Will Next Gen Consoles have Enough Memory?

[Joshua Luna]

Hello Beyond3Ders!

Long time lurker, first time poster. With the nVidia/Sony news, the insanely long thread debating CELL and GPU power and what it means for next gen consoles, and E3 and other events around the corner I thought I would ask a question that has been bothering me. With supposed Xbox2 spec leaks available and the ever mounting CELL & PS3 hype/facts coming to the surface one thing has left me uneasy about the upcoming consoles: Memory, or better yet, the lack of it.

We hear a lot about CPUs, GPUs, and so forth, but in my mind one of the single most limiting factors on any system, and especially consoles, is the memory. I always thought in the last generation that the console makers cut corners on the RAM (for obvious cost reasons), and in the end this is one of the major reasons, outside of developing for the lowest denominator and porting upward, that games on the GC, PS2, and Xbox are so similar graphically. Especially in the case of the Xbox, I think extra RAM would have made a world of difference. One of the three major reasons I tend to play more PC games over console games is because console games tend to have bland, blurry, and repetitive textures (the other reasons are resolution and multiplayer).

Looking forward to the new consoles I get the feeling we are going to be in a similar situation, especially with techniques like normal mapping and the like that use up extra memory (see: Doom 3). If game developers are already asking for 512MB of video RAM for new GPUs, will the rumors of a mere 256MB of total system memory be a serious pigeon hold on the next generation consoles?

I could be wrong, but I am getting the feeling that all the debates about the GPUs and CPUs on the next consoles is overlooking the memory factor. I am assuming most HDTV games will be 720p (1280x720), this means that while GPU and CPU power are great things, it would seem that 256MB of memory would be a significant limitation of the new consoles. Considering that is typically agreed that we are heading toward more and more diminishing returns in the graphics department I think this is an issue. A lot of posters here already believe there wont be a whole lot of difference between how PS3 and Xbox2 games look. And in many ways I get the feeling that even if the Xbox2 and PS3 are 30% faster than the Revolution, if they are all running around with ~256MB of memory that in the end we wont see a whole lot of differences on the TV/Monitor regardless of the power difference.

Onto my questions:

1. What are the chances of the Xbox2 having more than 256MB of memory? What are the PS3 rumblings in regards to system/video memory?

2. Will limited system/video memory offset some of the power difference of the next generation. Why are why not?

3. Are we going to see some new techniques that will overcome the memory limitations? What examples do we know of?

4. How do developers feel about memory constraints? Would they rather have a good CPU/GPU and more/great memory or a great CPU/GPU and less/ok memory?

5. And most importantly, what would the consumer perception be of a console with a little less power but a lot more memory? Crisp textures and varied textures/environment are one way to convey the "power" of a console to a consumer. Could 2x the memory (512MB vs. 256MB), and the results in game, be enough to convince a consumer that a system is more powerful than a system with 20-25% more raw GPU/CPU power?

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and questions. Feel free to give your input or correct any incorrect ideas. I am excited since the Xbox2 and Revolution are stated to work on monitors (yay! Hopefully PS3 also). I personally want more varied environment and better AI/Physics/Animation in games and most important continued progression in game play (I am going to be upset when Madden 2006/7 cuts out all the franchise, stat, and other game play elements for their new engine). Graphic goodies are nice, but they are only part of presenting a virtual world. I am just hoping memory limitations do not become an issue that hinders creativity. Just my 2 cents. :)

[cthellis42]

Hello Beyond3Ders!

Long time lurker, first time poster.
Damn, now I feel like a radio show! :wink:

[Tagrineth]

We hear a lot about CPUs, GPUs, and so forth, but in my mind one of the single most limiting factors on any system, and especially consoles, is the memory. I always thought in the last generation that the console makers cut corners on the RAM (for obvious cost reasons), and in the end this is one of the major reasons, outside of developing for the lowest denominator and porting upward, that games on the GC, PS2, and Xbox are so similar graphically. Especially in the case of the Xbox, I think extra RAM would have made a world of difference. One of the three major reasons I tend to play more PC games over console games is because console games tend to have bland, blurry, and repetitive textures (the other reasons are resolution and multiplayer).

Xbox DOES have extra RAM. PS2 has 32MB with 4MB texture/frame cache... GCN has 24MB main, 16MB "random junk" RAM and ~1MB texture, ~2MB frame cache... Xbox: 64MB for anything you damn well want.

And your texturing comment suggests that you've mostly been looking at PS2 and/or Halo games... *ahem*.

Looking forward to the new consoles I get the feeling we are going to be in a similar situation, especially with techniques like normal mapping and the like that use up extra memory (see: Doom 3). If game developers are already asking for 512MB of video RAM for new GPUs, will the rumors of a mere 256MB of total system memory be a serious pigeon hold on the next generation consoles?

I could be wrong, but I am getting the feeling that all the debates about the GPUs and CPUs on the next consoles is overlooking the memory factor. I am assuming most HDTV games will be 720p (1280x720), this means that while GPU and CPU power are great things, it would seem that 256MB of memory would be a significant limitation of the new consoles. Considering that is typically agreed that we are heading toward more and more diminishing returns in the graphics department I think this is an issue. A lot of posters here already believe there wont be a whole lot of difference between how PS3 and Xbox2 games look. And in many ways I get the feeling that even if the Xbox2 and PS3 are 30% faster than the Revolution, if they are all running around with ~256MB of memory that in the end we wont see a whole lot of differences on the TV/Monitor regardless of the power difference.[/quote]

A 640x480 full double buffer takes less than 4MB. 1280x720 is just under 4x that... I don't know the exact math behind calculating frame buffer size, but I'll assume that scaling is linear, so less than 16MB. The largest frame buffer we can expect next gen would be 1920x1080, which would be another 2.25x that, so still under 36MB, under my assumptions... (please, hold off on the beheading if my numbers are inaccurate, I'm throwing numbers out off the top of my head as an example!).

