Crytek CEO drops possible hint at 8GB of RAM in next-gen consoles

Crysis boss would like MS/Sony to quadruple memory capacity to 32GB

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Septic1961d ago

Well, he didn't really drop a hint, he just stated that he would like 8GB of RAM.

MS and Sony really need to give the developers what they want; they are the lifeblood of the industry after all.

Can you imagine having that much RAM? That would really be a huge jump and would go a long way in ensuring that the new consoles are future proof.

Here's hoping.

Rainstorm811961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

Actually he said he would like 32 GB, which I doubt would happen , but it would be awesome for console owners and future games and console functionality

Cueil1961d ago

16 gigs would be a little over kill I think, but 8 gigs would be right about where you'd need it.

NewMonday1961d ago

not even top tier gaming rigs need 32g RAM

ProjectVulcan1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

SNES: 192kb RAM (system, video)
Playstation: 3 megabytes (system, video)
Playstation2: 36mb (system, video)
Xbox 360: 522mb (system, eDRAM)
Wii U: 2GB (total system)

You can see that consoles not always considered the fastest managed leaps of over 10 times the memory in generations lasting a shorter time than the present one.

Wii u is anomalous because although out 7 years after the present generation began, it does share similar performance and just takes advantage of the fact RAM prices are constantly dropping.

Next generation? Really 8GB is pretty realistic I would say and follows the trend perfectly well so is a believable number for a dev to say.

It would be quite a lot if it were all say GDDR5, but by the time the consoles come out (lets assume 12 months) it won't be a big deal. Even some budget class PC video cards are getting 2GB dumped on their boards now e.g 7770 and GTX650. Expect everything new high end next year in the spring to have 4GB+ just for video obviously.

Autodidactdystopia1961d ago

ps2 had 32mb

ps3 came out and had 512 which was 16 times the amount previous.

in spite of that fact they still ended up severely behind in the memory department by end of gen so much so whole games are designed around the limitation.

so i dont really think 8gb is "right where you need it" if past is anything to run on you would be better off with 16 for "future proof"

ram is pretty much the most critical part of a computer/ any microprocessor machine. it determines the jobsize and the more you have it doesnt matter if the cpu is a little slower because you have plenty of space to tinker with instead of using all your cycles for decompression of textures and model data.

gta 7 would more greatly benefit from 16 gb of ram than a superfast processor.

just the same as the ps3 is not capable of processing all 50gb of data at once on its bluray but that 50gb of space makes longer games and more variety in gameworlds possible that if the ps3 didnt have bluray and only had a proc/gpu that was 2x as fast it wouldnt be able to do what it does today with these gigantic gameworlds without abundant repettition of rooms/environments in short amounts of time.

sourav931961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )


NoFanboyRequired1961d ago

32GB's is just overkill. The same can be said with 16GB's.

Computers just finally required/needed 8GB's of RAM like, what, a few years ago?

To be honest, i think 4GB's would be enough for a console, especially seeing as they are't running off of a more demanding OS as PC's are.

But, if the Dev's want 8GB's, they should get it. Thees companies really need to start listening to thees people, seeing as they bring the life out of the consoles.

darthv721961d ago

should be balanced with what you intend to do. We compare consoles to PC's when that really isnt the right comparison. PC's have more overhead so the notion of having 4+gb of RAM makes sense. you have the OS and background apps to deal with on top of other things like web browsing and office apps and games. That is why a PC has so much more power than a console. It litterally has to be able to do more.

A console...its main function is simply to play games. They added features that are typical of PC's as a convenience. Even modern TV's can run web browsers and netflix and the such so it isnt like consoles are under extreme conditions to warrant such amounts of memory.

the idea of the more memory the better is partially true. Because when you look at it from a PC perspective, applications and games arent generally run from the media (hdd/cd/dvd...) they are copied into RAM and run from there. Consoles use that as well but they also rely on the media more than the RAM because that is where everything is stored and streamed from.

The wii-u and its 4gb is a split design much like the PS3. No doubt the next xbox will have a unified design like the 360 because its more efficient and offer flexibility in being able to allocate the memory depending on the duty. Perhaps the next PS will follow the same trend?

If there is to be 8gb total, i would imagine the ideal split (if they split it) would be 2gb max for GPU and 6gb for everything else. Unless these new systems use the GPGPU design and then a split isnt as efficient. A dynamic allocation makes more sense.

in some cases, background processing might not require as many resources so the remainder of the memory can be used for graphics processing and final rendering.

