PS3 OS Resources.

[Aeoniss]

Hey guys, I know alot of you here are programmers for big name Dev houses and such (Ninjatheory and all that). I've had a discussion with another Dev awhile back, who informed me his best guess for how much RAM the PS3 OS used was 96MB of RAM.

64XDR - 32GDDR3.

However, I've also read other "Dev's" that say they've never heard of this "96MB" OS. they say its unnaturally bloated and they've never stumbled across such figures.... (???)

Now interestingly enough, Izumiki Kawanishi in an article recently divulged that it was 64MB of RAM reserved for all XMB tasks. Unless you guys are hindered by an NDA, could you please tell me what the real figure is? And what sort of impact we're talking about gameplay\graphic wise?

*Note: I know the 360's OS reserves 32MB of RAM. and (I think) 3% of Core1 and Core 2. (0% of Core0)

I've heard the person here named "Joker465" talk about the huge disparity between the total useable RAM amount of the two consoles. I'm curious, as a PS3 owner myself.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Everyone's tied by NDA. It has however been unofficial confirmed through talk on this bourd that it's 64 MB from XDR and 32 MB from DDR for a total of 96 MB reserved for the OS. That figure is likely to shrink when the OS is more refined, as happened on the PSP.

 

[-tkf-]

I've heard the person here named "Joker465" talk about the huge disparity between the total useable RAM amount of the two consoles. I'm curious, as a PS3 owner myself.

And he is most likely right though how much he considers a big amount is up in the air. The only interesting thing we have gotten from any developer is Faf who mentioned that the resevered Memory on the PSP was reduced. I think it´s safety first since it´s impossible to take away what has been given in this case. The real question is how much does for example 96mb out of 512 matter when you have the XBOX vs PS2 with twice the memory and lots of games where it didn´t really show.

 

[Aeoniss]

Everyone's tied by NDA. It has however been unofficial confirmed through talk on this bourd that it's 64 MB from XDR and 32 MB from DDR for a total of 96 MB reserved for the OS. That figure is likely to shrink when the OS is more refined, as happened on the PSP.

Dear lord... a 96MB OS is ridiculious...I don't give a rip about "Home might use it" or other "features".. If the games suffer because of that screw the OS. So you guys are fairly convinced that this figure will shrink eventually?

 

[-tkf-]

Dear lord... a 96MB OS is ridiculious...I don't give a rip about "Home might use it" or other "features".. If the games suffer because of that screw the OS. So you guys are fairly convinced that this figure will shrink eventually?

You don´t give a rip?

 

[inefficient]

Dear lord... a 96MB OS is ridiculious...I don't give a rip about "Home might use it" or other "features".. If the games suffer because of that screw the OS. So you guys are fairly convinced that this figure will shrink eventually?

It has nothing to do with Home. Home is an app not part of the OS.

And the key word would be "reserved" memory. Not necessarily memory needed by the OS right now.

I've always been a skeptic of this rumor. But I agree with the logic that it's better to reserve too much initially now and not need it later than to reserve too little and then need it later.

 

[crystalcube]

without knowing what it does , its pointless to draw conclusion of whether its too much or too little.

 

[homy]

Don't you guys know that you can use the web browser while inside a game?
Its been done in Folding and in the future game Lair.
In the PSP system, the game Exit has that function too.

 

[inefficient]

Don't you guys know that you can use the web browser while inside a game?
Its been done in Folding and in the future game Lair.
In the PSP system, the game Exit has that function too.

The web browser is an app not part of the OS. It's not resident in memory at all times providing a critical service. It is an app loaded on demand.

I think Microsoft Windows has successfully confused people of what an OS actually is.

 

[archie4oz]

*Note: I know the 360's OS reserves 32MB of RAM. and (I think) 3% of Core1 and Core 2. (0% of Core0)

There's more reserved than that (plus the CPU numbers are old AFAIK)...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dear lord... a 96MB OS is ridiculious...

