Rumor: "Very Affordable" PS4 Based on AMD's A10 APU

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

deadish:

Kumagawa Misogi:

deadish:

The PS3 and Xbox 360 launch with pretty "shitty" GPUs too. It worked out alright.

We will just have to see. Without legacy (Intel controlled) PC architecture getting in the way, without OS and driver overhead, plus being a "fixed" platform where you can write to the metal, we should see considerably better performance.

Of course all this talk is for naught if this rumour is false.

You have no idea what your talking about, the GPU in the 360 was better than any available PC GPU when it launched. The PS3 launched in late 2006 with a Nvidia GPU that was only superseded by Nvidia's new gpu that was launched in? late 2006.

I will admit, my memory is foggy. I recalled there were better, granted more expensive, video cards available. Don't recall either the PS3 nor 360 launching with top of the line GPU cores - maybe from same "tech linage" yes, R520 and GF7 series; but not top of the line, Sony and MS would go broke.

Either way, the rest of my post still holds.

Keep in mind that the R520 architecture used in the 360 was replaced in the Radeon HD 2000 series, and PC's can't play Skyrim at console resolution with less than a Radeon HD 4890 (R700) (skyrim's minimum PC specs called for a 3600 series), the A10 APU's use AMD HD 6000 series GPUs.

Compare the Radean HD 2000 series against the 6000 series, that's the performance difference we should expect with the A10 in a console over a PC.

Edit* Got shown this years A10 APU's they are now using HD 7000 series graphics

Reaper195:
I really hope it's not called 'Orbis'. PS4/Play Station 4 Suits the console much more, especially since it's been through 1 to 3.

its probably just an in-house dev codename. ps4 will most likely be the release name.

SupahGamuh:
Will it be backwards compatible?, if not, then I'm not interested, I don't own a PS3, but if the PS4 is backwards compatible, I'll definitely get one, because by the time the PS4 get released, most of the PS3 games I wanted will be discounted, pretty much like what happened to PS2... and speaking of wich... PS2 games in PS4... please?

It's a completely different architecture. Very unlikely that it could run PS3 games, and PS2 only through software emulation like PCSX2 (so possible).

They could just graft a Cell on the side of the launch machines to allow them to run PS3 stuff, then remove it later on. Like they did with the PS3s and PS2 back compat. However, the PS3 GPU is Nvidia, but this is ATI GPU. You'd have to hide that from games that are trying to bang on the hardware directly, which seems tough. So you'd also have to include the PS3 GPU. As focused as they are on cost, this seems really unlikely.

oldtaku:
They could just graft a Cell on the side of the launch machines to allow them to run PS3 stuff, then remove it later on. Like they did with the PS3s and PS2 back compat. However, the PS3 GPU is Nvidia, but this is ATI GPU. You'd have to hide that from games that are trying to bang on the hardware directly, which seems tough. So you'd also have to include the PS3 GPU.

Yeah, I can't really see Sony duct taping a PS3 to the PS4.

If the PS4 or Orbis or whatever they decide to name it, doesn't have backwards compatibility, then when they do release the next version of the PlayStation network, they will need an extensive library of PS3 games at VERY cheap prices to compensate. Including a wider selection of PS2 and 1 games.

I think it was TB that said a consoles early life not only depends on it's launch titles, but what else can be played on it. Because the former will be likely a very limited selection.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Beautiful End:
Of course this is a rumor but I kinda figured. I mean, the fact that the WiiU is less than a month away just means that MS and Sony can't stay behind for too long. And by staying behind I mean they need to deliver a new console. And it's also smart to officially build up the anticipation before E3 and then officially unveil it at E3 so that you can get it during the holidays. Nintendo only got one of those right...

as far as being affordable...I get why the PS3 was so expensive but I'm willing to say it will be around $400 at launch. I dunno, it's just a crackpot theory. The PS2 was $200 at launch because it was new. That's all. So...yeah, I'm betting on $400-ish (Which doesn't seem very affordable to me but whatever). I'm also worried about the software price. Those go up every time a new console comes out, so what, we're looking at $70 or $80 per average game?

