Yeah, is someone knowledgeable about that?
Well that depends on what company x, y, or z wants. This will get the rumoured bandwidth, *and* reduces latency, reduces power, & saves space ( obviously ;p)
Edit: reduced latency for our needs is awesome.
Yeah, is someone knowledgeable about that?
I know old documents state that Sony is big on the memory stacking, like in the Vita. I'm sure the DDR5 is the speed they intend in the final machine. So I'm assuming it will be a stacked memory that's capable of DDR5 speed.
Another interesting fact in the Yole presentation that has the PS4 interposer/512 bit stacked memory (102GB/sec) is that game controllers will be 8% of the interposer market in 2014 (PAGE 16 & 17 Game Stations (11%) and Controllers (8%)). I was surprised at that as justifying that would be a very intense multi-chip multi-function circuit. It may be that the controller is portable outside the home, is the new walkman that S3D head mounted glasses plug into. With ATSC 2.0 is mobile Digital TV also.My understanding is that fm and gps are those extra functions. Thanks to the mobile industry, it's hard to find wifi and bt combo chips that don't also have fm and gps, which is why those features are randomly popping up in a presentation from a contractor in regards to game consoles.
Well that depends on what company x, y, or z wants. This will get the rumoured bandwidth, *and* reduces latency, reduces power, & saves space ( obviously ;p)
Edit: reduced latency for our needs is awesome.
Eh? I didn't know Sony implemented a stacked solution for Vita.
So that really could mean GDDR5 is a placeholder for something even faster and cheaper?
Eh? I didn't know Sony implemented a stacked solution for Vita.
So that really could mean GDDR5 is a placeholder for something even faster and cheaper?
No. GDDR5 is cheap as heck compared to stacked ram. Think $100 compared to $10.
All my lulz.
Surely you're confusing the cost of the process with that of the materials
Here's a nice little breakdown of the vita's stacking
This is such a retarded argument. First of all, the Vita is home to the best looking portable games you can get.
Going by your logic, the PS3 and 360 are bad hardware, as 99% of their games don't run at native HDTV resolutions (1,366x768 or 1920x1080). And you conveniently ignore all the games (first party and otherwise) that do run at native res. Wipeout, VT4, EDF and so on.
Anyway, no one apart from pixel counters give a shit. Overall IQ (frame rate, AA, effects) is far more important, and the Vita has shown from day one that it's more than capable. Racing around Sol in Wipeout still makes my balls tingle.
Not really because to get 4GB stacked on a die would cost about 10x as much as just buying GDDR5.
Eh? I didn't know Sony implemented a stacked solution for Vita.
So that really could mean GDDR5 is a placeholder for something even faster and cheaper?
So essentially Sony both GDDR5 and stacked DDR3/4 achieve the same intended goal but with different drawbacks.The whole point of an interposer, stacked DDR, and Wide I/O is you can get a 512 or 1024 bit bus in a small space at a reasonable cost.
I don't know how it will shake out, but I'm still hoping for a cutting edge 2.5d package with as much as 8GB of RAM and a ~200GBps bus. Its more possible than people realize, but they may have gone with GDDR5 to make sure they release this year.
it would not be possible to change from GDDR5 to something else later on... if thats what they start selling with, thats it.
So essentially Sony both GDDR5 and stacked DDR3/4 achieve the same intended goal but with different drawbacks.
GDDR5 is available now, cheaper in the short term but more expensive in the long term (?), provides high bandwidth but worse latency and is limited to 4GB. And is more power hungry and hot.
Stacking would mean potentially more RAM, similarly high bandwidth but better latency; but may cost more in the short term but would reduce in cost more in the long term. But simply may not be ready in time for the intended launch?
Maybe Hirai was waiting for 720's reveal to decide if to put 4 or 8GBI ask since there was a rumour floating around very late last year (around Nov or Dec) about how Sony had shipped two dev kits with 8GB and 16GB RAM. Conventional wisdom would suggest dev kits contain anywhere between 1.5 to 2 times the amount of RAM found in retail version of a console. As such, the 8GB system may have been simulating the final 3.5GB (Rumour: 512MB reserved for OS) GDDR5 package. But what about the 16GB one? Unless, the DDR3 equivalent of a dev kit for 3.5GB GDDR5 system is best done with 16GB, it spawns the question, "why".
So then let's throw GDDR5 to the garbage bin, give me these DDR3/4 ducktaped and some Doritos. You conviced me, sounds great.So essentially Sony both GDDR5 and stacked DDR3/4 achieve the same intended goal but with different drawbacks.
GDDR5 is available now, cheaper in the short term but more expensive in the long term (?), provides high bandwidth but worse latency and is limited to 4GB. And is more power hungry and hot.
Stacking would mean potentially more RAM, similarly high bandwidth but better latency; but may cost more in the short term but would reduce in cost more in the long term. But simply may not be ready in time for the intended launch?
