Playstation 4 Specs Guide



PlayStation 4 Console Specs
Feature PS4
CPU AMD x86 Jaguar 1.6GHZ 8-Core








Internet Connection Gigabit Ethernet + WiFi
BlueTooth Bluetooth 2.1 (EDR)
Region Locked No
Price $399 USD
€399 EUR
£349 GBP
$549 AUD

How the PS4 came to be

Playstation 4 Specs Guide








New Toys and Tech







Sony PS4 Conference Video - Specs Detailed:

Eye See You

PlayStation Eye Hardware Specs
Feature PS Eye
External Dimensions 186mm X 27mm X 27mm
Width X Height X Depth
Weight Approximately 183g
Video Frame Rate 1280 X 800 pixels @ 60fps
640 X 400 pixels @ 120fps
320 X 192 pixels @ 240fps
Video Format RAW + YUV (uncompressed)
Lens Dual lenses with a F value/F2.0 fixed focus
Capture Range Approximately 30cm
Field-of-View Approximately 85 degrees
Microphone 4-channel microphone array
Connection Type PS4 dedicated AUX port
Cable Length Approximately 2m

The DualShock 4






Post your PS4 Spec(s) comments down below.

Article by - Collin Mak
Insert Date: 6/3/2013
Article updated: 12/17/14

See Also:



The Best We Can Do

Floating Point Operations Per Second really does give a good indicator of what a computer can do when it has to draw, and then post-process, polygons. It is largely GPU depedant, but the CPU has to tell the GPU where and when to do it all. Geometry calculation, pre-everything, is the domain of the CPU. Floating Point Operations Per Second will have a stronger meaning when the CPU and GPU have no barrier between them; and they share memory; and can communicate with each other on a much grandiose scale. At the moment, 32bit/x86 in its current form, is a terrible design for getting reliable and expected CGI performance, since 1993. It's never really improved. All that has changed is that you need 1000 watts of power to do it. PS3 and Xbox360 are relying on little more than 100 watts 90% of the time and the difference between them is small enough that they were both doing a decent job of almost killing off the PC as a gaming platform in the last few years. GPUs that can perform at 3 Tflops are sitting on a 32bit/x86 archaic interconnect separated from other systems almost entirely; with programming techniques spending more time getting around the architecture, than getting to the GPU (and once there, they then have to figure out how to get back). It's why the PS3 and Xbox360 can do the insane stuff they do, even in the face of behemoth monsters like 1000 watt high-end PC rigs. If you stick a nVidia or AMD moderm GPU DIRECTLY into an architecture such as the PS3 or Xbox360; and if the GPU is re-designed to have all the x86/native ripped out of it so there is nothing left of it except a direct path to each of the consoles' architectures, they would utterly destroy the performance of any high-end PC rig that the average consumer could afford. The high-end GPU that is put in a PC is like placing a V12 F1 Racing engine in a washing machine. Consumer CPUs very rarely break 100 Gigaflops. Intel's i5-2500k only just manages it. PS3's Cell however, well- it smashes through 100 Gigaflops like it wasn't even there to begin with. The 6x SPEs alone achieve a combined Flop performance of 151.6 Gigaflops; although technically, it's not going to break 200 Gigaflops too easily with anything else the Cell might have. The biggest mistake the PC industry is making is using the same old tech and applying 10x more power to drive them forward. It's no different than a family Car being shunted from behind by a "speeding locomotive". It looks impressive. It will go much faster, but you have to take into account that you will moving in a set direction and the Car can't turn off to the Picnic area. That's the PC Industry. A comfort zone for games developers. But an unending nightmare of seeing demos showcasing fluid dynamics and hair physics - THE FUTURE RIGHT THERE - and knowing the 32bit/x86 can't do that in any game mechanic you can think of. Games can look like Avatar. Epic know it. Crytek know it. All Developers know it. But none of them are going to point a finger at the PC Industry that they rely on for their bread and butter and say that 32bit/x86 has been around long enough to warrant somebody doing something about it. Epic's Tim Sweeney seems to be saying that, which is odd when you think about it. Crytek's Cevat Yerli; when he says game consoles need 16Gb of main memory, he's really saying that 16Gb of main memory in the PC is NOT THE SAME THING and WOULDN'T REALLY MATTER IF YOU DID HAVE IT ON THE GPU. When I look at Sony's PS Vita, I think of looking at PS3 going through a "Vita Transition" and think, "We're already more than half-way there." I don't think the PS4 is going to blow the lights out in 2013/14; but I do think that in a little over 5 years from now, the PS5's early appearance will. What we know we can do can't be easily enough done right now. When I look at what Microsoft are trying to do, all I see is a company willing to trash an entire industry for the greater good of making money; and that's all. If a culture or industry ever takes a route like that and doesn't deviate away from it - just for the chance of greater things being pulled out of it without the goal of mountains of money - you would have scenarios like America's National Parks being either cut down or being under 200 feet of water. Sony is from a country that came from a pile of rubble to a super-power in less than 30 years. In a further 20 years they redefined everything else. Sony is highly likely going to redefine console gaming. And they'll do it in the hope of monetary success; not the principal idea of capitalism over all consumer interest; over the interest of an entire industry's fate. That's what they did with the PS3. From the consumer point of view, it was crazy. From their point of view, they were happy it didn't self destruct; and they kept going... kept going... kept going.

