RAM thread of Next Generation

I guess SSDs will have on loading, but other than that, it's a poor substitute for ram.





Is that prediction on your part? or new information?

It's my guesswork based on a new rumor that Orbis devkits have 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM as well as the GDDR5.

If the conventional thinking is that devkits have double the resources of the final console, then I would say that the final console will have a gig of DDR3.

But even if Sony decides just to have 4 gigs of GDDR5, they'd be doing developers a far greater service. Another poster did the calculations. DDR3 has very low bandwidth in comparison to GDDR5. Imagine the disparity in graphics between a PS4 game and a Durango game.

But it's only the end of January and I expect Microsoft can make a major hardware change if pressured by reality.
 
It's my guesswork based on a new rumor that Orbis devkits have 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM as well as the GDDR5.

If the conventional thinking is that devkits have double the resources of the final console, then I would say that the final console will have a gig of DDR3.

But even if Sony decides just to have 4 gigs of GDDR5, they'd be doing developers a far greater service. Another poster did the calculations. DDR3 has very low bandwidth in comparison to GDDR5. Imagine the disparity in graphics between a PS4 game and a Durango game.

But it's only the end of January and I expect Microsoft can make a major hardware change if pressured by reality.

Would you mind terribly, if you could point out which rumour?
 
Would you mind terribly, if you could point out which rumour?

Hmm. I thought I read it in the OP of this thread. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=509773

I've made a mistake. My apologies. I thought I had seen one of the three rumored Orbis kits described as having 2 gigs of DDR3 in addition to GDDR5.

Never mind.

But I stand by a previous statement that with just 4 gigs of GDDR5 Sony is giving developers a tremendous amount of bandwidth in comparison to the DDR3.

But goddamit I could have sworn I saw the 2gig DDR3 specs somewhere here on Neogaf.
 
Hmm. I thought I read it in the OP of this thread. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=509773

I've made a mistake. My apologies. I thought I had seen one of the three rumored Orbis kits described as having 2 gigs of DDR3 in addition to GDDR5.

Never mind.

But I stand by a previous statement that with just 4 gigs of GDDR5 Sony is giving developers a tremendous amount of bandwidth in comparison to the DDR3.

But goddamit I could have sworn I saw the 2gig DDR3 specs somewhere here on Neogaf.

Going with your theory, would it not affect the system's performance to have the OS on a different er ram, so to speak?

Would it also not add to board complexity?

To be honest I don't know.
 
Going with your theory, would it not affect the system's performance to have the OS on a different er ram, so to speak?

Would it also not add to board complexity?

To be honest I don't know.

It would be more akin to PC architecture, but only if mobo is also similar to a regular PC mobo.

It's more likely that I was wrong and just read something wrong.

It makes much more sense that Sony would have wanted the RAM to be the same in all respects and to be in one unified pool for easy access by both CPU and GPU.

Microsoft probably has the same line of thinking in that they don't have 3 gigs of DDR3 and 5 gigs of GDDR5. They want it to be the same. The esRAM is the only addition.

But just speaking about bandwidth, Microsoft is losing. If all else about the hardware is the same, by bandwidth alone, the Orbis stomps on Durango. The esRAM is, like the edRAM in the 360, going to be proclaimed as a godsend by frustrated developers.

But I'm hoping that, with ten 9 months left to go, Microsoft changes their mind and goes with GDDR5.
 
AHA! I found the Kotaku article that details the Orbis specs with 8GB of system RAM plus 2.2GB of video memory.

Kotaku Article

That being the case, here's what we know is inside PS4 development kits—model # DVKT-KS000K—as of January 2013. As you'll see, some things have changed since earlier kits became available in March 2012.

System Memory: 8GB
Video Memory: 2.2 GB
CPU: 4x Dual-Core AMD64 "Bulldozer" (so, 8x cores)
GPU: AMD R10xx
Ports: 4x USB 3.0, 2x Ethernet
Drive: Blu-Ray
HDD: 160GB
Audio Output: HDMI & Optical, 2.0, 5.1 & 7.1 channels

I don't really trust Kotaku's information, but if they happen to be right, and if conventional wisdom about devkits holds true, then it's possible that the PS4 will have two different kinds of memory.

But here's some reasons why it's unlikely. 1) The CPU in this devkit is an AMD64 Bulldozer. The more recent rumors point to the Jaguar CPU. 2) Microsoft proved this gen that unified RAM is the way to go. Developers love unified, pooled RAM. 3) The specs here are the reverse of what we've been hearing. If they are true, it means that PS4 will have 1.1gigs of GDDR5 and 4 gigs of DDR3. If this is true, then Durango's 8gigs of unified RAM will have the upper hand if only because developers can allocate as much RAM to the GPU or CPU as they want at any given time, while Sony devs can never exceed 1.1 gigs for their GPU and 4 gigs for their CPU.

