Rumour: PS4 Specs Leaked, APU Codenamed “Liverpool”

[mankind]

A Dutch site claiming to have official specs of the still unannounced PlayStation 4, translated by Google, probably isn’t the most concrete of contributions when trying to decifer a rumour.
But here we are, with news this morning that the PS4 has had some of its internals spilled, even if it’s not entirely obvious whether this is all truth or not.
Let’s have a look.
Firstly, the report discusses the chipset, which contains an APU dubbed Liverpool and a CPU named Steamroller. Codenames, for sure (much like Orbis) but certainly powerful ones.
In terms of RAM, it looks like 2GB, although developers are apparently asking that this be ramped up to 4GB, which sounds a little more plausable.
The rumours mention two main SKUs for the console, a 320GB hard drive, a maximum output of 1080p (thankfully) and the rather obvious inclusion of HDMI 1.4 and Blu-ray playback.
It’s difficult to put too much stock in all this, but those figures seem reasonable. Discussion elsewhere suggests that the GPU isn’t quite as spritely as the site says, rather it’s comparable to a current Pitcairn, not an AMD 7970.
Yesterday Sony confirmed that PS4 games were in development, and offered some explanation why the new console wasn’t shown at E3. At least publicly.
TheSixthAxis understands more PS4 development kits will be going out shortly.
Source: PSX Sense via NeoGAF.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2012/06/...med-liverpool/

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Yet more specs for the PS4 have been leaked by industry insiders in the wake of E3 where no next gen consoles were shown. According to the Austrian gaming site, the next Sony console will have a chip called Einstein. The site claims that this isn't a traditional CPU but rather living tissue from the brain of genius Albert Einstein. Sony bought his DNA last year and have been able to create a hybrid processor made up of living brain matter which can make unbelievable calculations through small electrical pulses. The site also claims that the system will have 3 RAMS. This sounded strange to us so we contacted them by email and asked if they meant 3GB RAM and they said that the system will actually use three farmyard rams to deal with the systems memory.

Source is very reliable, that's all I'm gonna say.

[Blacksite]

They could easily go with 4GB of RAM or more. It shouldn't be that expensive.

[mynd]

Could of called the CPU Manchester

In all honesty, unless thi sis the same rumour, we are hearing these specs ove rand over, and if this is truley form a different source than this....

9.The X-Box 3 is going to have an 8-core 64-bit processor (assumedly an i7 or similar design) rated at 1.2 Teraflops. The PS4 will feature a 4-core 32-bit processor. XB3 will be using a GPU running support for DirectX 11, while the PS4 will be using an OpenGL 4 GPU. XB3 is specified to use 4 GB RAM, and the PS4 will be shipped with 2GB.

And given we've actually heard both these specs from different sources now (both 360 and PS3), I think its quit eclear that this guys did indeed have the specs.http://pastebin.com/j4jVaUv0
Way too many co-incidiences now for me.
But wow at the specs. If all the stuff is correct, the PS4 is going to be a mile behind the Xbox.
Taking it all with a grain of salt untill the day they get announced though.

[LfCpS3]

Could of called the CPU Manchester

In all honesty, unless thi sis the same rumour, we are hearing these specs ove rand over, and if this is truley form a different source than this....



And given we've actually heard both these specs from different sources now (both 360 and PS3), I think its quit eclear that this guys did indeed have the specs.http://pastebin.com/j4jVaUv0
Way too many co-incidiences now for me.
But wow at the specs. If all the stuff is correct, the PS4 is going to be a mile behind the Xbox.
Taking it all with a grain of salt untill the day they get announced though.

Rumours are just rumours, but if they are true, then yes, SONY will IMO be in some serious trouble.
The xbox already is very easy for devs to make games on, add that to the fact that it might be quite a lot more powerful, not going to be pretty for SONY, unless PS4 is like half the price of the XB3 and still produces good enough graphics and content to compete.

Either way, next gen ill be going for the PS either way simply for the fact i have much more confidence in SONY producing good first party games that i will enjoy, PC for MP and im set.

[Varsh]

Could of called the CPU Manchester

In all honesty, unless thi sis the same rumour, we are hearing these specs ove rand over, and if this is truley form a different source than this....

9.The X-Box 3 is going to have an 8-core 64-bit processor (assumedly an i7 or similar design) rated at 1.2 Teraflops. The PS4 will feature a 4-core 32-bit processor. XB3 will be using a GPU running support for DirectX 11, while the PS4 will be using an OpenGL 4 GPU. XB3 is specified to use 4 GB RAM, and the PS4 will be shipped with 2GB.

