Playstation 4 Specs Guide

Your absolutely right. Forgive me, it was a busy day when I typed up those specs!

PS3 good for blu-ray movies, stnd DVDs, etc PS3 EXCLUSIVES
best of all
PS3 is good as a Heater <---- Saves $500 on a heated XD

thats an amazing price for the specs inside that a modern pc with that power would be a 3000 dollar computer and its a good thing that sonys going with and instead of making there own chip

When hardware is used at it's maximum, it get's hot. My laptop does, my old PS2 did, even my GameCube did. Though not AS hot as my PS3 when playing GT5... That really worked the hardware... So likely the PS4 will run cool towards the beginning of it's lifetime, when games won't be pushing it's boundaries. Later on, that's a different story.

Memory is memory to the Cpu and Gpu.The reason most systems dont use Gddr is Cost.

u r so right I have Xbox 360 and ps3 I think ps3 is way better on saving money and todays economic state also it has blue ray to play games it is very crisp clear when I play Xbox offline it sucks on that go Sony cant wait ps4 love the love :)

CPU AND GPU on same Die NUFF said.

Given Sony's problems, it could go the other way around. AMD buying Sony. However with AMD's Market Cap at $2 bill and Sony's at $14 bill it's hard to see. I also believe Sony is grossly undervalued. Instead of speculating on a buy out, a much better option would be to buy Sony shares. I liken Sony to Apple in the late 90's a company on the verge of collapse, and now look where Apple is. What's really interesting is that many of the models Apple used for their success where already used by Sony. The differentiator is Apple customers love Apple, Sony customers can often feel stung, burnt or done over by Sony. Heckler's statements in 2005 had the wrong attitude and essentially blacklisted Sony in the eyes of consumers, he needed to approach this problem with a greater understanding of a changing world. Instead, he made Sony look like a thug. If Sony used a little more love, they'd have the world. The root kit scandal and PSN crack seriously damaged them. Then there is PSN and Video/Music Unlimited, why can't I start watching a Movie Unlimited rental on my PSP and watch it again on my big ass Sony TV within the rental term ? To copy a purchased Movie Unlimited file from my Sony Tablet to my PS3 I need to copy it to my PC, then to my PSP, and finally to my PS3. This is insane! No wonder people priate movies. Finally, Sony sell so many different things, but there's hardly any product integration.

Given Sony's problems, it could go the other way around. AMD buying Sony. However with AMD's Market Cap at $2 bill and Sony's at $14 bill it's hard to see. I also believe Sony is grossly undervalued. Instead of speculating on a buy out, a much better option would be to buy Sony shares. I liken Sony to Apple in the late 90's a company on the verge of collapse, and now look where Apple is. What's really interesting is that many of the models Apple used for their success where already used by Sony. The differentiator is Apple customers love Apple, Sony customers can often feel stung, burnt or done over by Sony. Heckler's statements in 2005 had the wrong attitude and essentially blacklisted Sony in the eyes of consumers, he needed to approach this problem with a greater understanding of a changing world. Instead, he made Sony look like a thug. If Sony used a little more love, they'd have the world. The root kit scandal and PSN crack seriously damaged them. Then there is PSN and Video/Music Unlimited, why can't I start watching a Movie Unlimited rental on my PSP and watch it again on my big ass Sony TV within the rental term ? To copy a purchased Movie Unlimited file from my Sony Tablet to my PS3 I need to copy it to my PC, then to my PSP, and finally to my PS3. This is insane! No wonder people priate movies. Finally, Sony sell so many different things, but there's hardly any product integration.

Yeah, that would be cool, however, AMD and Sony are both really really really big companies. Like... Super big. For one to buy the other out they would need to make an offer in the tens of billions.

Anyway, just because Sony are using AMD products doesn't mean that they will buy them out. Think about it, Apple are using Samsung screens, but they haven't put a bid in to buy them. Back in the PowerPC (PPC) architecture days, the CPUs they were using were from IBM. No one bought each other out.

(Sorry, Apple was just the first thing to come to mind)

So yes, the world doesn't work that way.

