Sony's cooking something for GDC?

I find that extremely strange. 1 year later than X360 and PS3 has (a friction of) less ram for gaming? Did Sony even considered to have additional 256MB ram (total of 768MB) in their "next gen" console? Would additional 256MB GDDR3 ram @ 1400Mhz drastically increase manufacturing cost of PS3? I extremely doubt that as even Geforce 7600GT which ram has exact same spec as in PS3 is quite cheap nowadays. That also means that GDDR3 ram cannot be "to expensive", especially for such a large company as Sony is.

256MB more ram would mean that PS3 would have 192MB more than X360 for gaming. That would be a huge memory advantage for PS3. 40% more ram than competion.

X360-> 512-32=480
PS3-> 512-96 = 416

What if scenario
PS3-> 768-96 = 672

672/480 = 1,4

Technically speaking, PS3 now has only one edge (Cell) against X360 and it's power has yet to be mastered and "released".

I sincerely wish that they would have given the PS3 more RAM. In my opinion just another 256MB of XDR RAM would have been all that would have been needed.
 
Decompress the textures and put them into main RAM where they can be sent to the RSX.

Umm this isn't going to help the problem. They are already doing this on PS3. I would be very surprised if any games are not using compressed textures...
 
Umm this isn't going to help the problem. They are already doing this on PS3. I would be very surprised if any games are not using compressed textures...

It could potentially help a little if they started using some exotic techniques such as wavelets.
 
I sincerely wish that they would have given the PS3 more RAM. In my opinion just another 256MB of XDR RAM would have been all that would have been needed.

That's much easier said than done. It isn't a trivial inclusion to add "just another 256mb" of any type of ram, let alone XDR.
 
That's much easier said than done. It isn't a trivial inclusion to add "just another 256mb" of any type of ram, let alone XDR.

I know it's not easy. It takes a lot of engineering. But if their OS memory requirements was going to be so high they should have added it.
 
I know it's not easy. It takes a lot of engineering. But if their OS memory requirements was going to be so high they should have added it.

The engineering isn't what I'm talking about it -- it's the fixed cost that that adds throughout the life of the console. It wasn't practical...
 
How bout we deal with PS3 as it is/ will be and not would it could have been. This is why I mentioned expansion (which most things point to will be highly unlikely or just plain impossible due to lack of port). If there is no way memory can be added-on than as (some of) the discussion has gone, clever dev work as always will have to get cleverer [sic].
 
How would you propose someone add memory to their PS3? It would have to be fairly simple because most people don't want to be opening up their PS3 add RAM.
 
That's much easier said than done. It isn't a trivial inclusion to add "just another 256mb" of any type of ram, let alone XDR.

Why is everyone so concerned over the RAM difference between PS3 and 360? It's not like it's a huge difference... and given the way things turned out on the PSP, chances are once Sony has solidified the amount of memory needed for what they want to do with the OS, they will give back what's left over. Sony are not experts at writing software and they over allocated the amount of memory for the PSP by double! Given that was the case for the PSP, I would not be surprised to see a reduction to 48-64MB for the OS (or 16 to 32 MB difference from 360). Microsoft on the other hand does not have the option to allocate more memory if the need more.
 
How would you propose someone add memory to their PS3? It would have to be fairly simple because most people don't want to be opening up their PS3 add RAM.

They wouldn't. Even if someone opened up the PS3, it isn't as if there are a few DIMM slots hanging out in there.

This is all rather OT -- PS3 is as it is and I highly doubt any of us would have guessed there was a difference in OS size if you weren't told... which is the most telling part of all of this. PS3 has enough ram to make very pretty games.
 
This is what I want.

I want the PS3 to use almost all of it's RAM for games while a game is being played.

When a game is not being played I want the OS to have ALL the RAM and ALL the processing power.

EDIT: Is it possible they could put a RAM chip in a USB device so you could plug it in that way?
 
