Sucker Punch Seeking More Ways To Use PS4′s RAM; CPU a Bottleneck but There’s Room for Improvement

At the Games Developers Conference Sucker Punch Lead Engine Programmer Adam Bentley held a panel titled “inFAMOUS: Second Son Engine Postmortem” and the notes of the new version of the slides published today include some very interesting details about how the PS4′s hardware works and on how it was used for the game.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
incendy351860d ago

I would recommend they explore 60fps.

Bathyj1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

Meh, I dont think it was necessary in a game like this. It was very smooth with rarely a hiccup and never effecting gameplay.

I'd prefer more destructible objects, custom skillsets and the return of UGC mode.

VaporCell1860d ago

Is this game even using any of the 64 asynchronous compute units the PS4 has?

tuglu_pati1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

I though the PS4 had 6 GB free for games. Can anyone clarify?

Anyway, Infamous is visually impressive considering the scope of the game and this is just the beginning of the generation cant imagine what they will be able to produce later in it cycle.

Naga1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

@ tuglu_pati

4.5GB usable for games, [including] 512MB of “flexible memory."

Source (one of many):

This seems to confirm the disputed 4.5GB number that was tossed around way back when. Though it's interesting to note that Sucker Punch's 4.5GB includes the 0.5GB from the flexible pool, which would make 4.5GB the maximum available - not 5GB as was originally thought.

Army_of_Darkness1860d ago

Make a new IP sucker punch. infamous needs a little break.

fr0sty1860d ago


"The compute shader size for particles can be over 15 MB of loaded data in memory."

Yes, they did. Maybe not as efficiently as they could have, but they did.

u got owned1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

@Naga and tuglu_pati

There was a developer at that time saying they were using almost 6 gb of the ram.. Makes me wonder... What is the truth then?

Naga1860d ago

@ u got owned

Honestly, I'd trust the figures coming out of Sucker Punch on the basis that their reported figures are newer and certainly based upon the final hardware. That, and they undoubtedly care a great deal about getting the most out of the hardware, so I would be reluctant to second-guess them on a matter like this.

yewles11860d ago


"This seems to confirm the disputed 4.5GB number that was tossed around way back when. Though it's interesting to note that Sucker Punch's 4.5GB includes the 0.5GB from the flexible pool, which would make 4.5GB the maximum available - not 5GB as was originally thought."

Two things wrong with that...

1. Naughty Dog revealed in their own slides that it's 5GB total...
2. Sucker Punches tally GOES PAST 4.5GB when added up.

u got owned1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )


One thing wrong with that...

From Sucker Punch slideshow...

1) We used most of the 4.5 gigs available... and if you read the breakdown
.5 Gb is already included.

so who's right and who's wrong? ND or SP?

yewles11860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

@u got owned
"1) We used most of the 4.5 gigs available... and if you read the breakdown
.5 Gb is already included."

Thus going PAST the 4.5GB stated in the slides.

"so who's right and who's wrong? ND or SP?"

I like SP, but I'm not taking their word over the guys with THE VERY TEAM MAKING THE DEV TOOLS FOR EVERYONE TO USE (ND have Sony's ICE Team, responsible for PS3 and PS4 devtools for SDK's).

GameNameFame1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

82mb of screenbuffers for this game. That literally is impossible on 32mb esram.

DragonKnight1860d ago

@Army_of_Darkness: No it doesn't.

Infamous 1: 2009
Infamous 2: 2011
Infamous SS: 2014

3 games with an average of 2 and half years apart doesn't scream milking.

Just because you don't want to play Infamous games anymore doesn't mean there needs to be a break. Maybe you need a break from them.

UnHoly_One1860d ago

Or maybe they need to make another one that is actually good....

Because this one was awful compared to the first two games.

UltraNova1860d ago

@dragon knight and army of dark

Wanna talk about milking?

Assassins Creed: 2007
AC 1.5: 2008
AC 2:2009
AC 2.5:2010
AC 3: 2011
AC 3.5: 2012
AC 4:2013
AC 4.5:2014
AC 5: 2015 (99% sure thing)

Hell Activation's COD doesn't even compete and that saying a lot!

ion531860d ago

You get 5GB. Just like the XbOne.

Dynasty20211860d ago

RARELY a hickup!?

Do me a favour. Destroy 2 DUP towers in a row, and watch the FPS halve.

sander97021860d ago

Yeah this game is really boring without UGC

amiga-man1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

This can't be right only M$ can make software more efficient, Sony is just supposed to sit there twiddling their thumbs lol.

cozomel1860d ago Show
Naga1859d ago

@ cozomel

"I know Xbox fanboys arent the brightest bunch. But y'all cant count either? Along with both of your agreers. Do the math and it adds up to more 4.5GBs. I mean seriously, its right there in the numbers and y'all still can figure it out. 4969MB total. And stop trolling every Sony article."

