Support NeoGAF

[twobear]

It seems to me like the tl;dr version of this thread is really that Jonathan Blow can't be trusted and will apparently now say anything to discredit MS?

 

[Mlatador]

There's also the realization that some people will have to come to when they notice the same reasoning applies to Microsoft's decision for their XB1 RAM pool, which was heavily criticized previously. Just yesterday, I was seeing lists of the pros/cons being quoted again and again in threads with the OS-footprint difference bolded as one of the PS4s greatest strengths. This seemed shortsighted to me then, and taking the info coming in now into account, it might also suggest that Microsoft had been planning for specific features from an earlier point. Again, the rhetoric about one company rushing things or being behind seems an odd choice, seen in this light.

I'm a fan of more memory being allotted to the OS (if it's true, I think the PS4 is in better shape as a platform than it had been), but I can't ignore the contradictory reasoning or suddenly selective acceptance of the reasoning behind the rumored change in many of the more vocal posters.

Good post.

 

[L.O.R.D]

Off topic, but what is this from, by the way?

i don't know
tried to search for it on google image found about kaz hirai gif
https://www.google.com.sa/search?tb...f_1Se8dhuvTfBfqFw6y1qA&hl=en&bih=664&biw=1366

 

[Sub_Level]

Depends on how you define "better". Here are some facts for you:

$499 vs $399

1.23 TFLOPS vs 1.84 TFLOPS

68GB/s vs 176GB/s

Announced games vs Unannounced games

 

[Radec]

Even if Sony chooses only 3GB for games, this is still

GDDR-FUCKING-5!.

 

[Kurtofan]

What's up with all the bathtubs meme in here.

 

[Orayn]

I know how RAM works but are you really going to have a whole lot of shit open on a console while also playing a game?

Firefox uses about 180 MB and iTunes about 35 MB. Do you know how much shit I would have to open to use up 3.5 GB of RAM?

Again, the debug part of PS4 development software could use up that much, if these rumors came from documentation for PS4 devkits with 8GB of RAM.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

The full 8 was never going to be used for games ever.

No, and nobody claimed that to be the case, but Sony's emphasis on it being a machine for gamers didn't really set any alarm bells ringing about a humongous OS RAM sap. It's Sony's omission of clarification that is at fault.

 

[Wynnebeck]

It never was really.

lol I actually want to hear your reasons now.

 

[GarthVaderUK]

Makes sense I suppose, Sony would want the PS4 to be as feature-rich and 'all-in-one' as the X1. If true, I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned sooner, seems a bit sneaky to trumpet 8GB RAM and say PS4 is all about the games while closing off 3.5GB (or 2.5GB) RAM for stuff that isn't games.

 

[JonathanPower]

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.

Actually, MS reserved less memory than Sony for the OS. If anything, MS had a smaller memory overhead compared to the PS3.

 

[IN&OUT]

How desperate can xbones be to be actually chearing. PS4 for having higher RAM than X1. Also ignoring the point that PS4. OS footprint might be more able to be reduced in the future while X1 RAM is actually set in stone already?

So desperate...its sad.

 

[apana]

So what will the final number be? I am no tech nerd but the fact that the article states that third party are likely to use 4.5 while some first party may use 5.5, indicates to me that the final number will be around 5.5 or 6 for everyone?

 

[DeadlyVirus]

Logic? What's dat? Great post.

Also...what was the initial and final memory footprints for the PS3? Just curious...

120Mb at launch, 50Mb now

 

[Raide]

Just like the Xbox One, I expect the OS footprint to shrink over time and that leave more RAM for developers. Add to that developers learning the new platform and they will utilize the RAM more efficiently as well.

 

[Socky]

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 came here to post - a far less eloquent - version of this. Congrats on a sensible reading.

Normal GAF service is resumed. Back to the insanity...

 

[kasane]

What 3.5? I though Killzone:SF says they were using 7. So what was the OS like before the upgrade? What was Sony''s statement?

 

[KingSnake]

The full 8 was never going to be used for games ever.

That is correct and everyone who thinks that is fooling himself. But the story that was everywhere is that Sony listens to the developers and thus they added 4GB more to the console. The logic of this PR (we listen to the developers, here are 4 GB more) is that most of it is dedicated to games, while it seems that the reality is more balanced.

