Negotiator
Banned
Dude, why do you have to make 3 posts in a row and quote yourself? There's an edit feature for amendments.
Supposed PS5 specs from random Beyond3D member (Silly but this is also how the 1st Wii U specs was leaked)
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
Shangounchained
Banned
I'm not familiar with neogafs interface n I'm using a glitchy phone
InfiniteUnrest
Member
This reminds me of people arguing on Facebook with a flat earther/conspiracy theorist I know from back home. Nothing you can say will ever change their mind or prove anything to them. According to them, you're the ones with the wool pulled over your eyes with a faith-like belief in "bullshit" math and science.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
FF:Enhanced_Reality
Member
You should put more ram and that phone.
Just download some more RAM.
Dude the point is that if you have 20GB or Ram you need the speed to actually use it. You will not see 20GB of assets if you cannot fill it up. In other words the total amount of ram means less than the amount of ram you can actually use. It doesn't matter if you have 100GB of ram if you can only use 1GB, per frame you would only see 1GB despite having more space. Think
Shangounchained
Banned
Point is speed and capacity are both important but what makes a game is the assets and most definitely what makes a next gen game is next gen assets and with 20gb it's going to be a mediocre next gen console
Negotiator
Banned
What's more annoying is that many flat-earthers are educated people with diplomas. Just let that sink in for a bit...
Shangounchained
Banned
Saying speed is more important is like taking a supersonic bycicle and try to ship millions of tonnes of freight cargo back and forth until your done, instead of actually using a freight train
Shangounchained
Banned
well educated but they still want to write a book with saliva when the ink is by their side, surely ignorance is bliss! Who knows Pigs may fly.
Hawking Radiation
Wants to watch an Event Horizon porno
Check Google Play Store or Apple Store.
I usually go for the RAM with the highest rated reviews.
F
Foamy
Unconfirmed Member
I'm just some old dick who's gamed all his life but I don't know shit about clock speeds and ram.
Would 12 - 14 teraflops be enough to give us a jump in graphics quality as big in the next gen GTA as there was between current gen and the previous gen?
Would 12 - 14 teraflops be enough to give us a jump in graphics quality as big in the next gen GTA as there was between current gen and the previous gen?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
For a baseline, yes. Especially combined with the SSD solutions and high bandwidth memory.
Currently the baseline is 1.31TF with 5400 SATA2 connected mechanical drives. Sub 200GB/s ram.
F
Foamy
Unconfirmed Member
Right on... that sounds promising. Thx.
Last edited by a moderator:
Negotiator
Banned
And that's exactly what PS2 did with its miniscule, but ultra-fast 4MB eDRAM... back then my PC had 512MB RAM (much slower though, since it was SDRAM).
alabtrosMyster
Member
I don't think you get what he means, swapping assets in and out of working memory, and how fast you does make a huge difference in what you end up seeing on the screen, not just the total amount of memory (the ps4 doesn't stream 8GB of data for every frame you see, nor has it shown any 3d image with anything close to 8GB worth of data in a single frame).
So 24GB of RAM reserved for games + a fast nvme drive will allow us to have fast moving very detailed open world games (or just games that stream detailed assets of much better quality)... Didn't you find that jeep slow in uncharted 4? Or the motorcycle in days gone? I'm fa6 sure the speed is limited by how fast the assets can be pulled in, with more ram they could look even better as well (however I'm satisfied with the ps4's texture size in general, but I would love me some 60fps action more often)
Shangounchained
Banned
Ps2 had 32mb and no that's not what the ps2 did, your confusing yourself
Shangounchained
Banned
The PS4 streams 5gb of memory in every frame it's a fact 5gb is what is allocated for games on the PS4, swapping assets on the fly doesnt make you see 100gb of data on a single frame, it just updates new assets as you drive walk or fly on the game it's what games like red dead do it loads new information as you go doesn't matter if the world is 100gb worth of assets every frame of that game is 5 GB
Shangounchained
Banned
Those are both games ported from console to pc you can clearly see the memory they use doesn't matter if it's 100fps or 30 or 4k they don't use above 8gb of vram any game today on pc is the same it's mostly because they are console ports once the ps5 comes out it'll use 20gb cause that's what is there, there is no phantom memory just because your bandwidth is faster
Shangounchained
Banned
Those are both games ported from console to pc you can clearly see the memory they use doesn't matter if it's 100fps or 30 or 4k they don't use above 8gb of vram any game today on pc is the same it's mostly because they are console ports once the ps5 comes out it'll use 20gb cause that's what is there, there is no phantom memory just because your bandwidth is faster
The reason you get good framerates in games is mostly based on speed a game designed to run on a certain amount of vram will have faster framerates when you have faster bandwidth 8gb on a 2080 will always beat 8gb on a PS4
digital_ghost
I am a closet furry. Don't you judge me.
I expect my copy of Video Game Ram for dummies on my desk tomorrow.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Do you know the difference between saying "more important" and saying "the only thing that matters"?
? You seem to be missing the point of caches and registers...The CPU loads data and instructions from its cache... and what is cache? Oh right, a small local CPU memory that gets filled and refilled and that represent a few sliding windows over the full memory content... uhm it sounds familiar...
Can you please bother to read what other posters write?
If a game on PC requires 5 GB of VRAM is because it is not designed to stream more data than that, end of story. There could be many reasons why it has not been designed to do that, but they deal with the same limitations as per the arguments I have been making. Reading and trying to argue back and forth on that basis would help.
Not only that, when a clear and simple example is brought to you, the PS2 case, you just ignore it and keep beating the same drum as a mantra...
The only thing that matter is frame time, the amount of time you have to render a new frame: what you can do in that time interval is up to each developer and the HW the code will be running on. Each operation has an associated time cost and sometimes a memory space cost (streaming requires extra buffers) and only some operations can run in parallel to others.
So, yet again... the amount of RAM in and of itself does not limit the amount of data you can work on... period.
Shangounchained
Banned
Most of you people chat about computer stuff and 80 percent of you don't know how memory works you simply chat chat chatDo you know the difference between saying "more important" and saying "the only thing that matters"?
The CPU loads data and instructions from its cache... and what is cache? Oh right, a small local CPU memory that gets filled and refilled and that represent a few sliding windows over the full memory content... uhm it sounds familiar...
Can you please bother to read what other posters write?
If a game on PC requires 5 GB of VRAM is because it is not designed to stream more data than that, end of story. There could be many reasons why it has not been designed to do that, but they deal with the same limitations as per the arguments I have been making. Reading and trying to argue back and forth on that basis would help.
Not only that, when a clear and simple example is brought to you, the PS2 case, you just ignore it and keep beating the same drum as a mantra...
The only thing that matter is frame time, the amount of time you have to render a new frame: what you can do in that time interval is up to each developer and the HW the code will be running on. Each operation has an associated time cost and sometimes a memory space cost (streaming requires extra buffers) and only some operations can run in parallel to others.
So, yet again... the amount of RAM in and of itself does not limit the amount of data you can work on... period.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
That is exactly how PS2 worked.
The GS could not directly read or write to main RAM (the latter required a costly inversion of the unidirectional GIF bus between EE, the CPU, and the GS, the graphics processor), it required data (transformed vertices, textures, etc...) to be sent over by the CPU into its 4 MB of eDRAM and from there it could use the data to render with.
As far as the GS knew, there were only two things: it's 4 MB eDRAM pool and a mystical way were data was being regularly streamed in and overwrite other data between one rendering command and the next.
Not an opinion... not mystical knowledge... look online and you can find the detailed low level docs for bothfrom the PS2 Linux kit which could be developed for by anyone (and thanks to some kernel modules you could get near to full game mode PS2 performance).
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Well, you will find that some people do know...
. Are you done attacking people and ready to discuss what they said? I would understand if all you got was a shower of "STFU, you are just spouting ignorant drivel", but you got decently thought out replies.Still... at this point you are quite likely trolling and having a jolly good laugh at posting such drivel and seeing people spending their free time explaining things to you that you likely know already. This is one possibility...
