Final information on PS3 OS memory allocation?!

[makeitlookreal]

On Beyond3D "Barbarian" a game developer stated the following:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39194&page=2

"No, it's 96Mb hard limit (64Mb main ram + 32Mb vram). It's reserved by the OS the whole time. I hope they finally have a decent use for it."

It sounds like he is pretty bold in that statement. All I can say is that if the PS3 really does reserve that much RAM then perhaps memory is indeed one small advantage of the 360. I was hoping what I had heard about the PS3 only reserving half that much memory was true. But apparently, it reserves the full amount.

Now, I'm not bashing the Playstation 3. I'm a fan of the system. The CELL processor is far beyond the processor of the 360. Also, I believe that the RSX has some fantastic shading abilities. Combined with the standard hard-drive and the Blu-ray drive I believe that the PS3 is indeed the more powerful system.

However, I'm a little stunned that Sony would reserve that much memory.

Basically, it means that when you factor in the EDRAM the 360 has 74MB of more RAM than the PS3. Of course due to the RAM being split up in the PS3 you get extra bandwidth. Also, the XDR RAM is VERY fast.

I think the PS3 is still going to be the superior system. But this is simply a tad surprising. I was hoping that the PS3 would not be reserving THAT much memory.

Quite frankly, the two main reasons I want a PS3 is for the games and to learn about linux. Anything else the OS might do is just extra. My gaming experience is what matters the most to me.

Once again, if this is true I'm a little shocked and a little upset.

Basically, the amount of RAM being reserved by the PS3 is multiple times the RAM the PS2 had all together. In my opinion, it's overkill.

[Zer0-Sum]

That is surprising and a little disappointing. It is also weird IMO. What is that 96 MB of RAM for? Why so much? It kind of negates the idea that consoles hold a clear advantage over PC's because of a small and tight OS. That sux, maybe. I too hope they make such a good use of that much RAM reserved for the OS that all most nobody will complain because it kicks so much ass.

And if this is completely true. CPi? Any ideas or input???

[makeitlookreal]

deadboyz,

Look at all the functionality of the 360 that only reserves 32 MB of RAM. It has a LOT of functionality. I just don't understand why the PS3 needs that much RAM.

Personally, I think the problem is that they might want to implement some type of plan where you can do all sorts of things WHILE playing a game. To be honest, I don't like that idea. I have no desire to be browsing the web on my PS3 while playing a game.

[Voidler]

They should've had some dedicated RAM for the OS. With 512mb, they shouldn't be skimping on what is for the GAMES

[makeitlookreal]

Voidler,

I totally agree. I believe that RAM is very precious. The PS3 in game mode is NOT a personal computer. As much RAM as possible should go to GAMES!

[Zer0-Sum]

deadboyz,

Look at all the functionality of the 360 that only reserves 32 MB of RAM. It has a LOT of functionality. I just don't understand why the PS3 needs that much RAM.

Personally, I think the problem is that they might want to implement some type of plan where you can do all sorts of things WHILE playing a game. To be honest, I don't like that idea. I have no desire to be browsing the web on my PS3 while playing a game.

Oh MILR, I totally agree. This crap, unless they have some phenomenal use for the reserved OS. I don't like the idea either. I would rather have a smaller more compact OS and have more RAM for games. But time will tell I guess.

They should've had some dedicated RAM for the OS. With 512mb, they shouldn't be skimping on what is for the GAMES



QFT man, QFT...

[frosty]

I'd like to hear Cpias' take on this.

[makeitlookreal]

Frosty,

I would also like to hear CPI's opinion on this issue.

A while back there was a developer talking on the Beyond 3D forum who was complaining about the PS3. One BIG complait he had was that when porting a game to the PS3 from the 360 was that the PS3 had about 60 or 70 fewer free megabytes of RAM. He went on and on about this. The interesting thing was that NONE of the other developers refuted his claim.

If Barbarian's statement is accurate then this guy may have been telling us the truth.

[Zer0-Sum]

I'd like to hear Cpias' take on this.

