Support NeoGAF

[googleplex]

Because people just want new IP AAA for pad with a high-end graphics and good gameplay.
Kinect, Move, etc. .. are useless.

Bull shit! Move works and works well! PSmove is motion controls done right. I fucking defy anyone to play a game like Tumble and say it's useless.

I've never been good at FPS but I played though Resistance 3 and Kill Zone 3 using the Move with absolutely no problem.
Move and sub controller >>>>>>dual analog any day if the week.

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

Hmm.

I thought it wasn't possible for me to be less interested in the next Xbox.

Turns out I was wrong.

 

[artist]

I think shandy's concerns are not particularly relevant.

He hasnt backed up his statement of 5GB+ either.

 

[Neander]

Q) Will next gen games use more than 512Mb RAM?
A) Yes.

Q) Will next gen games use more than 4Gb RAM?
A) Not for at least four years after the consoles in question are released.

Honestly, considering some of the shit that was done on 512Mb of RAM on consoles (Just Cause 2, anyone?), I think shandy's concerns are not particularly relevant.

Not on Orbis. 3.5GB RAM for games. People here seem to be sweeping the issue under a rug. In a few years 3.5GB RAM might not cut it. It doesn't matter how fast it is.

And the bandwidth difference? Do people really think it's as clear cut as 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? When we know that Durango has it's esRAM and DME's? It may not make up the difference or come close to it, but it might be just enough that the extra RAM will most definitely become an issue down the line.

 

[shandy706]

He hasnt backed up his statement of 5GB+ either.

Obviously based on possible RAM usage in X64 with High End games in the coming years.

I'm just going to ignore you now, just as you're ignoring the point of the conversation. I'm glad to see a few others get it.

 

[gaming_noob]

You deserve a high five.

Once a Nintendo fan, always a Nintendo fan!

Not on Orbis. 3.5GB RAM for games. People here seem to be sweeping the issue under a rug. In a few years 3.5GB RAM might not cut it. It doesn't matter how fast it is.

And the bandwidth difference? Do people really think it's as clear cut as 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? When we know that Durango has it's esRAM and DME's? It may not make up the difference or come close to it, but it might be just enough that the extra RAM will most definitely become an issue down the line.

I agree. I don't understand why some get so defensive of the possibility of a slight disadvantage in the Orbis for certain types of games as a suggestion.

Lherre is the only person I'm trusting...and if he says both systems are close then that's that. One will have an advantage over the other in some functions and vice versa. Shouldn't we all be happy about that?

 

[artist]

Not on Orbis. 3.5GB RAM for games. People here seem to be sweeping the issue under a rug.

Yes, 3.5GB vs 5GB.

In a few years 3.5GB RAM might not cut it. It doesn't matter how fast it is.

Got it

And the bandwidth difference? Do people really think it's as clear cut as 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? When we know that Durango has it's esRAM and DME's? It may not make up the difference or come close to it, but it might be just enough that the extra RAM will most definitely become an issue down the line.

Probably the most thought-out part in your post. It'll be interesting to see what advantages developers leverage from the platform, bandwidth advantage from the get-go or the 1.5GB difference later on.

 

[Tripp Daily]

Same can be said about certain posters who claim to have inside information around here

I agree, aegies is the only one that could have negative repercussions for throwing out wild rumors as he is the only one that has a name and place of business associated with his rumors. The other "insiders" lose nothing of they are wrong.

 

[shandy706]

We can step back to Crysis 3 for a moment.

Crysis 3 runs it's best when it has 8GB of RAM to utilize.

I'm not saying the PS4 can't do it...that's the whole point of my thought process.

Can a system with 4GB of GDDR5 run a game on level (or better) with a systems sporting 8GB of DDR3?

Where does the speed vs amount line cross?

I'm guessing no one really knows...lol

Either way, it is a concern of mine with the PS4 and cross platform games. I'm guessing cross platform games will never reach the level of 1st/2nd party though. That was how it was most of this generation.

 

[Bsigg12]

We can step back to Crysis 3 for a moment.

Crysis 3 runs it's best when it has 8GB of RAM to utilize.

I'm not saying the PS4 can't do it...that's the whole point of my thought process.

Can a system with 4GB of GDDR5 run a game on level (or better) with a systems sporting 8GB of DDR3?

