PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor For AMD

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The rumors are mounting that the PlayStation 4 will ditch its cell processor in favor of an AMD solution. The funny thing is, we've been saying this since last July.

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.
Click to expand...
 
But the Cell processor is 10x more powerful than anything in any normal PC. Well, according to Gamespot forum posts.
 
The Cell processor isn't a GPU. The GPU in the PS3 is produced by NVIDIA. So they could very well reuse a Cell processor and bolt an AMD GPU to it. Silly kotaku.
 
Except pretty much every report is about both Playstation and XBOX going AMD Fusion...
 
Doesn't Sony change their chip with each new console anyways? This comes as no surprise to me.
 
Hmm, good money for AMD if this happens. And if they are in both...forget about it. If executed well AMD could one day rival and possibly overtake Intel via the console hardware.
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
Hmm, good money for AMD if this happens. And if they are in both...forget about it. If executed well AMD could one day rival and possibly overtake Intel via the console hardware.
Click to expand...

Profits are super slim there, both for AMD and Sony/MS/Nintendo. Sony would make most of their money off the add-ons and games rather than the hardware. Remember they sold PS3s at a loss. I doubt AMD would see big bucks. The good news would be that all 3 consoles look like they'll be using AMD products so that may provide leverage for their other GPU hardware... like discrete desktop GPUs ;)
 
pelo said:
Profits are super slim there, both for AMD and Sony/MS/Nintendo. Sony would make most of their money off the add-ons and games rather than the hardware. Remember they sold PS3s at a loss. I doubt AMD would see big bucks. The good news would be that all 3 consoles look like they'll be using AMD products so that may provide leverage for their other GPU hardware... like discrete desktop GPUs ;)
Click to expand...

Right, but it'd still be a very steady income. Add in sales from the PC side and that might turn out nicely.
 
pelo said:
Profits are super slim there, both for AMD and Sony/MS/Nintendo. Sony would make most of their money off the add-ons and games rather than the hardware. Remember they sold PS3s at a loss. I doubt AMD would see big bucks. The good news would be that all 3 consoles look like they'll be using AMD products so that may provide leverage for their other GPU hardware... like discrete desktop GPUs ;)
Click to expand...

All consoles are sold at a loss at the start regardless of what's in it. The Cell architecture was notoriously difficult to code for. I bet this move (if it does happen,) save Sony money and assure devs that coding for their console will be relatively easy and produce shorter dev cycles.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
But the Cell processor is 10x more powerful than anything in any normal PC. Well, according to Gamespot forum posts.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you define "power"

The Power Architecture in Cell is indeed a very powerful architecture... but only for specific tasks. Cell is not a general-purpose architecture, as anybody who actually ran a Debian or YellowDog Linux on the PS3 will quickly attest too.

Now, as far as I am aware Sony already had a standing contract with IBM for hardware production on the next Playstation's processor. However, just because IBM was manufacturing doesn't mean that the chip design would be from IBM. Case in point, AMD and IBM work closely together and "rumor" has it the WiiU is backing a Fusion version of Cape Verde on-die with the IBM central processor. IBM and AMD also previously collaborated on the Xbox 360, Wii, and by acquisition on the part of AMD, the Gamecube platforms.

The biggest problem Sony faces with changing chip architecture is maintaining backwards compatibility with Playstation 3. This isn't actually that big of a problem since the Cell Architecture used in the PS3 is comparatively inexpensive to produce several years down the line. The biggest processor hurdle would be the 256mb of Rambus XDR memory which wouldn't map nicely to other memory controllers. Even so, we're still talking maybe $80 for a 32nm version of the PS3 Cell processor and it's Rambus XDR memory. Sony would likely need to include these two hardware chips even if it stayed with the Power Architecture.

Additionally the Playstation 3 exposes it's 3D functions through OpenGL ES 2.0 rather than through some esoteric graphics synthesizer. On paper any chip capable of making OpenGL ES 2.0 hardware calls should be capable of processing the graphics calls made by PS3 compatible games. The use of the graphics synthesizer was one of the -huge- problems with PS2 compatibility.

Now, the biggest question is why would Sony be looking at AMD anyways?