*Sigh* Again, crackpot theory but...I'm starting to think I won't be able to keep up with my gaming habits for too long.

Man, if game prices really do go up to $70-$80 per game, I almost definitely will be dropping out of the main part of the hobby. I'll wind up just sticking with a PC and the consoles I already have, playing old classics, new indie games, and F2P titles. I'm hoping "affordable at launch" means "will actually be affordable at some point before the hardware is completely obsolete," because I love Sony's consoles and their exclusives, and they really screwed the pooch this gen with the $600 launch price that was somehow still a loss leader for them. But if the game price goes up another $10, they'll have completely driven me out of the console market and into the PC and smart phone market, regardless of what the system itself costs.

That's true. I love my PS consoles and I don't really wanna have to give them up. PC gaming is just as expensive because you gotta have a top notch computer to play properly and those can be $1000. And you also might wanna update them every so often because computers turn obsolete way faster than systems.

And about the software, as much as I like to complain about it, if the console is affordable, I might just get it and a couple of games. I mean, when I got my Final fantasy XII Collector's Edition for 60 bucks for the PS2, I remember thinking 60 bucks was a lot! And that I shouldn't spend that much on games. And here we are, 2012 where I'm buying not only games worth $60 but CE that are worth around $150 (Damn you, Bioshock!).

Again, a theory but if they turn out to cost $70 or $80, I will probably have to wait a year before playing the game and then get it when it's way cheaper. For example, Rage, Dragon Age 2, AC: Brohood, Rayman Origins, Final Fantasy XIII-2 and many more games are now less than $30. And they're good games! Most of them came out about a year ago.
Either that or I'll buy pre-owned. I have no problem with that, especially if games keep looking gray and dull, are incredibly short and feel repetitive. But that's another topic.

newwiseman:
A name change is wise from a branding stand point if they're not going to support the previous consoles software. Knowing Sony, they won't; especially since their digital signatures and encryption have been broken.

If they're really switching from a RISC based CPU architecture to a CISC based CPU architecture then they won't be able to offer backward compatability without using some heavy weight emulation software... and an AMD APU isn't something I'd want to try running that on.

16gb of RAM on an A10 would be a waist, especially in a limited task focused enviroment like a game console

Yeah but if you look at what's been happening with 'improvements and added features' in the console ecologies, it's pretty clear that neither Sony nor Microsoft have any interested in keeping that sort of limited task environment. They want their consoles to be a household's single sourcepoint/gateway for entertainment and social media and to compete against other platforms/devices, especially when it comes to interoperability, it's going to require a serious investment in expanding the potential available resources.

oldtaku:

SupahGamuh:
Will it be backwards compatible?, if not, then I'm not interested, I don't own a PS3, but if the PS4 is backwards compatible, I'll definitely get one, because by the time the PS4 get released, most of the PS3 games I wanted will be discounted, pretty much like what happened to PS2... and speaking of wich... PS2 games in PS4... please?

It's a completely different architecture. Very unlikely that it could run PS3 games, and PS2 only through software emulation like PCSX2 (so possible).

They could just graft a Cell on the side of the launch machines to allow them to run PS3 stuff, then remove it later on. Like they did with the PS3s and PS2 back compat. However, the PS3 GPU is Nvidia, but this is ATI GPU. You'd have to hide that from games that are trying to bang on the hardware directly, which seems tough. So you'd also have to include the PS3 GPU. As focused as they are on cost, this seems really unlikely.

if their smart they will offer a 'premium' edition that supports full backwards comparability..... for a price

Beautiful End:
Either that or I'll buy pre-owned.

If too many people go that route, Sony will be fucked. They need new game sales to offset their inevitable subsidising of the Orbis/PS4 because without using the Loss Leader sales model for their console they'll never get any market penetration (the console will be too expensive for most people to bother with).

RhombusHatesYou:

newwiseman:
A name change is wise from a branding stand point if they're not going to support the previous consoles software. Knowing Sony, they won't; especially since their digital signatures and encryption have been broken.