 

[Mutanthands]

Observation: Why do people assume that when the PS4 was slated to have 4 GB of memory, that all of that memory was going to be available for games? The machine was still going to have an OS, which was still going to take up some of the memory. Its not a simple 4 GB to 8 GB, back down to 5 GB situation. There is still a significant gain there. And Sony has more space for a comparable OS.

 

[liquidspeed]

Free NSA agent with PS+!

LOL. its probably true.

 

[KKRT00]

16 GB of RAM in a tablet 5 years from now?!?! WAT?!

Thats very probable. Volta seems to quadruple amount of RAM and bandwidth. And 5 years from now is 2-3 years after Volta launch.

 

[BlazingDarkness]

Did you really think the OS was going to use zero RAM?

Where did I state I thought that?
Did you really think the OS was going to require 3.5 GB of RAM? No, no you didn't.

 

[Mlatador]

Same here, everyone is saying the amount available is absolutely more than sufficient to deliver 'next gen' games, and it will only get better from launch.

Like I said a few pages back, possibly might get concrete numbers today (could be 10 minutes, could be hours) and will doubly make sure to post them here if I do, hopefully. I hope not to get anyone's hopes up, just a possibility at this point.

You sound very defensive and scared? What's up, Shinobi?

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I know how RAM works but are you really going to have a whole lot of shit open on a console while also playing a game?

Firefox uses about 180 MB and iTunes about 35 MB. Do you know how much shit I would have to open to use up 3.5 GB of RAM?

I know how it works. That doesn't mean that Sony or MSFT can't allocate a certain amount of memory for apps and OS functionality.

When the devs are not complaining then why is it important here? That's probably a more important question to ask yourself (you and everyone included).

 

[famousmortimer]

It's terrible that Sony let people think for so long such a larger number of RAM was available to developers.
They may not have blatantly lied with numbers but I think their lack of clarification is a case of misdirection.
If they'd made it clear earlier and communicated about it that would be fine, but in this instance they deserve any backlash they get. Pretty bad move by them.

Sony has no reason to talk numbers. The developers know how much ram is available to them. That's the only group of people who need to know anything.


Sony isn't all that concerned with message board pissing contests and nor should they be. They keep their info close to their chest because of the competition, not because they think that the general audience cares about RAM. Because by and large they don't. It matters now because it's the summer before release and we're bored. But all of this tech nonsense gets thrown out the window when the systems actually release. At that point we will be comparing how games look and play. That's what really matters.

 

[Jadedx]

LOL, sony fan's ability to spin and rationalize is amazing.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

The full 8 was never going to be used for games ever.

THIS
There were always going to use some for OS and people thinking that launch games would take advantage of some much ram when final devs kits now come out along with so many cross gen games were kidding there self .

 

[DeadlyVirus]

Announced games vs Unannounced games

Care to explain?

 

[GuitarAtomik]

How desperate can xbones be to be actually chearing. PS4 for having higher RAM than X1. Also ignoring the point that PS4. OS footprint might be more able to be reduced in the future while X1 RAM is actually set in stone already?

So desperate...its sad.

Is it set in stone?

 

[Verendus]

1. They're wrong. They should get better sources, or at least attempt a better analysis.

2. OS matters are a bit more complicated than how this is being portrayed.

3. I clearly have a lot to learn before becoming a master troll.

4. It's Friday. My mobile is getting too much of a workout for a Friday.

 

[Vespene]

So you guys thought having a continuous 15 minute 720p recording playback, RAM save states, play as you download and full UI access in-game was only going to need 1GB?

 

[NullPointer]

Did you really think the OS was going to require 3.5 GB of RAM? No, no you didn't.

Yep. Did anybody?

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

120Mb at launch, 50Mb now

Boom

Just like the Xbox One, I expect the OS footprint to shrink over time and that leave more RAM for developers. Add to that developers learning the new platform and they will utilize the RAM more efficiently as well.

and boom

 

[teokrazia]

Oh....
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=59243973&postcount=475

 

[Mlatador]

Sony came out and said they pushed for 8GB of RAM to appease developers, and they stood and soaked up the cheers when it was revealed during their PS Meeting presser. And then they continued to push it as a gaming machine built for gamers. So yes, they totally deserve criticism for not making it clear that the pool would have a substantial split to cover OS tasks. 3.5 GB of RAM is a huge number, nobody expected that, and for that Sony is to blame.

