Support NeoGAF

[oversitting]

I don't go there.

I agree with most of your ram analysis but what you are being criticized is true. Data isn't useless when its cached into ram. Also having a larger pool increase performance when dealing with slow interfaces like the HDD or BR drive.

The speedier ram is nice but size isn't pointless. Also quoting AMD's quote doesn't do anything because these consoles are designed with their owned memory architecture. Would AMD have said the same thing if eSRAM could be used inside PCs? What if the DDR3 was 68GB/s instead of 28GB/s? The quote from AMD is looking at ram when compared from ~30GB/s to ~70GB/s. It doesn't really relate well to the next gen consoles.

Having eSRAM is parallel access can in theory make it hit much better efficiency than GDDR5 just by the way DRAM is accessed in compared to SRAM. You have much less wasted data loaded with SRAM compared to DRAM. Also when the SRAM is use in parallel, data can come from both the DRAM and SRAM, the efficiency won't be as high but considering the the eSRAM can be used to store repeated used data and the DRAM can be used for everything else. It is a very efficient solution.

Microsoft's solution is probably better in the long run. It also costs more to implement eSRAM than just going with GDDR5. Games are coming close to using 4 GBs of ram today on PC(VRAM + System ram), I can think it will only go up. Sony's solution is easier to use from the get go since it s exactly like a PC. The won't have to deal with 2 pool of memory and having the controller to deal with both pools.

Its not black and white as 176>68 so that 8>4 doesn't matter. or that 8>4 so its better. Both solutions have drawbacks. Anyone just saying GDDR5 is better just because its faster really are just blind.

 

[phosphor112]

Clicky Vita >>>>>> Squishy DS3

I like the vita dpad as well, but I like how Dual Shock 2 and 3 have pressure sensitive buttons. Vita does not.

 

[seattle6418]

I don't go there.

I like how many posters just resorted to making juvenile insults.

Not only that, but they also didn't even bother to explain what was wrong and/or why it was.

So basically, just useless comments.

Now, going back to your friend, how close to development is he? Why would they do that crazy move? What would explain such downgrade at the last minute? Doesn't make much sense...

EDIT - there is one good reply now, but i saw it after i posted.

 

[mattp]

I like the vita dpad as well, but I like how Dual Shock 2 and 3 have pressure sensitive buttons. Vita does not.

the pressure sensitive d-pad is kind of useless though
no reason they couldn't leave everything analog besides the dpad

 

[phosphor112]

I agree with most of your ram analysis but what you are being criticized is true. Data isn't useless when its cached into ram. Also having a larger pool increase performance when dealing with slow interfaces like the HDD or BR drive.

The speedier ram is nice but size isn't pointless. Also quoting AMD's quote doesn't do anything because these consoles are designed with their owned memory architecture. Would AMD have said the same thing if eSRAM could be used inside PCs? What if the DDR3 was 68GB/s instead of 28GB/s? The quote from AMD is looking at ram when compared from ~30GB/s to ~70GB/s. It doesn't really relate well to the next gen consoles.

Having eSRAM is parallel access can in theory make it hit much better efficiency than GDDR5 just by the way DRAM is accessed in compared to SRAM. You have much less wasted data loaded with SRAM compared to DRAM. Also when the SRAM is use in parallel, data can come from both the DRAM and SRAM, the efficiency won't be as high but considering the the eSRAM can be used to store repeated used data and the DRAM can be used for everything else. It is a very efficient solution.

Microsoft's solution is probably better in the long run. It also costs more to implement eSRAM than just going with GDDR5. Games are coming close to using 4 GBs of ram today on PC(VRAM + System ram), I can think it will only go up. Sony's solution is easier to use from the get go since it s exactly like a PC. The won't have to deal with 2 pool of memory and having the controller to deal with both pools.

Its not black and white as 176>68 so that 8>4 doesn't matter. or that 8>4 so its better. Both solutions have drawbacks. Anyone just saying GDDR5 is better just because its faster really are just blind.

Well, I even said from the start, it's for data caching, but why is data streaming out of the picture all of a sudden?

