Rumor, rumor, rumor. Not official, okay?

Just to clarify. Anyway, it seems a European source has laid eyes on a stat sheet for Sony's new PlayStation.

It goes into some detail even if the translation is wonky, but the highlights are obvious, if you choose to believe the information. The last time we received supposedly leaked PS4 specs, many analysts and avid tech followers called the statistics into question and most assumed the "leak" to be fake. Well, try this one on for size:

— An "advanced Cell processor" equipped with "10GB of working memory."

— Max 2D resolution to be 3840 x 2160; max 3D resolution to be 1080p.

— Two custom Nvidia graphics chips provide "video display and plenty of power."

— Backwards compatibility is included: "The aim is older PS discs without problems."

— Release window of Q4 2013.

We'll let you decide what's real and what isn't; for now, we take it all with a grain of salt until we see something with a bit more concrete evidence behind it. Still, these basic stats are enough to make some PlayStation fans smile, right? Kind of encouraging.

Subscribe
Notify of
68 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sir Shak
Sir Shak
9 years ago

This is so fake that it's not even worth reporting.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

lol, and the x86 based PS4 with a low end (even today) GPU releasing in 2013/2014 was any more believable?

Ignitus
Ignitus
9 years ago

That low end GPU story, though unlikely, is way more belivable than this story.

daus26
daus26
9 years ago

I don't understand why you guys are metioning the gpus. We don't even know what gpu this rumor is talking about other than two Nvidia chips. Both rumors state similar resolution capabilities. The only unbelievable thing here is the insane processor and the unusually high RAM. Either way, it's either too weak, or too strong. Perhaps being too weak is more believable than too strong in this case, especially if Sony is trying to aim for $500 or less.


Last edited by daus26 on 5/25/2012 8:42:14 PM

Dancemachine55
Dancemachine55
9 years ago

I have a feeling both reports (the AMD one and this one) are both fake.

I reckon Sony is either teasing MS or keeping them on the edge of their toes so they won't be able to copy anything Sony does or one-up them.

I will remain patient and wait until either E3 or TGS or even (I hope not, but still) E3 2013 to hear what the PS4 will have in store.

As for either the PS4 or Xbox 720, the console with backwards compatability with PS3/360 games and PSN/XBL games will win my money.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Yes we do Daus, it's 1 GPU running at 2GHz core and supposedly based on Kepler. Ther is a link to the original picture which is quite clearly readable.

PHOENIXZERO
PHOENIXZERO
9 years ago

Way faker sounding than the previous rumored crappy hardware.

Sony won't use Cell again, period and 10GB of RAM in a game console at this and years beyond ridiculous. That said, I do wish they'd stick with NVidia and even IBM, whom dropped Cell years ago..


Last edited by PHOENIXZERO on 5/27/2012 7:52:18 PM

manofchao5
manofchao5
9 years ago

I can see a resolution of 3840 x 1080 being believable if they would be so nice as to allow dual screen outputs *fingers crossed*

Shams
Shams
9 years ago

Interesting. Last month i believe the rumor was that they were doing away with the cell in favor of a more pc-like cpu/gpu architecture, with an AMD gpu in conjunction with an integrated gpu. But this recent rumor definitely sounds more tantalizing.

Dancemachine55
Dancemachine55
9 years ago

The fact that this architecture and spec-list makes it backwards compatible immediately makes it my favourite.

I understand not everyone cares about backwards compatability and no one buys a new console to play old games, but having the option there (especially since I love Uncharted, Infamous, Batman, Rock Band, Singstar and Guitar Hero, AND I have a stupid amount of DLC pruchased over the years) is so much more appealing to me than a new console with no ability to play last gen games.

I hope THIS is the architecture used, although the 10GB RAM might be a bit of a stretch.

richfiles
richfiles
9 years ago

If you consider the growth ratio from PS2 to PS3 of memory (32 MB x 4 MB VRAM) to the PS3 memory (512 total, split between system and VRAM) you come up with around 7-8 GB… Given that 8 makes more sense, and given that 2 additional GB in mass quantity is only 1/4 of that amount there… I'd say that 10 GB might be possible, especially if Sony chooses to let the PS3 ride out like the PS2 did, which I hope is the case.

Given that I'm starting to see more and more PS3s that are starting to yellow light… Quite frankly, I REALLY want backwards compatibility!


