PlayStation 4 (codename Orbis) technical hardware investigation (news and rumours)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trying to understand the justification, which I hope is better than, "heck, 5GBs is enough compared to last gen. Let's just put the rest aside and see what happens in a few years." ;)

There's something like 2 GBs 'spare' RAM in the 8 GB configuration. It's RAM that's likely not going to be being accessed constantly whether it has game assets stores away there or background tasks or user applicaitons. Would it be better for games to allow precaching for 2 GBs games assets, like more megatexture tiles in complex city environments? Or better to keep resident 50 different utilities and social apps that the user can flip to the front in an instant? Different folk will have different preferences, but the justification for needing that much for apps somewhat confuses me. Even looking forwards I can't see where the change is going to come. We talked about this at length in the next gen tech thread, about Durango reserving 3 GBs, and it seemed a gig or more could be used for Kinect and stuff, rather than 'apps'. What future requires a console to do more than a current iPad? Is the web going to become less and less efficient and just become retina-quality images taking up a gig a page or something equally ridiculous?

WRT - Web pages. Would you be happy with mobile versions of websites on your large screen HDTV similar to a smartphone? Or would you rather have PC (Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.) versions of web pages on your HDTV? Sure you can sometimes toggle to the full version of websites on a smartphone, but how many of those can you open up before the phones start to tombstone or evict tabs out of memory? While having other applications open? Without tombstoning or evicting those applications from memory? IIRC, iOS is fairly aggressive (compared to Android) at tombstoning and evicting apps/browser tabs from memory.

Would you rather to be limited to a single window with a single tab, or would you rather have the ability to open up multiple tabs?

Would you want to limit what can be displayed in the browser or would you rather have a fully web capable browser?

It's certainly possible to limit the user such that they only visit web pages that don't use much memory, but wouldn't it be better to just allow the user to potentially access any website they wish as long as it wasn't a site known for hosting malicious content (IE - meant to exploit 0-day vulnerabilities in web browsers).

Basically it comes down to what concessions do you want to make in order to limit how much memory a user will potentially use in a browser.

And, of course, that's even before we get to any potential always on applications. When it comes to those do you want the bare bones applets that exist currently on PS3/X360? Or would you rather something better than the horrible stuff you get with "SmartTVs"?

As an example. Skype without any video conferencing going on. Only one text chat session already uses almost 60 MB of memory on my system. I'm not sure how much it uses during Video chat as I don't do video chat. But I've seen other users claim it uses 130-150 MB on their system. And that's just one potential type of app that people might want to use and might want to have always on. And it has a relatively simple interface.

Would 1 GB be enough for the OS, services, apps, etc.? Possibly. For the life of the console? In the same quality and functionality to be able to match the competition if it becomes a key selling point with consumers?

Sony are saying the right things by saying they are focusing on the gamers first. But I don't doubt for a single second that are just as interested as Microsoft are in attracting a much larger audience than core gamers.

Sony has wanted a living room entertainment portal since the PS2. The PS4 will be their first real shot at accomplishing that. Personally, I think it would be unwise to limit your options for the entire life of the console by reserving too little at the start of the generation. Once a game uses the maximum amount of memory allowed for games, you can never take that memory back for the OS. At least if you want all those OS features to be available while playing the game.

Regards,
SB
 
He's got some point though. We might have not seen Move (and probably Kinect) this generation if it wasnt for Wii's motion control success.
I doubt we would have seen trophies and in-game dashboard on the PS3 if it wasnt for 360's implementation.
Sure some strategies dont change, but there is a room of flexibility that companies may use to adapt to the offers of competition.

The very concept of motion controls is not new, the very concept of camera to capture users/players' movements is not new, the very concept of in-game scores/rewards/medals is not new, the very concept of touch-screen is not new, etc..

Now to go back on topic I say that the amount of reserved memory for the OS will be determined by Sony's needs and strategy.
If they want PS4 to be a gaming powerhouse they will dedicate more memory to games.
If they want PS4 to be multimedia hub they will not sacrifice OS.
If they need a lot of memory for the OS then PS4 will have it.

