F'DUPTON 3: Back in the Tub with 5.0/5.5/6/7/several Inches of RAM-Flavoured Water

Status
Not open for further replies.
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!

So... a day after they release an article on a rumor that makes no sense and is based on old Powerpoint slides, they release another article based on info from a beyond3D poster? And this article says that the "flex" ram is half a gig instead of a gig like their last article?

LMAO. Yo, Digital Foundry and Eurogamer can go fuck right off. From this point on, I'm gonna assume that, unless your name is CBoaT, any "insider" is completely full of shit.

I'm gonna wait for Sony to comment. You all can engage in this carnival of stupid if you want, but I'm not falling for this blatant click-baiting. Have fun, Xbots and Sony fans...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory

They did comment and they didn't say it wasn't true...
 
Why would anyone praise Sony for making a weaker system, especially one with even less of an advantage when it comes to multiplatform games than it had before? Developers CANNOT have been complaining about a missing 1GB of RAM. It makes no sense for them to make a huge deal about doubling the PS4's RAM, then turn around and only make 1GB of that actually usable. They got scared by Microsoft's 'goods and services' model and now we're paying for it with a weaker console.
Can you explain how it's a "weaker console"? If they dropped the GDDR5 or downclocked the CPU or GPU I would agree. But the lolz in this thread are epic.
 
Why would they talk about a constantly evolving situation? The system isn't even out for another 4 months, why state numbers when numbers will undoubtedly change in SDK and OS updates?
Bravo. An actual fact here.


The documentation Eurogamer have seen, along with the sources working from said documentation don't have final devkits.

Mainly becuase they don't exist properly until the console is released.
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
Also, I must be behind on my memes, but what is the below in reference to? A previous post on GAF, or elsewhere on the internet? Anyone have a link to the original?
Amirox post in Final Fantasy Betrayalton Thread changed to suit this topic..

fuck i said i was out, something keeps pulling me back. Guess I like watching the carnival.
 
Gemüsepizza;73159531 said:
The information with 4.5 GB + 512MB was from a beyond3D member, and he forwarded this to Eurogamer:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1769120&postcount=2503
Someone linked the initial post by the B3D member earlier in the thread.

This is the follow up post where he claims the update is due to his informing Leadbetter.
forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1769150&postcount=2515

I thought common consensus was that there was something of a stroke of "luck" in the RAM densities becoming available that allowed them to go with 8GB, and had it not the PS4 would be using 4GB GDDR5.

It's conceivable that RAM OS allocation prior to the upgrade was larger than hypothesized I suppose.

It's also reasonable to expect that more RAM will be freed up later I suppose. If there are no plans to free up more, then that's frankly a colossal waste of money imo. I'm not sure where this idea that OS features will sell these systems comes from... I just don't see it. Buying a $400-500 box to snap things really doesn't seem like something consumers will do.
If Digital Foundry is taking the word of the same person who said that a 12GB is possible for the XB1 because the dev kits have them, then I really don't know what to say. It baffles me even more that people ignore this little fact, but whatever.

I think I'm gonna quit this kind of thread for some time. It has turned from funny to ridiculous to just plain sad, seeing all the people thinking they know more than developers, or cancelling stuff for stupid stuff and then thinking of posting it on a forum.
 
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait!

So... a day after they release an article on a rumor that makes no sense and is based on old Powerpoint slides, they release another article based on info from a beyond3D poster? And this article says that the "flex" ram is half a gig instead of a gig like their last article?

LMAO. Yo, Digital Foundry and Eurogamer can go fuck right off. From this point on, I'm gonna assume that, unless your name is CBoaT, any "insider" is completely full of shit.

I'm gonna wait for Sony to comment. You all can engage in this carnival of stupid if you want, but I'm not falling for this blatant click-baiting. Have fun, Xbots and Sony fans...
Sony's comments are in the OP o_O
 
Its great that Sony made a statement about this, also (Flex) RAM is used solely by games not OS.

