PS3 was a costlier venture and it didn't last a full 10 years without a successor.
PS3 will continue to sell, and sell well, for 3 more years easily.
PS3 was a costlier venture and it didn't last a full 10 years without a successor.
LMFAO
THUWAY WHERE YOU AT
PS3 will continue to sell, and sell well, for 3 more years easily.
I'm not sure what constitutes "well" but no doubt it will continue to sell for years. But having said that, I don't foresee the PS4 lasting 10 years without a successor unless Sony goes bankrupt.
I've been reading more about GDDR5 vs DDR3, and one thing that many other sites are talking about, and not discussing here is the latency. GDDR5 actually has higher latency than DDR3, at the cost of its increased bandwidth. In fact, GDDR5 is actually based on DDR3 memory!
Remember that the "G" in GDDR5 stands for graphics. The reason why this type of memory is found in GPU's is because a GPU is typically performing lots of calculations in parallel, making the latency almost a non-issue. However, when you use that same memory when dealing with a CPU, it actually starts performing worse than DDR3, since CPU's act in a linear fashion (execute instruction X, then Y, then Z, etc...). Of course, you can split up your compute jobs between multiple cores, but each core still executes in a linear fashion. This means that when the CPU needs additional instructions to execute, GDDR5 will actually be slower to respond than DDR3. Bandwidth doesn't matter as much as latency in this scenario, because you aren't shifting a lot of data, but rather you want the next instruction to come as soon as possible so you can move onto the next one.
This issue of latency is actually one of the reasons why they don't sell GDDR5 as system RAM. It's not that they can't, it's just that DDR3 is better. It's mostly useful for graphics cards when almost all of your work can be done in parallel, and DDR3 is more useful when dealing with CPU's when you're dealing with linear instructions and latency is more important.
Perhaps that's why Sony has extra compute units on the GPU, because they want to offload as much as they can from the CPU due to GDDR5's latency issues?
After looking at all of this, I'm actually not 100% sure that GDDR5 is always better than DDR3. It seems like it's an apples and orange comparison. You need to take the rest of the system into account, and not just focus on an individual piece (in this case, the type of RAM).
Thoughts?
Irrelevant comparison, since the PS4 will be reserving a portion of memory for background tasks, and then splitting the remaining pool for resources that the CPU wants as well as GPU. It will not have 8GB of video memory for a given game. Soon, the GeForce Titan will be releasing with 6GB of GDDR5 memory, which will be more VRAM than a given game on PS4 will have to work with. The GPU itself on Titan is, needless to say, blowing the two upcoming consoles out of the water more than just the difference in memory would suggest. Of course, the 660 Ti already spanks it on the Tflop count anyway, a much more modest and inexpensive card than Titan.
I suspect that adding more memory (8GB is fantastic and more than we ever expected) was something they could do that would increase cost and board complexity, but would not break the TDP hard limits in the same way that including a beefier processor and GPU would have. The "ratio" of processing power to memory is simply different for the PS4 than it is for PC graphics cards - far more memory per unit of processing power. The memory quantity is extremely high end, while GPU performance is not.
Also as a note, the 690 does "really" have 6GB of memory, because it's a dual GPU setup and it's more like "2x 3", with each GPU having identical memory contents, and thus half of the memory being wasted.
You are speculating my friend.
It's such a shame that of all this advantages that the PS4 may end up having, the most important one IMO (AI) will never be fully realized outside first party games, since no third party dev. in the world will code more advanced AI mechanics for the PS4 version of it's multiplatform game.
I said "holy shit" and "GAF is gonna love this" as I saw it![]()
I shouted 'holy shit 8GB GDDR5' with a San Miguel in my hand on our sofa, the look on my wife's face was priceless ("I've made a huge mistake")
so does this mean that we'll get some games runnig at 60fps at 1080p?
Not any more or less than with 4GB by any significant degree.so does this mean that we'll get some games running at 60fps at 1080p?
I shouted 'holy shit 8GB GDDR5' with a San Miguel in my hand on our sofa, the look on my wife's face was priceless ("I've made a huge mistake")
I shouted 'holy shit 8GB GDDR5' with a San Miguel in my hand on our sofa, the look on my wife's face was priceless ("I've made a huge mistake")
Can someone explain it to me like to a technological ignorant that I am, just how different is the GDDR5 compared to DDR3? And what is it's relation to the graphics card/what do we know about PS4's graphics card?