Me too. I bet he would say more RAM for games though. Games always need more RAM.

[BruceWayneIII]

Isn't that just a re-circulation of the old, old rumour?

[Kabbage]

Isn't that just a re-circulation of the old, old rumour? Likely, and judging by the topic I would I would have though this thread came with more than a link to a forum post :laugh:

[woundingchaney]

96 is a whole lot of rescources along with one spe and another at any time

[Kabbage]

96 is a whole lot of rescources along with one spe and another at any time Especially since that was the rumor.

But im sure you have your fingers crossed.

[Dims]

i don't really know about tech stuff but wouldn't they be able to streamline the OS and reduce the amount of RAM it uses up over time? Future firmware updates maybe?

[Garfunkel]

^not really. We just have to live with this one small setback, we can always stream from BD much faster the 360 can stream from DVD.

[Kabbage]

^not really. We just have to live with this one small setback, we can always stream from BD much faster the 360 can stream from DVD. I remember that being said... harrison if Im not mistaken.

Instead of starting with a smaller OS you can start larger and reduce it when possible.

So it probably is possible.

[Garfunkel]

theoretically yes, but adding features and enhancements far outweighs the optimization.

[Kabbage]

theoretically yes, but adding features and enhancements far outweighs the optimization. How can you be sure they didnt intentionally start with more space than they initially needed?

[F089/H]

Guess they really thought it was A Super computer.Is this just in case of Linux,or can Linux go outside of that 96MB limit?

[makeitlookreal]

This does NOT appear to be part of the rumor. Barbarian is a TRUSTWORTHY developer over there at Beyond 3D. If he is now saying that the OS of the PS3 reserves 96MB of RAM I believe him. But I would like some verification.

[Smokey]

But I would like some verification.
but...but... you believe him?

[VG Aficionado]

Shhh. Let this thread vanish so that we can go back to discussing games.

[makeitlookreal]

VG,

This is a very important thread. This is something many of us have been wondering about for a long time.

I want to get CPI's comments.

[Epix]

If I told you the PS3 has 1MB of memory and here's what the games look like, would you care? Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[VG Aficionado]

Let's take a wild guess: what will cpi do?

1) Won't confirm or deny anything because he mustn't open his mouth if he wants to keep his job.

2) Could say something relevant but inconclusive.

3) Ignore this thread altogether.


In any case, the chances of a satisfactory answer are 0%. Exactly as in the past, because it's not going to be different this time.

[makeitlookreal]

Epix,

I would not care if Sony were giving this console away for free. However, people are paying money for it. They deserves to have all the information about it's specs.

[Epix]

Epix,

I would not care if Sony were giving this console away for free. However, people are paying money for it. They deserves to have all the information about it's specs.

Yeah, but shouldn't your judgment of the console be based on it's games, not how much memory is being reserved for the OS? I don't care if there's a 2lb 11oz. infant baby gerbil on a wheel inside if it's pumping out games like MS/FFXIII/MGS4 ect..

[makeitlookreal]

Epix,

I think the PS3 is awesome. I think it's the most powerful system.

But people who are going to be spending money on a console should be able to know it's specifications. It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter.

[Epix]

Epix,

I think the PS3 is awesome. I think it's the most powerful system.

But people who are going to be spending money on a console should be able to know it's specifications. It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter.

And now you know, do you feel better? Is it going to make ANY difference on your decisions to by games that you think you'll enjoy?

[makeitlookreal]

I do not know for 100%. I want confirmation of what Barbarian said.

[Fats]

Shhh. Let this thread vanish so that we can go back to discussing games.

:cloud9:

[xbdestroya]

I just don't understand - hasn't this been confirmed like three times before?

Why do people treat information they don't like perpetually as a rumor? Barbarian works directly with the hardware for God's sake - what does it take, a written proclomation from Kutaragi himself?

A) This is real

B) This is old

PS - The idea is that Sony may lower the RAM set-aside later on in PS3's life if they determine they don't need the full amount; but this RAM at the moment gives them room to play with their various OS-related ideas and the potential to put them into play before the code is fully optimized as well.