And given we've actually heard both these specs from different sources now (both 360 and PS3), I think its quit eclear that this guys did indeed have the specs.http://pastebin.com/j4jVaUv0
Way too many co-incidiences now for me.
But wow at the specs. If all the stuff is correct, the PS4 is going to be a mile behind the Xbox.
Taking it all with a grain of salt untill the day they get announced though.

This instantly makes me call fake, especially from what you quoted. Every hardware and software developer knows that for one not having a 64b CPU is ludicrous, and after so long Sony already knows that having less than 8 cores is suicidal too, especially with Octo-cores already being present in PCs.

[mynd]

This instantly makes me call fake, especially from what you quoted. Every hardware and software developer knows that for one not having a 64b CPU is ludicrous, and after so long Sony already knows that having less than 8 cores is suicidal too, especially with Octo-cores already being present in PCs.

I dont think the guys really knew what he was writing down, honestlty as I have said before, he sounds like a guys who saw the specs and quickly wrote them down with out really understanding what he was writing.

[Bigdoggy]

if sony only uses 2GB of RAM, I will say right now they wont be running a lot of games in 1080p. also, it would be one of most crappy moves sony could make by only putting 2GB of ram in a system, should have 8GB at the least. which would also do 1080p 60fps in 3D most likely.

[daLa]

I just hope they don't screw it going with the less powerful console, I've owned PS since the 1st one came out but if Xbox comes up with the most powerful and more delivering system I won't hesitate to change.

[AaronSOLDIER]

lol, Naughty Dog will probably surpass anything on a slightly more powerful console anyway. But yeah it needs to be better than that and 2GB isn't enough, needs at least 4GB.

[Jerokyn]

If Sony doesn't make their system very powerful this next time around. I'm going to end up switching to the Xbox.

I hate microsoft. And I'm a fan on the game developers for Sony. But stuff like ram is not hard to come by. Even for the ps3, it never should have been launch with such a low amount of ram. It's quite ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YouAllFail]

You guys all fail. Before spouting nonsense, actually research what it is you're about to talk about before thinking bigger numbers = better.

First off, it is impossible to fit in 4 GB of RAM with the ram module SONY is currently planning on using, which is the GDDR5. Microsoft is using 4 GB of GDDR3, which has a far slower bandwidth than GDDR5. The current GDDR5 stacks measure up to 256 MB each. If Sony wants to use this architecture of ram, they would need 8 chips to reach 2 GB. If they wanted 4 GB, they would need 16 chips, which is completely unfeasible in a small, closed console architecture because it'll take up too much space.
Note that the ram that SONY is using is not some cheap, low bandwidth ram that you buy for your PC. Anything over 2 GB of ram is overkill. Ram is primarily used for multitasking, which is hardly used in a console. Only a fraction of your 8 GB of low quality, PC ram is actually used in gaming. 2 GB of high quality, high bandwidth ram in a console is more than enough.

Now, the GPU is currently rumored to be stronger than the AMD 7850 and weaker than the 7870. I think this is completely reasonable. The 7850-7870 is powerful enough in a console to bring out 1080p resolution without generating heat that would melt your PS4. The AMD 7850 runs ultra settings battlefield 3 in 1080p with 4x AA at a little over 30 FPS. In a console, optimization will bring out even better performance (Usually 2x the PC performance).

The CPU, I have no idea, but devs @ neogaf said it was very powerful, so we have nothing to worry about there.

It seems SONY is interested in a powerful, but more affordable console. If microsoft wants to make a more powerful console, it's their loss. Devs will flock to Nintendo and SONY and then port over to microsoft's. Remember, multiplats are developed from weaker consoles and then ported over to stronger ones. Not to mention the fact that microsoft has no exclusives except Halo. Who will take advantage of the power?

[Bigdoggy]

You guys all fail. Before spouting nonsense, actually research what it is you're about to talk about before thinking bigger numbers = better.

First off, it is impossible to fit in 4 GB of RAM with the ram module SONY is currently planning on using, which is the GDDR5. Microsoft is using 4 GB of GDDR3, which has a far slower bandwidth than GDDR5. The current GDDR5 stacks measure up to 256 MB each. If Sony wants to use this architecture of ram, they would need 8 chips to reach 2 GB. If they wanted 4 GB, they would need 16 chips, which is completely unfeasible in a small, closed console architecture because it'll take up too much space.
Note that the ram that SONY is using is not some cheap, low bandwidth ram that you buy for your PC. Anything over 2 GB of ram is overkill. Ram is primarily used for multitasking, which is hardly used in a console. Only a fraction of your 8 GB of low quality, PC ram is actually used in gaming. 2 GB of high quality, high bandwidth ram in a console is more than enough.

Now, the GPU is currently rumored to be stronger than the AMD 7850 and weaker than the 7870. I think this is completely reasonable. The 7850-7870 is powerful enough in a console to bring out 1080p resolution without generating heat that would melt your PS4. The AMD 7850 runs ultra settings battlefield 3 in 1080p with 4x AA at a little over 30 FPS. In a console, optimization will bring out even better performance (Usually 2x the PC performance).