Sony didn't mention any numbers because the footprint is constantly changing. I can see smaller OS footprint in the future.

Also PS4/X1 OS must be snappy and ultra responsive, I won't forgive any problems with the OS :)
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
We just need to wait it out. It'll soon calm down, probably a month or so before the consoles are released and people start to focus on the various previews, etc for the upcoming games, features, etc.

This whole mess will be a distant memory and we'll all be better for it.
This has brought out the worse in GAF. By those who actually bring some insight from contacts to keep the conversation steady, the good. Those who drive by troll or think they know what this means for devs, the bad. That means passive aggressive posting, or bunching up a bunch of Sony fanboys into a melting pot of nothingness.

I think it seems from the Sony statement that the final division is yet to be decided.
4 months out, you'd think some would see that but to a lot of people, it seems like they need more when they don't even know why they need more.
 
on the graphics side of things

if the memory is 176GB/s & the game is 60FPS the most memory that the game will need at a giving time/frame is 2.93GB & if the game is 30FPS you wouldn't use any more than 5.86GB per frame.


in other words you can't move 8GB of data each frame with 176GB/s unless the game was 22FPS so why not put the other GB of ram to use with the OS?
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).
 
I'm really not surprised that a lot of devs and people in the gaming industry dont post on 'Gaf if this is the level of understanding that a lot of people have regarding video games technology.
 
They have exactly the same at the moment. Both offer 5GB ram for the devs. Only the PS4's has 3x more bandwidth, and the GPU is 50% more powerful.
Thanks for the clear answer. I'm on vacation traveling and won't have internet all day once I leave the hotel.

I'm disappointed in this. But also kind of happy. Was tired of all the drama between the spec differences.
 
Can you explain how it's a "weaker console"?
Compared to what we were led to believe before. It's still obviously more powerful than the Boner, though the gap is significantly smaller than it was before. Less RAM also means a lower ceiling for performance, which means a shorter gen.

I don't want a short generation. Screw that noise; consoles are too expensive already, and I'd rather not buy a PS4 when it's on the way out the door.
 
Some posts in here are the most WTF comments I've seen ever- with no constructive thought behind them.

People use some common sense. Have any devs said the RAM wasn't enough? There's still 8gbs of RAM; same goes for the XB1 and what is made available for games is more than enough. Armchair devs up in here acting like they are the ones making the games. All those going "that's disappointing", do you play video games or RAM? This is basically non-news but its getting fanboys who use it as a weapon in the "mine is better than yours argument" all up in arms. The argument was stupid for the xbone and is stupid now. Wait for the consoles to be released and if the games are not up to stuff or the UI stutters then you can start acting up.
 
So what's the big deal? Seems like the PS4 and Xbone have similar memory allocations, but the PS4 still has the faster RAM. Memory allocation for fixed hardware should be conservative at first since it's hard to pin down the operating system's exact memory usage until features and optimizations are finalized.
 
It would not take remotely 3.5GB of ram to do all that. I am sorry but we should not let sony off the hook. The OS better be as functional as windows 7 if they are using 3.5GB of ram for it. I better be getting full programs not apps with that much space. I am just crushed to be honest. The only cutting edge/expensive thing about any of these machines was the 8GB of GDDR5 now that is gone. Now we have basically have the generation that has by far the smallest upgrade in hardware with a premium prices. The OS eating all the ram would explain why none of the games are mind blowing to us like we saw with games like Soul Calibur or other launch games of past generations.
We have exactly the same we had before, two underpowered consoles with 60+ dollar games and a 50 dollars a year subscription fee to play your games.
8GB ram didn't make up for the disproportionally low bandwidth (single pc gpus that don't have to share their bandwidth with the cpu are already at 280GB/s and in 2014-2015 memory stacking is here for upwards of 300GB/sec for system ram and 500GB-1TB/sec vram, as well as another doubling of ram densities)
It was never going to be future proof or even just high end at release.

