German studio Crytek has become the latest developer to start discussing what it would like to see from the next-generation of consoles, saying that 8GBs of RAM should be "a minimum" for the next-gen.
the ram in both the 360 and ps3 is terrible. I could be wrong but I think an iphone has more ram that a ps3.
But You have to remember that the RAM in at least the ps3 is much faster than any RAM available to consumers today. it runs in over 3 Ghz if I'm not mistaken, but still its to little, in both consoles for todays need ^^
The iPhone and ps3 have 512mb ram but an iPhone cost alot more.
Indeed the ram in the current consoles is really piddly, when you consider you can get 4GB of ram today for as much as 40usd. http://www.newegg.com/Produ... I see no reason why next consoles shouldnt have 8gb ram atleast.
original iPhone: 128 MB iPhone 3G: 128 MB iPhone 3GS: 256 MB But yea, 512mb of memory was a stupid idea for this generation of consoles, should have been a minimum of 1gig
@ a08 They are talking about RAM not processing speed.
@darx Yeah I know, but the faster the RAM is the more it can handle without us noticing and downsides. I was merely pointing out that the speed might compensate a bit for the low amount of RAM :)
I don't want to pay for that. PCs need 8 gigs of RAM to account for multitasking and overbloated OS's; consoles don't have this problem! But 8 gigs of RAM might not be expensive by then, if so, I don't care either way! Crytek just had a DF article where they state they practically ignored main memory in C2, so why the fuss now? @Darx: A08 was referring to RAM too! PS3's XDR RAM runs at 3.2 ghz compared to maximum DDR at less than 1 ghz!
The speed of RAM is not going to affect how much memory something uses. 15MB will always be 15MB. And the consoles RAM is equivalent to DDR2 in architecture I think... which was nowhere near as fast as todays DDR3 RAM-
512Mb of RAM was a lot back in 2005, at least for consoles. By Today's standards, it does seem small, but you have to think back 6 years and what RAM cost back then. Don't forget, the PS3 was already quite expensive when it launched and the 360 wasn't much cheaper - both causing a loss of MS and Sony at the time of release. Doubling the RAM would have added at least £50 to the price tag.
@Kushan Actually, back then 512gb of RAM wasn't a huge amount, it was enough back then, but it wasn't super huge. My family's Dell from 2004 has 1gb of RAM. It was a pretty good computer back then, but it wasn't by any means a supercomputer
that doesnt mean they/we will get it. A minimum of 4g system ram and 1gb video ram is a start.
yeah but there are other specs that are more important than RAM, IMO 4 gb might be fine idk
ps3 ram clock is 400 mhz not 3ghz
but it's only 256MB and mainly paired to cope up with the CELL! the RSX however also only has 256MB DDR3! I think I understand why they said they want more RAM but I think what's more important is the graphic chip itself! the PS3 can have 4GB of RAM but it will still not be able to deliver much better graphic than what it is capable today because the GPU is OLD! it's like having 8GB of RAM in a PC but with only HD4850! - sure the RAM is more than enough but can it max Crysis? NEVER! 8GB is simply ridiculous to ask for consoles! the most we would see next gen I think will be 4GB but with GPU equivalent to GTX5XX series!
@ a08andan The clockspeed is higher, but it's on a very narrow memory bus so it peaks at around 25.6GB/s of bandwidth. The other 256MB of RAM in the PS3 is DDR3 and only runs at 700MHz on a 128-bit memory bus giving it 22.4GB/s of memory bandwidth. On the PC a Core i7 with triple channel memory can easily outperform the PS3's 256MB of XDR, with up to 64GB/s depending on the speed of the memory. With tri-channel 1333MHz DDR3 we're already at 32GB/s of memory bandwidth, more than what the XDR is able to achieve in the PS3. When talking about video memory... lol I don't even want to get started
I love to see all these kids talk about the speed of ram having no relevance on it's efficiency. They are clearly talking out of their u know what. The faster your ram is the faster you can load and clear variables, construct and deconstruct class calls when you make them. Perform vertex calculations, lighting,shading, you NAME IT. These are all happening in fractions of miliseconds when you are running @ 3.2ghz. To think that everything you see in a game sits in ram throughout the whole game just shows you the kind of archaic thinking that has fought against and resisted the PS3's architecture since the very beginning of this generation.
