750°

PS4′s Memory Analyzed In-Depth, Compared to PS3 RAM

There has been a lot of talk about the memory specs for the PS4. GDDR5. “16x better”. “OMG TEH RAMZ”. But what does it all mean? AMD have talked about the new PS4 APU, but what is the significance of Sony’s choice of a shared GDDR5 memory pool?
-PSLS

Read Full Story >>
playstationlifestyle.net
ftwrthtx4094d ago (Edited 4094d ago )

More polygons = more zombies?

Or is it Kazombies?

decrypt4094d ago

People need to realise this is more about marketing Hype. Ram is cheap 8GB looks huge on paper.

But really you need to look at a system as a complete package. Which means CPU, GPU, Ram etc. Everything counts.

Performance depends on everything working together as a system. If any part of the system underperforms then we end up creating a BOTTLENECK.

Sure the PS4 has 8 gigs of ram, however people need to stop getting carried away. This is more marketing hype. As of today much more powerful GPUs than the 7850(which the PS4 is coming loaded with) cant really make use of more than 2Gigs of ram.

Specially the target resolution for PS4 games 1080p doesnt require more than 1.5 - 1.8 gigs of ram. You can check this fact out by running any game on your PC loading up MSI afterburner and checking memory usage when you load up a game in 1080p.

As you increase the resolution Memory Usage will go up. However at the same time performance will also go down. Generally why this happens is because of GPU limitations. Now even though the PS4 may come with 8gigs of ram loaded on it. The GPU featured in the machine wont really be able to take advantage of all that ram. Essentially what we will have is a BOTTLENECK.

Hence performance of a machine cant be decided mearly on one part of the system. If that was the case people may as well load up their PCs with 32gigs of ram and ignore everything else. Or maybe equip a PC with a 690GTX and throw in a I3 CPU.

In the end Performance of a system depends on everything working together. Just because it has 8 Gigs of ram doesnt mean other BOTTLENECKS wont count. Once again a game requiring that much ram would probably choke and stall the other parts of the machine.

I personally play at a resolution of 5760*1080p (thats 3x 1080p) i barely see current games using 2 gigs of video memory.

JonahNL4094d ago

@decrypt

Yes, RAM is cheap, if we're talking about 8GB of DDR3 ram. The PS4 features 8GB of GDDR5 RAM. It's RAM that's shared between the GPU and CPU.

reynod4094d ago (Edited 4094d ago )

@ZidaneNL

GPUs come equipped with GDDR5 ram too, its not something new.

Check out the price difference between a 2GB Model and a 4GB model:

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

The price difference is only 50usd for 2GB, when we consider Sony will be buying in bulk, thats not a lot of money. Infact it would be about what DDR3 costs. Lets not forget the ram on this GPU is much faster than the one PS4 is coming equipped with. Hence PS4 version would be even cheaper.

Blacktric4094d ago

"As of today much more powerful GPUs than the 7850(which the PS4 is coming loaded with) cant really make use of more than 2Gigs of ram."

Are you really comparing a PC architechture and software, including games, made for that architechture (to fit billions of different combinations of GPU, RAM and CPU types) to a single console's? I mean haven't we passed this stage yet?

nveenio4094d ago

Decrypt, your resolution isn't 3x 1080p. It IS 1080p. Your width is 3x 1920, though, but that's vertical lines, not horizontal.

reynod4094d ago

Lol at people disagreeing on GDDR 5 prices, specially when i have linked the differences on hardware being sold with even faster GDDR 5 than the one going to release on PS4.

People desperately want to believe GDDR 5 is something new and expensive lol.

Ju4094d ago

First, we need to really clean up with the myth there are cards "much more" powerful than the 7850.

First, 1.84TF is somewhere between the 7850 and 7870.

Second, each vendor has one (!) series of cards which is faster than this. AMDs 79xx series (7950/7970/7990 they are all the same but vary in frequency and number of cores) and NVidia with everything above the GT660 (Titan is a 680?).

