Speculation: PS4 could be Based on Cell Architecture

I don't think this is the "typical" sony. Sony have always been cutting edge and have always profited from that.

i'm sure their next console will be a goliath.

I don't see why not. As I recall, cell processor was designed to be able to network together to be a better system. So it seems to be logical that the PS4 should have more cell processors. Plus by that time the processor should be faster than the current 3.2 ghz.

As long as the PS4 is fully backwards compatible with the PS3 games I'm all in for a PS4.

Indeed, and although it's likely quite a ways off yet, we are too: www.PS4News.com :D

Ok I have an idea for the PS4 but I think it will never happen.

The new cell is two times as powerfull and has 60% less power at the moment and we get a slim version asswel. So why don't they add 2 cell's to one console to have A console that is 4 times as powerfull and 4 times more effective and is 10% less comsuming then the first release of the playstation 3 console :)

They will have time to improve their system and have a system ready that is suittable untill the year 2022. By then the cell will be improved again and we will get a slim version of the ps4 like we ghet A slim version of the PS3 now.

Using the cell again would be nice because then the developers wouldn't have to learn another architecture. This equals less complaints about learning new hardware all over again. What will be interesting is their choice for GPU manufacturer, if they stick with Nvidia then they could hopefully stick to hardware that would at least be compatible with PS3 games.

The Cell processor is a behemoth. It's cutting edge, much the same way early Motorola chips were cutting edge when there were RISC/CISC chips. They powered Macintosh computers in ways never imagined by developers. With Intel adding more cores to thier CPU's in keeping with Moore's law, maintaining backwards compatibility was always a bit of a burden. The Cell was designed from the ground up to be multicore, and doesn't have as many legacies to worry about.

The biggest expense in a CPU is the architecture and production. The Cell efficiently deals with both quite handily. To double the speed of a Cell, just throw more cores into it. The manufacturing is there, and the yeilds can be increased the same way the PS3 Cell is managed now -- put 8 cores on each CPU, then disable any single non-functional one, or disable a random one if all are functional. The Intel process is to produce (for e.g.) a quad core system, but have 4 cores that work. The problem with the costs of that is there will be 4x the failure rate, as there is no redundancy. Or no extra core to backup/throw away. As well, multi-core is a great way to reduce chip design times. Instead of designing a whole new system, just design smaller more specialized chips and use more of them.

Sony seems to know what they are doing in the hardware department. They will without a doubt, be cutting edge, and relevant for years to come. No one seems to care that the Xbox is using 'recycled' (meaning x86 compatible) CPU's. Why should Sony be any different? The CELL is powerful, expanable, and arguably, more suitable for a gaming console. Increase the clock speed by 25% and put in 16 cores. It'd be a monster -- with nominal design/manufacturing changes -- leaving the consumer with a reduced cost, and a killer machine.

I've always asked myself why do they always make a console with wierd peripherals such as low capacity of RAM, wierd CPU? What's wrong with builiding a console with peripherals the same as computers' ? It'd have 2GB of RAM, nice graphic card and it'd work flawlessly, it'd be easy to code for coders. Anyone ?

I've wondered the same thing. This is pretty much what (if the rumours ar true) Sony plans on doing by using a Cell processor again. It will be allot easier for the developers. The same goes for Microsoft (using x86 chips). I suppose Microsoft is doing the 'gaming PC' with the Xbox360 -- x86 CPU based, and as I understand it, Direct X and a Win32 API.

The RAM limitation is 100% to do with price, and the fact that the RAM used in consoles is significantly faster/moe expensive than what would be found in a sub 500$ PC. XDR in a PS3 and GDDR3 in a Xbox360. 2G of slower ram is not necessarily better than 512M of faster ram. But, it's all relative to the tasks at hand. Gaming benefits allot from fast ram.

In 2006 when the PS3 was released, 512M was not an uncommon amount of RAM in a PC, however forward thinking, and puting 1G of XDR in it (I know 512M XDR, 512M GDDR3) would have increased the price (or increased losses) 100$, and prevented profits for even longer.

However, why we don't see an Asus gaming console, as they could use a TCM chip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module) to reduce piracy, is beyond me. Perhaps it would be too easy to reverse engineer, and then make clones, cutting Asus out of the picture.

I always have been a little iffy about the 10 year life cycle. 5 years maybe, but not 10. Also Sony never said they would wait 10 years to make a new console they just said the ps3 life cycle would last 10 years. Development costs to make games are getting pretty high.

Making a system twice as powerful should make games more expensive to make. So if they released a PS4 that could play PS3 games(and if both have the same processors I don't see why not) then dev can choose whether they want to make games to PS3 specs or if they want more power they can use the PS4.

I have a feeling I could I worded this post a little better but I think you know what I mean lol.