Support NeoGAF

[dragonelite]

DDR4 initial 2013 speeds will be the same as DDR3. They'll intersect at first.

So it really doesnt matter if DDR3 or 4 from a performance view.

How are the price aspect of ddr3 vs ddr4 for lets say 5 years down the road?

 

[aegies]

How can you speak with any universal confidence?

You act as though developers are all one single minded entity. Or that Microsoft only designs their consoles with game development in mind well beyond all other considerations (they don't).

What if Sony consulted Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Guerilla Games, and Polyphony Digital and they all requested having faster RAM vs. a slower, large pool?

Why is it that Sony went this route if universally, all developers wanted more, slower RAM? They could have just as easily went that route.

We heard developers asking for 8GB at GDC. Clearly developers don't just want super fast RAM, as we're not going to see video cards with anywhere near 4GB of video memory any time soon. I think there's an obvious compromise in the decisions that both platform holders made.

Also, maybe I know things you don't. Or think I know, anyway.

 

[Ozzykamikaze]

I'm not discounting eSRAM, it has a role. But remember it's only 32MB, not a whole lot.

I'm just trying to compare this situation to last gen. Microsoft and Sony had roughly comparable RAM bandwidth, but 360's extra bandwidth with eDRAM allowed for better alpha effects and is one of the reasons why certain games ran a lot better (not just a function of the more smartly designed GPU with Xenos).

This time it's different, if the rumors are to believed. The bandwidth the PS4 is rumored to be going with is close to the amount that the 360 had for eDRAM (192 vs 256), but instead of only 10MB, Sony has 4 Gigs to work with.

All next-gen graphics cards work with GDDR5 RAM (2GBs normally). It's used for a reason.

It's why I think Microsoft's non-standard approach (again, if rumor's are to be believed) has more to do with their overall strategy and goals rather than them focusing solely on graphical considerations.

Microsoft wanted unified memory, they wanted a LOT of it for their OS goals along with high performance gaming. GDDR5 is expensive, and having 4 GB of it is cost prohibitive.

Speculating here, but Microsoft probably immediately ruled out the option of GDDR5 because 2GB was never going to be enough, so they went with DDR3 and originally had 4 GB. Devs complained that they wanted more. Since most of the overall design was established, it's too late in the development process to do anything but really add more DDR3 ram instead of adding some GDDR5. Now they have 8 GB. Devs appear to be happy because Microsoft added more.

Sony, on the other hand, wasn't as focused on OS features, so they probably went in with the idea that 2 GB of GDDR5 would be sufficient for their bandwidth/memory needs (similar to the PC world). But when Microsoft added more RAM, the disparity between 2 GB and 8 GB became too large, and devs fired back with complaints. Thankfully, Sony listened (or appeared to).

And now we are stuck with two different memory systems for each console due to a philosophic difference in goals and design from the onset of the project's scope.

It's why I don't really believe aegies' claim that devs universally picked 8GBs of DDR3 because that's what Microsoft has gone with. Sony could have done the same, but they didn't. Reality probably is that devs are happy that Microsoft increased their RAM after having earlier dev kits with less RAM, but it's not as though they're giving any indication as to what they'd prefer when it comes to extremely fast, but lower quantity, RAM versus slower RAM/higher quantity. They're simply happy they now have more RAM to work with.

We haven't really heard anything yet from devs regarding Sony's increase in RAM and the implications it has vs. Durango, and even aegies admits that the devs he's spoken to aren't fully aware of what's going on with Sony's system. So he's comparing dev's comments of one system where there's more complete data with another system that's been largely in the dark in comparison.

You're like the Batman of rumored next-gen hardware. I read it like it was factual and finished thinking: "It all makes sense now."

 

[iamvin22]

How can you speak with any universal confidence?

You act as though developers are all one single minded entity. Or that Microsoft only designs their consoles with game development in mind well beyond all other considerations (they don't).

What if Sony consulted Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Guerilla Games, and Polyphony Digital and they all requested having faster RAM vs. a slower, large pool?

Why is it that Sony went this route if universally, all developers wanted more, slower RAM? They could have just as easily went that route.

they did.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Naughty Dog and all them probably told Sony "this is what we want to do, this is our target" *shows target render or something*. "give us the hardware to do it". And they probably did that. Whereas MS just threw everything but the kitchen sink in and said IS THAT ENOUGH BITCHESSSsss (in response to requests).

That's my current theory. Still think they'll be almost the same in the end. They both threw in enough to cover the targets that devs gave them, they both just did it differently.

FIN.