SATA revision 1.0 - 1.5 Gbit/s - 150 MB/s
Revision 1.0a was released on January 7, 2003. First-generation SATA interfaces, now known as SATA 1.5 Gbit/s, communicate at a rate of 1.5 Gbit/s, and do not support Native Command Queuing (NCQ). Taking 8b/10b encoding overhead into account, they have an actual uncoded transfer rate of 1.2 Gbit/s (150 MB/s). The theoretical burst throughput of SATA 1.5 Gbit/s is similar to that of PATA/133, but newer SATA devices offer enhancements such as NCQ, which improve performance in a multitasking environment.
During the initial period after SATA 1.5 Gbit/s finalization, adapter and drive manufacturers used a "bridge chip" to convert existing PATA designs for use with the SATA interface.[citation needed] Bridged drives have a SATA connector, may include either or both kinds of power connectors, and, in general, perform identically to their PATA equivalents. Most lack support for some SATA-specific features such as NCQ. Native SATA products quickly eclipsed bridged products with the introduction of the second generation of SATA drives.[citation needed]
As of April 2010 the fastest 10,000 RPM SATA mechanical hard disk drives could transfer data at maximum (not average) rates of up to 157 MB/s,[8] which is beyond the capabilities of the older PATA/133 specification and also exceeds a SATA 1.5 Gbit/s link.

SATA revision 1.0 - 1.5 Gbit/s - 150 MB/s
Revision 1.0a was released on January 7, 2003. First-generation SATA interfaces, now known as SATA 1.5 Gbit/s, communicate at a rate of 1.5 Gbit/s, and do not support Native Command Queuing (NCQ). Taking 8b/10b encoding overhead into account, they have an actual uncoded transfer rate of 1.2 Gbit/s (150 MB/s). The theoretical burst throughput of SATA 1.5 Gbit/s is similar to that of PATA/133, but newer SATA devices offer enhancements such as NCQ, which improve performance in a multitasking environment.
During the initial period after SATA 1.5 Gbit/s finalization, adapter and drive manufacturers used a "bridge chip" to convert existing PATA designs for use with the SATA interface.[citation needed] Bridged drives have a SATA connector, may include either or both kinds of power connectors, and, in general, perform identically to their PATA equivalents. Most lack support for some SATA-specific features such as NCQ. Native SATA products quickly eclipsed bridged products with the introduction of the second generation of SATA drives.[citation needed]
As of April 2010 the fastest 10,000 RPM SATA mechanical hard disk drives could transfer data at maximum (not average) rates of up to 157 MB/s,[8] which is beyond the capabilities of the older PATA/133 specification and also exceeds a SATA 1.5 Gbit/s link.

Actually, the SATA speeds are right on. SATA III has a 600 MB/S transfer rate. You are right about the USB speeds. I don't know where he came up with that figure.

FOR STARTS. SATA rev 3 is 6Gb/s. USB 3.0 is 120MB/s vs. Highspeed USB2.0 which is roughly 30MB/s. SSDs are also significantly faster than USB storage because an SSD can take advantage of sata3 or even PCIE. I do agree that it is likely for a hybrid drive for a cache/quick boot, and big drive for everything else (momentus XT anybody?) I'm SURE there are more mistakes....do your research.

This is just so wrong in order to read an disc that has 8 layers the blue laser would have to change focal length and read through the substrate to the next layer and creating a laser that can rapidly shift focal points and past the substrate is ridiculous. Look up how a disc is read.

Wrong

if u wanna play old games why not just keep your ps3? you make no sense!!

So the extra power and much bigger and better games aren't worth it...? All you want to do is get expensive new hardware to play your old games no differently than before...? I don't understand. There's so much improvement in the PS4. I get that you'd like to be able to play your old games, but I don't get why not being able prevents you from buying a PS4... And this is coming from a guy who plays PS1 and 2 games on his PS3, and his PS3 is dying. (Or really HAS died 3 times, and is currently dead now...).

I agree,if ps4 does not play at least ps1&3 games it's a big waste.I would not purchase the 4 either!!!

Sony won't use GDDR5 for many, many reasons.

They'll take the monstrous advantages of stacked WideIO 1024bit DRAM (8* 128bit SDR/DDR channels) using TSV (connecting DRAM layers) at 200Mhz.

Why would Sony do this - for one thing, 88mW at 200Mhz/1024bit.

Any game console manufacturer using *4GB*[[GDDR5]] UMA for the next 7 years is going to find out why the game console industry disappeared in 2020 without a trace and Sony and Microsoft made terrible tech decisions.

I'm an Architect, and any time I think of GDDR5 in games console I get a big bright question mark over my head that tells me, "Not a good idea".