So, please, the 78xx family is a quite capable GPU. Not the final product in the line, but it doesn't need a nuclear reactor as a power supply either.

Second, the amount RAM does not only define resolution. E.g. See KZ Shadow Fall uses vertex/texture instancing to model that scene. A GPU still needs to render those vertices; but instancing is used to actually save memory. It does not make the GPU faster (still needs to transform each array for each pass). Now, with more memory you could actually give each build its own vertices. Make them more individual. Same with textures.

Would it increase resolution? Probably not. But this world in KZ Shadow Fall could contain way more unique buildings and it would not impact performance.

Third: This is shared memory. This is a picture book architecture to use the CPU and GPU in combination. Nothing like this has been done on a PC. The impact this could have cannot be used as a baseline what current PC games can do. It opens up new possibility which you can never do on PC (not with 6GB GDDR - since this is hardly accessible from the CPU on a PC). But e.g. share vertex buffers between GPU and CPU; use the CPU to do animations while the GPU does physics. Things like that. We just don't know what's feasible just yet.

The only bottleneck (Do you know what that actually is?) is that, all those compute units have to share this enormous bandwidth. It might stall one unit if another one allocates the bus for too long. But other than that, there is no bottleneck in this machine; it certainly isn't the amount of RAM.

The article is useless, because it certainly doesn't analyze anything but uses simple math with theoretical numbers and the outcome is a trivial multiplier. I guess we all know that. I'd be curious to see the GDDR impact on the CPU, for example. A little be more in depth. This article is really shallow. But then, it gives a nice overview.

Omni-Tool4094d ago (Edited 4094d ago )

@decrypt

Either you did not read the article or you do not understand its contents. They compared the bit rates between cpu, gpu and memory on the ps3 to the theoretical bit rates on the ps4. These are the "bottleneck" speeds you are referring to and quite frankly look pretty beast even by PC standards.

10 years from now, we will be looking back at this and think "How did we make it all work with such limited resources?". Technology is amazing but it really does evolve at a pace that makes longevity of a single device seem trivial to the LTE of technology as a whole.

BISHOP-BRASIL4094d ago

@Ju

Take your common sense elsewhere, I want to lauch at internet wannabe experts! /sarcasm

Seriously now, very good point, the main thing people are missing here is that all this memory is for the APU (i.e. shared by CPU and GPU), completelly diferent from the way PC games are developed.

And I would also add to the point those "no load" functions and all that instant connectivity, those things are going to be memory hogs needing a lot of alocation.

And what about Gaikai, we don't know if, on PS4, it will remain the pure stream service we already know on PCs that's usually unreliable (because ISPs are unreliable) or if they'll try a stream to memory and play it from there approach... So it can also be a huge reason to have more memory.

Everything about those 8GB of faster RAM points not at a marketing stunt, but at making more memory availlable so devs can use it in new ways.

fatstarr4093d ago

sony fans take everything sony does as gospel and brand new news...

people clamoring over GDDR5 memory when they know nothing about it.... which ever comments have the most disagrees = the un-deluded truth.

Morpheuzpr4093d ago

@fatstarr

Well if you know so much about the matter why don't you make an in dept analysis including the differences, advantages and disadvantages of both types of memory as well as real world examples of situations were each may come in to play and how could those hurdles can be overcome by the developers?

fullmetal2974093d ago (Edited 4093d ago )

@bishop-br
The video card's GGDR5 memory is used when a PC is rendering the video game while the system memory is resevered for background applications and OS.

Say for example you are playing a game that uses about 1.5gb of ram and you have a video card that has 2gb of GDDR5 RAM. Any game-related data transfered between the video card, CPU, and Hard Drive will be handled by the much high-bandwidth GDDR5 RAM while the system memory still retains the background programs.

If you don't believe me then launch a game from a PC with high-end video card (assuming that you have one), then start task manager. You should see the amount memory the game is taking up, but not see a difference in amount physical memory being used. That's because task manager only measures your system memory.

