CVG: Epic Games isn't presumptuous enough to draw up its ideal specs from the next PlayStation and Xbox, but it knows one thing: it wants more memory.
Had Sony or MS had the forethought to go 1GB of total memory this generation these boxes most likely would have an extra 2-3yrs of quality life cycle. As is...I say they have about 1 more year before they really start getting out shinned (more than the games are now) by the PC counter parts.
@TurismoGTR... I could care less about the trailer and more about what the developers said. See, I read the article. I also know that the 360 and PS3 both have some pretty beefy CPU's & GPU's on a whole but are completely limited by the amount of memory the system has. Had they doubled the memory for this generation these consoles would certainly have some longer legs.
It is less about foresight Dlacy...its more about cost. As with any console, each component is costed right down to the smallest screw to try and make sure you can build it, sell it and make it profitable as soon as possible. 1Gb of memory now is cheap, but back when these machines were reaching the end stage of their design in 2004/2005 it certainly wasn't. Indeed only higher end video cards had 512mb of DDR3 and as we know XDR was an expensive choice on the sony side. I always thought that Sony's best solution would have been to only cut RSX's bus width down to 192bit instead of the 128 it is. This would have given RSX 50% more bandwidth it sorely needs, 50% more ROPS, and Sony could have given PS3 768mb (384 video) of memory instead of 512 (256 video). This would have made a significant overall difference to the machine's performance in three key areas. They probably had the same idea, but dismissed it because of cost. When developers moan about consoles, it nearly always comes down to one thing as a priority- memory. They just can't get enough of it, they are never happy. Part of the battle with this generation of consoles is that their operating systems take up more than 5 percent of their memory when running. A seemingly small amount, but if a next gen machine has 4GB of memory overall it can have an OS that is a pretty big 100mb in size, and it'll effectively be a much smaller percentage of the available memory used. I am sure as i write this the engineers in the console camps are fighting with the bean counters to build the best machine they possibly can. You just have to trust that the companies will get the balance right.
I hope the PS4 ends up having at least 4GB of RAM. That would be nice. I'm sure the Xbox 720 will too.
Bubbles+ vulcan, informative and I agree especially with the last paragraph
It will definitely be nice to have 1+ GB be standard next gen. Hopefully at least 3GB.
Epic needs to STFU. They made one game on PS3 in five years.
Load of crap vulcan I had 4gigs of memory back then and it was still about 20 bucks for a gig. Microsoft and sony need to stop making custom parts to charge us extra thats their problem. See micorsofts crappy hard drives that are a joke 250gigs for like 200 dollars my ass. Xbox 1 you could swap out harddrives no prob microsoft was just so dumb they signed a bad contract and got pwnd my nivida and the hard drive makers. Now they are trying to make their money back on our backs. Ram chips are pretty cheap if you dont buy them from walmart they will cost you 60 bucks for one dim but from a online store you pay like 39 for 2. Microsoft in the past have shown they cant find the good deals on hardware thats why they killed off the xbox 1 early because they signed stupid contracts.
@Dlacy13g Actually, Julian Eggebritch said that if the Devs dig into the CPU of the PS3, and get their algorithims down in terms of fill rate and a couple of other things, then anyone would have plenty of ram to do 1080p and 60fps on the PS3, and I assume if people did the same thing for the 360, that it too would have a boost in graphics and performance. I don't want to call the devs lazy, but like I said before: if 1080p and 60fps on huge levels with a lot of special effects could be done in 2007 only to never be repeated in such a scale on either console, you kinda have to wonder...
@ awi5951 Sure you had 4Gb of memory back then. So did i. 4Gb of DDR2. This is/was useless for consoles even way back in 2004 before they launched, because it was far too slow. It was perfectly fine for system memory in a PC, but for graphics work it was about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Even if the consoles had a 256bit memory bus it wouldn't be very good, but in fact it was more economical to use 128bit memory buses, whereupon DDR2 would be horribly slow. AT LEAST DDR3 was what was needed and what was used, which was a great deal more expensive back then than bog old DDR2. Which is why unless you splashed the cash and bought a quality video card, the most you got was 256mb of it on a graphics boards. You just have to understand that Sony in particular already had a highly expensive machine to build, losing a lot at the start on every one sold. Adding even 256mb XDR and 256 DDR3 more memory might 'only' have added 30 or 40 dollars more to the manufacturing cost of each PS3. Now times that by 10 million or so machines sold in the first year. Sony would either had to dump it on top of the retail price of an already costly console, or swallow a hit to the tune of 300 million bucks. Its all about cost.