 

[aegies]

Naughty Dog and all them probably told Sony "this is what we want to do, this is our target" *shows target render or something*. "give us the hardware to do it". And they probably did that. Whereas MS just threw everything but the kitchen sink in and said IS THAT ENOUGH BITCHESSSsss.

That's my current theory. Still think they'll be almost the same in the end.

Sony has more studios than Naughty Dog.

 

[Spongebob]

How can you speak with any universal confidence?

You act as though developers are all one single minded entity. Or that Microsoft only designs their consoles with game development in mind well beyond all other considerations (they don't).

What if Sony consulted Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Guerilla Games, and Polyphony Digital and they all requested having faster RAM vs. a slower, large pool?

Why is it that Sony went this route if universally, all developers wanted more, slower RAM? They could have just as easily went that route.

Wouldn't the opinion of third parties be more important? First party devs will have to make games for the hardware regardless of how weak/bad/imbalanced it is.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Sony has more studios than Naughty Dog.

I DID say "naughty dog and all them". So I'm saying Sony just put in enough for everyone to get what they want in-house. And if it's enough for them it's definitely enough for anyone else.

 

[AgentChris]

Polyphony Digital runs shit at SCE.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Polyphony Digital runs shit at SCE.

and you know kazunori asked for anything and everything he can get.

I just mentioned Naughty Dog because they were one of the main devs working on the engine that got passed around Sony weren't they. There was a whole name for it, ICE or something. I could be totally misremembering. I'm sure someone else is tasked with it these days.

 

[Razgreez]

Polyphony Digital runs shit at SCE.

Logically it would be the ICE team "dictating" the technological requirements of the next playstation - and that ICE team is housed at ND. However, companies seldom seem to follow any sort of logical procedure

I just mentioned Naughty Dog because they were one of the main devs working on the engine that got passed around Sony weren't they. There was a whole name for it, ICE or something. I could be totally misremembering. I'm sure someone else is tasked with it these days.

Not one of but THE devs

 

[Gorillaz]

Sony has more studios than Naughty Dog.

Polyphony Digital runs shit at SCE.

Naughty Dog is basically leading the charge in NA, so they most likely get a lot of input.

 

[AgentChris]

and you know kazunori asked for anything and everything he can get.

I just mentioned Naughty Dog because they were one of the main devs working on the engine that got passed around Sony weren't they. There was a whole name for it, ICE or something. I could be totally misremembering. I'm sure someone else is tasked with it these days.

Oh yeah, I remember one of the top ND programmers leaving to work with the SCEJ hardware team years ago. Sony has a lot of devs and PD, SSM and ND should be helping SCE create a beast.

 

[iamvin22]

Naughty Dog is basically leading the charge in NA, so they most likely get a lot of input.

This is very true. also add that ND is in charge of the ICE engine for the PS3 which supports all first party partners. ND will have a HUGE say in PS4 development.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

We heard developers asking for 8GB at GDC. Clearly developers don't just want super fast RAM, as we're not going to see video cards with anywhere near 4GB of video memory any time soon. I think there's an obvious compromise in the decisions that both platform holders made.

Also, maybe I know things you don't. Or think I know, anyway.

And presumably those developers were talking specifically about Durango, since Durango dev kits have been available for longer and Microsoft has been more forthcoming. It doesn't tell us anything about Orbis and its memory strategy.

4GB of GDDR5 isn't featured on GPUs because 16 chips isn't very feasible. You can be rest assured that once these chips shrink that GPUs will absolutely have 4 GB and above in the coming years.

But hey, maybe you know things I, and the rest of the PC gaming world, don't know...and just aren't telling us anything for strange nebulous reasons. Or, perhaps you're just not all that confident in your position yourself, which is why you're shying away from giving anything more concrete.

Yeah, we all know Crytek has been screaming for 16+GB of RAM, no matter the speed and no matter the cost. Frankly, their statements are absurd, and I'm sure if you surveyed other developers you'd get different perspectives on priorities.

they did.

Exactly, which is why aegies is being disingenuous when he tries to make a blanket statement that all devs prefer 8GB of DDR3 over 4GB of GDDR5. If it was so black and white, Microsoft wouldn't be the only one adopting that memory strategy...

Wouldn't the opinion of third parties be more important? First party devs will have to make games for the hardware regardless of how weak/bad/imbalanced it is.

Depends. Third parties have to juggle different priorities. They probably want commonality more than anything else, because they're having to port to multiple platforms.