1. If you want to insult me and say that I can't count, then perhaps you should work on your own math first. Add the numbers up, and you get 4.595 GB - not 4.969GB like you said.

2. Considering that you are quibbling over 0.095, and considering also the high likelihood that they rounded in order to clean up the numbers for the slide... it is very easy to explain why the calculation is 2% off of what Sucker Punch claimed it is.

Applying a little common sense can go a long way.

combatcash1859d ago

Frame rate drops quite a bit sometime I'm guessing it's not locked at 30 fps because you can definitely see it and feel it in big battles.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 1859d ago
BitbyDeath1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

The difference between 30 and 60 is minimal at best.
I'd much rather they spend their time on something more important like gameplay/animations/AI.

BitbyDeath1860d ago

This is true but the effort to obtain the FPS is not worth the outcome... at least IMO

Vegamyster1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

Both links are of the same game footage (Dark Souls 2) but one is 60 fps & the other is 30 fps, There is a large difference.

KING851860d ago

I respectfully disagree. If you've played any FPS you may have realized the smoothness of 60fps vs. 30fps. It's just more fluid. Third person adventure games don't necessarily need 60fps, but definitely fps. I say if a developer can achieve without sacrificing what they want to achieve overall, then by all means go ahead.

TheRealTedCruz1860d ago

As someone who can easily spot the difference between even 60 to 120, yeah, there's a monumental difference. Not only in terms of control, but even in terms of visuals.

LAWSON721860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

That is a great example of 60 fps.
I can see noticeable difference

TheRealTedCruz1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

As per the disagress, which are you disagreeing with? The fact that I can spot the difference, or the fact that there's a difference in terms of visuals and gameplay between the FPS?
The first, I can only promise you. The second I can prove as fact.

dougr1860d ago

Only people who don't have a computer capable of gaming would say something so silly. The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is astronomical in action games, and it would be a huge difference and upgrade for a game like Infamous. With that said however, I had no issue with the frame rate in Infamous other than when you use that neon power, that significantly slows down the FPS, but in real time use, nothing causes the FPS to dip to an unacceptable amount. But play a game like a Far Cry 3 in 30 FPS then in 60 FPS and try to say with a straight face that their is minimal difference.

u got owned1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

You can definitely see the difference but as some one said already I don't think 60 fps is that important on games like infamous

BitbyDeath1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

@Vegamyster, both look smooth to me, what do you look for exactly?
Can you provide any exact examples?

You sure it's not all in your head cause you have been told it exists?

Vegamyster1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )


If you put them side by side it should be obvious, if you can't see the difference then your monitor doesn't support 60hz or you have a issue with your eyes lol.


BitbyDeath1860d ago

That link you just provided shows a visible difference.

The game videos aren't like that though.

Movies are also only 24fps and I have no issue with that either.

TruthInsider 1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

@vegamyster Those vids were both 30fps so if you seen a difference you have been placebo'd.

Watch this in 30 then 60fps for the real difference, options to change are along the bottom of the video.

GT5 60fps

DarXyde1860d ago

I think it depends. Certain genres really benefit from 60fps. I think horror, first-person shooters, and racing games in particular. Other than that, I have to say: playing Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes at 60fps was actually very sweet. Smooth and without a hitch. Would I want to go back? Not at all. Would I? Only for very good reason.

DragonKnight1860d ago

Framerate is only a bonus, and only so in games that require a quick response time. Games like Dark Souls DEFINITELY don't need 60FPS at all, but a game like Infamous MIGHT benefit from it if only due to the fact that it has a semi-shooter mechanic to it.

People who want 60FPS for every game are likely people who primarily play shooters and don't expose themselves to games that aren't twitch or response time based. Note I said LIKELY.

Vegamyster1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

Watching a movie and playing a game at 24 fps is different, when a director makes a film at 24 fps there are limitations to how fast he can pan the camera without it making it too blurry & distorted. When you're in direct control of your character the difference is night and day, the controls are more responsive.


No they're not both 30 fps, i can see it immediately and so can others.


A game like Dark Souls definitely benefits from 60 fps, it's a game where every action matters.

"People who want 60FPS for every game are likely people who primarily play shooters and don't expose themselves to games that aren't twitch or response time based."

Any game with 60 fps will feel and play better, it doesn't have to be a shooter to feel the benefits.

insomnium21860d ago

What is wrong with you people? I've been playing DS1 for the past weeks now and that game has frame drops like silly. It would be very beneficial to the overall experience if it had a locked 60 fps. Especially during boss fights where the frames drop even more when the boss swings his sword and you roll to avoid it between his legs and the camera rotates like crazy at times.


