Cerny was quite clear in his interviews that the machine is primarily a video games console when he was asked what, if any, multimedia features planned for the machine influenced the hardware design. Microsoft, however, have approached it with a different philosophy by building both a games console and a multimedia device. The indications given to us were that the vast majority of resources would go to gaming
I think this still doesn't go against what he said. He could argue, multitasking, video recording and sharing, sleep, quick resume, and etc are all part of a system dedicated to gamers.
Possibly, hard to say without knowing more.
The optimum ram allocation for the console would be 5.86GB physical and then whatever is left for the OS.
So, 8192mb - 5.86GB = 2332mb left, - 512mb flex swap space (should they want it) = 1820mb. Which I guess would be a more optimal amount to be reserved for the OS. But at the least (minus the flex swap space) they only need to have the OS reserve 2.33GB of ram to allow the console to use up memory at full efficiency (based on 176GB/s), unless of course they plan to target running games at lower than 30fps lol, which I doubt they will.
That's not to say more ram (than 5.86GB) can't or won't help, but I'm just talking in terms of maximum efficiency.
Also, quoting for new page since it's important.
IT WAS NEVER PUBLICLY REVEALED WHAT RAM FIGURES WERE BEFORE THE RAM UPGRADE.
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING FIGURES THAT YOU ARE PULLING OUT FROM A HAT?
This is either trolling or ignorance at the finest level. There are too many people in this thread trying to explain this logically, but you are somehow missing these posts and continue spreading a fable.
So both systems are a 5/3 split. One still has better memory.
Nothing's changed?
How so?
How so?
It's trolling. I haven't had breakfast yet. Back in a while.IT WAS NEVER PUBLICLY REVEALED WHAT RAM FIGURES WERE BEFORE THE RAM UPGRADE.
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING FIGURES THAT YOU ARE PULLING OUT FROM A HAT?
This is either trolling or ignorance at the finest level. There are too many people in this thread trying to explain this logically, but you are somehow missing these posts and continue spreading a fable.
It's quite useful, actually.I've exhausted about all I had to say. If this thread is going to be a regurgitation of the last 2 then this thread doesn't need to exist. Not when all the info isn't valid and HW/SW is still coming together.
No, it's there so that you can address an extra 512 MB in case you go over 5GB. Your performance will substantially degrade when hitting paged memory. However, it's much better than out of memory error and program crash.
Sure they never publicly stated it, but staying silent about the whole thing this entire time is just as misleading. For months these are the type of articles that game sites ran with.IT WAS NEVER PUBLICLY REVEALED WHAT RAM FIGURES WERE BEFORE THE RAM UPGRADE.
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING FIGURES THAT YOU ARE PULLING OUT FROM A HAT?
Sony: Nope. Thats all you got. *snickerHe said that the game’s demo only used 3gb of the console’s GDDR5 RAM on video resources, with a further 1.5gb dedicated to system resources. This leaves just under 4gb worth of RAM spare
Dude, you're starting to sound really defensive now.
That's a debatable part. But the X1 DDR is better for the OS IIRC
Another slow news day.
yMy man, we were led to believe that Sony would not be going the multi media route that MS is going. Therefore they wouldnt need as much memory for their OS.
These rumors show, they were going to fight head to head with multi media the whole time.
So when you say who told us. Sony did.
IT WAS NEVER PUBLICLY REVEALED WHAT RAM FIGURES WERE BEFORE THE RAM UPGRADE.
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING FIGURES THAT YOU ARE PULLING OUT FROM A HAT?
This is either trolling or ignorance at the finest level. There are too many people in this thread trying to explain this logically, but you are somehow missing these posts and continue spreading a fable.
Dude, you're starting to sound really defensive now.
I am extremely curious about this. Why do it this way unless there are some undocumented limitations on the game side in regards to memory??People who understand these things, what are they talking about? And what are the advantages/disadvantages?
3.5 GB reserved for the OS.Legit question: What are people complaining about?
That is some good math and would be accurate on the Xbox One specs except you forgot the other part of the equation, the ESRAM. Here, read this:You are indeed correct, based on bandwidth figures, the amount of ram available to each console is as follows.
---
Xbox One | 8GB DDR3 at 68GB/s (5GB available to devs)
At 60fps the maximum memory available per frame is 1.133GB
At 30fps the maximum memory available per frame is 2.266GB
PS4 | 8GB GDDR5 at 176GB/s (5.5GB available to devs) 512mb of that swap space, paged to the HDD.
At 60fps the maximum memory available per frame is 2.933GB
At 30fps the maximum memory available per frame is 5.866GB
---
This is the actual maximum amount of memory available to each console irrespective of what amount the OS uses up.
If people are wondering why the figures at they are, the bandwidth amounts dictate the maximum amount of ram available per second. So 68GB/s means 68GB maximum memory access per second. If a game is 30fps it means there are 30 frames rendered per one second. So you just divide 68 (the amount of ram bandwidth and thus available ram per second) by 30 (in this example the number of frames being rendered in per second).
That's a debatable part. But the X1 DDR is better for the OS IIRC
EDIT: Forgot the ESRAM. Can't remember how that figures into the X1
It's actually kind of hard to dispute that XB1 will be better in multimedia.
TV is no-brainer, for the US market at least.
MS will naturally have more 'apps' for XB1, by virtue of the Windows partition and their own expertise/ownership of various softwares.
Those 2 alone means that XB1 will have a lead in terms of multimedia, because multimedia through consoles are pretty much an 'apps' game.
They are wasting GDDR5 compared to Microsoft and DDR3. It's a much bigger waste.
3.5 GB reserved for the OS.
I think this still doesn't go against what he said. He could argue, multitasking, video recording and sharing, sleep, quick resume, and etc are all part of a system dedicated to gamers.
Sony themselves alluded at E3 that they would continue to add in multimedia services for PS4 throughout its life time, but didn't go into any specifics. With the RAM split of 5/3 or 5/1.5+1.5 or whatever, I think it's their way of playing it safe.
Still, I'm going to wait and see how Sony allocates the 8GB GDDR5 - it's an exciting aspect.
Colin Moriarty IGN's biggest PS3 shill again continues to passively agressively defend his beloved Sony. LoL
That's the part that's strange.
DDR3 is actually better for OS related stuff
Dude, you're starting to sound really defensive now.
IT WAS NEVER PUBLICLY REVEALED WHAT RAM FIGURES WERE BEFORE THE RAM UPGRADE.
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING FIGURES THAT YOU ARE PULLING OUT FROM A HAT?
This is either trolling or ignorance at the finest level. There are too many people in this thread trying to explain this logically, but you are somehow missing these posts and continue spreading a fable.
Sure they never publicly stated it, but staying silent about the whole thing this entire time is just as misleading.
if they can lie about this they can lie about DDR5
i feel so betrayed
Making only about 50% of the memory available for games sounds a bit stubid.
That is some good math and would be accurate on the Xbox One specs except you forgot the other part of the equation, the ESRAM. Here, read this:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware
It's trolling. I haven't had breakfast yet. Back in a while.
It's quite useful, actually.
It's trolling. I haven't had breakfast yet. Back in a while.
It's quite useful, actually.
That may be the case, but we really don't know what's truly going on behind the scenes of the PS4's OS to require 3GB. There are still a lot of variables to this, I think.
People believed the initial speculation about Sony using only 1GB GDDR5 for the OS and 7GB GDDR5 for games.Why are they complaining about that?
It's trolling. I haven't had breakfast yet. Back in a while.
It's quite useful, actually.
uuuh wasn't it more 176GB/s?
That's the problem...Nobody have a clue...Why are they complaining about that?