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:



new ps4 specs

hi there new ps4 specs i5 cpu 16 gb ram a whopping 256 gb ssd flash drive

Intel in PS4 highly unlikely

Considering current rumoured dev kits envolve an AMD A10 it's very unlikley an i5 would feature in PS4 and tbh it's not really needed. 16GB of RAM isn't necessary, current rumours put dev kits as having between 8-16GB of RAM, almost always final dev kits have twice the RAM of the finished consoles. For consoles it's about speed of access to data, there's a difference between PC RAM and Console RAM, with consoles going for what's fastest at the time. Expect more of a faster RAM than you would normally see in the current single GPU PCs, what's inevitable, if available is stacked DDR4, which would apparently allow for twice the transfer speeds of current GDDR5, if that's what's available then 4GBs of that kind of RAM would be pretty much ample for the consoles. One thing many people don't realise is that these system will stream things like texture data on the fly if higher res textures are needed, compression of textures can also free up memory space for fast use, so large amounts of RAM aren't needed like a PC. If DDR4 isn't available to stack then a couple of gigs of GDDR5, with another pool of about 4GB of DDR3, connected to 32MB+ of eDram would be a good alternative solution. Please remember that we're not talking about multi-monitor style PC gaming, which would eat up tonnes of RAM. Even more demanding pc games that aren't really optimized for don't really need more than 4GB of DDR3 now, with compression memory constraints can be worked around. As far as SSDs go while it may be desirable to have an SSD it probably won't be a large 256GB drive, more likely 16 or 32GB. Maybe one of the console's SKUs will have 256GB, while other models will have a smaller 16GB SSD with a standard, but reasonable minimum size of 120GB in a HDD.

Backwards compatibility and more...

Four things that will guarantee my purchasing a PS4: 1) full backwards compatibility with PS3 games(hard-copy as well, not just downloads from the PS store.) 2) ditch the memory config that made open-world games like Skyrim a pain to develop for and play on the PS3. 3) do not go to a download only system. I like having my games in hard-copy form on BD's. 4) encourage more developers to make games that support resolutions higher than 720p (ie Naughty Dog). Playing the Uncharted games in 720p on my 1080p screen is annoying as all heck.


Fake as he'll... 8 cores at 9.6 ghz are you retarded?

This guy

You are absolutely right, not only would they not use that kind of processor set for gaming console it's not stable for a

some people dont know their processors

imagine the amount of energy a processor like this would take if they were somehow able to put this processor in the ps4.

If this processor is in the cpu

It can mean many things. So there has to be a liquid cooling solution for a quad core to run at these speeds. The psu has to be very efficient So they're super clocked Sony WOULD HAVE TO NOT DO A TERRIBLE THERMAL COMPOUND JOB like they did the ps3 We shall see how this goes


This is the most retarted post i have ever seen first of all you read between te lines , it has 4 /3 CORES running ON 3000 mhz , so 3 x 3000 = ?


i know right, thay would need liquid nitrogen cooling to be able to achieve that speeds, amd have acheived the fastest speed with liquid nitrogen cooling and they got their cpu to i think it was 7.9 ghz or something like that! so defo wont be 9.6ghz! tese are only guess specs though


The PS4 not being backwards compatible shouldn't be much of an issue, most barely touch their PS2 games nowadays so the feature will only be useful until the PS4 gets a nice library of games. As for the performance, if this is to cost $600 +/- I expect it to be similar or better than a gaming computer in the $1K-1.2K range. A console is a dedicated gaming machine, it only makes sense that it beats an average 'gaming' computer plus games are optimized for that console, unlike computers that are adaptions of already existing games. Sony better over build their system or allow it to be upgradeable (RAM/GPU/PSU) like a computer. I don't want to sit down a year after buying the console and think that I just wasted $600+ for a glorified BD player and lamenting how far that could of gotten me had I built a gaming computer.


i hope ps4 has gaikai.


The price of the PS4 won't be above $600 as Sony learned that was a mistake (the hard way). Honestly, this site has NOT been a good source of information as it goes off of speculation purely towards the other sites who attempt to use facts to back their claims.

What mistake?

The Playstation3 high introductory price was absolutely right an no mistake. The mistake with the PS3 is that they then didn't lower the price quickly as they should have. THAT is the big mistake that let Microsoft gain market share with the lazy cheap design XBox360. So now Sony managers on crack like little kids try to mimic Microsoft with a cheap design for the Playstation 4 ... HUGE MISTAKE. Wrong plan. Only cowards with no brain would follow Microsoft cheat campaigns. Releasing a Playstation 4 with already obsolete slow hardware is just plain stupid.


backwards compatibility a must and PlayStation Network to play online are all i care about!!!!!!!! so i can play my ps3 games on it TOO, or WE wont BUY one. i dont care about what u stack up in the PS4 but it needs to have those! don't disappoint us as gaming have been lacking for 2012. or all of u needs to be fired.ASAP no ?'s asked its all about the fans and customers that buy it not what u want TO PUT IN, after all its our money that's get wasted and you guys get paid for it!!! SO DO WHAT WE ASK U TO DO!!!! BACKWARD COMPATIBLE AND ONLINE.


It's about what is profitable for them. They will add it in if it's cost effective. "WE" won't buy it? Who is we, you and your mom? Don't talk for everyone else because, personally, I really don't care about backwards compatibility and if the console has good enough tech, I'll buy it without that compatibility. I still have my PS3 that plays games just fine and I'll have a PS4 that plays all the new games to go along with it. If it so happens that they include this function then great. It'll be a nice bonus and that's it. Stop whining about it already.