Are you trolling or is there something wrong with your eyes? The starting part of those videos where the camera rotates quickly around the player clearly shows the benefit of 60 frames vs 30 frames. You have got to be trolling not to see it through those very links.

DragonKnight1860d ago

@Vegamyster: Sorry but that's incorrect. Dark Souls 2 benefits more from a stable netcode than it does from framerate. The draw for the Souls games is primarily the PVP, and 60FPS won't help you with network lag that causes input delay.

Dark Souls 2 doesn't require the response times that 60FPS helps with, save and except MAYBE parry windows and only in PVE.

"Any game with 60 fps will feel and play better, it doesn't have to be a shooter to feel the benefits."

Also incorrect. A copy of Tetris won't feel and play better in 60FPS. Mario games won't, Zelda games won't, God of War won't, there are so many examples. Framerate is best used when in games with high speed action and a need for quick response times. In most games, those events only occur with specific parameters, eg. parrying and in some cases rolling in Dark Souls.

In others, quick response times help you throughout the game, such as racing games and shooters.

60FPS is only a bonus overall, only an advantage in certain circumstances, and should never be a priority for the majority of games.

starchild1860d ago

Honestly, those of you downplaying the benefits of faster framerates sound just as ignorant as those who downplay the advantages of higher resolutions.

I knew this would happen. At first a lot of people thought the consoles would be doing 60fps this generation and there was a lot of talk about how essential 60fps was and how much it improved the experience. But now that it's clear the majority of games on both consoles will not be 60fps all we hear are a bunch of excuses about why 60fps isn't really that much better or how it's not "needed" for certain games. It's just such an obvious bunch of nonsense.

Next generation, when one of the consoles can do 60fps, all the fanboys will suddenly switch again and act like it's super important and something worth bashing other console gamers over.

For right now, though, it's back to resolution as being super important, even though last generation console fanboys constantly downplayed the advantage of higher resolutions. I just have to shake my head at all the hypocrisy.

Black00001860d ago


How is the draw of Dark Souls it's online? Everyone talks about its difficultly and tight combat.

"Also incorrect. A copy of Tetris won't feel and play better in 60FPS. Mario games won't, Zelda games won't, God of War won't,"

Which is why the A link Between Worlds & Mario 3D World run at 60 fps lol, maybe you'd have a different mind set if you were a PC gamer who was used to playing different genres of games at 60 fps you'd understand its benefits for gameplay. The only games where it wouldn't have any benefits are turn based games or a interactive game like Heavy Rain.

Meep1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

I agree that 30 or 60 fps depends on the game, but almost all 3D games should aim for 60 fps, hell any game that you need to move a camera somewhat quickly. That includes games like infamous and dark souls. The stutter isn't tremendous but its there and it adds up. Your eye catches the stutter every few seconds (especially if you move the camera quickly) and it adds up and the game ends up feeling slow because of it. You will definitely spot it when you get used to playing games at 60FPS and go back to a game at 30 fps. The difference is shocking.

If a game is going to have 30 fps then it damn well better be built around that fact. Its a technical hurdle. I'm pretty sure no developer wants have 30 fps in their game.

elhebbo161860d ago

What kinda peasantry is this? 30 to 60 is minimal? because the human eye can only see 30 fps amaright.

DragonKnight1860d ago

@Black0000: Ask fans for the series what they play Dark Souls the most for.

"Which is why the A link Between Worlds & Mario 3D World run at 60 fps lol, maybe you'd have a different mind set if you were a PC gamer who was used to playing different genres of games at 60 fps you'd understand its benefits for gameplay. The only games where it wouldn't have any benefits are turn based games or a interactive game like Heavy Rain."

Firstly, ditch the PC talk. This isn't about the PC. Secondly, just because a game DOES run at 60FPS, doesn't mean it NEEDS to run at 60FPS. Some people can't tell the difference.

insomnium21860d ago

This has to be the first time ever I completely disagree with dragonknight. Games look way smoother running 60 fps. It boggles my mind why anyone would feal that it adds nothing to the experience. No matter what type of game if it has something (anything) moving in it it looks better if it moves smoother. The difference in 30 to 60 frames is so clearly visible from those vids where the camera spins in DS2 it even surprized me tbh.

Kryptix1859d ago

The difference is very visible when you compare them together with the same material.

I think a lot of us are just used to playing at 30fps, but when you make the jump, going from 30 to 60fps games'll be amazed to how smooth the game looks & feels.

I played DCUO on both PS3 & PS4, I prefer the latter for it's 60fps. Makes combat much more fluent.

pixelsword1859d ago (Edited 1859d ago )


Depends on what's being animated and how: if you have something with blur on every frame when it comes to something animated with a degree of speed, the framerate won't make much of a difference, but when you have frames with no blur, you need a higher framerate, or else everything in motion concerning speed will look unrealistic and "framey", to coin a term.