Bottom line, both console makers are probably aiming for unified, pooled RAM, save for the esRAM in the Durango.
 
In the case of Orbis and Durango this is not the case. The embedded RAM is actually slower than the DDR5 in Orbis. I don't see how this comparison is valid.

If Microsoft again opt to use embedded ram into Durango, I doubt very much it will have less bandwidth or a higher latency then the GDDR5 in Orbis.

Also its GDDR5, not DDR5. DDR4 isn't even out yet.
 
@bombadil: 2.2 gb vram is quite interesting.

Unfortunately, PCs have to have discrete graphic cards. That's what that vram is.
 
here's that sebbi post

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62108&highlight=sebbi



Although it's notable rereading it he seems to ask for 2-3X+ RAM as accessible per frame, which actually seems more like Durango's setup.

But he wants the bandwidth to go with it, hence his conclusion

"My conclusion: Usable memory amount is very much tied to available memory bandwidth. More bandwidth allows the games to access more memory. So it's kind of counterintuitive to swap faster smaller memory to a slower larger one. More available memory means that I want to access more memory, but in reality the slower bandwidth allows me to access less. So the percentage of accessible memory drops radically."
 
btw I think that 2.2gb vram is interesting because it sounds more like a screenshot, sys info rather than a spec sheet data.

Just my two pence.
 
2.2gb vram is most probably remnant of a time when Sony wanted 2GB RAM in a PS4. Developer outcry brought that idea to an end.
 
Not sure if it has been discussed, but how do you fill 5 gb+ of ram with assets effectively from a BD drive that has 6 x 36 mbps = 27 mb\s peak transfer rate?

With compression at 50%, you will still need over 1 minute to fill it..?
 
32MB of SRAM won't be enough. The DDR3 is simply too slow. The only way MS can allay my apprehension is by having each Durango ship with an SSD standard.

If the Orbis devkits are any indication of the final product, the PS4 will have 4GB of DDR5 and 1GB of DDR3.

If that's the case then Sony will have made the right decision. Microsoft opted for more RAM for Kinect and OS reservations. Hopefully they'll have time to change everything up and add some GDDR5 RAM like Sony did to even the playing field.

Damn, I really hope they didn't shoot themselves in the foot just for Kinect.

it doesn't work like this. Adding an SSD would not improve your ram performance in the slightest.

and no, there is no way sony would want to do split ram again.
 
it doesn't work like this. Adding an SSD would not improve your ram performance in the slightest.

and no, there is no way sony would want to do split ram again.

It's not about improving RAM performance. It's about pulling the data as fast as possible to get it into RAM.
 
And how does that offset slow ram?

It doesn't. The sRAM is meant to offset the slow DDR3. I meant to say that hopefully MS has SSD standard or else the loading will be even slower.

But whatever, it doesn't matter. Hopefully, as we speak, some technical engineer is informing some dunderhead executive that they need to change the RAM to something faster.
 
It would be more akin to PC architecture, but only if mobo is also similar to a regular PC mobo.

It's more likely that I was wrong and just read something wrong.

It makes much more sense that Sony would have wanted the RAM to be the same in all respects and to be in one unified pool for easy access by both CPU and GPU.

Microsoft probably has the same line of thinking in that they don't have 3 gigs of DDR3 and 5 gigs of GDDR5. They want it to be the same. The esRAM is the only addition.

But just speaking about bandwidth, Microsoft is losing. If all else about the hardware is the same, by bandwidth alone, the Orbis stomps on Durango. The esRAM is, like the edRAM in the 360, going to be proclaimed as a godsend by frustrated developers.

But I'm hoping that, with ten 9 months left to go, Microsoft changes their mind and goes with GDDR5.

I'm hoping that you are right about DDR3 on PS3.

I don't think MS needs to change, DDR3 is slow but there's lots of it, with some optimization, devs could have access to 7+GBs on Durango in a couple of years.

I think Sony, however, needs to change. They should either include 2-4GBs of DDR3 for the OS or include another couple of DDR5 GBs and open them up for developers as the OS gets optimized. Ideally it would be 6GBs DDR5 for Orbis IMO.
 
I'm hoping that you are right about DDR3 on PS3.

I don't think MS needs to change, DDR3 is slow but there's lots of it, with some optimization, devs could have access to 7+GBs on Durango in a couple of years.

