I really don't think, and I haven't checked in a while, but I really don't think Xbox360 and PS3 use GDDR5.
Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech
- Thread starter Acert93
- Start date
- Status
I really don't think, and I haven't checked in a while, but I really don't think Xbox360 and PS3 use GDDR5.
Yeah, GDDR3 700MHz in 360, 650MHz in PS3.
DDR 3 is dirt cheap and I believe they've already got 8Gb density.
High-density and high-speed GDDR5 is not cheap. They still haven't come out with 4Gb density, and it will take some time before that ramps up to high speed as well. You'll need the 4Gb density if you want a good chance of 4GB of RAM (8 chips).
DDR4 might be feasible for 2014.
--------
12GB of RAM would require 12x8Gb chips, 24x4Gb chips... and so on. I'm not sure how keen they'd be to use DIMMs considering the limited space, unless you really want something bigger than the original 360 (or the even bigger PS3 for that matter).
About quote in my post....
liolio excellent post and I agree completely and led me to thinking.
In fact with the immense challenges of heat dissipation and power consumption we can not count on something much more than 1Tflops for next-gen console(Sony and MS).
There is plenty to talk and think because it's not a very plausible Hardware performance levels of 15 * (E3 2005 -> Ubisoft talk about x360-> xbox and less than 4 years!) as in 2005/2006 compared to 2000/2001:we have more programmable gpus (CUDA, Stean, OpenCL),unified shaders archtecture with hundreds of stream processors,transistor count in billions,but maybe (certainly discussed it here many times) the high success of the console market has been so decisive that has slowed the developers to use extra power pc GPUs for lack of software.
After all that we can reflect on the lack of a leap performance as we saw before, it is inevitable think (at least the initial impression) the hardware not kept pace with our expectations, perhaps the paradigm has Wii influencing so much Sony and MS? This making us ask internaly: next gen consoles at 1Tflops levels (even in closed box ...) could compete to advance 5-6 years of the pc universe (to 2018/2020!)? Or the consoles cycle almost 5 / 6 years will be reduced to four years or even less?
As a gamer consumer at the end we will have to be satisfied with consoles up to 4 to 6 * higher performance than what we see with the PS3 and X360 ... in my opinion is very, very little progress.
liolio excellent post and I agree completely and led me to thinking.
In fact with the immense challenges of heat dissipation and power consumption we can not count on something much more than 1Tflops for next-gen console(Sony and MS).
There is plenty to talk and think because it's not a very plausible Hardware performance levels of 15 * (E3 2005 -> Ubisoft talk about x360-> xbox and less than 4 years!) as in 2005/2006 compared to 2000/2001:we have more programmable gpus (CUDA, Stean, OpenCL),unified shaders archtecture with hundreds of stream processors,transistor count in billions,but maybe (certainly discussed it here many times) the high success of the console market has been so decisive that has slowed the developers to use extra power pc GPUs for lack of software.
After all that we can reflect on the lack of a leap performance as we saw before, it is inevitable think (at least the initial impression) the hardware not kept pace with our expectations, perhaps the paradigm has Wii influencing so much Sony and MS? This making us ask internaly: next gen consoles at 1Tflops levels (even in closed box ...) could compete to advance 5-6 years of the pc universe (to 2018/2020!)? Or the consoles cycle almost 5 / 6 years will be reduced to four years or even less?
As a gamer consumer at the end we will have to be satisfied with consoles up to 4 to 6 * higher performance than what we see with the PS3 and X360 ... in my opinion is very, very little progress.
Last edited by a moderator:
My pie in the sky dream is to see 12GB in next gen. It doesn't seem costwise impossible at all. I'm tired of all this lowered spec assumption, I dont think it has to be reality at all.
I cant even imagine what devs would do with that kind of room. They wouldn't even know how to deal with it, they'd cry with joy. Games would look photoreal. To have the console standard with more RAM than the average gaming PC of the time.
Just a thought
Im tired too... and dreaming a console with "much RAM" at first time in game history (psone/psx->2MB+1MB VRAM only,ps2 32MB rambus + 4MB eDRAM etc)
Crytech wants 8GB RAM at minimum for next generation * and samaritan realtime demo ** from Epic using 3 Geforce GTX 580 (6GB VRAM!)! Maybe 12GB not so high for a 5/6 year console cycle.
* http://www.neoseeker.com/news/16241-crytek-wants-minimum-8gb-memory-next-console-generation/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-crysis-2
**
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Next-Generation-Unreal-engine-ios,12524.html
http://www.1up.com/features/interview-epic-next-gen-plan
http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/rsrc/Three/DirectX11Rendering/MartinM_GDC11_DX11_presentation.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I wonder if they can afford not to. AFAIK Sony is almost completely dependent on 3rd party AAA developers right now, and those seem to be the first to flee when the system underperforms.
Huh? Uncharted, God of War, LBP...huh?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I said developers, not publishers.
From those, only God of War is developed by a SCE developer.
Perhaps frame in-dependant calculations of huge shadowmaps for far geometry.4k x 4k shadows with no filtering.
But yeah, it's not a hard thing to use huge amounts of memory, simple x*y moire is enough to fill a HDD. (ups..
)
Devious
Regular
If MS do decide to go with eDRAM again.. Is it possible to see a 256MB implementation? IIRC, the DICE presentation at GDC 2011 had a 1080p g+z buffer 4xMSAA at 158MB. I believe 1080p is what people really want to see next gen, but I remember reading a post (I think it was Al's) saying that devs should just sort of stick to 720p instead of making a huge memory sacrifice for 1080p and then sacrificing even more memory that could have been used to make full resolution transparency's.
So I was wondering if 256MB is an option.... Or is it a bit to far-fetched?
So I was wondering if 256MB is an option.... Or is it a bit to far-fetched?
I think its far out there. It would be over a 25 times increase in ram.
For total system ram we've only seen a 4-8 times increase in ram each generation
Is this even possible?
They are but they consume a hell lot, no? High end GPUs have power requirements that would be unacceptable for a CPU. They look cheap because gamers don't care about +200Watts parts.
You could have more ALUs clocked lower but Caymans from AMD or high end Nvidia part (even without considering GT580) are already big. Say you down clock consistently such a huge chip so power is under control and you let MSAA aside for less bandwidth intensive AA techniques (assuming a 128bits bus), It would still require plenty of bandwidth to make a proper use of all this compute power, no (honest question)?
The people buying +200W GPUs seem to be hardware enthusiasts, first and foremost.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Sorry, but where is this coming from?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