I don't know where to begin

First, Japan is hardly a superpower. Economically they are one of the strongest in the world, yes, but superpower? Not even close, due to the constraints they put on their military. Second, there is no way any console is going to crush desktop PC's for more than a few months. Consoles are static. When they come out they have high end specs, but the desktop market is constantly evolving. I'm also not sure why you are focusing your gripes on x86-32 when x86-64 is far more mainstream now. Consoles have quite a potential advantage in some respects, yes, but they will never outpower desktop gaming systems for very long after the release of a given console platform. Both have their places, but you are deluding yourself if you think the PS4, or any console, will outperform desktop machines for long, if at all.

Time's Arrow

You haven't been to Japan. Having the ability to invade other countries or wage war against them has nothing to do with a country being recognised as a "superpower". It also hasn't anything to do with the size of their landmass. And the original post had nothing to do with, or had any leaning toward, a suggestion of military power. "If" the PS4 or the Xbox720 go from >25Gb/sec bandwidths to >150-200Gb/sec bandwidths where both their CPU and GPU share that same resource, the PC gaming platform is going to know what "eradicated" means. If IBM/Sony ever decide to 3D-stack 10x "modified" Cells on top of each other and those "modified" Cells have access to >200Gb/sec of memory shared between the Cell and GPU, the PC gaming platform is going to know what "it had a good run while it lasted" really means. x86 is a dinosaur architecture. The problem of advanced 3D game engines still persist with 5Ghz CPU, >300 watt 4Gb GPUs and 16Gb main memories with 700-1200 watt power supplies hitting 90%. Before we even get to 2017, it's going to be even stronger then, than it is today, that the PC gaming rig - these towering blocks of watt-sponges - are going to be in a shop window with a sign above it: "Antique". The problem with "when it will happen" is it always happens faster than you expect it would; or ever could. This isn't like living in 1990 and what we have now is 20 years in the future. Silicon technology is getting to a stage where it's not an issue of "can it be done", it's a case of "we can do anything we want; should we do it?" Once 3D stacking and SoC architectures shift out of the "x86-tunnel" in an acute curve from standard x86 architectures, compute performance in spaces a fraction the size of tablet-compute devices will increase a 100-fold. Circa 2020, Petaflop performance will be a word used to describe something you hold in one hand. And it won't be x86 in any shape or form. It does depend on a large number of factors; but none of them have anything to do with a lack of time or money. Things like that just happen.

apologies but I have to make a correction, and an observation

I don't mean to upset anyone here, I am not much of an internet person, just a game enthusiast who was curious and stumbled across this conversation. It should be corrected, however, that the idea of a "superpower" hasn't existed since the late 90's. There is no country on this planet that currently meets the criteria for how a "superpower" is defined. Roughly speaking, such a country must be capable, though not necessarily predisposed too, totalitarian control on a global scale. Such a country must excel in all qualities, including, but not limited to, finance, military, domain, influence, etc. This definition does not currently apply to the United States, Russia, Japan or any other country. On a more related note, having custom built my PC from parts afford-ably available to the global population, and, based on your predicted specs of the future ps4, I can state comfortably that my PC is 4, perhaps, 5 times more powerful than the predicted ps4. In addition, unless the ps4 has intentions I have failed to be informed of as of yet, it won't, like all previous gaming consoles, be able to do anything, in terms of application, outside of gaming and socializing. My question then, is - in what sense could this system, or the perceivable system that follows it, ever outmatch a PC? My PC hardware runs better graphics, in games, by several times that of my ps3, without breaking a sweat, and still allowing me to run, simultaneously, multiple other programs featuring high quality video and audio simulations. I fully admit I maybe ignorant of some factor here, but, from what I'm seeing, none of your ps4 predictions impress me in terms of there delivery or cost reality, especially compared to what you can get on a custom built PC. As a final observation, while I respect the products Sony has produced over the years, and have fond memories, the only reason I even own a ps3 is to watch bu-rays in the living room with my wife, or play games that are more convenient to play, or acquire, for a console, than a PC. Having made what I'm sure comes off as complaint ridden gripe, I am grateful for your insight into the future system, and, in addition, your time and appreciation, for inspecting and discussing its many qualities and probabilities. Thank you, also, for entertaining my two-cents worth.

here is the thing though

here is the thing though since its a dedicated system so no matter what it will blow current pc graphics out of the water cause a lot of the work done on a pc is running stuff in the background and blah blah blah

RE: Here is the thing though.