You should be HAPPY AMD is around and making less expensive teachnical components. I'd hate to live in a world where Intel has monopolized the market and drives their already insane prices even higher. I've been computer with AMD for over a decade and these processors are sturdy and well built. Still running new games with decent settings on my old XP AMD Athlon Dual Core PC and will upgrade when the computer is finally outpaced, which is likely to be in about 2 years. Can't complain for a rig I built in 2009...

There's nothing wrong with Sony using an APU in PS4, or AMD for that matter.
As for the level of cache you mentioned you're either being ignorant or outright lying, an FX-4170 4.2GHz Quad Core Processor has 12MB of Cache.

Even APUs like the A8 or A10 have 4MB of Cache and not 3, in games that aren't specifically optimized for the hardware they actually perform pretty well regardless of the fact that they are a budget solution, they're generally good gaming & media processor for a PC, the performance would be far better when games are developed specifically for that platform.

These processors aren't cheaply made, AMD isn't a cheap company, actually the console business would make them billions, their products last & they offer decent performance for the money.

You obviously don't understand this, but when coding specifically for any modern APU would actually run rings around the processor in the PS3.

The fact that PS4 may have an APU also doesn't mean cell is being forgotten, the fact so many people believe that shows that they have no clue that an APU is a concept, a concept that can use many different types of processing units in a single package for a total computing solution.
From an architectural point of view the APU is actually very similar to a cell processor, they both have main core(s) and they can both offload tasks to separate smaller processors to handle certain kinds of code.

If Sony wants to they can use the APU concept to reinvent the cell for PS4, they can do this by using a larger bank of SPUs, connected to 4 (or whatever amount) of main cores.
Coming back to cache, being that an APU can have whatever amount of cache Sony deems neccessary for their purposes there's no reason why they couldn't add some high level of cache into the design.

The whole nonsense you've written about "AMD taking the console spirit out of the PS4" is utter rubbish, MS using an AMD GPU in Xbox 360 didn't take the console spirit out of that console (I'm a multi-console gamer btw, both machines are games consoles, have that spirit about them), what makes for "console spirit" is about the experience, which is down to how the technology is used, the fluidity of the platform's development, also how the features of the hardware work together, without interfering with the gaming experience as much as possible, this is something that should be more refined in newer consoles as they can multitask better, so downloading updates in the background while playing games, rather than having to wait because the consoles can only do one thing at a time.

The second Sony switches to an APU for the processing unit, the playstation 4 will lose any existing backwards compatibility due to the ample change in the architecture of the two cpus. Backwards compatibility is what I really would Like to see from Sony this generation. As previous comments state, All the cell needs is a modernized, patched up architecture, more spe's and a bigger instruction cache. And maybe a smaller manufacturing process, such as 32nm or something within that context. With this modernized cell processor, high performance will be maintained, as well as being able to continue to play our $60 dollar playstation 3 games and not having to bin them, revert back to the now outdated ps3, or let them collect dust.

I am unsure of what Sony has in store for the gpu powerhouse. I do expect At least 1gb Of Vram, but you pointed out a wise statement, In a 4k situation 1gb of vram may be rather limiting. Although I do understand that 1080p games from today's titles don't come anywhere near 1gb of vram usage, a 4k resolution will be using 75% almost all of the time. So in my opinion, the 4k resolution addition should be completely dropped until later times.

Instead of crossfiring an apu with a 1ghz 7670, Sony should instead if willing use the "modernized" and more advanced cell processor with a more powerful 7850 optimized for usage of the playstation 4. To reduce cost, the cell processor and the 7850 should use a shared memory system, say 1gb of that ram should be for use of the gpu vram, and 3 gb should be of use for the cpu and other system functions. However, in my opinion If Sony decides on a faster XDR memory source, then that memory amount could be downsized to 1gb of vram for the gpu, and 1gb for system functions to compensate with the greatly increased speed and bandwidth in memory, this is a total of 2gb of XDR ram that will be shared between the two.

Of course in the mind of all who are sane, everyone knows the Blue ray usage should be a keeper. There is no reason at the current point in time to switch to a HVD drive. Not only will it escalate the production cost to an undesirable level, it will also be of miniature use. Today's game devs will come no where near close to filling the "space" of an HVD disc. That is comparable to getting a 1000 Hp Bugatti and only taking it up to 60 Mph on the highway. The Blue ray disc for today is more than enough space for Game devs to work with until the next, next generation.

Can I get the thoughts of other's please, many minds are better than one.