New PS3 Details, Memory and Cost Issues Arise
Sony re-working PS3 internals or just adhering to budget?
Kuturagi, partially obscured by a busted pair of Elton John specs from around 1973
If the PS3 does make an appearance at E3 2005, as promised by Kuturagi, it is likely to be with reduced memory, according to news filtering through from the Rambus Developer Conference in Japan. Reports from PC Watch have suggested that Sony is replacing the 512 MB XDR DRAM chip originally planned for inclusion with a smaller 256 MB XDR DRAM chip. There could be several feasible explanations for this move, but Sony has declined to offer a full response as yet.
Optimistic onlookers could - and have - suggested that the reduced capacity of the DRAM chip is because the PS3’s memory bandwidth will be increased from 25.6 GB/Sec to 51.2 GB/Sec. This would mean that the Cell chip takes on more of the work, permitting this budget-friendly memory reduction.
Alternatively, the move is entirely budget-orientated. Early estimates of the likely and necessary cost of the PS3 have been rather lofty so far. Sony will inevitably be seeking to reduce costs, and this would be one obvious way to do that. However, if the PS3 is to make a late entry into the next-gen fray, it will need all the power it can harness; so, for Sony’s sake, let’s hope this isn’t a case of short-sighted, face-spiting, nose-cutting-off type behaviour.
Optimistic onlookers could - and have - suggested that the reduced capacity of the DRAM chip is because the PS3’s memory bandwidth will be increased from 25.6 GB/Sec to 51.2 GB/Sec. This would mean that the Cell chip takes on more of the work, permitting this budget-friendly memory reduction.
Alternatively, the move is entirely budget-orientated. Early estimates of the likely and necessary cost of the PS3 have been rather lofty so far. Sony will inevitably be seeking to reduce costs, and this would be one obvious way to do that. However, if the PS3 is to make a late entry into the next-gen fray, it will need all the power it can harness; so, for Sony’s sake, let’s hope this isn’t a case of short-sighted, face-spiting, nose-cutting-off type behaviour.
Companies:
Sony
Read More Like This
Comments
Joji 12 Jul 2004 12:30
1/13
I don't think this about how powerful the thing is anymore. It's about games, and the tech comes later.
Sounds good though.
Sounds good though.
locopuyo 12 Jul 2004 21:05
2/13
I have sony's strategy all figured out:
Announce as early as possible, claiming it will be a powerhouse more powerful than any other console, let the others launch first, but show the PS3 early, talking up the specs way higher than they they know they will be. Then if their plan works, everyone thinks that the new consoles that launch will suck compared to the PS3, and it will be worth waiting for it. But once the PS3 launches the specs are drasticaly decreased and it ends up being less powerful than the consoles that have been on the market for over a year, because sony wants to save money.
So to put it simply, sony tries to fool everyone into thinking the PS3 will be super powerful, while it really is weaker than the other consoles.
But will that strategy work this time? Now that everyone who has seen the xbox in action knows its more powerful, and will expect the xbox 2 to be more powerful than the ps3.
Announce as early as possible, claiming it will be a powerhouse more powerful than any other console, let the others launch first, but show the PS3 early, talking up the specs way higher than they they know they will be. Then if their plan works, everyone thinks that the new consoles that launch will suck compared to the PS3, and it will be worth waiting for it. But once the PS3 launches the specs are drasticaly decreased and it ends up being less powerful than the consoles that have been on the market for over a year, because sony wants to save money.
So to put it simply, sony tries to fool everyone into thinking the PS3 will be super powerful, while it really is weaker than the other consoles.
But will that strategy work this time? Now that everyone who has seen the xbox in action knows its more powerful, and will expect the xbox 2 to be more powerful than the ps3.
more comments below our sponsor's message
ohms 12 Jul 2004 21:52
3/13
>will that strategy work this time? Now that
>everyone who has seen the xbox in action knows
>its more powerful, and will expect the xbox 2 to
>be more powerful than the ps3.
well, PS2 was 2 years old when xbox showed up, and eessentially using PC componants, the xbox built a seemingly higher spec for less money.
this time around the xbox may have custom built processors, and all 3 systems will turn up around the same time, so a great difference in horsepower between the PS3 and XBOX2 seems unlikely.