While a closed system will mean more of the console's power will be available compaired to a similarly specced pc, or one with a slightly higher spec there is a limit. For instance if the PS4 used a multicore AMD processor (something like a FX-6200 or 8150), as part of an APU, with the chip from the 7950, along with an external GPU chip, from a 7870, well it won't blow away a high end gaming PC with one of the newer 4 plus core i7 intel cpus, with dual HD 7970 GPUs in crossfire. Though such a set up from PS4 could get close'ish, it may be hampered by a weak psu and it's performance could be scaled back because of the consoles case being such a confined space, temperatures would get pretty high. To be honest the heat inside of the case is going to be a major issue, especially this generation.

Sorry to say it..

But unless you have GPU's that the rest of the world doesn't know about, there is no way in hell your PC is 4 or 5 times more powerful the upcoming PS4. It will be the other way around. When the PS4 comes out it will be more powerful than any possible PC setup of today. Now, a year from now the most powerful gaming PC will be more powerful than the PS4 and xbox, but don't bs yourself about the upcoming consoles.

PS4 vs True High End Gaming PC

While it is true that a high end gaming PC probably won't be 4 or 5 times the power of the next gen Sony machine, it is unlikely PS4 will be more poweful than the most powerful NVidia Sli or AMD Crossfire GPU machines. When making a comment like the one you've made bare in mind that the most powerful gaming PCs can have up to 4 of the most powerful GPUs (each with 4 to 6 GB of GDDR5), that will be more powerful than even the rumoured Kaveri AMD APU and single HD 8870 AMD GPU set-up which is currently doing the rounds on the internet. Absolute best case scenario right now for PS4 (and likely Xbox 720) is the AMD Kaveri APU (which is on a par with a HD 7750, featuring 1.05 TFlops of Compute Performance), the HD 8870 has 3.99 TFlops and probably 4GB of DDR4 stacked with twice the transfer speed of GDDR5. The highly unlikely, but best case scenario performance of PS4 is marked as about 5.04 TFlops, it's unlikely because of next gen machines aiming for lower power usage, so somewhere around 3TFlops is far more realistic in a console sized case. A GTX 690 has 5.6TFlops of CP, a machine with 4 of them puts out about 22 TFlops, in raw CP if the PS4 has the realistic performance then that quad sli GTX 690 set-up will actually be over 7 times the power of PS4. That PC would probably cost well over 10 times the PS4 price for the GPUs alone and to get the same performance as the PS4 someone building a PC would have to spend far more than PS4 will cost. PS4 will be a closed system too, with some very high bandwidth, so devs developing for the system specifically will yield better results than that similarly specced PC. Now I think about it, considering what developers will be able to get out of the hardware rumoured to be in PS4 the most powerful gaming PCs possible with current hardware will probably be classed as about 4 or 5 times the power of next gen console hardware, something similar in price to PS4 would probably have about half to a third of the power of PS4.

New data transfer tech for PS4?

Obviously PS3 uses XDR as it's main ram and GDDR3 as the VRAM (or visuals RAM). I have a question for those in the know (please no guesses, I'd rather actual facts based on real information). Exactly how would something like XDR or XDR2 differ in terms of performance over the best 2400 Mhz DDR3 or a newer DDR4 version? By differ I mean how many Gigabytes XDR and XDR2 can shift. Would XDR or XDR2 be faster and more capable of shifting data than GDDR5? What new memory archetecture can Sony use which will allow for a jump in performance vs PS3? I don't know if I read correctly on the Rambus website, but from what I've read it looks like XDR2 can be a total memory solution, capable of being utilized as both system ram and VRAM. From the website it looks like XDR2 can handle something like 500 GB per second in data transfer. How much XDR2 could Sony put in a PS4? What would that amount of XDR2 allow PS4 to transfer in terms of data rates per second in the console? How much of a difference would making PS4's CPU, GPU and a large chunk of ram (say 100 MB or full system ram of something like XDR or a DDR3) into a SOC actually give PS4 compared to either PS3 or a proper gaming PC? Would having a SOC actually mean the motherboard can be cut down in size? Could a smaller motherboard also speed up gaming performance in Next Gen playstation vs a gaming PC? Could having a SOC actually allow Sony to get rid of the motherboard entirely at some point in the future?


