Support NeoGAF

[Gskyace]

Gyskface is my buddy. He's legit. I know his secrets.

Hey, you aren't my buddy. Anyone who cancel the pre-order on PS4 is not. : D Just kidding.

I'm now outside around the Great Wall to take some pictures. Don't know I pass the exam or not. Should I say "Skyfall" like in the movie?

 

[Beerman462]

I'm not buying a single next gen console till I know for sure if they have 4.5, 5, or 6GBs of memory, because the a difference of 500MBs is the difference between greatness and utter shit.

Spoiler

Your level of hyperbole may or may not vary

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Gyskface is my buddy. He's legit. I know his secrets.

If Gyskface is confirming what o_sharp said in those posts in Chinese, doesn't that differ from what the other NeoGAF insiders said? Or did I read things wrong?

 

[Gskyace]

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.

That thread is created by me... After I've talked to him, I think it's best to post what he knows himself. I don't know too deep about the programming.

 

[astraycat]

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.

I suppose you're right, but I assume they've budgeted this all out to game devs' satisfaction already.

Now you only need things like that in context of games. Basically you're talking about a solution looking for problems to solve.

Game devs are clever. If you give them something, someone'll find some use for it. Not the intended use perhaps, but it's something.

 

[Lifesontheline]

Yea I think I'll wait til Sony or some devs talk about the allocation. So many sources so many answers wow.

 

[Lemnisc8]

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.

I believe the overhead would be minimal to the point of being practically inconsequential.

One of the things that the ps4 has in spades is memory bandwith anyway, I dont quite understand why you are focusing on this bandwith reservation point so much, when its not been addressed as an issue (to my knowledge)?

With the Xbox One's more complicated memory architecture and even lower bandwith, plus the fact it is marketed as an entertainment device (and I would assume therefore that it may have more services running, chewing all that bandwith as you claim), if it were truly a problem then we would have heard something by now from the devs.

The fact that we haven't heard devs crying out over starved bandwith over apps and os services points to it being a non issue in my opinion.

∞

 

[Winterfang]

How much ram current consoles use? 512MB?

 

[neptunes]

Yea I think I'll wait til Sony or some devs talk about the allocation. So many sources so many answers wow.

I doubt Sony or MS will ever come out and disclose that information, they've never done so in the past generation and I see no reason now.

and rightfully so, the public at large does not need to know that every intricate detail about a console's memory utilization. Those who need to know *DEVELOPERS* already know. Said developers are probably also bound by NDA's.

 

[TheD]

If Virtual Memory is considered as available memory,

then we should admit Xbox One also has MORE THAN 5GiB memories available for Games.

You clearly do not know what Virtual memory is.

Meanwhile, most games won't even go close to using 4GB RAM.

Yes they will, games are already pushing that on PC and with how slow the drives are on consoles, devs will want to fill as much of the RAM as possible (even for data they are not using right at that moment).

 

[AndersTheSwede]

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.

The debate is not whether devs can still create amazing works with this system. But whether it's prudent, or efficient, to devote such a high proportion of memory to what is essentially overhead, especially in the context of a gaming system.

 

[lunlunqq]

If Gyskface is confirming what o_sharp said in those posts in Chinese, doesn't that differ from what the other NeoGAF insiders said? Or did I read things wrong?

Well, o_sharp has been saying "5 gig for games" for months now. He said that when people first started to talk about "PS4 os only takes 1 gig of RAM." Nobody believed or even paid attention to him back them. He explained a little bit more after this "3.5 Gig for OS" news came out; but he sorta never went into details. The way he puts it on the Chinese forum is like "just think of it as around 5 gigs for games." I guess he just cannot say too much if he wants to keep his job.

 

[astraycat]

The debate is not whether devs can still create amazing works with this system. But whether it's prudent, or efficient, to devote such a high proportion of memory to what is essentially overhead, especially in the context of a gaming system.

At this point in the game I'd say yes. You can always give more later, but taking anything away will break old games. Once devs actually start to regularly hit the current memory wall and start complaining about it, both console makers should have a better idea of where their consoles are headed and whether or not it's prudent then to offer up more memory.

 

[MichaelMikado]

I believe the overhead would be minimal to the point of being practically inconsequential.