I think for the forthcoming generation, console specifications will be less important than the games that will be running on them.
kami 13 Jul 2004 00:02
4/13
locopuyo wrote:
So to put
it simply, sony tries to fool everyone into
thinking the PS3 will be super powerful, while it
really is weaker than the other consoles.
I don't know if that strategy would have really worked in the first place, considering that the majority of consoles aren't bought at launch, but much rather a bit later on in its life. And in any case, I don't quite see people going "Oh dear, we've waited all this time for the PS3 and it's rather underpowered. Well let's buy it anyway even if we have been holding off on the other consoles and probably could still buy them"
>I think for the forthcoming generation, console specifications will be less important than the games that will be running on them.
I think that's probably been the case since the last generation. Sony has more or less won most the time because of their huge library. In any case I think the hardware specs might matter in so as much as which console the developers might prefer to make their games on.
So to put
it simply, sony tries to fool everyone into
thinking the PS3 will be super powerful, while it
really is weaker than the other consoles.
I don't know if that strategy would have really worked in the first place, considering that the majority of consoles aren't bought at launch, but much rather a bit later on in its life. And in any case, I don't quite see people going "Oh dear, we've waited all this time for the PS3 and it's rather underpowered. Well let's buy it anyway even if we have been holding off on the other consoles and probably could still buy them"
>I think for the forthcoming generation, console specifications will be less important than the games that will be running on them.
I think that's probably been the case since the last generation. Sony has more or less won most the time because of their huge library. In any case I think the hardware specs might matter in so as much as which console the developers might prefer to make their games on.
Pandaman 13 Jul 2004 02:17
5/13
The PS3 could launch with no games and there'd still be morons who'd buy it.
animegt 13 Jul 2004 06:09
6/13
for all i care sony can add a microwave, a blender and even a coffee machine..... and i will still not buy their system.
bbam 13 Jul 2004 08:18
7/13
Alan Poole wrote:
>The PS3 could launch with no games and there'd
>still be morons who'd buy it.
Yea and i couldnt care whats put into the ps3 im not buying it Microsoft has alot of power behind it and therefore since i have seen the success of Xbox i shall be there for the success of Xbox 2 as i wish to keep all my live friends and not end up playing some 5 year old on sonys answer to live which falls miles short of the line!
>The PS3 could launch with no games and there'd
>still be morons who'd buy it.
Yea and i couldnt care whats put into the ps3 im not buying it Microsoft has alot of power behind it and therefore since i have seen the success of Xbox i shall be there for the success of Xbox 2 as i wish to keep all my live friends and not end up playing some 5 year old on sonys answer to live which falls miles short of the line!
Brown Force 13 Jul 2004 09:34
8/13
Well if you ask me, if Sony do have a 'hidden agenda' and are withdrawing their real specs to get one over its competitors, as the rumours have been going around the net. Sony are going to lose the Next Generation hands down.
You can all speak of specs etc, but it won't matter one bit. And as soon as Nintendo release their console, I think people will start to relise this. Exspecially if the games are good.
The most worrying thing about next generation is that everyone seems to have written off Nintendo, even Microsoft and Sony in somes ways. And I personally think that they may be on to something that could potentially change the way console battles are faught. If they can make their console innovative, without the need of high specs and keep the price low from launch with all their top titles out in the first year, I personally think that not even Sony will be able to compete with that. Exspecially if they price it so you could buy a DS and a Nintendo Revolution under the price of even a PSP, never mind a PS3 and that fact alone will win over millions. Including me.