360 was going to be 256 until Epic convinced them to have 512. Imagine how the console gen would haw turned out if MS went it cost saving ways.
lets hope developers like Epic will have similar influence on design choices for both MS and Sony and get what they want for next gen. :)
development kits have more than the retail units. 1gb would have been nice considering the level of the cpu's in place. I mean, from a PC perspective, who uses only 512mb of ram if you are running a multicore >3ghz cpu? 512mb was fine in the 1ghz days and could have benefitted the original xbox with their version of doom 3 (still quite good). If anything, 4gb will be the minimum as it is the sweet spot right now in regards to pc gaming. Not only that but to go with anything less isnt thinking far enough ahead to have room for the more complex games to be released on those platforms. Currently, the hardware is competent but the lack of sufficient memory is the bottleneck. It doesnt matter how fast the memory is so long as you only have a limited amount to work with. Games consoles share many similarities to pc's. If you think about it, the games (on both) dont run from the media itself. The code is loaded into memory and run from there. Swapping out the old for the new is where the "loading" and pauses during play happens. Streaming the data on the fly works only if done correctly.
Hmm. PC will always have an excess of memory because they have large operating systems. Thats one advantage the consoles have, their OS footprint is compact.
Worse, developers can't even program directly on the hardware, so they can't even efficiently use all the memory available to them. The arm's length APIs are really restrictive. A good comparison, for example, is Gears of War on PC, which has a minimum memory of 1GB and recommended of 2GB, with Windows having a recommended 128MB of RAM, yet the game can run better on a 500MB system than on most PCs which exceed the recommended specs. (This is not a good example comparative to today's PC hardware, but gets the point across) Luckily they can use all the resources available to them on any given graphics card, which is why they're coming with more and more self-contained memory these days. But with so many variations out there, it's tough even to effectively do that.
No windows 7 os is really great, now vista was a stupid memory hog. These next consoles need at least 4gigs of very fast ram or the graphics will suffer. We need large amounts of ram for open world games,to stop these crazy load times, and for better textures in games.
Strong consoles means happy and loyal devs. This is why Wii never truly suceeded as a gaming console. It had the 1st party support, but key 3rd party devs like Epic and Rockstar abandoned the Wii before they even saw it thanks to the calculator hardware it uses. There was just certain things a modern console needs, HDD, online support, and good specs. Nintendo got the sales from soccer mom looking for a cheap alternative to a real console, but the Wii will not have a legacy for being a well rounded console in the future. 10 years from now, when the everlasting "greatest consoles of all time" are being made, Wii will probably get an honorable mention at best.
Im sorry even laptops have more memory than the consoles if ultra thin laptops can have like 16gigs of ram there is not reason the consoles cant. Lap tops have to deal with heat issues far more than consoles do. On top of that laptops have to run on battery power so there is no excuse for weak low ram consoles next gen.
Enough with the 3x crap. The developers said they could run it on a single 580 if they had taken the time to optimize it.
why did they include sony i thought they were m$ lapdog anyways m$ needs blu ray next gen i dont want them to hold back gaming for another second blu ray = a better gaming experience for everyone
Consoles are always too stingy on ram.. its so annoying because every generation the developers always complain about lack of RAM. 512 wasn't much by general stardards either at the time or 360 and PS3 release.
I'd say it's less about foresight, and more about standards. Each console that's come out has had roughly double what the console before it had. Since the ps1/ps2, xbox/360, they hit somewhere between double what the last console had, and half of what a high end computer has. Consoles are allowed this luxury because they are not running a system hog os, on top of a high end game. Currently your average gaming pc has 4-8 gb of ddr3 ram, expect 2-4 in the next consoles. The average video card has 1gb of ddr5 ram, expect between that and 512mb. Follow the trends that have been laid out for a decade or more. Companies don't like breaking trends that make the guaranteed money.
Its been said for YEARS ALREADY.
Epic had to beg MS just to get 512 on the 360.
... and they got it!
They didn't beg them. They made a suggestion based off of two demos. One running 512 and 256 mb. Microsoft chose the 512. http://www.1up.com/features...
12GB of RAM, right hip hop? XD
I thought it was 10GB?
