Rumor: Sony to ditch Cell processor for Playstation 4?

When the Playstation 3 came out in 2006, one of the reasons it was so expensive at its launch was due to its processor. Sony created its own Cell chip for the PS3 which was very powerful for its time. Indeed, Sony had plans to offer its Cell processor for use inside other hardware products and applications.

In the end, the Cell architecture never caught on much beyond the PS3. Now Kotaku is reporting via unnamed "gaming industry sources" that Sony won't be using the Cell processor or any successor to that chip in the still unannounced Playstation 4 console. Sony, naturally, declined to comment.

So if Sony won't be using its own technology for the PS4, what will it use? One possible theory is that Sony could get a third-party company to create a custom processor for the console. Indeed, there is a recent rumor on the Forbes web site that claims Sony has selected AMD to provide the graphics chip for the PS4. It's possible that Sony could get AMD to also create the CPU for the console as well.

Whatever Sony's plans are for the PS4, it's likely we won't be hearing about them anytime soon. Sony's soon-to-be CEO Kaz Hirai has already announced that the company has no plans to announce any new game consoles at the E3 trade show this June.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New Firefox add-on tracks who is tracking you online

Next Story

Consumer Preview reveals Windows 8 SKUs?

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Backwards compatibility in games is so over-rated.. Unless I see real market stats or surveys, I do not think there are many people who still use their consoles for previous generation games..

Ditchin Sony all together , my ps3 is like new i have 4 games that have rarely been in the drive but i use it for the blue ray,on my 65 " DLP, when the blue ray quit in the middle of a movie, they want 150 bucks for the repair and new one is about 250, so i'm not doin either, trying to buy a busted one to try repair the blueray myself, but the pc on the system has a blueray now so bye bye Sony, Flame left on just in case...

They'll make PS4 backwards compatable no matter what chip they place inside (at least for the 1st gen) - Sony still supports most of their dead formats and with the PS4, they'll do as what PS3 did for PS2 and as what it did for PS original - the questions is if ppl will play PS3 games on PS4. I know I didn't even though I have the original PS3.

I figured they would, but it could be a great opportunity of it scales well... just think with the die shrinks that have happened since PS3 came out.

If saves money and allows them to bring the price down and be competitive by using a more standard multicore CPU then I say go for it. Just add more RAM for developers to work be a good idea... developers can never get enough ram to store that HD content. Or put a bluray reader that reads fast enough to pull things in in almost realtime for content and sure that would make everyone's day. Who knows how far Bluray disc speed has come since there has not really been anything pushing it... movies play at the same pace and only one game system on the market using it... PC gaming has not moved over either since people are doing far more downloading since we did have cheap TB HDDs... until the literal flood...

I can sort of believe them ditching Cell for another architechture. The PS2's CPU was also difficult to work with, requiring a lot of work to get the most out of, and they threw that out as well. The original Playstation was reportedly easy to work with (or was at least compared to the Saturn), and they didn't keep with that, either. Now, Ken Kutaragi is gone, so its possible either they'll change to something powerful but easier to deal with, or they'll keep with Cell (or something Cell based).

I do have an easier time believing they'll abandon Nvidia in favor of AMD in terms of GPU, though. Nvidia served up warmed up leftovers for the PS3, and I've never heard any developer talk about how great RSX was. ATI (now AMD) always did custom jobs that were ahead of (then) current GPUs, with features that weren't available until the next version of DirectX. Honestly, one of those would've been a better fit for the PS3/Cell... when interviewing developers I always read that the PS3's GPU wasn't as good as the 360's, so I'm assuming that Cell was used to pick up the slack.