That'd very easily and comfortably fit into even 128MB while offering more space for "other stuff" than any of the three current consoles.

256MB should be plenty.

Keep in mind rendering in console games tends to be a hell of a lot more optimised than PC games, with more optimally compressed textures etc.

1. What are the chances of the Xbox2 having more than 256MB of memory? What are the PS3 rumblings in regards to system/video memory?

I'd assume the norm next gen will be 256MB. One console might dare to break 300, but none will go past 320MB maximum, mostly due to cost reasons but also because it really isn't necessary in a console environment.

2. Will limited system/video memory offset some of the power difference of the next generation. Why are why not?

It might affect the AVERAGE content from devs that aren't very good at optimising... but judging by what has been accomplished in PS2 and GCN's wonderfully small texture caches and RAM, I wouldn't bet on memory being that severely limiting next gen.

3. Are we going to see some new techniques that will overcome the memory limitations? What examples do we know of?

We'll very likely see all or most of ATi's HyperZ technology in both MS and N's next systems, and we might see some new techniques from nVidia if they really did have input in the PS3's graphics. ATi will also surely push 3Dc compression on both of their target consoles.

4. How do developers feel about memory constraints? Would they rather have a good CPU/GPU and more/great memory or a great CPU/GPU and less/ok memory?

I'll defer this one to the developers. ;)

5. And most importantly, what would the consumer perception be of a console with a little less power but a lot more memory? Crisp textures and varied textures/environment are one way to convey the "power" of a console to a consumer. Could 2x the memory (512MB vs. 256MB), and the results in game, be enough to convince a consumer that a system is more powerful than a system with 20-25% more raw GPU/CPU power?

Compare early PS2 to late Dreamcast... the public doesn't seem to care at all about texturing, because PS2 can do "66 million polys per second!!!"... It's all about perceived power, and whatever the companies choose to market... and of course, whether the consumers buy into the marketing or not.

[Megadrive1988]

probably not as much memory as developers would like

it's looking like 256 MB main memory plus some eDRAM. some eDRAM for Xenon (10 MB?) more eDRAM for PS3 (64 MB+64 MB or 32MB + 32MB) and probably more eDRAM for Revolution than Xenon, but less than PS3.

i hope main memory on all 3 consoles gets bumped to 512.

[Dave Baumann]

Hello Beyond3Ders!

Long time lurker, first time poster.
Damn, now I feel like a radio show! :wink:

When did B3D become your show? ;)

[Guden Oden]

256MB will hamper game design, if not so much now, at least later in the consoles' lives. It will annoy developers and cause extra headache trying to fit in all the stuff these machines will be capable of rendering, they will inadvertedly waste power because there won't be room for everything.

[wco81]

I know this isn't going to happen but it would be nice to have enough memory so that you can run more than one application without rebooting or even loading from disc.

In particular, how about a shell/OS where you have an instance of the game running and then some smaller utilities like an instant messaging program, perhaps a browser or some kind of file transfer/sharing utlity?

No that would be too PC-like.

[Brimstone]

I'll say 512 MB of GDDR-4 will be in X-Box 2. But I won't be surprised by some new type of memory standard since ATI is working with VIA on XDDR.

The Flash Drive acting as a hard drive replacement is an intresting possibility. I guess it would be possible to have a blank flash disk connected to the X-Box 2 and use that as a pool of virtualized memory.

[london-boy]

There will never be enough Ram.
It's like cherries, Devs always want "just one more".

Seriously, there will always be a RAM limitation because consoles stay the same for 5 years, while PCs can just keep adding RAM as they see fit. While i'm not commenting on the fact that some PC applications are outrageous from a RAM requirement point of view (ok i commented right there...), unless console manufacturers put as much RAM in consoles as there should be 4 years down the line (don't put the "necessary now", put the "necessary in 4 years" if you know what i mean), devs will always complain.

[Dio]

A 640x480 full double buffer takes less than 4MB. 1280x720 is just under 4x that... I don't know the exact math behind calculating frame buffer size, but I'll assume that scaling is linear, so less than 16MB. The largest frame buffer we can expect next gen would be 1920x1080, which would be another 2.25x that, so still under 36MB, under my assumptions... (please, hold off on the beheading if my numbers are inaccurate, I'm throwing numbers out off the top of my head as an example!).
You have not considered antialiasing...

[Shifty Geezer]

A 640x480 full double buffer takes less than 4MB. 1280x720 is just under 4x that... I don't know the exact math behind calculating frame buffer size, but I'll assume that scaling is linear, so less than 16MB. The largest frame buffer we can expect next gen would be 1920x1080, which would be another 2.25x that, so still under 36MB, under my assumptions... (please, hold off on the beheading if my numbers are inaccurate, I'm throwing numbers out off the top of my head as an example!).

That'd very easily and comfortably fit into even 128MB while offering more space for "other stuff" than any of the three current consoles.


You have not considered high texture resolutions...

At that 4x resolution, are people going to be happy with the small textures already on current consoles? No, we'll want hires texures. And multiple textures. And varied scenery. The RAM requirements are going to go up in leaps and bounds, needing more RAM for higher model resolutions, greater animation details, better AI, larger worlds, more stuff on screen than ever before...

I share the view that RAM is going to be the big bottleneck. I'd like to see a gig of RAM and know there's room for 2000 NPC's all living their independant lives simultaneously and know there's room for 400 orcs on screen at once in epic battles. At the current expectations PS3 might have the processing to cope with this but won't have the other resources.

