Support NeoGAF

[anonnumber6]

We can only speculate at this moment of course.
Developers are going to know a lot better than us but wanting 8gb of RAM on a console is a bit ridiculous. I never think something is overkill because overkill is underrated.

I would guess that when a developer is throwing their opinion about what they want the next console to have they are inclined to exaggerate and bid high.

 

[scently]

Each time a thread about future specs pops up, there are people stating that the Xbox 360 and PS3 were already old when entering the market and that their mom's PC was more powerful. I don't know in what universe those revisionists were in 2005 but certainly not in mine.

In november 2005, the Core Duo wasn't even launched and Intel was still pushing the Pentium which was dual core but not hyper threaded. A tri core with six threads was pretty impressive at the time and clearly wasn't in the cheap PC found in every supermarket.
Oh and 512 MB GPUs were only starting to appear, 128/256 MB was still the norm.
IIRC, 1 GB RAM was pretty common in 2005 though.


I think that when talking about 8 GB of RAM, Crytek are talking about RAM+VRAM.
I really hope we get a bigger than 2 GB pool of total RAM for next gen. 3 or 4 GB of unified GDDR5 would be ideal IMO as even in 2012/2013, I don't think 8 GB of GDDR5 or XDR would be affordable enough. Some people forget that you can't use DDR3 prices as a basis as console use much faster and more expensive RAM.

This.

This is like a dev saying he would like 512 MB of RAM in the next gen console as at 2003, which was about two yrs to the launch of the 360. This is 2 yrs from the speculated launch of the next gen consoles. Saying that games do not need such amount of RAM is ridiculous. Devs are complaining about the size of RAM in this gen consoles, saying that its too low, but as at 2004/5 512 was pretty high end.

Point is, I would rather listen to game dev (R&D principal graphics engineer actually) than listen to some random dude on gaf who thinks he is more knowledgeable than a proper game dev. These guys know where technology is going.

BTW I am not saying that we will get 8GB RAM (realistically though, I would like to have at least 4gb RAM) but IF we were to get it then it can only be better. Oh and it should be a unified memory system. We seem to forget that we are also have increase in other areas of game programming apart from, you know, flashy effects and textures.

 

[Freshmaker]

What the heck do they need 8 gigs for?

Future proofing most likely. It'd let them move between console and PC development without having to worry about port issues for several years.

 

[babyghost853]

Sorry dude, not a fat chance. All Intel CPUs before the Core 2 (including the first Core line) are not 64-bit capable and there are a fuckton of them in use, and it'll remain that way for quite a while.

Maybe Windows 9 or 10.

Try running adobe cs5 on them. What makes you think MS won't do the same.

 

[TheExodu5]

This is 2013 I am talking about. An entire TWO YEARS from now. In two years do you honestly think the GTX 580 will be as massive or power hungry as today?

Yes.

What was the top of the line video card 2 years ago today? The GTX 285. It was a $380 card, mind you. And even today, it's in between the GTX 460 and GTX 560 in terms of performance, which puts it at maybe ~$210.

A GTX 580 equivalent card in 2 years is still going to cost a lot of money.

 

[Wandering Leopard]

The 560Ti alone consumes close to 300W under load. Considerably more than what the 360&Ps3 consumed at launch.

Wow really, I thought that was reasonable too. What would you suggest for a PS4 launching in 2013 at around 399/499?

 

[speculawyer]

And I want a unicorn.

 

[TheExodu5]

The 560Ti alone consumes close to 300W under load. Considerably more than what the 360&Ps3 consumed at launch.

The 560Ti comes to around 150W under load. It's the GTX 570/580 that can go up to 300W under load.

It might be possible to get the 560Ti to that much power usage under load if you overclock it and run it at ridiculous voltage levels...

 

[Clott]

Yes.

What was the top of the line video card 2 years ago today? The GTX 285. It was a $380 card, mind you. And even today, it's in between the GTX 460 and GTX 560 in terms of performance, which puts it at maybe ~$210.

A GTX 580 equivalent card in 2 years is still going to cost a lot of money.

