By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Dr.Grass on 01 May 2011
milkyjoe said:

I don't think it'll be quite so huge a leap but there will be a decent leap. I expect it will be more about smoothing out performance issues with games running at 1080p and 60fps as a minimum standard.

It's just logical that as time goes by the leaps get smaller, because we're talking about something with a finite limit. It's all about the pursuit for photo-realism, so once we get there, what next?

Funny that what you've said there has NEVER been true.



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 01 May 2011
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i think it will be more powerful than the gtx590 because by the time its announced and released, even the 590 will be outdated and affordable.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.



StokedUp on 01 May 2011

i think there will only be a slight graphics change, what i think they will be able to do more of with the next Gen is have more action going on in the screen without any framerate drop, games where you have hundreds of people on screen having an epic battle will be easily done with great graphics and no performance drop.



PSN ID: Stokesy 

Add me if you want but let me know youre from this website

Slimebeast on 01 May 2011
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.



Slimebeast on 01 May 2011
StokedUp said:

i think there will only be a slight graphics change, what i think they will be able to do more of with the next Gen is have more action going on in the screen without any framerate drop, games where you have hundreds of people on screen having an epic battle will be easily done with great graphics and no performance drop.




What do you think of this though? Would you call that only "a slight graphics change"? Because it's guaranteed that the graphics of PS4 and 720 will look like that.



Around the Network
NJ5 on 01 May 2011

What about development costs... will many developers be able to afford using all the capabilities of the new consoles?



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

zarx on 01 May 2011
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



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

freebs2 on 01 May 2011
Slimebeast said:
StokedUp said:

i think there will only be a slight graphics change, what i think they will be able to do more of with the next Gen is have more action going on in the screen without any framerate drop, games where you have hundreds of people on screen having an epic battle will be easily done with great graphics and no performance drop.




What do you think of this though? Would you call that only "a slight graphics change"? Because it's guaranteed that the graphics of PS4 and 720 will look like that.

Yes, imo it is. You can see the difference but it's more like ps2 to Wii difference, slighty better complexity and better lightining not ps2 to ps3 difference...it doesn't look so much different from what Sony told Ps3 would look like in 2005.



Slimebeast on 01 May 2011
freebs2 said:
Slimebeast said:
StokedUp said:

i think there will only be a slight graphics change, what i think they will be able to do more of with the next Gen is have more action going on in the screen without any framerate drop, games where you have hundreds of people on screen having an epic battle will be easily done with great graphics and no performance drop.




What do you think of this though? Would you call that only "a slight graphics change"? Because it's guaranteed that the graphics of PS4 and 720 will look like that.

Yes, imo it is. You can see the difference but it's more like ps2 to Wii difference, slighty better complexity and better lightining not ps2 to ps3 difference...it doesn't look so much different from what Sony told Ps3 would look like in 2005.

But that's the point. Your pre-rendered Killzone trailer looks at least one generation better than Killzone 2/3 did in reality.

The Samaritan demo on the other hand is rendered in real time and shows the level of graphics of a typical UE3 multiplatform game in next gen.



Galaki on 01 May 2011

I don't see our TV jumping beyond 1080P so the next jump in home console won't be higher than that resolution.

Processing wise, who knows.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms