ninjaturtle
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,327
That's half of it, the other half will a betamax. By that time after WW VI nobody will know that they are using a century old device with color pattern beamed right to the optic nerve via lasers.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor For AMD
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
That's half of it, the other half will a betamax. By that time after WW VI nobody will know that they are using a century old device with color pattern beamed right to the optic nerve via lasers.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Isn't this what the Xbox 360 is also doing?
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
It says that, though it's hard to not see it's not much more than a cut down 7900GTO or so part.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,493
It's actually about the equivalent to a custom 7900GTX with 256MB of dedicated memory, and even Sony stated that it was the equivalent in power to two 6800Ultra's.
faugusztin
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,668
Do you realize PS3 has a modified GeForce 7800 and XBOX360 has a modified Radeon X1900, right ? Do you realize how the performance of those old cards compare to the current HD 6550D in Llano ? Do you realize that if any of console manufacturers are going to do the switch, they are probably are going to use Piledriver with even newer GPU, right ?
Sure, it's not going to be GTX580 in the consoles, but especially Microsoft learns from it's mistakes. They realized it's not good to have a noisy console which makes lots of heat. And if it is a huge performance upgrade, why not ? Because moving from 3-core PowerPC and X1900 graphics card to 4-8 core Piledriver with HD7xxx graphics, which will have higher performance than the current one in Llano is a huge performance improvement.
Considering that the "low end" GPU in today's Fusion chips is probably easily 5-6x as powerful as the GPU in the X360, and much more than that for the RSX in the PS3, I'm not too worried. After all even if Sony/MS/Nintendo focus on the bottom line and don't try to push performance as much as they did last time whatever GPU they put into their respective consoles is likely to be several times more powerful than the IGPU Fusion currently has. Due to heat and cost issues its pretty unlikely that you'll see nex-gen consoles use something equivalent to a 7970 class GPU, but a 7770 to 7850 class GPU is almost a sure thing given the rumored time frames we know about so far.
If nothing else this standardization of highly similar or identical GPU architectures across the board, regardless of performance, from the console makers will likely mean that high quality PC ports will be much easier to do and that it should be easier to make use of all extra performance PC's will get over time.
Sure they did. There are developers over at B3D if you care to look who talk about "utilization" from time to time.
The main problem with Cell, as already mentioned earlier in this thread, was that it was only really fast at a few tasks so the numbers Sony was touting at launch were highly deceptive to say the least.
Something else to consider is that the GPU used in the PS3, the RSX, was at a significant real world performance disadvantage vs the X360's GPU Xenos. Developers have been forced to make up the difference for years by using Cell to do all manner of nifty pre computation tricks and such, which are time consuming and difficult (read: expensive) to do, just to keep up with the X360 visually most of the time. So all that potential is being used, just not the way Sony or the developers or console enthusiasts originally thought it would be.
Closer to a 7800GT at very best, the 128 bit bus gimped it a fair amount regardless of the amount of dedicated RAM Sony gave it in the end. Most of the customizations weren't performance related though I think someone at B3D mentioned it had more on die L1 or L2 cache at some point than its PC desktop counter part to try and offset that.
It wasn't a bad GPU for its time at launch but it also clearly wasn't a good one either. Unfortunately for Sony MS went with the Xenos from ATI which was a very good and forward looking chip so the X360 has aged very well against the supposedly much faster PS3.
lostinseganet
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,221
I was hoping to one day see a cell with 1024 spu's and 64 ppu's all merged with memristors. A sort of cell gpu as a last hurra. Will any thing come from the cell BFE??? 
God I hope not. That chip may sound great in theory just looking at the raw GFLOPs numbers but its not anywhere near what its made out to be by Sony/PS3 console fans for consoles in the real world.
Piledriver wouldn't be my first choice for a console either, unless they were able to modify the mediocrity and high power usage out of it of course, but that is very very unlikely. It'd still be better than Cell/Cell2 over all though. People have to start considering more than just raw GFLOP numbers when thinking about what a CPU has to do, especially these days with GPUs being able to handle work loads well outside of their previous roles. GFLOPs by themselves, without any detailed context of what exactly sort of work load is being ran, are a pretty terrible metric for performance anyways.
