Is 256MB enough?
- Thread starter Iron Tiger
- Start date
Iron Tiger
Regular
Didn't the PS1 only have 2MB main memory? The N64 had 4MB UMA, and I think the Saturn had 4.5MB total.Teasy said:
BOOMEXPLODE
Regular
As much as I'd like to see huge amounts of memory in the new consoles, I also don't want to have to pay a fortune for them. To put it in perspective, 512MB of high performance RDRAM is >$200. Add to that the price of the GPU, the CPU, and the rest of the systems guts, and you can see that things can get very expensive very guick. For purely economic reasons I can easily see how next-gen systems would "only" have ~256MB of RAM, if they have more I'll be very pleasantly surprised.
Iron Tiger
Regular
Sony's buying the chips (not the RIMM packaging), and getting them wholesale. Plus, this is the new XDRAM that more manufacturers will be making in massive quantities, unlike the RDRAM chips and RIMMs of yesterday.kyleb said:
And IronTiger, you think that will mean it will be less expensive to produce from the get go? Just because it "may" have more manufacturers doesn't mean the price won't be exorbitantly high when it makes its debut. It is new technology, it is expected to be at a high price. Whether it is 256 or 512 MB Son will be paying a sizeable amount for the memory going into PS3.
Teasy said:
You are correct Teasy. I do not think we should expect 512MB.
But there are 2 X-factors in relationship to memory that I think will be putting a strain on next gen consoles.
1) Game worlds are growing in size (e.g. BF1942, which is 3 years old, has 4km x 4km maps) with more interactive objects, higher resolution textures, normal maps, and so forth.
2) HD. Gamers not only want the big interactive worlds, a lot of us will demand this at 720p or better. Low resolution textures that were at one time easily glossed over by low resolution output will be exposed more often.
And finally, I am really tired of both the following that seem to plague 99.99% of 3D games:
1) Low resolution mip maps. When up close textures should be clean, clear, and crisp. Unfortunately this is rarely the situation.
2) Pixelated/bland/repetitive terrain, walls, etc... D3, for being a great engine, really shocked me with the use of low resolution textures in game--I expected more. Not that HL2, Far Cry, etc... are any better, but for "next gen" engines, the same problem of bland/pixelated textures on walls, roof, and floor really just made me annoyed.
So while I agree that it is unfair to expect more than 256MB of memory, I do believe there are a number of factors that point toward memory being the core bottleneck next gen.
Iron Tiger said:
It was already stated that Rambus EXPECTS to extract a PREMIUM for XDR compared to GDDR3 due to the fact it is a superior technology. And why should they not? GDDR3 currently maxes out at about 35GB/s, while they are talking between 50-100GB/s with XDR. So when you combine (1) New tech with (2) top of the line performance, XDR wont be cheap--period.
And while Sony will obviously be getting some quality bulk pricing, MS and Nintendo will be getting bulk pricing on their orders also. Comparatively XDR is going to cost more, MB-for-MB, compared to GDDR3.
For that reason, even with a spring 2006 release, I do not see Sony going with 512MB due to other high priced items like BR/CELL/NV GPU. X2's launch is 6mo away so it may be too expensive for them also. So Nintendo would be the most likely to get more memory, but Nintendo is price conscious and if X2 and PS3 both have 256MB there is little reason for them to put much more in.
So unless one of the big three gets really daring, I would not expect more than 256MB. Hopefully one of them makes us all happy (and decides to lose a couple hundred per console at launch!
)By the time XDR ships GDDR3 will probably be at 1.6 Gb/pin, chips are sampling now which can reach that, the same as XDR ... talking about bits is disingenious, since XDR is differential and GDDR3 is not. Of course GDDR3 burns more power and has more signal integrity concerns, but apparently they are solveable.
Ooh-videogames
Regular
The biggest question to me is will Nintendo 1T-sram again? And with lower cost compared to XDR or whatever Xenon will have could alow Nintendo to match MS and Sony.