[Fats]

Locky, Locky then Xb? :)

[Smokey]

I just don't understand - hasn't this been confirmed like three times before?

Why do people treat information they don't like perpetually as a rumor? Barbarian works directly with the hardware for God's sake - what does it take, a written proclomation from Kutaragi himself?

A) This is real

B) This is old

PS - The idea is that Sony may lower the RAM set-aside later on in PS3's life if they determine they don't need the full amount; but this RAM at the moment gives them room to play with their various OS-related ideas and the potential to put them into play before the code is fully optimized as well.

ayee the captain has spoken

[makeitlookreal]

This thread shall NOT be locked.

No developer has absolutely confirmed this number.

Barbarian's statement is the MOST DIRECT we have had so far. But it needs to be confirmed.

There are tons of rumors going around. I have also heard that the PS3 reserves HALF this number.

I want to know the truth about this matter.

[VG Aficionado]

Please lock this xb, this is the month of exciting gaming news and threads like this one are a nuisance.

[makeitlookreal]

This is not a nuisance at all. This is an important issue. Even Frosty wants to get CPI's comment.

[Nameless]

Just move this to the rumor sticky...
If members want to discuss the OS RAM allocations they can do it there.

[cpiasminc]

1) Won't confirm or deny anything because he mustn't open his mouth if he wants to keep his job.
I'm kind of befuddled that Barbarian would even say anything since he's basically risking his entire career (not just one job, but that his indiscretion can look bad on a person's record).

No developer has absolutely confirmed this number.
You do realize that's not going to happen, right? If you want it so badly, you'll have to get Sony to make it public info.

[VG Aficionado]

If you want it so badly, you'll have to get Sony to make it public info.Don't give him ideas!

:locked:!!!!!!!!!

[makeitlookreal]

CPI,

One important question.

Do you think Barbarian has just risked his career due to the information he has released?

VG,

If you don't like this thread there are many others on here that you can participate on. I'm interested in this topic. Please visit another thread if you don't like this one. You are acting very, very arrogant.

[stanDarsh]

MILR, don't heckle developers into answering questions that could get them fired, that's not cool.

I will leave this topic open for now, providing you do not ask such questions again, that could get cpi into hot water

[makeitlookreal]

StanDarsh,

I did NOT heckle him. I asked him a question. There is a big difference. I'm not demanding anything, screaming out loud that he "better" answer my question, or saying anything negative about him.

Here is the definition for heckle.

heck·le (hĕk'əl) pronunciation
tr.v., -led, -ling, -les.

1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.

I'm not trying to embarass or annoy him. If he does not want to answer a question that is perfectly acceptable to me. It's his RIGHT not to answer any such questions.

I don't think that anyone can say I have not been polite to CPI. In fact, I have said many times how much I appreciate his participation on this forum and that I understand how he cannot answer questions sometimes, and how much I appreciate it when he can.

However, I do indeed hope you will keep this thread open. It's a very significant thread in my opinion. If the 96MB number has been confirmed then it's one of the most interesting technical pieces of information that has been leaked about the PS3 in a while. It basically means that the PS3 has about 74MB less free memory than the 360.

Once again, I still think the PS3 is the most powerful console, it's going to have awesome games, and I'm very excited about getting mine! But of course it's something to consider, think about, and discuss.

[xbdestroya]

No developer has absolutely confirmed this number.

Barbarian's a developer, and he's confirmed it; doesn't that meet your criteria?

Don't expect *anyone* else to confirm it; rather notice how no one refutes it. That's how you understand things to be true or not in a world of NDAs. If it makes it easier for you, I've had this info confirmed for me before from additional sources, so no need for the intense speculation. Post #32 really is the point-blank state of affairs on this IMO.

[stanDarsh]

MILR, the last word on that definition is 'badger', which is my intention of the word 'heckle'. You are right, he's entitled to speak for himself (or not as the case may be), however I don't feel that question is appropriate to ask him, because in a roundabout way you are asking him whether there is truth to Barbarians statement about 96MB RAM reserved for PS3s OS should he decide to answer that question at all.