All the console makers, but in particular Sony, have been abusing the GFLOP numbers for years now in their marketing. It just blows me away so many still get suckered by it.
This is exactly what is going to happen:
There will be rumors for months about AMD being the choice for the CPU, Video whatever.
A few months before release, we will find out its really Intel, might be Intel for video too.
AMD might offer some interconnect technology, for 2 cents or so, to connect peripherals, or some other stupid crap VIA could do as well.
Why AMD rumors, to milk Intel that's all. Rumor this and AMD that.., you can be just sure AMD is not trusted production wise, a lot of good its going to make you if they go under while your console is just getting ramped-up production, I believe that is the train of thought of the executives, but they got to milk the rumor.
There will be rumors for months about AMD being the choice for the CPU, Video whatever.
A few months before release, we will find out its really Intel, might be Intel for video too.
AMD might offer some interconnect technology, for 2 cents or so, to connect peripherals, or some other stupid crap VIA could do as well.
Why AMD rumors, to milk Intel that's all. Rumor this and AMD that.., you can be just sure AMD is not trusted production wise, a lot of good its going to make you if they go under while your console is just getting ramped-up production, I believe that is the train of thought of the executives, but they got to milk the rumor.
I think Sony has no option but to follow Nintendo and Microsoft in using a Power CPU and AMD GPU. I'm sure there has been plenty of complaining from producers saying they need a more compatible system so that ports aren't such a pain in the ass. Nintendo has already said that they are focusing on making the WiiU easy to port to so I'm sure Sony will be expected to do the same. Using x86 or Cell would once again put the Playstation at a disadvantage by requiring extra work out of the devs. Consdiering console devs love to use hardware workarounds in their games Sony really has no option at this point.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,267
thank god. Now hopefully the give Sony better driver support than the consumer market
I can appreciate what they were trying to do with the Cell processor... but it's a POS. They're better off sticking with hardware configuration that developers are familiar with.
I can appreciate what they were trying to do with the Cell processor... but it's a POS. They're better off sticking with hardware configuration that developers are familiar with.
x86 would actually maybe be better than another POWER derivative or whatever else MS/Nintendo decide to use. The compilers for x86 are very very mature and reliable and most programmers understand its pitfalls quite well and have for years. PC ports would be even easier to do too.
Console devs actually don't really like to do this. Sure most of them are programming nerds that love to play around with hardware and get it to do things no one else thought it could....when they aren't on a budget or a time dead line.
And when they're working on a game they have to deal with both the budget issues and the time dead line as well as whatever crap management throws at them. Most of these people love coding and games but they don't like working 12-18hr crunch schedules for weeks or having to deal with the stress of a looming dead line anymore than you or anyone else would. They also really don't like it when, despite putting up with all that BS, they are still often forced to cut large amounts of content and sacrifice the quality of the game play just to ship a game when management demands.
As far as I could tell, the cell was essentially a modern DSP chip (assuming you weren't using a GPU, which seems to be what clobbered the cell). The big "secret sauce" was that by using the "cache" as main memory, they could make all memory load/stores take a uniform amount of time, and if nearly all jumps/branches are correctly predicted (more than true enough in the DSP field, not so much making AIs) you wouldn't need to go out-of-order, you could get exactly the same performance with static compiling. All you had to do was fit your code in 256k (and have predictable branches).
My guess is the game publishers found out that they couldn't hire the DSP pros to work twice as many hours for half the pay. Also the software architects trying to break the game up figured out that pushing 85% (by runtime) onto the cell was far worse than the thought. 256k is less than I've seen "hello_world.cpp" compile into, try getting some kid who doesn't know what an assembler opcode is code for that. I suspect they just dumped it and are now trying to push whatever they thought might work on the cell on the GPU (which at least will be portable and likely be able to be reused in the future).
