Sony got itself a little problem ?

From ps2.ign.com

"PS != Cell Processor
No "Cell" processor for the PS3?
 
April 18, 2003 - Online news sites are reporting that the spring 2003 issue of Electronic Design Chain, an electronics trade magazine, features PlayStation creator Ken Kutaragi on the cover, and also contains very surprising news about the Playstation 3.
According to the reports, Kutaragi mentions that final production of the "Cell" chip, originally thought to be used in the PlayStation 3, may not be ready until 2007. He also confirms that the CPU in the PlayStation 3 will in fact not be the Cell processor, contrary to earlier reports.
With a targeted PlayStation 3 launch in 2005/2006, delayed production of the Cell processor may have caused Sony to find a different solution for their next-generation console. Check back with IGN for more news as it happens."

What will they do if it\'s true ? Just a faster CPU and team up with
ATi ?  :rolleyes:

[Kurt Angle]

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

It can\'t be true, it just can\'t!:(

[Titan]

Crap. Now PS3 may be pushed back pretty far since they have to develop something new.

damn, I want some linkage

[Living-In-Clip]

Not surprising. The \'Cell\' idea is flawed and even ahead of its time to a certain degree. I don\'t think it will effect PS3 projected launch dates. Sony probably has known this for awhile and had a back up plan in progress.

Lets hope that "back up plan" is good enough to maintain the Playsation\'s name popularity and success.
They really risked it with PS2.New architecture, new and hard learning curve,unfinished lacking libraries etc.
Then XBOX and Gamecube got released which are easier to develop for and the PS2\'s special effects capabilities got outdated very fast.
Sony was very lucky that the PS2 has sold a lot because a)of PSX\'s success, b)backwards capability and c)sequels of games which PS owners wanted to see on the next generation Playstation.Also very lucky that d)the XBOX isnt much supported by japaneese developers and the fact that e)Gamecube lacked quantity on quality titles in the first two years of its life.
Many new games arent feasable on PS2 now because of technical limitations.
They really need something that will make the next Playstaion to stand out from the next XBOX and Nintendo consoles.Sony will most likely release their console first which is understandable and expected by everyone that MS and Nintendo will release more powerfull consoles afterwards.Many will wait and shift from Sony to MS or Nintendo after seeing in the current generation the graphical gap between the consoles.
The cell chips sounded like the best solution.A technology so powerfull that could reverse the common sense of the first released console to be less powerfull than the forthcoming consoles.

[Living-In-Clip]

Sony\'s problem this generation was part of the fact that the Xbox and NGC was almost a year after the PS2. If I was Sony, I\'d wait until the other company showed their cards and then I\'d launch. It isn\'t like Sony doesn\'t have the brand name to make up loss sells.

It seems Sony thought differently.They released it early hoping it would sell like hotcakes based on the PSX\'s popularity and the hype.They also thought as long as there is no competition the console sells better than with competition.

"current generation the graphical gap between the consoles. "

I disagree with this statement. In fact, i think the current gen of console has the least gap between them. Sure the XBOX has better texture most  of the time but developers who can code the PS2 can give almost an identical version across all platform with only minor differences. Ex: Soul Calibur and BurnOut 2 are such example of games that looks good across multiple platform.

Compare the previous gen, the difference is quite obvious...Saturn has no lightsourcing or lightsourcing with low res and frame rates, PSX has good lightsourcing in hi-res and frame rates, N64 has lower polygon count than PSX and trademark blurry pictures(which can be good or bad, depending on how u look at it).

Anyway, I think SONY shouldn\'t release their console early for the next gen...just wait a while to see what MS and N has in store first.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Sony releasing well after the competition could shoot themselves in the foot.

They\'re console will surely have the most hype behind it, but what happens if they can\'t deliver?  What if it\'s impossible to develope for, and developers actually have a viable alternative to make games on?

Originally posted by Paul
Saturn has no lightsourcing or lightsourcing with low res and frame rates, PSX has good lightsourcing in hi-res and frame rates, N64 has lower polygon count than PSX and trademark blurry pictures(which can be good or bad, depending on how u look at it).

Nice one there....Yeah imo the difference between PSX and N64 was a very interesting one on the graphics side of things. There are some examples though were the N64 really showed it\'s power though :
- Blast Corps (Rare) - very nice special fx like a kind of environment mapping surface reflections, high res textures, clear
- Mortal Kombat 4 (Midway) - it did compare fairly nicely to the souped up arcade version, while the PSX version looked just poor.