Furthermore, APUs are nothing new to begin with. AMD has released their Llano and Trinity APU along with the coexisting FM1 and FM2 socket for these chipsets back in 2011 and 2012. The PS4 has a beefier version of the A-10 Trinity from the sound of things, quite possibly AMD's FX Processor with intergrated 7000 graphics.

fatstarr4092d ago (Edited 4092d ago )

@Morpheuzpr why waste my time? ive done things like that in the past dissecting why a pc with a gtx 260, 4gb of ram and a dual core Pentium could beat a ps3 in terms of graphics capability.

I even did an in-depth analysis, backed with logic and evidence. only to get 100s of disagrees to something proven. its like that for every pro Sony article when you shed some truth in.

in all honesty, I rather not waste my time explaining things in detail. people are gonna be ignorant so I let them be ignorant, until their favorite company feeds them some shit that they then take as the word of the land.

ps4's specs wont be put to use until 2014/2015. no dev can maximize those specs and claim this project "pushes the graphical boundaries," the project would need at least 2 years of dev time. and even if it did, it could then be optimized, remade and rebuilt to be better than it is. but devs... meh thats not gonna happen.

people were in a land of delusion thinking ps3 graphics look like a godsend and the wiius are trash... then at the flick of a switch ps3 looks ugly because ps4 is here.

I could literally write a thesis from my 6 years spent on n4g observing the behavior of the users and the comments.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 4092d ago
50Terabytespersec4094d ago

THIS IS NO JOKE THE AMOUNT OF RAM ON THE PS4 will define the next generation! The old way that consoles worked was based on limitations that forced developers to make clever compromises and push the hardware to get meager results after the miniscule Ram limitation was reached!! BUT !Now with the doors wide open with this much RAM! we will see the world of gaming so massive and so rich that the limit will be the hard drive on your PS4 or the Bluray disc! Expect to see to Bluray disc games! All that delicious mega texture graphics and Compresses textures !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Drooool. PS4 ! Thank You Sony!!! Please put in Support for SSD Drives !!!

TheRealSpy4094d ago

You do realize everything you're saying is exactly what people were saying at the beginning of this generation, right? Over time, the hardware will inevitably have limitations.

Persistantthug4094d ago (Edited 4094d ago )

Back then, you may have heard some people tepidly say it was 'Enough' ram.
But today, in 2013, for 8GB, You can genuinely and rightfully say, 'Thats ALOT of ram'.
We haven't actually had this dynamic in disk based Consoles before.

Ram is usually one of the first things that's skimped on....but not this time.
It's kinda exciting. :)

kreate4094d ago (Edited 4094d ago )

512 was not a lot of ram even in 2001 when xp came out, let alone 2005. 512 Isnt impressive at all, it actually sucks.

I understand console and pc is different but just sayin'

decimalator4094d ago

you can put an ssd in the ps3 now. I doubt they will offer a model with ssd included, not until the prices get closer per gig to spinning disks

portal_24094d ago

When they say 8GB - they mean 8192MB

fatstarr4093d ago (Edited 4093d ago )

you can never have enough ram, 8gb in 2013 is the equivalent to 1gb back in 2005.

everything changes but nothing changes.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."- billgates 1981.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4093d ago
pain777pas4094d ago

Go look at UC3 or GoW ascension on 256 split with XDR and DDR3 respectively. Now think more shaders, polygons... plus 8GIGS DDR5. Mass Effect can be realized, Elder Scrolls can be surpassed etc... this is no joke of a leap not in graphics alone. 4gigs of a game could be stored in ram at a high transfer speed. This will cut down on loading times along with 6X BD. This is no joke guys plus HD in every console presumably.

FamilyGuy4094d ago

The ram will allow for more uniquely render objects on screen, faster loading (no more pop-in textures) and larger environments. Imagine gigantic open world games that are more realistic because you're not seeing the same tree 130x with lots more unique objects in the players view.

Decrypts argument about bottlenecks is that the PS4 doesnt need that much ram because it's gpu won't be able to make use of it.