One of the things that the ps4 has in spades is memory bandwith anyway, I dont quite understand why you are focusing on this bandwith reservation point so much, when its not been addressed as an issue (to my knowledge)?

With the Xbox One's more complicated memory architecture and even lower bandwith, plus the fact it is marketed as an entertainment device (and I would assume therefore that it may have more services running, chewing all that bandwith as you claim), if it were truly a problem then we would have heard something by now from the devs.

The fact that we haven't heard devs crying out over starved bandwith over apps and os services points to it being a non issue in my opinion.

∞

There are several suspicions.

1) With the theoretical 176Gbps PS4 should have no problems reaching 1080 @ 60 fps in theory. PS4 Devs are having difficulty with launch games reaching it.. That bandwidth should allow easily allow games designed with underpowered unfinished hardware to perform even better.

2) everyone made the assumption that the PS4 OS would be no more than 1GB citing links with Devs stating they didn't know what to do with all that RAM.. It wouldn't surprise me that devs are not mentioning it after the surprise of the OS RAM footprint which NO DEVS mentioned.

3) Xbone has a completely separate eSRAM pool for the framebuffer, meaning the system RAM bandwidth could be devied up and split anyway between OS and games but it would have basically zero effect on the framebuffer for actual rendering.. Meaning less graphically impress games but basically almost assuring 1080P and 60fps since it cannot actually be used for anything else.

I am focusing on bandwidth because again. the difficulty in reaching 1080P @ 60 fps on launch title games could easily be done with a large enough framebuffer which the specs support, the question is why they are not being achieved.

 

[Suikoguy]

MichaelMikado, you really should learn more about graphic processing and bandwidth before commenting. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Codeblew]

MichaelMikado- 60FPS is a design decision. Any game can reach 60FPS if that is their goal.

 

[GamerTime]

Hello all

I'm new here but I'm not new to reading this forum. So thanks to whoever allowed my account to get approved.

I've really wanted to say this, and I hope many understand where I'm coming from... While this news is disappointing, PS4's RAM is still better than the alternative console that mandates a camera. The biggest downside I see is that Sony isn't known for the best OS features. To divert so much RAM to an OS may show Sony's limitations in providing a quality product compared to their competitors who are known for programming good software applications.

Hopefully, Sony proves me and everyone else wrong, but for now I have my doubts. I also know many wanted a more dedicated game console that would sacrifice OS features for games to have more system resources at their disposal, and to greatly 1-up their competitors. The reality is that as time goes buy, developers will get better in utilizing the hardware, game engines will be improved, and the OS bloat will be downsized so developers will be able to grow their games as the system improves. So hopefully we will not lose any game quality due to RAM limitations in the many years to come.

On the very bright side, Sony is not making any of the same mistakes they did with the PS3. As for the games, what little they have shown in exclusive PS4 IPs so far looks just as good if not better than their competitors, and that is only a small amount of what they are actually offering the very first year.

 

[astraycat]

There are several suspicions.

1) With the theoretical 176Gbps PS4 should have no problems reaching 1080 @ 60 fps in theory. PS4 Devs are having difficulty with launch games reaching it.. That bandwidth should allow easily allow games designed with underpowered unfinished hardware to perform even better.

2) everyone made the assumption that the PS4 OS would be no more than 1GB citing links with Devs stating they didn't know what to do with all that RAM.. It wouldn't surprise me that devs are not mentioning it after the surprise of the OS RAM footprint which NO DEVS mentioned.

3) Xbone has a completely separate eSRAM pool for the framebuffer, meaning the system RAM bandwidth could be devied up and split anyway between OS and games but it would have basically zero effect on the framebuffer for actual rendering.. Meaning less graphically impress games but basically almost assuring 1080P and 60fps since it cannot actually be used for anything else.

I am focusing on bandwidth because again. the difficulty in reaching 1080P @ 60 fps on launch title games could easily be done with a large enough framebuffer which the specs support, the question is why they are not being achieved.

Bandwidth is hardly the limiting factor when it comes to reaching 1080p60, for either console.

It's less that PS4 developers are "having difficulty" reaching 1080p60 and more that most seem to be targetting 1080p30. There are several reasons for doing so, but the main one is that you'll have much more room for interesting shader effects.