Besides, I think Sony's developers are probably the most technically astute in the entire world for pushing a given platform to its limits. I'd take their opinion over EA or Crytek's opinion any day of the week.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Santa Monica and ND are hubs for so much more than their respective franchises. I'd argue they have more say than Polyphony. I'd put third-party aggregate recommendations over any individual first-party studio.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

What I mean to say is that I bet Sony and MS both listened to all developers and both put in the hardware that they felt will cover their needs. They both just did it in different ways for reasons that I'm sure will benefit whatever they are planning on their own front, for MS that means a big OS I'm sure and other stuff, and for Sony it's whatever they have going on.

I don't think that it's that outlandish a theory. In the end they'll land in the same vicinity. MS will use their configuration for their benefit, and Sony and especially their first party devs will use their configuration to their benefit. All is well.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Naughty Dog is basically leading the charge in NA, so they most likely get a lot of input.

PS3 (and playstation) sells better in japan and europe, NA studios would have less input not more.

Whatever ps4 ends up with ,I just hope they listened to what first party studios wanted without any nasty compromise.

I really REALLY REALLY hope the 4GB gddr5 rumor is true, though I also hope there is some seperate ram just for the OS. CPU and gpu sharing the same ram pool for the game is efficient so it makes sense, using it for the OS adds nothing so it doesn't make sense to me. So using GDDR5 for the OS seems wasteful and the more ram is free for games and caching the less loading times and texture pop in we'll get.

xbox might just run into the same problem 360 did again... the moment you can't fit all high bandwidth requiring data in the edram anymore performance nosedives.
Ps4 should be way more flexible.

 

[aegies]

And presumably those developers were talking specifically about Durango, since Durango dev kits have been available for longer and Microsoft has been more forthcoming. It doesn't tell us anything about Orbis and its memory strategy.

They weren't talking about Durango.

Look, I'm not saying that there are developers who wouldn't prefer 4GB of DDR5 over 8GB of "fast" DDR3 plus some ES-RAM (ignoring the OS footprint issue, which I think will tap out around a GB of memory for either platform). There are going to be some games that take better advantage of the former over the latter. But let's present a ... hypothetical.

Maybe developers on Sony's end weren't picking between 8GB of one or 4 of the other. Maybe they were begging for more than they were originally given, and maybe they were relieved to get at least that. And maybe that's where we are now.

And maybe developers on Microsoft's end were given a hypothetical situation where they could speak out in favor of DDR5 or twice as much relatively fast DDR3 + ED-RAM plus ... some other stuff that, you know, MAYBE mitigates the bandwidth "deficiency" that could present itself in that situation (ignoring the fact that developers on PC have been using DDR3 for system purposes for years and years and years and years, along with a comparatively small amount of faster video memory). MAYBE.

If that MAYBE happened, I'm sure there would have been differing opinions, but given that Microsoft's ascendance this generation had everything to do with their services and their ability to provide developers with a efficient, flexible, powerful platform to develop for, maybe they'd be in a pretty open-minded mood about what their partners are asking for.

You know. Maybe. Or whatever.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

This is probably a dumb question but humor me. If developers were happy with that amount of slow RAM then why would Microsoft add more expense and complexity to their product by including ESRAM? Does it not signal that it's in reaction to a perceived flaw in the design of the hardware?

It's not like they just threw 8GBs in there and developers were like "Too slow brah", AND THEN they added the esram, it's a specific design philosophy that started with the 360, and it looks like they expanded on it with Durango. You have to remember, we're saying it's slow RAM compared to GDDR5, but the real question is it slow RAM compared to the needs of the developers and their specific engines?

Given how much developer feedback it seems like MS went with in designing everything, I doubt they would have gone with these particular solutions if it was going to completely cripple their console... especially where 3rd party developers are concerned, that's MS' bread and butter.

 

[Honey Bunny]

PS3 (and playstation) sells better in japan and europe, NA studios would have less input not more.

But their game sells well worldwide, most strongly in Europe (like Polyphony's).

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

PS3 (and playstation) sells better in japan and europe, NA studios would have less input not more.

Whatever ps4 ends up with ,I just hope they listened to what first party studios wanted without any nasty compromise.

I really REALLY REALLY hope the 4GB gddr5 rumor is true, though I also hope there is some seperate ram just for the OS.
Using GDDR5 for the OS seems wasteful and the more ram is free for games and caching the less loading times and texture pop in we'll get.

Considering how ND works with Sony worldwide studios with technology advancement in PS tech I would be pretty surprised and think it would be pretty stupid to not get a lot of input from one of the your most technology advanced teams. These are the guys that created own custom PS2 coding language to get the most out of the system back in the day and Valve's own Gabe years back acknowledged they are probably the best multi-parallel processor coders in the industry.

 

[endlessflood]

I'm sure there would have been differing opinions, but given that Microsoft's ascendance this generation had everything to do with their services and their ability to provide developers with a efficient, flexible, powerful platform to develop for, maybe they'd be in a pretty open-minded mood about what their partners are asking for.