I think Sony, however, needs to change. They should either include 2-4GBs of DDR3 for the OS or include another couple of DDR5 GBs and open them up for developers as the OS gets optimized. Ideally it would be 6GBs DDR5 for Orbis IMO.

Are you suggesting these changes to the PS4 based upon technical knowledge of what it would mean for board complexity, manufacturing costs, etc?
 
I'm hoping that you are right about DDR3 on PS3.

I don't think MS needs to change, DDR3 is slow but there's lots of it, with some optimization, devs could have access to 7+GBs on Durango in a couple of years.

I think Sony, however, needs to change. They should either include 2-4GBs of DDR3 for the OS or include another couple of DDR5 GBs and open them up for developers as the OS gets optimized. Ideally it would be 6GBs DDR5 for Orbis IMO.

No, dude. That would suck. Uniformity is key. Having one type of RAM in one pool accessible by both CPU and GPU is great news. It's easier to work with, I think. I'm not a developer, but from reading developer interviews, it seems that they liked unified RAM.
 
Are you suggesting these changes to the PS4 based upon technical knowledge of what it would mean for board complexity, manufacturing costs, etc?

By the way it is written, I suppose not.

Anyway, judging by Sebbi's post, the two consoles are closer than ever pertaining to ram situation. I would consider this a great news.
 
It doesn't. The sRAM is meant to offset the slow DDR3. I meant to say that hopefully MS has SSD standard or else the loading will be even slower.

But whatever, it doesn't matter. Hopefully, as we speak, some technical engineer is informing some dunderhead executive that they need to change the RAM to something faster.
If both systems have similar BD and HDD setups then loading should be similar, because your DDR3 bandwidth is orders of magnitude greater than their read speeds. Loading will be quicker with more RAM if it's all used.
 
I've been saying this before, 1GB of LPDDR stacked on top of the Southbridge (not the APU) and use the same interface that the APU uses with the Southbridge (no extra wire traces or motherboard complexity) would do wonders. That 1GB could be used as both cache when reading from disk/blu-ray as well as slower ram to keep the OS in.
 
I find the 192 gb/s to be questionable. That would indicate a 256 bit memory bus and I just don't see anyone using that large of a bus on a console. It would seriously hamper the ability to lower the cost of the machine in the future.
 
I find the 192 gb/s to be questionable. That would indicate a 256 bit memory bus and I just don't see anyone using that large of a bus on a console. It would seriously hamper the ability to lower the cost of the machine in the future.

Not if memory chips are on interposer [no complications with motherboard].
 
I posted this over in the Durango leak thread yesterday, but felt it might be more appropriate here.


For a variety of reasons, I have not given up on 3D stacking yet.

Why?

1. From what I've read, the current leak could be up to 9-10 months old. That's pretty old. A lot can change in that much time.
2. Microsoft is already invested in the stacking consortium.
3. Stacked memory uses 10% of the energy of equivalent DDR3. This would make it ideal for console use.
4. Depending on the memory design, it can achieve between 128Gbytes and 320Gbytes per second bandwidth. Somereports say it can achieve speeds ranging from 400Gbytes persecont to over a terabyte p/s, depending on which article you read.
5. Stacked memory is roughly 90% smaller than traditional DDR3 dims. This would be ideal for consoles.
5. Such memory goes into production in the second half of THIS year, which would be about the time consoles go into production (sometime in the summer/early fall).
6. As further proof that stacking is ready for "prime time" Production contracts are already in place for the 2014 timeframe. (Thanks to Phonomezer for pointing out the link.)

Overall, bandwidth, physical size, energy consumption, etc... I would think that MS go with this in the final revision. I think the current "leak" is outdated.

While stacked memory would be expensive up front, it would also save a lot of money in the long run, make the console more "future proof", and have some immediate advantages (e.g. the power supply could be smaller. A lot less silicon would be used in production, it would probably lead to far, far less hardware failures as the head would be much, much less than if using traditional RAM, etc). The billion dollars that Microsoft spent replacing bad Xbox 360's last time could be more wisely invested in better technology up front. Depending on the expense, I can see stacked ram being in the final console.

Again, as I understand it the current "leak" is about 9-10 months old already. I see no reason why Microsoft could not have changed the hardware again since then as they discover better design alternatives or make moves in response to Sony's hardware configuration.

All I'm saying is that 3d stacking looks like it will be ready for production by the time Durango comes out, and based on the specs, it looks *ideal* for console use and would also be better and cheaper in the long run. So, I still hold out hope that stacked memory is consideration. ...I don't necessarily buy these leaks as the gospel truth as we have no idea how old they really are. I've seen on GAF and Beyond3d that the leak is at least 9 to 10 months old. ...Why should I believe hardware leaks that are nearly a year old are still good?
 