The motivations for Sony's strategy can be found within Sony and PS4 and I will look there first. (This can be said for MS as well)
 
The very concept of motion controls is not new, the very concept of camera to capture users/players' movements is not new, the very concept of in-game scores/rewards/medals is not new, the very concept of touch-screen is not new, etc..
No shit sherlock?
The point is not whether these concepts were new or not. :rolleyes:
We arent discussing concepts but about this gen's console implementation
 
Yeah pal, don't tell me, case in hand memory reserved for OS
My position is that the amount of memory reserved for OS was/is determined by Sony's needs and desires not by "let's mimic MS".
Now we know from Cerny that they "put many of its basic functions on dedicated units on the board; that way, you don't have to allocate resources to handling these things" and I wondered how this could have influenced the amount of memory reserved for OS.
Also Sony has Gaikai and they could be using it to ease the burden of certain operation/functions and this too could determine the amount of memory reserved for OS as well.
 
WRT - Web pages. Would you be happy with mobile versions of websites on your large screen HDTV similar to a smartphone? Or would you rather have PC (Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.) versions of web pages on your HDTV?
The mobile browsing I do is on full websites. Sure, you can't open 5 major pages at a time, but on a console you aren't going to be using the browser do five things at once. You'll be looking something up about a movie, or checking out YouTube. And even then, 1 GB should be enough for multiple websites (except they are becoming obscenely bloated).

As an example. Skype without any video conferencing going on. Only one text chat session already uses almost 60 MB of memory on my system.
That's because it's crap. ;) Reference to modern apps is misleading, because on a tight system, if devs cared about saving RAM, they could be far, far more efficient. A chat client doesn't need to take a gazillions GBs of RAM. Looking at what can be done in 1 GB, with well-written software, there's little need for more AFAICS.

Again, I'm not overly against a larger reservation up front, but neither do I find the protestations untoward. People forget, and perhaps never realised, how much 1 gigabyte of RAM really is. It's only the cheapness and abundance of RAM that has allowed developers to fill it with inefficient code, building using bloated tools running on bloated OSes. It makes the devs' lives easier to not have to worry, but console apps and services don't have to worry about that.
 
The mobile browsing I do is on full websites. Sure, you can't open 5 major pages at a time, but on a console you aren't going to be using the browser do five things at once. You'll be looking something up about a movie, or checking out YouTube. And even then, 1 GB should be enough for multiple websites (except they are becoming obscenely bloated).

That's because it's crap. ;) Reference to modern apps is misleading, because on a tight system, if devs cared about saving RAM, they could be far, far more efficient. A chat client doesn't need to take a gazillions GBs of RAM. Looking at what can be done in 1 GB, with well-written software, there's little need for more AFAICS.

Again, I'm not overly against a larger reservation up front, but neither do I find the protestations untoward. People forget, and perhaps never realised, how much 1 gigabyte of RAM really is. It's only the cheapness and abundance of RAM that has allowed developers to fill it with inefficient code, building using bloated tools running on bloated OSes. It makes the devs' lives easier to not have to worry, but console apps and services don't have to worry about that.

I guess a question is how the apps are loaded into memory. Does it load the whole app and keep it secure in memory much like on Android or more needed bits of it like with Windows. And with browser a simple browser like Androids default or Opera on mobile easily takes 90-100MB with a few pages open. On PCs you end upp with hundreds of MBs used for a few open pages.
 
Until we have other data it safe to assume that 5 of 8 Gb is usable and so is 6 out of 7/8 CPU cores.
What data do we have that suggests only 5GB are available?
(sorry there's too much noise in this thread, it's getting really hard to search)
 
What data do we have that suggests only 5GB are available?
(sorry there's too much noise in this thread, it's getting really hard to search)

None, except that Gorilla Games said that only < 4 GB was used for the KZ demo and (if I'm not mistaken 6 CPU cores or 6 threads).