(Numbers are total) XDR (PS3) = 25.6 gbyte/s XDR = 28.2 gbyte/s XDR2 = > 80 gbyte/s (It has lower bit rate but is way more efficent per pin then GDDR5) GDDR3 (PS3) = 22.4 gbyte/s GDDR3 256bit = 83.2 gbyte/s GDDR4 256bit = 102.4 gbyte/s GDDR5 512 Bit = 160 gbyte/s DDR3 2100mhz = 34 gbyte/s (2400mhz high performance reach around 50) DDR4 is faster than DDR3 how much idk, but I doubt its going to be slower at the high end then XDR2 since its brand new. 500gb/s refer to xdr2 in a soc ! there are many factors that play a role how fast xdr2 would be. It has potential. But I see it as inferior to GDDR5 aslong as they don't increase bitrates massively. Full system ram in a soc ? LOL. 100 MB+ is max nobody can fit Gigabytes on a soc yet. BTW this is expensive. Having a SoC means GPU+CPU (+RAM) on one wafer this can lead to a decrease in size but there are tons of other factors. If Sony decides on SoC and puts in another full blown GPU like the HD7870 and decides to have 4gb GDDR5 (without stacking) and/or splitted ram (e.g DDR4+GDDR5) the mainboard would be gigantic. A smaller motherboard means more efficency but has no effect on total performance. No Sony can't get rid of the motherboard in the future. If the Soc Technology comes so far that you can fit most of the System on a wafer we are probably not far from A.I enslaving Humanity. Think about it a PS4 the size of an Ipod Nano. Maybe we can do that with a PS2. To the whole XDR thing. I doubt Sony is going to include XDR2 in the PS4 its not necessary and too expensive. GDDR5 unified would be my wish.

audio output?

While I don't use my ps3 as my primary movie device, I use it to stream netflix, I discovered that the ps3 decodes the true hd and master hd audio on-board and sends it to my amplifier as 7 channels. While this is still full hd audio arriving over hdmi to my onkyo thx select 2 receiver and being discretely sent to my acoustical research 7.1 setup, my receiver has much better fakuda processing and also has a little light that tells me it does a much better job than the ps3 at decoding stream because that's what it was made to do. Does anyone know if the ps4 will decode on board or will it leave that to the much better receiver to do?

Audio not known

So far I think rumours regarding PS4 specs are concentrating on the CPU, GPU and ram specs. I think some PS3s can send a pure digital signal to be decoded to any receiver if you send the right kind of signal to a receiver. As far as I'm aware the originally released PS3 cannot send this signal, but the slim can. This signal is called Bitstream and is basically the raw form of data, as you said before it is decoded by a HD capable DAC (Digital Audio Converter) inside a receiver with that capability. I can only guess but being that the technology is actually readily availble inside of most motherboards and cheap DACs can handle HD Audio, it's quite possible Sony could allow for both onboard and receiver decoding depending on the settings people have on their home audio equipment and console. It doesn't seem like it would be costly to allow for both types of decoding and would account for every user, especially considering that some people just use their HD TVs HDMI connector and I don't think any TVs come with onboard HD decoding as a part of their designs.


I think if Sony makes it something they like, it will be something we like.

$499 to $1000??

Why would you think the system will cost that much when there are competitors like the OUYA costing at $99.

Ouya won't compare, but will have it's place.

Ouya won't be able to handle graphically intensive games, tonnes of AI. Basically it's an Andriod console, easy for indy developers to work on, but it's hardware is quite limited. Everything has it's place and I think if the internet infrastructure improved then it'd have the ability to stream more power hungry games, but as a closed box system it's not going to be anywhere near as powerful in terms of hardware compared to Wii U and up. Rumours are now making it seem likely that PS4 and Nextbox will have reasonable specs, that would likely cost a PC builder aroun eight hundred to a thousand dollars to build if they built their own PC out of the components in use. Bare in mind though that console buyers won't pay anywhere near a thousand dollars because console manufacturers bulk buy parts, get massive discounts as a result of that and the archetecture is more streamlined for game development, meaning that the reality of having those parts in a console system will be such that the specs will yield even better results in terms of AI, detail, character counts, size of environments, frame rates and effects compared to a similarly specced gaming PC. Essentially Ouya will be good for people that like the basic web games, some titles like Minecraft, maybe low grade Wow style MMORPGs/RPGs, Platform games or some uncomplicated first person shooters, but if the developers of the system want more console style or high end PC games then they'll have to either bring out a more expensive system, maybe subsedized by a subscription system to keep costs down or wait for cloud gaming services to get better. Anyone contemplating buying into Ouya should not be under the illusion that it will provide the best PC or Console game experiences, though it will likely be an interesting new development in the world of gaming.

OUYA w/OnLive

You know, except with OnLive on the OUYA, it's totally irrelevant what the gaming hardware is.

Re: OUYA w/OnLive

Unless broadband providers can make a totally infallable connection into all homes around the globe physical media and decent enough processing capabilities inside of games machines will always have a place in the gaming market. Saying that online service will replace that hardware simply doesn't take into account what people find appealing and physical discs or whatever media provide people with a sense of security that software and cloud gaming can't give them.

ouya is realy alwsoume

hi there at $99 ouya is alwsoume at $99 quad core 1 gb ram and 8 gb flash memory wich i think has a whopping 160 mb/s read write speed

PS4 GPU 'good'?!?

