D
-
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
- Thread starter CrunchinJelly
- Start date
- Status
BleachAndPepsi
Banned
Hmmm...I had seen when BL did it, but I think I missed Kagari. If it's not a ton of trouble, do you have a link to his post?
Oh shit, sorry Kagari.
And thanks to all three of you
Aquamarine
Member
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
What are in those PMs?!
That was flip a magazine rack territory. Hope we don't go back there.
Codeblew
Member
Virtual memory isn't real memory so there is a missing 512MB of physical. It should total to 8.5gb if .5gb is virtual.
Edit: I am assuming the virtual memory is disk but I guess as pointed out by astraycat, it is not necessarily so.
For virtual memory swappable to disk sure, you can have more of it allocated than actually fits into physical memory.
But virtual memory encompasses much more than swappable memory, so it's not necessarily the case.
BleachAndPepsi
Banned
http://youtu.be/SKL254Y_jtc
Ever see this commercial? At the end (near the 1:46 mark) Eminem says "This is the Motor City. And this is what we do."
Replace "the Motor City" with "GAF," and it's an apt description.
GoofsterStud
Member
So were officially back to 6 GB?
That was just my guess from day one.
That was just my guess from day one.
Lifesontheline
Banned
I believe He was translating the post
Andronicus
Banned
So where is the other 512MB OF PHYSICAL RAM? ...STOPPIT
If these menus are laggy on either console now, they've messed up. They better have one hell of a smooth user experience on these consoles.
Can't even imagine how bad the situation would've been if we only got 4GB (and people thought that was too much) if the OS is gonna use that much.
Can't even imagine how bad the situation would've been if we only got 4GB (and people thought that was too much) if the OS is gonna use that much.
Vestal
Gold Member
So were officially back to 6 GB?
That was just my guess from day one.
Nothing exactly official.
Its the working assumption of 1 side of the coin with the other being that of the DF article.
Either way, we probably wont get the exact details for sure, and at the end of the day it wont matter squat really.. Its all just for internet console E-pen waiving.
ThisWreckage
Banned
All I can do is laugh at this thread. Naughty Dog was able to make The Last of Us with 512 MB of RAM. Ponder that for a second.
Vestal
Gold Member
No way that either console OS is laggy. It would be a catastrophe of massive proportions.. bear+salmon*infinity.
That's the most important part.
I don't care how games my games will look...as long as they look better than yours!
Virtually nothing in realtime applications can "gracefully" handle a page fault. Or more specifically - if you want it to be graceful it requires exact/predictable latency, which is the antithesis of general purpose virtual-memory swap mechanisms.astraycat said:
PC games are the worst example of this - as they end up full of stuttering, popping and hiccups whenever OS decides to do something with game-controlled pages.
Sure - virtually mapping (near infinite)disk storage into your memory space is a neat thing on paper, but for data that actually matters in a realtime app, it's a very-difficult problem to solve without degrading the player experience considerably, which is why most streaming schemes in games are very limited in how they work, or when they are more ambitious (eg. Rage) they come under-fire for their fail-cases. OS managed Virtual memory that has no context of game state can only worsen those problems.
With less, if you substract the OS reserved memory...hehe...
GoofsterStud
Member
But the DF article is officially wrong I thought... The title just screams skeptical.
If multiple developers are saying they are using 6GB. Shouldn't that be enough to prove things wrong? I guess 5GB to 6GB isn't so bad... It just doesn't make sense...unless this OS is an un-optimized mess... That worries me more than ram allocation itself. :-(
BRocknRolla
Member
I was thinking more along the lines of asynchronously doing some sort of calculation in another thread on some large dataset in swappable memory, not needed for several frames or even seconds.
Certainly nothing you'd need in anything near real-time rates.
Sony's first party is going to melt faces this next gen if these launch titles are any indication. I really want to see more info about The Order as well.
Which is 50mb, right? So worst case DF 4.5 GB scenario they're working with 10x as much of faster RAM. The horror!
Though 13.3 times a much does sound sexier.
ThisWreckage
Banned
It's one reason why this RAM fiasco is a total non issue. Even if it's only using 5 GB (and every indication seems to point that they're going to be using more) they are still using GDRR5 and their devs are still coming off of a console that was a pain in the ass to develop for that had limited memory. So yes, the games are going to melt faces. Naughty Dog's games are among the best looking in console gaming and look at what they had to work with.
BleachAndPepsi
Banned
I heard you can Super Size your Order for just a buck.
Ugh, I'm tired. Bedtime for me.
Goodnight GAF, you magnificent bastards!
MichaelMikado
Banned
Any info on whether there is a memory cap for devs? i.e. X is the max amount of bandwidth they can count on at any given time,
Obscene Jester
Banned
So we're at 6 gb now? If we can just will it to be whatever makes us feel good inside, I'm going with 6.5. Who's with me?
anexanhume
Member
OS gets 25% of the cores and 25% of the RAM. Nice and even.
MichaelMikado
Banned
I'm just speculating unfortunately
Fair enough but Sony is still going to have to reserve some of that bandwidth for real-time OS services. Just wondering if it will put a dent in the actually usable memory bandwidth for the devs. 2-3GBs of data doesn't just magically appear in RAM without crossing the bus.
DeafSnake13
Banned
Does he corroborate what you have been hearing in terms of the breakdown of the memory?
My guess would be that the OS services are mostly idle during the actual execution of a game, and so borrow very little of the available bandwidth. Game devs would cry bloody murder otherwise.
The Albatross
Member
That account ain't what it used to be... Its just ask anti xbone posts one after the other
MichaelMikado
Banned
They would still have to reserve it since many of the OS services are available during game play, i.e. remote play, 15 min playback, background downloads. crossplay chat etc. Otherwise fps would drop everytime a service was used.
Now you only need things like that in context of games. Basically you're talking about a solution looking for problems to solve. And PC has had decades of looking for those without terribly noteworthy things to point out.astraycat said:
The sad part here is that removing steps 1-5 is actually a solved problem (on tech level), whether Valve (or MS) will ever elect that it's worth to give this to the players is another matter though.CoG said:
Wasn't he just regurgitating what was in the link he posted? I translated it in Google Chrome and it says the same thing in his post.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Gyskface is my buddy. He's legit. I know his secrets.
I wonder what he means by the virtual memory being decreased from 1 GB to .5GB...does that mean .5 more GB is allocated to physical memory (not flexible)?
Wish he would elaborate on his statement, all it really confirms is that Eurogamer's info may be out of date
Nope, just wasn't feelin it. And i think to be fair it is alot to skim read.
Agree 100%.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Poll