brandonh83
Banned
The Citizen Kane sequel was done, like mortimer said, with a meager 512mb of RAM, but with only 5GB of RAM we're going to get like, X-Men Origins kind of stuff.
Maybe it's just me, but 7gb > 5.5gb.
This is also what I'm hearing. Sony have future proofed some of the available RAM for future OS operations. It isn't "bloat" like some are worried about.
I'm being told some of these numbers are flat out wrong.
As God as my witness, I will never love again.
Final Version:
Extreme cases like the benchmark for Next-Gen games.Video memory only doesn't really use that much though. Extreme cases like Crysis 3 can use around 2gb, but those are pretty extreme cases.
You are madly in love with him and last night made love in a barn for six hours straight.
As a result of this thread, I've cancelled everything. Pre-orders, credit cards, life insurance... I'm still trying to find more things to cancel.
Pretty much my problem with this.
Cerny and Co should be criticised for not being clearer about the RAM pool. It's misdirection.
It's like they're purposefully withholding their candy rather than giving it all out at once. Like a mom at Halloween.This is very logic and very nice, but it does not really fit to the PR story that the increase from 4GB to 8 GB was purely for the developers.
Final Version:
http://i.minus.com/ibzR1CT7n3mQ7G.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]
can someone let me in, in the bathtub reference?
Now you are taking other posters images to troll?less talk more action
i'm suffering from troll syndrome
Video memory only doesn't really use that much though. Extreme cases like Crysis 3 can use around 2gb, but those are pretty extreme cases.
This all sounds great until you remember that Sony have been lauding the fact that they have 8Gb of super fast memory and their machine is targeted as a games machine whereas the Xbox One is a multimedia device.
So the the clear implication is that a huge chuck of that amazing memory is going to be used for game developers to make stunning games that couldn't be possible on Xbox One.
If this memory rumour is true then they have lied to us.
Pretty much exactly my thoughts on this about 40 pages ago, but everyone was in freak out mode.I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.
First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.
I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.
So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.
But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.
So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.
This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).
I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Don't forget to thank Obama for this.As a result of this thread, I've cancelled everything. Pre-orders, credit cards, life insurance... I'm still trying to find more things to cancel.
Can someone explains what's happening in layman's terms?
Very true, but what about Bethesda? They might have actually needed the 7GB of RAM.I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.
First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.
I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.
So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.
But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.
So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.
This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).
I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
I am hearing the numbers are wrong also... but no one has given me any other numbers so I'm just going based off of eurogamer being right - even though I don't believe they are.
I also haven't talked to a single person who thinks that the ram available currently is not ever going to rise. 100% believe the number will rise but that Sony is being conservative currently so they don't get burned and because no one needs that level of ram currently. I have 16gb of ram in my PC but that doesn't mean that when I play The Witcher 2 that 15gbs of it goes into the ram. That's not how this works - even though most of this thread seems to think this way.
Though, J. Blow (that's his rapper name) saying that The Witness uses 5gb hints that 4.5gb number is, in fact, wrong.
They did something similar with the PSP as well.
This all sounds great until you remember that Sony have been lauding the fact that they have 8Gb of super fast memory and their machine is targeted as a games machine whereas the Xbox One is a multimedia device.
So the the clear implication is that a huge chuck of that amazing memory is going to be used for game developers to make stunning games that couldn't be possible on Xbox One.
If this memory rumour is true then they have lied to us.
can someone let me in, in the bathtub reference?
Extreme cases like the benchmark for Next-Gen games.
If its a truly flexible reserve that can be reduced over time and made available to devs I'm completely fine with it.
Not freaking out here, but nor do I think that going from what we thought was 7GB to 4.5-5.5GB isn't meaningless either.
Though, J. Blow (that's his rapper name) saying that The Witness uses 5gb hints that 4.5gb number is, in fact, wrong.
They did something similar with the PSP as well.
PS4 isn't better than XBox One any more.
PS4 isn't better than XBox One any more.
It never was really.PS4 isn't better than XBox One any more.
Okay I think I'm pretty good with spotting who is having a laugh and who isn't but this one I'm not sure.It's pretty obvious that the on the fly recording feature in the OS is what's requiring such high RAM usage. That and Sony wants to make sure there's enough RAM left over for any additional features it may want to implement further down the road.
And to those folks lamenting that the Wii U OS uses only 1GB for the operating system, that's probably why the OS was so clunky and slow when the system launched. I have since sold my Wii U so I can't comment on if it improved yet or not.
I am hearing the numbers are wrong also... but no one has given me any other numbers so I'm just going based off of eurogamer being right - even though I don't believe they are.
I also haven't talked to a single person who thinks that the ram available currently is not ever going to rise. 100% believe the number will rise but that Sony is being conservative currently so they don't get burned and because no one needs that level of ram currently. I have 16gb of ram in my PC but that doesn't mean that when I play The Witcher 2 that 15gbs of it goes into the ram. That's not how this works - even though most of this thread seems to think this way.
Though, J. Blow (that's his rapper name) saying that The Witness uses 5gb hints that 4.5gb number is, in fact, wrong.
They did something similar with the PSP as well.
PS4 isn't better than XBox One any more.
This all sounds great until you remember that Sony have been lauding the fact that they have 8Gb of super fast memory and their machine is targeted as a games machine whereas the Xbox One is a multimedia device.
So the the clear implication is that a huge chuck of that amazing memory is going to be used for game developers to make stunning games that couldn't be possible on Xbox One.
If this memory rumour is true then they have lied to us.
Windows 8 is using 1.2 GB of RAM. What in the hell could they need twice that amount for?
Historically OS reserved memory decreases through the lifecycle duration of consoles following optimization of resources and freeing up memory from the reserved pool.
Someone in one of the Cerny interview threads said he was going watch the interview later while he was in the tub.
It's grown like wildfire from there.