Playstation 4

http://www.vgleaks.com/orbis-devkits...

Interesting to see the Windows usage.

This is going to be great. The amount of nerd rage when people realize that the Jaguar CPU is a tablet CPU is going to be wonderful.

cube wrote:

This is going to be great. The amount of nerd rage when people realize that the Jaguar CPU is a tablet CPU is going to be wonderful.

It's also going to be fun seeing how AMD's stock price moves when the system is formally unveiled.

Not much, I would wager. Despite every test showing that it was crap, Bulldozer managed to sell out really quickly, and Piledriver sounds like they almost closed the gap between themselves and Intel.

Plus, AMD does have their ARM division, which is making massive amounts of money.

OK, a discussion about this came up in the Wii U thread, because there was an ArsTechnica article today saying that 4K will need to be pushed by the PS4/720. I'm bringing that discussion over here, so as not to derail the Wii U thread. Continuing from there:

I don't disagree that improved systems and AI is a better way to spend resources, but I'm not confidant that's what game devs will do. Eye candy is what sells.

I do disagree that the tech is what did the PS3 in. What did the PS3 in was Sony failing to recognize that the tide was shifting away from exclusives to multi-platform with extras. They were way, way late to the party with PS+, but just imagine for a second if PS+ had launched in year 3 of the PS3, and think about what that might have done for the system and Sony.

Note that I'm not saying I want 4K, I'm just agreeing with the Ars article that if 4K is going to have any chance it's going to come from these consoles.

As for the system upscaling 720p to 1080p, I can't disagree (hell my TV tells me so every time I start a game), but I don't agree with you that's a result of the hardware. That's a result of titles being multi-platform and the 360, a system which only does 720p, being the primary platform of development. The major difference with this next generation is that the resolution of the next level of HD is already set, the TV manufacturers took care of that. So if both the Xbox 720 and the PS4 can do 4K that native rendering issue goes away.

I'm generally very late to adopt things like higher resolution tech (I only just got a 1080p TV a few weeks ago), so I'm not sold on 4K being necessary or even good, but I do think that these systems are going to support it as a native rendering resolution.

For what it's worth, however, someone at Sony (sorry, I forget who, or where I read it) said they expected 4k to take a decade or so to catch on. I mean, aren't those things 15 grand right now?

From what I read they aren't available right now. The ones shown at CES were prototypes. Then again, how much were 1080p sets when the PS3 launched? They sure weren't the $1400 I spent on mine.

ahrezmendi wrote:

From what I read they aren't available right now. The ones shown at CES were prototypes. Then again, how much were 1080p sets when the PS3 launched? They sure weren't the $1400 I spent on mine.

I paid $700 for mine and that was three or four years ago.

The 360 can do 1080p, it was added in 2006 as part of a firmware update. Both PS3 and 360 have some games that run in native 1080. This thread has way more on the topic than I personally would care to read, including the native resolution for a ton of games:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...

The Uncharteds and Halos are all running in sub 1080p, as is basically any game that is pushing a lot of effects (many sub 720p). Any dev will tell you that the 360/PS3 just aren't up to the task of pushing 1080p visuals with full effects. It's been known for quite some time now. It's not a problem with multiplatform development as platform exclusive games demonstrate.

Man, guess I wasn't missing a whole lot having a 720p set for so long. Not much else to say, I sure was wrong about that, guess we'll see if I'm wrong about PS4/720.

ahrezmendi wrote:

Man, guess I wasn't missing a whole lot having a 720p set for so long. Not much else to say, I sure was wrong about that, guess we'll see if I'm wrong about PS4/720.

What I heard that sounded credible is that they'll "do" 4k through some MacGuyver software upscaling trickery, then when it's justified we'll get For Real 4k. So, depending on if you're a pessimist or an optimist, you may be half-wrong or half-right.

cube wrote:

Not much, I would wager. Despite every test showing that it was crap, Bulldozer managed to sell out really quickly, and Piledriver sounds like they almost closed the gap between themselves and Intel.

Plus, AMD does have their ARM division, which is making massive amounts of money.

Not sure I follow.. AMD doesnt own ARM.. Or you saying AMD has a division that licenses ARM designs to produce their own SoC's using some ARM CPU's?

