Support NeoGAF

[TheGreyHulk]

honestly, when it comes to operating systems, MS does a great job at what they do.

i don't see an issue with the 3GB requirement. we'd all want as much ram as possible, but they have to think for the future and the way they set it up with 3 OS systems utilizing virtualization to keep them all linked up is pretty amazing when you think about it.

i think what they did was definitely a smart choice when you think about it. we want apps available nearly instantaneously when we want to check something and they also want the flexibility to change things up as the next gen progresses. the way they split it up allows for all of this.

 

[TheLegendary]

It's a bit like a PC and the Video Ram VS system RAM.

Obviously not the same, but that's a way of simplifying it.

I don't see how it's similar at all.

All 5 GB is unified memory that developers can use however they wish. It's not video ram vs system ram at all. It's the 3 GB outside of that they simply can't touch (for games).

Personally I'm excited for the opportunity that both consoles offer outside of games. I just think MS has this OS and integration system sorted out much more than Sony. I can't see myself spending $400+ for something that will only play games. Unfortunately I'm no longer in college with basically unlimited time for entertainment. At least being able to justify spending that amount on something that is offering something new(or at least attempting to) , and for more than just games, is exciting.

 

[Cornbread78]

I don't understand posts like this. Sony literally just released PR stating that they aren't telling anyone what their OS RAM reservation is. Shouldn't you say that this is in typical Sony fashion then?

The only thing I could find is below:


http://www.gamespot.com//news/sony-...4-developers-can-use-flexible-memory-6412151?[/

Sony's statement, issued to Digital Foundry, said that "we would like to clear up a misunderstanding regarding our 'direct' and 'flexible' memory systems."
"The article states that 'flexible' memory is borrowed from the OS, and must be returned when requested--that's not actually the case."
According to Sony, "'Direct Memory' is memory allocated under the traditional video game model, so the game controls all aspects of its allocation" whereas "'Flexible Memory' is memory managed by the PS4 OS on the game's behalf, and allows games to use some very nice FreeBSD virtual memory functionality."
"However this memory is 100 per cent the game's memory, and is never used by the OS, and as it is the game's memory it should be easy for every developer to use it,"

 

[LeeFowler.CU]

It's really hard to get excited about being told they're allocating RAM this way so games will still work when they add shit you probably won't care about down the road.

This has been true of all consoles since apps became a thing. Xbox 360/PS3 included.

 

[killer rin]

But does that make development more complicated/difficult?

(I'm not making a statement, I'm actually asking.)

The way that Xbox does it is through something called Hyper-Visor, or Hyper-V for short. On the backend, the Hyper-V OS basically turns both the Xbox-OS and the Windows-OS into Virtual OS. So in reality, your dealing with One real OS and two Virtual ones. It does this by splitting the physical hardware and then telling the OSs exactly what portions each one gets. If for example a developer queried for the amount of ram they had available to them, the OS would say 5GB instead of 8GB.

In terms of difference of development, its pretty much exactly the same as before. Its basically just two computers working on one and from a development standpoint you are still just coding to the spec. Infact, its actually easier for developers because they know that they have exactly this much dedicated to their usage as compared to the PS4' way of doing it which is. "You 3.5(or 4.5)GB dedicated to gaming, and if you need more you can steal up to 512MB from the OS partition if its available. In which case developers would have to make a query to the PS4 OS to get that Ram instead of the XBox version of you just have it..

Wikipedia page

 

[Glorified G]

Only reason I am getting an xbox at launch is for the apps. That fantasy sports integration sounds amazing.

You're paying $500 (and xbox live to access all the apps) to watch ESPN with an overlay?

 

[prwxv3]

Wait Microsoft publically confirmed their os allocation i thought that was from a dev/insider.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I don't quite understand the title of the article. I get that this is the way things have to be if they want things to be like they are on smartphones and tablets, with multiple apps being kept in memory, but surely it's a necessary evil rather than being some sort of advantage in itself.

 

[LeeFowler.CU]

Wait Microsoft publically confirmed their os allocation i thought that was from a dev/insider.

After the reveal. It came from Marc Whitten I believe. Not that it's anything to be coy about. Both manufacturers are setting aside RAM for OS features/apps/multitasking/fast task switching.