I would assume that for security reasons the OS' memory and maybe even CPU is clearly seperated (via hardware, MMU etc) from the game, so wouldn't be surprised if some memory (1 GB ?) and a CPU core are reserved. Guess Sony also wants to have the option to overlay OS functions (e.g. browsing or streaming) on top of the game w/o the need to exit the game like currently done for the PS3.

Don't think you will be able to watch a movie and play a game in parallel. Probably will be done via context switching, so the game is paused, but not completely stopped.
 
What data do we have that suggests only 5GB are available?
(sorry there's too much noise in this thread, it's getting really hard to search)

What we have is the GG Killzone Shadow Fall demo postmortem. What we know from that is the following:
  • For the demo, they were using about 4.6 GB of total memory.
  • For the demo, they were using 6 and only 6 cores.
  • For the demo, the cores are running at ~1.6 Ghz (exact rate is rounded, of course).
It's pretty safe to conclude from there that games have at least 4.6 GBs of memory and six 1.6 Ghz cores available to them. Whether any more than that is available would be speculation or wishful thinking on those of us who want no more than 64 MB and a half a hardware thread's time available to the OS (and the rest left to developers). :D

j/k, about that last part... mostly.
 
Ah, okay thanks. CPU frequency makes sense (same as leak) and number of cores make sense (1 disabled, 1 OS).

Worst case situation is that only 4.6GB is available.
Best case situation is all 8GB and there's simply no OS.
What we should assume is that it's somewhere inbetween, something that makes sense for Sony (average is 1.7GB for the OS) :LOL:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, okay thanks. CPU frequency makes sense (same as leak) and number of cores make sense (1 disabled, 1 OS).

Worst case situation is that only 4.6GB is available.
Best case situation is all 8GB and there's simply no OS.
What we should assume is that it's somewhere inbetween, something that makes sense for Sony (average is 1.7GB for the OS) :LOL:

The only issue I take with that is the one core disabled for yields. I suspect that might not be the case. Here's why, the PS4 Press Release clearly indicates 8x Jaguar cores. In the past, as with the Cell, Sony specifically noted that it would only have 7 SPEs. They even denoted that 1 of the 8 SPE's was disabled for yields!

CPU: Cell Processor PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
--1 VMX vector unit per core
--512KB L2 cache
--7 x SPE @3.2GHz
--7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
--7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
--*1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
--Total floating point performance: 218 gigaflops

They didn't denote that yet another one was reserved, but they did denote one being disabled. As such, if one of the cores were disabled, I suspect they would indicate as much for the PS4. Perhaps that's a stretch? But is seems quite feasible given how they've handled core counts in the past. If a second core is unavailable, I suspect its because its reserved for the OS.

I couldn't find the original press release on a public site so I had to go by the old GameSpot announcement. Scroll down to the RSX specs for a good laugh (very first bullet point). That alone probably casts some serious doubt about my assertion as to their honesty about specs. But still, I think my point still stands.
 
The only issue I take with that is the one core disabled for yields. I suspect that might not be the case.

I agree. Also theres big market for 6 core or 4 core Jaguar CPU's in PC space which should improve overall pricing for 8 cores, so theres no need for similiar yields policy as in PS3, where there were little to no demand for "defective" Cell CPU's,
 
What we have is the GG Killzone Shadow Fall demo postmortem. What we know from that is the following:
  • For the demo, they were using about 4.6 GB of total memory.
  • For the demo, they were using 6 and only 6 cores.
  • For the demo, the cores are running at ~1.6 Ghz (exact rate is rounded, of course).
It's pretty safe to conclude from there that games have at least 4.6 GBs of memory and six 1.6 Ghz cores available to them. Whether any more than that is available would be speculation or wishful thinking on those of us who want no more than 64 MB and a half a hardware thread's time available to the OS (and the rest left to developers). :D

j/k, about that last part... mostly.

How can they be using 4.6Gb of RAM when they knew NOTHING about the machine having 8Gb prior to the announcement at the event?
 
Because in reality they did.

If Edge knew about it, do you really believe a first party dev, and possibly one of the first party devs that actually had a hand in the design of PS4 really didn't know about it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top