Shangounchained
Banned
Calm your estrogen, just because a dozen people are ignorant and don't actually know how memory works doesn't mean I should follow suit, it'ssimply mob psychological by working in here, whether you like it or not what u think of memory isn't what it isWell, you will find that some people do know...
Still... at this point you are quite likely trolling and having a jolly good laugh at posting such drivel and seeing people spending their free time explaining things to you that you likely know already. This is one possibility...
Shangounchained
Banned
Ps2 had 32mb of edram not 4
PuppetMaster
Member
Nope.
32MB of system ram (Rambus RDRAM)
4MB of eDram on the GPU. Basically video ram.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Ok, you are taking the piss right now...
(Now with GIF in the diagram too, previous one was simplified)
The chip on the top right, the GS aka the PS2's graphics processor could only read from its local memory pool directly for rendering. Effectively from the GS point of view there was only a single 4 MB local memory pool to render from and you had to swap data in and out to render more. The GS could only load texture data from its local 4 MB pool of eDRAM period... the rest as well as the geometry?! You had to send it multiple times per frame from the CPU side.
The first limitation you hit was thus mostly the speed of the bus between CPU and GPU.
Funny story, from Sony's presentations the GIF to GS bus was not even rated at transferring 32 MB per frame to the GS (1.2 GB/s peak).
Some links for you:
http://lukasz.dk/files/PS2Optimisations.pdf
http://psx-scene.com/forums/attachm...-development-feedback-ps2forpcprogrammers.pdf
Full HW docs:https://hwdocs.webs.com/ps2
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I am sorry, but you are sounding delusional here (but I prefer to think you are just taking the piss and trolling at this point).We are trying to calmly explain a point and taking time to do it properly. You are simply mocking that and calling others ignorant and not seeming capable to address what people are saying.
PocoJoe
Banned
You are perfect example of a person whom doesnt know that he doesnt know anything, but thinks he is right
You clearly dont understand what edram is and what main ram is.
So, take this as a lesson and try not to talk about subjects which you lack the understanding and knowledge.
Shangounchained
Banned
Lay off the personal attacks. If you have a point to make about plastic and silicon, it should not be so personal.
Do you know the difference between saying "more important" and saying "the only thing that matters"?
The CPU loads data and instructions from its cache... and what is cache? Oh right, a small local CPU memory that gets filled and refilled and that represent a few sliding windows over the full memory content... uhm it sounds familiar...
Can you please bother to read what other posters write?
If a game on PC requires 5 GB of VRAM is because it is not designed to stream more data than that, end of story. There could be many reasons why it has not been designed to do that, but they deal with the same limitations as per the arguments I have been making. Reading and trying to argue back and forth on that basis would help.
Not only that, when a clear and simple example is brought to you, the PS2 case, you just ignore it and keep beating the same drum as a mantra...
The only thing that matter is frame time, the amount of time you have to render a new frame: what you can do in that time interval is up to each developer and the HW the code will be running on. Each operation has an associated time cost and sometimes a memory space cost (streaming requires extra buffers) and only some operations can run in parallel to others.
So, yet again... the amount of RAM in and of itself does not limit the amount of data you can work on... period.
Your a perfect example of an idiot, jumping on a moving train, I simply misquoted it I didn't know ps2 had 4mb of edram and I've researched about it online and it seems the 4mb was a bottleneck and developers always complained about it, only to come here and listen to people who have no idea what they are talking about explain to me something! Do urself a favour and take a wank off u go!You are perfect example of a person whom doesnt know that he doesnt know anything, but thinks he is right
You clearly dont understand what edram is and what main ram is.
So, take this as a lesson and try not to talk about subjects which you lack the understanding and knowledge.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
What the heck?!
Shangounchained
Banned
The 4mb vram was small, so they used trickery and there's nowhere that says they could run a 10 or 90mb frame on a 4gb vram
Last edited:
Shangounchained
Banned
jonnyp
Member
For someone so ignorant, you sure are arrogant.
