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
ftwrthtx4167d ago (Edited 4167d ago )

More polygons = more zombies?

Or is it Kazombies?

decrypt4166d 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.

JonahNL4166d 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.

reynod4166d ago (Edited 4166d 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.

Blacktric4166d 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?

nveenio4166d ago

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

reynod4166d 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.

Ju4166d 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-Tool4166d ago (Edited 4166d 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-BRASIL4166d 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.

fatstarr4166d 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.

Morpheuzpr4166d 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?

fullmetal2974166d ago (Edited 4166d 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.

fatstarr4164d ago (Edited 4164d 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 4164d ago
50Terabytespersec4167d 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 !!!

TheRealSpy4167d 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.

Persistantthug4167d ago (Edited 4167d 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. :)

kreate4166d ago (Edited 4166d 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'

decimalator4166d 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_24166d ago

When they say 8GB - they mean 8192MB

fatstarr4166d ago (Edited 4166d 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 4166d ago
pain777pas4167d 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.

FamilyGuy4166d 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.

popup4166d ago

About as in depth as a paddling pool.

kamikazepikmin4166d ago

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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4164d ago
4167d ago Replies(1)
dbjj120884167d ago

It totally puts PS3 ram to shame.

konnerbllb4167d ago ShowReplies(4)
Show all comments (104)
160°

Leaked RDNA 4 features: AMD to catch up in RT - doubled RT intersect engine could come to PS5 Pro

A partially redacted data sheet highlighting the expected ray tracing features coming to RDNA 4 GPUs has been shared by well-known hardware information leaker @Kepler_L2. We expect the features to also be present in the hybrid RDNA 3 + RDNA 4 RT design coming to PS5 Pro when it launches (presumably) later this year or early next year. The leaked data points seem to confirm that advancing ray tracing technology is going to be a major focus of RDNA 4.

Read Full Story >>
tomshardware.com
Einhander19724d ago

This will be the actual start to Ray Tracing on consoles, I'm really looking forward to seeing what PSSR is capable of as well.

I can't wait to see what games designed around this can do.

sagapo4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Don’t hope for anything major imo. RT remains a power consuming feature and I don’t think a pro version will make all that much difference. Higher frames (say 60fps) with RT features as they are now would be a big win if that would be the case. If RT features would be extended, games will probably stick at 30fps like they do now, is that worth a pro upgrade?

Einhander19724d ago (Edited 4d ago )

Zero first, second or major third party console exclusives have lacked a 60 fps mode on PlayStation, 30 fps is an xbox problem.

The GPU alone statistically offers 40% uplift, and with PSSR upscaling games designed around the console should have a significant performance uplift.

And my understanding is that RT has been largely decoupled from the CU's in RDNA 4 so the performance hit from RT should be much less than on current AMD GPUS. And regardless, the huge number of RT cores with the doubled RT intersect engine should be able to power through RT in a way that simply is not possible on current consoles.

fr0sty3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

With a rumored (according to the leaks) 4x performance jump in RT performance (and a 40% boost in overall GPU performance), in addition to the added AI upscaling frame generation tech, the actual RT performance increase should be significant.

sagapo3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@Frosty; 40% GPU boost you claim. With PS4 pro vs base at the time, that increase basicly doubled so 40% ain’t that big of a deal imo.
4x performance jump with RT (if true) sounds impressive but will we be able to play games in 60fps quality mode then? If not then pro is a waste as most gamers prefer 60fps performance over 30fps quality mode.

Einhander19723d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@sagapo

The PS4 Pro had the same GPU as the PS4, the PS5 Pro is switching from RNDA 2 to a mix of RDNA 3 and 4. The 40% increase is just the CU increase and doesn't include any uplift from the technological improvements AMD has done to RDNA which have been significat.

PS5 Pro is going to be a much bigger improvement than the PS4 Pro was, especially when you take into account the RT improvements..

sagapo2d ago

@Einhander; assuming you are right, answer my question: will the pro do 60fps in quality (RT) modes? Because if not, why bother imo.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2d ago
FinalFantasyFanatic3d ago

I really hope so, AMD has been pretty far from Nvidia's performance on Ray Tracing, so to see such a huge uplift, with greater performance and efficiency is a big win.

Destiny10803d ago

if astro bot is fully raytraced / 60fps on the pro model, we can start believing the hype

fr0sty3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

No games are fully raytraced as of now, even on PC. All of them utilize a combination of raytraced and rasterized graphics, with ray tracing being used for shadows, reflections, or global illumination in the best cases, but not for the entire rendering process.

Whitey2k3d ago

There's gonna be quite a difference between ps5 and ps5 pro compared to ps4 and ps4 pro

fr0sty3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

agreed, PS4 Pro was only geared at pushing more pixels per frame (and HDR), not making those pixels look better in the process. PS4 Pro didn't offer much as far as increasing the actual quality of the rendering went.

