amstradcpc
Member
heat your F5 guys!.
heat your F5 guys!.
heat your F5 guys!.
It's their last article? BOO!
why? its only 7 a.m (PST).heat your F5 guys!.
For reference, I've just checked on the store and all of these are sold as PS3 games, not just "PSN" games. It says PS3 really quite clearly right under the title.
As I said, I'm not arguing that BC shouldn't be there. There are many reasons why it should. But your argument that all "PSN" games should work because they were not sold as PS3 games is bollocks.
It's their last article? BOO!
why? its only 7 a.m (PST).
Anyone see the new GOW commercial at the end it says only available on Playstation instead of PS3 wonder if that is a sign of things to come. Its almost like saying yeah you can play this on Ps3 or Ps4 or PsX. Might be reading too much into it but I picked up on the difference in marketing right away
Anyone see the new GOW commercial at the end it says only available on Playstation instead of PS3 wonder if that is a sign of things to come. Its almost like saying yeah you can play this on Ps3 or Ps4 or PsX. Might be reading too much into it but I picked up on the difference in marketing right away
Oh you guys. So many people arguing. It's funny, because most of the people arguing against the inclusion of the PE's into the PS4 are the ones that don't know what they are talking about.
It'll happen. ;]
Gotsta believe!
Why are you assuming this?
The GPU can't emulate the RSX?
The 4GB GDDR5 can't simulate the ps3 RAM?
The 8 core Jaguar CPU can't emulate a single PPE?
And again, I disagree. I used journey, flower, etc as examples, but there is a lot of content on PSN that does not fit into neat categories.
Is a PS2 classic a "ps3" game? is it correct to expect those not to work when I get a ps4? They won't run without ps3 compatibility.
There's also a giant section of games marked "PSN games" that you might have missed. it's labeled separately from "Ps3 disc based games" and "ps3 games." Is it fair that the expectation is that these will only work on PS3?
What about neo-geo titles? sega classics? These aren't ps3 games either.
Is it possible that sony could just not bother to make PSN fully compatible? sure. But my argument is that financially it makes little sense. It confuses the customer (and there WILL be outrage if 100% or damn close to it of PSN content doesn't work on ps4, i'd risk a ban on it), sony loses money, and the customer loses incentive to buy into ps+. From a developer perspective, PS3 and PS4 versions of popular titles will have to be produced. does it make sense to dedicate resources to a PS4 copy of a game when the install base is low? What about when the PS3 is approaching EOL? from the customer perspective, "mad dog mccree" is just a downloadable title- theres no reason he should have access to it on one system, but not another.
It's their last article? BOO!
Exactly. If that part can't be emulated, then the only way MS could provide BC is by throwing in the entire 360 SoC.
No point in publishing more "leaks" when we'll hear about both consoles within a month or 2 =D
You will have access to those titles all the time you have a PS3. That is exactly what you paid for. They don't magically stop working because you bought a PS4.
And again, I disagree. I used journey, flower, etc as examples, but there is a lot of content on PSN that does not fit into neat categories.
Is a PS2 classic a "ps3" game? is it correct to expect those not to work when I get a ps4? They won't run without ps3 compatibility.
There's also a giant section of games marked "PSN games" that you might have missed. it's labeled separately from "Ps3 disc based games" and "ps3 games." Is it fair that the expectation is that these will only work on PS3?
What about neo-geo titles? sega classics? These aren't ps3 games either.
Is it possible that sony could just not bother to make PSN fully compatible? sure. But my argument is that financially it makes little sense. It confuses the customer (and there WILL be outrage if 100% or damn close to it of PSN content doesn't work on ps4, i'd risk a ban on it), sony loses money, and the customer loses incentive to buy into ps+. From a developer perspective, PS3 and PS4 versions of downloadable titles will have to be produced. Two separate copies of PS2 classics will have to be made- one that runs on the PS3, one that runs on the PS4.
Does it make sense to dedicate resources to a PS4 copy of a game when the install base is low? What about when the PS3 is approaching EOL? from the customer perspective, "mad dog mccree" is just a downloadable title- theres no reason he should have access to it on one system, but not another.
It doesn't make sense.
They will magically stop working if I want to put my account on my PS4 and my friend's PS4.
phosphor112, you make a lot of sense. But what about latency? GDDR5 has much higher latency than XDR - could that be masked with cache somehow, or would the SPE scratch ram mean its not really an issue?