Well, in recent months Sony's started to change into a different company. Case in point would be Sony's Linux Kernel involvement. Sony has been a long time corporate user of Linux based operating systems, and one of the first companies to use Linux extensively for gaming (playstation 2). However Sony has never been a good... upstream contributor. Ergo the Linux community got the shocking of a Lifetime when Sony announced recently they'd be pushing their internal changes back into the mainline Linux kernel.

As Sony's products have rolled out we've seen the beginning's of Sony's new strategy, which is in it's essence, "Win no matter what somebody uses." Sony's making a huge push on Android/Linux devices with a line-up of Tablets, smart phones, and handheld gaming devices (Vita). Sony is also floating a software solution to run Playstation games on non Sony Devices (Playstation Suite). Sony is also pushing movie and music streaming services that also run on Android/Linux platforms, regardless of whether or not the consumer is actually using Sony hardware.

If I didn't send chills up and down your spine, let me rephrase this in another way: Sony Playstation Suite will let you play Uncharted for Vita on any Android/Linux device that is certified to run that level of software through Playstation Suite.

This is where we get into why Sony might want to move away from Power for the Playstation 4. Android/Linux does not -run- on the power architecture. Android/Linux only runs on ARM and x86/x86-64. While ARM is indeed a great architecture for low power environments, it's, well, not exactly what you think of when you think "modern day gaming processor"

In order to focus on Android/Linux, give developers a unified development environment, and continue to advance the capabilities of Sony products, Sony either has to port Android/Linux to PowerPC, or swap to either an Intel or AMD processor.

Of the latter two Intel has the better primary processor architecture.

AMD has AMD graphics... and Torrenza.

The Cell processor already works on the same bus as AMD's chips. The cell processor can already use the same memory chips as an AMD processor. Cell chips can already run in the same sockets that AMD chips run in.

Then there is the aspect of price.

Yes, Intel has a better processor architecture than AMD. But how much are these chips actually going to cost in bulk? Is there any thermal advantage? Is there a power per watt advantage? Is that advantage significant enough to make a difference?

Then there is another factor: OpenCL

AMD has been dumping money into OpenCL and they've pretty much bet their farm on the technology. The Bulldozer architecture has a less-than-excellent floating-point processor because AMD already fields a devastatingly powerful floating-point processor in RadeonHD. This is kind of the whole point of AMD's Fusion lineup. The GPU core simply becomes another Processor-core. OpenCL is a MAJOR FRIGGING FACTOR for modern day gaming.

The only real barrier Sony has in choosing AMD is that AMD's OpenGL support is well... Let's just say that I admire Terry Makoden, but he really needs to stop messing around with legacy API's like DirectX. AMD and Nvidia did themselves, and nobody else in the gaming industry, by continuing to help developers with DirectX optimization after Windows Vista hit. Both companies should have already been pushing game developers to move to OpenGL, and I really should not have to explain Platform Neutral API on the HardForum's.

AMD has a lot of development ground to cover in getting it's OpenGL driver up to par, especially it's OpenGL 2.0 class calls. But AMD has a couple of years.

* * *

Now, is Sony going to AMD a done deal?

As far as I am directly aware the use of an AMD GPU is already signed and contracted for.

I am not aware that the Central Processor has been confirmed as an AMD design. Bulldozer was kind of a let down and I am under the impression Sony is evaluating Piledriver right now.
 
Great post!

I'm truly hoping that we see the rise of openGL and we can unchain ourselves from Windows because of DX11. openCL hasn't taken off as quickly as some would have hoped, but it's certainly gaining traction.

I didn't know just what kind of turnaround Sony had done. Great info
 
Why does the author think they are ditching the Cell CPU because they are going with AMD for the GPU? I think the writer is confused. If Sony is going to use some type of AMD APU, that would be a different story. As of now, everything is pointing to Sony using AMD for the GPU, and nothing has pointed to them not using a next gen Cell for the PS4.
 
faugusztin said:
Except pretty much every report is about both Playstation and XBOX going AMD Fusion...
Click to expand...
And they'll each prove to be wrong. ;) There is every reason to believe that x86 will not be coming to next gen consoles. It makes no sense, from cost, performance or power consumption perspectives while IBM is making newer and faster PPC processors far better suited to the task.

However, AMD does seem to have clinched a GPU win for each next gen console.
 
