-
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.
Crytek wants 8GB of RAM in next-gen consoles
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
I NEED SCISSORS
Banned
Do they want to load the whole game into RAM or something.. ?
A Radeon 5870 still goes for $200, and that's a 2-year old card. The GTX 580 is at an even higher price point than the 5870 was at release, and currently has no competition at the single GPU range in its price bracket. Do you really expect that to become cheap within two years? In a $399 console? Really? Without even including everything else that's already ridiculous.thuway said:
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Link Man said:
Crytek knows more about what is needed to make fantastic looking games than anyone on this forum does.
Just like Epic insisting that consoles have 512mbs back in 2004/2005 when most were leaning towards 256mbs.
I think manufacturers should listen to game developers, especially experienced ones, and in particular about ram since it's so inexpensive these days.
Except there kinda is for gaming, on PC you can play at ridiculous resolutions with 4GB and this is with the OS running in the background.Risk Breaker said:
Sure you can build your PC with much more than that for it to be more 'future-proof' but chances are when games start to use that much memory there will be a new faster kind of RAM that will do the same if not more with less ammount of memory.
For consoles to benefit from that much RAM games should be taking advantage of higher ammounts of memory on PC RIGHT NOW and this ain't particularly happening at the moment nor do I see it happening anytime soon.
Consoles will be fine with 2GB of RAM, 3GB or maybe 4GB if Sony and Microsoft really want to 'future-proof' their consoles, any more than that will be useless and it would just be a way for them to rip us off more.
Thats MSRP. How much does that 5870 cost to produce? How much is AMD making from every 5870 sold?Crunched said:
There arent many developers (barely any) that take advantage of what PCs have to offer in terms of exploiting power for games. There's no way that developers will target PCs that have 8+ gigs of ram.Nekrono said:
Also,
"640K is enough for anyone"
Wandering Leopard
Member
That's reasonable - while offering a substantial upgrade over the current gen - and something I would definitely be happy with and guaranteed no $599/£425 launch console.DieH@rd said:
crazy monkey
Banned
thuway said:
$399 and plus extra will still be expensive for a game console.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
szaromir said:
Hence why console manufacturers should listen to them, especially the more experienced ones like Crytek and Epic. They were proven right with the previous generation.
They know what it takes to make fantastic looking games better than Microsoft or most message board members.
Making games is what they do for a living. They know where graphics are going, where the bottlenecks exist and what it takes to program advanced physics, lighting and ai. Laughing at them for claiming they want 8gb of ram to be able to make fantastic looking games is short sighted.
Stephen Colbert
Banned
Kyaw said:
Because you have more experience programming and developing games and game engines than Crytek, right?
What about split screen gaming?Kyaw said:
Have people forgotten about split screen gaming? Would you all not like there to be more split screen gaming? For that, you'd need more resources. There are a TON of reasons why we should be asking for more ram instead of saying "this amount is enough" and just settling.
*disclaimer*
I DO realize that there will always be cut backs when going from single player to split screen gaming.
Don't know the answers to your questions up top, but I see the point you're trying to make. I was considering that when I made my earlier post but was using the example anyway as anecdotal evidence. An indication of the gradual decrease in price.mr_nothin said:
As for the 640k argument, I'm not saying that 8GB will always be too much. But I think it's completely excessive if we're talking about consoles that will be released within three years. There's no indication that games in that time frame will require that much memory.
And people keep saying that it will be needed for the six years following release, but that's bullshit. Consoles don't get future proofed like that, and I don't see a move like that happening now, after Sony's massive early losses on the PS3.
Would 8GB be nice? I think it would be great, and I'd love to see what games could be made on a console with hardware on that level. But I don't think it's going to happen.
SneakyStephan
Banned
A developer asks for something hardware wise and all of GAF know better ofcourse.
Instro said:
You guys are seriously overestimating cost of hardware.