Bottom line is we know the next systems will NOT have any less than 4gb but anything over 8gb would be a waste. Unless they are designing these systems to replace a PC for business apps and video editing.

sikbeta1961d ago

He said 4 or 5 times the RAM = 32GB

Going by rumors:

XBX3 Dev Kits = 16GB = double the RAM for Devs = 8GB final

PS4 = 4GB = double RAM for Devs = 2GB of faster RAM (GDDR5)

SilentNegotiator1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

You make it 32GB and then EVERYTHING else becomes a bottleneck (supposing you're not creating a veritable super-computer for consumers).

8GB would be perfectly reasonable, if not still unnecessarily high.

1961d ago
Dasteru1960d ago


"ps3 came out and had 512 which was 16 times the amount previous"

Yes but you have to remember that PC's at that time had already been capable of 4Gb of Ram for quite a while, and some games were already using that much, especially once you got into heavy modding. and it was no more than 6 months after the PS3's release that high end motherboards started to support 8Gb.

No game right now currently uses more than 6Gb of Ram without heavy modding.

Also moore's law has been degrading significantly over the last 5-6 years, we are getting close to the theoretical limits of silicon based computing. The improvement in hardware over the next 10 years is highly unlikely to be anywhere near the improvements over the last 10 years.

If Sony and MS were to release their new console with 8Gb it would be likely to last fairly well.

Dasteru1960d ago


"PS4 = 4GB = double RAM for Devs = 2GB of faster RAM (GDDR5)"

GDDR5 stands for Graphics double data rate v5, It is VRam not DIM Ram.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1960d ago
TopDudeMan1961d ago

I think they should have at least that. RAM is so cheap now.

Shikoro1961d ago

Jesus, I keep saying this over and over again in these kind of articles. No, the RAM isn't cheap. This isn't your usual RAM you buy on Newegg. This RAM needs to be very fast and have a much greater bandwidth if you want it to work in a console as it should...

Lior1961d ago

what is the point games in the next 5 years will be using under 10gb of ram

BlmThug1961d ago

Does anyone see the hint?! "quadruple memory capacity to 32GB" suggests the current memory capacity is 8GB

MastaPiff1961d ago

I vetting sick of Cevat Yerli, he needs to STFU already & make sure Crysis 3 isn't riddled with 100's of glitches upon release like Crysis 2. You need to be alking about how you are taking steps in QA to make sure that don't happen again...

This guy runs his mouth every day talking about everything except how he's gonna not let Crytek drop the ball again on QA...
/end rant

1961d ago
showtimefolks1961d ago

do we really need that much Ram? on a pc its different because pc's are used in so many different way or am i missing the point?

i think its a pretty safe bet that both ps4,xbox720 will have at the very very least 4GB ram and i can see both ms and sony going as much as 6-8. Ram is cheap so i rather just have 8GB for future uses or when developers in future may need more rap to do their thing.

i want to ask a question? how many people on N4g are planning to buying a next gen system at launch? which are you buying and why? are are you buying both ps4,xbox720? what about the system from Valve?

I myself want a ps4 just because i been a playstation fan since day one, also with family,job,kids i really don't have time for even one console so buying more than one is pretty useless for me.

I may buy ps4 at launch but i may wait since both ps3,xbox360 will get developer support for foreseeable future. and i don't want to buy a system have 10 games in 1st year and than wait another year before games start rolling in. i see both ps3 and xbox360 get most if not all the games that come out within next 2-3 years just because the Install bases for both platforms are high.

HD_GAMER19891961d ago

TBH doesnt matter how much ram sony or ms puts in their next consoles, itll most likely be generic slow ram to cut costs. unless they put g skill high performance memory wont make that much of a difference. But i would like to see a sony console with a fluid 60 fps in game xmb. i bought 8gbs of generic ram for my laptop and i didnt notice the extra 4 gigs at all just goes to show when it comes to pc upgrades the brand and quality counts for more than quantity.

hellvaguy1958d ago

The highest end pcs currently dont benefit from more that 4GB. Imo 8GB is pretty dang future proof and it would be other components bottlenecking the system beyond 4GB like graphics and hard drive mainly.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1958d ago
Baka-akaB1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

Sure i can see any of the consoles manufacturers twist their wallet for the whims of a studio with no major console hit yet on their hands (crysis sold a few millions but nothing like Crysis and what they probably hoped) .

Cueil1961d ago

Epic basicly forced Microsoft to double their ram... through the use of tech demos... an amusing story if you've not read about it yet.

hellvaguy1958d ago (Edited 1958d ago )

Not sure how you came to the made up conclusion that Epic has the magical power to force MS hand to double ram. Now its been written they highly recommended it, but sorry they cant force another company to do thier every bidding.