With the aid of the 4mb ad-on cartridge the N64 did really deliver mostly imo. This shows how the N64 should have had the additional 4 mb from start :
- Star Wars Rogue Squadron (LucasArts/Factor 5) - sure, drawdistance was still very limited, but with high res it looked mighty fantastic and it ran at a nice framerate.
- ShadowMan (Acclaim) The expansion Pak did wonders for this game. When the 4 mb was installed the game looked very much more clear and crispy and most importantly, it\'s framerate was way better than without the 4 mb pak.
The thing which stuck out nasty for N64 was the overall lower polycount than PSX. Ouch. That was the one thing which kindof amazed me how the 64 bit monster could push less polygons than the ol\' 32 bit PSX.
In some areas, the PS2 is maybe a bit the \'N64\' of this generation consoles ; tough to dev for and overall image quality less clear than the competition (yes, Sega\'s DC had clearer image).

Originally posted by Paul
"current generation the graphical gap between the consoles. "

I disagree with this statement. In fact, i think the current gen of console has the least gap between them. Sure the XBOX has better texture most  of the time but developers who can code the PS2 can give almost an identical version across all platform with only minor differences. Ex: Soul Calibur and BurnOut 2 are such example of games that looks good across multiple platform.

Compare the previous gen, the difference is quite obvious...Saturn has no lightsourcing or lightsourcing with low res and frame rates, PSX has good lightsourcing in hi-res and frame rates, N64 has lower polygon count than PSX and trademark blurry pictures(which can be good or bad, depending on how u look at it).

Anyway, I think SONY shouldn\'t release their console early for the next gen...just wait a while to see what MS and N has in store first.

Perhaps you are right.But in some degree me thinks though.Althouh some developers offered graphical wonders like GT3, Burnout2, SH3, ZOE2 etc there is still no game on the PS2 having all kinds of effects and high resolution textures at the same time.Each game has numerous effects another good looking game doesnt.
Effects rarely seen on the PS2 are very very common on XBOX.The enviromental mapping seen on Cars in GT3 exists almost on every XBOX racing game and looks better too.Some textures in Burnout 2 look blurry and the water effects in the sea arent realistic.
And no matter how much we dont want to accept it XBOX\'s texture capabilities are better looking than PS2\'s.Numerous PS2 games near(not as good) some XBOX games in texture quality.
Few games on PS2 look superb, and many games on XBOX look superb.
An example of a game with graphics that PS2 cant reach is Panzer Dragoon Orta  which has countless of moving objects on screen, countless kinds of effects(bumb mapping,enviromental mapping,reflections etc),high resolution textures, a "limitless" view distance etc all running at 60fps.
The example u mentioned (Soul Calibur2) doesnt use XBOX\'s extra capabilities.Its a perfect port of the Arcade version only with slightly higher resolution surfaces and textures.I compared the japaneese XBOX version of Soul Calibur2 with DOA3 and DOA3 looks way better.

For the past generation Saturn\'s problem with graphics werent its limitations but its architecture\'s and lacking programming libraries.Something similar with PS2.In order to squeeze its true capabilities the programmer had to balance both risk processors(or three in newer versions).Sega never helped.
Saturn could also reach higher resolution graphics than PSX.
A game showcasing Saturn\'s true Capabilities was Panzer Dragoon Saga.Although low resolution, enviroments and character models featured lighting effects, and some cool looking effects (for a 32bit console) like water effects.Also dont forget that the Saturn didnt have the support PS1 had.Its wasnt easier to get the expected results from the console either.So chances of a developer trying to squeeze its true capabilities were minimum.
But even if Saturn was indeed as less powerful than PS1 as u stated, the example of N64 vs PS1 is a very fine example that proove the fact there wasnt much performance gap back then.One showcased graphics the other couldnt.There was some kind of a balance of the competition of their capabilities..Although PS1 at the end won the battle(which was supposed to be less powerfull than the 64 bit console which was released nearly 2 years after the 32 bit PS1 in Japan).


This time all consoles are 128 bit and the difference between the graphical performance of PS2 and XBOX (or GC) is more noticable.
Every PS2  game can be ported on XBOX and if the developer wants port it with better graphics.But not all XBOX games can be perfectly ported on PS2.With noticable downgrades too.