The Cell Processor functions, basically as a secondary GPU. Also, I too believe the next Playstation (PS4) will have approx 8 Gigs of memory. The reason is, is because by 2013 or 2014, we will have new video and audio technologies, supporting 120hz and 240hz TV's, with 3D, and possibly higher resolutions than 1080p. Then don't forget all of the other multimedia stuff that we all want, like DVR/PVR video capturing, websurfing while playing, apps, and other multitasking. Basically, consoles are being asked to do way more than just playing games.....they are being asked to be "do all machines".
So far OpenGL is the only person here with a clue. Rambus ram was used in the n64 and intel server chips. It sucked in both of those because of the slow bandwidth compared to clock speed. Which is why 1333mhz ram gddr just crushes rambus ram. It's like 25gigs vs 100-300 gigs last time I looked. Now if the ps3 had gddr [email protected] for it's 512 then the xbox would be getting stomped. The only ram faster is SRAM which is riduculus prices wise. I know you need 8 gigs of ram just to even use some next gen tools yet 8 gigs would be over kill on a console if it would raise the price too high. The gpu needs the bulk of it then you need only about 4 gigs max and the fastest media you can get. A huge solid state hdd that has loads of bandwidth would be more useful along with a normal hdd would be more ideal. I'm actualy glad crytek proved they can make such scaled down hardware look so good. To put it into perspective you can have 300 million polygons on screen with that much ram yet can you shade them all? Maybe not. Yeah but ram is cheap solid state drives are not.
You know what I want? To be able to AFFORD the next-gen consoles. These PC devs are so ridiculously unrealistic. "Give us new consoles! Who cares if the install bases go back to zero?" "Give us new consoles! We aren't any good at programming for them, so we claim that our work is the most that console can do!"
So upgradable console is the key then?
A majority of the replies above dont understand how differnt RAM works at all. You dont need 15MB of RAM if the RAM is fast enough to process a majority of it first.... Iphone doesnt have more RAM. Physically? yes. Power wise? No. It also doesnt have Cell processors or any of the other parts that allow better power.
360 has 512MB unified memory. Each console has only 512MB tho, which isnt alot at all. 2 years ago I got a geforce 9600GTO with 512MB or ram for 60$. A console that comes out today can easily have way more RAM then the current ones without costing more.
Playstation: 2mb system RAM. 1mb VRAM Playstation 2: 32mb system RAM, (4mb embedded) Playstation 3: 256mb system RAM, 256mb video RAM. As you can see, the amount of memory in each iteration of generation goes up by around 16 times. Thus (512 x 16) 8GB of memory is a perfectly realistic figure for machines that might arrive in say 18 months - 2 years. 4Gb video, 4Gb system. FYI out there, PS3 has 256mb of GDDR3 650mhz video memory. Although some machines are fitted with 700mhz modules, they only run @ 650mhz. RSX's architecture was derived from a Geforce 7800GTX, which had a 256bit memory bus. Nvidia halved this bus, which is why RSX has dramatically less memory bandwidth and less ROPs performance than a 7800GTX. Top end video cards of the time also already had 512mb of memory dedicated just to video. Memory is only one part of the equation, total bandwidth is also determined by the bus width of the GPU as i just highlighted, or in a CPU's case, the performance of its memory controller. Despite 8Gb being realistic, i would say it is more likely we will see machines with 2+2 and 4GB total. Generally because these consoles are certain to be derived from PC technology, and even in 18 months i think that most top end cards will only have about 2GB memory, per GPU.
I want 16 GB.
