Insiders Say Intel to Build PlayStation 4 GPU

[hannibal]

Two good resons for using Intel GPU in Play Station 4
1) Intel sels them to Sony with very deep discount, so that they get their product to some hype.
2) When programing to new Playstation, people have allwasy have to do things differently. It takes guite long to learn to do it effectively, so putting very new kind of GPU on it, is not so hard than sell Larrabee GPU to conservative PC users, who don't have much fate on Intel graphics.

If the Larrabee manages to brake through in Play Station it is easier to sell it in PC users. And allso there will be some Playstation esperts by then who know how to make the best out of Larrabee, so thre will be games that works best in larrabee environment.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]Kewl Munky[/nom]The funniest part of this article is that it's based on a rumor that Sony already pronounced as false.http/www.techradar.com/news/gami [...] urs-525563[/citation]
[citation][nom]San Pedro[/nom]As stated before this looks to be totally false.http/www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] 5&Itemid=1[/citation]
Everyone needs to +1 this man, then shut the hell up. It's over, this article is crap, Tom's didn't care to check it's articles.

 

[Guest]

Sony won't tap Intel for graphics, they aren't that stupid. But after the issue of programming for the PS3 came up so much in part because the CPU was so hard to program for, I can easily see Sony wanting an advanced x86 chip that is very familiar to game designers even if it compromises on power.

The real challenge for next-gen chips is what GPU and RAM hardware designers are going to use, because these days designers have to consider whether or not to make the leap to dual-GPU and 1-2 Gigs of VRAM and try to keep up with PC graphics hardware.

 

[ph3412b07]

[citation][nom]pug_s[/nom]It is possible for Intel to build a gpu that is as good as nvidia and ATI as they know how to cram a bunch tranistors into a small sized chip. The problem with Intel is writing drivers for them. With making the PS4, they could probably get help from sony to make drivers for their system.[/citation]

I wouldn't say that drivers would pose a problem for Intel, the guy writing code is an expert, Micheal Abrash. However, even with the existence of mature drivers there will be undesired complexity in ports from console to PC, just as seen in the PS3 (just an example, GTA IV). The result is often buggy and slow performance.

 

[Guest]

To the author: discreet is for extramarital affairs, discrete is for mathematics and graphics cards.

 

[dconnors]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]Are you retarded?The PS1's life was 11 years, with games being published until '05. The PS2 is still kicking 8 years from it's launch.[/citation]

The PS3 is not selling nearly as well as many in Sony would like. Taking several years off of its predicted life cycle, and rebooting with a new console is not a bad idea.

...and for the the record, no I am not retarded.

-Devin C.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]dconnors[/nom]The PS3 is not selling nearly as well as many in Sony would like. Taking several years off of its predicted life cycle, and rebooting with a new console is not a bad idea....and for the the record, no I am not retarded.-Devin C.[/citation]
In that case, Microsoft should give up and make another console. The PS3 has sold more in the same timeframe than the 360. Just take a look at this chart:
http/vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=X360&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=PS2&reg3=All&weeks=400

Your logic if extremely fallible.

 

[Guest]

And all this time, I was getting comfortable and use to SLi. Now I may have to convert to some next gen form of Crossfire, or whatever the hell will be in the market within 5-10 years from now.

None the less, all SPECULATION!

 

[yadnom]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]In that case, Microsoft should give up and make another console. The PS3 has sold more in the same timeframe than the 360. Just take a look at this chart:http/vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?c [...] &weeks=400Your logic if extremely fallible.[/citation]

That chart shows exactly what dconnors is talking about. It has nothing to do with MS. The PS3 sales is not on par with PS2 sales for the same timeframe.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]yadnom[/nom]That chart shows exactly what dconnors is talking about. It has nothing to do with MS. The PS3 sales is not on par with PS2 sales for the same timeframe.[/citation]
The PS1 sold over 100 million consoles, and lasted 11 years, and take a look at this:
http/vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=PS&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=PS2&reg3=All&weeks=400

