PS3 OS Resources.

[one]

That is, if the difference between having voice chat on XB360 or not is the saving of 300kb, it's fairly irrelevant, and can be rolled into the standard features of the persistent OS use. Bare in mind the XB360 has cross-game, multi-person chat, all within its OS footprint, whereas PS3 has to add per-game voice-chat at considerable overhead.

Is that overhead detailed somewhere? In the case of voice chat, initialization may take some time if it's not integrated to the OS, but I'm not sure if it's much more expensive for an optional component after it gets necessary resources allocated. I'm not sure about the 300kb figure either since if the voice chat component is always active, the OS has to assign some kernel resources to it to assure QoS, which means it's not only user-land RAM usage that is affected by those stuff.

One of the Insomniac (or Naughty Dog, I forget) presentation materials mentioned how they gain something by shaving ~1-2% resources elsewhere.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Is that overhead detailed somewhere?

There was an extensive list posted on the board a good long while back that had multiple megabyte figures for pretty much every feature. I haven't found it again since. We also haven't heard since then about any optimizations. However Joker's posts clearly highlight that they remain expensive to implement.

I'm not sure about the 300kb figure either since if the voice chat component...

Sorry, I was unclear that that 300kb was an arbritrary figure for illustration pruposes. I don't know what the component sizes are, other than that MS have got all those features into XB360's reserved PS space, whereas Sony requires lots of megabytes to implement the same features invariably to a lower standard.

 

[Rotmm]

How come a game like Burnout Paradise (online integration on both platforms) appears to be an equal conversion almost across the board. Am I to understand that the texture work in that game is uniformly equal because the developer decided to hold back the Xbox version of that game.

That's an interesting question, but not one all that easy to answer. However, as it has been recently released for the PC I thought I'd do a quick search, and it seems that the ISO for the PC version (which includes all of the previous console updates) comes in at less than 3gb.

That's tiny for a modern game, and especially an open-world racer. Working on the assumption that the texture assets weren't increased in size for the PC release, it's pretty clear that the game assets were designed to fit into the limited memory of the consoles with minimal streaming or loading.

Whether or not the 360 version of the game was "held back" is impossible to tell, but it's clear that the developers were more concerned with having a game that moved at a fast clip than having highly detailed textures, environmental models and audio and designed the game with that in mind.

 

[paawl]

For further reference, the downloadable full game for PS3 has an installed size of 3328 MB.

 

[Carl B]

Adding in my own observation here, but after going into Linux just now to check the available system memory, it showed up as 210.5 MB. Since it's always seemed to have low single digit numbers of RAM sucked into the nether vs the official OS numbers, I'm going to view this as essentially in line with the 43MB OS number for all intents and purposes... or a footprint that at least echoes it.

Now so I guess the question would be, and this may have been addressed elsewhere in the mix of threads/posts over the months, but when entering active gameplay is it an OS 'lite' that is kicking in where extra modules are shed - or retained - at the developers option, vs really a default OS of said sub-43MB figure? Because it still seems that if the Linux shadow is any indicator, 'normal' OS usage is still up in the low 40's. And if it is actually running a lighter default OS as well, vs the theory I'm presenting of essentially the gaming footprint being the deviation from a norm, I'd be curious then as to the additional allocations taking place actively and specifically on the hypervisor side for Linux operation to get it up back around that 43MB figure.

 

[eloic]

Ok, let's see...

It seems that is impossible to talk about the PS3 OS resources without bringing the Xbox360 up into debate. Thus, let's put a simlpe example, well is more a question than an example, with a cross-platform game:

How many RAM do the PS3 and the Xbox360 need for the basic OS features needed to run Assassin's Creed?
Can somebody provide the actual figures for us to know how many RAM was available for the developers?

I'm sure we'll be waiting for the answer a loooong time. Until we know the actual figures of the PS3 OS footprint, this debate is kind of stupid, because we're walking in circles around the same issue not solving a thing, we just know that the PS3 OS spends more RAM resources than the Xbox360 does. Can somebody tell me why has this thread 8 pages of... almost nothing?

As a final thing, I'd like to say that I'm not pretending to be agry or rude, it's just my opinion.

 

[Carl B]

Until we know the actual figures of the PS3 OS footprint, this debate is kind of stupid, because we're walking in circles around the same issue not solving a thing

Eloyc, post #96 is for you. If you think the thread lacks merit without devs answering questions like the one you posed about Assassin's Creed - which, a) you won't get an answer to, and b) is obviously simply the static OS footprints at the time of the game's release (today's figures are apples to oranges wrt Assassin's Creed) - then I have to wonder what in your mind you believe this forum is about.

This isn't a forum for Q&A people, it's a forum for technical discussion.

 

[woundingchaney]

I'm sure we'll be waiting for the answer a loooong time. Until we know the actual figures of the PS3 OS footprint, this debate is kind of stupid, because we're walking in circles around the same issue not solving a thing, we just know that the PS3 OS spends more RAM resources than the Xbox360 does. Can somebody tell me why has this thread 8 pages of... almost nothing?

