Crytek wants 8GB of RAM in next-gen consoles
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
Crunched said:
Like I said, Windows 7 caches a lot of frequently used applications in memory. It's essentially not letting your RAM go to waste.
If my system is using more, I guess it's because Windows 7 is caching larger applications. I don't know why. I was running on 4GB of RAM 3 months ago and my system would usually cache around half of that.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'm only using 1.28GB on W7 while browsing GAF and watching vids.
Actually I have no idea why my system likes using up so much memory...because come to think of it, I have SuperFetch disabled.
Oh, I just had a thought, it could be Gigabyte quick-boot, which helps make sleep mode work. I noticed my boot time has gone up by about 5-10 seconds with this on, so it might be keeping an image somewhere in memory to make sleep mode work. Just a theory.
Oh, I just had a thought, it could be Gigabyte quick-boot, which helps make sleep mode work. I noticed my boot time has gone up by about 5-10 seconds with this on, so it might be keeping an image somewhere in memory to make sleep mode work. Just a theory.
wit3tyg3r
Member
Casp0r said:
Running GPU's in SLI/CrossFire (depending on whether it's NVIDIA or AMD, respectively) does not add up the RAM available to the GPU's. Running one stock GTX 580 has ~1.5 GB or VRAM. Running 3-way SLI on that same card will still only give you ~1.5 GB of VRAM. That's because each card has to store the same data in each card's memory. The memory is not shared across the cards.
TheExodu5 said:
It's got to be something big. My 2010 RTS/email checker PC idles at about 1.6 GB, 2011 HTPC/gaming PC above 2 GB, and my work PC around 4 GB (expected, lots of dev apps).
Not arguing against more RAM. If console devs were given more system RAM, they would find things to do with it. Are most PC devs using 32-bit address space for fear of reducing their market potential?
wit3tyg3r said:
So how does this work? Do each GPU's memory pool get the same data and generate output frames round robin? If you had a single GPU with the same FLOPs/processing power but the RAM of a single of the half powered GPUs, would the RAM ever become a bottleneck?
Izayoi said:
I'm still catching up on PC gaming, as I didn't have a viable one between 2005-early 2010. I might check that out.
But I plan to use my office/email checker/2010 machine for RTS games because I like sitting with a keyboard/mouse in a computer chair with an LCD monitor. I love my HTPC & Plasma TV, but plasma is bad at fine geometry, and my apartment is too small to buy a kickass coffee table that can lift up to be a good place for a keyboard/mouse. Sometimes I'll use a couple of TV trays and use the HTPC in my living room. It's not that it cannot be a comfy couch experience, it's just I need better furniture.
Both rigs have 8 GB system RAM if I misunderstood the question.
brain_stew
Member
More RAM chips= higher board complexity.
Far too many are overlooking this simple fact when doing their genius cost comparisons.
GDDR5 isn't even available in 4Gb chips yet, let alone XDR2.
Anything more than 8 RAM chips can be basically counted out straight away and a 4 chip solution is actually most likely imo.
Far too many are overlooking this simple fact when doing their genius cost comparisons.
GDDR5 isn't even available in 4Gb chips yet, let alone XDR2.
Anything more than 8 RAM chips can be basically counted out straight away and a 4 chip solution is actually most likely imo.
Hari Seldon
Member
If you figure we won't see a new MS or Sony console for at least 2 years, 8 gigs is not unreasonable.
wit3tyg3r
Member
teh_pwn said:
In SLI, each card's memory stores the exact same data. There are after market cards that come with more than the factory card's memory that are specifically designed for SLI. So for example, you can buy a 3GB GTX 580 that is manufactured by a different company but uses NVIDIA's GPU. By itself, a GTX 580 would never need 3GB of VRAM. That's horribly overkill. So the 3GB GTX 580 is designed with SLI in mind so that you can have more than the stock 1.5GB of VRAM. And yes, if you go with SLI, Memory can become a bottleneck. One thing that NVIDIA has done is made the GTX 590. the 590 is a dual-GPU card that uses two underclocked GTX 580 GPU's. the 590 comes with 3GB of VRAM so essentially, a single 590 is slightly better than 2 GTX 580 cards because it has 3GB of VRAM whereas stock 580's only have 1.5. However, the 590 is slightly underclocked since it's all running on one card. But the important thing is that each card in an SLI setup has to store the exact same data in VRAM so an SLI setup doesn't add VRAM.
Again, they'll only go for integrated CPU&GPU design only if they are not powerful. Though if next-gen starts at 28nm or even 22nm, the manufacturers can't expect the usual cost reduction curve (even this gen it has been much slower), so they will have to put low powered processors at the very beginning. It's kind of sad that we're hitting physical limits of silicon, at the same time it's incredible that commercial devices have 40nm manufacturing process.navanman said:
navanman said:
I think that, user interface innovations, and viable 1080p support. You don't need ultra high end to get 1080p with PCs these days, and that would be a huge improvement over consoles of today which mostly run between 480p and 720p. But Sony and Microsoft probably want to reduce the hardware losses. Microsoft however may decide to take a hit again though to get a competitive advantage because they can more than afford it and still may be looking for very long term market share.
On the one hand we may not get 8 GB, but on the other I'm not understanding the "1 GB is all we need" comments. What do you need more RAM for? Higher res textures for 1080p eye candy for one.
Educate me.
People keep mentioning the dissipation of heat in small boxes, then I look at my gaming notebook (45W CPU, 85W GPU, in a 1.5" thick "box") and I have to wonder why something as thick as my PS3 (even the Slim) should be worthy of having any serious discussion on heat.
What am I missing?