Last edited by richfiles on 5/28/2012 11:04:12 PM

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

lol check out the design of the PS4 from the Euro link. Yeah, it looks like a rolled up scroll an Elder Scrolls dude carries around in his satchel =p

Comic Shaman
Comic Shaman
9 years ago

10 GB of working memory. Hmm.

I'm no engineer, but I'm so used to seeing anything to do with computer memory or processing fall along the familiar base-2 geometric sequence (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 etc.) that this stuck out as perhaps a little strange to me. Any of our more tech-savvy folks have any insights about this?

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

For RAM (which I assume is what they refer to as working memory), it's not that strange. For example, with DDR3 ram, you could buy a 4GB stick and an 8GB stick, plug them into your motherboard and have 12 GB of RAM. I might be wrong, but I feel like I've seen solitary 10GB DDR3 RAM at our local Tiger Direct store… I might be remembering wrong, though. lol

Depending on the type of ram they are using, or if it's engineered independently, it's possible.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

'working memory' is such a vague term. It's not the same as saying Video RAM or System RAM.

It could be as simple as 12Gb of physical memory 2GB of which is partitioned for Video use, and the other 10GB is available for 'working memory'.

Comic Shaman
Comic Shaman
9 years ago

Ah, "working memory." Makes sense.

Thanks, guys.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Nah, I got the original picture of the document now, it says 10GB of XDR2 system RAM and and 10GB of GDDR6 Video RAM.

The only reason I can see for a 10GB memory would be if there is some custom memory controller that does something odd like having 5 channels to access memory or some weird addressing thing.

Of course the specification might also refer to the development systems. The document mentioned an externally accessible development system, so it's possible that the memory figure for the retail units could be very different. It is very odd though.

HUSO
HUSO
9 years ago

10 GB doesn't sound so out of it if you consider that they might include some sort of game streaming in the near future

josiahlo
josiahlo
9 years ago

10gb seems wrong. Maybe 1gb is what they meant? That seems too low but who knows at this point

___________
___________
9 years ago

20GB onboard?
yeah, and the next Ferrari has time warp capabilities!
never in my life have i seen something so ridiculous!

duomaxwell007
duomaxwell007
9 years ago

lol i dont think even a current console has 1gb or memory (with them always blaming memory for excuses on why they cant do certain things) so i seriously doubt theyll jump up from less than 1 to 10.. also q4 2013? i hope not Id prefer 2014 or 15.. and lastly backwards compatibility? lol yeah right the reason they took it out of Ps3 was to cut costs so why would the re-add something to a more expensive new console that they were too cheap to keep in one that was cheaper?

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

I was expecting it to have something like 16, personally, but keeping in mind it doesn't keep as much crap open as most PC's, 10 is probably enough… but for longevity's sake, I'd want 16.

My computer has 8GB of RAM, and it runs all current games perfectly fine. Of course, my GPU has it's own built in memory as well, as would the GPUs in the PS4, so 10GB may be more than enough.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Duo, you're being kinda negative man…

If you base a PS4 on a cell derivative with a dual nVidia GPU (think RSX SLI'd with a newer GPU), you're really talking about extending the PS3 design. If you had twin Cell BEs in a current system you could emulate a PS2 in software without even resorting to using a GPU. With a new GPU and extra Cell resources, a PS4 would be not only PS3 capable, but should also be capable of emulating PS2 in software.

Geobaldi
Geobaldi
9 years ago

This rumor sounds even more unlikely then the previous ones.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

You think so? I don't think it's far fetched. The top line GPU's on the market now can do a little bit better than what is listed here. (Of course, there's no need for better at this point, either. lol)

I'm more interested in what this "Advanced" processor is. That'll be the part that really defines it's power.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

How far fetched?

Let's see….

take the current Cell system design expertise and apply it to the PS3. Double the Cell cores, use an updated Cell SPU design, keep RSX with minor modifications to support more memory and a bigger, better GPU, say a Tesla or Kepler. Throw in 12GB of physical memory partitioned 2GB for video and the other 10 for system use. The underlying hardware is an extension of what they already have, which makes it easier than starting fresh.