Backwards compatibility

I think I'll be happy with my PS3 for quite awhile. However, if this was FULLY backwards compatible (PS1, *PS2*, and PS3), I would buy one immediately.

backwards compatibility issue

Easy way to fix it is to make the system without it and make an access panel that would allow for an upgrade if a person want's to buy it as long as it is compatibile for all PS systems. There is games i would like to play but can't cause my PS 3 does not have backwards compatibility and if there was an added panel to allow for it i would upgrade it.

BIG FAIL! AMD CPU = Cheap outdated hardware. Obsolete in 2 years

Sony managers are on crack. They bought back the Cell technology from Toshiba, they previously sold it to Toshiba. And now they trashed the previous Playstation4 prototypes with Cell 2 and went the cheapest design route getting an AMD CPU ? AMD is almost bankrupt. Their CPUs are a mess, slow performance and power hungry. Going x86 without getting an Intel Core i7 6-core at the very least it's just plain stupid. And where is the Holographic Optical Drive 500GB ? Sony bought the technology quite some years ago. So the Playstation 4 won't support 4K and 8K UHDV resolutions and movie playback H.265 encoded too. The Playstation 4 with these specifications is going to be a huge failure. A real mess. Just like the Playstation Vita. Sony managers are out of mind nowadays. They really have no clue what they are doing.

Nothing wrong with AMD.

AMD CPUs are fine, if AMD has the contracts to provide hardware to all three consoles then no there's no way they're going to be going out of business any time soon. Even if they were just providing GPUs to nintendo for the Wii U, say that GPU costs £20 per unit, if say £10 of that was profit, if nintendo sold 10 million units in the first year then they'd be paying AMD £100 million in profit, £200 million in overall sales. AMD parts work fine, plenty of customers have built very decent gaming PCs, bargain PCs, overall very good machines using their technology, so why should Sony have a problem going with a total (CPU & GPU) AMD solution for their main hardware? Also when it comes to multicore programming very few games use more than 2 cores, actually a lot of games still use a single core, when GPUs can be used to offload to for things like Physics there's little reason to go with more than 4 cores in the CPU. An APU like the A10 uses anywhere from 65-100watts, can far outperform a similarly priced intel APU as a games solution, so there's no reason to go with some crazy, over the top i7 6 core. HVD is still too expensive, Bluray can easily handle the storage capacity for 4K video, 100GB discs have plenty of capacity and if more space is needed then compression formats can be used on discs. Also I don't know where you got the idea that Vita is a mess, developers have no issues programming for it, it produces amazing graphics for a handheld games consoles, if Sony follows a similar pattern with the PS4 to the Vita the PS4 will be a very good console. All sony has to do with the PS4 is improve the CPU to a more modern design, make it easy to program, add in a new, fast RAM, with more of it, go with a reasonably priced, but powerful enough GPU and they'll have a good machine. AMD can provide the CPU and GPU side of things with their decent technology, there are plenty of good solutions for RAM. A major step up in performance can be had at a reasonable price, without Sony making the same mistakes they did with PS3 like making a system that was difficult for many developers to work with.

Please.. AMD is toast already.

PS Vita is an absoltue failure. HVD holographic disc drives 500GB+ are absolutely needed for high bitrate 32Megapixel UHDV 8K H.264 encoded video streams. The AMD APUs are a silly joke. They can be nice for a very cheap HTPC but nothing more than that for sure. Sony with the Cell on Playstation3 and adding Blu-Ray developed a console with hardware way more advanced than anything Intel had to offer when it was released. Then Sony managers screwed it up completely with Cell, selling the assets to Toshiba and not doing proper marketing at all. They could have marketed Cell together with IBM everywhere from desktops to servers to notebooks. Instead they kept the Playstation3 price too high for a long time and they lost the marketing battle against Microsoft that had cheaper,slower hardware on the XBox360. Now Sony managers are absolutely on crack and instead of releasing an amazing console with all new hardware that can last 6-10years they are going the ultra-cheap route. The Playstation4 is going to be outdated in 2-years time just like the XBox720.

Re: Please... AMD is toast already

The only area vita hasn't succeeded in is sales, admittedly that's important, but it is more powerful than the 3DS, capable of better graphics & is easy to develop for, it's not the total failure you made it out to be, though it hasn't obviously appealed as much as the 3DS, having a tenth of the 3DS's sales. Next gen isn't going to be about 8K, 1080p native is what these machines will be targeting, with 4K maximum for movies, that's it. At most we'll get games upscaled to 4K, so your idea of HVD being needed is an absolute load of rubbish. AMD are producing more advanced versions of their APUs for release next year & in 2014, with Kabini, Samara and Kaveri. Right now the A10 is actually bottle knecked by it's 7660D GPU, but Sony or Microsoft can use the CPU element on an MCM with a better GPU, like a 7850/7870 for around 10X the power of PS3. Consoles are never gonna be the most powerful things out there, they cater for a market of people that don't want to have to fiddle around with hardware. An A10 cpu element, paired with something between a 7850 to 7870 & 2GB of GDDR5, along with 2-4GB of DDR3 can run UE4 at 1080p 30FPS, that will last fine for 6-7 years until the next machines are announced. Some crazy expensive intel or even IBM CPU isn't really needed. Seriously though this is all rumours, Sony may have been working on hardware in house, we'll know what's going on soon.