Drive Club is the only one I've heard of that's come right out and said they're targetting 1080p60, but may not reach it. Infamous and KillZone both target 1080p30 -- this lets them get away with a lot more during the frame (KZ's interesting cubemap "raytracing" for example). Whether or not you target 30FPS or 60FPS is typically decided in preproduction, and then artists follow their budget accordingly.

 

[Glorified G]

MichaelMikado- 60FPS is a design decision. Any game can reach 60FPS if that is their goal.

It's got to the point where I don't even bother pointing this out anymore.

 

[prwxv3]

There are several suspicions.

1) With the theoretical 176Gbps PS4 should have no problems reaching 1080 @ 60 fps in theory. PS4 Devs are having difficulty with launch games reaching it.. That bandwidth should allow easily allow games designed with underpowered unfinished hardware to perform even better.

2) everyone made the assumption that the PS4 OS would be no more than 1GB citing links with Devs stating they didn't know what to do with all that RAM.. It wouldn't surprise me that devs are not mentioning it after the surprise of the OS RAM footprint which NO DEVS mentioned.

3) Xbone has a completely separate eSRAM pool for the framebuffer, meaning the system RAM bandwidth could be devied up and split anyway between OS and games but it would have basically zero effect on the framebuffer for actual rendering.. Meaning less graphically impress games but basically almost assuring 1080P and 60fps since it cannot actually be used for anything else.

I am focusing on bandwidth because again. the difficulty in reaching 1080P @ 60 fps on launch title games could easily be done with a large enough framebuffer which the specs support, the question is why they are not being achieved.

Wat. You need to stop posting.


It reminds me of liquidboys hilarious meltdown that got him banned and because he was a junior per banned.


And can we stop making the xbone as some 60FPS machine when only three exclusives are confirmed to being 60FPS which two are in genres that are normally 60FPS. And the multiplats that are 60FPS on xbone are 60 FPS on PS4

 

[MichaelMikado]

MichaelMikado, you really should learn more about graphic processing and bandwidth before commenting. You are embarrassing yourself.

Please enlighten me

MichaelMikado- 60FPS is a design decision. Any game can reach 60FPS if that is their goal.

so I guess Crysis run at 4 fps on intel integrated gpu is a design choice? Sounds like a hardware limitation to me.

 

[Glorified G]

PC = Consoles.

This thread has it all

 

[CassiusLonginus]

The debate is not whether devs can still create amazing works with this system. But whether it's prudent, or efficient, to devote such a high proportion of memory to what is essentially overhead, especially in the context of a gaming system.

efficient? no

prudent? for sure.

I do think Sony may be overcompensating a bit here out of the experience of the PS3 OS, but this can really only have 3 outcomes, 2 of which are positive:

1) Sony puts that space to good use in the future with features that complement gaming well.

2) Sony doesn't really use much of that space and frees it up to devs eventually when games really have some potential use for it

3) Sony implements a bunch of bloat OS features locking up that ram space.

Personally, I'm comfortable with 1 or 2. Hopefully 3 won't happen.

 

[astraycat]

Please enlighten me



so I guess Crysis run at 4 fps on intel integrated gpu is a design choice? Sounds like a hardware limitation to me.

PC frame budgets and console frame budgets are hardly the same. I suggest you read some of Crytek's presentations on the subject; they talk about what they target when when developing for consoles vs. PCs.

 

[Instigator]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

 

[I2amza]

There are several suspicions.

1) With the theoretical 176Gbps PS4 should have no problems reaching 1080 @ 60 fps in theory. PS4 Devs are having difficulty with launch games reaching it.. That bandwidth should allow easily allow games designed with underpowered unfinished hardware to perform even better.

2) everyone made the assumption that the PS4 OS would be no more than 1GB citing links with Devs stating they didn't know what to do with all that RAM.. It wouldn't surprise me that devs are not mentioning it after the surprise of the OS RAM footprint which NO DEVS mentioned.

3) Xbone has a completely separate eSRAM pool for the framebuffer, meaning the system RAM bandwidth could be devied up and split anyway between OS and games but it would have basically zero effect on the framebuffer for actual rendering.. Meaning less graphically impress games but basically almost assuring 1080P and 60fps since it cannot actually be used for anything else.

