• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

F'DUPTON 3: Back in the Tub with 5.0/5.5/6/7/several Inches of RAM-Flavoured Water

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

REV 09

Member
lowhighkang_LHK said:
I really still don't understand the dilemma. MS using 3GB for their OS and so is Sony. They both end up with 5 GB of RAM for games. If you're going to fault sony for having to reserve so much for their OS the same can be said for MS. Maybe the reality is that the OS for whatever reason is going to require more dedication than we anticipated.
Click to expand...
The forum was faulting MS for it and praising Sony for their 8gb GDDR5 trump card. Now it seems that the ram is much closer in line between the two consoles than was thought. Sony's ram is still better but a far cry from the original 8gb that everyone was excited for. Moreover, everyone knows what MS is doing with their ram allocations and most disliked it. What is Sony doing with their 3gb OS?
 
P

prwxv3

Member
fastford58 said:
Wow. You just circle talked to proclaim "Sony lied" by citing a potentially BS story? Astounding.
Click to expand...

And even if its true it does not prove Sony lied. They never said how much of the ram is going to go to the os/games. They only said they had had 8 GB of ram which is true.
 
I

i-Lo

Member
bishoptl said:
Yes, we talked privately already. Take from that what you will.
Click to expand...

lol2_by_gifsandmore-d6fezgz.gif
 
A

androvsky

Member
Brimstone said:
Agree.

Trying to quantify the 32mb esram and powerful audio hardware of Xbox One is going to be more difficult than looking at some bandwith numbers.
Click to expand...

Uh, I'm not saying anything about the ESRAM or "powerful audio hardware"*.

I was just commenting on the idea that any amount of RAM over what the GPU can access in a frame is useless for games, which is a terrible argument.




*
Well, maybe I am, since Sony's put in extra hardware to make it easy to run compute on the GPU while it's doing something that doesn't require shader units, devs can do complex audio calculations on the GPU without interfering with graphics. The GPU isn't going to do texturing the entire frame, and it's not going to need the shaders the entire frame either. Also, don't forget, the ESRAM is still slower than the RAM in the PS4, even with Leadbetter's special "holes" (best case real world scenario is 133 GB/s, which is less than the GDDR5 minus whatever the CPU takes up).

So yes, the whole story is more complex than a bandwidth number on both sides.
 
R

RayMaker

Banned
So this must mean the graphics will be better then the X1 but not as much as they were going to be with 7gb ?

cant wait for them comparisons and meltdowns they may produce.

The decision is going to be so hard, for me.
 
N

nib95

Banned
androvsky said:
This seems like a bad argument when talking about anything other than tech demos. It assumes that the only things in memory will be seen by the in-game virtual camera, so that if you turn your view to look at an object with textures or geometry that wasn't in the original view, you'll have to stream in from the hard drive. I'm pretty sure that even the most aggressive streaming engines save some memory for off-camera content (and little things like audio), at least at a low level of detail so there's something to show while the hard drive catches up. In short, games need memory beyond what's on screen.

On the other hand, that argument also implies the GPU is doing nothing but texturing for the entire frame, since shaders aren't as bandwidth dependent. But if the GPU is just texturing objects for the entire time the frame is being rendered, that doesn't leave any time to apply shaders after the GPU is done; since many shaders depend on a textured object for color data, those shaders can't run before the object is rendered. So I doubt any modern game would be able all of that memory per frame anyway.
Click to expand...

There are many things wrong with this post. Obviously much of the game data is going to be off ram, but the idea is to have as much IN ram as possible at any given time as it's more efficient and order of magnitude faster than the hdd. It also means you can be less dependant on the HDD or disk.

Also, and lol to this, where the hell does this imply the Gpu is doing nothing but texturing? How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? Do you think texturing is the only ram intensive and requiring task? There are countless things that hog memory. Lighting, geometry, filtering (AA, af) and so much more. As you get more advanced graphical features and more complex world's and models, so too does ram use go up.

You end with saying that modern games will not be able to use that much ram per frame. How wrong you are. Crisis 3 at 1080p with ultra settings and high end filtering solutions already takes up, up to 3gb of vram. Future games will gobble up 5gb like candy. Stop looking at current gen games as a means to predict the ram consumption of future next gen games, which will be considerably more demanding and advanced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Immortals of Aveum set to receive HDR and FSR 3 console frame generation (High dynamic range imminent, frame-gen "in just a few short weeks")
Game Dev 2
64
3K
winjer replied
Was 8 CPU cores enough for 9th gen consoles? Strix Halo, the prefect console.
Opinion Analysis 2
62
3K
Tertullian replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Exploring The Complications Of Series X's Memory Configuration & Performance
Opinion Analysis Hardware 2 3 4 5
218
16K
Corndog replied
  • Poll
PLAYSTATION 6: Potential Innovations, Features, Business Strategies & More (Speculation)
Opinion Analysis Platform 2 3 4
181
13K
hussar16 replied
[PC Gamer] How Cyberpunk 2077 clawed its way back from disaster to complete one of the greatest redemption arcs in gaming history
Opinion News 2
99
6K
EDMIX replied
Top Bottom