In all fairness, you are right!

 

[Wax Free Vanilla]

[So here is a theory that I have heard. Note, this is not insider information. A friend who is a developer, not on consoles or PlayStation mind, thinks that the new devkits probably ship with 8GB GDDR5 but the developer tools probably take up 2-3GB on there, leaving addressable RAM at just 5GB. He said the problem is that the APU bus is 256bit which won't allow for more than 8GB RAM until 8Gbit chips are available.

He thinks that the current SDK probably does have 3.5GB reserved for for the OS functions and development tools, but when the next set of kits ship they will have 12GB of RAM and the full 7GB will be addressable.

Day one.

In Cerny and final Dev Kit we trust.

 

[MikeDown]

Still plenty of RAM, but still 3.5 for an OS seems silly.

 

[Vashetti]

LOL

 

[cyberheater]

No, and nobody claimed that to be the case, but Sony's emphasis on it being a machine for gamers didn't really set any alarm bells ringing about a humongous OS RAM sap. It's Sony's omission of clarification that is at fault.

Yep. The PS4 was definitely pushed as a more 'pure' games machine then the Xbox One.

 

[Phire Phox]

Is this a joke ?

Depends on how you define "better". Here are some facts for you:

$499 vs $399

1.23 TFLOPS vs 1.84 TFLOPS

68GB/s vs 176GB/s

While the PS4 is more powerful, the Xbone IMO offers a better selection of games based on what we've seen so far, not to mention the superior OS features and revolutionary Kinect sensor. Better hardware does not necessarily make the better console.

 

[Jarmel]

What I want to know is what the OS looked like before the upgrade if it fucking ballooned from .5 to 3.5 .

 

[prwxv3]

1. They're wrong. They should get better sources, or at least attempt a better analysis.

2. OS matters are a bit more complicated than how this is being portrayed.

3. I clearly have a lot to learn before becoming a master troll.

4. It's Friday. My mobile is getting too much of a workout for a Friday.

Shots fired

 

[BlazingDarkness]

Sony wasn't blowing smoke though. If the PS4 had 4GB of RAM as originally intended, developers would have much less to work with after the OS footprint.

As I stated, they didn't outright lie, but they should have clarified that the increase in RAM was to support to OS demand and wasn't solely to appease developers, which is what their silence implicated.

 

[McLovin]

This is normal no? I'm pretty sure parts of the cell were locked until later, also memory is freed up later as well. They did that with the psp too.

As I stated, they didn't outright lie, but they should have clarified that the increase in RAM was to support to OS demand and wasn't solely to appease developers, which is what their silence implicated.

They could have planned for 1gb OS all along. But having 8gb in the system gave them wiggle room. Why not use it?

 

[Graphics Horse]

My main problem with this is less RAM = less AA/1080p.

Do you even know what RAM is?

 

[kasane]

1. They're wrong. They should get better sources, or at least attempt a better analysis.

2. OS matters are a bit more complicated than how this is being portrayed.

3. I clearly have a lot to learn before becoming a master troll.

4. It's Friday. My mobile is getting too much of a workout for a Friday.

Oh here he is.

 

[Evolution_1ne]

Where did I state I thought that?
Did you really think the OS was going to require 3.5 GB of RAM? No, no you didn't.

and it doesn't you genius, but don't let logic and common sense get in the way of your stupid, carry on...

 

[140.85]

Oooh shit. Here we go.

 

[kurbaan]

1. They're wrong. They should get better sources, or at least attempt a better analysis.

2. OS matters are a bit more complicated than how this is being portrayed.

3. I clearly have a lot to learn before becoming a master troll.

4. It's Friday. My mobile is getting too much of a workout for a Friday.

Dont you owe me a PS4?

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Opinion is duly noted.

Nothing personal really, it just gets me antsy when hard numbers get thrown around like that and they aren't true.
The last time we heard about OS usage (and not by sony themselves but from reliable leaks i believe) was 512mb, back when the ps4 had 4gb. As a matter of fact, i don't think i remember sony ever making a statement about the OS footprint.

While the PS4 is more powerful, the Xbone IMO offers a better selection of games based on what we've seen so far, not to mention the superior OS features and revolutionary Kinect sensor. Better hardware does not necessarily make the better console.

oh boy...