At what point has the HD 7670 EVER been a "a great GPU"? It is a seriously underpowered GPU mainly designed for running blu-ray dvds smoothly, sure it's an upgrade from the PS3, but that doesn't stop it from being a piece of crap card, and it most certainly isn't "much better than today’s PC games", I would actually go as far to say that you would be far better staying with the PS3 if this really is the GPU they are choosing to use. Nothing could make this GPU run better than the gtx 680/HD 7970 not even the fact that it is a closed system, also the only games that would be able to use the GPU to it's full potential would be PS4 exclusives (- as all multiplatform games will be on the Xbox 720 and possibly Wii U as well,) that would never be on PC so there would be no point in even trying to compare the two systems, but even then the GPU will still suck compared to modern gaming GPUs.

Old rumours

The 7670 being a part of the PS4's design is an old rumour. Rumours now put Sony as apparently going for using a custom APU, this is apparently a quad core cpu element, with the GPU chip from either the 7950 or the 7970 being on the same die. There's also been rumours that PS4 will have an additional GPU and 4GB of unified GDDR5 RAM which would be for everything (I don't know how graphics ram can be used as system ram, but those are the rumours). The rumour surrounding the 7670 was that it was going to be part of a Crossfire set-up, with an APU, the A8-3850, but this was an old set-up that Sony looked at before later deciding to use something more powerful. Even in a cheap gaming PC this set-up allows for higher native resolution games than PS3, higher than PS3 frame rates and with more effects like AA and AF. In a closed system everything is more streamlined, so a console could yield better results than what people with those parts in their system have been getting, when games are specifically designed for this one kind of set-up or even tweaked to run well on that platform. Anyway since this 7670 rumour is old I wouldn't take it as likely that the 7670 will be in this system, the 7950 or 7970 rumour seems more likely, especially considering that those GPUs can be bought farely cheap by Sony in bulk.

AMD and Nvidia graphics?

IMO they should go with a single ATI graphic card to match the AMD processor. Do one thing and do it really well

Re: AMD and Nvidia graphics?

Rumours have been interpretted in a number of ways, Sony may be going with an APU and an external GPU or an APU. Some people have said if it's a single APU in PS4 then Sony would basically be using a quad core processor with the Graphics chip from the HD7950. I do agree that an AMD CPU, like one of the multi core FX series CPUs, with perhaps some slight mods for a Console system could be a good gaming pc component, that paired with a 7870 would likely give PS4 all the graphical grunt it'll need, provided they're both mounted on a fast motherboard, with some fast ram and plenty of Cache inside that CPU. In a closed system, with decent cooling and plenty of watts in the PSU would give sony a very powerful console. Being a closed system, maybe with tweaks to get the most out of such a system this hardware could yield some incredible results. Even an eight core FX-8150 can be bought for around £150 and a 7870 (which is a 2.56 Tflop card) can also be bought for £217, those are Amazon prices, the 7870 has 2gb of GDDR5, sony could add more of a fast system ram or do a unified memory achetecture to yield better results, but the CPU could be bought by Sony for less than £80 and the GPU could cost £100, a motherboard can be built in-house at less than even the cheapest AM3+ board, £40 is eaily a realistic price, so we have the startings of a system that will cost Sony about £220 before Bluray drive (about £70 RRP probably £20 Sony price), say 500GB-1TB HDD (£50-£70 RRP easily £30 Sony price). Essentially if Sony goes the FX CPU route, with a single decent GPU and all the other stuff they can build a system at cost for about £350, maybe a bit more that will easily push 1080p native resolutions, with above 30fps and ultra PC graphics settings. If Sony didn't care about making a loss they could plump for a more powerful GPU, pair it with an APU that can make use crossfire in that configuration and push a system that will last even longer and give developers more room to maneuver in the future. As long as Sony doesn't scrimp too much on the RAM, even if they build a partitioned ram system, as long as they provide enough, like even 4GB of a fast DDR3 or maybe a newer model system ram they'll be fine with that system. Don't know about backwards compatibility though with this system, unless Sony sticks PS3 cell processors in the new console. This system could be excellent for Devs to work on. Sorry for the rant, just trying to get accross that a next console won't have to cost the Earth and I do agree with your point on using one CPU and one GPU, provided they're good and work well together, I've heard the FX series are good processors for building a gaming system, decoding and applications, which is all PS4 needs to handle.

