I really don't want another console the size of a house, that guzzles electric, is incredibly loud and that takes another 2 years after release before a stable one shows up. Just make a console that works this time Sony.
the ps3 has been more stable during it's life than the 360 has been. and the ps3 is smaller than most theater receivers, so i fail to see the large size as a valid argument.
as far as graphics, ati/amd is not a bad choice if they intend to keep advancing the parallel processing architecture. and given the advances in cpu architecture since the ps3 was developed, the main cpu should be able to calculate the physics fast enough to negate the need to have physics calculations on the graphics processor. theoretically the graphics processor will be able to work faster without the added overhead from calculating physics.
if they work it right, they could make every 240hz television operate like the dedicated playstation television that allows two players to each see their own full screen at the same time without seeing the other player's screen. hell, they could probably allow that same capability for four simultaneous players if the television has a fast enough refresh rate.
The 6990 is a dual GPU card, I doubt they would EVER use two GPUs and if they did it certainly wouldn't be something that actually costs money like a Cayman chip. If they really cared they would have worked with AMD to create a custom GPU based on the HD 7000's architecture.
As for on a PC... stay away from dual GPU cards, especially crossfire, AMD probably had the worst driver track-record in history in 2011. Even with a single 6970 I had problems up the wazoo.
I'm thinking you don't work in an engineering field. Engineers will know best what they should use, but some crappy manager will end up making the decision based purely on cost. Outside of small start-ups, engineers usually are told what to do/build and don't get the final decision. It's gets extremely frustrating.
That said, I don't care if the PS4 cures cancer I'm still not buying it. Sony craps on its customers constantly and really doesn't care about the customer experience or what their customers ask for. I can only imagine all of the tracking of usage and personal data they will be collecting, you know cause of the piracy boogeyman and all. I've supported all of Sony's consoles up to the PS3 and I've had it with the way they treat paying customers. No Vita, no PS4. Screw you Sony.
I've been playing Skyrim on PC and I think that will be my platform of choice. I think Steam is a great compromise between securing their games and not screwing the people who have purchased games. It's not perfect, but at least I won't get a root kit or something similar, which is exactly what Sony would do (and has in the past with their music CDs...).
i think the ir was added to the google tv remotes because of cost. ir for remotes is not any more useful than bluetooth. in fact ir is less useful because you need to point the remote at the device for it to work properly. it would be nice if the ps4 will make use of the ps3 controllers that everyone already has. and if it does, that would allow more time for the development of the actual console instead of some off the wall controller that will be canceled like the boomerang controller.
Sony to Ditch Cell Processor for PlayStation 4 (PS4) Console?
Following up on our previous article, today Kotaku (linked above) reports that according to inside sources Sony may be ditching the Cell Processor for the PlayStation 4 console.
Below are the details, to quote: "The PlayStation 4 will not use Sony's Cell processor nor any possible successor to the vaunted chipset that was introduced to the world through the PlayStation 3, gaming industry sources tell Kotaku.
What we're hearing from sources follow a Forbes rumor last week that chip-maker AMD would make the graphics chip for a PS4, a shift from the PS3's use of a graphics chip from AMD rival Nvidia.
The abandonment of the Cell architecture would thrill the many game developers who have struggled with the complex chipset, but it could also be viewed as the admission of a mistake.
Cell was the pet project of PlayStation creator Ken Kutaragi, who dreamed that the chip- a "Power Processing Element" married to eight "Synergistic Processing Elements"- would make the PS3 the most impressive gaming console ever. He spoke of a home equipped with multiple devices that were powered by Cell, all of them linking to each other to increase the computational power driving any of the devices.
Cell was not the revolution Sony hoped and hyped that it would be. It also never managed to make the PS3 appear to be significantly more powerful than the year-older Xbox 360. That could have been the Cell's fault or simply the result of development decisions that compelled game creators to make their games run on both the PS3 and the generally-more-popular XBox 360.
But with no Cell or Cell successor in the PS4, what would Sony do? Here's where the reporting turns to speculation. One theory I've heard is that AMD will provide both the CPU and GPU for the PS4, meaning that AMD, not Sony, would engineer the main processing and graphics chips for the machine. Should AMD be doing that, they could go with the AMD Fusion architecture, which puts CPU and GPU on the same chip.
AMD has already been putting chips like this out (one was considered for the MacBook Air), which would enable Sony to turn to developers and say: you could be working with the PS4 architecture right now; just work on an AMD Llano chip or something.
Would developers like that? They'd have to prefer it to Cell and- what do you know- here's one of gaming history's best programmers, id's John Carmack, saying in an interview with PC Perspective last year that AMD Fusion-style chip architecture is "almost a forgone conclusion" for the future of computing.
A Sony rep declined to comment on this story, citing the company's policy not to comment on rumors and speculation."