Will Next Gen Consoles have Enough Memory?

[Squeak]

Sloppy code practices=cheaper development cost, may as well allow developers to be a little lazy.

If they were allowed to be "lazy" it would most likely start a downward spiral, as it already has happened to some extent on the peecee, where poor performance is mostly blamed on the hardware and not the programmers abilities.
Extra RAM costs money out of the total budget of the console, so something else has to go. Optical disc drive, PCB, various ports and casing, all have to be of a certain standard, so the most likely candidates for savings are CPU or GPU. A poor CPU or GPU you are forever stuck with, RAM on the other hand is much more open for improvements in memory management done by the programmer.

 

[MODEL 3]

1)Propably XBOX2 will have 256Mb of shared memory (I don't know the type, could be GDDR3 if launch before Q4 05 or GDDR4 if launch after Q4 05, or something else).There is a possibility for 384Mb or 512Mb but this will be decided based on the total cost of manufacturing, the launch price of XBOX2 and what are the memory (or information about it) of the competitors (PS3,REV).Based on the competition I would say that PS3 will have propably 256Mb of shared memory (XDR) and at least 32Mb or even 64Mb of e-dram on GPU becauce of the 6,5nm proccess.Don't forget that sony decided the last months of PSP design to quadrable the ammount of the main ram (8Mb -> 32Mb).Also historically Nintendo in their consoles had less or "effectively" the same memory with their competitors despite Nintendo consoles later launch date.
2)Certainly system/video memory will offset some of the power difference of the next generation but the key word is "some".In the case of Gamecube the 24Mb was/is a major problem for the developers and limits the otherwise excellent Gamecube H/W design.
3)Hope so.
4)They hate them (the main reason SONY quadrable the ammount of the main ram in PSP was developers complaints).It depends on developer, but the logical thing to go is great CPU/GPU and less/o.k. memory for two reasons: 1)economy of scale, manufacturing process and technology advancement (simply the reduction of the manufacturing cost of a console scales better in time with that approach) 2)For this generation and also the next (PS4 2,2nm or 1,6nm (kinda difficult) manufacturing process) GPU/CPU advancment will be great enough to quaranty the term "next Gen", for PS5 and beyond I certainly hope that new technologies will be the solution but Multibillion companies with longterm strategies they certainly don't pray, hope or cross fingers but they make the right decisions in order to succeed.
5)Your example is extreme.If i get right you implying: 1)what if XBOX2 had 512MB of memory and PS3 only 256Mb and PS3 CPU/GPU was only 20%-25% faster which is not going to happen since PS3 will ship after XBOX2 (they will forced to follow in the memory capacity) and since PS3 CPU/GPU will be alot more than 20%-25% faster in relation with XBOX2 CPU/GPU.Sorry XBOX2 fans but just think logically for a momment:
4 or more (some say even 16) CELL type CPU 6,5nm (they can put double the transistors in relation with 9nm and with higher Mhz) IBM/TOSHIBA/SONY joint design will be only 20% faster than 3 IBM 9nm PowerPC type of processor
or that NVIDIA/SONY joint design GPU with 6,5 nm process with double the transistor capacity and also with higher Mhz in relation with ATI XBOX2 part will be only 20% faster in relation with an ATI 9nm XBOX2 GPU.
It doesn't make sence.
or 2)What if it was possible to double the memory in a next generation console and loose only 20% of CPU/GPU power (at the same cost) that will be preferrable?I think that the answer is obvious but also obvious is that SONY, MS and NINTENDO people are not mentally damaged so they would have done it if this was the case (possible).

 

[Brimstone]

The PS3 and XB2 are in different situations though. While neither XDR or GDDR-4 are being made in volume today, GDDR-4 is the decendent of GDDR-3 and should only take a minimal effort at Micron and Samsung to get it up and running. Also it will have demand from ATI and nVidia based GPU's. Unless nVidia is going to support XDR in their non-console GPU's which I highly doubt will happen anytime soon.

XDR needs customers. Sure the PS3 is going to drive some demand, but until XDR devices from Sony, Toshiba, and hopefully some other companies get announced I'm skeptical. RAM size is one of a few things that people easily understand more is better when it comes to specs. It's likely Microsoft is going to take advantage of this and be very agressive on total amount of RAM. It seems that XDR will have a hard time matching the density of GDDR-X.

 

[GwymWeepa]

Sloppy code practices=cheaper development cost, may as well allow developers to be a little lazy.

If they were allowed to be "lazy" it would most likely start a downward spiral, as it already has happened to some extent on the peecee, where poor performance is mostly blamed on the hardware and not the programmers abilities.
Extra RAM costs money out of the total budget of the console, so something else has to go. Optical disc drive, PCB, various ports and casing, all have to be of a certain standard, so the most likely candidates for savings are CPU or GPU. A poor CPU or GPU you are forever stuck with, RAM on the other hand is much more open for improvements in memory management done by the programmer.

