Also I don't know where you're getting the ideas for the Graphics Engine die size since it's never been published (and it's smaller than most people realize).

The PS2 was 500+ square millimeters of silicon in its 250nm process. Compare that in the context of its cost when measuring its performance against other architectures.

Of which more than half was eDRAM. Besides hardly any shipped @250nm anyways, and the whole architecture eventually ended up @86mm² and what does that have anything to do with the PSP or PowerVR?

MIPS is the architecture of the CPU in PSP. Its GPU is actually wholly fixed-function, whereas the VGP part of the MBX solution is a programmable vertex shader.

You're also forgetting the VFPU on the PSP (which is where the bulk of it's computational throughput comes from...

 

[archie4oz]

RSX ended up being downgraded to 500 MHz, so RSX can actually only set-up 250M tri/sec.

Fixed that for you.