It was .. See, even the people here like to make things up, as fact. ;)
8Gigs of ram + 2 Gigs of video ram = 10Gigabytes Those memory specs are somewhat common today, let alone 2 years from now. ( http://www.buy.com/prod/cor... ) <---here's 8 Gigs of mediocore CORSAIR ram for $61.99 and $51.99 after rebate
The CPU in the PS3 still has more power to be used but with no memory left it's useless. And on top of that, poor memory allocation... By now I think most companies already learned their lesson so I expect some epic graphics for next gen consoles and affordable prices.
even a 2006 core 2 DUO(not even quad or extreme) would blow the PS3 cell out of the water you know there's more to a cpu than single precision compute power ? how about addressing the cells weaknesses such as 1) weak ppe( instruction decode rate can bottleneck the spes) 2) weak branch prediction(spus only use static branch prediction which is the most simplistic and crappy form the ppe hs a 3 way branch unit but its not enough to keep up with all the spus) 3) low amount of HIGH latency L2 cache(complete fail) 4) in order execution(which is highly inefficient compared to the out of order execution cpus from 2006 onward utilize) http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... 5) spus not being able to access RAM directly(they have to rely on the ppe which is already slow) which is another bottleneck The cell has alot of weaknesses it can't even stand against a core 2 duo and you really think it can match current sandybridge cpus ? lol thats a good one. technology hasn't been asleep for the last 5 years. intel and amd are not stupid if the cell architecture was that powerful we'd be seeing something similar in our pcs today but are we ? NO. You want to know why steve jobs turned down the cell for intel cpus ? because he is a very brilliant man. www.netlib.org/lapack/lawnspd f/lawn185.pdf there is more to a cpu than just THEORETICAL single precision computational power thats what alot of people fail to realize. even mr tretton admits that all the above are weaknesses of the cell. look at his reply when I listed the flaws of the cell. http://n4g.com/news/807666/... "I think you were missing my point while trying to school me on things I know about. " the flaws of the cell are so numerous that he couldn't even deny it lol. 2006 pc>>>>>>ps3/ 360. PC FTW the cell just like the 360s cpu is a piece of sh*t. The cells power is NOT limitless the ps3s cell is outdated the roadrunner version is much much much much more powerful than the ps3 version wasn't enough to compete with intel and amd in the server market so IBM had to develop power6 and power7. if the cell was so powerful how come it can't emulate ps2 hardware a feet 2006 ore 2 duos can easily attain ? EXACTLY the ps3s that have backwards compatibility with ps2 have the ps2s emotion engine in built remember? branching performance is needed for complex calculations and programs graphics and physics operations are a multitude of SHORT, simple calculations with very predictable results which is why those types of calculations are NOT branch heavy. Do some research before saying such would you ? even a highly clocked later generation PENTIUM 4(those that arrived just before core 2 duo) can emulate ps2 and get 60fps at 720p(a core 2 can easily get 1080p still run all games at over 60fps). so in some ways a Pentium 4>>>>>ps3 cell. the cell was supposed to beat intel and amd out of the market it FAILED there was a reason for that. @Persistantthug amd 6970 has amost twice the compute power as nvidias gtx 580 yet the gtx 580 destroys it in EVERYTHING. THEORETICAL number don't always equal REAL world performance. architecture counts. single precision FLOATING point performance is NOT everything.by the way an i7 2600k has greater single precision flops than the cell and the ps3 cell is only capable of 179.2GLOPS single precison because 1 spe is reserved for the OS you are insane if you think uncharted 3 does things that pc games cannot. EVEN bulletstorm pc or deadspace 2 pc DESTROYS it so what are you talking about ?
I won't even try to act like I know more when it comes to all this technical crap. but My eyes don't deceive me when I see games like Uncharted, GOW, Killzone, and Motorstorm. I mean just face it PC is more powerful but it doesn't have half the cool games PS3 has.
The Cell has numerous deficiencies and wasn't intended for gaming nor general purpose. It's a number cranker with very limited memory in each SPE. The great games you have on PS3 isn't because it is some amazing beast, it is due to years of massive resources thrown at optimizing it with fixed hardware. If you give a specific PC the same optimization done for consoles, the PC will blow it out of the water with a 5-6 year old machine.
Unfotunately Hozi I can not say the same thing. I play on my 24" computer monitors and in doing so anything that's not played in its native resolution is exposed as the blurry jaggy mess it is. This is why people get angry when I say MLAA is a blurry joke. that includes, GOW3 and KZ2. I didn't even attempt Uncharted 2 as UC1 jaggies cut my eyes and almost blinded me.
The Cell processor to this day cannot be matched for FLOPS vs any other consumer CPU....INTEL I7 OR otherwise. It's because of this Cell Processor, that UNCHARTED 3 is doing what it does. You can pretend to be unimpressed if you want, but there's no other game that does what we saw Uncharted 3 doing with that E3 boat level.....Not even a PC game. Hozi89 is right....His eyes AREN'T deceiving him.....mine either. That's all that needs to be said about that.