Even with a die shrink?

 

[G Rom]

I still think in 2013, we are looking at an entirely different ball game. So many things are changing, apparelently there are processor breakthroughs, NVidia and ATI have yet to unveil their next gen platforms (bulldozer / Maxwell), and the new 1tb Ram initiative/

I don't think that going all AMD or all Nvidia would be really possible as Microsoft and Sony will have to really deal with backward compatibility this time. I think that if you can't redownload your XBLA/PSN library on the next console, the backlash will be much bigger than the one for the gimped BC we got this gen.

I agree with you though, by 2013 everyone will hopefully be transitioning to a 22 nm process and a lot of new technologies should appear too.

The 560Ti alone consumes close to 300W under load. Considerably more than what the 360&Ps3 consumed at launch.

Yeah, people still can't get around the fact that we won't see a GTX 580 GPU in next-gen consoles. It's just impossible power consumption wise !
At best we could expect a modified high-end mobile GPU which tops at around 100W. It would still be much more powerful than what we have now.

 

[AndyD]

Ask for 8 and you get 4. Which is plenty. Ask for only 4 and you get 2 which is not enough.

 

[TheExodu5]

Even with a die shrink?

Yes. GPU tech isn't moving that fast these days. I'd say optimistically, it will take a $200 card to match a GTX 580 in 2 years. I could be wrong, but I don't see GPU tech moving up as fast as people think.

 

[Clott]

Yes. GPU tech isn't moving that fast these days. I'd say optimistically, it will take a $200 card to match a GTX 580 in 2 years. I could be wrong, but I don't see GPU tech moving up as fast as people think.

 

[TheExodu5]

I'm not a believer in their roadmap. There is simply no precedent for that kind of advancement.

They're talking about tripling the performance of Kepler in 2 years? No way.

 

[Red]

Maybe it's wrong to look at these from the perspective of a modern PC gamer. But I can think back to 2005 and preceding years and remember games that had minimum requirements of 256MB RAM, which would benefit from from increased amounts. But what modern games would require more than 4GB? Not even as a minimum, but as a recommended setting? That's with a PC OS and the memory requirements associated with that. I don't see consoles, even those releasing in three years time, needing a full 8GB. It would be nice. I don't see it happening.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Go for 4 gigs and spend the difference on a better GPU or even better...make the console cheaper for me.

Oct. 23rd, 2006 11:27 am

WAS expensive, Ram is so cheap now days.

Now yes but that'll change. This time last year it was the opposite.

It comes in waves, there's a huge oversupply now hence the low prices. The manufactures slow down in production to sell stock already in circulation and let prices rise again.

If bulldozer ends up being the real deal you'll likely see a large spike in new system builds from both consumers and OEM's, new systems = more ram, and a huge demand on the RAM market.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I would like to see a console with 4-8GB of RAM. These things need to last 6-7 years so you gotta go big at the start.

 

[nubbe]

I think it will be a 4670 class GPU

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I'm not a believer in their roadmap. There is simply no precedent for that kind of advancement.

They're talking about tripling the performance of Kepler in 2 years? No way.

GPU roadmap charts always read like projected PS3 sales charts....

 

[Clott]

I'm not a believer in their roadmap. There is simply no precedent for that kind of advancement.

They're talking about tripling the performance of Kepler in 2 years? No way.

For the record I don't expect anything more than 2 gigs of ram. As for a graphics card I think we will see something close to or an equivalent of a GTX 580 with a smaller die to help with the power consumption, but it's nice to want nice things.

 

[HocusPocus]

I'm hoping for 4 GB . Makes sense for the Xbox 720 as I can't imagine them not sticking with their system design next gen. It worked out great for them this year other than the RRD.

 

[Dennis]

Double precision GFLOPS per watt doesn't matter for gaming.

Nvidida are pushing the DP performance for the non-gaming markets. Those very high performance increases won't happen for single precision.

 

[antonz]

I would like to see a console with 4-8GB of RAM. These things need to last 6-7 years so you gotta go big at the start.