Backward compatibility

Too bad I'll never play a PS4 game, I already swore a blood oath that if Sony's next offering wasn't 100% backward compatible, that they'd never get another dime from me. Guess I'll have to spend all that extra free time bettering myself or something,


I've spent quite a lot of money on PS2 and PS3 games. I already can't play a good majority of my PS2 games without digging my old console out of the closet. With the PS4 if I can't play my PS3 games I will have to find some other form of entertainment. Backwards compatibility is a MUST HAVE!! Non negotiable

$1000? Just get a PC

I am a PC gamer. Console players hated us because of the better graphics. The A8 from AMD was over a year ago, and the 6550D iGPU isn't even that good, more like 2007 graphics. If the price was lower, like $450-500 then, you might have a "reasonable deal", except that I built my PC for 600 dollars and runs BF3 on Ultra + 8x AA on a NATIVE 1080p display. If the price of the Orbis is THIS MUCH, for an already outdated [still recent, but weak] GPU and CPU, it's just better getting a PC. I could build a computer with he A8, and it would be about 350 dollars. Sure, make hate replies, but I stick with my own opinion. My CPU and GPU can still last until ~2019 [Built in 2012]


LOL Console gamers dont hate you because PCs have better graphics,They hate PC gamers because their obnoxious...

Old rumours

The PS4 having an A8 series APU and the 6670 GPU are old rumours. It's actually more likely the PS4 will have a quad core APU with the gpu chip from the 7950 and possibly an additional 7970 or lower level GPU chip set on the motherboard for a crossfire style dual GPU set-up. If PS4 was to have the A8 Xfire set-up then it would probably retail for less than £200 because Sony can buy those parts for far less than consumers would pay if they were building their own PC, this system would likely be optimized to run better than those parts would in a home build PC. Sony doesn't mind making a loss on hardware, so even with the highest possible spec Sony would deem necessary for PS4 they won't charge anywhere close to $1000 for PS4, they'll make a loss, but they'll make their money back with the money they make from software sales, it's exactly the same kind of deal with Microsoft. If PS4 was to cost $1000 then people buying that system would likely be getting something that would cost them close to $2000 to buy if they decided to build a similarly specced Gaming PC now. To build a A8-3850-HD7670 set-up PC it'd cost about £300 with windows 7 to build, £200 would in this case be a pretty good deal (which is likely what it would cost Sony to make and package), for £300 people could probably get a PS4 with a couple of games, extra controller and maybe some PSN points, still in a closed system the graphics would look better than the PC, because developers would code especially for that console and consumers wouldn't have to worry about setting the system up. BTW console games don't hate PC gamers, they get annoyed because many PC gamers act like fanboys towards their expensive systems and look down on console gamers, more console gamers don't even know the difference between PC and console graphics because they haven't seen a high specced pc running them. Personally I'd like to have the best of all worlds, I have a PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii U, would like to eventually build a decent gaming pc when funds allow, but that would cost more than £500 in the UK right now, TBH I may as well wait and see what spec the next gen consoles will have, they will likely suprize people.

While I mostly agree with you

PC is generally outdated every six months to a year. Having anything top of the line is secondhand the same time next year so I highly doubt your PC will last graphically til 2019 for only 600 bucks. I do realize that gaming consoles are behind from day one however they generally last 5 plus years and each offers their own exclusives. However I will always be upset that PC games can be modded practically putting in their own user created DLC. It would be genius for a company to come in and make a gaming console where everything was upgradable. This would allow that company to sell essentially one machine for 10-20 years and just make their own upgraded hardware to boost them when the time was right. Id rather spend 50-100 bucks a year to upgrade my machine then spend 500-1000 every 5 years.


that is an incredibly popular myth. the same year xbox360 came out, i bought an xps420 with factory specs, it STILL is on par with all the 360 games.. it plays skyrim with its (today terrible)nvidia8800GT GPU. my current rig has a 560TI that I bought 3 years ago and it still plays any new game on ultra-high settings. and i wont upgrade it again for at least another year or two. gaming pc hardware has roughly the same lifetime as a console, except when its time to upgrade, you dont replace the whole thing, mainly you just get a new gpu.

Awsome pc s

I totally agree with you, its better and there are mods

yes mod pcs are alwsoume

hi there most mods are useing solid state drives 10,000 rpm voloci-raptors or 15,000 rpm cheeta hard drives


"My CPU and GPU can still last until ~2019 [Built in 2012]" If only that was true. I don't want the best performance, nor the best graphics. I want the feeling that playing a console gives. Coming back to your statement I quoted, if you get that for $600, you bought cheap stuff which will last for a year or two. If you're lucky maybe 3. True that PS3 didn't have the best performance, but damn I love it. Maybe console players hated pc gamers because they were so full of theirselves :).

$1000 pc with a lighting fast 128 gb ssd

hi there fpund $999 laptops on best buy website i3 or i5 i7 cpu 4 gb ddr3 ram and 128 gb ssd with a 218 mb/s read write speeds

Backwards compadable

i would prefer backwards compatibility so i can play my ps3 games on it, or i wont buy one


I would actually really like to see an AMD APU in the new play station 4. I think this will benefit both platforms since developers can easily port titles from one to the other while keeping costs down. I think this could also give a lot of benefit to the people using AMD APU in their PC. I wonder if one could dual boot to the PS4 OS for better gaming performance ... just an idea...