The CPU, I have no idea, but devs @ neogaf said it was very powerful, so we have nothing to worry about there.

It seems SONY is interested in a powerful, but more affordable console. If microsoft wants to make a more powerful console, it's their loss. Devs will flock to Nintendo and SONY and then port over to microsoft's. Remember, multiplats are developed from weaker consoles and then ported over to stronger ones. Not to mention the fact that microsoft has no exclusives except Halo. Who will take advantage of the power?

oh my god, read your post again. o.O this is so funny I don't think I can contain myself. HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

So you are saying and I quote "First off, it is impossible to fit in 4 GB of RAM with the ram module SONY is currently planning on using, which is the GDDR5." This is ridiculous and I know for a fact you have no idea what Sony is planning on using. All of a sudden in this forum we have a guy that knows what Sony is doing with the PS4? absurd and quite comical.

This is your first post and I just have to o.O

[YouAllFail]

oh my god, read your post again. o.O this is so funny I don't think I can contain myself. HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Your post is completely over the top ridiculous while mine is reasonable.

Don't insult other members. ~Blacksite

[Bigdoggy]

Your post is completely over the top ridiculous while mine is reasonable. Go jack off at the thought of 8 GB of GDDR5 ram, tech noob.

I never said GDDR5 learn to read. as well as the discussion of GDDR5 wasn't even here. the fact that you brought it up shows you know absolutely nothing and if they were going to use GDDR5 for the next console with 2GB, that console would be extremely expensive. while RAM speed does improve performance you are confusing speed per RAM unit. no need to throw out insults but I can tell by your name that is who you are.

do you honestly think that the next consoles will be equal to the current PC gaming lineup at that time? if you do that has yet to happen.

so tell me, do you know what they are using? so far you are saying you know exactly what kind of RAM they are using and I know that you are lying.

[YouAllFail]

I never said GDDR5 learn to read. as well as the discussion of GDDR5 wasn't even here. the fact that you brought it up shows you know absolutely nothing and if they were going to use GDDR5 for the next console with 2GB, that console would be extremely expensive. while RAM speed does improve performance you are confusing speed per RAM unit. no need to throw out insults but I can tell by your name that is who you are.

Didn't I tell you to research? The OP got his rumors from a dutch site, which was translated by neogaf. The OP left out some vital information about the exact type of RAM SONY was using.

Don't insult other members. ~Blacksite

[ONQ]

I never said GDDR5 learn to read. as well as the discussion of GDDR5 wasn't even here. the fact that you brought it up shows you know absolutely nothing and if they were going to use GDDR5 for the next console with 2GB, that console would be extremely expensive. while RAM speed does improve performance you are confusing speed per RAM unit. no need to throw out insults but I can tell by your name that is who you are.

do you honestly think that the next consoles will be equal to the current PC gaming lineup at that time? if you do that has yet to happen.

so tell me, do you know what they are using? so far you are saying you know exactly what kind of RAM they are using and I know that you are lying.

actually he is right it's been said that sony is using GDDR5 & that's the reason the 2GB of ram & they are hoping for a breakthrough so they can go for 4GB of GDDR5, & it's said that MS is now going for 8GB of DDR3 ram which is a lot slower but they can get a lot more ram in the console using it.

PS4 is also said to have the better GPU but Xbox Next will have the better CPU. but none of this is the final specs just the info that was giving to the devs sometime last year.

[YouAllFail]

oh my god, read your post again. o.O this is so funny I don't think I can contain myself. HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

So you are saying and I quote "First off, it is impossible to fit in 4 GB of RAM with the ram module SONY is currently planning on using, which is the GDDR5." This is ridiculous and I know for a fact you have no idea what Sony is planning on using. All of a sudden in this forum we have a guy that knows what Sony is doing with the PS4? absurd and quite comical.

This is your first post and I just have to o.O

Don't insult other members ~Blacksite

I was talking in reference to the the rumor that the OP posted. My post is assuming that the rumors posted are true.

[Equinoqs]

I hope it comes with a lightgun.

[keefy]

Doesnt seem too powerful though my mid range computer is more powerful nd has more RAMS but so did my computer in 2006 when PS3 was new.

Could of called the CPU Manchester

In all honesty, unless thi sis the same rumour, we are hearing these specs ove rand over, and if this is truley form a different source than this....



And given we've actually heard both these specs from different sources now (both 360 and PS3), I think its quit eclear that this guys did indeed have the specs.http://pastebin.com/j4jVaUv0
Way too many co-incidiences now for me.
But wow at the specs. If all the stuff is correct, the PS4 is going to be a mile behind the Xbox.
Taking it all with a grain of salt untill the day they get announced though.