Are their partners asking for Kinect? Serious question. I know that on the Wii it turned out that there wasn't really much money to be made by the third party devs, but is the Kinect different on that front? Did third party devs make much money off it in the current gen? I haven't really followed it so don't know what titles were available, who made them, or how well they sold.

 

[RaijinFY]

and you know kazunori asked for anything and everything he can get.

I just mentioned Naughty Dog because they were one of the main devs working on the engine that got passed around Sony weren't they. There was a whole name for it, ICE or something. I could be totally misremembering. I'm sure someone else is tasked with it these days.

Well the thing is they are the most porfitable studios at SCEWWS (yes even with GT5 large ass time development). So....

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

If that MAYBE happened, I'm sure there would have been differing opinions, but given that Microsoft's ascendance this generation had everything to do with their services and their ability to provide developers with a efficient, flexible, powerful platform to develop for, maybe they'd be in a pretty open-minded mood about what their partners are asking for.

You know. Maybe. Or whatever.

So Microsoft can do no wrong and Sony is wildly out of touch with reality and what developers want (hyperbolic, but you get my point...that's how your last statement comes across).

I frankly don't buy it. Your cards are showing a bit. And that's fine, we all have our preference. Ultimately though, I'd say Sony has come a long ways from the PS3 days in terms of hardware design and I don't agree at all that Microsoft's vision is somehow infallible and that they're far more in-tune with the desires of the dev community. These aren't the crazy Ken days of hardware design at SCE anymore.

I don't disagree that Sony probably only showed developers 2 GB of GDDR5 RAM, and they complained because when you take the OS into account, they are getting much less than 2 GB of RAM in reality. But would they have expected Sony to not only double the RAM, but also double the same quality of RAM? So yes, that is where we are today...but have you even gotten any feedback from devs who have now had the opportunity to work with an extra 2 GB of 192 GB/s high-speed RAM? That could have been far more than they ever imagined, since like you said, 4 GB of GDDR5 is basically unheard of on PCs right now.

 

[Reiko]

So Microsoft can do no wrong and Sony is wildly out of touch with reality and what developers want (hyperbolic, but you get my point...that's how your last statement comes across).

I frankly don't buy it. Your cards are showing a bit. And that's fine, we all have our preference. Ultimately though, I'd say Sony has come a long ways from the PS3 days in terms of hardware design and I don't agree at all that Microsoft's vision is somehow infallible and that they're far more in-tune with the desires of the dev community. These aren't the crazy Ken days of hardware design at SCE anymore.

I don't disagree that Sony probably only showed developers 2 GB of GDDR5 RAM, and they complained because when you take the OS into account, they are getting much less than 2 GB of RAM in reality. But would they have expected Sony to not only double the RAM, but also double the same quality of RAM? So yes, that is where we are today...but have you even gotten any feedback from devs who have now had the opportunity to work with an extra 2 GB of 192 GB/s high-speed RAM? That could have been far more than they ever imagined, since like you said, 4 GB of GDDR5 is basically unheard of on PCs right now.

While we don't know the details exactly... Whatever reasons for Sony choosing their specs, they are aiming for a very profitable system compared to the PS3. They are hungry, and will be out for blood this gen.

4gb of vram on gpu's not anytime soon? we already have 7970's with 6GB of gddr5 ram and GTX 680's with 4gb of gddr5 ram.

we've had this since last summer too.

i can see 4gb of gddr5 ram in a ps4

It's very possible. But the idea of dedicating 1GB of GDDR5 to an OS is a seriously fucking waste of bandwidth potential.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

since when was having 4gb of gddr5 on pc gpu's unheard of? we already have 7970's with 6GB of gddr5 ram and GTX 680's with 4gb of gddr5 ram.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=gtx+680+4gb
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098HW0H2/?tag=neogaf0e-20

your standard 7900 series comes with 3gb of gddr5 by default.

the gpu's are super expensive though with all this ram since the board is more complex with the 7970's 384bit bus

i can see sony using 4 GB of gddr5, but i doubt it would be at a high bus width

 

[RaijinFY]

4gb of vram on gpu's not anytime soon? we already have 7970's with 6GB of gddr5 ram and GTX 680's with 4gb of gddr5 ram.

we've had this since last summer too.

i can see 4gb of gddr5 ram in a ps4

Price is?
Though with Hynix 4gbit density releasing next year, i think 4gb GDDR5 will become common place next year or the next.

 

[Gorillaz]

PS3 (and playstation) sells better in japan and europe, NA studios would have less input not more.