Now, it is worth asking; what rights does Sony have to Cell? Its possible they're going to AMD with Cell, asking for AMD to improve upon it and manufacture a successor. Microsoft owns the right to the CPU in the 360, so they could take that to anyone - AMD, ARM, Intel, etc. - not just IBM. I would imagine Sony might have similar rights/ownership in regards to Cell (although in this case it would be to make a fork in the architecture). At least, I would hope so @_@

Sam not Spam said,
I can sort of believe them ditching Cell for another architechture. The PS2's CPU was also difficult to work with, requiring a lot of work to get the most out of, and they threw that out as well. The original Playstation was reportedly easy to work with (or was at least compared to the Saturn), and they didn't keep with that, either. Now, Ken Kutaragi is gone, so its possible either they'll change to something powerful but easier to deal with, or they'll keep with Cell (or something Cell based).

I do have an easier time believing they'll abandon Nvidia in favor of AMD in terms of GPU, though. Nvidia served up warmed up leftovers for the PS3, and I've never heard any developer talk about how great RSX was. ATI (now AMD) always did custom jobs that were ahead of (then) current GPUs, with features that weren't available until the next version of DirectX. Honestly, one of those would've been a better fit for the PS3/Cell... when interviewing developers I always read that the PS3's GPU wasn't as good as the 360's, so I'm assuming that Cell was used to pick up the slack.

Now, it is worth asking; what rights does Sony have to Cell? Its possible they're going to AMD with Cell, asking for AMD to improve upon it and manufacture a successor. Microsoft owns the right to the CPU in the 360, so they could take that to anyone - AMD, ARM, Intel, etc. - not just IBM. I would imagine Sony might have similar rights/ownership in regards to Cell (although in this case it would be to make a fork in the architecture). At least, I would hope so @_@

PS3 is a bit odd for developing, The design is for graphics processing to be sent to the cell processor and the gpu is more for output. Most were used to throwing stuff at the gpu for heavy lifting and they couldn't. Where MS went with a more traditional hardware model, which was a bit easier. This all changed and programmers learned how to develop for the cell correctly eventually (or game engines could be licensed that did that for them).

The decision is made with money in mind. Whatever will make money will be the decision. It it costs too much to develop games then they will drop the cell processor. Games on the Xbox can be used on the Xbox, PC, and the phone. How about Sony's games? The number of games sold is where they make there money. Not the consoles. Plus, If AMD can make a CPU cheaper than they can than that is even more money saved.

As far as there partners and developers, Sony will have to make a choice to make the change.

I think that going with an evolution of the Cell processor would be a reasonable decision because devs have had time to learn it now and it would make backwards compatibility much easier. Something like the quad cell (4 PPE, 32 SPEs) with the enhanced PowerCell8i SPEs, coupled with a gig or more of XDR2 RAM and an NVidia Kepler based GPU would provide the necessary speed bump without resetting the learning curve and breaking backward compatibility. They should probably at least stick with a Power Architecture CPU as that's what Cell, the Xbox360, and the Wii U all are so console devs at least have basic familiarity with the instruction set.

Going with an entirely new architecture means a repeat of the cell debacle where devs have a huge learning curve and backwards compatibility is difficult if not impossible.

If they go with x86 that will make the devs happy but it will also mean that your console is just a PC with a proprietary hardware and OS and limited to no backwards compatibility. I can tell you if they go this route I won't be buying it as I'll just upgrade my PC.

Another option would be to go ARM which is dominating the mobile phone/tablet industry and is what the PS Vita runs as well as the PlayStation Certified phones. An ARMv8 (64bit) multi-core CPU with a built in modern ATI or nVidia GPU would be familiar enough for devs and would at least make compatibility with the Vita and Playstation Suite tablets/phones easy. Give is something like 8GB of shared RAM (something > 4GB to really take advantage of the 64bit CPU) and you've got the core of a solid next-gen console.

Coolicer said,
Nice read, thanks. I've been thinking for a while that instead of going for the biggest/best, that next generation will be more about multiples of smaller and slower working together. Better yields when making *PUs, lower cost, hopefully more reliable, less heat, etc. And, if multiple GPUs are going to be the future (hoping), then SLI/Crossfire just became more attractive in my book.

Rafyelzz said,
I'll be getting xbox next for many reasons. I don't trust Sony. It's like gambling with Russians, no way.