Laziness on a fixed platform or two is a lot better than laziness for a platform that by its nature has a bajillion iterations.

 

[Megadrive1988]

london-boy:

PS1 - PS2 was a 8x-10x leap... i think? So one could assume that PS3 might have at least a 8x leap on PS2 = around 320MB RAM (if we consider PS2's total RAM as 40MB).

yup. well, 11.4x to be almost exact.

3.5 MB in PS1 to 40 MB in PS2.

although main memory was a 16x leap. 2 MB to 32 MB

PS1: 2 MB main + 1 MB VRAM + 0.5 MB audio
PS2: 32 MB main + 4 MB eDRAM + 2 MB audio + 2 MB I/O (PS1 CPU)



hmmm. remember that Sony increased PS1's *main* memory from 1 MB to 2 MB after developers bitched or said they could do so much more with 2 MB of main memory. source is Next Generation magazine...one of the early issues.

and more recently Sony increased PSP's *total* memory from 12 MB to 36 MB ( i think it's something like that). Although, IIRC, Sony actually *decreased* the amount of embedded memory. the original 12 MB was ALL embedded, unless I am mistaken. now only 4 MB is embedded. probably a good trade off.

edit: maybe it is what MODEL 3 said. that Sony quadrupled main memory from 8 MB to 32 MB. I thought the original 12 MB was all embedded. I don't know which is correct. but whatever the case is, it is absolutely true that Sony greatly increased the total amount of memory in PSP.

now, I'll be totally heartbroken if PS3 only gets 128 MB external XDR memory. if it does, I hope developers bitch like MuthaFawkers until Sony gives em 256 or 512 MB ^__~

 

[GwymWeepa]

london-boy:

PS1 - PS2 was a 8x-10x leap... i think? So one could assume that PS3 might have at least a 8x leap on PS2 = around 320MB RAM (if we consider PS2's total RAM as 40MB).

yup.

3.5 MB PS1 to 40 MB PS2.

although main memory was a 16x leap. 2 MB to 32 MB


hmmm. Sony increased PS1's main memory from 1 MB to 2 MB after developers bitched or said they could do so much more with 2 MB. source is Next Generation magazine...one of the early issues.

and more recently Sony increased PSP's *total* memory from 12 MB to 36 MB ( i think it's something like that). Although, IIRC, Sony actually *decreased* the amount of embedded memory. the original 12 MB was ALL embedded, unless I am mistaken. now only 4 MB is embedded. probably a good trade off.

edit: maybe it is what MODEL 3 said. that Sony quadrupled main memory from 8 MB to 32 MB. I thought the original 12 MB was all embedded. I don't know which is correct. but whatever the case is, it is absolutely true that Sony greatly increased the total amount of memory in PSP.

now, I'll be totally heartbroken if PS3 only gets 128 MB external XDR memory. if it does, I hope developers bitch like MuthaFawkers until Sony gives em 256 or 512 MB ^__~

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

 

[Megadrive1988]

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

yeah.

but.... well, I wouldn't say 'no way' to 128 MB. Sony tried to get away with 1 MB main memory in PS1.

and 8 MB (12 MB total) in PSP.

it would not surprise me if Sony tries to limit PS3 to 128 MB of external XDR main memory. in fact, there were some press releases or articles that suggested just that......

.....that PS3 would be getting four 256 Mb (megabit) XDR chips, instead of four 512 Mb (megabit) chips

256 Mb/megabits is 32 MB/MegaBytes. thus four 256 Mb chips is 128 MegaBytes.

the only upside was that the memory bandwidth would increase from ~25 GB/sec to ~51 GB/sec.


now let us pray that the 128 MB (2x 256 Mb memory chips) is not true.


even 256 MegaBytes is, imho, scrapping the bottem, giving developers less of a leap in main memory than PS1 to PS2.

PS1 to PS2 saw a 16x increase in main memory as we know.

if PS3 has 256 MegaBytes main memory, that is only an 8x increase from PS2's main memory which is 32 MegaBytes.


worst case senario is this: the new Playstation and the new Xbox are getting only 4x the memory that the current Playstation and the current Xbox have respectively. not counting embedded memory in PS3, Xenon and PS2, or PS2's other segmented memory pools.