The gpu was never powerful enough to do much with all that ram anyhow.

It was low-midrange gaming hardware at release and was going to be just as piddly and outdated in 2 years as the xbox 360 was by 2008.

I'm not excusing sony for reserving this much ram, I'm just saying the 'windows 7 only takes 1GB of ram' etc is besides the point, as chrome/firefox on pc will take up another 1-2GB with a bunch of tabs open and other multitasking stuff needs memory too. It's no different on consoles.
 
Three options with Sony comments
1) the numbers are right and they don't want to confirm them, meaning additional stories will be ran on official word.
2) it's worse
3) they're still deciding or it's better and they're playing close to the chest.
 
Why would anyone praise Sony for making a weaker system, especially one with even less of an advantage when it comes to multiplatform games than it had before? Developers CANNOT have been complaining about a missing 1GB of RAM. It makes no sense for Sony to make a huge deal about doubling the PS4's RAM, then turn around and only make 1GB of that actually usable. They got scared by Microsoft's 'goods and services' model and now we're paying for it with a weaker console.
LMAO! I wish I can @ Naughty Dog this. They will show you a "weaker console" indeed.. Watch it. You let papers speak but don't let your eyes confirm. Sad.. Sad.. Sad.
 
Thuway is basically saying that the hardware bump is smaller than previous gen and therefore the standard 16x jump in RAM amount is overkill. If we start theorizing what's good enough though, both MS and Nintendo have their arguments.

Next gen will be short with these puny specs. Fine by me, 5 year cycles are perfect.
5 year generation? Nah, we're looking at a generation that's as long or longer than this one.

Take development time into consideration for big AAA titles, 2 years+ for most means developers won't be at all happy with a 5 year cycle. 10-12 years is a reasonable estimate for how gen 8 will last in my opinion.
 
Honestly, we're mixing up our baskets and points of discussion here.

Confirmed: Devs are using 4.5GB of RAM, with 1GB of flex-ram right now for their games.
Unconfirmed : PS4OS will take up 3GB RAM.

Sony & MS don't just 'magically' know that their OS will take up X amount of RAM back when they first started 'building the OS.'
They establish a feature set they want to achieve with the first version of the OS, estimate how much it'll take up, and prepare additional buffer for future upgrades and improvement to the OS. They also need to take into account the dateline, and how rough their first iteration of the OS will be.

We know that MS has 'settled' on 3GB very decisively, as per their current needs and future-proofing. However, Sony's is still unconfirmed. All we have with us is the 'baseline' given to devs to work with, which is 1.5GB in actual usage, and another 1GB for future proofing. But that on its own doesn't mean that the final OS will be that amount, or that the future-proofing will be that amount.
 
Why would anyone praise Sony for making a weaker system, especially one with even less of an advantage when it comes to multiplatform games than it had before? Developers CANNOT have been complaining about a missing 1GB of RAM. It makes no sense for Sony to make a huge deal about doubling the PS4's RAM, then turn around and only make 1GB of that actually usable. They got scared by Microsoft's 'goods and services' model and now we're paying for it with a weaker console.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the worst post in this thread. All of a sudden, having the same amount of ram(rumor) and a 50% more powerful you now makes Sony's console weaker than Microsoft's. We'll good luck to you during your stay at neogaf. Btw, this isn't gamefaqs
 
Why would anyone praise Sony for making a weaker system, especially one with even less of an advantage when it comes to multiplatform games than it had before? Developers CANNOT have been complaining about a missing 1GB of RAM. It makes no sense for Sony to make a huge deal about doubling the PS4's RAM, then turn around and only make 1GB of that actually usable. They got scared by Microsoft's 'goods and services' model and now we're paying for it with a weaker console.
WTF.

How in hell is PS4 weaker console?
 
Compared to what we were led to believe before. It's still obviously more powerful than the Boner, though the gap is significantly smaller than it was before. Less RAM also means a lower ceiling for performance, which means a shorter gen.