I'm getting the next XBox too. I can't wait. I just hope it plays Blurays... lol

When, oh when, are people going to stop claiming that Sony created the Cell processor? They co-developed it with Toshiba and IBM, and IBM built it. This is the same kind of nonsense people used to post regarding Sony and Blu-Ray.

I can't say that the difference keeps me up at night. Sure, someone would be more knowledgeable for remembering this, but it's not the end of the World...

roadwarrior said,
When, oh when, are people going to stop claiming that Sony created the Cell processor? They co-developed it with Toshiba and IBM, and IBM built it. This is the same kind of nonsense people used to post regarding Sony and Blu-Ray.

I'm aware of this, but find it rather unlikely that Sony wasn't trying to call the shots. They wanted this for a very important product launch and being a fairly arrogant company I'm sure they were very difficult to deal with in this collaboration. Ultimately, I think Sony has a lot to do with the Cell's shortcomings.

M_Lyons10 said,
Ultimately, I think Sony has a lot to do with the Cell's shortcomings.

As far as I'm aware, most of its shortcomings (and its strengths for that matter) are shared with other Power based chips.

roadwarrior said,
When, oh when, are people going to stop claiming that Sony created the Cell processor? They co-developed it with Toshiba and IBM, and IBM built it. This is the same kind of nonsense people used to post regarding Sony and Blu-Ray.

The real winner is IBM this console generation, Cell with Ibm, Sony and Toshiba, and the Xbox360 cpu was by Ibm and MS (based on PPC IBM orginally developed with Apple), and the Wii Broadway cpu was designed by them and nintendo.

etempest said,

The real winner is IBM this console generation, Cell with Ibm, Sony and Toshiba, and the Xbox360 cpu was by Ibm and MS (based on PPC IBM orginally developed with Apple), and the Wii Broadway cpu was designed by them and nintendo.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks. Every console this generation is using some variation of the Power architecture. Each of them had been customized for the intended market, but that is still a long way from the claims that the Cell is a proprietary chip created by Sony, as this article claims. Oh, and you left Motorola out of the group that originally designed the PowerPC chips. It was Apple, IBM, and Motorola, known collectively as the AIM alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance

etempest said,

The real winner is IBM this console generation, Cell with Ibm, Sony and Toshiba, and the Xbox360 cpu was by Ibm and MS (based on PPC IBM orginally developed with Apple), and the Wii Broadway cpu was designed by them and nintendo.

The Cell is not as different from the PowerPC as Sony would like people to believe, as they come from the same CPU architecture.

As for who made what... Apple's work on the PowerPC is a bit over 'stated' as Apple hardware engineering was more of 'we want it do this' than direct CPU engineers making it 'do' what Apple wanted.

Microsoft has more hardware engineering on the PowerPC than Apple, as they assisted in the tri-core design with addtional core threading, and they also took the design and integrated it with the GPU created the first high end SoC design technology, that is in the XBox 360 S. (The SoC architecture that Microsoft created from merging the PowerPC and the Xenos GPU beat AMD and Intel out as being the first to achieve this metric, and today AMD and Intel both use Microsoft technology from the SoC design reference.)

Apple stopped having any serious hardware contributions to the PowerPC in the early 90s. This is why when they wanted to implement 68K subset for compatibility, it was outside their capabilities, and IBM wasn't willing to add the complexity just for Macs. (Apple instead found a good translation technology and bought it and hired the creators to get 68K code working on PowerPC instead.)

If true and it means no more backwards compatibility with any former PS formats, then Sony will lose a LOT of customers and become the laughing stock of the gaming industry even more than they are now. You might as well buy a PC that has less restrictions than a PS4.

The Cell has been one of Sony's greatest failures. No developer likes to program on it and every other company that had plans to use the tech dropped it instantly.
This will only aid in pushing the Sony and PlayStation brand further into oblivion.

Good luck Sony, you'll need it as I won't be buying it.