The (seemingly excessive) ram will be for a multitude of things: Having upcoming cut-scenes and environments pre-loaded so that we don't get loading screens, saving our progress at an exact location anywhere in the game without having to restart from a save point, having our progress saved so that we can leave a game, do something else, then jump right back in where we last left off without going through a games launch screens, even after powering down the system. Multi-tasking; it was already shown that we can video chat with friends while playing games (the 360 only did this on a select few downloadable titles like poker and uno).

Even if it is excessive developers will find a use for it or at the very least feel less restrained by what they can do compared to the PS3.

popup4093d ago

About as in depth as a paddling pool.

kamikazepikmin4093d ago

who cares, anyways, read this very interesting article http://news.cnet.com/8301-1...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4092d ago
4094d ago Replies(1)
dbjj120884094d ago

It totally puts PS3 ram to shame.

konnerbllb4094d ago ShowReplies(4)
Show all comments (104)
270°

AMD gaming revenue declined massively year-over-year, CFO says the demand is 'weak'

Poor Xbox sales have affected AMD’S bottom line

Read Full Story >>
tweaktown.com
RonsonPL13d ago

Oh wow. How surprising! Nvidia overpriced their RTX cards by +100% and AMD instead of offering real competition, decided to join Nvidia in their greedy approach, while not having the same mindshare as Nvidia (sadly) does. The 7900 launch was a marketing disaster. All the reviews were made while the card was not worth the money at all, they lowered the price a bit later on, but not only not enough but also too late and out of "free marketing" window coming along with the new card generation release. Then the geniuses at AMD axed the high-end SKUs with increased cache etc, cause "nobody will buy expensive cards to play games" while Nvidia laughed at them selling their 2000€ 4090s.
Intel had all the mindshare among PC enthusiasts with their CPUs. All it took was a competetive product and good price (Ryzen 7000 series and especially 7800x3d) and guess what? AMD regained the market share in DYI PCs in no time! The same could've have happened with Radeon 5000, Radeon 6000 and Radeon 7000.
But meh. Why bother. Let's cancell high-end RDNA 4 and use the TSMC wafers for AI and then let the clueless "analysts" make their articles about "gaming demand dwingling".

I'm sure low-end, very overpriced and barely faster if not slower RDNA4 will turn things around. It will have AI and RT! Two things nobody asked for, especially not gamers who'd like to use the PC for what's most exciting about PC gaming (VR, high framerate gaming, hi-res gaming).
8000 series will be slow, overpriced and marketed based on its much improved RT/AI... and it will flop badly.
And there will be no sane conclusions made at AMD about that. There will be just one, insane: Gaming is not worth catering to. Let's go into AI/RT instead, what could go wrong..."

Crows9012d ago

What would you say would be the correct pricing for new cards?

Very insightful post!

RonsonPL12d ago

That's a complicated question. Depends on what you mean. The pricing at the release date or the pricing planned ahead. They couldn't just suddenly end up in a situation where their existing stock of 6000 cards is suddenly unsellable, but if it was properly rolled out, the prices should be where they were while PC gaming industry was healthy. I recognize the arguments about inflation, higher power draw and PCB/BOM costs, more expensive wafers from TSMC etc. but still, PC gaming needs some sanity to exist and be healthy. Past few years were very unhealthy and dangerous to whole PC gaming. AMD should recognize this market is very good for them as they have advantage in software for gaming and other markets while attractive short term, may be just too difficult to compete at. AI is the modern day gold rush and Nvidia and Intel can easily out-spend AMD on R&D. Meanwhile gaming is tricky for newcomers and Nvidia doesn't seem to care that much about gaming anymore. So I would argue that it should be in AMDs interest to even sell some Radeon SKUs at zero profit, just to prevent the PC gaming from collapsing. Cards like 6400 and 6500 should never exist at their prices. This tier was traditionally "office only" and priced at 50$ in early 2000s. Then we have Radeons 7600 which is not really 6-tier card. Those were traditionally quite performant cards based on wider than 128-bit memory bus. Also 8GB is screaming "low end". So I'd say the 7600 should've been available at below 200$ (+taxes etc.) as soon as possible, at least for some cheaper SKUs.For faster cards, the situation is bad for AMD, because people spending like $400+ are usually fairly knowledgable and demanding. While personally I don't see any value in upscallers and RT for 400-700$ cards, the fact is that especially DLSS is a valuable feature for potential buyers. Therefore, even 7800 and 7900 cards should be significantly cheaper than they currently are. People knew what they were paying for when buying Radeon 9700, 9800, X800, 4870 etc. They were getting gaming experience truly unlike console or low-end PC gaming. By all means, let's have expensive AMD cards for even above $1000, but first, AMD needs to show value. Make the product attractive. PS5 consoles can be bought at 400$. If AMD offers just a slightly better upscalled image on the 400$ GPU, or their 900$ GPU cannot even push 3x as many fps compared to cheap consoles, the pricing acts like cancer on PC gaming. And poor old PC gaming can endure only so much.

