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.
Sony fanboys are funny. Before this rumor 8GB DDR5 was all the rage and XBOX One was getting murdered for only using 5 of 8 GB for games. Now Sony does it and all of a sudden those same people are saying that if true it's more than enough anyway? Wow.

edit: I play both PS and XBOX. Just pointing this out.
The same people were also disgusted that anyone would ever think of paying money to play online. We had threads here daily calling out people as morons for ever paying for online. Now that Sony's doing it also those threads seem to have disappeared....
 
About 90% of gaming side.

Looks like Sony cares as much about it being a multi purpose device as Microsoft. Shocker that a company cares about a broader audience than just a niche.
I know right! Sony is in the same boat as MS with their GDDR5 RAM trying to copy MS and make a media box. Stupid Sony should have just used DDR3 RAM if they were going to use so much for the OS right?

Why would he? Account registered in 2009, only two posts, in this same thread...That's a whole lot of lurking...
I'm guessing he's someone's alt account.
 
Sony fanboys are funny. Before this rumor 8GB DDR5 was all the rage and XBOX One was getting murdered for only using 5 of 8 GB for games. Now Sony does it and all of a sudden those same people are saying that if true it's more than enough anyway? Wow.

edit: I play both PS and XBOX. Just pointing this out.
3 posts in 4 years.

Truly these threads are something special.
 
MS managed to implement these functionalities with just 32MB of RAM, much less of what Sony reserved for the OS. Thus, memory reservation wasn't really the problem I guess. It was probably hardware related.
This seemed to be more os related functions that were hard to add post release. I remember reading somewhere that the wanted to implement your music playing in the background but some games wouldn't actually allow this to happen. It had to be per dev decision. Same with the xchat.
 
Pretty close to impossible yes. You would hit GPU and CPU limits far earlier then 6 GB of RAM. 8 GB is overkill compared to the GPU and especially CPU used in the PS4. It will take years before devs are going to find ways to use it efficiently and when that time comes the PS4 OS will be optimized enough to give devs all the RAM they need. Until then 5 GB is plenty, for most devs it will still be too much to even use.
How so? You can easily take advantage of all your available memory, especially for caching data.
 
This is stupid if it doesn't change.

If PS4 sells more (which is gauranteed at this point) developers would start utilizing the extra ram making the PS4 the ideal version in nearly every aspect.

Bad move Sony. :-(

Give developers 6 GB, you don't need to hog this much.
 

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
The same people were also disgusted that anyone would ever think of paying money to play online. We had threads here daily calling out people as morons for ever paying for online. Now that Sony's doing it also those threads seem to have disappeared....
Or maybe Sony fans aren't a monolithic hive mind and some didn't have either of those opinions?
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
That seems a little off. Not seeing ANY jaggies.
They're off screen shots but they are taken at the points when the AA method actually works in the game. That's what annoyed me about the AA in TLoU more than anything. When it worked it worked great but that just made it more jarring when it didn't than if it never had any.
 
Is this a big deal?

Because it's been 3 days I'm seeing that shit and a bunch of people going all drama-hyperbole-XBOXvsPS4-shit.

Isn't it almost the same amount of memory allowed for the Xbox One, GDDR5 excluded?

Isn't 4.5GB+ more than enough for a long-ass time? I can't see how this would cock-block any developers after all the restrictions they were fighting against during this gen..
 
Because the numbers are likely not finalized yet. Sony made a pretty big judgement error back in 2006 at this same juncture in the PS3's development, and were too aggressive with the amount of RAM they allocated for games.

The end result was that they weren't able to include things like parties, x-game chat, a fully functioning XMB in-game, etc. I would guess that a lot of the same people shitting egg rolls over yesterday's news complained about the lack of those features during the PS3's life cycle. They want it both ways, but that's not how the world works, kiddies.
They cut their OS requirement from 120 MB to 50 MB and you believe they still somehow didn't have enough room for cross game chat, parties, and functioning XMB in-game?
 
You know, when the console specs were first announced, i actually cared about all this. Now, im completely indifferent. I played BF3 on 360 this morning and im still impressed by those graphics and thats using 512mb so i know i wont be disappointing with next gen regardless of the amount of ram used.
  1. Denial
  2. Anger
  3. Bargaining
  4. Depression
  5. Acceptence

I'm still on stage 4 but hopefully I'll get to stage 5 as well.
 
S¡mon;73210371 said:
Show me a 10-line program which eats up 8 GB of RAM, please.
Err
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

Int main ()
{
Double * buffer1;
Unsigned int size1 = 2000000000;
Buffer = (double*) Malloc (size1);

... Repeat for buffer2,size2 ... Buffer4,size4

Return 0;
}

Voila ! I mean you can waste memory if you want to ...
 