There would honestly be no reason at all for 8GB of ram in a console.

This comes across more as Crytek feeling the pain as millions of PC gamers told them to fuck off on Crysis 2 so hoping Next Gen might be more PC like so they dont alienate even more PC gamers

 

[G Rom]

I think that some you really don't think out of the box.
You can't use the current specs as basis of what will be needed until in 2019/2020.
The best example of that is the Xbox 360 HDD. At launch, 20 GB (well 13 GB but still) seemed like a huuuge amount of space for a console but pretty low for PC. Fast forward to now and downloadable games are getting bigger each day, you can install your games, almost every games get DLC, etc... Those 20 GB really look tiny now and someone with no knowledge of the evolution we've seen happening in the last 5 years would say "what were they think back in 2005 launching with only 20 GB ?". In reality, no one predicted this rise of the digital delivery, not even Microsoft which was even reluctant to accept bigger than 50 MB (!!) games on the XBLM at first.

 

[Kaako]

I'd be really happy with 4 gigs of fast XDR ram. We'll probably get around 2 though.

 

[antonz]

I think that some you really don't think out of the box.
You can't use the current specs as basis of what will be needed until in 2019/2020.
The best example of that is the Xbox 360 HDD. At launch, 20 GB (well 13 GB but still) seemed like a huuuge amount of space. Fast forward to now and downloadable games are getting bigger each day, you can install your games, almost every games get DLC, etc... Those 20 GB really look tiny now and someone with no knowledge of the evolution we've seen happening in the last 5 years would say "what were they think back in 2005 launching with only 20 GB ?". In reality, no one predicted this rise of the digital delivery, not even Microsoft which was even reluctant to accept bigger than 50 MB (!!) games on the XBLM at first.

2020 we will have moved into Generation 9 already

 

[Red]

I think that some you really don't think out of the box.
You can't use the current specs as basis of what will be needed until in 2019/2020.
The best example of that is the Xbox 360 HDD. At launch, 20 GB (well 13 GB but still) seemed like a huuuge amount of space for a console but pretty low for PC. Fast forward to now and downloadable games are getting bigger each day, you can install your games, almost every games get DLC, etc... Those 20 GB really look tiny now and someone with no knowledge of the evolution we've seen happening in the last 5 years would say "what were they think back in 2005 launching with only 20 GB ?". In reality, no one predicted this rise of the digital delivery, not even Microsoft which was even reluctant to accept bigger than 50 MB (!!) games on the XBLM at first.

I think this is a very hopeful look at things, and it's more likely the big three will be taking a conservative approach to the next generation.

 

[G Rom]

2020 we will have moved into Generation 9 already

If this gen is any indication, we'll barely be there. If Microsoft really launch in 2013 there next console, the 360 will have had an eight year life. If we retain the same cycle, it would mean a launch in 2021. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if next-gen was even longer as die shrink will get more difficult but we never know, we might have an immense power/process breakthrough during those years.

 

[G Rom]

I think this is a very hopeful look at things, and it's more likely the big three will be taking a conservative approach to the next generation.

I don't think it's hopeful. IMO, 4 GB is the minimum acceptable and 8 GB would be the "old" "all out" way of thinking before the Wii got there and kinda put a question mark on the power race/war.

Edit : Sorry for the double post, I thought someone would have posted after me... :/

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if next-gen was even longer as die shrink will get more difficult but we never know, we might have an immense power/process breakthrough during those years.

Yes, that's a good point. This generation saw a die shrink from 120nm all the way down to 28nm. It's feasible that a console showing up in 2013 will be built on 22nms.

At around 16nm, quantum pheonema prevent you from going any smaller. Electrons literally start slipping through gates at that size and at that point, either there will have to be some incredible breakthrough that no one has even theorized of yet, or processor advancement slows to a crawl.

If the latter were to occur, then a well future proofed console in 2013 built on 22nm or so could easily last well over a decade. (Even the 360 will be lasting 8 years before it's successor comes out). But it would have to be a console that has atleast 8gb of ram, like Crytek wants.