Try to understanding whether your intention behind your question was good or not that kinda questioning can be entrapping because anyway he answers you'll know something about the RAM reseveration, (should he choose to answer).

[makeitlookreal]

XBD,

Thank you. I will now consider it confirmed.

However, I'm shocked. I was hoping this would not be true.

It now seems that the CELL processor is the most important aspect of the Playstation 3.

Because the CELL processor can both help the RSX with vertex work (which is very important in helping it's performance) and of course with exotic schemes decompress textures on the fly for storage in the XDR RAM to potentially make it seem like there is more memory.

Now, there is NOTHING that replaces RAM. But with an SPE decompressing textures on the fly it could make it seem like there is more.

I believe nAo of Ninja Theory once said that WAVELET compression is possible with the cell processor.

Basically, the power of CELL (also the standard HD and Blu-ray drive) is what matters in the PS3.

[xbdestroya]

The Cell is great for decompression tasks, but that doesn't alleviate the memory constraints per se.

360 does have an absolute memory advantage, and that is a strong point for it vs the PS3, but there are obviously several categories in which it is the weaker console. Again though, the memory requirements for the OS may be lowered by Sony in the future; it's just you can only go one way with that limit when it comes to developer guidelines, so you give yourself room to grow rather than constraints when you start off. If Sony eventually finds that they can do everything they want with a smaller memory footprint, they'll lower what they set aside.

But IMO these ideas they have brewing warrant the effort; I think the Home idea is a great one.

[makeitlookreal]

XBD,

I hope the Home idea utilizes ALL the processing power of the Playstation 3. I hope it uses all the memory, all the SPEs, and all the power of the system.

But I hope it does so when you are NOT playing a game.

I want the Home concept to be something at LEAST as broad in scope as World of Warcraft or I'm not interested in it.

This is my opinion about the power of the PS3 at this point.

The CELL is much more powerful than the XBox 360 CPU.

The RSX has more shading power than the XBox 360 GPU, but is not as good at vertex work.

The standard HDD of the PS3 and the Blu-ray drive are both advantages. The Blu-ray drive *might* be a *tiny* bit slower but it has a tremendous amount of storage capacity.

The PS3 has less RAM.

In my opinion, the CELL is going to be what clearly makes the PS3 dominate.

Because the CELL can help the RSX do vertex work so it's performance is beyond that of the 360's GPU.

The CELL can also at least to some extent help with the memory issue. Because it can do exotic decompression tasks.

Because of this the CELL is what makes the PS3 the most powerful console.

I think that now it's clear that the BEST games for the PS3 will be the ones in which the CELL is helping to decompress textures in exotic ways and is helping the RSX with graphics work.

[Cless]

makeitlookreal when you know and get real confirmation of PS3 OS using 96MB, would you mind giving me your PS3?

[cliffbo]

i haven't read any of this thread but my take on it is this: whilst in your 'HOME' or 'XMB' it uses much the same as the 360 and has access to all of your cool stuff, but once you step outside of your 'HOME' it will use 96mb (if this is true) to run the program that enables real time worlds. it can be turned off and on you know!

[makeitlookreal]

cliffbo,

As long as I am not IN A GAME I want "HOME" to use ALL the memory and ALL the power of the PS3. I don't want it to only use 96MB.

[Z]

why does it matter if the OS takes even all PS3's resources if you can't play a game and run an OS at the same time?

[cliffbo]

why does it matter if the OS takes even all PS3's resources if you can't play a game and run an OS at the same time?

exactly! MILR please fella, stop it... Z look at my reps!!!!!!! nearly got ya LOLOLOLLOl

[Domination]

The Cell is great for decompression tasks, but that doesn't alleviate the memory constraints per se.

360 does have an absolute memory advantage, and that is a strong point for it vs the PS3, but there are obviously several categories in which it is the weaker console. Again though, the memory requirements for the OS may be lowered by Sony in the future; it's just you can only go one way with that limit when it comes to developer guidelines, so you give yourself room to grow rather than constraints when you start off. If Sony eventually finds that they can do everything they want with a smaller memory footprint, they'll lower what they set aside.