Thief000 said,
If true and it means no more backwards compatibility with any former PS formats, then Sony will lose a LOT of customers and become the laughing stock of the gaming industry even more than they are now. You might as well buy a PC that has less restrictions than a PS4.

The Cell has been one of Sony's greatest failures. No developer likes to program on it and every other company that had plans to use the tech dropped it instantly.
This will only aid in pushing the Sony and PlayStation brand further into oblivion.

Good luck Sony, you'll need it as I won't be buying it.

What you essentially said, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Abandon old technology and BC, or continue with technology that wasn't the most popular to begin with.

Thief000 said,
If true and it means no more backwards compatibility with any former PS formats, then Sony will lose a LOT of customers and become the laughing stock of the gaming industry even more than they are now. You might as well buy a PC that has less restrictions than a PS4.

The Cell has been one of Sony's greatest failures. No developer likes to program on it and every other company that had plans to use the tech dropped it instantly.
This will only aid in pushing the Sony and PlayStation brand further into oblivion.

Good luck Sony, you'll need it as I won't be buying it.

Exactly. The problem with Sony (It appears to me) is that they try far too often to do something that they know absolutely nothing about and rarely bother to prepare for these leaps of faith... You see this with their work on the Cell processor (Alongside IBM, though I'm sure due to Sony's arrogance they were "calling the shots" and clearly knew better), the PSN boondogle, etc... Sony doesn't know enough about security to take on something like PSN, let's be serious. But they did with little or no help from anyone that might actually know something about it because they knew better. Same with the Cell processor that was a pain in the butt to program for. For a company that is losing ground in their CORE markets, you'd think they would be thinking through some of these leaps of faith.

Thief000 said,
If true and it means no more backwards compatibility with any former PS formats, then Sony will lose a LOT of customers and become the laughing stock of the gaming industry even more than they are now.
This applied with the PS3 too? That had separate chips to run PS2 games.

Most of the issues with CELL were to do with it being bandwidth limited if I remember correctly.
That's quite an easy problem to solve.

Sacha said,
Most of the issues with CELL were to do with it being bandwidth limited if I remember correctly.
That's quite an easy problem to solve.

Then you should try applying for a job at Sony PS development, maybe you can solve it and save the processor from going to a deadhole?

Sacha said,
Most of the issues with CELL were to do with it being bandwidth limited if I remember correctly.
That's quite an easy problem to solve.

There are several issues with the Cell, and not all of them are related to the CPU itself.

1) Sony compromised the PS3 with a poor GPU choice that was slapped together at the last minute, and does not work well with the Cell CPU and the PS3 architecture in general. Additionally the GPU lacks a lot of technology in comparison to the XBox 360 Xenos, so the Cell CPU is often 'playing' GPU to offer features that are inherent to the XBox GPU.

2) Sony's development platform for the Cell was really bad for a long time, especially with the 'need' for good parallel and threading optimizations to take advantage of the cores of the Cell. Instead the Cell is only threading specific functionality like audio, GPU post processing, and other dedicated features instead of the platform scaling to use the additional cores for the main operation threads.

3) In technical numbers the PS3 Cell processor should have 'stomped' the XBox 360 CPU, but by the time code was running inefficiently on it, getting pure pixels to the screen were limited, and what advantages the Cell CPU had were eaten by the slow development platform from Sony and the need to compensate for the GPU shortcomings.

Sony's 'hard' assembly coding lock to get performance out of the PS3 was a mistake, that left developer doing a lot of extra work to squeeze the potential out of the CPU. Whether people hater or love Microsoft and/or the XBox 360, the development platform, OS and DirectX are clear advantages that if ported to the PS3 would give it a performance boost and not require the low level coding developers face now.

Sony won't change the CPU because it would break all backwards compatibility and people would go mental.

After all the money they have sunk into developing the CELL and how long developers have been coding for the architecture, and have only just started to get to grips with it, they would be silly just to change it now.