It's just like how you pause a movie that's filmed at 30fps and you see blurriness in images that have fast motion in them; but if you take something that's filmed in, let's say one of those cameras with a very high framerate, you see no blurriness on the frames when you pause the film.

Going back to games, if you have a game that has effects to emulate blurriness like Killzone 2 had, you don't need a higher framerate; but a game like Reistance 2 had none of those effects but a higher framerate and both looked buttery smooth when in action (minus Killzone 2's loading, lol).

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 1859d ago
1860d ago Replies(3)
colonel1791860d ago

Why is everyone obsessed about 60fps/1080p? The games are good, it's what matters. Is not like the games run in slow motion.

95% of the people who play games don't even notice the difference between 30fps and 60 fps, and also 720p from 1080p.

Hicken1860d ago

If they're not paying attention, they won't notice it. But ask them if they can see a difference, and most people can, I'm sure.

Voozi1860d ago

Depends what size TV you have. On my 47"LG HDTV the difference between 720p and 1080p is night and day.

As for the FPS difference, it really depends. Is it a locked 30 fps, does it vary from 20-30, or does it go from 30-60?

Infamous SS was VERY smooth on the PS4. I honestly had no idea clue it was running at 30 fps until I read this article considering how fluid everything was.

randomass1711860d ago

The difference in framerates can definitely be seen, ut not every game requires an optimal framerate. Games that require split second timing and precision need it more than others.

Meep1860d ago

Honestly PC gamers notice the difference a lot more because they sit a lot closer to their monitors. For console gamers, the difference is subtle, for PC gamers the difference is huge.

Kryptix1859d ago

Not sure where you got the 95%, but everyone that I know can tell the difference. Do they care? That's up the viewer, but I would prefer 1080p with 60fps in certain genres that are fast paced.

It's just something that you have to know to understand the benefits of having high frame rates. If you're going to turn around quick in a first person shooter & it's 30fps, you're going to see motion blur & that's not good for competitive multiplayer, it will be harder to focus on people. That's why you see all Call of Duty devs aim for 60fps because it's necessary for multiplayer twitch shooters.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1859d ago
JsonHenry1860d ago

They hate it (like most devs) cause the low frequency CPUs in the consoles are making them work harder to multi-thread their products. Surely there is someone that is going to make a fortune in middleware that comes up with a good product that accomplishes this feat.

GameNameFame1860d ago

Or OpenGL which will have ports from DX12. Lol

imt5581860d ago

Quote from article :

"...Material properties are stored in up to 8 gbuffers (5-6 plus depth/stencil), with 41 bytes written per pixel. THAT TRANSLATE TO 85 MB FOR FULL SCREEN BUFFERS...."

So, 32 MB eSRAM is enough!!!???

+ over 100k+ polys for characters.

Azzanation1860d ago

Maybe DX12 would help... oh wait..

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1859d ago
candy_mafia1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

Goes to show no system is perfect..... PS4 has it's strengths and weaknesses like Xbox One.

But IMO Sony has the least amount of work to do.

ColeMacGrath1860d ago

I'm surprised this comment didn't get beaten up by disagrees. N4G is certainly improving. :)

TheRealTedCruz1860d ago

I've noticed that as well. It's a good thing. There's still a lot of mud slinging, and there is certainly one party dominating the site, but people are warming up to the idea of mutual respect between one another and competing platforms.
It's nice to see.

Nero13141860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

I can't wait to see the future of these consoles

Bathyj1860d ago

I'll reiterate at the risk of sounding like a broken record, although the previous inFamous's were quite pretty and very smooth with a lot of action going on, Sucker Punch is not a studio really known for bleeding edge graphics. Amazing what they did straight out of the gate.

The next couple of years are going to be fun...

Abriael1860d ago

may want to use past tense. With infamous SS they're definitely known for bleeding edge graphics now.

1nsomniac1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

Taking the original Infamous & its first sequel they have all been released as open-world technical showpieces.

No other 'open word' game has matched the graphical quality to any of them at the time of release on any console, I'm not quite sure what you mean? It's exactly what Sucker Punch have been known for at least for the last decade.

Remember that neither of them had the vasaline smudged post process effects or high LOD issues or haze. Which were all the norm for every other open-world game that had been released on console up until that point.

HaydenJameSmith1860d ago (Edited 1860d ago )

No other open world game really ?

Assassins Creed Games
GTA 4 and 5
Red Dead Redemption
Batman Arkham City
Oblivion and Skyrim
Fallout 3 and New Vegas
Just Cause 1 and 2
Prototype 1 and 2
Saints Row Games

This is not to say that those games didnt look good but there not the best last gen games to show off open world video games...

I think the best looking wud be among gta, red dead, skyrim and assassins creed 2 and 3...