My guess is the game publishers found out that they couldn't hire the DSP pros to work twice as many hours for half the pay. Also the software architects trying to break the game up figured out that pushing 85% (by runtime) onto the cell was far worse than the thought. 256k is less than I've seen "hello_world.cpp" compile into, try getting some kid who doesn't know what an assembler opcode is code for that. I suspect they just dumped it and are now trying to push whatever they thought might work on the cell on the GPU (which at least will be portable and likely be able to be reused in the future).
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
Yes, I know the hardware used in current console lineup. But I also do know that we're going to stick with this next generation of consoles for another 8-10 years. And if this is the best they can do, its going to be another long decade for PC gaming.
why dont they just quit the fucking crap and ditch the consoles all together and program only for the pc....that way pc around $300 and up with some standard low end dx11 card can play all the games. Sony, Sega, ect. They keep using "PC related componets" to give people little to no options. one platform, PC...Upgradable, more powerful, more fun to use, overclock etc....PC would be even more faster better, and cheaper if it were only PC. the same compaines are being used to create the stupid consoles anyways...."OMG I GOT AN AMD INSIDE MY CONSOLE!" damit.....
Consoles are a disgrace.."even though i dont use a 360 or PS3 controller for FPS RPG or Strat. i bought it for yes, Fighting games, Sports games, Racing car games, Arcade games, Emulators......Keyboard and mouse for FPS RPG and STRAT. these winnies in the industry are starting to piss me off.....Ditch the piece of shit Consoles and adopt the PC...We need good software on a wide range of hardware and chocies options upgrades....I even like to Tune my PC like its my Car...consoles hold it all back.. WERE THE HELL IS CHEAPER 2560X1600 what about Quad HD.....?PS4 gonna do FULL quad HD??? 1920x1080 is getting old.. .High prices on life are getting old. err why do i even try....
YAY ps4 to support fully 1920x1080 and guess wut HD textures!!! and advanced postprocessing...if they start saying shit like this on the box or anything to "console Call of duty style" gamers i am going to puke. lets see it play games at 2560x1600 also.
HardOnForMe
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 511
Wasn't AMD in the Wiis? What happened to all that money, oh they spent it on BD xD
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
I was hoping to one day see a cell with 1024 spu's and 64 ppu's all merged with memristors. A sort of cell gpu as a last hurra. Will any thing come from the cell BFE???
#1 It's a PowerPC. There's a reason why Apple left behind that architecture. It was always consistently slower then Intel's in benchmarks by a huge factor.
#2 It's an In-Order processor, where as everything for the past 10 years is Out-of-Order. This was to save silicon and reduce the price of the processor. The difference is going from a Pentium to a Pentium II. Literally, as that's one of the major changes to Pentium II or Pentium Pro. It's an amazement that anyone could consider this processor fast or even modern without this piece of technology.
#3 The Cell was a nightmare to work with. Those SPE cores were nothing more then Sony trying to lock developers into their platform. Gabe Newell mentions this with hatred. So for the most part, majority of PS3 games only utilize the single PPC core. Most games ignore the SPE's, or just use them for small tasks. Unlike the Xbox 360 which has 3 PPC cores, which were really easy to utilize. As Gabe Newell said, anything they do which seems right, could halt the entire machine to a crawl. That's how flinky the Cell chip was.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
You have to realize why Sony and Microsoft has chosen AMD's Fusion for their next generation consoles.
#1 Many believe that next generation consoles wouldn't make it with this ill economy. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are likely to be the last generation.
#2 Microsoft is moving towards a more unified software platform, and Sony will likely be doing something similar. Who knows, they maybe collaborating with Microsoft on this.
#3 PS4 maybe upgraded a number of times. Like the iPhone where it's a closed platform but does get upgraded from time to time. For example, PS4, PS4 Xtreme, PS4 GT. The more advanced the console, the more graphics you'll see in games.
Whatever it is, one things for certain. The next generation of consoles are taking a HUGE consideration of PC gaming. Something we've seen lost with this current generation of gaming.