4k is not needed

I see you have fallen into the trap of it is 4x 1080p so it must be 4x better. So unbelievably not true. TV manufacturers need to fix the problems with existing LCD technology such as motion blur, contrast, etc.. instead of shoving just a higher resolution with the same problems we have now down our throats. It wont, but I would love to see 4k fail miserably. I would much rather have a tv the same size I have now, 60", but in OLED. OLED actually addresses and fixes all the problems with existing LCD tech. Anyone that buys a 4k tv now or in the near future will just end up with a very large paperweight anyway as the standard for HDMI everyone is on right now can't handle 4k. And by the time the HDMI standard reaches the throughput needed for actual 4k resolution you are going to have to buy another tv. This is the same thing that happened with BluRay players. The early adopters that paid exorbitant amounts for their BluRay players within one year of purchase were left with incompatible junk. That is why I bought a PS3. It was and is and will continue to be the only (minus the PS4)upgradeable and future-proof BluRay player made

motion blur

is needed and created by the human. Its used for low framerate


The reason the ps3 was so expensive was the blu-ray drive. (true the cell and the last minute add-on gpu would skyrocket the price even more) Games these days are 30gb Max and that´s on pc with unpacked textures. So putting in some new REALLY EXPENSIVE tech like HVD Would be retarded and unnecessary. Now for the cell YOU CAN´T PUT THEM IN PC´s because it´s not a X86 processor (language) say the cell is french and windows is english it wouldn´t work, But there are ps3 farms and they function as a millitary Server. SO your marketing the cell for PC,notebook plan is flawed because they couldn´t. But I do think you´re right that if there using a apu it´s going to be outdated before it actually comes out. I´m not going to predict what they should use but until they can put the power 680gtx/7970 in a smaller package they should´t waste there time on a ps3.5

Overall PS4 hardware.

A 7970m produces 2176 GFlops on 100 watts, apparently the 8000m equivalent will improve on this by 1.2 times so 2611.2 GFlops, Sony could commission AMD to make a more powerful version for PS4, even with a moddest power increase to say run off of 115Watts the 7970m would produce 2502.4 GFlops, the 8000m series equivalent would produce 3002.88 GFlops. The whole A8-3850 thing would be bad on a performance level, though Sony could release a moddest improved console for a similar price to what PS3 goes for now, but the difference in graphics & physics in games wouldn't really give people that next-gen experience the same way PS3 did when coming from playing PS2 games. Putting an overclocked 8970m onto an MCM, with a modernized Cell/X86 hybrid would make for a pretty crazy powerful machine compared to PS3, it would be plenty powerful for all of the most modern game engines at 1080p 30FPS (maybe 60FPS if the systems programmed well and has plenty of fast RAM). A machine like that as a closed box system, where developers can code to the metal will be easily on par with a decent modern single GPU gaming PC with a GTX 680, probably outperform it, simply because developers can squeeze every ounce of power out of the system. Hopefully Sony would chuck 4GB of fast GDDR5 into it, though 2GB of it would probably be plenty, definitely with 384 BIT stuff, it'd have 80 times the transfer rate of PS3's RAM with 4GB of the stuff, 2GB would have 40 times. 1080p should be no issue for that console, a game like Crysis 3 or BF3 should have the equivalent of ultra settings, with Frame Rate of 60FPS with power to spare. Games on a system like that would make console owners eyes bleed compared to what we've been playing. From a wattage/heat point of view this is easily possible, thought I'm not sure how much a 7970m chip goes for, since it's a mobile part, though I think the retail cost isn't far off what the 7800GTX (which RSX was supposedly based on) sold for, with the cost of Bluray being very low now, RAM being pretty cheap I think a GPU like that could be doable for PS4, the cost of a slightly modded 7970m or newer chip would be far cheaper for Sony to buy in massive bulk directly from AMD or using a company like Global Foundries to manufacture for them, after getting the licenses necessary from AMD. I hope this is what Sony will go for when making PS4.


Do some research, Computers are getting a downgraded version of AMD NEW APU.

PS4 Offical specs annoused

SO now what do you think about the ps4, And LOL at all you fools that posted BS before the Ps4 Reveal.

Do you know how well AMD Fusion works?

The AMD Vision A series APUs are far ahead of what Intel has with integrated graphics in the CPU die. I am using a laptop with an AMD A8 w/ Radeon HD 6620G and I can run most games with similar or greater quality as consoles at higher frame rates. and performance nearly doubles with between APU Hybrid Crossfire and Dedicated GPU. If developers have this to work with, they would have better technology to work with. AMD is still competitive and reasonably priced, if you're not using your iSeries to do some heavy workloads, which I doubt you are a programmer or animator, you don't need that. Its like buying Lawrence of Arabia Anniversary Blu Ray pack Remastered in 4K, you don't own a 4K TV and you won't in any near future.

i7 on x86?

x86 is 32 bit....if anything, they would need an older i5...they NEED AMD, it's cheap and works for this gaming. COMPUTERS don't even need a core i7 hexa core on a PC...they use an i5 on a 64 bit. you are a dumbass

some people are stupid

first off if it had an i7 it would make it too expensive & second 4k tv's are not gonna be supported until like 5-10 years!!!you don't have a 4k tv so i don't understand why you are complaining!