I've been saying this before, 1GB of LPDDR stacked on top of the Southbridge (not the APU) and use the same interface that the APU uses with the Southbridge (no extra wire traces or motherboard complexity) would do wonders. That 1GB could be used as both cache when reading from disk/blu-ray as well as slower ram to keep the OS in.

I think there's about zero chance of that happening, but if it did, the RAM would probably just act like a RAM disk. The OS wouldn't see it as memory, but data could be cached there and apps could be stored there for quick loading. You couldn't store OS functions the game would need to be communicating with regularly, for example. And 1GB would be pretty small. Too small to be worthwhile compared to just spending the engineering and material costs on a bigger pool of NAND Flash storage for the same basic uses. That way they don't have to design a whole new south bridge that includes a memory controller on it.
 
Trying some calculations.

your figures would mean
128 GB/s = 2000 MT/s DDR3 * 512 bit (8 chips)
320 GB/s = 5000 MT/s GDDR5 * 512 bit (16 chips)
I cannot see where the 1TB/s could come from, maybe you confused it with the 1Tb/s in the JEDEC/HMC files

DDR3: 1066-2400 MT/s Data Rate (64 bit per chip, 1GB max per chip)
GDDR5: 5000-7000 MT/s Data rate (32 bit per chip, 512MB max per chip)

So the only way I know to get the rumored PS4 bandwidth number would be
176 GB/s = 5500 MT/s GDDR5 * 256 bit (8 chips for 4 GB total)

DDR3 can come close (170.6 GB/s), but 16 chips on a 1024 bit bus sounds ridiculous IMO.

(someone correct me if wrong)
 
Not sure if it has been discussed, but how do you fill 5 gb+ of ram with assets effectively from a BD drive that has 6 x 36 mbps = 27 mb\s peak transfer rate?

With compression at 50%, you will still need over 1 minute to fill it..?
Streaming, streaming mostly everything. Which is what sebbi's posts on B3D go into, and why it wold appear that 3.5GB should be enough memory for a game considering all the other specs of the systems.
 
Streaming, streaming mostly everything. Which is what sebbi's posts on B3D go into, and why it wold appear that 3.5GB should be enough memory for a game considering all the other specs of the systems.

So because there's so much more bandwidth, it can free things from memory more often, to work with new things, and and get old stuff back faster when it needs it? I hope they use reasonably fast HDDs then.

While Durango can just pack more things in memory, but may struggle when it suddenly needs something.
 
Think of it this way. Both will be streaming assets constantly. That being the case, it is more useful to be able to use a lot of data at one time, than it is to have more extra data waiting in the wings.

To use a gaming analogy, if you are playing an RTS and you have a gold mine it is more useful to have 3 guys collecting at the same time, with 1 guy waiting for an open position than it is to only have 1 guy mining and 5 more waiting for him to finish, keeping in mind that the round trip to return the gold to your base is short enough that the peon will always be back in line before a new spot opens up.
 
I think there's about zero chance of that happening, but if it did, the RAM would probably just act like a RAM disk. The OS wouldn't see it as memory, but data could be cached there and apps could be stored there for quick loading. You couldn't store OS functions the game would need to be communicating with regularly, for example. And 1GB would be pretty small. Too small to be worthwhile compared to just spending the engineering and material costs on a bigger pool of NAND Flash storage for the same basic uses. That way they don't have to design a whole new south bridge that includes a memory controller on it.
But didn't they design the south bridge from scratch anyway? What makes you think they did not include a memory controller? ARM chips have a memory controller and it's quite small.
Also why wouldn't the CPU be able to access it directly? It very well could, the FLEXIO bus from Cell had 5GB/s bandwidth, which is enough for general OS tasks.
 
I've skimmed most of this thread and would note one observation:-

Everyone seems focussed on RAM with respect to graphics here - understandable.

What I'd be interested in is what other things would a unified RAM pool have to cater for in next gen games?

1. Video RAM
2. OS
3. Non-video related game memory
4. ?? Anything else

Crytek were the noted devs asking for 8gb RAM, were they just wanting it ALL for video use?

What applicability would large amounts of RAM at decent bandwidth ( lets remember that even the rumored 68gb/s lower threshold is still 3x what we have this gen!) have for other areas of game design?

Physics? AI? Other stuff? (e.g. Kinect, Move, Rift etc)

What benefits to an additional 1.5-3 GB of RAM?

I suspect it will be up to the devs here to 'show, not tell', but I'm looking forward to finding out!
 
I don't mean to necro bump this thread, but we have official RAM numbers now. How does this paint our next generation portrait?
 
Top Bottom