As for Sony, I haven't got a clue what they are planning. I think they are trying to wow people and hype people up by telling us how powerful PS3 is going to be and how there going to show people what its going to do at E3 and they are missing the important part...the games. Apart from a few which we know little about, its highly unlikely we will see a MGS, GT, GTA or a Final Fantasy at launch. So what will we see at launch then? Have they even got the Dev kits out yet? I seriously doubt it if they are still messing about with Specs at what not. And that is what worries me about Sony, they are putting too much money and effort into their hardware.
And this is doubly worrying if you look at the likes of XNA and the fact we could see Perfect Dark Zero, Project Gothem Racing 3 and True Fantasy Live among the launch titles of Xbox 2. Never mind what Nintendo have planned.
You can all speak of specs etc, but it won't matter one bit. And as soon as Nintendo release their console, I think people will start to relise this. Exspecially if the games are good.
The most worrying thing about next generation is that everyone seems to have written off Nintendo, even Microsoft and Sony in somes ways. And I personally think that they may be on to something that could potentially change the way console battles are faught. If they can make their console innovative, without the need of high specs and keep the price low from launch with all their top titles out in the first year, I personally think that not even Sony will be able to compete with that. Exspecially if they price it so you could buy a DS and a Nintendo Revolution under the price of even a PSP, never mind a PS3 and that fact alone will win over millions. Including me.
As for Sony, I haven't got a clue what they are planning. I think they are trying to wow people and hype people up by telling us how powerful PS3 is going to be and how there going to show people what its going to do at E3 and they are missing the important part...the games. Apart from a few which we know little about, its highly unlikely we will see a MGS, GT, GTA or a Final Fantasy at launch. So what will we see at launch then? Have they even got the Dev kits out yet? I seriously doubt it if they are still messing about with Specs at what not. And that is what worries me about Sony, they are putting too much money and effort into their hardware.
And this is doubly worrying if you look at the likes of XNA and the fact we could see Perfect Dark Zero, Project Gothem Racing 3 and True Fantasy Live among the launch titles of Xbox 2. Never mind what Nintendo have planned.
schnide 13 Jul 2004 11:48
9/13
Brown Force wrote:
>You can all
>speak of specs etc, but it won't matter one bit.
>And as soon as Nintendo release their console, I
>think people will start to relise this.
>Exspecially if the games are good.
WOW! You have insider information on the new Nintendo console - do tell us all!!
That's amazing, no-one else outside of Nintendo knows anything about their new machine except the usual hype that console manufacturers release, especially from a company desperate to reclaim some ground before the next round in the console war wipes them out.
I'm waiting.
>You can all
>speak of specs etc, but it won't matter one bit.
>And as soon as Nintendo release their console, I
>think people will start to relise this.
>Exspecially if the games are good.
WOW! You have insider information on the new Nintendo console - do tell us all!!
That's amazing, no-one else outside of Nintendo knows anything about their new machine except the usual hype that console manufacturers release, especially from a company desperate to reclaim some ground before the next round in the console war wipes them out.
I'm waiting.
locopuyo 13 Jul 2004 17:35
10/13
More people care about specs than games, at least at launch. Because with weak specs the games will be weak, nearly everything in a game is affected by system specs, the size of levels, the graphics, the physics, the size of the game, online multiplayer, the animations, the sound, the control. If all you worried about was the library you would still be playing the first Nintendo console.
Sony overhyped PS2, look at Dreamcast games that were coming out at that time, then look at PS2 games, most of the Dreamcast games actually look better! Dreamcast had a way bigger library of games, and way better games, but PS2 outsold it.
(if you don't believe me that Dreamcast is more capable of better graphics play Unreal Tournament on Dreamcast then play it on PS2, the frames per second are twice as high on Dreamcast, same goes for quake 3)
Sony overhyped PS2, look at Dreamcast games that were coming out at that time, then look at PS2 games, most of the Dreamcast games actually look better! Dreamcast had a way bigger library of games, and way better games, but PS2 outsold it.