I don't want a short generation. Screw that noise; consoles are too expensive already, and I'd rather not buy a PS4 when it's on the way out the door.
You weren't buying a PS4, anyway. Stop talking, you aren't making any sense.
 
they don't understand how you got to that fact and you need to explain it, why does 60 fps require less ram
Okay here's the breakdown. There's a maximum amount of bandwidth you can have per second with a certain type of RAM. With PS4's GDDR5 RAM it is 176GB/s.

So maximum amount that can be transferred = 176GB/s.

Alright, now 60fps = 60 frames per second. Data has to be written/read 60 times in a second. Now we already know that the maximum amount of data per second is 176GB. So divide that by 60 = 2.93 GB per frame. The maximum amount of data that can be transferred, per frame is 2.93GB as a result.

Now do the same for 30 framer per second, and you get more data per frame, since there are less frames the data gets split up by. The maximum amount of data per frame at 30fps ends up being 5.86 GB as a result.

Now think logically, why do you think people say that 30fps games can pull off better visuals than 60fps games?It's because there are less frames to render. Each frame can pack a more visual punch (aka use more RAM per frame).

Hence, 30fps can use more RAM at any given time than 60fps.
 
Compared to what we were led to believe before. It's still obviously more powerful than the Boner, though the gap is significantly smaller than it was before. Less RAM also means a lower ceiling for performance, which means a shorter gen.

I don't want a short generation. Screw that noise; consoles are too expensive already, and I'd rather not buy a PS4 when it's on the way out the door.
This gen has been 7 years on 512MB. Also, the reserved amount of RAM can be freed up to developers in the future.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the worst post in this thread. All of a sudden, having the same amount of ram(rumor) and a 50% more powerful you now makes Sony's console weaker than Microsoft's. We'll good luck to you during your stay at neogaf. Btw, this isn't gamefaqs
I never said weaker than Microsoft's. I said weaker than we thought it was previously, which it is. Relax.

LMAO! I wish I can @ Naughty Dog this. They will show you a "weaker console" indeed.. Watch it. You let papers speak but don't let your eyes confirm. Sad.. Sad.. Sad.
Not every developer is Naughty Dog. That's like saying "Hercules can throw a whale into the sun. Clearly all humans are just as powerful!"

Naughty Dog runs on some sort of crazy necromantic magic to get the results they do, and even then, it could not be a BAD THING to give them more power to play around with.

You weren't buying a PS4, anyway. Stop talking, you aren't making any sense.
When did I say I was never buying a PS4? It's the only next-gen system I CAN buy at this rate, if Sony ever wises up and announces some worthwhile games for the damn thing.
 
So basically, if I read that statement correctly. Both systems will have 5 GB of RAM?

Feel bad for you guys who cancelled your pre-orders. You're gonna have to buy a bundle now.
 
I'm really not surprised that a lot of devs and people in the gaming industry dont post on 'Gaf if this is the level of understanding that a lot of people have regarding video games technology.
This. This thread and the last 2 before it are just ugh. And gaf is supposed to be one of the best gaming forums where understanding and knowledge abounds.sigh. Maybe I just overrated it.
 
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.
I think it has more to do with having to swap memory out at a higher rate. correct me if i am wrong tho
 
How can anyone deny this has been the thought process for months on here? Now we have numbers. Cant say official though.

Some want to act like 7GB for games never was floating out there.
Yes it was the thought process for many still it was never fact .
Either way i always thought the PS4 OS would be bigger than 1GB ( 3GB is crazy IMO )
Some Sony fans run with the 7 GB number and now they have egg on the face it happens .
Also it makes no sense saying Sony made people think that since they never gave out numbers the same can be said for PS3 and Vita OS numbers .
 
Why would anyone praise Sony for making a weaker system, especially one with even less of an advantage when it comes to multiplatform games than it had before? Developers CANNOT have been complaining about a missing 1GB of RAM. It makes no sense for Sony to make a huge deal about doubling the PS4's RAM, then turn around and only make 1GB of that actually usable. They got scared by Microsoft's 'goods and services' model and now we're paying for it with a weaker console.


Huh? PS4 would still be the superior machine, even with only 5GB of GDDR5 for games. Nothing about that difference has really changed.

Well I see this topic is back, I guess this isn't much different from yesterday? 4.5GB seemed to be the baseline, this flex ram stuff is well, flexible. Hey if more ram can be freed up going forward this cycle, meh . . . just can't really get worked up about this, especially when Devs are pretty much laughing at the community reaction. If they don't give a fuck, why should I be concerned? On top of all this, it's STILL the cheaper, more powerful machine. 7GB would have been disgusting. but not reality I guess.
 
I'm really not surprised that a lot of devs and people in the gaming industry dont post on 'Gaf if this is the level of understanding that a lot of people have regarding video games technology.
Pacther himself said once that Gafs understanding of the way the industry works is not very good. This thread seems to be a prime example of such words. He is a wise man indeed it would seem.
 
Okay here's the breakdown. There's a maximum amount of bandwidth you can have per second with a certain type of RAM. With GDDR5 RAM it is 176GB/s.

So maximum amount that can be transferred = 176GB/s.

Alright, now 60fps = 60 frames per second. Data has to be written/read 60 times in a second. Now we already know that the maximum amount of data per second is 176GB. So divide that by 60 = 2.93 GB per frame. The maximum amount of data that can be transferred, per frame is 2.93GB as a result.

Now do the same for 30 framer per second, and you get more data per frame, since there are less frames the data gets split up by. The maximum amount of data per frame at 30fps ends up being 5.86 GB as a result.

Now think logically, why do you think people say that 30fps games can pull off better visuals than 60fps games?It's because there are less frames to render. Each frame can pack a more visual punch (aka use more RAM per frame).

Hence, 30fps can use more RAM at any given time than 60fps.
Great post, thank for the simple clarification.
 

CorrisD

badchoiceboobies
Seems quite a few people don't get Sethos or Horse Armours sarcasm, or trolling, lol.

The logical element missing in the EuroGamer article that people should be talking about is that an x86 CPU at present can't have more than 8gb GDDR5, due to 256bit architecture limitations. You can only have so many 4gbit chipsets(I think this is what PS4 has). New higher capacity 8gbit chipset have yet to come to market. This means you can't have 4gb for only tools on dev kits.

It means it's physically impossible to debug the game without having tools to make it run, so on retail prints of the game they'll have the ram available, but at present have no way to develop for it.

Microsoft doesn't have this problem.
I've seen this mentioned in the other topics, I don't know if it was you or not, but it would be interesting if this is what has happened, would have probably made the transition from 4GB to 8GB easier for Sony without having to replace all the devkits I imagine.

I would think remote play would be taking quite a fair amount of the 3.5GB?
Really wouldn't require those sort of resources, the PS3 can do it on a lot less, you can us a "Jailbroken" PS3 and enable it for all games, so that isn't what it is. At most there is a small amount of resources to improve the quality and processing, but it wouldn't take up gigabytes of ram to do, it's just relaying a video stream.

I say the constant video capture take most of it.
I highly doubt it, we have a number of devices that do this that hardware wise are orders of magnitude weaker than these consoles and can save multiple streams.
 
Show me one developer who is complaining about the ram situation on the PS4 and then I'll give a damn.
Show one developer that's had any issue with Xbone's RAM..

has that stopped the Xbone bitching that goes on here one bit ?

Why the sudden change of tone in a lot of posters opinions ? lol
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Compared to what we were led to believe before. It's still obviously more powerful than the Boner, though the gap is significantly smaller than it was before. Less RAM also means a lower ceiling for performance, which means a shorter gen.
This post reeks of a lack of understanding on how development works.