But IMO these ideas they have brewing warrant the effort; I think the Home idea is a great one.

I never really thought of it that way. But yeah, it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. :thumbl:

[rob the slob]

This thread shall NOT be locked.

No developer has absolutely confirmed this number.

Barbarian's statement is the MOST DIRECT we have had so far. But it needs to be confirmed.

There are tons of rumors going around. I have also heard that the PS3 reserves HALF this number.

I want to know the truth about this matter.
The number is real.

Here is what another PS3 dev said over at GAF.

No, the 100MB is reserved for the kernel so it can play Chess with itself (PPU vs SPU) in the background while waiting for you to finish gaming.

There's always services running in the background (in case it was lost in my morning sarcasm), they just haven't been using a whole lot of their functionality yet.

Obviously he just rounded up the number.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=141969&page=2

Anyways, if the PS3 Home rumors are true then we know why Sony decided to use that much memory for the OS.

[Applefiend]

I always have to go back to last generation.

PS2: 32MB Ram
XBox: 64MB Ram

Which had the best games?

And say if you were offered two PCs, same specs, but.... One was a Pentium III 800Mhz with 256MB Ram another was a Pentium III 1.4Ghz with 200MB Ram, which would be the best games machine?

And *cough* The 1.4Ghz P3 has built in Blu Ray and the hard drive in the P3 800Mhz is optional. :)

But yeah, the allocation does seem rather excessive, perhaps thats not set in stone and can be slimmed down at a later date. The 360 OS seems to do much more in game than the current version of the PS3 OS.

[makeitlookreal]

Z,

The way the PS3 is designed there will ALWAYS be a background OS running.

My hope is that the "HOME" aspect of the PS3 will not only utilize the normal OS RAM, but ALL of the RAM.

I'm hoping that you can ONLY ACCESS THE "HOME" aspect when you are NOT IN A GAME.

Everyone,

I hope the HOME function does not use just the 96MB of the OS. I hope it uses all 512MB of RAM.

I hope it utilizes all of the RAM, all of the processing power, etc.

[cliffbo]

Z,

The way the PS3 is designed there will ALWAYS be a background OS running.

My hope is that the "HOME" aspect of the PS3 will not only utilize the normal OS RAM, but ALL of the RAM.

I'm hoping that you can ONLY ACCESS THE "HOME" aspect when you are NOT IN A GAME.

Everyone,

I hope the HOME function does not use just the 96MB of the OS. I hope it uses all 512MB of RAM.

I hope it utilizes all of the RAM, all of the processing power, etc.

i think thats how it will work fella ;)

[frosty]

I don't really give a damn, as long as the games keep looking as good as they already are.

[xbdestroya]

why does it matter if the OS takes even all PS3's resources if you can't play a game and run an OS at the same time?

Whatever RAM is being set aside for the OS, is set aside at all times. These requirements are *specifically* for devs to take into account when they are designing games, so it's not an 'out of game' consideration (unfortunately).

[makeitlookreal]

XBD,

Let me ask you a question. If you are NOT playing a game on the PS3 does the OS have access to ALL the memory and ALL the SPEs?

In my opinion, if the OS of the PS3 is worth it's salt then it is able to access ALL the resources of the PS3 when a game is not being played.

For example, this could be useful when web-browsing, downloading files, and watching a movie at the same time.

[xbdestroya]

Right, well... the OS will keep taking up that 1 SPE and ~96MB of RAM etc etc...

And then as you begin using different apps, resources will be allocated accordingly. Watching a BD, it'll grab some SPEs. Playing music, the same. Surfing the web, running Linux - all of it will have resources allocated to make it run, so better to think of it as the OS takes 1 SPE and 96MB of RAM, and whatever else can have resources allocated to it.

For the purposes of this example, it's best to think of a game as just another application - just that it's one that has the entirety of remaining resources allocated to it when it runs.