Eh? I didn't know Sony implemented a stacked solution for Vita.
So that really could mean GDDR5 is a placeholder for something even faster and cheaper?
Sources? As far as i can tell the costs of the materials/components remain the same i.e. DDR3 costs as much as it otherwise would. It's the investment in the process (R&D) and the machines to actually complete the process that is huge
Can GDDR5 be stacked or is its heat production detrimental to this procedure? And is 4GB absolute limit when it comes to GDDR5 that Sony can opt for to keep within the allotted budget?
Another interesting fact in the Yole presentation that has the PS4 interposer/512 bit stacked memory (102GB/sec) is that game controllers will be 8% of the interposer market in 2014 (PAGE 16 & 17 Game Stations (11%) and Controllers (8%)). I was surprised at that as justifying that would be a very intense multi-chip multi-function circuit. It may be that the controller is portable outside the home, is the new walkman that S3D head mounted glasses plug into. With ATSC 2.0 is mobile Digital TV also.
Who knows but it's getting interesting.
Look here page 2 and 8
i have no idea... but why would they have more than 4 GB? Rather spend that money on computing power.
I agree with this. If there is extra memory involved, I wouldn't mind if it is for the OS overhead. 512MB isn't terrible, but I hate seeing any GDDR5 memory relegated to OS duty.
Faster and cheaper? So magic RAM that doesn't exist? These machine are coming out this year, they have to use something that exists now or very soon.
Interesting. Could this be Sony's Hook?
About the "2.5D" stacking you referred to why would sony need a test bed for that? They've already successfully achieved it. They're definitely going proper TSV for the psnext
I'd rather take 4GB of fast RAM than 8GB of slow(er) RAM. Bandwith is the king, the less bottlenecks the better. PS3 was bandiwth limited and that severlely hampered its performance in alpha intensive scenes.
Streaming and its evolution should come into its own once more. I am sure that the ICE team will design tools around this to keep the high bandwidth memory fed. Thus, in all probability, installs will remain a major part of PS4 gaming.
I think the PS4 wont suffer from mandatory installs like the PS3. PS3's trouble was the blu ray drive speed. Going by Sony's "bandwidth is king" for PS4, I expect at least a 8x speed.
As for memory, both could be an issue, even 8GB. Game worlds were already hitting 5GB this gen. Even then they were probably limited by design because of the DVD capacity. They sure aint gonna be that size next gen, so streaming will come into play. So I think both size and bandwidth will become an issue.
If you want no mandatory installs, then Sony would have to have SKU with no harddrive. If every SKU has a harddrive, the option is always there for devs. Devs would have had to focus on their data usage and alignment more if not every PS3 had a harddrive standard like 360.
I think the PS4 wont suffer from mandatory installs like the PS3. PS3's trouble was the blu ray drive speed. Going by Sony's "bandwidth is king" for PS4, I expect at least a 8x speed.
As for memory, both could be an issue, even 8GB. Game worlds were already hitting 5GB this gen. Even then they were probably limited by design because of the DVD capacity. They sure aint gonna be that size next gen, so streaming will come into play. So I think both size and bandwidth will become an issue.
These techniques can be combined. You wouldn't be able to stack memory on top of the Orbis APU for heat reasons like they did for Vita, but you could build a Wide I/O memory stack next to the APU, connected through an interposer. The side by side aspect is the 2.5d part.
Costlier to do. Sony are in for a very tight schedule.
One thing I thought of though was the possibility of Sony trying to nerf Durango a bit. Sony haven't got the clout to stop MS from obtaining a blu-ray licence from the BDA, but they may have enough clout to limit its maximum speed (6x does sound a bit low)
I wonder why most seem to think that 4GB of ram will not be enough. Yet we have 2 consoles with less that 512MB running current great games (abit with some compromises) that most pc's need 2GB just to be playable( slight exaggeration maybe 1GB). Yet not to many are not too concerned that while 8GB is great, there is the possibility that Durango could have even more compromises due to bandwidth issues, later into the gen.
In my view, if in 5 years 4GB is not enough for PS4 to keep up or Durango has bandwidth issues, big deal! Time to get the next gen started. Or do we really need our consoles to last 10 years?
Why are so many quick to assume 4GB is not enough? Is it just a case of Sony has no clue, and only MS can make a balanced console?
As opposed to the very hot and very expensive GDDR5? It would require better cooling as well, which costs money.
As opposed to the very hot and very expensive GDDR5? It would require better cooling as well, which costs money.
I don't think GDDR5 gets very hot at all, not on my graphics card anyway and that runs at 6000 MHz.
I am sure it is expensive though.
There's a reason most high end GPU coolers have contacts for all the memory chips on the heatsink/shroud.
All GDDR5 is not "very hot" or very expensive. Quit with the fallacies.As opposed to the very hot and very expensive GDDR5? It would require better cooling as well, which costs money.
All GDDR5 is not "very hot" or very expensive. Quit with the fallacies.