Where does the speed vs amount line cross?

I'm guessing no one really knows...lol

How efficiently is it actually using the 8 gigs of RAM? On top of that, how much RAM is lost to the OS plus other running applications since programs will always be running in the background on a PC.

 

[Feature]

Not on Orbis. 3.5GB RAM for games. People here seem to be sweeping the issue under a rug. In a few years 3.5GB RAM might not cut it. It doesn't matter how fast it is.

And the bandwidth difference? Do people really think it's as clear cut as 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? When we know that Durango has it's esRAM and DME's? It may not make up the difference or come close to it, but it might be just enough that the extra RAM will most definitely become an issue down the line.

wahahahaha... really?

 

[shandy706]

How efficiently is it actually using the 8 gigs of RAM? On top of that, how much RAM is lost to the OS plus other running applications since programs will always be running in the background on a PC.

We certainly won't know that until it is released....perhaps this conversation will be better suited for then

 

[googleplex]

Not on Orbis. 3.5GB RAM for games. People here seem to be sweeping the issue under a rug. In a few years 3.5GB RAM might not cut it. It doesn't matter how fast it is.

And the bandwidth difference? Do people really think it's as clear cut as 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? When we know that Durango has it's esRAM and DME's? It may not make up the difference or come close to it, but it might be just enough that the extra RAM will most definitely become an issue down the line.

This has been addressed over and over again. 3.5 or Gddr5 is much better the 6-7 of DDR3 ram of rendering games any day of the week! That point is not even up for debate anymore.

It doesn't matter all that much if you have a larger pool of RAM if you can only access only a small part of it per frame. And no. 32megs of ESRAM and the DME will NOT close that gap no matter how much you wish upon a star.

 

[Neander]

wahahahaha

Look at it within the context of what I was trying to get at. We already know (not officially) that Orbis will have 176GB/s bandwidth. The main argument I keep seeing is that with that high bandwidth, it will mitigate any disadvantage it might have in RAM volume. But the thing is, with Durangos esRAM and DME's, is it a clear cut 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? If Durango, via it's special helpers and what not, can have sufficient bandwidth for what is needed, then the advantage in RAM volume just can't be ignored. And then, what if Durango uses less than the rumored 3GB RAM for the OS?

 

[Reiko]

Look at it within the context of what I was trying to get at. We already know (not officially) that Orbis will have 176GB/s bandwidth. The main argument I keep seeing is that with that high bandwidth, it will mitigate any disadvantage it might have in RAM volume. But the thing is, with Durangos esRAM and DME's, is it a clear cut 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? If Durango, via it's special helpers and what not, can have sufficient bandwidth for what is needed, then the advantage in RAM volume just can't be ignored. And then, what if Durango uses less than the rumored 3GB RAM for the OS?

And more importantly...

Will Bethseda games be optimized for faster ram amounts or more ram amounts?

 

[stktt]

Presumably the same thing that was "wrong" with the Wii U gamepad. Instead of including kinect, why not just leave it out and put that money toward making the system more powerful.

The system is more powerful. Having a unique selling point and method of interaction seems like a wiser decision than slightly more powerful hardware.

 

[rakkadakka]

One will have an advantage over the other in some functions and vice versa. Shouldn't we all be happy about that?

How the fuck are we gonna have forum wars with a mentality like that? No one is allowed to carry two flags.

 

[90TilInfinity]

Not on Orbis. 3.5GB RAM for games. People here seem to be sweeping the issue under a rug. In a few years 3.5GB RAM might not cut it. It doesn't matter how fast it is.

And the bandwidth difference? Do people really think it's as clear cut as 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? When we know that Durango has it's esRAM and DME's? It may not make up the difference or come close to it, but it might be just enough that the extra RAM will most definitely become an issue down the line.

I assume it's because people have seen what the HD twins can do with their small amount of slow RAM (I don't need to find Halo 4/Uncharted 3 screens, do I?). Specialised gaming systems and all that.

 

[scently]

Look at it within the context of what I was trying to get at. We already know (not officially) that Orbis will have 176GB/s bandwidth. The main argument I keep seeing is that with that high bandwidth, it will mitigate any disadvantage it might have in RAM volume. But the thing is, with Durangos esRAM and DME's, is it a clear cut 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? If Durango, via it's special helpers and what not, can have sufficient bandwidth for what is needed, then the advantage in RAM volume just can't be ignored. And then, what if Durango uses less than the rumored 3GB RAM for the OS?

Indeed. I think the OS would eat no more than 2gb with another rumor being that the OS would only take 1.5gb. So what happens when you have 3.5gb of fast ram vs 6gb of moderate speed ram along side a 32mb of fast esram cache? Remember DDR3 do have lower latency than the GDDR5, and the eSRAM is even lower latency, and no matter how much you want to ignore it, latency matters a lot in computing. I can't speculate as I don't know much about ram usage in games but I am sure that the ram advantage will count for something, at least in some games.

 

[phosphor112]

And more importantly...

Will Bethseda games be optimized for faster ram amounts or more ram amounts?

Ever since Bethesda hit 3D games, all of them ran like shit. I won't be surprised if that doesn't change next gen.

 

[Reiko]

Ever since Bethesda hit 3D games, all of them ran like shit. I won't be surprised if that doesn't change next gen.

Damn.

 

[phosphor112]

Damn.

I call it like I see it. Their games have severe performance issues on PC as well, which is embarrassing.

 

[H_Prestige]

Indeed. I think the OS would eat no more than 2gb with another rumor being that the OS would only take 1.5gb. So what happens when you have 3.5gb of fast ram vs 6gb of moderate speed ram along side a 32mb of fast esram cache? Remember DDR3 do have lower latency than the GDDR5, and the eSRAM is even lower latency, and no matter how much you want to ignore it, latency matters a lot in computing. I can't speculate as I don't know much about ram usage in games but I am sure that the ram advantage will count for something, at least in some games.

Why don't graphics cards come with ddr3 ram?

 

[deadlast]

Why don't graphics cards come with ddr3 ram?

Same reason sports cars don't come with 4 cylinder engines.

 

[XtremeXpider]

Why don't graphics cards come with ddr3 ram?

Some graphics come with DDR3.

 

[AlexBasch]

Why don't graphics cards come with ddr3 ram?

My 5670 is DDR3.

 

[Reiko]

Why don't graphics cards come with ddr3 ram?

Same reason why graphics cards doesn't come packed with a shitload of EDRAM/ESRAM.

GDDR5 is a cheaper solution.

 

[TheLegendary]

MS totally planted this rumor about their own console restricting used games so that when Sony announces their plans to do it next week, MS can look like the good guys!

/conspiracy

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

We can step back to Crysis 3 for a moment.

Crysis 3 runs it's best when it has 8GB of RAM to utilize.

I'm not saying the PS4 can't do it...that's the whole point of my thought process.

Can a system with 4GB of GDDR5 run a game on level (or better) with a systems sporting 8GB of DDR3?

Where does the speed vs amount line cross?

I'm guessing no one really knows...lol

Either way, it is a concern of mine with the PS4 and cross platform games. I'm guessing cross platform games will never reach the level of 1st/2nd party though. That was how it was most of this generation.

Crytek isn't the best measuring stick for something like this. They produce great results but they aren't very efficient at all.

 

[beast786]

We can step back to Crysis 3 for a moment.

Crysis 3 runs it's best when it has 8GB of RAM to utilize.

I'm not saying the PS4 can't do it...that's the whole point of my thought process.

Can a system with 4GB of GDDR5 run a game on level (or better) with a systems sporting 8GB of DDR3?

Where does the speed vs amount line cross?

I'm guessing no one really knows...lol

Either way, it is a concern of mine with the PS4 and cross platform games. I'm guessing cross platform games will never reach the level of 1st/2nd party though. That was how it was most of this generation.

Think about this my friend.

Absolute minimum requirement for Crysis 3 to run on PC at it lowest possible setting in power point style frame rate is 3GB of RAM, When running on vista. Yet, PS3/360 run it on 512MB of RAM.

How is that possible my friend?

 

[Reiko]

Think about this my friend.

Absolute minimum requirement for Crysis 3 to run on PC at it lowest possible setting in power point style frame rate is 3GB of RAM, When running on vista. Yet, PS3/360 run it on 512MB of RAM.

How is that possible my friend?

Now look at the PS3/360 versions to see what was cut and downgraded.

The console versions look much worse than the lowest settings.

 

[Alienous]

Now look at the PS3/360 versions to see what was cut and downgraded.

The console versions look much worse than the lowest settings.

Still, the OS of the Orbis is gaming focused. The NextBox, however, is said to run a variant of Windows 8 (so it needs 8gb of RAM, like a PC title might).

Considering what developers have achieved with 512MB, I don't think 4GB will quite as quickly become an issue (even at higher resolutions with better textures).

And, they might "look much worse", but they are technically achievable.

 

[phosphor112]

Now look at the PS3/360 versions to see what was cut and downgraded.

The console versions look much worse than the lowest settings.

Both featured less ram, less bandwidth, and less processing power, yet came up "close."

This won't be an issue next gen.

 

[artist]

Same reason why graphics cards doesn't come packed with a shitload of EDRAM/ESRAM.

GDDR5 is a cheaper solution.

On the contrary, it can be argued ED/ESRAM is a cheaper solution to overcome the bandwidth shortfalls of going with DDR3.

 

[Reiko]

Both featured less ram, less bandwidth, and less processing power, yet came up "close."

This won't be an issue next gen.

The gulf between Crysis 3 on consoles and PC on the lowest settings had a bit to do with RAM & the obvious Direct X11 API.

Everyone can now see the game was made with PC in mind with console versions as a afterthought

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Same reason why graphics cards doesn't come packed with a shitload of EDRAM/ESRAM.

GDDR5 is a cheaper solution.

I'm pretty sure it was speculated on Beyond3d that 4GBs of GDDR5 is twice the price of 8GBs of DDR3... if GDDR5 was the cheaper solution, MS would have used it without hesitation.

 

[Reiko]

I'm pretty sure it was speculated on Beyond3d that 4GBs of GDDR5 is twice the price of 8GBs of DDR3... if GDDR5 was the cheaper solution, MS would have used it without hesitation.

Sony was just going for proven performance with adequate ram amounts.

It's currently unknown if MS made the right choice.

 

[Razgreez]

The gulf between Crysis 3 on consoles and PC on the lowest settings had a bit to do with RAM & the obvious Direct X11 API.

Everyone can now see the game was made with PC in mind with console versions as a afterthought

The difference is these consoles wont have the processing power to match the highest level PC specifications anyway. Sure more ram is a nice to have but that's about it. Devs will likely be pushing the 3-3.5GB limit middle to end of the next console life-cycle however, pumping more and more ram into the system adds design complications and very marginal returns.

I still think 4GB of total system memory specifically for games would have been a better decision (1-2GB extra for apps and OS totalling 6GB) but then i'm not on the design team nor have i been privy to the cost-benefit analysis any of these companies have done.

 

[alphaNoid]

Sony was just going for proven performance with adequate ram amounts.

It's currently unknown if MS made the right choice.

I think its that and ..

Sony is throwing fast, expensive hardware at developers and
Microsoft is throwing twice as much, more affordable, but perhaps better optimized, more efficient hardware with included tools to leverage the efficient features at developers

 

[H_Prestige]

I think its that and ..

Sony is throwing fast, expensive hardware at developers and
Microsoft is throwing twice as much, more affordable, but perhaps better optimized, more efficient hardware with included tools to leverage the efficient features at developers

You do know Sony is offering all that stuff, in addition to the superior RAM and GPU, right? The amount of spinning going on here is crazy.

Same reason why graphics cards doesn't come packed with a shitload of EDRAM/ESRAM.

GDDR5 is a cheaper solution.

GDDR5 is a lot more expensive than DDR3.

 

[Wynnebeck]

Are we seriously going back to the argument over RAM? It's like people see 5GB vs. 3.5GB and automatically assume it's going to be better.

Look at it within the context of what I was trying to get at. We already know (not officially) that Orbis will have 176GB/s bandwidth. The main argument I keep seeing is that with that high bandwidth, it will mitigate any disadvantage it might have in RAM volume. But the thing is, with Durangos esRAM and DME's, is it a clear cut 176GB/s vs. 68GB/s? If Durango, via it's special helpers and what not, can have sufficient bandwidth for what is needed, then the advantage in RAM volume just can't be ignored. And then, what if Durango uses less than the rumored 3GB RAM for the OS?