I'm generally very late to adopt things like higher resolution tech (I only just got a 1080p TV a few weeks ago), so I'm not sold on 4K being necessary or even good, but I do think that these systems are going to support it as a native rendering resolution.

Neither the PS4 or the Xbox 720 will render any games natively at 4K. I wouldnt be shocked if they both advertised themselves as supporting it though. Since rendering the OS at 4K is trivial as well as up scaling certain games as well. But all the games will be internally rendered at 1080P. The amount of pixels you need to push at 4K gaming will be beyond the capability of console hardware that can be sold for $400 (even at a massive loss) for quite some time yet.

ahrezmendi wrote:

From what I read they aren't available right now. The ones shown at CES were prototypes. Then again, how much were 1080p sets when the PS3 launched? They sure weren't the $1400 I spent on mine.

One of the guys I work with got the LG 4K TV in December.. so you can buy one if you have the money to burn.

TheGameguru wrote:

Neither the PS4 or the Xbox 720 will render any games natively at 4K. I wouldnt be shocked if they both advertised themselves as supporting it though. Since rendering the OS at 4K is trivial as well as up scaling certain games as well. But all the games will be internally rendered at 1080P. The amount of pixels you need to push at 4K gaming will be beyond the capability of console hardware that can be sold for $400 (even at a massive loss) for quite some time yet.

Oh, not true at all, if the rumors are accurate. The rumored/leaked specs for the PS4 say that it uses a Radeon HD 7000 family card, specifically a 7970M variant. If this is true, then we can look to that family to see how it should perform. The 7970 can power Metro 2033 at 39 FPS at 5760x1200, higher than 4K UHD. That's on PC too, and consoles with their dedicated design can push more power out of the same hardware than a general purpose PC can.

As for it being in a $400 piece of hardware, hmm not likely, but then I don't think the PS4 is going to be a $400 piece of hardware. Then again, CPUs and RAM are dirt cheap, so if the biggest cost factor is the video card, you can get a full 7970 right now for $370. If Sony gets them as wholesale bulk rates, maybe tone the card down a bit to cut a few costs, and it's not totally out of the question.

People will also have higher expectations than a 3 year old PC game running 30 fps at 4K. At least I do.

Oh, not true at all, if the rumors are accurate. The rumored/leaked specs for the PS4 say that it uses a Radeon HD 7000 family card, specifically a 7970M variant. If this is true, then we can look to that family to see how it should perform. The 7970 can power Metro 2033 at 39 FPS at 5760x1200, higher than 4K UHD. That's on PC too, and consoles with their dedicated design can push more power out of the same hardware than a general purpose PC can.

7970M is the mobile GPU.. you listed benchmarks for a 7970 (Desktop GPU) vastly different in terms of power (and power draw/cooling reqs)

edit to clarify.

The resolution you listed as higher than 4K is actually not.

5760X1200 is 6,912,000 pixels.
4K HD (3840 × 2160) is 8,294,400 pixels.

edit 2.

I think people are getting caught up with the concept that a shift from 360/PS3 to 720/PS4 @ 1080P will somehow "not be a big step up". Which is odd given how muddy and generally awful the textures are currently for 360/PS3 games. As well as games like Halo 4 running at an internal render engine of sub 720P. If the next console generation can deliver native 1080P gaming at 60FPS that will be a significantly better "looking" gaming experience.

I'm with GamerGuru--4k will definitely be available for the OS, especially likely from Sony since they are sure to push their 4k tvs at every opportunity they get. The PS3 already offers an app that supports very limited 4k output.

That said, they also seem to going for power efficiency, perhaps to maximize reliability, so there's no way they're going to try to have 4k gaming be a thing. It is weird to me as well that 1080p at 60fps would not be considered tremendous progress, given that it is a huge jump up for consoles--besides a huge amount of improvement can be achieved just with anti-aliasing and more advanced visual effects. I could see an argument for supporting high res maybe if there was a TV standard between HD and 4k, but going to 4k is just not going to happen in a next gen console, nor would it provide that much value.

Another way to look at it is are they selling consoles or selling 4k TVs? I think you'll get different consequences depending on which answer.

If they're selling consoles, company A has to have their console seem better than console B, for most people who run it, fancy effects and performance matter, and 4k TVs are currently as rare as hen's teeth. Heck, at the start of the current gen SD TV was entrenched and remained so for quite a long time.