Iron Tiger
Regular
Nobody here knows how much any of this stuff is going to cost to manufacture. But historically, console makers have been willing to initially take a loss on the cost of hardware. MS was willing to do it for a whole generation, and if they feel it's necessary to do it a bit longer in the next gen to assure a firm positioning, they will. Any of them will. But the fact remains that we don't know how much this stuff will actually initially cost them, and what they think is an acceptable loss. *copy and paste all that to those threads regarding "one cell or two"*Sonic said:
I think it should be noted that this generation differs from the previous generations in that developers are creating tools that will facilitate making PC ports alongside their console counterparts. MS is trying to make the PC platform as appealing to gamers and developers as the Xbox is. Could it be that they are preparing for the possible failure of their console, due to an immediate (or near to launch) outclassing by PCs? It took a year for Halo to make it to the PC and look better than the Xbox version, but a lot of next gen games won't have that great a gap. If Halo 3 were to launch on the same day for PC and Xenon (of course, I know it won't), but looked much better on the PC because it wasn't starved for RAM, isn't that likely to cut into Xenon sales?
I'm just throwing out scenarios and possibilities. I know it's not always right to compare PC and console, because of closed architecture and (one thing that most people overlook) streaming data. But if I compare specs to the previous generation, things look even more out of whack.
Console games should look a lot better than PC games for about 2 years from their launch. One reason being that there will be no legacy support. PC games currently work on DX7 and DX8 hardware. This wont be the case with Console designed games. A second reason is that consoles are closed boxes--developers know EXACTLY what they have in there, so they can optimize to extremes. This also allows the use of HW specific features. e.g. I am sure the Revolution and X2 will have 3Dc support. Games can be designed--from the beginning--with this feature in mind.
And another reason is the next gen consoles are really looking to pack a huge punch performance wise compared to previous generations. While I think GFLOPS only tell us so much, there is no denying that 3 core PPC chips with vector units running at 3+ GHz or a 256GFLOPS CELL compare nicely to top end PC hardware in the performance department. If you look at the 1st 3D generation (N64, PS, SS) and 2nd 3D generation (GCN, PS2, Xbox) and look at what the PC had available at the time and then compare today--I think it is safe to say consoles would fair much better than previous generations.
Even now, look at the Xbox. A PIII/Celeron Hybred at 733MHz, 64MB of shared memory, and an under performing Ti4200 (or over performing GF3, however you want to look at it) is not much to talk about, but when you look at the quality of the games it really is not too bad compared to current PC titles. Yes, top of the line games really shine with DX9 on a high resolution monitors and a 128MB+ GPU, but that aside the games are competitive when it comes to looks--and this is a 4year old console.
What I do see happening with the new console launches is PC developers slowly dropping legacy support for DX7 and even DX8 within the next 2 years. And depending on how forward looking the R500 is and how many WGF 2.0 (SM 4.0) features it has we may see the X2 comparing very well to the PC side for a while. Just hunch... but this is what MS wants--they want developers to be able to view developing for MS as developing for 2 platforms--the Windows Gaming Platform and the Xbox.
And another reason is the next gen consoles are really looking to pack a huge punch performance wise compared to previous generations. While I think GFLOPS only tell us so much, there is no denying that 3 core PPC chips with vector units running at 3+ GHz or a 256GFLOPS CELL compare nicely to top end PC hardware in the performance department. If you look at the 1st 3D generation (N64, PS, SS) and 2nd 3D generation (GCN, PS2, Xbox) and look at what the PC had available at the time and then compare today--I think it is safe to say consoles would fair much better than previous generations.
Even now, look at the Xbox. A PIII/Celeron Hybred at 733MHz, 64MB of shared memory, and an under performing Ti4200 (or over performing GF3, however you want to look at it) is not much to talk about, but when you look at the quality of the games it really is not too bad compared to current PC titles. Yes, top of the line games really shine with DX9 on a high resolution monitors and a 128MB+ GPU, but that aside the games are competitive when it comes to looks--and this is a 4year old console.
What I do see happening with the new console launches is PC developers slowly dropping legacy support for DX7 and even DX8 within the next 2 years. And depending on how forward looking the R500 is and how many WGF 2.0 (SM 4.0) features it has we may see the X2 comparing very well to the PC side for a while. Just hunch... but this is what MS wants--they want developers to be able to view developing for MS as developing for 2 platforms--the Windows Gaming Platform and the Xbox.