[makeitlookreal]

Do you think they will make it so "HOME" can use all of the resources of the PS3?

[woundingchaney]

^not really. We just have to live with this one small setback, we can always stream from BD much faster the 360 can stream from DVD.

No stream from hdd quicker than dvd not BR quicker than DVD.

[woundingchaney]

Especially since that was the rumor.

But im sure you have your fingers crossed.

Keep witch hunting, hope that works out for you.

[makeitlookreal]

Can anyone confirm that the Playstation OS can use ALL of the PS3's resources when there is not a game playing.

[xbdestroya]

Do you think they will make it so "HOME" can use all of the resources of the PS3?

Disclaimer that this is just my understanding of it at the moment; no inside info or anything, and I'm waiting for the announcement just like everyone else. But from what I interpret, if you are connected to the Internet, Home will be running. It will always be running, whether you are playing a game, or whatever else. When it is running in the background like that, it will obviously use miniscule resources, and essentially act as a glorified remote media server for your buddy list.

When you yourself actually jack in, it will obviously suck up more as it builds out the graphical environment. Now, I don't expect it to be totally over the top,so I doubt it would ever approach using near all of the power. But for instance when you go to the movie theatre in this virtual town, streaming the video would require some additional work from the SPEs, and stuff like that.

It will take up as much as is required to achieve the vision, but from situation to situation that may not be all that much.

Can anyone confirm that the Playstation OS can use ALL of the PS3's resources when there is not a game playing.

Didn't I just answer this question like four posts ago?

[Z]

Whatever RAM is being set aside for the OS, is set aside at all times. These requirements are *specifically* for devs to take into account when they are designing games, so it's not an 'out of game' consideration (unfortunately).

ah, I see. thanks.

[makeitlookreal]

XBD,

So you believe it will be a giant world where you can drive around town, walk into movie theaters, etc?

[rpgamer_2k5]

MILR, you cannot compare the memory situation of the PS3 to the Xbox 360 or a PC. They are different platforms.

Most operations outside graphics use very little RAM. In fact 128MB of RAM is more than enough for the Cell if used conventionally.

Introducing physics-introducing operations isn't going to require you anything more than a 128MB of RAM, ever. Not even the PhysX PPU. Heck you don't even need 128MB of RAM. They've been doing intensive physics operations for decades on super computers with far less memory. The only memory whore is in the areas of graphics.

Does it mean all graphics or just raster graphics? No the huge memory requirement is used for GPU-esque texture rasterization. RAM is going up primarily because of textures. For anything else, even 128MB of RAM is more than enough. But in PS3s case, Cell does have a few tricks up its sleeve regarding textures.

Just take a look at this:
http://www.gametomorrow.com/minor/barry/frame.jpg

The Cell is pretty strong on its own in the texture front and I don't think memory is a big of a concern. Will have to look it up a bit if I were to conclude that it isn't. This probably increases the probability of the Cell and RSX to cooperate in this area as well in order to allow for very efficient texture mapping.

As for versus 360, this console isn't that comparable in area of memory requirement. For one, the XeCPU has access to high latency memory, and the Xenos has limited bandwidth compared to the RSX. Also the EDRAM really does not solve the high memory requirement for texture rasterization like all other GPUs. It really doesn't seem to matter so there shouldn't be any worry about the 192MB + 224MB of RAM because the PS3 and Xbox 360s memory situation cannot be compared.

OTOH, RSX and Xenos with regarding to texture look-up and computation could be compared. But I'm not sure if this area is blockaded by NDAs.

[Kabbage]

Keep witch hunting, hope that works out for you. Too late, it already has.

[makeitlookreal]

MILR, you cannot compare the memory situation of the PS3 to the Xbox 360 or a PC. They are different platforms.

Most operations outside graphics use very little RAM. In fact 128MB of RAM is more than enough for the Cell if used conventionally.

Introducing physics-introducing operations isn't going to require you anything more than a 128MB of RAM, ever. Not even the PhysX PPU. Heck you don't even need 128MB of RAM. They've been doing intensive physics operations for decades on super computers with far less memory. The only memory whore is in the areas of graphics.