TheLegendOfMart said,
Sony won't change the CPU because it would break all backwards compatibility and people would go mental.

After all the money they have sunk into developing the CELL and how long developers have been coding for the architecture, and have only just started to get to grips with it, they would be silly just to change it now.

Using that logic, it's a sure thing, Sony will change it.

JaredFrost said,

Using that logic, it's a sure thing, Sony will change it.


What?

Why would they spend 10s or maybe 100s of millions more developing a whole new CPU when the company is in serious money troubles, it will break backwards compatibility and alienate all the developers again who have spent 6+ years getting to grips with the CELL.

TheLegendOfMart said,

What?

Why would they spend 10s or maybe 100s of millions more developing a whole new CPU when the company is in serious money troubles, it will break backwards compatibility and alienate all the developers again who have spent 6+ years getting to grips with the CELL.

I was making fun of Sony's previous bad business decisions.

If this rumour is true, then Sony may be doing it to save a lot of money. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense to ditch the Cell processor.

TheLegendOfMart said,

What?

Why would they spend 10s or maybe 100s of millions more developing a whole new CPU when the company is in serious money troubles, it will break backwards compatibility and alienate all the developers again who have spent 6+ years getting to grips with the CELL.

He forgot to add the /s. Sony is known for their stupid decisions.

TheLegendOfMart said,

What?

Why would they spend 10s or maybe 100s of millions more developing a whole new CPU when the company is in serious money troubles, it will break backwards compatibility and alienate all the developers again who have spent 6+ years getting to grips with the CELL.

Err cos the AMD one will be built around x86 architecture (plenty of coders/devs who know that architecture inside out).....anyone else would stick with current cpu, but its Sony we are talking about common sense and good business sense left them years ago. do you actually think Sony give a flying chuff about backwards compatibility they want everyone to buy the new hardware, to hell with legacy stuff.

Mando said,

Err cos the AMD one will be built around x86 architecture (plenty of coders/devs who know that architecture inside out).....anyone else would stick with current cpu, but its Sony we are talking about common sense and good business sense left them years ago. do you actually think Sony give a flying chuff about backwards compatibility they want everyone to buy the new hardware, to hell with legacy stuff.


x86 is horribly inefficient for a dedicated machine because it has to handle lots of different types of instructions and requires more resources to execute those instructions which is why you wont find an x86 CPU at the heart of any games console besides the Xbox 1.

Of course Sony care about backwards compatibility, the PS2 played PS1 games, the PS3 played PS2 and PS1 games before they chopped backwards compatibility out for cost. The Vita plays PSP Go games and soon will be able to play back PS1 games.

Don't bring the FUD just because its cool to hate on Sony, the very fact you think that x86 would be a good console CPU shows you don't have the first clue about it.

TheLegendOfMart said,

x86 is horribly inefficient for a dedicated machine because it has to handle lots of different types of instructions and requires more resources to execute those instructions which is why you wont find an x86 CPU at the heart of any games console besides the Xbox 1.

Of course Sony care about backwards compatibility, the PS2 played PS1 games, the PS3 played PS2 and PS1 games before they chopped backwards compatibility out for cost. The Vita plays PSP Go games and soon will be able to play back PS1 games.

Don't bring the FUD just because its cool to hate on Sony, the very fact you think that x86 would be a good console CPU shows you don't have the first clue about it.

Not quite true on backwards compatibility.
In Europe only a few of the first gen PS3 consoles actually supported PS2 games, Sony removed it since and have now started re-releasing all the "classic" PS2 titles as "HD" versions....

bugsbungee said,

Not quite true on backwards compatibility.
In Europe only a few of the first gen PS3 consoles actually supported PS2 games, Sony removed it since and have now started re-releasing all the "classic" PS2 titles as "HD" versions....


Actually not quite true also.

The first version had both PS2 Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer, the second version they removed the Emotion Engine and emulated it but kept the Graphics Synthesizer, then they removed the Graphics Synthesizer because of cost of licensing the nVidia tech and production costs.