We don't know that yet.It's two accounts per different device.
hope it's true. sounds good almost to good.
In the DF article it mentions the following:
"Paired up with the eight AMD cores, we find a bespoke GPU-like "Compute" module, designed to ease the burden on certain operations - physics calculations are a good example of traditional CPU work that are often hived off to GPU cores."
If it really is "paired up" to the CPU, then it confirms a theory that Jeff_Rigby has had for several months.
Reading a 2010 patent by Sony (http://www.google.com/patents/US20100312969) shows a chip that resembles Toshiba's "SpursEngine." In this patent, they detail a "Processing Element" (PE) that contains 1 PPU and 4 SPE's. In short, "half of a Cell."
The interesting thing about this patent, is that this PE can be hooked up to as many as one pleases. Hooking two together will create a "Cell equivalent." Now, one might ask, how much would that cost?" If integrated into the Jaguar APU, very little.
How? AMD Crossbar Switch.
The AMD solution currently rumored in the Orbis would have 4 "slots" on the crossbar to integrate their chips. As of current, Orbis has 8 Jaguar cores. There are 4 cores per Jaguar module. That means 2 slots take up the Crossbar, leaving 2 more opened. Just enough for two PE's. 8 Jaguar cores total with 2 PPU's and 8 SPU's.
Another possible configuration that Jeff mentions is 4 Steamroller cores (as 2 comes in each module), with the additional 2 PE's attached, but I digress.
In the patent there is this quote.
"The local PE bus can have, e.g., a conventional architecture or can be implemented as a packet-switched network."
This fits in-line perfectly with AMD's solution.
To further solidify this theory, we take a look at this quote:
"The PE is closely associated with a shared (main) memory through a high bandwidth memory connection. Although the memory preferably is a dynamic random access memory (DRAM), the memory could be implemented using other means, e.g. as a static random access memory (SRAM), a magnetic random access memory (MRAM), an optical memory, or a holographic memory, etc."
This allows any implementation of memory as the engineers see fit. Sony is no longer tied down to the use of XDR ram for these PE's. The GDDR5 bandwidth would satisfy the needs of the SPE's to make sure they aren't data starved.
What does this all mean?
This means several things:
Backwards compatibility is within reach, adding the two PE's will create an environment where they can emulate the Cell. The RSX can be emulated by the GPU, and the GDDR5 bandwidth is sufficient.
PS4 functions: As they mentioned in the article, it will take "GPU-like" functions. Why use the SPE's over conventional GPU cores? SPE's are much faster. They tackle GPU tasks in a CPU manner. Low core count, high speed. These functions include DSP, a feature that Sony has yet to address in the Orbis, physics tasks, and video processing (encoding/decoding). They can add all these features to the Orbis without having the GPU take a hit and sacrificing GPU tasks.
Interesting read Phospher, I'm not overly bothered about bc, but if they can get it in, I think they should.
Excluding the BC function, introducing those chips into the system will put it way above the 360. It's functions as a DSP, video functions, and stream processing is practically unrivaled, all one "one" chip.
Excluding the BC function, introducing those chips into the system will put it way above the 360. It's functions as a DSP, video functions, and stream processing is practically unrivaled, all one "one" chip.
if there's no special sauce/wizard jizz, proelite should be banned for good.
They would literally have to go out of their way to not include it.
I mean, if people think about it, it wasn't last minute that Sony decided not to use a "super cell" design for PS4. So the problem came up early: "How will we support our PS3 games post PS4 launch?"
Patented a couple years ago... this design. It would work.
i see you're one of his followers. mods you can ban him too.I find it funny that you hide this in the Orbis thread out of fear of getting smacked down by proelite again.
Question is whether what is obvious to us is as obvious to Sony...
And I must add that your post number 2074 was very well conceived.
Excluding the BC function, introducing those chips into the system will put it way above the 360. It's functions as a DSP, video functions, and stream processing is practically unrivaled, all one "one" chip.
They came up with the solution, not me.
Is there any estimation of the wattage a PE would have in 28nm?. I think i read somewhere something like 20 watts for entire cell... right?.
Another thing to consider: clocks would be all multiples for the sake of syncing data:
1600 mhz for main cpu
3200 mhz for PEs
800 mhz for gpu