I don't quite understand the title of the article. I get that this is the way things have to be if they want things to be like they are on smartphones and tablets, with multiple apps being kept in memory, but surely it's a necessary evil rather than being some sort of advantage in itself.

I have enough devices sitting underneath my TV. If I can get one that plays all the games I want (or 95% of them at least, gonna grab that PS4 soon as ND forces me to) as well as obfuscates all the other boxes I say that's a great deal.

 

[I2amza]

The difference is that you can get literally all of this for little money right now, whereas Blu-Ray players have been very expensive at the time of the PS3's launch. I, for instance, have a Netflix client in (1) my iPad, (2) my Apple TV, and (3) my TV, (4) my PS3, (5) my 360, (6) my Wii U, and (7) on my notebook if I would bother to connect it to the TV (Have I forgotten anything?). Netflix (and similar stuff) is becoming sort of a spam feature. Seriously, if anybody does not have any device capable of displaying Netflix on their TV, buying a 499$ game console for that purpose is not the first idea that would come to mind. There are way cheaper alternatives.

But that's the thing. All these companies now a days are in a lose lose situation. They either don't provide all these common services on their devices and get the ire of tech journalists and people for not providing choices and options, or they do provide these services and get people saying why do I need another one?

IMO, it's better to at least offer the choice. All companies are trying to tie you into their ecosystem. So by having all these services and features it seems more abundant and will entice customers to jump ship.

Microsoft and Sony are in this predicament because Apple, Google and et al. already provide all these features on their mobile devices and are trying to do the same on their Google TVs and Apple TVs and Samsung Smart TVs.

 

[BruiserBear]

The more I hear about the XB1 the more I think Microsoft is going to once again be ahead of the game when it comes to the OS. There could be some really cool apps that we haven't even thought about right now. The multitasking could be really neat if used in a smart way.

I think similarly to the 360 they're going to have a box that is just powerful enough to impress, and it's going to have an OS that does some really impressive things and is ahead of the competition in some key ways.

 

[HyperV]

The way that Xbox does it is through something called Hyper-Visor, or Hyper-V for short. On the backend, the Hyper-V OS basically turns both the Xbox-OS and the Windows-OS into Virtual OS. So in reality, your dealing with One real OS and two Virtual ones. It does this by splitting the physical hardware and then telling the OSs exactly what portions each one gets. If for example a developer queried for the amount of ram they had available to them, the OS would say 5GB instead of 8GB.

In terms of difference of development, its pretty much exactly the same as before. Its basically just two computers working on one and from a development standpoint you are still just coding to the spec. Infact, its actually easier for developers because they know that they have exactly this much dedicated to their usage as compared to the PS4' way of doing it which is. "You 3.5(or 4.5)GB dedicated to gaming, and if you need more you can steal up to 512MB from the OS partition if its available. In which case developers would have to make a query to the PS4 OS to get that Ram instead of the XBox version of you just have it..

Wikipedia page

Good read, here's another one:
http://www.giantbomb.com/xbox-one/3...box-one-have-a-hypervisor-and-what-i-1437760/

 

[Garrett 2U]

You're paying $500 (and xbox live to access all the apps) to watch ESPN with an overlay?

And, you know, to play games...
It can do both.

The more I hear about the XB1 the more I think Microsoft is going to once again be ahead of the game when it comes to the OS. There could be some really cool apps that we haven't even thought about right now. The multitasking could be really neat if used in a smart way.

Definitely!

 

[Syphon Filter]

The more I hear about the XB1 the more I think Microsoft is going to once again be ahead of the game when it comes to the OS. There could be some really cool apps that we haven't even thought about right now. The multitasking could be really neat if used in a smart way.

I think similarly to the 360 they're going to have a box that is just powerful enough to impress, and it's going to have an OS that does some really impressive things and is ahead of the competition in some key ways.

Wouldn't be surprised, that is their specialty.

 

[ElTorro]

But that's the thing. All these companies now a days are in a lose lose situation. They either don't provide all these common services on their devices and get the ire of tech journalists and people for not providing choices and options, or they do provide these services and get people saying why do I need another one?

Nobody minds having all those features on a console. The question is whether these things have to run concurrently with the game and thereby compete for resources and screen space.