Does it mean all graphics or just raster graphics? No the huge memory requirement is used for GPU-esque texture rasterization. RAM is going up primarily because of textures. For anything else, even 128MB of RAM is more than enough. But in PS3s case, Cell does have a few tricks up its sleeve regarding textures.

Just take a look at this:
http://www.gametomorrow.com/minor/barry/frame.jpg

The Cell is pretty strong on its own in the texture front and I don't think memory is a big of a concern. Will have to look it up a bit if I were to conclude that it isn't. This probably increases the probability of the Cell and RSX to cooperate in this area as well in order to allow for very efficient texture mapping.

As for versus 360, this console isn't that comparable in area of memory requirement. For one, the XeCPU has access to high latency memory, and the Xenos has limited bandwidth compared to the RSX. Also the EDRAM really does not solve the high memory requirement for texture rasterization like all other GPUs. It really doesn't seem to matter so there shouldn't be any worry about the 192MB + 224MB of RAM because the PS3 and Xbox 360s memory situation cannot be compared.

OTOH, RSX and Xenos with regarding to texture look-up and computation could be compared. But I'm not sure if this area is blockaded by NDAs.

When it comes to current technology texturing is very, very important. The PS3 needs all the memory it can get. It utilizes the same basic texturing technology as the 360. For that reason you can compare it to the 360. There are differences, but the two GPU's are very similar when it comes to texturing.

[Red_Eyes]

It still won't matter for some games. Games like GTA that streams won't have memory issues.

[acousticvan]

I think some of you guys forgot this: Sony forces developers to work on limited RAM so that they'll try get the best out of it. Once they got that, Sony will give them more RAM so they can do amazing stuff later on. It's simple as that.
That's just Sony's trick. Sony doesn't want to show its cards all at once.

[woundingchaney]

Too late, it already has.

Then do tell.

[Garfunkel]

No stream from hdd quicker than dvd not BR quicker than DVD.

2X BD drive is faster then a 12X DVD, DVD's are not constant, BD's are, the DVD drive in the 360 will have an average speed of around 7-8X taking into account the outer and inner ends of the disc.

[woundingchaney]

2X BD drive is faster then a 12X DVD, DVD's are not constant, BD's are, the DVD drive in the 360 will have an average speed of around 7-8X taking into account the outer and inner ends of the disc.

Doesnt matter, its the allocation/placement of data on the disk. The majority of data is found on the outer portions of the disk were the speed is higher and where the larger accessed files are put. An average speed doesnt necesarily indicate what speed the data will be transfered. I dont think 2xBR is faster than 12xdvd though, I believe a 12x dvd is still faster than a 2x bd on average (al;though could be wrong). Its the concept of top speed per average speed.


PS3 BR only transfer data at 9 mb compared to 16 transfer speed of 360 drive. February 2007 Independant Playstation Magazine p.61

[Garfunkel]

that's your opinion, i have mine.

[cpiasminc]

I dont think 2xBR is faster than 12xdvd though, I believe a 12x dvd is still faster than a 2x bd on average.
That's pretty much the case. Basically a 2x BD means relatively constant throughput of around 72 Mbps (theoretical) when you are streaming a contiguous block, which is really more or less equivalent to 6.51x DVD speed (again theoretical). A 12x DVD at the innermost track will have a speed ~5.06x (theoretical) meaning it will reach the point of 6.51x at a point ~23% of the way from innermost to outermost (or more accurately, when the radius is ~28.7% greater than the innermost radius).

In practice, all optical drives get real-world throughput that's a quite a bit lower than the theoretical spec except when you're doing something totally ideal (e.g. playing a video disc). Hence why BD video's min spec is 1.5x or 54 Mbps when the practical bitrate limit for video streams is limited to 48 Mbps.

In all cases, you can expect the in-game throughput to be about 70-80% of what the theoretical would be at a given range, and seek times are the things that really kill you -- Bluray's are typically slower on average because the laser head is heavier and the spindle needs to adjust its speed. Though it can sometimes have really fast seeks when you don't need to move really far. The only case where Bluray is significantly faster than DVD is when switching layers.