However, streaming data is an art-form on consoles and as long as the medium is fast enough (how quick is BluRay/HD-DVD?) smart devs can work around quite a bit.

[london-boy]

I share the view that RAM is going to be the big bottleneck. I'd like to see a gig of RAM and know there's room for 2000 NPC's all living their independant lives simultaneously and know there's room for 400 orcs on screen at once in epic battles. At the current expectations PS3 might have the processing to cope with this but won't have the other resources.


As you said, that is not directly dependant on RAM, since you could have 1000 characters on screen at once with very little memory - if they all look the same :wink:

I think RAM will always be the big limitation in consoles, and i also think that this is the reason why console manufacturers tend to focus on huge processing capabilities to make up for it.

PS1 - PS2 was a 8x-10x leap... i think? So one could assume that PS3 might have at least a 8x leap on PS2 = around 320MB RAM (if we consider PS2's total RAM as 40MB).

RAM in the GB areas would be nice, but let's not forget that RAM size seems the last thing manufacturers think about, it's liek they make the console, see how much it costs, then add as much RAM as they can afford. And at a certain cost point, they stop. If it's enough, good, if it's not, Developers will have to come up with ways to work around it. Like they always have.

[Rodéric]

You can compensate low RAM quantity by using High Order Surface and Procedural generation, but you would need a huge computing power.
Of course the best is still to have a trade of between both, I dunno which ratio would be nice though.
Sofar consoles have released pretty good games with what we consider 'low' RAM quantity (compared to PC), but lets not forget that we have huge bloated OS on the PC, lots of software/drivers running in the background... all eating up valuable ressources, which consoles don't have.

[london-boy]

You can compensate low RAM quantity by using High Order Surface and Procedural generation, but you would need a huge computing power.
Of course the best is still to have a trade of between both, I dunno which ratio would be nice though.
Sofar consoles have released pretty good games with what we consider 'low' RAM quantity (compared to PC), but lets not forget that we have huge bloated OS on the PC, lots of software/drivers running in the background... all eating up valuable ressources, which consoles don't have.

That's all true, but lately PC graphics cards (which only have graphics data obviously, so no OS overhead), have had quite a jump in memory size. 256MB in a graphics card is a lot, and i wouldn't want my next console to have as much RAM in total as my PC graphics card has all for itself... See what i mean?
Not only it sounds freaky, but I'd want these new super duper processors (both in X2 and PS3) to be able to run at their fullest without having to worry about such a simple thing as RAM.

[Cryect]

That's all true, but lately PC graphics cards (which only have graphics data obviously, so no OS overhead), have had quite a jump in memory size. 256MB in a graphics card is a lot, and i wouldn't want my next console to have as much RAM in total as my PC graphics card has all for itself... See what i mean?
Not only it sounds freaky, but I'd want these new super duper processors (both in X2 and PS3) to be able to run at their fullest without having to worry about such a simple thing as RAM.

Same was true with this generation with video cards having 32 & 64MB's of RAM

[london-boy]

Same was true with this generation with video cards having 32 & 64MB's of RAM

Yeah i know, but i'm older now and i usually want more of everything. :oops:

[GwymWeepa]

You can compensate low RAM quantity by using High Order Surface and Procedural generation, but you would need a huge computing power.
Of course the best is still to have a trade of between both, I dunno which ratio would be nice though.
Sofar consoles have released pretty good games with what we consider 'low' RAM quantity (compared to PC), but lets not forget that we have huge bloated OS on the PC, lots of software/drivers running in the background... all eating up valuable ressources, which consoles don't have.

*coughcellcough*

[Fafalada]

Not only it sounds freaky, but I'd want these new super duper processors (both in X2 and PS3) to be able to run at their fullest without having to worry about such a simple thing as RAM.
How about running to their fullest in order to make that ram 'look' bigger?
Currently the realtime compression schemes we use are pretty weak in terms of efficiency (especially texture) so it's not like we couldn't save a lot more space if the processing power was there...

Granted we'll always want more memory, right now I'm cheering for 512 because 256 is probably going to be it - but if 512 looked likely we'd be asking for 1Gig... etc ;)

[Tagrineth]

You have not considered antialiasing...

At 1920x1080?

We aren't going to have AAed 1920x1080 for the next gen consoles... this gen we don't even have (consistent) AA on our 640x480! Hell, we had more AA last gen (N64) than this one...

You have not considered high texture resolutions...

At that 4x resolution, are people going to be happy with the small textures already on current consoles? No, we'll want hires texures. And multiple textures. And varied scenery. The RAM requirements are going to go up in leaps and bounds, needing more RAM for higher model resolutions, greater animation details, better AI, larger worlds, more stuff on screen than ever before...

I share the view that RAM is going to be the big bottleneck. I'd like to see a gig of RAM and know there's room for 2000 NPC's all living their independant lives simultaneously and know there's room for 400 orcs on screen at once in epic battles. At the current expectations PS3 might have the processing to cope with this but won't have the other resources.

However, streaming data is an art-form on consoles and as long as the medium is fast enough (how quick is BluRay/HD-DVD?) smart devs can work around quite a bit.

Consider the RAM on a scale, along with the res.

If you have 8x res, then you'll probably end up with ~8x content... in which case, you're using the same percentage of RAM as in the previous generation... which means you STILL have more room to play with.

I know, I'm oversimplifying things, but do consider what has been accomplished this gen, especially looking at the poor PS2's graphics buffer.

Consoles don't need 512MB yet... if anything, it would encourage sloppy coding practices, considering how much power the next consoles will have to begin with.

[GwymWeepa]

You have not considered antialiasing...