I concur when it's useless. However, if it is imperitive for some tasks like digital recording and streaming movies (not enabled, just given as examples) then it serves a purpose. It might not be a purpose many gamers care for, but it is being put to use. There's also the possiblity that some OS functions are being used for games. eg. Buffers for scaling are resident in the OS reserved RAM, or the EyeToy image analysis is performed in the reserved RAM with the reserved SPE, passing results back for games to use. We have no idea.

If the games suffer because of that screw the OS. So you guys are fairly convinced that this figure will shrink eventually?

It's likely. When they first released the PS3, they did so without the final OS. What features make it into the final OS weren't finalized and aren't finalized now. The software will grow and they'll need room to grow into. Thuis you reserve the worst-case amount. At the beginning you say 'we'll have this much knowing we can do absolutely everything we want in that.' After a while, the designers determine what exactly they need to run the final features, and can free up more RAM. This happened on the PSP.

Personally the reserved resources doesn't bother me as long as the games look good. To Joe Public who doesn't study tech-boards, they've no idea of the inner workings and couldn't care less. What does bother me is knowing those resources are reserved but they don't appear to be doing anything useful yet. As multitasking is finally in operation, that'll start to change.

 

[homy]

The web browser is an app not part of the OS. It's not resident in memory at all times providing a critical service. It is an app loaded on demand.

I think Microsoft Windows has successfully confused people of what an OS actually is.

Everybody knows that web browser is an app.
The question here is does it use the memory of 64 MB or 192 MB?

 

[Neb]

Everybody knows that web browser is an app.
The question here is does it use the memory of 64 MB or 192 MB?

It has to use the remaining RAM (192MB) for the browser unless the OS reservs the 64MB RAM but dont use it all up for the OS core.

 

[joker454]

The difference in available memory between the two machines is, shall we say, dramatic. That's about as much detail as we're allowed to get into. Suffice to say though if you're making a cross platform game and you max out the memory on the 360, you will spend many nights stabbing a fork in your eye in frustration trying to get it all to fit on PS3. Because it won't ;(

 

[Carl B]

It just amazes me that this topic can come back from the dead again and again; I think this gets asked, no joke, once every two months.

Anyway as time goes on Sony may free up some RAM - word is that they've already reduced the XDR set aside by a couple of megs (like 4MB - so 60/32 now); who knows what further changes the future will hold. The 360 obviously has an edge in the usable memory competition though.

In terms of the browser/app memory allowance, there's memory set aside in the OS for browsing it seems (or maybe the set aside is part of the app itself in this case) - as for instance I'm here folding right now and surfing at the same time - but whichever the case the browser set aside while in an app can't be all that high, as for instance trying to open certain threads (which I suspect contain images) I'm given an explicit "not enough memory"message. But good times though all the same - Folding + Surfing.

 

[Acert93]

It just amazes me that this topic can come back from the dead again and again; I think this gets asked, no joke, once every two months.

Human nature at work. When a company becomes secretive, especially about a topic that could be of interest (e.g. reflect badly compared to the competition), it drives interest by some for many reasons. But as the information is unaccessible and only rumors and unconfirmed data has leaked through various sources it propels a cycle of inquiry and interest that far outstrips the original concern.

After the initial specs were released, with some give and take, the overall picture settled in. A little more here, a little less here, some semantics and difference of opinions in regards to market movement and development, and the discussion takes a back seat to the games and market strategies and such. But when you have a "secret" to propels interest, namely of the negative kind. And seeing as the only unconfirmed data (64MB and 32MB) is loosely affirmed by loose statements by unverified devs (i.e. very few developers online are known/verified by real life 3rd parties, nAo and DeanoC being some of the few publically known ones) it allows a negative cloud to linger and cast an overly negative shadow that overshadows the overall balance of issues.