You also mention that PC bw's are slower compared to Orbis and Durango, and you're right.

Max Payne 3. No MSAA is sub 1G for vram.

With 8xMSAA and everything on Max, VRAM is still sub 2gb. (Lol, 120FPS)

I think we'll be fine.

 

[phosphor112]

Not only that, but they also didn't even bother to explain what was wrong and/or why it was.

So basically, just useless comments.

Now, going back to your friend, how close to development is he? Why would they do that crazy move? What would explain such downgrade at the last minute? Doesn't make much sense...

EDIT - there is one good reply now, but i saw it after i posted.

I'm sorry? You might be thinking of someone else. I've got several friends working on games, but none in major studios that would even have anything close to next gen dev kits. My brother and I are working on a future project...

I do know someone that works for Bungie though. Programming actually. He's been under wraps since their new project started happening, so I wouldn't know what he's working on or with.

 

[Ashes]

I love how people know all about es ram. Do tell.

 

[coldfoot]

Having eSRAM is parallel access can in theory make it hit much better efficiency than GDDR5 just by the way DRAM is accessed in compared to SRAM. You have much less wasted data loaded with SRAM compared to DRAM. Also when the SRAM is use in parallel, data can come from both the DRAM and SRAM, the efficiency won't be as high but considering the the eSRAM can be used to store repeated used data and the DRAM can be used for everything else. It is a very efficient solution.

Microsoft's solution is probably better in the long run. It also costs more to implement eSRAM than just going with GDDR5. Games are coming close to using 4 GBs of ram today on PC(VRAM + System ram), I can think it will only go up. Sony's solution is easier to use from the get go since it s exactly like a PC. The won't have to deal with 2 pool of memory and having the controller to deal with both pools.

Its not black and white as 176>68 so that 8>4 doesn't matter. or that 8>4 so its better. Both solutions have drawbacks. Anyone just saying GDDR5 is better just because its faster really are just blind.

Nice points, however I see two problems with this:
First is that it takes a lot of effort to efficiently use hardware, as we saw with the Cell. I'm sure many games on the PS3 could be made to perform better with better use of the Cell and SPU's, but this costs too much to do so. Plus we don't know how much granular access MS will allow to do those kinds of optimizations, they might hide it all behind the API.

Second is that unlike CPU data, GPU data fits very well to the access patterns of RAM, as it's simply a lot of floats/doubles that represent color and coordinates. Unlike GP program code that could have lots of different sized data structures. That's why you pretty much always see improvements in GPU performance by overclocking the memory, much more than what you get with overclocking the core while with CPU's, overclocking the memory bus means little as they're rarely data starved like GPU's.

I don't understand how 4GB could be too little later into a console generation but 32MB won't be too little.

 

[szaromir]

.Not every asset in RAM needs to be accessed every frame. Consider the example of a multilayer shooter. Every player model needs to be in RAM because if you stream off a drive when someone pops out from around a corner, it'll cause the game to freeze for a second (or have a crappy generic model). But not every player needs to be drawn every frame in most cases. There's also stuff like audio that gets DMA'd to the audio hardware with little intervention from the CPU.

Dev's use LOD's for a reason, and they won't stop next gen just because. Not using LOD's is inefficient and a waste of ram.

That's the biggest reading miscomprehension I've ever seen. Not too mention using LOD consumes more memory space than not using it.

 

[mrklaw]

Well, I even said from the start, it's for data caching, but why is data streaming out of the picture all of a sudden?

You also mention that PC bw's are slower compared to Orbis and Durango, and you're right.

Max Payne 3. No MSAA is sub 1G for vram.



With 8xMSAA and everything on Max, VRAM is still sub 2gb. (Lol, 120FPS)


I think we'll be fine.

Whatever happens, a game with a streaming engine will be held back by the slowest data,which will be the bluray drive (or HDD if installed)

No matter how much ram you have, you'll have to refill it as you travel through the world. That impacts Orbis because it can in theory utilise more memory per frame, but the amount you can pull in from the bluray is much slower (likely similar to Durango). So you may end up using the bandwidth more for post processing, AA, shadows etc, rather than unique data. And that might be area where Durango is strong too by using esram to avoid going out onto the slower ram bus. But it also has the backup of more memory.