If they're really switching from a RISC based CPU architecture to a CISC based CPU architecture then they won't be able to offer backward compatability without using some heavy weight emulation software... and an AMD APU isn't something I'd want to try running that on.

16gb of RAM on an A10 would be a waist, especially in a limited task focused enviroment like a game console

Yeah but if you look at what's been happening with 'improvements and added features' in the console ecologies, it's pretty clear that neither Sony nor Microsoft have any interested in keeping that sort of limited task environment. They want their consoles to be a household's single sourcepoint/gateway for entertainment and social media and to compete against other platforms/devices, especially when it comes to interoperability, it's going to require a serious investment in expanding the potential available resources.

They seemed really keen on game streaming when they bought Gaikai. I know it's not set in stone and probably has a lot they have to work out, but again... they don't have to worry about making it compatible if it's being streamed. If they can get that to work well, backwards compatibility becomes moot.

Then it's just a matter of how they distribute it.

Sarah LeBoeuf:
Rumor: "Very Affordable" PS4 Based on AMD's A10 APU

image

Sony's successor to the PS3 will be announced before E3 2013, according to anonymous sources.

Rumors have been flying about Sony's next generation console for months and months. Earlier this year, a "credible source" revealed that the successor to the PS3 would be called the Orbis and released in late 2013. According to new revelations from VG247's anonymous sources, these rumors are accurate, and the second of four Orbis dev kits is shipping to game developers this week. Unlike the first dev kit, which was basically just a graphics card, the second iteration was described as a "modified PC."

A "disclosure meeting" was held earlier in the week for some US game developers, in which Sony only referred to its next console as the Orbis, not using the words "PlayStation 4" at all. The sources also revealed that the Orbis is based on the AMD A10 APU series, with the system's APU a "derivative" of existing hardware and "based on A10 system and base platform." Sony's ultimate goal is to have the hardware run 1080p60 in 3D with "no problem." Other specs include a 256GB hard drive "as a standard" and "either 8Gb or 16Gb of RAM." Not surprisingly, Blu-ray, built-in Wi-Fi, ethernet connectivity, and an HDMI output will all be back for the next generation.

The Orbis also reportedly has a redesigned user interface, allowing users to seamlessly switch between applications by pressing the PS button on the controller. It can also perform background updates, with the publisher "trying to make it as fluid as possible." Though the machine "isn't a slouch," Sony is trying to avoid the mistakes it made with the PS3 launch by making the Orbis "very affordable."

The sources said that the system will be announced just before E3 2013. The third dev kits are due out in January, with a final version going out next summer. If this is true, that implies that Orbis will be out by the end of 2013. Of course, none of this has been verified by Sony, and we probably won't get confirmation until the PS4, or Orbis, or whatever it ends up being called, is formally announced.

Source: VG247

Permalink

Well that's depressing; PC gamers have been waiting for years for the console designers to get off their arses and bring an offering that will finally move game developers on from graphics that have to run on 5+ year old hardware, and now we find out that the PS4/Orbis/Whatever is going to be running on an AMD A10, a CPU with a 3.8GHz base clock based on the horrible Piledriver architecture?

My "budget" gaming rig from two years ago with an overclocked Phenom II quad-core CPU can happily keep up with Piledriver rigs built today, and they get chewed to pieces by even the midrange of Intel's designs. And that's assuming they use the A10-5800K as the basis for the Orbis; there's the 3.4GHz 5700K model to think about as well.

You can put as much RAM in the thing as you like, if it's running what amounts to a last-gen midrange CPU and GPU it's still going to be rubbish.

viranimus:
Like everyone else I am focused on the RAM. My problem however, is I do not like the concept of a console having two different RAM levels, or even the capacity for upgradable ram. Reminds me too much of things like the FX chip on n64. If the high end capacity for the spec is 16... All units need to be 16. And yes for next gen, 16 is an ideal amount.

You just made my brain short circuit.

SuperFX was an add on chip on the SNES, not the n64, utilized in such games as StarFox (the most well known), DirtTrax FX, and Stunt Race FX. You're thinking of the 4MB 'Expansion Pak' for the n64 that allowed for higher res textures on the system.

Hopefully my brain is now fixed.