 

[Black Republican]

it sounds so peachy

 

[Drek]

I don't think they are. 5 years from now we'll have lots of social media apps that's well use on our TV's.

Why would anyone want to move their social media apps from their smartphone or tablet to their TV?

Game consoles need to embrace their role as a home theater convergence device, not a general media convergence device. Netflix, Blu-Ray, video games, even music. Those are the domains within which a console should be focused. Twitter, facebook, etc. as anything more than a tie to these other services is not a viable option. No one wants facebook updates popping up on their PS4 when watching a movie with a few friends. They want that shit to pop up on their phone so it 1. doesn't interrupt the movie for everyone else 2. keeps the update relatively private unless they choose to share it and 3. can be responded to while still watching said movie in full screen, i.e. multi-tasking.

The game console has a valid role going forward, but it's not as a catch-all device. It should be a catch-anything you actually want/need on a TV device.

 

[LeeFowler.CU]

The more I hear about the XB1 the more I think Microsoft is going to once again be ahead of the game when it comes to the OS. There could be some really cool apps that we haven't even thought about right now. The multitasking could be really neat if used in a smart way.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think multi-tasking is going to be a gamechanger.

Nobody minds having all those features on a console. The question is whether these things have to run concurrently with the game and thereby compete for resources and screen space.

Nobody is forcing people to snap apps to the side. When the game is running full screen it gets 5 GB of RAM and 90% GPU/CPU, same as the PS4.

 

[Darklor01]

Those still disgruntled by the withholding of RAM that might be devoted exclusively to sharper gun renders may be mollified by the following: those simultaneously-running apps could form part of the game in some way. Developer fondness for networked features such as DICE's Battlelog services shows no sign of abating, and it's possible the Windows-based partition might handle certain of these services in future.

That part is new info, sorta, and could be interesting.

So, if I understand your point, this article would need to be hinting that the PS4 would handle, say, Battlelog on the game side, not the OS side?

If not, I don't get the difference outside of some tie in between the two sides for a game like, Quantum Break... If this is even a valid example.

Seems like mostly repurposed old info. a bit

 

[kaching]

Naturally, this has provoked a certain amount of upset among those who'd rather each and every byte of memory was set aside for the sole, exclusive purpose of (e.g.) rendering every fold in Batman's cape.

Good 'ol OXM, trivializing and misrepresenting the concern. I certainly expect a modern console to allocate a non-trivial amount of memory to OS services. I just don't think it needs to be more than a third of the available RAM.

 

[LukasTaves]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same set up developers have been using in the 360 for what is nearly a decade?

What suddenly makes it more complicated? The different ram? I know the 360 used eDram. Is eSram harder/more complicated to use?

Not really. I guess that it can be used like that, but the xbone allows for more interesting scenarios that could make it more complicated to use. But on the other hand, at least in terms of results it's probably worth the cost.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I have enough devices sitting underneath my TV. If I can get one that plays all the games I want (or 95% of them at least, gonna grab that PS4 soon as ND forces me to) as well as obfuscates all the other boxes I say that's a great deal.

That's great and all, but it doesn't really answer my question. It's great for people who want to use their console for non-gaming uses, but why is it good for gamers? The interviewee makes a point of how it's a compromise between these two audiences, and how they've done the best they can to accommodate them both, but it's not exactly the win-win scenario the article title suggests.

 

[FlashFlooder]

I don't think they are. 5 years from now we'll have lots of social media apps that's well use on our TV's.

God, I hope not.

 

[iamshadowlark]

I'm not one who has particularly enjoyed any feature shown in the XB1, other than the games, but I will repeat ad naseum that the RAM allocation doesn't hurt the system much at all.

It's the crappy BW + esram that would draw my concern.

 

[Darklor01]

I'm not one who has particularly enjoyed any feature shown in the XB1, other than the games, but I will repeat ad naseum that the RAM allocation doesn't hurt the system much at all.

It's the crappy BW + esram that would draw my concern.

Some of the stuff does look cool. The fantasy sports stuff. If the can be innovative and creative tying services in with games an other things, that is very cool.

 

[gruenel]

Nobody is forcing people to snap apps to the side. When the game is running full screen it gets 5 GB of RAM and 90% GPU/CPU, same as the PS4.

