"PS3 1000 times more powerful than PS2"

I dont think 150 ghz is out of the question....considering 100x the current 300mhz is 30,000....

It\'s too early to say technology hasnt got that far

Just a load of crap imo. The PS3 is probably gonna be released in 2004-2006 right? So, I doubt they have gotten this far into devolping it.

What source did you get this from?

Personally I dont find it strange.

Originally posted by Spudz
Just a load of crap imo. The PS3 is probably gonna be released in 2004-2006 right? So, I doubt they have gotten this far into devolping it.

What source did you get this from?

I got it from Vandal, the most serious videogame-site of Spain.

You think Sony hasn\'t begun the developing of PS3 yet? What do you think? A system is not made in 1 year mate.

[Paul2]

People are not making any senses nowaday.

150 Ghz for ps3?  You are out of your mind.

Remember PsOne?  It\'s only run at 33 Mhz!!!

PS2 run at 300Mhz!  To be exact, it\'s about 294.75 Mhz...

That\'s about 9x the speed of PSOne.  But it doesn\'t means 9x the power of psOne.  There is Emotion Engine and GPU that\'s taking into place.  and Emotion Engine and GPU total performance is about 250x the power of PSOne CPU and GPU...and 300Mhz is enough to run that much power....

So, my guess for PS3 will be 3 Ghz clock rate if it follows it predecessor.

Yeah but who said successive consoles are going to improve in performance lineraly?  I would bet the ps3 shows some exponential increases in performance.  If i\'m wrong, oh well.  It will be an impressive piece of hardware.

actually, the PlayStation consoles have increased exponentially. Just look at what speed the PC industry is advancing...

[Titan]

I think 150 Ghz is way too much. I mean, thats how much super computers have. Intel just came out with 4 GHz processor. I\'ll believe it when I see it.

Titan 9, or 10 years ago a 1GHZ computer was a super computer, similar to Deep Blue nowadays.

First off, this news is pretty much non-relevant. While I won\'t dismiss that they may have made a chip like that.. it won\'t be for use in any consumer devices for a long long time, for both the reasons seven listed and because of it\'s cost. That chip alone, were it to release in 2005, would be well over $700 alone.

Secondly, you won\'t need a processor that can compute that fast for photorealistic graphics.. so it\'d be a huge waste of power. Not to mention that games don\'t necessarrily start looking better because the hardware increases.. but you have to think of what it would cost developers to produce a game that would even come close to using 50% of it\'s full potential. Most developers would balk at the cost of Shenmue for the Dreamcast - 40 million dollars... and most of that was just adding asthetics and not so much graphics. You\'d be talking well over what it takes to make a hollywood CGI movie.. which even without big name voice actors costs roughly 80 million dollars to produce. Now imagine a console that can produce far better than FF:TSW graphics.. all the while being completely interactive and having a litteral ton of code and script running underneith.

Even with a console that powerful, you\'d still only get as much preformance out of it as game companies can afford.

Third.. don\'t get excited. This news has nowhere mentioned the words "Sony", "Playstation3", "Spokesman" or "Confirmed". Even with those words, after the debacle that was the PS2\'s pre-launch buzz I\'m surprised anyone\'s even so much as raising an eyebrow.

Originally posted by Spudz
Just a load of crap imo. The PS3 is probably gonna be released in 2004-2006 right? So, I doubt they have gotten this far into devolping it.

What source did you get this from?

It\'s not impossible, if you think back computer technology grows by leaps and bounds.  In 1995 a 133 mhz computer was top of the line, in 2000 a 2000 mhz computer was top of the line.  If you use the same percent of performance increase, in 2005 in theory you could have a 30075 mhz computer.  Just food for thought.

Well, i believe they will get close to that, why? Some moths ago, IBM posted an article, on a new technology able to produce chips @ 0.3microns and 0.1 was already being consired also, theses news about a 150Ghz arent new 2 me, in that article i read, IBM mentioned they expected to reach 200ghz, plus something about being able of building the chip with integrated cooling system, i don´t know for sure, it envolved somethng about nanotubes.

Go ahead be scheptical ,do a reacherche yourselfs.

Originally posted by SonyFan


.......you won\'t need a processor that can compute that fast for photorealistic graphics.. so it\'d be a huge waste of power. Not to mention that games don\'t necessarrily start looking better because the hardware increases.. but you have to think of what it would cost developers to produce a game that would even come close to using 50% of it\'s full potential. Most developers would balk at the cost of Shenmue for the Dreamcast - 40 million dollars... and most of that was just adding asthetics and not so much graphics. You\'d be talking well over what it takes to make a hollywood CGI movie.. which even without big name voice actors costs roughly 80 million dollars to produce. Now imagine a console that can produce far better than FF:TSW graphics.. all the while being completely interactive and having a litteral ton of code and script running underneith.

Even with a console that powerful, you\'d still only get as much preformance out of it as game companies can afford.

Perhaps Sony is considering to create a console that will last for more than a decade.We know that usually a console\'s lifespan is around 5 years.With a technology so powerfull developers that wont be able to exploit even the 50% of its potential in 5 years it will happen some years later  etc.
Their wont be any need of a PS4 or generally a next gen console after 5 years.You will get one system which evolves.

This will also help the PS3 Computer Entratainment System to become as common as any other household device(becasue it wont get obsolete in a matter of few years).A console that will stand next to a TV a DVD player or other entertainment offering devices in every house(What Sony envisioned with PS2 but failed).

Personally, i think that the ps3 will not be able to reach this goal and if so then id really like to see what all the follow up systems will do to compete, considering there is and wont be news of xb2 or "game sphere" (or whatever comes) for a while. Im sure with the new proccessors framerates etc. will be easily managed. My only fear is that sony wont really think about the grafix because they think they can manage without them being so great. I hear that they want to focus outside of the norm and do something online or with everyday home entertainment. Whatever the case may be, im sure that everyone will be blown away when we start to see tech demos for all the new games sony has planned for ps3 launch. For now im happy : playing Red Faction 2 and Vice City  

Originally posted by seven


64 MB of VRAM is pretty useless unless you want resolutions as high as 6400x 4800 pixels (probably higher than that), which I doubt any TV will support by then... it\'s not a PC.

Wrong. There can NEVER be too much RAM. 128MB is already a common place with PC graphics cards.

In a few years time, HDTV with higher resolution, although might not be mass market yet but will definitely be more widely used than today. Resoloution of 1200 x 480 (or something) will become a more common place. Furthermore, new features like 256 bit colour(supported in the latest PC cards) requires more memory than ever.

And not only that, now you can also do things like vertex buffering...that\'s right, instead of only buffering the traditional texture in the VRAM, you can also store the vertex in it.

Other things like multisampling will also be easiaer to implement without cracking everyone\'s head with more VRAM at hand.

So there can really never be enough VRAM.

I think 128MB VRAM MUST be the minimum for the PS3.