Whitey2k3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Expecially when ps5 is around 10tflops and ps5 pro rumored to be 30tflops compared to ps4 at 1.84tflops and ps4 pro at 4.2tflops u could pretty much call it a ps6 near enough. Then ps5 pro could be using rdna 3 or say rdna 3.5 because it's rumoured to be using that newly assets of rdna 4 which benefit greatly on resolution and Raytracing even effect etc etc. What would be nice for sony greatly benefit is amd solution of the X3D in its Cpu on cpu bound games

dveio3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

As always:

I can't wait for the specs of the new consoles.

Wether it's NSW2, Xbox Next or PS6.

If Cerny stays the lead architect of the PS6's hardware (which is very likely I guess?), I am VERY excited for Sony's approach.

They've always done something unique noone else did.

And I expect the same for the PS6.

Edit: man, crazy. PS6 (six!) is already near! Time flies.

neutralgamer19923d ago

Ceeny won't be going anywhere I don't think. He and his team have produced back to back amazing consoles

What I want to know is what the price for pro will be since it's much more powerful compared to regular PS5

smashman983d ago

This might be his last run tho, I hope he has looked into training a protege

70°

AMD working with law enforcement after reports of massive data breach

Initial investigations will weigh the significance of any data theft.
— hack may have uncovered future product details

Read Full Story >>
tomshardware.com
rlow136d ago (Edited 36d ago )

China/Russia plain and simple. Chinese are producing their own chips and to catch up they do what they have always done……steal it. When you can’t innovate, stealing is your best friend.

150°

AMD Could Revolutionize Handheld Gaming In 2024

Shaz from GL writes: "AMD could spur the beginning of a new era in handheld gaming with their upcoming APUs"

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com
rlow171d ago

To me the most important hardware is the battery. Doesn’t matter how powerful the chips are.

ABizzel171d ago

Eh…. It’s a combination of multiple things.

The battery is hugely important as it allows you to have ideally 4 - 5 hour gaming sessions.

The more powerful the processor the more games developers can share to the handheld, nd of course the better said games perform.

From there display, software, and ergonomics matter, as a good display/software will allow games to be more vivid, run at variable fps 30/40/60 ideally, and good ergonomics means it’s comfortable to play for said 4 - 5 hours. Everything else is gravy at that point.

rlow169d ago

I know we all want more power. But it’s sad that 4-5 hours is considered good now. It really shows how batteries have progressed at a much slower pace than hungry components.

redrum0670d ago

Of course it matters how powerful the chips are for it to be future proof. Don't you want to be able to play new games?

Neonridr70d ago

the Switch proves that you don't need the most cutting edge power out there to be successful.

RaiderNation70d ago

@Neonrdr that doesn't prove anything because only Nintendo could get away with that. Their games aren't the most complex/graphically ambitious and Nintendo fans don't care.

Vits70d ago

@Neonridr

If anything, the Switch proves the exact point "redrum06" was making. Yes, it might be successful, but it's definitely not future-proof. Just look at how many games and franchises completely skip the platform.

redrum0669d ago

I have a Switch, and recently got the Legion Go. I havent touched the Switch ever since, purely because of its inability to play even older games at a decent frame rate. For anyone wanting to play multiplatform games as well, people should skip the Switch.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 69d ago
Marcus Fenix70d ago

There’s no way you’re getting that 40CU 16-core APU in a handheld. That’s too hot and power hungry for that. The highest end APU they’re suggesting is going to end up in gaming laptops that can cool a 100W chip.

Jingsing70d ago (Edited 70d ago )

I think these articles get things a little out of perspective, Steam Deck has sold around 3 million and Switch has sold 140 million. But if you are browsing certain parts internet you'd think the Steam Deck had sold over 100 million. If articles are going to continue to circulate like this and continue to put the Steam Deck in the same arena then I'm comfortable calling the device a flop.

Neonridr70d ago

Steam Deck, while considerably more popular due to it's lower barrier of entry, is still a niche device with the likes of the ROG Ally and others.

I own one and it's really nice to be able to play some games on the go or in bed, but it'll never fully compete with a system like the Switch.

Skuletor70d ago

Especially when they're not in the same price range, the Switch is considerably cheaper.

gold_drake70d ago

sure but theres still a limit to what u can put in there ha. power consumption would be the biggest hurdle. and cooling.

Demetrius69d ago

I wana try out a pc handheld but I would like to experience a steady framerate etc I don't wana have to keep going into my settings trying to make things smoother in gameplay, that's the only thing that's been keepin me from getting one I've heard others having to go into the settings time from time that'll be annoying