The 8GB of GDDR5 RAM is impressive. I would say it is tremendously impressive. It means....
-- High resolution textures.
-- Large levels without streaming or even larger levels with streaming.
-- Lots of RAM for both the GPU and CPU.
-- Lots of RAM for advanced rendering techniques and antialiasing.
-- Due to the speed of the GDDR5 RAM, there will be less latency and the GPU will perform better.
As exciting it is to have 8GB of fast RAM, I would much rather have an SSD. Hard drives are slow, loud, and are going to be obsolete very soon.
To put it into context, you can fit most games from this gen inside the RAM.
Not sure you guys realised this but 4 is an unlucky number (means death) and 8 is a very lucky number in many Asian countries, Japan included. So I think this might be the main reason why they decided to go with 8GB GDDR.
Not sure you guys realised this but 4 is an unlucky number (means death) and 8 is a very lucky number in many Asian countries, Japan included. So I think this might be the main reason why they decided to go with 8GB GDDR.
Yes, but not wildly. Assuming 512mb for OS, in order to match 6GB of memory for a Titan it would need to use merely 1.5 for CPU stuff. That's not impossible but it is severely imbalanced. Dumping a whole game to RAM would be madness since disc capacity is so high and games aren't going to be 7GB total size unless it's a PSN indie game or something.
I seriously doubt that they will provide 2-3 GB for system. Mostly because 8GB of GDDR8 is something i think they even didn't know for sure that will end up in PS4. (Recently even 4GB of GDDR5 was unknown !). Looks like they already have working OS and basic features nailed down few months isn't that much to change how OS works imo.
SSD's are expensive though if you want a decent sized one.As exciting it is to have 8GB of fast RAM, I would much rather have an SSD. Hard drives are slow, loud, and are going to be obsolete very soon.
Just watched a bit of GT's invicible walls and cringed that they didn't understand how crazy 8 GDDR5 RAM. If the enthusiast press doesn't even understand how are they going communicate this to the average gamer. On the flip side it'll show in the games and it's more for developers I guess.
As a PC gamer, this is very good to see, hopefully 720 steps up its game as well, so we have 64 bit systems with 8 gigs of ram running.
Battlefield 4 destruction level. Brain blanks.
One thing people are forgetting is how much this can ease the development. Devs don't need to worry much about fitting things into the RAM anymore. PS4 could be a dream to develop for.
It can't really be that much of an advantage... can it?
*desperately trying not to get too impressed*
Yet the next Xbox hasn't even been announced.M-M-M-Monster kill!
Owned the competition there. PS4 is clearly the best home for console multiplatform titles and for the most advanced 1st party titles for many years to come.
RAM is one of those easier things to exploit imo, even if it just means higher res textures or more shit going on. I agree with that it'll show. I hope MS can step their game up one way or another.I think this will come down to the simple 'don't tell them, show them' rule of marketing. It's clear that third party multiformat game will never exploit this much RAM over whatever the Durango may or may not have so it's down to Sony's first party to really bring it.
Live demonstrations of games (on stage at E3 or in store this holiday season) could be the most powerful way of showing the public the power of the PS4 and the reason they should buy one over a competitor's efforts.
What do you mean? All the leaks pointed toward 4GB GDDR5 ram?This is the last time I trust GAF "insiders" or "experts" who proclaimed this to be false or impossible respectively.
"WoOHaho? Is that's 8Gigs of ... GDDR5? oW crap *gurgle*?" as I vividly imagined, in my mind's eye, NeoGAF's server melting like a scoop of icecream left in the sun.I said "holy shit" and "GAF is gonna love this" as I saw it![]()
Are we talking about the same thing? The CPU needs to have stuff in working memory too, not just the GPU. Nothing to do with OS or tertiary features.
Yes, but not wildly. Assuming 512mb for OS, in order to match 6GB of memory for a Titan it would need to use merely 1.5 for CPU stuff. That's not impossible but it is severely imbalanced. Dumping a whole game to RAM would be madness since disc capacity is so high and games aren't going to be 7GB total size unless it's a PSN indie game or something.