MrCrimson12d ago

I appreciate your rant sir, but it has very little to do with gpus. It is the fact that the PS5 and Xbox are in end cycle before a refresh.

RonsonPL11d ago

Yes, but also no. AMD let their PC GPU marketshare to shrink by a lot (and accidentally helped the whole market shrink in general due to bad value of PC GPUs over the years) and while their console business may be important here, I'd still argue their profits from GPU division could've been much better if not for mismanagement.

bababooiy12d ago

This is something many have argued over the last few years when it comes to AMD. The days of them selling their cards at a slight discount while having a similar offering are over. Its not just a matter of poor drivers anymore, they are behind on everything.

RNTody12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

Great post. I went for a Nvidia RTX 3060Ti which was insane value for money when I look at the fidelity and frame rates I can push in most games including new releases. Can't justify spending 3 times what my card cost at the time to get marginal better returns or the big sell of "ray tracing", which is a nice to have feature but hardly essential given what it costs to maintain.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 11d ago
12d ago Replies(1)
KwietStorm_BLM12d ago

Well that's gonna happen when you don't really try. I want to support AMD so badly and give Nvidia some actual competition but they don't very much seem interested in challenging, by their own accord. I been waiting for them to attack the GPU segment the same way they took over CPU, but they just seem so content with handing Nvidia the market year after year, and it's happening again this year with their cancelled high end card.

MrCrimson12d ago

I think you're going to see almost zero interest from AMD or Nvidia on the gaming GPU market. They are all in on AI.

RhinoGamer8812d ago

No Executive bonuses then...right?

enkiduxiv12d ago

What are smoking? Got to layoff your way to those bonuses. Fire 500 employees right before Christmas. That should get you there.

Tapani12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

Well, if you are 48% down in Q4 in your Gaming sector as they are, which in absolute money terms is north of 500M USD, then you are not likely to get at least your quarterly STI, but can be applicable for annual STI. The LTI may be something you are still eligible for, such as RSUs or other equity and benefits, especially if they are based on the company total result rather than your unit. All depends on your contract and AMD's reward system.

MrCrimson12d ago

Lisa Su took AMD from bankruptcy to one of the best semiconductor companies on the planet. AMD from 2 dollars a share to 147. She can take whatever she wants.

Tapani12d ago

You are not wrong about what she did for AMD and that is remarkable. However, MNCs' Rewards schemes do not work like "take whatever you want, because you performed well in the past".

darksky12d ago

AMD prcied their cards thinking that they will sell out just like in the mining craze. I suspect reality has hit home when they realized most gamers cannot afford to spend over $500 for a gpu.

Show all comments (33)
100°

Make your next GPU upgrade AMD as these latest-gen Radeon cards receive a special promotion

AMD has long been the best value option if you're looking for a new GPU. Now even their latest Radeon RX 7000 series is getting cheaper.

Father__Merrin22d ago

Best for the money is the Arc cards

just_looken22d ago

In the past yes but last gen amd has gotten cheaper and there new cards are on the horizon making 6k even cheaper.