For a streaming engine combined with limited external transfer speed from bluray, slower ram might not be an issue and more ram might be a benefit.

 

[SniperHunter]

Not happening bro. You cant just swap ram like that. Same with PC. Certain boards take certain ram because of unique specifications cant just throw anything in.

ahh

 

[coldfoot]

There's also the trend of needing LESS data with more compute power on hand. One example is you could do real GI and not worry about lightmaps, which take up memory.

 

[Melchiah]

I like the layout of the xbox controller better, but if you read above you'll see that I find that controller too small as well (plus it's well known the d-pad sucks ass).

Again, it should be possible to fix the issues people like me have while keeping people like you happy. I don't necessarily want them to make it look or feel like any other controller specifically (well besides the Nights pad) but I do wish they would update some of the core aspects. Don't fear change, embrace it. =p

I'm old, and set in my ways.

 

[phosphor112]

Whatever happens, a game with a streaming engine will be held back by the slowest data,which will be the bluray drive (or HDD if installed)

No matter how much ram you have, you'll have to refill it as you travel through the world. That impacts Orbis because it can in theory utilise more memory per frame, but the amount you can pull in from the bluray is much slower (likely similar to Durango). So you may end up using the bandwidth more for post processing, AA, shadows etc, rather than unique data. And that might be area where Durango is strong too by using esram to avoid going out onto the slower ram bus. But it also has the backup of more memory.

For a streaming engine combined with limited external transfer speed from bluray, slower ram might not be an issue and more ram might be a benefit.

What about 16g flash that was rumored? That same rumor had a lot of correct info that has been now confirmed. It would also allow Sony to use only half a gif for OS by expanding and compressing apps when needed.

 

[velociraptor]

You're meant to use the pads of your thumbs on the analog sticks. I'm 6 foot 5 and have bear paws for hands and I have no problem with the DS3 and especially none with thumbs banging together.

Sadly the only device I have problems with is the 3DSXL, that gives me bad hand cramps. But yeah, thumb pads are the way to go for DS3 irrespective of hand size.

The DS3 layout is the best layout. I hope the PS4 control layout remains exactly the same. As for the controller itself, I wouldn't mind something slightly more ergonomic, but the PS3 pad has no complaints from me.

 

[phosphor112]

The DS3 layout is the best layout. I hope the PS4 control layout remains exactly the same. As for the controller itself, I wouldn't mind something slightly more ergonomic, but the PS3 pad has no complaints from me.

Agreed. Keep the layout, just make it more ergonomic.

 

[90TilInfinity]

Microsoft's solution is probably better in the long run. It also costs more to implement eSRAM than just going with GDDR5. Games are coming close to using 4 GBs of ram today on PC(VRAM + System ram), I can think it will only go up. Sony's solution is easier to use from the get go since it s exactly like a PC. The won't have to deal with 2 pool of memory and having the controller to deal with both pools.

Would the fact that these are specialised systems not make a difference though? Both the PS3 and 360 have some crazy graphics considering their RAM...

 

[gcubed]

Would the fact that these are specialised systems not make a difference though? Both the PS3 and 360 have some crazy graphics considering their RAM...

yes, it was a near useless comparison

 

[damisa]

What about 16g flash that was rumored? That same rumor had a lot of correct info that has been now confirmed. It would also allow Sony to use only half a gif for OS by expanding and compressing apps when needed.

Flash drives are still Hundreds of times slower than even DDR3.

 

[Razgreez]

Microsoft's solution is probably better in the long run. It also costs more to implement eSRAM than just going with GDDR5. Games are coming close to using 4 GBs of ram today on PC(VRAM + System ram), I can think it will only go up. Sony's solution is easier to use from the get go since it s exactly like a PC. The won't have to deal with 2 pool of memory and having the controller to deal with both pools.

Would the fact that these are specialised systems not make a difference though? Both the PS3 and 360 have some crazy graphics considering their RAM...