Jesus. The worst phrase started from this entire next-gen rumor period is that stupid "special sauce". I'm not going to start because we have an entire thread dedicated to why this post isn't even close to be right (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=508236&highlight=ram ) but I will say this. We already saw what happened this gen with RAM in terms of bandwith. Speed was the biggest bottleneck encountered and Sony has seemed to rectify while Microsoft seems to be almost going back to the same exact thing, just accessing a larger pool. I'm sure you can see where this is going.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Sony was just going for proven performance with adequate ram amounts.

It's currently unknown if MS made the right choice.

Right choice? Even in the worst performance scenario, DDR3/esram is enough to provide a similar enough visual fidelity... it is a terrible choice to win internet pissing matches.

 

[sTeLioSco]

You do know Sony is offering all that stuff, in addition to the superior RAM and GPU, right? The amount of spinning going on here is crazy.

lol true

 

[QaaQer]

Same reason why graphics cards doesn't come packed with a shitload of EDRAM/ESRAM.

GDDR5 is a cheaper solution.

I'm pretty sure 4GB of ed/esram is impossible today.

 

[Razgreez]

Right choice? Even in the worst performance scenario, DDR3/esram is enough to provide a similar enough visual fidelity...

Actually in the worst case, based on what is rumoured, you have a peak bandwidth of 176GB/s vs a peak of 106GB/s. That's quite a large difference. Then again it all depends on what you mean by "similar enough". A a bus can look similar enough to a whale if you squint really hard and look really quick

All these threads seem to devolve into spec comparisons - and yes i know i'm not helping

 

[Reiko]

You do know Sony is offering all that stuff, in addition to the superior RAM and GPU, right? The amount of spinning going on here is crazy.



GDDR5 is a lot more expensive than DDR3.

But if you're packing in GDDR5, there's no need for ESRAM. No cards that I know of are doing a DDR3 ESRAM combo.

I'm pretty sure 4GB of ed/esram is impossible today.

Of course.

 

[H_Prestige]

But if you're packing in GDDR5, there's no need for ESRAM. No cards that I know of are doing a DDR3 ESRAM combo.

And what does that tell you?

MS didn't come up with some breakthrough in RAM technology here. They needed 8GB of RAM and Sony didn't. That's all that's going on here.

 

[Punchpudding]

Can we get some good examples from someone knowledgeable? And maybe talk about something other than graphics?

If you had a game that tracked lots of AI NPCS at once and each AI character stored lots of information for itself, having more ram would allow more characters at the same time regardless of speed (assuming a decent lower bound for speed in the first place). Is that how having more RAM helps?

Speed would help where your RAM is not fast enough and you get texture pop-ins when going into a new area regardless of how many textures you've loaded.

Anybody want to correct this?

 

[phosphor112]

Can we get some good examples from someone knowledgeable? And maybe talk about something other than graphics?

If you had a game that tracked lots of AI NPCS at once and each AI character stored lots of information for itself, having more ram would allow more characters at the same time regardless of speed (assuming a decent lower bound for speed in the first place). Is that how having more RAM helps?

Speed would help where your RAM is not fast enough and you get texture pop-ins when going into a new area regardless of how many textures you've loaded.

Anybody want to correct this?

AI and scripts take very little in memory. KB's, MB's at most... and that would be something real crazy. Things like sound, animation, models, other graphical assets chew up memory. The question is, is streaming data enough to have open world games? I think the answer is yes.

Resistance 2 co-op had hundreds of AI on screen. Sure most of them are really stupid but it's not like it hampered games like LA Noire, GTA 4, RDR, Infamous, etc.. and these consoles only have less than half a gig to use.

 

[artist]

If you had a game that tracked lots of AI NPCS at once and each AI character stored lots of information for itself, having more ram would allow more characters at the same time regardless of speed (assuming a decent lower bound for speed in the first place). Is that how having more RAM helps?

NPC/AI is not directly dependent on the RAM but rather amount of threads available (could be on the CPU/GPU). Rendering those NPCs would be done by the GPU but not all NPCs are unique so there could be a lot of textures that could be reused or other techniques such as PRT can be used.