Link plz or it didnt happen.

Baka-akaB1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

True but epic is an actual force on consoles , have been for a while . Crytek ? hardly

Septic1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

I disagree. Crytek are known for pushing the limits and whilst historically, they don't have the legacy Epic have, being relatively new to the industry, from the outset, they showed the industry exactly what they were/are capable of.

I think Crytek has a very important voice in the industry and am quite confident that their requests aren't falling on deaf ears.

Time will tell I guess.

NoFanboyRequired1961d ago

I haven't disagreed with you yet, but we'll wait and see about that once they release that NextBox exclusive, RYSE, they've been working on.

Also, I'm pretty sure its a controller/Kinect2.0 game (Hopefully) even though Kinect2.0 may be promising if the input lag is greatly reduced.

rainslacker1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

It doesn't really matter. They make a powerful engine that pushes things to the limit, and they are well respected in the game developer's community. Any company would be silly to ignore what they say.

In the end though, they will not put more in than they believe would be necessary to carry it through the generation. A lot of people say RAM is cheap so it's no big deal, but those few dollars for extra, often unnecessary parts, adds up when you figure it over 60-70 million units sold. Just because Crytek says they want it doesn't mean they will get it, unless they can offer a strong reason on why it is needed for the long term survival of the console. Epic made a good case on increasing Xbox's RAM, so MS rightfully increased the memory.

andrewer1961d ago

Scientists say: PCs can reach 32GB of RAM...
Haha just kidding it is completely different, because consoles only or...mainly use their RAM for the games, while PCs need that amount of RAM for other stuff. I want to know how will this be.

Tsar4ever011961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

Well, They say next-gen Nexbox & Orbis will both be running x86-64 bit chip-sets. And the last time I checked, a 64bit chip-set supports up to 16GB RAM so even if by FATE's WILLING, both consoles get 8GB of RAM, The consoles chip-set STILL wouldn't be fully utilized to it fullest memory capability.

pandehz1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

64 bit architecture can use upto 128 gb of ram.

Dunno if theres a motherboard to put 128gb ram or if higher amounts of ram exist like 4 sticks of 32

mcstorm1961d ago

I don't see this happening. I don't see the next Xbox or PS4 having much more power than the WiiU.

As long as the console run games at 1080p at 60fps that will do me.

I also think Both Sony and MS will look for the £300 mark when there consoles come out and I also see the next Xbox having an improved Kinect system and maybe a controller like the wiiU with integrated Smart Glass.

I also see the PS3 having a updated eye toy and improved Move controller. But all this will be bundled with the console from day one so developers will take advantage of the hardware rather than making it an add on to a game.

Cueil1961d ago

Microsoft may not be afraid of that top end price... they can lower the entry fee with subscription rates.

MariaHelFutura1961d ago

So you basically think are going to repackage their current systems.

mcstorm1961d ago

@MariaHelFutura No I just don't think there will be a big jump in power like we saw last gen because there dose not need to be.

The WiiU is more powerful than the 360 and PS3 but people think its not because the processor is not clocked as fast.

Just because a processor is not clocked as fast dose not mean it is slower as its newer technology.

I think its funny home some gamers only talk about power when it comes to consoles. People have short memory's.

ProjectVulcan1961d ago

"The WiiU is more powerful than the 360 and PS3 but people think its not because the processor is not clocked as fast"

People think its not because.....its not. It is in the ballpark, but not exactly blowing their socks off and never will. Not least of all because it seems no matter what it is running, there is a hard ceiling of 35 watts TDP and thus not a lot of headroom to exploit.

FlairSomewhere1961d ago

WiiU power / watt is superb.
It doesn't use more than 33 watts, whereas ps3 & 360 are somewhere around 60-66 watts.

hivycox1961d ago

Why do everybody see themselves as engineers nowaday?!...

I don't claim to know everything about specs but I can tell you that the wii u has a diffenrent architecture which doesn't require a fast CPU..and maybe it doesn't need much power don' know...nobody don't talk about things nobody can possibly know...and don't come with these tech sites.. most of them are only looking for numbers

ProjectVulcan1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

I am actually an engineer though :-/

Wii U's performance whether you want to believe that CPU performance doesn't matter anymore (it still does...) is blatantly not significantly more than Ps3 or 360.

The FACT that no matter what game it is playing its power consumption doesn't really change is very convincing evidence that the machine hasn't got huge potential left untapped.

One glance at say 360 titles early on showed there was a pretty big gap between what power Gears of War pulled down, and a lesser optimised titles...

