Friday, November 2nd 2012

Sony PlayStation 4 "Orbis" Kits Shipping to Developers, Powered by AMD A10 APU

According to a VG 24/7 report, Sony began shipping development kits of its upcoming game console, PlayStation 4, codenamed "Orbis" to developers. The kit is described as being a "normal sized PC," driven by AMD A10 "Trinity" APU, and 8 or 16 GB of memory. We've known from reports dating back to April that Sony plans to use a combination of APU and discrete GPU, similar to today's Dual Graphics setups, where the APU graphics core works in tandem with discrete mid-range GPU. The design goal is to be able to play games 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution, with 60 Hz refresh rate, and with the ability to run stereo 3D at 60 Hz. For storage, the system has a combination of Blu-ray drive and 250 GB HDD. Sony's next-generation game console is expected to be unveiled "just before E3," 2013.


Source: VG 24/7
Add your own comment

354 Comments on Sony PlayStation 4 "Orbis" Kits Shipping to Developers, Powered by AMD A10 APU

#1
Benetanegia
by: T4C Fantasy
its like this every year, some people get sick of it, but some people love to see others talk about things they don't know about.
I'm actually a low profile game developer and I know that to be BS. Not 100% bullshit, but it's completely overblown. Console being a closed platform with very lightweight OS, helps increase performance, but not to the point where a console becomes 2x faster on the same hardware and let's not start talking about 8x hardware difference.

As a developer I also know that console games are heavily watered down (in much more ways than average guy can appreciate, i.e. in bit precision on internal buffers) so any comparison of performance is rather stupid, since you are never comparing apples to apples. GTA IV on PC is not the same as console versions. Plus it's horribly optimized, if at all.

I also know that they have to make almost miracles to "optimize" the console games to the point they run at 30 fps, whereas they are only allowed to spend a fraction of the time to optimize for PC. If they spent the same time and used the same tricks the performance would be really close to consoles. In fact early games like for example Gears of War, looked better and ran better on PC way back in 2006, despite the fact that the hardware difference was not as pronounced back then. Why was that posible is simple, it was "optimized" (read watered down + real optimization) almost as much as the console version.
Posted on Reply
#2
THE_EGG
by: Benetanegia
I'm actually a low profile game developer and I know that to be BS. Not 100% bullshit, but it's completely overblown. Console being a closed platform with very lightweight OS, helps increase performance, but not to the point where a console becomes 2x faster on the same hardware and let's not start talking about 8x hardware difference.

As a developer I also know that console games are heavily watered down (in much more ways than average guy can appreciate, i.e. in bit precision on internal buffers) so any comparison of performance is rather stupid, since you are never comparing apples to apples. GTA IV on PC is not the same as console versions. Plus it's horribly optimized, if at all.

I also know that they have to make almost miracles to "optimize" the console games to the point they run at 30 fps, whereas they are only allowed to spend a fraction of the time to optimize for PC. If they spent the same time and used the same tricks the performance would be really close to consoles. In fact early games like for example Gears of War, looked better and ran better on PC way back in 2006, despite the fact that the hardware difference was not as pronounced back then. Why was that posible is simple, it was "optimized" (read watered down + real optimization) almost as much as the console version.
Thanks for the insight, I suppose that makes sense for the older games to run better on PC vs. console compared to newer ones because of what you said being that the performance gap wasn't as large. I think the worst port I played on PC was 'Wheelman' where even the controls were all left as X360 controls (such as 'A' button, 'RT' etc) and that happened without any controllers plugged in as well D:
Posted on Reply
#3
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
by: Benetanegia
I'm actually a low profile game developer and I know that to be BS. Not 100% bullshit, but it's completely overblown. Console being a closed platform with very lightweight OS, helps increase performance, but not to the point where a console becomes 2x faster on the same hardware and let's not start talking about 8x hardware difference.

As a developer I also know that console games are heavily watered down (in much more ways than average guy can appreciate, i.e. in bit precision on internal buffers) so any comparison of performance is rather stupid, since you are never comparing apples to apples. GTA IV on PC is not the same as console versions. Plus it's horribly optimized, if at all.

I also know that they have to make almost miracles to "optimize" the console games to the point they run at 30 fps, whereas they are only allowed to spend a fraction of the time to optimize for PC. If they spent the same time and used the same tricks the performance would be really close to consoles. In fact early games like for example Gears of War, looked better and ran better on PC way back in 2006, despite the fact that the hardware difference was not as pronounced back then. Why was that posible is simple, it was "optimized" (read watered down + real optimization) almost as much as the console version.
I didn't mention anything about graphics, only fps, of course pc version is better in everyway except it requires more demanding hardware but for very good reason, the multi tasking and throttling. and consoles bring out the best in devs, there still isn't a pc racing game with better graphics than gt5, maybe better simulation... but not graphics, its peoples opinion on gameplay.. that in rare cases devs put more work into graphics for consoles then pcs and achieve success in doing so.
Posted on Reply
#4
Filiprino
by: Benetanegia
I'm actually a low profile game developer and I know that to be BS. Not 100% bullshit, but it's completely overblown. Console being a closed platform with very lightweight OS, helps increase performance, but not to the point where a console becomes 2x faster on the same hardware and let's not start talking about 8x hardware difference.

As a developer I also know that console games are heavily watered down (in much more ways than average guy can appreciate, i.e. in bit precision on internal buffers) so any comparison of performance is rather stupid, since you are never comparing apples to apples. GTA IV on PC is not the same as console versions. Plus it's horribly optimized, if at all.

I also know that they have to make almost miracles to "optimize" the console games to the point they run at 30 fps, whereas they are only allowed to spend a fraction of the time to optimize for PC. If they spent the same time and used the same tricks the performance would be really close to consoles. In fact early games like for example Gears of War, looked better and ran better on PC way back in 2006, despite the fact that the hardware difference was not as pronounced back then. Why was that posible is simple, it was "optimized" (read watered down + real optimization) almost as much as the console version.
That's what I always try to explain.
Posted on Reply