Beautiful End:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Beautiful End:
Of course this is a rumor but I kinda figured. I mean, the fact that the WiiU is less than a month away just means that MS and Sony can't stay behind for too long. And by staying behind I mean they need to deliver a new console. And it's also smart to officially build up the anticipation before E3 and then officially unveil it at E3 so that you can get it during the holidays. Nintendo only got one of those right...

as far as being affordable...I get why the PS3 was so expensive but I'm willing to say it will be around $400 at launch. I dunno, it's just a crackpot theory. The PS2 was $200 at launch because it was new. That's all. So...yeah, I'm betting on $400-ish (Which doesn't seem very affordable to me but whatever). I'm also worried about the software price. Those go up every time a new console comes out, so what, we're looking at $70 or $80 per average game?

*Sigh* Again, crackpot theory but...I'm starting to think I won't be able to keep up with my gaming habits for too long.

Man, if game prices really do go up to $70-$80 per game, I almost definitely will be dropping out of the main part of the hobby. I'll wind up just sticking with a PC and the consoles I already have, playing old classics, new indie games, and F2P titles. I'm hoping "affordable at launch" means "will actually be affordable at some point before the hardware is completely obsolete," because I love Sony's consoles and their exclusives, and they really screwed the pooch this gen with the $600 launch price that was somehow still a loss leader for them. But if the game price goes up another $10, they'll have completely driven me out of the console market and into the PC and smart phone market, regardless of what the system itself costs.

That's true. I love my PS consoles and I don't really wanna have to give them up. PC gaming is just as expensive because you gotta have a top notch computer to play properly and those can be $1000. And you also might wanna update them every so often because computers turn obsolete way faster than systems.

And about the software, as much as I like to complain about it, if the console is affordable, I might just get it and a couple of games. I mean, when I got my Final fantasy XII Collector's Edition for 60 bucks for the PS2, I remember thinking 60 bucks was a lot! And that I shouldn't spend that much on games. And here we are, 2012 where I'm buying not only games worth $60 but CE that are worth around $150 (Damn you, Bioshock!).

Again, a theory but if they turn out to cost $70 or $80, I will probably have to wait a year before playing the game and then get it when it's way cheaper. For example, Rage, Dragon Age 2, AC: Brohood, Rayman Origins, Final Fantasy XIII-2 and many more games are now less than $30. And they're good games! Most of them came out about a year ago.
Either that or I'll buy pre-owned. I have no problem with that, especially if games keep looking gray and dull, are incredibly short and feel repetitive. But that's another topic.

I mostly agree with you, but you're wrong on the cost of a PC. A $600 PC has you set for at least a few years without an upgrade these days, assuming you build it yourself. $1000 is way overkill on that. Considering that most people need a computer anyway for word processing and web browsing, that amounts to an extra $200 over what a Facebook and Microsoft Word machine would set you back. Not a lot, considering how much consoles cost.

As for the price of games, I agree with you. Problem is I've /always/ bought games used and after discounts, aside from a few titles from companies that are known for small runs that don't really drop in price and are almost impossible to find used -- and I haven't even bought one of those at full price since the PS2 was a current system. It wouldn't be so bad if it was my only hobby, but every time I look at a $60 game, I think "That's three full priced movies, 12+ bargain bin movies, or lord only knows how many used movies. Why on earth would I pay that for one game?" This industry is really pricing people out of the market, and it's going to bite them in the butt eventually.

Sounds pretty good.
I'll probably buy one when they have a decent line up of games but till then ima stick with my ps3 and PC.

Sarah LeBoeuf:
Sony is trying to avoid the mistakes it made with the PS3 launch by making the Orbis "very affordable."

So it won't cost 10 million dollars?

Bah.

Not that it will matter. In Iceland people overcharge so much for everything that the retailers and stores that will sell it here will no doubt try to charge the same for it as they did with the PS3.