Nothing Wrong with Amd processors or graphics

i have a very high spec gaming pc which features at AMD Phenom II X4 965 black edition CPU clocked at 3.4 GHz and it been the most reliable CPU i ever had, INTEL broke within a year of having it! also my graphics are AMD i had NVIDiA and AMD gpu's and AMD are by far the best for performance and reliability! Intel are just expensive for somewhat Cheap tacky chips that dont last! yeah the i7 is good but for 1 thing only and thats overclocking the hell out of it! If sony Use Amd it will be interesting!

Re: Overclocking breaks any CPU or GPU....

Overclocking will break hardware if it's pushed too hard, but it depends on the level, a slight over clock will just increase performance, as long as ventilation is sufficient and heat levels are kept to a low enough level then the components will be fine. I think AMD, Intel, IBM & Nvidia are on similar levels when it comes to reliability of their parts, they will all wear out if they're overclocked too highly.

your funny

There is nothing high performance about the quad core phenom or any AMD cpu to be exact!!! AMD has never made a cpu that is better that the Intel I7, or even equal to the I7 cpu,, u shouldn't post info about things you know nothing about. try looking up some bench marks the I7 will crush your cpu!!!!! i have a 6 core bull dozer and my bro has an quad core I5 and even with 6 cores the bulldozer is no competition for the I5...

Modern Cell CPU

Back in 2010 apparently Sony patented a new version of the cell processor, it ewas essentially a modular component made up of 1 PPE, with 4 SPUs, four of these cells were apparently planned to be put together in a new cell processor inside the PS4. One reason why I think Sony may have gone with something like this as there main processor is because dropping backwards compatibility may end up vastly narrowing their consumer base. When both of Sony's competitors are offering some measure of BC that doesn't cost the consumer anything more than they've already paid for their games & the price of the new console it would just be one area that puts Sony behind their rivals. The main issues with the original cell were that coding for it was a juggling act, if one SPU was finished the low amount of cache meant that developers would have to wait for all the other SPUs in the system to finish processing code before a new task could be started, this is something that can be remedied by have fewer SPUs per core, increasing amount of cache in a new design. If PS4's CPU had fully fledged hardware cores, with SPUs for additional support, cache in the hardware cores & unified cache for each set of SPUs this would make for a very multi-functional CPU, far more versitile than PS3's cell processor, without the limitations that cell had. Full hardware cores would mean developers could choose how they want to use this quad core cell. If Sony stacked hardware cores with their cache, on top of a network of modular SPUs the die area doesn't have to increase horizontally. Of course the cost of something like this may be an issue, though manufacturing of shaders is already known, as are regular CPU cores, so basically all it would take is making a regular set of CPU cores, minitiarized SPUs (at a lower fabrication). Semi-accurate did publish an interview with one of the Sony presidents, where they were talking about stacking silicon, or that Soy was going stacking crazy in their next game console. I'm well aware of the volume of rumours doing the rounds about Sony shifting from cell to a more standard CPU design in PS4, but these are only rumours. Very little concrete information has come out about this new console. A lot of Xbox fans seem to think that the next Xbox will be the more powerful machine, but MS is shifting a lot of their attention to kinnect based gaming, not the core hardcore gamer, this is indicated by the fact that very few studios are actually working on next gen Xbox titles that aren't in some way family oriented games, like kinnect sports. Whereas Sony's main studios are focusing on the same kind of 1st party hardcore games. If indications surrounding the studio's activity are anything to go by (which they probably are) Sony won't just make a machine that offers anything short of a major leap in power, with accesible hardware. While this in itself isn't proof that Sony will go with a new cell chip, the funcionality of a chip like that would make it easy to program for, the idea just makes sense to go with, especially given that Sony has never been into making a basic CPU design in the past. Equally possible is for Sony to have Proper CPU cores, stacked on top of a massive bank of Shader cores, pretty like an APU, but instead of everything being on one level you have the standard cores (in this case something like a Piledriver CPU or a modernized IBM PPE, maybe both on the same die), rather than having an MCM (multi-chip module) have two dies stacked on top of each other, with the shaders unerneath. This may sound overly complicated, but if it allows Sony to keep the functionality of cell, Backwards Compatibility (which lets face it means masses of material for sales) and add incredible levels of programming flexibility in this architecture then it's worth doing. Sony already owns cell, they could have developed a newer version in house to reduce the possibility of information leaks. Alternatively they simply go with the basic APU in rumours, but add a PS3 cell CPU & possibly an RSX onto it's own MCM, with the RAM. I highly doubt Sony will drop backwards compatibility, mainly because it reduces the ability to sell PS3 games through the Playstation Store, this could be worth a fortune in future sales to them. Seriously, just like all games companies Sony will do anything they can to make money. Adding PS3 hardware into the design to allow BC isn't that expensive (considering the amount of money Sony is selling PS3 Super Slim now). Personally I hope they go with a modern cell/x86 cross CPU, it'd be the most versitile thing to give developers to work with.

All of it.

