How big will the graphics jump from PS360 to PS4/720 be?

[zarx]

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i think it will be more powerful than the gtx590 because by the time its announced and released, even the 590 will be outdated and affordable.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

Basically in order for a GPU to render a frame it needs a lot of data, textures for example uncompressed can be upwords of 30MB each and then there is geometry, specular, light maps, bump mapping, shadow maps and the rendering instruction to tell the GPU how to put it all together etc takes a lot of bandwidth and then there is sending the rendered frames back etc. There is a tone of data that needs to be transfered constantly in modern rendering. I can't really explain it very well but bandwidth is very important, and no it has no real relation to the size of the game on the disc as that data is compressed and tones of data that is generated on the fly has to be transfered as well. 

Anything lower than 32Gb/s would be a bottle-neck for a modern GPU, that is why exturnal GPUs are not a thing, tho that could change with thunderbolt/lightpeak if it ever goes to fiber-optic.

Also it might clear something up if I made it clear that that is in bits not bytes so 32Gb/s is 4 Giga bytes per seccond.

Sorry I missed your post before lol I know this is late