Bagel seed
Veteran
They don't need to buffer the whole
thing, maybe only a few seconds worth while simultaneously writing it all to the HDD.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
They don't need to buffer the whole
thing, maybe only a few seconds worth while simultaneously writing it all to the HDD.
I am still waiting for the aforementioned Sony statement on this matter..
I think they will need to reveal the complete user experience + benefits so that we can understand the tradeoff for losing so much memory.
If it's just a technical explanation, we won't be able to appreciate the setup.
IIRC, didn't the article read more like 2.75GB OS, .75GB shared cache? The title of the article seemed to round up.
So the conclusion is that PS4 uses very expensive GDDR5 but gives less RAM to game developers than what XBOX 1 gives (4.5 GB vs 5 GB)?
So the conclusion is that PS4 uses very expensive GDDR5 but gives less RAM to game developers than what XBOX 1 gives (4.5 GB vs 5 GB)?
With the caveat that there is a 1GB allottment of space shared by apps and games.. So 4.5-5.5GB for gaming.
So 4.5GB + potential caching bonuses I guess.
I think they will need to reveal the complete user experience so that we can understand the tradeoff for losing so much memory.
If it's just a technical explanation, we won't be able to appreciate the setup.
My position has always been that whatever the PS4 OS reservation is there must be a good reason so I am not saying that much RAM for OS is bad.
I am just puzzled.
So the conclusion is that PS4 uses very expensive GDDR5 but gives less RAM to game developers than what XBOX 1 gives (4.5 GB vs 5 GB)?
GDDR5 is known for its bandwidth, not capacity--which is why the motivation for it was sufficient at 4 or 8 GB.
My question now is what Sony was planning on doing prior to there being 8 GB to carve from.
With the caveat that there is a 1GB allottment of space shared by apps and games.. So 4.5-5.5GB for gaming.
So 4.5GB + potential caching bonuses I guess.
Hmm... cached data may be critical for performance. The developer may not want them to be cleared.
The shared 1GB may be more useful as a "buffer" area. If a game can't get the allocated system heap, it's time to quit the other secondary apps (like what Vita does)... until the game gains its 1GB back.
Bagel seed
Veteran
I wonder how the whole thing was supposed to work when it was still 4gb. So 512mb OS, but no shared memory or space reserved for apps? Or I guess the 512mb already included app space along with the OS itself?
But a Just Add Water CEO clearly said, I quote:
"Sony has "already ring-fenced the system memory away from the game memory, so there's none of this business that we had with PS3 of having to share memories.
When you press the PlayStation button on a PS3 game, you get the basic XMB up [but] to do anything you have to quit the game, because of the memory for it. With PS4 we don't have that because the system memory is already ring-fenced for itself."
"Sony has "already ring-fenced the system memory away from the game memory, so there's none of this business that we had with PS3 of having to share memories.
When you press the PlayStation button on a PS3 game, you get the basic XMB up [but] to do anything you have to quit the game, because of the memory for it. With PS4 we don't have that because the system memory is already ring-fenced for itself."
But a Just Add Water CEO clearly said, I quote:
"Sony has "already ring-fenced the system memory away from the game memory, so there's none of this business that we had with PS3 of having to share memories.
When you press the PlayStation button on a PS3 game, you get the basic XMB up [but] to do anything you have to quit the game, because of the memory for it. With PS4 we don't have that because the system memory is already ring-fenced for itself."
I don't quite understand the context here. What does this have to do with the present discussion?
He's saying there is no shared/optional 1GB partition... assuming all the info is up-to-date.
I don't think the statement is at odds with having a 1GB shared memory space for paging/caching of some sort.
He's saying there is no shared/optional 1GB partition... assuming all the info is up-to-date.
Assuming that guy is on the level and we're interpreting it correctly, then what does this mean? That the OS is legitimately 3.5GB? Or just 2.5GB?
Because DF very clearly indicates that 4.5GB is the baseline amount being allotted to devs.
"Game Console" ~ Doesn't even have 70% of its memory dedicated to the task.
Edit: second point was beaten. I agree with the aforementioned.. I don't see how what he was stating comes into conflict with this latest news.
This is a great story, because I love seeing the hardcore gamers face the crushing reality that you can no longer sell a streamlined game console to hardcore gamers and expect to run a profitable business. The pure game console is dead. It was dying last gen and now it's done. Gamers aren't as important as they think they are. We've had mobile phones with over 1GB of RAM for a while, and now they have 2GB. The reality is this consoles have to last for 5+ years, in which time they need to keep pace in terms of OS features with other smart devices (tablets, smartphones, media boxes, smart tvs).
Assuming that guy is on the level and we're interpreting it correctly, then what does this mean? That the OS is legitimately 3.5GB? Or just 2.5GB?
Because DF very clearly indicates that 4.5GB is the baseline amount being allotted to devs.
"Game Console" ~ Doesn't even have 70% of its memory dedicated to the task.
Edit: second point was beaten. I agree with the aforementioned.. I don't see how what he was stating comes into conflict with this latest news.
Game is 4.5GB minimally, 5.5GB max.
The rest takes up 2.5GB.
We actually don't exactly know how much the OS alone takes.
This decision is really puzzling, why on earth would they bump the ram last minute only to effectively reserve almost all of it??? Frankly its troubling in the sense that it suggest their overall design is not as well thought out as it should be at this late state in the game.
Either they don't know how much memory they will need for apps or they realized rather late that what they had wouldn't fit - regardless it suggest poor planning/understanding of what they want to do.
Either they don't know how much memory they will need for apps or they realized rather late that what they had wouldn't fit - regardless it suggest poor planning/understanding of what they want to do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.