I don't really have a counter or anything. I agree with essentially everything. With today's tech (even though it's essentially outdated as machines are already in development that surpass the current nextgen) all issues existing with current games and consoles, both from a mechanical and programming stand-point, should cease to exist. And in all actuality, if the PS3 had been given more memory and been able to handle multi-tasking, it would probably dominate the market hands-down simply because of the superiority it would hold due to its already existing capabilities. (As soon as they make it possible to listen to personal music while gaming -_-) As for BC, it would be foolish to ditch any PS3 or PS1 compatibility. Way too many gamers, including myself, have been with sony from the beginning, and being able to re-explore old classics, whether on old discs or new download, makes the system that much more fulfilling. And again, with todays released and accessible technology, running multiple formats and designating different areas of the CPU to run certain programming, takes next to nothing. So current programming issues would cease to exist, given the system is able to switch freely between different game states, because the system itself would access different information in order to use multiple types of software and programming. It's a win win across the board, and opens up the PS4 to limitless possibilities. I'm sure by now Sony has been able to make a master list of what all of us gamers would like to see. Equal functionality compared to other systems if not surpassing (as Sony usually does), BC to all formats because there's always something worth replaying, refined PS Store functionality, as well as the data cache being fixed and request paths being renamed to their proper files from the overhaul so we stop getting 404 errors, and as much power as possible so the system can multitask as much as we do ourselves. If they stick to that, I'm sure they'll be fine. I understand there's a lot more to it and is much easier said than done, being I only dabble myself just to see the changes in coding and the faults and fixes from previous releases, but hey. It's Sony.

what i think is going to be ps4 specs!

*2gb superfast ram (for all of you nuubs saying "2gb of ram sucks" for good damn sake, the speed is more inportante than the amount. the ps3 only had a total of ca 520mb). *amd fx 6 core series (i think they will be using one if the amd fx cpu/apu becausw they are cheap and very good, intel is ripoff). *A amd grafic card with 1GB DDR5 ram You can get a cheap grafic card from amd to make the specs above(and as usual sony gets the part cheaper from the developer of AMD part, because when sony uses amd products its kinda an advertising for many people). *SSD 200gb-400gb (yhea i know allot of you will say "Basic model only 200gb" well as far as i know, sony ether use SSD than HDD because SSD is much faster). *blue-ray disk drive (i think they will use the same blue-ray disk readre that reads the disk even faster than the previus did, NO main change) *Price* I think the price will be like 500$ for 200gb(remember that it is SSD) at launch date and 500$ for 300gb and 600$ for 400gb. this is at launch date i think the will lower the price after a month or two with 100$. *Lounch date* i think the plan for sony was to wait untill the new xbox comes so they can make a better one and sell better. but the new xbox and ps4 will come almost the same do i think and i will say around next years christmas!

Totally right about the RAM thing

So many people see RAM as bigger is better, while in some cases more RAM is better, it's not always the case, not when the RAM is of a much slower kind, you're right about the speed thing. PS3 had 256MB of GDDR3, which has a transfer speed of around 22GB/s, this RAM was the VRAM, which was paired alongside 256MB of XDR, which has a speed of around 25GB/s. Modern GDDR5 at 384BIT has a transfer speed more than 10 times faster than XDR, it's 264GB/s, so even if PS4 had 512MB of 384BIT GDDR5 it would be vastly more impressive than what's in PS3, if PS4 has 2GB of that RAM then it could shift more than 40 times the data around the console in the same amount of time the PS3 can, which is being generous as that transfer speed comparison is based on XDR, including GDDR3 takes the transfer speed of PS3's RAM down even further. If PS4 has a lower grade GDDR5 (say 128BIT which transfers data at 72GB/s) using 2GB as a unified RAM would allow PS4 to shift about 12 times more data than PS3 per second. Overall a PS4 with a modern Cell CPU (more cache, manufactured at 28nm, with the same number of SPUs, shorter pipelines & occupying the same sized die area as PS3's chip, about 3X the transistors of the 90nm CBE), up to date GPU like a 7970m (this GPU produces 2176 GFlops, so it's more than 10X the power of PS3 by itself & runs on 100watts) & 2GB of unified GDDR5 (preferrably 384BIT, but 256BIT would be more than ample for next gen, with 153.6GB/s transfer speed) would make for a massive improvement over the PS3. All of that would make for a killer console, much more powerful than Wii U so long as it's not made to be a low powered machine. Before anyone says "cell is a crap processor to have" it was a product of it's time, it's issues can be solved with an update and modernized design. Make the processor capable of out of order processing. Dropping cell completely from PS4 & going for a more standard x86 design will mean no backwards compatibility in PS4, which is something that many consumers care about. CPU technology is basically heading towards more shared processing designs, like HSA, GPGPU type technologies & APUs, pairing a modern cell, with a good modern GPU capable of GPGPU would basically make the PS4 one unified processing console, as long as the console has plenty of cache in it's main CPU with modern architecture cell would actually be a good element of one whole processing solution, much better than just leaving the CPU to handle one type of code. SSDs are getting cheaper, their speed would mean faster loading times, though drive sizes will have to be compromized, unless Sony offers either an SSD or a HDD SKU to consumers. Blurays drives are dirt cheap now, modern drives are also much faster than what's in PS3, PS3 I think has a 2X drive, I expect a minimum of 8X though probably as fast as is reasonable & 12X drive can be bought for less than £50 in the UK, so manufacturing costs are probably less than half that price, 12X is perfectly possible IMO. Going by rumours about dev kits that have come out fairly recently I think next November is a possibility, though I don't think Sony is in quite the rush Microsoft is to get their machine out. Please remember that the PS3 isn't quite as old as the Xbox 360 is, Xbox was tapped before the PS3 was and even when the Xbox was pushed to it's fullest the PS3's 1st party games (like Killzone 3, Uncharted 3 and others) still looked better than Halo 4 does now. Forza Horizon looks very good, but it's not really showing anything majorly impressive on the graphics front, KZ3, TLOU, Beyond, Uncharted 3 all look far more visually accomplished than the best Xbox 360 titles. Ultimately Microsoft has more of a need to launch a new console than Sony really does. IMO we may see a new machine from both companies by next November, but Sony may wait until early 2014 to release theirs, to make sure things go as smoothly as possible.