We have exactly the same we had before, two underpowered consoles.
8GB ram didn't make up for the disproportionally low bandwidth (single pc gpus that don't have to share their bandwidth with the cpu are already at 280GB/s and in 2015 memory stacking is here for upwards of 300GB/sec for system ram and 500-1TB/sec vram)
It was never going to be future proof or even just high end at release.

The gpu was never powerful enough to do much with all that ram anyhow.

I'm not excusing sony for reserving this much ram, I'm just saying the 'windows 7 only takes 1GB of ram' etc is besides the point, as chrome/firefox will take up another 1-2GB with a bunch of tabs open and other multitasking stuff needs memory too.
That's what I've noted in several posts. It's true that the base OS needs 1GB~ to function. Then you start your browser, your streaming program, your capture SW, some media apps, Steam, virus protection, and an intensive 2GB+ game. I now have about 6GB of memory used. This was just what heppened last night when I streamed the Payday 2 beta.

Imagine if some sat and thought for just a second on how much memory allocation is needed to run things efficiently instead of thinking that 5GB+ isn't good enough for games when devs have no issue.

I want someone on here to tell me what they want devs to use that memory for when a lot of them don't even know what to do with it right now. Shall they toss in high resolution nose hairs or ragdoll physics on pubes to use more to satisfy the ones here who are saying that the memory isn't enough? It has to come down to stupid sarcasms like that because this whole issue is not a problem. Far from it.
 
on the graphics side of things

if the memory is 176GB/s & the game is 60FPS the most memory that the game will need at a giving time/frame is 2.93GB & if the game is 30FPS you wouldn't use any more than 5.86GB per frame.


in other words you can't move 8GB of data each frame with 176GB/s unless the game was 22FPS so why not put the other GB of ram to use with the OS?
but if you're using your entire memory for the frame buffer.. where's the game being stored?

and where is the compute capacity to do that?
 


Huh? PS4 would still be the superior machine, even with only 5GB of GDDR5 for games.

Well I see this topic is back, I guess this isn't much different from yesterday? 4.5 seemed to be the baseline, this flex ram stuff is well flexible. Hey if more ram can be freed up going forward this cycle, meh . . . just can't really get worked up about this, especially when Dev's are pretty much laughing at this community reaction. If they don't give a fuck, why should I be concerned? On top of all this, it's STILL the cheaper, more powerful machine. 7GB would have been disgusting. but not reality I guess.
I really should've given more context in that line than I did, huh? I was never making a comparison to Microsoft aside from saying the PS4>Xbone gap for multiplatform games isn't as wide as it was before. I was saying we were led to believe the PS4 was a lot more powerful than it ended up being, and as such it is a weaker system than that original notion insinuated.

Sorry for the confusion. My bad, clearly.
 
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.
Correct. Math is very correct. Ladies and gentlemen, learn math.
 

Bad_Boy

time to take my meds
I'm a pretty big sony fan, but this sounds crazy to me. Why allocate more than a 3rd of your memory to the OS for a gaming machine. I really hope the numbers don't show 3GB.

You guys who were excited about the 8gb announcement, and then are taking this statement as "well 5gb is still a lot" sound like people who accept 2nd place and say "at least it's not 3rd."

CBOAT where are you.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
So basically, if I read that statement correctly. Both systems will have 5 GB of RAM?

Feel bad for you guys who cancelled your pre-orders. You're gonna have to buy a bundle now.
I still can't believe people cancelled their preorders. Am I disappointed? Yes, but that's because I don't really care about advanced OS features outside of the footage recording (I still have no idea why cross game chat and party chat are a big deal). I'm sure the results will be more than fine but I was hoping for fast load times and lots of dynamic interactivity and this RAM configuration will allow for less of that than I hoped. Oh well. Nothing I can do about it.
 
Okay here's the breakdown. There's a maximum amount of bandwidth you can have per second with a certain type of RAM. With ps4's GDDR5 RAM it is 176GB/s.

So maximum amount that can be transferred = 176GB/s.

.
fixed the bolded, gddr5 ram can go much higher with a wider memory bus and higher clockspeeds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.