The amount of RAM affects textures and such, but like any system it has to be designed with a balance. You can completely overdo it on RAM, yet not have enough processing power to process that. On the flip side, you can have too little "speedy" RAM. Take two examples: a) the Xbox 360 for instance, it has 10MB eDRAM and effectively enabled it to have superior performance around 576 vertical resolution. Had they put more in, it would have made world of difference, but it is just too little. That is why you frequently see Xbox 360 games look and perform a lot better than the PS3 at that resolution. b) the PS3 has superior computational power, but is hampered by available memory in each SPU essentially forcing it to only be able to do fast computations on tiny amounts of data. (Technically it is also hampered by not being a real full on core). That is why PS3 tends to have great effects (such as lighting) even at higher resolutions, but have issues with frame rates. A balanced system is key, because the console is a specialized piece of hardware and that depends on how the SDK and the engine developer intends to design their software. ... and YES, I WANT A SUPERCOMPUTER THAT HAS TO BE LIQUID COOLED IN THE GARAGE AND DRAWS MORE POWER THAN AN ENTIRE APARTMENT COMPLEX. Just make the price tag less than $500 please!
good call crytek
There's a reason consoles don't have as much RAM as PCs. PCs have a lot of programs running at the same time and therefore require more RAM whereas consoles have very little running alongside the actual game and therefore don't require as much. Still, I think consoles this gen would have definitely benefitted with more RAM.
PS3 have XDR RAM, which is more advanced than any console like Xbox 360 or Wii. Xbox 360, Wii, PS2 etc, have EDRAM. This is about the RAM, not the video or GPU stuff.
@ ALFAxD_CENTAURO The e in eDRAM stands for embedded, and in the case of the 360 the eDRAM is extremely fast due to it's ultra wide memory bus giving it 256GB/s of memory bandwidth. The problem? It only has 10MB of it. The Wii has eDRAM as well but it's only 3MB (like the Gamecube) and is considerably slower than what is present in the 360. The PS2's eDRAM is 4MB I believe that is is available to the Graphics synthesizer only and is on a 2560-bit memory bus, giving it 48GB/s of memory bandwidth, which was a lot back in the day.
@DaTruth The os and other stuff doesnt use that much ram vista uses like 2gigs of ram but thats not much of 8gigs. Consoles need at least 6gigs by the time they release, Or we will stuck with more good looking linear corridor shooters with no exploration at all.
PS3 utilize RISC achiteture, not CISC. In theory this means PS3 don't need so big memories but they gotta be fast... So if they keep the architeture, don't expect much memory in PC standards. Anyway, I believe everyone wants more memory, but, don't matter if from Sony or MS, we are talking about consoles, not PCs. Just because 8GB is the top thing on PCs now, doesn't mean consoles launching in 2 years will need it. Thinking of it, in 2005 the 0.5GB RAM was long done in PC but that's what both 360 and PS3 sports. Hard cold truth is no console will have 8GB of RAM anytime soon, so Crytek better learn optimization in consoles or quit it already.
Maybe they're disappointed how their game turned out on consoles especially compared to first party devs who created outstanding graphics plus AI while workibg with console limitations.
My phone has 768MB of RAM Thunderbolt ftw
While we are on this all systems should have a harddrive with min of 2TB
Hey, I'm all for having 8GB of RAM in the next consoles, but what's important is that the amount of memory matches the rest of the system. Avoiding bottlenecks in the architecture is necessary for efficiency and to avoid spending money on things that won't be used effectively. I just have my doubts that Sony or Microsoft will be willing to design the kind of balanced system that could effectively utilize 8GB of RAM. The memory itself is pretty cheap nowadays, but many of the other components wouldn't be. Building a balanced system that could maximally take advantage of the 8GB of RAM would be costly and I am not sure if Sony or Microsoft want to have the kind of console launch prices that it would entail. My feeling is that 4GB would be a more realistic amount of memory for the next consoles.