Proper research/grammer

Will you please do more research and use proper spelling and grammar. Your comment was difficult to read as it is without the "facts" give being wrong.

Gpu should perform quite decently.

Hearing the rumored cpu being an APU 3850, When that "crossfires", more like dual graphics with the hopefully 1ghz 7670 it will offer pretty good performance in games, I'd hope that that Sony Overclocks the proprietary gpu in the 3850 also for more performance, however I am not sure that a 7670 even at 1ghz will be enough to perform exceptionally in a 4k resolution situation without a copious amount of vram to support. A large amount of vram will only increase production cost more.

I don't support the APU.

The second Sony switches to an APU for the processing unit, the playstation 4 will lose any existing backwards compatibility due to the ample change in the architecture of the two cpus. Backwards compatibility is what I really would Like to see from Sony this generation. As previous comments state, All the cell needs is a modernized, patched up architecture, more spe's and a bigger instruction cache. And maybe a smaller manufacturing process, such as 32nm or something within that context. With this modernized cell processor, high performance will be maintained, as well as being able to continue to play our $60 dollar playstation 3 games and not having to bin them, revert back to the now outdated ps3, or let them collect dust. I am unsure of what Sony has in store for the gpu powerhouse. I do expect At least 1gb Of Vram, but you pointed out a wise statement, In a 4k situation 1gb of vram may be rather limiting. Although I do understand that 1080p games from today's titles don't come anywhere near 1gb of vram usage, a 4k resolution will be using 75% almost all of the time. So in my opinion, the 4k resolution addition should be completely dropped until later times. Instead of crossfiring an apu with a 1ghz 7670, Sony should instead if willing use the "modernized" and more advanced cell processor with a more powerful 7850 optimized for usage of the playstation 4. To reduce cost, the cell processor and the 7850 should use a shared memory system, say 1gb of that ram should be for use of the gpu vram, and 3 gb should be of use for the cpu and other system functions. However, in my opinion If Sony decides on a faster XDR memory source, then that memory amount could be downsized to 1gb of vram for the gpu, and 1gb for system functions to compensate with the greatly increased speed and bandwidth in memory, this is a total of 2gb of XDR ram that will be shared between the two. Of course in the mind of all who are sane, everyone knows the Blue ray usage should be a keeper. There is no reason at the current point in time to switch to a HVD drive. Not only will it escalate the production cost to an undesirable level, it will also be of miniature use. Today's game devs will come no where near close to filling the "space" of an HVD disc. That is comparable to getting a 1000 Hp Bugatti and only taking it up to 60 Mph on the highway. The Blue ray disc for today is more than enough space for Game devs to work with until the next, next generation. Can I get the thoughts of other's please, many minds are better than one.

Re: I don't support the APU.