HUSO
HUSO
9 years ago

a cell processor in the PS4 seems more plausible than having a variant of some AMD APU. i'm more curious about the Playstation Omni and Playstation Iris mentioned in it…

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

I just realized now after some of my previous posts, it kind of sounds like the processor is what has the 10GB of built in memory. The RAM on the system itself might be completely different… Is that even possible? I haven't heard of that before…

If that's the case, we still lack a lot of info like the power and number of cores in the processor, as well as the system's working memory outside the processor…

Rumor, if true, is still unclear.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

If it was termed 'local memory' or 'embedded memory' or even 'local storage' I might agree. But working memory really is more of an overall system term that indicates that after video memory has been partitioned there is 10GB free for everything else.

Of course all this and all my posts are based on the assumption that such a system exists to be discussed, otherwise we're discussing a design, which would still be valid.

slugga_status
slugga_status
9 years ago

If the screen shot was closer to the paper it would help..I wouldn't doubt Sony releasing a PS4 next year either..It's the backward compatibility that's the head scratcher…I'm all for it but unless it's software emulation then it sounds like more money coming out of my pocket.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Sony said almost 2 years ago that the basic design was already laid down. If you decided to make a PS4 with an uprated Cell and better GPU, you could easily lay down that design two years ago and update it as tech and designs improve with time.

slugga_status
slugga_status
9 years ago

Did they? If that's the case then it should be rather simple and not expensive at all. So let me ask you this Highlander, Is there currently any Nvidia chips capable of running the said displays? Or should we expect new flat screens with better resolution? Just curious, you give a lot of info that coincides with my A+ cert studying

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I don't think HDTVs in the home will go to 2160p resolution, 1080p is still working through, and to be honest there is really no benefit to consumers. I'm pretty sure that both Nvidia and AMD/ATI have GPUs that can go as high as that resolution, but of course the question is when running at that resolution are they capable of doing very much. That's a lot of pixels. I think you can already get panels with higher than 1080p resolution as monitors, and I am certain that the major TV makers have made prototypes at 2160p resolutions.

wolfsinner
wolfsinner
9 years ago

To anyone in doubt: this is bs. I assure you.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

As highlander pointed out, it's not far fetched. It sounds like an extension of the PS3, which would not be difficult to design or expensive to produce, yet it would have next gen quality power. So you're right. Not likely, but not impossible like the stupid Orbis rumor.

But, as is the case with most rumors, it's not likely the full true picture. And indeed, we don't have enough information to even formulate the full picture. Either way, it's more than possible.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 5/25/2012 1:19:23 PM

wolfsinner
wolfsinner
9 years ago

It is possible, in the sense that it can be made.

But it won't, and this isn't true. There's a lot of useless stuff there that would make Sony struggle in the quality:price ratio.
That much RAM is pointless for this architecture.
That processor is also too expensive to produce (though it would be a complete beast).
These just add up to avoidable production costs.

We can't forget that a console is the "poor man's gaming platform". And I don't mean that in a derogatory form. I mean that it is the ultimate form of getting bang for your buck.
I doubt they'll want to launch a new PS at the price the PS3 launched, much less at an higher value.

VampDeLeon
VampDeLeon
9 years ago

"Backwards compatibility is included: "The aim is older PS discs without problems."

Can only dream ;(

ethird1
ethird1
9 years ago

Fake. Move on.

CrusaderForever
CrusaderForever
9 years ago

I hope this is BS from the developer perspective. I was optimistic about a more PC PS4 for ease of development purposes.

Sorry, BC is not going to happen. It raises the price and Sony will want to keep costs down to remain competitive to. All though I would be extremely happy and pay extra for BC. Keeping everything under 1 roof would be pretty sweet!

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

these are the listed specs;

22nm cellBE X processor – 16PPEs and 128 SPEs (WTF!)

22nm Custom Nvidia/SCB "Quantum Leap" GPU based on the Kepler architecture

10GB of XDR and 10GB of GDDR6 memory

HDD upgradeable

Sony Aether(TM) GUI

Video capable of 2160p 2S, 1080p 3D, all games must render to 1080p30 2D as minimum spec.

formats listed PS4 discs, PS3 discs, PS2 discs, PS1 disc, HD BluRay (including BDXL), DVD, CD and digital distribution.

PlayStation Omni is listed as an accessory as is PlayStation Iris and a DualShock 4 controller.

It's described as having an "externally accessible development platform".

The actual source document looks relatively legitimate. But I don't know about the CPU specs, that's a hell of a lot of PPEs and SPEs.

10GB is an odd number for memory whether it be XDR2 or GDDR6 – not that either standard has much presence in manufacturing. XDR2 was proposed in 2008, but I'm not sure anyone makes it. Nvidia has been pushing GDDR5 products for a while, so it's logical/possible that GDDR6 is an extension of GDDR5.

