The PS3 OS - Ram Hog or just big boned?

Discussion in 'Console Technology' started by Barnaby Jones, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Barnaby Jones

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm hearing murmers that it is a pretty big number, has Sony come out and stated an exact number?

    DeanO has aluded to it being pretty high in the past, now I'm hearing a concrete number from a few reliable sources(devs).

    That number is....
    96 MB's.

    :shock:


    The original DeanO quote:

     
  2. Barnaby Jones

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since I can't edit my posts, I'll boldface the important quote DeonO made.

    Well first you have to OS thats going to take a bit of the apple. And its a sizeable chunk

    Any idea what the X360 OS takes up? I heard everywhere from 32 to 48.
     
  3. Gholbine

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't even think my copy of Windows XP takes that much, let alone any Linux distro I've ever used. My FreeBSD box is taking nowhere near that figure.

    Somehow I doubt it's 96MB... especially considering it's in a console with limited and very specific features.
     
  4. Barnaby Jones

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0

    well, the guy who made the M2 OS (widely regarded as the reason the M2 was nerfed) is also in charge of the PS3 OS

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_M2


    BTW, I'm hearing it is 99.99% set in stone, 96 MB of RAM.
     
  5. Platon

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Sweden
    That sounds to be quite a bit, actually way to much. It depends though what that OS is supposed to do and if the OS functions help out with the game or whether most of those functions are non game related. I have to say that if this is true, then Sony really seem to be putting a lot of effort on functions that sound really good and "futuristic" but in the end might really not be that much used by the majority of PS3 owners...
     
  6. liverkick

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    6
    And Im hearing its 99.9999% set in stone that you wont be providing a link and/or source for this information. :)
     
  7. DeanA

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    And who would that be?

    Dean
     
  8. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,722
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    That strikes me as excessive. 96 MB will surely go unused almost all the time. If that 96 MB is true and not used by games in any way, it'd be a terrible waste.
     
  9. patsu

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    27,614
    Likes Received:
    60
    Heh heh. I think the right way to see it is the PS3 OS is small (embedded OS is always small by definition)... but depending on what kind of data it needs to work with (e.g. HD video), it may take up to 96 Mb ? So to guarantee quality of service as a media server (to perform background jobs), they reserve 96Mb for the "OS". Is this accurate ?
     
  10. Platon

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Sweden
    Yes, of course. The OS in it selfs is really small, or atleast should be, but if you want it to do some more stuff than playing games, then yes, it will take advantage of those 96MB...
     
  11. kimg

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    norway
    The number "96 MB" tells us nothing, do it contain libraries? kernel modules who can be loaded to support high level runtimes for languages? who know.

    Kutaragi have said the PS3 is to use high level languages for devlopers, and ive read enough about "run time superclustering" in "real time OS" now, im just waiting to see whats popping up when devlopers NDA is lifted, and they can tell us about it :razz:
     
  12. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,722
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    It tells us something. It tells us, if true, that out of 512 MB available RAM, 416 MBs is availalble for game code and data.
     
  13. DarkRage

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Spain
    That is related to another concern I have:

    After checking all the documentation IBM has made available for optimizing code in Cell, almost every approach came with the same negative effect: more memory used for the code (unrolling loops, reordering instructions, multiple instructions because of the constraints of the SPEs).

    Maybe just the "optimized for speed" code uses too much memory?

    It would be interesting if someone has some results about how much memory is the same C code (optimized for speed) using in SPE, PPE and xCPU.
     
  14. Shinjisan

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    A few people really can't have a rest :D:D
     
  15. kimg

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    norway
    Shifty, i just assume, if it can be possible libraries of OS functions is available, i dont just assume an console use same amount of RAM as the operative system i use when i write this (windows XP). winxp use lots of memory, my machine use now, when i write: 90720 KB total, 64220 in swapfile, and 26520kb in memory.

    Even if PS3 got support for every function who windows XP and z/OS got, it still dont mean its occupying 96MB in memory, and now we assume the runor is set in stone as truth.
     
  16. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    11 posts, red square, questionable post history with references to "rei-rom.com" amongst them. Hmm...screams credibility.

    Which isn't to say this couldn't be true, but I wouldn't believe it coming from the OP.

    It's actually not related..

    How is this negative if it achieves better performance? Instruction reordering wouldn't in and of itself result in a larger footprint either, AFAIK.

    There is often a time/space tradeoff. That's not unique to Cell. Which you trade off depends on what you're doing, your requirements, and the characteristics of your system.

    The same code would take the same amount of space. It's likely you wouldn't use the exact same code, though many of the recommended practices you see used on SPEs (loop unrolling, branch avoidance etc.) would probably often be a win on all the chips you mentioned.
     
    #16 Titanio, Apr 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2006
  17. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    40,722
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    DarkRage clarified that as the effect of using more memory being negative. Which I'm sure you agree with. Saving memory is a good thing when you have a limited amount to play with. Using up more memory is a negative effect to provide the positive effect of speeding up code, in this example, which I can't comment on whether that's fair assessment or not.
     
  18. Titanio

    Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    51
    I'm not sure if you something that precipitates better overall performance can be construed as a negative ;) If the alternative is to code & compile for space and it runs worse, overall, then that's hardly a more positive alternative. You've got your "positive effect" of saving space, but it's ultimately yielding negative results.
     
  19. inefficient

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,121
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I'm sure that's not the kernel. It has to be when the OS is running a window manager supporting a full GUI for non gaming tasks plus running networking services, peripheral drivers etc.

    Anyway, even in the worst case, where the OS persistantly loaded, since the ps3 has a HD you could just page those resources not needed for the game you were playing to the disk.

    As an aside... from what I understand, there has never been a gaming console with a virtualized memory system. Not even the xbox used one because of the performance side effects plus the OS overhead required. Maybe the ps3 will be the first?
     
  20. Hardknock

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    53
    Not sure what his credibility or what other forums he posts on has to do with the topic? He has a quote from DeanO a poster on this very forum. Obviously devs know, so this shouldn't take to long to be confirmed or debunked.

    If this is true hopefully we can download content while playing games (that's the one thing I hate about the 360 OS).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...