I am focusing on bandwidth because again. the difficulty in reaching 1080P @ 60 fps on launch title games could easily be done with a large enough framebuffer which the specs support, the question is why they are not being achieved.

1. Wrong. Design decision. Maybe just maybe the devs wanted to push more flashy stuff in our faces instead of going 60 frames.

2. You are making big assumptions without any quantifiable proof.

3. The eSRAM doesn't necessarily have to be a buffer. It can be used as a cache too.

You are focusing too much on 60 fps, when we already have games that are coming for the machine that are 60 fps.

 

[prwxv3]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

Uh oh

 

[Loudninja]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

Really what is your deal?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

Don't instigate bro.

 

[Glorified G]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

somebody is mad

 

[Aquamarine]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

Not cool, man. Not cool. :-(

 

[MichaelMikado]

Bandwidth is hardly the limiting factor when it comes to reaching 1080p60, for either console.

It's less that PS4 developers are "having difficulty" reaching 1080p60 and more that most seem to be targetting 1080p30. There are several reasons for doing so, but the main one is that you'll have much more room for interesting shader effects.

Drive Club is the only one I've heard of that's come right out and said they're targetting 1080p60, but may not reach it. Infamous and KillZone both target 1080p30 -- this lets them get away with a lot more during the frame (KZ's interesting cubemap "raytracing" for example). Whether or not you target 30FPS or 60FPS is typically decided in preproduction, and then artists follow their budget accordingly.

Yes, as I said before in theory both consoles should have no problem with rendering. The question I am posing is that why are DEVs not able to increase their target even slightly with a sudden and "surprise" spec bump? It stands to reason that if you were designing with a lower spec in mind and sudden increase would only make that target easier to meet or surpass.

 

[Instigator]

Uh oh

Well, I know people who've actually worked on the PS4 hardware itself, does that make me some kind of well-connected insider? No.

 

[toddhunter]

efficient? no

prudent? for sure.

I do think Sony may be overcompensating a bit here out of the experience of the PS3 OS, but this can really only have 3 outcomes, 2 of which are positive:

1) Sony puts that space to good use in the future with features that complement gaming well.

2) Sony doesn't really use much of that space and frees it up to devs eventually when games really have some potential use for it

3) Sony implements a bunch of bloat OS features locking up that ram space.

Personally, I'm comfortable with 1 or 2. Hopefully 3 won't happen.

Yep, worst case is 3 where Sony decide to use it for ads or integrating vine because it is trendy or something like that.

Because I really can't see anything useful, I'd say we will reach the point in 3 or 4 years where ND want 6GB for their new IP and Sony will make the call.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Here's my guesses on why the PS4 demos we have were so lackluster:

a) The good looking versions that they have is still unstable, so they had to go with demos based on much earlier versions of the game.

b) They're working on the 8GB PS4 devkit, while usually a devkit will have double the ram the consumer version has. The overhead due to a limited amount of RAM for a devkit is leading to a bit of a problem.

c) They're shitty game developers.

 

[astraycat]

Yes, as I said before in theory both consoles should have no problem with rendering. The question I am posing is that why are DEVs not able to increase their target even slightly with a sudden and "surprise" spec bump? It stands to reason that if you were designing with a lower spec in mind and sudden increase would only make that target easier to meet or surpass.

There's no surprise? Unless you're talking about the 4GiB->8GiB? The amount of memory has very little to do with frame budgets either, that's more of a global size-of-world sort of thing.

 

[I2amza]

Yes, as I said before in theory both consoles should have no problem with rendering. The question I am posing is that why are DEVs not able to increase their target even slightly with a sudden and "surprise" spec bump? It stands to reason that if you were designing with a lower spec in mind and sudden increase would only make that target easier to meet or surpass.

1. What do you mean slightly? Please go into more detail on that.

2. Are you talking about the 4GB -> 8GB spec bump from the Feb presentation?

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Here's my guesses on why the PS4 demos we have were so lackluster:

a) The good looking versions that they have is still unstable, so they had to go with demos based on much earlier versions of the game.

b) They're working on the 8GB PS4 devkit, while usually a devkit will have double the ram the consumer version has. The overhead due to a limited amount of RAM for a devkit is leading to a bit of a problem.

c) They're shitty game developers.

Please don't be 3.