Switching to an APU doesn't have to mean Backwards Compatibility has to go, simply because the PS3's hardware (Cell, RSX & XDR ram) can be included into the new console if it's deemed financially viably by Sony and to be fair a PS3 can be bought for £119.99, which means the core hardware has to be dirt cheap now to manufacture. Personally I don't know why Sony wouldn't just go with an improved version of the cell processor anyway, not when the main issues with it are cache size and lack of out of order processing. Sony spent billions on the whole cell project you don't just drop a technology liek it's nothing, not when you're a company that cares about your finances and making a capable product to attract consumers. If Sony stacked a bank of four modern cores/PPEs on-top of a bank of more SPUs that could be just as good if not miles better than any known about AMD APU design, pair that with a stand alone GPU around the 7970M area (by this I mean Modern Cell plus a GPU) and they could easily have a very powerful modern console capable of running the most up to date game engines at 1080p 30FPS with full effects, plus a decent chunk of power to future proof the design somewhat. Apparently Sony patented a new Cell design back in 2010 which had 1 PPE (controller chip), with 4 SPUs (the virtual cores that share the processing load of the whole CPU), so they must have made plans to use that cell in some devices to reach the patent stage. With a multicore design IMO it would make more sense to have multiple main cores, built as full CPU cores, in a quad core version the SPUs shouldn't be devided into 4 per core, rather the whole chip should have one large bank of 16 SPUs that can be used flexibly by the main cores to share workloads, permanently deviding up the SPUs would restrict things somewhat more than just leaving a bank of processors that can be used however the developers chose to use them. Obviously whilst an SPU is in use it can't be used by any other main core but having this flexibility would mean that while playing PS3 games the CPU could just set itself up to use one main core & 6SPUs as the PS3 does for game code. If you haven't already done so please take a look at Epic's Unreal Engine 4 Elemental demo, Square Enix's Luminous to see what games can look like or Lucas Arts Star Wars 1313. When it comes to RAM even 512MB of the fastest GDDR5 would provide more than 10 times the bandwidth of PS3's total pool of RAM, 2GB of the stuff would be more than 40 times PS3's bandwidth, that amount of RAM wouldn't too my knowledge have any issues in producing 4K games, though the 4K games would probably be at similar IQ levels to current PS3 games like Uncharted 3, Kill Zone 3 or The Last of Us, but even a game like those being produced natively in 1080p would look considerably better than they do in 720p, 4K would probably melt most people's eyes. PS4 shouldn't use XDR for next gen, it's just not a high enough bandwidth RAM, I think the most likely RAM to use would be a high BIT GDDR5, some people have speculated that stacked DDR4 (which when stacked is apparently capable of twice the bandwidth of GDDR5) would be in the console, but I think manufacturing will be an issue because it's a relatively new product and yields need to improve before mass console level production can be possible, GDDR5 can be used for a unified memory pool source, it's fast & relatively cheap/energy efficient plus it's been out for some time so production capacities are viable for a console, 2GB at 384BIT of that stuff produces more than 40 times the bandwidth of PS3's RAM amount, even going for a lower bit rate version of that RAM would still provide massive increases in the bandwidth area if it's in PS4. 256BIT is something like 192GB/s, probably a cost saving on chipsets over 384BIT RAM, so would likely appeal more to Sony. Overall I don't see any issues with Sony staying with cell, Devs know the technology now, things can become even easier. Modern GPGPU technology is going to be a similar deal to using cell, maybe having a PPE (Cell's main core) built as a part of the main core could mean a kind of hybrid chip can exist, one that can be programmed like a standard CPU core, but when developers want to use the hardware they can tap into the SPUs of the system to spread the workload, along with using the shader cores of the GPU when necessary for Physics With Bluray the tech has improved a lot in terms of read speed, 12X is available for PC consumers, I doubt any games made using modern engines will reach anywhere above 1080p on consoles so current storage capacities are perfectly fine for next gen games. Bluray's not going anywhere, it's way too cost effective now and definitely a proven technology. With the switch to AMD over NVidia in the GPU there may be an issue with Backwards Compatibility, although I don't think it's as big of an issue as removing cell & going completely X86 CPU Core design. I think we'll start to get some new info about PS4 within the next few months. I've read around the net that AMD's APU design is very modular, if the Cell2 patent by Sony is any indicator maybe PPE cores will provide the CPU element and the compute units will be in fact be SPUs, only these elements will be modernized versions of their prior designs that can now vastly outperform the PS3's technology. This Cell2 plus a 7970M could make for a 3.4TFlop+ console, Sony wouldn't have to pay anyone else for licenses for their CPU, just the GPU, so from a cost point of view things would work out cheaper, if the development costs of the new Cell aren't greater than simply using AMD steamroller cores and compute units.

I appreciate the reply.

Oh, I see how the 7970M is a better choice. Its my understanding that the 7970M is a mobile gpu, and has been toned down a notch to equal lower power consumption and heat production, it however should still offer better performance at a lower consumption of a 7850. I do want to know which of the two gpu's would be more expensive. Possibly, Sony should be able to make a "specialized" 1ghz 7970M without an issue then, when one considers the lower tdp and heat consumption. "Switching to an APU doesn't have to mean Backwards Compatibility has to go" Why doesn't it, That architecture switch is going to immediately drop backwards compatibility as I stated earlier, simply because x86 and cell are completely unrelated. I just anticipate Sony's "MAIN" component decisions, and I do hope they do not make any silly choices. I would love to see that the new Ps4 just blows the next Xbox out of the water.

Re: I appreciate the reply.

No worries. Yep the 7970m is a mobile part, which depending on Sony's thermal budget could be souped up somewhat to give even better performance than the stock 7970m. The HD 7850 (desktop unit) retails for much less than the 7970m, but it isn't anywhere as good watts/performance as the 7970m. Heat is a big consideration for any console manufacturer, in that regard the 7970m is much better, if Sony could get a good deal on the rights to make a part based around the 7970m then they may consider it worthwhile for the performance gained, then again they may not. Costs will of course also go down in the future, so the added peformance at a similar wattage level, ability to remain competitive with Microsoft (assuming MS goes with something similar in the GPU department) and future savings may make the 7970m appeal more to Sony. There have been mentions about the 8000 & perhaps 9000 (I doubt this means desktop parts, more likely overclocked mobile parts) series parts going into next gen consoles, rumours have said that the 8000 equivalent to 7970m would see a 1.2X performance increase over it's predecessor, so any 9000 model would probably see an even better jump in performance over any 8000 series part. With greater efficiency gains increased performance could be had at the same wattage, to make a console easily capable of reaching developer targets of 2.5Tflops for their most current engines or in other words full 1080p, 30FPS with full modern effects in games & even greater image quality at 720p if devs decide to lower resolution for that purpose. I think I did post in my last reply why an APU wouldn't automatically mean BC goes, firstly Sony's still producing the Cell, RSX & getting XDR RAM for PS3 Super Slim, so parts exist & costs would go down on manufacturing each unit if they made more to stick on PS4's motherboard, basically Cell & PS3's GPU with the RAM could be included on a Multi Component Module (MCM), so PS4 could have a PS3 chipset built into it's hardware. Secondly an APU is just a concept that can have whatever cores AMD/Sony likes as a CPU element (AMD has their own CPU cores, with at least 4 different designs they can use which includes Jaguar, Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller & the future Excavator), in a cell based design they can have the PPEs/Main CPU Cores as the CPU element & a bank of SPUs, basically a bigger overall cell processor, but it can still be classed as an APU design because it has main cores and SPUs as compute units (or the GPU element). Overall there's an architectural change, but as long as the cell design was included it could still allow for Backwards Compatibility to exist, it depends on what Sony's decided is important, but if their competitors both include BC & Sony doesn't then it could put them behind thier rivals in appeal, which could mean fewer sales. IMO the second option seems more likely, mainly because of the motherboard becoming more complex if PS3 chips were added to the board, to elaborate PS4 would have it's own CPU/APU, maybe an additional GPU, plus a load of RAM chips, if Sony adds a PS3 chipset, just for that purpose and little else then it becomes more complex, taking up space on an already crammed piece of silicon. Hopefully this explains what I was getting, if not please post back here & if I can find the reply then I'll do my best to add anything I can.