64 MB Xbox ====> 256 MB Xenon
32 MB PS2 ====> 128 MB PS3

again, this is the worst case. and not counting on-chip memory for PS2, Xenon or PS3. or PS2's audio and PS1 CPU memory pools.



damnit, im tired of typing now.

no wait, I'm not THAT tired. lol. not tired enough to say.....

give PS3 developers 1 GigaByte aka 1024 MegaBytes of XDR external memory and let that have ~102 GB/sec bandwidth 8)

then let PS3 last for about 7 years before bringing out Playstation4

 

[GwymWeepa]

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

yeah.

but.... well, I wouldn't say 'no way' to 128 MB. Sony tried to get away with 1 MB main memory in PS1.

and 8 MB (12 MB total) in PSP.

it would not surprise me if Sony tries to limit PS3 to 128 MB. in fact, there were some press releases or articles that suggested just that......

.....that PS3 would be getting two 256 Mb (megabit) XDR chips.

256 Mb/megabits is 64 MB/MegaBytes. thus two 256 Mb chips is 128 MegaBytes.

the only upside was that the memory bandwidth would increase from ~25 GB/sec to ~51 GB/sec.


now let us pray that the 128 MB (2x 256 Mb memory chips) is not true.


even 256 MegaBytes is, imho, scrapping the bottem, giving developers less of a leap in main memory than PS1 to PS2.

PS1 to PS2 saw a 16x increase in main memory as we know.

if PS3 has 256 MegaBytes main memory, that is only an 8x increase from PS2's main memory which is 32 MegaBytes.

damnit, im tired of typing now.

no wait, I'm not THAT tired. lol. not tired enough to say.....

give PS3 developers 1 GigaByte aka 1024 MegaBytes of XDR external memory and let that have ~102 GB/sec bandwidth 8)

then let PS3 last for about 7 years before bringing out Playstation4

If they include only 128 megs of ram I could see Xenon becoming a good competitor to ps3, I seriously doubt MS would put less than 256 megs into that machine and developers would appreciate it.

 

[version]

There's no way developers would allow Sony to put in a meager 128 megs into ps3 lol.

yeah.

but.... well, I wouldn't say 'no way' to 128 MB. Sony tried to get away with 1 MB main memory in PS1.

and 8 MB (12 MB total) in PSP.

it would not surprise me if Sony tries to limit PS3 to 128 MB. in fact, there were some press releases or articles that suggested just that......

.....that PS3 would be getting two 256 Mb (megabit) XDR chips.

256 Mb/megabits is 64 MB/MegaBytes. thus two 256 Mb chips is 128 MegaBytes.

the only upside was that the memory bandwidth would increase from ~25 GB/sec to ~51 GB/sec.


now let us pray that the 128 MB (2x 256 Mb memory chips) is not true.


even 256 MegaBytes is, imho, scrapping the bottem, giving developers less of a leap in main memory than PS1 to PS2.

PS1 to PS2 saw a 16x increase in main memory as we know.

if PS3 has 256 MegaBytes main memory, that is only an 8x increase from PS2's main memory which is 32 MegaBytes.

damnit, im tired of typing now.

no wait, I'm not THAT tired. lol. not tired enough to say.....

give PS3 developers 1 GigaByte aka 1024 MegaBytes of XDR external memory and let that have ~102 GB/sec bandwidth 8)

then let PS3 last for about 7 years before bringing out Playstation4

256mbit =32 MB not 64

for ps3 performanse must have 100MB geometry data, 300-400MB compressed texture data , sound , code etc...

minimum 512 MB

 

[Megadrive1988]

256mbit =32 MB not 64

opps. you're right. edited my post.

 

[one]

The PS3 and XB2 are in different situations though. While neither XDR or GDDR-4 are being made in volume today, GDDR-4 is the decendent of GDDR-3 and should only take a minimal effort at Micron and Samsung to get it up and running. Also it will have demand from ATI and nVidia based GPU's. Unless nVidia is going to support XDR in their non-console GPU's which I highly doubt will happen anytime soon.

XDR needs customers. Sure the PS3 is going to drive some demand, but until XDR devices from Sony, Toshiba, and hopefully some other companies get announced I'm skeptical. RAM size is one of a few things that people easily understand more is better when it comes to specs. It's likely Microsoft is going to take advantage of this and be very agressive on total amount of RAM. It seems that XDR will have a hard time matching the density of GDDR-X.

The PS2 singlehandedly sustained RDRAM though Intel failed. The PS3 has more chips on a single unit and more suppliers at launch, and the GPU co-development with nVIDIA will surely push XDR use in nVIDIA high-end cards.

According to the roadmap of Samsung as of July 2004 GDDR4 won't be ready for Xbox 2 if it launches in 2005. With this news it's most likely that Xbox 2 has 512MB GDDR3 (512Mbit * 8 ) in the 256bit interface.