To discuss relevant theories about OS utilization in games and suggested attempts of PS3 OS resource reductions. The thread is 8 pages long primarily because "we" dont know the hard statistics on the PS3 OS resources and any way of an educated estimate has to come through exploratory discussion.

 

[eloic]

Eloyc, post #96 is for you. If you think the thread lacks merit without devs answering questions like the one you posed about Assassin's Creed - which, a) you won't get an answer to,

That question was merely rethorical, to prove that we CAN'T get the answer, don't you see? I was trying to get to the same point.

and b) is obviously simply the static OS footprints at the time of the game's release (today's figures are apples to oranges wrt Assassin's Creed) - then I have to wonder what in your mind you believe this forum is about.

This isn't a forum for Q&A people, it's a forum for technical discussion.

I obviously know that. I'm sorry if some of you misunderstood my intentions. I'm just saying that, without figures, how can we support a "technical" disscussion?

 

[Carl B]

I'm just saying that, without figures, how can we support a "technical" disscussion?

If you read the thread, you'll see the discussion. I'm tempted just to do a clean wipe of all noise up through now and I guarantee you what is left would be quite constructive/substantive - there is a lot of information in here. And beyond even that, frankly there are repeated hard snapshots of the OS footprint at certain times in the console's history herein as well.

 

[DonaldDuck]

Well, what I can extract from all the thread is, more or less, including the information joker try to give us, without breaking the NDA:

- PS3 OS footprint is, at minimum, under the figures of XTS.
- But this is irrelevant for multiplatform development, because of the functionalities of Microsoft SO, that must be implemented in PS3 in orden to obtain the same performance and possibilities in both platforms. If you add to the basic OS the modules that implement what is missing in the core OS, your footprint will be "smaller" in XTS.
- The doubts would be how much smaller is OS footprint in PS3 in its "nude" version, what are the functions this core version has, what hasn´t -related to XTS´- and the weight of each of the optional modules.

The other point that states Joker is that the way in which PS3 unleash their power are expensive in terms of memory usage. I suppose that is related to the interaction between Cell´ spu´s and the GPU, the need of synchronism and so. But how much it impacts the look and performance of games are difficult to measure, maybe impossible, because of the balance existing between plus processing power and few (how much?) memory available.

Well, what I "read" from all these factors is that, from a first-party developer standpoint, obliterating capabilities "optional" in Sony´s platform, can lead to a situation of greater memory available and less impact if the PS3 platform is used as is intended to be used, that is, supporting GPU´s processing with Cell and their SPU´s.

That would be in line with the achievements first party developers from Sony obtain in their games, compared with other´s.

I suspect that the efforts in Sony headquarters were focused in offering adequate libraries exposing the hardware (EDGE) first, reducing the OS size and increasing modularity second (modularity is a way to gain space in memory if you dispose what is not considered "a must", a fast way, indeed) and third and last making smaller modules with the functionalities "optional".

Maybe the third phase is not started or concluded yet.

I can´t imagine the amount of people Sony has relating all this stuff. Neither if there are several groups working together, with a common lead... I´ve heard of people in Guerrilla and NDog builidng up EDGE, people in Cambridge working in Home but... ¿what about SO core, backward compatibility and so?

¿Any ideas?

PS: sorry for my english, I´m spanish and my written english is "blocky" at is best.

 

[one]

It seems that is impossible to talk about the PS3 OS resources without bringing the Xbox360 up into debate.

Not really. Throughout this discussion (not only this thread but also all threads so far regarding PS3 OS RAM usage), we've seen the reduction of the RAM usage by the PS3 OS. This evolution makes it possible that today's PS3 games are better than yesterday's. This comparison should be the main focus of this thread, not an endless multiplatform mutter like "why is PS3 not Xbox360?"

 

[eloic]

If you read the thread, you'll see the discussion. I'm tempted just to do a clean wipe of all noise up through now and I guarantee you what is left would be quite constructive/substantive - there is a lot of information in here. And beyond even that, frankly there are repeated hard snapshots of the OS footprint at certain times in the console's history herein as well.

You're right, that's why I said "almost nothing".

I mean, I suppose the most of us believe that we don't need incongruities, vain words nor personal disqualifications, here in this discussion.

It seems that is impossible to talk about the PS3 OS resources without bringing the Xbox360 up into debate.

Not really. Throughout this discussion (not only this thread but also all threads so far regarding PS3 OS RAM usage), we've seen the reduction of the RAM usage by the PS3 OS. This evolution makes it possible that today's PS3 games are better than yesterday's. This comparison should be the main focus of this thread, not an endless multiplatform mutter like "why is PS3 not Xbox360?"

Agree, that's why I said "it seems".

 

[joker454]

Not really. Throughout this discussion (not only this thread but also all threads so far regarding PS3 OS RAM usage), we've seen the reduction of the RAM usage by the PS3 OS. This evolution makes it possible that today's PS3 games are better than yesterday's. This comparison should be the main focus of this thread, not an endless multiplatform mutter like "why is PS3 not Xbox360?"