I would advise not taking note of that poster's comments. There are many examples where he indicates he knows little/nothing and even more where he contradicts himself. As above he claims the PS4 is exactly like a PC yet PCs have split memory pools not unified ones so the PS4 is the polar opposite

Flash drives are still Hundreds of times slower than even DDR3.

One has to ask the question. If you're "traveling through" a game world where you're constantly loading in shaders, geometry, AI etc. of such a nature that it requires full paging of > 3.5GB are you actually seeing any of the detail and data that is being computed/displayed? LOD exists for the reason that even if you place your draw distance as far as possible, it still wouldn't make sense to render everything in full detail since the player will never be able to discern the detail anyway. It's completely inefficient otherwise

 

[damisa]

I would advise not taking note of that poster's comments. There are many examples where he indicates he knows little/nothing and even more where he contradicts himself. As above he claims the PS4 is exactly like a PC yet PCs have split memory pools not unified ones so the PS4 is the polar opposite



One has to ask the question. If you're "traveling through" a game world where you're constantly loading in shaders, geometry, AI etc. of such a nature that it requires full paging of > 3.5GB are you actually seeing any of the detail and data that is being computed/displayed? LOD exists for the reason that even if you place your draw distance as far as possible, it still wouldn't make sense to render everything in full detail since the player will never be able to discern the detail anyway. It's completely inefficient otherwise

We're not even close to the "enough detail" level. We'll probably need several more generations to reach that point.

 

[USC-fan]

In no way is 8gb of ddr3 with 32mb of anything will out perform 4gb of gddr5 when it comes to gaming.l

So much non sense in this thread.

 

[itsgreen]

In no way is 8gb of ddr3 with 32mb of anything will out perform 4gb of gddr5 when it comes to gaming.l

So much non sense in this thread.

I don't think so also, but MS isn't stupid. They had a valid reason for choosing DDR3 + ESRAM over GDDR5. They had the option to go for GDDR5 but chose not to.

Let's wait and see how this pans out when everything is unveiled.

 

[mattp]

I don't think so also, but MS isn't stupid. They had a valid reason for choosing DDR3 + ESRAM over GDDR5. They had the option to go for GDDR5 but chose not to.

Let's wait and see how this pans out when everything is unveiled.

because every penny matters in these boxes and ddr3 is way cheaper and if microsoft is going to pack in a kinect, they need to made the box cheaper so they don't run into a 599 us dollars situation
there's tradeoffs in everything when designing these things

 

[Flatline]

I don't think so also, but MS isn't stupid. They had a valid reason for choosing DDR3 + ESRAM over GDDR5. They had the option to go for GDDR5 but chose not to.

Let's wait and see how this pans out when everything is unveiled.

Yes, there is a reason, because it was cheaper and they wanted more RAM for Kinect+OS.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Yes, there is a reason, because it was cheaper and they wanted more RAM for Kinect+OS.

But it wouldnt matter since they'd be able to do what they are doing with Kinect+OS 1 million times FASTER.
Right!?

 

[Flatline]

But it wouldnt matter since they'd be able to do what they are doing with Kinect+OS 1 million times FASTER.
Right!?

OSs don't require RAM that fast, and Kinect needs plenty of it afaik. GDDR5 is perfect for games which is why it's used in graphics cards.

 

[Death Dealer]

I don't think so also, but MS isn't stupid. They had a valid reason for choosing DDR3 + ESRAM over GDDR5. They had the option to go for GDDR5 but chose not to.

Yeah the reason was they wanted several GB of overhead for OS and non-gaming apps.

The DDR3 and ESRAM was the solution to the problem of them needing more than 4GB of memory, because more than >4GB of GDDR5 is ludicrously expensive in a console because the maximum capacity per chip is less than DDR3, requiring more chips for the same amount of memory.

 

[Lord Error]

But it wouldnt matter since they'd be able to do what they are doing with Kinect+OS 1 million times FASTER.
Right!?