Emission
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,420
Bingo!
The majority of the current set of fusion hardware doesn't even have that high of a TDP, even by desktop standards.
Emission
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,420
It's easier to develop for one piece of hardware. Not sure why people bother asking the "why not PC?" question.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
A custom APU with (among other things) access to DDR5 (or better) on a wide bus could make an awefully nice chip for a small system like a console.
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
Interesting part about Sony going for an APU though is it seems to make it more directly comparable to a PC in terms of raw-power minus the overhead of a slightly more complicated OS(on pcs). Back in the 1990s, PS1/2 fans would claim that the 'RISC' processor was 'design-for-gaming-first'. As such, they'd make claims its a far better architecture so the 60mhz Risc processor would far superior to a 300mhz Pentium 2 processor.
I know console fanboys of our current age love to argue about the magical mystical power of the Cell processor and how a 8 Cell device with 1 disabled for enhanced yields and another reserved for the operating system leaving only 6 actual cell chips available with a theoretical maximum performance during very specific matrix calculations of 1.4 Teraflops is supppper powerful. You know, as long as you don't start considering you've lost 25% theoretical performance from the two cores being disabled right off the bat and that theoretical performance levels are never maintained or reached during actual gaming and the bottleneck of ram and ppc limitations. Especially now considering single mid to low-range video cards can produce similar Teraflops in raw calculations alone.
Don't forget the love of console fans touting how the rather slow 1x blu-ray drive with read speeds so slow data on discs often has to be doubled to allow reading multiple times on one pass neglecting much of the so called 'storage enchancement', bings game's to a new level.
If AMD has a 2GB, 1280 shader, 64 SPU, etc etc based 7xxx series card in the PS4. It's much easier to compare that directly to an equivilent ATI GPU for a PC. It would be interesting to see a direct comparison sooner or later between the PS4's APU and a PC equivilent APU/videocard + cpu combo. Especially if you start factoring in the cost of a custom built pc versus buying a PS4.
If the PS4 were to retail at $599.99 like the PS3, potentially, you could create a pretty reasonable custom-built PC designed for gaming @ 1920x1080 @ 30 fps with no AA(like consoles do) for that cost. I'm guessing 4GB of system ram, a 7770 and a i3-2300k and a cheap mobo? What's the best custom-built PC you think you could make with a $600 + tax limit?
I know console fanboys of our current age love to argue about the magical mystical power of the Cell processor and how a 8 Cell device with 1 disabled for enhanced yields and another reserved for the operating system leaving only 6 actual cell chips available with a theoretical maximum performance during very specific matrix calculations of 1.4 Teraflops is supppper powerful. You know, as long as you don't start considering you've lost 25% theoretical performance from the two cores being disabled right off the bat and that theoretical performance levels are never maintained or reached during actual gaming and the bottleneck of ram and ppc limitations. Especially now considering single mid to low-range video cards can produce similar Teraflops in raw calculations alone.
Don't forget the love of console fans touting how the rather slow 1x blu-ray drive with read speeds so slow data on discs often has to be doubled to allow reading multiple times on one pass neglecting much of the so called 'storage enchancement', bings game's to a new level.
If AMD has a 2GB, 1280 shader, 64 SPU, etc etc based 7xxx series card in the PS4. It's much easier to compare that directly to an equivilent ATI GPU for a PC. It would be interesting to see a direct comparison sooner or later between the PS4's APU and a PC equivilent APU/videocard + cpu combo. Especially if you start factoring in the cost of a custom built pc versus buying a PS4.
If the PS4 were to retail at $599.99 like the PS3, potentially, you could create a pretty reasonable custom-built PC designed for gaming @ 1920x1080 @ 30 fps with no AA(like consoles do) for that cost. I'm guessing 4GB of system ram, a 7770 and a i3-2300k and a cheap mobo? What's the best custom-built PC you think you could make with a $600 + tax limit?