You cant say how much RAM next generation of consoles need based on how much RAM is used in modern PCs. There is no games out there that are really utilizing next gen hardware. How can you possibly know how much RAM next gen games will require? It will also depend alot on the kind of game. Open world games for instance require more RAM then other games. We want the next generation of consoles to give us even bigger open world games, even more objects and characters on screen. Thats going to require alot more RAM. It would be really silly to have to little
You can estimate based on PC graphics technology. New consoles are extremely unlikely to use more video memory than the fastest cards around at the time of their launch, they are more likely to actually use less due to cost constraints. When 360 and PS3 launched the fastest cards were all 512mb per GPU, like the 7800GTX, X1800XT etc. This left the consoles with 512mb total and approx 256mb video memory. Right now the fastest single GPU card is the GTX580 and it has a 384 bit bus, and 1.5GB of RAM. Building a console around such a GPU for example would most likely result in a machine with between 2-3Gb of memory on board total. In 18 months i would say the fastest cards would probably use 512bit buses finally, and thus have 2Gb of memory. A few cards now are packing 2GB of memory per GPU, but in 18 months that will be more mainstream. Ergo i find it most likely a console out then will have 4Gb memory max, so to have 2Gb video memory.
yeah, just think what 4 gigs of ram would have done for this generation much less 8 gigs!
@madpuppy - Whilst it would have been nice, the cost would have been crazy at the time 360 & PS3 released. RAM prices were at a high.
@badz149 My 4850 runs crysis 2 @30fps all maxed out 1080p it does have drops from time to time.
I agree, the costs were high up until a while ago. I paid around $150 or so for 6GB of RAM (triple channel for the i7 920) back in only 2009. The costs of anything higher went into the $200s. Now you can get 8GB for around $80, only 2 years later.
@DJMarty at the prices they were charging it would have been worth it to pay the extra 60bucks for even 2GB.
For a console I think 2GB should easily be enough the main problem with say PCs and MACs is the fact you got windows or whatever running in the background eating away at RAM. Consoles do not have this problem thus freeing up a ton of ram which is dedicated to the entire game and not pretty bloat-ware. Seriously though they have no need to go above 4gb. No PC really needs above that right now and that's with the bloatware.
I just checked, and my Windows 7 currently consumes about 500 MB. That still leaves games with 5 GB more than on consoles.
WOW, what an ignorant comment. "No PC really needs above that right now and that's with bloatware" Are you serious? You NEVER played any new PC game then because even on WinXP you'll struggle playing games like Black Prophecy, Borderlands, Fallen Earth or APB with anything less than 4GB. I agree with Crytek, the consoles need 8GB because already a lot of games have a standard requirement of 4GB on Win7 PCs and even then that's not really enough. Bloatware or not, many REAL new-gen games eat up a minimum of 1.7 to 2GB if you plan on playing them without the game looking like poop. It would be nice to have consoles finally offer up the kind of multiplayer, destructibility and vastness that are usually only found on PC games with a lot of RAM.
Vherostar is right toms hardware did an article, its called do you really need more then 6gb of ram, check it out
Its amazing that people don't even know about the PS3 at all. THe PS3 has two types of RAM one for general use and one for video. The main memory is XDR RAM which is still faster than most of todays consumer RAM @3.2GHz and the video card uses [email protected] 700Mhz. The XDR RAM is so fast that it can basically be used as apart of the video RAM with little to no effects.
I realize that now, especially thanks to openGL :/ Shouldn't say things without researching them, lol
Any dev will tell you that MORE slower RAM is better than less faster RAM. But yeah, no reason with as cheap as RAM is now to have less than 6gigs at least. Here is an example of how cheap 8gigs is right now - http://www.newegg.com/Produ...
The Cell Processor needs the faster ram because of is SPU's. Alot of people refer to consoles in comparison to PC architecture, but the PS3 isn't that.