I have a feeling MS approach is costlier upfront (more complex design) but cheaper to manufacture. GDDR5 is a lot more expensive. Also, if the rumor about dedicated space for each OS is correct, it's pretty clear that MS wants their machine to do things that Sony doesn't want to. If I had to guess maybe stuff like recording TV shows while you're playing the game, having PiP with that recorded show over the game, having several tabs open in IE in background, all the while having no performance penalty to a game, and perhaps even broadcasting your game or a TV show to a tablet (all at the same time)

 

[Proxy]

I don't think so also, but MS isn't stupid. They had a valid reason for choosing DDR3 + ESRAM over GDDR5. They had the option to go for GDDR5 but chose not to.

Let's wait and see how this pans out when everything is unveiled.

So did Sony. And Sony chose the faster unified RAM. Microsoft chose 8 gigs of DDR3 because they're going to reserve a decent portion for the OS and potential other unknowns. The ESRAM is there because they know that by itself DDR3 isn't ideal for graphics.

 

[phosphor112]

Flash drives are still Hundreds of times slower than even DDR3.

...Yes? But it's still "hundreds" of times faster than HDD.

 

[iceatcs]

Quite obviously what's ESRAM for, it is for IQ graphics. DDR3 is not enough fast for such that thing at higher resolution with numbers of filters.

The problem is 32MB limit, and I dunno it is enough or way plenty. Orbis can use same data as 32MB limit, but also faster.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

So did Sony. And Sony chose the faster unified RAM. Microsoft chose 8 gigs of DDR3 because they're going to reserve a decent portion for the OS and potential other unknowns. The ESRAM is there because they know that by itself DDR3 isn't ideal for graphics.

People keep forgetting that the PS4 and XBN won't have a huge disparity in usable RAM for the gaming environment. <2GB extra, while a pretty decently large amount, isn't going to be enough to shift anything in its favor in this circumstance. Its debatable if even 4GBs would have much of a difference. But I see no problem with the XBN's bandwidth, either way.

 

[Perkel]

Having eSRAM is parallel access can in theory make it hit much better efficiency than GDDR5 just by the way DRAM is accessed in compared to SRAM. You have much less wasted data loaded with SRAM compared to DRAM. Also when the SRAM is use in parallel, data can come from both the DRAM and SRAM, the efficiency won't be as high but considering the the eSRAM can be used to store repeated used data and the DRAM can be used for everything else. It is a very efficient solution.

Microsoft's solution is probably better in the long run. It also costs more to implement eSRAM than just going with GDDR5. Games are coming close to using 4 GBs of ram today on PC(VRAM + System ram), I can think it will only go up. Sony's solution is easier to use from the get go since it s exactly like a PC.

Its not black and white as 176>68 so that 8>4 doesn't matter. or that 8>4 so its better. Both solutions have drawbacks. Anyone just saying GDDR5 is better just because its faster really are just blind.

You don't know anything about SRAM and how it will affect memory bandwidth.
It is way cheaper solution than 4GB GDDR5 ram
Sony solution is totally different to PC. It's real unified Ram. Only one pool.
Even if you combine SRAM and DDR3 bandwidth it is slower than GDDR5 and frankly there is only 32MB ram. With next gen games which will use a lot of effects and highres textures Bandwidth will be crucial. This is why MS came up DMA because DD3 and SRAM alone is bad from bandwidth standpoint. Imo 4GB of GDDR5 is better solution than 8GB of DDR3 ram + 32MB SRAM.

What about 16g flash that was rumored? That same rumor had a lot of correct info that has been now confirmed. It would also allow Sony to use only half a gif for OS by expanding and compressing apps when needed.

And where do you think OS is stored ? System updates, backup etc. PS3 had 1 GB flash.

I don't think so also, but MS isn't stupid. They had a valid reason for choosing DDR3 + ESRAM over GDDR5. They had the option to go for GDDR5 but chose not to.

Let's wait and see how this pans out when everything is unveiled.

It is cheaper. And they came up with DMA idea which is still big unknown.

I love how people know all about es ram. Do tell.

Yeah insiders everywhere. We don't know anything about sram and how will be used in system.

 

[Codeblew]

Flash drives are still Hundreds of times slower than even DDR3.

How do they compare against 6x blueray and hdd?