AMD 8000 series GPU in PS4

AMD's new line of GPUs the 8000 series could potentially be the basis for the Graphics Chipset in PS4. Information on two of models of GPUs has leaked through the sitye Neogaf. The 8850 apparently gets 2.99 TFlops at single precisions compute performance running on 130 watts of power and MSRP in America will apprently be $199. The 8870 is 3.94 TFlops at 160 watts, MSRP is apparently $279. Of course numbers could change pretty drastically if one of the chipsets from these cards is used in PS4, but if these numbers are right either of these cards RRP would both fall well below the cost of the chip that the RSX was based on, which was the 7800 GT and it retailed for $300 back in 2006. Also the lower wattage should mean that heat is kept to a minimum and downclocking be minimal within the PS4's design. IMO the more likely model is the 8850, apparently AMD's new APUs are built to work very efficiently and this would free up power to allow for almost full wattage to be used on the GPU chip. Please take these numbers with a grain of salt as they aren't yet confirmed by AMD, but if they're true here's hoping one of these cards is used in PS4.

HVD? Methinks not.

Why would Sony use HVD (besides the significant cost implications) when it was a key player in developing Blu-ray? It would be like disowning your own product that you had invested in, only to use a competitors product and paying a higher price for it.

HVD definitely won't be a part of PS4 hardware.

Because Bluray is so cheap now it just does not make it economical to put a HVD drive into the console. Bluray can hold plenty of information, there are far faster drives than PS3 had, which are now very affordable, likely costing less than £20 for Sony to use either an 8 or 12 times speed drive. PS3 games don't take up much more than 30GBs of space now so a greater capacity disc would be fine to handle all of PS4's information storage needs. I really don't get why people see a completely new piece of technology and assume it will be in the next generation of consoles, just because there will be a next generation machine at some point in the future.

The Blu-Ray even 128GB won't cut it for 4K and 8K video

So not having the Holographic Optical Discs HVD 250GB/500GB it's just plain stupid. H.265 8K UHDV video will be the standard by 2015-2016 time. And the Playstation 4 won't be able to support it.

Hoping for Kaveri and 8000 series

I'm hoping Sony is going with a spec that includes a Kaveri APU, this would mean 1.05 TFlops at 100watts, so definitely doable in a console. For the GPU an 8850 at 80 watts would produce 1.84TFlops, so overall computing performance of 2.89TFlops, or around about 11 times the power of PS3. The APU alone would be a little more than 4 times the power of PS3. If Sony went for full GPU power at 130 watts the 8850 apparently produces 2.99 TFlops so with a Kaveri APU we would be looking at a 4.04 TFlop console, if kept at the standard level, though Sony would likely have the hardware slightly underclocked. 8850 will apparently retail for $199, Sony apparently bought the RSX for about $80, which is based on NVidia's 7800GT, which retailed for $299, so it's not unreasonable for something $100 cheaper to go into a console, not when they'll just be using the chip part of the card, especially when the wattage the GPU uses is within the reach of a slight wattage increase over PS3's original PSU which was rated at 380 watt max.

Your an idiot the ps3 clocks

Your an idiot the ps3 clocks in a just over 2tflops so even if they went with the top of the line of all the listed it would still be little more than double the ps3 the big bonus will be in the ram and gpu.

Don't be so rude and get your facts straight.