Wait. PS4 games only get 90% GPU?

 

[nib95]

Bit confused by the OP, article seems a bit misleading. It's not so much the ram split but the OS ram reservation. Actually splitting the ram is not good for the developers at all, and a unified pool is far more beneficial.

 

[LeeFowler.CU]

That's great and all, but it doesn't really answer my question. It's great for people who want to use their console for non-gaming uses, but why is it good for gamers? The interviewee makes a point of how it's a compromise between these two audiences, and how they've done the best they can to accommodate them both, but it's not exactly the win-win scenario the article title suggests.

Define gamer. Consumers want as much value as possible from their purchases. Apps and OS features add value. This notion of a super-mega-hardcore gamer that doesn't care at all about services probably isn't a large market segment.

Incoming shitty hypothetical: If I put two boxes side by side, both at the same price, and both play the same games, but one has no ancillary features whatsoever, and instead devotes 100% of its resources towards "da games", and the other has OS features and apps, and still manages to play the same games. Which one do you honestly think would sell more?

People that play games, a.k.a. "gamers" also enjoy other features that add value to the box. See: Netflix, Blu-Ray drive.

I know it's popular on NeoGAF to want a 1.8 TF beast of a console that has an OS so small its basically a command line. But when were talking mass-market viability exclusive games and services, and OS features are what's going to sell these boxes.

 

[Aklamarth]

I think Microsoft is grossly overestimating people's desire to run non-entertainment apps on their TV.

Bingo. Rude awakening coming up......

 

[Majanew]

5 GB is 3 gigs more than I was expecting back in 2011 when I thought the system could release in 2012. And with XB1's bandwidth, it should be enough. I wish games could get 8 GB of RAM and access all 8 GB per frame, but that's not happening.

 

[JonathanPower]

Infact, its actually easier for developers because they know that they have exactly this much dedicated to their usage as compared to the PS4' way of doing it which is. "You 3.5(or 4.5)GB dedicated to gaming, and if you need more you can steal up to 512MB from the OS partition if its available. In which case developers would have to make a query to the PS4 OS to get that Ram instead of the XBox version of you just have it..

According to Sony, this is not how it works. Flexible memory is dedicated to games and never used for OS stuff. In addiiton, we were told the correct amount of memory available for games is 6GB.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

So, if I understand your point, this article would need to be hinting that the PS4 would handle, say, Battlelog on the game side, not the OS side?

If not, I don't get the difference outside of some tie in between the two sides for a game like, Quantum Break... If this is even a valid example.

Seems like mostly repurposed old info. a bit

I think people didn't imagine the developers using the App partition in tandem with the Game partition. It's not huge news, but it could a useful thing. I don't think the article was hinting at anything about PS4.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

It's the crappy BW + esram that would draw my concern.

Why? And how is the bandwidth for X1 crappy? It's excellent, just not as fat a pipe to off-chip memory as PS4. but MS has a different process in mind than Sony. Certainly, it's better than anything a PC gamer rig can have today.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Define gamer. Consumers want as much value as possible from their purchases. Apps and OS features add value. This notion of a super-mega-hardcore gamer that doesn't care at all about services probably isn't a large market segment.

Incoming shitty hypothetical: If I put two boxes side by side, both at the same price, and both play the same games, but one has no ancillary features whatsoever, and instead devotes 100% of its resources towards "da games", and the other has OS features and apps, and still manages to play the same games. Which one do you honestly think would sell more?

People that play games, a.k.a. "gamers" also enjoy other features that add value to the box. See: Netflix, Blu-Ray drive.

I know it's popular on NeoGAF to want a 1.8 TF beast of a console that has an OS so small its basically a command line. But when were talking mass-market viability exclusive games and services, and OS features are what's going to sell these boxes.

No I get that it's a sensible trade-off, but that's what it is: a trade-off. I think Microsoft (and Sony) made the right call by reserving a relatively large portion of the RAM for app stuff. It's really the article's title I have a problem with, as in their haste to create a universally positive puff-piece for Microsoft, they don't seem to have taken the time to see if it matches what the interviewee is actually telling them.

Although I think the guy from Microsoft is talking a fair amount of crap too. What kind of shitty metaphor for deciding what kind of RAM split to go with is this?