Then this thread needs to be renamed "PS3 OS Resources For Exclusive Games", otherwise the numbers won't mean much for most games. Multi platform games must support the complete feature set. Even games that have no online features themselves must still fully support stuff like voice chat, text entry, etc because people like to see what their friends are doing on other games, talk with them, send them messages, abandon their game and join theirs, etc. There are certain features that have been standard for a very long time now and they are expected by gamers today. To understand this you have to take the 360 versions of the same games into account since they represent the blueprint of what must be done on the PS3 version (if possible at the time). Microsoft has been very strict on providing a unified experience across all their games, and in doing so has indirectly affected the memory use on the PS3 versions of the same games since the players and publishers expect the two versions to be as similar as possible. This is why the 360 gets mentioned in 'memory threads' because you can't get a true picture on PS3 memory use without knowing what the 360 version does.

Now, it's starting to sound like what you guys are really after is what is the bare minimum memory use that is needed just to boot an exclusive PS3 game. That's fine and it represent a totally different number. Just understand that that number has limited bearing on multi platform games.

 

[one]

Then this thread needs to be renamed "PS3 OS Resources For Exclusive Games", otherwise the numbers won't mean much for most games.

Why do you think the reduction of RAM usage in the PS3 OS didn't benefit multiplatform games at all? Actually I'd like to mention Xbox 360 as well in this thread since I have a question, that is about the RAM usage transition of the Xbox 360 OS. Did it change like PS3 or has it been static since its launch in 2005?
Also my question to you in my previous post:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1276844&postcount=168

 

[SG79]

To understand this you have to take the 360 versions of the same games into account since they represent the blueprint of what must be done on the PS3 version (if possible at the time). Microsoft has been very strict on providing a unified experience across all their games, and in doing so has indirectly affected the memory use on the PS3 versions of the same games since the players and publishers expect the two versions to be as similar as possible. This is why the 360 gets mentioned in 'memory threads' because you can't get a true picture on PS3 memory use without knowing what the 360 version does.

So I take that first party games like KZ2 and Resistance 2 among other multiplayer ones are still memory constrained compared to single player ones like Uncharted?

Either way, the reduction in the OS's footprint over time certainly helped developers over time. right?

 

[Arwin]

I think that joker makes fair points. As the 360 continues to maintain its position as lead platform in most cases and the 360's online service's feature-set is considered the standard, the PS3 continues to suffer. It's very clear (at least to me) that when a game is designed for the PS3 from the ground up this memory deficiency isn't nearly as relevant, but for most multi-platform games this still means that the PS3 is at a disadvantage. That doesn't mean though that the reduction of the footprint is irrelevant, but joker provides a good perspective.

 

[DonaldDuck]

Searching the info a bit I have found the numbers "leaked"? many time ago about the amount of memory PS3 SO allocated with firmware 1.60. The degree of "realism" of this numbers is subject of discussion, but what google archive says is this:

Basic SO footprint firmware 1.60:
52 MB main memory
32 MB graphic memory

Additional resources:
- Standard PS3 message dialogs -> for free
- Standard on-screen keyboard -> 7 MB
- Remote play -> 8 MB (for use with PSP maybe?)
- Hard disc related functions (saving, loading...) -> 5 MB
- Online startup utility -> 8 MB
- Full support of friends list utility -> 24 MB, but in the date of writing a smaller module (20 MB) was expected.
- Video chat (up to 6 users) -> 26 MB
- Voice chat -> 8 MB
- In-game microphone configuration -> 8 MB
- Integrated web browser -> 40-90 MB, depending on page and tabs opened.

If we believe the other data "extracted" from the thread, the basic SO footprint would have been reduced from 52 to 24 MB, which seems quite an improvement, if the functionalities remain, or maybe have been increased.

The friends list is huge in size, though. The on-line features, in general, are quite overwhelming, but the fact is that Killzone 2 seems quite an achievement even with this constraints.

What do you think of this numbers? Seems too high in some cases. I would like to know if they´re real and, if it´s the case, how much have been improved.

 

[Carl B]

What do you think of this numbers?

We're below that now; the last reliable snapshot of the OS put it at 43MB for what I'm going to call the "default" size, and seemingly you can further abandon functionality if you choose to do so in order to bring it lower for your game's purposes.

More recent views of the footprint are available earlier in the thread. Newcomers to this thread are reading through it I hope!

 

[DonaldDuck]

We're below that now; the last reliable snapshot of the OS put it at 43MB for what I'm going to call the "default" size, and seemingly you can further abandon functionality if you choose to do so in order to bring it lower for your game's purposes.

More recent views of the footprint are available earlier in the thread. Newcomers to this thread are reading through it I hope!

OK, I understand my info is out of date... Just add it because someone mentioned the leaked size of the OS and searching a bit I found the numbers.

I´ve read all of you for a long time... almost really the one and only resource of reliable information about technical aspects of console technology. Very interesting indeed.

I´ll try to make my contribution to the posts only if it´s meaningful, I don´t want to decrease the level of the discussion with irrelevant data. By the way, it´s relaxing to see the degree of attention moderators in this forum have in orden to make the threads focused only in technology matters. Great point. Congratulations from this old reader-young contributor!