[woundingchaney]

that's your opinion, i have mine.

Its not an opinion its a valid factual statement, if Im wrong I will accept that but you have to prove it to me (I may infact be wrong). None of these things can be taken as opinion. It not as if I said grey is better than red.


Edit- Thank you Cpias, I could use you quite often LOL

[woundingchaney]

I think some of you guys forgot this: Sony forces developers to work on limited RAM so that they'll try get the best out of it. Once they got that, Sony will give them more RAM so they can do amazing stuff later on. It's simple as that.
That's just Sony's trick. Sony doesn't want to show its cards all at once.

I find that rather unlikely, if that was the case then why do dev kits have more ram than the final hardware. Why wouldnt Sony issue dev kits with 256 ram so they can keep the cannons hidden??

[dantruon]

well there are man developers over there and some are first party too and i think is more trusted if it come from them, im not sure Barbarian is a third or first party developer but im assuming that he is a former, thus i doubt what he has to said.

[Garfunkel]

fine i admit when i was (somewhat) wrong, CPI tell no lie :)

rest assured, the performance difference would not be much to run home about...and may go BD's way depending on the location of data.

[woundingchaney]

fine i admit when i was (somewhat) wrong, CPI tell no lie :)

rest assured, the performance difference would not be much to run home about...

No it wont (you are right) since the PS3 incorporates the HDD download into the games thus increasing loading, without the hdd it is considerably slower.

[Garfunkel]

right, and the HDD is standard.

[woundingchaney]

right, and the HDD is standard.

Thats what I am saying.

[rpgamer_2k5]

When it comes to current technology texturing is very, very important. The PS3 needs all the memory it can get. It utilizes the same basic texturing technology as the 360. For that reason you can compare it to the 360. There are differences, but the two GPU's are very similar when it comes to texturing. The way the Cell manages texture isn't similar to the GPUs. If it was it would be attrocious since the SPEs have memory limitations. If the Cell is able to do efficient texture maping after texture look-up by the RSX then it'd be able to cut a huge load of the memory use.

In the end we'll see how it pans out. The Cell is a real beast in the texture mapping front as well.

[Domination]

MILR, you cannot compare the memory situation of the PS3 to the Xbox 360 or a PC. They are different platforms.

Most operations outside graphics use very little RAM. In fact 128MB of RAM is more than enough for the Cell if used conventionally.

Introducing physics-introducing operations isn't going to require you anything more than a 128MB of RAM, ever. Not even the PhysX PPU. Heck you don't even need 128MB of RAM. They've been doing intensive physics operations for decades on super computers with far less memory. The only memory whore is in the areas of graphics.

Does it mean all graphics or just raster graphics? No the huge memory requirement is used for GPU-esque texture rasterization. RAM is going up primarily because of textures. For anything else, even 128MB of RAM is more than enough. But in PS3s case, Cell does have a few tricks up its sleeve regarding textures.

Just take a look at this:
http://www.gametomorrow.com/minor/barry/frame.jpg

The Cell is pretty strong on its own in the texture front and I don't think memory is a big of a concern. Will have to look it up a bit if I were to conclude that it isn't. This probably increases the probability of the Cell and RSX to cooperate in this area as well in order to allow for very efficient texture mapping.

As for versus 360, this console isn't that comparable in area of memory requirement. For one, the XeCPU has access to high latency memory, and the Xenos has limited bandwidth compared to the RSX. Also the EDRAM really does not solve the high memory requirement for texture rasterization like all other GPUs. It really doesn't seem to matter so there shouldn't be any worry about the 192MB + 224MB of RAM because the PS3 and Xbox 360s memory situation cannot be compared.

OTOH, RSX and Xenos with regarding to texture look-up and computation could be compared. But I'm not sure if this area is blockaded by NDAs.

Since we're on this subject, one title may very well target those points, probably: Army of Two (http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3157507)