That doesn't mean they should be pushed out tho. If Sony truly doesn't give ND or Santa Monica say in the matter as much as other devs....then do they truly care about gaining back the West/America? It would make sense to actually listen to the devs that are keeping them "in the fight" imo.

 

[Sid]

While we don't know the details exactly... Whatever reasons for Sony choosing their specs, they are aiming for a very profitable system compared to the PS3. They are hungry, and will be out for blood this gen.



It's very possible. But the idea of dedicating 1GB of GDDR5 to an OS is a seriously fucking waste of bandwidth potential.

MS still has to adhere to a price range and would not like to take massive losses on hardware like Sony.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

While we don't know the details exactly... Whatever reasons for Sony choosing their specs, they are aiming for a very profitable system compared to the PS3. They are hungry, and will be out for blood this gen.



It's very possible. But the idea of dedicating 1GB of GDDR5 to an OS is a seriously fucking waste of bandwidth potential.

To go from like 50MB to 1GB for the OS is one hell of a jump. Still I can imagine Sony can get it to drop in footprint size like they did for the PS3; I mean, WTF do you need 1GB for in a superfast video RAM in closed environment without the bulky bloated overhead of a traditional Windows PC for? It just sounds wasteful.

 

[aegies]

So Microsoft can do no wrong and Sony is wildly out of touch with reality and what developers want (hyperbolic, but you get my point...that's how your last statement comes across).

I frankly don't buy it. Your cards are showing a bit. And that's fine, we all have our preference. Ultimately though, I'd say Sony has come a long ways from the PS3 days in terms of hardware design and I don't agree at all that Microsoft's vision is somehow infallible and that they're far more in-tune with the desires of the dev community. These aren't the crazy Ken days of hardware design at SCE anymore.

I don't disagree that Sony probably only showed developers 2 GB of GDDR5 RAM, and they complained because when you take the OS into account, they are getting much less than 2 GB of RAM in reality. But would they have expected Sony to not only double the RAM, but also double the same quality of RAM? So yes, that is where we are today...but have you even gotten any feedback from devs who have now had the opportunity to work with an extra 2 GB of 192 GB/s high-speed RAM? That could have been far more than they ever imagined, since like you said, 4 GB of GDDR5 is basically unheard of on PCs right now.

Sony just spent hundreds of millions of dollars releasing a handheld in a post iphone reality. They released move. They continue to put out first party titles that don't sell particularly well. They hitched their wagon to blu-ray and it cost them dearly.

Do I think Sony is incapable of making good decisions? No. Do I think there is a frequent crisis of vision there? Yes.

With regards to Microsoft and Durango, I've been saying all year that I've worried that internal politics at Microsoft will make Durango a muddled mess. I also called bullshit on the 350 watt monster that nowgamer insisted was the next Xbox. I've also said here, I believe, that I was most concerned about memory bandwidth on the system, because I was worried they were going with something slow.

I'm no longer concerned about that. And the console they wanted to release before the system was delayed would have been. It would have been the underwhelming piece of hardware that leaked last year. It's only been in the last 5 months that I've been slowly convinced that Microsoft isn't going to sabotage itself, and honestly? I'm still a little concerned. There's going to be a big play to tie durango into windows 8 and windows phone 8 ecosystems, and that could pay off for them, or it could blow up in their face.

I'm not concerned about either system. I think they'll be about even for at least the first few years, from a performance perspective. If you want to ignore my input and opinions, more power to you. But when I see people operating from a premise that they want to believe, i.e., that Sony will be the king of hardware, and that they're going to blow away the competition, I have to call foul. I don't think that's the way it's going to shake out. And if you're walking into the next generation thinking that, you're going to be disappointed. Just like people spend the first two years of the PS3 being disappointed.

since when was having 4gb of gddr5 on pc gpu's unheard of? we already have 7970's with 6GB of gddr5 ram and GTX 680's with 4gb of gddr5 ram.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=gtx+680+4gb
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0098HW0H2/?tag=neogaf0e-20

your standard 7900 series comes with 3gb of gddr5 by default.

the gpu's are super expensive though with all this ram since the board is more complex with the 7970's 384bit bus

i can see sony using 4 GB of gddr5, but i doubt it would be at a high bus width

Fair enough! I don't think Microsoft or Sony would ever consider their system costing anywhere near that. But fair enough.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

Price is?
Though with Hynix 4gbit density releasing next year, i think 4gb GDDR5 will become common place next year or the next.

the price is very expensive of course. $550 for a 7970 6gb and $520 for a 680 4gb. but that's the luxury costs for premium gpu's and complex board layouts.


you can get 2gb of gddr5 ram on cheap cards too. the 650 2gb costs $130 but only has a 128bit bus. the issue is chip densities right now. the highest we have now is 256MB chips. so they'd require 16 chips in order to get 4gb. that's a lot of chips and if they require a wide bus, it will add a ton of complexity to the PCB.

 

[ThisWreckage]

Sony consulted their devs a long time ago about what they wanted in a new console. I remember reading articles about it. You will not see shit like the Skyrim DLC fiasco next generation on the PS4. Sony's devs probably requested exactly what RAM is going to be in the PS4.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Sony consulted their devs a long time ago about what they wanted in a new console. I remember reading articles about it. You will not see shit like the Skyrim DLC fiasco next generation on the PS4. Sony's devs probably requested exactly what RAM is going to be in the PS4.

Kaz has been somewhat influential as well. They are making better decisions. Vita was still stupid -- but he might have gotten in there early enough to help make more sensible choices. The PS+ philosophy gives me more hope for success than the Vita-disconnect unsettles me.

 

[Spongebob]

Sony consulted their devs a long time ago about what they wanted in a new console. I remember reading articles about it. You will not see shit like the Skyrim DLC fiasco next generation on the PS4. Sony's devs probably requested exactly what RAM is going to be in the PS4.

That's now how things work.

Sony designs a system based on much money they want to profit/lose on each unit, the first party developers have to deal with whatever specs they're provided with. Sony's studios probably have a much larger role regarding the software side of things(tools and such).

 

[prwxv3]

Kaz has been somewhat influential as well. They are making better decisions. Vita was still stupid -- but he might have gotten in there early enough to help make more sensible choices. The PS+ philosophy gives me more hope for success than the Vita-disconnect unsettles me.

The only problems with vita are the over priced memory and low support from themselves.

 

[Reiko]

Sony consulted their devs a long time ago about what they wanted in a new console. I remember reading articles about it. You will not see shit like the Skyrim DLC fiasco next generation on the PS4. Sony's devs probably requested exactly what RAM is going to be in the PS4.

This is also depends on just how ridiculous that bugged up engine scales to next gen. We might be in for a new sea of problems, regardless of the RAM.

 

[prwxv3]

This is also depends on just how ridiculous that bugged up engine scales to next gen. We might be in for a new sea of problems, regardless of the RAM.

Holy shit I cant even imagine the shitstorm if they use that same shitty engine for another Fallout/Elder Scrolls.

 

[rdrr gnr]

The only problems with vita are the over priced memory and low support from themselves.

Only? Those are huge.

 

[gofreak]

More RAM > Less RAM.

If we're talking about developer preference, developers will always prefer as much RAM as you can give them.

But if we're trying to forecast fundamental problems I think you have to talk beyond developer preference.

I am not convinced 4GB is this gen's '256MB' per Proelite's comment, for example. Related growth in how much non-volatile data can be stored, bandwidth, and the growth in RAM elsewhere between this coming gen and last don't suggest that to me. I think 8GB is this gen's '1GB'. Which I'm sure developers are very happy with.

However I think 4GB will be 'OK'.

In terms of system design and Microsoft v Sony, I don't think Microsoft is prioritising non-gaming functionality over gaming performance but I do think it's a strong strategic goal with this system that has placed some inflexible constraints on them. I do think the choice to go with 8GB is at least partially informed by the needs of that side balanced by the needs of developers. If the sentiment was that 2-3GB of system memory would be needed to execute on their vision for the operating system, 4GB total would not cut it.

The cost of each platform's approach is probably about the same, right? Sony could probably have chosen more slower RAM. They didn't. I think Sony has some of the world's technically most competent developers under their wing, so I wouldn't bite that Microsoft 'knows' game demands better than a Sony that actually listens to its software talent. The reason they made the choice they made, I think, is because their starting point was probably the idea of a bigger, hungrier GPU, and they needed a more balanced level of bandwidth on both ends of the pipeline to keep that GPU well fed. I would say that when the target was 2GB of GDDR5 developers were upset. We kind of know that, those were the noises. 4GB is probably something there's a greater satisifed consensus around.

 

[leroidys]

Kaz has been somewhat influential as well. They are making better decisions. Vita was still stupid -- but he might have gotten in there early enough to help make more sensible choices. The PS+ philosophy gives me more hope for success than the Vita-disconnect unsettles me.

Vita is a classic sony cock-up, regardless of price. Amazing tech that makes engineers swoon, but there's zero market. I hope the playstation division fired every single one of their analysts and focus group people guiding the design.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Vita is a classic sony cock-up, regardless of price. Amazing tech that makes engineers swoon, but there's zero market. I hope the playstation division fired every single one of their analysts and focus group people guiding the design.

But the hardware design is perfect. If Orbis is going to hit the same kind of market shifting problem that Vita did, then Orbis, Durango and WiiU are all doomed.

Vita's market problems say nothing about the hardware design decisions for Orbis. Given Arthur's rant above I think we have another clear example of why blindly trusting any source at this stage is foolish. His commentary is colored by his opinion that Sony is incompetent. That's not exactly condusive to building a clear picture of either machine.

 

[specialguy]

More RAM > Less RAM.

If we're talking about developer preference, developers will always prefer as much RAM as you can give them.

But if we're trying to forecast fundamental problems I think you have to talk beyond developer preference.

I am not convinced 4GB is this gen's '256MB' per Proelite's comment, for example. Related growth in how much non-volatile data can be stored, bandwidth, and the growth in RAM elsewhere between this coming gen and last don't suggest that to me. I think 8GB is this gen's '1GB'. Which I'm sure developers are very happy with.

However I think 4GB will be 'OK'.

In terms of system design and Microsoft v Sony, I don't think Microsoft is prioritising non-gaming functionality over gaming performance but I do think it's a strong strategic goal with this system that has placed some inflexible constraints on them. I do think the choice to go with 8GB is at least partially informed by the needs of that side balanced by the needs of developers. If the sentiment was that 2-3GB of system memory would be needed to execute on their vision for the operating system, 4GB total would not cut it.

The cost of each platform's approach is probably about the same, right? Sony could probably have chosen more slower RAM. They didn't. I think Sony has some of the world's technically most competent developers under their wing, so I wouldn't bite that Microsoft 'knows' game demands better than a Sony that actually listens to its software talent. The reason they made the choice they made, I think, is because their starting point was probably the idea of a bigger, hungrier GPU, and they needed a more balanced level of bandwidth on both ends of the pipeline to keep that GPU well fed. I would say that when the target was 2GB of GDDR5 developers were upset. We kind of know that, those were the noises. 4GB is probably something there's a greater satisifed consensus around.

As I've pointed out in some other posts, it would seem to me the cost for Sony's approach looks higher. Steamroller vs Jaguar (if it's so), Pitcairn vs Cape Verde, and GDDR5 vs DDR3 all present significant cost discrepancies in favor of the latter (while a paltry 32MB ESRAM should be cheap). It's way too early to say much, so that's just a birds eye early look at it.

That's why I keep making the point I think MS could be on to a cheaper system that performs on par with a more expensive one, which is good engineering. And I've always admired MS engineers the most (360 competing with PS3 despite a full year headstart for example).

But as I also say, it could just be that PS4 is more expensive and also better. Just to be even handed about it.

For MS RAM decisions, my view has always been it probably had to do more with everything else they want to do and less with gaming. They wanted "gobs" of RAM for Kinect, and the OS, and all the other crazy stuff they want, and this is how they got there, imo. DDR3 was the only way to do it cheap enough. But having said that, it could still work out well for the gaming side.

 

[specialguy]

But the hardware design is perfect. If Orbis is going to hit the same kind of market shifting problem that Vita did, then Orbis, Durango and WiiU are all doomed.

Vita's market problems say nothing about the hardware design decisions for Orbis. Given Arthur's rant above I think we have another clear example of why blindly trusting any source at this stage is foolish. His commentary is colored by his opinion that Sony is incompetent. That's not exactly condusive to building a clear picture of either machine.

Well, I probably shouldn't stir up this hornets nest here, but there's a lot of evidence they are, or at least can be, fairly incompetent.

A lot of the decisions in PS3 just were not good ones imo.

There's no way you should give your opponent a one year head start, and your console doesnt handily trash there's, imo. And PS3 did not handily trash 360.

Vita is a great design, but it shows Sony doesn't understand the handheld market. People searching for good graphics dont seek out handheld in the first place.

Not only that, but Vita games look substantially worse than 360 ones. Such is the problem with building a handheld over graphics. The very best you can do is still unimpressive.

Sony built a state of the art handheld, the problem is they dont understand nobody wants that.

Too be fair, I was driving the "PSP is gonna crush DS!!!" bandwagon back in the day. I was dead wrong. That's when I figured it out.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Vita's market problems say nothing about the hardware design decisions for Orbis. Given Arthur's rant above I think we have another clear example of why blindly trusting any source at this stage is foolish. His commentary is colored by his opinion that Sony is incompetent. That's not exactly condusive to building a clear picture of either machine.

You are mistaken. He is very clearly an impartial source above any biases.

I said it in a previous thread: there are no insiders divulging information on this forum. Most don't even have a reliable secondary source. When "they" know, we'll "know." Almost any revelatory piece of information has some level of counter-intuitiveness or unpredictability. Aside from some mysterious silicon -- these are very much educated guesses.

 

[jaosobno]

I'm not concerned about either system. I think they'll be about even for at least the first few years, from a performance perspective. If you want to ignore my input and opinions, more power to you. But when I see people operating from a premise that they want to believe, i.e., that Sony will be the king of hardware, and that they're going to blow away the competition, I have to call foul. I don't think that's the way it's going to shake out. And if you're walking into the next generation thinking that, you're going to be disappointed. Just like people spend the first two years of the PS3 being disappointed.

Please don't take this as a personal attack but the more I read your posts the more I question your objectivity.

On one side you claim that developers are much more confident in Microsoft, that 8 GB DDR3 with abysmal bandwidth is better than 4 GB GDDR5 and that certain developers question Sony's approach to next gen hardware, and yet judging from your posts you know quite a lot about Durango and next to nothing about Obris.

Considering that consoles are heavy data streamers I do believe that bandwidth > size. If Sony consulted the likes of Epic and EA (they did), they would have been the first to say "give us speed" (with of course reasonable amount of RAM).

For example, Unreal 3 Engine is a heavy streamer. In a low bandwidth system you will (again) have ugly texture pop-ups in UE3 (and probably UE4).

Of course Sony couldn't just have 2 GB of GDDR5 where 50% would have been used by OS, but 4 GB of GDDR5 where at least 3 GB will be usable initially is more than enough for next gen. In the end, once the OS is optimized and they manage to shrink it, devs will probably have 3.5 GB or more at their disposal (they reduced PS3's OS from 120 to 50 MB which goes to show that you can reduce OS footprint considerably if you know how).

Of course when you have devs like Bethesda that like to load up every single possible asset into RAM and keep it there for unnecessary amount of time before they reset it (who gives a s*it on what XY coordinate I dropped some random book in some random dungeon from some random shelf), you can never have enough RAM.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Sony consulted their devs a long time ago about what they wanted in a new console. I remember reading articles about it. You will not see shit like the Skyrim DLC fiasco next generation on the PS4. Sony's devs probably requested exactly what RAM is going to be in the PS4.

I'm positive that Sony has been talking to developers about their needs and wishes, and I don't mean just their internal studios. They can't afford to waste money on another high-end system with features that nobody has really asked for. It bit them in the ass the last time around, and Kutaragi is out of the picture, so I'm quite confident that they'd be taking the more reasonable approach with PS4.

On the other hand, I'm even more confident that Microsoft has been doing the same thing. They always do that, they did it with the first Xbox, and they did it with the second. Third parties - developers, developers, developers, as Ballmer would put it - is what they built both their empire and their console business on. So I'm not worried in the slightest about them potentially gimping their next machine with slow memory, it's an exceedingly unlikely possibility, given their track record so far. If DDR3 is in there, it's probably been given the green light by the development community.

In fact, when it comes to developers, this is pretty much the only thing we have to by. Of course, there have probably been some changes since then, but what changes, who has made them, and to what effect, we just don't know.

So perhaps both those approaches are equally as good. How about that? Certainly, one will have some advantages over the other in some scenarios, and vice versa, but there doesn't have to be a clear winner. I know that's what a lot of people would like, to have one (preferably their console maker of choice) beat the other handily in the hardware department, if only for the drama, but that's not necessarily how things will pan out. And frankly, it would be the best for all of us if they didn't.

 

[systemfehler]

We still don't know enough about the exact setup and its real life implications. Time will tell if faster RAM was the better choice. I prefer Naughty Dogs opinion over the the one from Crytek. ND did really great on the PS3 and is one of the biggest assets Sony and the Playstation have whereas Crytek might push incredible graphics but mostly on monstrous PCs without a stunning record on consoles. Crytek left the console business alone as long as they could until they saw that the real money is made on PS3/360.

The problem is we don't know if ND for example had the choice between small/fast RAM or big/slow RAM at all or if they just have been able to push from 2 to 4GB and have been limited by Sony and their money/power constraints.

I do like Microsoft and especially their development tools but on the other side they are a big corporation more focused on total living room domination not gaming alone. The last E3 showed us a glimpse what they are up to and if you want to push the struggling business of your own tables, phones and Windows 8 into the living room you might have to sacrifice parts in the gaming division.

 

[mrklaw]

aegies, of course developers are familiar with PCs with DDR3 and smaller amounts of VRAM. But most of those fit their graphics inside the VRAM because they know if they have to touch the slow ass DDR3 for anything other than a buffer it'll slow things down to a crawl.