If they're selling TVs, well, only Sony sell TVs out of the big two console makers then they'd need to shift the resolution/performance balance for... better resolution only a tiny minority will use and a tiny minority will notice? I just can't see it happening, or Sony managing to convince external developers/publishers to make that trade-off when they're trying to compete on other fronts.

Streaming cloud games to 4K TV's? They're going to look so crappy.

I think people are forgetting how much impact cloud gaming will have, and I think the overall console experience will also try to accommodate that.

Raw power is nice, but convenience trumps it.

oMonarca wrote:

Streaming cloud games to 4K TV's? They're going to look so crappy.

It'll take a while, just like streaming games to current consoles is only possible recently and would look like a dream back in 2005. Or rather, it could be possible if the gatekeepers allowed it (PC/Mac/microconsole thingy currently), and even then you're still dealing with less than optimal picture quality (720p or whatever it is), and dealing with networks.

Just as it stands now, I can agree on the convenience point, it's definitely a win for demos where you can just do it right that moment rather than waiting on a multi-gigabyte demo to download. That's another issue, how big are demos going to get, assuming we still have them in a few years.

Mr GT Chris wrote:

People will also have higher expectations than a 3 year old PC game running 30 fps at 4K. At least I do.

That benchmark is running with the highest settings, something you never see on consoles. Cut out ambient occlusion, turn AF and AA down a bit (AA is hardly necessary at that resolution too) and you've got a lot of wiggle room. You're also assuming the age of the game equates to it requiring less power, and that's not true. Witcher 2 anybody?

Guru - True, so here are the 7970M benchmarks. FarCry 3 @ ~45 fps, AC3 @ ~26 fps.

You're right about textures and smooth 1080p performance, so I'll drop the resolution thing. I'll gladly take smooth 60fps over anything else.

I think both consoles will support 4k resolutions and will allow the OS and videos to be rendered at that resolution as well as games if the developer chooses to do so. I think the situation will be very similar to what we have now with 720p and 1080p support, that is most games rendering at 1080p and a few that don't push many effects or are 2D rendered at 4k. I could easily imagine games like Super Stardust, Geometry Wars, Braid, Mark of the Ninja, Castle Crashers running at 4k. Further I don't think it would be that hard to push something like Journey at that resolution.

Keep in mind that the current HDMI 1.4 spec only supports 4k @ 24fps and I don't expect DisplayPort to start showing up in TVs. (I guess it could, but there's way more momentum behind the HDMI spec for home theater.) There's a HDMI 2.0 in the works expected to be ready by the middle of this year, but if it gets delayed (again) the new consoles could be left without a way to get all four of the Ks out to a screen.

Oh damn, I didn't know that. Pretty much undermines all of my arguments, so I guess that's that.

I wonder how much of the spec is firmware/software based though. It would seem plausible to me to make hardware that's electrically compatible and then just update it when the spec is finalised, or if you can't do that just have HDMI v2 on the next revision of the console and I'd bet only a tiny proportion of people would ever notice.

The PS3 doesn't support the entire 1.3 spec, so it's not a deal breaker.

Scratched wrote:

I wonder how much of the spec is firmware/software based though. It would seem plausible to me to make hardware that's electrically compatible and then just update it when the spec is finalised, or if you can't do that just have HDMI v2 on the next revision of the console and I'd bet only a tiny proportion of people would ever notice.

Yes, I'm sure that some parts of the new spec could be added later with software updates. And in the second case, I think we already had that with the PS3 slim adding CEC functionality.

The thing is, for every pixel counting HT enthusiast, there's a whole bunch of people who think the moment they plug in a HD TV that it'll be working to it's full potential, even with an SD input (and to be fair, a good quality display makes whatever input look better). I'm sure there's going to be a whole lot of weaseling around 4k "capable" devices that obscures the whole situation.

My pressing question at this point has become: will The Last Guardian ship before the PS3 is obsolete?

Malor wrote:

My pressing question at this point has become: will The Last Guardian ship before the PS3 is obsolete?

It will not ship, period.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Malor wrote:

My pressing question at this point has become: will The Last Guardian ship before the PS3 is obsolete?

It will not ship, period.

It will ship. As a PS4 exclusive. But the answer to Malor's question is still NO.