 

[J-Rzez]

I'm going to just take a random guess, and it'll end up around 4gb, or at least 2gb+1gb... something like that. Sure more would be nice, but that would be a significant jump as is on a more-so closed box, but things can change by 2013, especially with both manufacturers willing to take a hit per unit at launch. It'll be interesting though to see how MS and Sony take this. This is one area they can tinker around with to help give an edge to their system.

I don't think it's hopeful. IMO, 4 GB is the minimum acceptable and 8 GB would be the "old" "all out" way of thinking before the Wii got there and kinda put a question mark on the power race/war.

I don't know about that. The NGP is pretty tech/feature-packed for a handheld. I think Sony will keep advancing in this regard. This time though, there won't be any kind of "Blu-Ray" and "Cell" ventures to jack the price up through the roof. So they have a little more headroom to mess around with this time.

 

[RedSwirl]

I read in one of the EGM interviews that the 360 almost ended up with 256MB of RAM, and some developers had a party when they caved and put in 512.

 

[Clott]

I read in one of the EGM interviews that the 360 almost ended up with 256MB of RAM, and some developers had a party when they caved and put in 512.

Epic had to sit Microsoft down and showed them what Gear of War looked like in 256 and 512, so Microsoft threw down another 2 billion for the ram.

 

[googleplex]

It's nice to want things.

 

[Oreoleo]

Epic had to sit Microsoft down and showed them what Gear of War looked like in 256 and 512, so Microsoft threw down another 2 billion for the ram.

I forget who it was, but didn't someone at MS call Cliffy B and say something to the effect of, "I hope you're happy, you just cost me $2 billion" ?

 

[mclem]

Ask for 9GB, not 8. 9GB could do wonderful things for backwards-compatability on the 360; dump the entire disc into RAM, use the remaining gig for the actual memory usage of the game. Think of the load times!

8 gig is a lot. I think it would still be a lot in 2013, but by the end of that console's life, it'd probably be the norm. I get what he's driving at. That said, I dislike idea that's become prevalent of solving problems by throwing tech at it; while it'd be wrong to accuse Crytek of that, there's bound to be a bunch of companies who use the extra leeway not to make better games but instead to get away with writing sloppier code.

Not, I should add, that that's a reason not to do it. Just something that irks me.

 

[DopeyFish]

4GB is about the maximum necessary

Remember in computers, memory pools are split, while on Microsoft designed consoles, they're unified so there's very little need for redundancy. The OS footprint is also nearly 1 GB less (I will assume the footprint will be far more massive next time out)

Thing is... Most developers don't use memory all that well. One thing that would be nice is having far more room so the load times can be smartly reduced - huge benefit by far. 8 GB of ram would certainly kill a lot of need to split up levels... More seamless experience

But load times in general would greatly increase - disk read speeds aren't increasing as fast the ram capacities are expanding leaving developers to use tessellation/CPU generated textures, models, etc to even remotely use the space well in a game environment - if games were all DD while the console had a massive SSD then sure... I'd be all for increasing the ram... But as long as discs are the primary data loading point... It's rather pointless IMO to go that far up

It's great to have a super console but there are just some things that don't make much sense

 

[brotkasten]

There's no such thing as "too much RAM".

Sorry dude, not a fat chance. All Intel CPUs before the Core 2 (including the first Core line) are not 64-bit capable and there are a fuckton of them in use, and it'll remain that way for quite a while.

Maybe Windows 9 or 10.

Don't forget the Atom. The first gen didn't have a 64-bit extension and they sold millions of them in Netbooks and Nettops.

 

[Gaogaogao]

my pc doesnt even have 8gb of ram, yet.

 

[mclem]

There's no such thing as "too much RAM".

If Shin'en were presented with a system with no limitations on memory and space... I think their heads would actually explode. Do you want that on your conscience? DO YOU?

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Hmmm....a bit much. My PC under load gaming, doesn't even hit half that, though it's the overall vram that gets hogged easily in the GPU depending on the game and resolution. Cram at least a 1GB into that and get all the 1080p standard you want for next generation.