(if you don't believe me that Dreamcast is more capable of better graphics play Unreal Tournament on Dreamcast then play it on PS2, the frames per second are twice as high on Dreamcast, same goes for quake 3)
gibroni99 13 Jul 2004 20:27
11/13
What makes sense to me is this Sony will rely on the backward compatibility just as they did with the PS2. Because there is no way they have dev kits out there like Microsoft does. And Microsoft's philosophy is games simply games. They are focused on working on tools to allow developers to get the most out of their system as early as possible.
PS2 games that came out at launch and up to a year later were good looking PS games and that will be the problem with Sony this time around because Nintendo and M aren't letting Sony get the jump on the market and will have better looking games earlier because of their philosophy towards their consoles. From what I gather this Cell processor will be extremely hard to program for and that could push back the uber good looking games further back. But we can only wait.
PS2 games that came out at launch and up to a year later were good looking PS games and that will be the problem with Sony this time around because Nintendo and M aren't letting Sony get the jump on the market and will have better looking games earlier because of their philosophy towards their consoles. From what I gather this Cell processor will be extremely hard to program for and that could push back the uber good looking games further back. But we can only wait.
ohms 14 Jul 2004 10:17
12/13
>Microsoft's philosophy is games simply games.
LOL
config 14 Jul 2004 11:20
13/13
Gibran Britt wrote:
>What makes sense to me is this Sony will rely on
>the backward compatibility just as they did with
>the PS2.
How did they rely on backward compatability with PS2? The architecture was completely different for PS2 developers. Backward compatability was only an issue if one wanted to develop PS1 games for the PS2, which nobody did,. In reality hardly anyone cared about the PS1 backward compatability, but I bet it tipped the buying decision scales for many people.
> Microsoft's philosophy is games simply games.
If you sincerely believe this you're a fool. That was Microsoft's mantra back at Xbox launch, but now it's happy to admit to Xbox being a multimedia home entertainment system.
Xbox was and always has been a trojan to get MS services/content delivery into the living room, no doubt. Why do you think that Live is so important to MS? It's the delivery mechanism.
>They are focused on working on tools to allow
>developers to get the most out of their system
>as early as possible.
Which Sony claims to be doing for PS3, having realised how royal it screwed up in this area for PS2.
>PS2 games that came out
>at launch and up to a year later were good
>looking PS games
As if. There were some pretty dire launch title, but are you seriously suggesting that SSX was a "were good
looking PS game"?
Stuff like DoA2, Dropship, Burnout, Grand Theft Auto 3, Red Faction, Silent Hill 2 and GT3 where all released within the first year and some if not all are arguably first gen.
You're a certified crack addict if you honestly think any of these titles "were good looking PS games".
>What makes sense to me is this Sony will rely on
>the backward compatibility just as they did with
>the PS2.
How did they rely on backward compatability with PS2? The architecture was completely different for PS2 developers. Backward compatability was only an issue if one wanted to develop PS1 games for the PS2, which nobody did,. In reality hardly anyone cared about the PS1 backward compatability, but I bet it tipped the buying decision scales for many people.
> Microsoft's philosophy is games simply games.
If you sincerely believe this you're a fool. That was Microsoft's mantra back at Xbox launch, but now it's happy to admit to Xbox being a multimedia home entertainment system.
Xbox was and always has been a trojan to get MS services/content delivery into the living room, no doubt. Why do you think that Live is so important to MS? It's the delivery mechanism.
>They are focused on working on tools to allow
>developers to get the most out of their system
>as early as possible.
Which Sony claims to be doing for PS3, having realised how royal it screwed up in this area for PS2.
>PS2 games that came out
>at launch and up to a year later were good
>looking PS games
As if. There were some pretty dire launch title, but are you seriously suggesting that SSX was a "were good
looking PS game"?
Stuff like DoA2, Dropship, Burnout, Grand Theft Auto 3, Red Faction, Silent Hill 2 and GT3 where all released within the first year and some if not all are arguably first gen.
You're a certified crack addict if you honestly think any of these titles "were good looking PS games".