But like I said at the top, this spec is about as likely as Sony changing track completely for PlayStation and going with a re-boxed commodity PC architecture with a low end consumer GPU. So…who knows. Certainly this rumor is at least accompanied by a semi-realistic looking document, unlike the Orbis rumors.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/25/2012 12:19:36 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

You know, a more realistic rumor would be;

22nm Cell BE X processor with 4PPEs and 32SPEs

Nvidia GPU based on Kepler architecture

8GB XDR2, 4GB of GDDR5

and so on and so forth. Those would actually be possibilities.

This rumored document talks of a system with the CPU equivalent of 16 CellBEs. That's a *hell* of a lot of transistors on a single piece of silicon.

Of course the document itself could be real, but the specs could be overblown and represent notional design targets.

But, between the CPU specs and memory numbers, there are things about this that don't make as much sense as they could. Actually, if I were going to create a rumored design that I thought people would believe, I would have made sure the RAM amounts were possible (in other words 8GB or 12GB, not 10GB) and the CPU would have been something based on the number of cores possible on a Power 7, so a 4PPE/32SPE, or even a 4PPE/64SPE CPU. That would be easier to believe – to me at least.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/25/2012 12:28:40 PM

wolfsinner
wolfsinner
9 years ago

Well, taking into account Moore's Law (that kind of still stands), it is possible to create that processor. But at a ridiculous cost, obviously not within the average console "budget".
And even that amount of memory (8GB XDR2, and 4GB GDDR5) is pointless for a console (especially one with the Cell's architecture). It would be just a waste of money for little to no gain.
The rumoured amount is even more ridiculous.
These amounts would make sense with a x86-like approach, but that is clearly not the case.

There's no way this is even close to the real thing.


Last edited by wolfsinner on 5/25/2012 1:12:54 PM

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

Mmmm… Kepler.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Wolfsinner

Not sure what Moore's law really has to do with this at all, not to mention that Moore's Law is in trouble soon.

I didn't say that it was impossible to make a CPU with 16PPEs and 128SPEs. I said I was skeptical because a) it is a lot of transistors for what will need to be a commodity processor, and b) how many mainstream 16 core CPUs do you know of? Throwing in 128 SPEs makes it sound more like the number of processing elements on a GPU than CPU. Though Cell has always been something of a hybrid. Either way, The IBM roadmap for cell did not push as far as 16PPEs and 128SPEs, the most I remember seeing was 4PPEs and 32 or 64 SPEs, but those were 'future designs'. 16/128 just sounds like someone said "it needs to be 16 times as powerful as the Cell BE." and that was that.

As far as transistors are concerned, cellBE has a transistor count of 241 million. 8 core Power 7 has 1.2 billion. In theory with a modest re-design and 10% extra transistors to cover any glue circuitry to support multiple cells on one die, you might look at a 16PPE/128SPE Cell with as much as 3 billion transistors. For a processor, that is a *lot*. Look at how much those Xeons cost. I agree with you that the issue on CPU (assuming someone was making a 16PPE/128SPE Cell) would be cost, not transistor number, though I was using transistor number as a proxy for cost since there is a pretty linear relationship between transistor count on a CPU and cost.

I think you're wrong about the memory with cell, you can address more – it depends on the memory controller and address scheme used. 8GB would not be pointless even with a generation 1 Cell BE, although it would be easier with something like a PowerXcell8i processor. The key point is that the supposed future cell architecture would not have the limitations of the original architecture. I'd love to know how you come to the conclusion that additional memory would be pointless. I'd also love to know why you think having 8GB system and 4GB video would be more suited to a PC environment. In a hard partitioned memory architecture there is no need for either pool of memory to be the same size as the other. 4GB should be more than sufficient for the video resolutions discussed, and 8GB system memory would again be more than sufficient for any envisaged game.

I mean, I'm just throwing numbers out there, I could have said 4GB and 4GB.

I agree that excessive quantities of exotic memory is a pointless cost, if you're going to put large amounts of memory into the box use something more commodity based, like DDR3 and GDDR5. But the amounts themselves are not really pointless if you are trying to future proof your system.

Gaming laptops and desktops are shipping with 8GB-12GB of system RAM and graphics cards with 2GB of RAM, so in 18 months time, why would a console featuring similar amounts of memory be so outlandish?