How would you propose someone add memory to their PS3? It would have to be fairly simple because most people don't want to be opening up their PS3 add RAM.

babs,

I posted earlier in this discussion about a memory add-on, akin to the N64's 64 meg memory upgrade for either the PS3 or 360. I was reminded that there are no ports for memory expansion AFAIS, and remembered that the N64 was created with the memory upgrade in mind. The PS360 will remain the same. I remember similar discussions 7 years ago about the PS2. It did fine.
 
This is what I want.

I want the PS3 to use almost all of it's RAM for games while a game is being played.

When a game is not being played I want the OS to have ALL the RAM and ALL the processing power.

EDIT: Is it possible they could put a RAM chip in a USB device so you could plug it in that way?

It's spilt milk man, no point getting too frustrated over it.

I do agree with you though, in a console with only 512mb of ram, 20% should not be dedicated to the OS, but whaddaya gonna do...

Personally this virtual town sounds rather silly to me, more at home on Wii than PS3, hopefully they have other more useful uses for all that memory.
 
I think Sony needs to show a REAL TIME clip of at least one game that is visually so stunning it blows away anything anyone has seen before.

That would give people a reason to pay the 499 or 599 for the PS3.
 
I think Sony needs to show a REAL TIME clip of at least one game that is visually so stunning it blows away anything anyone has seen before.

That would give people a reason to pay the 499 or 599 for the PS3.

The ability of a developer to "blow away" their competition and truly impress has passed in my opinion. Perhaps a dev will prove this statement wrong, but IMO graphics have steadily improved so much over the past year and a half that the "WOW"-bullseye has narrowed to a very tiny dot that may be hit by a very talented and ambitious team. Most others will improve bits and pieces here and there, but will fall short of "WOW".

Closest "WOW" I've seen lately is BFBC, but even that fell short IMO. Significant improvement yes, but not enough to make me drop an extra $200.
 
The ability of a developer to "blow away" their competition and truly impress has passed in my opinion. Perhaps a dev will prove this statement wrong, but IMO graphics have steadily improved so much over the past year and a half that the "WOW"-bullseye has narrowed to a very tiny dot that may be hit by a very talented and ambitious team. Most others will improve bits and pieces here and there, but will fall short of "WOW".

Closest "WOW" I've seen lately is BFBC, but even that fell short IMO. Significant improvement yes, but not enough to make me drop an extra $200.

You need to see the EGM last issue with Ratchet PS3 scans :)
 
The ability of a developer to "blow away" their competition and truly impress has passed in my opinion. Perhaps a dev will prove this statement wrong, but IMO graphics have steadily improved so much over the past year and a half that the "WOW"-bullseye has narrowed to a very tiny dot that may be hit by a very talented and ambitious team. Most others will improve bits and pieces here and there, but will fall short of "WOW".

Closest "WOW" I've seen lately is BFBC, but even that fell short IMO. Significant improvement yes, but not enough to make me drop an extra $200.

In my opinion there are several upcoming PS3 games which could potentially stun everyone with fantastic graphics. However, it just depends on how much effort the developers put into the game and of course their budget. Many of the games so far for the PS3 have not been particularly impressive, but I think many future titles could blow people away.

For example:

1) Heavenly Sword: I think this game has the potential to be fantastic. It already looks very good. But we have not seen any new screenshots in a long time. The final build could look stunning. Many months ago nAo said that they had improved the graphics beyond anything we had seen. By now it could be amazing.

2) Lair: This game already looks very good. When it comes to scale I don't think the game can be easily beat. However, the textures are little bit muddy in some places. But once again we have not seen anything new in ages. When we see the final build it could blow us away.

3) Resident Evil 5: This game could end up looking amazing. Resident Evil 4 was the best looking game for the Gamecube. I think that as long as they don't do a cheap port over to the Playstation 3 and STRIVE WITH ALL THEIR MIGHT to optimize the game for the PS3 that it could be the most amazing game in a long time.

4) MGS4: This game already rocks. It's that simple. However, it's easy to see that some of the textures are a tad weak. I think by the time it launches it could look even better.

5) Killzone: I think this game could end up matching it's target render. Of course it will not hav 16X antialiasing, but I think to the ordinary person it could look just as good.
 
Back
Top