People keep mentioning the dissipation of heat in small boxes, then I look at my gaming notebook (45W CPU, 85W GPU, in a 1.5" thick "box") and I have to wonder why something as thick as my PS3 (even the Slim) should be worthy of having any serious discussion on heat.
What am I missing?
Can people stop using the 'games barely use <figure> much of RAM now?'
Yeah ... no shit, because all games are designed around RAM limitations ... shit 99% of shooters are designed to run on less than 512MB ...
Anyone read the actual article where Crytek are quoted saying this? The rest of the article is all about how they spent half the time working round RAM limitations.
So give the main mass market 8 Gigs ... give the developers that platform and they'll start designing games that can utilize it.
Who knows what they could do ... but that'll be the fucking point. I don't want to see slightly better games next generation ... I want to see something that blows my mind, I want to be amazed and left speechless ... not looking at HD versions of games we've seen already.
I want games that don't require load screens, GTA where you can go into every house, Red Faction 3 destruction in every game, etc etc
Sure it might be too expensive, sure it might not fit on the board, sure it might be too complex ... however don't you fucking dare say it won't be used ... because what the fuck do you know about something that's never been seen before. For all we know, that extra memory could open whole new doors to the way games can be made.
Yeah ... no shit, because all games are designed around RAM limitations ... shit 99% of shooters are designed to run on less than 512MB ...
Anyone read the actual article where Crytek are quoted saying this? The rest of the article is all about how they spent half the time working round RAM limitations.
So give the main mass market 8 Gigs ... give the developers that platform and they'll start designing games that can utilize it.
Who knows what they could do ... but that'll be the fucking point. I don't want to see slightly better games next generation ... I want to see something that blows my mind, I want to be amazed and left speechless ... not looking at HD versions of games we've seen already.
I want games that don't require load screens, GTA where you can go into every house, Red Faction 3 destruction in every game, etc etc
Sure it might be too expensive, sure it might not fit on the board, sure it might be too complex ... however don't you fucking dare say it won't be used ... because what the fuck do you know about something that's never been seen before. For all we know, that extra memory could open whole new doors to the way games can be made.
WickedAngel
Banned
Link Man said:
3-4 years from now for a system that will hopefully be developed for at least 10 years from now?
8GB doesn't seem like much when you think about it that way.
brain_stew
Member
K.Jack said:
You can afford much more expensive cooling solutions in a $1k+ laptop than a $300 console. Laptops are expected to have a short shelf life as well, no one expects them to last 5+ years and they rarely ever do.
I'm sure cost reduction and simplicity are a big priority, but with new consoles launching within a couple of years, how are console manufacturers going to provide enough of an incentive for gamers to purchase these consoles if their isn't some serious improvements (an order of magnitude) from current generation consoles in graphical fidelity? Most gamers don't hyper-analyze textures, resolution and lighting enough to appreciate a modest increase in fidelity. Consoles manufacturers won't be able to skimp in favor of efficiency if they're going to want to produce enough of a leap in graphical fidelity to incentivize the average gamer to purchase a new piece of hardware. Or they can come up with a nice gimmick...
Synth_floyd
Banned
8gb does seem like overkill but if the consoles come out in 2012-13 then it's possible. At least 4gb I'd say. And since that's an 8x boost over the current gen then it should be fine.
BattleMonkey
Member
wwm0nkey said:
Maybe they should...
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
I want the one with the more gee bees.
DennisK4 said:
there's this plus the fact that some of them seem to magically think console design+ costing will really mean we'll get 4gb-8gb. It'll be much less. I'm saying 2gb.
Reason? Cost. There's a reason while apple can chuck in 1gb of ram in the 1pad, they used only 256 and then only 512mb.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
brain_stew said:
Thank god, finally some common sense in this thread.
Motherboard complexity is a huge cost driver in consoles, and cutting down the number of chips is a huge way to lower cost. Just look at the PS3 when it first came out compared to how it is today.
Microsoft reportedly just recently started assembling a team to work on development for their next generation console. If I had to guess, it's a good 2-3 years off at the minimum. The "ten year" plan seems to indeed be Microsoft's plan for the Xbox 360 being the primary console. Especially considering Kinect is still relatively new and marked the halfway point.
Anyways my point is that by the time the Xbox 3 or whatever it will be called actually comes out, it will likely have about 4gb - 8gb ram. This is going by the trends in previous consoles. Obviously share speculation but considering this console may have a ten year lifespan opposed to the traditional five, it explains why the memory leap of 16x is logical oppose to just 8x more for a five year time frame.
There are a lot of factors that could change this but this is my guess. Crytek could end up being proven right. Especially considering graphics features are becoming much more CPU/Memory intensive the higher the visuals get. DX11 tessellation, one new feature and it's require beasty hardware just for that. It may take beasty hardware to make a console that actually looks significantly better then the current consoles in terms of graphics and to create a leap as big as Xbox 1 to Xbox 360, PS2 to PS3 in visuals.
Anyways my point is that by the time the Xbox 3 or whatever it will be called actually comes out, it will likely have about 4gb - 8gb ram. This is going by the trends in previous consoles. Obviously share speculation but considering this console may have a ten year lifespan opposed to the traditional five, it explains why the memory leap of 16x is logical oppose to just 8x more for a five year time frame.
There are a lot of factors that could change this but this is my guess. Crytek could end up being proven right. Especially considering graphics features are becoming much more CPU/Memory intensive the higher the visuals get. DX11 tessellation, one new feature and it's require beasty hardware just for that. It may take beasty hardware to make a console that actually looks significantly better then the current consoles in terms of graphics and to create a leap as big as Xbox 1 to Xbox 360, PS2 to PS3 in visuals.