You say that these memory amounts would make sense for an x86 based approach. Why? That makes zero sense to me. Hardware is hardware. There is nothing inherently different in an x86 based, or Power based, or Cell based architecture that results in larger amounts of memory making more sense for x86 compared to say Cell. If anything a Cell based system with the extremely high bandwidth internal data bus for the SPEs could actually make use of a much larger system memory when streaming data from memory through the SPEs for processing.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/25/2012 1:45:52 PM

wolfsinner
wolfsinner
9 years ago

I never said you couldn't address more memory, I said that it would be pointless.
When I say pointless, I see this from a console perspective. It is added production costs for little benefit. In a console, companies discard things that really aren't that benefitial.

The reason why there's a huge difference between a x86 architecture and the Cell architecture is everything.
The x86 architecture is exclusively scalar, while the Cell has 1 scalar unit, and (with the PS3) 8 vector units.
Vector processing makes much better use of memory than most scalar processors. This reduces the need for huge amounts of memory, and increases the amount of floating point operations per second (most calculations in games are floating point, which is why most consoles have vector processor components).


Last edited by wolfsinner on 5/25/2012 1:44:52 PM

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

Highlander I hope just for you they release "The Many Wonders of the Cell BE Technology, the PS4 and You" as a PS4 launch title =p

…. (I might even buy it too 😉

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

I like the direction of these rumors, but unfortunately they are just blown way out of proportions.

16PPEs and 128 SPEs is just way too extreme, and I don't see that Sony would be able to get that into a console level price point.
10GB system RAM + 10GB Video RAM is also a bit extreme, if not quite as much as the CPU specs, but 8+4 like Highlander suggested would be a lot more reasonable.

Highlander, you also missed pointing out the Audio specs, 11.1 channel audio, obviously also very extreme and unlikely.

Unfortunately, it seems like these specs were just put together by someone with no clue whatsoever about reasonable specs for reasonable cost for a console system so as much as I hate the previous rumors, these specs are unfortunately even less likely to be true.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Wolfsinner, you're talking in circles, and wrong. Sorry, but you are very wrong.

I'm not sure what text book you dragged this out of;

"The reason why there's a huge difference between a x86 architecture and the Cell architecture is everything.
The x86 architecture is exclusively scalar, while the Cell has 1 scalar unit, and (with the PS3) 8 vector units.
Vector processing makes much better use of memory than most scalar processors. This reduces the need for huge amounts of memory, and increases the amount of floating point operations per second (most calculations in games are floating point, which is why most consoles have vector processor components)."

But it's extremely incorrect. Vector units ar not inherently better at using memory, and that in no way affects the amount of memory used by game code, graphical or audio data. Please just stop. The difference between the exection units affects the kinds of operation they are good at, it in no way affects the amount of memory that the device can use. You are extremely wrong on this point.

CRabba, very true on the audio, the PS3 already supports lossless audio. I was too distracted by the extreme unlikeliness of the CPU and memory specs. That and the circles that Wolfsinner is talking in.


Last edited by TheHighlander on 5/26/2012 5:43:25 PM

wolfsinner
wolfsinner
9 years ago

TheHighlander
I can't help but wonder, what did you study?
I get the feeling it wasn't CS.

I'm taking a Master's in AI and Processor Design. I'm not making anything up.
I know, from one end to the other how the x86 and MIPS architectures work. And I've studied the Cell quite thoroughly.
You can't just break processors down into logic and arithmetic/fp units and say that you know how a processor works.

I am not wrong, and it's not extremely incorrect, you just clearly lack knowledge in this area. I get the feeling that you're a Chemistry graduate or something.

You keep putting words in my mouth buddy. I never said that it affects the amount of memory that the device can use, I said that it is used more efficiently. These are very different things.
If you are/were a CS student, and understand (WELL) how pipelining, and multi-level caching works, I can quickly explain to you why it is so. If not, then just go read stuff.
Also, RAM is not the only thing that counts, read on Virtual Memory.

The funniest thing is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're telling me to stop.
Your arguments speak for you.

I won't reply, however, if you give me a half-ass, unjustified, reply next though. Calling me "extremely" "this" and "that", without any kind of justification is just poor and ridiculous.

Also, why have you been so hostile? I feel like you're raging over there, with all these insults at my arguments. Sorry if I'm hurting your ego.