Anaron said,
If this rumour is true, then Sony may be doing it to save a lot of money. Otherwise, it wouldn't make any sense to ditch the Cell processor.

Exactly. Just because the current Cell has been developed doesn't mean they would not have to invest in developing it's successor... Likely at a much higher cost than purchasing processors from someone else... Additionally, the original Cell never caught on like they had hoped, which was one of their arguments (I'm sure) for justifying the expense of development (Which was substantial)... As for backwards compatibility and not wanting to require developers to learn a new architecture, they did this to developers when they moved to the Cell and would certainly have no problem with doing it again. Sony is an arrogant company and no doubt looks at it as a "cost of doing business with Sony"... They don't care what this cost is... Backwards compatibility I'm sure they would like, but at this point if it costs money to do I could certainly see them dropping it entirely. They are having some financial troubles after all...

TheLegendOfMart said,
Sony won't change the CPU because it would break all backwards compatibility and people would go mental.

After all the money they have sunk into developing the CELL and how long developers have been coding for the architecture, and have only just started to get to grips with it, they would be silly just to change it now.

Sony already sold the Cell so dev costs and all that doesn't matter they're out of the cell game, any new generation cell they would have to buy from Toshiba or IBM (Not sure if IBM owns part of it to.

Considering the loss they took with the first generation and how hard it is to develop for and the fact it didn't work how it was intended to, it seems quite likely they will go with an easier and more scalable architecture that's cheaper and can be fully outsourced. the cost vs risk of going with Cell again isn't worth it. as for backwards compatibility, I doubt they could care less.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Actually not quite true also.

The first version had both PS2 Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer, the second version they removed the Emotion Engine and emulated it but kept the Graphics Synthesizer, then they removed the Graphics Synthesizer because of cost of licensing the nVidia tech and production costs.

Either way the result is the same, my PS3 can't play PS2 games and Sony don't care so why would they care this time round?

bugsbungee said,

Either way the result is the same, my PS3 can't play PS2 games and Sony don't care so why would they care this time round?


Because they would get crucified if they didn't?

TheLegendOfMart said,

x86 is horribly inefficient for a dedicated machine because it has to handle lots of different types of instructions and requires more resources to execute those instructions which is why you wont find an x86 CPU at the heart of any games console besides the Xbox 1.

Of course Sony care about backwards compatibility, the PS2 played PS1 games, the PS3 played PS2 and PS1 games before they chopped backwards compatibility out for cost. The Vita plays PSP Go games and soon will be able to play back PS1 games.

Don't bring the FUD just because its cool to hate on Sony, the very fact you think that x86 would be a good console CPU shows you don't have the first clue about it.

What you are saying baout x86 is FUD by itself, my current laptop, see my sig, delivers far better graphics than a ps3 with far less power. x86 is not inefficient, but looking at power PC, the true evolution of the processors (Not ARM) there is indeed a difference.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Because they would get crucified if they didn't?

Doubt it, they will probably do it again, all those people who said if no backwards compatibility is present I won't but it and I'm sure they all still did, why wouldn't they this time?

TheLegendOfMart said,
Sony won't change the CPU because it would break all backwards compatibility and people would go mental.

After all the money they have sunk into developing the CELL and how long developers have been coding for the architecture, and have only just started to get to grips with it, they would be silly just to change it now.

Like how they cared about backwards compatibility with the PS2?

Are you for real?

Sony is in the game of making money, not pleasing you or giving you old games to play when they can force you to buy new.

Arceles said,

What you are saying baout x86 is FUD by itself, my current laptop, see my sig, delivers far better graphics than a ps3 with far less power. x86 is not inefficient, but looking at power PC, the true evolution of the processors (Not ARM) there is indeed a difference.


Can't see your sig here, but a laptop with 512MB is not going to push the same graphics as PS3. x86 is actually quite inefficient, not only because it has unnecessary instructions and because it's a cisc architecture trying to emulate a risc architecture but also because it needs to be backwards compatible and carries a bunch of bloat. Even Intel knows it.