 

[Perkel]

How do they compare against 6x blueray and hdd?

Read Write :

HDD 7200rpm ~150/70 MB/s
SSD SATA3 ~ 550/550 MB/s

Biggest difference is in reading/writing small files in which SSD completely destroys HDD by a xxx difference which is more important than big files. Also latency is almost non existent.

That is why Zlib Decompression Hardware is so important.

With this data can be accessed as packed data > read with max HDD speed > decomression on fly> moving x times amount of data to GDDR5 ram. It is dedicated hardware so there will be no hit on system power.

First thing i will do will be to change PS4 HDD to SSD.

 

[phosphor112]

And where do you think OS is stored ? System updates, backup etc. PS3 had 1 GB flash.

Newer models has much less for flash.

Anyway, you don't need more than 8 for OS, and use another 8 for games. 8 gig relatively fast cache would suffice.

EDIT: Also, Vita has a 4g flash, used for OS and likely games as well.

Read Write :

HDD 7200rpm ~150/70 MB/s
SSD SATA3 ~ 550/550 MB/s

Biggest difference is in reading/writing small files in which SSD completely destroys HDD by a xxx difference which is more important than big files. Also latency is almost non existent.

That is why Zlib Decompression Hardware is so important.

With this data can be accessed as packed data > read with max HDD speed > decomression on fly> moving x times amount of data to GDDR5 ram. It is dedicated hardware so there will be no hit on system power.

First thing i will do will be to change PS4 HDD to SSD.

If it has the built in flash, it really wouldn't need to, since they'd be able to optimize off of that.

 

[DBT85]

And where do you think OS is stored ? System updates, backup etc. PS3 had 1 GB flash.

Would it not be possible for Sony to allocate say, 10GB of that 16GB to developers to use for each game? They can load data on to that while you are in a part of a game, and it can then fill the ram faster than the blu-ray drive can when the time comes that it is required?

It's still not going to be as fast as GDDR5, but depending on the type of flash storage and any controller it could be a damned sight faster than the HDD or the BluRay.

If the rumor is true that there will be that 16GB of flash on there then it sure as hell isn't going to only be for the OS and system updates and such, and it's not large enough as a main HDD. Unless that rumor is only relating to one SKU that comes with no HDD like the New EU PS3 Slim Slim.

 

[Perkel]

Newer models has much less for flash.

Anyway, you don't need more than 8 for OS, and use another 8 for games. 8 gig relatively fast cache would suffice.

EDIT: Also, Vita has a 4g flash, used for OS and likely games as well.



If it has the built in flash, it really wouldn't need to, since they'd be able to optimize off of that.

This flash memory can't be accessed by developers. And no Vita also has locked access to this 4GB.

Would it not be possible for Sony to allocate say, 10GB of that 16GB to developers to use for each game? They can load data on to that while you are in a part of a game, and it can then fill the ram faster than the blu-ray drive can when the time comes that it is required?

It's still not going to be as fast as GDDR5, but depending on the type of flash storage and any controller it could be a damned sight faster than the HDD or the BluRay.

If the rumor is true that there will be that 16GB of flash on there then it sure as hell isn't going to only be for the OS and system updates and such, and it's not large enough as a main HDD. Unless that rumor is only relating to one SKU that comes with no HDD like the New EU PS3 Slim Slim.

Access is locked. And no SSD or HDD don't work as RAM since both of them are xxx times slower.

 

[DBT85]

Access is locked. And no SSD or HDD don't work as RAM since both of them are xxx times slower.

Are you saying that in the PS3 and in the Vita access is locked? or that it will exist in the PS4 and will also be locked?

And I'm not saying use it as RAM, I'm saying for boosting loading times and such. Games on my PC load faster with the SSD than the did with regular drives.

 

[Perkel]

Are you saying that in the PS3 and in the Vita access is locked? or that it will exist in the PS4 and will also be locked?

And I'm not saying use it as RAM, I'm saying for boosting loading times and such. Games on my PC load faster with the SSD than the did with regular drives.

Locked same as in X360, Wii, WiiU and other consoles.


