Just as i was leaving for Canada, KK came out with another believed-to-be nonsense rambling about Sony' s plans for PS3 upgradability citing " a standard AV component sized box with a more powerful power supply unit, anti-shake insulator, twice the main memory, and 2x HDMI to split sound and video output." as a possibility.

LINK

He' s mentioned it before, talking about how PS3 is a computer and could potentially be upgradeable like a PC. It' s an interesting prospect but it could have an undesirable impact if core hardware components in peoples machines were different. It' d mean that games would - like PC games, have to be scalable. " Oh, you want better textures?! Well then you need more RAM..." and ' minimum system requirements' could be a reality for games later in the consoles life. Y' know, kinda like Nintendo did with N64 and the memory expansion pak.



Now Sony have developed a 6GHz version of CELL and there is a possibility that it could be used in PS3. The fact that it uses a 65nm solution instead of 90nm is interesting as both PS3 and 360 currently use 90nm and Microsoft will be switching to 65nm later this year as a way to address heat issues.

LINK

Now this wouldn' t happen any time soon but if PS3 gets a 6GHz chip and possibly more RAM, or at least somehow have it' s RAM allocated better (which would cause further problems for developers as separate instruction sets would be needed) it would have serious advantages over Xbox 360' s currently superior actual hardware performance.

" Oh, you want better textures?! Well then you need more RAM..."

I was just fine with the whole external RAM card idea, but Sony didn' t seem to go for it.

Isn' t upgradable console an oxymoron in some ways? If you want a PC just buy a PC. How much more do we have to pay for a games console KK?

The best willcome by the end of september, SONY and Toshibe have a deal and they both be manufacturing cells at 45 mn, now thats freaking awesome

ORIGINAL: Eddie_the_Hated

" Oh, you want better textures?! Well then you need more RAM..."

I was just fine with the whole external RAM card idea, but Sony didn' t seem to go for it.

There' s time yet. Like i said about Wii, since it supports SD cards (maximum 2GB), in Sony' s case Memory Stick Duo' s - they could potentially use that as a RAM expansion. They introduced Memory Stick Pro-HG which is much faster last month and it' d be easy to make PS3 compliant. The only limitation is transfer speed: 160 Mbit/s (20 MB/s) and the write speed: 80 Mbit/s (10MB/s). But it would only require developers to find proficient work arounds, or for Sony to offer a PS3 specific variant.

This wouldn' t affect games whatsoever, this seems to me as an excuse to make a more expensive ps3.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

This wouldn' t affect games whatsoever, this seems to me as an excuse to make a more expensive ps3.

Well there obviously has to be a standard but game engines are scalable and so the possibility is always there.

If they make console games scalable I' ll kill myself

They' re not going to do this. Most games on consoles generally run on specific reqs ie 3.2GHZ clockspeed, 256MB RAM, etc. If they double the speed, any game that bases its timing on the CPU is going to probably play too fast or start skipping. And any extra RAM will be useless as the game won' t look for it. Other similar problems will crop up unless the game is programmed to take advantage of extra resources.

This was seen through the DreamX modded Xbox. It had a 1.4Ghz CPU and double the RAM of the normal Xbox. It helped some games play better, but it also broke a lot of games too.

I' m calling a big BS on this one.

But it would only require the console to check what game it is and cap the processor accordingly.

Personally I just can' t see it happening. Granted they could possibly downclock the processor on a game by game basis, but it would require them to add another level of complexity that just doesn' t seem reasonable. They' d also have to make sure that they get back to exactly 3.2Ghz as even the slightest variation to the stock speed (eg. 3.22Ghz) would result in erratic behavior for many games. This could be challenging as they' d be using different multipliers, voltages, FSB' s to get 6Ghz when compared to 3.2Ghz. Then you' d need firmware to control all of this. Whether or not it' s possible, I really don' t know enough about Cell and how it calculates clockspeed to say. But it' s definitely not the easiest/cheapest thing to do.

65nm fabrication does result in cooler operations for a chipset, but it doesn' t allow you to instantly double the clockspeed with little to no heat issues. Weren' t they already struggling to cool cell anyway? And doesn' t Sony desperately want to cut costs? Such a massive clockspeed would require massive cooling solutions - even more so than the current PS3. More than likely they' re just continuing to develop Cell and are refining/preparing it for use in other areas (servers, number crunchers, PS4?). They did invest hundreds of millions in getting the processor off paper. I can definitely see a refined Cell processor in the PS4 (if Sony are still alive then).

They' ll introduce the 65nm process soon, but it' ll probably be just the standard 3.2Ghz in order to help it run cooler. But the author of that article was incredibly presumptuous to say that it' s the new PS3 processor.

I agree but it' s not out of the realms of possibility. I mean i can' t see it happening, but it' s technologically possible. CELL is a kickass chip as it is, for a games console. PS3' s biggest negatives are an aging GPU and really shoddy RAM allocation.

Why would KK want twice the main memory though?! Just for things like Linux?!

Although all theoretically plausible, this is some good tech PR for Sony and thats about it. They simply couldnt get away with launching this or any upgrade for the PS3 for several years.

This breaks from the tradition of the PSX series, and almost harks back to the SOA / SOJ conflict of the mid 90' s with the mega CD, and more spcifically the 32X / Saturn. People thought it was risky enough with different AV connectivity and HD Size when MS put the 360 out. With that said I' m assuming there were hardware upgrade paths considered for the 360 and the Wii in their respective planning stages.

Perhaps if they dropped the " 3" moniker from the Playstation they could launch a separate system which was a linux based desktop with games prowess, but with some extra high end features, but in general the market has learnt from its mistakes in the past.

The average (potentially dumb) consumer wouldnt have a clue which to go for and would decide if their rivals only had one console out it must be a more inclusive and capable system. Developers would get wound up in wondering which demographics they were developing from PSXPC6gHzCellThing / 3GhzConsole and god, well although possible - it just wouldnt go well for them.

It' s good to see they have a deal of flexibility in the architechture tho, and this bodes well for future platforms. In fact the PS3 could well work out being a far better effort than the rest of their consumer electronics divisions combined. I' ve recently been to an AV lab where 4 of the 8 Vaio' s died 5 day' s out of their warranty!

I think they don' t want to be seen to be playing catchup in the hardware stakes (always an issue with their pc' s, their tech support and their software) and I think this is simply intended as hype, nothing more. But it did make very interesting reading!

*sighs and thinks of all the proprietory R&D efforts / system upgrades that never see the light of day from the past 20 years or so...

More Krazy Ken bullshit. Why would he even say this, I mean, it would' ve been a great thing if the Cell was upgraded to 6.0 GHz before the Console was launched, but why would we want to upgrade it (And pay way too much money for it) after the Console is on the market? I see no benifits.

More Krazy Ken bullshit. Why would he even say this, I mean, it would' ve been a great thing if the Cell was upgraded to 6.0 GHz before the Console was launched, but why would we want to upgrade it (And pay way too much money for it) after the Console is on the market? I see no benifits.

I agree. Whay say this, but then again a lot was said and want true. Such as the display and resolution being less that said fixed aspect ratio.

May I throw a spanner in the works. It has been mooted that a PS4 would be out in about 10 years who is to say that Sony' s 10 years might be say 3 years? They were talking about using Cell technology for the past what 3 -4 years. This could be the start for the Specs for the PS4.

Not only that wasn' t KK moved sideways in the great Sony reshuffle? Does he still have any rights to make statements like this?