At 1920x1080?

We aren't going to have AAed 1920x1080 for the next gen consoles... this gen we don't even have (consistent) AA on our 640x480! Hell, we had more AA last gen (N64) than this one...

You have not considered high texture resolutions...

At that 4x resolution, are people going to be happy with the small textures already on current consoles? No, we'll want hires texures. And multiple textures. And varied scenery. The RAM requirements are going to go up in leaps and bounds, needing more RAM for higher model resolutions, greater animation details, better AI, larger worlds, more stuff on screen than ever before...

I share the view that RAM is going to be the big bottleneck. I'd like to see a gig of RAM and know there's room for 2000 NPC's all living their independant lives simultaneously and know there's room for 400 orcs on screen at once in epic battles. At the current expectations PS3 might have the processing to cope with this but won't have the other resources.

However, streaming data is an art-form on consoles and as long as the medium is fast enough (how quick is BluRay/HD-DVD?) smart devs can work around quite a bit.

Consider the RAM on a scale, along with the res.

If you have 8x res, then you'll probably end up with ~8x content... in which case, you're using the same percentage of RAM as in the previous generation... which means you STILL have more room to play with.

I know, I'm oversimplifying things, but do consider what has been accomplished this gen, especially looking at the poor PS2's graphics buffer.

Consoles don't need 512MB yet... if anything, it would encourage sloppy coding practices, considering how much power the next consoles will have to begin with.

Sloppy code practices=cheaper development cost, may as well allow developers to be a little lazy.

[Squeak]

Sloppy code practices=cheaper development cost, may as well allow developers to be a little lazy.If they were allowed to be "lazy" it would most likely start a downward spiral, as it already has happened to some extent on the peecee, where poor performance is mostly blamed on the hardware and not the programmers abilities.
Extra RAM costs money out of the total budget of the console, so something else has to go. Optical disc drive, PCB, various ports and casing, all have to be of a certain standard, so the most likely candidates for savings are CPU or GPU. A poor CPU or GPU you are forever stuck with, RAM on the other hand is much more open for improvements in memory management done by the programmer.

[MODEL 3]

1)Propably XBOX2 will have 256Mb of shared memory (I don't know the type, could be GDDR3 if launch before Q4 05 or GDDR4 if launch after Q4 05, or something else).There is a possibility for 384Mb or 512Mb but this will be decided based on the total cost of manufacturing, the launch price of XBOX2 and what are the memory (or information about it) of the competitors (PS3,REV).Based on the competition I would say that PS3 will have propably 256Mb of shared memory (XDR) and at least 32Mb or even 64Mb of e-dram on GPU becauce of the 6,5nm proccess.Don't forget that sony decided the last months of PSP design to quadrable the ammount of the main ram (8Mb -> 32Mb).Also historically Nintendo in their consoles had less or "effectively" the same memory with their competitors despite Nintendo consoles later launch date.
2)Certainly system/video memory will offset some of the power difference of the next generation but the key word is "some".In the case of Gamecube the 24Mb was/is a major problem for the developers and limits the otherwise excellent Gamecube H/W design.
3)Hope so.
4)They hate them (the main reason SONY quadrable the ammount of the main ram in PSP was developers complaints).It depends on developer, but the logical thing to go is great CPU/GPU and less/o.k. memory for two reasons: 1)economy of scale, manufacturing process and technology advancement (simply the reduction of the manufacturing cost of a console scales better in time with that approach) 2)For this generation and also the next (PS4 2,2nm or 1,6nm (kinda difficult) manufacturing process) GPU/CPU advancment will be great enough to quaranty the term "next Gen", for PS5 and beyond I certainly hope that new technologies will be the solution but Multibillion companies with longterm strategies they certainly don't pray, hope or cross fingers but they make the right decisions in order to succeed.
5)Your example is extreme.If i get right you implying: 1)what if XBOX2 had 512MB of memory and PS3 only 256Mb and PS3 CPU/GPU was only 20%-25% faster which is not going to happen since PS3 will ship after XBOX2 (they will forced to follow in the memory capacity) and since PS3 CPU/GPU will be alot more than 20%-25% faster in relation with XBOX2 CPU/GPU.Sorry XBOX2 fans but just think logically for a momment:
4 or more (some say even 16) CELL type CPU 6,5nm (they can put double the transistors in relation with 9nm and with higher Mhz) IBM/TOSHIBA/SONY joint design will be only 20% faster than 3 IBM 9nm PowerPC type of processor
or that NVIDIA/SONY joint design GPU with 6,5 nm process with double the transistor capacity and also with higher Mhz in relation with ATI XBOX2 part will be only 20% faster in relation with an ATI 9nm XBOX2 GPU.
It doesn't make sence.
or 2)What if it was possible to double the memory in a next generation console and loose only 20% of CPU/GPU power (at the same cost) that will be preferrable?I think that the answer is obvious but also obvious is that SONY, MS and NINTENDO people are not mentally damaged so they would have done it if this was the case (possible).

[Brimstone]

The PS3 and XB2 are in different situations though. While neither XDR or GDDR-4 are being made in volume today, GDDR-4 is the decendent of GDDR-3 and should only take a minimal effort at Micron and Samsung to get it up and running. Also it will have demand from ATI and nVidia based GPU's. Unless nVidia is going to support XDR in their non-console GPU's which I highly doubt will happen anytime soon.

XDR needs customers. Sure the PS3 is going to drive some demand, but until XDR devices from Sony, Toshiba, and hopefully some other companies get announced I'm skeptical. RAM size is one of a few things that people easily understand more is better when it comes to specs. It's likely Microsoft is going to take advantage of this and be very agressive on total amount of RAM. It seems that XDR will have a hard time matching the density of GDDR-X.