They cut their OS requirement from 120 MB to 50 MB and you believe they still somehow didn't have enough room for cross game chat, parties, and functioning XMB in-game?
I think that maybe the more complex ram situation and worse 3rd party ports forced them to shrink the OS more and sacrifice xgame chat.
 
Your question is worded pretty strangely.


But there really is no "memory manager" that a developer could write. It's always the OS that manages memory. What this is, is a virtual address space.
personally I've coded 100% on PC and haven't bothered with working around the idea of having the same chunk of memory accessible every time my apps run. Mostly apps working with Active Directory and Exchange. Since they are not men intensive I don't have to worry to much about it.

from what has been discussed this would pertain to direct memory always being the same addressable chunk and the flex memory being assigned as needed by the OS? Flex could possibly be a combination of physical and virtual(had type pagefile).
 
The same people were also disgusted that anyone would ever think of paying money to play online. We had threads here daily calling out people as morons for ever paying for online. Now that Sony's doing it also those threads seem to have disappeared....
Weren't you the same guy swearing up and down that Sony was done for not having backwards combality ?
 
The same people were also disgusted that anyone would ever think of paying money to play online. We had threads here daily calling out people as morons for ever paying for online. Now that Sony's doing it also those threads seem to have disappeared....
You have proof that the same people said both things? I find it hard to believe someone would say paying for online is stupid then go ahead and do it.
 
lol again this happened when I went to bed and again we came to the conclusion of nothing... man and a lot of people came out of their caves on a suicide mission as well... may they R.I.P

we'll see more chaos unfold tomorrow probably as DF will likely continue to speculate on random nonsense again and individuals who basically no nothing on what this means will attack with their mouths foaming
I too know nothing when it comes to specs but I don't make a crazy deal out of it
 
MS managed to implement these functionalities with just 32MB of RAM, much less of what Sony reserved for the OS. Thus, memory reservation wasn't really the problem I guess. It was probably hardware related.
One has nothing to do with the other- they're two different OS's on two different machines.

The sluggish behavior of in-game XMB is a clear indicator of how memory-starved the PS3 is when running a game.

They cut their OS requirement from 120 MB to 50 MB and you believe they still somehow didn't have enough room for cross game chat, parties, and functioning XMB in-game?
In-game XMB barely runs with limited functionality even after they shrunk their OS footprint. But hey- if you're sitting on the real reason why those features never made it to the PS3, I'm all ears. Don't be coy- lay it on us.
 
The same people were also disgusted that anyone would ever think of paying money to play online. We had threads here daily calling out people as morons for ever paying for online. Now that Sony's doing it also those threads seem to have disappeared....
Actually I am pissed Sony are charging for online. However I have no choice, I don't want to game on PC and both nextgen consoles charge for online play, so I have to go for the cheaper option, PSN+ is cheaper than Gold and of course the system is cheaper than Xbox One. I blame Sony for charging for online, but I also blame the people who payed for Gold too.
 
I just got this feeling,
this feeling in my feathers,
that only a Dr. Bird would get,
That it's 6 GB :).

justmyopinion mang.
6 is what i expected for the whole system life so it okay in my book .

Actually I am pissed Sony are charging for online. However I have no choice, I don't want to game on PC and both nextgen consoles charge for online play, so I have to go for the cheaper option, PSN+ is cheaper than Gold and of course the system is cheaper than Xbox One. I blame Sony for charging for online, but I also blame the people who payed for Gold too.
Yep i hate paying to play online but got no choice at least i get some free games out of PS+ still i hate but i go where my friends go .
 
At face value I can see how it looks that way, but what changed my mind were the developer reactions relayed by some of the insiders here. If this is a non-issue to developers, more than enough memory for the time being, and game quality won't suffer at all because of it, then it really isn't all that important. If it was the other way, like, "we only have 5GB of RAM so we had to drop X, Y and Z from our game" then it would be an obvious problem.
I don't remember developers complaining about lack of RAM on the XB One though but that didn't stop people from piling on the system for lack of RAM. Now it's ok though for Sony to have the same thing. Just interesting.
 
If I had to take a stab at what I think the real numbers are I would say:

- 6GB Game RAM allocation
- 1.5GB OS allocation
- .5GB "flex" RAM

Of course, this is straight from a Goomba's ass so don't quote me on it.
Must the goombas always suffer for our happiness?

I wonder if people will be more pleased with this arrangement of at least 75% of the ram guaranteed to be for games. Should be interesting to see how devs will actually use this.
 
I don't remember developers complaining about lack of RAM on the XB One though but that didn't stop people from piling on the system for lack of RAM. Now it's ok though for Sony to have the same thing. Just interesting.
Did you see any developers praising the XBO memory situation? We did with PS4...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.