PS3 rumored to get a downgrade?
by Nick Doerr 
{ Aug 29th 2006 at 9:00AM }
Really, if it weren't for the rumor, there's no reason to read the Inquirer. They really need to... well... read the article and you'll see why it's a worthless read aside from the rumor. Anything reporting "news" and utilizing leet-speak really tends to speak wonders about professionalism and character. Anyway, onto the rumor. The NVIDIA RSX graphics chip was previously scheduled to do its thing at 550MHz/700MHz as core/memory but now a rumor has started that the capabilities have been slightly reduced to 500MHz/650MHz.So? Perhaps it's a bigger downgrade than it looks on paper (forgive the technology mumbo-jumbo illiterate) but that really changes nothing in respect to people's desire to snag Sony's new console. In addition, it's just a rumor (at least, the Inquirer fails to cite any sort of source... indicitive of rumor in PS3fanboy's book) and should be treated as such. Honestly, does this change anyone's mind about the PS3? Were you banking on that 550/700? Oh well, even if it's true, is it really that major of a difference?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SuicideNinja @ Aug 29th 2006 12:29PM
Even if true, 50Mhz isn't really that notable unless you're some sick PC elitist.
We still need to see the PS3 in action in the first place for this to matter.
apoc @ Aug 29th 2006 11:31AM
humm, it doesn't cite the source and the whole.. post, because that cannot be classified as a news article, seems to be written to flame fanboys, as usual.
sonicyouth @ Aug 29th 2006 11:52AM
Would it make a noticeable difference? What's the 360's spec?
boots @ Aug 30th 2006 12:29PM
Shouldn't "the Inquirer" be ignored by now? Everything in that site is pure shit. Nothing in it is news, it's always poorly written, and so on.
tom @ Aug 29th 2006 12:47PM
50Mhz is 10%, not a negligable number. This will mostly impace developers if they have been working on a faster chipset int he dev kits. What ran at 60 fps would now (in the most narrow interpretation) run at 54 fps, requiring a lot of work to get back to 60.
That's assuming this is true. I doubt it is. This would be a really big blow to PS3 development, and I doubt Sony would even allow it. They'd probably overclock the chips and use the blood of the engineer that first suggested they underclock it for cooling.
Thomas @ Aug 29th 2006 1:12PM
Look at the PSP, it too was underclocked from what it was supposed to run at.. So a 50Mhz dif I can see..
PS3 needs good press @ Aug 29th 2006 2:37PM
@Thomas
Excellent observation. If this rumor has any truth to it, I would assume that. The PSP is normally clocked at 233MHz I believe. Newer games might use the higher clock, but I believe they did that to perserve battery life, as I'm sure it takes a dip when running at 333MHz.
blahman @ Aug 29th 2006 2:52PM
Wasn't it the Inquirer who reported that story about the Cell yields? They were making it sound as if they had insider knowledge that one out of every million PS3s would actually work. I think they also wrote another article in which the Cell was underclocked. Both articles either didn't cite a source or claimed that they had an inside guy. Sure.
The Inquirer, the only losers dumb enough to believe that people would give a sh*t about 50MHz.
CK @ Aug 29th 2006 3:28PM
The Inquirer also posted that stupid article about the Cell only being able to read from the RSX local ram at 16MB, which put everyone in a tail spin until a developer went on the record to say you would never, ever need to do that anyway, and 16MB was better than no access at all which is what you'd get on most systsms.
Inquirer sucks. They're nothing more than a tabloid.
bub @ Aug 29th 2006 3:58PM
Yes, the Inquirer is horrible, I saw that post by them the other day, and noticed that no other source has posted anything like it. This is typical of them.
matjet @ Sep 1st 2006 4:26AM
i, as a reader, would like to mention to ps3 fanboy, that they do not infact absolutely have to post about 3+ things a day or average 18 articles a week in order to fulfill demand for info, especially when there isent any actual information to post about.
what on earth you are bothering to blog every something that you yourselves state as rumour, comes from a disruputable site AND doesent even pass the excuse as an "interesting read" or is humoures in the least.
why?