Negotiator
Banned
I think it's time to educate yourself:
The PlayStation2 vs. the PC: a system-level comparison of two 3D platforms
A look at the aspects of the PS2 that make it fundamentaly different from the …
arstechnica.com
alabtrosMyster
Member
The 2080 equipped PC also has a much faster CPU to back it up, it has much more GPU processing power and is likely to have much faster IO, you are literally arguing against something nobody was saying, we know that the PS4 has 176GB\s, so it can move quite a lot of data around to build each frames.
The machine gets about 100MB\s of new data when it streams information from storage, next gen is expected to move around 5GB\s FROM STORAGE to working memory, which means you can get tons of new assets - polygons, textures, etc. - allowing you to have a completely different scene from one second to the next in a game that streams new data in all the time, that alone could make some serious difference in what gameplay is like in any game where dynamic loading is used, allowing for fast moving of vehicles in open world games by example, in more varied, and detailed environments.
You have so much data, yet so little understanding.
Last edited:
Yeah, always a gold mine of hilarity.
I remember the threads when Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, said that next gen needed to have 8GB. Everyone made fun of him and were absolutely certain that PS4 and Xbox 720 would have 2GB, maaaaybe 4GB at most.
I also remember when Blu-ray for PS3 was announced, everyone laughed at Krazy Ken because they were absolutely certain that video games would never need that much memory.
These prediction threads are always hilarious because people are only looking at the current gen then thinking what is needed for a better looking current gen today, not what will be needed for next gen tomorrow.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Do you realize who you are talking to?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The eDRAM was small so they streamed data in multiple time per frame (there is no trickery, it is just called saving some eDRAM space for a temporary texture buffer in addition to a permanent texture buffer for textures you want to/must reuse across frames) from external memory to use more than the 2 MB or so of space left for textures only on the eDRAM... uhm...
Now, take that sentence and replace eDRAM with Xbox One X/PS4/PS5 main RAM and 2 MB with 4 / 8 GB as well as external memory with disk I/O... and we are back at the point we were making before.
Negotiator
Banned
I think today's eDRAM equivalent is the GPU L2 cache for DSBR, although that's a bit more automated.
van_uetropp
Neo Member
so, the ps5 needs a lot more of dedotaded wam
Shangounchained
Banned
It needs alot more ram than you can weigh!
Shangounchained
Banned
Senseless, I need you to show me any evidence any screenshot of a situation where by any frame is rendered with more capacity than the available vram. Take your time!
Shangounchained
Banned
This user has been removed from thread.
I'm talking to your loose bumhole!
Shangounchained
Banned
You cant infact historically and in the future aswell get more data on a single frame than what your ram can handle, it doesn't work like that you can simply get more frames with the same amount of vram simply because it's faster than the other one but you can't get more assets than the capacity of vram available, it's like a hdd, you can't download to a space that isn't there it's fucking 0 year old maths, the ram is 20gb and that's all it can hold to full capacity it can only upload and download faster of that 20gb at any given time depending on speed and that's it, red dead 2, spider man GTA and all those games stream data as you move red dead assets are 100gb but you can't and ever could see all those assets on a single frame. Try to understand.
Last edited:
Negotiator
Banned
Someone's got anger issues...
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
For starters, you could explain how you believe that GS and Flipper (PS2 and GCN) rendered their games with only 1-2 MB of texture VRAM available... guess I will be waiting longer than you have. Unless more meltdowns continue...
In the case of both the Flipper and the Graphics Sythesizer, textures are streamed in and out of VRAM as needed. This is handled on the GS through a 1.2 GB/s (150 MHz 64-bit) interface dubbed the GIF. The Gamecube's Flipper incorporates a 2.6 GB interface to main memory and also supports S3TC texture compression. In fact, having been introduced a year later and on a smaller process (0.18μ instead of 0.25μ), the Flipper has a great deal more logic to support capabilities like multitexturing, texture compression, color combiners, fixed-function geometry transformation, and more.
Veteran console developer and 3D graphics expert Miha Peternel recounts texture streaming on the PS2:
We were targeting 50:50 textures
Last edited: