PS4 has 8 GB OF GDDR5 RAM
- Thread starter Log4Girlz
- Start date
There'a thing called optimization. Just look at what the Vita can do and how much memory that is using.
OS footprint will be 1.5 GB or less.
WiiU? Sorry but Nintendo is way behind in everything including optimization.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Developers are loving the fact that PS4 has 8GB of DDR5 RAM. Now I don't know much about techs, but considering that people that I look up to in the gaming industry loves it, I choose to believe them more.
When all else fails, trust the professional, not the herd
Obviously you're new to GAF, but to even get an account on this site you have to be a senior game developer and/or engineer with 15+ years of experience in the gaming industry. If I were you, I'd trust the word of the average gaffer than some random dude on stage presenting the technology at the Sony conference.
I honestly did not ask. It was a reply I glossed over. If I could find the thread, I would share it but I do not remember.
EDGE rumour had it pegged at 512MB with those alleged features.
That is still very possible. It all depends on whether Sony are preparing to counter attack MS's feature set. If they think they can not match MS's feature then the it may go north of 512MB (which as it is, is 10x PS3's OS).
Actually, numb-nuts, my forum name is my old high score name. It's my initals, which predate the Cell by a good 30+ years. Nice try, though.
And ad hominem attacks just show the weakness of your arguement. You can't argue against the actual facts (because the facts contradict your incorrect point) so you attack the person.
And Jak & Daxter. And Uncharted. And Killzone 3. And...
Seriously, check out the dude's wiki page to see the sheer number of top tier games he's worked on. His softology is incredible.
electroshockwave
Member
Some more volumetric smoke from Knack:
Knack really makes me wish that Wonderful 101 was on PS4.
Metalmurphy
Member
Because of it's art style Wonderful 101 already looks pretty great on Wii U.
Anandtech has their thoughts on the PS4 up, skip to 52 minutes.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6775/the-anandtech-podcast-episode-17
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6775/the-anandtech-podcast-episode-17
Until he murders you in your sleep!
Giant Panda
Member
So I guess Sony's cost reduction plan is to switch the GDDR5 into stacked DDR3/4 at some point? Does anyone have any idea when that sort of thing might be ready?
Teletraan1
Banned
my dvr doesnt need 8GB of ram.
"I've got a really big thing for cars, it's focking weird. I just wanna touch. I just wanna be with them"
So good.
FalsettoVibe
Member
Lots of interesting info/opinions here.
I'd imagine their cost reduction plan is to get GDDR5 for less than it currently costs as it becomes more established, older tech with more efficient production lines and higher yields.
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
Thank you. Very much apreciated.
Single GPU's with that many VRAM are made for SLI setups. By themselves, they not only doesn't improve performance, but all the way around, they can lose it, because of the loose timmings needed for the IMC to handle it:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ws/44390-evga-geforce-gtx-580-3gb-review.html
Doing strong SLI setups, you can run out of VRAM with the reference setup at very high resolutions. That is the meaning of those offerings. By them alone, they haven't enough horsepower.
It's funny you say that about ad hominem, after it was me who had to introduce it in this thread. But, ok, lets give a second look at your arguments:
So, Xbox bad and slow, PS4 expensive and fast. You made your points very clear way over the subconscious than where aimed at.
That case only happens when a powerful GPU is starving for bandwidth. And this is not the case with such a low-mid tier GPU and low end CPU.
This is blatant false at all levels.
Now, explain me this:
GTX580 have a 384 bit bus, GTX 680 have a 256 bit bus, being the mid tier Kepler chip. Once you set their GDDR5 memory over 6Ghz effective speed, 580 will have an obvious bandwidth advantage. And one extra GB if we take the 3GB version of it.
Anyone in this forum, who have bothered into check some reviews, know GXT680 will mop 580 up anyway. It have better pixel and texel fillrate and a lot of architectural improvements over Fermi.
And this, guy, is incompatible with your walls of nonsense enthusiastic (on one side) text.
If a GTX 680 isn't crippled at any level with 190GB/s, how can be a much worse GPU afraid of hit bandwidth bounds?
If the most powerful, currently available, PC mono GPUs cant hit a single 2GB limit by themselves, how will be able a tiny low power GPU, like the Orbis one, go over 3GB without dying much earlier?
GDDR5 isn't the 'expensive' solution. In fact, is the cheapest one since it reduce bus sizes, and bus sizes are money both in chips areas and PCB complexity (and you can't shrink latter one).
Tell me, boy. GTX580 384bits 3GB card, or GTX680 256 bit 2GB card?
Hey doctor, where does the system RAM buffer fit into your benchmarks?
/woosh
Forgot I was responding to apocalipsis, 8GB is def an overkill.
Guy? Boy?
When you hear people say that GDDR5 results in heat issues, it also applies to people. This chump just had a full blow RAM related meltdown. And he still doesnt understand technical facts.
There is a reason the next Xbox has gone for the DDR3 + EDRAM approach. MS have designed the console for more than games. The non gaming apps want the low latency DDR3. The EDRAM and DMAs are there to mitigate the low bandwidth main RAM to a certain degree. Its not because MS are being cheap.
Sony seem to have designed the PS4 as a pure bread gaming console. Different priorities resulted in different RAM architectures.
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
Hey doctor, where does the system RAM buffer fit into your benchmarks?
/woosh
Forgot I was responding to apocalipsis, 8GB is def an overkill.
What?
Same setup, read the review I linked.
SPE said:
CPU bandwidth requirements are minimal compared to GPU. Going from 4GB to 8GB doesn't add more bandwidth since the bus keeps the same. Very same with ROPs.
Don't understand your argument here.
FlutterPuffs
Member
So the benchmarks you posted essentially compared 9GB vs 7.5GB, your benchmarks dont really see any value to your argument. Zero, Nada, Zilch.
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
Should they remove main RAM to compare GPUs?
It wont be a fair comparison but a bit better than what you were trying to suggest.
edit: Let me ask you a simple question; developers around the world wanted 8GB, do you think you know better? Or they just wanted to troll Sony?
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
No, I bolded that a poster, after calling me 'numb-nuts', retook the ad hominem argument and tried to use it against me.
dr. apocalipsis
Banned
Can you, please, suggest any better way of comparing video memory setups other than have all the very same rig and clocks, except for said VRAM setup?
Thank you in advance.
No PC game is developed with the Titan as a performance target though. They're developed for video cards with 512MB/1GB/2GB memory.
I thought your argument was that 176GB/s was overkill for 18CU's, nothing about 4GB vs 8GB.
I just showed you that you could use all that bandwidth up when working with the 8 CPU cores + high levels of MSAA + transparencies.
Lol
This. I would extend that to benchmarks of ANY game on ANY platform running today. If the game already exists, you're missing the point of having 8GB of GDDR5.
RAM is overkill and doesn't matter until you run out. Then nothing else matters, leaving you frantically trying to snatch back 20MB here or even 5MB there. Memory management is a PITA. Call up the audio guys, summon the artists, get those assets smaller, use less of them. I've run out of RAM and my program has ground to a halt!
More CPU cores/threads take careful thought to use, more fillrate and/or texturing requires more art. There are definite diminishing returns to having more of each.
But fast and plentiful RAM is the LAST resource that'll be underused. If it's available, developers will use it. Ask ten developer if they rather have the extra 4GB of RAM or a similar budget towards more CPU cores or compute units. All of them will go for RAM. Oh wait, I just did and they answered.
No they didn't. Pretty much every launch console(2006 - early 2008) suffered the YLOD. Including my European launch 60GB Ps3 bought in mid-July 2007.
Yeah, it's not like they (including the developers) want to sell their products...
Hey genius, console RAM =/= your average of the shelf PC RAM sticks. (doesn't matter which kind)
Gemüsepizza
Member
(1) YLOD has nothing to do with cooling
(2) My 2008 console still works perfectly
(3) Unlike MS' early models of the 360, I haven't really seen any reliable source that indicates PS3 failure rates were higher than industry standard
Actually, the RAM in Wii U and presumably the next Xbox is exactly off the shelf PC RAM. Not on sticks of course, but the same chips.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Good to hear feedback from an actual developer on this subject. Thank you for that sir
Good to hear feedback from an actual developer on this subject. Thank you for that sir
Except, some gaffers apparently know more than the developers do without actually having worked on the dev kit, simply from an armchair. These are the true sherlock holmes of our time. One look and the mystery is solved. Unfortunately, the programmers who are actively working with the dev kit simply have not caught up to it yet.
I mean it was only today that I learned that PS4(and even XB3) will perhaps be inferior to WiiU in terms of lighting and DoF while outdoing it in particles and textures. I think while he may not be a developer, he certainly sounds smarter than one to know how things are going to turn out given the specs before even they do.