Last I read was Sony was still going to use the Cell processor with a higher frequency (compared to the PS3's) and an AMD GPU. I have a hard time believing Sony will drop their beloved Cell processor so quick after putting in millions of dollars for R&D and years of teaching developers to properly code for it.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
But the Cell processor is 10x more powerful than anything in any normal PC. Well, according to Gamespot forum posts.
Click to expand...

Only in FLOPS will it beat a modern x86 processor.
Remember, Cell is a RISC processor, and it's design is from circa 2005-2006.
 
The Power Architecture in Cell is indeed a very powerful architecture... but only for specific tasks. Cell is not a general-purpose architecture, as anybody who actually ran a Debian or YellowDog Linux on the PS3 will quickly attest too.
Click to expand...
I didn't read your post above mine, but I totally agree with you.
 
pelo said:
Profits are super slim there, both for AMD and Sony/MS/Nintendo. Sony would make most of their money off the add-ons and games rather than the hardware. Remember they sold PS3s at a loss. I doubt AMD would see big bucks. The good news would be that all 3 consoles look like they'll be using AMD products so that may provide leverage for their other GPU hardware... like discrete desktop GPUs ;)
Click to expand...

Well...yeah...Sony doesn't see a huge profit because a large chunk of the money goes to the chip makers - ie: AMD.
 
Fusion chips in consoles worries me. That might mean that we're stuck with Fusion level games on PC. Maybe the console optimizations will help with that?
 
Zerias said:
[...]Additionally the Playstation 3 exposes it's 3D functions through OpenGL ES 2.0 rather than through some esoteric graphics synthesizer. On paper any chip capable of making OpenGL ES 2.0 hardware calls should be capable of processing the graphics calls made by PS3 compatible games. The use of the graphics synthesizer was one of the -huge- problems with PS2 compatibility. [...]
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, few devs ever used the OpenGL interface, rather utilizing libgcm, which is much closer to metal. There are another two, one that is actually OpenGL ES 1.0 + a few, and another nVidia developed with Microsoft (no, it's not CUDA or D3D).
 
stop!theradio said:
Well...yeah...Sony doesn't see a huge profit because a large chunk of the money goes to the chip makers - ie: AMD.
Click to expand...

Well depends on how much its going to cost AMD to make these things (remember they're not putting a 7970 on there as well) and how much the actual unit is going to msrp. They're usually priced up the butt the first few years. :p
 
CoreDuo said:
The Cell processor isn't a GPU. The GPU in the PS3 is produced by NVIDIA. So they could very well reuse a Cell processor and bolt an AMD GPU to it. Silly kotaku.
Click to expand...

Originally, Sony was going to use one of the PPEs to handle graphics, but they realize there would be too many issues, and ended up using nVidia GPUs late in the design process.
 
Eh...no one really ever utilized the full potential of the Cell, anyway. Supposedly it was really hard to develop for?
 
CoreDuo said:
The Cell processor isn't a GPU. The GPU in the PS3 is produced by NVIDIA. So they could very well reuse a Cell processor and bolt an AMD GPU to it. Silly kotaku.
Click to expand...

technically, the GPU in PS3, RSX was codeveloped by Nvidia and Sony.
 
Corvette said:
Fusion chips in consoles worries me. That might mean that we're stuck with Fusion level games on PC. Maybe the console optimizations will help with that?
Click to expand...

This

I don't see how Fusion is going to be good for us unless we want to continue seeing current crappy level of graphics in video games.
 
Corvette said:
Fusion chips in consoles worries me. That might mean that we're stuck with Fusion level games on PC. Maybe the console optimizations will help with that?
Click to expand...

APUs such as Llano and Trinity are limited by current desktop thermal limits. If AMD was to build a BGA-style Fusion derivative with a 250-300W TDP, they could put some seriously powerful graphics in it.

Think of the performance of the 7770, think of the power consumption of the 7770, now think about 7770-level graphics along with a 'simpler' Cell chip in one package.
 
Hornet said:
This

I don't see how Fusion is going to be good for us unless we want to continue seeing current crappy level of graphics in video games.
Click to expand...

u do know what kind of hardware is currently in the ps3 and 360 right?

as for profits for amd, it's all about how the contract is made out. I know that for the gamecube's GPU, amd got a portion of the software sales but i do believe the 360 was a flat rate up front deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top