Dermot said,

Like how they cared about backwards compatibility with the PS2?

Are you for real?

Sony is in the game of making money, not pleasing you or giving you old games to play when they can force you to buy new.

That can make money, existing large collections, with non-appleaing launch titles. I can buy the new system and keep playing my collection in an enhanced state, I'm more likely to buy early.

Now if PS4 does not ps3, there has to be a really compiling reason to get a new system, they can't use "blu-ray movies" anymore, it's not the new thing. They will rely just on there merit of launch titles and soon to be released (real or perceived games). 3d gaming is already out and not doing too good, not saying it's dead yet.

They have to show how different the shiny new ps4 graphics / 3d / motion can be compared to previous gen (and competition) and I think it will be hard at this point to show how much better it is compared to last gen.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Actually not quite true also.

The first version had both PS2 Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer, the second version they removed the Emotion Engine and emulated it but kept the Graphics Synthesizer, then they removed the Graphics Synthesizer because of cost of licensing the nVidia tech and production costs.

Actually it was to push ps3 software sales (the situation shouldn't of happened, a lot of other things went wrong) and wasn't to reduce the cost of the console.
http://kotaku.com/312628/jack-...-bc-wasnt-for-cost-measures

TheLegendOfMart said,
Sony won't change the CPU because it would break all backwards compatibility and people would go mental.

After all the money they have sunk into developing the CELL and how long developers have been coding for the architecture, and have only just started to get to grips with it, they would be silly just to change it now.

Um did you notice that PS2 titles didn't run on the PS3 after they ripped the dedicated PS2 cell CPU?

Sony doesn't give a crap about compatibility, as they see it as 'more sales'.

Under Smedly, Sony gaming has went from the world leader to killing off their MMO industry to now killing off their console industry.

The Vita is a good looking product, but is sadly late, and would have had more of a chance even a year ago. Instead you will see hardware vendors with integrated game controllers on a Windows 8 tablet running bigger and faster titles, with better online support and interoperability with XBox and Windows desktops.

TheLegendOfMart said,
Sony won't change the CPU because it would break all backwards compatibility and people would go mental.

After all the money they have sunk into developing the CELL and how long developers have been coding for the architecture, and have only just started to get to grips with it, they would be silly just to change it now.

Um did you notice that PS2 titles didn't run on the PS3 after they ripped the dedicated PS2 cell CPU?

Sony doesn't give a crap about compatibility, as they see it as 'more sales'.

Under Smedly, Sony gaming has went from the world leader to killing off their MMO industry to now killing off their console industry.

The Vita is a good looking product, but is sadly late, and would have had more of a chance even a year ago. Instead you will see hardware vendors with integrated game controllers on a Windows 8 tablet running bigger and faster titles, with better online support and interoperability with XBox and Windows desktops.

Arceles said,

What you are saying baout x86 is FUD by itself, my current laptop, see my sig, delivers far better graphics than a ps3 with far less power. x86 is not inefficient, but looking at power PC, the true evolution of the processors (Not ARM) there is indeed a difference.


I stand by what I said, your x86 CPU isn't the one making better graphics, the GPU is which isnt an x86 type processor. The PowerPC in the PS3 has more in common with a GPU than it does a CPU with SPUs like Shaders in a Graphics chip.

TheLegendOfMart said,

What?

Why would they spend 10s or maybe 100s of millions more developing a whole new CPU when the company is in serious money troubles, it will break backwards compatibility and alienate all the developers again who have spent 6+ years getting to grips with the CELL.


That line of thinking would push them to an off the shelf processor like an AMD or Intel. They can't take the current design, do a few tweaks and start making PS4 procs. It would be a huge undertaking to bring that processor up to modern specs. Adopting an off the self-processor would be way simpler from a hardware point of view. Backward compatibility could be done through virtualization, or if the old processor is cheap enough they could just put both in the new system and essentially dual boot it depending on the type of game being played.