No the PS3 does not clock in at 2TFlops, it was actually impossible for PS3 to produce that level of compute performance. PS3 actually clocks in at around 0.2TFlops for the console's total performance. A modern GPU like an AMD HD7870 clocks in at 2.56 TFlops, this takes 175Watts of power to produce, in a modern 28 nanometer fabrication process, PS3's GPU was made using a 90 nanometer process. New hardware is more efficient and it's far more capable than the 2006 technology the PS3 was built around. Everything in modern hardware will be better than what's in the PS3, not just RAM & GPU, but CPU, Memory controllers, Cache in the CPU, RAM & GPU. along with HDD, Bluray Drive basically all technology in the next generation playstation will provide a major boost in power over PS3. The cell processor in the PS3 cannot produce 1TFlop, neither can the RSX, numbers were majorly over-exhagerrated for the PS3, for it to produce that much compute performance PS3 would have needed what is in this article: "During this period, IBM filed many patents pertaining to the Cell architecture, manufacturing process, and software environment. An early patent version of the Broadband Engine was shown to be a chip package comprising four "Processing Elements", which was the patent's description for what is now known as the Power Processing Element (PPE). Each Processing Element contained 8 APUs, which are now referred to as SPEs on the current Broadband Engine chip. This chip package was widely regarded to run at a clock speed of 4 GHz and with 32 APUs providing 32 gigaFLOPS each, the Broadband Engine was shown to have 1 teraFLOPS of raw computing power. This design was fabricated using a 90 nm SOI process.[9]" It's well known that PS3 has 8 SPEs, each are capable of (in the most ideal situation) 32Giggaflops of CP, 1 SPE is disabled for manufacturing yield purposes and another is reserved for operating system, so 6 are available for programming use. All SPEs combined in a best case scenario produce 192GFlops, which is when the CPU is clocked at 4GHz, PS3 is clocked at 3.2GHz. As more proof of the actual capabilities of the hardware in PS3: "In November 2010 the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) created a powerful supercomputer by connecting together 1,760 Sony PS3s which include 168 separate graphical processing units and 84 coordinating servers in a parallel array capable of performing 500 trillion floating-point operations per second (500 TFLOPS).[325] As built the Condor Cluster was the 33rd largest supercomputer in the world and would be used to analyse high definition satellite imagery.[326]" In other words 1760 PS3s, combined with 168 GPUs and 84 co-ordinating servers are required to create 500,000 GFlops or 500 TFlops of compute performance. The 1760 PS3 by themselves can't even produce 284 Gigaflops of floating point performance. Xbox 360 is very similar in power, though the PS3 is tthe more powerful console, Wii U is about 3 times the power of each of those consoles. Something like that HD 7870 GPU I mentioned above is about 12 times the power of the PS3. The AMD A10 APU rumoured to be in dev kits of PS4 is capable of about 768 gigaflops of CP, this is enough to run a game like MW3 at 2k resolutions, with above 30FPS frame rates, but it can't do something more demanding like BF3 with high-end 1080p settings, a better dedicated GPU would be needed to be paired with that APU, probably something around a HD7850 to run Samaritan Unreal Engine 3 level graphics at 1080p 30FPS. I'll say in closing get your facts straight before calling someone an idiot when you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, you clearly lapped up the junk you were told when PS3 was launched. It would take 10 PS3's strapped together, programmed using the best programmers, who know that console inside out to get the PS3 to produce 2TFlops of CP.


Call me old fashioned but I love discs, the running of your fingers over the shiny packaging and the smooth feeling of pulling out the box from all the others, the soft click of opening it up and the sound of the runners as the playstation sucks it in. I like the idea of the cloud for serious gamers but sony have to think about the amateur gamers of this world too, (the ones who read this article and went... What?!?!...) I don't want to spend 40 quid on a game that I spend a few weeks on and then give up because its too hard and also I don't have that kind of money. Second hand games are my life I only ever buy ratchet and clank new all of my other games are second hand! And what about the serious gamers that aren't made of money, I know of several that sell one practically new (but completed) game to fund the next, its a way of life for many of my friends trading games so that they can maximise the amount of play time with the cost living. And I hope my interpretation of the bit I read but didn't fully understand about second hand game is untrue because then I would be really sad, if the games are really only going to be able to play on cloud then I just won't be able to get a PS4 at all because I won't be paying for high speed broadband for a games console I spend 4 hours a week on :( can't wait for the official specs (in watered down terms) come out and the release date :)

sony fake promises

sony was always the best to me.. when ps1 came out i was so happy with metal slug series ..ps2 ohh my god it was the best.. ps3 was like a dream came true at first,sony gave us backwards compability and the ability to run linux and such on my console .. but damn .. sony took everything we wished for .. i was always a console lover .. but now i prefer pc .. cuz i can make what ever i want in it .. not to mention the hardware thingy..

Backward Compatibility

PS4 must be 100% compatible with PS3. And it should be compatible with PS1/PS2 with software emulation. The problem is that current PS3 hardware is very fragile. They cannot use lead for soldering the processsors. So it mean that almost every PS3/XBox 360 will need reballing after 5 years (more or less) of heating because of fractures who will appeart in the balls. Bottom line they are selling us video games systems that are not as solid as PC.

I expect a LOT out of ps4.

I expect a LOT out of ps4. It MUST have 100% backwards compatibility with the ps3. Online Only models MUST be avoided. As must any restrictions on the purchase of second hand games, also be avoided. The hard Drive MUST be 500 gigs on the BASIC model. All current PS Store games must be transferable from ps3 to ps4. If any one of these conditions fails to be so, I will be spending my money on a gaming pc.

Too Bad About Backwards Compatibility

Yeah, no chance of that happening. I want it too. I can't understand why I can't plug my Sega Genesis carts into modern consoles.

Why so much money???

Ok we spend like $60 bucks on new games so if we buy a game system for $1000 bucks and it wint play are old games the we can just say we waste are money buying something new and it wont work with what we got and pluse it may not even come with a game but if it do only one. I believe sony should think about the old games we have including ps1 and ps2 thats how we can recycle are old games instead of throwing them out the window now that type of system I would buy....just think about it please!!!!


Add new comment

4 + 0 =