1. Sony and MS get rates we couldn't dream of.
2. Sony owns the Cell processor.
3. A 100 dollar loss can be turned into profit within a year. Add onto that fees to play online, the sale of a launch titles, and your good to go.
Kyaw said:
Are you telling me that you really like modern FPS shooters that can show ~20 charachters on screen, with most of them using some simple AI in low/zero destructible enviroments, all that in sub 720p resolution, with tearing, incosistent FPS and low aliasing???
Belive in devs, they will use every ounce of tech in consoles.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,2778-8.html
That is on PC but it shows that you dont really see much differences in performance between 4gb and 8gb unless you are doing something other than gaming. It's unnecessary to spend that much more for extra 4gb of RAM and still compromising for a not so high price.
@ mr_nothin: That's actually a good point!
But lots of games nowadays have less and less split-screen...
That is on PC but it shows that you dont really see much differences in performance between 4gb and 8gb unless you are doing something other than gaming. It's unnecessary to spend that much more for extra 4gb of RAM and still compromising for a not so high price.
@ mr_nothin: That's actually a good point!
But lots of games nowadays have less and less split-screen...
Each time a thread about future specs pops up, there are people stating that the Xbox 360 and PS3 were already old when entering the market and that their mom's PC was more powerful. I don't know in what universe those revisionists were in 2005 but certainly not in mine.
In november 2005, the Core Duo wasn't even launched and Intel was still pushing the Pentium which was dual core but not hyper threaded. A tri core with six threads was pretty impressive at the time and clearly wasn't in the cheap PC found in every supermarket.
Oh and 512 MB GPUs were only starting to appear, 128/256 MB was still the norm.
IIRC, 1 GB RAM was pretty common in 2005 though.
I think that when talking about 8 GB of RAM, Crytek are talking about RAM+VRAM.
I really hope we get a bigger than 2 GB pool of total RAM for next gen. 3 or 4 GB of unified GDDR5 would be ideal IMO as even in 2012/2013, I don't think 8 GB of GDDR5 or XDR would be affordable enough. Some people forget that you can't use DDR3 prices as a basis as console use much faster and more expensive RAM.
In november 2005, the Core Duo wasn't even launched and Intel was still pushing the Pentium which was dual core but not hyper threaded. A tri core with six threads was pretty impressive at the time and clearly wasn't in the cheap PC found in every supermarket.
Oh and 512 MB GPUs were only starting to appear, 128/256 MB was still the norm.
IIRC, 1 GB RAM was pretty common in 2005 though.
I think that when talking about 8 GB of RAM, Crytek are talking about RAM+VRAM.
I really hope we get a bigger than 2 GB pool of total RAM for next gen. 3 or 4 GB of unified GDDR5 would be ideal IMO as even in 2012/2013, I don't think 8 GB of GDDR5 or XDR would be affordable enough. Some people forget that you can't use DDR3 prices as a basis as console use much faster and more expensive RAM.
thuway said:
MS also sold the 360 at about a $100 loss or more and it wasnt until till 2008 that they started turning a profit on their games division. Considering how much they charge for their online services and other accessories, thats pretty bad.
And of course Sony is in the hole a few billion atm.
I think what he meant is that not even on PC games are using that much, and that is with a beefy memory hungry OS like Win 7 for example.Stephen Colbert said:
Why would consoles need 8GB? Chances are 4GB would be overkill as it is. Might as well spend that money and resources on a better video card followed by processor.
If you look at games over the past few years they have not been asking for that much memory increase, the scale of performance gain is much higher with video cards and processors than memory quantity.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
SneakyStephan said:
Something something I'm an expert something somethiing
phosphor112
Banned
Delusional bunch of cods... they can't even release a game with DX11 yet they bitch about wanting consoles with 8gigs of RAM?
Crysis on PC running on highest settings doesn't even use 4.
Idiots.
Crysis on PC running on highest settings doesn't even use 4.
Idiots.
