Well, it depends on whether AMD is manufacturing everything in the console - or just supplying the APU while the console itself is being made in a different plant. Which I'm considering to be more likely.
I dont think that will have any factor regarding who knows what about each others console.
Well, I'd still assume that significant changes in the hardware would require a lot of time, money and resources to develop and produce.
I dont think that would be the case even for a last minute change regarding development costs. Simple modifications like adding more CUs and increasing clock speeds should be easy to do for AMD soon as they already have the technology for it. Prototyping a console case and cooling solutions is hardly going to cost a lot. What would cost a lot is if they already started production and then decide to change things. Also missing out on crucial time for getting it released would be costly. I do think though if there are any significant changes, they most likely already been planned before. Only chance of big changes last minute unplanned is if they realised something fundamentally wrong.
I'm not too sure of that. Sony did have some issues with manufacturing the PS3, after all.
That was regarding Blu-Ray diode shortage IIRC. I dont think they will be struggling on something like a good cooling solution.
Being in development for three years doesn't mean the tech is as old.
I know but the way you make it sound like, if it is not already made or developed to final form in the years before, it cant be changed towards the end.
I'm actually with you on this; I wish they would show something more, but, well, they don't need to. They'd be paying more than they'd need to pay without getting a significant additonal amount of money out of it.
I dont think they would need to increase costs by much to give a noticeable improvement. I just feel current system is a bit borderline.
Meh, let me put it this way: The deal didn't get AMD out of its desperate financial situation, so it can't have been that good (which is why I think the loss for NVIDIA isn't as big as some might think).
It is most likely profitable for AMD. Will help them in the bigger picture too as now games will be designed for their GPUs and CPUs. Something like this would never turnaround a companys financial prospects straight away. For Nvidia it would potentially been a loss going by what they are saying. Most likely Sony and Microsoft wanted a ridiculously lower price than compared to how much it would have cost to get a GPU only from AMD as they would then have to have got a CPU from say Intel or AMD which adds more costs.
We're not yet sure whether the PS4 will do 1080p on all its games, and you're expecting 4K? 
Well the 720p 60FPS Battlefield 4 rumour AFAIK was acknowledged as fake quite quickly. I think 1080p will be the main target for these consoles as expected. I think there will be more 4K games than there will be 720p only games.
I wish the rumours surrounding the next Xbox were at least as stable as the ones surrounding the PS4...
They seem quite stable; similar to PS4. All depends on how much change is actually happening.
Which a) wasn't that far ahead of the 7800 and b) still isn't the equivalent of today's GTX 680. So what?
My point was 7950 series had a single GPU version in it.
You know, playing Pong in 4k doesn't cut it. A German PC magazin tested Crysis 1 in 4k, ona system based around a HD7970 Toxic, overclocked to 1200mhz and matched it with an i7. Crysis 1's benchmark ran at 14 FPS. That shoudl give you and idea of jsut how taxing 4k is.
4K is not as taxing as quite a lot of people think. You can see your GPU playing 4K games quite well on YouTube. I do think though given performance of PS4, you will see it on say games that are probably low budget as strange as that sounds and also potentially in future in like sport games like FIFA. Shooters like new Killzone and Battlefield games, I dont think we will see. GT might possibly have some 4K support as PDI seem to be into them kind of things. Maybe 4K rereleases will be something that will be pushed in the upcoming generation.
It certainly would be. Though since you've ignored every reason why it won't every time you brought the topic up in the GT5 forum, and you've ignored all of the evidence that the PS4 is probably going to be shooting for 1080p@60fps for the best case based on the hardware it has, and you've ignored Sony's own statements that they've made multiple times for how the system won't support 4k for games, it still wouldn't be a feather in your cap so much as you just talking until it turns out you're right.
I dont really bring the topic up IIRC. From what I remember I join in the discussion. I counter as to why it would be. I do also think most games will be aiming for 1080p, dont think I have said anything on the contrary. I have not ignored Sonys own statements as well. Maybe you should look at what they have said. Understandably I know what you are trying to say, I could say the same thing about you, youve ignored every reason
. And in your case it might be actually possible to prove correct looking at post history but I am not going to spend time looking at it and making such a claim at you. You just levelled an accusation I think you will find hard to back up using my post history.
I assume you're referring to the PS3 Super Slim news, where you kept repeating yourself over and over and over again and refused to clarify your statements why you felt it was being made, then when Sony actually announced it you acted as if you were right all along even though you might as well have been making it up as you went along for all the validity your original points had.
I did clarify my statements; you seemed to only want your idea to be perceivable. I noticed you deleted the word haughty from your reply, which I can understand why...
Good job within a day or so of discussing it with you, actual proof came out regarding a slimmer PS3. I dont think any amount of discussing with you would convince you when your mind is so set on one thing. I also expect at least one more PS3 redesign still as long as they got over the hurdle to shrink Cell to 22nm. There should be at least some revisions though. Can you explain why they did release a revision then, if it was not for any of my reasons?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in my opinion, 4K in a 'proper' game (AAA release like GT or Battlefield) just isn't going to happen. Resolution doesn't count for anything when you're playing at 24fps, which is the current maximum you can get through HDMI 1.4. 30fps is bad enough, but 24...? No thanks. It probably will do 4K films though, I see no reason why it wouldn't be able to do that. But if the hardware can't physically do any better than 4K at 24fps... What's the point? I'd rather have lower resolution that runs smoother.
As far as I know, HDMI 2.0 (which is intended to support 4K at 60fps) doesn't exist yet. If the PS4 has HDMI 2.0 when it's released, I'll take this post back!
GT will probably be possible; I dont think Battlefield will be.
I do hope they get HDMI 2 in the new PS4 somehow.
Wait, are we seriously going to have the 4k discussion AGAIN?
Even though Sony has outright stated PS4 won't be able to do 4k games and everything we know about the hardware suggests the same thing?
Someone from Sony also said this:
Link
And the interview with Mark recently even though a translation seems also to point in this path. They are now in initial stages of supporting 4K games. Given the power I expect 1080p games to be the focus; it would no sense to push 4K as goal for all the developers even if PS4 had twice the power. You would end up with games not fully utilising the PS4 on 1080p which will be most common resolution their target audience will have for quite some time.