 

[razor512]

thats why there adding 4 GPU's because 1 will be too slow if it is coming from intel

companies need to learn that it is harder to program for multiple cores SLI and crossfire = twice the cost bot only a 20% performance boost

and they become twice as hard to program for in order to allow users to get that 20% boost

the PS3 is failing right now because it is too much work to make games for.

remember, programmers cost a lot to hire, and 1 programmer is not enough to make a game, you need a entire giant team of them to push out a game in a few years with the PS3, it is harder to program due to all of the cores and load balancing needed, extra work means extra time which = more money spent on production, and if on average you only set a few thousand copies of your games, it will be a loss of money to make a game for the PS3

thats why you don't hear much about it

 

[antilycus]

these companies don't want to pay the royalties to NVIDIA. ATI will start doing the same since they are going to under soon

 

[yoda8232]

[citation][nom]Kewl Munky[/nom]The funniest part of this article is that it's based on a rumor that Sony already pronounced as false.http/www.techradar.com/news/gami [...] urs-525563[/citation]
Why reply to me?
I just made a joke about it.

 

[vider]

soldier37 (

 

[vider]

soldier37 (

 

[vider]

soldier37 (

 

[vider]

What wrong with the posting box?

 

[vider]

When was the last time anyone saw a CPU perform 3D graphics fluidly? I haven't seen a single CPU (up to date) of being able to handle Anisotropic filtering at x8 with Anti-Aliasing at x4 on ANY of the games released today (I am talking about consumer CPU's, not about ones in the supercomputers). GPU's are far more powerful when it comes to Mathematical calculations, that's why Folding@Home using CUDA on a GeForce 8/9 series can manage to do more folding.


The only GPU I remember seeing (and owning one) was an Intel 740 , which wasn't that good. My Voodoo II would beat it in almost any game..... ohhh the good old 3DFx days.

Back to the subject.

The only reason Sony would go with an Intel solution is because the fact that the Larrabee (as taken from wikipedia) :

Larrabee will include very little specialized graphics hardware, instead performing tasks like z-buffering, clipping, and blending in software, using a tile-based rendering approach.[7] A renderer implemented in software can more easily be modified, allowing more differentiation in appearance between games or other 3D applications. Intel's SIGGRAPH 2008 paper[7] mentions order-independent transparency, irregular Z-buffering, and real-time raytracing as rendering features that can be implemented with Larrabee.

So maybe Intel is doing it right this time. Intel had already a few Demo's showing Larrabees ray tracing capabilities.

Intel is going to have some hard time from ATI... (Compare the XBOX 360 version of Oblivion, the PS3 and PC, Oblivion looks good on the XBOX 360 and XBOX 360 has an chip developed by ATI)

That's my 2 cents.

 

[trainreks]

[citation][nom]TheFace[/nom]Why wouldn't you break the cycle? Maybe release your console mid-cycle so yours is actually 2-3 years development time, more powerful than the competitions'. Why live in the confines of this "product cycle". They can produce a console that developers WANT to program for, make it affordable yet more powerful than the competition's due to the extra development time, and maybe throw something in that the competition doesn't have (something like the wii did this time around). This doesn't just have to apply to Sony, but they want their product cycle to last longer than what the others seem to be doing. Thoughts?[/citation]


One word.... SEGA.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]trainreks[/nom]One word.... SEGA.[/citation]
Wrong.

SEGA released 2 consoles in the same generation. The Dreamcast was competing with the same consoles as the Sega Saturn. They screwed over 2 generations of gamers with console releases.

They released the Sega CD and the X32, with in a few years of the release of the Saturn, and quickly dropped support for them. Leaving many people with expensive add-ons and no new titles.

Then the Saturn was released, but flopped. So SEGA quickly started working on another console, and dropped support for yet another expensive piece of hardware. As great of a Machine as the Dreamcast was, it was doomed to fail.

His suggestion was to release the next console half way into the next generation.