[GwymWeepa]

Sloppy code practices=cheaper development cost, may as well allow developers to be a little lazy.If they were allowed to be "lazy" it would most likely start a downward spiral, as it already has happened to some extent on the peecee, where poor performance is mostly blamed on the hardware and not the programmers abilities.
Extra RAM costs money out of the total budget of the console, so something else has to go. Optical disc drive, PCB, various ports and casing, all have to be of a certain standard, so the most likely candidates for savings are CPU or GPU. A poor CPU or GPU you are forever stuck with, RAM on the other hand is much more open for improvements in memory management done by the programmer.

Laziness on a fixed platform or two is a lot better than laziness for a platform that by its nature has a bajillion iterations.

[Megadrive1988]

london-boy:

PS1 - PS2 was a 8x-10x leap... i think? So one could assume that PS3 might have at least a 8x leap on PS2 = around 320MB RAM (if we consider PS2's total RAM as 40MB).

yup. well, 11.4x to be almost exact.

3.5 MB in PS1 to 40 MB in PS2.

although main memory was a 16x leap. 2 MB to 32 MB

PS1: 2 MB main + 1 MB VRAM + 0.5 MB audio
PS2: 32 MB main + 4 MB eDRAM + 2 MB audio + 2 MB I/O (PS1 CPU)



hmmm. remember that Sony increased PS1's *main* memory from 1 MB to 2 MB after developers bitched or said they could do so much more with 2 MB of main memory. source is Next Generation magazine...one of the early issues.

and more recently Sony increased PSP's *total* memory from 12 MB to 36 MB ( i think it's something like that). Although, IIRC, Sony actually *decreased* the amount of embedded memory. the original 12 MB was ALL embedded, unless I am mistaken. now only 4 MB is embedded. probably a good trade off.

edit: maybe it is what MODEL 3 said. that Sony quadrupled main memory from 8 MB to 32 MB. I thought the original 12 MB was all embedded. I don't know which is correct. but whatever the case is, it is absolutely true that Sony greatly increased the total amount of memory in PSP.

now, I'll be totally heartbroken if PS3 only gets 128 MB external XDR memory. if it does, I hope developers bitch like MuthaFawkers until Sony gives em 256 or 512 MB ^__~

[GwymWeepa]

london-boy:

PS1 - PS2 was a 8x-10x leap... i think? So one could assume that PS3 might have at least a 8x leap on PS2 = around 320MB RAM (if we consider PS2's total RAM as 40MB).

yup.

3.5 MB PS1 to 40 MB PS2.

although main memory was a 16x leap. 2 MB to 32 MB


hmmm. Sony increased PS1's main memory from 1 MB to 2 MB after developers bitched or said they could do so much more with 2 MB. source is Next Generation magazine...one of the early issues.

and more recently Sony increased PSP's *total* memory from 12 MB to 36 MB ( i think it's something like that). Although, IIRC, Sony actually *decreased* the amount of embedded memory. the original 12 MB was ALL embedded, unless I am mistaken. now only 4 MB is embedded. probably a good trade off.

edit: maybe it is what MODEL 3 said. that Sony quadrupled main memory from 8 MB to 32 MB. I thought the original 12 MB was all embedded. I don't know which is correct. but whatever the case is, it is absolutely true that Sony greatly increased the total amount of memory in PSP.

now, I'll be totally heartbroken if PS3 only gets 128 MB external XDR memory. if it does, I hope developers bitch like MuthaFawkers until Sony gives em 256 or 512 MB ^__~

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

[Megadrive1988]

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

yeah.

but.... well, I wouldn't say 'no way' to 128 MB. Sony tried to get away with 1 MB main memory in PS1.

and 8 MB (12 MB total) in PSP.

it would not surprise me if Sony tries to limit PS3 to 128 MB of external XDR main memory. in fact, there were some press releases or articles that suggested just that......

.....that PS3 would be getting four 256 Mb (megabit) XDR chips, instead of four 512 Mb (megabit) chips

256 Mb/megabits is 32 MB/MegaBytes. thus four 256 Mb chips is 128 MegaBytes.

the only upside was that the memory bandwidth would increase from ~25 GB/sec to ~51 GB/sec.


now let us pray that the 128 MB (2x 256 Mb memory chips) is not true.


even 256 MegaBytes is, imho, scrapping the bottem, giving developers less of a leap in main memory than PS1 to PS2.

PS1 to PS2 saw a 16x increase in main memory as we know.

if PS3 has 256 MegaBytes main memory, that is only an 8x increase from PS2's main memory which is 32 MegaBytes.


worst case senario is this: the new Playstation and the new Xbox are getting only 4x the memory that the current Playstation and the current Xbox have respectively. not counting embedded memory in PS3, Xenon and PS2, or PS2's other segmented memory pools.

64 MB Xbox ====> 256 MB Xenon
32 MB PS2 ====> 128 MB PS3

again, this is the worst case. and not counting on-chip memory for PS2, Xenon or PS3. or PS2's audio and PS1 CPU memory pools.



damnit, im tired of typing now.

no wait, I'm not THAT tired. lol. not tired enough to say.....

give PS3 developers 1 GigaByte aka 1024 MegaBytes of XDR external memory and let that have ~102 GB/sec bandwidth 8)

then let PS3 last for about 7 years before bringing out Playstation4

[GwymWeepa]

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

yeah.

but.... well, I wouldn't say 'no way' to 128 MB. Sony tried to get away with 1 MB main memory in PS1.

and 8 MB (12 MB total) in PSP.

it would not surprise me if Sony tries to limit PS3 to 128 MB. in fact, there were some press releases or articles that suggested just that......