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
With that being said, if you could create a similarly powerful PC for a similar price range, why would anyone want to buy the PS4 apart from exclusive software? Since a PC being able to run Windows/Linux would have inheritantly more functionality/capability. Unless the PS4 comes with an office-clone-suite, support for running x86/x64/arm applications and a fully functional web-browser.
I'm also curious for GDC next week to see what the Unreal 4 engine is like in terms of portability. If any game using the Unreal 4 engine can be easily ported to the PC, I think exclusives would become less common. Especially if the PS4 is just an APU, how hard can it be to convert a game from running on an APU to a CPU+GPU or PC APU? Since Unreal 3 was one of the most used game engines for xbox 360 titles and one of the most commonly ported games, I could see Unreal 4 + sony using APUs meaning more possible future games on the PC than ever.
I'm also curious for GDC next week to see what the Unreal 4 engine is like in terms of portability. If any game using the Unreal 4 engine can be easily ported to the PC, I think exclusives would become less common. Especially if the PS4 is just an APU, how hard can it be to convert a game from running on an APU to a CPU+GPU or PC APU? Since Unreal 3 was one of the most used game engines for xbox 360 titles and one of the most commonly ported games, I could see Unreal 4 + sony using APUs meaning more possible future games on the PC than ever.
well If Amd does win this contract, it will certainly help them. Although i must stay if all 3 console makers decided to use a AMD GPU or APU, then well they better hope that Amd can actually manufacture all the chips needed to prevent supply issues.
Guess it would make sense on why Amd is shifting its "Focus" the way they are.
eh rumor mill, don't care give me a product then let me bat at it (figurative of coarse)
Guess it would make sense on why Amd is shifting its "Focus" the way they are.
eh rumor mill, don't care give me a product then let me bat at it (figurative of coarse)
WBurchnall
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 2,622
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The PS4 and xbox 720 are already in production. Sony has publically confirms the PS4 is in development and the xbox 720 has its codeword out which indicates there's some development going on internally at Microsoft.
So, I would strong disagree with the statement that the PS3/xbox 360 are "likely" to be the "last generation" as the next generation is already in process.
I wouldn't put a huge amount of hope in the idea that Microsoft and Sony are working together; but one can always hope. I'd hope that Sony having learned that making your system hard to develop for pushes developers towards merging more developer-friendly markets(IE Microsoft), is not a smart long-term strategy and will try to give developers an easy to develop for platform.
It seems a benefit of APU technology might be easier porting to PC though which gives developers a much larger possible customer/install base. Realistically, 4 years after the PS4 is released, you should be able to buy a cheap-PC that has the power to play PS4 games if the PS4 uses x86/x64 architecture only because PCs will keep evolving over time.
There was an internal document linked for the PS3 that was basically an FAQ for employees to use with regarding to answering press questions about the PS3 and in it, it more or less said over and over again to different questions about whether the PS3 would change over time:
"THE PS3 IS A COMPUTER-ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM. DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS MAY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE."
http://www.1up.com/news/hey-ps3-computer-game-system
Ken Kutargi(designer of the PS3) even said "If a new technology gets into mainstream PCs, the PS3 will have to adopt it as well. Maybe the Blu-ray drive will become writable. Well, maybe not at this point."
Of course, in retrospect, we know that the PS3's drive is in fact not re-writeable and all that's really changed is a smaller form factor(no surprise there) and a larger hard drive size (also no real surprise) and the only real surprise was dropping backwards compatibility.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Well, now people may start to understand why nvidia needs to do something to stay relevant in PC gaming once the next gen consoles come out. With all AMD hardware.
Seems they choose hardware physx oddly.
Also, IBM involvement rumors may make sense to help console developer confidence that AMD will be able to deliver with their cross licencing deals.
Seems they choose hardware physx oddly.
Also, IBM involvement rumors may make sense to help console developer confidence that AMD will be able to deliver with their cross licencing deals.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Ask developers and they'll have doubts if PS4/720 will survive. If they do, then they'll absolutely be the last generation of console gaming. You can see this with the PS2 and how long it took for the PS3 to out sell it. This generation will likely be even worse, which could kill off console gaming. It's not a question of if, but when.