 

[version]

100MB geometrydata/frame is 6 GB/s
300MB texturedata/frame is 18GB/s

this 24GB/s and Ai, phisics etc

for 512MB ram 26 GB/s memoryspeed enough
for 1024 MB ram 52 GB enough

 

[Brimstone]

The PS3 and XB2 are in different situations though. While neither XDR or GDDR-4 are being made in volume today, GDDR-4 is the decendent of GDDR-3 and should only take a minimal effort at Micron and Samsung to get it up and running. Also it will have demand from ATI and nVidia based GPU's. Unless nVidia is going to support XDR in their non-console GPU's which I highly doubt will happen anytime soon.

XDR needs customers. Sure the PS3 is going to drive some demand, but until XDR devices from Sony, Toshiba, and hopefully some other companies get announced I'm skeptical. RAM size is one of a few things that people easily understand more is better when it comes to specs. It's likely Microsoft is going to take advantage of this and be very agressive on total amount of RAM. It seems that XDR will have a hard time matching the density of GDDR-X.

The PS2 singlehandedly sustained RDRAM though Intel failed. The PS3 has more chips on a single unit and more suppliers at launch, and the GPU co-development with nVIDIA will surely push XDR use in nVIDIA high-end cards.

According to the roadmap of Samsung as of July 2004 GDDR4 won't be ready for Xbox 2 if it launches in 2005. With this news it's most likely that Xbox 2 has 512MB GDDR3 (512Mbit * 8 ) in the 256bit interface.

Micron and ATI worked together on the GDDR-3 spec and Micron was a X-Box memory supplier. Samsung was fabbing GDDR-2 for a while. So far I haven't read any press releases on a chosen memory supplier for X-Box next. To me it would seem a bit odd for GDDR-3 modules to go into the next platform, when for a long term contract they could start off with the intial GDDR-4 clock speed and as they increase the clock up for the PC market, any modules not clocking fast enough would just go to Microsoft. Microsoft could subsidize Micron's GDDR-4 production for several years.

 

[Megadrive1988]

what memory is Nintendo Revolution likely to use?

would Nintendo have to go with MoSys 1T-SRAM for BC with GCN games?

or could GDDR-4 be used?

 

[pc999]

I'll say 512 MB of GDDR-4 will be in X-Box 2. But I won't be surprised by some new type of memory standard since ATI is working with VIA on XDDR.

The Flash Drive acting as a hard drive replacement is an intresting possibility. I guess it would be possible to have a blank flash disk connected to the X-Box 2 and use that as a pool of virtualized memory.

Remenber (Acert93) that exclusives like Doom 3 ( when it is out ) alreay/will use HD to store textures, I dont know if ATIs HiperMemory fit here ( or a no PCI version or whatever like ).
And that GC already had virtual memory.
And he get always the same names ( ATI , MS N...) so some of this things already exists it make very sence that we get all this things in their next consoles.

 

[London Geezer]

Remenber (Acert93) that exclusives like Doom 3 ( when it is out ) alreay/will use HD to store textures, I dont know if ATIs HiperMemory fit here ( or a no PCI version or whatever like ).
And that GC already had virtual memory.
And he get always the same names ( ATI , MS N...) so some of this things already exists it make very sence that we get all this things in their next consoles.

U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

 

[Guden Oden]

for 512MB ram 26 GB/s memoryspeed enough
for 1024 MB ram 52 GB enough

No game is going to show all texture data on-screen simultaneously, that's not only rediculous, but technically impossible as well; there simply aren't enough screen pixels!

Of course bandwidth need does not scale up with memory size. Bandwidth need scales with computational ability.

 

[London Geezer]

for 512MB ram 26 GB/s memoryspeed enough
for 1024 MB ram 52 GB enough

No game is going to show all texture data on-screen simultaneously, that's not only rediculous, but technically impossible as well; there simply aren't enough screen pixels!

Of course bandwidth need does not scale up with memory size. Bandwidth need scales with computational ability.

Agreed, and seen how computational ability seems to be increasing much more than memory size, i guess bandwidth will also have to go up a great deal to keep up with these hungry processors.

 

[pc999]

[U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

Yes, they said that some time ago, and that they had rewrite part/all? the pixelshader code.

 

[London Geezer]

[U mean Doom3 for Xbox?
Swapping textures from the hard drive is very slow and we're not talking about a game like Jak and Daxter where there are no loading times, where the textures are really low res and there is a different focus on graphics.
Doom3 is a typical "Load evel, play level, load next level" unless they re-work it for the Xbox...

Yes, they said that some time ago, and that they had rewrite part/all? the pixelshader code.

?? U seem a bit confused. They might have to rewrite the shaders to fit them on the Xbox GPU capabilities, and i believe that, but that has nothing to do with rewriting the game to stream the levels, or whatever you mentioned, as that would require MAJOR code rewriting. They might as well scrap the original and start from scratch, and we all know that is NOT going to happen.