Just like politics it is sometimes best to get the skeletons out of the closet early, long before consumers begin purchasing, instead of allowing such issues to be nagging issues that people continue to discuss. A positive spin could have been on it as well: Yes, we require more system memory, but it is being used for features A, B, C that make our product better for developers and consumers. Tadah! Negative PR turned into positive! I have a future in PR I swear

Btw, people forget the different framebuffer sizes impact available memory as well (unless the 32MB of VRAM includes the framebuffer; if not that adds another 20MB or so of difference when comparing 720p 4xMSAA games).

 

[Carl B]

I hear where you're coming from Joshua, and you're right - it's just strange that it gets viewed as such a mystery. Afteral, no dev has ever come out against it. But hey, there are some people out there that won't buy into RSX at 500MHz either unless they hear it from Sony themselves, so what can ya do?

And actually what I was told was 8MB back on the XDR so far, for 56/32 rather than 64/32. Now... in Linux you can see 60MB, which is why I was thinking four... so either the 8MB I was told was an error to the upside, or the operation of Linux sucks some RAM down elsewhere. I've run both Fedora 5 and YDL incidently (currently on YDL), and both have a slightly different memory pool sizes to work from; Fedora shows a total of 197.5 and YDL shows a total of 196.2, so some slight flux in there somewhere.

EDIT: Saw what you were saying in terms of real-world 3rd party confirmation, so retracted my assertion that it had been affirmed and modified post accordingly.

 

[Aeoniss]

Human nature at work. When a company becomes secretive, especially about a topic that could be of interest (e.g. reflect badly compared to the competition), it drives interest by some for many reasons. But as the information is unaccessible and only rumors and unconfirmed data has leaked through various sources it propels a cycle of inquiry and interest that far outstrips the original concern.

After the initial specs were released, with some give and take, the overall picture settled in. A little more here, a little less here, some semantics and difference of opinions in regards to market movement and development, and the discussion takes a back seat to the games and market strategies and such. But when you have a "secret" to propels interest, namely of the negative kind. And seeing as the only unconfirmed data (64MB and 32MB) is loosely affirmed by loose statements by unverified devs (i.e. very few developers online are known/verified by real life 3rd parties, nAo and DeanoC being some of the few publically known ones) it allows a negative cloud to linger and cast an overly negative shadow that overshadows the overall balance of issues.

Just like politics it is sometimes best to get the skeletons out of the closet early, long before consumers begin purchasing, instead of allowing such issues to be nagging issues that people continue to discuss. A positive spin could have been on it as well: Yes, we require more system memory, but it is being used for features A, B, C that make our product better for developers and consumers. Tadah! Negative PR turned into positive! I have a future in PR I swear

Btw, people forget the different framebuffer sizes impact available memory as well (unless the 32MB of VRAM includes the framebuffer; if not that adds another 20MB or so of difference when comparing 720p 4xMSAA games).

I'm asking because I made an investment over 700$ on game system that I believed to be, at the time, on par or slightly better then the 360. Now true, Cell<Xenon, and Xenos>RSX (which did bug me), but now i'm also hearing PS3 has a significantly smaller amount of RAM to work with, So i'm little vexed that I could have bought a cheaper system that quite probably puts out better graphics in almost every scenario.
Course the 360 does have issues with its storage medium, the DVD9, and its crappy 20GB harddrive, which you get to use like, 11GB of. And the Xenon completely underwhelms me.

 

[SedentaryJourney]

Now true, Cell<Xenon, and Xenos>RSX (which did bug me)

FWIW, there still isn't a consensus out there regarding "Xenos>RSX", beyond the fact that RSX is vertex input limited in comparison.

 

[Neb]

Course the 360 does have issues with its storage medium, the DVD9, and its crappy 20GB harddrive, which you get to use like, 11GB of. And the Xenon completely underwhelms me.

Well I wouldn't call it crappy, it may be fast and have good cache size for buffering but the drive storage capacity isn't that great though.