AMD already have a Manchester codename.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...E4.2C_90_nm.29

[sneezymarble]

In a console, optimization will bring out even better performance (Usually 2x the PC performance).

2x the PC performance compared to what sort of PC setup? During most of this console generation I've had an 8800GTX and there hasn't been a single multiplatform title that performed 2x better on my consoles than on that PC. In fact, quite the opposite has been true. Every multiplatform title was playable at higher settings than on the consoles (e.g. higher resolution, higher resolution textures, more effects, etc.). Either every single multiplatform title is unoptimized, something that strains credulity given all the current highly optimized multiplatform engines, or you're just making stuff up. What is true is that often consoles have much higher (sometimes many times higher) theoretical performance in some narrow set of conditions than a state of the art consumer PC.

On a related note, I think if this console generation has shown us anything it's that if one console can offer better performance than a competing console by using some convoluted custom design, the real world performance gains are marginal, at best. Those marginal performance gains are offset by the additional cost of custom hardware design, and that cost increases the time it takes to be profitable on hardware. This is probably why we're going to see less custom hardware in this next generation. The battle is about hardware anymore. The battle is about services.

Anway, 2x the PC performance? Show me.

[itachi73378]

2x the PC performance compared to what sort of PC setup? During most of this console generation I've had an 8800GTX and there hasn't been a single multiplatform title that performed 2x better on my consoles than on that PC. In fact, quite the opposite has been true. Every multiplatform title was playable at higher settings than on the consoles (e.g. higher resolution, higher resolution textures, more effects, etc.). Either every single multiplatform title is unoptimized, something that strains credulity given all the current highly optimized multiplatform engines, or you're just making stuff up. What is true is that often consoles have much higher (sometimes many times higher) theoretical performance in some narrow set of conditions than a state of the art consumer PC.

On a related note, I think if this console generation has shown us anything it's that if one console can offer better performance than a competing console by using some convoluted custom design, the real world performance gains are marginal, at best. Those marginal performance gains are offset by the additional cost of custom hardware design, and that cost increases the time it takes to be profitable on hardware. This is probably why we're going to see less custom hardware in this next generation. The battle is about hardware anymore. The battle is about services.

Anway, 2x the PC performance? Show me.

8800GTX is much faster than console GPUs so ofcourse its not valid. Provided the similar circumstances, there is NO doubt console games are FAR more optimized

[TGO]

2x the PC performance compared to what sort of PC setup? During most of this console generation I've had an 8800GTX and there hasn't been a single multiplatform title that performed 2x better on my consoles than on that PC. In fact, quite the opposite has been true. Every multiplatform title was playable at higher settings than on the consoles (e.g. higher resolution, higher resolution textures, more effects, etc.). Either every single multiplatform title is unoptimized, something that strains credulity given all the current highly optimized multiplatform engines, or you're just making stuff up. What is true is that often consoles have much higher (sometimes many times higher) theoretical performance in some narrow set of conditions than a state of the art consumer PC.

On a related note, I think if this console generation has shown us anything it's that if one console can offer better performance than a competing console by using some convoluted custom design, the real world performance gains are marginal, at best. Those marginal performance gains are offset by the additional cost of custom hardware design, and that cost increases the time it takes to be profitable on hardware. This is probably why we're going to see less custom hardware in this next generation. The battle is about hardware anymore. The battle is about services.

Anway, 2x the PC performance? Show me.

based on what? 6 years of updated parts or PC vs Console head2head on the same level?
I mean really? you build a quad-core PC with 1gb of ram a 7600 gpu & try comparing it to this gen consoles, I don't think the PC would win.
hell I've got quad-core with 4gb of ram and a Radeon HD 4800 card( yes its old but still better apparently ) & that struggles with multiplats game

[baho]

based on what? 6 years of updated parts or PC vs Console head2head on the same level?
I mean really? you build a quad-core PC with 1gb of ram a 7600 gpu & try comparing it to this gen consoles, I don't think the PC would win.
hell I've got quad-core with 4gb of ram and a Radeon HD 4800 card( yes its old but still better apparently ) & that struggles with multiplats game

Run those games at 720p or less and medium/low settings like the consoles and you will basically run them almost as good as the consoles. Optimization helps the consoles of course but i believe it's nowhere near as much as people tend to believe.

[ONQ]

Run those games at 720p or less and medium/low settings like the consoles and you will basically run them almost as good as the consoles. Optimization helps the consoles of course but i believe it's nowhere near as much as people tend to believe.

well show me a game that looks & runs as good as Uncharted 3 & Last of Us on a PC with only 256MB of system Ram & a GPU with 256MB of vRam with a GPU from 2006 in the same class as the RSX.