.....that PS3 would be getting two 256 Mb (megabit) XDR chips.

256 Mb/megabits is 64 MB/MegaBytes. thus two 256 Mb chips is 128 MegaBytes.

the only upside was that the memory bandwidth would increase from ~25 GB/sec to ~51 GB/sec.


now let us pray that the 128 MB (2x 256 Mb memory chips) is not true.


even 256 MegaBytes is, imho, scrapping the bottem, giving developers less of a leap in main memory than PS1 to PS2.

PS1 to PS2 saw a 16x increase in main memory as we know.

if PS3 has 256 MegaBytes main memory, that is only an 8x increase from PS2's main memory which is 32 MegaBytes.

damnit, im tired of typing now.

no wait, I'm not THAT tired. lol. not tired enough to say.....

give PS3 developers 1 GigaByte aka 1024 MegaBytes of XDR external memory and let that have ~102 GB/sec bandwidth 8)

then let PS3 last for about 7 years before bringing out Playstation4

If they include only 128 megs of ram I could see Xenon becoming a good competitor to ps3, I seriously doubt MS would put less than 256 megs into that machine and developers would appreciate it.

[version]

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

yeah.

but.... well, I wouldn't say 'no way' to 128 MB. Sony tried to get away with 1 MB main memory in PS1.

and 8 MB (12 MB total) in PSP.

it would not surprise me if Sony tries to limit PS3 to 128 MB. in fact, there were some press releases or articles that suggested just that......

.....that PS3 would be getting two 256 Mb (megabit) XDR chips.

256 Mb/megabits is 64 MB/MegaBytes. thus two 256 Mb chips is 128 MegaBytes.

the only upside was that the memory bandwidth would increase from ~25 GB/sec to ~51 GB/sec.


now let us pray that the 128 MB (2x 256 Mb memory chips) is not true.


even 256 MegaBytes is, imho, scrapping the bottem, giving developers less of a leap in main memory than PS1 to PS2.

PS1 to PS2 saw a 16x increase in main memory as we know.

if PS3 has 256 MegaBytes main memory, that is only an 8x increase from PS2's main memory which is 32 MegaBytes.

damnit, im tired of typing now.

no wait, I'm not THAT tired. lol. not tired enough to say.....

give PS3 developers 1 GigaByte aka 1024 MegaBytes of XDR external memory and let that have ~102 GB/sec bandwidth 8)

then let PS3 last for about 7 years before bringing out Playstation4



256mbit =32 MB not 64

for ps3 performanse must have 100MB geometry data, 300-400MB compressed texture data , sound , code etc...

minimum 512 MB

[Megadrive1988]

256mbit =32 MB not 64

opps. you're right. edited my post.

[one]

The PS3 and XB2 are in different situations though. While neither XDR or GDDR-4 are being made in volume today, GDDR-4 is the decendent of GDDR-3 and should only take a minimal effort at Micron and Samsung to get it up and running. Also it will have demand from ATI and nVidia based GPU's. Unless nVidia is going to support XDR in their non-console GPU's which I highly doubt will happen anytime soon.

XDR needs customers. Sure the PS3 is going to drive some demand, but until XDR devices from Sony, Toshiba, and hopefully some other companies get announced I'm skeptical. RAM size is one of a few things that people easily understand more is better when it comes to specs. It's likely Microsoft is going to take advantage of this and be very agressive on total amount of RAM. It seems that XDR will have a hard time matching the density of GDDR-X.

The PS2 singlehandedly sustained RDRAM though Intel failed. The PS3 has more chips on a single unit and more suppliers at launch, and the GPU co-development with nVIDIA will surely push XDR use in nVIDIA high-end cards.

According to the roadmap of Samsung as of July 2004 GDDR4 won't be ready for Xbox 2 if it launches in 2005. With this news (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18902) it's most likely that Xbox 2 has 512MB GDDR3 (512Mbit * 8 ) in the 256bit interface.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0716/kaigai06.jpg

[version]

100MB geometrydata/frame is 6 GB/s
300MB texturedata/frame is 18GB/s

this 24GB/s and Ai, phisics etc

for 512MB ram 26 GB/s memoryspeed enough
for 1024 MB ram 52 GB enough

[Brimstone]

The PS3 and XB2 are in different situations though. While neither XDR or GDDR-4 are being made in volume today, GDDR-4 is the decendent of GDDR-3 and should only take a minimal effort at Micron and Samsung to get it up and running. Also it will have demand from ATI and nVidia based GPU's. Unless nVidia is going to support XDR in their non-console GPU's which I highly doubt will happen anytime soon.

XDR needs customers. Sure the PS3 is going to drive some demand, but until XDR devices from Sony, Toshiba, and hopefully some other companies get announced I'm skeptical. RAM size is one of a few things that people easily understand more is better when it comes to specs. It's likely Microsoft is going to take advantage of this and be very agressive on total amount of RAM. It seems that XDR will have a hard time matching the density of GDDR-X.

The PS2 singlehandedly sustained RDRAM though Intel failed. The PS3 has more chips on a single unit and more suppliers at launch, and the GPU co-development with nVIDIA will surely push XDR use in nVIDIA high-end cards.

According to the roadmap of Samsung as of July 2004 GDDR4 won't be ready for Xbox 2 if it launches in 2005. With this news (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18902) it's most likely that Xbox 2 has 512MB GDDR3 (512Mbit * 8 ) in the 256bit interface.

