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
ftwrthtx4489d ago (Edited 4489d ago )

More polygons = more zombies?

Or is it Kazombies?

decrypt4488d 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.

JonahNL4488d 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.

reynod4488d ago (Edited 4488d 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.

Blacktric4488d 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?

nveenio4488d ago

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

reynod4488d 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.

Ju4488d 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-Tool4488d ago (Edited 4488d 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-BRASIL4488d 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.

fatstarr4488d 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.

Morpheuzpr4488d 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?

fullmetal2974488d ago (Edited 4488d 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.

fatstarr4486d ago (Edited 4486d 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 4486d ago
50Terabytespersec4488d 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 !!!

TheRealSpy4488d 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.

Persistantthug4488d ago (Edited 4488d 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. :)

kreate4488d ago (Edited 4488d 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'

decimalator4488d 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_24488d ago

When they say 8GB - they mean 8192MB

fatstarr4488d ago (Edited 4488d 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 4488d ago
pain777pas4488d 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.

FamilyGuy4488d 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.

popup4488d ago

About as in depth as a paddling pool.

kamikazepikmin4488d ago

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

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4486d ago
4489d ago Replies(1)
dbjj120884489d ago

It totally puts PS3 ram to shame.

konnerbllb4488d ago ShowReplies(4)
Show all comments (104)
90°

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D & 9900X3D 3D V-Cache CPUs Now Available

AMD launches the Ryzen 9 9950X3D for $699 & Ryzen 9 9900X3D for $599, offering the best-in-class gaming & content creation CPU performance.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
mkis00793d ago

X3D really turned around AMD's cpu prospects. I wont touch intel now, vs 10 years ago I wouldn't imagine going anywhere near AMD cpu's for gaming only.

ZycoFox93d ago

Zen 1 was merely "meh" IMO, it had major RAM compatibility issues, only really worked with Samsung memory from what I recall, and performance was ok at best, the 8700k launched the same year and was top dog even when Zen 2 came out. Though Zen 2 was much better.. it just lacked a bit in gaming, good all rounder chips though for other applications.

AMD are trying to upsell the 9900x3D to 9950x3D, pricing is weird (too close) and odd chip configuration.. it should be a lot cheaper. They did the same with the 9070 -> 9070XT.

Some funny choices going on at AMD..

FinalFantasyFanatic93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

Zen 1 was pretty great for what it was, considering that was the first time in a long time that AMD was actually competitve with Intel, it was also the first time you could easily get something with more than 4 cores/threads. The RAM issues was frustrating AF though, especially since Zen 1 performance relied so heavily on fast RAM.

If we ignore the price, the 990x3D and 9950X3D look pretty great provided you can actually make use of those extra cores/threads, otherwise the 9800x3D is better value.

PixelOmen92d ago

Zen1 was the beginning of the turn around and by Zen3 it was starting to become ultra competitive. X3D was really only the final nail in the coffin.

Jingsing92d ago (Edited 92d ago )

I guess the real question is how many compatibility issues will arise from their motherboard chipsets? also the selection of motherboards for AMD is more limited too. Which often limits what kind of form factor build you want. Last time around I avoided AMD due to their chipsets having horrid USB3 support with accessories. You tend not to see these kind of issues being talked about, it ends up just being games and synthetic benchmarks.

220°

Project Amethyst: AMD & Sony Collaborate on FSR 4

AMD and Sony co-develop FSR 4 upscaler under Project Amethyst, enhancing visuals and performance for future PlayStation consoles.

Read Full Story >>
techgenyz.com
97d ago
Eonjay96d ago

Clearly there was a colab as every game used to demo the tech was a WWS game. And of course they alluded yo this as far bask as the Pro Tech deep dive.

This means that PSSR is probably a lightweight CNN version of FSR 4 which would make sense due to the Pro and PS6 being AMD cards. The biggest relevant difference in the PRO and the RDNA 4 cards being that the PC cards have 3x+ the TOPS.

They both deliver good results with FSR4 having a better denoiser.

PanicMechanic93d ago

I remember Cerny saying that whatever developments were made with PSSR for the prop, that tech would translate into and help develop FSR 4. Sony is making the right moves with AMD

Eonjay93d ago

Yes it feels like they helped them catch up with ML real fast.

Starman6996d ago

Can't believe how good God of war Ragnarok is on the pro 😳

DivineHand12596d ago

The question is, is PSSR going to be replaced by FSR4 on future playstation consoles and is the PS5 Pro FSR4 capable?

--Onilink--96d ago

Unlikely given that FSR4 is only supported by the 9000 cards.

I would expect the PS6 to use FSR4 since it is definitely superior to PSSR, not really much of a point in keeping investing separate resourced into PSSR, but who knows if both will be available on PS6

ABizzel196d ago

FSR 5 would likely be out by then and probably a transformer model. I assume Sony will continue to use PSSR for branding purposes but it will essentially be FSR 5 with a PlayStation specifically solution.

The_Hooligan96d ago

In my opinion I think they will still use PSSR for the PS6 mainly because that was a big marketing point for the PS5 Pro and Sony probably doesn't want to abandon it. They might call it PSSR 2.0 or something and will probably use similar tech as FSR4 due to the partnership between the two companies. I doubt PS6 will use anything similar to the 9000 cards so won't have the same bells and whistles as the FSR4.

NoDamage96d ago

I was going to build a PC soon with a last gen and card but this makes me think I should wait to make sure I get the best experience in the next generation as well.

I guess I'm going to be all in on AMD which is the opposite of what I would normally lean towards.

ZycoFox96d ago (Edited 96d ago )

Value wise the 9070XT is a decent card if you don't want to pay for Nvidia ones.. That being said, make sure you're happy with the restrictions using some software, if you're happy with just gaming though AMD should be fine.

Probably best bet price wise is get the 9070XT and then upgrade next gen in a couple of years.. With Nvidia this new gen has been a bust, only the 5090 is a decent step up, even the 4090 beats the 5080 by a fair margin.

Hopefully Nvidia bounces back next gen.. though I expect refreshed 5000 cards before then, 5080 Ti / Super will probably be = to a 4090.

NoDamage96d ago

Thanks! I'll look into software restrictions. Never thought there would be issues there and it's important since I do some graphic design. I was thinking about the 9070 but will have to wait till a it's actually available to buy without the current nonsense.

Show all comments (14)
80°

Our First Look At FSR 4? AMD's New AI Upscaling Tech Is Impressive

DigitalFoundry : Running on AMD's new Radeon 9070-series GPUs at CES 2025, a machine learning upscaling demo of Sony's Ratchet and Clank is almost certainly FSR 4 AI upscaling - and as it's running on Ratchet and Clank - our 'go to game' for AI upscaling quality tests, we could really put the tech through its paces. Oliver and Alex are at the show - and this is their report.

Read Full Story >>
digitalfoundry.net
ZycoFox154d ago

They're saying better than PSSR! Impressive.. guess it's really close to Nvidia's solution. I'm interested in seeing how the 9070XT or whatever their highest end card will perform, we already know AMD are only aiming for the mid range (or upper mid range) with these new cards but it will still be interesting to see how they compare to a 5070Ti on price/performance.

But certain apps don't play well with AMD that do with Nvidia cards, shame because these cards could be great/price performance.. but not an issue for pure gamers.

883154d ago

Visually it may well be similar to DLSS, but they were quick to point out that they do not have any actual performance data at this point. Time will tell, but it is definitely promising and good to see them impressing.

154d ago
Psychonaut85153d ago

Interesting. Since AMD is largely behind PSSR, they’ve now sort of have two different upscalers in play. Curious to see how it all pans out.