 

[TheRealTalker]

When has kagari become some kind of well-connected big shot? You people will latch onto anything.

well sir you live up to your name

 

[MichaelMikado]

1. Wrong. Design decision. Maybe just maybe the devs wanted to push more flashy stuff in our faces instead of going 60 frames.
Wrong? Play Doom 1, Quake 1, UT 1 on your modern PC. If you get less than 30 fps somethings wrong. You must be use to console games where frames are locked hence thinking its a design decision. Yes its true the decide before development but that decision is based on the limitations of the hardware At its core your "design decision" is a hardware decision.



2. You are making big assumptions without any quantifiable proof.

3. The eSRAM doesn't necessarily have to be a buffer. It can be used as a cache too.

You are focusing too much on 60 fps, when we already have games that are coming for the machine that are 60 fps.

The reason I am specifically focusing on bandwidth is that is has not been addressed. In theory the PS4 particularly for multiplat games should be able to reach 45-60 fps vs the xbone at 30 fps, all assets/lighting/shaders being equal. The ONLY difference between the two systems is the GPU and eSRAM. I cannot see it as a 32MB cache when their is differently not enough bandwidth on the system RAM to act a framebuffer. That's literally the only place it could go.

 

[Takuya]

The reason why launch PS4 games are as they are, is most likely = because the tools are in their very early stages.

 

[prwxv3]

Well, I know people who've actually worked on the PS4 hardware itself, does that make me some kind of well-connected insider? No.

It sounds like you are just mad. The leaked 6GB presented could be wrong but it comes from credible posters like Bruce, Kagari, and the thuway. And you shitting on them because they have potentially good news is embarrassing.

On ps4 launch titles. Even though its not really launch Infamous SS looks amazing and far above what I expected from sucker punch tech wise.

 

[Dreamgazer]

We have multiplat fps comparisons already?

 

[Instigator]

It sounds like you are just mad. The leaked 6GB presented could be wrong but it comes from credible posters like Bruce, Kagari, and the thuway. And you shitting on them because they have potentially good news is embarrassing.

"Shitting" on one particular source, not the leak itself. And "shitting" on that one based on dubious posting history, including a certain kickstarter topic.

 

[nib95]

Well, I know people who've actually worked on the PS4 hardware itself, does that make me some kind of well-connected insider? No.

But do you have any credible insider knowledge? Most likely not, because the people you know who've worked on the PS4 don't give enough of a shit about you to let you in on much. That's the difference. Kagari has contacts and gets inside info.

I used to have several close contacts in the industry several years back (still have a few today), even had job prospects in it too. But that does not make me an insider. Much easier to have connections than connections who trust you enough to let you know stuff they are not legally allowed to tell you, or that risks them losing their jobs.

 

[captainraincoat]

This thread does not change the fact that the PS4 still has 8GB of GDDR5 and the XBox1 has 8GB of shitty ram.

No just that both consoles only use 5gb of it...well 4.5 in the ps4 case

 

[MichaelMikado]

There's no surprise? Unless you're talking about the 4GiB->8GiB? The amount of memory has very little to do with frame budgets either, that's more of a global size-of-world sort of thing.

VRAM size determines the amount of data stored locally to the GPU, it will affect how much data can be involved and still run at the same speed. So you can use higher quality textures, more anti-aliasing, and more shaders (which are stored as images, similar to textures) at the same resolution and still get a good framerate because the card can hold all that data locally, and doesn't have to wait to fetch it. It's worth noting that the pixel buffer is stored in the VRAM - a higher resolution or will increase the size of the buffer

In the PS4s case, The spec bump should in theory allow better framerates

 

[prwxv3]

"Shitting" on one particular source, not the leak itself. And "shitting" on that one based on dubious posting history, including a certain kickstarter topic.

You should read your own post history especially all your posts in this thread.

 

[Guymelef]

Well, I know people who've actually worked on the PS4 hardware itself, does that make me some kind of well-connected insider? No.

People can check your last messages, you are in damage control mode all the day.

 

[nib95]

No just that both consoles only use 5gb of it...well 4.5 in the ps4 case

5gb of physical unused Inc 512mb of flex, 5.5gb including an additional 512mb of flex swap space (hdd paged). Or... 6gb according to insiders.

If Sony Dev's have come out and said DF's figures are wrong, that means they're wrong.