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0716/kaigai06.jpg


Micron and ATI worked together on the GDDR-3 spec and Micron was a X-Box memory supplier. Samsung was fabbing GDDR-2 for a while. So far I haven't read any press releases on a chosen memory supplier for X-Box next. To me it would seem a bit odd for GDDR-3 modules to go into the next platform, when for a long term contract they could start off with the intial GDDR-4 clock speed and as they increase the clock up for the PC market, any modules not clocking fast enough would just go to Microsoft. Microsoft could subsidize Micron's GDDR-4 production for several years.

[Megadrive1988]

what memory is Nintendo Revolution likely to use?

would Nintendo have to go with MoSys 1T-SRAM for BC with GCN games?

or could GDDR-4 be used?

[pc999]

I'll say 512 MB of GDDR-4 will be in X-Box 2. But I won't be surprised by some new type of memory standard since ATI is working with VIA on XDDR.

The Flash Drive acting as a hard drive replacement is an intresting possibility. I guess it would be possible to have a blank flash disk connected to the X-Box 2 and use that as a pool of virtualized memory.

Remenber (Acert93) that exclusives like Doom 3 ( when it is out ) alreay/will use HD to store textures, I dont know if ATIs HiperMemory fit here ( or a no PCI version or whatever like ).
And that GC already had virtual memory.
And he get always the same names ( ATI , MS N...) so some of this things already exists it make very sence that we get all this things in their next consoles.

[london-boy]

Remenber (Acert93) that exclusives like Doom 3 ( when it is out ) alreay/will use HD to store textures, I dont know if ATIs HiperMemory fit here ( or a no PCI version or whatever like ).
And that GC already had virtual memory.
And he get always the same names ( ATI , MS N...) so some of this things already exists it make very sence that we get all this things in their next consoles.

U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

[Guden Oden]

for 512MB ram 26 GB/s memoryspeed enough
for 1024 MB ram 52 GB enough

No game is going to show all texture data on-screen simultaneously, that's not only rediculous, but technically impossible as well; there simply aren't enough screen pixels!

Of course bandwidth need does not scale up with memory size. Bandwidth need scales with computational ability. :P

[london-boy]

for 512MB ram 26 GB/s memoryspeed enough
for 1024 MB ram 52 GB enough

No game is going to show all texture data on-screen simultaneously, that's not only rediculous, but technically impossible as well; there simply aren't enough screen pixels!

Of course bandwidth need does not scale up with memory size. Bandwidth need scales with computational ability. :P

Agreed, and seen how computational ability seems to be increasing much more than memory size, i guess bandwidth will also have to go up a great deal to keep up with these hungry processors.

[pc999]

[U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

Yes, they said that some time ago, and that they had rewrite part/all? the pixelshader code.

[london-boy]

[U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

Yes, they said that some time ago, and that they had rewrite part/all? the pixelshader code.

?? U seem a bit confused. They might have to rewrite the shaders to fit them on the Xbox GPU capabilities, and i believe that, but that has nothing to do with rewriting the game to stream the levels, or whatever you mentioned, as that would require MAJOR code rewriting. They might as well scrap the original and start from scratch, and we all know that is NOT going to happen.

[Fox5]

Remenber (Acert93) that exclusives like Doom 3 ( when it is out ) alreay/will use HD to store textures, I dont know if ATIs HiperMemory fit here ( or a no PCI version or whatever like ).
And that GC already had virtual memory.
And he get always the same names ( ATI , MS N...) so some of this things already exists it make very sence that we get all this things in their next consoles.

U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

I think doom 3 on pc already steams data in addition to the level loads. Within the level it streams data off the harddrive.(or if not then its streaming data from main ram to the video ram...well that's just agp texturing and not really streaming just loading as needed, but xbox doesn't have main ram to load video data from)

[london-boy]

Remenber (Acert93) that exclusives like Doom 3 ( when it is out ) alreay/will use HD to store textures, I dont know if ATIs HiperMemory fit here ( or a no PCI version or whatever like ).
And that GC already had virtual memory.
And he get always the same names ( ATI , MS N...) so some of this things already exists it make very sence that we get all this things in their next consoles.

U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

I think doom 3 on pc already steams data in addition to the level loads. Within the level it streams data off the harddrive.(or if not then its streaming data from main ram to the video ram...well that's just agp texturing and not really streaming just loading as needed, but xbox doesn't have main ram to load video data from)

Yeah Doom3 already splits levels and loads them "on the fly" so to speak, but it's nothing on the scale of J&D, as there are still loading screens here and there between a level and the next.

[pc999]

[?? U seem a bit confused. They might have to rewrite the shaders to fit them on the Xbox GPU capabilities, and i believe that, but that has nothing to do with rewriting the game to stream the levels, or whatever you mentioned, as that would require MAJOR code rewriting. They might as well scrap the original and start from scratch, and we all know that is NOT going to happen.

No they really had said that

Of course Vicarious Visions is making extensive use of the Xbox’s built-in hard drive to reduce loading times and also will result in smooth gameplay once you have begun playing a level.

http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox/705/Doom-3/p4/

She mentioned that feedback has been extremely positive in regards to early tests, and that through optimization and innovative use of the Xbox's hard drive

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/491/491780p2.html

I had saw that ( first ) in a interview, but I can´t find this one now, but these quotes hint in that direction...

[AlStrong]

U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

Surely it's faster than streaming from the dvd?

Halo vs Halo 2? :wink:

(talking about texture loading, not level loading/caching to harddrive speed of course)

[AlStrong]

?? U seem a bit confused. They might have to rewrite the shaders to fit them on the Xbox GPU capabilities, and i believe that, but that has nothing to do with rewriting the game to stream the levels, or whatever you mentioned, as that would require MAJOR code rewriting. They might as well scrap the original and start from scratch, and we all know that is NOT going to happen.


So what IS taking up all this time for the xbox port to finish? Vicarious Visions have all the game content....