Just watch this.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/consoles-are-the-new-coin-op
Either Sony is going to introduce their own version of Steam or they'll use Microsofts app store in some way. You can kinda see this with their Playstation Phone. The idea is that Sony will hold onto some model that allows them to rack in 30% of game sales, while ensuring their console doesn't die out. Microsoft has the advantage on this.
Technically console systems are really just cheap PCs. The original Xbox was called a legacy free PC. I'm thinking that games for PS4 will likely play just fine on the PC, given that you have a Playstation Store installed. Gotta remember that the PC was considered doomed by many people, but yet survived just fine. With services like Steam constantly offered cheaper prices of games with discounts and sales, it's no wonder Sony would make their PS4 a x86 machine. To survive the inevitable death of console gaming, they'll link it to PC gaming.
There was an internal document linked for the PS3 that was basically an FAQ for employees to use with regarding to answering press questions about the PS3 and in it, it more or less said over and over again to different questions about whether the PS3 would change over time:
"THE PS3 IS A COMPUTER-ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM. DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS MAY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE."
http://www.1up.com/news/hey-ps3-computer-game-system
Ken Kutargi(designer of the PS3) even said "If a new technology gets into mainstream PCs, the PS3 will have to adopt it as well. Maybe the Blu-ray drive will become writable. Well, maybe not at this point."
Of course, in retrospect, we know that the PS3's drive is in fact not re-writeable and all that's really changed is a smaller form factor(no surprise there) and a larger hard drive size (also no real surprise) and the only real surprise was dropping backwards compatibility.[/QUOTE]
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Just wanted to say that the PS1 was emulated on PC with an emulator called Bleem!. These were the minimum system requirements.
* IBM-compatible PC, Pentium 233 MMX or higher processor
* Windows 95/98
* 16MB RAM
* 3MB free hard disk space (including DirectX 6.1)
* Sound card
* CDROM drive
* Internet connection and web access for compatibility updates
* Recent full-featured 3D accelerator card required for D3D
Enhanced! graphics.
Because playing with a controller from your couch with a 52 inch LCD tv is a much more enjoyable experience than sitting upright at a desk with a keyboard and mouse. I don't care how much more accurate the KB/M is people do not enjoy using it. This is the number one thing that stops this from happening...it is how its implemented, not the actual hardware. Obviously you can't tell people to play with a controller on PC because they will get owned and it will not be fun....
Steam has made the frustrations of PC gaming go away, it is simple shop, buy, download...gets the indie devs out there, and handles the updating. Very rarely do i see people having major problems with hardware compatibility....
However...
Having to be at a desk using a KB/M is what is holding PC gaming back, it has nothing to do with power....but most on here can't see that.
There is a large market composed of people who aren't interested in gaming on a PC or gaming outside of the living room couch. As long as this market exists companies like Sony/MS/Nintendo will pursue it.
Its generally accepted you need 10x the processing power in order to emulate another system FYI. Given its task and the time period the CPU that Sony used with the PSX was an OK one but compared to its PC counter parts from the time period or a 233Mhz Pentium MMX it was a POS.
Depends.
If they don't modify the GPU or CPU too much from the PC counter parts it should be relatively easy compared to porting from today's consoles to a PC. If they do some big changes to the GPU (ie. something like Xenon's on package frame buffer) and/or CPU (ie. another multi core POWER variant with no OOoE, just some multi threading) then it'll be just as hard or even harder depending on how far they differentiate the hardware to do ports as it is today.
I'm assuming, given statements from Sony at the very least when discussing things they could've done differently with the PS3, that they aren't going to try and do anything strange or exotic at the very least vs. other consoles. They want programming and porting to be much easier this time around. MS might still go with a design that uses a big on package frame buffer like they did with Xenon since it has worked out so well for them with the X360. That will make PC ports tricky at the very least I think if that happens.