"When you're building a game, the word they use is balance. If you're making a shooter, you've got various weapons, they have various damage characteristics, you've also got armour and defences, they have various characteristics, and the game is the most fun when it's balanced.

"When this one weapon is too strong, it's too easy to beat the bad guys and it's not fun, when the defences are too strong and you're not hurting anyone it's no fun. You've got to have the right balance. We need to have the right balance in the next generation console to fit these needs."

 

[SEGAvangelist]

According to Sony, this is not how it works. Flexible memory is dedicated to games and never used for OS stuff. In addiiton, we were told the correct amount of memory available for games is 6GB.

Actual amount available is all rumors. 6GB is reliable depending on who you talk to.

 

[darkressurection]

I think the example the article used of Battlelog in BF being something that could be handled in the OS layer of the system being interesting. Hopefully we will see some cool, if not totally essential, stuff in a similar vein come from that. I wouldn't want to use the Xbone Snap features for Twitter or Facebook or any shit like that, but if it started getting used for game relevant stuff I could definitely start to understand the value in it being there.

 

[Garrett 2U]

So, if I understand your point, this article would need to be hinting that the PS4 would handle, say, Battlelog on the game side, not the OS side?

If not, I don't get the difference outside of some tie in between the two sides for a game like, Quantum Break... If this is even a valid example.

Seems like mostly repurposed old info. a bit

As I understand it, the PS4 doesn't allow multiple applications to run at the same time.
Certain background applications are suspended in state and can be resumed if the player switches from the game to the app.
That setup wouldn't be ideal for a game like Battlefield that wants to integrate Battlelog into the user's game experience.

So on the PS4 they might have to include it into the game, using the game's resources while on the Xbox One they could build a companion app that could be snapped and would use the OS resources.

I think that is the idea trying to be conveyed by the example.

According to Sony, this is not how it works. Flexible memory is dedicated to games and never used for OS stuff. In addiiton, we were told the correct amount of memory available for games is 6GB.

The whole point of giving the OS ownership of memory is so that it can deny request in the future if they add features to the OS.
It is inherently not guaranteed, and therefore is something that developers have to design around.

Of course, both platforms have more usable RAM than developers could have imagined, and that certainly won't be an issue for years. And might never be.

 

[RoboPlato]

Nothing we didn't already know about their plans and doesn't even address how it's good for developers outside of plugging Battlelog.

 

[avaya]

Why? And how is the bandwidth for X1 crappy? It's excellent, just not as fat a pipe to off-chip memory as PS4. but MS has a different process in mind than Sony. Certainly, it's better than anything a PC gamer rig can have today.

Yeah I wish my Titan's could rock some ESRAM instead of 288GB/s GDDR5. Both consoles are shite compared to PC high end. The Bone shockingly so.

 

[GamerTime]

People actually care about OS features for a game console?

Good thing I don't care about other crap over games for a game console, and lucky for me that Sony has the developers, and brings the games I care about.

Microsoft can waste all they want on OS features with Kinect, because I don't buy a game console for the crap Microsoft seems to really care about.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Who thinks Bethesda Game Studios will have problems with this down the road?

 

[Darklor01]

I think people didn't imagine the developers using the App partition in tandem with the Game partition. It's not huge news, but it could a useful thing. I don't think the article was hinting at anything about PS4.

It really didn't, you're right, and I can completely see your point.

It could be cool, and I hope they do great things with it to be honest. It would be nice to have innovation which is not gimmicky. It's not really new news though, unless they really show off this integration in a way we haven't already seen in a video or actually in use.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Why? And how is the bandwidth for X1 crappy? It's excellent, just not as fat a pipe to off-chip memory as PS4. but MS has a different process in mind than Sony. Certainly, it's better than anything a PC gamer rig can have today.

It raises complexity quite a bit. Juggling data in and out a limited amount of memory benefits nobody. Devs have been known to take the easier way out if its there.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Yeah I wish my Titan's could rock some ESRAM instead of 288GB/s GDDR5. Both consoles are shite compared to PC high end. The Bone shockingly so.

For main memory access, both are extremely high. Yeah, they have to share that access to one main pool for both CPU and GPU use, but the APU design and added cache features should equalize the use for games situations. I guess we'll have to see how the designs stack up with software instead of acting as if different architectural choices don't matter to the end result.