For speeding up loading you would need to install game to flash memory with OS, backups updates for OS which is like toying with fire (which is why is locked). Also it would slow down OS a lot. Reading HDD > FLASH > RAM will only be longer not shorter.

As i said earlier if Orbis have zlib decompression hardware it will essentialy multiply read from HDD. It won't be SSD like speed but it won't be HDD speed either.

 

[phosphor112]

This flash memory can't be accessed by developers. And no Vita also has locked access to this 4GB.



Access is locked. And no SSD or HDD don't work as RAM since both of them are xxx times slower.

They can partition it, or just put two separate chips. Either way, they need data caching.

Locked same as in X360, Wii, WiiU and other consoles.


For speeding up loading you would need to install game to flash memory with OS, backups updates for OS which is like toying with fire (which is why is locked). Also it would slow down OS a lot. Reading HDD > FLASH > RAM will only be longer not shorter.

As i said earlier if Orbis have zlib decompression hardware it will essentialy multiply read from HDD. It won't be SSD like speed but it won't be HDD speed either.

Erm.. why can't they just cache data to flash straight from the optical?

It wouldn't be hard to load a level or area in a game, and then as you play continue to pull data until sufficient data is cached. It wouldn't have to go to the HDD then to flash.

 

[oversitting]

I would advise not taking note of that poster's comments. There are many examples where he indicates he knows little/nothing and even more where he contradicts himself. As above he claims the PS4 is exactly like a PC yet PCs have split memory pools not unified ones so the PS4 is the polar opposite

Its like a PC where you have ram its there to access. Unless you have some reason to say unified ram has some limitations to programing, please share if you do. You don't know jack shit.

 

[phosphor112]

Its like a PC where you have ram its there to access. Unless you have some reason to say unified ram has some limitations to programing, please share if you do. You don't know jack shit.

With all due respect, you said there was no benefit to XDR.

 

[Boss Man]

Its like a PC where you have ram its there to access. Unless you have some reason to say unified ram has some limitations to programing, please share if you do. You don't know jack shit.

Unified RAM being easier does not imply that the PS4 is like a PC.

 

[oversitting]

You don't know anything about SRAM and how it will affect memory bandwidth.
It is way cheaper solution than 4GB GDDR5 ram
Sony solution is totally different to PC. It's real unified Ram. Only one pool.
Even if you combine SRAM and DDR3 bandwidth it is slower than GDDR5 and frankly there is only 32MB ram. With next gen games which will use a lot of effects and highres textures Bandwidth will be crucial. This is why MS came up DMA because DD3 and SRAM alone is bad from bandwidth standpoint. Imo 4GB of GDDR5 is better solution than 8GB of DDR3 ram + 32MB SRAM.

please explain what you do know and how SRAM affects memory bandwidth. And please explain how DRAM is accessed because I would love to know how your little mind comprehends this stuff.

And where did you get the numbers for your SRAM price and GDDR5? SRAM is much more expensive than using GDDR5. You not only need a large die, you need components to control 2 pool of memory and additional buses. But please do tell how you got that idea.

And please do give you analysis on texture bandwidth and how that is used. And how your opinion matters.

I would love, love to laugh at what you try and write.

 

[oversitting]

With all due respect, you said there was no benefit to XDR.

and?

Unified RAM being easier does not imply that the PS4 is like a PC.

relative to having eSRAM I would say its much more like a PC.

 

[Glorified G]

and?

you shouldn't be talking about ram at all.

 

[oversitting]

you shouldn't be talking about ram at all.

And where was any relevant evidence to prove I was wrong?

 

[spwolf]

please explain what you do know and how SRAM affects memory bandwidth. And please explain how DRAM is accessed because I would love to know how your little mind comprehends this stuff.

And where did you get the numbers for your SRAM price and GDDR5? SRAM is much more expensive than using GDDR5. You not only need a large die, you need components to control 2 pool of memory and additional buses. But please do tell how you got that idea.

And please do give you analysis on texture bandwidth and how that is used. And how your opinion matters.

I would love, love to laugh at what you try and write.

lol

i see you are still trying to pretend to know what you are talking about.