Since you went through the trouble of PM'ing me, here is my response. I said that the Cell is a number cruncher, but it doesn't mean it is well suited for gaming. Why do you think this very article asks for more memory and NOT Floating Point Operations (FLOPS)? You can have the fastest CPU in the world, but if you are bottle necked elsewhere, guess what the CPU is doing? NADA, NOTHING, ZIP! The Cell would do great for physics calculations that doesn't take a lot of data, but requires a lot of computation. Water effects, light effects and such, but it has a glaring issue, bandwidth and memory. Each SPE isn't a full blown core, limited memory bandwidth and has very very limited memory. It also doesn't have branch prediction among other things that also affect performance. FLOPS is a measure of really one thing and one thing only, how fast you can do repeated floating point calculations which is hardly representative of a general load for games. That said a GeForce 8600GS (released in 2006) can do about 100 GFLOPS, which seems to about what a Cell processor can do at peak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... As I said, PC is a far more balanced system and given a fixed hardware specification and equal amount of optimization, it will look better than any console period. These consoles are stripped down PCs and have all sorts of constraints. It's only advantage is fixed and predictable hardware specification.
@Persistant ... but CPU isn't used much for rendering on PCs, that's the GPUs job. (For gaming that is) When building a gaming PC, more focus goes towards the GPU rather than the CPU. Out of curiosity, what was special about the E3 boat level btw? I'll have to look at it again.
For thouse of you that disagree ...And how long did the Cell server from IBM last? Yes technology keeps moving forward... so far...lol. Best to read the whole artical from 2009. :-) http://www.theregister.co.u... The future Cell chip that was supposed to be integrated on the QS2Z blade was on roadmaps dating from 2007, when IBM was ramping up the idea of using Cell-based blades as co-processors for mainframe, RISC, and x64 servers. That blade was expected to pack two of the unnamed dual-core, 32 SPE Cell chips (calling it the Power2XCell 32i would have made sense, but El Reg has never seen that name anywhere) onto a single blade, yielding up 1 teraflops of double precision floating point performance (about 500 gigaflops per Cell complex) or about five times the current QS22 blades (and five times the PowerXCell 8i chip complex
lol why oh why does my brain always asociate "memory" with HDD, my first though when reading the title was buy a bigger HDD lol.
LOL I know. Can't they just call it RAM?
Sony/MS should offer more RAM. And the Third party devs should learn to optimize RAM more. We have great games coming out with the limited amount so just have more should not allow them to be lazy to dump junk on it.
This generation of consoles were really held back by memory and bandwidth. 1G of memory would have helped these consoles immensely. Most if not all textures in games would have been in the higher resolution category and most games would have been running in 1080p. 512megs of memory was not enough and having it also split into memory pools was even worse. Next generation consoles should have a minimum of 4-6gigs of memory unified with a healthy does of EDRAM on die.
Yet everyone harps on DVD 9 holding this gen back. The ignorance of the average gamer astounds me.
So very true. Optical media is just a storage medium. Having more memory which translate to more bandwidth also is more of an advantage for game creation. It's the reason why so many games on the PS3 and Xbox360 run in subhd or just at 720p. If they had 1g of ram you would see more games at 1080p with higher resolution textures and better use of HDR. Any high bandwidth/memory intensive effect/features benefit from more memory
"Yet everyone harps on DVD 9 holding this gen back." thats what some of the developers said. so gamers think the dvd is at least partially, holding the gen back. now we know Ram is also holding this gen back. now it seems the 50gb blu ray will join the pack! whats next?
Thank you, everytime i read someone's comment about dvd9 i laugh and shake my head. I just think this is an average joe with no industry knowledge and is only regurgitating what he sees others post.
Hopefully next gen consoles will have DDR4 SDRAM build in them! I'm about to get that for my new system I build :)
Next-gen consoles may utilize DDR4. DDR3 might be another option seeing how it's dirt cheap nowadays. From what I've read, GDDR5 may not be used as its cost are quite high. We'll see....
"I'm about to get that for my new system I build :)" Not a serious question but where from are you getting them from? DDR4 is still years away from being released into the market. Lol
10gb of Memory should give developers lots of room to manoeuvre that will last 4 years before they need to do optimizations in the Next-Gen, 12gb would be spectacular but not unrealistic...Memory is key to all development and feasibility/options of the next-gen game development(be it A.I./gameplay/graphics). Learn from mistakes in the current gen, Sony/Microsoft give the developers sufficient memory as if it was for a minimal of 2 virtual next generations cycles before optimizations were needed.