The arc cards are no longer made by intel but asus/asrock has some the next line battlemage is coming out prices tbd.

Do to the longer software development its always best to go amd over intel if its not to much more money even though intel is a strong gpu i own 2/4 card versions.

270°

AMD FSR 3.1 Announced at GDC 2024, FSR 3 Available and Upcoming in 40 Games

Last September, we unleashed AMD FidelityFX™ Super Resolution 3 (FSR 3)1 on the gaming world, delivering massive FPS improvements in supported games.

Read Full Story >>
community.amd.com
Eonjay53d ago (Edited 53d ago )

So to put 2 and 2 together... FSR 3.1 is releasing later this year and the launch game to support it is Rachet and Clank: Rift Apart. In Sony's DevNet documentation it shows Rachet and Clank: Rift Apart as the example for PSSR. PS5 Pro also launches later this year... but there is something else coming too: AMD RDNA 4 Cards (The very same technology thats in the Pro). So, PSSR is either FSR 3.1 or its a direct collaboration with AMD for that builds on FSR 3.1. Somehow they are related. I think PSSR is FSR 3.1 with the bonus of AI... now lets see if RDNA 4 cards also include an AI block.

More details:
FSR 3.1 fixes Frame Generation
If you have a 30 series RTX card you can now use DLSS3 with FSR Frame Generation (No 40 Series required!)
Its Available on all Cards (we assume it will come to console)
Fixes Temporal stability

MrDead52d ago

I've been using a mod that allows dlss frame gen on my 3080 it works on all rtx series. It'll be good not to rely on mods for the future.

darksky52d ago

The mods avaiable are actually using FSR3 frame gen but with DLSS or FSR2 upscaling.

Babadook752d ago (Edited 52d ago )

I think that the leaks about the 5 Pro would debunk the notion that the two (FSR 3.1 and PSSR) are the same technology. PSSR is a Sony technology.

MrDead53d ago (Edited 53d ago )

I wonder how much they fixed the ghosting in dark areas as Nvidia are leaving them in the dust with image quality. Still good that they are improving in big leaps, I'll have to see when the RTX5000 series is released who I go with... at the moment the RTX5000's are sounding like monsters.

just_looken53d ago

Did you see the dell leaks were they are trying to cool cards using over 1k watts of power.

We are going to need 220 lines for next gen pcs lol

MrDead52d ago

That's crazy! Sounds like heating my house won't be a problem next winter.

porkChop52d ago

As much as I hate supporting Nvidia, AMD just doesn't even try to compete. Their whole business model is to beat Nvidia purely on price. But I'd rather pay for better performance and better features. AMD also doesn't even try to innovate. They just follow Nvidia's lead and make their own version of whatever Nvidia is doing. But they're always 1 or 2 generations behind when it comes to those software/driver innovations, so Nvidia is always miles ahead in quality and performance.

MrDead52d ago

I do a lot of work on photoshop so an Intel Nvidia set up has been the got to because of performance edge, more expensive but far more stable too. Intel also have the edge over AMD processors with better load distribution on the cores, less spikes and jitters. When you're working large format you don't want lag or spikes when you're editing or drawing.

I do think AMD has improved massively though and whist I don't think they threaten Nvidia on the tech side they do make very well priced cards and processors for the power. I'm probably going with a 5080 or 5090 but AMD will get a little side look from me, which is a first in a long time... but like you said they are a generation or two behind at the moment.

Goosejuice51d ago

While I can't argue for amd gpu, they aren't bad but they aren't great either. The cpu for amd have great. I would argue the 7800x3d as one of the best cpu for gaming right now. Idk about editing so I take ur word for that but gaming amd cpu is a great option these days.

porkChop51d ago

@Goosejuice

I have a 7800X3D. It certainly is great for gaming. Though for video editing, rendering, etc, I think Intel have the advantage from what I remember. I just mean from a GPU standpoint I can't support them.