This is because Gears heavily exploited the machine more than games of that time.

hivycox1961d ago


Well than you are on of the few people out there who can talk legit ;)

But like you said: Once a game comes along which pushes the wii u like no game did befor..than I think many will see the true power of that system..

You know..I have faith in was like the time when the original wii was released...everybody was throwing with numbers
But Nintendo delivere...graphically insane titles like galaxy...or zelda..or even Metroid... I was impressed what Big N could do with a weak system like the wii was...

The same will happen with the Wii u...people aren't expecting a graphical leap at all... But I'm very optimistic about this...

take care ;)

Amsterdamsters1961d ago the guy with the reply about the Wii U not being more powerful because the power supply is only 35 watts where as the 360 has a 60 + watt has to be kidding. I too am an engineer and if you believe this, you're out of your league.

By your logic, my 386 computer with a 300 watt power supply must be 28.5 times more powerful than my iPad 2 (10.5 watts). How much power (watts) the system takes has zero to do with the processing capability of the unit. The CPU/GPU in the Wii U are of a much newer technology than the PS360 and are far more energy efficient.

mcstorm1961d ago

amsterdamsters well said. This is the point i have been trying to get across. The old xbox had a different power supply to the new one so is that more powerful than the new xbox?

This is new technology so will use less and also needs less cooling so less chance of over heating.

At the end of the day no one knows what ms or sony are going to do next on here so we will have to wait for the to show us but i do believe there wont be much difference between the wiiu and the next 2 consoles in terms of power.

ProjectVulcan1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

Nobody in this thread of discussion said Wii U isn't more powerful because it doesn't draw as much power as Xbox 360.

For an engineer amsterdamsters you sure don't read very well!

What I said was that Wii U is obviously not significantly faster than 360/PS3. Otherwise everything would run better right out the box if that were the case, all the ports would run better easily. Like they do for example on a PC that is significantly faster. This leaves Wii U somewhere really in the ballpark of 360/PS3 maybe a small bit faster, but a bit, at absolute best. Give or take a bit here or there, it isn't massively faster. It is obvious it isn't. Not only that, it never will be.

Why? My point was that Nintendo look like they have a machine with a restricted TDP. No doubt to keep the amount of heat dissipated under tight control in the smaller volume of the unit. Probably even has quite advanced hardware throttling and power management software.

There is so little variance between games it is unusual, because the amount of power drawn on other systems can vary quite a lot game to game, depending on how hard the machine is pushed. It is uncapped essentially, only limited by how many processor cycles the developer can utilise and the chipset's maximum draw itself.

Wii U is not designed this way and it'll be proven in time that there is not a huge amount of performance in there to be unlocked with such a severe TDP restriction.

Nintendo have managed to get really great performance per watt (which has been seen previously in this thread) which is to be expected.

Can't say I am too amazed about that though nor does it really give Nintendo any 'green' credentials considering they constantly get slammed by eco groups for their extremely eco unfriendly way of business....

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1961d ago
SAE1961d ago

So far , wii u is not better then current generation in gaming , we still didnt see any game that have wow factor like mgs gz / watch dog / the last of us ..etc

CaptainN1960d ago

So the Zelda tech demo at E3 didn't provide you with the wow factor, considering it was running off the actual Wii-U hardware??? Or how about the flying bird demo??? It amazes me how people tend to forget that those were showing off the power of the system yet people want these things day one at launch. Give them time to make the games !!

TimeSkipLuffy1961d ago

It's all about specs. Marketing will require higher specs to hit BigN where it will hurt the most.
Though BigN will never play the hardware game it is a prestige thing between MS and Sony.

lilbroRx1961d ago

It didn't hurt Nintendo this gen, why will it hurt them in the next?

stragomccloud1961d ago

It's funny you say that they never play "the hardware game," when the only time Nintendo didn't play, "the hardware game" was last generation.

mcstorm1961d ago

@stragomccloud I was about to say the same thing. People are just so fickle when it come to technology.

I remember getting my PS1 and people were going on about how it did not matter if the N64 was more powerful as it was about the games and the same was said about the PS2. Now the PS3 is out all they go on about is how much more power the PS3 has over the other two.

It really dose not matter how powerful something is its how it works for you.

MasterCornholio1961d ago (Edited 1961d ago )

Get rid of the pricey controller from the package and you will have a lot of money left over to spend on better hardware. This is why i believe the PS4 and the 720 (if priced at 400€) will be a lot more powerful than the Wii U.



"Though BigN will never play the hardware game"

They did in the past with the Gamecube and N64 but it turned out horrible for them especially the N64.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1960d ago
corrus1961d ago

HAHAHA and you didn't believe me when i said that next gen consoles will be with 8GB of RAM