Top
580°

Epic's PS4, Xbox 720 wish: 'Give us more memory'

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.

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Dlacy13g2246d ago

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.

TurismoGTR2246d ago ShowReplies(12)
Dlacy13g2246d ago

@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.

ProjectVulcan2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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.

blumatt2246d ago

I hope the PS4 ends up having at least 4GB of RAM. That would be nice. I'm sure the Xbox 720 will too.

peowpeow2245d ago

Bubbles+ vulcan, informative and I agree especially with the last paragraph

SilentNegotiator2245d ago (Edited 2245d ago )

It will definitely be nice to have 1+ GB be standard next gen.
Hopefully at least 3GB.

nycredude2245d ago

Epic needs to STFU. They made one game on PS3 in five years.

awi59512245d ago (Edited 2245d ago )

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.

pixelsword2245d ago

@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...

ProjectVulcan2245d ago (Edited 2245d ago )

@ 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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2245d ago
Venjense2246d ago

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.

Dlacy13g2246d ago

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. :)

darthv722246d ago

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.

ProjectVulcan2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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.

koehler832245d ago (Edited 2245d ago )

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.

awi59512245d ago

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.

nopunctuation2246d ago

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.

awi59512245d ago

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.

tmt3452246d ago

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.

Cmpunk2245d ago

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

tee_bag2422245d ago

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.

pumpactionpimp2245d ago

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.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2245d ago
bwazy2246d ago

Its been said for YEARS ALREADY.

CrimsonEngage2246d ago

Epic had to beg MS just to get 512 on the 360.

ASSASSYN 36o2246d ago

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...

Raendom2246d ago

12GB of RAM, right hip hop? XD

No Way2246d ago

It was .. See, even the people here like to make things up, as fact. ;)

Persistantthug2246d ago

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

Peaceful_Jelly2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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.

qwertyz2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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 ?

Hozi892246d ago

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.

gamingdroid2246d ago

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.

evrfighter2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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.

Persistantthug2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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.

gamingdroid2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

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.

Ducky2246d ago (Edited 2246d ago )

@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.

cdland2245d ago

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

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2245d ago