Metroid-Squadron said:That's because no PC games are actually pushing the hardware anymore.
Can anyone (with actual knowledge obviously) post a breakdown of the typical RAM usage of games this gen?
Somewhat true yes, but if PC is not really pushing the hardware I doubt consoles will do it first.Metroid-Squadron said:That's because no PC games are actually pushing the hardware anymore.
woolley said:I think people are being a little short sighted on this issue. When the current was announced how many people would of thought about the ability to have 256 people matches on consoles or have the graphics that some of the games are putting out on consoles? We might not be able to think of all of the possibilities of what this could do right now but 5-6 years down the line it could really do wonders if developers have more to work with.
I wish! Napoleon rapes my rig.Metroid-Squadron said:That's because no PC games are actually pushing the hardware anymore.
wwm0nkey said:Again guys more important question, should the new system use GDDR3 or GDDR4 RAM?
Haunted said:I wish! Napoleon rapes my rig.
You can't future proof a console. It is impossible. It is a closed system and regardless of what you throw at it it will be outdated in a year or two -- and very likely at release. That's if you don't want to spend an outrageous amount of cash for the initial investment, but at that point any prospect of value goes down the drain.MisterAnderson said:People actually think Crytek is being unreasonable here?
....
We are talking about games that need to last from 2012ish-2018ish. Get with the times.
And they cost ~$400+, consoles with that much RAM would need a great processor and video card to go on par with it and make it actually efficient instead of bottlenecking it. And even still most games would probably never use it.The Invisible Man said:Smart phones these days have 1GB of RAM. Just sayin'.
And I can get one anytime I want! The beauty of PC gaming.TheExodu5 said:You just need a faster rig.
Clott said:I am expecting 2 gigs of really fast ram, if were pulling off Uncharted 3 type of textures on 512, 2 gigs will be more than enough for next gen.
shinobi602 said:Lol, good one Crytek XD
Mock if old =/
http://www.gamerzines.com/ps3/news/crytek-next-gen-8gb-ram.html
Medalion said:He is basically asking consoles become 64 bit PC's nao
That's because it is.Link Man said:8GB seems like overkill.
Not going to happen, never mind the fact that the cost and time needed for such a game would be absolutely ridiculous.thuway said:I want Versus XIII CG quality graphicz in my next console. Make it happen someone.
How much is 2gb of fast ram? I saw a sale the other day for 8gb at 89.99... I'm guessing thats slow ram though.Tenkei said:Sigh, the RAM you get in your smart phone and on RAM sticks in your PC is nowhere near as fast or as high quality as the RAM in your console and your PC's video card. That's why it's cheap.
Fast RAM is not cheap.
I repeat, fast RAM is NOT CHEAP.
Thanks, though what I meant was what the RAM is used for (textures, postprocessing, audio, 3d data, etc...).TheExodu5 said:I can give you estimates.
On the PC side of things, games tend to max out at around 1.5GB, usually. The biggest I've seen was STALKER Call of Pripyat Complete (with insanely high resolution textures) at around 2.5GB, but this is a rarity. In terms of video RAM, the most I've seen used is around 1200MB in GTA IV at 1080p.
Why? Consoles are being pushed to their limits right now.Nekrono said:Somewhat true yes, but if PC is not really pushing the hardware I doubt consoles will do it first.
Indeed. Who knows what kind of crazy effects will devs come up with next gen.Ether_Snake said:RAM isn't just textures..... It's not only more detailed meshes, textures, more diversity, etc., but also room to hold data in memory that is created on the fly (destructible terrains, lighting data, etc.). It also means less loading, etc. There's a LOT you can do with RAM that has nothing to do with textures. Sound, AI, everything can benefit from more RAM.
McLovin said:How much is 2gb of fast ram? I saw a sale the other day for 8gb at 89.99... I'm guessing thats slow ram though.
thuway said:Honestly, if we are talking about Fall 2013, there will be some insane RAM at 99 dollars. People have to remember these prices will fall dramatically within the first year. If both MS and Sony were to build a platform and take a 100-200 dollar loss on every unit, they will break even within a year with how fast generalized pc tech moves.
Router said:Well didn't Clifford B and friends convince Microsoft to double the RAM in the 360? I'd love 8 but I'm really thinking even 4gb is stretching things.
Instro said:Eh? Considering how much of a disaster that strategy was for Sony this gen I dont see anyone taking significant losses on their next consoles.
Unfortunately you can't buy external GDDR5 and insert it into your PC because video RAM is no longer a standalone consumer part. Based on prices back when you could upgrade the video RAM in your PC, VRAM cost 8x more than basic RAM for the equivalent capacity.McLovin said:How much is 2gb of fast ram? I saw a sale the other day for 8gb at 89.99... I'm guessing thats slow ram though.
thuway said:Honestly, if we are talking about Fall 2013, there will be some insane RAM at 99 dollars. People have to remember these prices will fall dramatically within the first year. If both MS and Sony were to build a platform and take a 100-200 dollar loss on every unit, they will break even within a year with how fast generalized pc tech moves.
What.thuway said:Sony made the mistake of going with the most exotic shit possible. Things that were almost impossible to reduce the costs on. If you take a hit on something like GPU, RAM, etc. - your costs will significantly lower. Sony can easily release a -
Multi Cell
8 gig Ram
GTX 580 equivalent or better
at 399 in 2013.
Not for a system that's supposed to last for 5+ years...especially when a BUNCH of games, this gen, are sub-20 fps for a majority of the time. There's no such thing as overkill when it comes to consoles. Devs will always be starved for resources on a closed system.Link Man said:8GB seems like overkill.
Exactly. there's NEVER "enough". Especially if we want that big jump in the experience we get from games.Ether_Snake said:RAM isn't just textures..... It's not only more detailed meshes, textures, more diversity, etc., but also room to hold data in memory that is created on the fly (destructible terrains, lighting data, etc.). It also means less loading, etc. There's a LOT you can do with RAM that has nothing to do with textures. Sound, AI, everything can benefit from more RAM.
No, just no. Unless you want to pay up to - or more than $800thuway said:Sony can easily release a -
Multi Cell
8 gig Ram
GTX 580 equivalent or better
at 399 in 2013.
ColonelColon said:ah, the old door-in-the-face technique. Demand 8 GB of RAM and maybe you'll get 4 GB. Clever Crytek.
thuway said:Sony can easily release a -
Multi Cell
8 gig Ram
GTX 580 equivalent or better
at 399 in 2013.
If only we had more RAM for that extra fps! All our problems would be solved.mr_nothin said:Not for a system that's supposed to last for 5+ years...especially when a BUNCH of games, this gen, are sub-20 fps for a majority of the time. There's no such thing as overkill when it comes to consoles. Devs will always be starved for resources on a closed system.
You've got to be joking lol.thuway said:Sony made the mistake of going with the most exotic shit possible. Things that were almost impossible to reduce the costs on. If you take a hit on something like GPU, RAM, etc. - your costs will significantly lower. Sony can easily release a -
Multi Cell
8 gig Ram
GTX 580 equivalent or better
at 399 in 2013.