Just give me 60fps standard, 1080p standard, smooth anti aliasing, 32+ multiplayer. And I'm good. Oh and no kincect crap or move.
I dream that these are the console standards every night. Give consoles 60fsp, 1080p, with AA. Considering I'd purchase a entire new $600+ console, with most likely $70+ games; I don't think these being standards is too much too ask?
" dream that these are the console standards every night" you need to get your self some pussy
I dream that these are the console standards every night. Give consoles 60fsp, 1080p, with AA. Considering I'd purchase a entire new $600+ console, with most likely $70+ games; I don't think these being standards is too much too ask? All this would obviously require over 1g ram.
I'd say 4gb of ram and yes I agree with everything you said, we pay a hefty amount of money, we deserve top of the line or more. I mean seriously???
I never dreamed that King Kai would ever say something like that lmao...
Ram is the key here! Look at Neo Geo for one...they used a Motorola 68000 CPU which has a slightly higher clock speed than the Sega Genesis CPU(Motorola 68000) But SNK added more Ram than the Sega Genesis specification and Neo Geo was turn in to incredible hulk. So, I hope Microsoft and Sony decides to add about 6gigs-8gigs of RAM in their next GEN console; beCause one thing I m sure of... thier NExt Gen console would become a monstrous power house if they do.
Stick 10 - 12GB in there. The next consoles should pwn Crysis 1 (PC) on Ultra high settings. Crytek want 8GB. F--k it! give them more becoz a few years into next gen they will bitch and moan again.
And you know what more ram means, right? More MMO's on consoles. Not sure if that's a good thing, unless they bring us some FREE TO PLAY MMO's; that might be fun to mess with.
"Basically, Samaritan was our request to the hardware manufacturers - that's what we'd like to be able to do. Beyond that we don't really know anything." Well i know....and the answer is HELL NO! an Intel Core i7 2600k plus 3 580GTX were used to run that demo which translates into $1800 just for those 4 parts. Even if next gen consoles were to adopt 580Gtx power your looking at $270 just for the GPU even after a huge Nvidia bulk sale discount which would put the console above $600 once you added all the other parts. Look for PS4/720 to have Nvidia GTX400 or AMD HD5000 series GPU's, 1 or 1.5GB Ram and most likely IBM processor (PS4) Intel Processors (720).
the idea isn't far fetched you know, prices will go down and chips will be customized, neither you or i know what extras ms/sony will do to their final chip set.
Sorry buddy but the ps4/720 designs are already in. you just can't yank some chips off the store shelves and make a console. you have to design and make everything because of heat and watts requirements plus manufacturing times. Sony/M$ and the Devs already have a good ideal of the new consoles cause some where in some secret lab prototype PS4/720 are being played. The factories already are beginning mass production of the CPU/GPU (which i why i say X720 in 2012) plus testing times need to be met. NO WAY in HELL ps4/720 will use 580GTX 1. It cost too much 2. uses a ton off Watts 3. produces way too much heat simply is not good for consoles unless it is severely modified. Maybe the consoles will use 2 GPU's in CF or SLi to achieve 580 power but 580GTX is OUT of the question 100% Guaranteed.
Intel is an overpriced piece of crap, AMD is the way to go.
Yes, their $220 (Amazon Pricing) i5 2500k which beats the AMD counterparts on the market is completely overpriced. /s Closest AMD competition for performance runs for $180. If you get the i5 2500 that is only a $30 difference, with the k version being $40. (Phenom X6 Black edition 1100t cost $10 more, but under performs when compared to the X4 975) I am not speaking on experience, but rather others experiences I've researched when looking into building a gaming PC. One source being Tom's Hardware. http://www.tomshardware.com... When it comes down to it personal preference is the way to go. I can't tell you Intel is better than AMD, that is for you to decide. But the overpriced argument, at least for this current series of processors, is overused. Bulldozer hasn't even come out yet to combat the latest Sandy Bridge processors. So a completely fair comparison would have to take place when that happens.
I don't understand the vocal fanboyism over AMD vs Intel since the tangent in performance is so small in real world apps, and it's not like there's a huge difference in price. If you can afford the extra $20-30 bucks go Intel, if not you want value go with AMD. Whichever one you picked it's the right choice.
They should just shove in 24gb and a GPU equivalent to 2xGTX590 and some intel 14nm CPU that's coming out in a few years. The console would easily cost £500+. But hey, if that's what Epic want then they should give it to them and see how well the console sells.
If you knew how to code properly you wouldn't need as much Memory there Epic.