PS – I'm aware that this comment, in itself, is pretty hostile. I just thought it would be fitting. 🙂


Last edited by wolfsinner on 5/26/2012 8:45:04 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Wolfsinner, you are wrong. You stated clearly that that more memory was some how not as important to the Cell architecture as it is to the x86, that's simply untrue. The Cell architecture is not inherently more memory efficient. If anything, the RISC nature of the SPEs and the in-order execution of the processor might actually result in slightly larger executable for the same work.

I studied Computer Science a long, long time ago, and high performance architectures specifically. A chemistry graduate I'm not.

Pipelines on the Cell are short, if there is a miss and it has to reload the pipe, the penalty is lower than on a highly pipelined processor like the old netburst x86 from Intel. But pipeline length has less to do with memory size and more to do with the ability to handle out of order instructions and branch prediction. The decision to go with in order processing had a greater impact on the length of the CPU pipeline than anything else.

Virtual memory? On a game console? For responsiveness of the system at the system (not the user) level, you really do not want to be skimping the RAM and relying on Virtual memory. The performance difference is just too great to warrant using virtual memory instead of simply giving more memory.

Multi-level caching? Sure, go for it. My honors thesis was an examination of cache memory use in a high performance RISC architecture. I wrote a binary level CPU emulator to produce processor/memory traces from real code from the target processor and then ran it through a cache memory emulation, that I also built. Yeah, cache memory? I got you covered. You're taking a masters in AI and processor design, great. Are we supposed to compare credentials now? Am I supposed to bow because you are studying something for a masters? What was your original degree?

Multi-level cache does not reduce the requirement for RAM, all it does is reduce the amount of extremely high speed cache needed for the L1 cache, and in general reduce the need for high performance RAM since the whole point of cache memory is to let the CPU continue operating at full speed without waiting for memory. In the PS3 and any CellBE system that uses XDR memory, the requirement for more cache or a multi-level cache is less because the XDR memory runs at higher speeds than typical DDR2 memory and allows extremely high speed data transfers from memory to the CPU.

The whole PS3/CellBE system design is built around having low latency generated by reloading the pipeline or recovering from a cache miss. The shorter pipeline, in-order execution and high speed XDR memory are all components in making that happen. Memory size has nothing to do with it.

I didn't put words into your mouth. You said this "The reason why there's a huge difference between a x86 architecture and the Cell architecture is everything.
The x86 architecture is exclusively scalar, while the Cell has 1 scalar unit, and (with the PS3) 8 vector units.
Vector processing makes much better use of memory than most scalar processors. "

Which is really not saying much of anything. Except that vector units make better use of memory and because the Cell has 8 vector units and x86 is exclusively scalar the cell will somehow make much more efficient use of memory. The inference being that the cell uses less memory.

Sorry, but that is simply not true. Vector units can stream data, they are designed around SIMD instructions, I'm very well aware of that. There are a number of things that they can do very well, but in the end, they are just as dependent on the amount of memory as anything else, to have something to process.

Scalar vs vector really has no place in the discussion of the amount of memory needed or used in a system. Considering the voracious demand for data that 8 SPEs running SIMD instructions can generate, system data bandwidth is a far higher concern. Consuming large quantities of streamed data is not something that cache memory handles well, but is something that XDR handles well. The only 'efficiency' involved in vector vs scalar is the fact that for the same computational task, a scalar unit has to generate so many more memory load/store commands because it's not able to process in a SIMD manner. So the Vector unit will generate less instructions to load/store data, but at the same time the amount of data remains the same.

That's kind of the point of the Cell since the SIMD work is intended to be handled by the SPEs, and other workloads by the more (not exclusively) scalar PPE. None of that has an impact on the amount of memory. Oh, and BTW, if you have a highly capable SIMD processor churning through data, you really do not want to be burdening the system with the overhead of virtual memory.

I'm sure the others are bored now, and I'm equally sure you will tell me that I'm wrong and suggest that my degree must have been granted by some virtual online school or something. Whatever. I hate to sound pejorative but CS degrees and masters programs today skip over a lot of ground. A lot of fundamental computer science is kind of assumed. It's like the foundation is already there, why study it? Just say it's there and move on. Well, I know how the foundation is built, because I studied it, and I worked upwards from there.

The discussion itself is pointless in any case because the quoted memory for the PS4 in this rumor is really unlikely. I'm not going to discuss this further because you have your preconceptions based on what you think you know from your studies. All I will say is that your knowledge is incomplete.