Personally, I'm a bit concerned about the AMD APU being put in. How exactly is integrated graphics going to stack up against any other machine that uses a dedicated card? Sure the integration might be "higher than average," but in a battle against an actual graphics card, the APU loses. Just about every time. It doesn't matter how much RAM you throw at it, because it just gets redundant and pointless. Maybe I'm being paranoid here, but it seems a bit odd to me when a gaming machine doesn't separate it's processor from it's graphics, so unless they're planning on cross-firing it with another card, I'm remaining skeptical on this one. I understand that they're saving a ton of money by not having a graphics card, but this seems really weird to me.

I'm not a huge tech enthusiast, so if anyone could enlighten me on why they would do this (besides cost), that would be greatly appreciated.

Sylveria:

Eclipse Dragon:
I have a hard time believing anything created by Sony is "very affordable".
It might be like the Vita, where the system price seems reasonable, but you need to pay extra for essentials.

Orbis basic system for $399.99.
Includes 256 GB hard drive and 1 month free Playstation Plus subscription.
Backwards compatibility available only in $499.99 models. Controller sold separately.
Price for controller: $99.99
Price for games at launch: $80.00

If it was Bbackwards compatible all the way back to PS1.. I'd happily drop $500 on one.

Also, sadly, if the graphics whores keep getting their way, we will probably see $80 games in the coming console generation.

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

Rayken15:
Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

Not if you looking to let your customers multitask until they are blue in the face.

Flizzick:
I'm not a huge tech enthusiast, so if anyone could enlighten me on why they would do this (besides cost), that would be greatly appreciated.

Well, there are only 2 real reasons for using an APU: price and space.

Forgoing a dedicated GPU card for an on-die GPU allows you to use far less internal space in your platform...

... but it comes at the cost of less power and more heat (you can shift around exactly how much for each but they still remain) because of the problems of being on the same die as the CPU, meaning they're sharing the same cooling system and in extremely close proximity to each other.

Evil Smurf:
HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

Except for when they're more than $80

Rayken15:
Everything sounds good except the RAM. Isn't 16GB a bit of an overkill?

Not if the console is expected to last 10 years.

newwiseman:
the A10 APU's use AMD HD 6000 series GPUs.

Errr ...

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/a-series/Pages/a-series-model-number-comparison.aspx

Are you sure?

Anyway, what's your point? :P I don't get it.

It better have full backwards compatibility, otherwise it's just a fancy paperweight as far as I can see.

deadish:

newwiseman:
the A10 APU's use AMD HD 6000 series GPUs.

Errr ...

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/a-series/Pages/a-series-model-number-comparison.aspx

Are you sure?

Anyway, what's your point? :P I don't get it.

Right I forgot the new ones rolled out, I was looking at last years list... Regardless, my point was about how the A10 APU is using GPU tech 6 generations newer than what is in the 360. Any fear that the A10 APU will be underpowered is misplaced, especially if your looking at how it performs on win7 systems.

Evil Smurf:

Sylveria:

Eclipse Dragon:
I have a hard time believing anything created by Sony is "very affordable".
It might be like the Vita, where the system price seems reasonable, but you need to pay extra for essentials.

Orbis basic system for $399.99.
Includes 256 GB hard drive and 1 month free Playstation Plus subscription.
Backwards compatibility available only in $499.99 models. Controller sold separately.
Price for controller: $99.99
Price for games at launch: $80.00

If it was Bbackwards compatible all the way back to PS1.. I'd happily drop $500 on one.

Also, sadly, if the graphics whores keep getting their way, we will probably see $80 games in the coming console generation.

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

And welcome to America, where the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour, and even "real" jobs don't pay as much as equivalent jobs in Australia. I saw a thread a while back where someone broke it down into two statistics: how many bottles of soda you could buy with the money, and how many packs of cigarettes you could buy with it. Both showed that Australians were, for all intents of purposes, getting screwed to exactly the same degree as Americans are. No less, but no more, either.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Evil Smurf:

Sylveria:

If it was Bbackwards compatible all the way back to PS1.. I'd happily drop $500 on one.

Also, sadly, if the graphics whores keep getting their way, we will probably see $80 games in the coming console generation.

