By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 01 May 2011
Edit Thread
Dr.Grass said:
zarx said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

http://playstationlifestyle.net/2010/12/09/ps3-5-sony-patent-shows-plans-to-increase-ps3s-power-with-external-processor/

a beefy external processor would increase the ps3's power for a lower cost than buying a new system and it would probably be a better GPU than if they released a new system because they save money on all the other parts.

i think it will be more powerful than the gtx590 because by the time its announced and released, even the 590 will be outdated and affordable.


Not that dumb rumour again, the PS3 doesn't have any available port with enough bandwidth to make such an expansion viable, it's not like there is a spare PCIE bus to plug it into so it would have to be USB (nowhare near enough bandwidth) or ethernet which is better better but still nowhere near enough bandwidth a graphics card like the 590 fully sturates a 16 lane 32 Gb/s PCI E (a v2 16 lane bus capable of 64 Gb/s) bus a 1 Gb/s ethernet port would bottleneck it so bad that any performance boost would be marginal at best sorry.


I'm not pretending to know what I'm talking about here, but...

64GB/s!? Are you sure. Why would a need to push that much data? If you thnk that the biggest game on PS3 is weighing in at around 40GB, then why would one ever need 32/64GB/s!?

Please explain.

I think 1GB/s should make a marked difference.

It doesnt have anything to do with game size. It's about graphics quality and rendering power. The CPU and the GPU need to have a very fast lane (the bandwith) between themselves and between the RAM memory to be able to keep rendering all those millions of polygons.  USB is not that fast lane.