*wishes for an interview or update on game development progress*

[london-boy]

So what IS taking up all this time for the xbox port to finish? Vicarious Visions have all the game content....

*wishes for an interview or update on game development progress*


Errr....

So what's taking so long to finish Duke Nukem forever?

And what took so long to release HL2, or Doom3....... :twisted:

[passerby]

Resurrecting this old thread because I was bored and just browsing around.

This http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0709/kaigai101.htm was reported sometime ago, and my Japanese has improved a bit more since. :oops:

We already have confirmation that all the XDR suppliers are aiming for 256MBit chips in '05 because that was requested by 'the main customer'(guess who? the main customer even made a presentation there!).

Now there's this slide that was actually shown during the RDF.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0709/kaigai_7.jpg

We can actually make a pretty good guess that PS3 is gunning for 256MB @ 51GB/s with 8 chips. Almost 'confirmation-worthy' guess IMO.

[pascal]

I will not be surprised if they use only 4 memory chips (256mBits each). The total memory could be 128MBytes or four times the PS2 memory.

Remenber, this is a console and supposed to be low cost.

Merry Xmas :D

[Wunderchu]

hi, I was busy during the time when ppl were actively posting in this thread, but not so much now, so I thought I would post roughly the same thing I recently posted in another thread:


We all know that Unreal Engine 3 was designed with next generation consoles in mind,UnrealEngine3 is targeted at high-end DirectX9 and future GPU's and next-generation game consoles(source: http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=21751 )..


... However, Tim Sweeney himself stated the following:If you only have a 256 meg video card you will be running the game one step down, whereas if you have a video card with a gig of memory then you'll be able to see the game at full detail.(source: http://www.beyondunreal.com/content/articles/95_1.php )

and
It doesn't exactly take a leap of faith to see scenarios in 2005-2006 where a single game level or visible scene will require >2GB RAM at full detail.(source: http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/sweeneyue3/index.php?p=3 )

........


... Now.. granted, a console like Xenon doesn't have to worry about running a bloated OS , or system APPs, or utilities like virus scanners and firewalls in the background........ but there is no way that 256 MB of unified RAM is going to allow Unreal Engine 3 to run at anything more than at drastically reduced :cry: detail levels if Mr. Sweeney is talking about >2 GB of system RAM and 1 GB of video RAM (for a total of >3 GB of RAM) hinted at to be able to run the engine at maximum detail levels .........

Now, I don't expect Xenon to be able to run Unreal Engine 3 based games at absolutely max detail levels, but the delta between 256 MB RAM and >3 GB RAM is huge.. with 256 MB RAM I just don't see Xenon being able to run Unreal Engine 3 at anywhere near the detail levels that it is capable of running at :cry: ...



On a related note, I believe that Sony and Samsung 's recent cross-licensing deal ( http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19128 ) should allow Sony to provide the PS3 with more RAM and/or faster RAM and/or RAM at a lower cost to themselves






(I first discovered that BeyondUnreal interview from this thread: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12514 )

[Shifty Geezer]

How optimised is the Unreal engine though? Traditionally PC software has been bloated. PC devs tend to write the code and wait for the hardware to catch up. Do you NEED a 1024x1024 texture when the object will only ever be 16 pixels square in size?

There's lots acheived on 32-64mb consoles that a 256mb (excluding Video RAM) PC can't handle. Any dev demanding 2 gbs is probably being a bit sloppy.

[Inane_Dork]

As a programmer myself, I agree that there cannot be too much memory from the development standpoint. There will always be a use for more.

However, MS seems to have invested heavily in making RAM size a lesser issue. A cached framebuffer is a nice chunk returned to RAM (and a heck of a lot of bandwidth). The recent patent talking about generating triangles on CPU and the GPU loading them straight from L2 cache can be another significant space saver.

I don't necessarily like it, but 256 MB is probably the amount it'll be. But if the thing is used correctly, it might be enough for 5 years.

[Joshua Luna]

How optimised is the Unreal engine though? Traditionally PC software has been bloated. PC devs tend to write the code and wait for the hardware to catch up. Do you NEED a 1024x1024 texture when the object will only ever be 16 pixels square in size?

There's lots acheived on 32-64mb consoles that a 256mb (excluding Video RAM) PC can't handle. Any dev demanding 2 gbs is probably being a bit sloppy.

I think it would be easier for a console with 32-64MB of RAM to look good at 6408x480 than a PC to look good with 256MB at 1600x1200. I do not doubt Consoles games are more streamlined and have the advantage of static HW for design... but I think 720p will be the future minimum resolution. That is a 3x increase in resolution over 480p. So higher resolution textures will be needed to make up for the fact the output resolution will be higher. So some of that memory is going to be gobbled up in compensating for the higher resolution output.

Now my opinion is that many console game textures are drab and undetailed and often the environments feel very empty. More stuff requires more memory. As a gamer I want large, open, detailed worlds with a lot of stuff in them.

Like you said, I am sure they can work magic with 256MB of memory. But top tier programmers could stuff even more into a game with 512MB. I would even pay extra for a 256MB memory expansion :) I bought the N64 one, so why not?! :)

[AlStrong]

From the TXB link for Doom 3 above:

The dev team did some research and found back doors and even a few undocumented instructions for the NV2X



Anyone have any clue what these could be... and how someone would find undocumented instructions?!?!?

[PZ]

With the PS3 being a streaming architecture, I think another big aspect beyond the size of the RAM is the size of the smaller co-processor memories (128KB). As far as I understand, the data will flow through the system and each processor will do its bit to push the calculation forward. You are hampered by the number of registers in the stream as well as dependencies between calculations. These can limit the complexity of the calculation you can do efficiently.