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

And welcome to America, where the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour, and even "real" jobs don't pay as much as equivalent jobs in Australia. I saw a thread a while back where someone broke it down into two statistics: how many bottles of soda you could buy with the money, and how many packs of cigarettes you could buy with it. Both showed that Australians were, for all intents of purposes, getting screwed to exactly the same degree as Americans are. No less, but no more, either.

Damn that is a low wage, at least eBay exists so she can buy games cheap

cerebus23:
Where is the xbox 720 in development?

Will be interesting to see if there is a race to be first now. Or if sony can somehow pull that rabbit out of a hat with an "affordable" system, first to the market, like the ps2 that managed to win that gen by being first and having an enormous quality library of games.

They are putting their money on the latter as well. Its impossible to read the third parties (although lets just say I wouldn't be suprised to hear the words "Kingdom Hearts 3 launching as PsOrbis launch title"), but at present, they have Guerilla, Sucker Punch, Polyphony Digital, SCE London and about Half of Naughty Dog working on next gen games, and have been for a while.

Evil Smurf:

Sylveria:

Eclipse Dragon:
I have a hard time believing anything created by Sony is "very affordable".
It might be like the Vita, where the system price seems reasonable, but you need to pay extra for essentials.

Orbis basic system for $399.99.
Includes 256 GB hard drive and 1 month free Playstation Plus subscription.
Backwards compatibility available only in $499.99 models. Controller sold separately.
Price for controller: $99.99
Price for games at launch: $80.00

If it was Bbackwards compatible all the way back to PS1.. I'd happily drop $500 on one.

Also, sadly, if the graphics whores keep getting their way, we will probably see $80 games in the coming console generation.

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

Unless you have a Ps3. In which case, games from Hong Kong are $49.99

Foolproof:

Evil Smurf:

Sylveria:

If it was Bbackwards compatible all the way back to PS1.. I'd happily drop $500 on one.

Also, sadly, if the graphics whores keep getting their way, we will probably see $80 games in the coming console generation.

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

Unless you have a Ps3. In which case, games from Hong Kong are $49.99

ozgameshop.com is around that price, as for pc well let's just say I never pay more than $30-40 for a new game, unless its a collector's edition box copy from retail.

Fappy:
I wonder how they plan to make it "very affordable". There's a reason the PS3 was so expensive at launch...

But a good chunk of that being the cost of BD.

Evil Smurf:

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

Of course, if US prices go to 80, what do you think will happen to AU prices?

Australian retailers like their markups.

newwiseman:
Regardless, my point was about how the A10 APU is using GPU tech 6 generations newer than what is in the 360.

Yeah but it's a mid-range GPU, and even then it's the lower powered D series version more akin to the M series versions made for laptops than the 'standard' versions made for discrete GPU cards.

Any fear that the A10 APU will be underpowered is misplaced

I dunno... you might be underestimating the effects things such as switching CPU architecture and the inherent problems of APUs (they're bastards for heat management) will have on the traditional resource efficiency of consoles, not to mention fundamental shift in design theory from 'gaming machine' to 'home entertainment and social media centre (oh yeah, they still play games, I guess, if that's your thing)' that we've seen happening.

Zachary Amaranth:

Evil Smurf:

HAHAHAHAHA welcome to Australia, where games are always $80+

Of course, if US prices go to 80, what do you think will happen to AU prices?

Australian retailers like their markups.

Not reallly, the games have fallen relatively recently from about $100 a game to $80 a game for new.

Owyn_Merrilin:
And welcome to America, where the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour, and even "real" jobs don't pay as much as equivalent jobs in Australia.

Yet the average American wage is about 15-20% higher than the Aussie average wage, and that's calculated in 'international dollars' which are based on the purchasing power of the US dollar.

RhombusHatesYou:

Owyn_Merrilin:
And welcome to America, where the minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour, and even "real" jobs don't pay as much as equivalent jobs in Australia.

Yet the average American wage is about 15-20% higher than the Aussie average wage, and that's calculated in 'international dollars' which are based on the purchasing power of the US dollar.

Have you got a source on that? Because I've always understood Australians made more in general. They have to, because the cost of living over there is through the roof compared to what it is in the US. Video games are hardly the only thing that you guys get charged more for.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)