"Any dev will tell you that MORE slower RAM is better than less faster RAM." That is not entirely true and the developer is lying to you. RAM like anything else is a resource that is used based on need which means faster RAM in certain circumstances is better, and more slower RAM is better in others. In the extreme case, one can use hard drives as a form of RAM (if you loosely go by the definition that the slowest seek time and data read is the time it takes to get a piece of data anywhere on disc) and we can all agree that a game that ran off the hard drive alone would be painfully slow. Thus, a balanced system (for gaming) is far superior to just simply having more is better. That is the equivalent of saying faster CPU is always better. It really isn't if it is just bottle-necked by the slow read on RAM. It just cost you a lot more and you won't be able to use all the RAM available!
you'd have to be using old PC100 RAM if you think devs would not have rather had 1gig of DDR2 ~800mhz instead of the 256megs of XDR in the PS3. The cost of putting in that RAM over the RAMBUS sticks would have been cheaper and allowed the CELL to shine like it should have.
The thing is when you start putting specs that high into consoles they might as well just kill consoles and just sell a PC software with the controller for pc's so it can run in a console interface with friendlist and other things
8gb will be extremely cheap it already is but by than both ps4 and next xbox might even get more than 8gb ram
Crytek also want better grammar in article titles...
If you're going to make a point about grammar. You should highlight that the verb usage of "want" should be written in third person conjugation. i.e. "Crytek also want[s] better grammar in article titles..." How's that for being a Grammar Nazi?!? :D
Lets look further into this $$$expensive$$$$ suggestion!! We are speaking of VRAM of course. GDDR6 cost $50-60 per 1GB (wholesale bulk) !! in 1 1/2 - 2 years (when Next GEN consoles specs are finalized) at GDDR6 same price, so 8GB = $400 + dollars!!! No way!! Now let talk PS3!! XDR2 ram for PS3 and Cell 64 core CPU XDR2 cost roughly twice that of DDR (and twice as Fast and efficient!)= $100 per GB For get about it!!! $800.00 for 8 GB!!No WAY! I say this PS3 Stick with 1GB XDR2 and 512 XDR1 for System memory. Rest spend on 120GB Fast SSD drive and fast 20x+ Bluray and keep that Memory Bandwidth Wide!!!! To huck all that massive GB of Compressed Textures streams and Polygons etc.. On Uncharted 4!! Or GT 7!! at native 1080p. Cell will have things to do!! Stream it in FAST off of BLuray & SSD 500MB persec!! Bring it!!! Sony !!!! GO for Broke lol Estimated cost in 2013-14 PS4 = 299.00 - 349.00
Ummm... well said... I think... But the article is about RAM.
lol 8gbs of ddr2 is cheap as hell now a days.
And DDR3 isn't much more expensive! Plus with triple channel (in PCs) becoming the norm, I'd hope to see a comparable 12Gbs or maybe even 24Gbs in next gen consoles.
I wouldn't be afraid to say that ps4 is probably gonna have over 16 gigs or ram. Everyone knows that sony loves to make over-powered machines hehe "ps3"
Even though I'm still enjoying this generation of consoles, I'm anxious to see what the next has to offer. Not pointing fingers, but it'll be interesting to see if anyone has learned from their mistakes.
I'm pretty sure the ps3 got 256mb of xdr ram which runs at 3.2Ghz. that is pretty fast. dont think pcs got that. and its got 256mb of normal ddr3. i think they'll most probably put around 4gb or 6gb ram into the next gen
I wouldn't mind cause ram is dirt cheap but I highly doubt they will. Consoles Don't multitask like computers do so there's not as much use for it. Rarely does a PC game go above 2 gigs even after hours with a mem leak. Unless consoles allow for you to do several background applications while you're playing, it's not gonna get used. They want to keep prices as low as possible since that's what all consumers are gonna be wary of, so I'd say it just wont happen.
It's funny because most of the people commenting have no understanding of hardware. Memory speeds aren't the only thing to look at; you must look at bandwidth no name one thing. But it's always good to have a laugh.
Very nice but that would be expensive
ram is real cheap for us so i'm sure sony/ms can get for cheaper
well at the time the 360 came out i already had 2gb in my pc so i think ram was cheap at that time too and look at how much they put in it ;)