Though you can never have enough I guess.

 

[mrpeabody]

edit: beaten

 

[Ryoma-Echizen]

I'm not a believer in their roadmap. There is simply no precedent for that kind of advancement.

They're talking about tripling the performance of Kepler in 2 years? No way.

Specially when we saw the new Nvidia GT520 garbage. Worse than a "3gen old" GT220, on par with a 9500GT, destroyed by AMD low end HD6450.

 

[Jin34]

That pretty much describes this thread. Comparing very slow ram (cell phones), slow ram (ddr3) to the ram that will be used (GDDR5 which is the one in current vid cards or mayyyyyybe XDR2). Reminds me of the cell phone vs 3DS non-sense. As if intensive battery draining gaming is the normal uses of those devices. Epic Citadel drains the iPhones battery pretty quickly, that kind of environment is the norm for the 3DS and battery life is a big deal for portables, even then the battery life is much slower than last gen due to lack of advances in battery tech.

Another point that some people keep making is that you can sell consoles at $500 because people buy tablets at those prices. This would be a critical error for a company to make. Consoles and tablets/phones have different business models. Video games are about selling software, tablets/phones about selling hardware. If you buy an iPad you have a real nice device, if you buy $500 console you have a worthless piece of junk. You need to buy software for it to use, software which generally costs $60 a pop. The main reason you buy a console is to gain access to its library of games, that is why consoles are very price sensitive and you can't sell them at such a high cost.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Hmmmm....the more I think about it, the idea that devs having a baseline of 8GB at their disposal will encourage it's usage and that makes my pants tingle.

 

[pseudocaesar]

If they can push visuals like GOW3, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, Gears of War etc with 512mb of ram, then why the hell do you need 8gb. Consoles are different to PC's, in that the games are designed specifically for the console, not like PC's that have 2000 different GPU and ram combinations to worry about. There is no way you would ever need more than 2gb of ram in a console to get some absurd quality graphics.

 

[J-Rod]

It seems like lack of RAM was brought up as being a problem last gen too.

 

[Sanjay]

Go for 4 gigs and spend the difference on a better GPU or even better...make the console cheaper for me.




Now yes but that'll change. This time last year it was the opposite.

It comes in waves, there's a huge oversupply now hence the low prices. The manufactures slow down in production to sell stock already in circulation and let prices rise again.

If bulldozer ends up being the real deal you'll likely see a large spike in new system builds from both consumers and OEM's, new systems = more ram, and a huge demand on the RAM market.

I thought the more demand, the cheaper it gets. Like how DDR2 prices are more then DDR3 prices being a good example. Another one would be SSD, the more demand there is the less prices are getting. So I don't agree with your agreement that more demand equals higher prices.

 

[Angry Fork]

People on the first page are not people of the future I reckon, or maybe just pessimists. 8gb for around 2014/2015 for consoles is not something out of the ordinary. 4gb is the basic necessity now for current-gen PC's and the more hardcore people have 8gb, but 3-5 years from now it'll definitely be double that.

I don't think next gen consoles will have 8gb, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did (assuming Sony/Microsoft goes crazy with tech). 512mb was already low at the launch of this gen, they should've went 1gb imo. Hopefully they'll go all out next-gen.

They're probably going to go 4gb though, maybe 6.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

If they can push visuals like GOW3, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, Gears of War etc with 512mb of ram, then why the hell do you need 8gb. Consoles are different to PC's, in that the games are designed specifically for the console, not like PC's that have 2000 different GPU and ram combinations to worry about. There is no way you would ever need more than 2gb of ram in a console to get some absurd quality graphics.

Well, having 2GB dedicated to VRAM would be fantastic, as it would make 1080p standard since it can support far higher resolutions easily. Heck my GTX 275 which has 896MB runs most titles at 1080p like a champ still. 4GB total system RAM with main and VRAM shouldn't be that out of the question, it is relatively modest.

Take the Playstation line; (PS3)512MB->4GB isn't that big of a jump compared to (PS2)36MB->512MB(PS3).