AMD is a very cheap company. and most of their product are made cheaply. for example their processors have very high speed. like the quad core 2.8 GHZ but it only has 3 MB cache memory? really? Anyways AMD's are bad and it will take the Console-spirit out of the PS4 it will be like a PC. it should have a Cell processor just like all of the playstation era.

Nothing wrong with an APU.

There's nothing wrong with Sony using an APU in PS4, or AMD for that matter. As for the level of cache you mentioned you're either being ignorant or outright lying, an FX-4170 4.2GHz Quad Core Processor has 12MB of Cache. Even APUs like the A8 or A10 have 4MB of Cache and not 3, in games that aren't specifically optimized for the hardware they actually perform pretty well regardless of the fact that they are a budget solution, they're generally good gaming & media processor for a PC, the performance would be far better when games are developed specifically for that platform. These processors aren't cheaply made, AMD isn't a cheap company, actually the console business would make them billions, their products last & they offer decent performance for the money. You obviously don't understand this, but when coding specifically for any modern APU would actually run rings around the processor in the PS3. The fact that PS4 may have an APU also doesn't mean cell is being forgotten, the fact so many people believe that shows that they have no clue that an APU is a concept, a concept that can use many different types of processing units in a single package for a total computing solution. From an architectural point of view the APU is actually very similar to a cell processor, they both have main core(s) and they can both offload tasks to separate smaller processors to handle certain kinds of code. If Sony wants to they can use the APU concept to reinvent the cell for PS4, they can do this by using a larger bank of SPUs, connected to 4 (or whatever amount) of main cores. Coming back to cache, being that an APU can have whatever amount of cache Sony deems neccessary for their purposes there's no reason why they couldn't add some high level of cache into the design. The whole nonsense you've written about "AMD taking the console spirit out of the PS4" is utter rubbish, MS using an AMD GPU in Xbox 360 didn't take the console spirit out of that console (I'm a multi-console gamer btw, both machines are games consoles, have that spirit about them), what makes for "console spirit" is about the experience, which is down to how the technology is used, the fluidity of the platform's development, also how the features of the hardware work together, without interfering with the gaming experience as much as possible, this is something that should be more refined in newer consoles as they can multitask better, so downloading updates in the background while playing games, rather than having to wait because the consoles can only do one thing at a time.

Actually the 360 used a

Actually the 360 used a modified Power PC Cell processor manufactured by IBM. As for the Cell, even though it would've cost more, it would've been much more powerful than the APU. Also, I'm pretty sure developers can aeat code for Cell by now, so I'm sad to see it go.

AMD isn't garbage or bad

You should be HAPPY AMD is around and making less expensive teachnical components. I'd hate to live in a world where Intel has monopolized the market and drives their already insane prices even higher. I've been computer with AMD for over a decade and these processors are sturdy and well built. Still running new games with decent settings on my old XP AMD Athlon Dual Core PC and will upgrade when the computer is finally outpaced, which is likely to be in about 2 years. Can't complain for a rig I built in 2009...

online play...faster please

I am not a geek, but in my opinion, there appears to be a great deal of attention to making the console more powerful, and yet I don't see any major improvements on the speed, memory, and bandwidth capacity wrt online connectivity, cabled or wireless. Since many players are interested in online play, it is suprising to me that I am not reading about major improvements to the online connectivity component upgrades. I realize a FULL scope of system design from PSN networks down to the console box would be required and that is certainly a major expense, but I would argue that most players would gladly accept a higher cost and even a paid online fee for a much faster and more reliable online experience. At the end of the day, if the network solution isn't improved, any console power and design improvement is hard to appreciate, if the online experience is not improved as well. For the techno qualified, what have you to suggest to sony about what type of architecture and network design improvements would best utilize all of these sophisticated console grades. For my view, the console box should be designed based on the fastest possible network design first. if the console box is being designed for a more powerful playing experience and the network capability is not going to take a major upgrade, what would be the point? I know some will say, the box by design will always be faster than the network.. but we know now that does not have to necessarily be as massive of a difference as it is now. for example: I have a monitor than can run up to 240hz, a connectivity that reliably runs at nearly 20 Gbps. At present, I am lucking to play online and have an experience at perhaps 10% of that bandwidth in reality...and fps are as low as the high end, maybe 20 if I am lucky. Don't get me started on laggy server issues adn disconnects. These are very important to me, and I think it is important to many other online gamers. So for me any improvements to the console would be more of the same but without a completely overhaul and upgrade to the network and connectivity issue, where is the real interest. I am a die hard GT5 racer...It would be a nice feature to select and choice online criteria that tests other players connecticity speeds also. In doing so, those still on landline or slower connections can play amongst themselves on a separate (transparent to the user), than trying to be a one world connectivity for players of all speeds (pun intended!) aloha tdm