It raises complexity quite a bit. Juggling data in and out a limited amount of memory benefits nobody. Devs have been known to take the easier way out if its there.

Right, but if the memory management is heavily 'automatic' via VM behavior/further handled with special API instructions and aided by dedicated logic that unburdens the CPU and available bandwidth, it may not be something to worry about at all in the end. I think MS is going to attempt to compress nearly everything coming off of the main pool, ala Samplify's method. I think they're trying to solve issues of having needed data there when needed and no more, managing what goes into and out of ESRAM. That might be the most challenging part of their design since it seems clear that ESRAM isn't for storing the framebuffer like the EDRAM in X360 was dedicated for. They want a big and fast managed cache for everything that uses it that would mean more to performance due to the much more random access patterns of a given game. There's no doubt that MS' path is more conceptually complicated than Sony's, but I think the bandwidth disparity means nearly nothing if the silicon isn't able to get what it needs to complete operations when it needs it. That clearly is what MS is going for...better utilization by way of offering a pool of on-chip memory.

 

[Garrett 2U]

People actually care about OS features for a game console?

Good thing I don't care about other crap over games for a game console, and lucky for me that Sony has the developers, and brings the games I care about.

Microsoft can waste all they want on OS features with Kinect, because I don't buy a game console for the crap Microsoft seems to really care about.

Well someone certainly came with an agenda.
Nice contribution to the discussion.

 

[mikeGFG]

I think Microsoft is grossly overestimating people's desire to run non-entertainment apps on their TV.

I dunno, man. People dont even play video games on my Xbox friends list anymore.

 

[quickwhips]

Yeah I wish my Titan's could rock some ESRAM instead of 288GB/s GDDR5. Both consoles are shite compared to PC high end. The Bone shockingly so.

Why are you here then in this thread? Just to feel vidicated?

 

[JonathanPower]

Define gamer. Consumers want as much value as possible from their purchases. Apps and OS features add value. This notion of a super-mega-hardcore gamer that doesn't care at all about services probably isn't a large market segment.

Incoming shitty hypothetical: If I put two boxes side by side, both at the same price, and both play the same games, but one has no ancillary features whatsoever, and instead devotes 100% of its resources towards "da games", and the other has OS features and apps, and still manages to play the same games. Which one do you honestly think would sell more?

People that play games, a.k.a. "gamers" also enjoy other features that add value to the box. See: Netflix, Blu-Ray drive.

I know it's popular on NeoGAF to want a 1.8 TF beast of a console that has an OS so small its basically a command line. But when were talking mass-market viability exclusive games and services, and OS features are what's going to sell these boxes.

You can have as much apps as you want and still devote the 100% of the power to games. They only steal resources from games if you want them to run while you are gaming. Personally, I love having a great selection of apps, but I couldn't care less about using Skype while I am playing a game.

 

[Cornbread78]

Who thinks Bethesda Game Studios will have problems with this down the road?

Only on PS4, never on XBone, C'mon man....LOL

 

[LeeFowler.CU]

No I get that it's a sensible trade-off, but that's what it is: a trade-off. I think Microsoft (and Sony) made the right call by reserving a relatively large portion of the RAM for app stuff. It's really the article's title I have a problem with, as in their haste to create a universally positive puff-piece for Microsoft, they don't seem to have taken the time to see if it matches what the interviewee is actually telling them.

Although I think the guy from Microsoft is talking a fair amount of crap too. What kind of shitty metaphor for deciding what kind of RAM split to go with is this?

Well, to be fair the entire idea of consoles is based on trade-offs. All the games we play on consoles can be played on PC's because when we get down to the brass-tax they're all just computing devices, but we make tradeoffs with consoles for the sake of simplicity and control mechanics.

Time will tell whether the design decisions will play out as planned and what the consumer market reacts to. One thing is for sure though, nothing is set in stone with either console. If games end up needing more than 5GB of ram MS will shrink the OS partition via firmware. If consumers end up reacting to the multi-tasking feature or some app that Microsoft has Sony will do what it takes to make it happen on the PS4. These are, in fact, tiny little computers sitting under the TV.

Also, yes, his analogy is God-awful